4.6 Article

Systematic investigation of experimental parameters on nitrogen incorporation into carbon nanotube forests

期刊

MATERIALS RESEARCH BULLETIN
卷 148, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.materresbull.2021.111676

关键词

Carbon nanotubes; Catalytic chemical vapor deposition; Nitrogen doping; Pulsed laser deposition; Dip-coating; Tripropylamine

资金

  1. NKFIH [2019-2.1.11-TET-2020-00134]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study used catalytic chemical vapor deposition to synthesize nitrogen-doped carbon nanotube forests on different substrates. It was found that direct injection of a liquid nitrogen precursor promoted the synthesis of bamboo-structured carbon nanotube forests more efficiently. The amount of precursor affected the extent of nitrogen incorporation, and different nitrogen species were identified in the carbon nanotubes. The presence of hydrogen and the temperature also influenced nitrogen incorporation into the carbon nanotubes.
Nitrogen doping carbon nanotubes can enhance their beneficial physical and chemical properties, rendering them more desirable for various applications, e.g., in electronics. In this study, we used catalytic chemical vapor deposition to synthesize carbon na-no-tube forests on different substrates. The samples were prepared in the presence of compounds containing nitrogen (ammonia, acetonitrile, tripropylamine, and their mixture with acetone) that were introduced into the reactor by bubbling or injection. Of the two different nitrogen introduction methods, the direct injection of a liquid nitrogen precursor promoted the synthesis of bamboo-structured carbon nanotube forests more efficiently. It was found in the injection experiments that the amount of precursor affected the extent of nitrogen incorporation. The presence of various nitrogen species in CNTs was also identified, and the manner in which temperature and the presence of hydrogen both influence nitrogen incorporation into the carbon na-no-tubes was observed.

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