| Literature DB >> 36109519 |
Xin Gao1,2,3, Liming Zheng1,2, Fang Luo4, Jun Qian1,2, Jingyue Wang1, Mingzhi Yan2,5, Wendong Wang6, Qinci Wu1,2, Junchuan Tang1, Yisen Cao2, Congwei Tan1, Jilin Tang1,2,3, Mengjian Zhu7, Yani Wang1,2, Yanglizhi Li1,2,3, Luzhao Sun2, Guanghui Gao2,5, Jianbo Yin2, Li Lin2,8, Zhongfan Liu1,2,3, Shiqiao Qin9, Hailin Peng10,11,12.
Abstract
The integration of large-scale two-dimensional (2D) materials onto semiconductor wafers is highly desirable for advanced electronic devices, but challenges such as transfer-related crack, contamination, wrinkle and doping remain. Here, we developed a generic method by gradient surface energy modulation, leading to a reliable adhesion and release of graphene onto target wafers. The as-obtained wafer-scale graphene exhibited a damage-free, clean, and ultra-flat surface with negligible doping, resulting in uniform sheet resistance with only ~6% deviation. The as-transferred graphene on SiO2/Si exhibited high carrier mobility reaching up ~10,000 cm2 V-1 s-1, with quantum Hall effect (QHE) observed at room temperature. Fractional quantum Hall effect (FQHE) appeared at 1.7 K after encapsulation by h-BN, yielding ultra-high mobility of ~280,000 cm2 V-1 s-1. Integrated wafer-scale graphene thermal emitters exhibited significant broadband emission in near-infrared (NIR) spectrum. Overall, the proposed methodology is promising for future integration of wafer-scale 2D materials in advanced electronics and optoelectronics.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36109519 PMCID: PMC9477858 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-33135-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nat Commun ISSN: 2041-1723 Impact factor: 17.694
Fig. 1Wafer-scale graphene integration by gradient surface energy modulation.
a Schematic illustration of wafer-scale ultra-flat graphene transfer via gradient surface energy modulation. b The structure of transfer medium, in which different layers with gradient surface energy are designed (γ1 > γ2, γ3 ≥ γ4). Left and right figures show the adhesion and release procedures in panel (a). Note that the surface energy of SiO2/Si (γ1) is larger than that of graphene/borneol (γ2), enabling reliable adhesion as the middle picture shows. Also, the surface energy of PDMS (γ4) is the lowest, leading to the intact release of graphene onto the target substrate. c The surface energies of different surfaces calculated from measured contact angles. Insets: images showing contact angles of water on different surfaces. Error bars indicate standard deviations of surface energies and contact angles for different surface. d Optical image of 4-inch transferred graphene on SiO2/Si wafer. e Histograms of coverage of transferred graphene. Inset: optical microscopy image of transferred graphene. f Scanning electron microscopy images of GSE-transferred graphene and PMMA-transferred graphene. g Histograms of particle number per 10 × 10 μm2 from 80 AFM images of GSE-transferred and 50 AFM images of PMMA-transferred graphene. Insets: Typical AFM images of GSE-transferred and PMMA-transferred graphene. h Histograms of wrinkle number per 5 × 5 μm2 issued from AFM images of transferred ultra-flat and rough graphene. Insets: AFM images of transferred ultra-flat and rough graphene.
Fig. 2Uniformity of transferred graphene.
a, b Spatial sheet resistance maps of GSE-transferred graphene (a) and PMMA-transferred graphene (b) on 4-inch SiO2/Si wafer. Note that the sheet resistance deviation of GSE-transferred graphene is ~6%. c, d Spatial G-peak’s position maps of GSE-transferred (c) and PMMA-transferred (d) graphene. The peak position of G-band of PMMA-transferred graphene is blue shifted. e Correlation map of the Raman G and 2D peak positions of GSE- and PMMA-transferred graphene. A total of 225 Raman spectra were taken from each type of transferred graphene. The yellow star represents the G and 2D peak positions of the pristine graphene with neither doping nor strain. f 2D peak’s full width at half maximum (Γ2D) of GSE- and PMMA-transferred graphene. The solid lines are fitting lines of distribution function for Γ2D.
Fig. 3Electrical properties of transferred graphene.
a Transfer characteristics comparison of two typical Hall-bar devices fabricated with PMMA- and GSE-transferred graphene. Inset: image of graphene Hall-bar device on SiO2/Si. b Histograms of FET mobility of GSE- and PMMA-transferred graphene. The average mobility of 42 GSE-transferred and 18 PMMA-transferred graphene devices are 6000 cm2 V−1 s−1 and 2000 cm2 V−1 s−1, respectively. c The change in Hall resistance as a function of magnetic field of GSE-transferred graphene on SiO2/Si at different temperature. Inset: image of graphene Hall-bar device on SiO2/Si. d The fabrication scheme of h-BN-encapsulated transferred graphene. e The change in Hall resistance as a function of magnetic field (B) of h-BN-encapsulated transferred graphene at 300 K. Inset: image of h-BN encapsulated graphene Hall-bar device. f The variation in Hall resistance (Rxy) (left axis) and longitudinal resistance (Rxx) (right axis) as a function of B at 1.7 K. g Rxx (left axis) and Rxy (right axis) as a function of the back gate (Vg) at 1.7 K and 8.5 T. h 2D contour plot of Rxx as a function of B and Vg. The dash black lines show LLs at filling factors ν = ±2, ±6, and ±10, as well as some new emerging fractional filling factors ν = 2/3, ±4/3, 7/3, ±8/3…, due to the degeneracy lifting of LLs.
Fig. 4Integration and radiation properties of wafer-scale graphene thermal emitters.
a A schematic diagram of graphene thermal emitter. b Wafer-scale graphene thermal emitter arrays on GSE-transferred graphene. c Optical microscopy image of 8 × 8 graphene thermal emitters. Inset: single graphene thermal emitter device. d Image of thermal emission at P = 3.0 kW cm−2 captured by IR camera with false-color treatment. The bright spot in the center represents the radiation emitted by graphene. The blue dashed line and yellow dashed line indicate the graphene and metal electrodes, respectively. e Emission spectra issued from a graphene emitter at P = 1.2–7.7 kW cm−2. f Graphene lattice temperatures obtained by the shift in 2D peak’s position. The temperatures varied approximately linearly with power density. Error bars indicate standard deviations of temperatures at different power density.