2009
DOI: 10.1088/0953-8984/21/19/195402
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The differential atomic response of the topmost graphene layer on graphite

Abstract: The atomic response of the topmost graphene layer on graphite was studied by using scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) as a function of tunneling gap distance, gap voltage and bias polarity. The contrast of the site-dependent topographical image depends on the gap distance, and the site-dependent tunneling current order of magnitude at a given gap distance is switched with the gap voltage (i.e. the contrast is significantly altered). The site-dependent current order is altered at the lower positive gap voltage… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…At first, a few decades ago and from a fundamental point of view, atomic resolved STM images were obtained from the highly oriented pyrolitic graphite (HOPG) surface. As at atomic scale such STM images show triangular and/or honeycomb lattices, even under different experimental conditions [1][2][3], several efforts have been done to understand this behavior [4][5][6][7], but only recently a conclusive explanation has been reached [8]. In the nineties the research on graphitic surfaces shifted the attention to the STM observation of superstructures [9][10][11], and thereafter to the interaction between such superstructures and grain boundaries in graphite [12].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At first, a few decades ago and from a fundamental point of view, atomic resolved STM images were obtained from the highly oriented pyrolitic graphite (HOPG) surface. As at atomic scale such STM images show triangular and/or honeycomb lattices, even under different experimental conditions [1][2][3], several efforts have been done to understand this behavior [4][5][6][7], but only recently a conclusive explanation has been reached [8]. In the nineties the research on graphitic surfaces shifted the attention to the STM observation of superstructures [9][10][11], and thereafter to the interaction between such superstructures and grain boundaries in graphite [12].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[15] and references therein). This has been a long standing controversy which has attracted renewed interest over the STM image formation of graphite surface [11,16,17,18] and over the physical origin of superstructures [15,19,20,21].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%