4.1 Article

Ramifications of optical pumping on the interpretation of time-resolved photoemission experiments on graphene

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.elspec.2015.04.010

关键词

Graphene; Time- and angle-resolved photoemission; Space charge; Hot electrons

资金

  1. VILLUM foundation
  2. Danish Council for Independent Research/Technology and Production Sciences
  3. Swiss National Science Foundation (NSF)
  4. EPSRC
  5. Royal Society
  6. Italian Ministry of University and Research [FIRBRBAP045JF2, FIRB-RBAP06AWK3]
  7. STFC
  8. European Union
  9. German Research Foundation in the framework of the SPP 1459 Graphene
  10. EPSRC [EP/I031014/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  11. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/I031014/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In pump-probe time and angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (TR-ARPES) experiments the presence of the pump pulse adds a new level of complexity to the photoemission process in comparison to conventional ARPES. This is evidenced by pump-induced vacuum space-charge effects and surface photovoltages, as well as multiple pump excitations due to internal reflections in the sample-substrate system. These processes can severely affect a correct interpretation of the data by masking the out-of-equilibrium electron dynamics intrinsic to the sample. In this study, we show that such effects indeed influence TR-ARPES data of graphene on a silicon carbide (SiC) substrate. In particular, we find a time- and laser fluence-dependent spectral shift and broadening of the acquired spectra, and unambiguously show the presence of a double pump excitation. The dynamics of these effects is slower than the electron dynamics in the graphene sample, thereby permitting us to deconvolve the signals in the time domain. Our results demonstrate that complex pump-related processes should always be considered in the experimental setup and data analysis. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.1
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