4.7 Article

The mechanisms of carbon nano-flake balls growth by laser ablation and microwave plasma chemical vapor deposition

期刊

SURFACE & COATINGS TECHNOLOGY
卷 425, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.surfcoat.2021.127668

关键词

Carbon nano flake ball; Laser ablation; Silicon carbide; Electron energy loss spectroscopy (EELS)

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, R.O.C.
  2. MOST [108-2221-E-007-082-MY3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the role of laser ablation in the synthesis of carbon nano-flake balls in microwave plasma chemical vapor deposition. Through systematic studies, it is found that defects on the silicon substrate and the silicon carbide layer after laser ablation are key factors for the growth of CNFBs.
The role of laser ablation (LA) for synthesis of carbon nano-flake balls (CNFBs) in microwave plasma chemical vapor deposition (MPCVD) has been investigated. In this article, a systematic study in frequency, speed, pulse width and processing time of LA were conducted in order to identify the role of LA and find an optimized condition window of the growth process. In addition, the study also demonstrates the nucleation and growth mechanism of CNFBs through Optical Emission Spectroscopy (OES), high-resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM), and electron energy loss spectroscopy (EELS) observation on the spacing between graphite and diamond and the SiC interface between Si and diamond site. The defect areas, which are caused by H-alpha etching, react with carbon atoms to form a layer of SiC film, then followed by the increasing amount of CH and CN-C-2 radicals, forming diamond nanoparticle and graphite, respectively. In other words, the growth of CNFBs is the near simultaneity of the formation of diamond nanoparticle and the growth process (diamond and graphite). It is discovered that the existence of defects on the silicon substrate and the silicon carbide (SiC) layer after LA are the key factors of growing CNFBs.

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

4.7
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