4.3 Article

Energy gap of novel edge-defected graphene nanoribbons

Journal

JAPANESE JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS
Volume 55, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.7567/JJAP.55.085101

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61474011, 61177093]
  2. Visiting Scholar Foundation of Key Laboratory of Optoelectronic Technology and Systems (Chongqing University)
  3. National Key laboratory of Fundamental Science of Micro/Nano-device and System Technology (Chongqing University) [2013MS06]
  4. Laboratory of Precision Manufacturing Technology, CAEP [KF13004]
  5. Ministry of Education

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Herein, the effects of width and boundary defects on the energy gap of graphene nanoribbons (GNRs) have been explored and theoretically investigated by means of semi-empirical atomic basis Extended Huckel method. Due to the existence of boundary defects, the energy gap of GNRs is mainly determined by the width of graphene nanoribbons for armchair graphene nanoribbons (AGNRs) or zigzag graphene nanoribbons (ZGNRs). Interestingly, the energy gap of AGNRs with a 120 degrees V-type defect displays the monotone decreasing tendency when the width reaches to 2 nm, while the energy gap of intrinsic AGNRs is oscillatory. At the same time, the energy gap of U-type defected ZGNRs is opened, which differs from the zero energy gap characteristics of the intrinsic zigzag graphene. Furthermore, the size of energy gap of the defected AGNRs and ZGNRs with the same width is proved to be very close. Calculation results demonstrate that the energy gap of GNRs is just inversely proportional to the width and has little to do with the crystallographic direction. All the findings above provide a basis for energy gap engineering with different edge defects in GNRs and signify promising prospects in graphene-based semiconductor electronic devices. (C) 2016 The Japan Society of Applied Physics

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available