Olubunmi O Ayodele1, Sajedeh Pourianejad1, Anthony Trofe1, Aleksandrs Prokofjevs2, Tetyana Ignatova1. 1. Department of Nanoscience, Joint School of Nanoscience & Nanoengineering, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina 27401, United States. 2. Department of Chemistry, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, Greensboro, North Carolina 27411, United States.
Abstract
Surface contamination experienced during polymer-assisted transfer is detrimental for optical and electrical properties of 2D materials. This contamination is usually due to incomplete polymer removal and also due to impurities present in organic solvents. Here, we report a simple, economical, and highly efficient approach for obtaining pristine graphene on a suitable substrate (e.g., SiO2/Si) by utilizing Soxhlet extraction apparatus for delicate removal of the polymer with a freshly distilled ultrapure solvent (acetone) in a continuous fashion. Excellent structural and morphological qualities of the material thus produced were confirmed using optical microscopy, atomic force microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, and Raman spectroscopy. Compared to the conventional protocol, graphene produced by the current approach has a lower residual polymer content, leading to a root mean square roughness of only 1.26 nm. The amount of strain and doping was found to be similar, but the D-band, which is indicative of the defects, was less pronounced in the samples prepared by Soxhlet-assisted transfer. The new procedure is virtually effortless from the experimental point of view, utilizes much less solvent compared to the conventional washing procedure, and allows for easy scale-up. Extension of this process to other 2D materials would not only provide samples with superior intrinsic properties but also enhance their suitability for advanced technological applications.
Surface contamination experienced during polymer-assisted transfer is detrimental for optical and electrical properties of 2D materials. This contamination is usually due to incomplete polymer removal and also due to impurities present in organic solvents. Here, we report a simple, economical, and highly efficient approach for obtaining pristine graphene on a suitable substrate (e.g., SiO2/Si) by utilizing Soxhlet extraction apparatus for delicate removal of the polymer with a freshly distilled ultrapure solvent (acetone) in a continuous fashion. Excellent structural and morphological qualities of the material thus produced were confirmed using optical microscopy, atomic force microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, and Raman spectroscopy. Compared to the conventional protocol, graphene produced by the current approach has a lower residual polymer content, leading to a root mean square roughness of only 1.26 nm. The amount of strain and doping was found to be similar, but the D-band, which is indicative of the defects, was less pronounced in the samples prepared by Soxhlet-assisted transfer. The new procedure is virtually effortless from the experimental point of view, utilizes much less solvent compared to the conventional washing procedure, and allows for easy scale-up. Extension of this process to other 2D materials would not only provide samples with superior intrinsic properties but also enhance their suitability for advanced technological applications.
Graphene is one of
the most important 2D materials due to its unique
combination of properties such as high electron mobility,[1] high mechanical strength, and electrical and
thermal conductivity.[2] Most importantly,
advances in synthesis and scale-up have brought a positive outlook
on commercialization of this promising material.[3] After decades of research on graphene synthesis, chemical
vapor deposition (CVD) has emerged as one of the best methods for
controlled synthesis of high-quality monolayer and/or bilayer graphene.[4] The procedure requires a suitable growth substrate
(i.e., Cu or Ni), and the resulting graphene film is subsequently
transferred onto a desired substrate such as SiO2/Si,[5] glass,[6] paper,[7] or flexible polymers.[8]Different transfer procedures have been developed, but perhaps
the most reliable technique available to date uses organic polymers
(i.e., PMMA, PC, PVA, etc.) as the support layer.[9−11] Due to the
negligible thickness of graphene (ca. one atom), care needs to be
taken during the transfer process to prevent crack and wrinkle formation.
Subsequently, avoiding transfer-induced damage is extremely challenging.[12,13] Kang[12] et al. attributed some of the
damage to incomplete removal of the sacrificial polymer (PMMA) from
the graphene film due to high adhesion potential between the two substances.
More so, impurities present in organic solvents (such as acetone,
isopropyl alcohol, etc.) used during the transfer processes could
lead to surface contamination with a resultant negative effect on
carrier mobility in graphene.[1] This leads
to an unfortunate scenario where repeated washing of the 2D material
to achieve more complete removal of the polymer results in greater
mechanical damage and contamination by the impurities present in the
solvent.Our experience supports the literature observations,
suggesting
that mechanical handling during polymer removal and solvent impurities
are two key factors limiting the quality of transferred graphene.
To address those limitations, we sought a simple experimental method
that would minimize handling of the sample by the operator, while
also providing a freshly distilled solvent for dissolving the polymer
away. As explained below, both requirements are satisfied by removing
the polymer in Soxhlet apparatus—a continuous (or, rather,
an automated batch) solid–liquid extraction setup well known
in organic, medicinal, and environmental chemistry.[13] Soxhlet apparatus is indispensable in those cases where
nearly complete extraction of a soluble material from the insoluble
matrix is desired, for example, when extracting natural products from
dilute sources. Another common application of the apparatus in synthetic
chemistry is for separation of a poorly soluble product from insoluble
byproducts—a particularly arduous task frequently encountered
when working with polycyclic aromatic compounds.
Results and Discussion
In the extraction procedure, the sample is placed into the Soxhlet
extractor fitted with a reflux condenser and mounted on top of a flask
containing the desired solvent. When the solvent in the bottom flask
is heated to boiling temperature, the solvent vapor condenses in the
reflux condenser at the top of the setup, filling the cup of the Soxhlet
extractor containing the sample. Once the extractor cup fills up to
the level of the siphon tube, the solvent automatically drains into
the bottom flask, carrying the soluble material with it. The solvent
returning to the bottom flask vaporizes again, effectively concentrating
the soluble material in the flask and producing a freshly distilled
solvent portion for the next extraction cycle[14−16] (Figure S1; also see the Supporting Information Video). This process is repeated in a continuous
manner thus ensuring a complete extraction process. The technique
has been used sparingly to either purify or wash polymers used as
active layers in organic semiconductors,[17] organic solar cells,[18] or ultra-low dielectric
thin films,[19] and therefore, application
of this technique to the graphene transfer process is of utmost interest.
As a novel approach, we applied the Soxhlet extraction method for
the removal of PMMA in graphene transfer and, as an extension, for
rigorous purification of the as-transferred graphene. The post-transfer
treatment using the Soxhlet technique has the following advantages:
(1) simplicity, cost, and solvent recyclability; (2) minimization
of material handling thus preventing mechanical damage; and (3) applicability
of the protocol to a wide range of 2D materials and solvents and in
photolithography. To assess the quality of the graphene transfer,
we mapped the sample area by Raman spectroscopy and determined the
surface roughness mostly stemming from polymer contamination by atomic
force microscopy (AFM). Our transfer technique provides a simple approach
for preparing cutting-edge quality large-scale graphene substrates
for various applications by minimizing alteration to their intrinsic
properties caused by incomplete polymer removal, excessive handling,
and solvent contamination.
Graphene Transfer Procedure
The
as-received CVD-grown
graphene on Cu foil (provided by the 2DCC PSU or purchased from Sigma-Aldrich
#773697) was initially spin-coated (Laurell EDC-650-8TFM) with 4 wt.%
PMMA solution (ca. 950,000 g/mol; 99.9% purity) at 20,000 rpm for
5 min and thereafter thermally treated at 90 °C for 5 min and
then at 150 °C for 2 h. The Cu layer underneath the coated graphene/PMMA
composite was delaminated by the hydrogen bubbling method, leaving
behind a PMMA sheet with attached graphene. The PMMA/graphene film
was thoroughly rinsed with DI water for 10 min, and this step was
repeated twice. Then, the polymer film/graphene floating in DI water
was scooped onto a clean SiO2/Si substrate. Subsequently,
thermal treatments were performed to remove excess water trapped in
between the SiO2 substrate and PMMA/graphene film (at 95
°C for 10 min), and thereafter, the sample was baked at 135 °C
for 30 min. The PMMA support was finally removed using either Soxhlet
apparatus or conventionally by dipping the substrate in reagent-grade
acetone (Sigma-Aldrich, U.S.A; 99.9%) at 25 °C for 2 h.
Soxhlet
Operations
The sacrificial PMMA polymer support
was removed from the PMMA/graphene/SiO2 composite via the
newly developed Soxhlet extraction method. The apparatus, as shown
in Figure , consists
of a glass chamber equipped with a siphoning tube, vapor tube, and
reflux condenser. The composite sample was carefully inserted into
the extraction chamber using tweezers, and reagent-grade acetone was
added into the flat bottom flask placed inside a heating mantle. The
solvent was heated to achieve steady boiling of the solvent (>∼57
°C), allowing ultra-pure acetone to evaporate and subsequently
condense and fill up the chamber containing the PMMA/graphene/SiO2 composite. The automated batch extraction process was allowed
to continue for 4 h without any mechanical disturbance, after which
the 2D material was removed from thimble, dried in a stream of N2 gas, and then stored in an air-tight sample holder. For comparison
purposes, a conventional purification/annealing process[20] was also carried out. Typically, the substrate
containing the PMMA/graphene scaffold was thermally annealed to enhance
the adherence of the scaffold onto the SiO2 substrate and
then placed in acetone at room temperature for 2 h to remove the PMMA
layer. The substrate was then rinsed with isopropyl alcohol (HPLC
grade; Sigma-Aldrich, U.S.A; 99.9%) and dried with N2 gas
(99.99% purity).
Figure 1
Schematic diagram of Soxhlet-assisted graphene transfer.
(a) Graphene
on Cu foil, (b) graphene spin-coated with PMMA, (c) Cu foil removal
by the electrochemical method and subsequent transfer on the SiO2/Si substrate, (d) graphene attached on the SiO2/Si-PMMA composite, (e) Soxhlet apparatus setup for PMMA removal,
and (f) ultra-clean graphene on the target substrate.
Schematic diagram of Soxhlet-assisted graphene transfer.
(a) Graphene
on Cu foil, (b) graphene spin-coated with PMMA, (c) Cu foil removal
by the electrochemical method and subsequent transfer on the SiO2/Si substrate, (d) graphene attached on the SiO2/Si-PMMA composite, (e) Soxhlet apparatus setup for PMMA removal,
and (f) ultra-clean graphene on the target substrate.
Characterization
Raman spectra and point-by-point mapping
were obtained with a HORIBA XploRa Raman Confocal system with an objective
of 100X. The laser excitation wavelength was 532 nm, and a 1200 L
mm–1 diffraction grating was used. A total of 2000
data points were collected on the transferred samples. The morphologies
were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy (Zeiss Auriga FIB/FESEM)
with an acceleration voltage of 5 kV and a working distance of 5 mm.
AFM measurements were performed with an Oxford Research AFM (MFP-3D
infinity) instrument using the tapping mode under ambient conditions,
and Si tips coated with Al (TAP300AL-G probe, Budget Sensors) were
used.
Soxhlet-Assisted Transfer onto Target Substrate
Our
approach involves the use of Soxhlet apparatus as the key tool for
benign PMMA removal in the graphene transfer process, including in
situ preparation of ultra-pure acetone for dissolving the polymer
(see the Supporting Information Video).
In most transfer procedures, the polymer-removal step is carried out
by mechanically agitating the sample in a solvent directly received
from a commercial supplier, which subjects the sample to excessive
handling, impurities inevitably present in the solvent, and dust from
the atmosphere. Therefore, contaminants in the solvent sometimes leave
residues in addition to those resulting from incomplete PMMA removal
(see SEM images in Figure a,b). The Soxhlet provides a quick solution to all the above-mentioned
problems. Thus, the polymer removal is performed in an enclosed chamber,
minimizing exposure to dust. Mechanical agitation of the sample is
negligible, with solvent condensing around the sample in a very gentle
fashion. The solvent is continuously purified by distillation during
the process, without the need for a separate distillation setup, and
minimizing solvent consumption. Most importantly, repeated washing
of the sample with the freshly distilled solvent allows for essentially
complete removal of the polymer from the graphene surface. Other advantages
offered by our Soxhlet-assisted polymer-removal procedure include
eliminating the need for a clean room to carry out pristine transfer
processes and repeated recycling of the same batch of the solvent
in a green “closed loop” setup.
Figure 2
Characterization of transferred
graphene films on SiO2/Si substrates. SEM images of (a)
conventional transfer method. (b)
Soxhlet transfer method. Color framed insets represent zoomed areas.
The AFM profile of (c) conventional transfer method. (d) Soxhlet transfer
method, scale bare is 1 μm. Inset: The AFM line profile graph
for both transfer techniques.
Characterization of transferred
graphene films on SiO2/Si substrates. SEM images of (a)
conventional transfer method. (b)
Soxhlet transfer method. Color framed insets represent zoomed areas.
The AFM profile of (c) conventional transfer method. (d) Soxhlet transfer
method, scale bare is 1 μm. Inset: The AFM line profile graph
for both transfer techniques.
Characterization of Graphene Transferred by both Techniques
The quality of the transfer was initially confirmed using optical
microscopy (see Supporting Information Figure
S1). A quick surface scan of graphene films obtained by both Soxhlet-assisted
and conventional transfer techniques showed substantial coverage of
the substrate by graphene. Intermittent cracks attributed to the damaging
effect of PMMA during removal[21,22] were observed with
both techniques but appeared less pronounced in the Soxhlet-assisted
method. It was also observed that the rough surface of the Cu growth
substrate left a distinctive pattern on the final graphene sheet transferred
onto SiO2/Si. The as-transferred graphene was subsequently
analyzed by SEM (Figure a,b and insets), providing additional information at the nanoscale
level.Impurities introduced by acetone are clearly seen as
dark dots in magnified areas of Figure a (conventional) but not in Figure b (Soxhlet). Residual PMMA contamination
is evidenced by the presence of charged features in the SEM images,
particularly only around the edges of the graphene sheet, and is more
pronounced with the conventional protocol, thus suggesting less efficient
polymer removal compared to the Soxhlet procedure. Furthermore, the
presence of PMMA oligomer residues tends to mask the distribution
of grain boundary defects induced during CVD growth on Cu, as seen
in Figure a. In contrast,
the surface morphology of graphene obtained by the Soxhlet method
clearly revealed the grain boundary defects, apparently due to more
effective PMMA removal by this novel approach (Figure b). More so, minimal mechanical damage was
detected with the Soxhlet method, which is in contrast with the conventional
immersion washing approach where significant folding and cracking
were observed in the final graphene film.We further assessed
the surface topology of the graphene films
transferred with both techniques using AFM (Figure c,d). Imaging graphene areas of about 4 ×
4 μm2, we observed less polymer contamination on
the graphene film obtained by the Soxhlet method, as evidenced by
the AFM line profile and the lower surface roughness root mean square
value. We hypothesize that the improved efficiency of the PMMA removal
in the Soxhlet-assisted transfer stems from nearly continuous contact
of the PMMA–graphene/SiO2 substrate with freshly
distilled acetone, effectively disrupting well-known strong interactions
between PMMA and graphene.[1,23,24] Additional evidence for the importance of a gentle yet rigorous
polymer-removal procedure was obtained by micro-Raman spectroscopy,
which was used to characterize graphene samples transferred either
by Soxhlet or conventional methods (Figure a–f, also see Supporting Information Figure 2). Raman spectroscopy is a
reliable technique to probe structural and electronic properties of
graphene. An initial large-area scan in either the X- or Y-direction revealed a significantly greater
number of defects/imperfections in graphene transferred by the conventional
method. In contrast, the D-band was almost non-existent in the spectra
of samples transferred using our Soxhlet method (see Supporting Information Figure S3). Defects in graphene originate
either during the CVD growth[25] or transfer[1] processes, but it is noteworthy that both transfer
processes were handled strictly identically prior to the PMMA-removal
step, indicating that our novel transfer approach introduces fewer
perturbations into the graphene film, leading to improved electronic
and optical properties. Raman spectroscopy data are commonly used
to evaluate the degree of doping and strain in graphene samples.[26,27] Raman maps showed consistent results (Figure ) for both techniques: the G and 2D bands
of graphene appeared to be strong and homogeneous with the 2D peak
full width half maximum of 32.4 cm–1 over the whole
area of characterization (see Supporting Information Figure S4) and typical 2D/G intensity ratios for monolayer graphene
(Figure b,c, Supporting Information Figure S5). The amount
of introduced strain and doping is very similar for both techniques,
as can be seen from the correlation plot on Figure a. In contrast, one might observe that the
D-band peak is more pronounced in samples prepared by the conventional
graphene transfer method, which is evidenced by the calculated D/G
ratios plotted in Figure d,e and Supporting Information Figure
S5. Here, the graphene film obtained by the Soxhlet method features
a very weak D band, with the average D/G intensity ratio of only 0.17
± 0.07 (Figure d). This indicates that the amount of defects introduced by the transfer
technique is negligible. In contrast, the average D/G intensity ratio
for the sample transferred using the conventional protocol is 0.90
± 0.30 (Figure e), clearly indicating the presence of defects.
Figure 3
Corresponding maps of
plotted results of Raman characterization
(10 × 10 μm2) of graphene transferred with (a–c)
conventional PMMA method and (d–f) Soxhlet-assisted PMMA method.
Figure 4
(a) Correlation map of the Raman G and 2D peak positions
of graphene
transferred with the conventional PMMA technique (blue) and Soxhlet-assisted
PMMA technique (red). (b,c) Histogram of the 2D/G ratio with the same
color code indicating the sample quality in general. (d,e) Histogram
of the D/G ratio with the same color code as a signature of the defect
amount. Insets show lateral distribution of the D/G ratio.
Corresponding maps of
plotted results of Raman characterization
(10 × 10 μm2) of graphene transferred with (a–c)
conventional PMMA method and (d–f) Soxhlet-assisted PMMA method.(a) Correlation map of the Raman G and 2D peak positions
of graphene
transferred with the conventional PMMA technique (blue) and Soxhlet-assisted
PMMA technique (red). (b,c) Histogram of the 2D/G ratio with the same
color code indicating the sample quality in general. (d,e) Histogram
of the D/G ratio with the same color code as a signature of the defect
amount. Insets show lateral distribution of the D/G ratio.Repeated application of the proposed approach demonstrated
high
reproducibility, with expected minor sample to sample variations observed
during the structural characterization (see Supporting Information Figure S2). The Soxhlet-assisted protocol has become
the method of choice in our laboratory, allowing for multiple transfers
to be conducted simultaneously, saving time and reagents, while preserving
the quality and unique properties of graphene. A slight downside of
our process is its energy intensive nature, and this is compensated
by the conservation of the organic solvent (acetone) used in process
purification and thus improving the carbon efficiency “cradle-to-cradle”
of our process. The ability to process multiple samples at a time
would further enhance the techno-economic feasibility of the Soxhlet-assisted
protocol.In conclusion, our Soxhlet-assisted method enabled
transfer of
a graphene film onto a target substrate with minimal surface contamination
and damage associated with the conventional transfer process. The
graphene film transferred by our new method shows fewer defects, as
indicated by a substantially lower average D/G intensity ratio compared
to the sample obtained by the conventional method. Although the amount
of strain and doping appears similar in both techniques, less structural
damage and more extensive polymer removal in the Soxhlet method could
deliver materials of superior electrical, optical, and mechanical
properties. Additionally, our new approach features experimental simplicity
and reduced solvent use, potentially permitting the use of more affordable
solvents of a lower degree of purification. Furthermore, this procedure
can be applied for transfer of other delicate two-dimensional materials.
Authors: Joshua D Wood; Gregory P Doidge; Enrique A Carrion; Justin C Koepke; Joshua A Kaitz; Isha Datye; Ashkan Behnam; Jayan Hewaparakrama; Basil Aruin; Yaofeng Chen; Hefei Dong; Richard T Haasch; Joseph W Lyding; Eric Pop Journal: Nanotechnology Date: 2015-01-12 Impact factor: 3.874
Authors: Moon H Kang; Lizbeth O Prieto López; Bingan Chen; Ken Teo; John A Williams; William I Milne; Matthew T Cole Journal: ACS Appl Mater Interfaces Date: 2016-08-17 Impact factor: 9.229
Authors: Kashif Shahzad; Kunpeng Jia; Chao Zhao; Xiangyu Yan; Zhang Yadong; Muhammad Usman; Jun Luo Journal: Nanoscale Res Lett Date: 2020-04-17 Impact factor: 4.703