Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-nqrmd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-16T11:55:12.953Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Caveats in obtaining high-quality 2D materials and property characterization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2020

Shruti Subramanian
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science & Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA
Natalie Briggs
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science & Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA; and 2-Dimensional Crystal Consortium, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA
Jeffrey Shallenberger
Affiliation:
Materials Characterization Lab, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA
Maxwell T. Wetherington
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science & Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA Materials Characterization Lab, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA
Joshua A. Robinson*
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science & Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA; 2-Dimensional Crystal Consortium, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA; Materials Research Institute, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA; and Center for Atomically Thin Multifunctional Coatings, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA
*
a)Address all correspondence to this author. e-mail: jrobinson@psu.edu

Abstract

The field of two-dimensional (2D) materials remains a key area of scientific research today, generating continual interest for electronic, sensing, and quantum technology. As the field progresses beyond proof-of-concept devices, experimental and analytical methods and results must be scrutinized to ensure the veracity of scientific claims. Here, some favored synthesis and characterization techniques within the 2D material (2DM) community and certain limitations inherent to these techniques are discussed. The authors highlight select caveats of solid-source and seed-promoted synthesis techniques, such as difficulties in reproducibility and compromised electrical performance of films synthesized with nucleation agents. Furthermore, the importance of careful characterization methodology in determining 2DM layer number, stoichiometry, and dopant effects is discussed. This article is intended to further educate researchers regarding select techniques and claims in the 2DMs field.

Information

Type
Invited Feature Paper
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2020
Figure 0

Figure 1: (a)–(c) MoS2 grown on SiO2/Si via S-CVD. (a) A typical MoS2 deposition plume, which can be divided into regions of varying MoS2 morphologies (b). (c) Scanning electron microscope images of these regions. (d) The as-received c-plane sapphire. (e) c-plane sapphire annealed at 1150 °C for 8 h in ambient, resulting in the formation of terraces. (f) S-CVD-grown MoS2 on as-received sapphire showing no domain orientation. (g) S-CVD-grown MoS2 on annealed sapphire showing orientation of domains. (a)–(c) reproduced with permission from Ref. 20.

Figure 1

Figure 2: (a) C–V curves of an MOS structure with sodium contamination at the metal/oxide interface. The high diffusion rates of Na through the oxide under electrical bias lead to severe shifts in the CV curves, demonstrating significant device instability due to alkali ions. (b) C–V curves showing the more complicated curves due to nonuniform contamination over the surface of the device. Reproduced with permission from Ref. 32.

Figure 2

Figure 3: (a) E2g and A1g modes of MoS2, which shift with increasing MoS2 layer number. (b) Peak shift of E12g and A1g modes in strained MoS2. The E12g mode shifts to higher wavenumber when compressed and shifts to lower wavenumber under tension. (c) Theoretical calculations and experimental measurements of MoS2 E12g and A1g peak shifts due to increasing sulfur vacancy %. (d) Changes in MoS2 E12g and A1g positions as a function of carrier concentration. (e) THz Raman measurements of MoS2, showing changes in the spectral region below 50 cm−1 as a function of MoS2 layer number. (f) MoS2 PL as a function of MoS2 thickness (1.3–7.6 nm). (a)–(f) Reproduced with permission from Refs. 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, and 44.

Figure 3

Figure 4: (a) PL response (highlighted in gray) of monolayer MoS2 as a result of a student breathing on the sample with “minty fresh breath.” The PL peak position (△) decreases after the breath event (shaded region) and the FWHM (○) increases. (b) Selected PL peaks at the time interval just before the breath event, during the breath, and ∼35 s after the breath. The doublet around 1.79 eV is a result of Cr 3+ in the sapphire substrate.

Figure 4

Figure 5: XPS spectra collected for WSe2 grown on sapphire. W, Se, Al, and O peaks are indicated. High-resolution spectra (inset) show Se and W with a Se:W ratio of 1.96. This measured ratio may deviate significantly from the true Se:W ratio, as found from additional studies of exfoliated WSe2. These studies suggest that RSF derivation from references samples is required for accurate XPS analysis of 2DMs.

Figure 5

Figure 6: (a) XPS spectra of V-doped WS2 on sapphire. SiO2 signal dominates the spectra, accounting for 90% of the acquired signal. <7% of the signal originates from W, S, and V. The inset in (a) shows the V region for (a, i) undoped, (a, ii) lightly doped (W:V = 41), and (a,iii) highly doped (W:V = 7.7) WS2. (a, iii) shows multiple chemical states of V. (b) VBM of exfoliated and Re-doped (inset) WSe2. The measured valence band offset shown in the inset is found to be statistically insignificant with follow-up measurements. All spectra are charged referenced to W 4f7/2 in WSe2 at 32.70 eV.