Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T07:14:41.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MOCVD of a Nanocomposite Film of Fe, Fe3O4 and Carbon Nanotubes from Ferric Acetylacetonate: Novel Thermodynamic Modeling to Reconcile with Experiment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2015

Sukanya Dhar ,
Pallavi Arod ,
K. V. L. V. Narayan Achari  and
S. A. Shivashankar
Sukanya Dhar
Affiliation:
Centre for Nano Science and Engineering, Materials Research Centre, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore – 560012, India.
Pallavi Arod
Affiliation:
Materials Research Centre, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore – 560012, India.
K. V. L. V. Narayan Achari
Affiliation:
Materials Research Centre, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore – 560012, India.
S. A. Shivashankar
Affiliation:
Centre for Nano Science and Engineering, Materials Research Centre, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore – 560012, India.
Get access

Abstract

Thermodynamic modeling of the MOCVD process, using the standard free energy minimization algorithm, cannot always explain the deposition of hybrid films that occurs. The present investigation explores a modification of the procedure to account for the observed simultaneous deposition of metallic iron, Fe3O4, and carbon nanotubes from a single precursor. Such composite films have potential application in various device architectures and sensors, and are being studied as electrode material in energy storage devices such as lithium ion batteries and supercapacitors.

With ferric acetylacetonate [Fe(acac)3] as the precursor, MOCVD in argon ambient results in a nanocomposite of CNT, Fe, and Fe3O4 (characterized by XRD and Raman spectroscopy) when growth temperature T and total reactor pressure P are in the range from 600°C-800°C and 5-30 torr, respectively. No previous report could be found on the single-step formation of a CNT-metal-metal oxide composite. Equilibrium thermodynamic modeling using available software predicts the deposition of only Fe3C and carbon, without any co-deposition of Fe and Fe3O4, in contrast with experimental observations. To reconcile this contradiction, the modeling of the process was approached by taking the molecular structure of the precursor into account, whereas “standard” thermodynamic simulations are restricted to the total number of atoms of each element in the reactant(s) as the input. When Ocon (statistical average of the oxygen atom(s) taken up by each metal atom during CVD) is restricted to lie between 0 and 1, thermodynamic computations predict simultaneous deposition of FeO1-x, Fe3C, Fe3O4 and C in the inert ambient. At high temperature and in a carbon-rich atmosphere, iron carbide decomposes to iron and carbon. Furthermore, FeO1-x yields Fe and Fe3O4 when cooled below 567°C. Therefore, the resulting film would be composed of Fe3O4, Fe and C, in agreement with experiment. The weight percentage of carbon (∼40%) calculated from thermodynamic analysis matches well with experimental data from TG-DTA.

Keywords

compositechemical vapor deposition (CVD) (deposition)thin film
Type
Articles
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1752: Symposium MM – Carbon Nanotubes—Synthesis, Properties, Functionalization, and Applications , 2014 , pp. 45 - 50
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Xue, J., Yin, X., Liu, X. and Zhang, L., Journal of the European Ceramic Society 34 (15), 3607-3618 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claudel, A., Blanquet, E., Chaussende, D., Audier, M., Pique, D. and Pons, M., Journal of Crystal Growth 311 (13), 3371-3379 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mukhopadhyay, S., Shalini, K., Lakshmi, R., Devi, A. and Shivashankar, S. A., Surface and Coatings Technology 150 (2–3), 205-211 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, X., Xia, D. and Zheng, K., ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 4 (3), 1350-1356 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, X., Johnston, C. and Grant, P. S., Journal of Materials Chemistry 19 (46), 8755-8760 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, P.-L., Chiu, Y.-K., Sun, Y.-C. and Ling, Y.-C., Carbon 48 (5), 1397-1404 (2010).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dresselhaus, M. S., Dresselhaus, G., Saito, R. and Jorio, A., Physics Reports 409 (2), 47-99 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jubb, A. M. and Allen, H. C., ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2 (10), 2804-2812 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eriksson, G., Acta Chemica Scandinavica 25 (7), 2651-2658 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dhar, S., Varade, A. and Shivashankar, S. A., Bull Mater Sci 34 (1), 11-18 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sasaki, S.-i., Itagaki, Y., Kurokawa, T., Nakanishi, K. and Kasahara, A., Bulletin of the Chemical Society of Japan 40 (1), 76-80 (1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, A., Corrosion Science 44 (10), 2353-2365 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wei, Q., Pippel, E., Woltersdorf, J. and Grabke, H. J., Materials and Corrosion 50 (11), 628-633 (1999)3.0.CO;2-3>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giordano, C., Kraupner, A., Fleischer, I., Henrich, C., Klingelhofer, G. and Antonietti, M., Journal of Materials Chemistry 21 (42), 16963-16967 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornell, R. M. and Schwertmann, U., in The Iron Oxides (Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, 2004), pp. 9–38.Google Scholar