Research Article  Open Access
E. Dadrasnia, H. Lamela, M. B. Kuppam, F. Garet, J.L. Coutaz, "Determination of the DC Electrical Conductivity of Multiwalled Carbon Nanotube Films and Graphene Layers from Noncontact TimeDomain Terahertz Measurements", Advances in Condensed Matter Physics, vol. 2014, Article ID 370619, 6 pages, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/370619
Determination of the DC Electrical Conductivity of Multiwalled Carbon Nanotube Films and Graphene Layers from Noncontact TimeDomain Terahertz Measurements
Abstract
Measuring the DC conductivity of very thin films could be rather difficult because of the electrical contact issue. This DC conductivity can, however, be extracted from noncontact measurements at GHz and THz frequencies using elaborated conductivity models that nicely fit the experimental data. Here we employ this technique to study the DC conductivity of fragile nanometerthick films of multiwalled carbon nanotubes and monolayer graphene. The THz response of the films is measured by THz timedomain spectroscopy. We show that the THz conductivity of the samples is well fitted by either DrudeLorentz model or DrudeSmith model, giving information on the physics of electrical conductivity in these materials. This extraction procedure is validated by the good agreement between the soobtained DC conductivity and the one measured with a classical 4point probe inline contact method.
1. Introduction
Onedimensional (1D) carbon nanotubes (CNTs) and twodimensional (2D) graphene layers exhibit unique electrical, optical, and mechanical properties [1–3]. Consequently, these carbon nanostructures have been introduced in numerous electronic devices, such as fieldeffect transistors [4] and supercapacitors [5], or as conductive flexible adhesives [6]. A comprehensive knowledge of the electrical conduction in actual CNTs and graphene layers, as well as a precise measurement of its value, is compulsory for designing optimized electronic components. Commonly, contact devices are employed to characterize the currentvoltage response of the carbon nanostructure samples and then to determine their electrical properties [7, 8]. However, the contacting issue may damage the fragile thin films and thus may prevent a multiple measurement procedure and/or a subsequent use of the tested devices. Therefore, a noncontact and nondestructive technique is needed in practice.
Among modern techniques, terahertz timedomain spectroscopy (THzTDS) is known for years to be a precise tool for noncontact characterization of samples like semiconductor wafers [9], paint films [10], art and historical pieces [11], biological tissues [12], and so forth. SubTHz continuous wave and THzTDS have already been widely applied to study carbon nanostructure samples [13–15]. As THzTDS delivers the magnitude and phase of the THz waves transmitted or reflected by the samples, the complex permittivity of the sample material is obtained from THzTDS data. In the case of conductive materials, the THz conductivity can be calculated from the complex permittivity. However, the DC conductivity cannot be directly determined, as the available THz power decreases sharply and falls below the noise level at lower frequencies (typically below 100 GHz). Nevertheless, by fitting the experimental THzTDS data with an adequate conductivity model, the electrical conductivity can be extrapolated from its measured values at THz frequencies, assuming the material does not exhibit resonances at lower frequencies, like piezoelectric ones. As compared to free space measurements at lower frequencies (MHzGHz), working at THz frequencies exhibits the strong advantage of a smaller wavelength, which permits dealing with smaller realistic samples without artifact induced by diffraction effects.
In this work, we apply this procedure to obtain the electrical DC conductivity of multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) films and of monolayer pristine graphene (MG) samples. The conductivities of the MWCNT and MG samples are, respectively, described with a combined Drude and Lorentz model and by a DrudeSmith model. To validate our procedure, we compare the soachieved DC conductivities with the ones obtained with a conventional 4point probe measurement [16]. The good agreement demonstrates the efficiency of the noninvasive THzTDS technique in determining the electrical parameters of fragile thin films [17–20].
2. Experimental Part
2.1. MWCNT and MG Samples
MWCNT samples were made of a pure and homogenous thin film of MWCNTs deposited over a fused quartz substrate. A nanotube suspension was prepared by mixing and ultrasonicating (380 W, 20 min) deionized water (10 mL), sodium dodecyl sulfate (Sigma Aldrich 71725, 0.1 g), and MWCNTs (Hanwha Nanotech CMP330F, 10 mg). The nanotube suspension was deposited on a filter paper (Whatman Anodisc 25) by the vacuum filtration method. Then, we removed the sodium dodecyl sulfate surfactant by rinsing with deionized water. Finally, the MWCNTs films were transferred onto fused quartz substrates. The MWCNTs film thickness of our two samples, namely, MWCNT1 and MWCNT2, is 162 and 193 nm, respectively. The diameter of the films is 18 mm, while the quartz substrate is a mm^{3} [13].
MG films were fabricated as follows [2, 21]: copper foils from Alfa Aesar (46986, 99.8%, thickness 25 μm) were used as catalytic substrates. They were heated to 1000°C with H2 flow (3 sccm) and annealed at 1000°C for 30 min. Then, graphene films were grown by a low pressure chemical vapor deposition (LPCVD) by introducing CH4 in the deposition chamber for 10 min (20 sccm). Specimens were lastly cooled rapidly to room temperature, without any gas flow. The synthesized MG films were transferred onto a fused quartz substrate (20 × 20 × 0.5 mm^{3}) by the wet transfer method. A thin layer of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) dissolved in chlorobenzene (SigmaAldrich 82265, 46 mg/mL) was put on top of MG, followed by a curing. Then, the copper substrate was etched in ammonium peroxydisulfate solution (Alfa Aesar 54106, ACS, 98.0%, 0.1 M) for 3 hours. Finally, the PMMA/graphene film was transferred onto the fused quartz substrate, followed by removal of PMMA using acetone. The MG film thickness of our two samples, namely, MG1 and MG2, is a oneatom thick layer deposit on over quartz substrates ( mm^{3}). Fused quartz was chosen as the substrate material for all samples because of its high transparency in the THz domain (Figure 1). It exhibits a refractive index of about 1.95 and its power absorption is low but increases continuously with frequency to reach 8 cm^{−1} at 2 THz (inset of Figure 2).
(a)
(b)
2.2. TimeDomain Spectroscopy and THz Signals
The THz responses of the samples have been characterized using a conventional THzTDS setup [22, 23]. The samples are located at the waist of the THz beam: at any frequency of the available THz signal, the Rayleigh length of the beam is much larger than the bare or covered substrate; therefore, the sample can be considered as illuminated at normal incidence by a plane wave. To execute a THz differential analysis, 3 measurements have been performed for each sample: one without sample, one with a bare substrate, and finally one with the MWCNT (Figure 1(a)) and MG (Figure 1(b)) samples.
The waveforms are recorded over a 35 ps time window, leading to a spectral resolution of 28 GHz. Each waveform has been recorded several times, in order to check the experimental reproducibility and to minimize the noise by averaging the records. The THz spectrum of the averaged waveforms is obtained through a numerical fast Fourier transform. To simplify the extraction of the film parameters, an appropriate time windowing of the substrate and sample waveforms rejects the echoes resulting from rebounds in the substrate [24].
Under this hypothesis, the frequency signals write where the subscripts and designate the signals measured, respectively, for bare substrate and covered substrates. is the airincident beam. The subscripts , , and are for ambient medium (air), film, and substrate. is the thickness of the MG sample; and are the coefficients of transmission and reflection at the interface between media and . is the complex refractive index of medium . From (1), the complex transmission for thin film with magnitude () and phase shift () can be defined as
3. Models for THz Conductivity
In MWCNT thin films, both free electrons, moving along a nanotube or from a nanotube to another one, and bound electrons, through resonant oscillations, contribute to the relative permittivity. In addition, the free conductivity of the CNTs depends on how the CNTs are rolled into [25]. Lowfrequency phonon modes, that are resonant at THz frequencies, are strongly involved in carrier scattering [26]. Thus, it is necessary to combine both Drude approach of metallic conductivity and Lorentz model of dielectric permittivity to describe the electromagnetic response of MWCNTs. Moreover, the films consist of random and nonaligned tubes dispersed in air, but with dimensions much smaller than the THz wavelength. Thus, from an electromagnetic point of view, the MWCNT film can be treated as an effective medium with a complex permittivity function [27]. Taking into account the involved contributions to the permittivity, we write where , , , and are, respectively, the plasma frequency, the resonance frequency, the strength, and the damping frequency of the th mode.
On the other hand, a graphene film is a homogeneous conducting material. The plasma frequency and carrier density have a nonlinear dependency, because of the conical dispersion of the energy with momentum. It is important to note that, in the THz range, absorption through intraband transitions dominates the one related to interband transitions [28], and thus intraband absorption influences mainly the THz conductivity. Therefore, up to date, THz conductivity of graphene films has been fitted using the Drude model [29]. However, we will show here that the Drude model as modified by Smith [30], taking into account a nonrandom scattering of the free carriers, allows one to better adjust the experimental data with the modeled curve. In the DrudeSmith (DS) model, the expression of the complex conductivity is where the coefficient is the fraction of the electron original velocity that is retained after the mth collision. If , the carrier momentum is totally randomized (classical model by Drude). If , the free carrier is completely backscattered [31].
4. Results and Discussion
Figure 2 presents the transmission spectrum of the different studied samples as determined from the experimental data using relation (2). All samples show almost a steady state transmission line up to 1.5 THz. However, afterwards there are fluctuations due to the insufficient THz power. MG2 and MWCNT2 are, respectively, the most (~94%) and least (~81%) transparent samples.
4.1. MWCNT Samples
The imaginary part of the permittivity of the films, to which the absorption of the electromagnetic wave is related, is in turn proportional to the real part of the electrical conductivity. Figure 3(a) depicts the THz real conductivity of the films: it monotonically increases with increasing frequency for both MWCNT samples. Figure 3(b) shows the imaginary part of the electrical conductivity, which decreases with increasing frequency. Then, the conductivity does not follow the simple Drude model and we need to consider the Lorentzian contribution at high frequencies as mentioned in (3). Our fits of the experimental data are plotted as lines in Figures 3(a) and 3(b). One can notice the excellent agreement between measured and calculated conductivities, in both cases of real and imaginary parts. The soachieved plasma frequency is THz, corresponding to an equivalentbulk density of carriers of 2–4 × 10^{19} cm^{−3}. Thus, this plasma frequency of MWCNT films is much higher than the one in semiconductors [32] and smaller than in metals [31] with a scattering time ( fs) of the order of metallic materials. In regular semiconductors, is proportional to the square root of carrier density and inversely proportional to the effective mass of the carriers. The average effective electron mass and electron carrier density of MWCNTs are found between the ones of doped semiconductors (e.g., ndoped silicon) and perfect metal (e.g., Au). This behavior depends on physical structure and varying chiral vector indices of the tubes. The Lorentz resonance frequency is around 4 and 6 THz, respectively, for MWCNT1 and MWCNT2.
(a)
(b)
4.2. MG Samples
Figures 4(a) and 4(b) display the THz conductivity of MG samples. MG1 real conductivity is twice the one of MG2, while its imaginary part is much higher. The values of conductivity are known to be sensitive to the thickness of the MG films [14]. This difference in conductivity behavior of the studied MG samples could come from the slight variation in the transfer during the CVD synthesis process. Also, MG2 shows a nonDrude response because of its smaller area than MG1, which explains why the conductivity shows an oscillator at higher frequencies. As a result of large scattering rates, the studied spectral range is below the Drude rolloff frequency. For the MG1 sample, both real and imaginary parts of conductivity increase with increasing frequency, which is well fitted by a Drudelike form (, THz and fs) of the frequencydependent conductivity [18]. For the MG2 sample, however, the negative imaginary part of THz conductivity decreases with increasing frequency. It cannot be explained by a simple Drude model, but it is well described by the DrudeSmith theory (relation (4)) with and . The large negative value of indicates that the electrons are affected by backward scattering as a result of the structural disorder effects in graphene [14]. As for MG1 samples, the plasma frequency THz is in the visible range while the collision value ( fs) is comparable to the ones of metals.
(a)
(b)
4.3. Samples DC Conductivity
THzTDS setups do not offer enough signaltonoise ratio to determine the precise conductivity at low frequencies, because the efficiency of their dipolelike THz antennas vanishes when reaching the DC regime. However, this information can be extrapolated from the conductivity by fitting the spectra over the whole THz range, which minimizes the effect of noise or of discrepancies at some given frequencies. The DC conductivity of the films is simply deduced from the permittivity constant at frequency , using the fitted plasma frequency and collision time . The soobtained values are given in the third column of Table 1.

To validate our method, the DC electrical conductivity of the films was measured with a classical 4probe technique, using a Keithley 6221 current source and a Keithley 2182A nanovoltmeter. Even though the 4probe technique is always difficult to implement when dealing with thin films (the probes may mechanically damage the film at the contact location), the measured DC conductivity (column 2 of Table 1) is very close to the average values deduced from THzTDS measurements and conductivity models (column 3 of Table 1). There is only one disagreement related to sample MG2. It could arise from the not perfect fit of the conductivity curve at lower frequency (Figure 4) and especially of the imaginary part of the conductivity, which is too small to be determined with a great precision.
5. Conclusion
To summarize, THzTDS has been demonstrated to be a powerful noncontact tool to study the electrical conductivity of MWCNT and MG films from DC to THz frequencies. The whole spectrum analysis gives us reliable information for the DC electrical characterization of the samples. The conductivity of the films was extracted from THzTDS data usingcombined Drude models. The agreement between measured and fitted values is good, even though the experimental values were rather noisy due to thickness of thin films compared to the thick substrates and also the limited sensitivity of the THzTDS setup over 1.5 THz.
The electrical conductivity of MG films with zero bandgap is almost three orders of magnitude at DC level and two orders of magnitude at THz frequencies, larger than the one of MWCNT films. MWCNT conductivity indeed depends on the crystallinity of the graphitic layers and the number of surface defects. MG1 and MG2 conductivities are well described by Drude and nonDrude models. The backward scattering occurring in the free electron movement may be explained by the structural disorder of the MG2 film DrudeSmith response.
Conflict of Interests
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by the European Commission (Project 238393 ITNFP7 MITEPHO, “Microwave and Terahertz Photonics”).
References
 Z. Wu, Z. Chen, X. Du et al., “Transparent, conductive carbon nanotube films,” Science, vol. 305, no. 5688, pp. 1273–1276, 2004. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. Bae, H. Kim, Y. Lee et al., “Rolltoroll production of 30inch graphene films for transparent electrodes,” Nature Nanotechnology, vol. 5, no. 8, pp. 574–578, 2010. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 P. R. Bandaru, “Electrical properties and applications of carbon nanotube structures,” Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, vol. 7, no. 45, pp. 1239–1267, 2007. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 H. R. Byon and H. C. Choi, “Network singlewalled carbon nanotubefield effect transistors (SWNTFETs) with increased schottky contact area for highly sensitive biosensor applications,” Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 128, no. 7, pp. 2188–2189, 2006. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 D. Yu and L. Dai, “Selfassembled graphene/carbon nanotube hybrid films for supercapacitors,” Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 467–470, 2010. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 R. Ma, S. Kwon, Q. Zheng et al., “Carbonnanotube/silver networks in nitrile butadiene rubber for highly conductive flexible adhesives,” Advanced Materials, vol. 24, no. 25, pp. 3344–3349, 2012. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 T. W. Ebbesen, H. J. Lezec, H. Hiura, J. W. Bennett, H. F. Ghaemi, and T. Thio, “Electrical conductivity of individual carbon nanotubes,” Nature, vol. 382, no. 6586, pp. 54–56, 1996. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 P. L. McEuen and J.Y. Park, “Electron transport in singlewalled carbon nanotubes,” MRS Bulletin, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 272–242, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
 D. M. Mittleman, J. Cunningham, M. C. Nuss, and M. Geva, “Noncontact semiconductor wafer characterization with the terahertz Hall effect,” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 16–18, 1997. View at: Google Scholar
 T. Yasui, T. Yasuda, K.I. Sawanaka, and T. Araki, “Terahertz paintmeter for noncontact monitoring of thickness and drying progress in paint film,” Applied Optics, vol. 44, no. 32, pp. 6849–6856, 2005. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J. Labaune, J. B. Jackson, S. PagèsCamagna, I. N. Duling, M. Menu, and G. A. Mourou, “Papyrus imaging with terahertz time domain spectroscopy,” Applied Physics A: Materials Science and Processing, vol. 100, no. 3, pp. 607–612, 2010. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 E. CastroCamus, M. Palomar, and A. A. Covarrubias, “Leaf water dynamics of Arabidopsis thaliana monitored invivo using terahertz timedomain spectroscopy,” Scientific Reports, vol. 3, article 2910, 2013. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. Puthukodan and E. Dadrasnia, “SubTHz characterization of multiwalled carbon nanotube thin films using a vector network analyzer,” Electronics Letters, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 297–299, 2014. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 X. Zou, J. Shang, J. Leaw et al., “Terahertz conductivity of twisted bilayer graphene,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 110, Article ID 067401, 2013. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 E. Dadrasnia, H. Lamela, M.B. Kuppam, F. Garet, and J.L. Coutaz, “THz timedomain spectroscopy in different carbon nanotube thin films,” in Terahertz Technology and Applications V, vol. 8261 of Proceedings of SPIE, San Francisco, Calif, USA, January 2012. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 K.Y. Chun, Y. Oh, J. Rho et al., “Highly conductive, printable and stretchable composite films of carbon nanotubes and silver,” Nature Nanotechnology, vol. 5, no. 12, pp. 853–857, 2010. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 E. P. J. Parrott, J. A. Zeitler, J. McGregor et al., “The use of terahertz spectroscopy as a sensitive probe in discriminating the electronic properties of structurally similar multiwalled carbon nanotubes,” Advanced Materials, vol. 21, no. 3839, pp. 3953–3957, 2009. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J. T. Hong, K. M. Lee, B. H. Son et al., “Terahertz conductivity of reduced graphene oxide films,” Optics Express, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 7633–7640, 2013. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J. L. Tomaino, A. D. Jameson, J. W. Kevek et al., “Terahertz imaging and spectroscopy of largearea singlelayer graphene,” Optics Express, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 141–146, 2011. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Z. Wu, L. Wang, Y. Peng, A. Young, S. Seraphin, and H. Xin, “Terahertz characterization of multiwalled carbon nanotube films,” Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 103, no. 9, Article ID 094324, 2008. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 X. Li, Y. Zhu, W. Cai et al., “Transfer of largearea graphene films for highperformance transparent conductive electrodes,” Nano Letters, vol. 9, no. 12, pp. 4359–4363, 2009. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 H. Lamela, E. Dadrasnia, D. M. Lee et al., “Terahertz conductivity studies in carbon nanotube networks prepared by the vacuum filtration method,” in Carbon Nanotubes, Graphene, and Associated Devices V, vol. 8462 of Proceedings of SPIE, San Diego, Calif, USA, August 2012. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 E. Dadrasnia, S. Puthukodan, and H. Lamela, “Terahertz electrical conductivity and optical characterization of composite nonaligned single and multiwalled carbon nanotubes,” Journal of Nanophotonics, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 083099–083099, 2014. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 L. Duvillaret, F. Garet, and J.L. Coutaz, “A reliable method for extraction of material parameters in terahertz timedomain spectroscopy,” IEEE Journal on Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 739–745, 1996. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 M. J. O. Connell, Carbon Nanotubes Properties and Applications, CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, Fla, USA, 2006.
 S. Kumar, N. Kamaraju, A. Moravsky et al., “Terahertz time domain spectroscopy to detect lowfrequency vibrations of doublewalled carbon nanotubes,” European Journal of Inorganic Chemistry, no. 27, pp. 4363–4366, 2010. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 T. Yamabe, K. Fukui, and K. Tanaka, The Science and Technology of Carbon Nanotubes, Elsevier, San Diego, Calif, USA, 1999.
 B. SensaleRodriguez, Y. Rusen, L. Lei, D. Jena, and H. G. Xing, “Graphene for reconfigurable terahertz optoelectronics,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 101, no. 7, pp. 1705–1716, 2013. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J. T. Hong, K. M. Lee, B. H. Son et al., “Terahertz conductivity of reduced graphene oxide films,” Optics Express, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 7633–7640, 2013. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 N. V. Smith, “Classical generalization of the Drude formula for the optical conductivity,” Physical Review B: Condensed Matter and Materials Physics, vol. 64, no. 15, Article ID 155106, 2001. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J. LloydHughes and T. I. Jeon, “A review of the terahertz conductivity of bulk and nanomaterials,” Journal of Infrared, Millimeter, and Terahertz Waves, vol. 33, no. 9, pp. 871–925, 2012. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 T.I. Jeon and D. Grischkowsky, “Nature of conduction in doped silicon,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 78, no. 6, pp. 1106–1109, 1997. View at: Google Scholar
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 E. Dadrasnia et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.