4.8 Article

Overcoming the quality-quantity tradeoff in dispersion and printing of carbon nanotubes by a repetitive dispersion-extraction process

Journal

CARBON
Volume 91, Issue -, Pages 20-29

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.carbon.2015.04.033

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Advanced Low Carbon Technology Research and Development Program (ALCA) by JST, Japan
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [26107521, 25107002, 15H05867, 24681030, 25249111, 25000011] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Dispersion-printing processes are essential for the fabrication of various devices using carbon nanotubes (CNTs). Insufficient dispersion results in CNT aggregates, while excessive dispersion results in the shortening of individual CNTs. To overcome this tradeoff, we propose here a repetitive dispersion-extraction process for CNTs. Long-duration ultrasonication (for 100 min) produced an aqueous dispersion of CNTs with sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate with a high yield of 64%, but with short CNT lengths (a few mu m), and poor conductivity in the printed films (similar to 450 S cm(-1)). Short-duration ultrasonication (for 3 min) yielded a CNT dispersion with a very small yield of 2.4%, but with long CNTs (up to 20-40 mu m), and improved conductivity in the printed films (2200 S cm(-1)). The remaining sediment was used for the next cycle after the addition of the surfactant solution. 90% of the CNT aggregates were converted into conductive CNT films within 13 cycles (i.e., within 39 min), demonstrating the improved conductivity and reduced energy/time requirements for ultrasonication. CNT lines with conductivities of 1400-2300 S cm(-1) without doping and sub-100 mu m width, and uniform CNT films with 80% optical transmittance and 50 Omega/sq sheet resistance with nitric acid doping were obtained on polyethylene terephthalate films. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available