Alex Robertson Graphene-Boron Nitride Nanostructures

Graphene-Boron Nitride Nanostructures:

Properties, Fabrication, and Applications

Alex Robertson
December 2013

Graphene's characteristic physical and electrical properties have earned the one-dimensional
carbon structure a reputation amongst researchers as our next potential wonder material in the
tradition of steel, glass, and plastic. Significant obstacles remain, however, before graphene may
be implemented in ways that enable micro- and macro-scale innovation while improving upon
the efficiency of existing technologies. Among them: the absence of an inherent band gap, the
lack of a reliable method for growing pristine large-area sheets, and the environmental
vulnerability resulting from the fact that each and every atom in a given single-layer sample is
exposed to its surroundings. Another key hurdle is that many of graphene's spectacular electrical
behaviors necessitate an atomically flat, distortion-free surface, which proves difficult to
maintain with traditional silicon wafer processing techniques and substrates. Boron nitride, a
material whose lattice approximately mirrors that of graphene, appears to present a promising
solution for both the substrate and environmental susceptibility issues. Interfacing hexagonal
Boron Nitride (hBN) with graphene also entails a streamlined device fabrication procedure and
allows for 1-D electrical contacts. This paper investigates physical principles underlying the
graphene-hBN (G-hBN) relationship, manufacturing approaches involved in growth of hBN and
graphene, experimentally measured attributes of G-hBN devices, and applications in which G-
hBN could become especially valuable.

Hexagonal Boron Nitride: The Ideal Substrate for Graphene?

Silicon dioxide is a ubiquitous substrate in the microchip industry, meeting demands set by the
conventional fabrication of microstructures and electrical pathways. It can be thermally grown
or deposited with ease, is resistant to high-temperature treatments, and is suitable as a sacrificial
layer for certain types of surface micromachining. When used in conjunction with polysilicon
(or other materials?) structural layers, SiO
2
substrates do not compromise a given device's
sensitivity and consistency of performance. The same cannot be said for SiO
2
-supported
graphene devices. SiO
2
's relative roughness, charge impurities, and surface phonons induce
scattering that causes graphene's carrier mobility to fall far below its expected value. These
factors disturb charge neutrality of our "2D electron gas", transforming it into a mishmash of
electron and hole regions instead of the homogeneous state required for unadulterated high-
performance graphene. Suspending graphene over chip surfaces was found to alleviate some of
these drawbacks, but such approaches came with their own set of complications involving design
composition and robustness. The substrate problem frustrated research teams for a number of
Alex Robertson Graphene-Boron Nitride Nanostructures
Figure 2. Samples used in (#). Dashed lines indicate the
Raman-tested areas. At left is a graphene flake spanning
both BN and SiO2, and at right is the G-hBN sandwich.
Figure 1. Graphene and hBN share correlative roughness values,
while SiO
2
's surface is generally more than twice as irregular.
years after Geim and Novoselov opened the graphene floodgates with their 2004 study of the
quantum Hall effect in single- and bi-layer samples. A 2010 paper written here at Columbia first
identified boron nitride as a marked improvement over SiO
2
and other oxides, as it allows for
overlaid graphene sheets to remain
essentially undisturbed in terms of
electrical and structural attributes.
Boron nitride shares a lattice
mismatch of only 1.7% percent
with graphene, with its boron and
nitrogen atoms residing at locations
effectively equivalent to the A and
B carbon sublattices in graphene.
Because of this mirroring, hBN is
similarly planar down to the atomic
level. Graphene flakes placed on
hBN, then, retain the true 1-D
flatness that is a prerequisite for
achieving maximal electron
transport speeds. In addition to
being a favorable match on a
purely physical level, hBN
electrically complements graphene as well. Whereas graphene is a zero-bandgap semiconductor
susceptible to chemical contamination, hBN's energy distribution generates a sizable 5.97 eV
bandgap, and its stable ionic bonding ensures the absence of dangling bonds or charge traps that
would mar the condition of adjacent graphene samples. Electrical performance of G-BN devices
will be discussed in-depth later in this paper.

Raman spectroscopy is a highly
useful tool in assessing the condition
of material samples, and it has been
widely used by researchers to
measure the extent of distortion
present in graphene samples on
various substrates. By generating a
plot of Raman shifts against intensity
and then comparing the resulting
characteristics of the 2D and G peaks to
those arising from samples known to be
pristine, the relative quality of a tested
sample can be determined. A 2012
Alex Robertson Graphene-Boron Nitride Nanostructures
Figure 3. Raman curves before annealing, after annealing, and in vacuum.
(a) = graphene on SiO
2
(b) = graphene on h-BN (c) = graphene sandwiched within h-BN
study headed by Columbia's Lei Wang and overseen by Dr. Hone compared the Raman
fingerprints of three types of structures on SiO
2
: a standalone graphene sheet, a graphene-BN
stack with the graphene's top surface exposed to air, and a BN-graphene-BN sandwich that fully
encases the graphene. Along with the position and width of the 2D and G peaks, the ratio of
their peak intensities (I
2D
/I
G)
provides valuable insight into the state of tested samples. Using
high-quality suspended graphene as a benchmark, the Raman results prove that, in terms of
allowing the natural state of graphene to persist, hBN is a vast improvement over silicon dioxide.
Whether simply resting on hBN or encased within two sheets of it, graphene in these cases
generated Raman peaks whose positions, widths, and I
2D
/I
G
values are significantly closer to
those of pristine suspended graphene than are the peak characteristics of the graphene-on-SiO
2

sample.

These tests also confirmed that after annealing, despite the presumed removal of PMMA
and tape residue, the quality of graphene transferred directly onto SiO
2
actually falls off, an
observation made previously by other researchers. The reason for this is that annealing causes
the graphene flake to become more atmospherically sensitive and to conform more closely to the
peaks and valleys of the SiO
2
, which increases the amount of interaction with local charge
impurities and surface phonons. Also, water and oxygen trapped between the SiO
2
are able to
more easily carry out an oxidation/reduction reaction with graphene's electrons (#), Thus, the
amount of effective p-doping rises, which in turn shifts the 2D and G peak positions and
decreases the I
2D
/I
G
value. Positioning a layer of h-BN between the graphene and SiO
2

counteracts this effect to some extent by protecting the graphene from SiO
2
doping, but I
2D
/I
G

falls off by forty percent from the ideal pristine graphene condition. By comparing the 2D peak
positions and taking upshifts to be representative of hole doping, Wang et. al conclude that the h-
BN interface reduces doping by almost ninety percent relative to SiO
2
. While h-BN shields
graphene from destructive SiO
2
electric fields, a relatively small but significant amount of
doping still results from the graphene surface's interaction with air. In an attempt to eliminate
Alex Robertson Graphene-Boron Nitride Nanostructures
Figure 4. Comparisons of the salient
Raman findings in (3), which show that
the BN-G-BN sandwich is a near-ideal
structure, both retaining the intrinsic
properties of graphene and protecting
it from environmental perturbations.
this, L. Wang et al. add a second layer of hBN on top
of graphene so that the flake is completely sandwiched.
The results are promising--although the 2D peak
upshifts somewhat and decreases in width, the other
Raman data features all compare favorably with
pristine suspended graphene. The hBN-graphene-hBN
sandwich 's G peak is located at 1581 cm
-1
with width
16 cm
-1
, and I
2D
/I
G
ends up being about 11, similar to
the pristine case. In addition to preserving graphene's
innate properties at room temperature, the sandwich
structure protects the inner flake during high-
temperature annealing processes. This feature may
prove invaluable if hBN-G-hBN sandwiches are to be
implemented on an industrial scale, as electrical
microstructures often must be able to withstand
exposure to high temperatures during manufacturing
and commercial use. Before discussing the electronic
properties of graphene-BN heterodevices and
addressing potential future roles in field-effect
transistors, let's take a look at how graphene and boron
nitride samples are produced and how G-BN stacks are
assembled.

Manufacturing Graphene and Boron Nitride: Approaches and Challenges

Graphene exhibits extraordinary electronic qualities and boron nitride has been verified as a
highly suitable substrate for graphene devices; why, then, don't we see such devices being
applied in any sort of practical way? One explanation: manufacturing high-quality graphene and
boron nitride sheets on a prolific level is extremely difficult. This problem holds us back in two
ways. One, it limits the rate at which graphene researchers can carry out novel experiments and
find more efficient, useful approaches. And two, if and when we develop a paradigm-shifting G-
BN device, the amount of graphene and boron nitride available will not meet demand.
Mechanical exfoliation, one of the methods of choice for isolating single-layer graphene and for
stripping usable samples from BN crystals, is a painstaking process that is not amenable to
automation and produces samples that are only on the order of hundreds of square microns.
Chemical vapor deposition, meanwhile, offers the advantage of enabling the production of much
larger graphene sheets, but grain boundaries, bilayer patches, and other structural impurities are
often present. The mass manufacturing challenge is a daunting one, but let's take a look at the
bright side. Boron nitride, in what is yet another clear advantage over SiO
2
, shares a strong Van
der Waals attraction with graphene. We can use this VDW interaction to firmly stack successive
Alex Robertson Graphene-Boron Nitride Nanostructures
Figure 6. Graphics and STEM images showing the fabrication
process and 1-D contacts developed for use in (#). Virtually no
leaking of metal into the hBN-G-hBN sandwich occurs.

Figure 5. Illustration of the stacking technique used in (#) to assemble together hBN and graphene
layers through VDW attraction. This process is residue-free and relatively user-friendly.

layers of graphene and BN upon each other without introducing any contaminating polymers or
residues. Completed stacks can then be transferred to a wafer surface and subjected to
e-beam lithography, etching, and metal deposition according to the type of device desired.
Further research will be necessary to develop ways of ensuring initial BN pick-up by PPC and
controlling the resultant lattice alignments, but for now this process meets the needs of
researchers and allows for novel types of fabrication and experimentation that will be discussed
in the subsequent section.

Electrical Performance of G-hBN Devices

As addressed earlier, Raman spectroscopy results establish that sandwiching graphene between
layers of boron nitride allows the encapsulated graphene to remain in a near-pristine state. Does
electrical experimentation verify that such structures allow for the perpetuation of graphene's
intrinsic properties? Recent publications suggest as much. It is demonstrated in L. Wang et al.
that hBN-G-hBN sandwiches represent an improvement over other types of graphene devices for
two reasons. First, as has already been discussed: sandwiched graphene retains atomic flatness
while being sheltered from environmental factors. Second, and just as importantly: contact
resistance in sandwich
devices can be reduced to a
previously-unachievable level
through the utilization of a
new fabrication process made
possible by these types of
stacks. Demonstrated in
Figure 6, metal can be
deposited upon the etched,
slanted sidewalls of a hBN-
G-hBN sandwich to create a
one-dimensional contact
surface between the metal
and graphene. Other
Alex Robertson Graphene-Boron Nitride Nanostructures
Figure 7. Plot of channel length vs. total
resistance for one of the devices tested
in (#). Contact resistance was
determined by extracting the y-intercept
value of a linear fit to the data, and
resistivity by calculating the slope.

Figure 8. Two devices tested in (#)
showed slight differences but similar
trends, with peaks near the respective
CNPs and assymetry between n-type
and p-type gating.
graphene device designs rely on two-dimensional electrical contacts, which will always generate
resistances that exceed what is possible with a 1-D interface. This can be attributed to the
absence of bond-friendly sites on the graphene surface and the disturbance of graphene's in-plane
sp-2 hybridization by applied surface contacts. Though this new method of creating a metal-
graphene connection has room for improvement (margins of error arising from the equipment
used during fabrication necessitates the metal's overlap
onto the top sandwich surface; removing this overlap
could further enhance device performance), its
implementation in two-terminal and four-terminal
testing yielded transport characteristics never before
seen in devices based on graphene or any other 2-D
material.

Using the transfer-length method, L. Wang et al. varied
the backgate voltage applied to the device shown in Fig.
7, whose contacts were dispersed over a two-micron
wide hBN-G-hBN sandwich. In doing so, the carrier
density present in the graphene was modulated, and the
channels, each with a pair of edge-contacts, were
subjected to voltage-current tests from which the
effective resistances could be extracted. Then plotting
channel length and resistance against each other, the
contact resistances at different carrier densities were inferred from the plot's y-intercepts (where
channel length=0). These resistances end up being as much as a 25% improvement over those
associated with the highest quality surface contacts,
with an R
c
value of approximately 150 m in the
case of high density n-type carriers. After
accounting for the channels' quantum resistance, it
can be determined that the edge contacts are
responsible for about 100 m. Figure 8 exhibits
the relationship between carrier density and contact
resistance; the peak occurs near the charge neutrality
point due to the low density of states present in
graphene, and the resistance begins to flatten out at a
higher level with negative carrier density (p-type)
than with positive density (n-type). This characteristic
arises from the details of the metal deposition process.
A chromium layer is what actually bonds to the
sandwiched graphene layer, with palladium and gold
then deposited on top. Chromium's Fermi energy is
Alex Robertson Graphene-Boron Nitride Nanostructures
Figure 9. The relationship between carrier density and
electron mobility in the device tested in (#). hBN-G-hBN
sandwiches with edge-contacts outperform a
variety of 2-D semiconductor materials.
.16 eV greater than graphene's. Thus, the minimum energy required to remove an electron from
Cr is .16 eV less than it is for graphene, which can be determined by comparing the differences
in energy between electrons at the upper cusp of Cr and graphene's valence bands and electrons
in a vacuum without electric fields. Wang et al. carried out an ab initio analysis of the Cr-
graphene edge-contact design that showed a shorter bonding distance and greater orbital overlap
than is observed with two-dimensional contacts. This closer proximity improves the ease of
electron transmission between the materials, thereby lowering the inherent resistance. Even
tighter bonding is made possible by the presence of oxygen in conjunction with Cr and graphene.
The amount of oxygen exposure was not closely monitored during the fabrication of the tested
devices, but it is theorized that O
2
was incidentally introduced to the edge-contacts during
etching. Additional computational simulations, which were carried out assuming a Cr-O-
graphene complex, matched up well with data collected during device testing. Going back to the
.16 eV difference in ionization energy between Cr and graphene: simulations predicted a
minimum in contact resistance at E-E
CNP
= .16 eV, which correlates with a carrier density of 2.2
x 10
12
cm
-2
. The rightmost side of Figure 8's curve is in accordance with this prediction, while
the leftmost portion shows that the device's contact resistance cannot approach this minimum
when graphene's Fermi level is pushed below the Dirac point (p-type gating). N-type gating can
align the Fermi energies of graphene and chromium, thereby allowing for maximum ease of
electron transmission between the two.

In regards to total device performance, what implications arise from the low resistances
associated with edge-contact geometry? The results of four-terminal testing at room temperature
prove that hBN-G-hBN sandwiches
with 1-D edge-contacts are able to
maintain high electron mobility even
with elevated carrier densities. Falling
off from a peak value of over 140,000
cm
2
/Vs, the mobility hovers near
40,000 cm
2
/Vs at carrier densities up
to 4.5 x 10
12
cm
-2
. Figure 9 shows that
this performance trumps the properties
of even the most cutting-edge 2-D
semiconductor materials and that the
upper bound established by acoustic
phonon scattering is approximately
realized. Some of the plotted
semiconductors are widely used in
field-effect transistors, and in the next
section we will address specific
applications in which hBN-G
Alex Robertson Graphene-Boron Nitride Nanostructures
heterostructures could eventually render them obsolete. One more note about this four-terminal
device: negative resistances were observed during testing at 1.7 K, which means that incoming
electrons breached the ballistic regime and travelled diagonally between contact points rather
than along an edge. With the device's dimensions being 15 m 15 m, the electrons must have
had a mean free path of 21 m or greater, suggesting a mobility value of over 1,000,000 cm
2
/Vs.
The mean free path and mobility scale with device size, so even greater values can be expected
in larger hBN-graphene-hBN stacks.

G-hBN Technology: Applications, Limitations, and Future Directions

Having established that the use of boron nitride substrates and 1-D edge-contacts can allow for
graphene's intrinsic qualities to persist throughout fabrication treatments and environmental
variations, let's look at how these heterostructures may be applicable in real-world technologies
with a focus on field-effect transistors. Until a method of introducing a bandgap in graphene is
discovered, edge-contacted hBN-G-hBN sandwiches will not be useful as an on/off switch in
digital logic systems, but their immense carrier mobility, scalability, and minute resistance could
propel them to a leading role in high-frequency analog FETs. The difference between an analog
transistor and a digital transistor is simple: analog transistors carry a level of DC bias between
source and drain and are often used to power some sort of physical motion or output, while
digital transistors act purely as signal processors with dual on and off modes in which there is a
clearly discernible presence or lack of current in the channel. In both cases, the transistor's
output is controlled by way of the applied gate voltage, which in turn controls the channel
resistance.

The bottom-line goal of high-frequency analog transistors is to take a small input signal and
generate an output at the same frequency but with a larger amplitude. To paraphrase an example
used by Dr. Nicholas Petrone in a discussion about the fundamentals of graphene FETs, we want
to be able to receive a weak input like the radiofrequency representation of someone's voice,
originating from a distant antenna, and turn it into a loud and clear stream of sound emitted from
the earpiece speaker of a telephone on the receiving end. The graphene FET equivalent of this
process is transform a high-frequency, low-amplitude gate voltage oscillation into a high-
amplitude channel current oscillation of equal frequency.

Yet another way in which graphene distinguishes itself is that it can transmit charge on an
ambipolar basis. This trait is critically important to high-frequency graphene FETs and is
responsible for the flattened-out regions of the V
d
vs. I
d
plots on the following pages.
Ambipolarity comes into play as source-drain voltage changes while in the presence of a
constant gate voltage. As an exercise, let's assume that our drain is fixed at a potential of 0 V,
that our backgate is initially set to 0 V, and that the CNP of our graphene sample occurs at a 1 V
gate voltage. With 2 V then applied to our source, the relative potential difference between the
Alex Robertson Graphene-Boron Nitride Nanostructures
Figure 10. Resistivity-V
g
and I-V characteristics of devices tested in (#). By holding V
d
constant
and varying the gate-voltage, the channel current can be induced into jumping from curve to
curve.
source and gate becomes 2 V, and the graphene encompassed in this region is effectively n-
doped, comparable to being shifted to the right of the peak observed in an R vs. V
g
curve. On
the other hand, the relative voltage between our drain and gate is still zero, which would place
the influenced graphene to the left of the V
g
-R peak (the peak occurs at 1 V, where DOS is at its
minimum and the resistance at its maximum). Thus, the graphene channel is p-type at its drain
end and n-type at its source end, and somewhere in between the two we can imagine an n-type/p-
type meeting point, which is the charge neutrality point. This junction shifts along the length of
the channel as we increase the drain voltage and will near the drain itself as we pass a V
d
of 1 (at
this point the source-gate region is still n-type and the drain-gate region hits the resistance peak
occurring at 1 V). At drain voltages beyond 1, the graphene channel is fully n-type.

So how does this example relate to graphene's ambipolarity and to experimental data? Whenever
the n-type/p-type junction is present in the channel, our FET is operating in the ambipolar
regime. Whereas the relation between voltage, current, and resistance is typically described by
V=IR, the ambipolar junction introduces a whole new ballgame: for as long as it exists within the
channel, increasing voltage does not result in a similarly elevated current (there is a subtle
increase, but the direct relationship between I and V is clearly abandoned). Once the ambipolar
junction/CNP makes its exit and the channel is once again either entirely n-type or entirely p-
type, the normal I-V interaction reemerges.

When the CNP enters our graphene channel, current is said to have been saturated. Figure 10's
plots assist in visualization--I
sat
occurs where the curves begin to flatten out. Current saturation
is important because it leads to high transconductance values. Transconductance, or g
m
, is
defined as( dI
sd
/dV
g
)|
Vsd
and has a direct impact on the achievable f
T
and f
max
values. A large g
m

value generates a large proportional change in channel current relative to a given change in gate
voltage; this type of behavior is highly desirable for analog transistors designed to amplify an
input signal represented by gate voltage oscillation. As can be seen in Figure 10, the curves
Alex Robertson Graphene-Boron Nitride Nanostructures
Figure 11. I. Meric et al. manufactured a high-
performance grapheme-based FET with BN
on only one side of the grapheme flake; this
will likely be improved upon by instead using
a hBN-G-hBN sandwich structure.
corresponding to different gate voltages are bunched together in the non-current-saturated zone.
Here, an applied change in gate voltage will generate a very small change in channel current
that is exactly what we do not want to happen.

fT and fmax give the maximum oscillation frequencies at which current gain and power gain,
respectively, retain values greater than one. A device operating with gain below one is useless
because no signal amplification occurs. If the creation of graphene-based high-frequency analog
FETs is our goal, then fT and fmax are our central parameterswe want to push them as high as
possible and also keep their ratio close to unity. Though they are directly interrelated, fmax is the
more important of the two because it takes into
account external factors such as the gate and output
resistances.
3
As shown in Figure 11, I. Meric et al.
presented G-hBN FETs with fT and fmax values on the
order of 40 GHz, which had never before been
accomplished with a graphene-based system. The
data collected in (3) came from top-gated G-hBN
devices; fully sandwiched graphene-based FETs
have not yet been tested, but we can expect them to
display even higher fT and fmax values both because
the graphene will be of a finer quality and because
the lower resistances associated with edge-contacts
will boost the transconductance. One last note
regarding ambipolarity: it is additionally
advantageous to operate a graphene FET with our
CNP inside the channel because any parasitics
affecting Vsd will have less of an impact on channel
current.

How exactly do graphene-based FETs represent an improvement over existing devices? Their
size is an obvious upsidescaling FETs down to the nanometer scale allows for more rapid
channel transport and a greater density of transistors on a surface. Meanwhile, very large f
T
and
f
max
values improve the resolution at which an input signal can be processed. Radar and other
sensing technologies would be made more precise by this feature, and the clarity of long-distance
radiofrequency-dependent communication systems could be improved. Another major
advantage is that high-level performance is achievable at low saturation voltages, which means
that devices incorporating G-hBN FETs will have to supply only a small amount of power to
enable their sustained operation; in the process, battery lifethat great empowerer and bane of
contemporary human behaviorwill be extended. The intriguing potential of incorporating G-
hBN structures into next-generation high-frequency transistors has been well demonstrated, and
Alex Robertson Graphene-Boron Nitride Nanostructures
imminent experimentation with hBN-G-hBN sandwiches will likely further expand the realm of
performance possibilities.

Conclusion

The use of hexagonal boron nitride as a substrate in graphene-based devices has allowed us to more fully
harness graphenes exceptional properties than ever before. hBNs structural and electrical properties are
a near-perfect complement to those of graphene, and by fabricating tri-layer hBN-G-hBN stacks,
graphene flakes can be fully protected from environmental contamination. The assembly process entailed
by these stacks is relatively straightforward and does not require the introduction of polymers or other
residues to graphenes surface. Field-effect transistors incorporating two-layer hBN-G stacks have
exhibited outstanding high-frequency characteristics. Testing of FETs that implement hBN-G-hBN
sandwiches and their accompanying low-resistance edge-contacts should reveal further enhanced
performance; these devices may represent the future of high-frequency analog transistors and flexible
electronics. The challenge of mass-producing pristine samples is still a major one, but the recent
application of boron nitride to graphene-based structures may one day be looked back upon as a critical
development in graphenes leap from the lab to the streets.

Alex Robertson Graphene-Boron Nitride Nanostructures
References

(1) Cory Dean, A. F. Young, I. Meric, C. Lee, L. Wang, S. Sorgenfrei, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, P. Kim, K. L.
Shepard & J. Hone. Boron Nitride Substrates for High-Quality Graphene Electronics. Nature
Nanotechnology 5, 722726 (2010) doi:10.1038/nnano.2010.172

(2) AC Ferrari and Basko, DM. Raman Spectroscopy as a Versatile Tool for Studying the Properties of Graphene.
Nature Nanotechnology 2013 Apr; 8(4):235-46. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2013.46

(3) Inanc Meric; Dean, C.R.; Petrone, N.; Lei Wang; Hone, J.; Kim, P.; Shepard, K.L., Graphene Field-Effect
Transistors Based on BoronNitride Dielectrics." Proceedings of the IEEE , vol.101, no.7, pp.1609,1619,
July 2013. doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2013.2257634

(4) Inanc Meric, Cory R. Dean, Andrea F. Young, Natalia Baklitskaya, Noah J. Tremblay, Colin Nuckolls, Philip
Kim, and Kenneth L. Shepard. Channel Length Scaling in Graphene Field-Effect Transistors Studied with
Pulsed CurrentVoltage Measurements. Nano Letters 2011 11 (3), 1093-1097.

(5) Inanc Meric; Dean, Cory; Young, A.; Hone, J.; Kim, Philip; Shepard, Kenneth L., Graphene Field-Effect
Transistors Based on Boron Nitride Gate Dielectrics." Electron Devices Meeting (IEDM), 2010 IEEE
International , vol., no., pp.23.2.1,23.2.4, 6-8 Dec. 2010. doi: 10.1109/IEDM.2010.5703419

(6) Nicholas Petrone, Cory R. Dean, Inanc Meric, Arend M. van der Zande, Pinshane Y. Huang, Lei Wang, David
Muller, Kenneth L. Shepard, and James Hone. Chemical Vapor Deposition-Derived Graphene with
Electrical Performance of Exfoliated Graphene. Nano Letters 2012 12 (6), 2751-2756 .

(7) Frank Schwierz. Electronics: Industry-compatible graphene transistors. Nature 472, 4142 (07 April 2011).
doi:10.1038/472041

(8) Lei Wang, I. Meric, P. Y. Huang, Q. Gao, Y. Gao, H. Tran, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, L. M. Campos, D. A.
Muller, J. Guo, P. Kim, J. Hone, K. L. Shepard, and C. R. Dean. One-Dimensional Electrical Contact
to a Two-Dimensional Material. Science 1 November 2013: 342 (6158), 614-617. doi:10.1126/
science.1244358]

(9) Lei Wang, Zheyuan Chen, Cory R. Dean, Takashi Taniguchi, Kenji Watanabe, Louis E. Brus, and James Hone.
Negligible Environmental Sensitivity of Graphene in a Hexagonal Boron Nitride/Graphene/h-BN Sandwich
Structure. ACS Nano 2012 6 (10), 9314-9319 .

(10) H. Xu, Chen, Y., Zhang, J. and Zhang, H. (2012), Investigating the Mechanism of Hysteresis Effect in
Graphene Electrical Field Device Fabricated on SiO2 Substrates using Raman Spectroscopy. Small,
8: 28332840. doi: 10.1002/smll.201102468