pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.20783 · v1 · pith:TRBU237Anew · submitted 2026-05-20 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Generalized Phase Diagrams for Graphene CVD growth on Copper

Tongtong Wang , Ke Jin , Yishi Zhang , Dajun Shu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 04:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords graphene CVDbilayer graphenephase diagramcopper substratestrain effectschemical desorptionlayer controlnucleus size
0
0 comments X

The pith

Tensile strain expands the bilayer graphene growth window while chemical desorption suppresses it in high-Gamma regimes.

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

The paper extends a prior phase diagram framework for graphene CVD on copper by adding thermal-expansion-induced substrate strain and chemical desorption of carbon monomers. First-principles calculations supply the strain-dependent diffusion and attachment barriers on both bare and graphene-covered Cu(111). The multi-step CVD chemistry is mapped onto an effective quasi-physical vapor deposition model that introduces a desorption parameter Z alongside the existing alpha and Gamma. Results show tensile strain widens the bilayer growth region when the critical nucleus size exceeds one atom. Desorption instead narrows that region at large Gamma by depleting available monomers.

Core claim

The authors construct a generalized phase diagram characterized by the coupled effects of alpha, Gamma, and a newly introduced desorption parameter Z. Their results show that tensile strain expands the bilayer graphene growth window for critical nucleus sizes i* greater than 1. In contrast, chemical desorption suppresses bilayer formation in the high-Gamma regime via Z-dependent monomer depletion. This unified framework links macroscopic growth parameters to microscopic layer-selection mechanisms.

What carries the argument

The generalized phase diagram in the space of alpha, Gamma, and Z that incorporates strain-modified barriers and monomer depletion to track the competition between first-layer expansion and second-layer nucleation.

Load-bearing premise

The multi-step CVD process can be accurately mapped into an effective quasi-physical vapor deposition model without losing essential layer-selection physics.

What would settle it

An experiment that applies controlled tensile strain to copper substrates during CVD at fixed temperature and precursor pressure and then measures the resulting bilayer coverage fraction would test whether the bilayer window expands for i* greater than 1.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.20783 by Dajun Shu, Ke Jin, Tongtong Wang, Yishi Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Schematic diagram of all processes involved in graphene [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The formation works of C clusters (a) on the exposed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The change in surface process barriers under different strains. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The estimated values of parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Growth mode diagrams of graphene on Cu(111) at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Understanding the competition between first-layer lateral expansion and second-layer nucleation is essential for layer-controlled graphene growth via chemical vapor deposition (CVD). Building on our previous phase diagram framework based on the dimensionless parameters $\alpha$ and $\Gamma$, we develop an enhanced model incorporating two previously neglected effects: thermal-expansion-induced substrate strain and chemical desorption of carbon monomers via reverse dehydrogenation. First-principles calculations are employed to determine the strain-dependent diffusion and attachment barriers on both exposed and graphene-covered Cu(111) surfaces. By mapping the multi-step CVD process into an effective quasi-physical vapor deposition, we construct a generalized phase diagram characterized by the coupled effects of $\alpha$, $\Gamma$, and a newly introduced desorption parameter $Z$. Our results show that tensile strain expands the bilayer graphene (BLG) growth window for critical nucleus sizes $i^*>1$. In contrast, chemical desorption suppresses BLG formation in the high-$\Gamma$ regime via $Z$-dependent monomer depletion. This unified framework provides a predictive guide for the rational synthesis of high-quality bilayer graphene by linking macroscopic growth parameters to microscopic layer-selection mechanisms.

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 extends the authors' prior α-Γ phase diagram framework for graphene CVD on Cu by incorporating thermal strain from substrate expansion and chemical desorption of monomers (via reverse dehydrogenation). First-principles DFT calculations provide strain-dependent diffusion and attachment barriers on bare and graphene-covered Cu(111). The multi-step CVD is mapped to an effective quasi-PVD model, introducing a new desorption parameter Z. The resulting generalized phase diagram in the α-Γ-Z space indicates that tensile strain broadens the bilayer graphene (BLG) growth regime for critical nuclei with i* > 1, whereas Z-dependent monomer depletion suppresses BLG formation at high Γ values.

Significance. If the quasi-PVD reduction preserves the essential layer-selection mechanisms, this generalized diagram offers a predictive tool for optimizing CVD parameters to achieve controlled bilayer graphene growth. Strengths include the use of DFT-derived strain effects and the introduction of Z to account for desorption, providing a more complete parameter space than the previous α-Γ model. However, the significance hinges on validation of the effective model against full CVD kinetics.

major comments (2)
  1. [Model construction] The assumption that the multi-step CVD process can be accurately mapped into an effective quasi-PVD model without losing essential layer-selection physics is central to the claims but lacks explicit verification. Specifically, the manuscript does not compare the effective attachment rates derived from strain-modified barriers to those from a full kinetic model including CH4 dehydrogenation and H2 evolution steps, which could differentially affect exposed vs. graphene-covered surfaces and potentially reverse the reported expansion of the BLG window for i*>1.
  2. [Phase diagram results] In the discussion of the generalized phase diagram, the claim that tensile strain expands the BLG growth window relies on the strain-dependent barriers from DFT, but no sensitivity analysis or error propagation from the barrier values is provided, making it unclear how robust the expansion is to uncertainties in the first-principles data.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Notation] The definition and range of the new parameter Z should be clarified with an explicit equation or formula in the main text, as it is introduced as 'newly introduced desorption parameter Z' without immediate mathematical expression.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions for the phase diagrams could benefit from more detail on the specific values of strain and Z used in the plotted boundaries.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. The comments raise important points about model validation and robustness that we address below. We propose targeted revisions to strengthen the presentation while maintaining the core contributions of the generalized phase diagram.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Model construction] The assumption that the multi-step CVD process can be accurately mapped into an effective quasi-PVD model without losing essential layer-selection physics is central to the claims but lacks explicit verification. Specifically, the manuscript does not compare the effective attachment rates derived from strain-modified barriers to those from a full kinetic model including CH4 dehydrogenation and H2 evolution steps, which could differentially affect exposed vs. graphene-covered surfaces and potentially reverse the reported expansion of the BLG window for i*>1.

    Authors: We agree that explicit verification against a full kinetic model would be ideal. The quasi-PVD mapping is justified by timescale separation: dehydrogenation and H2 evolution are rapid compared to monomer diffusion and attachment, allowing effective rates to be derived from the DFT barriers on each surface. This approach follows the framework validated in our prior α-Γ work against experimental trends. A complete side-by-side comparison with explicit CH4 dehydrogenation steps on both bare and graphene-covered Cu would require extensive additional kinetic modeling and is beyond the present scope. We will revise the manuscript to expand the discussion of mapping assumptions, cite relevant kinetic literature, and note the potential limitations without claiming the expansion is proven under every possible kinetic detail. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Phase diagram results] In the discussion of the generalized phase diagram, the claim that tensile strain expands the BLG growth window relies on the strain-dependent barriers from DFT, but no sensitivity analysis or error propagation from the barrier values is provided, making it unclear how robust the expansion is to uncertainties in the first-principles data.

    Authors: We accept this criticism. The reported expansion of the BLG window under tensile strain is based on the central DFT barrier values, and uncertainties in those values (typically 0.05–0.15 eV for such calculations) could affect quantitative boundaries. In the revised manuscript we will add a sensitivity analysis, varying the diffusion and attachment barriers within estimated DFT error ranges and showing that the qualitative widening of the BLG regime for i*>1 persists. This will be presented either in the main text or as a supplementary figure. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation chain is self-contained with independent DFT inputs and new parameter Z

full rationale

The paper computes strain-dependent barriers using first-principles calculations on exposed and graphene-covered Cu(111), introduces the new desorption parameter Z, and maps the multi-step CVD process to an effective quasi-PVD model to generalize the prior α-Γ framework. The reported effects (tensile strain expanding the i*>1 BLG window and Z suppressing formation at high Γ via monomer depletion) are derived outcomes of this construction rather than tautological redefinitions or fitted quantities that reduce to the inputs by construction. The reference to the authors' previous phase diagram is an extension but does not render the central claims circular, as the new elements rest on external DFT data and the explicit introduction of Z. No load-bearing self-citation, self-definitional steps, or fitted-input predictions are identifiable from the provided text.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the prior α-Γ framework, first-principles barrier calculations, and the quasi-PVD mapping; Z is introduced as a new descriptor without independent experimental calibration shown in the abstract.

free parameters (1)
  • Z
    Newly introduced desorption parameter that controls monomer depletion in the high-Γ regime.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption First-principles calculations correctly yield strain-dependent diffusion and attachment barriers on exposed and graphene-covered Cu(111).
    Invoked to determine how thermal expansion strain alters kinetics.
  • domain assumption The multi-step CVD chemistry can be reduced to an effective quasi-physical vapor deposition process while preserving layer-selection outcomes.
    Stated in the model-construction paragraph of the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5728 in / 1465 out tokens · 38089 ms · 2026-05-21T04:32:00.899422+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V . Morozov, D. Jiang, Y . Zhang, S. V . Dubonos, I. V . Grigorieva, and A. A. Firsov, Electric field effect in atomically thin carbon films, Science 306, 666 (2004)

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    K. S. Kim, Y . Zhao, H. Jang, S. Y . Lee, J. M. Kim, K. S. Kim, J.- H. Ahn, P. Kim, J.-Y . Choi, and B. H. Hong, Large-scale pattern growth of graphene films for stretchable transparent electrodes, Nature457, 706 (2009)

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    J. Shen, Y . Zhu, X. Yang, and C. Li, Graphene quantum dots: emergent nanolights for bioimaging, sensors, catalysis and pho- tovoltaic devices, Chem. Commun.48, 3686 (2012)

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    K. S. Novoselov, Z. Jiang, Y . Zhang, S. V . Morozov, H. L. Stormer, U. Zeitler, J. C. Maan, G. S. Boebinger, P. Kim, and A. K. Geim, Room-temperature quantum hall effect in graphene, Science315, 1379 (2007)

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

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

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    C. Lee, X. Wei, J. W. Kysar, and J. Hone, Measurement of the elastic properties and intrinsic strength of monolayer graphene, Science321, 385 (2008)

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    F. Xia, D. B. Farmer, Y .-m. Lin, and P. Avouris, Graphene field- effect transistors with high on/off current ratio and large trans- port band gap at room temperature, Nano Lett.10, 715 (2010)

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    E. V . Castro, K. S. Novoselov, S. V . Morozov, N. M. R. Peres, J. M. B. L. dos Santos, J. Nilsson, F. Guinea, A. K. Geim, and A. H. C. Neto, Biased bilayer graphene: Semiconductor with a gap tunable by the electric field effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 216802 (2007)

    work page 2007

  9. [9]

    J. O. Island, X. Cui, C. Lewandowski, J. Y . Khoo, E. M. Span- ton, H. Zhou, D. Rhodes, J. C. Hone, T. Taniguchi, K. Watan- abe, L. S. Levitov, M. P. Zaletel, and A. F. Young, Spin–orbit- driven band inversion in bilayer graphene by the van der waals proximity effect, Nature571, 85 (2019)

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    Y . Cao, V . Fatemi, A. Demir, S. Fang, S. L. Tomarken, J. Y . Luo, J. D. Sanchez-Yamagishi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxi- ras, R. C. Ashoori, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Correlated insulator behaviour at half-filling in magic-angle graphene superlattices, Nature556, 80 (2018)

    work page 2018

  11. [11]

    Y . Cao, V . Fatemi, S. Fang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxi- ras, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Unconventional superconductivity in magic-angle graphene superlattices, Nature556, 43 (2018)

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    H. C. Lee, W.-W. Liu, S.-P. Chai, A. R. Mohamed, C. W. Lai, C.-S. Khe, C. V oon, U. Hashim, and N. Hidayah, Synthesis of single-layer graphene: A review of recent development, Proce- dia Chemistry19, 916 (2016)

    work page 2016

  13. [13]

    K. S. Novoselov, V . I. Fal′ko, L. Colombo, P. R. Gellert, M. G. Schwab, and K. Kim, A roadmap for graphene, Nature490, 192 (2012)

    work page 2012

  14. [14]

    W. Yao, H. Liu, J. Sun, B. Wu, and Y . Liu, Engineering of chemical vapor deposition graphene layers: Growth, character- ization, and properties, Adv. Funct. Mater.32, 2202584 (2022)

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    Liu and S

    B. Liu and S. Ma, Precise synthesis of graphene by chemical vapor deposition, Nanoscale16, 4407 (2024)

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    R. Yagi, T. Hirahara, R. Ebisuoka, T. Nakasuga, S. Tajima, K. Watanabe, and T. Taniguchi, Low-energy band structure and even-odd layer number effect in AB-stacked multilayer graphene, Sci. Rep.8, 13018 (2018)

    work page 2018

  17. [17]

    Nagashio, T

    K. Nagashio, T. Nishimura, K. Kita, and A. Toriumi, Mobility variations in mono- and multi-layer graphene films, Appl. Phys. Express2, 025003 (2009)

    work page 2009

  18. [18]

    Gajewski and C.-W

    G. Gajewski and C.-W. Pao, Ab initio calculations of the re- action pathways for methane decomposition over the Cu(111) 10 surface, J. Chem. Phys.135, 064707 (2011)

    work page 2011

  19. [19]

    Y . He, H. Wang, S. Jiang, and Y . Mo, A first-principles study of the effect of surface oxygen during the early stage of graphene growth on a Cu(111) surface, Comput. Mater. Sci168, 17 (2019)

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    K. Li, C. He, M. Jiao, Y . Wang, and Z. Wu, A first-principles study on the role of hydrogen in early stage of graphene growth during the CH4 dissociation on Cu(111) and Ni(111) surfaces, Carbon74, 255 (2014)

    work page 2014

  21. [21]

    Zhang, P

    W. Zhang, P. Wu, Z. Li, and J. Yang, First-principles thermody- namics of graphene growth on Cu surfaces, J. Phys. Chem. C 115, 17782 (2011)

    work page 2011

  22. [22]

    X. Wang, Q. Yuan, J. Li, and F. Ding, The transition metal sur- face dependent methane decomposition in graphene chemical vapor deposition growth, Nanoscale9, 11584 (2017)

    work page 2017

  23. [23]

    T. Ma, W. Ren, X. Zhang, Z. Liu, Y . Gao, L. C. Yin, X. L. Ma, F. Ding, and H. M. Cheng, Edge-controlled growth and kinetics of single-crystal graphene domains by chemical vapor deposition, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.110, 20386 (2013)

    work page 2013

  24. [24]

    Z. Qiu, P. Li, Z. Li, and J. Yang, Atomistic simulations of graphene growth: From kinetics to mechanism, Acc. Chem. Res.51, 728 (2018)

    work page 2018

  25. [25]

    Li and Z

    P. Li and Z. Li, Theoretical insights into the thermodynamics and kinetics of graphene growth on copper surfaces, J. Phys. Chem. C124, 16233 (2020)

    work page 2020

  26. [26]

    Cheng, L

    T. Cheng, L. Sun, Z. Liu, F. Ding, and Z. Liu, Theoretical calculation boosting the chemical vapor deposition growth of graphene film, APL Mater.9, 060906 (2021)

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    P. Li, Z. Li, and J. Yang, Dominant kinetic pathways of graphene growth in chemical vapor deposition: The role of hy- drogen, J. Phys. Chem. C121, 25949 (2017)

    work page 2017

  28. [28]

    S. Chen, J. Gao, B. M. Srinivasan, G. Zhang, V . Sorkin, R. Har- iharaputran, and Y .-W. Zhang, A kinetic monte carlo model for the growth and etching of graphene during chemical vapor de- position, Carbon146, 399 (2019)

    work page 2019

  29. [29]

    X. Kong, J. Zhuang, L. Zhu, and F. Ding, The complementary graphene growth and etching revealed by large-scale kinetic monte carlo simulation, npj Comput. Mater.7, 14 (2021)

    work page 2021

  30. [30]

    Zhang, P

    D. Zhang, P. Yi, X. Lai, L. Peng, and H. Li, Active machine learning model for the dynamic simulation and growth mech- anisms of carbon on metal surface, Nat. Commun.15, 344 (2024)

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    W. Chen, P. Cui, W. Zhu, E. Kaxiras, Y . Gao, and Z. Zhang, Atomistic mechanisms for bilayer growth of graphene on metal substrates, Phys. Rev. B91, 045408 (2015)

    work page 2015

  32. [32]

    H. C. Hong, J. I. Ryu, and H. C. Lee, Recent understanding in the chemical vapor deposition of multilayer graphene: Control- ling uniformity, thickness, and stacking configuration, Nano- materials13, 2217 (2023)

    work page 2023

  33. [33]

    R. Xue, I. H. Abidi, and Z. Luo, Domain size, layer number and morphology control for graphene grown by chemical vapor deposition, Funct. Mater. Lett.10, 1730003 (2017)

    work page 2017

  34. [34]

    L. Sun, Z. Wang, Y . Wang, L. Zhao, Y . Li, B. Chen, S. Huang, S. Zhang, W. Wang, D. Pei, H. Fang, S. Zhong, H. Liu, J. Zhang, L. Tong, Y . Chen, Z. Li, M. H. Rummeli, K. S. Novoselov, H. Peng, L. Lin, and Z. Liu, Hetero-site nucleation for growing twisted bilayer graphene with a wide range of twist angles, Nat. Commun.12, 2391 (2021)

    work page 2021

  35. [35]

    Q. Li, H. Chou, J.-H. Zhong, J.-Y . Liu, A. Dolocan, J. Zhang, Y . Zhou, R. S. Ruoff, S. Chen, and W. Cai, Growth of adlayer graphene on Cu studied by carbon isotope labeling, Nano Lett. 13, 486 (2013)

    work page 2013

  36. [36]

    S. Nie, W. Wu, S. Xing, Q. Yu, J. Bao, S.-s. Pei, and K. F. McCarty, Growth from below: bilayer graphene on copper by chemical vapor deposition, New J. Phys.14, 093028 (2012)

    work page 2012

  37. [37]

    T. Wang, J. Zheng, X. Wei, and D. Shu, Phase diagram of growth modes in graphene growth on copper by vapor depo- sition, Phys. Rev. Mater.9, L021001 (2025)

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    Wang and R

    K. Wang and R. Reeber, Thermal expansion of copper, High Temp. Mater. Sci.35, 181 (1996)

    work page 1996

  39. [39]

    Mondal, M

    A. Mondal, M. Wijzenbroek, M. Bonfanti, C. Díaz, and G.-J. Kroes, Thermal lattice expansion effect on reactive scattering of H2 from Cu(111) at Ts = 925 K, J. Phys. Chem. A117, 8770 (2013)

    work page 2013

  40. [40]

    Marashdeh, S

    A. Marashdeh, S. Casolo, L. Sementa, H. Zacharias, and G.-J. Kroes, Surface temperature effects on dissociative chemisorp- tion of H2 on Cu(100), J. Phys. Chem. C117, 8851 (2013)

    work page 2013

  41. [41]

    Y . Dong, S. Guo, H. Mao, C. Xu, Y . Xie, C. Cheng, X. Mao, J. Deng, G. Pan, and J. Sun, The growth of graphene on Ni–Cu alloy thin films at a low temperature and its carbon diffusion mechanism, Nanomaterials9, 1633 (2019)

    work page 2019

  42. [42]

    Vlassiouk, M

    I. Vlassiouk, M. Regmi, P. Fulvio, S. Dai, P. Datskos, G. Eres, and S. Smirnov, Role of hydrogen in chemical vapor deposi- tion growth of large single-crystal graphene, ACS Nano5, 6069 (2011)

    work page 2011

  43. [43]

    X. Sun, S. Lou, W. Wang, X. Liu, X. Sun, Y . Song, W. Yang, and Z. Liu, Kinetics of hydrogen constrained graphene growth on Cu substrate, Nano Res.17, 9284 (2024)

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    Leidinger, T

    P. Leidinger, T. Kratky, and S. Günther, Extending the predic- tive growth kinetics for the CVD synthesis of graphene on cop- per to the low-pressure regime, J. Phys. Chem. C127, 8136 (2023)

    work page 2023

  45. [45]

    P. Zhao, Y . Cheng, D. Zhao, K. Yin, X. Zhang, M. Song, S. Yin, Y . Song, P. Wang, M. Wang, Y . Xia, and H. Wang, The role of hydrogen in oxygen-assisted chemical vapor deposition growth of millimeter-sized graphene single crystals, Nanoscale8, 7646 (2016)

    work page 2016

  46. [46]

    Mitchell and A

    I. Mitchell and A. Page, The influence of hydrogen on transition metal - Catalysed graphene nucleation, Carbon128, 215 (2018)

    work page 2018

  47. [47]

    X. Dai, I. Mitchell, S. Kim, H. An, and F. Ding, Multilayer graphene sunk growth on Cu(111) surface, Carbon199, 233 (2022)

    work page 2022

  48. [48]

    Z. Xu, G. Zhao, L. Qiu, X. Zhang, G. Qiao, and F. Ding, Molec- ular dynamics simulation of graphene sinking during chemi- cal vapor deposition growth on semi-molten Cu substrate, npj Comput. Mater.6, 14 (2020)

    work page 2020

  49. [49]

    B. Chen, X. Zeng, Z. Liu, W. Dong, D. Pei, H. Wang, Y . Dong, C. Wu, X. Gao, H. Xiao, H. Gao, H. Jia, A. Yuan, J. Du, H. Chen, H. Liu, C. Tan, J. Yin, Z. Liu, L. Liu, P. Gao, K. S. Novoselov, H. Peng, Z. Li, L. Sun, and Z. Liu, Edge- feeding synchronous epitaxy of layer-controlled graphene films on heterogeneous catalytic substrates, Nat. Commun.16, 5490 (2025)

    work page 2025

  50. [50]

    Leidinger and S

    P. Leidinger and S. Günther, Insight into the thermodynamics of graphene growth on copper, J. Phys. Chem. C125, 12663 (2021)

    work page 2021

  51. [51]

    Huet and J.-P

    B. Huet and J.-P. Raskin, Pressure-controlled chemical vapor deposition of single-layer graphene with millimeter-size do- mains on thin copper film, Chem. Mater.29, 3431 (2017)

    work page 2017

  52. [52]

    S. Lee, K. Lee, and Z. Zhong, Wafer scale homogeneous bilayer graphene films by chemical vapor deposition, Nano Lett.10, 4702 (2010)

    work page 2010

  53. [53]

    Cho, M.-S

    S.-Y . Cho, M.-S. Kim, M. Kim, K.-J. Kim, H.-M. Kim, D.-J. Lee, S.-H. Lee, and K.-B. Kim, Self-assembly and continuous growth of hexagonal graphene flakes on liquid Cu, Nanoscale 7, 12820 (2015)

    work page 2015

  54. [54]

    Walton, Nucleation of vapor deposits, J

    D. Walton, Nucleation of vapor deposits, J. Chem. Phys.37, 2182 (1962). 11

    work page 1962

  55. [55]

    J. A. Venables, Rate equation approaches to thin film nucleation kinetics, Philos. Mag.27, 697 (1973)

    work page 1973

  56. [56]

    J. A. Venables, G. D. T. Spiller, and M. Hanbucken, Nucleation and growth of thin films, Rep. Prog. Phys.47, 399 (1984)

    work page 1984

  57. [57]

    J. Tang, Y . Wang, Y . Ma, X. Gao, X. Gao, N. Li, Y . Wang, S. Zhang, L. Zheng, B. Deng, R. Yan, Y . Cao, R. Zhang, L. Tong, J. Zhang, P. Gao, Z. Liu, X. Wei, H. Liu, and H. Peng, Ultrafast growth of wafer-scale fold-free bilayer graphene, Nano Res.16, 10684 (2023)

    work page 2023

  58. [58]

    Celebi, M

    K. Celebi, M. T. Cole, J. W. Choi, F. Wyczisk, P. Legagneux, N. Rupesinghe, J. Robertson, K. B. Teo, and H. G. Park, Evo- lutionary kinetics of graphene formation on copper, Nano Lett. 13, 967 (2013)

    work page 2013

  59. [59]

    Fabiane, M

    M. Fabiane, M. J. Madito, A. Bello, and N. Manyala, Raman spectroscopy and imaging of bernal-stacked bilayer graphene synthesized on copper foil by chemical vapour deposition: growth dependence on temperature, J. Raman Spectrosc.48, 639 (2017)

    work page 2017

  60. [60]

    R. S. Weatherup, B. Dlubak, and S. Hofmann, Kinetic control of catalytic CVD for high-quality graphene at low temperatures, ACS Nano6, 9996 (2012)

    work page 2012

  61. [61]

    Mehdipour and K

    H. Mehdipour and K. K. Ostrikov, Kinetics of low-pressure, low-temperature graphene growth: Toward single-layer, single- crystalline structure, ACS Nano6, 10276 (2012)

    work page 2012

  62. [62]

    J. Li, M. Chen, A. Samad, H. Dong, A. Ray, J. Zhang, X. Jiang, U. Schwingenschlögl, J. Domke, C. Chen, Y . Han, T. Fritz, R. S. Ruoff, B. Tian, and X. Zhang, Wafer-scale single-crystal mono- layer graphene grown on sapphire substrate, Nat. Mater.21, 740 (2022)

    work page 2022

  63. [63]

    Zhang, T

    X. Zhang, T. Wu, Q. Jiang, H. Wang, H. Zhu, Z. Chen, R. Jiang, T. Niu, Z. Li, Y . Zhang, Z. Qiu, G. Yu, A. Li, S. Qiao, H. Wang, Q. Yu, and X. Xie, Epitaxial growth of 6 in. single-crystalline graphene on a Cu/Ni (111) film at 750 ◦C via chemical vapor deposition, Small15, e1805395 (2019)

    work page 2019

  64. [64]

    B. Deng, Z. Pang, S. Chen, X. Li, C. Meng, J. Li, M. Liu, J. Wu, Y . Qi, W. Dang, H. Yang, Y . Zhang, J. Zhang, N. Kang, H. Xu, Q. Fu, X. Qiu, P. Gao, Y . Wei, Z. Liu, and H. Peng, Wrinkle- free single-crystal graphene wafer grown on strain-engineered substrates, ACS Nano11, 12337 (2017)

    work page 2017

  65. [65]

    Takesaki, K

    Y . Takesaki, K. Kawahara, H. Hibino, S. Okada, M. Tsuji, and H. Ago, Highly uniform bilayer graphene on epitaxial Cu–Ni(111) alloy, Chem. Mater.28, 4583 (2016)

    work page 2016

  66. [66]

    Zhang, X

    J. Zhang, X. Liu, M. Zhang, R. Zhang, H. Q. Ta, J. Sun, W. Wang, W. Zhu, T. Fang, K. Jia, X. Sun, X. Zhang, Y . Zhu, J. Shao, Y . Liu, X. Gao, Q. Yang, L. Sun, Q. Li, F. Liang, H. Chen, L. Zheng, F. Wang, W. Yin, X. Wei, J. Yin, T. Gem- ming, M. H. Rummeli, H. Liu, H. Peng, L. Lin, and Z. Liu, Fast synthesis of large-area bilayer graphene film on Cu, Nat....

    work page 2023