4.6 Article

Temperature dependence of radial breathing mode Raman frequency of single-walled carbon nanotubes

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW B
卷 66, 期 23, 页码 -

出版社

AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.66.235424

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent high-temperature studies of Raman-active modes in single-walled carbon nanotube (SWNT) bundles report a softening of the radial and tangential band frequencies with increasing sample temperature. A few speculations have been proposed in the past to explain the origin of these frequency downshifts. In the present study, based on experimental data and the results of molecular dynamics simulations, we estimate the contributions from three factors that may be responsible for the observed temperature dependence of the radial breathing mode frequency [omega(RBM)(T)]. These factors include thermal expansion of individual SWNTs in the radial direction, softening of the C-C (intratubular) bonds, and softening of the van der Waals intertubular interactions in SWNT bundles. Based on our analysis, we find that the first factor plays a minor role due to the very small value of the radial thermal expansion coefficient of SWNTs. On the contrary, the temperature-induced softening of the intra- and intertubular bonds contributes significantly to the temperature-dependent shift of omega(RBM)(T). For nanotubes with diameters (d)greater than or equal to1.34 nm, the contribution due to the radial thermal expansion is less than or equal to4% over the temperature range used in this study. Interestingly, this contribution increases to greater than or equal to10% in the case of nanotubes having dless than or equal to0.89 nm due to the relatively larger curvature of these nanotubes. The contributions from the softening of the intra- and intertubular bonds are approximately equal. These two factors together contribute a total of about similar to95% and 90%, respectively, for SWNTs having dgreater than or equal to1.34 nm and less than or equal to0.89 nm.

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