Carbon Nanotubes: Thermal Properties - CiteSeerX

Carbon Nanotubes: Thermal Properties

C

J. Hone Columbia University, New York, New York, U.S.A.

INTRODUCTION

Specific Heat

As nanoscale graphitic structures, carbon nanotubes are of great interest not only for their electronic and mechanical properties, but also for their thermal properties. Because of their small size, quantum effects are important, and the low-temperature specific heat and thermal conductivity show direct evidence of 1-D quantization of the phonon bandstructure. Modeling of the low-temperature specific heat allows for determination of the on-tube phonon velocity, the splitting of phonon subbands on a single tube, and the interaction between neighboring tubes in a bundle. The thermal conductivity of nanotubes has been examined both theoretically and experimentally. Theoretical work predicts a room-temperature thermal conductivity that is larger than graphite or diamond. Measurements show a room-temperature thermal conductivity over 200 W/m K for bulk samples of single-walled nanotubes (SWNTs), and over 3000 W/m K for individual multiwalled nanotubes (MWNTs). Addition of nanotubes to epoxy resin can double the thermal conductivity for a loading of only 1%, showing that nanotube composite materials may be useful for thermal management applications. The first part of this manuscript discusses theoretical and experimental work on the specific heat of nanotubes. The section ‘‘Specific Heat’’ provides an introduction to specific heat. In the section ‘‘Phonon Density of States,’’ the theoretically derived phonon density of states of nanotubes and nanotube bundles is compared to that of 2-D graphene and 3-D graphite. In ‘‘Theoretically Derived Specific Heat,’’ the measured specific heat of nanotubes is compared to theoretical models. The second part of this manuscript reviews the thermal conductivity of nanotubes. The first section provides an introduction to thermal conductivity. The section ‘‘Thermal Conductivity: Theory’’ discusses theoretical treatments of the thermal conductivity. ‘‘Measured K(T) of SWNTs’’ reviews measurements of the thermal conductivity of single-walled nanotubes, and ‘‘Measured K(T) of MWNTs’’ reviews measurements of the thermal conductivity of multiwalled nanotubes. Finally, ‘‘Applications’’ describes thermal conductivity measurements of nanotube-based composites.

The specific heat C(T) of a material is a sensitive probe of the low-energy excitations. In 3-D graphite, 2-D graphene, and nanotubes, phonons are the dominant excitations, and the phonon specific heat Cph dominates C(T) at most temperatures. Cph depends on the phonon density of states r(o), and can be obtained by integrating r(o) together with a temperature-dependent convolution factor accounting for the temperature-dependent occupation of each phonon state[1]

Dekker Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology DOI: 10.1081/E-ENN 120009128 Copyright D 2004 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cph ¼

Z kB

ho kB T

2 ð khBoT Þ rðoÞdo e ho 2 e kB T 1

ð1Þ

At a given temperature T, the convolution factor decreases from a value of 1 at o = 0 to a value of 0.1 at ho =kBT/6, so that phonons above this energy do not appreciably contribute to the specific heat. In general, Eq. 1 must be evaluated numerically. At low temperatures, Cph probes only the lowest energy phonons. These are the acoustic modes, whose dispersion can often be expressed as a power law, r(o)/ka. For a single such mode, Eq. 1 simplifies to Cph / T ðd=aÞ

ð2Þ

where d is the dimensionality of the system. For a linearly dispersing mode (a =1), the specific heat is linear in T for a 1-D system, and shows the familiar Debye T 3 behavior for a 3-D system. Phonon Density of States The phonon bandstructure of isolated nanotubes has been calculated by Saito et al.[2,3] and by Sanchez-Portal et al.[4] From the bandstructure, it is straightforward to calculate the phonon density of states. Fig. 1 shows the phonon density of states of a (10,10) nanotube, compared to the density of states of a single 2-D sheet of graphene. When a graphene sheet is ‘‘rolled’’ into a nanotube, the 2-D bandstructure folds into a large number of 1-D subbands. For a (10,10) tube, for instance, the six phonon bands (three acoustic and three optical) of the graphene sheet

603

ORDER

604

Fig. 1 Phonon density of states of an isolated SWNT (solid line), compared to a 2-D graphene sheet. (From Ref. [2].)

become 66 separate 1-D subbands. A direct result of this folding is that the nanotube density of states has a number of sharp peaks as a result of 1-D van Hove singularities, which are absent in graphene and graphite. In spite of the presence of these singularities, the overall density of states is similar at high energies, so that the hightemperature specific heat should be roughly equal as well. This is to be expected: the high-energy phonons are more reflective of carbon–carbon bonding than the geometry of the graphene sheet. At low energies, the geometry of the nanotube causes the phonon structure to substantially differ from that of the parent graphene sheet. Fig. 2 shows the theoretically derived low-energy phonon bandstructure of an isolated (10,10) nanotube. There are four acoustic modes (those with o! 0 as k! 0). All four have a linear dispersion, o = nk, near the zone center. The longitudinal (LA) mode has n = 24 km/sec, the (doubly degenerate) transverse (TA) mode has n = 9 km/sec, and the ‘‘twist’’ mode has n =15 km/sec. The first (doubly degenerate) optical mode enters at 2.7 meV. The inset to Fig. 2 shows the nanotube phonon density of states (solid line) derived from the bandstructure shown. Only the four acoustic modes are present below 2.7 meV, producing a constant density of states. At the band edge of each optical mode, the density of states displays a van Hove singularity characteristic of 1-D dispersion, and increases stepwise. By comparison, 2-D graphene and 3-D graphite have very different low-energy phonon structure. The dot–dashed line shows the phonon density of states for an isolated graphene sheet:[3] r(o) is large and roughly constant at low energy, and does not extrapolate to zero at zero energy. This is because a graphene sheet has an out-of-plane acoustic mode

REPRINTS


Fig. 2 Low-energy phonon bandstructure of an isolated (10,10) SWNT. The inset shows the low-energy phonon density of states, compared to that of 2-D graphene and 3-D graphite.

(corresponding to a sheet-rolling motion) that is quadratic in energy. For a 2-D system, this corresponds to a constant r(o). The phonon density of states for 3-D graphite, shown as the dashed line in the inset to Fig. 2, is significantly smaller than that of 2-D graphene, and approaches zero at k= 0. This is because interlayer coupling introduces dispersion in the z direction, and moves lowenergy states upward in energy. The characteristic energy scale for this process is the Debye energy ED? of the interlayer modes, which is roughly 10 meV.

Fig. 3 Calculated low-energy phonon bandstructure of a SWNT bundle, for the case of graphite-like (‘‘strong’’) coupling. (From Ref. [5].)

ORDER

REPRINTS


605

By analogy to the case of graphite, intertube interaction in bundles should depress the low-energy density of states in SWNT bundles. The characteristic energy for this process is the Debye energy of intertube modes. Because of the heterogeneous nature of nanotube bundles, it is difficult to calculate these modes theoretically. Mizel et al.[5] considered the case in which the coupling is graphite-like. By adjusting standard coupling constants for graphite for the case of tubular structures, they derived a bandstructure that has ED? 5 meV. However, because of issues of incommensurability between neighboring nanotubes, the true intertube coupling is likely to be weaker than this. Fig. 3 shows the 3-D dispersion of the nanotube acoustic modes calculated by Mizel et al.

each acoustic mode to C(T) is can be analytically expressed:[6]

Theoretically Derived Specific Heat

Electronic Specific Heat

For a given r(o), it is straightforward to calculate C(T) using Eq. 1. The lines in Fig. 4 show the specific heat calculated from the known phonon bandstructure of graphene and graphite, from the predicted bandstructure of an isolated SWNT, and from the predicted bandstructure of a SWNT bundle in the case of graphite-like (‘‘strong’’) coupling. At temperatures above 100 K, the specific heat of all four materials is quite similar. However, at lower temperatures, the specific heats diverge substantially. The isolated graphene sheet displays the largest specific heat, which is roughly linear in T because of the 2-D quadratic sheet-rolling mode. The isolated nanotube specific heat is smaller, as a result of the absence of the rolling mode. At the lowest temperatures, the isolated nanotube C(T) is linear in T. The contribution of

A metallic SWNT is a one-dimensional metal with a constant density of states near the Fermi level. At low temperatures, it will have an electronic heat capacity that is linear in temperature, with a magnitude given by.[6]

Cph ¼

pkB2 T hnrm

ð3Þ

where rm is the linear mass density. Above 8 K, the slope of C(T) increases, as the optical subbands begin to contribute. The linear behavior at low T is a direct signature of the 1-D quantized nature of the nanotube phonon bandstructure. Interlayer coupling (in graphite) and intertube coupling (in strongly coupled bundles) depresses the C(T) at low T. In real samples, the temperature at which the measured C(T) diverges from the single-tube curve provides measure of the actual intertube coupling.

Cel ¼

4pkB2 T 3hnF rm

ð4Þ

where nF is the Fermi velocity. Because there are four acoustic phonon modes, the ratio between the phonon and electron specific heat is Cph nF 100 Cel nph

ð5Þ

so that, as expected, the phonon contribution will dominate the electron contribution. Measured Specific Heat of SWNTs

Fig. 4 Calculated specific heat (lines) of graphene, isolated SWNTs, graphite, and strongly coupled SWNT bundles. The solid points represent the measured specific heat of a bulk sample of SWNTs. (From Ref. [7].)

The solid circles in Fig. 4 represent the measured specific heat of a bulk sample of highly purified single-walled nanotubes over the range 2–300 K.[7] The measured C(T) data agree with all of the theoretical curves at high T, as is to be expected; this is a good confirmation that experimental errors such as sample contamination were not significant. At low T, the measured C(T) follows the predicted curve for isolated SWNTs over almost the entire temperature range, diverging below the single-tube curve only below 5 K. This surprising result indicates that the tube–tube coupling in real samples is substantially weaker than would be expected from a straightforward analogy to graphite. Fig. 5 highlights the specific heat data at low temperature. The measured C(T) shows a linear temperature dependence from 2 to 8 K, with an upturn above 8 K. This behavior is a direct signature of the 1-D quantized nature

C

ORDER

REPRINTS

606


composites. The measured value of Esub (4.1 meV) is slightly larger than the theoretically derived value of 2.7 meV, which may be a result of mode stiffening due to radial tube–tube interaction. In fact, the measured value is in good agreement with theoretical calculations for nanotube bundles.[8] An unresolved issue is the seeming contradiction between the weak tube–tube coupling implied by the low transverse Debye energy, and the stiffening of the first optical mode. It may be that bundles are relatively well coupled radially, but are weak in shear. Detailed theoretical investigation of this matter is still needed.

THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY Fig. 5 Measured specific heat of SWNTs at low temperature, fit with a simplified model. The fitting parameters are given in the text. (From Ref. [7].)

of the SWNT phonon bandstructure, as discussed above. The lines in Fig. 5 represent the results of fitting the measured data to a simplified theory that takes into account intertube coupling. The low-energy phonon structure is simplified to include two phonon modes: a fourfold-degenerate acoustic mode with (high) on-tube Debye energy ED and (low) transverse Debye energy ED?; and a doubly degenerate optical subband with a band minimum at Esub. The lines shown are obtained after varying all three parameters to obtain the best fit to the data. The dot–dashed line represents the contribution from the acoustic modes, with ED =92 meV and ED? = 1.2 meV. Its contribution is roughly cubic at low temperatures, then roughly linear above 2 K, corresponding to the saturation of the intertube modes. The dashed line represents the contribution from the optical mode, with Esub =4.1 meV. This mode begins to contribute at 7 K, and the sum of the two contributions (solid line) fits the data well over the entire range from 2–12 K, above which it can be expected that other optical subbands will begin to contribute. The values for the fitting parameters in this model are directly related to the mechanical properties of nanotube bundles. The measured value of ED (92 meV) agrees well with the value of 103 meV that can be derived from theory, confirming the high phonon velocity in the tubes, which is a direct result of their high Young’s modulus and low density. On the other hand, the value of ED? is much weaker than would be expected from a simple analogy to graphite. This indicates that coupling between the tubes in bundles is very weak, an issue that will need to be carefully considered for applications such as high-strength

Because of the high thermal conductivity of diamond and graphite, it is interesting to examine whether nanotubes exhibit high thermal conductivity, a property that might complement their extraordinary electrical and mechanical properties. This property has been addressed theoretically for single tubes, experimentally for bulk samples of SWNTs, and experimentally for individual multiwalled nanotubes In general, the thermal conductivity K is a tensor quality, but for this discussion, it is only important to consider the diagonal elements: X Kzz ¼ Cn2z t ð6Þ where C is the specific heat, and nz and t are the group velocity (n =do/dk) and relaxation time of a given phonon state. At low temperatures (T YD), the relaxation time is determined by scattering off of fixed impurities, defects, sample boundaries, etc. and is roughly constant. Therefore in ordinary materials, the low-temperature thermal conductivity has the same temperature dependence as the specific heat. However, in anisotropic materials, this relationship does not strictly hold. Because the contribution of each state is weighted by the scattering time and the square of the velocity, the thermal conductivity preferentially samples states with high v and t. For instance, in graphite, the thermal conductivity parallel to the basal planes is only weakly dependent on the interlayer phonons. In SWNT bundles, it is likely that K(T) depends only on the on-tube phonons, rather than the intertube modes. Thermal conductivity is of particular interest in lowdimensional systems. For a 1-D ballistic electronic channel, the electronic conductance is quantized, with a universal value of G0 ¼

2e2 h

ð7Þ

ORDER

REPRINTS


607

Similarly, for a single ballistic 1-D channel, the thermal conductance is independent of materials parameters, and there exists a quantum of thermal conductance, which is linear in temperature. Gth ¼

p2 kB2 T 3h

ð8Þ

Conditions for observation of this quantum were first examined in detail by Rego and Kirczenow.[9] Using lithographically defined nanostructures, Schwab et al.[10] confirmed this value experimentally. At high temperatures, three-phonon Umklapp scattering begins to limit the phonon relaxation time. Therefore the phonon thermal conductivity displays a peak and decreases with increasing temperature. Umklapp scattering requires production of a phonon beyond the Brillouin zone boundary; because of the high Debye temperature of diamond and graphite, the peak in the thermal conductivity of these materials is near 100 K, significantly higher than for most other materials. In less crystalline forms of graphite, such as carbon fibers, the peak in K(T) occurs at higher temperatures, because defect scattering remains dominant over Umklapp scattering to higher temperature.[11] In low-dimensional systems, it is difficult to conserve both energy and momentum for Umklapp processes,[12] and so it may be possible that Umklapp scattering is suppressed in nanotubes relative to 2-D or 3D forms of carbon. A measurement of K(T) yields the combined contribution of the electrons and phonons. However, a simultaneous measurement of the electrical conductivity s provides a measure of the electron thermal conductivity Ke from the Wiedemann–Franz law[1] Ke L0 ¼ 2:45 108 ðV=KÞ2 sT

C

ð9Þ

In this way, the phonon contribution can be deduced by subtracting the electronic contribution from the total measured thermal conductivity.

Fig. 7 Calculated nanotube thermal conductivity (solid line) compared to the thermal conductivity of a 2-D graphene sheet (dot–dashed line) and 3-D graphite (dotted line). (From Ref. [13].)

Thermal Conductivity: Theory Berber et al.[13] have calculated the phonon thermal conductivity of isolated nanotubes. Fig. 6 shows the results of theoretical calculations of the phonon thermal conductivity of an isolated SWNT. K(T) peaks near 100 K, and then decreases with increasing temperature. The value of K at the peak (37,000 W/m K) is comparable to the highest thermal conductivity ever measured (41,000 W/m K for an isotopically pure diamond sample at 104 K). Even at room temperature, the thermal conductivity is quite high (6600 W/m K), exceeding the reported roomtemperature thermal conductivity of isotopically pure diamond by almost a factor of 2. Fig. 7 shows the calculated nanotube thermal conductivity compared to the calculated thermal conductivity of a single plane of graphene and that of 3-D graphite. In graphite, the interlayer interactions quench the thermal conductivity by nearly 1 order of magnitude. It is likely that the same process occurs in nanotube bundles. Thus it is significant that the coupling between tubes in bundles is weaker than expected. It may be that this weak coupling, which is problematic for mechanical applications of nanotubes, is an advantage for thermal applications. Measured K(T ) of SWNTs

Fig. 6 Calculated thermal conductivity of an isolated SWNT, as a function of temperature. (From Ref. [13].)

Fig. 8 shows the measured K(T) of a bulk sample of SWNTs.[14–16] K(T) increases with increasing temperature to 300 K; the decreasing slope at high temperature may indicate the onset of Umklapp scattering. It is difficult to ascertain the intrinsic thermal conductivity of an individual tube from these measurements, although they point strongly to a very high value. In disordered ‘‘mat’’ samples, the room-temperature thermal conductivity is 35 W/m K.[15] However, the nanotubes in such a sample

ORDER

608

REPRINTS


is expected for 1-D channels. At higher temperatures, K/T increases as more phonon modes contribute. In the 1.2-nm diameter sample, the upturn in K/T occurs 5 K higher than in the 1.4-nm diameter sample. This shift provides additional evidence that the low-T linear behavior is true 1-D thermal conductivity. However, one unresolved issue is the different temperature ranges of the 1-D regime in heat capacity vs. thermal conductivity. For constant scattering time, the temperature ranges should be approximately identical. One possible explanation is that the phonons in the optical bands are much more strongly scattered, and so do not begin to contribute to the thermal conductivity until higher temperatures.

Measured K(T ) of MWNTs Fig. 8 Temperature-dependent thermal conductivity of a bulk sample of SWNTs which have been aligned by filtration in a high magnetic field. (From Ref. [14].)

are highly tangled, and the thermal path is considerably longer than the direct distance between points. This effect can be reduced by aligning the nanotubes; in samples where the nanotubes have been aligned by filtration in a magnetic field, the thermal conductivity is significantly higher, above 200 W/m K,[14] which is comparable to that of a good metal. Even in these samples, the thermal conductivity is likely to be limited by tube–tube junctions, so that the intrinsic single-tube thermal conductivity is certainly higher. Significantly, the temperature dependence of the thermal conductivity is roughly the same for both types of samples, suggesting that the measured K(T) reflects the intrinsic temperature dependence of the singletube K(T). Using Eq. 7, it is possible to calculate the electronic contribution to the thermal conductivity. In all samples, simultaneous measurement of the electrical and thermal conductivity shows that the electronic contribution to the thermal conductivity is only 1% of the total, so that phonons dominate K(T) at all temperatures. At low temperature, SWNT samples exhibit a linear K(T), strongly suggesting quantum effects. Because of the large number of nanotubes in a bulk sample, it is not possible to directly observe the thermal conductivity quantum measured by Schwab et al.[10] However, it is possible to measure the K(T) of SWNT samples with varying diameters: the phonon subband splitting is higher in smaller-diameter tubes, so that the linear K(T) behavior should extend to higher temperature. Fig. 9 shows the thermal conductivity divided by temperature, K/T, of two nanotube samples, one with average diameter 1.2 nm and the other with average diameter 1.4 nm.[16] In both samples, K/T approaches a constant value at low T, just as

Because of the large diameter of MWNTs, the temperature scale for quantum effects should be quite small, and their thermal conductivity should be that of a 2-D system with linear acoustic phonons. The K(T) of such a 2-D sheet should follow a T 2 temperature dependence. Graphite shows a temperature dependence closer to T 2.3, because of the effect of the quadratically dispersing out-of-plane mode.[17] As was discussed above, interlayer effects can be ignored when considering the thermal conductivity. Yi et al.[18] have measured K(T) for bulk samples of MWNTs. They found a roughly T 2 temperature dependence up to 100 K, as expected. The room-temperature thermal conductivity of these samples is only 25 W/m K, possibly as a result of the effects of tube–tube contacts, or also of the incomplete graphitization in their samples.

Fig. 9 Thermal conductivity divided by temperature for SWNT samples with different average diameters. The smallerdiameter tubes exhibit linear K(T) up to higher temperature, consistent with quantization effects. (From Ref. [16].)

ORDER

REPRINTS


609

C

Fig. 10 Measured thermal conductivity of a single MWNT. (From Ref. [19].)

Recently, Kim et al.[19] have used a microfabricated structure (inset to Fig. 10) to directly measure the thermal conductivity of individual MWNTs. The data in Fig. 10 show the measured thermal conductivity of one MWNT. K(T) increases as T 2 up to 100 K, peaks near 300 K, and decreases above this temperature. Again, the quadratic temperature dependence is exactly what would be expected for large-diameter nanotubes that essentially act as 2-D sheets. The room-temperature value of K(T) is over 3000 W/m K.

loadings of graphitic carbon fibers. Addition of 1% SWNTs doubles the thermal conductivity of the epoxy, while the same loading of carbon fibers provides only a 40% increase. This initial result is quite promising for the development of composites for thermal management.

Applications The high thermal conductivity of nanotubes may be useful for a number of thermal management applications, such as heat sinking of silicon processors, or to increase the thermal conductivity of plastics in such areas as housing for electric motors. Although many groups have studied nanotube–epoxy composite materials for their mechanical properties, their possible thermal properties have only recently attracted attention. Biercuk et al.[20] have measured the thermal conductivity of epoxy resin loaded with SWNTs. Fig. 11 shows the enhancement in the thermal conductivity for loadings up to 1% SWNTs, and the enhancement for identical

Fig. 11 Enhancement of the thermal conductivity of epoxy resin as a function of loading by SWNTs and by carbon fibers. (From Ref. [20].)

ORDER

REPRINTS

610


CONCLUSION The thermal properties of carbon nanotubes are dominated by phonons. The measured specific heat of SWNTs closely matches calculations based on the phonon bandstructure of isolated nanotubes, and shows direct evidence of 1-D quantization of the phonon bandstructure. This shows that coupling between nanotubes in a bundle is relatively weak; detailed modeling permits direct measurement of the tube–tube coupling strength, as well as the low-energy phonon structure. Theoretical work predicts a room-temperature thermal conductivity of 6600 W/m K for individual nanotubes. Measurements show a roomtemperature thermal conductivity over 200 W/m K for bulk samples of single-walled nanotubes, and over 3000 W/m K for individual multiwalled nanotubes. Addition of nanotubes to epoxy resin can double the thermal conductivity for a loading of only 1%, showing that nanotube composite materials may be useful for thermal management applications.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12. 13.

14.

REFERENCES 1.

Ashcroft, N.W.; Mermin, N.D. Solid State Physics; Harcourt Brace: New York, 1976. 2. Saito, R.; Takeya, T.; Kimura, T.; Dresselhaus, G.; Dresselhaus, M.S. Raman intensity of single-wall carbon nanotubes. Phys. Rev., B 1998, 57, 4145 – 4153. 3. Saito, R.; Dresselhaus, G.; Dresselhaus, M.S. Physical Properties of Carbon Nanotubes; Imperial College Press: London, 1998. 4. Sanchez-Portal, D.; Artacho, E.; Solar, J.M.; Rubio, A.; Ordejon, P. Ab initio structural, elastic, and vibrational properties of carbon nanotubes. Phys. Rev., B 1999, 59, 12678– 12688. 5. Mizel, A.; Benedict, L.X.; Cohen, M.L.; Louie, S.G.; Zettl, A.; Budraa, N.K.; Beyermann, W.P. Analysis of the low-temperature specific heat of multiwalled carbon nanotubes and carbon nanotube ropes. Phys. Rev., B 1999, 60, 3264– 3270. 6. Benedict, L.X.; Louie, S.G.; Cohen, M.L. Heat capacity of carbon nanotubes. Solid State Commun. 1996, 100, 177– 180. 7. Hone, J.; Batlogg, B.; Benes, Z.; Johnson, A.T.;

15.

16.

17. 18.

19.

20.

Fischer, J.E. Quantized phonon spectrum of singlewall carbon nanotubes. Science 2000, 289, 1730 – 1733. Kahn, D.; Lu, J.P. Vibrational modes of carbon nanotubes and nanoropes. Phys. Rev., B 1999, 60, 6535– 6540. Rego, L.G.C.; Kirczenow, G. Quantized thermal conductance of dielectric quantum wires. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1998, 81, 232 –235. Schwab, K.; Henriksen, E.A.; Worlock, J.M.; Roukes, M.L. Measurement of the quantum of thermal conductance. Nature 2000, 404, 974 –977. Heremans, J.; Beetz, C.P. Thermal-conductivity and thermopower of vapor-grown graphite fibers. Phys. Rev., B 1985, 32, 1981 –1986. Peierls, R.E. Quantum Theory of Solids; Oxford University Press: London, 1955. Berber, S.; Kwon, Y.K.; Tomanek, D. Unusually high thermal conductivity of carbon nanotubes. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2000, 84, 4613– 4616. Hone, J.; Llaguno, M.C.; Nemes, N.M.; Johnson, A.T.; Fischer, J.E.; Walters, D.A.; Casavant, M.J.; Schmidt, J.; Smalley, R.E. Electrical and thermal transport properties of magnetically aligned single wall carbon nanotube films. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2000, 77, 666– 668. Hone, J.; Whitney, M.; Piskoti, C.; Zettl, A. Thermal conductivity of single-walled carbon nanotubes. Phys. Rev., B 1999, 59, R2514 –R2516. Hone, J.; Llaguno, M.C.; Biercuk, M.J.; Johnson, A.T.; Batlogg, B.; Benes, Z.; Fischer, J.E. Thermal properties of carbon nanotubes and nanotube-based materials. Appl. Phys., A Mater. 2002, 74, 339 – 343. Kelly, B.T. Physics of Graphite; Applied Science: London, 1981. Yi, W.; Lu, L.; Zhang, D.L.; Pan, Z.W.; Xie, S.S. Linear specific heat of carbon nanotubes. Phys. Rev., B 1999, 59, R9015– R9018. Kim, P.; Shi, L.; Majumdar, A.; McEuen, P.L. Thermal transport measurements of individual multiwalled nanotubes. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2001, 8721, art. no. 215502. Biercuk, M.J.; Llaguno, M.C.; Radosavljevic, M.; Hyun, J.K.; Johnson, A.T.; Fischer, J.E. Carbon nanotube composites for thermal management. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2002, 80, 2767 – 2769.

Request Permission or Order Reprints Instantly! Interested in copying and sharing this article? In most cases, U.S. Copyright Law requires that you get permission from the article’s rightsholder before using copyrighted content. All information and materials found in this article, including but not limited to text, trademarks, patents, logos, graphics and images (the "Materials"), are the copyrighted works and other forms of intellectual property of Marcel Dekker, Inc., or its licensors. All rights not expressly granted are reserved. Get permission to lawfully reproduce and distribute the Materials or order reprints quickly and painlessly. Simply click on the "Request Permission/ Order Reprints" link below and follow the instructions. Visit the U.S. Copyright Office for information on Fair Use limitations of U.S. copyright law. Please refer to The Association of American Publishers’ (AAP) website for guidelines on Fair Use in the Classroom. The Materials are for your personal use only and cannot be reformatted, reposted, resold or distributed by electronic means or otherwise without permission from Marcel Dekker, Inc. Marcel Dekker, Inc. grants you the limited right to display the Materials only on your personal computer or personal wireless device, and to copy and download single copies of such Materials provided that any copyright, trademark or other notice appearing on such Materials is also retained by, displayed, copied or downloaded as part of the Materials and is not removed or obscured, and provided you do not edit, modify, alter or enhance the Materials. Please refer to our Website User Agreement for more details.

Request Permission/Order Reprints Reprints of this article can also be ordered at http://www.dekker.com/servlet/product/DOI/101081EENN120009128