Table 1 Summary of the properties of each commercially available chemical vapour deposition (CVD)-grown hexagonal boron nitride (h-BN) samples

From: On the quality of commercial chemical vapour deposited hexagonal boron nitride

   

Coverage

Thickness

Onset potential

   

Value

Method

Value

Method

Value

Method

Monolayer

Supplier 1

Specification

90–95%

Not specified

Monolayer

Not specified

0.21 ± 0.08 V *

CAFM

Measured

~80%

CAFM, TEM

~2 nm

TEM

0.78 ± 0.88 V

CAFM

Supplier 2

Specification

100%

Not specified

Monolayer

Not specified

0.21 ± 0.08 V *

CAFM

Measured

100%

CAFM, TEM

0.33–1.32 nm

TEM

4.20 ± 1.23 V

CAFM

Supplier 3

Specification

100%

Not specified

Monolayer

Not specified

0.21 ± 0.08 V*

CAFM

Measured

100%

CAFM, SEM

Not measured

–

2.47 ± 0.88 V

CAFM

Supplier 4

Specification

90–95%

Not specified

Monolayer

Not specified

0.21 ± 0.08 V*

CAFM

Measured

100%

CAFM, SEM

Not measured

–

2.56 ± 1.35 V

CAFM

Supplier 5

Specification

Not specified

–

Monolayer

Not specified

0.21 ± 0.08 V *

CAFM

Measured

100%

CAFM, SEM

Not measured

–

2.33 ± 0.81 V

CAFM

Supplier 6

Specification

Not specified

–

Monolayer

Not specified

0.21 ± 0.08 V *

CAFM

Measured

100%

CAFM, SEM

Not measured

–

6.94 ± 1.33 V

CAFM

Supplier 7

Specification

Not specified

–

Monolayer

Not specified

0.21 ± 0.08 V *

CAFM

Measured

100%

CAFM, SEM

Not measured

–

4.05 ± 0.81 V

CAFM

Supplier 8

Specification

Not specified

–

Monolayer

Not specified

0.21 ± 0.08 V*

CAFM

Measured

100%

CAFM, SEM

Not measured

–

1.51 ± 1.02 V

CAFM

Supplier 9

Specification

~100 %

Not specified

Monolayer

Not specified

0.21 ± 0.08 V *

CAFM

Measured

100%

CAFM, SEM

Not measured

–

3.25 ± 0.91 V

CAFM

Multilayer

Supplier 1

Sample 1

Specification

Not specified

–

Average 13 nm

AFM

12 V*

CAFM

Measured

100%

CAFM, TEM

~1.7 nm

TEM

1.63 ± 1.02 V

CAFM

Supplier 1

Sample 2

Specification

Not specified

–

Average 13 nm

AFM

12 V *

CAFM

Measured

100%

CAFM, TEM

~4.0 nm

TEM

2.68 ± 1.42 V

CAFM

Supplier 1

Sample 3

Specification

Not specified

–

Average 13 nm

AFM

12 V*

CAFM

Measured

100%

CAFM, TEM

~5.0 nm

TEM

4.25 ± 0.96 V

CAFM

Supplier 1

Sample 4

Specification

Not specified

–

Average 13 nm

AFM

12 V*

CAFM

Measured

100%

CAFM, TEM

~7.0 nm

TEM

5.12 ± 1.37 V

CAFM

Supplier 1

Sample 5

Specification

Not specified

–

Average 13 nm

AFM

12 V*

CAFM

Measured

100%

CAFM, TEM

~8.3 m

TEM

6.09 ± 0.68 V

CAFM

Supplier 4

Specification

Not specified

–

13 nm

Not specified

12 V *

CAFM

Measured

100%

CAFM, SEM

Not measured

–

5.34 ± 0.47 V

CAFM

Supplier 5

Specification

Not specified

–

Not specified

–

Unknown

–

Measured

100%

CAFM, SEM

Not measured

–

3.25 ± 0.68 V

CAFM

Supplier 6

Specification

Not specified

–

Not specified

–

Unknown

–

Measured

100%

CAFM, SEM

Not measured

–

7.29 ± 0.79 V

CAFM

Supplier 7

Specification

Not specified

–

Not specified

–

Unknown

–

Measured

100%

CAFM, SEM

Not measured

–

5.74 ± 0.80 V

CAFM

Supplier 9

Specification

Not specified

–

≥10 nm

Not specified

10 V*

CAFM

Measured

100%

CAFM, SEM

Not measured

–

4.32 ± 1.09 V

CAFM

  1. The table summarizes the coverage and thickness of each sample as indicated by each supplier (in the product specifications) and measured in our lab. For the monolayer samples from Suppliers 1 and 2, we measured the physical thickness via cross-sectional transmission electron microscopy (TEM); as this technique is expensive and time-consuming, for the other monolayer samples we evaluated the thickness through the parameter onset potential (VON) and compared it with the VON measured in mechanically exfoliated monolayer h-BN (see Fig. 1f)25, highlighted in this table with the symbol “*”. The value of VON is defined as the minimum voltage detected when the current just exceeds the noise level (~3 pA). For the multilayer samples, Suppliers 2, 3 and 8 did not offer multilayers, so they are not in the table. Suppliers 5–7 did not specify the thickness, so we cannot compare VON. For the samples from Supplier 1, we measured the physical thickness via cross-sectional TEM; and for the samples from Suppliers 4 and 9, we compared the VON, as in the case of monolayer samples from Suppliers 3–9.
Back to article page