Multilayer graphene and its stacking order provide both fundamentally intriguing properties and technological engineering applications. Several approaches to control the stacking order have been demonstrated, but a method of precisely controlling the number of layers with desired stacking sequences is still lacking. Here, we propose an approach for controlling the layer thickness and crystallographic stacking sequence of multilayer graphene films at the wafer scale via Cu–Si alloy formation using direct chemical vapour deposition. C atoms are introduced by tuning the ultra-low-limit CH4 concentration to form a SiC layer, reaching one to four graphene layers at the wafer scale after Si sublimation. The crystallographic structure of single-crystalline or uniformly oriented bilayer (AB), trilayer (ABA) and tetralayer (ABCA) graphene are determined via nano-angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy, which agrees with theoretical calculations, Raman spectroscopy and transport measurements. The present study takes a step towards the layer-controlled growth of graphite and other two-dimensional materials.
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $8.25 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Latil, S. & Henrard, L. Charge carriers in few-layer graphene films. Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 036803 (2006).
Ohta, T. et al. Interlayer interaction and electronic screening in multilayer graphene investigated with angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy. Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 206802 (2007).
Nair, R. R. et al. Fine structure constant defines visual transparency of graphene. Science 320, 1308–1308 (2008).
Ghosh, S. et al. Dimensional crossover of thermal transport in few-layer graphene. Nat. Mater. 9, 555–558 (2010).
Kopnin, N. B., Heikkilä, T. T. & Volovik, G. E. High-temperature surface superconductivity in topological flat-band systems. Phys. Rev. B 83, 220503(R) (2011).
Cao, Y. et al. Unconventional superconductivity in magic-angle graphene superlattices. Nature 556, 43–50 (2018).
Yankowitz, M. et al. Tuning superconductivity in twisted bilayer graphene. Science 363, 1059–1064 (2019).
Kopnin, N. B., Ijäs, M., Harju, A. & Heikkilä, T. T. High-temperature surface superconductivity in rhombohedral graphite. Phys. Rev. B 87, 140503 (2013).
Xu, Y. & Liu, J. Graphene as transparent electrodes: fabrication and new emerging applications. Small 12, 1400–1419 (2016).
Chen, P.-A., Chiang, M.-H. & Hsu, W.-C. All-zigzag graphene nanoribbons for planar interconnect application. J. Appl. Phys. 122, 034301 (2017).
Randviir, E. P., Brownson, D. A. C. & Banks, C. E. A decade of graphene research: production, applications and outlook. Mater. Today 17, 426–432 (2014).
Bonaccorso, F., Sun, Z., Hasan, T. & Ferrari, A. C. Graphene photonics and optoelectronics. Nat. Photonics 4, 611–622 (2010).
Liao, L. et al. High-speed graphene transistors with a self-aligned nanowire gate. Nature 467, 305–308 (2010).
Khodkov, T., Khrapach, I., Craciun, M. F. & Russo, S. Direct observation of a gate tunable band gap in electrical transport in ABC-trilayer graphene. Nano Lett. 15, 4429–4433 (2015).
Hao, Y. et al. Oxygen-activated growth and bandgap tunability of large single-crystal bilayer graphene. Nat. Nanotechnol. 11, 426–431 (2016).
Zou, K., Zhang, F., Clapp, C., MacDonald, A. H. & Zhu, J. Transport studies of dual-gated ABC and ABA trilayer graphene: band gap opening and band structure tuning in very large perpendicular electric fields. Nano Lett. 13, 369–373 (2013).
Lee, D. S. et al. Quantum Hall effect in twisted bilayer graphene. Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 216602 (2011).
Jhang, S. H. et al. Stacking-order dependent transport properties of trilayer graphene. Phys. Rev. B 84, 161408 (2011).
Kumar, A. et al. Integer quantum Hall effect in trilayer graphene. Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 126806 (2011).
Nguyen, V. L. et al. Wafer-scale single-crystalline AB-stacked bilayer graphene. Adv. Mater. 28, 8177–8183 (2016).
Liu, W. et al. Controllable and rapid synthesis of high-quality and large-area Bernal stacked bilayer graphene using chemical vapor deposition. Chem. Mater. 26, 907–915 (2014).
Takesaki, Y. et al. Highly uniform bilayer graphene on epitaxial Cu–Ni(111) alloy. Chem. Mater. 28, 4583–4592 (2016).
Chen, S. et al. Synthesis and characterization of large-area graphene and graphite films on commercial Cu-Ni alloy foils. Nano Lett. 11, 3519–3525 (2011).
Wu, Y. et al. Growth mechanism and controlled synthesis of AB-stacked bilayer graphene on Cu–Ni alloy foils. ACS Nano 6, 7731–7738 (2012).
Lin, T. et al. Self-regulating homogenous growth of high-quality graphene on Co–Cu composite substrate for layer control. Nanoscale 5, 5847–5853 (2013).
Kim, K. et al. Van der Waals heterostructures with high accuracy rotational alignment. Nano Lett. 16, 1989–1995 (2016).
Kim, C.-J. et al. Chiral atomically thin films. Nat. Nanotechnol. 11, 520–524 (2016).
Sutter, P. W., Flege, J.-I. & Sutter, E. A. Epitaxial graphene on ruthenium. Nat. Mater. 7, 406–411 (2008).
Que, Y. et al. Stacking-dependent electronic property of trilayer graphene epitaxially grown on Ru(0001). Appl. Phys. Lett. 107, 263101 (2015).
Sutter, P. & Sutter, E. Microscopy of graphene growth, processing, and properties. Adv. Funct. Mater. 23, 2617–2634 (2013).
Guo, H. et al. Centimeter-scale, single-crystalline, AB-stacked bilayer graphene on insulating substrates. 2D Mater. 6, 045044 (2019).
Nyakiti, L. O. et al. Bilayer graphene grown on 4H-SiC (0001) step-free mesas. Nano Lett. 12, 1749–1756 (2012).
Wang, Q. et al. Large-scale uniform bilayer graphene prepared by vacuum graphitization of 6H-SiC(0001) substrates. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 25, 095002 (2013).
Fang, W., Hsu, A. L., Song, Y. & Kong, J. A review of large-area bilayer graphene synthesis by chemical vapor deposition. Nanoscale 7, 20335–20351 (2015).
Xue, R., Abidi, I. H. & Luo, Z. Domain size, layer number and morphology control for graphene grown by chemical vapor deposition. Funct. Mater. Lett. 10, 1730003 (2017).
Yan, K., Peng, H., Zhou, Y., Li, H. & Liu, Z. Formation of bilayer Bernal graphene: layer-by-layer epitaxy via chemical vapor deposition. Nano Lett. 11, 1106–1110 (2011).
Liu, L. et al. High-yield chemical vapor deposition growth of high-quality large-area AB-stacked bilayer graphene. ACS Nano 6, 8241–8249 (2012).
Zou, Z., Fu, L., Song, X., Zhang, Y. & Liu, Z. Carbide-forming groups IVB-VIB metals: a new territory in the periodic table for CVD growth of graphene. Nano Lett. 14, 3832–3839 (2014).
Hackley, J., Ali, D., DiPasquale, J., Demaree, J. D. & Richardson, C. J. K. Graphitic carbon growth on Si(111) using solid source molecular beam epitaxy. Appl. Phys. Lett. 95, 133114 (2009).
Yazdi, G., Iakimov, T. & Yakimova, R. Epitaxial graphene on SiC: a review of growth and characterization. Crystals 6, 53 (2016).
Huang, P. Y. et al. Direct imaging of a two-dimensional silica glass on graphene. Nano Lett. 12, 1081–1086 (2012).
Ruiz, I., Wang, W., George, A., Ozkan, C. S. & Ozkan, M. Silicon oxide contamination of graphene sheets synthesized on copper substrates via chemical vapor deposition. Adv. Sci. Eng. Med. 6, 1070–1075 (2014).
Ta, H. Q. et al. Stranski-Krastanov and Volmer-Weber CVD growth regimes to control the stacking order in bilayer graphene. Nano Lett. 16, 6403–6410 (2016).
Bittencourt, C. Reaction of Si(100) with silane–methane low-power plasma: SiC buffer-layer formation. J. Appl. Phys. 86, 4643–4648 (1999).
Liu, X. et al. Segregation growth of graphene on Cu–Ni alloy for precise layer control. J. Phys. Chem. C 115, 11976–11982 (2011).
Lui, C. H. et al. Imaging stacking order in few-layer graphene. Nano Lett. 11, 164–169 (2011).
Ni, Z. H. et al. Graphene thickness determination using reflection and contrast spectroscopy. Nano Lett. 7, 2758–2763 (2007).
Nguyen, V. L. et al. Seamless stitching of graphene domains on polished copper (111) foil. Adv. Mater. 27, 1376–1382 (2015).
Liu, X.-Y. et al. Perfect strain relaxation in metamorphic epitaxial aluminum on silicon through primary and secondary interface misfit dislocation arrays. ACS Nano 12, 6843–6850 (2018).
Orlando, F. et al. Epitaxial growth of a single-domain hexagonal boron nitride monolayer. ACS Nano 8, 12063–12070 (2014).
Kim, S.-K., Jeong, S.-Y. & Cho, C.-R. Structural reconstruction of hexagonal to cubic ZnO films on Pt/Ti/SiO2/Si substrate by annealing. Appl. Phys. Lett. 82, 562–564 (2003).
Kato, T. et al. Simultaneous growth of two differently oriented GaN epilayers on (1 1 · 0) sapphire II. A growth model of (0 0 · 1) and (10 · 0) GaN. J. Cryst. Growth 183, 131–139 (1998).
Geng, D. et al. Uniform hexagonal graphene flakes and films grown on liquid copper surface. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 7992–7996 (2012).
Pan, Y. et al. Highly ordered, millimeter-scale, continuous, single-crystalline graphene monolayer formed on Ru(0001). Adv. Mater. 21, 2777–2780 (2009).
Peng, H. et al. Substrate doping effect and unusually large angle van Hove singularity evolution in twisted bi- and multilayer graphene. Adv. Mater. 29, 1606741 (2017).
Giovannetti, G. et al. Doping graphene with metal contacts. Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 026803 (2008).
Bao, C. et al. Stacking-dependent electronic structure of trilayer graphene resolved by nanospot angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy. Nano Lett. 17, 1564–1568 (2017).
Yankowitz, M., Wang, F., Lau, C. N. & LeRoy, B. J. Local spectroscopy of the electrically tunable band gap in trilayer graphene. Phys. Rev. B 87, 165102 (2013).
Bao, W. et al. Stacking-dependent band gap and quantum transport in trilayer graphene. Nat. Phys. 7, 948–952 (2011).
Huang, M. et al. Large-area single-crystal AB-bilayer and ABA-trilayer graphene grown on a Cu/Ni(111) foil. Nat. Nanotechnol. 15, 289–295 (2020).
Ma, W. et al. Interlayer epitaxy of wafer-scale high-quality uniform AB-stacked bilayer graphene films on liquid Pt3Si/solid Pt. Nat. Commun. 10, 2809 (2019).
This work was supported by the Institute for Basic Science (IBS-R011-D1), Republic of Korea. S.-Y.J. thanks the Basic Science Research Program of the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning (no. NRF-2017R1A2B3011822). The Antares’s group at the Synchrotron SOLEIL is supported by Université Paris Saclay, Centre National de la Recherche Scientique (CNRS) and Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique et aux Energies Alternatives (CEA), France. Y.-M.K. was supported in part by an NRF grant (NRF-2015M3D1A1070672) in Korea.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information Nature Nanotechnology thanks Jeremy Robinson and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended Data Fig. 1 SIMS profiles of O and Si obtained after annealing the Cu film in an H2-rich environment at atmospheric pressure.
The O depth profile indicates that the oxygen exists only within 1–2 nm from the surface. In contrast, the Si depth profile indicates that the silicon exists up to 8 nm from the surface. Thus, it is evident that the thickness of Si is greater than that of O, implying that only the Si atoms were extracted from the quartz tube and deposited on the Cu surface to form a Cu-Si alloy. The presence of O atoms within 2 nm is unavoidable owing to the native oxide formation in the samples when exposed to ambient conditions. In Supplementary Fig. 1, the O content is in the range of 38.8–40.1 at.%, and the Si content increases from 15.1 to 38.6 at.% when the Cu film is annealed at atmospheric pressure (H2-rich environment, 1 atm) for 60 min. A similar O content (~40.5%) was revealed even when no Si was deposited. However, when the Cu substrate is annealed at a low pressure, a much higher O content (64.3 at.%) is observed owing to the deposition of SiO2 (Supplementary Fig. 3). These results also indicate that only the Si atoms are deposited on the Cu surface when annealed in an H2-rich environment at 1 atm, and the presence of O atoms is attributed to the native oxide formation occurring when the samples are exposed to ambient conditions. The O content will be much higher if SiO2 is deposited.
Extended Data Fig. 2 Schematic of graphene growth processes and the corresponding flow rates in each step for uniform multilayer growth.
Three mass flow controllers were employed to control the flow rates of H2, CH4, and Ar, respectively. The H2 and Ar gas bottles had a 6N purity. CH4 was introduced only to form SiC in step II. The temperature was increased to 1075 °C, and 200 sccm of Ar was injected into the chamber for the Si sublimation in step III. Pre-diluted CH4 (with Ar) gas of different concentrations was purchased. For growth in Fig. 2, the concentration of CH4 was 0.1%. The growth times of the island and full film were 5 and 10 min, respectively.
a, When step II was performed at 700 °C, no graphene was observed. At this temperature, CH4 could not be decomposed, and thus, SiC was not formed in this step. Therefore, graphene was not formed although the conditions were suitable for growth in step III. b, In contrast, when steps II and III were performed at 900 and 1075 °C, respectively, multilayer islands with considerable uniform thickness were obtained. c, However, when the temperature was set at 1075 °C in step II, the Si sublimation could occur partially at such a high temperature, resulting in a non-uniform Cu-Si alloy and consequently a non-uniform multilayer graphene in step III. Therefore, 900 °C is considered to be an optimal temperature for step II.
As shown in panels a and b, the growth rate of multilayer graphene domains is directly proportional to the temperature. However, when the temperature is increased to more than 1075 °C, the Cu-Si alloy melts. Therefore, 1075 °C is considered to be an optimal temperature for step III.
a–d, Optical images of monolayer, bilayer, trilayer, and tetralayer graphene islands on SiO2/Si. The inset in each image depicts the optical contrast profile across the dashed line. e, Contrast difference of different graphene layers. The optical contrast difference increases linearly from panels (a)–(d), with the number of graphene layers.
a–d, Optical images of full films of monolayer, bilayer, trilayer, and tetralayered graphene on SiO2/Si, and the inset images depict the corresponding confocal Raman mapping images of two-dimensional FWHM. The uniform colour contrast of these mapping images suggests a uniform stacking order across the entire graphene film.
SEM image of the tetralayer graphene islands on a TEM grid and the corresponding SEAD patterns of the highlighted points. The parallel yellow dotted-lines indicate the orientation of tetralayer islands aligned in one preferred orientation.
a, Image of tetralayer graphene on a Cu substrate; the enlarged optical image depicts the wrinkles in the graphene film. b–d, Three representative LEED patterns of the highlighted points in panel (a). All the LEED patterns exhibit an identical lattice orientation of the graphene film across the entire wafer. The misalignment between graphene and copper is below 0.4°, and the mismatch of the lattice constant between graphene and Cu(111) surface is approximately 4.6%.
The alignment of the graphene supercell on the surface of Cu(111) is illustrated in both small and large scales. EADM is obtained from the following expression: (Id – I′d′)/I′d′, where d and d′ are the two respective atomic distances of the epilayer and substrate. I and I′ are determined by the relationship between two structures, and I/I′ is determined to be the smallest integral ratio required to match the extended lattice. Considering 5 × dCu-Cu interatomic spacing (12.7810 nm) of Cu and 9 × dC-C interatomic spacing (12.7827 nm) of graphene, the EADM of the graphene/Cu interface is determined to be only 0.013%.
Extended Data Fig. 10 Confocal Raman mapping of the graphene domains grown on a pure Cu substrate with 0.1% CH4.
a, Optical image of the graphene domains. The interlayer rotation angle between 1L and 2L (red and black dashed-lines) is 30°, whereas the angle between 2L, 3L, and 4L (red dashed-lines) is 0°. b, Corresponding confocal Raman mapping of 2D FWHM. (c) Raman spectra corresponding to the points marked in panel (b). d–f, Identical measurements on another domain. The interlayer crystal orientation of the three layers is 0°, forming the Bernal-stacking order. These observations indicate that the stacking order in this growth mode was random.
Graph for Fig. 1c–e.
Graph for Fig. 3f.
Graph for Fig. 4e–k.
Graph for Extended Data Fig. 1.
Graph for Extended Data Fig. 5a–d.
Graph for Extended Data Fig. 10c,f.
About this article
Cite this article
Nguyen, V.L., Duong, D.L., Lee, S.H. et al. Layer-controlled single-crystalline graphene film with stacking order via Cu–Si alloy formation. Nat. Nanotechnol. 15, 861–867 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-020-0743-0
Scientific Reports (2021)