Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 69 references

Substrate induced nanoscale resistance variation in epitaxial graphene

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Epitaxial graphene's local sheet resistance varies by up to 270% at 8 K, following the SiC substrate's terrace stacking and the graphene–substrate distance.

desk verdict Solid experimental study of local resistance variation in PASG graphene; the main effect is real, but the absolute scale depends on an unvalidated current-density model—referee it. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02956 v2 pith:HXF2AUFM submitted 2019-08-08 cond-mat.mes-hall

Anna Sinterhauf , Georg Alexander Traeger , Davood Momeni Pakdehi , Philip Schädlich , Philip Willke , Florian Speck , Thomas Seyller , Christoph Tegenkamp
show 3 more authors
Klaus Pierz Hans Werner Schumacher Martin Wenderoth
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords grapheneepitaxialscanningtunnelingpotentiometrysheetresistance6H-SiCgraphene-substrateinteractionnanoscaletransportpolymer-assistedsublimationgrowth
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

On graphene grown by polymer-assisted sublimation growth (PASG) on 6H-SiC(0001), the paper measures the local sheet resistance terrace by terrace using scanning tunneling potentiometry. Because this growth method produces bilayer-free, laterally homogeneous monolayers, the current density is almost uniform, so a measured potential gradient can be converted into a quantitative local sheet resistance. The paper finds that the sheet resistance comes in two distinct levels—about 460 Ω and 535 Ω at 300 K—that alternate with the S2 and S3 terminations of the SiC substrate, and that at 8 K the spread between lowest and highest terrace values reaches about 270%. Larger graphene–substrate distances correlate with lower resistance, while the Dirac point shifts by only about 5 meV between terrace types, pointing to mobility rather than doping as the carrier of the variation. A reader would care because it gives a concrete, quantitative picture of how a substrate controls transport in a two-dimensional material at the nanoscale.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is scanning tunneling potentiometry (STP), which records the local electrochemical potential $V_{\mathrm{STP}}(x,y)$ while a bias is applied across the sample, combined with the extraction identity $\rho_{\mathrm{sheet}} = (dV_{\mathrm{STP}}/dx)/j$ for each terrace. What makes the identity usable here is the claim that PASG graphene has a nearly uniform local current density $j_{\mathrm{local}}(x,y)\approx j$, verified by a finite-element resistor-network simulation of the measured surface geometry that puts residual current-density variations at or below 7% in the selected regions; this converts a potential gradient into a resistance without knowing the current-density distribution independently. The analysis also leans on the identification of terrace types S2/S3 in the 6H-SiC stacking sequence, on step-height deviations as a proxy for graphene–substrate distance, and on Fourier-filtered topographies of the $6\times6$ quasi-corrugation, whose long-wavelength disorder is invoked as the source of low-temperature potential scattering.

What would settle it

Simultaneously image the local current density and the electrochemical potential on the same PASG terraces, using a probe with current-density sensitivity, and test whether the potential slope divided by the true local current density still shows a ~270% terrace-to-terrace variation at 8 K.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the local sheet resistance of PASG epitaxial graphene is spatially inhomogeneous and is governed jointly by the termination of the 6H-SiC substrate and by the local distance between the graphene layer and the substrate. On more than 80 terraces, STP potential maps yield two reproducible resistance levels, $\rho_{\mathrm{high}}\approx 535\,\Omega$ and $\rho_{\mathrm{low}}\approx 460\,\Omega$ at 300 K (a $(14\pm1)\%$ contrast), which the authors assign to substrate terminations S3 and S2. At 8 K the two means drop to roughly 365 Ω and 250 Ω, but the terrace-to-terrace scatter grows to a maximum of about 270% between the lowest and highest values. Step-height deviations from SiC bilayer multiples are read as a varying graphene–substrate separation, and the trend is that larger separations give lower resistance; simultaneous tunneling spectroscopy shows nearly identical Dirac energies on S2 and S3, so the resistance contrast is assigned to mobility differences rather than doping differences. The paper concludes with a two-channel scattering model, $\rho(T,d)=\rho_{\mathrm{el-phonon}}(T)+\rho_{\mathrm{el-defect}}(T,d)$, where the low-temperature spread comes from potential scattering by the imperfect $6\times6$ interfacial corrugation and interface states.

Load-bearing premise

The whole picture rests on the assumption that the local current density is the nearly uniform field produced by the simulation, and that the resistances assigned to single, double, and triple substrate steps are correct; if those inputs are wrong, every quoted sheet resistance shifts and the 270% spread may change or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Epitaxial graphene on SiC(0001) cannot be assigned a single local sheet resistance; transport measurements that average over terraces mix two distinct resistance levels and a temperature-dependent spread.
  • Because larger graphene–substrate separation correlates with lower sheet resistance, decoupling schemes such as intercalation should improve local mobility, and the distance–resistance relation gives a quantitative target for such schemes.
  • The near-identical Dirac energies on S2 and S3 mean the resistance contrast is a mobility effect, so nanoscale mobility engineering must target the interfacial $6\times6$ corrugation and its disorder rather than doping.
  • Rotating the current direction by 90° with respect to the substrate steps should channel current preferentially through low-resistance S2 terraces, creating intrinsic quasi-one-dimensional transport channels roughly ten Fermi wavelengths wide.
  • Because S2 and S3 differ in resistance and hence in Joule heating, adjacent terraces act as nanoscale heat sources and sinks, opening a route to study low-dimensional heat transport and thermoelectric behavior.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the distance–resistance correlation is causal, deliberately changing the graphene–substrate separation—by intercalation or by choosing different SiC polytypes—should reproduce the same monotonic decrease in resistance, which the same STP protocol can check.
  • Because the 270% spread appears only when phonon scattering is frozen out, the low-temperature resistance map is effectively an image of the interfacial potential landscape; combining it with Fourier-filtered topographies could quantify how particular modulation wavelengths scatter electrons.
  • The small Dirac-energy difference between S2 and S3 implies that any doping-based explanation must be minor; a local Hall or capacitance measurement on individual terraces would test whether the mobility contrast is as large as the resistance contrast implies.
  • A direct measurement of the step resistivities on the same sample would remove the main external input in the current-density model; if the true step resistivities differ from the values taken from earlier work, the absolute values of $\rho_{\mathrm{high}}$ and $\rho_{\mathrm{low}}$ will shift, though the S2/S3 contrast may survive.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports scanning tunneling potentiometry (STP) measurements on polymer-assisted sublimation growth (PASG) epitaxial graphene on 6H-SiC(0001). The authors convert STP potential gradients into local sheet resistances using a local current density obtained from a COMSOL finite-element model. They report two distinct room-temperature sheet resistances (ρ_high = 535 Ω, ρ_low = 460 Ω) that correlate with the S3 and S2 substrate terminations, and a strongly increased scatter at low temperatures, with a maximum variation of about 270% between extreme terrace values at 8 K. Step-height deviations are interpreted as variations of the graphene–substrate distance and are correlated with the local sheet resistance. STS data show nearly identical Dirac-point energies on the two terminations, leading the authors to attribute the resistance difference to mobility variations, and specifically to substrate phonon scattering and scattering by disorder in the 6×6 quasi-corrugation.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this work provides a quantitative, local view of how the SiC substrate termination and the graphene–substrate distance modulate charge transport in epitaxial graphene, a question of long-standing interest in the field. The study draws on a large dataset (more than 80 terraces), combines STP with STS, AFM, and ARPES on the same samples, and is corroborated by macroscopic van der Pauw measurements. The identification of two distinct local sheet resistances tied to the SiC stacking is a concrete and falsifiable result that would be of value to the graphene and SiC communities. However, the quantitative claims, especially the 270% figure, depend on a modeled current density whose temperature dependence and sensitivity to the very resistance inhomogeneities under study are not established in the manuscript.

major comments (4)
  1. [Homogeneity of the current density; Temperature-dependence of ρ_sheet] The local current density used to convert STP potential gradients into ρ_sheet is specified only for T = 300 K: "It is j_local = (0.89 ± 0.01) A/m for an applied voltage ... of 1V at T = 300 K." No statement is made about how j_local was obtained at 77 K and 8 K, although the macroscopic resistance changes substantially with temperature (Supplementary Fig. 3a). If the same 300 K current density was used at low temperatures, the reported ρ_sheet values at 77 K and 8 K are systematically overestimated, and the phonon contribution estimated in the Discussion as "the difference between the mean sheet resistance at 300K and the highest measured values at 8K on terraces S3" is biased. The authors should state how j_local was determined at each temperature and, if necessary, rerun the COMSOL simulation with the appropriate temperature-dependent input resistances.
  2. [Homogeneity of the current density; Fig. 1b; Supplementary Fig. 1] The claim that the local current density varies by at most 7% in the selected regions is based on a resistor-network/COMSOL model that assigns a single, uniform sheet resistance to the graphene terraces. This model does not include the very terrace-to-terrace resistance differences that are the paper's central finding (14% at 300 K, and up to 178% for adjacent terraces at low temperature). It is not demonstrated that the 7% homogeneity remains valid when ρ_high and ρ_low are assigned to the S3 and S2 terraces, respectively. Since every reported ρ_sheet is inversely proportional to the assumed j_local, please provide a sensitivity analysis using the measured terrace-resistance distribution in the COMSOL model and show how the extracted ρ_sheet values, and the 270% low-temperature variation, change.
  3. [Supplementary Fig. 5; Discussion] The support for the distance–resistance correlation is weakened by a circular step: in Supplementary Fig. 5 the data are sorted "under the assumption that a larger distance to the substrate leads to a reduction of the resistance," and the resulting ordering is then used as evidence for the correlation. The manuscript should present the unsorted scatter of ρ_sheet versus measured step height for all terraces, separately for S2 and S3, and quantify the correlation (e.g., a Spearman or Pearson coefficient) without imposing the hypothesis. The single exception (the yellow data set) should be discussed in this context rather than being presented as the only mismatch after sorting.
  4. [Methods: Finite element simulation with COMSOL] The step resistivities used in the COMSOL model (6 Ωμm, 12 Ωμm, 18 Ωμm for single, double, and triple steps) are inputs to the calculation, yet the manuscript does not cite the source of these values or establish that they are valid for the PASG graphene samples studied here; presumably they are taken from earlier STP studies on other epitaxial graphene samples. A sensitivity analysis (e.g., varying the step resistivities by a reasonable factor and reporting the resulting range in j_local in the selected regions) would show whether the extracted ρ_sheet values and the 270% spread are robust. Without this, the quantitative sheet resistances inherit an unquantified systematic uncertainty from these inputs.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Homogeneity of the current density; Abstract] There are a few typographical issues: "for a the given surface geometry" should be "for the given surface geometry," and the abstract's first sentence is missing a comma after "material."
  2. [Temperature-dependence of ρ_sheet] The 270% variation is reported as a range between extreme values. Please also provide a measure of the distribution width (e.g., standard deviation or interquartile range) for ρ_sheet at each temperature, since range statistics are sensitive to outliers and the headline claim would be more robust with a dispersion measure.
  3. [Discussion] The reference to Supplementary Fig. 9 in the sentence "A systematic difference in ρ_high for S3 compared to S3* and in ρ_low for S2 compared to S2* was not observed" appears to point to the height-calibration figure, which does not display such a comparison; please correct the cross-reference.
  4. [Discussion] In the estimation of the phonon contribution as the difference between the mean 300 K sheet resistance and the highest measured values at 8 K on terraces S3, please justify the use of the highest rather than the mean or median 8 K value, or present the estimate as an upper bound.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor self-referential ordering in Supplementary Fig. 5; central STP/COMSOL derivation is not circular.

  1. other [Supplementary Figure 5 (caption); main text, section 'Local variation of ρ_sheet at temperature T = 300 K']
    "Sorting of the data acquired at 8K under the assumption that a larger distance to the substrate leads to a reduction of the resistance. For each terrace, the measured sheet resistances are arranged such that for larger values the distance to the substrate decreases ... Thus, according to the proposed model, a step height < 500pm is expected for the red data set, which agrees with the measured step height of 481pm."

    The test is set up by sorting the 8 K data using the monotonic distance-resistance relation that is being tested; the 'prediction' is then read off from that arranged ordering. Therefore the agreement is partly guaranteed by the sorting rule. The comparison with the independently measured step heights provides real but limited evidence, and the exception ('yellow') is acknowledged. This is a self-referential ordering step, but it is not load-bearing for the central sheet-resistance extraction, so it only raises the score slightly.

full rationale

The central sheet-resistance determination is not circular: ρ_sheet is computed from measured dV_STP/dx and a modeled j_local(x,y) whose inputs (macroscopic resistance, geometry, step resistivities 6/12/18 Ωμm) are stated and are not fitted to the ρ_sheet values. The 270% spread and the S2/S3 separation are not encoded in those inputs; they emerge from the STP voltage-gradient data. The step resistivities are taken from earlier work, which is disclosed rather than hidden, and a wrong value would be an accuracy/robustness issue, not a by-construction reduction. The one genuinely self-referential passage is Supplementary Fig. 5: the data are sorted under the very assumption being tested and then used to 'predict' step heights, so the claimed match is partly imposed by the ordering rule; the independent check against measured step heights gives only partial support. This affects a supporting correlation, not the main quantitative claim, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central transport claim rests on the standard STP reduction of potential gradients to sheet resistance, on the assumption that the modeled current density is accurate, and on the interpretation of step height deviations as changes in the graphene-substrate distance. The step resistivities used in the COMSOL model are adopted from prior self-cited work rather than measured here, which is a free parameter in the chain. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Step resistivity for single substrate step = 6 ohm-micrometer
    Input to COMSOL model of current density; taken from prior STP literature, several from the same group, not measured in this paper. The modeled current density directly scales the extracted sheet resistance.
  • Step resistivity for double substrate step = 12 ohm-micrometer
    Same as above; used in COMSOL to compute the local current density.
  • Step resistivity for triple substrate step = 18 ohm-micrometer
    Same as above; used in COMSOL to compute the local current density.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Ohm's law: local sheet resistance is given by the potential gradient divided by the local current density, rho_sheet = (dV_STP/dx)/j.
    Used in Methods to convert STP potential maps into sheet resistance values.
  • domain assumption The STP-measured electrochemical potential equals the local electrical potential in the graphene sheet, and the tunneling tip does not perturb the transport.
    Standard STP assumption; not independently verified here beyond the vanishing net tunnel current condition.
  • ad hoc to paper The measured step height deviations correspond to variations in the graphene-substrate distance, and no other structural change is responsible for the transport differences.
    The paper interprets step height deviations as a locally varying distance d (Fig. 3b and Supplementary Fig. 6e); this assumption connects topography to transport.
  • domain assumption Current flows only in the graphene sheet; the semi-insulating SiC substrate and interface layer do not contribute parallel conductance.
    Implicit in the two-terminal transport model and rho_sheet extraction; not tested in this paper.
  • domain assumption The assignment of terraces to S2/S2* and S3/S3* terminations from the step sequence and known decomposition velocities is correct.
    Taken from prior literature; the identification is used to assign rho_low to S2 and rho_high to S3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Substrate induced nanoscale resistance variation in epitaxial graphene." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HXF2AUFM

@misc{pith2026190802956,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Substrate induced nanoscale resistance variation in epitaxial graphene},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HXF2AUFM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02956}
}
read the original abstract

Graphene, the first true two-dimensional material still reveals the most remarkable transport properties among the growing class of two-dimensional materials. Although many studies have investigated fundamental scattering processes, the surprisingly large variation in the experimentally determined resistances associated with a localized defect is still an open issue. Here, we quantitatively investigate the local transport properties of graphene prepared by polymer assisted sublimation growth (PASG) using scanning tunneling potentiometry. PASG graphene is characterized by a spatially homogeneous current density, which allows to analyze variations in the local electrochemical potential with high precision. We utilize this possibility by examining the local sheet resistance finding a significant variation of up to 270% at low temperatures. We identify a correlation of the sheet resistance with the stacking sequence of the 6H-SiC substrate as well as with the distance between the graphene sheet and the substrate. Our results experimentally quantify the strong impact of the graphene-substrate interaction on the local transport properties of graphene.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Novoselov, K. S. et al., Electric field effect in a tomically thin carbon films. Science 306 (5696), 666–669 (2004)

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    Muralt, P., Pohl, D., Scanning tunneling potentiometry, Appl. Phys. Lett. 48 (8), 514- 516 (1986)

    work page 1986

  3. [3]

    Phys.: Condens

    Miccoli, I., Edler, F., Pfnür, H., Tegenkamp, C., The 100th anniversary of the four- point probe technique: the role of probe geometries in i sotropic and anisotropic systems, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 27 (22), 223201 (2015)

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    A., Wenderoth, M., Electronic Transport Properties of 1D- Defects in Graphene and Other 2D-Systems, Ann

    Willke, P., Schneider, M. A., Wenderoth, M., Electronic Transport Properties of 1D- Defects in Graphene and Other 2D-Systems, Ann. Phys. 529 (11), 1700003 (2017)

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    et al., Atomic scale transport in epitaxial graphene

    Ji, S.-H. et al., Atomic scale transport in epitaxial graphene. Nature Mat. 11, 114– 119 (2011)

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    G., Schneider, M

    Willke, P., Druga, T., Ulbrich, R. G., Schneider, M. A., Wenderoth, M., Spatial extent of a Landauer residual-resistivity dipole in graphene quantified by scanning tunnelling potentiometry, Nature Commun. 6, 6399 (2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Clark, K. W. et al., Spatially Resolved Mapping of El ectrical Conductivity across Individual Domain (Grain) Boundaries in Graphene, ACS Nano 7(9), 7956-7966 (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Emtsev, K. V. et al., Towards wafer-size graphene layers by atmospheric pressure graphitization of silicon carbide, Nature Mat. 8, 203-207 (2009)

    work page 2009

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    et al., Comeback of epitaxial graphene fo r electronics: large-area growth of bilayer-free graphene on SiC, 2D Mater

    Kruskopf, M. et al., Comeback of epitaxial graphene fo r electronics: large-area growth of bilayer-free graphene on SiC, 2D Mater. 3, 041002 (2016) 23

    2016

  2. [10]

    et al., Homogeneous Large-Area Quasi -Free-Standing Monolayer and Bilayer Graphene on SiC, ACS Appl

    Momeni Pakdehi, D. et al., Homogeneous Large-Area Quasi -Free-Standing Monolayer and Bilayer Graphene on SiC, ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2, 844-852 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    Dean, C. R. et al., Boron nitride substrates for high-quality graphene electroni cs, Nature Nanotech. 5, 722–726 (2010)

    2010

  4. [12]

    A., Starke, U., Quasi-Free-Standing Epitaxial Graphene on SiC Obtained by Hydrogen Intercalation, Phys

    Riedl, C., Coletti, C., Iwasaki, T., Zakharov, A. A., Starke, U., Quasi-Free-Standing Epitaxial Graphene on SiC Obtained by Hydrogen Intercalation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 246804 (2009)

    2009

  5. [13]

    Bolotin, K. I. et al., Ultrahigh electron mobility in suspended graphene, Solid State Commun. 146, 351-355 (2008)

    2008

  6. [14]

    et al., Weak localization of bismuth clust er-decorated graphene and its spin-orbit interaction, Front

    Ge, J.-L. et al., Weak localization of bismuth clust er-decorated graphene and its spin-orbit interaction, Front. Phys. 12 (4), 127210 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    et al., Spin-orbit proximity effect in graphene, Nature Commun

    Avsar, A. et al., Spin-orbit proximity effect in graphene, Nature Commun. 5, 4875 (2014)

    2014

  8. [16]

    et al., Spin Proximity Effects in Graphene/Top ological Insulator Heterostructures, Nano Lett

    Song, K. et al., Spin Proximity Effects in Graphene/Top ological Insulator Heterostructures, Nano Lett. 18, 2033-2039 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Haugen, H., Huertas-Hernando, D., Brataas, A., Spin t ransport in proximity- induced ferromagnetic graphene, Phys. Rev. B 77, 115406 (2008)

    2008

  10. [18]

    et al., Approaching quantum anomalous Hall effect in proximity-coupled YIG/graphene/h-BN sandwich structure, APL Mater

    Tang, C. et al., Approaching quantum anomalous Hall effect in proximity-coupled YIG/graphene/h-BN sandwich structure, APL Mater. 6, 026401 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    D., Scanning tunneling spectroscopy of proximity superconductivity in epitaxial multilayer graphene, Phys

    Natterer, F. D., Scanning tunneling spectroscopy of proximity superconductivity in epitaxial multilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. B 93, 045406 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    et al., Simultaneous n-interaction and n-doping of epitaxial graphene on 6H-SiC(0001) through thermal reactions with ammonia, Nano Res

    Wang, Z.-J. et al., Simultaneous n-interaction and n-doping of epitaxial graphene on 6H-SiC(0001) through thermal reactions with ammonia, Nano Res. 6(6), 399-408 (2013)

    2013

  13. [21]

    Clark, K. W. et al., Energy gap induced by Friedel oscillations manifested as transport asymmetry at monolayer-bilayer graphene boundarie s, Phys. Rev. X 4(1), 011021 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    et al., Local transport measurements in gra phene on SiO2 using Kelvin probe force microscopy, Carbon 102, 470-476 (2016) 24

    Willke, P. et al., Local transport measurements in gra phene on SiO2 using Kelvin probe force microscopy, Carbon 102, 470-476 (2016) 24

    2016

  15. [23]

    et al., Bipolar gating of epitaxial graphene by intercalation of Ge, Appl

    Baringhaus, J. et al., Bipolar gating of epitaxial graphene by intercalation of Ge, Appl. Phys. Lett. 104(26), 261602 (2014)

    2014

  16. [24]

    et al., Ballistic bipolar junctions in chemically gated graphene ribbons, Sci

    Baringhaus, J. et al., Ballistic bipolar junctions in chemically gated graphene ribbons, Sci. Rep. 5 (2015)

    2015

  17. [25]

    Giannazzo, F., Deretzis, I., La Magna, A., Roccaforte, F., Yakimova, R., Electronic transport at monolayer-bilayer junctions in epitaxial gra phene on SiC, Phys. Rev. B 86(23), 235422 (2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    et al., Simultaneous voltage and current de nsity imaging of flowing electrons in two dimensions, Nature Nanotech

    Ella, L. et al., Simultaneous voltage and current de nsity imaging of flowing electrons in two dimensions, Nature Nanotech. 14, 480-487 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    A., Ulbrich, R

    Druga, T., Wenderoth, M., Homoth, J., Schneider, M. A., Ulbrich, R. G., A versatile high resolution scanning tunnelling potentiometry imple mentation, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 81, 083704 (2010)

    2010

  20. [28]

    et al., Minimum Resistance Anisotropy of Epitaxial Graphene on SiC, ACS Appl

    Momeni Pakdehi, D. et al., Minimum Resistance Anisotropy of Epitaxial Graphene on SiC, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 10, 6039-6045 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Landauer, R., Spatial variation of currents and fields due of localized scatterers in metallic conduction, IBM J. Res. Dev. 1 (3), 223-231 (1957)

    1957

  22. [30]

    et al., Electronic transport on the nanoscale: ballistic transmission and Ohm’s law, Nano Lett

    Homoth, J. et al., Electronic transport on the nanoscale: ballistic transmission and Ohm’s law, Nano Lett. 9 (4), 1588-1592 (2009)

    2009

  23. [31]

    Low, T., Perebeinos, V., Tersoff, J., Avouris, P., Defo rmation and Scattering in Graphene over Substrate Steps, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 096601 (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    et al., Quantum oscillations and quantum Hall effect in epitaxial graphene, Phys

    Jobst, J. et al., Quantum oscillations and quantum Hall effect in epitaxial graphene, Phys. Rev. B 81, 195434 (2010)

    2010

  25. [33]

    et al., Transport properties of high-qualit y epitaxial graphene on 6H- SiC(0001), Solid State Communications 151, 1061-1064 (2011)

    Jobst, J. et al., Transport properties of high-qualit y epitaxial graphene on 6H- SiC(0001), Solid State Communications 151, 1061-1064 (2011)

    2011

  26. [34]

    Yazdi, G. R. et al., Growth of large area monolaye r graphene on 3C-SiC and comparison with other SiC polytypes, Carbon 57, 477-484 (2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    A review of growth, characterizati on, transfer doping and hydrogen intercalation, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 43(37), 374009 (2010) 25

    Riedl, C., Coletti, C., Starke, U., Structural and el ectronic properties of epitaxial graphene on SiC(0001). A review of growth, characterizati on, transfer doping and hydrogen intercalation, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 43(37), 374009 (2010) 25

    2010

  28. [36]

    Sclauzero, G., Pasquarella, A., Stability and charge tra nsfer at the interface between SiC(0001) and epitaxial graphene, Microelectronic Engineering 88, 1478- 1481 (2011)

    2011

  29. [37]

    J., Son, Y.-W., Origin of Anomalous Electronic Sturctures of Epitaxial Graphene on Silicon Carbide, Phys

    Kim, S., Ihm, J., Choi, H. J., Son, Y.-W., Origin of Anomalous Electronic Sturctures of Epitaxial Graphene on Silicon Carbide, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 176802 (2008)

    2008

  30. [38]

    H., de Heer, W

    Berger, C., Conrad, E. H., de Heer, W. A., Epigraphen e: Epitaxial Graphene on Silicon Carbide, Physics of Solid Surfaces, Subvolume B, Chia rotti G., Chiaradia, P., Eds, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, Vol III/45B (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    M., Imaging the interface of epitaxi al graphene with silicon carbide via scanning tunneling microscopy, Phys

    Rutter, G. M., Imaging the interface of epitaxi al graphene with silicon carbide via scanning tunneling microscopy, Phys. Rev. B 76, 235416 (2007)

    2007

  32. [40]

    Cervenka, J., van de Ruit, K., Flipse, C. F. J, Gia nt inelastic tunneling in epitaxial graphene mediated by localized states, Phys. Rev. B 81, 205403 (2010)

    2010

  33. [41]

    et al., Doping of Graphene by Low-Ene rgy Ion Beam Implantation: Structural, Electronic, and Transport Properties, Nano Lett

    Willke, P. et al., Doping of Graphene by Low-Ene rgy Ion Beam Implantation: Structural, Electronic, and Transport Properties, Nano Lett. 15(8), 5110-5115 (2015)

    2015

  34. [42]

    et al., Localized state and charge transfer in nitrogen-doped graphene, Phys

    Joucken, F. et al., Localized state and charge transfer in nitrogen-doped graphene, Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 85, 161408 (2012)

    2012

  35. [43]

    Brar, V. W. et al., Scanning tunneling spectroscopy of in homogeneous electronic structure in monolayer and bilayer graphene on SiC, Appl. Phys. Lett. 91, 122101 (2007)

    2007

  36. [44]

    et al, LEED structure determination of hexago nal α-SiC surfaces, Surface Science 337, 232-242 (1995)

    Schardt J. et al, LEED structure determination of hexago nal α-SiC surfaces, Surface Science 337, 232-242 (1995)

    1995

  37. [45]

    H., Byoung-Ho, C., Keun-Ho, L., Chang, K

    Park, C. H., Byoung-Ho, C., Keun-Ho, L., Chang, K. J., Structural and electronic properties of cubic, 2H, 4H, and 6H SiC, Phys. Rev. B 49(7), 4485-4492 (1994)

    1994

  38. [46]

    G., Tranca, D

    Hristu, R., Stanciu, S. G., Tranca, D. E., Polychroniad is, E. K., Stanciu, G. A., Identification of stacking faults in silicon carbide by po larization-resolved second harmonic generation microscopy, Scientific Reports 7, 4870 (2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    Phys.: Condens

    Seyller, T., Passivation of hexagonal SiC surfaces by hydrogen termination, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 16, S1755 (2004)

    2004

  40. [48]

    Borovikov, V., Zangwill, A., Step bunching of vicinal 6H-SiC{0001} surfaces, Phys. Rev. B 79, 245413 (2009) 26

    2009

  41. [49]

    Ristein, J., Mammadov, S., Seyller, T., Origin of Dop ing in Quasi-Free-Standing Graphene on Silicon Carbide, Phys. Rev. Lett 108, 246104 (2012)

    2012

  42. [50]

    et al., Polarization doping of graphene on silicon carbide, 2D Materials 1, 035003 (2014)

    Mammadov, S. et al., Polarization doping of graphene on silicon carbide, 2D Materials 1, 035003 (2014)

    2014

  43. [51]

    V., Speck, F., Seyller, T., Ley, T., Intera ction, growth, and ordering of epitaxial graphene on SiC{0001} surfaces: A comparative photoelectron spectroscopy study, Phys

    Emtsev, K. V., Speck, F., Seyller, T., Ley, T., Intera ction, growth, and ordering of epitaxial graphene on SiC{0001} surfaces: A comparative photoelectron spectroscopy study, Phys. Rev. B 77, 155303 (2008)

    2008

  44. [52]

    et al., Electronic Structure of Epitaxial Graphene Layers on SiC: Effects of the Substrate, Phys

    Varchon, F. et al., Electronic Structure of Epitaxial Graphene Layers on SiC: Effects of the Substrate, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 126805 (2007)

    2007

  45. [53]

    et al., Ultrathin Epitaxial Graphite: 2D Electron Gas Properties and a Route toward Graphene-based Nanoelectronics, J

    Berger, C. et al., Ultrathin Epitaxial Graphite: 2D Electron Gas Properties and a Route toward Graphene-based Nanoelectronics, J. Phys. Chem. B 108, 19912-19916 (2004)

    2004

  46. [54]

    Bostwick, A., Ohta, T., Seyller, T., Horn, K., Rotenberg, E., Quasiparticle dynamics in graphene, Nature Physics 3, 36-40 (2007)

    2007

  47. [55]

    Pallecchi. E. at al., High Electron Mobility in Epitaxial Graphene on 4H-SiC(0001) via post-growth annealing under hydrogen, Scientific Reports 4, 4558 (2014)

    2014

  48. [56]

    et al., The quasi-free-standing nature o f graphene on H-saturated SiC(0001), Appl

    Speck, F. et al., The quasi-free-standing nature o f graphene on H-saturated SiC(0001), Appl. Phys. Lett. 99, 122106 (2011)

    2011

  49. [57]

    Y., Approachi ng ballistic transport in suspended graphene, Nature Nanotech

    Du, X., Skachko, I., Barker, A., Andrei, E. Y., Approachi ng ballistic transport in suspended graphene, Nature Nanotech. 3, 491-495 (2008)

    2008

  50. [58]

    H., Das Sarma, S., Screening-induced temper ature-dependent transport in two-dimensional graphene, Phys

    Hwang, E. H., Das Sarma, S., Screening-induced temper ature-dependent transport in two-dimensional graphene, Phys. Rev. B 79, 165404 (2009)

    2009

  51. [59]

    H., Density-dependent electrica l conductivity in suspended graphene: Approaching the Dirac point in transp ort, Phys

    Das Sarma, S., Hwang, E. H., Density-dependent electrica l conductivity in suspended graphene: Approaching the Dirac point in transp ort, Phys. Rev. B 87, 035415 (2013)

    2013

  52. [60]

    N., Uchoa, B., Pereira, V

    Kotov, V. N., Uchoa, B., Pereira, V. M., Electron-Electron Interactions in Graphene: Current Status and Perspectives, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84(3), 1067-1125 (2012)

    2012

  53. [61]

    J., Succi, S., Hydrodynamic Model for Conductivity in Graphene, Scientific Reports 3, 1052 (2013) 27

    Mendoza, M., Herrmann, H. J., Succi, S., Hydrodynamic Model for Conductivity in Graphene, Scientific Reports 3, 1052 (2013) 27

    2013

  54. [62]

    S., Intrinsic and extrinsic performance limits of graphene devices on SiO2, Nat

    Chen, J.-H., Jang, C., Xiao, S., Ishigami, M., Fu hrer, M. S., Intrinsic and extrinsic performance limits of graphene devices on SiO2, Nat. Nanotech. 3, 206-209 (2008)

    2008

  55. [63]

    Fratini, S., Guinea, F., Substrate-limited electron dynamics in graphene, Phys. Rev. B 77, 195415 (2008)

    2008

  56. [64]

    Stauber, T., Peres, N. M. R., Guinea, F., Electronic t ransport in graphene: A semiclassical approach including midgap states, Phys. Rev. B 76, 205423 (2007)

    2007

  57. [65]

    acknowledges financial support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) through project We 1889/13-1

    Cao, B.-Y., Yao, W.-J., Ye, Z.-Q., Networked nanoconstrictions: An effective route to tuning the thermal transport properties of graphene, Carbon 96, 711-719 (2016) Acknowledgements A.S. acknowledges financial support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) through projec...

    2016

  58. [66]

    G., Schneider, M

    Willke, P., Druga, T., Ulbrich, R. G., Schneider, M. A., Wenderoth, M., Spatial extend of Landauer residual-resistivity dipole in graphe ne quantified by scanning tunnelling potentiometry, Nature Commun. 6, 6399 (2015)

    2015

  59. [67]

    et al., Doping of Graphene by Low-Energy I on Beam Implantation: Structural, Electronic, and Transport Properties, Nano Lett

    Willke, P. et al., Doping of Graphene by Low-Energy I on Beam Implantation: Structural, Electronic, and Transport Properties, Nano Lett. 15(8), 5110-5115 (2015)

    2015

  60. [68]

    Yazdi, G. R. et al., Growth of large area monolay er graphene on 3C-SiC and comparison with other SiC polytypes, Carbon 57, 477-484 (2013)

    2013

  61. [69]

    Borovikov, V., Zangwill, A., Step bunching of vicinal 6 H-SiC{0001} surfaces, Phys. Rev. B 79, 245413 (2009)

    2009

Pith tools

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