ARTICLE IN PRESS YJCIS:14307

JID:YJCIS AID:14307 /FLA [m5G; v 1.65; Prn:9/10/2008; 11:33] P.1 (1-8)

Journal of Colloid and Interface Science ••• (••••) •••–•••

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Colloid and Interface Science

www.elsevier.com/locate/jcis

Comparative study of carbon nanotube dispersion using surfactants

Richa Rastogi a,∗ , Rahul Kaushal a , S.K. Tripathi b , Amit L. Sharma a , Inderpreet Kaur a , Lalit M. Bharadwaj a
a
Biomolecular Electronics and Nanotechnology Division (BEND), Central Scientific Instruments Organisation (CSIO), Sector 30C, Chandigarh, India
b
Centre of Advanced Studies in Physics, Punjab University, Sector 14, Chandigarh, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Dispersion of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) is a challenging task for their utilization in nanoscale device ap-
Received 8 April 2008 plications. This account reports a comparative analysis on dispersion of multiwalled carbon nanotubes
Accepted 1 September 2008 (MWNTs) with four surfactants—Triton X-100, Tween 20, Tween 80, and sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS).
Among the four surfactants, Triton X-100 and SDS provide maximum and minimum dispersion, respec-
Keywords:
tively. Dispersion of MWNTs has been characterized with UV–vis spectroscopy and transmission electron
Dispersion microscopy (TEM). TEM results are in agreement with the UV–vis measurements. The experimentally ob-
Absorbance served trend of dispersing power of surfactants is consistent with their chemical structures. An optimum
Multiwalled nanotubes CNT-to-surfactant ratio has been determined for each surfactant. This parameter is shown to affect the
Surfactants nanotube dispersion significantly. Surfactant concentration above or below this ratio is shown to deteri-
orate the quality of nanotube dispersion. TEM analysis of a high-surfactant-concentration sample enables
us to construct a plausible mechanism for decrease in CNT dispersion at high surfactant concentration,
consistent with the UV–vis observations. Temperature stability of the surfactant is another important
factor affecting the quality of CNT dispersion.
© 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction aggressive chemical functionalization at high temperature creates

Due to their tremendous optical, electrical, and mechanical
properties, carbon nanotubes enjoy a preeminent status in the
panoply of nanomaterials, finding wide range of applications in
biosensors [1], composites [2], field emission devices [3], elec-
tronic components [4], probe tips [5], etc. Delocalization of π -
electrons renders them conducting and alleviates adsorption of
various chemical moieties via π –π stacking interaction [6]. A high
aspect ratio makes them prone to entanglement and bundling. Par-
ticularly, carbon nanotubes are bundled with strong van der Waals
interaction energy of ca. 500 eV/μm of tube–tube contact [7]. Such
high interaction energy renders CNT dispersion a challenging task.
Currently two approaches are widely used in nanotube disper-
sion—the mechanical approach and the chemical approach. The
mechanical approach includes ultrasonication and high-shear mix-
ing. These processes are time-consuming and less efficient. Fur-
thermore, as reported earlier by Lu et al. [8], ultrasonication can
result in fragmentation of CNTs, in turn, decreasing their aspect ra-
tio. Besides this, the stability of the dispersion is poor. On the other
hand, the chemical approach includes both covalent and noncova-
lent methods. Covalent methods involve functionalization with var-
ious chemical moieties to improve solubility in solvents. However,
* Corresponding author. Fax: +91 172 2657267.
E-mail address: richa.bend@gmail.com (R. Rastogi).
defects at the nanotube surface, consequently altering the electri-
cal properties of carbon nanotubes [9]. In contrast, a noncovalent
approach involves adsorption of the chemical moieties onto the
nanotube surface, either via π –π stacking interaction such as in
DNA, uncharged surfactants, etc., or through coulomb attraction in
the case of charged chemical moieties. The noncovalent approach
is superior in the sense that it does not alter the π -electron cloud
of graphene, in turn preserving the electrical properties of carbon
nanotubes.
Surfactants and polymers are extensively used for carbon nan-
otube dispersion via noncovalent approach. Both of them get ad-
sorbed onto nanotube surface, rendering them soluble in aqueous
and organic solvents. Dispersion of nanotubes in polymer matri-
ces may not be a proper choice for electronic device applications,
as polymer itself can participate in electrical events [10]. Disper-
sion using surfactants diminishes such anomalies, as they can be
removed easily by washing. To date, a wide variety of surfactants
have been investigated for dispersion of carbon nanotubes, such
as sodium dodecyl benzenesulfonate (SDBS) [11], dodecyltrimethyl-
ammonium bromide (DTAB) [12], hexadecyltrimethylammonium
bromide (CTAB) [13], octyl phenol ethoxylate (Triton X-100) [14],
and sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) [15]. In view of the large number
of surfactants available for dispersion, it is imperative to conduct
a systematic study of different parameters such as concentration,
nature, stability, etc. in order to choose the right surfactant for a
particular application. Until recently, few attempts have been made

0021-9797/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcis.2008.09.015

Please cite this article in press as: R. Rastogi et al., J. Colloid Interface Sci. (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jcis.2008.09.015
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
JID:YJCIS AID:14307 /FLA
2 R. Rastogi et al. / Journal of Colloid and Interface Science ••• (••••) •••–•••
to compare dispersing power of different surfactants. Moore et al.
[16] have done comparative analysis of various surfactants on the
basis of their spectral properties. Hertel et al. [17] and Yurekli et al.
[18] have reported changes in phase behavior of carbon nanotubes
on the basis of the nature, concentration, and type of interaction
of surfactants. Still, there is a lack of systematic study to optimize
different parameters influencing dispersion of nanotubes.
The present study confronts a comparative analysis of four
surfactants—Triton X-100, SDS, Tween 20, and Tween 80 [19–22]—
for nanotube dispersion. The dispersing power of the surfactants
has been analyzed experimentally as well as theoretically on the
basis of their structural organization. This study provides insights
into some parameters for optimization of dispersion of MWNTs
using surfactants. UV–vis spectroscopy and transmission electron
microscopy (TEM) have been employed to analyze the dispersion
ability of these surfactants. The significance of using a particular
ratio of surfactants and MWNTs has been established for obtain-
ing optimum dispersion, which may be cited as a relatively new
finding in this area of research. From our study, the optimum CNT-
to-surfactant ratio turns out to be the most important parameter
in nanotube dispersion. We have optimized this ratio for these sur-
factants. Apart from the above, temperature stability of surfactant
is also shown to influence nanotube dispersion.
2. Materials and method
2.1. Materials
Purified MWNTs (diameter 40–70 nm, length 2–5 μm, purity
>95%) were procured from Amorphous & Nanostructure Ltd., USA.
The surfactants—Triton X-100, Tween 20 (USB Corp., USA), Tween
80, and sodium dodecyl sulfate (Bio Basic, USA)—were used as re-
ceived. All solutions were prepared in 18 M cm deionized water.
2.2. Preparation of dispersion of MWNTs in various surfactants
In order to compare the dispersing power of the four sur-
factants, dispersions of MWNTs were prepared at concentrations
spanning from 15 to 50 mg/L in steps of 5 mg/L, keeping the
concentration of surfactant (1%) constant. These 32 samples were
ultrasonicated for 2 h in order to get surfactant-coated MWNTs.
Dispersions were analyzed with UV–vis spectroscopy and the max-
imum extractable concentration of MWNTs (at 1% surfactant con-
centration) was determined for each of the surfactants.
In order to find the optimum CNT-to-surfactant ratio for each
surfactant, a second set of experiments were carried out. In these
experiments, concentration of surfactants was varied from 1.1 to
1.9% in steps of 0.1%, keeping the amount of MWNTs constant.
Constant MWNT concentrations chosen in these experiments were
the maximum extractable concentrations of MWNTs (determined
in the first set of experiments for 1% surfactant concentration).
Again, these samples were analyzed using UV–vis spectroscopy.
2.3. Characterization of dispersion
2.3.1. UV–vis spectroscopy
The dispersions of MWNTs in surfactants were characterized us-
ing UV–vis spectrophotometer (Hitachi U-2800) operating between
the ranges of 300–1100 nm. In the first set of experiments, baseline
correction was carried out using pure 1% solutions of the four sur-
factants so that their absorbance values got subtracted from that
of MWNTs dispersions. In the second set of experiments, the base-
line was equilibrated every time a new sample was analyzed with
corresponding surfactant concentration.
Please cite this article in press as: R. Rastogi et al., J. Colloid Interface Sci. (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jcis.2008.09.015
YJCIS:14307
[m5G; v 1.65; Prn:9/10/2008; 11:33] P.2 (1-8)
2.3.2. Transmission electron microscopy
The dispersions of MWNTs were also characterized using a
transmission electron microscope (Hitachi H-7500) operating at
80 kV. MWNTs dispersed in surfactants were filtered, dried, and
redispersed in distilled water at a concentration of 0.01 mg/ml.
A drop of 15 μl of the above suspension was dropped onto carbon-
coated TEM grids (300 mesh, 3 mm, purchased from TAAB Labora-
tories, England) and viewed under a transmission electron micro-
scope.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Comparison of dispersing power of surfactants using UV–vis
spectroscopy
Bundled carbon nanotubes are not active in the UV–vis region
[23,24]. Only individual carbon nanotubes absorb in this region.
Therefore, dispersion of carbon nanotubes can be characterized us-
ing UV–vis absorption spectroscopy. To characterize the dispersion
of MWNTs in surfactants using UV–vis spectroscopy, absorbance
values were recorded at 500 nm as reported in previous studies
[25–29]. This wavelength is virtually unaffected by ambient con-
ditions of nanotubes. The Lambert–Beer law is well obeyed by
MWNTs at this wavelength. Concentration of MWNTs dissolved or
dispersed into the solution can then be determined using the spe-
cific extinction coefficient of carbon nanotubes at 500 nm, ε500 =
28.6 cm2 mg−1 [29], in the Lambert–Beer law. With this knowl-
edge, percentage recovery into the solution can be calculated as
c1
% extractability = × 100, (1)
c
where c 1 = concentration of MWNTs recovered in solution and
c = concentration of MWNTs originally taken in surfactant. This
parameter is the measure of dispersion of carbon nanotubes in so-
lution.
Fig. 1 depicts the UV–vis spectra of MWNTs with varying con-
centrations of nanotubes in surfactant solutions. The inset shows
the Lambert–Beer dependence of absorption at 500 nm on the
concentration of surfactant. Background absorption in spectra is
due to the presence of bundles and mats of CNTs [13]. In order
to compare the dispersing power of surfactants in context, per-
centage extractability was calculated at different concentrations of
nanotubes (Table S1 of the supplementary material).
In all surfactants, percentage extractability vs concentration fol-
lows a Gaussian trend (Fig. 2), which depicts a linear increase
with increase in concentration of MWNTs until the maximum ex-
tractability limit is achieved. This is presumably because at low
CNT concentrations, the amount of surfactant is sufficient to coat
the carbon nanotube surface evenly. Eventually, a concentration
value is attained for which the surfactant amount is just sufficient
to disperse the carbon nanotubes; i.e., the maximum extractabil-
ity limit is achieved at this point. For subsequent increases in
the concentration of nanotubes, the surfactant amount turns in-
sufficient to fully disperse the agglomerates of CNTs, therefore de-
creasing the percentage extractability at high concentrations. The
maximum amount of MWNTs is extracted in the case of Triton X-
100, where percentage extractability has gone as high as 90.03%.
It is estimated to be 89.98, 84.61, and 84.89% for Tween 80, SDS,
and Tween 20, respectively. It is noteworthy that maximum ex-
tractability limit is attained earlier for SDS in comparison to other
surfactants. Maximum extractable MWNT concentration is found
to be 25, 30, 30, and 40 mg/L for SDS, Tween 20, Tween 80, and
Triton X-100, respectively, for the constant surfactant concentra-
tion (1%). Thus, the same amount of Triton X-100 can disperse
large amounts of MWNTs as compared to other surfactants. Al-
though Tween 20 and Tween 80 show equivalent behavior in terms
 ARTICLE IN PRESS YJCIS:14307
JID:YJCIS AID:14307 /FLA [m5G; v 1.65; Prn:9/10/2008; 11:33] P.3 (1-8)
R. Rastogi et al. / Journal of Colloid and Interface Science ••• (••••) •••–••• 3

Fig. 1. UV–vis spectra of carbon nanotubes in (a) SDS, (b) Tween 80, (c) Tween 20, and (d) Triton X-100 (Beer–Lambert curves inset).

of maximum extractable MWNTs concentration, Tween 80 proves
to be better than Tween 20 in terms of percentage extractability.
Hence, according to our experimental results, the dispersing power
of the four surfactants follows the trend
SDS < Tween 20 < Tween 80 < Triton X-100
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−→
Dispersing power
This experimentally observed trend for dispersing power of surfac-
tants can also be explained on the basis of their chemical struc-
tures (Fig. S1 of the supplementary material). In order to disperse
nanotubes in water, surfactant molecules orient themselves in such
a fashion that hydrophobic tail groups face toward the nanotube
surface while hydrophilic head groups face toward the aqueous
phase, producing a lowering of the nanotube/water interfacial ten-
sion. Thus, the dispersing power of the surfactant depends on
how firmly it adsorbs onto the nanotube surface and produces
by this adsorption energy barriers of sufficient height to aggre-
gation. Molecules having the benzene ring structure adsorb more
strongly to the graphitic surface due to π –π stacking type interac-
tion [11,30]. Generally, hydrophobic tail groups tend to lie flat on
the graphitic surface because graphitic unit cells match well with
the methylene units of hydrocarbon chains [31]. Thus, efficiency of
adsorption and consequently dispersing power of surfactants are
greatly affected by the tail length of the surfactant. Longer tails
means high spatial volume and more steric hindrance, thus provid-
ing greater repulsive forces between individual carbon nanotubes
[32]. Besides this, surfactants with unsaturated bonds in their tail
groups contribute more toward nanotube dispersion [32].
As one can see, Tween 80 has the greatest hydrocarbon tail
length, while Triton X-100 has the smallest one (Fig. S1 of the
supplementary material). The phenyl ring has an effective length
of about three and one-half carbon atoms, while carbon atoms
on branches contribute about one-half the effect of carbon atoms
on straight alkyl chains. Thus, Triton X-100 has an effective chain
length of nine atoms only, which is the shortest out of the four.
Thus, theoretically Triton X-100 should exhibit minimum dispers-
ing power, contrary to experimental observations. Such a paradigm
departure from experimental observations is presumably because
of the presence of benzene ring in the tail group of Triton X-100.
This finding prompts us to conclude that whenever “tail length
factor” and “benzene ring factor” compete, the latter contributes
more to dispersion of CNTs. In total, Triton X-100 proves to be
the best among the four surfactants. Among the remaining three
surfactants, Tween 80 has the longest tail. In addition, it has one
C–C unsaturated bond in its tail. Thus, theoretically, it is a better

Please cite this article in press as: R. Rastogi et al., J. Colloid Interface Sci. (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jcis.2008.09.015
 ARTICLE IN PRESS YJCIS:14307
JID:YJCIS AID:14307 /FLA [m5G; v 1.65; Prn:9/10/2008; 11:33] P.4 (1-8)
4 R. Rastogi et al. / Journal of Colloid and Interface Science ••• (••••) •••–•••

Fig. 1. (continued)

dispersant than Tween 20 and SDS. Indeed, this is what has been
observed experimentally. Among the remaining two, the tail of SDS
has an extra carbon atom as compared to Tween 20, but the head
group of Tween 20 is bulkier than that of SDS. Bulkier head groups
cause larger steric stabilization, in turn, producing steric energy
barriers to aggregation in nonionic surfactants such as Tween 20
[33]. It is to be observed that these two factors are competing al-
most equally when compared with the experimental results. There
is just a slight difference between maximum extractability of SDS
and Tween 20. This is presumably due to compensation for the
effects of extra carbon atom in SDS by bulkier head group in
Tween 20. Overall, therefore, structural considerations also support
our experimentally established trend of dispersing power among
these surfactants.
3.2. Determination of optimum CNT to surfactant ratio using UV–vis
spectroscopy
In order to determine the optimum CNT-to-surfactant ratio
for each surfactant, a second set of experiments was carried out
in which the concentration of surfactants was varied while the
MWNT concentration was kept constant. Constant MWNT concen-
trations were selected to be 25, 30, 30, and 40 mg/L for SDS,
Tween 20, Tween 80, and Triton X-100, respectively (chosen from
the first set of experiments). Again, absorbance values were de-
termined at 500 nm and percentage extractability of MWNTs was
calculated for each sample (Table S2 of the supplementary mate-
rial). There appears to be a polynomial correlation between per-
centage extractability and the concentration of surfactant (Fig. 3).
Percentage extractability attains maxima at 1.3 (Triton X-100), 1.2
(Tween 80), 1.4 (Tween 20), and 1.3% (SDS) surfactant concentra-
tions. With this knowledge, optimum CNT-to-surfactant ratio was
calculated to be 1:466.66, 1:520, 1:400, and 1:350 for Tween 20,
SDS, Tween 80, and Triton X-100, respectively. Such a large amount
of surfactant required with respect to a small amount of MWNTs
can be attributed to the large surface-to-weight ratio of carbon
nanotubes.
Increase in percentage extractability with increase in surfactant
concentration was on the expected lines. However, the reason be-
hind the decrease in percentage extractability after attaining max-
ima was not clear. This problem was addressed by TEM observation
of a high-concentration surfactant sample (Fig. 4). Interestingly,
flocculation of CNTs was observed at some places. Individual CNTs
were coated with thick nonuniform surfactant coatings. Chunks of

Please cite this article in press as: R. Rastogi et al., J. Colloid Interface Sci. (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jcis.2008.09.015
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
JID:YJCIS AID:14307 /FLA
R. Rastogi et al. / Journal of Colloid and Interface Science ••• (••••) •••–•••
Fig. 2. Percentage extractability vs concentration trend of carbon nanotubes for (a) Tween 20, (b) SDS, (c) Tween 80, and (d) Triton X-100.
CNTs were aggregated via surfactant molecules. This observation
can be explained in the light of the theory of micelle formation
in surfactants. Fig. 5 depicts a schematic illustration of a plausi-
ble mechanism of flocculation of CNTs via surfactant molecules. At
high concentrations, the surfactant molecules form micelles in so-
lution. The size of these micelles keeps on increasing with increas-
ing surfactant concentration due to interaction between groups
of the same polarity. Likewise, surfactant molecules form multi-
layers on nanotube surface when the concentration of surfactant
is increased for a constant nanotube concentration. As a conse-
quence, surface coverage by surfactant molecules becomes so high
that portions of surfactant molecules extending into the liquid
phase start interacting with others on neighboring CNTs [34]. If
the orientation of the outermost layer is such that the hydropho-
bic groups of surfactant molecules are forced to extend into the
aqueous phase, then this interaction favors a reduction in their
surface energies [35]. This bridging of CNTs via extra surfactant
molecules causes flocculation. Flocculation of CNTs might be the
reason behind the decrease in percentage extractability, which in
turn decreases the dispersion of nanotubes at high surfactant con-
centration.
3.3. Morphology of CNT dispersions
In order to characterize dispersion ability of different sur-
factants morphologically, bundle diameters were measured using
TEM. Larger bundle diameter implies less dispersion. Fig. 6 de-
picts TEM micrographs of MWNTs at optimum CNT-to-surfactant
Please cite this article in press as: R. Rastogi et al., J. Colloid Interface Sci. (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jcis.2008.09.015
YJCIS:14307
[m5G; v 1.65; Prn:9/10/2008; 11:33] P.5 (1-8)
5
ratio in different surfactants. In SDS dispersion, ribbon-like ropes of
MWNTs were observed with bundle diameters ranging from 62.5
to 218.75 nm. Organization of these ribbon-shaped ropes could not
be observed due to poor contrast. Small particles of diameter rang-
ing between 70 and 100 nm were also observed. These are sug-
gested to be SDS crystals and were present due to crystallization
of SDS at low ambient temperature (17 ◦ C). Poor temperature sta-
bility of SDS solution might also be the reason for poor dispersion
of MWNTs in SDS. No entanglement of MWNTs was observed in
the cases of Tween 20, Triton X-100, and Tween 80. Well-isolated
MWNTs were observed in these surfactants. Bundle diameters of
MWNTs ranged from ∼19.52 to 28.20 nm for Tween 20, ∼5.4
to 11.43 nm for Tween 80, and ∼4 to 5.35 nm for Triton X-100,
respectively. This finding reveals the highest dispersing power in
Triton X-100 and the minimum in SDS, consistent with UV–vis
observations. Thickness of surfactant coating was observed to be
∼6.4–8 nm for Tween 20, ∼3–4 nm for Tween 80, and ∼0.9–1.78
nm for Triton X-100, respectively. Stability of Tween 20, Tween 80,
and Triton X-100 at low ambient temperature might also be the
reason for better dispersion in these surfactants in comparison to
SDS.
4. Summary and conclusions
For a comparative study of dispersion parameters of MWNTs,
four surfactants, namely Triton X-100, Tween 20, Tween 80, and
SDS, were analyzed. The key motif of this study was to analyze
the parameters responsible for the dispersion ability of a surfac-
 ARTICLE IN PRESS YJCIS:14307
JID:YJCIS AID:14307 /FLA [m5G; v 1.65; Prn:9/10/2008; 11:33] P.6 (1-8)
6 R. Rastogi et al. / Journal of Colloid and Interface Science ••• (••••) •••–•••

Fig. 3. Variation of percentage extractability with variation of concentration of surfactant for (a) SDS, (b) Triton X-100, (c) Tween 80, and (d) Tween 20.

Fig. 5. Mechanism of flocculation of CNTs via surfactant molecules.

tant. With this objective in mind, UV–vis and TEM studies of the
dispersion of MWNTs in the above surfactants were executed. Dis-
persion of MWNTs in the four investigated surfactants shows the
following trend:
SDS < Tween 20 < Tween 80 < Triton X-100
−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−→
Dispersing power

The experimental trend was further correlated with the chem-

ical structures of the surfactants. Our experimental investigation
shows unambiguously that, contrary to the theoretical aspect, Tri-
ton X-100 enjoys the highest dispersing power among four sur-
Fig. 4. Transmission electron micrograph of a high-surfactant-concentration sample. factants by virtue of its benzene ring. This analysis enables us

Please cite this article in press as: R. Rastogi et al., J. Colloid Interface Sci. (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jcis.2008.09.015
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
JID:YJCIS AID:14307 /FLA
R. Rastogi et al. / Journal of Colloid and Interface Science ••• (••••) •••–•••
Fig. 6. Transmission electron micrographs of carbon nanotube dispersion in (a) SDS, (b) Tween 80, (c) Tween 20, and (d) Triton X-100.
to conclude that the “benzene ring factor” enjoys reigning status
in comparison to the “tail length factor” in dispersion of MWNTs
using surfactants. Therefore, the dispersing power of different sur-
factants is inherent, due to their chemical organization. The key
finding of the present study is the significance of optimum CNT-
to-surfactant ratio. The quality of nanotube dispersion deteriorates
below or above this ratio. Thus, surfactants should be in concentra-
tion just sufficient to coat the nanotube surface, avoiding any ex-
cess, as an unnecessarily large amount of surfactant also decreases
the nanotube dispersion. To ascertain the reason for this decrease
in the dispersion, a TEM study was employed. The TEM study
permits the elucidation of a plausible mechanism indicating de-
creasing dispersion at high surfactant loading to be caused by the
flocculation of CNTs with undesired excess surfactant molecules.
Furthermore, a low degree of dispersion of CNTs at low concentra-
tions of surfactant is attributed to an insufficient reagent amount.
We have standardized this ratio for the surfactants in context. It
was found to be 1:466.66, 1:520, 1:400, and 1:350 for Tween 20,
SDS, Tween 80, and Triton X-100, respectively. Nanotube dispersion
was found to be highest at these ratios. Moreover, thermal stabil-
ity of surfactant solution also plays an important role in dispersion
of MWNTs. Surfactants such as SDS disperse the nanotubes poorly
due to instability of the solution at low temperature. In total, one
can conclude that proper choice of a suitable surfactant needs con-
sideration of its structure, its optimum ratio to nanotubes, and
thermal stability of its solution.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the Department of Information and Technol-
ogy (DIT), Ministry of Science and Technology, India, for financial
Please cite this article in press as: R. Rastogi et al., J. Colloid Interface Sci. (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jcis.2008.09.015
YJCIS:14307
[m5G; v 1.65; Prn:9/10/2008; 11:33] P.7 (1-8)
7
assistance. The authors are also thankful to the Director, Central
Scientific Instruments Organization (CSIO), Chandigarh, for provid-
ing necessary infrastructure and support and to Mr. M.L. Sharma
of the Regional Sophisticated Instrumentation Center (RSIC), Panjab
University, Chandigarh for transmission electron microscope facil-
ity.
Supplementary material
The online version of this article contains additional supple-
mentary material.
Please visit DOI: 10.1016/j.jcis.2008.09.015.
References
[1] X. Tang, S. Bansaruntip, N. Nakayama, Y. Erhan, Y.L. Chang, Q. Wang, Nano
Lett. 6 (2006) 1632.
[2] L. Clayton, T. Gerasimov, M. Meyyappan, J.P. Harmon, Adv. Funct. Mater. 15
(2005) 101.
[3] J. Koohsorkhi, Y. Abdi, S. Mohajerzadeh, H. Hosseinzadegan, Y. Komijani, E.A.
Soleimani, Carbon 44 (2006) 2797.
[4] E. Frackowiak, F. Beguin, Carbon 40 (2002) 1775.
[5] H.J. Dai, J.H. Hafner, A.G. Rinzler, D.T. Colbert, R.E. Smalley, Nature 384 (1996)
147.
[6] M. Terrones, Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 33 (2003) 419.
[7] L.A. Girifalco, M. Hodak, R.S. Lee, Phys. Rev. B 62 (2000) 13104.
[8] K.L. Lu, R.M. Lago, Y.K. Chen, M.L.H. Green, P.J.F. Harris, S.C. Tsang, Carbon 34
(1996) 814.
[9] J. Hilding, E.A. Grulke, Z.G. Zhang, F. Lockwood, J. Dispers. Sci. Technol. 24
(2003) 1.
[10] T. Blythe, D. Bloor, Electrical Properties of Polymers, Cambridge University
Press, London, 2005.
[11] M.F. Islam, E. Rojas, D.M. Bergey, A.T. Johnson, A.G. Yodh, Nano Lett. 3 (2003)
269.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
JID:YJCIS AID:14307 /FLA
8 R. Rastogi et al. / Journal of Colloid and Interface Science ••• (••••) •••–•••
[12] E.A. Whitsitt, A.R. Barron, Nano Lett. 3 (2003) 775.
[13] A.G. Ryabenko, T.V. Dorofeeva, G.I. Zvereva, Carbon 42 (2004) 1523.
[14] H. Wang, W. Zhou, D.L. Ho, K.I. Winey, J.E. Fischer, C.J. Glinka, E.K. Hobbie, Nano
Lett. 4 (2004) 1789.
[15] J. Yu, N. Grossiord, C.E. Koning, J. Loos, Carbon 45 (2007) 618.
[16] V.C. Moore, M.S. Strano, E.H. Haroz, R.H. Hauge, R.E. Smalley, Nano Lett. 3
(2003) 1379.
[17] T. Hertel, A. Hagen, V. Talalaev, K. Arnold, F. Hennrich, M. Kappes, Nano Lett. 5
(2005) 511.
[18] K. Yurekli, C.A. Mitchell, R. Krishnamootri, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 126 (2004) 9902.
[19] J. Liu, A.G. Rinzler, H.J. Dai, J.H. Hafner, R.K. Bradley, P.J. Boul, A. Lu, T. Iver-
son, K. Shelimov, C.B. Huffman, F.J. Rodriguez-Marcias, Y.S. Shon, T.R. Lee, D.T.
Colbert, R.E. Smalley, Science 280 (1998) 1253.
[20] M.J. O’Connell, S.M. Bachilo, C.B. Huffman, V.C. Moore, M.S. Strano, E.H. Haroz,
Science 297 (2002) 593.
[21] L. Jiang, L. Gao, J. Sun, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 260 (2003) 89.
[22] W. Wenseleers, I.I. Vlasov, E. Goovaerts, E.D. Obraztsova, A.S. Lobach, A.
Bouwen, Adv. Funct. Mater. 14 (2004) 1105.
[23] Y. Junrong, N. Grossiord, C.E. Koning, J. Loos, Carbon 45 (2007) 618.
[24] J.S. Laurent, C. Voisin, G. Cassabois, C. Delalande, P. Roussignol, O. Jost, L. Capes,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 057404.
Please cite this article in press as: R. Rastogi et al., J. Colloid Interface Sci. (2008), doi:10.1016/j.jcis.2008.09.015
YJCIS:14307
[m5G; v 1.65; Prn:9/10/2008; 11:33] P.8 (1-8)
[25] W. Huang, S. Taylor, K. Fu, Y. Lin, D. Zhang, T.W. Hanks, A.M. Rao, Y.P. Sun, Nano
Lett. 2 (2002) 311.
[26] K.D. Ausman, R. Piner, O. Lourie, R.S. Ruoff, M. Korobov, J. Phys. Chem. B 104
(2000) 8911.
[27] O.K. Kim, J. Je, J.W. Baldwin, S. Kooi, P.E. Pehrsson, L.J. Buckley, J. Am. Chem.
Soc. 125 (2003) 4426.
[28] V.A. Sinani, M.K. Gheith, A.A. Yaroslavov, A.A. Rakhnyanskaya, K. Sun, A.A.
Mamedov, J.P. Wicksted, N.A. Kotov, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 127 (2005) 3463.
[29] A. Ikeda, T. Hamano, K. Hayashi, J. Kikuchi, Org. Lett. 8 (2006) 1153.
[30] J.F. Liu, W.A. Ducker, Langmuir 16 (2000) 3467.
[31] D.M. Cyr, B. Venkataraman, G.W. Flynn, Chem. Mater. 8 (1996) 1600.
[32] D.H. Napper, Polymeric Stabilization of Colloidal Dispersion, Academic Press,
London, 1983.
[33] V.C. Moore, M.S. Strano, E.H. Haroz, R.H. Hauge, R.E. Smalley, Nano Lett. 3
(2003) 1379.
[34] M.J. Rosen, Surfactants and Interfacial Phenomena, Wiley–Interscience, New
York, 1978.
[35] P. Somasundaran, T.W. Healy, D.W. Fuerstenau, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 22 (1966)
599.