4.8 Article

Competing Ultrafast Energy Relaxation Pathways in Photoexcited Graphene

期刊

NANO LETTERS
卷 14, 期 10, 页码 5839-5845

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/nl502740g

关键词

Graphene; ultrafast; hot carrier; terahertz; pump-probe

资金

  1. NWO
  2. Fundacio Cellex Barcelona
  3. ERC Career integration Grant [294056]
  4. ERC [307806]
  5. E. C. under Graphene Flagship [CNECT-ICT-604391]
  6. European Research Council (ERC) [307806] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For most optoelectronic applications of graphene, a thorough understanding of the processes that govern energy relaxation of photoexcited carriers is essential. The ultrafast energy relaxation in graphene occurs through two competing pathways: carriercarrier scattering, creating an elevated carrier temperature, and optical phonon emission. At present, it is not clear what determines the dominating relaxation pathway. Here we reach a unifying picture of the ultrafast energy relaxation by investigating the terahertz photoconductivity, while varying the Fermi energy, photon energy and fluence over a wide range. We find that sufficiently low fluence (less than or similar to 4 mu J/cm(2)) in conjunction with sufficiently high Fermi energy (greater than or similar to 0.1 eV) gives rise to energy relaxation that is dominated by carriercarrier scattering, which leads to efficient carrier heating. Upon increasing the fluence or decreasing the Fermi energy, the carrier heating efficiency decreases, presumably due to energy relaxation that becomes increasingly dominated by phonon emission. Carrier heating through carriercarrier scattering accounts for the negative photoconductivity for doped graphene observed at terahertz frequencies. We present a simple model that reproduces the data for a wide range of Fermi levels and excitation energies and allows us to qualitatively assess how the branching ratio between the two distinct relaxation pathways depends on excitation fluence and Fermi energy.

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