Multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) were grown on Silicon (Si) substrate by using low-pressure chemical vapor deposition (LPCVD) technique where iron (Fe) and silver (Ag) colloidal solution act as a catalyst were prepared by chemical route. The as-prepared solutions in varied concentrations were deposited on a Si substrate using a spin coating process at 700rpm. The purpose of Fe in composite catalysts is to have high carbon solubility and diffusion rate, and Ag utilization can change catalyst activity temperature and enhance carbon yields. In this work, we demonstrate the growth of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) on different catalyst concentrations ( $_{0.025 M}$ $_{0.025 M}$ Fe/ $_{0.100 M}$ $_{0.100 M}$ Ag), ( $_{0.050 M}$ $_{0.050 M}$ Fe/ $_{0.100 M}$ $_{0.100 M}$ Ag), ( $_{0.075 M}$ $_{0.075 M}$ Fe/ $_{0.100 M}$ $_{0.100 M}$ Ag) and ( $_{0.100 M}$ $_{0.100 M}$ Fe/ $_{0.100 M}$ $_{0.100 M}$ Ag) catalytic films. Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FESEM) was used to image the morphologies of various catalyst concentrations MWCNTs. The natures of the synthesized CNTs were determined using Raman spectroscopy and it was revealed that as-prepared CNTs are MWCNTs due to the absence of radial breathing mode (RBM). Raman spectroscopy demonstrated the lower I_D/I_G ratio (Ratio of the intensity of D-Raman peak and G-Raman peak) of ( $_{0.025 M}$ $_{0.025 M}$ Fe/ $_{0.100 M}$ $_{0.100 M}$ Ag) MWCNTs. The I_D/I_G ratio for ( $_{0.025 M}$ $_{0.025 M}$ Fe/ $_{0.100 M}$ $_{0.100 M}$ Ag) catalyzed MWCNTs was 0.76, while the I_D/I_G ratio for ( $_{0.100 M}$ $_{0.100 M}$ Fe/ $_{0.100 M}$ $_{0.100 M}$ Ag) catalyzed MWCNTs was 0.89. The ( $_{0.100 M}$ $_{0.100 M}$ Fe/ $_{0.100 M}$ $_{0.100 M}$ Ag) catalyzed MWCNTs were found to be more defective as compared to other. Electron Emission from ( $_{0.025 M}$ $_{0.025 M}$ Fe/ $_{0.100 M}$ $_{0.100 M}$ Ag) catalyzed MWCNTs were much stronger than from other samples, as demonstrated by Field Emission measurement using diode configuration. The turn-on field for ( $_{0.025 M}$ $_{0.025 M}$ Fe/ $_{0.100 M}$ $_{0.100 M}$ Ag) catalyzed MWCNTs was (0.92 V/ $μ$ $μ$ m) which is slightly lower than that of ( $_{0.100 M}$ $_{0.100 M}$ Fe/ $_{0.100 M}$ $_{0.100 M}$ Ag) catalyzed MWCNTs (1.83 V/ $μ$ $μ$ m), indicating superior enhancement.

Keywords:

References

1. M. Y. Lone, A. Kumar, N. Ansari, S. Husain, M. Zulfequar, R. C. Singh and M. Husain, Mater. Res. Bull. 119, 110532 (2019). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
2. P. Majzlikova et al., Sensors 15, 2644 (2015). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
3. P. M. Ajayan, M. Pulickel and O. Z. Zhou, Carbon Nanotubes 391 (2001). Crossref, Google Scholar
4. H. He, L. Ai Pham-Huy, P. Dramou, D. Xiao, P. Zuo and C. Pham-Huy, BioMed Res. Int. 2013 (2013). Google Scholar
5. R. Baughman et al., Science 284, 1340 (1999). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
6. S. Esconjauregui, Santiago, C. M. Whelan and K. Maex, Carbon 47, 659 (2009). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
7. L. Dai, Y. Xue, L. Qu, H.-J. Choi and J.-B. Baek, Chem. Rev. 115, 4823 (2015). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
8. R. Sharma, A. K. Sharma and V. Sharma, Cogent Eng. 2, 1094017 (2015). Crossref, Google Scholar
9. J. Sengupta, Handbook of Nanomaterials for Industrial Applications (Elsevier, 2018), pp. 172–194. Crossref, Google Scholar
10. J. Ali, A. Kumar, S. Husain, M. Kumari and M. Husain, Curre. Nanosci. 7, 333 (2011). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
11. A. V. Melechko, V. I. Merkulov, T. E. McKnight, M. A. Guillorn, D. H. Lowndes and M. L. Simpson, J. Appl. Phys. 97, 041301 (2005). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
12. S. Esconjauregui, M. W. Caroline and K. Maex, Carbon 47, 659 (2009). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
13. A. M. Gheitaghy, A. Mirza, A. Ghaderi, S. Vollebregt, M. Ahmadi, R. Wolffenbuttel and G. Q. Zhang, Mater. Res. Bull. 126, 110821 (2020). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
14. S. Iijima and T. Ichihashi, Nature 363, 603 (1993). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
15. R. M. H. Mohammad, S. Khan, M. Sadiq, M. Zulfequar, M. Husain and J. Ali, J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 20, 6463 (2020). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
16. R. T. K. Baker, Carbon 27, 315 (1989). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
17. A. Gohier, C. P. Ewels, T. M. Minea and M. A. Djouadi, Carbon 46, 1331 (2008). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
18. A. K. Schaper, K. Andreas, H. Hou, A. Greiner and F. Phillipp, J. Catal. 222, 250 (2004). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
19. A. K. Chakraborty, J. Jacobs, C. J. Roberts and M. R. C. Hunt, J. Appl. Phys. 100, 084321 (2006). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
20. T. D. Arcos, F. Vonau, M. G. Garnier, V. Thommen, P. Oelhafen, M. Duggelin, D. Mathis and R. Guggenheim, Appl. Phys. Lett. 80, 2383 (2002). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
21. T. D. L. Arcos, M. G. Garnier, J. W. Seo, P. Oelhafen, V. Thommen and D. Mathys, J. Phys. Chem. B 108, 7728 (2004). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
22. H. Liu, Y. Zhang, D. Arato, R. Li, P. Mérel and X. Sun, Surf. Coat. Technol. 202, 4114 (2008). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
23. A. Roussey, N. Venier, F. Hussein, L. Giardella, T. Pinaud, S. Tahir, M. Pelaez-Fernandez, R. Arenal, A. Mehdi and V. Jourdain, Mater. Sci. Eng. B 245, 37 (2019). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
24. B. Thomas, M. C. Raj, J. Joy, A. Moores, G. L. Drisko and C. Sanchez, Chem. Rev. 118, 11575 (2018). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar