2015
DOI: 10.1002/pssr.201510014
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Electron‐transfer transparency of graphene: Fast reduction of metal ions on graphene‐covered donor surfaces

Abstract: The mechanism of charge transfer through nanomaterials such as graphene remains unclear, and the amount of charge that can be transferred from/to graphene without damaging its structural integrity is unknown. In this communication, we show that metallic nanoparticles can be decorated onto graphene surfaces as a result of charge transfer from the supporting substrate to an adjoining solution containing metal ions. Au or Pt nanoparticles were formed with relatively high yield on graphene‐coated substrates that c… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In addition to the vdW and Coulombic interactions, the graphene layer is also found to be transparent to the charge transfer process. 202 The reduction rate of AuCl 4 on the graphene surface is found to be faster when graphene is coated on a reductive surface, such as Al, Ge, and Cu surfaces. Because the intrinsic Fermi level of graphene (−4.6 eV) is higher than that of Cu (−4.8 eV), while the reduction rate is even lower, such phenomenon cannot be solely ascribed to the substrate doping of graphene.…”
Section: Interactions Between Epitaxial Molecules and 2dmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…In addition to the vdW and Coulombic interactions, the graphene layer is also found to be transparent to the charge transfer process. 202 The reduction rate of AuCl 4 on the graphene surface is found to be faster when graphene is coated on a reductive surface, such as Al, Ge, and Cu surfaces. Because the intrinsic Fermi level of graphene (−4.6 eV) is higher than that of Cu (−4.8 eV), while the reduction rate is even lower, such phenomenon cannot be solely ascribed to the substrate doping of graphene.…”
Section: Interactions Between Epitaxial Molecules and 2dmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Similar processes were described in literature, where the charge transfer process through reduction of Au III to AuNPs was monitored by Raman and Localized Surface Plasmon Resonance (LSPR) spectroscopy [22,29]. The amount of charge that can be transferred from graphene without damaging its structure still remains an open question [21,24,30,31].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Conversely, nucleation on graphene surfaces may be controlled by engineering the physicochemical properties of substrate. Nguyen et al utilized wettability‐controlled graphene (graphene transferred to engineered substrate so that wettability of graphene follows that of the underlying substrate) as an epitaxial template for organic crystal growth, while Jeong et al confirmed the electron‐transfer transparency of graphene by observing the transfer of charge from a substrate below graphene to result in reduction of metal nanoparticles on the opposite surface of the graphene . Also, the lattice transparency of graphene, that is, the transparency of graphene to the atomic arrangement of a substrate surface, was confirmed by Chae et al using hydrothermal growth of ZnO, and by Kim et al, using epitaxial growth of GaAs .…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%