Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 32 references

Stabilization of Stone-Wales Defects in Metal-supported Graphene

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-07-08 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Metal substrates lower the barrier and lock in graphene defects

desk verdict DFT study shows metal substrates reduce SW defect activation barrier by ~20% and stabilize the defect state, but the asymmetric relaxation protocol and a sign error in the abstract weaken the quantitative claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.06057 v1 pith:FQZMGUKA submitted 2026-07-07 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Rob H. Mason , Manuka M. S. Sinharage , Hansika I. Sirikumara , Sabrina Nilufar , Thushari Jayasekera This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci PACS 68.65.Pa61.72.-y73.22.Pr
keywords energygraphenedefectsformationmetal-supportedstonewalesactivation
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 uses first-principles density functional theory to argue that placing graphene on a metal surface — specifically Cu(111) or Al(111) — makes Stone-Wales defects easier to form and harder to erase. A Stone-Wales defect is a topological rearrangement in which a carbon–carbon bond rotates 90 degrees, converting four hexagons into two pentagons and two heptagons (a 5-7-7-5 defect). The authors compute three energy barriers that govern the defect's life cycle: the activation energy (how hard it is to create), the formation energy (how stable the defective state is relative to pristine), and the restoration energy (how hard it is to heal back to pristine). On metal-supported graphene the activation barrier drops by roughly 20 percent (from 9.9 eV to about 7.7 eV), the formation energy rises by about 12 percent (meaning the defective state is more stabilized relative to pristine on the metal), and the restoration energy, though reduced by about 35 percent, remains at 2.3–2.6 eV — high enough to prevent spontaneous self-healing. The net picture: metal substrates both lower the cost of creating Stone-Wales defects and, once formed, trap them in place. The authors also find that the type of metal (Cu vs Al) makes little difference, and that the mechanism is tied to enhanced charge transfer at the defect–metal interface, which induces out-of-plane ripples in the graphene.

What carries the argument

The argument turns on three energy descriptors extracted from DFT total-energy profiles plotted as a function of the C–C dimer rotation angle θ: (1) activation energy E_a (pristine → transition state), (2) formation energy E_f (pristine → defective state), and (3) restoration energy E_r (defective state → transition state). The transition state is identified as the maximum along the constrained rotation path. Charge-transfer density, computed as the difference between the total system charge density and the sum of isolated metal and graphene charge densities, provides the mechanistic explanation: the metal donates charge preferentially to the defective site, strengthening the defect–metal ad

What would settle it

A proper saddle-point search (e.g., nudged elastic band) that allows full structural relaxation at each rotation angle could reveal a different transition-state geometry and a different activation barrier. If the true barrier on metal-supported graphene turns out to be comparable to or higher than the free-standing value, the central claim weakens.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central quantitative result is that metal substrates shift all three energy descriptors of Stone-Wales defect formation in the direction that favors defect creation and persistence: a ~20 percent drop in activation energy, a ~12 percent increase in formation energy (stabilizing the defective state), and a restoration energy that drops but stays above ~2.3 eV. The paper also reports that the C–C bond at the defect site shrinks less on metals (to ~1.40 Å vs ~1.28 Å in free-standing graphene) and that charge-transfer analysis shows enhanced electron redistribution at the defect–metal interface, accompanied by vertical ripples in the graphene sheet. The effect is largely metal-independent.

Load-bearing premise

The energy profile for metal-supported graphene is computed by rotating the C–C dimer in fixed angular steps while keeping the C–C bond length fixed, rather than relaxing the bond length at each step as is done for free-standing graphene. The transition state is identified as the energy maximum along this constrained path rather than via a proper saddle-point search. If the fixed bond length misestimates the true energy at intermediate angles, the reported barriers could be a

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Stone-Wales defects form more readily and persist on metal-supported graphene, controlled defect engineering via substrate choice could become a practical route to tune graphene's mechanical and electronic properties in metal-matrix composites.
  • The weak dependence on metal type (Cu vs Al) suggests the effect is a generic consequence of metal–graphene charge transfer rather than a chemically specific interaction, potentially extending to other weakly interacting metal substrates.
  • The sandwiched metal/graphene/metal configurations show similar trends, implying that graphene embedded inside a metal matrix — the actual geometry of reinforced composites — will also trap Stone-Wales defects, with consequences for composite strength and interface stability.
  • The persistence of defects at restoration energies above 2.3 eV means that once formed (e.g., via irradiation or high-temperature processing), they will not self-heal under normal operating conditions, making them effectively permanent structural features.
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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses DFT (Quantum Espresso, GGA+vdW) to compute the energy profile for Stone-Wales (SW) defect formation in free-standing graphene and in graphene supported on Al(111) and Cu(111), including sandwiched metal/graphene/metal configurations. The central claim is that metal substrates reduce the SW activation energy by ~20% and stabilize the defective state, while the restoration energy remains high enough (~2.3–2.6 eV) to prevent self-healing. Charge-transfer analysis is presented to rationalize the enhanced metal–graphene interaction at defect sites. The free-standing reference values (Ea = 9.9 eV, Ef = 5.8 eV, Er = 4.1 eV) are consistent with the literature.

Significance. The question of whether metal substrates promote SW defect formation in graphene is relevant to graphene-reinforced metal matrix composites and to the broader understanding of defect stability at 2D-material/metal interfaces. The paper provides a parameter-free DFT comparison across multiple interface geometries (on-top and sandwiched) and two metals, and the charge-transfer analysis connects the energetic trends to a physical mechanism. The free-standing reference is validated against literature values. These are genuine contributions to the topic.

major comments (4)
  1. Section III, paragraph 2: The energy profiles for free-standing and metal-supported graphene are computed under different protocols. For free-standing graphene, the C–C bond length at the defect site is relaxed to minimize energy at each rotation angle θ, whereas for metal-supported graphene the C–C bond length is held fixed throughout rotation. This asymmetry directly affects the central quantitative comparison (the ~20% barrier reduction). The manuscript does not specify at which value the bond is fixed for the metal-supported case, nor does it provide a sensitivity test showing how the metal-supported barrier would change if the bond length were relaxed at intermediate angles. A control calculation — either relaxing the bond length for the metal-supported case at a few key angles, or recomputing the free-standing profile with a fixed bond length — would establish whether the reported
  2. ~2 eV barrier reduction is robust to the protocol choice. Without this, the headline quantitative claim rests on an apples-to-oranges comparison.
  3. Abstract: The abstract states a '∼12% increase in the formation energy,' but Table I shows Ef decreasing from 5.8 eV (FS-Gr) to 5.10 eV (AlGr) and 4.35 eV (CuGr) — a 12–25% decrease. The body text (Section III) correctly states that 'the SW defect in graphene on Al is ∼12% more stable than in free-standing graphene,' which is consistent with a lower Ef. The abstract's wording is internally inconsistent (an increase in formation energy would disfavor, not favor, defect formation) and must be corrected.
  4. Section III, paragraph 3: The transition state is identified as the maximum along the constrained rotation coordinate rather than via a saddle-point search (e.g., NEB). The constrained scan provides an upper bound on the true barrier, but the location and height of the maximum may differ from the actual minimum-energy path, particularly for the metal-supported systems where out-of-plane relaxation and metal–carbon interactions could open lower-energy pathways. The authors should acknowledge this limitation explicitly and, if possible, verify the barrier for at least one metal-supported system with a NEB calculation.
minor comments (7)
  1. Section II: The value at which the C–C bond length is fixed for the metal-supported rotation scan should be stated explicitly (e.g., the SW-defect equilibrium value of ~1.40 Å from Table I, or the pristine value of ~1.42 Å).
  2. Table I caption: 'Ea' is listed as 'Eb' in the column header. Please reconcile.
  3. Section II title: 'CALCULATION DETAILS' has spacing artifacts ('CALCULA TION DET AILS').
  4. Section IV: 'sadnwiched' should be 'sandwiched.'
  5. Section III, charge-transfer definition: 'ρ meta' should be 'ρ_metal' for consistency with the equation.
  6. Figure 4: The y-axis label and units are not clearly stated in the caption; please specify that the plotted quantity is energy in eV.
  7. The formation energy definition (Ef = E_system − E_metal/graphene) is appropriate for SW defects since no atoms are added or removed, but a brief note clarifying this would help readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive report. All three major comments identify legitimate issues that we will address in the revised manuscript. Comment 1 (asymmetric relaxation protocols) is the most substantive concern and requires new calculations; we will perform the requested control calculations. Comment 2 (abstract wording error) is a straightforward correction. Comment 3 (constrained scan vs. NEB) is a valid methodological limitation that we will acknowledge explicitly, and we will attempt a NEB verification for at least one system.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Section III, paragraph 2: Free-standing and metal-supported graphene energy profiles are computed under different protocols (bond length relaxed for FS-Gr, fixed for metal-supported). This asymmetry affects the central ~20% barrier reduction claim. No specification of the fixed bond length value or sensitivity test provided.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the two protocols differ and that this must be addressed. To clarify: for the metal-supported systems, the C–C bond length at the defect site was fixed at the value obtained from the fully relaxed SW-defective configuration on each substrate (~1.40 Å for Al/Gr, ~1.37 Å for Cu/Gr, as reported in Table I). The rationale was that, as shown in Fig. 3, the bond shrinkage at the SW defect site is much less pronounced on metal substrates (~1.37–1.40 Å) than in free-standing graphene (~1.29 Å), so the variation in bond length during rotation is expected to be smaller. However, we agree that this expectation is not a substitute for an explicit test. We will perform control calculations in which the C–C bond length is relaxed at several key intermediate angles (including the transition-state region near θ = 45–50°) for at least one metal-supported system (Al/Gr). If the relaxed-bond barrier changes by more than ~0.3 eV, we will also relax the bond length at all angles for all metal-supported systems and update the reported barriers accordingly. We will report these results in the revised manuscript and state clearly whether the ~20% reduction is robust to the protocol choice. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Abstract: States a '~12% increase in the formation energy,' but Table I shows Ef decreasing from 5.8 eV (FS-Gr) to 5.10 eV (AlGr) and 4.35 eV (CuGr) — a 12–25% decrease. The body text correctly states the SW defect is '~12% more stable.' The abstract's wording is internally inconsistent and must be corrected.

    Authors: The referee is correct. This is an error in the abstract. The formation energy decreases (not increases) from 5.8 eV in free-standing graphene to 5.10 eV on Al(111) and 4.35 eV on Cu(111), meaning the SW defect is more stable on metal-supported graphene. The body text (Section III) states this correctly. We will correct the abstract to read '~12% decrease in the formation energy' (or equivalently, '~12% more stable'), consistent with the data in Table I and the body text. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Section III, paragraph 3: The transition state is identified as the maximum along a constrained rotation coordinate rather than via a saddle-point search (e.g., NEB). The constrained scan provides an upper bound on the true barrier. The authors should acknowledge this limitation and, if possible, verify with NEB for at least one metal-supported system.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the constrained rotation scan provides an upper bound on the true activation barrier, since the actual minimum-energy path may involve additional degrees of freedom (out-of-plane relaxation, metal–carbon rearrangements) not fully captured by the single-coordinate scan. We will add an explicit discussion of this limitation in the revised manuscript. We will also attempt a NEB calculation for at least one metal-supported system (Al/Gr) to verify the barrier. If the NEB calculation is computationally feasible within the revision timeframe, we will report the result and compare it to the constrained-scan value. If the NEB barrier is significantly lower, we will revise our quantitative claims accordingly. If the NEB calculation cannot be completed in time, we will at minimum state clearly that the reported barriers are upper bounds and that the true barriers may be somewhat lower, which would strengthen rather than weaken our qualitative conclusion that metal substrates reduce the SW activation energy. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circularity found; DFT energy differences are computed from first principles and validated against external literature.

full rationale

The paper computes activation, formation, and restoration energies as DFT total-energy differences (Eqs. for Ef and charge transfer in Section III), with no fitted parameters and no ansatz that reduces outputs to inputs. The free-standing graphene reference values (Ea=9.9 eV, Ef=5.8 eV, Er=4.1 eV) are validated against external literature (refs 13, 17-20). The central claim — that SW defect formation is energetically more favorable on metal-supported graphene — is supported by independent DFT calculations for graphene/Cu(111) and graphene/Al(111), not by a fit or a self-referential definition. Self-citations (e.g., ref 28 by co-author Nilufar) are used for structural context, not as load-bearing premises. The asymmetric relaxation protocol (free-standing graphene relaxes C-C bond at each angle; metal-supported uses fixed bond length) is a methodological concern affecting correctness, not circularity — the energy profiles are still computed from DFT, not defined in terms of the claimed result. No step in the derivation chain reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new entities are postulated. The free parameter is the fixed C-C bond length used in the metal-supported energy profile, which is a modeling choice rather than a fitted constant. The axioms are standard DFT domain assumptions, none ad hoc to this paper.

free parameters (1)
  • C-C bond length at defect site (metal-supported) = 1.40 (Al), 1.37 (Cu)
    The C-C bond length at the SW defect site is fixed at the relaxed value during the rotation energy profile for metal-supported graphene, rather than being relaxed at each step. This is a modeling choice that affects the computed energy profile.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption GGA with vdW corrections adequately describes metal-graphene interactions
    Section II states GGA with vdW corrections is used, citing Adamska et al. (ref 31) that GGA and LDA give essentially identical results. This is a standard but unverified assumption for the specific systems studied.
  • domain assumption The supercell sizes used (4x4 graphene on 2x2 R3 Al, 1x1 Cu/1x1 Gr) are sufficient to eliminate defect-defect interactions
    No convergence test with respect to supercell size is reported. The paper assumes the chosen cells are large enough.
  • domain assumption The maximum along the constrained rotation path approximates the true transition state
    Section III identifies the transition state as the energy maximum along the dimer rotation angle, without a NEB or saddle-point search. This is a standard approximation in SW defect studies but is an assumption.
  • domain assumption Graphene strained to match the metal substrate is a realistic model
    Section II states graphene is strained to match the metal substrate, citing ref 31. The strain (up to 4% for Cu, 0.8% for Al) could affect defect energetics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stabilization of Stone-Wales Defects in Metal-supported Graphene." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FQZMGUKA

@misc{pith2026260706057,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stabilization of Stone-Wales Defects in Metal-supported Graphene},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FQZMGUKA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.06057}
}
abstract

The characteristics of graphene-metal interfaces play a decisive role in their electronic, optoelectronic, and mechanical applications. Properties such as charge transfer across the interface become particularly significant in the presence of topological defects. The stability of Stone Wales (SW) defects in graphene is governed by the balance between three energy descriptors, the activation energy, formation energy, and restoration energy. By comparing the energy parameters obtained from first-principles density functional theory calculations, we show that SW defect formation is energetically more favorable on metal-supported graphene. Our calculations for SW defects in graphene/Cu(111) and graphene/Al(111) systems indicate only a little dependence of energy profile on the type of metal. The presence of the metal substrate leads to a $\sim$ 12\% increase in the formation energy and a $\sim$ 20\% reduction in the activation energy, which together favor the formation of Stone Wales defects. Although the restoration energy decreases by about $\sim$ 35\% in metal-supported graphene, it remains significantly higher to prevent self-healing. As a result, once formed, the Stone Wales defects are likely to remain stable, suggesting the possibility of terminal SW defect formation in metal-supported graphene.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06057 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Top view of the graphene lattice showing the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Top and side views of the atomic configurations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Bond-length distribution around the Stone-Wales de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Charge transfer for pristine graphene and graphene [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Charge transfer for pristine graphene and graphene [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J.-M. Ju, G. Wang, and K.-H. Sim, Facile synthesis of graphene reinforced al matrix composites with improved dispersion of graphene and enhanced mechanical proper- ties, Journal of Alloys and Compounds704, 585 (2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    K. K. Sadhu, N. Mandal, and R. R. Sahoo, Sic/graphene reinforced aluminum metal matrix composites prepared by powder metallurgy: A review, Journal of Manufactur- ing Processes91, 10 (2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    G¨ uler and N

    ¨O. G¨ uler and N. Ba˘ gcı, A short review on mechanical properties of graphene reinforced metal matrix compos- ites, Journal of Materials Research and Technology9, 6808 (2020)

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    W. Chen, T. Yang, L. Dong, A. Elmasry, J. Song, N. Deng, A. Elmarakbi, T. Liu, H. B. Lv, and Y. Q. Fu, Advances in graphene reinforced metal matrix nanocom- posites: Mechanisms, processing, modelling, properties and applications, Nanotechnology and Precision Engi- neering3, 189 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Banhart, Interactions between metals and carbon nan- otubes: at the interface between old and new materials, Nanoscale1, 201 (2009)

    F. Banhart, Interactions between metals and carbon nan- otubes: at the interface between old and new materials, Nanoscale1, 201 (2009)

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    J. Cao, F. Li, Q. Yang, K. Zhan, Z. Yang, Z. Wang, and B. Zhao, A review on interfacial structure optimization and its mechanism on the properties of carbon reinforced 6 metal-matrix composites, Composite Interfaces30, 543 (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    A. Z. Jovanovi´ c, A. S. Dobrota, N. V. Skorodumova, and I. A. Paˇ sti, Reactivity of stone-wales defect in graphene lattice–dft study, FlatChem42, 100573 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Liu, J.-M

    X.-Y. Liu, J.-M. Zhang, K.-W. Xu, and V. Ji, Improv- ing so2 gas sensing properties of graphene by introducing dopant and defect: a first-principles study, Applied sur- face science313, 405 (2014)

    work page 2014

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    D. Er, E. Detsi, H. Kumar, and V. B. Shenoy, Defective graphene and graphene allotropes as high-capacity anode materials for mg ion batteries, ACS Energy Letters1, 638 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    M. Li, H. Zhou, Y. Zhang, Y. Liao, and H. Zhou, The effect of defects on the interfacial mechanical properties of graphene/epoxy composites, RSC advances7, 46101 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    Li, X.-W

    M. Li, X.-W. Lei, and T. Fujii, Deformation mechanism and minimum energy path in silicon–graphite composites with lattice defects, Physica E: Low-dimensional Systems and Nanostructures162, 115978 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Stone and D

    A. Stone and D. Wales, Theoretical studies of icosahedral c60 and some related species, Chemical Physics Letters 128, 501 (1986)

    1986

  5. [13]

    L. Li, S. Reich, and J. Robertson, Defect energies of graphite: Density-functional calculations, Phys. Rev. B 72, 184109 (2005)

    2005

  6. [14]

    Ertekin, D

    E. Ertekin, D. Chrzan, and M. S. Daw, Topological description of the stone-wales defect formation energy in carbon nanotubes and graphene, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics79, 155421 (2009)

    2009

  7. [15]

    O. V. Yazyev and S. G. Louie, Topological defects in graphene: Dislocations and grain boundaries, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics81, 195420 (2010)

    2010

  8. [16]

    Banhart, J

    F. Banhart, J. Kotakoski, and A. V. Krasheninnikov, Structural defects in graphene, ACS nano5, 26 (2011)

    2011

  9. [17]

    J. Ma, D. Alf` e, A. Michaelides, and E. Wang, Stone- wales defects in graphene and other planar sp 2-bonded materials, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics80, 033407 (2009)

    2009

  10. [18]

    Kotakoski, J

    J. Kotakoski, J. C. Meyer, S. Kurasch, D. Santos-Cottin, U. Kaiser, and A. V. Krasheninnikov, Stone-wales-type transformations in carbon nanostructures driven by elec- tron irradiation, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics83, 245420 (2011)

    2011

  11. [19]

    Kotakoski, A

    J. Kotakoski, A. Krasheninnikov, and K. Nordlund, Ener- getics, structure, and long-range interaction of vacancy- type defects in carbon nanotubes: Atomistic simulations, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics74, 245420 (2006)

    2006

  12. [20]

    Krasheninnikov and K

    A. Krasheninnikov and K. Nordlund, Ion and electron irradiation-induced effects in nanostructured materials, Journal of applied physics107(2010)

    2010

  13. [21]

    M. D. Bhatt, H. Kim, and G. Kim, Various defects in graphene: a review, RSC advances12, 21520 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    A. J. Harman and L. Raelynn, Density functional theory study of metal adatoms at or near a stone-wales defect in graphene, Procedia Engineering93, 2 (2014)

    2014

  15. [23]

    Wang, J.-S

    W.-W. Wang, J.-S. Dang, J.-J. Zheng, X. Zhao, E. ¯Osawa, and S. Nagase, Metal-promoted restoration of defective graphene, Journal of Materials Chemistry22, 16370 (2012)

    2012

  16. [24]

    Wang and Y.-h

    C. Wang and Y.-h. Ding, Catalytically healing the stone– wales defects in graphene by carbon adatoms, Journal of Materials Chemistry A1, 1885 (2013)

    2013

  17. [25]

    V. O. ¨Oz¸ celik, H. H. Gurel, and S. Ciraci, Self-healing of vacancy defects in single-layer graphene and silicene, Phys. Rev. B88, 045440 (2013)

    2013

  18. [26]

    B. P. Klein, A. Ihle, S. R. Kachel, L. Ruppenthal, S. J. Hall, L. Sattler, S. M. Weber, J. Herritsch, A. Jaegermann, D. Ebeling,et al., Topological stone– wales defects enhance bonding and electronic coupling at the graphene/metal interface, ACS nano16, 11979 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    B. P. Klein, M. A. Stoodley, D. B. Morgan, L. A. Rochford, L. B. S. Williams, P. T. P. Ryan, L. Sat- tler, S. M. Weber, G. Hilt, T. J. Liddy, T.-L. Lee, R. J. Maurer, and D. A. Duncan, Probing the role of surface termination in the adsorption of azupyrene on copper, Nanoscale1...

    2024

  20. [28]

    H. I. Jaim, R. A. Isaacs, S. N. Rashkeev, M. Kuklja, D. P. Cole, M. C. LeMieux, I. Jasiuk, S. Nilufar, and L. G. Salamanca-Riba, Sp2 carbon embedded in al-6061 and al-7075 alloys in the form of crystalline graphene nanoribbons, Carbon107, 56 (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    Giovannetti, P

    G. Giovannetti, P. A. Khomyakov, G. Brocks, V. M. Karpan, J. van den Brink, and P. J. Kelly, Doping graphene with metal contacts, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 026803 (2008)

    2008

  22. [30]

    P. A. Khomyakov, G. Giovannetti, P. C. Rusu, G. Brocks, J. van den Brink, and P. J. Kelly, First-principles study of the interaction and charge transfer between graphene and metals, Phys. Rev. B79, 195425 (2009)

    2009

  23. [31]

    Adamska, Y

    L. Adamska, Y. Lin, A. J. Ross, M. Batzill, and I. I. Oleynik, Atomic and electronic structure of sim- ple metal/graphene and complex metal/graphene/metal interfaces, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics85, 195443 (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    Giannozzi, S

    P. Giannozzi, S. Baroni, N. Bonini, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavazzoni, D. Ceresoli, G. L. Chiarotti, M. Cococ- cioni, I. Dabo, A. Dal Corso, S. de Gironcoli, S. Fabris, G. Fratesi, R. Gebauer, U. Gerstmann, C. Gougoussis, A. Kokalj, M. Lazzeri, L. Martin-Samos, N. Marzari, F. ...

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed July 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.