MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2540853334 · doi:10.11159/icnei16.103

Characterization of HOPG, Sputtered HPOG and Graphene by ToF-SIMS and XPS

2016· article· en· W2540853334 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chi‐Ming Chan, Wenjing Xie, Lu‐Tao Weng, Kai Mo Ng, Chak K. Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on Recent Advances in Nanotechnology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGraphene research and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsX-ray photoelectron spectroscopyGrapheneMaterials scienceCharacterization (materials science)SputteringAnalytical Chemistry (journal)NanotechnologyChemistryNuclear magnetic resonanceThin filmPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Graphene, a single layer of graphite, has attracted much attention due to its physical properties and two-dimensional structure. It has been used in many important industrial applications, including batteries, electronic devices and sensors. The cleanliness of graphene surfaces is important for successful uses of graphene in these applications. Surfaces of highly oriented pyrolytic graphite (HOPG), which can be regarded as the surfaces of defect-free graphene and surfaces of graphene were characterized by two very powerful surface analysis techniques - X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry (ToF-SIMS) [1-4]. XPS results indicated that the impurities on the surfaces of graphene and HOPG can be removed by annealing samples of graphene and HOPG in vacuum at 400 oC [5]. In addition, ToF-SIMS results showed that even a small amount of poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) impurity on the graphene surface can be removed by annealing the sample in vacuum at 500 oC. In the C1s spectrum of clean HOPG, an asymmetric sp2 carbon peak and a π-π* shake-up peak were present, indicating the absence of defects. An additional sp3 carbon peak representing sp3 defects was present, however, in the C1s spectrum of clean graphene. The positive ion spectra of these two materials differed somewhat, with the major difference being the presence of C<sub>x</sub>H<sub>2</sub><sup>+•</sup> ions in graphene. To determine the origin of the C<sub>x</sub>H<sub>2</sub><sup>+•</sup> ions, defects were created on the surface of HOPG by bombarding it with a Cs+ ion beam at various sputtering doses. A sp3 carbon peak at 284.9 eV, representing sp3 defects appeared in the XPS spectra of sputtered HOPG samples, confirming that the surface of the sputtered HOPG is similar to that of graphene. A detailed examination of the positive ion spectra of ion-bombarded HOPG surfaces reveals the presence of the C<sub>x</sub>H<sub>2</sub><sup>+•</sup> ions, confirming that these C<sub>x</sub>H<sub>2</sub><sup>+•</sup>, which came from the defects created on the sputtered HOPG surfaces, are similar to the defects present on graphene surface.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the World Congress on Recent Advances in NanotechnologySame topicGraphene research and applicationsFrench-language works237,207