Nanoscale Friction Behavior of Transition-Metal Dichalcogenides: Role of the Chalcogenide

Mohammad R. Vazirisereshk,Kathryn Hasz,Meng-Qiang Zhao,A. T. Charlie Johnson,Robert W. Carpick,Ashlie Martini
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.0c07558
IF: 17.1
2020-10-22
ACS Nano
Abstract:Despite extensive research on the tribological properties of MoS<sub>2</sub>, the frictional characteristics of other members of the transition-metal dichalcogenide (TMD) family have remained relatively unexplored. To understand the effect of the chalcogen on the tribological behavior of these materials and gain broader general insights into the factors controlling friction at the nanoscale, we compared the friction force behavior for a nanoscale single asperity sliding on MoS<sub>2</sub>, MoSe<sub>2</sub>, and MoTe<sub>2</sub> in both bulk and monolayer forms through a combination of atomic force microscopy experiments and molecular dynamics simulations. Experiments and simulations showed that, under otherwise identical conditions, MoS<sub>2</sub> has the highest friction among these materials and MoTe<sub>2</sub> has the lowest. Simulations complemented by theoretical analysis based on the Prandtl–Tomlinson model revealed that the observed friction contrast between the TMDs was attributable to their lattice constants, which differed depending on the chalcogen. While the corrugation amplitudes of the energy landscapes are similar for all three materials, larger lattice constants permit the tip to slide more easily across correspondingly wider saddle points in the potential energy landscape. These results emphasize the critical role of the lattice constant, which can be the determining factor for frictional behavior at the nanoscale.The Supporting Information is available free of charge at <a class="ext-link" href="/doi/10.1021/acsnano.0c07558?goto=supporting-info">https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.0c07558</a>.Schematic of the AFM experimental and MD simulation setups; friction polar plots in experiment and simulation; friction comparison between MoS<sub>2</sub> and MoSe<sub>2</sub> monolayers at different scanning speed; contact area calculation; out of plane deformation calculation; discussion on the role of tip structure in sample PES distortion; parameters used in 2D PTT numerical analysis; friction map as a function of energy barrier and lattice constant obtained from PTT model at 1 K; microscope images and Raman spectra of CVD grown MoS<sub>2</sub> and MoSe<sub>2</sub> monolayers; atomic lattice resolved AFM image and evidence of the hexagonal lattice structure; and Lennard-Jones potential parameter used in MD simulations (<a class="ext-link" href="/doi/suppl/10.1021/acsnano.0c07558/suppl_file/nn0c07558_si_001.pdf">PDF</a>)Movie S1: Animations showing the time evolution of the tip trajectory over the PES of MoS<sub>2</sub> (<a class="ext-link" href="/doi/suppl/10.1021/acsnano.0c07558/suppl_file/nn0c07558_si_002.mp4">MP4</a>)Movie S2: Animations showing the time evolution of the tip trajectory over the PES of MoSe<sub>2</sub> (<a class="ext-link" href="/doi/suppl/10.1021/acsnano.0c07558/suppl_file/nn0c07558_si_003.mp4">MP4</a>)Movie S3: Animations showing the time evolution of the tip trajectory over the PES of MoTe<sub>2</sub> (<a class="ext-link" href="/doi/suppl/10.1021/acsnano.0c07558/suppl_file/nn0c07558_si_004.mp4">MP4</a>)This article has not yet been cited by other publications.
materials science, multidisciplinary,chemistry, physical,nanoscience & nanotechnology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?