Quantitative Analysis of Composition and Contamination of Atomically Thin Materials by Recoil-Projectile Coincidence in Ion Transmission

Barbara Maria Mayer; Carolin Frank; Daniel Primetzhofer; E. Harriet {\AA}hlgren; Kevin Vomschee; Marika Schleberger; Radek Hole\v{n}\'ak; Tuan Thien Tran; Yossarian Liebsch

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 7 references

Quantitative Analysis of Composition and Contamination of Atomically Thin Materials by Recoil-Projectile Coincidence in Ion Transmission

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper introduces a recoil-projectile coincidence method in keV ion transmission that identifies and quantifies individual surface contaminants—including hydrogen—on freestanding ultrathin materials with isotopic resolution and monolayer

desk verdict A genuinely new coincidence-based transmission ToF-MEIS scheme for quantifying C and H contamination on freestanding 2D materials; the relative comparisons are probably solid, but the absolute 'atomically clean' claim needs a systematic calibration before it fully lands. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.22089 v1 pith:2B3LX27S submitted 2026-07-24 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Carolin Frank , Kevin Vomschee , Tuan Thien Tran , Barbara Maria Mayer , Radek Holeňák , Yossarian Liebsch , E. Harriet {AA}hlgren , Marika Schleberger

show 1 more author

Daniel Primetzhofer

This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci

keywords graphenesurfacecontaminationionbeamanalysistime-of-flightmediumenergyscatteringrecoil-projectilecoincidencemonolayercoveragehydrogenquantificationultrathinmaterials

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

The authors take on a measurement problem: surface contamination controls the properties of 2D materials, but standard microscopy only sees nanometer-scale regions and cannot quantify hydrogen. They claim that requiring coincidence between a recoil atom and the projectile that scattered it suppresses background enough to turn 40 keV Xe ion transmission through freestanding graphene into an element-specific, area-averaged contamination measurement, with precision set by counting statistics. Applied to three differently transferred graphene samples, the method shows that thermal annealing at 400 °C for 1 h drives PMMA-free transferred graphene to 1.04 ± 0.02 monolayers of carbon and 0.20 ± 0.01 monolayers of hydrogen, approaching atomically clean single-layer graphene. The same measurements expose different recontamination kinetics: PMMA-transferred samples re-adsorb carbon and hydrogen within hours at 2×10⁻⁸ mbar, while PMMA-free graphene stays nearly clean for at least 140 minutes. If correct, this gives the ultrathin-materials field a quantitative, large-area cleanliness metric that resolves the very elements—especially hydrogen—that local imaging misses.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the recoil-projectile coincidence condition. In a pulsed 40 keV Xe beam transmitted through a freestanding target, the time-of-flight spectrum has distinct peaks for H recoils (~619 ns), C recoils (~671 ns), and transmitted Xe projectiles (~1197 ns); selecting only events where one particle falls in the recoil window and a second falls in the projectile window suppresses uncorrelated background and assigns each event to a specific scatterer. Coverage is computed as n_C/H = (A_UC · A_C/H) / (2 · σ_eff · A_SLG · 0.54), where A_UC is the graphene unit-cell area, A_C/H is the coincidence count in the recoil window, σ_eff is the effective scattering cross section com

What would settle it

Measure the coincidence yield from a bare holey-carbon grid with no graphene under identical 40 keV Xe conditions and compare it with the H/C window counts from a graphene sample; if the bare-grid yield accounts for more than the stated statistical uncertainty of the graphene coverage, the absolute monolayer values are not solely due to graphene contaminants. Alternatively, repeat the measurement on isotopically labelled 13C graphene and check that the carbon recoil peak shifts to the 13C flight time and that the inferred areal density remains 1 monolayer; failure to observe the predicted isot

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a coincidence condition—one detector hit in the time-of-flight window of H or C recoils paired with a second, coincident hit in the window of transmitted Xe projectiles—converts keV ion transmission through freestanding graphene into an element-specific, area-averaged contamination measurement. The authors demonstrate that carbon and hydrogen dominate surface contamination, that PMMA-free 'Flattened' graphene has the lowest native contamination, and that after annealing at 400 °C for 1 h its measured carbon areal density (1.04 ± 0.02 monolayers) and hydrogen coverage (0.20 ± 0.01 monolayers) are consistent with nearly atomically clean single-layer graphene. They fur

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative coverage formula assumes that every coincidence event selected in the H/C time-of-flight windows is a single-scattering event from an atom in the freestanding graphene layer, with false coincidences, support-film recoils, and multiple scattering making negligible contributions; if any of those leak into the windows, the absolute areal densities are biased even if relative comparisons between samples survive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Element-specific quantification of both carbon and hydrogen on freestanding graphene, including isotopic resolution, becomes possible over macroscopic sample areas—closing a gap left by atomic-resolution imaging, which struggles to quantify hydrogen.
PMMA-free transferred graphene reaches 1.04 ± 0.02 ML C and 0.20 ± 0.01 ML H after 400 °C for 1 h, providing a concrete numeric benchmark for an atomically clean, large-area graphene surface.
PMMA-transferred graphene recontaminates within roughly 70–130 minutes at 2×10⁻⁸ mbar, while PMMA-free graphene remains clean for at least 140 minutes, showing that transfer route—not just initial cleanliness—controls the post-annealing surface state.
Because the method is minimally destructive (estimated at most ~0.26 ppm of lattice atoms damaged per typical measurement), it enables time-resolved in-situ studies of adsorption kinetics, annealing protocols, and cleaning efficiency.
Since the approach only requires ion transmission through sufficiently thin samples, the same recoil-projectile coincidence scheme transfers directly to other 2D materials and ultrathin films for studies of adsorption, implantation, and sticking coefficients.

Reading between the lines

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

Independently calibrating the microchannel-plate detection efficiency, rather than folding it into a single 0.54 open-area factor, would let different laboratories compare absolute monolayer values and could turn this method into a standard for reporting 2D-material cleanliness.
The strong contrast between PMMA and PMMA-free recontamination suggests that transfer-induced residues or defect sites—not the intrinsic graphene lattice—set the adsorption kinetics; repeating the measurement on h-BN or MoS2 transferred by both routes could test this directly.
Widening the coincidence analysis to include recoil energy or angle information could yield not just total coverage but details of the in-plane distribution or binding configuration of contaminants on the 2D layer.
Combining the method with controlled gas dosing could deliver element-resolved sticking coefficients, a direction the authors mention as future work but do not yet demonstrate.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

Quick take on arXiv:2607.22089. The core is a recoil-projectile coincidence filter in transmission ToF-MEIS, which cleanly separates H and C recoils from the graphene itself from Quantifoil support recoils and the direct beam. That is genuinely new relative to refs [30] and [32]; I don't see this coincidence condition in prior transmission MEIS/recoil work. The demonstrated convergence to 1 ML carbon after annealing for the PMMA-free sample is a nice internal check and gives me some confidence that the absolute carbon calibration isn't wildly off. The transfer-method comparison (PMMA-free vs PMMA-based) shows large, consistent differences in both initial contamination and recontamination kinetics; those are probably robust.

The paper is honest about its main limitation: it states in Section 3 that absolute accuracy depends on scattering cross sections and detector acceptance, and that this contributes systematically to coverage but not to relative comparisons. Good. But the quantitative claim in the abstract and conclusion—'approaches atomically clean single-layer graphene within experimental uncertainty'—rests on an uncertainty budget that only includes counting statistics. The calibration is effectively a single factor: SIMNRA Universal-potential cross section times a 0.54 MCP open-area correction. The 0.54 ignores the actual detection efficiency for slow H (~1.2 keV) and C (~12 keV) recoils, which is likely velocity-dependent and could be noticeably lower. The stress-test note is right that a 10% shift in that factor moves C coverage to 1.14 ML, outside the quoted ±0.02, and roughly doubles the H coverage shift. That doesn't destroy the qualitative story, but it means 'atomically clean within experimental uncertainty' is too strong as written unless they assign a systematic uncertainty to the calibration.

Other soft spots, in proportion: the transfer-method comparison relies on single samples per condition, so sample-to-sample variability is not assessed. The 'isotopic resolution' claim is plausible given the flight-time separation, but there's no explicit demonstration of resolving, say, 12C vs 13C or 1H vs 2H. The false-coincidence contribution is described as low-intensity but not quantified; a referee should ask for a bound or a control measurement. The Quantifoil support recoils are separated by flight time, which seems fine.

Overall: this is a useful, well-described method paper with a clear internal consistency check and honest discussion of its own limitations. It deserves a serious referee. I'd send it to review, and the main request would be: quantify the systematic uncertainty in the cross-section/efficiency product, ideally with an independent calibration sample (e.g., known areal density of organic film or a self-supporting carbon foil), and add replicate samples or repeated measurements for at least one transfer condition. With that, the central claim becomes much stronger.

My verdict: conditional, leaning positive. I'd bring it to the reading group for a methods discussion. I'd cite it if I work on ion-beam characterization of 2D materials.

Recommendation for you: if this lands on your desk, treat it as a solid experimental methods paper worth refereeing; don't desk-reject; ask for the systematic uncertainty work rather than challenging the core method.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a recoil-projectile coincidence detection scheme in time-of-flight medium-energy ion scattering in transmission geometry to quantify surface contamination of freestanding single-layer graphene. Using 40 keV Xe projectiles, the authors detect H, C, and O recoils in coincidence with transmitted Xe and convert the measured coincidence yields into monolayer-equivalent coverages using SIMNRA cross sections and an MCP open-area correction. They apply the method to three graphene transfer routes (PMMA-free 'Flattened', and two PMMA-assisted types), before and after UHV annealing. The principal results are that thermal annealing at 400 °C for 1 h reduces C/H coverages, with the PMMA-free sample reaching 1.04 ± 0.02 ML C and 0.20 ± 0.01 ML H and remaining nearly uncontaminated for at least 140 min, whereas PMMA-transferred samples recontaminate within ~1–2 h. The method is claimed to be quantitative, element-specific, isotopically resolved, and minimally destructive.

Significance. If the absolute calibration can be established, the method would be a valuable quantitative, large-area (mm-scale average) complement to local STEM characterisation, with the unique ability to quantify hydrogen coverage on freestanding 2D materials. The coincidence concept and kinematic separation are physically reasonable; the convergence of annealed Flattened-graphene carbon coverage to 1.04 ML provides a useful internal consistency check; the radiation damage estimate is careful; and the relative comparisons between samples are likely robust. The main weakness is the uncalibrated absolute scale, which currently prevents the quantitative claims from being fully supported.

major comments (2)

[Section 5.3, Eq. (3), Table 1, Discussion] The absolute coverages are obtained from Eq. (3), which divides measured coincidence yields by σ_eff·A_SLG·0.54. The scale factor depends on unquantified inputs: SIMNRA/Universal σ_eff for 40 keV Xe on C,H, and the MCP 'effective open area ratio' 0.54 used as recoil detection efficiency. The latter is a geometric open-area fraction, not a measured efficiency; for slow recoils (H≈1.2 keV, C≈12 keV) MCP efficiency is typically lower and velocity-dependent, and the manuscript is ambiguous whether 0.54 should enter once or twice. Since the expected 1-ML yield uses the same σ_eff, the observed 1.04 ML for annealed Flattened graphene is an internal consistency check, not an independent calibration. A 10% error in σ_eff×ε shifts C coverage to ≈1.14 ML and has a larger relative effect on the 0.20 ML H coverage. Cross-section uncertainty is acknowledged but not propagated, so the 'within experime
[Sections 2.2, 5.3, Fig. 2b, Table 1] The quantification assumes that the selected TOF windows contain only single-scattering events from C and H in freestanding graphene. However, Fig. 2b shows a feature near 32 keV attributed to H recoils from the Quantifoil support, and Table 1 lists 'Quantifoil overlap after annealing' for Graphenea. This suggests support recoils are not fully separated by the coincidence gate, despite Section 5.2 stating that Xe on Quantifoil is effectively stopped. False coincidences are also only described as 'low intensity' (Section 2.1) without a quantitative bound. If support or false coincidences leak into the H/C windows, the absolute coverages—especially the small post-annealing H coverage—are biased. Please show the gated spectra/windows, quantify leakage bounds, and explain how the 'Quantifoil overlap' was excluded from the reported values.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract; Section 4] The claim of 'isotopic resolution' is not demonstrated. No isotope-resolved features (e.g., D vs H, 13C vs 12C) are shown; with ~9 ns pulse length, the expected 12C/13C recoil TOF separation is only a few ns. Please either demonstrate isotopic separation or temper the claim.
[Section 2.2, Table 1] Each transfer route is represented by a single sample (n=1). The transfer-route comparison would be strengthened by replicate samples or an explicit statement that the comparison is anecdotal rather than statistically validated.
[Section 5.3] The evaluated detector region is limited to angles <7.85° and Ω=0.059 sr; the effective cross-section is taken as dσ/dΩ × Ω under the assumption of a flat angular distribution. Please quantify the error from this approximation, or justify the constancy more explicitly.
[Section 5.4] The temperature was monitored with a thermocouple attached to the sample holder, not on the graphene membrane. The quoted annealing temperatures may therefore differ from the actual sample temperature; this should be stated as an uncertainty.
[Section 5.5, Figure 4] The TEM clean-area fractions (43%, 42%, 72%) are based on a single ImageJ thresholding protocol. Please provide details of the threshold selection and report the sensitivity of the fractions to the chosen parameters.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: coverages are measured yield ratios normalized by SIMNRA cross sections; self-citations are non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The quantitative chain in Section 5.3 is self-contained: measured coincidence counts A_C and A_H are divided by the transmitted-projectile count A_SLG, corrected by the MCP open-area ratio 0.54, and normalized by effective scattering cross sections obtained from SIMNRA with the Universal potential and by the graphene unit-cell area. The 'expected yield' for one carbon monolayer is a fixed normalization, not a fitted parameter, so n_C = Y_measured/Y_expected is a measured ratio and the result 1.04 +/- 0.02 ML is not forced by construction. The comparison to atomically clean graphene is an external stoichiometric benchmark, not an input. The paper's own limitation statement attributes the cross-section dependence to systematic uncertainty, which is an accuracy caveat rather than circularity. Several cited works are by the same groups (refs 22, 30, 32, 34, 35, 36, 39), but they are used for setup, transfer method, prior spectra, or detector description, and none encodes or imports the target coverage result. No uniqueness theorem, fitted ansatz, or redefinition of the conclusion as a prediction is used. Concerns about MCP detection efficiency, false coincidences, and absolute cross-section accuracy are correctness and systematic-error risks, not identity-by-construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to the data; the central quantitative transfer function rests on SIMNRA cross sections, the MCP open-area correction, and the single-scattering coincidence assumption. The main unvalidated inputs are the cross-section model, the detector-efficiency correction, and the representative-sample assumption. No new entities are postulated.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The Universal screening potential as implemented in SIMNRA gives quantitatively accurate elastic scattering cross sections for 40 keV Xe on H and C.
Section 5.3 uses SIMNRA cross sections to convert coincidence yields into monolayer coverages. No independent cross-section measurement or calibration sample is provided; a wrong cross section scales all absolute coverage values.
domain assumption MCP detection efficiencies for recoils and projectiles are captured by the detector open-area ratio of 0.54, applied once in the yield formula.
Section 5.3 divides measured yields by 0.54. No per-species detection efficiency calibration is shown, and for a true two-particle coincidence the lost-event correction could enter as a product of two detection probabilities.
domain assumption Coincidence events in the selected time-of-flight windows originate from single C/H recoils in the freestanding graphene, with false coincidences and Quantifoil/support contributions negligible or cleanly separated.
Section 2.1 dismisses the 39 keV component as false coincidences and Section 5.2 separates Quantifoil recoils by flight time, but no quantitative upper bound is given for leakage into the analyzed windows.
domain assumption The thermocouple reading at the sample holder equals the temperature of the graphene during contactless annealing.
Section 5.4 monitors temperature with a K-type thermocouple attached to the sample holder. The actual graphene temperature could differ, which would affect the annealing-temperature conclusions.
ad hoc to paper Each of the three graphene samples is representative of its transfer route.
Section 5.1 describes one sample per transfer method. The generalization that PMMA-free transfer is cleaner and recontaminates more slowly than PMMA-based transfer rests on n = 1 per condition.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantitative Analysis of Composition and Contamination of Atomically Thin Materials by Recoil-Projectile Coincidence in Ion Transmission." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2B3LX27S

@misc{pith2026260722089,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantitative Analysis of Composition and Contamination of Atomically Thin Materials by Recoil-Projectile Coincidence in Ion Transmission},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2B3LX27S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.22089}
}

abstract

Surface contamination strongly affects the intrinsic properties of nanoscale materials, making its reliable identification and quantification crucial for both accurate experimental interpretation and nanofabrication. Although scanning transmission electron microscopy can resolve contaminants at atomic resolution within nanometer-scale regions, it cannot easily provide a quantitative, large-area contamination measure. Here, we introduce a minimally destructive recoil-projectile coincidence method for ion transmission experiments that enables element-specific identification and quantification of surface contaminants with isotopic resolution. We demonstrate this approach by comparing self-supporting graphene samples prepared using either a polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA)-based or a PMMA-free transfer process. Carbon and hydrogen are identified as the dominant surface contaminants. PMMA-free transferred graphene exhibits the lowest native contamination levels. Following in-situ thermal annealing at 400 {\deg}C for 1 h, the measured carbon areal density approaches the value expected for atomically clean single-layer graphene within the experimental uncertainty, while hydrogen coverage is strongly reduced. Unlike PMMA-transferred graphene, which rapidly recontaminates after annealing, PMMA-free transferred graphene remains nearly contamination-free for at least 140 min under ultra-high vacuum conditions ($p_{\mathrm{base}} = 2 \times 10^{-8}$ mbar). Beyond graphene, the presented method establishes a quantitative characterization platform for ultrathin materials, enabling studies of surface cleanliness, adsorption, implantation and surface interaction dynamics in such systems.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

7 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

[1]

S.; Petrik, P.; Kamarás, K.; Tapasztó, L.; Nemes-Incze, P

(1) Pálinkás, A.; Kálvin, G.; Vancsó, P.; Kandrai, K.; Szendrő, M.; Németh, G.; Németh, M.; Pekker, Á.; Pap, J. S.; Petrik, P.; Kamarás, K.; Tapasztó, L.; Nemes-Incze, P. The Composition and Structure of the Ubiquitous Hydrocarbon Contamination on van Der Waals Materials. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13 (1),

2022
[7]

Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. B Beam Interact. Mater. At. 2014, 332, 176–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2014.02.056. (39) Holeňák, R.; Moldarev, D.; Ntemou, E.; Tsakiris, T.; Frank, C.; Vomschee, K.; Lohmann, S.; Primetzhofer, D. A New System for Sample Synthesis, Preparation and Modification Combined with in -Situ Depth Profiling Using Med...

arXiv 2014
[11]

(23) Lin, W.-H.; Chen, T.-H.; Chang, J.-K.; Taur, J.-I.; Lo, Y.-Y.; Lee, W.-L.; Chang, C.-S.; Su, W.-B.; Wu, C.-I

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41699-020-0148-9. (23) Lin, W.-H.; Chen, T.-H.; Chang, J.-K.; Taur, J.-I.; Lo, Y.-Y.; Lee, W.-L.; Chang, C.-S.; Su, W.-B.; Wu, C.-I. A Direct and Polymer -Free Method for Transferring Graphene Grown by Chemical Vapor Deposition to Any Substrate. ACS Nano 2014, 8 (2), 1784 –1791. https://doi.org/10.1021/nn406170d. (24) Novoselov, K...

work page doi:10.1038/s41699-020-0148-9 2014
[669]

(25) Tripathi, M.; Mittelberger, A.; Mustonen, K.; Mangler, C.; Kotakoski, J.; Meyer, J

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1102896. (25) Tripathi, M.; Mittelberger, A.; Mustonen, K.; Mangler, C.; Kotakoski, J.; Meyer, J. C.; Susi, T. Cleaning Graphene: Comparing Heat Treatments in Air and in Vacuum. Phys. Status Solidi RRL – Rapid Res. Lett. 2017, 11 (8), 1700124. https://doi.org/10.1002/pssr.201700124. (26) Lim, Y.-D.; Lee, D.-Y.; Shen, T.-Z.;...

arXiv 2017
[1912]

(5) Tyagi, A.; Mišeikis, V.; Martini, L.; Forti, S.; Mishra, N.; Gebeyehu, Z

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09565-4. (5) Tyagi, A.; Mišeikis, V.; Martini, L.; Forti, S.; Mishra, N.; Gebeyehu, Z. M.; Giambra, M. A.; Zribi, J.; Frégnaux, M.; Aureau, D.; Romagnoli, M.; Beltram, F.; Coletti, C. Ultra -Clean High -Mobility Graphene on Technologically Relevant Substrates. Nanoscale 2022, 14 (6), 2167 –2176. https://doi.org/10.1039/D...

work page doi:10.1038/s41467-019-09565-4 2022
[5070]

(16) Liu, H.; Zhao, J.; Ly, T

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07396-3. (16) Liu, H.; Zhao, J.; Ly, T. H. Clean Transfer of Two-Dimensional Materials: A Comprehensive Review. ACS Nano 2024, 18 (18), 11573–11597. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.4c01000. (17) Ambrosi, A.; Pumera, M. The CVD Graphene Transfer Procedure Introduces Metallic Impurities Which Alter the Graphene Electrochem...

work page doi:10.1038/s41467-018-07396-3 2024
[6770]

(2) Li, Z.; Wang, Y.; Kozbial, A.; Shenoy, G.; Zhou, F.; McGinley, R.; Ireland, P.; Morganstein, B.; Kunkel, A.; Surwade, S

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-34641-7. (2) Li, Z.; Wang, Y.; Kozbial, A.; Shenoy, G.; Zhou, F.; McGinley, R.; Ireland, P.; Morganstein, B.; Kunkel, A.; Surwade, S. P.; Li, L.; Liu, H. Effect of Airborne Contaminants on the Wettability of Supported Graphene and Graphite. Nat. Mater. 2013, 12 (10), 925–931. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat3709. (3) Li, Z.;...

work page doi:10.1038/s41467-022-34641-7 2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

S.; Petrik, P.; Kamarás, K.; Tapasztó, L.; Nemes-Incze, P

(1) Pálinkás, A.; Kálvin, G.; Vancsó, P.; Kandrai, K.; Szendrő, M.; Németh, G.; Németh, M.; Pekker, Á.; Pap, J. S.; Petrik, P.; Kamarás, K.; Tapasztó, L.; Nemes-Incze, P. The Composition and Structure of the Ubiquitous Hydrocarbon Contamination on van Der Waals Materials. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13 (1),

2022

[2] [7]

Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. B Beam Interact. Mater. At. 2014, 332, 176–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2014.02.056. (39) Holeňák, R.; Moldarev, D.; Ntemou, E.; Tsakiris, T.; Frank, C.; Vomschee, K.; Lohmann, S.; Primetzhofer, D. A New System for Sample Synthesis, Preparation and Modification Combined with in -Situ Depth Profiling Using Med...

arXiv 2014

[3] [11]

(23) Lin, W.-H.; Chen, T.-H.; Chang, J.-K.; Taur, J.-I.; Lo, Y.-Y.; Lee, W.-L.; Chang, C.-S.; Su, W.-B.; Wu, C.-I

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41699-020-0148-9. (23) Lin, W.-H.; Chen, T.-H.; Chang, J.-K.; Taur, J.-I.; Lo, Y.-Y.; Lee, W.-L.; Chang, C.-S.; Su, W.-B.; Wu, C.-I. A Direct and Polymer -Free Method for Transferring Graphene Grown by Chemical Vapor Deposition to Any Substrate. ACS Nano 2014, 8 (2), 1784 –1791. https://doi.org/10.1021/nn406170d. (24) Novoselov, K...

work page doi:10.1038/s41699-020-0148-9 2014

[4] [669]

(25) Tripathi, M.; Mittelberger, A.; Mustonen, K.; Mangler, C.; Kotakoski, J.; Meyer, J

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1102896. (25) Tripathi, M.; Mittelberger, A.; Mustonen, K.; Mangler, C.; Kotakoski, J.; Meyer, J. C.; Susi, T. Cleaning Graphene: Comparing Heat Treatments in Air and in Vacuum. Phys. Status Solidi RRL – Rapid Res. Lett. 2017, 11 (8), 1700124. https://doi.org/10.1002/pssr.201700124. (26) Lim, Y.-D.; Lee, D.-Y.; Shen, T.-Z.;...

arXiv 2017

[5] [1912]

(5) Tyagi, A.; Mišeikis, V.; Martini, L.; Forti, S.; Mishra, N.; Gebeyehu, Z

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09565-4. (5) Tyagi, A.; Mišeikis, V.; Martini, L.; Forti, S.; Mishra, N.; Gebeyehu, Z. M.; Giambra, M. A.; Zribi, J.; Frégnaux, M.; Aureau, D.; Romagnoli, M.; Beltram, F.; Coletti, C. Ultra -Clean High -Mobility Graphene on Technologically Relevant Substrates. Nanoscale 2022, 14 (6), 2167 –2176. https://doi.org/10.1039/D...

work page doi:10.1038/s41467-019-09565-4 2022

[6] [5070]

(16) Liu, H.; Zhao, J.; Ly, T

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07396-3. (16) Liu, H.; Zhao, J.; Ly, T. H. Clean Transfer of Two-Dimensional Materials: A Comprehensive Review. ACS Nano 2024, 18 (18), 11573–11597. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.4c01000. (17) Ambrosi, A.; Pumera, M. The CVD Graphene Transfer Procedure Introduces Metallic Impurities Which Alter the Graphene Electrochem...

work page doi:10.1038/s41467-018-07396-3 2024

[7] [6770]

(2) Li, Z.; Wang, Y.; Kozbial, A.; Shenoy, G.; Zhou, F.; McGinley, R.; Ireland, P.; Morganstein, B.; Kunkel, A.; Surwade, S

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-34641-7. (2) Li, Z.; Wang, Y.; Kozbial, A.; Shenoy, G.; Zhou, F.; McGinley, R.; Ireland, P.; Morganstein, B.; Kunkel, A.; Surwade, S. P.; Li, L.; Liu, H. Effect of Airborne Contaminants on the Wettability of Supported Graphene and Graphite. Nat. Mater. 2013, 12 (10), 925–931. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat3709. (3) Li, Z.;...

work page doi:10.1038/s41467-022-34641-7 2013