Polarity governs atomic interaction through two-dimensional materials

Abstract

The transparency of two-dimensional (2D) materials to intermolecular interactions of crystalline materials has been an unresolved topic. Here we report that remote atomic interaction through 2D materials is governed by the binding nature, that is, the polarity of atomic bonds, both in the underlying substrates and in 2D material interlayers. Although the potential field from covalent-bonded materials is screened by a monolayer of graphene, that from ionic-bonded materials is strong enough to penetrate through a few layers of graphene. Such field penetration is substantially attenuated by 2D hexagonal boron nitride, which itself has polarization in its atomic bonds. Based on the control of transparency, modulated by the nature of materials as well as interlayer thickness, various types of single-crystalline materials across the periodic table can be epitaxially grown on 2D material-coated substrates. The epitaxial films can subsequently be released as free-standing membranes, which provides unique opportunities for the heterointegration of arbitrary single-crystalline thin films in functional applications.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: The remote atomic interaction of GaN and Si through 1 ML graphene.
Fig. 2: Penetration distance of the potential fluctuations from the Si, GaAs and GaN substrates.
Fig. 3: The comparison of energy fluctuation from 2D interlayers (graphene and hBN) and substrates (GaN) for graphene-coated and hBN-coated GaN substrates.
Fig. 4: Comparison of the transparency and seeding properties of hBN and graphene.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding authors on reasonable request.

References

  1. 1.

    Van den Brink, J. Graphene: from strength to strength. Nat. Nanotech. 2, 199–201 (2007).

  2. 2.

    Lee, C., Wei, X., Kysar, J. W. & Hone, J. Measurement of the elastic properties and intrinsic strength of monolayer graphene. Science 321, 385–388 (2008).

  3. 3.

    Charlier, J.-C., Gonze, X. & Michenaud, J.-P. Graphite interplanar bonding: electronic delocalization and van der Waals interaction. Europhys. Lett. 28, 403–408 (1994).

  4. 4.

    Koma, A. Van der Waals epitaxy—a new epitaxial growth method for a highly lattice-mismatched system. Thin Solid Films 216, 72–76 (1992).

  5. 5.

    Spanu, L., Sorella, S. & Galli, G. Nature and strength of interlayer binding in graphite. Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 196401 (2009).

  6. 6.

    Shih, C.-J. et al. Breakdown in the wetting transparency of graphene. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 176101 (2012).

  7. 7.

    Chae, S. et al. Lattice transparency of graphene. Nano Lett. 17, 1711–1718 (2017).

  8. 8.

    Ramos-Alvarado, B., Kumar, S. & Peterson, G. On the wettability transparency of graphene-coated silicon surfaces. J. Chem. Phys. 144, 014701 (2016).

  9. 9.

    Kim, Y. et al. Remote epitaxy through graphene enables two-dimensional material-based layer transfer. Nature 544, 340–343 (2017).

  10. 10.

    Parobek, D. & Liu, H. Wettability of graphene. 2D Mater. 2, 032001 (2015).

  11. 11.

    Ramos-Alvarado, B., Kumar, S. & Peterson, G. Wettability of graphitic-carbon and silicon surfaces: MD modeling and theoretical analysis. J. Chem. Phys. 143, 044703 (2015).

  12. 12.

    Ondarçuhu, T. et al. Wettability of partially suspended graphene. Sci. Rep. 6, 24237 (2016).

  13. 13.

    Rafiee, J. et al. Wetting transparency of graphene. Nat. Mater. 11, 217–222 (2012).

  14. 14.

    Taherian, F., Marcon, V., van der Vegt, N. F. & Leroy, F. What is the contact angle of water on graphene? Langmuir 29, 1457–1465 (2013).

  15. 15.

    Li, Z. et al. Effect of airborne contaminants on the wettability of supported graphene and graphite. Nat. Mater. 12, 925 (2013).

  16. 16.

    Singh, E. et al. Graphene drape minimizes the pinning and hysteresis of water drops on nanotextured rough surfaces. ACS Nano 7, 3512–3521 (2013).

  17. 17.

    Raj, R., Maroo, S. C. & Wang, E. N. Wettability of graphene. Nano Lett. 13, 1509–1515 (2013).

  18. 18.

    Shin, Y. et al. Surface-energy engineering of graphene. Langmuir 26, 3798–3802 (2010).

  19. 19.

    Hong, G. et al. On the mechanism of hydrophilicity of graphene. Nano Lett. 16, 4447–4453 (2016).

  20. 20.

    Shih, C.-J., Strano, M. S. & Blankschtein, D. Wetting translucency of graphene. Nat. Mater. 12, 866–869 (2013).

  21. 21.

    Li, X. et al. Influence of water on the electronic structure of metal-supported graphene: insights from van der Waals density functional theory. Phys. Rev. B 85, 085425 (2012).

  22. 22.

    Zhang, L. et al. Janus graphene from asymmetric two-dimensional chemistry. Nat. Commun. 4, 1443 (2013).

  23. 23.

    Lee, C. H., Drelich, J. & Yap, Y. K. Superhydrophobicity of boron nitride nanotubes grown on silicon substrates. Langmuir 25, 4853–4860 (2009).

  24. 24.

    Li, H. & Zeng, X. C. Wetting and interfacial properties of water nanodroplets in contact with graphene and monolayer boron–nitride sheets. ACS Nano 6, 2401–2409 (2012).

  25. 25.

    Gaur, A. P. et al. Surface energy engineering for tunable wettability through controlled synthesis of MoS2. Nano Lett. 14, 4314–4321 (2014).

  26. 26.

    Chow, P. K. et al. Wetting of mono and few-layered WS2 and MoS2 films supported on Si/SiO2 substrates. ACS Nano 9, 3023–3031 (2015).

  27. 27.

    Kozbial, A., Gong, X., Liu, H. & Li, L. Understanding the intrinsic water wettability of molybdenum disulfide (MoS2). Langmuir 31, 8429–8435 (2015).

  28. 28.

    Christensen, N., Satpathy, S. & Pawlowska, Z. Bonding and ionicity in semiconductors. Phys. Rev. B 36, 1032 (1987).

  29. 29.

    Gordy, W. & Thomas, W. O. Electronegativities of the elements. J. Chem. Phys. 24, 439–444 (1956).

  30. 30.

    Phillips, J. Ionicity of the chemical bond in crystals. Rev. Modern Phys. 42, 317 (1970).

  31. 31.

    Lennard-Jones, J. E. Cohesion. Proc. Phys. Soc. 43, 461 (1931).

  32. 32.

    Catlow, C. & Stoneham, A. Ionicity in solids. J. Phys. C 16, 4321 (1983).

  33. 33.

    Gottschalk, H., Patzer, G. & Alexander, H. Stacking fault energy and ionicity of cubic III–V compounds. Phys. Status Solidi 45, 207–217 (1978).

  34. 34.

    Kim, J. et al. Principle of direct van der Waals epitaxy of single-crystalline films on epitaxial graphene. Nat. Commun. 5, 5836 (2014).

  35. 35.

    Striemer, C. C., Gaborski, T. R., McGrath, J. L. & Fauchet, P. M. Charge-and size-based separation of macromolecules using ultrathin silicon membranes. Nature 445, 749–753 (2007).

  36. 36.

    Lee, D. et al. Emergence of room-temperature ferroelectricity at reduced dimensions. Science 349, 1314–1317 (2015).

  37. 37.

    Yoon, J. et al. Ultrathin silicon solar microcells for semitransparent, mechanically flexible and microconcentrator module designs. Nat. Mater. 7, 907–915 (2008).

  38. 38.

    Ko, H. et al. Ultrathin compound semiconductor on insulator layers for high-performance nanoscale transistors. Nature 468, 286–289 (2010).

  39. 39.

    Ayari, T. et al. Wafer-scale controlled exfoliation of metal organic vapor phase epitaxy grown InGaN/GaN multi quantum well structures using low-tack two-dimensional layered h-BN. Appl. Phys. Lett. 108, 171106 (2016).

  40. 40.

    Li, X. et al. Large-area two-dimensional layered hexagonal boron nitride grown on sapphire by metalorganic vapor phase epitaxy. Crystal Growth Design 16, 3409–3415 (2016).

  41. 41.

    Kim, J. et al. Layer-resolved graphene transfer via engineered strain layers. Science 342, 833–836 (2013).

  42. 42.

    Bae, S.-H. et al. Unveiling the carrier transport mechanism in epitaxial graphene for forming wafer-scale, single-domain graphene. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 4082–4086 (2017).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This material is based on work supported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (award no. 027049-00001, J. Gimlett), Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in the Department of Energy (award no. DE-EE0008151) and Air Force Research Laboratory (FA9453-18-2-0017, D. Wilt). We thank Masdar Institute/Khalifa University, LG Electronics R&D Center and Amore Pacific for their support on the remote epitaxy program at MIT. We also thank the LAM Research Foundation, Analog Devices, Rocky Mountain Vacuum and the MIT Lincoln Laboratory for the general support. Research at Naval Research Laboratory was supported by the Office of Naval Research. This research used resources of the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, a DOE Office of Science User Facility supported by the Office of Science of the US Department of Energy under contract no. DE-AC02-05CH11231. H.L. thanks the National Supercomputer Center in Guangzhou for support on the computational resources. K.Q. is supported by China Scholarship Council. K.C. and Y.N. were supported by ASCENT, one of six centres in JUMP, a Semiconductor Research Corporation program sponsored by DARPA. Y.N. also thanks the Texas Advanced Computing Center (TACC) for providing computation resources. S.S. and A.O. acknowledge partial funding from the hBN study by the French National Research Agency under the GANEX Laboratory of Excellence (Labex) project.

Author information

J.K., W.K. and K.Q. conceived the experiments. J.C.G., J.K., H.L. and W.K. design theoretical modelling. J.C.G. and H.L. performed the DFT calculation. K.C. and Y.N. performed the KMC simulation. W.K., K.Q., Y.K., K.L., D.L. and S.-H.B. contributed to the 2D material handling, measurements, and synthesis of Si, Ge, GaAs, GaN and LiF, T.O., R.J.M., Y.Z. and S.R. contributed to GaN synthesis, D.K.G., R.L.M.-W. and K.M.D. contributed to the graphene synthesis, S.S. and A.O. contributed to the hBN synthesis and Y.Y. and Y.S.H. contributed to the LiF synthesis. All the authors contributed to the discussions and analysis of the results regarding the manuscript. J.K. directed the team.

Correspondence to Jeffrey C. Grossman or Jeehwan Kim.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figures 1–18, Supplementary References 1–19

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Further reading