Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 298

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Graphite and Hexagonal Boron-Nitride have the Same Interlayer Distance. Why?

Open access
Hod, Oded·2012·Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation

Abstract

Graphite and hexagonal boron nitride (h-BN) are two prominent members of the family of layered materials possessing a hexagonal lattice structure. While graphite has nonpolar homonuclear C-C intralayer bonds, h-BN presents highly polar B-N bonds resulting in different optimal stacking modes of the two materials in the bulk form. Furthermore, the static polarizabilities of the constituent atoms considerably differ from each other, suggesting large differences in the dispersive component of the interlayer bonding. Despite these major differences, both materials present practically identical interlayer distances. To understand this finding, a comparative study of the nature of the interlayer bonding in both materials is presented. A full lattice sum of the interactions between the partially charged atomic centers in h-BN results in vanishingly small contributions to the interlayer binding energy. Higher order electrostatic multipoles, exchange, and short-range correlation Kohn-Sham contributions are found to be very similar in both materials and to almost completely cancel out by the kinetic energy term, which partly represents the effects of Pauli repulsions, at physically relevant interlayer distances, resulting in a marginal effective contribution to the interlayer binding. Further analysis of the dispersive energy term reveals that despite the large differences in the individual atomic polarizabilities, the heteroatomic B-N C6 coefficient is very similar to the homoatomic C-C coefficient in the hexagonal bulk form, resulting in very similar dispersive contribution to the interlayer binding. The overall binding energy curves of both materials are thus very similar, predicting practically the same interlayer distance and very similar binding energies. The conclusions drawn here regarding the role of electrostatic interactions between partially charged atomic centers for the interlayer binding of h-BN are of a general nature and are expected to hold true for many other polar layered systems.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/ct200880m

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Hod, O.
Venue
Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation
Published
2012-02-24
Volume
8
Issue
4
Pages
1360-1369
ISSN
  • 1549-9618 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-9626
OpenAlex
W2062626798
Cited by
298
References
3
FWCI
7.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.