4.6 Article

Growth and electronic structure of boron-doped graphene

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW B
卷 87, 期 15, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.87.155437

关键词

-

资金

  1. BMBF [05 ES3XBA15]
  2. German Research Council (DFG)
  3. China Scholarship Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The doping of graphene to tune its electronic properties is essential for its further use in carbon-based electronics. Adapting strategies from classical silicon-based semiconductor technology, we use the incorporation of heteroatoms in the 2D graphene network as a straightforward way to achieve this goal. Here, we report on the synthesis of boron-doped graphene on Ni(111) in a chemical vapor deposition process of triethylborane on the one hand and by segregation of boron from the bulk of the substrate crystal on the other hand. The chemical environment of boron was determined by x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, and angle-resolved photoelectron spectroscopy was used to analyze the impact on the band structure. Doping with boron leads to a shift of the graphene bands to lower binding energies. The shift depends on the doping concentration and for a doping level of 0.3 ML a shift of up to 1.2 eV is observed. The experimental results are in agreement with density-functional calculations. Furthermore, our calculations suggest that doping with boron leads to graphene preferentially adsorbed in the top-fcc geometry, since the boron atoms in the graphene lattice are then adsorbed at substrate fcc-hollow sites. The smaller distance of boron atoms incorporated into graphene compared to graphene carbon atoms leads to a bending of the doped graphene sheet in the vicinity of the boron atoms. By comparing calculations of doped and undoped graphene on Ni(111), as well as the respective freestanding cases, we are able to distinguish between the effects that doping and adsorption have on the band structure of graphene. Both doping and bonding to the surface result in opposing shifts on the graphene bands.

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