Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Layer Dependent Interfacial Transport and Optoelectrical Properties of MoS2 on Ultra-flat Metals

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read In vertical metal/MoS2/metal junctions, the tunneling barrier falls as MoS2 goes from one to five layers.

desk verdict Layer-dependent barrier trend is plausible and independently supported by DFT, but the FN extraction is under-documented and the conclusion contains a treatable sign error; worth reviewing with revisions. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.00609 v1 pith:2BJVUHAG submitted 2019-08-01 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Hao Lee , S. Deshmukh , Jing Wen , V.Z. Costa , J. S. Schuder , M. Sanchez , A. S. Ichimura , Eric Pop
show 2 more authors
Bin Wang A. K. M. Newaz
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords MoS2transitionmetaldichalcogenidesFowler-Nordheimtunnelingconductiveatomicforcemicroscopybarrierheightlayer-dependenttransportnegativephotoconductivitymetal-semiconductorinterface
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks how the energy barrier at a metal/MoS2/metal junction changes as MoS2 is thinned to a few layers. Using conductive atomic force microscopy on ultra-flat gold and indium-tin-oxide electrodes, it finds that current through the vertical junction increases from one to five MoS2 layers, while the Fowler-Nordheim barrier height extracted from the I-V curves decreases. A density-functional calculation of the Au/MoS2 Schottky barrier, defined as the gold work function minus the MoS2 electron affinity, independently gives the same decreasing trend. If correct, this means layer count is a tunable lever for current injection in two-dimensional semiconductor contacts, and that earlier reports of the opposite trend may reflect substrate roughness rather than intrinsic MoS2 physics.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Fowler-Nordheim tunneling equation, $$I(V)=\frac{A_e $q^{3}$ m $V^{2}$}{8\pi h\Phi_B $d^{2}$ m^*}\exp\left(-\frac{8\pi\sqrt{2m^*}\$Phi_B^{{3/2}}$d}{3h q V}\right),$$ which connects measured vertical current to the barrier height $\Phi_B$. The paper inverts this expression, taking the MoS2 thickness as $d=n\times0.7$ nm and effective mass ratio $m^*/m=0.35$ for monolayer MoS2 and $0.53$ for thicker flakes, to assign a barrier height to each layer. As an independent check, density functional theory computes the Schottky barrier at Au/MoS2 as $\Phi_B=W-\chi_e$, the gold work function minus the MoS2 electron affinity, and finds the same decreasing trend with layer number.

What would settle it

Measure the same 1-5 layer MoS2 stacks in a junction with an electrode area fixed by lithography rather than by an AFM tip, and extract barrier heights without assuming a layer-independent contact area; the central claim would be falsified if the current still rose with layer count while the deduced barrier height stayed flat or rose, or if using independently measured layer-dependent effective masses inverted the computed trend.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that in a vertical metal/MoS2/metal junction, the barrier to electron tunneling is highest for a monolayer and falls monotonically as the MoS2 thickness is increased to five layers, so the junction current rises with layer number. The claim is established by averaging spatially resolved I-V curves pixel by pixel and applying Fowler-Nordheim tunneling theory to extract barrier heights, with an assumed layer thickness of $n\times0.7$ nm and effective mass ratio $m^*/m=0.35$ for monolayer and $0.53$ for thicker flakes. The same decreasing barrier trend is obtained independently from density-functional calculations of the Au/MoS2 interface, where the barrier is the gold work function minus the MoS2 electron affinity; the calculated trend persists when the interfacial spacing is artificially increased by 1-3 Å. The paper also reports that the barrier is higher on ITO than on template-stripped Au, that flake edges conduct less than the basal plane, and that blue light reduces the current, a non-transient negative photoconductivity.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every extra MoS2 layer simply adds 0.7 nm of tunneling distance, that the electron effective mass is known for monolayer and thicker flakes, and that the AFM tip contact area and applied pressure are identical at every layer; if any of these differ by layer, the extracted barrier heights, and therefore the central downward trend, would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Layer count can serve as a design knob for injection current in vertical MoS2 contacts, with five layers delivering the most current.
  • The barrier-height difference between Au and ITO means the bottom electrode work function, not just the TMD itself, sets the junction's tunneling resistance.
  • MoS2 flake edges act as low-conductivity regions, so nanoscale devices contacting edges must expect reduced current relative to basal-plane contact.
  • Blue-light illumination suppresses vertical current and the suppression grows with layer number, a behavior that could be exploited as an optically controlled switch if the mechanism is confirmed.
  • Density-functional results indicate the trend originates in band alignment, with the electron affinity rising as layers are added, rather than in simple thickness-induced tunneling attenuation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extension would be to test whether the same decreasing-barrier trend holds for other TMDs such as WSe2 or MoSe2; the paper's mechanism predicts it should whenever the electron affinity rises with layer count.
  • Because the paper attributes the earlier opposite trend to substrate roughness, a direct test is to vary bottom-electrode roughness deliberately across samples and see whether the barrier trend flips sign at a roughness threshold.
  • The negative photoconductivity implies photoexcited carriers raise the junction barrier in the vertical geometry; if confirmed by bias- and power-dependent I-V under illumination, it would distinguish this DC effect from the picosecond trion mechanism seen in planar devices.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports conductive atomic force microscopy (CAFM) and photoconductive AFM measurements of 1-5 layer MoS2 on template-stripped Au and ultra-flat ITO substrates, forming vertical metal/MoS2/metal junctions. The authors report that (i) the current increases with layer number up to 5 layers, (ii) Fowler-Nordheim (FN) tunneling analysis yields barrier heights that decrease as the layer number increases, (iii) the same decreasing trend is reproduced by DFT calculations of the Au/MoS2 Schottky barrier, (iv) flake edges are less conductive than the basal plane, and (v) blue-light illumination produces negative photoconductivity. The central quantitative claim is the layer-dependent barrier height, extracted by inverting Eq. (1) using assumed layer thicknesses and effective masses.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper provides a useful counterpoint to the opposite trend reported for MoS2 on rough ITO in Ref. 35, and it identifies substrate flatness as a key variable controlling vertical transport in TMD/metal junctions. The work is strengthened by the use of ultra-flat template-stripped Au and carefully prepared ITO, by measurements on multiple samples, and by independent DFT calculations that reproduce the decreasing barrier trend. The observation of non-transient negative photoconductivity in a vertical junction is also noteworthy. However, the quantitative barrier heights are only as reliable as the FN inversion, and the manuscript does not currently demonstrate that the measured I-V curves are in the FN tunneling regime. The strength of the conclusion therefore hinges on analysis that is not shown.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results and Discussion, Figs. 2(c)-2(d) and 3(c)-3(d)] The central claim that the barrier height decreases with layer number rests entirely on inverting Eq. (1), but the manuscript shows no FN plots (ln(I/V^2) versus 1/V), no fitting ranges, and no goodness-of-fit statistics for any layer on either substrate. Eq. (1) is valid only in the high-field FN tunneling regime, and non-linear I-V characteristics of metal/MoS2/metal junctions can also be governed by direct tunneling, thermionic emission, or contact-limited injection. Unless the authors demonstrate a linear FN segment and specify the bias range used for each fit, the reported Phi_B values and their monotonic decrease are model artifacts rather than measured quantities. This is the load-bearing step for the paper's main claim.
  2. [Eq. (1) and the paragraph following it] The conversion of I-V curves into barrier heights uses d = n x 0.7 nm and m*/m = 0.35 for monolayer and 0.53 for thicker flakes, with an implicit assumption of constant tip contact area and pressure. This procedure is sensitive to systematic errors. In particular, if the actual tunneling distance includes an interfacial van der Waals gap of roughly 0.3 nm, then for a constant true barrier the extracted Phi_B scales as (d_true/d_model)^(2/3), which decreases with increasing n and would mimic the reported trend. Layer-dependent effective mass or contact area would similarly alter the extracted trend. The authors should provide a sensitivity analysis and justify the thickness and effective-mass choices, or compare the data with a direct-tunneling model to show that the trend is robust.
  3. [Conclusions vs. Fig. 4] The Conclusions attribute the decreasing barrier to a 'decrease of the electron affinity as the layer number increases,' but Fig. 4B shows an incremental increase of the electron affinity with layer number. The DFT barrier in Fig. 4C is defined as W - chi_e, so it decreases partly because chi_e increases, not decreases. This internal inconsistency must be corrected. In addition, the PBE-based W - chi_e is an ideal Schottky barrier and is not the same quantity as the transport barrier extracted from FN tunneling; the DFT calculation provides supporting evidence for a decreasing trend but does not validate the FN extraction procedure.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1(c) caption] The caption reports RMS roughness values of ~0.18 nm for template-stripped Au and ~1.8 nm for as-deposited Au, while the text states 0.2 nm and 2 nm; these values should be reconciled.
  2. [Figs. 2(c) and 3(c)] The I-V curves are described as averages over a flake or over every pixel, but no number of pixels, spatial standard deviation, or representative individual curves are provided; this information would help assess variability.
  3. [Negative photoconductivity discussion] The proposed mechanism that illumination increases the barrier height is speculative; the manuscript shows only one I-V pair under illumination (Fig. 5b) and no bias-dependent barrier extraction under illumination, so this explanation should be framed as a hypothesis requiring further evidence.
  4. [Methods] The ITO sheet resistance is reported as '~220 Ω square'; the correct unit is Ω/sq (ohms per square).
  5. [General] There are several typographical errors, including 'supplementaly information,' 'AU' for Au in the Fig. 1 caption, and 'icreases' in the ITO results section; these should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the barrier-height trend is extracted from transport data via a standard tunneling model, and the DFT trend is an independent first-principles calculation, not a re-statement of the fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the MoS2/metal barrier height decreases as the layer number increases. The experimental part of this claim is obtained by inverting the Fowler-Nordheim expression, Eq. (1), using the measured I-V curves and assumed layer thicknesses and effective masses. This is model-based inference rather than circularity: the barrier heights are outputs of the fit, not inputs, and the paper does not present them as independent predictions. The DFT calculation in Fig. 4 provides a separate, first-principles route to the same trend, computing the Schottky barrier as phi_B = W - chi_e from DFT-derived work functions and electron affinities; it is not calibrated to the transport data. The effective-mass values are taken from an external reference (Ref. 35), and no load-bearing self-citation chain is present. Concerns about the absence of FN linearity plots, the assumed d = n x 0.7 nm, and the chosen effective masses are model-validation and correctness risks, not circularity. The paper is therefore not circular in its derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The list captures the assumptions and fitted parameters behind the barrier-height extraction and the DFT support. The main model is the Fowler-Nordheim tunnel formula; effective mass and layer thickness are pulled from prior literature and AFM step heights; the DFT comparison relies on PBE-D2 energetics and a Schottky-Mott relation. No new physical entities are introduced: the proposed barrier-height increase under illumination is a mechanism, not a new entity.

free parameters (1)
  • Fowler-Nordheim barrier height Phi_B per layer = Not stated numerically in text; shown in figures with standard deviation
    Obtained by applying Eq. (1) to measured I-V curves. The monotonic decrease with layer number is the central claim and is a property of the fitted parameter, not an independent experimental prediction.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Fowler-Nordheim Eq. (1) describes tunneling through the MoS2 layer in the vertical metal/MoS2/metal junction.
    Used to convert I-V curves into barrier heights; assumes direct tunneling regime with negligible thermionic emission, series resistance, or parallel conduction.
  • domain assumption Effective mass values m*/m = 0.35 for monolayer MoS2 and 0.53 for bulk MoS2, assigned to all layers >1.
    Taken from Ref. 35 and applied to 2L-5L without a measured or computed effective mass for each thickness.
  • domain assumption Layer thickness d equals an integer multiple of 0.7 nm (d = n x 0.7 nm).
    Layer number is identified from AFM step heights, and the tunneling distance is set to the nominal MoS2 layer thickness; actual tip-sample gap or interlayer spacing could differ.
  • domain assumption Tip-sample separation is constant within a given layer region because the substrate is ultra-flat.
    Used to justify treating d as fixed for a given layer number; substrate RMS roughness is cited as 0.2 nm for Au and 0.7 nm for ITO.
  • domain assumption DFT with PBE functional and DFT-D2 correction gives reliable interfacial energetics for Au/MoS2.
    Underlies the independent theoretical support; PBE is known to underestimate band gaps and may affect absolute barrier heights even when trends are reasonable.
  • domain assumption Schottky barrier equals W - chi_e, with W the computed Au work function and chi_e the electron affinity of isolated MoS2.
    Used in Fig. 4C; this Schottky-Mott relation neglects strong Fermi-level pinning or interface dipoles beyond what the DFT model captures.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Layer Dependent Interfacial Transport and Optoelectrical Properties of MoS2 on Ultra-flat Metals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2BJVUHAG

@misc{pith2026190800609,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Layer Dependent Interfacial Transport and Optoelectrical Properties of MoS2 on Ultra-flat Metals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2BJVUHAG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.00609}
}
read the original abstract

Transition metal dichalcogenides (TMDs) are layered semiconducting van der Waal crystals and promising materials for a wide range of electronic and optoelectronic devices. Realizing practical electrical and optoelectronic device applications requires a connection between a metal junction and a TMD semiconductor. Hence, a complete understanding of electronic band alignments and the potential barrier heights governing the transport through a metal-TMD-metal junction is critical. But, there is a knowledge gap; it is not clear how the energy bands of a TMD align while in contact with a metal as a function of the number of layers. In pursuit of removing this knowledge gap, we have performed conductive atomic force microscopy (CAFM) of few layered (1-5) MoS2 immobilized on ultra-flat conducting Au surfaces (root mean square (RMS) surface roughness <0.2 nm) and indium tin oxide (ITO) substrate (RMS surface roughness <0.7 nm) forming a vertical metal (conductive-AFM tip)-semiconductor-metal device. We have observed that the current increases as the number of layers increases up to 5 layers. By applying Fowler-Nordheim tunneling theory, we have determined the barrier heights for different layers and observed that the barrier height decreases as the number of layers increases. Using density functional theory (DFT) calculation, we successfully demonstrated that the barrier height decreases as the layer number increases. By illuminating the TMDs on a transparent ultra-flat conducting ITO substrate, we observed a reduction in current when compared to the current measured in the dark, hence demonstrating negative photoconductivity. Our study provides a fundamental understanding of the local electronic and optoelectronic behaviors of TMD-metal junction, and may pave an avenue toward developing nanoscale electronic devices with tailored layer-dependent transport properties.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    H.; Kalantar-Zadeh, K.; Kis, A.; Coleman, J

    Wang, Q. H.; Kalantar-Zadeh, K.; Kis, A.; Coleman, J. N.; Strano, M. S. Electronics and Optoelectronics of Two-Dimensional Transition Metal Dichalcogenides. Nat Nano 2012, 7, 699-712

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    F.; Shan, J

    Mak, K. F.; Shan, J. Photonics and Optoelectronics of 2d Semiconductor Transition Metal Dichalcogenides. Nat Photon 2016, 10, 216-226

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Two-Dimensional Material Nanophotonics

    Xia, F.; Wang, H.; Xiao, D.; Dubey, M.; Ramasubramaniam, A. Two-Dimensional Material Nanophotonics. Nat Photon 2014, 8, 899-907

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Two-Dimensional Transition Metal Dichalcogenides as Atomically Thin Semiconductors: Opportunities and Challenges

    Duan, X.; Wang, C.; Pan, A.; Yu, R.; Duan, X. Two-Dimensional Transition Metal Dichalcogenides as Atomically Thin Semiconductors: Opportunities and Challenges. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2015, 44, 8859-8876

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    K.; Lauhon, L

    Jariwala, D.; Sangwan, V. K.; Lauhon, L. J.; Marks, T. J.; Hersam, M. C. Emerging Device Applications for Semiconducting Two-Dimensional Transition Metal Dichalcogenides. ACS Nano 2014, 8, 1102- 1120

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    V.; Kis, A

    Manzeli, S.; Ovchinnikov, D.; Pasquier, D.; Yazyev, O. V.; Kis, A. 2d Transition Metal Dichalcogenides. Nat. Rev. Mater. 2017, 2, 17033

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    F.; Lee, C.; Hone, J.; Shan, J.; Heinz, T

    Mak, K. F.; Lee, C.; Hone, J.; Shan, J.; Heinz, T. F. Atomically Thin Mos2: A New Direct-Gap Semiconductor. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2010, 105, 136805

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    Emerging Photoluminescence in Monolayer Mos2

    Splendiani, A.; Sun, L.; Zhang, Y.; Li, T.; Kim, J.; Chim, C.-Y.; Galli, G.; Wang, F. Emerging Photoluminescence in Monolayer Mos2. Nano Lett. 2010, 10, 1271-1275

    work page 2010

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    L.; Jariwala, D.; Wu, C.-C.; Chen, K.-S.; Sangwan, V

    Howell, S. L.; Jariwala, D.; Wu, C.-C.; Chen, K.-S.; Sangwan, V. K.; Kang, J.; Marks, T. J.; Hersam, M. C.; Lauhon, L. J. Investigation of Band-Offsets at Monolayer–Multilayer Mos2 Junctions by Scanning Photocurrent Microscopy. Nano Lett. 2015, 15, 2278-2284

    2015

  2. [10]

    M.; Eckmann, A.; Jalil, R.; Belle, B

    Britnell, L.; Ribeiro, R. M.; Eckmann, A.; Jalil, R.; Belle, B. D.; Mishchenko, A.; Kim, Y.-J.; Gorbachev, R. V.; Georgiou, T.; Morozov, S. V.; Grigorenko, A. N.; Geim, A. K.; Casiraghi, C.; Neto, A. H. C.; 10 Novoselov, K. S. Strong Light-Matter Interactions in Heterostructur...

    2013

  3. [11]

    R.; Newaz, A

    Klots, A. R.; Newaz, A. K. M.; Wang, B.; Prasai, D.; Krzyzanowska, H.; Lin, J.; Caudel, D.; Ghimire, N. J.; Yan, J.; Ivanov, B. L.; Velizhanin, K. A.; Burger, A.; Mandrus, D. G.; Tolk, N. H.; Pantelides, S. T.; Bolotin, K. I. Probing Excitonic States in Suspended Two-Dimension...

    2014

  4. [12]

    Ultrasensitive Photodetectors Based on Monolayer Mos2

    Lopez-Sanchez, O.; Lembke, D.; Kayci, M.; Radenovic, A.; Kis, A. Ultrasensitive Photodetectors Based on Monolayer Mos2. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2013, 8, 497-501

    2013

  5. [13]

    Baugher, B. W. H.; Churchill, H. O. H.; Yang, Y.; Jarillo-Herrero, P. Optoelectronic Devices Based on Electrically Tunable P-N Diodes in a Monolayer Dichalcogenide. Nat Nano 2014, 9, 262-267

    2014

  6. [14]

    Eda, G.; Maier, S. A. Two-Dimensional Crystals: Managing Light for Optoelectronics. ACS Nano 2013, 7, 5660-5665

    2013

  7. [15]

    S.; Klement, P.; Jones, A

    Ross, J. S.; Klement, P.; Jones, A. M.; Ghimire, N. J.; Yan, J.; Mandrus, D. G.; Taniguchi, T.; Watanabe, K.; Kitamura, K.; Yao, W.; Cobden, D. H.; Xu, X. Electrically Tunable Excitonic Light-Emitting Diodes Based on Monolayer Wse2 P-N Junctions. Nat Nano 2014, 9, 268-272

    2014

  8. [16]

    S.; Engel, M.; Lombardo, A.; Krupke, R.; Ferrari, A

    Sundaram, R. S.; Engel, M.; Lombardo, A.; Krupke, R.; Ferrari, A. C.; Avouris, P.; Steiner, M. Electroluminescence in Single Layer Mos2. Nano Lett. 2013, 13, 1416-1421

    2013

  9. [17]

    Few-Layer Mos2 with High Broadband Photogain and Fast Optical Switching for Use in Harsh Environments

    Tsai, D.-S.; Liu, K.-K.; Lien, D.-H.; Tsai, M.-L.; Kang, C.-F.; Lin, C.-A.; Li, L.-J.; He, J.-H. Few-Layer Mos2 with High Broadband Photogain and Fast Optical Switching for Use in Harsh Environments. ACS Nano 2013, 7, 3905-3911

    2013

  10. [18]

    K.; Marks, T

    Wu, C.-C.; Jariwala, D.; Sangwan, V. K.; Marks, T. J.; Hersam, M. C.; Lauhon, L. J. Elucidating the Photoresponse of Ultrathin Mos2 Field-Effect Transistors by Scanning Photocurrent Microscopy. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2013, 4, 2508-2513

    2013

  11. [19]

    Single-Layer Mos2 Phototransistors

    Yin, Z.; Li, H.; Li, H.; Jiang, L.; Shi, Y.; Sun, Y.; Lu, G.; Zhang, Q.; Chen, X.; Zhang, H. Single-Layer Mos2 Phototransistors. ACS Nano 2011, 6, 74-80

    2011

  12. [20]

    Monolayer Mos2 Heterojunction Solar Cells

    Tsai, M.-L.; Su, S.-H.; Chang, J.-K.; Tsai, D.-S.; Chen, C.-H.; Wu, C.-I.; Li, L.-J.; Chen, L.-J.; He, J.-H. Monolayer Mos2 Heterojunction Solar Cells. ACS Nano 2014, 8, 8317-8322

    2014

  13. [21]

    Bernardi, M.; Palummo, M.; Grossman, J. C. Extraordinary Sunlight Absorption and One Nanometer Thick Photovoltaics Using Two-Dimensional Monolayer Materials. Nano Lett. 2013, 13, 3664-3670

    2013

  14. [22]

    K.; Loh, K

    Peng, B.; Ang, P. K.; Loh, K. P. Two-Dimensional Dichalcogenides for Light-Harvesting Applications. Nano Today 2015, 10, 128-137

    2015

  15. [23]

    A.; Castellanos-Gomez, A.; van der Zant, H

    Tonndorf, P.; Schmidt, R.; Schneider, R.; Kern, J.; Buscema, M.; Steele, G. A.; Castellanos-Gomez, A.; van der Zant, H. S. J.; Michaelis de Vasconcellos, S.; Bratschitsch, R. Single-Photon Emission from Localized Excitons in an Atomically Thin Semiconductor. Optica 2015, 2, 347-352

    2015

  16. [24]

    M.; Beams, R.; Vamivakas, A

    Chakraborty, C.; Kinnischtzke, L.; Goodfellow, K. M.; Beams, R.; Vamivakas, A. N. Voltage- Controlled Quantum Light from an Atomically Thin Semiconductor. Nat Nano 2015, 10, 507-511

    2015

  17. [25]

    R.; He, Y.; Chen, M

    He, Y.-M.; Clark, G.; Schaibley, J. R.; He, Y.; Chen, M. C.; Wei Yu, J.; Ding, X.; Zhang, Q.; Yao, W.; Xu, X.; Lu, C.; Pan, J. Single Quantum Emitters in Monolayer Semiconductors. Nat Nano 2015, 10, 497-502

    2015

  18. [26]

    V.; Lembke, D

    Srivastava, A.; Sidler, M.; Allain, A. V.; Lembke, D. S.; Kis, A.; Imamoğlu, A. Optically Active Quantum Dots in Monolayer Wse2. Nat Nano 2015, 10, 491-496

    2015

  19. [27]

    Y.; MarcusJ; KossackiP; PotemskiM

    KoperskiM; NogajewskiK; AroraA; CherkezV; MalletP; Veuillen, J. Y.; MarcusJ; KossackiP; PotemskiM. Single Photon Emitters in Exfoliated Wse2 Structures. Nat Nano 2015, 10, 503-506

    2015

  20. [28]

    R.; Feng, L.; Yan, J.; Mandrus, D

    Wu, S.; Buckley, S.; Schaibley, J. R.; Feng, L.; Yan, J.; Mandrus, D. G.; Hatami, F.; Yao, W.; Vučković, J.; Majumdar, A.; Xu, X. Monolayer Semiconductor Nanocavity Lasers with Ultralow Thresholds. Nature 2015, 520, 69

    2015

  21. [29]

    Ultralarge Atomically Flat Template-Stripped Au Surfaces for Scanning Probe Microscopy

    Hegner, M.; Wagner, P.; Semenza, G. Ultralarge Atomically Flat Template-Stripped Au Surfaces for Scanning Probe Microscopy. Surf. Sci. 1993, 291, 39-46

    1993

  22. [30]

    J.; Li, Z.; Freeman, M

    Blackstock, J. J.; Li, Z.; Freeman, M. R.; Stewart, D. R. Ultra-Flat Platinum Surfaces from Template- Stripping of Sputter Deposited Films. Surf. Sci. 2003, 546, 87-96. 11

    2003

  23. [31]

    J.; Kim, S.; Williams, R

    Ragan, R.; Ohlberg, D.; Blackstock, J. J.; Kim, S.; Williams, R. S. Atomic Surface Structure of Uhv- Prepared Template-Stripped Platinum and Single-Crystal Platinum(111). The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 2004, 108, 20187-20192

    2004

  24. [32]

    J.; Kim, S.; Stewart, D

    Lee, S.; Bae, S.-S.; Medeiros-Ribeiro, G.; Blackstock, J. J.; Kim, S.; Stewart, D. R.; Ragan, R. Scanning Tunneling Microscopy of Template-Stripped Au Surfaces and Highly Ordered Self-Assembled Monolayers. Langmuir 2008, 24, 5984-5987

    2008

  25. [33]

    R.; Young, A

    Dean, C. R.; Young, A. F.; MericI; LeeC; WangL; SorgenfreiS; WatanabeK; TaniguchiT; KimP; Shepard, K. L.; HoneJ. Boron Nitride Substrates for High-Quality Graphene Electronics. Nat Nano 2010, 5, 722-726

    2010

  26. [34]

    Uv/Ozone Treated Au for Air- Stable, Low Hole Injection Barrier Electrodes in Organic Electronics

    Rentenberger, S.; Vollmer, A.; Zojer, E.; Schennach, R.; Koch, N. Uv/Ozone Treated Au for Air- Stable, Low Hole Injection Barrier Electrodes in Organic Electronics. J. Appl. Phys. 2006, 100, 053701

    2006

  27. [35]

    H.; Paulson, J

    Son, Y.; Wang, Q. H.; Paulson, J. A.; Shih, C.-J.; Rajan, A. G.; Tvrdy, K.; Kim, S.; Alfeeli, B.; Braatz, R. D.; Strano, M. S. Layer Number Dependence of Mos2 Photoconductivity Using Photocurrent Spectral Atomic Force Microscopic Imaging. ACS Nano 2015, 9, 2843-2855

    2015

  28. [36]

    S.; Liu, X.; Yoo, W

    Ahmed, F.; Choi, M. S.; Liu, X.; Yoo, W. J. Carrier Transport at the Metal–Mos2 Interface. Nanoscale 2015, 7, 9222-9228

    2015

  29. [37]

    Determination of Carrier Polarity in Fowler– Nordheim Tunneling and Evidence of Fermi Level Pinning at the Hexagonal Boron Nitride/Metal Interface

    Hattori, Y.; Taniguchi, T.; Watanabe, K.; Nagashio, K. Determination of Carrier Polarity in Fowler– Nordheim Tunneling and Evidence of Fermi Level Pinning at the Hexagonal Boron Nitride/Metal Interface. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2018, 10, 11732-11738

    2018

  30. [38]

    Y.; Lee, S.; Park, B

    Lee, S.; Choi, K. Y.; Lee, S.; Park, B. H.; Park, J. G. Tunneling Transport of Mono- and Few-Layers Magnetic Van Der Waals Mnps3. Apl Mater 2016, 4

    2016

  31. [39]

    H.; Frenzel, A

    Lui, C. H.; Frenzel, A. J.; Pilon, D. V.; Lee, Y. H.; Ling, X.; Akselrod, G. M.; Kong, J.; Gedik, N. Trion- Induced Negative Photoconductivity in Monolayer Mos2. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2014, 113, 166801

    2014

  32. [40]

    Negative Terahertz Photoconductivity in 2d Layered Materials

    Junpeng, L.; Hongwei, L.; Jing, S. Negative Terahertz Photoconductivity in 2d Layered Materials. Nanotechnology 2017, 28, 464001

    2017

  33. [41]

    Gwyddion: An Open-Source Software for Spm Data Analysis

    Nečas, D.; Klapetek, P. Gwyddion: An Open-Source Software for Spm Data Analysis. Central European Journal of Physics 2012, 10, 181-188

    2012

  34. [42]

    Efficient Iterative Schemes for Ab Initio Total-Energy Calculations Using a Plane-Wave Basis Set

    Kresse, G.; Furthmüller, J. Efficient Iterative Schemes for Ab Initio Total-Energy Calculations Using a Plane-Wave Basis Set. Phys. Rev. B 1996, 54, 11169-11186

    1996

  35. [43]

    P.; Burke, K.; Ernzerhof, M

    Perdew, J. P.; Burke, K.; Ernzerhof, M. Generalized Gradient Approximation Made Simple. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1996, 77, 3865-3868

    1996

  36. [44]

    Blöchl, P. E. Projector Augmented-Wave Method. Phys. Rev. B 1994, 50, 17953-17979

    1994

  37. [45]

    From Ultrasoft Pseudopotentials to the Projector Augmented-Wave Method

    Kresse, G.; Joubert, D. From Ultrasoft Pseudopotentials to the Projector Augmented-Wave Method. Phys. Rev. B 1999, 59, 1758-1775

    1999

  38. [46]

    A Consistent and Accurate Ab Initio Parametrization of Density Functional Dispersion Correction (Dft-D) for the 94 Elements H-Pu

    Grimme, S.; Antony, J.; Ehrlich, S.; Krieg, H. A Consistent and Accurate Ab Initio Parametrization of Density Functional Dispersion Correction (Dft-D) for the 94 Elements H-Pu. The Journal of Chemical Physics 2010, 132, 154104

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.