Application to the Study of Nanotubes

However, the SEM contrast of CNT can be difficult to interpret as it depends on a lot of parameters (76) the primary beam energy landing, the history of imaging, if the CNT are lying on a substrate or suspended, the substrate electrical conductivity and the electron beam induced contamination during imaging. The contrast can for example be linked to potential differences between the CNT and the substrate (77), or to electron beam-induced current on the insulating substrate surface (78). 

CNT nanocomposites morphological and structural analysis is often done by TEM but an extensive imaging is required then to ensure a representative view of the material. Moreover, carbon based fillers have very low TEM contrast when embedded in a polymer matrix. The application of microscopy techniques is very useful to control the status of CNTs at any time during the preparation process of CNT/polymer nanocomposites, and moreover, to gain insights on parameters important for a better understanding the performance of the final nanocomposite material based on CNTs. 

The general approach in SEM is the direct observation of the surface of nanocomposites films or of fracture surfaces performed at ambient temperature or in liquid nitrogen, to check concentration, 

as others surface-based methods such as scanning probe microscopy (SPM), or more specifically atomic force microscopy (AFM), generally only shows the surface or a cross-section of the three-dimensional arrangement of the CNTs in the polymer matrix. However, the team of Loos et al. has shown that conventional SEM is able to provide (pseudo) three-dimensional morphological 

---