4.6 Article

Raman signature to identify the structural transition of single-wall carbon nanotubes under high pressure

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW B
卷 78, 期 20, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.78.205411

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [10674053, 10574053, 10534010, 10374037]
  2. Cultivation Fund of the Key Scientific and Technical Innovation Project [2004-295]
  3. Changjiang Scholar and Innovative Research Team in University [IRT0625]
  4. National Fund for Fostering Talents of Basic Science [J0730311]
  5. National Basic Research Program of China [2005CB724400, 2001CB711201]
  6. Scientific and Technical Development of Jilin Province
  7. Graduate Innovation Laboratory of Jilin University
  8. Swedish Research Council
  9. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [20070420685]
  10. Shanghai Postdoctoral Scientific Program [07R214159]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Raman spectra of single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWNTs) with diameters of 0.6-1.3 nm have been studied under high pressure. A plateau in the pressure dependence of the G-band frequencies was observed in all experiments, both with and without pressure transmission medium. Near the onset of the G-band plateau, the corresponding radial breathing mode (RBM) lines become very weak. A strong broadening of the full width at half maximum of the RBMs just before the onset of the G-band plateau suggests that a structural transition starts in the SWNTs. Raman spectra from SWNTs released from different pressures also indicate that a significant structural transition occurs during the G-band plateau process. Simulations of the structural changes and the corresponding Raman modes of a nanotube under compression show a behavior similar to the experimental observations. Based on the experimental results and the theoretical simulation, a detailed model is suggested for the structural transition of SWNTs, corresponding to the experimentally obtained Raman results in the high-pressure domain.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据