1, thus showing a high degree of uniformity. The uniformity is also better than that of NCG on MgO [16]. Table 1 Fitting results of the Raman spectra from the graphitic carbon on MgF 2   D G 2D Position (cm−1) 1,348 1,601 2,685 FWHM (cm−1) 44 61 83 I/I G 2.8 1 0.5 Lorentzian functions are used to fit D, G, and 2D peaks. FWHM, full width at half maximum. Figure 2 Raman map

of graphitic carbon on MgF 2 . (a) The intensity ratio of the D peak to the G peak is mapped over 10 × 10 μm. The distributions, shown in (b), imply a high spatial uniformity. All these results indicate that NCG on MgF2 is less disordered than those on oxides. FK228 clinical trial This is quite surprising if we consider the bond strength of the C-F bond, which is larger than the C-O bond strength [18, 19]. The high electronegativity

of fluorine even makes the C-F bond partially ionic. From first-principles calculations, we have known that the strong C-O bond limits the cluster size of NCG on sapphire and MgO [14, 16]. If that is the whole story, the stronger C-F bond should lead to E7080 in vitro smaller clusters on MgF2. Our results against this imply that an important factor is missing in the theoretical understanding of the NCG growth mechanism. Recently, models such as the catalytic role of step edges or the CP673451 chemical structure migration of cyclic carbons are good examples of pertinent suggestions [4, 21]. Figure 3 presents XPS results to clarify the carbon bonding characteristics. Similar to previous studies [14, 16], 284.7 ± 0.2 and 285.6 Ketotifen ± 0.2 eV components in C1s spectra are attributed to sp 2 and sp 3

bonds [22], namely, sp 2 hybridization of carbon atoms and sp 3 hybridization of C-C or C-H bonds, respectively [23]. The fitting results show that the fraction of the sp 2 bond is more than 80%, confirming the NCG formation on MgF2. Figure 3 C1 s XPS spectra of graphitic carbon on MgF 2 . The dashed line is a fit with four Lorentzian functions. The two strongest peaks (centered at 284.6 eV (red) and 285.8 eV (green)) are assigned to sp 2 and sp 3 hybridized carbon atoms, respectively. The fraction of the sp 2 bond is estimated to be 80.1%. Finally, Figure 4 shows AFM images before and after the NCG growth on MgF2. Unlike crystalline and amorphous oxide substrates, the mean roughness parameter, R a, of the MgF2 substrate is large. The R a of NCG (2.45 nm over 1 × 1 μm scan) is even larger by an order of magnitude than those NCGs on oxide substrates [14–16]. It is not clear why the surface morphology is worse while the Raman spectra indicate a better crystallinity. We hope that the understanding of NCG growth on MgF2 can lead to better NCG or possibly graphene growth on other (flat) dielectrics. Figure 4 AFM images of graphitic carbon on MgF 2 . AFM images of 1 × 1 μm (a) before and (b) after the graphitic carbon growth on MgF2.