4.6 Article

Synthesis of nitrogen-doped graphene by chemical vapour deposition using melamine as the sole solid source of carbon and nitrogen

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS CHEMISTRY C
卷 2, 期 35, 页码 7396-7401

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c4tc00924j

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51372033, 51202022, 61378028]
  2. 111 Project [B13042]
  3. Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education [20120185120011]
  4. Sichuan Youth Science and Technology Innovation Research Team [2011JTD0006]
  5. International Science and Technology Cooperation Program of China [2012DFA51430]
  6. DAAD-China collaborative PPP program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nitrogen doping is a promising method to modulate the electrical properties of graphene. However, the reported nitrogen-doped graphene (NG) films usually show low electron concentration and low carrier mobility. In this study, we have demonstrated the chemical vapour deposition of NG films, where melamine was used as the sole source of both carbon and nitrogen. The studies show that the nitrogen content and configurations are strongly dependent on the growth temperature. At a growth temperature of 990 degrees C, the total N content and graphitic-N/total N simultaneously reached the maximum values of similar to 5.6 at% and similar to 40%, respectively. Further, the electrical studies reveal that the NG film displays typical n-type behaviour in air. The Dirac point and mobility were determined to be similar to-25 V and similar to 74 cm(2) V-1 s(-1), respectively, which indicate that the as-synthesized NG film has high electron concentration and high carrier mobility. This can be attributed to the significant increase in the ratio of graphitic-N to total N, because graphitic-N has a higher electron donor ability and shows lower carrier scattering than do pyridinic-N and pyrrolic-N. This study is beneficial for not only the carrier transport mechanism, but also potential applications of NG film.

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