2017
DOI: 10.1021/acsami.7b11641
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Temperature-Dependent Thermal Boundary Conductance of Monolayer MoS2 by Raman Thermometry

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

17
157
1
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 142 publications
(176 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
(117 reference statements)
17
157
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…9 For monolayer MoS2 D ~ 262 K 37 (for bulk MoS2 D ~ 300 K), 35 thus we avoid temperatures below 150 K in our simulations, where MD results are expected to be less accurate. 4,8 is found to be between simulations values of χ =1 and χ = 2 (for higher temperature the data is closer to χ = 2 results), which suggests that the interaction between MoS2 and SiO2 is likely to be stronger than that estimated by the mixing rules and the UFF model. 30 This is likely because the mixing rules do not accurately consider polarization when two different atoms are brought in contact with each other.…”
Section: Simulation Detailssupporting
confidence: 60%
“…9 For monolayer MoS2 D ~ 262 K 37 (for bulk MoS2 D ~ 300 K), 35 thus we avoid temperatures below 150 K in our simulations, where MD results are expected to be less accurate. 4,8 is found to be between simulations values of χ =1 and χ = 2 (for higher temperature the data is closer to χ = 2 results), which suggests that the interaction between MoS2 and SiO2 is likely to be stronger than that estimated by the mixing rules and the UFF model. 30 This is likely because the mixing rules do not accurately consider polarization when two different atoms are brought in contact with each other.…”
Section: Simulation Detailssupporting
confidence: 60%
“…Similar to the reported values of h K for interfaces with graphene, Yasaei et al measured the conductance across MoS 2 on SiO 2 /Si at room temperature via electrical thermometry technique and found h K in the range of ≈20.3 to 33.5 MW m −2 K −1 across the dimensionally mismatched interfaces. Similarly, Yalon et al reported a lower value of ≈15 MW m −2 K −1 for MoS 2 with AlN and SiO 2 at room temperature, using Raman thermometry with laser‐induced heating. A comparatively higher conductance of 62.5 MW m −2 K −1 has been reported for metal‐coated single‐layer boron nitride on SiO 2 substrate via a 3ω technique .…”
Section: Thermal Boundary Conductance Across Interfaces Composed Of 2mentioning
confidence: 77%
“…The Raman‐sensitive peaks of the measured sample would serve as a temperature thermometer while the incident heat source is from the heating by either electrical or optical means. A sketch of a Raman laser heating setup is shown in Figure a, where the interface thermal transport across monolayer MoS 2 and SiO 2 /AlN substrate is measured . For MoS 2 , the positions of E 1 2g and A 1g show redshift with increasing temperature, which works as a temperature indicator, and its absorption power is obtained from the absorbed incident laser power of one free‐standing monolayer MoS 2 by considering the substrate enhancement effect.…”
Section: Interface Thermal Resistance In 2d Devicesmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…For MoS 2 , the positions of E 1 2g and A 1g show redshift with increasing temperature, which works as a temperature indicator, and its absorption power is obtained from the absorbed incident laser power of one free‐standing monolayer MoS 2 by considering the substrate enhancement effect. Although MD simulations show that the interface thermal conductance of MoS 2 on Au substrate is as high as 135–221 MW m −2 K −1 , the results obtained by the Raman technique are considerably lower–0.44 ± 0.07 MW m −2 K −1 for MoS 2 ‐Au, 1.94 MW m −2 K −1 for MoS 2 ‐SiO 2 , 17.0 MW m −2 K −1 for MoS 2 ‐h‐BN, and 15 MW m −2 K −1 for MoS 2 ‐AlN . The variations in the measured interface thermal conductance probably originate from the different interface quality prepared by the wet transfer method .…”
Section: Interface Thermal Resistance In 2d Devicesmentioning
confidence: 89%