4.8 Article

Substrate-Induced Variances in Morphological and Structural Properties of MoS2 Grown by Chemical Vapor Deposition on Epitaxial Graphene and SiO2

期刊

ACS APPLIED MATERIALS & INTERFACES
卷 12, 期 40, 页码 45101-45110

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsami.0c06173

关键词

MoS2; graphene; CVD; van der Wards heterostructures; photolununescence; surface diffusion

资金

  1. EU [881603]
  2. CHARMING project - Research Foundation Flanders [EOS 30467715, G0F6218N]
  3. PROM PW project - European Social Fund under the Operational Program Knowledge Education Development [POWR. 03.03.00-00-PN13/18]
  4. PRELUDIUM projects - Polish National Science Centre [UMO-2019/33/N/ST5/01414, UMO-2016/21/N/ST5/03332]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this work, we report the impact of substrate type on the morphological and structural properties of molybdenum disulfide (MoS,) grown by chemical vapor deposition (CVD). MoS2 synthesized on a three-dimensional (3D) substrate, that is, SiO2, in response to the change of the thermodynamic conditions yielded different grain morphologies, including triangles, truncated triangles, and circles. Simultaneously, MoS, on graphene is highly immune to the modifications of the growth conditions, forming triangular crystals only. We explain the differences between MoS, on SiO, and graphene by the different surface diffusion mechanisms, namely, hopping and gas-molecule-collision-like mechanisms, respectively. As a result, we observe the formation of thermodynamically favorable nuclei shapes on graphene, while on SiO2, a full spectrum of domain shapes can be achieved. Additionally, graphene withstands the growth process well, with only slight changes in strain and doping. Furthermore, by the application of graphene as a growth substrate, we realize van der Waals epitaxy and achieve strain-free growth, as suggested by the photoluminescence (PL) studies. We indicate that PL, contrary to Raman spectroscopy, enables us to arbitrarily determine the strain levels in SiO2.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据