pith. sign in

arxiv: 2508.17685 · v1 · submitted 2025-08-25 · ⚛️ physics.chem-ph · physics.optics

Water structuring at stacked graphene interfaces unveiled by machine-learning molecular dynamics

Dianwei Hou , Yevhen Horbatenko , Stefan Ringe , Minhaeng Cho This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 21:54 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.chem-ph physics.optics
keywords graphene wettabilityintercalated watermachine learning molecular dynamicsvibrational sum-frequency generationwater structuringmonolayer graphenehydrophilic substrates
0
0 comments X

The pith

Intercalated water between monolayer graphene and hydrophilic substrates causes vibrational signal cancellation that produces the observed hydrophilic behavior.

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

The paper uses machine-learning molecular dynamics to examine how substrate type, graphene thickness, and trapped water layers control the apparent wetting of graphene surfaces. It finds that water molecules become trapped under single-layer graphene on water-attracting substrates and cancel the vibrational sum-frequency generation signal that would otherwise indicate the substrate's properties. This cancellation creates the experimental impression of hydrophilicity without the graphene itself being transparent to the substrate. For thicker graphene stacks the same water layers are energetically unfavorable, so the cancellation does not occur and the wetting response changes. The result supplies a concrete mechanism for the long-standing discrepancy between theory and measurement at these interfaces.

Core claim

Simulated vibrational sum-frequency generation spectra show that the hydrophilic response measured for monolayer graphene on hydrophilic substrates originates from signal cancellation produced by intercalated water molecules rather than from wetting transparency; energetic analysis demonstrates that such intercalated water is thermodynamically favored only for the monolayer case on hydrophilic substrates and is disfavored for multilayer stacks, producing the layer-dependent vSFG changes seen in experiment.

What carries the argument

The atomic cluster expansion machine learning interatomic potential trained on first-principles data, used to run molecular dynamics simulations that compute both the thermodynamic stability of intercalated water and the resulting vibrational sum-frequency generation spectra.

If this is right

  • Intercalated water is stable only beneath monolayer graphene on hydrophilic substrates and alters the measured wetting response.
  • Multilayer graphene does not stabilize intercalated water, so its vSFG spectra and apparent wettability differ from the monolayer case.
  • Changes in graphene layer number switch the system between regimes with and without intercalated water.
  • Device interfaces that place graphene directly on hydrophilic materials must account for possible trapped water when predicting surface behavior.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same cancellation mechanism may appear in other two-dimensional materials placed on polar substrates whenever intercalation is possible.
  • Experiments that vary humidity or temperature while monitoring vSFG could map the stability window of the intercalated water layer.
  • The simulation protocol could be applied to study water structuring at graphene edges or at junctions with other layered materials.

Load-bearing premise

The machine learning potential trained on first-principles calculations correctly reproduces the energies and arrangements of water molecules trapped between graphene and the underlying substrate.

What would settle it

A direct structural probe such as X-ray or neutron reflectivity performed on monolayer graphene resting on a hydrophilic substrate under the same conditions used for wettability measurements, which would either detect or rule out the presence of a discrete water layer at the interface.

read the original abstract

The wettability of monolayer and multilayer graphene remains a topic of longstanding debate. Here, we combined first-principles molecular dynamics simulations accelerated with the atomic cluster expansion machine learning interatomic potential to investigate how substrate, graphene layer number, and intercalated water molecules influence graphene's wettability. Simulated vibrational sum-frequency generation (vSFG) spectra revealed that the experimentally observed hydrophilic behavior of monolayer graphene on hydrophilic substrates arose not from wetting transparency, but from signal cancellation induced by intercalated water. Energetic analyses further showed that intercalated water molecules were thermodynamically favorable for monolayer graphene on hydrophilic substrates, but not for multilayer systems, leading to changes in the vSFG response in line with experimental observations. These results offer a mechanistic understanding of graphene-water interactions and have broad implications for the design of graphene-based interfaces and devices.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates the wettability of monolayer and multilayer graphene using first-principles molecular dynamics accelerated by an atomic cluster expansion machine learning interatomic potential. The central claim is that the hydrophilic behavior of monolayer graphene on hydrophilic substrates, as seen in experiments, results from cancellation of vibrational sum-frequency generation (vSFG) signals due to intercalated water molecules, rather than from wetting transparency. Energetic analyses indicate that water intercalation is thermodynamically favored only for monolayers on hydrophilic substrates, leading to changes in vSFG response consistent with observations.

Significance. If the results hold, this work offers a mechanistic understanding of graphene-water interactions at interfaces, resolving aspects of the longstanding debate on graphene wettability. The combination of ML-MD for efficient sampling and simulated vSFG spectra provides a bridge between simulation and experiment. Strengths include the use of machine-learning accelerated simulations for larger systems and direct comparison to experimental vSFG data. This has broad implications for the design of graphene-based interfaces and devices in chemical physics and materials science.

major comments (2)
  1. [Energetic analyses] The claim that intercalated water is thermodynamically favorable for monolayer graphene on hydrophilic substrates but not for multilayer systems is central to distinguishing the mechanism from wetting transparency. However, the manuscript does not provide direct benchmarks, such as thermodynamic integration results or comparisons to reference DFT calculations, for the intercalation free-energy difference in the specific substrate-graphene-water configurations. This validation is necessary to confirm that the ACE potential accurately ranks the relative free energies without sign inversion due to small errors.
  2. [Methods section on potential training] Details on the training of the atomic cluster expansion potential are given, but specific error metrics or validation tests for water intercalation energetics at graphene interfaces are missing. Since the central claim rests on these energetics, additional comparisons (e.g., to ab initio MD for small systems) would strengthen the support.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figure captions] Some figure captions for the vSFG spectra could include more details on the simulation parameters used for averaging.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract is clear but could briefly mention the system sizes or simulation lengths to indicate the scale enabled by ML acceleration.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable suggestions. We address each major comment below and outline the revisions to be incorporated in the updated manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Energetic analyses] The claim that intercalated water is thermodynamically favorable for monolayer graphene on hydrophilic substrates but not for multilayer systems is central to distinguishing the mechanism from wetting transparency. However, the manuscript does not provide direct benchmarks, such as thermodynamic integration results or comparisons to reference DFT calculations, for the intercalation free-energy difference in the specific substrate-graphene-water configurations. This validation is necessary to confirm that the ACE potential accurately ranks the relative free energies without sign inversion due to small errors.

    Authors: We agree that additional validation of the free energy differences would further support our conclusions. While full thermodynamic integration for the entire system is beyond the scope due to the system sizes involved, we will add comparisons of the ACE potential energies for water intercalation configurations against DFT calculations on smaller model systems extracted from our simulations. This will confirm that the potential correctly predicts the favorable intercalation for monolayers on hydrophilic substrates. We will include these results in a revised Methods and Results section. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods section on potential training] Details on the training of the atomic cluster expansion potential are given, but specific error metrics or validation tests for water intercalation energetics at graphene interfaces are missing. Since the central claim rests on these energetics, additional comparisons (e.g., to ab initio MD for small systems) would strengthen the support.

    Authors: We appreciate this suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we will expand the Methods section to include specific error metrics (such as RMSE on energies and forces) for a validation set that specifically includes water-graphene interface structures with and without intercalation. Additionally, we will provide direct comparisons of intercalation energies from the ACE potential to those from short ab initio MD runs on smaller systems to validate the energetics. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The derivation proceeds from first-principles training data to an ACE ML potential, followed by forward MD simulations that generate vSFG spectra and free-energy comparisons for intercalated water. These outputs are not obtained by fitting parameters to the target experimental observations or by re-expressing the inputs; the central mechanistic claim (signal cancellation rather than wetting transparency) is an emergent result of the simulation trajectories and is cross-checked against independent external vSFG measurements. No self-citation chain, self-definitional loop, or fitted-input-as-prediction pattern is present in the load-bearing steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review limits identification of specific parameters; main reliance is on the trained ML potential and the assumption that simulated vSFG spectra faithfully represent experimental signals.

free parameters (1)
  • Atomic cluster expansion potential parameters
    Trained on first-principles data; specific fitting details and any hyperparameters not stated in abstract.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption vSFG spectra computed from MD trajectories accurately reproduce experimental observations
    Invoked to link simulation results to the experimental hydrophilic behavior.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5675 in / 1161 out tokens · 36671 ms · 2026-05-18T21:54:45.997248+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

143 extracted references · 143 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Novoselov, K. S. et al. Electric field effect in atomically thin carbon films. Science 306, 666–669 (2004)

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    Avouris, P., Heinz, T. F. & Low, T. 2D Materials: Properties and Devices (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2017)

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    & Zamora, F

    Mas-Ballest´ e, R., G´ omez-Navarro, C., G´ omez-Herrero, J. & Zamora, F. 2d materials: to graphene and beyond. Nanoscale 3, 20–30 (2011). 24

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    & Heine, T

    Mir´ o, P., Audiffred, M. & Heine, T. An atlas of two-dimensional mat erials. Chem. Soc. Rev. 43, 6537–6554 (2014)

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    J., Tung, V

    Allen, M. J., Tung, V. C. & Kaner, R. B. Honeycomb carbon: A revie w of graphene. Chem. Rev. 110, 132–145 (2010)

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Balandin, A. A. Thermal properties of graphene and nanostruc tured carbon materials. Nat. Mater. 10, 569–581 (2011)

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    & Ferrari, A

    Bonaccorso, F., Sun, Z., Hasan, T. & Ferrari, A. C. Graphene ph otonics and optoelectronics. Nat. Photonics 4, 611–622 (2010)

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    H., Guinea, F., Peres, N

    Castro Neto, A. H., Guinea, F., Peres, N. M. R., Novoselov, K. S. & Geim, A. K. The electronic properties of graphene. Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 109–162 (2009)

    work page 2009

  9. [9]

    Sun, Y. W. et al. Mechanical properties of graphene. Appl. Phys. Rev. 8, 021310 (2021)

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    in Fundamental properties of graphene (eds Zhu, H., Xu, Z., Xie, D

    Xu, Z. in Fundamental properties of graphene (eds Zhu, H., Xu, Z., Xie, D. & Fang, Y.) Graphene 73–102 (Academic Press, Cambridge, MA, 2018)

    work page 2018

  11. [11]

    Zhao, G. et al. The physics and chemistry of graphene-on-surfaces. Chem. Soc. Rev. 46, 4417–4449 (2017)

    work page 2017

  12. [12]

    & Xue, D

    Chen, K., Song, S., Liu, F. & Xue, D. Structural design of graph ene for use in electrochemical energy storage devices. Chem. Soc. Rev. 44, 6230–6257 (2015)

    work page 2015

  13. [13]

    Kang, J. et al. Graphene membrane for water-related environmental application : A comprehensive review and perspectives. ACS Environ. Au 5, 35–60 (2025)

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    & Chen, W

    Liu, M., Zhang, R. & Chen, W. Graphene-supported nanoelectr ocatalysts for fuel cells: Synthesis, properties, and applications. Chem. Rev. 114, 5117–5160 (2014)

    work page 2014

  15. [15]

    & Liu, J

    Xu, Y. & Liu, J. Graphene as transparent electrodes: Fabrica tion and new emerging applications. Small 12, 1400–1419 (2016)

    work page 2016

  16. [16]

    & Zhang, H

    Zhu, J., Yang, D., Yin, Z., Yan, Q. & Zhang, H. Graphene and grap hene-based materials for energy storage applications. Small 10, 3480–3498 (2014). 25

    work page 2014

  17. [17]

    Angizi, S., Hong, L., Huang, X., Selvaganapathy, P. R. & Kruse, P . Graphene versus concentrated aqueous electrolytes: the role of the elect rochemical double layer in determining the screening length of an electrolyte. npj 2D Mater. Appl. 7, 67 (2023)

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    D., Papaderakis, A

    Elliott, J. D., Papaderakis, A. A., Dryfe, R. A. W. & Carbone, P. T he electro- chemical double layer at the graphene/aqueous electrolyte interf ace: what we can learn from simulations, experiments, and theory. J. Mater. Chem. C 10, 15225–15262 (2022)

    work page 2022

  19. [19]

    Interfacial liquid water on graphite, graphene, and 2d materials

    Garcia, R. Interfacial liquid water on graphite, graphene, and 2d materials. ACS Nano 17, 51–69 (2023)

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    Recent developments in proton exchange mem branes for fuel cells

    Devanathan, R. Recent developments in proton exchange mem branes for fuel cells. Energy Environ. Sci. 1, 101–119 (2008)

    work page 2008

  21. [21]

    E., Spry, D

    Moilanen, D. E., Spry, D. & Fayer, M. Water dynamics and proton transfer in nafion fuel cell membranes. Langmuir 24, 3690–3698 (2008)

    work page 2008

  22. [22]

    Xu, J. et al. Transparent proton transport through a two-dimensional nano mesh material. Nat. Commun. 10, 3971 (2019)

    work page 2019

  23. [23]

    S., Chava, B

    Sachar, H. S., Chava, B. S., Pial, T. H. & Das, S. Hydrogen bondin g and its effect on the orientational dynamics of water molecules inside polyele ctrolyte brush-induced soft and active nanoconfinement. Macromolecules 54, 2011–2021 (2021)

    work page 2011

  24. [24]

    & Michaelides, A

    Joly, L., Tocci, G., Merabia, S. & Michaelides, A. Strong coupling be tween nanofluidic transport and interfacial chemistry: How defect reac tivity controls liquid–solid friction through hydrogen bonding. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 7, 1381– 1386 (2016)

    work page 2016

  25. [25]

    B., ’t Mannetje, D

    Eral, H. B., ’t Mannetje, D. J. C. M. & Oh, J. M. Contact angle hys teresis: a review of fundamentals and applications. Colloid Polym. Sci. 291, 247–260 (2013)

    work page 2013

  26. [26]

    Good, R. J. Contact angle, wetting, and adhesion: a critical re view. J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 6, 1269–1302 (1992). 26

    work page 1992

  27. [27]

    & Fan, L.-W

    Song, J.-W. & Fan, L.-W. Temperature dependence of the cont act angle of water: A review of research progress, theoretical understanding, and implications for boiling heat transfer. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 288, 102339 (2021)

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    A., Tang, C., Juurlink, L

    Belyaeva, L. A., Tang, C., Juurlink, L. & Schneider, G. F. Macros copic and microscopic wettability of graphene. Langmuir 37, 4049–4055 (2021)

    work page 2021

  29. [29]

    & Luzar, A

    Driskill, J., Vanzo, D., Bratko, D. & Luzar, A. Wetting transpare ncy of graphene in water. J. Chem. Phys. 141, 18C517 (2014)

    work page 2014

  30. [30]

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

    work page 2012

  31. [31]

    Ashraf, A. et al. Doping-induced tunable wettability and adhesion of graphene. Nano Lett. 16, 4708–4712 (2016)

    work page 2016

  32. [32]

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

    work page 2016

  33. [33]

    Kozbial, A., Trouba, C., Liu, H. & Li, L. Characterization of the int rinsic water wettability of graphite using contact angle measurements: Effect o f defects on static and dynamic contact angles. Langmuir 33, 959–967 (2017)

    work page 2017

  34. [34]

    & Bian, X

    Li, X., Li, L., Wang, Y., Li, H. & Bian, X. Wetting and interfacial prop erties of water on the defective graphene. J. Phys. Chem. C 117, 14106–14112 (2013)

    work page 2013

  35. [35]

    Kim, D. et al. Wettability of graphene and interfacial water structure. Chem 7, 1602–1614 (2021)

    work page 2021

  36. [36]

    Aria, A. I. et al. Time evolution of the wettability of supported graphene under ambient air exposure. J. Phys. Chem. C 120, 2215–2224 (2016)

    work page 2016

  37. [37]

    Kozbial, A. et al. Study on the surface energy of graphene by contact angle measurements. Langmuir 30, 8598–8606 (2014)

    work page 2014

  38. [38]

    Li, Z. et al. Effect of airborne contaminants on the wettability of supported graphene and graphite. Nat. Mater. 12, 925–931 (2013)

    work page 2013

  39. [39]

    R., Schullian, O., Becker, M

    Carlson, S. R., Schullian, O., Becker, M. R. & Netz, R. R. Modeling w ater inter- actions with graphene and graphite via force fields consistent with e xperimental 27 contact angles. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 15, 6325–6333 (2024)

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    V., Belyaeva, L

    Prydatko, A. V., Belyaeva, L. A., Jiang, L., Lima, L. M. C. & Schne ider, G. F. Contact angle measurement of free-standing square-millimet er single-layer graphene. Nat. Commun. 9, 4185 (2018)

    work page 2018

  41. [41]

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

    work page 2013

  42. [42]

    Belyaeva, L. A. & Schneider, G. F. Wettability of graphene. Surf. Sci. Rep. 75, 100482 (2020)

    work page 2020

  43. [43]

    & Tanaka, K

    Kawaguchi, D. & Tanaka, K. in Sum frequency generation (sfg) (eds Maeda, M., Takahara, A., Kitano, H., Yamaoka, T. & Miura, Y.) Molecular Soft-Interface Science: Principles, Molecular Design, Characterization and Application 87–99 (Springer Japan, Tokyo, 2019)

    work page 2019

  44. [44]

    & Tahara, T

    Nihonyanagi, S. & Tahara, T. in Vibrational sum frequency generation spec- troscopy (ed.The Surface Science Society of, J.) Compendium of Surface and Interface Analysis 801–807 (Springer Singapore, Singapore, 2018)

    work page 2018

  45. [45]

    Pickering, J. D. et al. Tutorials in vibrational sum frequency generation spectroscopy. ii. designing a broadband vibrational sum frequenc y generation spectrometer. Biointerphases 17, 011202 (2022)

    work page 2022

  46. [47]

    & Rupprechter, G

    Pramhaas, V. & Rupprechter, G. in Sum frequency generation (sfg) spectroscopy (eds Wachs, I. E. & Ba˜ nares, M. A.) Springer Handbook of Advanced Catalyst Characterization 213–233 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2023)

    work page 2023

  47. [48]

    & Wang, H.-f

    Gan, W., Wu, D., Zhang, Z., Feng, R.-r. & Wang, H.-f. Polarization a nd exper- imental configuration analyses of sum frequency generation vibra tional spectra, structure, and orientational motion of the air/water interface. J. Chem. Phys. 124, 114705 (2006)

    work page 2006

  48. [49]

    & Wang, X

    Hong, Y., He, J., Zhang, C. & Wang, X. Probing the structure of water at the interface with graphene oxide using sum frequency generation vibrational spectroscopy. J. Phys. Chem. C 126, 1471–1480 (2022). 28

    work page 2022

  49. [50]

    A., Yamaguchi, S

    Nihonyanagi, S., Mondal, J. A., Yamaguchi, S. & Tahara, T. Struc ture and dynamics of interfacial water studied by heterodyne-detected v ibrational sum- frequency generation. Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 64, 579–603 (2013)

    work page 2013

  50. [51]

    & Tahara, T

    Nihonyanagi, S., Yamaguchi, S. & Tahara, T. Ultrafast dynamics at water inter- faces studied by vibrational sum frequency generation spectros copy. Chem. Rev. 117, 10665–10693 (2017)

    work page 2017

  51. [52]

    Perakis, F. et al. Vibrational spectroscopy and dynamics of water. Chem. Rev. 116, 7590–7607 (2016)

    work page 2016

  52. [53]

    Shen, Y. R. & Ostroverkhov, V. Sum-frequency vibrational s pectroscopy on water interfaces: Polar orientation of water molecules at interfac es. Chem. Rev. 106, 1140–1154 (2006)

    work page 2006

  53. [54]

    Singla, S. et al. Insight on structure of water and ice next to graphene using surface-sensitive spectroscopy. ACS Nano 11, 4899–4906 (2017)

    work page 2017

  54. [55]

    Wang, Y. et al. Heterodyne-detected sum-frequency generation vibrational s pec- troscopy reveals aqueous molecular structure at the suspended graphene/water interface. Angew. Chem. 63, e202319503 (2024)

    work page 2024

  55. [56]

    & Tian, C.-S

    Xu, Y., Ma, Y.-B., Gu, F., Yang, S.-S. & Tian, C.-S. Structure evolu tion at the gate-tunable suspended graphene–water interface. Nature 621, 506–510 (2023)

    work page 2023

  56. [57]

    Dreier, L. B. et al. Surface-specific spectroscopy of water at a potentiostatically controlled supported graphene monolayer. J. Phys. Chem. C 123, 24031–24038 (2019)

    work page 2019

  57. [58]

    Khatib, R. et al. Water orientation and hydrogen-bond structure at the fluorite/water interface. Sci. Rep. 6, 24287 (2016)

    work page 2016

  58. [59]

    & Backus, E

    Lesnicki, D., Zhang, Z., Bonn, M., Sulpizi, M. & Backus, E. H. G. Sur face charges at the CaF 2/water interface allow very fast intermolecular vibrational-energy transfer. Angew. Chem. 59, 13116–13121 (2020)

    work page 2020

  59. [60]

    Yang, F. et al. Wetting transparency of single-layer graphene on liquid substrates. Adv. Mater. 36, 2403820 (2024). 29

    work page 2024

  60. [61]

    Zhang, J. et al. Intrinsic wettability in pristine graphene. Adv. Mater. 34, 2103620 (2022)

    work page 2022

  61. [62]

    & Wang, J

    Du, F., Huang, J., Duan, H., Xiong, C. & Wang, J. Wetting transpa rency of supported graphene is regulated by polarities of liquids and substra tes. Appl. Surf. Sci. 454, 249–255 (2018)

    work page 2018

  62. [63]

    M., Buehler, M

    Kim, D., Pugno, N. M., Buehler, M. J. & Ryu, S. Solving the controv ersy on the wetting transparency of graphene. Sci. Rep. 5, 15526 (2015)

    work page 2015

  63. [64]

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

    work page 2012

  64. [65]

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

    work page 2013

  65. [66]

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

    work page 2013

  66. [67]

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

    work page 2010

  67. [68]

    & Dhinojwala, A

    Gaire, B., Singla, S. & Dhinojwala, A. Screening of hydrogen bond ing interactions by a single layer graphene. Nanoscale 13, 8098–8106 (2021)

    work page 2021

  68. [69]

    & Nagata, Y

    Ohto, T., Tada, H. & Nagata, Y. Structure and dynamics of wat er at water–graphene and water–hexagonal boron-nitride sheet inte rfaces revealed by ab initio sum-frequency generation spectroscopy. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 20, 12979–12985 (2018)

    work page 2018

  69. [70]

    Bollmann, T. R. J., Antipina, L. Y., Temmen, M., Reichling, M. & Sorok in, P. B. Hole-doping of mechanically exfoliated graphene by confined hy dration layers. Nano Res. 8, 3020–3026 (2015)

    work page 2015

  70. [71]

    & Bollma nn, T

    Temmen, M., Ochedowski, O., Schleberger, M., Reichling, M. & Bollma nn, T. R. J. Hydration layers trapped between graphene and a hydrophilic substrate. New J. Phys. 16, 053039 (2014)

    work page 2014

  71. [72]

    & Zeng, X

    Zhao, W.-H., Bai, J., Yuan, L.-F., Yang, J. & Zeng, X. C. Ferroelec tric hexagonal and rhombic monolayer ice phases. Chem. Sci. 5, 1757–1764 (2014). 30

    work page 2014

  72. [73]

    Kaliannan, N. K. et al. Impact of intermolecular vibrational coupling effects on the sum-frequency generation spectra of the water/air inter face. Mol. Phys. 118, 1620358 (2020)

    work page 2020

  73. [74]

    & Cho, M

    Liang, C., Jeon, J. & Cho, M. Ab initio modeling of the vibrational su m- frequency generation spectrum of interfacial water. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 10, 1153 (2019)

    work page 2019

  74. [75]

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

    work page 2012

  75. [76]

    & Saito, S

    Inagaki, T., Hatanaka, M. & Saito, S. Anisotropic and finite effec ts on intermolecular vibration and relaxation dynamics: Low-frequency r aman spec- troscopy of water film and droplet on graphene by molecular dynamic s simulations. J. Phys. Chem. B 127, 5869–5880 (2023)

    work page 2023

  76. [77]

    & Nakamura, J

    Akaishi, A., Yonemaru, T. & Nakamura, J. Formation of water lay ers on graphene surfaces. ACS Omega 2, 2184–2190 (2017)

    work page 2017

  77. [78]

    Rashmi, R. et al. Revealing the water structure at neutral and charged graphene/water interfaces through quantum simulations of sum f requency generation spectra. ACS Nano 19, 4876–4886 (2025)

    work page 2025

  78. [79]

    Montenegro, A. et al. Asymmetric response of interfacial water to applied electric fields. Nature 594, 62–65 (2021)

    work page 2021

  79. [80]

    E., Myers-Ward, R

    Munz, M., Giusca, C. E., Myers-Ward, R. L., Gaskill, D. K. & Kazako va, O. Thickness-dependent hydrophobicity of epitaxial graphene. ACS Nano 9, 8401– 8411 (2015)

    work page 2015

  80. [81]

    & Bonn, M

    Wang, Y., Nagata, Y. & Bonn, M. Substrate effect on charging o f electrified graphene/water interfaces. Faraday Discuss. 249, 303–316 (2024)

    work page 2024

Showing first 80 references.