ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
Toward Two-Dimensional All-Carbon Heterostructures via Ion Beam Patterning of Single-Layer Graphene
My Activity
  • Open Access
Letter

Toward Two-Dimensional All-Carbon Heterostructures via Ion Beam Patterning of Single-Layer Graphene
Click to copy article linkArticle link copied!

View Author Information
Faculty of Physics, PNM and Faculty of Physics, VCQ, QuNaBioS, University of Vienna, Boltzmanngasse 5, A-1090 Vienna, Austria
§ ∥ §The Center for Nanosciences and Nanotechnology and School of Chemistry, The Raymond and Beverly Faculty of Exact Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel
Open PDF

Nano Letters

Cite this: Nano Lett. 2015, 15, 9, 5944–5949
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.5b02063
Published July 10, 2015

Copyright © 2015 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under CC-BY.

Abstract

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

Graphene has many claims to fame: it is the thinnest possible membrane, it has unique electronic and excellent mechanical properties, and it provides the perfect model structure for studying materials science at the atomic level. However, for many practical studies and applications the ordered hexagon arrangement of carbon atoms in graphene is not directly suitable. Here, we show that the atoms can be locally either removed or rearranged into a random pattern of polygons using a focused ion beam (FIB). The atomic structure of the disordered regions is confirmed with atomic-resolution scanning transmission electron microscopy images. These structural modifications can be made on macroscopic scales with a spatial resolution determined only by the size of the ion beam. With just one processing step, three types of structures can be defined within a graphene layer: chemically inert graphene, chemically active amorphous 2D carbon, and empty areas. This, along with the changes in properties, gives promise that FIB patterning of graphene will open the way for creating all-carbon heterostructures to be used in fields ranging from nanoelectronics and chemical sensing to composite materials.

Copyright © 2015 American Chemical Society

Graphene has received enormous attention since its introduction a decade ago. (1) Because of its two-dimensional (2D) nature, all atoms in graphene are directly exposed to external interactions through electric and magnetic fields or via chemical and physical processes. This provides a great opportunity for engineering its properties. It is well understood (2) that a controlled rearrangement of the atoms in graphene from the honeycomb pattern into other structures will affect the electronic properties of the material (for example, by introducing a band gap due to scattering of charge carriers (3)) and increase its chemical reactivity. (4) Also, nanocrystalline graphene manufactured from self-assembled molecular monolayers has been shown to be insulating (5) indicating the wide range of electronic properties accessible via manipulation of graphene. However, the considerable challenge of manipulating the atomic structure of a 2D object has so far limited the number of studies on this topic.
Perhaps the most versatile method for the manipulation of materials today is ion irradiation. Its application on the nanoscale, however, requires developing a detailed atomic level understanding on irradiation effects. This is because methods for estimating ion irradiation effects in bulk materials can rarely be directly used for low-dimensional structures, (6) and the optimal irradiation parameters change drastically from bulk to nanomaterials. For example, ion implantation of graphene only becomes possible when the energies are reduced to less than 100 eV, (7-9) which is orders of magnitude lower than in a typical implantation process.
Until now, only rarely has any atomic-level information been obtained for ion irradiation of 2D materials, either through atomistic simulations (6, 7, 10, 11, 13-15) or via direct atomic-scale imaging of resulting point defects. (9, 16-20) Instead, many studies have used nonlocal methods such as Raman spectroscopy to analyze the disorder. (21-28) Also, in most studies the irradiated structure was the interface between graphene and a substrate rather than suspended graphene. In this case, the underlying material always contributes to the observed changes. (13-15) So far, on SiO2 substrate, a transition from pristine graphene through a nanocrystallite structure into an amorphous material has been indirectly observed following Ga+ ion irradiation at 30 keV. (22) This is similar to what has been found during 100 keV electron irradiation of suspended graphene. (29, 30) Also the effect of swift heavy ion irradiation at grazing angles has been studied with graphene on a substrate. (31, 32) A recent study explored defects created via irradiation of suspended graphene with 30 keV He+ ions. At an angle of 30°, which was used in the study, such irradiation has been predicted to produce almost exclusively single vacancies. (10) Correspondingly, even at a fluence of ∼1016 ions/cm2, mostly individual point defects were observed.
Here, we show that perpendicular irradiation with a focused beam of Ga+ ions at 35 keV results in amorphization of suspended graphene at a dose of about 3.1 × 1015 ions/cm2. Doses three times as high lead to perforation of the membrane, allowing its use, for example, as the thinnest possible beam splitter for matter-wave interferometry. (33) As shown via atomic-resolution scanning transmission electron microscopy (STEM) medium angle angular dark field (MAADF) images, the amorphous areas remain two-dimensional and consist of a variety of carbon rings with sizes ranging from five to nine atoms (with occasional pores) and are similar to the amorphous 2D carbon structure created with electron irradiation of graphene. (29, 30) In contrast to transmission electron microscopy (TEM), focused ion beam (FIB) processing can be easily done for areas encompassing square millimeters. With the parameters used in this study, it allows writing pores and amorphized areas into graphene with spatial accuracy down to 35 nm.
The patterns were written into single-layer graphene that was grown via chemical vapor deposition and suspended on a holey SiNx substrate, using a focused beam of Ga+ ions with an energy of 35 keV. The substrate contains an array of circular holes that each have a diameter of about 2.5 μm, over which the graphene is suspended. Figure 1a shows an overview scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image of one pattern. A higher magnification TEM image of a pattern written on another sample with a higher dose of Ga+ is shown in Figure 1b. While the low-dose irradiation has not perforated the graphene, the higher dose has resulted in an array of holes.
To study the structure of the patterned areas at a smaller scale, we used STEM-MAADF imaging with the Nion UltraSTEM 100 (34) microscope at 60 kV. The combination of the low acceleration voltage and ultrahigh vacuum (10–9 mbar at the sample) ensures that no beam-induced damage will occur even at the irradiated areas, although the kinetic energy of the imaging electrons still suffices to rotate bonds at defects in graphene. (20, 35) An overview STEM-MAADF image of a pattern written with the lower dose is shown in Figure 1c. The image in Figure 1d shows a closer view of another low-dose region, which allows measuring the width of the written structures (Figure 1e) to be about 35 nm. This corresponds to the estimated beam size of 20–30 nm of the FIB. The same image also shows that the hydrocarbon contamination on top of graphene is continuous over the pattern and has a similar appearance everywhere. This can be seen in Figure 1f, where a blurred version of the image is subtracted from the original image to bring out the contamination pattern, which at this length scale looks like noise. However, the small dark areas actually correspond to areas where noncontaminated parts of the sample were found.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Overview images of the structures patterned into graphene with a focused ion beam. (a) SEM overview image of the SiNx TEM grid showing an array of holes with a diameter of 2.5 μm. Graphene covers the complete area and is suspended over the holes. The pattern written with the FIB at a dose of 4.96 pC/nm2 is visible as dark stripes on the suspended membranes. (b) TEM image of a pattern written at a dose of 15.2 pC/nm2. The white areas correspond to completely removed graphene. (c) STEM-MAADF image of a low-dose pattern (darker areas correspond to lower amount of matter). (d) Higher-magnification STEM-MAADF image of structures written with the lower dose. (e) Line profile from the area marked in panel (d) showing the width of the patterns to be approximately 35 nm. (f) Same image as in panel (d) with the effect of the FIB patterning hidden by subtracting a blurred image (Gaussian blur with radius of 20 px). The resulting image shows only the features of the hydrocarbon contamination on the sample.

Contamination is one of the hardest challenges in working with suspended graphene membranes. In our case, the situation is further worsened by the additional deposition of contamination that occurs during SEM imaging. However, a small fraction of the sample surface remained clean enough to image the atomic structure. Atomic resolution images of the irradiated but not perforated areas are shown in Figure 2a–c and pristine graphene in the nonpatterned part of the same hole in Figure 2d. In every clean area of the irradiated graphene, we found nonhexagonal carbon rings indicating irradiation-induced structural changes with occasional Si atoms incorporated into the nonhexagonal rings (see Figure 2a). Analysis of all of the imaged amorphized areas resulted in the following fractions for the different ring sizes: (5) 22.5%, (6) 63.2%, (7) 13.1%, (8) 0.9%, and (9) 0.4% (in total 818 rings were identified from the images). As in ref 30, we define the crystallinity as the number of hexagons divided by the total number of rings. In the present irradiated material, a crystallinity of 63% is found, while in ref 30 it was 51%. Hence, the amorphization here is close but not quite as strong as in ref 30 although the material is already a random network structure with no nanometer-scale crystalline areas.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Atomic-resolution images of amorphized graphene areas. (a–d) Example STEM-MAADF images from the amorphized areas (a–c) and a pristine area (d). A deconvolution with the beam profile, modeled as a sum of two Gaussians, has been applied as described in ref 36, followed by a Gaussian blur for panels (a–c) with a radius of 2–3 pixels. (e–h) Same images after the application of a minimum filter with a radius of 10 pixels to enhance the visibility of the nonhexagonal rings with the size of each ring marked on top of the rings. The marked atoms in panel (a) were identified as Si based on the contrast in the MAADF images. The bright areas around the atomically thin structures are covered by hydrocarbon contamination. All scale bars are 1 nm. Each pair of images is colored uniquely to ease the comparison.

A rough estimation for the number of carbon atoms removed from the amorphized areas during ion irradiation can be obtained from the ratios of average intensities (irradiated versus nonirradiated area) in annular dark field images (with background subtracted). This yields a ratio of 91%, which indicates that the amorphized areas have approximately 9% density deficit as compared to pristine graphene. Comparing this number with earlier estimations of electron irradiation-amorphization of graphene (30) shows that such deficit is close to the completely disordered material, as is consistent with our atomic-resolution images. It is also an almost exact match with the density deficit at which the electron-beam-amorphized graphene has a crystallinity value of about 63% (30) (the value calculated above for the current material). This serves as an independent validation for the estimated 9% density deficit.
The dose that was sufficient to amorphize graphene was about 4.96 pC/nm2, which corresponds to ϕam ≈ 31 ions/nm2 (or, 3.1 × 1015 ions/cm2). To put this dose into perspective, it can be compared with the fact that a square nanometer of graphene has about 38.2 atoms. For cutting graphene, a three times higher dose was required (ϕcut ≈ 95 ions/nm2, or 9.5 × 1015 ions/cm2). Ion beam effects for bulk materials are typically estimated based on the concept of stopping power. In the case of 35 keV Ga+ irradiation of a carbon material, the nuclear stopping power is estimated to be 142 eV/Å and the electronic stopping power 24 eV/Å. (37) For a dose of 31 ions/nm2, such deposited energy is orders of magnitude more than what is needed to completely disintegrate a single layer of graphene. So, clearly this approach is not directly useful for 2D materials. A better understanding can be reached through a binary collision approximation. Numerical estimate using an empirical repulsive potential (38) leads to a limiting impact parameter of 0.83 Å for a collision that transfers enough kinetic energy from a 35 keV Ga+ ion to a carbon atom to cause a displacement in graphene (about 23 eV (39)). This is more than half of the bond length in graphene and corresponds to a probability of 83% for an ion to displace at least one of the target atoms, taking into account the area each carbon atom occupies in the graphene lattice.
Atomistic simulations (6) predict that under our experimental conditions defects will be created with a ratio of approximately 1:1:2 for single vacancies, amorphization events (no atoms sputtered), and complex vacancies (more than one atom sputtered), respectively. The calculated sputtering yield is about 0.55 atoms/ion, which is somewhat lower than what could be expected from the binary collision estimate. This is consistent with the assumption that for perpendicular irradiation the atoms are typically scattered in the plane and not necessarily removed from it. For a more accurate estimate of the number of sputtered atoms, we need to take into account the increasing vacancy concentration in the structure during irradiation, (11) which leads to an approximation formula for low vacancy concentrations (12)(1)where ϕ is the irradiation dose (ions/nm2), n ≈ 38.2 atoms/nm2 the density of graphene, Y0 ≈ 0.55 sputtering yield at cv = 0 and γ a constant that can be obtained through simulations. (11) On the basis of data for Ar+ and Xe+ irradiation at 30 keV, γ can be expected to be between 0.5 and 0.8 for Ga+ irradiation of graphene at 35 keV. For γ = 0.65, we get cvam) ≈ 35% and cvcut) > 70%. In contrast to 35% density deficit in the amorphized structure, the two independent estimates described above yielded a value of 9%. This discrepancy is most likely caused by the increased chemical reactivity of vacancies that attract carbon (and occasionally silicon) atoms from the contamination.
The ultrahigh vacuum column of the microscope reduces chemical etching to practically zero, simplifying the analysis of dynamical processes. However, at the same time all beneficial chemical reactions due to water (and other) molecules cracked by the imaging electrons, which could reduce the hydrocarbon contamination, are also prevented. To test both how the contamination is bound to the graphene and how amorphization affects the chemical inertness of graphene, we let air into the microscope column after initial imaging by opening a leak valve. We exposed the structure to a parallel electron beam while increasing the pressure in the objective from 5.3 × 10–9 to 1.1 × 10–6 mbar over an hour. The results of this treatment are shown in Figure 3. The contamination decreased dramatically and several clean areas appeared in the nonirradiated area of the sample, whereas holes grew in the irradiated areas. This demonstrates that controlled amorphization of graphene will activate it chemically. Because we were able to clean parts of the contamination, it cannot be covalently bound to the sample. Therefore, one possible way to overcome the contamination problem could be high-temperature vacuum annealing, which can be expected to remove most of the floating hydrocarbons.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Chemical etching of the amorphous pattern. (a) STEM-MAADF close-up image of a patterned area of the sample before and (b) after an exposure of about 1 h to a parallel electron beam while air was leaked to the objective area of the microscope column (pressure increase from ca. 5.3 × 10–9 to 1.1 × 10–6 mbar). The approximate area exposed to the beam corresponds to the darkened circular shape seen in panel (b). Partial overlay on the left-hand-side of panel (a) highlights the structure of the pattern (“ml+cont” corresponds to nonirradiated graphene and contamination, whereas “am+cont” refers to amorphized areas). Circles with solid and dashed lines mark the same hole and metal contamination, respectively, in both images to ease the comparison. A higher magnification of the area marked with a rectangle in panel (b) is shown in panel (c) to ease distinguishing holes and clean graphene from each other.

As a conclusion, we have shown that the regular hexagon pattern of single-layer graphene can be selectively either sputtered or transformed into a random pattern of polygons ranging from pentagons to octagons and nine-membered carbon rings in a controlled manner using a focused Ga+ ion beam at 35 keV. This allows defining three different kinds of areas into a graphene layer with just one processing step with the FIB: chemically inert highly conductive graphene, chemically active, presumably less conductive, amorphous 2D carbon, and empty holes. The smallest demonstrated feature size was about 35 nm. A dose of ϕam ≈ 30 ions/nm2 was found to nearly completely amorphize graphene, whereas ϕcut ≈ 100 ions/nm2 leads to its perforation. The amorphous areas showed a density deficit of about 9% in discrepancy with an expected value of about 35%. This discrepancy is likely due to filling of the vacancies from the hydrocarbon contamination covering the graphene sheet. This point is supported by the observation of Si atoms immersed into the defected structures. The amorphized regions have a crystallinity value of 63%. The chemical activation gives promise to the application of selectively amorphized graphene in fields ranging from chemical sensing (4) to functionalized membranes and composite materials, while the predicted introduction of a band gap (3) allows their utilization in all-carbon electronics.

Methods

Samples

We used commercial single-layer graphene samples (Ted Pella Inc., Redding/CA 21712-5 PELCO) grown with chemical vapor deposition and deposited on SiNx transmission electron microscopy grids with a regular pattern of holes with an approximate diameter of 2.5 μm.

Focused Ion Beam

Fully and partially sputtered areas were written on different single-layer graphene samples using a focused beam of 35 keV Ga+ ions (Raith Ionline FIB). The beam size was approximately 20–30 nm, and the writing was performed in a linelike fashion with a step size of 1 nm and a dwell time of 0.0179 ms for the partially sputtered areas, which were later confirmed to be amorphized. The corresponding line dose was 1240 pC/cm. For fully sputtered areas, the dose was 3800 pC/cm (dwell time of 0.0482 ms). For the sample with the lower dose, a pattern of 27 × 6 slits, each 500 nm long, and separated 100 nm from each other, was designed to completely cover the 2.5 μm substrate holes in an area fully covered by graphene. This pattern was duplicated with the same hexagonal periodicity as the circular holes. The whole pattern was milled into the holes by taking a FIB image of a 30 × 30 μm2 area covered with graphene (with as short as possible exposure to the beam to avoid additional damage to the graphene) and fitting the pattern onto the holes. Milling such a pattern takes about 1 min.

Electron Microscopy

The SEM image in Figure 1a was recorded with Jeol 6700F SEM and the TEM image in Figure 1b with a table top Delong Instruments LVEM5 microscope. High-resolution imaging was carried out with a Nion UltraSTEM 100. The device is equipped with a cold field emission gun, which was operated at 60 kV in ultrahigh vacuum (5.3 × 10–9 mbar at the sample). A medium angle annular dark-field detector was used to record the images. At the end of the experiment, we let air into the microscope column under a parallel electron beam to partially remove the contamination and to test the chemical reactivity. The pressure was increased over a period of an hour to 1.1 × 10–6 mbar. In nonirradiated areas, this procedure uncovered pristine graphene. In the amorphized parts, the chemical processes lead additionally to the appearance of pores.

Author Information

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

  • Corresponding Author
    • Jani Kotakoski - †Faculty of Physics, PNM and ‡Faculty of Physics, VCQ, QuNaBioS, University of Vienna, Boltzmanngasse 5, A-1090 Vienna, Austria§The Center for Nanosciences and Nanotechnology and ∥School of Chemistry, The Raymond and Beverly Faculty of Exact Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel Email: [email protected]
  • Authors
    • Christian Brand - †Faculty of Physics, PNM and ‡Faculty of Physics, VCQ, QuNaBioS, University of Vienna, Boltzmanngasse 5, A-1090 Vienna, Austria§The Center for Nanosciences and Nanotechnology and ∥School of Chemistry, The Raymond and Beverly Faculty of Exact Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel
    • Yigal Lilach - †Faculty of Physics, PNM and ‡Faculty of Physics, VCQ, QuNaBioS, University of Vienna, Boltzmanngasse 5, A-1090 Vienna, Austria§The Center for Nanosciences and Nanotechnology and ∥School of Chemistry, The Raymond and Beverly Faculty of Exact Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel
    • Ori Cheshnovsky - †Faculty of Physics, PNM and ‡Faculty of Physics, VCQ, QuNaBioS, University of Vienna, Boltzmanngasse 5, A-1090 Vienna, Austria§The Center for Nanosciences and Nanotechnology and ∥School of Chemistry, The Raymond and Beverly Faculty of Exact Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel
    • Clemens Mangler - †Faculty of Physics, PNM and ‡Faculty of Physics, VCQ, QuNaBioS, University of Vienna, Boltzmanngasse 5, A-1090 Vienna, Austria§The Center for Nanosciences and Nanotechnology and ∥School of Chemistry, The Raymond and Beverly Faculty of Exact Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel
    • Markus Arndt - †Faculty of Physics, PNM and ‡Faculty of Physics, VCQ, QuNaBioS, University of Vienna, Boltzmanngasse 5, A-1090 Vienna, Austria§The Center for Nanosciences and Nanotechnology and ∥School of Chemistry, The Raymond and Beverly Faculty of Exact Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel
    • Jannik C. Meyer - †Faculty of Physics, PNM and ‡Faculty of Physics, VCQ, QuNaBioS, University of Vienna, Boltzmanngasse 5, A-1090 Vienna, Austria§The Center for Nanosciences and Nanotechnology and ∥School of Chemistry, The Raymond and Beverly Faculty of Exact Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel
  • Notes
    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgment

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

We acknowledge funding from the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) projects M 1481-N20 and P 25721-N20, Wiener Wissenschafts-, Forschungs- und Technologiefonds (WWTF) project MA14-009, European Research Council (ERC) Projects No. 336453-PICOMAT and No. 320694, and European Union Commission Project No. 304886-NANOQUESTFIT. C.B. acknowledges financial support by the Alexander von Humboldt foundation.

References

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article references 39 other publications.

  1. 1
    Novoselov, K. S.; Jiang, D.; Schedin, F.; Booth, T. J.; Khotkevich, V. V.; Morozov, S. V.; Geim, A. K. Two-dimensional atomic crystals Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2005, 102, 10451 10453 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0502848102
  2. 2
    Geim, A. K. Graphene: status and prospects Science 2009, 324, 1530 1534 DOI: 10.1126/science.1158877
  3. 3
    Lherbier, A.; Roche, S.; Restrepo, O. A.; Niquet, Y.-M.; Delcorte, A.; Charlier, J.-C. Highly defective graphene: A key prototype of two-dimensional Anderson insulators Nano Res. 2013, 6, 326 334 DOI: 10.1007/s12274-013-0309-7
  4. 4
    Salehi-Khojin, A.; Estrada, D.; Lin, K. Y.; Bae, M.-H.; Xiong, F.; Pop, E.; Masel, R. I. Polycrystalline Graphene Ribbons as Chemiresistors Adv. Mater. 2012, 24, 53 57 DOI: 10.1002/adma.201102663
  5. 5
    Turchanin, A. Conversion of Self-Assembled Monolayers into Nanocrystalline Graphene: Structure and Electric Transport ACS Nano 2011, 5, 3896 3904 DOI: 10.1021/nn200297n
  6. 6
    Lehtinen, O.; Kotakoski, J.; Krasheninnikov, A. V.; Tolvanen, A.; Nordlund, K.; Keinonen, J. Effects of ion bombardment on a two-dimensional target: Atomistic simulations of graphene irradiation Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2010, 81, 153401 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.81.153401
  7. 7
    Åhlgren, E.; Kotakoski, J.; Krasheninnikov, A. Atomistic simulations of the implantation of low-energy boron and nitrogen ions into graphene Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2011, 83, 115424 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.83.115424
  8. 8
    Xu, Y.; Zhang, K.; Brüsewitz, C.; Wu, X.; Hofsäss, H. C. Investigation of the effect of low energy ion beam irradiation on mono-layer graphene AIP Adv. 2013, 3, 072120 DOI: 10.1063/1.4816715
  9. 9
    Bangert, U. Ion implantation of graphene - towards IC compatible technologies Nano Lett. 2013, 13, 4902 4907 DOI: 10.1021/nl402812y
  10. 10
    Lehtinen, O.; Kotakoski, J.; Krasheninnikov, A. V.; Keinonen, J. Cutting and controlled modification of graphene with ion beams Nanotechnology 2011, 22, 175306 DOI: 10.1088/0957-4484/22/17/175306
  11. 11
    Åhlgren, E. H.; Kotakoski, J.; Lehtinen, O.; Krasheninnikov, A. V. Ion irradiation tolerance of graphene as studied by atomistic simulations Appl. Phys. Lett. 2012, 100, 233108 DOI: 10.1063/1.4726053
  12. 12

    The formula has been established for low cv and shows asymptotically wrong behaviour for cv → 1. It can therefore only be trusted for cv ≪ 1.

  13. 13
    Standop, S.; Lehtinen, O.; Herbig, C.; Lewes-Malandrakis, G.; Craes, F.; Kotakoski, J.; Michely, T.; Krasheninnikov, A. V.; Busse, C. Ion Impacts on Graphene/Ir(111): Interface Channeling, Vacancy Funnels, and a Nanomesh Nano Lett. 2013, 13, 1948 1955 DOI: 10.1021/nl304659n
  14. 14
    Åhlgren, E. H.; Hämäläinen, S. K.; Lehtinen, O.; Liljeroth, P.; Kotakoski, J. Structural manipulation of the graphene/metal interface with Ar+ irradiation Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2013, 88, 155419 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.88.155419
  15. 15
    Herbig, C.; Åhlgren, E. H.; Jolie, W.; Busse, C.; Kotakoski, J.; Krasheninnikov, A. V.; Michely, T. Interfacial Carbon Nanoplatelet Formation by Ion Irradiation of Graphene on Ir(111) ACS Nano 2014, 8, 12208 12218 DOI: 10.1021/nn503874n
  16. 16
    Tapasztó, L.; Dobrik, G.; Nemes-Incze, P.; Vertesy, G.; Lambin, Ph.; Biró, L. P. Tuning the electronic structure of graphene by ion irradiation Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2008, 78, 233407 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.78.233407
  17. 17
    Ugeda, M. M.; Brihuega, I.; Guinea, F.; Gómez-Rodríguez, J. M. Missing Atom as a Source of Carbon Magnetism Phys. Rev. Lett. 2010, 104, 096804 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.096804
  18. 18
    Ugeda, M. M.; Fernández-Torre, D.; Brihuega, I.; Pou, P.; Martínez-Galera, A. J.; Pérez, R.; Gómez-Rodríguez, J. M. Point defects on graphene on metals Phys. Rev. Lett. 2011, 107, 116803 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.116803
  19. 19
    Ugeda, M. M.; Brihuega, I.; Hiebel, F.; Mallet, P.; Veuillen, J.-Y.; Gómez-Rodríguez, J. M.; Ynduráin, F. Electronic and structural characterization of divacancies in irradiated graphene Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2012, 85, 121402 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.85.121402
  20. 20
    Pan, C.-T.; Hinks, J. A.; Ramasse, Q. M.; Greaves, G.; Bangert, U.; Donnelly, S. E.; Haigh, S. J. In-situ observation and atomic resolution imaging of the ion irradiation induced amorphisation of graphene Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 6334 DOI: 10.1038/srep06334
  21. 21
    Compagnini, G.; Giannazzo, F.; Sonde, S.; Raineri, V.; Rimini, E. Ion irradiation and defect formation in single layer graphene Carbon 2009, 47, 3201 3207 DOI: 10.1016/j.carbon.2009.07.033
  22. 22
    Zhou, Y.-B.; Liao, Z.-M.; Wang, Y.-F.; Duesberg, G. S.; Xu, J.; Fu, Q.; Wu, X.-S.; Yu, D.-P. Ion irradiation induced structural and electrical transition in graphene J. Chem. Phys. 2010, 133, 234703 DOI: 10.1063/1.3518979
  23. 23
    Compagnini, G.; Forte, G.; Giannazzo, F.; Raineri, V.; La Magna, A.; Deretzis, I. Ion beam induced defects in graphene: Raman spectroscopy and DFT calculations J. Mol. Struct. 2011, 993, 506 509 DOI: 10.1016/j.molstruc.2010.12.065
  24. 24
    Kalbac, M.; Lehtinen, O.; Krasheninnikov, A. V.; Keinonen, J. Ion-Irradiation-Induced Defects in Isotopically-Labeled Two Layered Graphene: Enhanced In-Situ Annealing of the Damage Adv. Mater. 2013, 25, 1004 1009 DOI: 10.1002/adma.201203807
  25. 25
    Wang, Q.; Mao, W.; Ge, D.; Zhang, Y.; Shao, Y.; Ren, N. Effects of Ga ion-beam irradiation on monolayer graphene Appl. Phys. Lett. 2013, 103, 073501 DOI: 10.1063/1.4818458
  26. 26
    Zeng, J.; Yao, H. J.; Zhang, S. X.; Zhai, P. F.; Duan, J. L.; Sun, Y. M.; Li, G. P.; Liu, J. Swift heavy ions induced irradiation effects in monolayer graphene and highly oriented pyrolytic graphite Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. B 2014, 330, 18 23 DOI: 10.1016/j.nimb.2014.03.019
  27. 27
    Mathew, S. Mega-electron-volt proton irradiation on supported and suspended graphene: A Raman spectroscopic layer dependent study J. Appl. Phys. 2011, 110, 084309 DOI: 10.1063/1.3647781
  28. 28
    Kumar, S.; Tripathi, A.; Khan, S. A.; Pannu, C.; Avasthi, D. K. Radiation stability of graphene under extreme conditions Appl. Phys. Lett. 2014, 105, 133107 DOI: 10.1063/1.4897004
  29. 29
    Kotakoski, J.; Krasheninnikov, A. V.; Kaiser, U.; Meyer, J. C. From Point Defects in Graphene to Two-Dimensional Amorphous Carbon Phys. Rev. Lett. 2011, 106, 105505 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.105505
  30. 30
    Eder, F. R.; Kotakoski, J.; Kaiser, U.; Meyer, J. C. A journey from order to disorder Atom by atom transformation from graphene to a 2d carbon glass Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 4060 DOI: 10.1038/srep04060
  31. 31
    Ochedowski, O.; Akcöltekin, S.; Ban d’Etat, B.; Lebius, H.; Schleberger, M. Detecting swift heavy ion irradiation effects with graphene Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. B 2013, 314, 18 20 DOI: 10.1016/j.nimb.2013.03.063
  32. 32
    Ochedowski, O.; Kleine Bussmann, B.; Ban d’Etat, B.; Lebius, H.; Schleberger, M. Manipulation of the graphene surface potential by ion irradiation Appl. Phys. Lett. 2013, 102, 153103 DOI: 10.1063/1.4801973
  33. 33
    Brand, C.; Sclafani, M.; Knobloch, C.; Lilach, Y.; Juffmann, T.; Kotakoski, J.; Mangler, C.; Winter, A.; Turchanin, A.; Meyer, J. C.; Cheshnovsky, O.; Arndt, M. An atomically thin matter-wave beam splitter Nature Nanotech. in press, 2015.
  34. 34
    Krivanek, O. L.; Corbin, G. J.; Dellby, N.; Elston, B. F.; Keyse, R. J.; Murfitt, M. F.; Own, C. S.; Szilagyi, Z. S.; Woodruff, J. W. An electron microscope for the aberration-corrected era Ultramicroscopy 2008, 108, 179 195 DOI: 10.1016/j.ultramic.2007.07.010
  35. 35
    Kotakoski, J.; Mangler, C.; Meyer, J. C. Imaging atomic-level random walk of a point defect in graphene Nat. Commun. 2014, 5, 4991 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms4991
  36. 36
    Krivanek, O. L. Atom-by-atom structural and chemical analysis by annular dark-field electron microscopy Nature 2010, 464, 571 574 DOI: 10.1038/nature08879
  37. 37

    Calculated with the approach introduced in ref 38 and implemented in the code TRIM.

  38. 38
    Ziegler, J. F.; Biersack, J. P.; Littmark, U. The Stopping and Range of Ions in Solids; Pergamon: New York, 1985.
  39. 39
    Meyer, J. C. Accurate Measurement of Electron Beam Induced Displacement Cross Sections for Single-Layer Graphene Phys. Rev. Lett. 2012, 108, 196102 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.196102

Cited By

Click to copy section linkSection link copied!

This article is cited by 86 publications.

  1. Lei Zhao, Taegu Lee, Siting Zheng, Wangshu Zheng, Seunghwa Ryu, Di Zhang, Qiang Guo. Ultrastrong and Deformable Aluminum-Based Composite Nanolaminates with Transformable Binary Intergranular Films. Nano Letters 2024, 24 (13) , 3843-3850. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.3c04052
  2. Alberto Trentino, Jacob Madsen, Andreas Mittelberger, Clemens Mangler, Toma Susi, Kimmo Mustonen, Jani Kotakoski. Atomic-Level Structural Engineering of Graphene on a Mesoscopic Scale. Nano Letters 2021, 21 (12) , 5179-5185. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.1c01214
  3. Alina Kononov, André Schleife. Anomalous Stopping and Charge Transfer in Proton-Irradiated Graphene. Nano Letters 2021, 21 (11) , 4816-4822. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.1c01416
  4. Jun Hee Choi, Dong Hoon Shin, Heena Inani, Min Hee Kwon, Kimmo Mustonen, Clemens Mangler, Min Park, Hyunjeong Jeong, Dong Su Lee, Jani Kotakoski, Sang Wook Lee. Transformation and Evaporation of Surface Adsorbents on a Graphene “Hot Plate”. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2020, 12 (23) , 26313-26319. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.0c02056
  5. Yu-Jen Tsai, Chin-Lung Kuo. Effect of Structural Disorders on the Li Storage Capacity of Graphene Nanomaterials: A First-Principles Study. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2020, 12 (20) , 22917-22929. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.0c04188
  6. Cheng-Lun Wu, Fang-Cheng Li, Chun-Wei Pao, and David J. Srolovitz . Folding Sheets with Ion Beams. Nano Letters 2017, 17 (1) , 249-254. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.6b03976
  7. Kichul Yoon, Ali Rahnamoun, Jacob L. Swett, Vighter Iberi, David A. Cullen, Ivan V. Vlassiouk, Alex Belianinov, Stephen Jesse, Xiahan Sang, Olga S. Ovchinnikova, Adam J. Rondinone, Raymond R. Unocic, and Adri C.T. van Duin . Atomistic-Scale Simulations of Defect Formation in Graphene under Noble Gas Ion Irradiation. ACS Nano 2016, 10 (9) , 8376-8384. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.6b03036
  8. Asha Panghal, Yogendra Kumar, P. Rajagopalan, Alfa Sharma. Role of Ion Beam in Nanomaterials: Synthesis, Morphology Control, and Applications. 2024, 365-393. https://doi.org/10.2174/9789815256772124010014
  9. Wei-Hsin Chen, Wei-Cheng Bai, Ding Luo, Argel A. Bandala, Xiao-Dong Wang, Anh Tuan Hoang. Optimization of material properties and performance of flexible thermoelectric generators with/without graphene. Energy Conversion and Management: X 2024, 24 , 100741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecmx.2024.100741
  10. Paweł Piotr Michałowski. Selective etching of multilayer graphene with ultra-low impact energy oxygen ions. Applied Surface Science 2024, 655 , 159591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2024.159591
  11. Stephan Sleziona, Aniello Pelella, Enver Faella, Osamah Kharsah, Lucia Skopinski, André Maas, Yossarian Liebsch, Jennifer Schmeink, Antonio Di Bartolomeo, Marika Schleberger. Manipulation of the electrical and memory properties of MoS 2 field-effect transistors by highly charged ion irradiation. Nanoscale Advances 2023, 5 (24) , 6958-6966. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3NA00543G
  12. Dong Hyun Kim, Jin Young Oh, Jonghoon Won, Da-Bin Yang, Bo-Kyeong Choi, Yang Liu, Dae-Shik Seo. Rigid-flex stamped indium tin oxide film for convertible self-alignment. Journal of Molecular Liquids 2023, 390 , 122982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2023.122982
  13. Yanan Yuan, Daxiang Liu, Jingjing Yu, Guanhua Zhang, Xiang Chen, Ruiqi Liu, Siyu Wang, Fangfang Pei, Long Wei, Zhi Li, Junming Guo, Shouguo Wang, Zhaoliang Liao, Wensheng Yan, Ziqiang Qiu, Mengmeng Yang, Qian Li. Modulating above-room-temperature magnetism in Ga-implanted Fe5GeTe2 van der Waals magnets. APL Materials 2023, 11 (9) https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0168468
  14. Dong Hyun Kim, Jin Young Oh, Da‐Bin Yang, Dong Wook Lee, Jonghoon Won, Dai‐Hyun Kim, Se‐Hoon Choi, Jin‐Ah Kim, Hong‐Gyu Park, Dae‐Shik Seo. Reformation of solution process NiO thin films with UV curable polymers for the self‐alignment of liquid crystals. Polymers for Advanced Technologies 2023, 34 (6) , 1881-1889. https://doi.org/10.1002/pat.6017
  15. Xin Wu, Xinchun Luo, Hailong Cheng, Ruxue Yang, Xiyue Chen. Recent progresses on ion beam irradiation induced structure and performance modulation of two-dimensional materials. Nanoscale 2023, 15 (20) , 8925-8947. https://doi.org/10.1039/D3NR01366A
  16. Dong Hyun Kim, Dong Wook Lee, Jin Young Oh, Jonghoon Won, Dae-Shik Seo. Temperature-switched orientation properties through physicochemically constructed aluminum zirconium oxide films. FlatChem 2023, 38 , 100480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flatc.2023.100480
  17. Woo-Ri Lim, Jeong-Ho Park, Chang-Han Lee. Characterizing crystalline phase transitions in zeolitization of coal fly ash using focused ion beam-scanning electron microscopy. Surfaces and Interfaces 2023, 36 , 102536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfin.2022.102536
  18. Dong Hyun Kim, Dong Wook Lee, Jin Young Oh, Jonghoon Won, Dai-Hyun Kim, Yang Liu, Dae-Shik Seo. Temperature-controlled liquid crystals alignment on solution-derived bismuth lanthanum tin oxide films prepared through brush process. Liquid Crystals 2022, 49 (15) , 2137-2145. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678292.2022.2109770
  19. Dong Hyun Kim, Dong Wook Lee, Jin Young Oh, Jonghoon Won, Dae-Hyun Kim, Hae-Chang Jeong, Dae-Shik Seo. Physicochemically reformed tin oxide film fabricated for self-alignment of liquid crystals. Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A 2022, 40 (6) https://doi.org/10.1116/6.0002072
  20. Dong Hyun Kim, Ju Hwan Lee, Dong Wook Lee, Jin Young Oh, Jonghoon Won, Yang Liu, Dae-Shik Seo. Controlled nano structures on solution-processed inorganic/organic film for liquid crystal application. Journal of Sol-Gel Science and Technology 2022, 104 (2) , 412-424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10971-022-05940-8
  21. Alina Kononov, Alexandra Olmstead, Andrew D Baczewski, André Schleife. First-principles simulation of light-ion microscopy of graphene. 2D Materials 2022, 9 (4) , 045023. https://doi.org/10.1088/2053-1583/ac8e7e
  22. Dong Hyun Kim, Eun-Mi Kim, Gi-Seok Heo, Dong Wook Lee, Jin Young Oh, Hae-Chang Jeong, Jonghoon Won, Dae-Shik Seo. Anisotropy and surface morphology of polystyrene-block-poly(ethylene-ran-butylene)-block-polystyrene thin layer irradiated with ion beam. Liquid Crystals 2022, 49 (10) , 1275-1284. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678292.2022.2028314
  23. Dong Hyun Kim, Dong Wook Lee, Jin Young Oh, Jonghoon Won, Dae-Shik Seo. Superior Performance in Liquid Crystal Alignment of Polystyrene-Block-Poly(ethylene-ran-butylene)-Block-Polystyrene-Graft-Maleic Anhydride Film Irradiated with Ion Beam. ECS Journal of Solid State Science and Technology 2022, 11 (3) , 035013. https://doi.org/10.1149/2162-8777/ac5eb4
  24. Ece Eksin, Deniz Işın, Didem Nur Unal, Arzum Erdem. Electrochemical Monitoring of Interaction of Temozolamide with DNA by Graphene Oxide Modified Single-Use Electrodes. Journal of The Electrochemical Society 2022, 169 (2) , 026513. https://doi.org/10.1149/1945-7111/ac4db1
  25. Mahdi Ghorbani-Asl, Silvan Kretschmer, Arkady V. Krasheninnikov. Two-dimensional materials under ion irradiation: from defect production to structure and property engineering. 2022, 259-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-820292-0.00015-X
  26. Sophya Garashchuk, Jingsong Huang, Bobby G. Sumpter, Jacek Jakowski. From classical to quantum dynamics of atomic and ionic species interacting with graphene and its analogue. 2022, 61-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819514-7.00001-4
  27. Tao Wei, Frank Hauke, Andreas Hirsch. Evolution of Graphene Patterning: From Dimension Regulation to Molecular Engineering. Advanced Materials 2021, 33 (45) https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.202104060
  28. Luiz Felipe C. Pereira. Investigating mechanical properties and thermal conductivity of 2D carbon-based materials by computational experiments. Computational Materials Science 2021, 196 , 110493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2021.110493
  29. Gregor T Leuthner, Toma Susi, Clemens Mangler, Jannik C Meyer, Jani Kotakoski. Chemistry at graphene edges in the electron microscope. 2D Materials 2021, 8 (3) , 035023. https://doi.org/10.1088/2053-1583/abf624
  30. Babak Bagheri, Maryam Zarghami Dehaghani, Mohammad Esmaeili Safa, Payam Zarrintaj, Amin Hamed Mashhadzadeh, Mohammad Reza Ganjali, Mohammad Reza Saeb. Fracture fingerprint of polycrystalline C3N nanosheets: Theoretical basis. Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling 2021, 106 , 107899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmgm.2021.107899
  31. Christian Brand, Mohammad R A Monazam, Clemens Mangler, Yigal Lilach, Ori Cheshnovsky, Markus Arndt, Jani Kotakoski. The morphology of doubly-clamped graphene nanoribbons. 2D Materials 2021, 8 (2) , 025035. https://doi.org/10.1088/2053-1583/abe952
  32. Xiaoxu Zhao, Kian Ping Loh, Stephen J Pennycook. Electron beam triggered single-atom dynamics in two-dimensional materials. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 2021, 33 (6) , 063001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-648X/abbdb9
  33. Alesia Paddubskaya, Konstantin Batrakov, Arkadiy Khrushchinsky, Semen Kuten, Artyom Plyushch, Andrey Stepanov, Gennady Remnev, Valery Shvetsov, Marian Baah, Yuri Svirko, Polina Kuzhir. Outstanding Radiation Tolerance of Supported Graphene: Towards 2D Sensors for the Space Millimeter Radioastronomy. Nanomaterials 2021, 11 (1) , 170. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano11010170
  34. Xin Wu, Qiang Han. Thermal conductivity of monolayer hexagonal boron nitride: From defective to amorphous. Computational Materials Science 2020, 184 , 109938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2020.109938
  35. A. Niggas, J. Schwestka, S. Creutzburg, T. Gupta, D. Eder, B. C. Bayer, F. Aumayr, R. A. Wilhelm. The role of contaminations in ion beam spectroscopy with freestanding 2D materials: A study on thermal treatment. The Journal of Chemical Physics 2020, 153 (1) https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0011255
  36. O. Coquand, K. Essafi, J.-P. Kownacki, D. Mouhanna. Universal behaviors in the wrinkling transition of disordered membranes. Physical Review E 2020, 101 (4) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.101.042602
  37. Mengmeng Yang, Qian Li, Rajesh V. Chopdekar, Camelia Stan, Stefano Cabrini, Jun Woo Choi, Sheng Wang, Tianye Wang, Nan Gao, Andreas Scholl, Nobumichi Tamura, Chanyong Hwang, Feng Wang, Ziqiang Qiu. Highly Enhanced Curie Temperature in Ga‐Implanted Fe 3 GeTe 2 van der Waals Material. Advanced Quantum Technologies 2020, 3 (4) https://doi.org/10.1002/qute.202000017
  38. Marcin Lebioda, Ryszard Pawlak, Witold Szymański, Witold Kaczorowski, Agata Jeziorna. Laser Patterning a Graphene Layer on a Ceramic Substrate for Sensor Applications. Sensors 2020, 20 (7) , 2134. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20072134
  39. R. Ravinder, Rajesh Kumar, Manish Agarwal, N. M. Anoop Krishnan. Evidence of a two-dimensional glass transition in graphene: Insights from molecular simulations. Scientific Reports 2019, 9 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-41231-z
  40. Ju Hwan Lee, Jonghoon Won, Hae-Chang Jeong, Dong Hyun Kim, Dong Wook Lee, Jeong-Min Han, Byeong-Yun Oh, Dae-Shik Seo. Physicochemical analysis of ion beam-induced surface modifications on polyethylene glycol films for liquid crystal alignment. Liquid Crystals 2019, 46 (12) , 1799-1807. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678292.2019.1606351
  41. Gregor T Leuthner, Clemens Mangler, Jannik C Meyer, Toma Susi, Jani Kotakoski. Atomic-scale Chemical Manipulation of Materials in the Scanning Transmission Electron Microscope under Controlled Atmospheres. Microscopy and Microanalysis 2019, 25 (S2) , 1398-1399. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1431927619007724
  42. Wenqing Li, Xueying Zhan, Xianyin Song, Shuyao Si, Rui Chen, Jing Liu, Zhenxing Wang, Jun He, Xiangheng Xiao. A Review of Recent Applications of Ion Beam Techniques on Nanomaterial Surface Modification: Design of Nanostructures and Energy Harvesting. Small 2019, 15 (31) https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.201901820
  43. A Breuers, M Herder, P Kucharczyk, M Schleberger, K Sokolowski-Tinten, A Wucher. A concept to generate ultrashort ion pulses for pump-probe experiments in the keV energy range. New Journal of Physics 2019, 21 (5) , 053017. https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/ab1775
  44. Andreas Winter, Yasin Ekinci, Armin Gölzhäuser, Andrey Turchanin. Freestanding carbon nanomembranes and graphene monolayers nanopatterned via EUV interference lithography. 2D Materials 2019, 6 (2) , 021002. https://doi.org/10.1088/2053-1583/ab0014
  45. Grzegorz Gawlik, Paweł Ciepielewski, Jacek M. Baranowski. Study of Implantation Defects in CVD Graphene by Optical and Electrical Methods. Applied Sciences 2019, 9 (3) , 544. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9030544
  46. Cheng-Lun Wu, Hsiang-Ting Lin, Hsuan-An Chen, Shih-Yen Lin, Min-Hsiung Shih, Chun-Wei Pao. Defect formation and modulation during patterning supported graphene sheets using focused ion beams. Materials Today Communications 2018, 17 , 60-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtcomm.2018.08.006
  47. B. Bharati, N.C. Mishra, Chandana Rath. Effect of 500 keV Ar2+ ion irradiation on structural and magnetic properties of TiO2 thin films annealed at 900 °C. Applied Surface Science 2018, 455 , 717-723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2018.05.223
  48. Marika Schleberger, Jani Kotakoski. 2D Material Science: Defect Engineering by Particle Irradiation. Materials 2018, 11 (10) , 1885. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma11101885
  49. Qing Chen, Meng-Qi Cheng, Ke Yang, Wei-Qing Huang, Wangyu Hu, Gui-Fang Huang. Dispersive and covalent interactions in all-carbon heterostructures consisting of penta-graphene and fullerene: topological effect. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 2018, 51 (30) , 305301. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/aaccd6
  50. Yang Chen, Nan Zhang, Yun‐Fei Li, Yan‐Gang Bi, Yuan‐Yuan Yue, Jing Feng, Hong‐Bo Sun. Microscale‐Patterned Graphene Electrodes for Organic Light‐Emitting Devices by a Simple Patterning Strategy. Advanced Optical Materials 2018, 6 (13) https://doi.org/10.1002/adom.201701348
  51. Hossein Peer-Mohammadi, Ali Rajabpour, Mansour Khanaki. Grain size facilitating the heat transfer between graphene and silica substrate. Computational Materials Science 2018, 149 , 348-353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2018.03.043
  52. A.H.N. Shirazi, R. Abadi, M. Izadifar, N. Alajlan, T. Rabczuk. Mechanical responses of pristine and defective C3N nanosheets studied by molecular dynamics simulations. Computational Materials Science 2018, 147 , 316-321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2018.01.058
  53. Songkil Kim, Anton V. Ievlev, Jacek Jakowski, Ivan V. Vlassiouk, Xiahan Sang, Chance Brown, Ondrej Dyck, Raymond R. Unocic, Sergei V. Kalinin, Alex Belianinov, Bobby G. Sumpter, Stephen Jesse, Olga S. Ovchinnikova. Multi-purposed Ar gas cluster ion beam processing for graphene engineering. Carbon 2018, 131 , 142-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2018.01.098
  54. Praveen Mishra, Badekai Ramchandra Bhat. Synthesis and characterization of graphene quantum dots and their size reduction using swift heavy ion beam. Radiation Effects and Defects in Solids 2018, 173 (3-4) , 232-238. https://doi.org/10.1080/10420150.2018.1424850
  55. Hang-Eun Joe, Eun-Goo Kang, Martin B. G. Jun. A Review of State of the Art of Electron Beam and Ion Beam Machining. Journal of the Korean Society for Precision Engineering 2018, 35 (3) , 241-252. https://doi.org/10.7736/KSPE.2018.35.3.241
  56. B. Bharati, N.C. Mishra, D. Kanjilal, Chandana Rath. 500 keV Ar2+ ion irradiation induced anatase to brookite phase transformation and ferromagnetism at room temperature in TiO2 thin films. Applied Surface Science 2018, 428 , 723-729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2017.09.070
  57. Sandeep K. Jain, Gerard T. Barkema. Rupture of amorphous graphene via void formation. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 2018, 20 (25) , 16966-16972. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8CP01960F
  58. Fang Yang, Duo Tang, Tengfei Zhang, Wenzhi Qin, Yongsheng Chen, Liang Wang, Jun Wang, Haibin Zhang, Yi Li, Long Zhang. A free-standing laser energy converter based on energetic graphene oxide for enhanced photothermic ignition. Journal of Materials Chemistry A 2018, 6 (28) , 13761-13768. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8TA03372B
  59. Yuan Dong, Martha T Gahl, Chi Zhang, Jian Lin. Computational study of precision nitrogen doping on graphene nanoribbon edges. Nanotechnology 2017, 28 (50) , 505602. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6528/aa9727
  60. Grzegorz Gawlik, Paweł Ciepielewski, Jacek Baranowski, Jacek Jagielski. Graphene defects induced by ion beam. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 2017, 408 , 228-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2017.04.082
  61. Katja Biswas. A thermally driven differential mutation approach for the structural optimization of large atomic systems. The Journal of Chemical Physics 2017, 147 (10) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4986303
  62. Saeed Bazrafshan, Ali Rajabpour. Thermal transport engineering in amorphous graphene: Non-equilibrium molecular dynamics study. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 2017, 112 , 379-386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2017.04.127
  63. G. Gawlik, P. Ciepielewski, J. Jagielski, J. Baranowski. Modification of graphene by ion beam. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms 2017, 406 , 683-688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2017.04.054
  64. Weiwei Luo, Wei Cai, Yinxiao Xiang, Wei Wu, Bin Shi, Xiaojie Jiang, Ni Zhang, Mengxin Ren, Xinzheng Zhang, Jingjun Xu. In-Plane Electrical Connectivity and Near-Field Concentration of Isolated Graphene Resonators Realized by Ion Beams. Advanced Materials 2017, 29 (30) , 1701083. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201701083
  65. Bo Zhang, Halidan Maimaiti, De-Dong Zhang, Bo Xu, Ming Wei. Preparation of coal-based C-Dots/TiO2 and its visible-light photocatalytic characteristics for degradation of pulping black liquor. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry 2017, 345 , 54-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotochem.2017.05.031
  66. Deniz Isin, Ece Eksin, Arzum Erdem. Graphene oxide modified single-use electrodes and their application for voltammetric miRNA analysis. Materials Science and Engineering: C 2017, 75 , 1242-1249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2017.02.166
  67. David Miller, Benjamín Alemán. Shape tailoring to enhance and tune the properties of graphene nanomechanical resonators. 2D Materials 2017, 4 (2) , 025101. https://doi.org/10.1088/2053-1583/aa7127
  68. H. Vázquez, E.H. Åhlgren, O. Ochedowski, A.A. Leino, R. Mirzayev, R. Kozubek, H. Lebius, M. Karlušic, M. Jakšic, A.V. Krasheninnikov, J. Kotakoski, M. Schleberger, K. Nordlund, F. Djurabekova. Creating nanoporous graphene with swift heavy ions. Carbon 2017, 114 , 511-518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2016.12.015
  69. S.K. Georgantzinos, S. Markolefas, G.I. Giannopoulos, D.E. Katsareas, N.K. Anifantis. Designing pinhole vacancies in graphene towards functionalization: Effects on critical buckling load. Superlattices and Microstructures 2017, 103 , 343-357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spmi.2017.02.004
  70. Ziqi Li, Feng Chen. Ion beam modification of two-dimensional materials: Characterization, properties, and applications. Applied Physics Reviews 2017, 4 (1) , 011103. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4977087
  71. Obaidur Rahaman, Bohayra Mortazavi, Arezoo Dianat, Gianaurelio Cuniberti, Timon Rabczuk. A structural insight into mechanical strength of graphene-like carbon and carbon nitride networks. Nanotechnology 2017, 28 (5) , 055707. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6528/28/5/055707
  72. Obaidur Rahaman, Bohayra Mortazavi, Arezoo Dianat, Gianaurelio Cuniberti, Timon Rabczuk. Metamorphosis in carbon network: From penta-graphene to biphenylene under uniaxial tension. FlatChem 2017, 1 , 65-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flatc.2016.12.001
  73. Elisabeth Gruber, Richard A. Wilhelm, Rémi Pétuya, Valerie Smejkal, Roland Kozubek, Anke Hierzenberger, Bernhard C. Bayer, Iñigo Aldazabal, Andrey K. Kazansky, Florian Libisch, Arkady V. Krasheninnikov, Marika Schleberger, Stefan Facsko, Andrei G. Borisov, Andrés Arnau, Friedrich Aumayr. Ultrafast electronic response of graphene to a strong and localized electric field. Nature Communications 2016, 7 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13948
  74. Weiwei Luo, Wei Cai, Wei Wu, Yinxiao Xiang, Mengxin Ren, Xinzheng Zhang, Jingjun Xu. Tailorable reflection of surface plasmons in defect engineered graphene. 2D Materials 2016, 3 (4) , 045001. https://doi.org/10.1088/2053-1583/3/4/045001
  75. Grzegorz Gawlik, Paweł Ciepielewski, Jacek M. Baranowski, Jacek Jagielski. Ion beam induced defects in CVD graphene on glass. Surface and Coatings Technology 2016, 306 , 119-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2016.05.041
  76. Hae-Chang Jeong, Hong-Gyu Park, Ju Hwan Lee, Sang Bok Jang, Byeong-Yun Oh, Dae-Shik Seo. Ion beam-induced topographical and chemical modification on the poly(styrene-co-allyl alcohol) and its effect on the molecular interaction between the modified surface and liquid crystals. Materials Chemistry and Physics 2016, 182 , 94-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchemphys.2016.07.009
  77. Bohayra Mortazavi, Zheyong Fan, Luiz Felipe C. Pereira, Ari Harju, Timon Rabczuk. Amorphized graphene: A stiff material with low thermal conductivity. Carbon 2016, 103 , 318-326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2016.03.007
  78. , , Georg Jacob, Karin Groot-Berning, Ulrich G. Poschinger, Ferdinand Schmidt-Kaler, Kilian Singer. Maximizing the information gain of a single ion microscope using bayes experimental design. 2016, 99001A. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2227745
  79. D. Emmrich, A. Beyer, A. Nadzeyka, S. Bauerdick, J. C. Meyer, J. Kotakoski, A. Gölzhäuser. Nanopore fabrication and characterization by helium ion microscopy. Applied Physics Letters 2016, 108 (16) https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4947277
  80. Ossi Lehtinen, Jani Kotakoski. Structural Changes in 2D Materials Due to Scattering of Light Ions. 2016, 63-88. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41990-9_3
  81. J. Martinez-Asencio, C. J. Ruestes, E. M. Bringa, M. J. Caturla. Controlled rippling of graphene via irradiation and applied strain modify its mechanical properties: a nanoindentation simulation study. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 2016, 18 (20) , 13897-13903. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6CP01487A
  82. Jakob Buchheim, Roman M. Wyss, Ivan Shorubalko, Hyung Gyu Park. Understanding the interaction between energetic ions and freestanding graphene towards practical 2D perforation. Nanoscale 2016, 8 (15) , 8345-8354. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6NR00154H
  83. Luiz Felipe C. Pereira, Bohayra Mortazavi, Meysam Makaremi, Timon Rabczuk. Anisotropic thermal conductivity and mechanical properties of phagraphene: a molecular dynamics study. RSC Advances 2016, 6 (63) , 57773-57779. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RA05082D
  84. Swastibrata Bhattacharyya, Shotaro Otake, Shota Ono, Riichi Kuwahara, Kaoru Ohno. Growth of Graphene Nanocoil in a SiC Container: A Molecular Dynamics Study. Advances in Materials Physics and Chemistry 2016, 06 (05) , 113-119. https://doi.org/10.4236/ampc.2016.65012
  85. Yang Liu, Hong-Gyu Park, Ju Hwan Lee, Dae-Shik Seo, Eun-Mi Kim, Gi-Seok Heo. Electro-optical switching of liquid crystals sandwiched between ion-beam-spurted graphene quantum dots-doped PEDOT:PSS composite layers. Optics Express 2015, 23 (26) , 34071. https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.23.034071
  86. Christian Brand, Michele Sclafani, Christian Knobloch, Yigal Lilach, Thomas Juffmann, Jani Kotakoski, Clemens Mangler, Andreas Winter, Andrey Turchanin, Jannik Meyer, Ori Cheshnovsky, Markus Arndt. An atomically thin matter-wave beamsplitter. Nature Nanotechnology 2015, 10 (10) , 845-848. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2015.179

Nano Letters

Cite this: Nano Lett. 2015, 15, 9, 5944–5949
Click to copy citationCitation copied!
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.5b02063
Published July 10, 2015

Copyright © 2015 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under CC-BY.

Article Views

4335

Altmetric

-

Citations

Learn about these metrics

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. Overview images of the structures patterned into graphene with a focused ion beam. (a) SEM overview image of the SiNx TEM grid showing an array of holes with a diameter of 2.5 μm. Graphene covers the complete area and is suspended over the holes. The pattern written with the FIB at a dose of 4.96 pC/nm2 is visible as dark stripes on the suspended membranes. (b) TEM image of a pattern written at a dose of 15.2 pC/nm2. The white areas correspond to completely removed graphene. (c) STEM-MAADF image of a low-dose pattern (darker areas correspond to lower amount of matter). (d) Higher-magnification STEM-MAADF image of structures written with the lower dose. (e) Line profile from the area marked in panel (d) showing the width of the patterns to be approximately 35 nm. (f) Same image as in panel (d) with the effect of the FIB patterning hidden by subtracting a blurred image (Gaussian blur with radius of 20 px). The resulting image shows only the features of the hydrocarbon contamination on the sample.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. Atomic-resolution images of amorphized graphene areas. (a–d) Example STEM-MAADF images from the amorphized areas (a–c) and a pristine area (d). A deconvolution with the beam profile, modeled as a sum of two Gaussians, has been applied as described in ref 36, followed by a Gaussian blur for panels (a–c) with a radius of 2–3 pixels. (e–h) Same images after the application of a minimum filter with a radius of 10 pixels to enhance the visibility of the nonhexagonal rings with the size of each ring marked on top of the rings. The marked atoms in panel (a) were identified as Si based on the contrast in the MAADF images. The bright areas around the atomically thin structures are covered by hydrocarbon contamination. All scale bars are 1 nm. Each pair of images is colored uniquely to ease the comparison.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. Chemical etching of the amorphous pattern. (a) STEM-MAADF close-up image of a patterned area of the sample before and (b) after an exposure of about 1 h to a parallel electron beam while air was leaked to the objective area of the microscope column (pressure increase from ca. 5.3 × 10–9 to 1.1 × 10–6 mbar). The approximate area exposed to the beam corresponds to the darkened circular shape seen in panel (b). Partial overlay on the left-hand-side of panel (a) highlights the structure of the pattern (“ml+cont” corresponds to nonirradiated graphene and contamination, whereas “am+cont” refers to amorphized areas). Circles with solid and dashed lines mark the same hole and metal contamination, respectively, in both images to ease the comparison. A higher magnification of the area marked with a rectangle in panel (b) is shown in panel (c) to ease distinguishing holes and clean graphene from each other.

  • References


    This article references 39 other publications.

    1. 1
      Novoselov, K. S.; Jiang, D.; Schedin, F.; Booth, T. J.; Khotkevich, V. V.; Morozov, S. V.; Geim, A. K. Two-dimensional atomic crystals Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2005, 102, 10451 10453 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0502848102
    2. 2
      Geim, A. K. Graphene: status and prospects Science 2009, 324, 1530 1534 DOI: 10.1126/science.1158877
    3. 3
      Lherbier, A.; Roche, S.; Restrepo, O. A.; Niquet, Y.-M.; Delcorte, A.; Charlier, J.-C. Highly defective graphene: A key prototype of two-dimensional Anderson insulators Nano Res. 2013, 6, 326 334 DOI: 10.1007/s12274-013-0309-7
    4. 4
      Salehi-Khojin, A.; Estrada, D.; Lin, K. Y.; Bae, M.-H.; Xiong, F.; Pop, E.; Masel, R. I. Polycrystalline Graphene Ribbons as Chemiresistors Adv. Mater. 2012, 24, 53 57 DOI: 10.1002/adma.201102663
    5. 5
      Turchanin, A. Conversion of Self-Assembled Monolayers into Nanocrystalline Graphene: Structure and Electric Transport ACS Nano 2011, 5, 3896 3904 DOI: 10.1021/nn200297n
    6. 6
      Lehtinen, O.; Kotakoski, J.; Krasheninnikov, A. V.; Tolvanen, A.; Nordlund, K.; Keinonen, J. Effects of ion bombardment on a two-dimensional target: Atomistic simulations of graphene irradiation Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2010, 81, 153401 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.81.153401
    7. 7
      Åhlgren, E.; Kotakoski, J.; Krasheninnikov, A. Atomistic simulations of the implantation of low-energy boron and nitrogen ions into graphene Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2011, 83, 115424 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.83.115424
    8. 8
      Xu, Y.; Zhang, K.; Brüsewitz, C.; Wu, X.; Hofsäss, H. C. Investigation of the effect of low energy ion beam irradiation on mono-layer graphene AIP Adv. 2013, 3, 072120 DOI: 10.1063/1.4816715
    9. 9
      Bangert, U. Ion implantation of graphene - towards IC compatible technologies Nano Lett. 2013, 13, 4902 4907 DOI: 10.1021/nl402812y
    10. 10
      Lehtinen, O.; Kotakoski, J.; Krasheninnikov, A. V.; Keinonen, J. Cutting and controlled modification of graphene with ion beams Nanotechnology 2011, 22, 175306 DOI: 10.1088/0957-4484/22/17/175306
    11. 11
      Åhlgren, E. H.; Kotakoski, J.; Lehtinen, O.; Krasheninnikov, A. V. Ion irradiation tolerance of graphene as studied by atomistic simulations Appl. Phys. Lett. 2012, 100, 233108 DOI: 10.1063/1.4726053
    12. 12

      The formula has been established for low cv and shows asymptotically wrong behaviour for cv → 1. It can therefore only be trusted for cv ≪ 1.

    13. 13
      Standop, S.; Lehtinen, O.; Herbig, C.; Lewes-Malandrakis, G.; Craes, F.; Kotakoski, J.; Michely, T.; Krasheninnikov, A. V.; Busse, C. Ion Impacts on Graphene/Ir(111): Interface Channeling, Vacancy Funnels, and a Nanomesh Nano Lett. 2013, 13, 1948 1955 DOI: 10.1021/nl304659n
    14. 14
      Åhlgren, E. H.; Hämäläinen, S. K.; Lehtinen, O.; Liljeroth, P.; Kotakoski, J. Structural manipulation of the graphene/metal interface with Ar+ irradiation Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2013, 88, 155419 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.88.155419
    15. 15
      Herbig, C.; Åhlgren, E. H.; Jolie, W.; Busse, C.; Kotakoski, J.; Krasheninnikov, A. V.; Michely, T. Interfacial Carbon Nanoplatelet Formation by Ion Irradiation of Graphene on Ir(111) ACS Nano 2014, 8, 12208 12218 DOI: 10.1021/nn503874n
    16. 16
      Tapasztó, L.; Dobrik, G.; Nemes-Incze, P.; Vertesy, G.; Lambin, Ph.; Biró, L. P. Tuning the electronic structure of graphene by ion irradiation Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2008, 78, 233407 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.78.233407
    17. 17
      Ugeda, M. M.; Brihuega, I.; Guinea, F.; Gómez-Rodríguez, J. M. Missing Atom as a Source of Carbon Magnetism Phys. Rev. Lett. 2010, 104, 096804 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.096804
    18. 18
      Ugeda, M. M.; Fernández-Torre, D.; Brihuega, I.; Pou, P.; Martínez-Galera, A. J.; Pérez, R.; Gómez-Rodríguez, J. M. Point defects on graphene on metals Phys. Rev. Lett. 2011, 107, 116803 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.116803
    19. 19
      Ugeda, M. M.; Brihuega, I.; Hiebel, F.; Mallet, P.; Veuillen, J.-Y.; Gómez-Rodríguez, J. M.; Ynduráin, F. Electronic and structural characterization of divacancies in irradiated graphene Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2012, 85, 121402 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.85.121402
    20. 20
      Pan, C.-T.; Hinks, J. A.; Ramasse, Q. M.; Greaves, G.; Bangert, U.; Donnelly, S. E.; Haigh, S. J. In-situ observation and atomic resolution imaging of the ion irradiation induced amorphisation of graphene Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 6334 DOI: 10.1038/srep06334
    21. 21
      Compagnini, G.; Giannazzo, F.; Sonde, S.; Raineri, V.; Rimini, E. Ion irradiation and defect formation in single layer graphene Carbon 2009, 47, 3201 3207 DOI: 10.1016/j.carbon.2009.07.033
    22. 22
      Zhou, Y.-B.; Liao, Z.-M.; Wang, Y.-F.; Duesberg, G. S.; Xu, J.; Fu, Q.; Wu, X.-S.; Yu, D.-P. Ion irradiation induced structural and electrical transition in graphene J. Chem. Phys. 2010, 133, 234703 DOI: 10.1063/1.3518979
    23. 23
      Compagnini, G.; Forte, G.; Giannazzo, F.; Raineri, V.; La Magna, A.; Deretzis, I. Ion beam induced defects in graphene: Raman spectroscopy and DFT calculations J. Mol. Struct. 2011, 993, 506 509 DOI: 10.1016/j.molstruc.2010.12.065
    24. 24
      Kalbac, M.; Lehtinen, O.; Krasheninnikov, A. V.; Keinonen, J. Ion-Irradiation-Induced Defects in Isotopically-Labeled Two Layered Graphene: Enhanced In-Situ Annealing of the Damage Adv. Mater. 2013, 25, 1004 1009 DOI: 10.1002/adma.201203807
    25. 25
      Wang, Q.; Mao, W.; Ge, D.; Zhang, Y.; Shao, Y.; Ren, N. Effects of Ga ion-beam irradiation on monolayer graphene Appl. Phys. Lett. 2013, 103, 073501 DOI: 10.1063/1.4818458
    26. 26
      Zeng, J.; Yao, H. J.; Zhang, S. X.; Zhai, P. F.; Duan, J. L.; Sun, Y. M.; Li, G. P.; Liu, J. Swift heavy ions induced irradiation effects in monolayer graphene and highly oriented pyrolytic graphite Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. B 2014, 330, 18 23 DOI: 10.1016/j.nimb.2014.03.019
    27. 27
      Mathew, S. Mega-electron-volt proton irradiation on supported and suspended graphene: A Raman spectroscopic layer dependent study J. Appl. Phys. 2011, 110, 084309 DOI: 10.1063/1.3647781
    28. 28
      Kumar, S.; Tripathi, A.; Khan, S. A.; Pannu, C.; Avasthi, D. K. Radiation stability of graphene under extreme conditions Appl. Phys. Lett. 2014, 105, 133107 DOI: 10.1063/1.4897004
    29. 29
      Kotakoski, J.; Krasheninnikov, A. V.; Kaiser, U.; Meyer, J. C. From Point Defects in Graphene to Two-Dimensional Amorphous Carbon Phys. Rev. Lett. 2011, 106, 105505 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.105505
    30. 30
      Eder, F. R.; Kotakoski, J.; Kaiser, U.; Meyer, J. C. A journey from order to disorder Atom by atom transformation from graphene to a 2d carbon glass Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 4060 DOI: 10.1038/srep04060
    31. 31
      Ochedowski, O.; Akcöltekin, S.; Ban d’Etat, B.; Lebius, H.; Schleberger, M. Detecting swift heavy ion irradiation effects with graphene Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. B 2013, 314, 18 20 DOI: 10.1016/j.nimb.2013.03.063
    32. 32
      Ochedowski, O.; Kleine Bussmann, B.; Ban d’Etat, B.; Lebius, H.; Schleberger, M. Manipulation of the graphene surface potential by ion irradiation Appl. Phys. Lett. 2013, 102, 153103 DOI: 10.1063/1.4801973
    33. 33
      Brand, C.; Sclafani, M.; Knobloch, C.; Lilach, Y.; Juffmann, T.; Kotakoski, J.; Mangler, C.; Winter, A.; Turchanin, A.; Meyer, J. C.; Cheshnovsky, O.; Arndt, M. An atomically thin matter-wave beam splitter Nature Nanotech. in press, 2015.
    34. 34
      Krivanek, O. L.; Corbin, G. J.; Dellby, N.; Elston, B. F.; Keyse, R. J.; Murfitt, M. F.; Own, C. S.; Szilagyi, Z. S.; Woodruff, J. W. An electron microscope for the aberration-corrected era Ultramicroscopy 2008, 108, 179 195 DOI: 10.1016/j.ultramic.2007.07.010
    35. 35
      Kotakoski, J.; Mangler, C.; Meyer, J. C. Imaging atomic-level random walk of a point defect in graphene Nat. Commun. 2014, 5, 4991 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms4991
    36. 36
      Krivanek, O. L. Atom-by-atom structural and chemical analysis by annular dark-field electron microscopy Nature 2010, 464, 571 574 DOI: 10.1038/nature08879
    37. 37

      Calculated with the approach introduced in ref 38 and implemented in the code TRIM.

    38. 38
      Ziegler, J. F.; Biersack, J. P.; Littmark, U. The Stopping and Range of Ions in Solids; Pergamon: New York, 1985.
    39. 39
      Meyer, J. C. Accurate Measurement of Electron Beam Induced Displacement Cross Sections for Single-Layer Graphene Phys. Rev. Lett. 2012, 108, 196102 DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.196102