2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.carbon.2020.09.035
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Resolving mobility anisotropy in quasi-free-standing epitaxial graphene by terahertz optical Hall effect

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

2
4
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
2
1
1
1

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 68 publications
2
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The mobility parameters were found to be slightly anisotropic in accordance with our recent study[20]. The anisotropy, which is caused by the substrate step edges, does not have any baring on the results discussed in the current work.…”
supporting
confidence: 92%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The mobility parameters were found to be slightly anisotropic in accordance with our recent study[20]. The anisotropy, which is caused by the substrate step edges, does not have any baring on the results discussed in the current work.…”
supporting
confidence: 92%
“…However, exposure to ambient can cause environmental doping of graphene via an acceptor redox reaction at the surface of the graphene involving various environmental gases (O 2 , H 2 O, and CO 2 ), which results in electron withdrawal [48]. Consequently, MLG can exhibit p-type conductivity depending on sample history [20,49]. We have previously shown that the THz OHE is an excellent tool to precisely determine free charge carrier density and mobility parameters of graphene and monitor their in-situ variation under the influence of different gases [20,31,34,50].…”
Section: Free Charge Carrier Properties Of Mlg and Qfs-mlgmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, also there, an increase in RH leads to a decrease in response. The appearance of sensitivity for IEG compared to PEG is most probably due to the known increased defect density for IEG (compare [134] and section 4.2.4). Another possible explanation could be the difference in carrier density between the sensors [134].…”
Section: Gas Measurementsmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…The appearance of sensitivity for IEG compared to PEG is most probably due to the known increased defect density for IEG (compare [134] and section 4.2.4). Another possible explanation could be the difference in carrier density between the sensors [134]. The response of the IEG sensor is comparably small (see also Figure 4.15), but still has estimated LODs of 0.68 and 1.40 ppb for C6H6 at 0 and 50 %RH.…”
Section: Gas Measurementsmentioning
confidence: 96%