Carbon diffusion barriers are introduced as a general and simple method to prevent premature carbon dissolution and thereby to significantly improve graphene formation from the catalytic transformation of solid carbon sources. A thin Al2O3 barrier inserted into an amorphous-C/Ni bilayer stack is demonstrated to enable growth of uniform monolayer graphene at 600 °C with domain sizes exceeding 50 μm, and an average Raman D/G ratio of <0.07. A detailed growth rationale is established via in situ measurements, relevant to solid-state growth of a wide range of layered materials, as well as layer-by-layer control in these systems.
Carbon diffusion barriers are introduced as a general and simple method to prevent premature carbon dissolution and thereby to significantly improve graphene formation from the catalytic transformation of solid carbon sources. A thin Al2O3 barrier inserted into an amorphous-C/Ni bilayer stack is demonstrated to enable growth of uniform monolayer graphene at 600 °C with domain sizes exceeding 50 μm, and an average Raman D/G ratio of <0.07. A detailed growth rationale is established via in situ measurements, relevant to solid-state growth of a wide range of layered materials, as well as layer-by-layer control in these systems.
The application
potential of
graphene depends entirely on the development of growth and integration
techniques that are scalable and allow an adequate level of structural
control and material quality.[1] While chemical
vapor deposition (CVD) is widely seen as the most promising approach
for this, a potentially equally versatile but much simpler, cheaper
and less hazardous technique is the catalytic graphitization of solid
carbon sources. Carbon is thereby not supplied from the gas phase
as in CVD, but rather as solid carbon film of finite thickness deposited
below or atop a catalyst film. Global or local thermal annealing of
this stack then yields mono- or few-layer graphene (M-/FLG) at the
catalyst surface or interface. This principle has been demonstrated
already in a number of variations across the literature, whereby it
is commonly assumed that solid-state graphene growth occurs by dissolution
of carbon into the catalyst at the annealing temperature followed
by precipitation upon cooling.[2−7] A particular motivation is thereby layer-by-layer control for FLG
growth via the fixed and finite solid carbon supply, which in contrast
to CVD is not self-limited by the increasing graphene coverage. However,
to date the M-/FLG formed via solid carbon sources remains inferior
in terms of uniformity and quality to that achieved by CVD and typically
high annealing temperatures (>900 °C) are required to obtain
reasonably graphitic films.[6−9]Here we report a general and simple method
to control the growth
process and to significantly improve the quality and homogeneity of
graphene formed by the catalytic transformation of solid carbon sources.
We focus on technologically relevant low-temperature (≤600
°C) processing and show via complementary in situ X-ray photoelectron
spectroscopy (XPS), X-ray reflectivity (XRR), and X-ray diffraction
(XRD) measurements of Ni/tetrahedral amorphous carbon (ta-C) stacks
that for such temperatures, graphene growth occurs predominantly during
ramping up and annealing by carbon dissolution and diffusion through
the catalyst, and that the contribution of carbon precipitation on
subsequent cooling is minor. We thus show that a key problem with
solid-state graphene growth, relevant to all previous literature,
is the lack of an “on-switch” for the carbon supply.
Carbon is uncontrollably fed during temperature ramping into a catalyst
film,[10] whose grain size distribution is
still rapidly changing, leading to defective and inhomogeneous graphene
nucleation at temperatures well below the maximum process temperature,
that degrades the overall growth result. Carbon diffusion short-circuits
through the evolving grain boundaries of the polycrystalline catalyst
that can thereby further lower the graphene growth homogeneity. On
the basis of the understanding of the growth process developed herein,
we show that all these shortcomings can be effectively addressed by
introducing a diffusion barrier between the solid carbon source and
the catalyst as a means of controlling the carbon supply during the
initial heating ramp. We demonstrate that a thin (1–3 nm) Al2O3 layer inserted into a ta-C/Ni bilayer stack
acts as a diffusion barrier, enabling uniform MLG growth at 600 °C
with graphene domain sizes exceeding 50 μm, and a quality (based
on Raman D/G, 2D/G ratios) that equals that of CVD grown films.[11,12] Our method of controlling the growth solute by introducing diffusion
barriers is relevant to a large range of carbon solid-state precursors
and similar layered materials, as well as to related layer-by-layer
control in these systems.Figure 1 highlights
the major advantages
that can be achieved with the introduction of a diffusion barrier.
As a reference system, we use SiO2(300 nm)/Si substrates
covered by filtered cathodic vacuum arc (FCVA) deposited ta-C (∼10
nm) and a top layer of physical vapor deposited Ni (∼550 nm,
see Methods). We adopt a simple one-step annealing
procedure in which samples are held at the chosen temperature for
5 min (see Methods). The plan-view, postgrowth
scanning electron microscope (SEM) images in Figure 1A–C show that for the given conditions the onset of
graphitic film formation at the top Ni surface is ∼300 °C,
at which small (<200 nm in lateral dimensions) multilayered graphene
islands are formed close to Ni grain boundaries (Figure 1B). This is indicative of short-circuit diffusion of carbon
through the grain boundaries to the catalyst surface. For higher annealing
temperatures, the graphene coverage expands and increases in thickness
(Figure 1C). The as-grown graphene, however,
is very inhomogeneous and no significant increase in the size of regions
of constant contrast with (maximum) annealing temperature is apparent.
This indicates that the as-formed layer quality is largely defined
by the temperature at which formation begins during the heating ramp,
rather than the maximum temperature reached during the process.
Figure 1
SEM micrographs
of Ni(550 nm)/ta-C(10 nm) (A–C) and Ni(550
nm)/Al2O3(2 nm)/ta-C(10 nm) (D–F) annealed
at 200 °C (A,D), 300 °C (B), 500 °C (E), 600 °C
(C,F) for 5 min (heated and cooled at a fixed rate of 100 °C
min–1). The inset of D shows a higher-magnification
micrograph of the sample showing the Ni grain structure (scale bar
is 200 nm). The insets of E,F show lower-magnification micrographs
of the same samples (scale bars are 100 μm). Sketches indicating
the effect of annealing for each of the samples are also shown.
SEM micrographs
of Ni(550 nm)/ta-C(10 nm) (A–C) and Ni(550
nm)/Al2O3(2 nm)/ta-C(10 nm) (D–F) annealed
at 200 °C (A,D), 300 °C (B), 500 °C (E), 600 °C
(C,F) for 5 min (heated and cooled at a fixed rate of 100 °C
min–1). The inset of D shows a higher-magnification
micrograph of the sample showing the Ni grain structure (scale bar
is 200 nm). The insets of E,F show lower-magnification micrographs
of the same samples (scale bars are 100 μm). Sketches indicating
the effect of annealing for each of the samples are also shown.Figure 1D–F shows the results of
identical thermal annealing but for a Ni/Al2O3/ta-C stack with the Al2O3 (∼2 nm) layer
deposited by atomic layer deposition (ALD) on the ta-C prior to the
Ni top layer deposition. In this case, no graphene formation or other
carbon deposit is observed on the Ni surface for temperatures up to
500 °C (Figure 1 E). Instead the SEM image
clearly shows the increase in average lateral Ni grain dimensions
to typically ∼1 μm, significantly larger than those of
∼20 nm observed following annealing at 200 °C (Figure 1D). We note here the close analogy to the catalyst
film pretreatment step used in graphene CVD to achieve a fully reduced
catalyst layer with larger grain sizes.[13,14] Increasing
the annealing temperature to 600 °C results in the formation
of large MLG domains of constant contrast (∼100 μm in
lateral dimensions) that appear to grow out from a single nucleation
point and extend across numerous Ni grains (Figure 1F). The secondary electron (SE) contrast variation within
each island can be attributed to electron channelling contrast arising
from the different grain orientations of the underlying polycrystalline
Ni.[15] The onset of growth, triggered by
the diffusion of carbon through the Al2O3 diffusion
barrier, is thereby clearly dependent on the Al2O3 thickness. We find the onset of graphene formation to occur at annealing
temperatures of 400–500 °C for an Al2O3 (1 nm) layer, at 500–600 °C for an Al2O3 (2 nm) layer, while for an Al2O3 (3 nm) layer no graphene formation was observed even after
annealing for 5 min at 600 °C.Figure 2A compares typical Raman spectra
for catalytically graphitized ta-C with and without an Al2O3 diffusion barrier, following transfer to clean SiO2(300 nm)/Si substrates (see Methods). The Ni/ta-C sample gives a D/G ratio of ∼2 and a very weak
2D peak, indicative of highly defective nanocrystalline, graphitic
deposits.[16] The introduction of the Al2O3 layer between the ta-C and Ni leads to a reduction
in the D/G ratio to ∼0.5 indicating a significant improvement
in quality. The 2D peak is also well fitted by a single Lorentzian
peak with a full width at half-maximum (fwhm) of ∼32 cm–1 and 2D/G ratio of ∼3.1 confirming the presence
of MLG,[17] as previously suggested based
on the SE contrast of the islands in Figure 1E. Analogous to our previously reported CVD results,[11,18] a further improvement in graphitic quality can be achieved if the
Ni film is decorated with a 5 nm evaporated Au film. For such a Au(5
nm)/Ni(550 nm)/Al2O3(2 nm)/ta-C(10 nm) stack
heated to 600 °C, a Raman D/G ratio of ∼0.07 is observed,
confirming high graphitic quality. The 2D peak is well fitted by a
single Lorentzian with a fwhm of ∼34 cm–1, and a 2D/G ratio of >2 which is again consistent with the presence
of MLG (Figure 2A). Figure 2B–D shows corresponding optical micrographs of the
transferred graphene and 75 × 100 μm maps of the Raman
2D/G and D/G intensity ratios for this sample. The optical micrograph
shows uniform contrast across the imaged area, again indicative of
MLG coverage. The mapped region has an average 2D/G ratio of ∼3.5
with 100% of the area having a 2D/G ratio >2 (Figure 2C) suggesting a corresponding areal coverage of MLG. Figure 2D shows the D/G ratio is uniformly low with an average
value of <0.07 demonstrating a similar quality to the graphene
produced by CVD at similar temperatures.[11] Careful inspection of the map of the D/G intensity ratio (Figure 2D) reveals an interconnected pattern with slightly
higher D/G ratio, which reflects the lateral polycrystallinity of
the continuous as-grown graphene. The Raman pattern indicates domains
of ∼50 μm in lateral dimensions that bond together to
form a continuous graphene film. This domain size is comparable to
those deduced from SEM data shown in Figure 1F for elemental Ni. Six contact Hall-geometry devices fabricated
on the as-transferred MLG give sheet resistance (RS) values of ∼1 kΩ/□, consistent with
values measured for CVD graphene for the given support (SiO2) and transfer process.[11,12] We emphasize that the
graphene grown by annealing at 600 °C shows significantly better
uniformity than other reports of growth from solid carbon across the
literature, while the graphitic quality is comparable to the best
reported values, even when notably higher growth temperatures (≥900
°C) were used.[6−8]
Figure 2
(A) Raman spectra of the M-/FLG grown from Ni(550 nm)/ta-C(10
nm)
(corresponding to Figure 1C), Ni(550 nm)/Al2O3(2 nm)/ta-C(10 nm) (corresponding to Figure 1F), and Au(5 nm)/Ni(550 nm)/Al2O3(2 nm)/ta-C(10 nm) samples annealed for 5 min at ∼600
°C and subsequently transferred to Si/SiO2(300 nm)
using the bubbling transfer method. (B) Optical micrograph of the
as-transferred MLG grown from a Au(5 nm)/Ni(550 nm)/Al2O3(2 nm)/ta-C(10 nm) sample under the annealing conditions
used in (A). The sheet resistance (RS)
of the as-transferred graphene is ∼1 kΩ/□, measured
using six contact Hall-geometry devices (see Methods). (C,D) Raman maps of 2D/G peak intensity (average 2D/G ratio of
∼3.5 with 100% of the area >2 ) (C) and D/G peak intensity
(average D/G ratio of <0.07) (D) for the region of graphene corresponding
to the optical micrograph in (B).
(A) Raman spectra of the M-/FLG grown from Ni(550 nm)/ta-C(10
nm)
(corresponding to Figure 1C), Ni(550 nm)/Al2O3(2 nm)/ta-C(10 nm) (corresponding to Figure 1F), and Au(5 nm)/Ni(550 nm)/Al2O3(2 nm)/ta-C(10 nm) samples annealed for 5 min at ∼600
°C and subsequently transferred to Si/SiO2(300 nm)
using the bubbling transfer method. (B) Optical micrograph of the
as-transferred MLG grown from a Au(5 nm)/Ni(550 nm)/Al2O3(2 nm)/ta-C(10 nm) sample under the annealing conditions
used in (A). The sheet resistance (RS)
of the as-transferred graphene is ∼1 kΩ/□, measured
using six contact Hall-geometry devices (see Methods). (C,D) Raman maps of 2D/G peak intensity (average 2D/G ratio of
∼3.5 with 100% of the area >2 ) (C) and D/G peak intensity
(average D/G ratio of <0.07) (D) for the region of graphene corresponding
to the optical micrograph in (B).As the basis of our process rationale, we use a combination
of
in situ XRR, XRD, and XPS to directly reveal the underlying growth
mechanisms and kinetics. Figure 3 shows XRR
and XRD data of a Ni(70 nm)/ta-C(10 nm) stack for which the temperature
was increased in a stepwise manner. The sample was held at each temperature
for ∼60 min, during which the respective measurements were
performed. The XRR curves (Figure 3A,B) show
two important changes during the heating process. First, between ∼250
and ∼350 °C the total reflective angle shifts to a lower
value (Figure 3A), indicative of a decrease
in the electron density of the topmost layer (as-deposited Ni). Concurrently
the oscillations seen at higher angles, arising from the ta-C layer,
vanish (Figure 3B). These two observations
represent a direct signature of the dissolution of the ta-C layer
and subsequent diffusion of this carbon into the Ni layer.
Figure 3
(A,B) In situ
XRR curves of a Ni(70 nm)/ta-C(10 nm)/SiO2(300 nm)/Si sample
taken during vacuum heating (base pressure ∼10–6 mbar) for reflecting angles (2θ) of 0.5–0.9°
(A) and 2–4.0° (B). The dashed horizontal arrow in A indicates
the shift in total reflective angle on heating, while the vertical
dashed lines in A and B indicate the oscillations associated with
the Ni and ta-C layers respectively. (C) In situ grazing incidence
XRD of a Ni(70 nm)/ta-C(10 nm)/SiO2(300 nm)/Si sample taken
during the same stepwise annealing process with a fixed incident angle
of αi = 0.75° (information depth of ∼80
nm). Note that the temperature-dependent shift in the reflection angles
is due to thermal expansion. A monochromatic X-ray beam of 11.5 keV
and a wavelength of 1.07812 Å (selected by a Si(111) double crystal
monochromator) is used, and the reflected/diffracted X-rays are measured
using a Mythen detector system. (D) Sketch showing the Ni/ta-C stacks
that were probed and indicating the diffusion of carbon to the exposed
catalyst surface which leads to M-/FLG formation.
(A,B) In situ
XRR curves of a Ni(70 nm)/ta-C(10 nm)/SiO2(300 nm)/Si sample
taken during vacuum heating (base pressure ∼10–6 mbar) for reflecting angles (2θ) of 0.5–0.9°
(A) and 2–4.0° (B). The dashed horizontal arrow in A indicates
the shift in total reflective angle on heating, while the vertical
dashed lines in A and B indicate the oscillations associated with
the Ni and ta-C layers respectively. (C) In situ grazing incidence
XRD of a Ni(70 nm)/ta-C(10 nm)/SiO2(300 nm)/Si sample taken
during the same stepwise annealing process with a fixed incident angle
of αi = 0.75° (information depth of ∼80
nm). Note that the temperature-dependent shift in the reflection angles
is due to thermal expansion. A monochromatic X-ray beam of 11.5 keV
and a wavelength of 1.07812 Å (selected by a Si(111) double crystal
monochromator) is used, and the reflected/diffracted X-rays are measured
using a Mythen detector system. (D) Sketch showing the Ni/ta-C stacks
that were probed and indicating the diffusion of carbon to the exposed
catalyst surface which leads to M-/FLG formation.X-ray diffractograms, taken in grazing incident geometry
at each
temperature step (Figure 3C), show sharpening
of the Ni(111) and Ni(200) reflections[19] on heating of the film above ∼250 °C, indicating significant
grain growth and that the catalyst is metallic and of face-centered-cubic
(fcc) structure. The Ni remains metallic and fcc throughout the annealing
process and notably we find no evidence of a bulk, crystalline Ni-carbide[20,21] using XRD. Between ∼450 and ∼575 °C, the graphite
(002) peak[22] at the sample surface reaches
measurable intensity confirming M-/FLG formation during heating of
the Ni/ta-C stack. The further increase in peak intensity at the next
temperature step (∼692 °C), corroborates the increase
in graphene thickness observed in our ex situ annealing experiments
and shows that carbon diffusion to the catalyst surface and the resulting
graphene formation continues as the sample is ramped to higher temperatures
(Figure 3D). Upon cooling to room temperature,
the graphite (002) peak intensity is not significantly altered, suggesting
that the contribution to growth by precipitation on cooling is small.
The observed behavior is consistent with previous in situ XRD observations
of the solid-state formation of multilayer graphitic films,[10] and has strong similarities to the metal-induced
crystallization of amorphous silicon (a-Si).[23] Here, we are able to further reveal the breakdown of the ta-C layer
(using XRR) and generalize the observed growth mode to other metastable
carbon sources (see ex situ observations below).Figure 4 summarizes in situ, time- and depth-resolved
XPS data that provides complementary surface-sensitive information
on the graphene formation process. Figure 4A shows the time-resolved evolution of XP C1s core level spectra
for a Ni(550 nm)/ta-C(10 nm) stack during heating to ∼600 °C
in vacuum. We have previously identified four key components in the
C1s spectra at ∼283.2 eV (CA), ∼283.8 eV
(CDis), ∼284.4 eV (CGr), and ∼284.8
eV (CB).[18] The peak evolution
at the catalyst surface is consistent with that previously observed
for graphene CVD on Ni catalysts during isothermal hydrocarbon exposures.[13,18] The CA and CDis components emerge together
first and are assigned to carbon bound to Ni surface sites (including
a surface carbide reconstruction), and interstitial carbon dissolved
in the Ni catalyst, respectively.[13,18] The CGr and CB peaks then appear simultaneously some
time later, reflecting the formation of graphitic carbon at the catalyst
surface. Importantly, this formation of graphitic carbon is observed
during the heating ramp and subsequent annealing of the Ni/ta-C stacks,
again confirming that here the predominant M-/FLG growth mode is not
via carbon precipitation upon cooling.
Figure 4
(A) Time-resolved in
situ XPS C1s core level lines for Ni(550 nm)/ta-C(10
nm) stacks during vacuum heating to ∼600 °C at ∼100
°C/min. Acquisition times are relative to the start of the heating
ramp from room temperature. Spectra are collected in normal emission
geometry at photon energies of 435 eV (surface sensitive; λescape ≈ 7 Å) with a spectral resolution of ∼0.3
eV. (B) Depth-resolved in situ XPS Ni2p3/2 core level lines
for Ni(550 nm)/ta-C(10 nm) stacks at the end of vacuum annealing at
∼600 °C. Spectra are background corrected (Shirley) and
collected in normal emission geometry at photon energies of 1010 eV
(surface sensitive; λescape ≈ 7 Å) and
1300 eV (bulk sensitive; λescape ≈ 10 Å)
with a spectral resolution of ∼0.3 eV. Increased information
depth is achieved using higher-incident X-ray energies and hence increased
electron mean free path lengths. The spectra are fitted using Doniach-Šùnjić
functions convoluted with Gaussian profiles with an accuracy of ∼0.05
eV. All binding energies are referenced to the Fermi edge.
(A) Time-resolved in
situ XPS C1s core level lines for Ni(550 nm)/ta-C(10
nm) stacks during vacuum heating to ∼600 °C at ∼100
°C/min. Acquisition times are relative to the start of the heating
ramp from room temperature. Spectra are collected in normal emission
geometry at photon energies of 435 eV (surface sensitive; λescape ≈ 7 Å) with a spectral resolution of ∼0.3
eV. (B) Depth-resolved in situ XPS Ni2p3/2 core level lines
for Ni(550 nm)/ta-C(10 nm) stacks at the end of vacuum annealing at
∼600 °C. Spectra are background corrected (Shirley) and
collected in normal emission geometry at photon energies of 1010 eV
(surface sensitive; λescape ≈ 7 Å) and
1300 eV (bulk sensitive; λescape ≈ 10 Å)
with a spectral resolution of ∼0.3 eV. Increased information
depth is achieved using higher-incident X-ray energies and hence increased
electron mean free path lengths. The spectra are fitted using Doniach-Šùnjić
functions convoluted with Gaussian profiles with an accuracy of ∼0.05
eV. All binding energies are referenced to the Fermi edge.Figure 4B,C shows depth
resolved Ni2p3/2 core level spectra taken at the end of
the vacuum annealing,
prior to cooling. The information depth is varied by changing the
incident X-ray energies (hv) and hence the inelastic
mean free path lengths of the photoelectrons (λescape) to obtain a more surface sensitive spectrum (hv = 1010 eV, λescape ≈ 7 Å) and a more
bulk sensitive spectrum (hv = 1300 eV, λescape ≈ 10 Å). We assign two main components NiM and NiDis which are related to metallic Ni and
an interstitial solid solution of C in Ni, respectively.[13,18] Comparison of the relative intensities of these components shows
that the dissolved carbon species (NiDis) is stronger in
the more bulk sensitive spectra. This indicates that although we observe
effects of short-circuit diffusion at Ni grain boundaries, dissolved
carbon is incorporated into the catalyst subsurface during the growth
process, further highlighting the similarity between the solid-state
M-/FLG formation observed here and the isothermal growth seen in CVD.We have so far considered graphene growth from ta-C, however a
wide variety of solid carbon sources may be used for solid-state growth
with different bonding ratios and clustering as well as additional
elements beyond carbon. Criteria for selection typically include the
level of control over the quantity of carbon deposited,[8] the cost associated with this deposition, and
the potential for graphene doping,[6,9] whether intended
or not. We therefore further investigate HOPG and nanocrystalline
diamond, two forms of elemental carbon that represent the two extremes
of carbon bonding with almost exclusively sp2 and sp3 bonding respectively. Ni catalyst films are deposited on
these samples by evaporation to minimize any alteration of the carbon
bonding by the impingement of the Ni atoms, which is found to be more
severe for the higher energy atoms commonly produced by sputtering
(see Supporting Information).Figure 5 compares scanning electron micrographs
of Ni(550 nm)/HOPG and Ni(550 nm)/diamond samples annealed at 600
°C for 5 min (heated at a constant rate of 100 °C min–1, and cooled at ∼300 °C min–1). The annealed Ni/diamond samples show the formation of thick carbon
layers at the exposed surface of the Ni catalyst (Figure 5A). Removal of the Ni catalyst by etching in FeCl3 reveals a corresponding depletion of the diamond layer at
the SiO2/catalyst interface (observed by optical microscopy).
The Ni covered HOPG substrates, conversely show no graphene or graphitic
growth at the exposed catalyst surface (Figure 5B), and the HOPG appears to remain largely intact. Raman spectra
measured on the Ni catalyst surfaces further confirms this (see insets)
with the presence of D, G, and 2D peaks on the Ni/diamond sample indicating
the formation of a graphitic carbon layer, while no peaks related
to carbon are observed on the Ni/HOPG sample. The 2D peak of the Ni/diamond
sample can be well fitted with a single Lorentzian peak of ∼79
cm–1 width, upshifted in position by ∼20
cm–1 compared to that of MLG, indicating that the
graphitic layers formed are turbostratic (i.e., non-AB stacked).[17,24] We note that in these experiments, the rapid quenching of the samples
means that growth by precipitation on cooling is largely suppressed,
as we have previously observed for CVD growth at similar temperatures.[13] Ar+ plasma treatments were also performed
on cleaned HOPG substrates prior to Ni evaporation in order to controllably
induce defects/sp3 bonding at the HOPG surface with harsher
plasma treatments leading to an increasing D/G ratio (see Supporting Information). Following Ni evaporation
and the standard annealing process at 600 °C, M-/FLG formation
is observed at the Ni surface, with the HOPG samples that underwent
harsher Ar+ plasma treatments yielding increased M-/FLG
nucleation density and coverage (see Supporting
Information Figure S1). The comparison of carbon sources indicates
that the driving force for the observed growth behavior is the thermodynamic
stability of sp2 bonded, crystalline graphite relative
to the solid carbon source used (e.g., ta-C, nanocrystalline diamond,
and plasma treated HOPG). This has been highlighted already in comparison
to similar layer exchange mechanisms such as the metal-induced crystallization
of a-Si films.[10] One of the key roles of
the metal catalyst, here Ni, is thereby to lower the activation barriers
typically associated with solid state transformations.
Figure 5
Scanning electron micrographs
of Ni(550 nm)/diamond(∼100
nm) (A) and Ni(550 nm)/HOPG (B) annealed at ∼600 °C for
5 min in vacuum (heated at a fixed rate of 100 °C min–1, cooled at ∼300 °C min–1). All scalebars
are 2 μm. Insets show the corresponding Raman spectra measured
on the as-grown samples. Sketches indicating the effect of annealing
on each of the samples are also shown.
Scanning electron micrographs
of Ni(550 nm)/diamond(∼100
nm) (A) and Ni(550 nm)/HOPG (B) annealed at ∼600 °C for
5 min in vacuum (heated at a fixed rate of 100 °C min–1, cooled at ∼300 °C min–1). All scalebars
are 2 μm. Insets show the corresponding Raman spectra measured
on the as-grown samples. Sketches indicating the effect of annealing
on each of the samples are also shown.Our data reveals the following coherent model for solid-state
graphene
growth from Ni/metastable carbon stacks. The carbon source is broken
down during heating and the liberated carbon diffuses through the
catalyst layer toward the exposed catalyst surface, appearing as carbon
bound to Ni surface sites and forming a subsurface Ni–C solid
solution. Once sufficient carbon has diffused to the Ni catalyst surface,
M-/FLG nucleation occurs and film growth continues while at elevated
temperatures. This indicates that the solid-state formation of M-/FLG
is not limited to a mechanism based on carbon precipitation on cooling,
as has been suggested in other literature.[2−7] Instead we observe a mechanism based on direct Ni-catalyzed transformation
of the metastable carbon source into M-/FLG, which resembles the isothermal
growth that occurs during hydrocarbon exposure for graphene CVD.[18] The introduction of a diffusion barrier between
the metastable carbon source and the catalyst prevents premature dissolution
of the carbon source and delays graphene formation until a higher
temperature has been reached. We note that for higher-temperature
annealing (>900 °C) with no diffusion barrier present,[6,7] M-/FLG is likely to form (as discussed here) during the initial
stages of the heating ramp, but then can redissolve into the catalyst
film as the temperature (and thus carbon solubility of Ni) is further
increased. Upon subsequent cooling, M-/FLG may then be formed again
by precipitation,[10] which is consistent
with the high-quality, yet inhomogeneous M-/FLG that has so far been
reported in the literature for growth at these high temperatures.Using the understanding developed from our in situ measurements
in the context of existing literature, we are thus able to rationalize
the improvement in quality and uniformity achieved by introducing
Al2O3 barrier layers between the catalyst and
carbon source. Al2O3 has been shown to be stable
in the presence of carbon for the temperature range considered here,[25] and the formation of bulk nickel-aluminate is
also not expected under our vacuum annealing conditions.[26] Our results show that the Al2O3 films effectively retard the diffusion of carbon into the
Ni catalyst. With increasing Al2O3 film thickness,
a higher temperature is reached before adequate carbon diffuses to
the catalyst surface for graphene nucleation to occur. Previous literature
reports on the onset of measurable carbon diffusion into single crystal
sapphire at temperatures >500 °C.[100] Further, Al2O3 is known to be stable during
carbon nanotube (CNT) growth by CVD and CNT forest growth beneath
a thin (∼10 nm) physical vapor deposited alumina layer has
been reported,[27] all of which is consistent
with the diffusion of carbon through ALD deposited alumina as suggested
here. In the context of CNT CVD, it is also known that transition
metal catalysts such as Ni and Fe can diffuse in to Al2O3 layers[28] which may also
affect the dissociation of the solid carbon layer and subsequent carbon
permeation. We note that other materials besides Al2O3 may also make suitable barrier layers and selection requires
careful consideration of the material’s deposition and stability
in the presence of both the catalyst and solid carbon source for the
chosen processing conditions.The increase in graphene formation
temperature achieved by introducing
Al2O3 barrier layers is analogous to an increase
in exposure temperature for CVD graphene growth. The accompanying
increase in graphene domain size and improvement in thickness uniformity
may be explained based on considerations of carbon diffusivity. For
an increase in growth temperature from 300 to 600 °C, there is
a more than 5 orders of magnitude increase in the lattice diffusivity
of carbon in Ni.[29] Grain boundary and surface
diffusion will also be significantly increased,[30−32] meaning that
carbon reaching the catalyst surface can more easily diffuse and attach
to the edge of an existing graphene island, rather than a local supersaturation
developing (e.g., at catalyst grain boundaries) and leading to nucleation
of additional layers. We note that a higher temperature of graphene
nucleation might also be achieved by a faster ramp rate. However,
we found that even for a 10-fold increase in the heating rate to 1000
°C min–1, there was little improvement in the
thickness homogeneity (data not shown). This can be understood in
the context of the Arrhenius relationship between carbon diffusivity
and temperature,[29] which means that extremely
high heating rates are required to significantly increase the M-/FLG
formation temperature without a barrier layer.A key feature
of our solid-state growth, is that M-/FLG formation
is fed from below the catalyst surface, therefore the formation of
additional graphene layers is not limited by the already formed graphene
layers (and leakage of carbon precursor through these), in contrast
to CVD.[11,12] The thickness of FLG films instead may be
defined prior to the annealing process by the quantity of solid carbon
source deposited. We note that throughout our experiments, thicker
FLG regions generally showed lower D/G ratios compared to MLG regions,
indicating that the additional layers formed have lower defect densities
(compare, for example, the growth from elemental Ni in Figures 2A and 5A). This may relate
to these additional layers forming once the catalyst has reached a
higher temperature due to continued carbon diffusion to the catalyst
surface. These additional layers were also found to be turbostratic
with 2D peaks well fitted by single Lorentzian peaks but with fwhm
of >40 cm–1.[17,24] This is in
contrast
to the Bernal stacked graphene formed during CVD on Ni-based catalysts[11] and may relate to a more rapid feeding of carbon
to the catalyst surface from the underlying solid source, or a different
distribution of dissolved carbon within the catalyst,[33] arising from the way in which carbon is supplied.In summary, we establish the introduction of carbon diffusion barriers
as a general and simple method to control and improve graphene formation
from the catalytic transformation of solid carbon sources. We focus
on (Au-alloyed) Ni atop ta-C, nanocrystalline diamond, and plasma-treated
HOPG as model systems to highlight via complementary in situ XRR,
XRD, and XPS measurements that graphene growth for technologically
relevant low temperatures (<600 °C) occurs predominantly during
ramping up and annealing by carbon dissolution and diffusion through
the catalyst, driven by the thermodynamic stability of graphene. This
is also relevant for higher temperature annealing, for which an additional
redissolution of as-formed graphene might occur. Hence a key problem
with solid-state graphene growth, relevant to all previous literature,
is the lack of an “on-switch” for the carbon supply.
We address this key problem by introducing a diffusion barrier between
the solid carbon source and the catalyst, here in the form of a nanometer-thick
Al2O3 layer, which effectively prevents premature
carbon dissolution and allows us to demonstrate a significantly improved
M-/FLG quality and uniformity comparable to that achieved by CVD.
We note that M-/FLG growth from solid carbon sources is a scalable
technique,[34] and importantly offers a route
for the direct integration of graphene in device architectures.[14] We expect our method of controlling the growth
by introducing diffusion barriers to be relevant to a large range
of carbon solid-state precursors and similar layered materials, as
well as to related layer-by-layer control in these systems.
Methods
We investigate polycrystalline Ni films (550
nm thick unless otherwise stated) thermally evaporated, or sputtered
onto various substrates chosen to act as solid carbon sources: highly
orientated pyrolytic graphite (HOPG), tetrahedral amorphous carbon
(ta-C), and nanocrystalline diamond. HOPG(0001) substrates (Mikromasch,
ZYH grade, < 3.5° mosaic spread) are cleaved to ∼0.1
mm thickness and the surfaces cleaned by mechanical exfoliation using
the well-established scotch-tape method. Ta–C was deposited
on to SiO2(300 nm)/Si substrates using a filtered cathodic
vacuum arc (FCVA) system. Nanocrystalline diamond films (∼100
nm thick) were deposited on SiO2(500 nm)/Si substrates
using microwave plasma enhanced CVD.[35] Al2O3 (1–3 nm) layers are deposited by atomic
layer deposition using a Cambridge Nanotech Savannah ALD system with
a 200 °C process that uses tri[methyl]aluminium as a precursor
and water as an oxidant both carried in a N2(20 sccm) flow
for 10–30 cycles.[36,37] For the Au decorated
Ni catalysts, Au(5 nm) was deposited by thermal evaporation on to
the exposed Ni surface. The samples are annealed under vacuum in a
custom-built cold-wall reactor at selected temperatures using a standard
one step procedure [<10–6 mbar, 200–600
°C, 5 min, heated and cooled at a constant rate of 100 °C
min–1] unless otherwise stated.In situ high-pressure
XPS measurements during vacuum annealing were performed at the BESSY
II synchrotron at the ISISS end station of the FHI-MPG. In situ XRR
and (grazing incidence) XRD were performed during vacuum annealing
at the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (beamline BM20/ROBL,
operated by the Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden- Rossendorf). Ex situ characterization
is performed on as-grown samples using scanning electron microscopy
(SEM, Zeiss SigmaVP, 1 kV) or after transfer of the M-/FLG films to
SiO2(300 nm)/Si substrates using optical microscopy, and
Raman spectroscopy (Renishaw Raman InVia Microscope, 532 nm excitation).
Transfer to SiO2(300 nm)/Si substrates is carried out using
an electrolysis-based bubbling in a NaOH (1 M) aqueous solution to
detach PMMA-supported graphene from the catalyst,[38,39] with the PMMA subsequently removed in acetone. Electrical measurements
are performed at room temperature using six contact Hall-geometry
devices fabricated by e-beam lithography on the as-transferred MLG.
Cr/Au contacts are evaporated on top of the MLG which is then patterned
by an O2 plasma etch.
Authors: Ali Rinaldi; Jean-Philippe Tessonnier; Manfred E Schuster; Raoul Blume; Frank Girgsdies; Qiang Zhang; Timo Jacob; Sharifah Bee Abd Hamid; Dang Sheng Su; Robert Schlögl Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2011-02-24 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Robert S Weatherup; Bernhard C Bayer; Raoul Blume; Caterina Ducati; Carsten Baehtz; Robert Schlögl; Stephan Hofmann Journal: Nano Lett Date: 2011-09-16 Impact factor: 11.189
Authors: Bruno Dlubak; Marie-Blandine Martin; Robert S Weatherup; Heejun Yang; Cyrile Deranlot; Raoul Blume; Robert Schloegl; Albert Fert; Abdelmadjid Anane; Stephan Hofmann; Pierre Seneor; John Robertson Journal: ACS Nano Date: 2012-11-15 Impact factor: 15.881
Authors: Placidus B Amama; Cary L Pint; Seung Min Kim; Laura McJilton; Kurt G Eyink; Eric A Stach; Robert H Hauge; Benji Maruyama Journal: ACS Nano Date: 2010-02-23 Impact factor: 15.881
Authors: Robert S Weatherup; Hakim Amara; Raoul Blume; Bruno Dlubak; Bernhard C Bayer; Mamadou Diarra; Mounib Bahri; Andrea Cabrero-Vilatela; Sabina Caneva; Piran R Kidambi; Marie-Blandine Martin; Cyrile Deranlot; Pierre Seneor; Robert Schloegl; François Ducastelle; Christophe Bichara; Stephan Hofmann Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2014-09-19 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Piran R Kidambi; Raoul Blume; Jens Kling; Jakob B Wagner; Carsten Baehtz; Robert S Weatherup; Robert Schloegl; Bernhard C Bayer; Stephan Hofmann Journal: Chem Mater Date: 2014-10-20 Impact factor: 9.811
Authors: Raffael Rameshan; Lukas Mayr; Bernhard Klötzer; Dominik Eder; Axel Knop-Gericke; Michael Hävecker; Raoul Blume; Robert Schlögl; Dmitry Y Zemlyanov; Simon Penner Journal: J Phys Chem C Nanomater Interfaces Date: 2015-11-10 Impact factor: 4.126
Authors: Bernhard C Bayer; David A Bosworth; F Benjamin Michaelis; Raoul Blume; Gerlinde Habler; Rainer Abart; Robert S Weatherup; Piran R Kidambi; Jeremy J Baumberg; Axel Knop-Gericke; Robert Schloegl; Carsten Baehtz; Zoe H Barber; Jannik C Meyer; Stephan Hofmann Journal: J Phys Chem C Nanomater Interfaces Date: 2016-09-02 Impact factor: 4.126
Authors: Robert S Weatherup; Lorenzo D'Arsié; Andrea Cabrero-Vilatela; Sabina Caneva; Raoul Blume; John Robertson; Robert Schloegl; Stephan Hofmann Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2015-11-09 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Robert S Weatherup; Ashwin J Shahani; Zhu-Jun Wang; Ken Mingard; Andrew J Pollard; Marc-Georg Willinger; Robert Schloegl; Peter W Voorhees; Stephan Hofmann Journal: Nano Lett Date: 2016-09-07 Impact factor: 11.189
Authors: Andrea Cabrero-Vilatela; Robert S Weatherup; Philipp Braeuninger-Weimer; Sabina Caneva; Stephan Hofmann Journal: Nanoscale Date: 2016-01-28 Impact factor: 7.790