4.6 Article

Electronic structure of graphene on a reconstructed Pt(100) surface: Hydrogen adsorption, doping, and band gaps

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW B
卷 88, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.88.125425

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Research Council [208344]
  2. Danish Council for Independent Research, Natural Sciences
  3. Danish Council for Independent Research, Technology and Production Sciences under G-MOL
  4. Danish Council for Strategic Research, Technology and Production Sciences, under DA-GATE
  5. Danish National Advanced Technology Foundation under NIAGRA
  6. VILLUM foundation
  7. Lundbeck Foundation
  8. European Research Council (ERC) [208344] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We probe the structure and electronic band structure of graphene grown on a Pt(100) substrate using scanning tunneling microscopy, low energy electron diffraction, and angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy. It is found that the graphene layer lacks a well-defined azimuthal orientation with respect to the substrate, causing a circular smearing of the p band instead of a well-defined Dirac cone near the Fermi level. The graphene is found to be electron doped placing the Dirac point similar to 0.45 eV below the Fermi level, and a gap of 0.15 +/- 0.03 eV is found at the Dirac point. We dose atomic hydrogen and monitor the coverage on the graphene by analyzing the impurity-induced broadening of the pi-band width. Saturation of graphene on Pt(100) with hydrogen does not expand the band gap, but instead hydrogen-mediated broadening and rehybridization of the graphene sp(2) bonds into sp(3) leads to a complete disruption of the graphene pi band, induces a lifting of the Pt(100) reconstruction, and introduces a dispersing Pt state near the Fermi level. Deposition of rubidium on graphene on Pt(100) leads to further electron doping, pushing the Dirac point to a binding energy of similar to 1.35 eV, and increasing the band gap to 0.65 +/- 0.04 eV.

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

4.6
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