4.8 Article

Epitaxial substitution of metal iodides for low-temperature growth of two-dimensional metal chalcogenides

期刊

NATURE NANOTECHNOLOGY
卷 18, 期 5, 页码 448-+

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41565-023-01326-1

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The integration of various 2D materials on wafers enables device functionality enrichment. The additive growth of 2D materials allows the construction of unconventional materials, but transfer often leads to damage or contamination. This study presents a general approach of growing crystalline 2D layers and heterostructures at low temperatures.
The integration of various two-dimensional (2D) materials on wafers enables a more-than-Moore approach for enriching the functionalities of devices(1-3). On the other hand, the additive growth of 2D materials to form heterostructures allows construction of materials with unconventional properties. Both may be achieved by materials transfer, but often suffer from mechanical damage or chemical contamination during the transfer. The direct growth of high-quality 2D materials generally requires high temperatures, hampering the additive growth or monolithic incorporation of different 2D materials. Here we report a general approach of growing crystalline 2D layers and their heterostructures at a temperature below 400 degrees C. Metal iodide (MI, where M = In, Cd, Cu, Co, Fe, Pb, Sn and Bi) layers are epitaxially grown on mica, MoS2 or WS2 at a low temperature, and the subsequent low-barrier-energy substitution of iodine with chalcogens enables the conversion to at least 17 different 2D crystalline metal chalcogenides. As an example, the 2D In2S3 grown on MoS2 at 280 & DEG;C exhibits high photoresponsivity comparable with that of the materials grown by conventional high-temperature vapour deposition (similar to 700-1,000 degrees C). Multiple 2D materials have also been sequentially grown on the same wafer, showing a promising solution for the monolithic integration of different high-quality 2D materials.

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