Journal of the Physical Society of Japan

Vol. 75, No. 7, July, 2006, 074716

#2006 The Physical Society of Japan

Screening Eect and Impurity Scattering in Monolayer Graphene

Tsuneya A NDO
Department of Physics, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1 Ookayama, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 152-8551
(Received April 9, 2006; accepted May 19, 2006; published July 10, 2006)
The static polarization function is calculated in two-dimensional graphite and used for the calculation
of the conductivity limited by charged-impurity scattering. The conductivity increases in proportion to
the electron concentration and the mobility remains independent of the Fermi energy, in qualitative
agreement with experiments. The screening increases in proportion to temperature at suciently high
temperatures in contrast to the behavior in conventional two-dimensional systems, leading to the
mobility increase proportional to the square of temperature.

KEYWORDS: two-dimensional graphite, screening effect, charged impurity, mobility

DOI: 10.1143/JPSJ.75.074716

1. Introduction 2. Screening Eect

Quite recently, an atomically thin graphene, or a single 2.1 Eective-mass description
layer graphite, was successfully fabricated,1) in contrast to In a graphite sheet the conduction and valence bands
several-layer graphite in previous works,2,3) and the magne- consisting of  orbitals cross at K and K0 points of the
totransport was measured and the integer quantum Hall Brillouin zone, where the Fermi level is located.15,16)
eect was observed.4,5) In an eective-mass approximation, Electronic states of the -bands near a K point are described
an electron in a graphite monolayer is described by Weyls by the kp equation:1720)
equation for a massless neutrino. Transport properties in
H 0 Fr "Fr; 2:1
such an exotic electronic structure are quite intriguing, and
the conductivity with/without a magnetic eld including the with
!
Hall eect,610) quantum corrections to the conductivity,11,12) 0 k^x  ik^y
and the dynamical transport9,13) were investigated theoret- H0  x k^x y k^y ; 2:2
ically. The results show that the two-dimensional graphite k^x ik^y 0
exhibits various characteristic behaviors dierent from con- where  is a band parameter, x and y are the Pauli spin
ventional two-dimensional systems.14) The purpose of this matrices, and k^ k^x ; k^y ir is a wave-vector operator.
paper is to study screening eect and roles of charged- The wave function is written as
impurity scattering.
1
The two-dimensional graphite is often called a zero-gap Fsk r Fsk expik  r; 2:3
semiconductor because the density of states vanishes at L
zero energy in proportion to the linear power of the energy. with
The Boltzmann conductivity if calculated properly remains  
1 eik
independent of the energy for scatterers with strength Fsk p ; 2:4
2 s
independent of the electron concentration.6) This is a result
of the fact that the scattering probability proportional to the where L2 is the area of the system, s 1 and 1 denote
density of states cancels the increase of the density of states. the conduction and valence bands, respectively, and
Because of the vanishing density of states at zero energy, kx k cos k ;
however, the conductivity exhibits a singular behavior in its
ky k sin k ; 2:5
vicinity. A calculation in a self-consistent Born approxima- q
tion shows that the conductivity exhibits a sharp drop to a k kx2 ky2 :
universal value e2 =2 h .6) This behavior was observed
recently,4,5) although the actual value of the conductivity The corresponding energy is given by
minimum is larger than predicted.
"sk s"k ; 2:6
In addition to this slight dierence in the conductivity dip,
the experiments show that the conductivity does not exhibit with
a saturation and increases almost in proportion to the
"k jkj: 2:7
electron concentration.4,5) In this paper we consider charged
impurities as a possible candidate for dominant scatterers The Schrodinger equation for the K0 point is given by
in the system and calculate the corresponding conductivity. replacing y by y in the above and therefore the
Because the screening eect is known to be of vital impor- corresponding wave functions are obtained easily in a
tance for charged impurities, we have to study the static similar manner. The density of states is given by
polarization function. It is revealed that the screening j"j
property in the two-dimensional graphite exhibits behavior D" gv gs ; 2:8
2 2
signicantly dierent from that in conventional two-dimen-
sional metals. with the valley degeneracy gv 2 due to the K and K0 points
074716-1
J. Phys. Soc. Jpn., Vol. 75, No. 7 T. ANDO

   1
"sk  
fsk f "sk  exp 1 ; 2:13
kB T
F
ky with  being the chemical potential, T the temperature, and
kx kB the Boltzmann constant. Because the system is isotropic,
D() the polarization function is determined by q  jqj, as can
easily be proved by the above expression.
First, we dene
gv gs X 0 jFysk  Fs0 kq j2
Fig. 1. A schematic illustration of the dispersion relation and the density 0 q   2 fsk  fs00 kq ; 2:14
of states of the two-dimensional graphite. L s;s0 ;k "sk  "s0 kq
where

s1k1 s2 k 2 sk 1 s 1;
fsk0 2:15
0 s 1.
This 0 q describes eects of polarization of electrons in
the valence band due to virtual interband transitions into the
s2'k2+q conduction band. It is calculated as
s1'k1+q s k+q
Z
(a) (b) 0 dk 1 1  cosk  kq
 q 2gv gs
22 2 jkj jk qj
Fig. 2. The matrix element of the Coulomb interaction (a) and the g v gs q
diagram of the polarization function (b). : 2:16
16
This result has been obtained previously.22,23)
and the spin degeneracy gs 2. The energy dispersion and Because this polarization function is proportional to q, its
the density of states are illustrated in Fig. 1. eect can be incorporated into the renormalization of the
eective dielectric constant 0 to , with
2.2 Coulomb Interaction
 2
The matrix element for the interaction shown in Fig. 2 is 1 gv gs U0 ; 2:17
given by 0 4
Vs01 k1 q;s1 k1 s2 k2 ;s02 k2 q where the dimensionless interaction parameter U0 is dened
2:9 by
2e2 y
Fs0 ;k1 q  Fs1 ;k1 Fys2 ;k2  Fs02 ;k2 q ; e2
0 q 1
U0 : 2:18
with 20 
For the
1 p band parameter  6:46 eVA, corresponding to
Fysk Fs0 k 0 expik  ik0 ss0 ; 2:10  3=20 a with 0 3:03 eV and a 2:46 A , where
2
0 is the transfer integral between
p  orbitals of nearest-
where 0 is the static dielectric constant. If we neglect neighbor carbon atoms and a= 3 is their distance, we have
eects of polarization inside the two-dimensional graphite U0 0:3545=0 . For 0  2:5, we have U0  0:14, giving
completely, the screening constant is given by the average of =0  2:4 or   6:0. Correspondingly, the renormalized
that of the substrate SiO2 , ox 3:9, and that of the vacuum interaction parameter dened by
due to the image eect,14) i.e., 0 ox 1=2  2:5. e2
Actually, we have to consider contributions of electrons U ; 2:19
2
in  bands and  bands away from the Fermi level. This
contribution is known to be 0  2:4 in bulk graphite,21) becomes U  0:06. Eects of interband polarization can be
but is not known for the present system and may not fully included by using these  and U instead of 0 and U0 .
be written as in eq. (2.9). In spite of this, we shall use In the following we shall conne ourselves to the case that
eq. (2.9) assuming that 0 can be larger than that estimated the Fermi level lies in the conduction band. Dene
above.
f~sk fsk  f 0 : sk 2:20
2.3 Polarization Function Then, we have
The static dielectric function is written as gv gs X ~ ~ jFysk  Fs0 kq j2
q  f  f 0
s kq : 2:21
2e2 L2 s;s0 ;k sk "sk  "s0 kq
"q 1 q; 2:11
0 q This can be rewritten as
where the polarization function is given by gv gs X ~ jFs;k  Fs0 ;kq j2
y

gv g s X jFysk  Fs0 kq j2 q 2 f : 2:22

q  2 fsk  fs0 kq ; 2:12 L2 s;s0 ;k sk "sk  "s0 kq
L s;s0 ;k "sk  "s0 kq
Substituting eq. (2.10) and performing the summation over
where fsk is the Fermi distribution function, s0 1, we have
074716-2
J. Phys. Soc. Jpn., Vol. 75, No. 7 T. ANDO

gv gs X qs
q 2 f "k "q 1 ; 2:30
L2 k q
jkj jk qj cosk  kq
; 2:23 where qs is called the screening constant given by
 2 jkj2   2 jk qj2
2e2
with qs 0: 2:31
X 
f "k  s f~sk f "k f "k 2: 2:24 It is easily shown that
s1  
Z 1
@ f "
The integration over the direction of q can be performed 0  D" d"; 2:32
1 @"
easily and we have
gv gs which is known as the compressibility sum-rule.
q The above results show that the static polarization func-
2
2 s 3 tion vanishes identically for " 0 at the absolute zero of
Z1 Z q=2  2
2k temperature, meaning that the screening is totally absent
4 f "k dk  f "k 1  dk5: 2:25
0 0 q to the linear order except for the renormalization of the
dielectric constant mentioned above. This corresponds to the
At the absolute zero of temperature, we have inadequate linear screening noted previously in graphite
 intercalation compounds.24) When the Fermi level is away
1 " < "F ;
f " 2:26 from " 0 or at nonzero temperatures, however, the linear
0 " > "F .
polarization function does not vanish and the linear screen-
For q < 2kF , therefore, we have ing is expected to become appropriate.
  Let us consider the case that the Fermi level "F lies in the
gv gs k F  q
q 1 ; 2:27 conduction band at zero temperature. The chemical potential
2 4 2kF
 is determined by the condition
and for q > 2kF , on the other hand, we have Z1
1  1 "2F
gv gs k F ns f "" d" : 2:33
q 2 2 0 2 2 2
2
2 s 3 with
 2
1 2kF 1 q 2kF
41  1  sin1 5; 2:28 f  " f "  f " 2; 2:34
2 q 2 2kF q
where ns is the electron concentration. This gives
with the Fermi wavenumber kF "F =. At q 2kF , it
2 kB T2
becomes  "F  ; 2:35
  6 "F
gv gs k F 
2kF 1 ; 2:29 at low temperatures (kB T
"F ), and
2 4
1 "2F
and the rst derivative is also continuous. This behavior is  : 2:36
quite dierent from that in conventional two-dimensional 4 ln 2 kB T
metals where the polarization function is constant for q < at high temperatures (kB T  "F ).
2kF and decreases for q > 2kF with a divergent rst Correspondingly, the screening constant, i.e., the long-
derivative at q 2kF .14) wavelength polarization function, becomes
"   #
The reason lies in the vanishing Coulomb matrix element gv gs " F  2 kB T 2
for the backward scattering k ! k as shown by eq. (2.10). 0 1  ; 2:37
2 2 6 "F
The polarization function is dominated by virtual transitions
between states with similar energy because of small energy at low temperatures and
denominator. Such energy conserving processes are present gv gs
only for q < 2kF and disappear suddenly at q 2kF . This 0  2 ln 2 kB T: 2:38
2 2
singular behavior is known to be the origin of the large Kohn
anomaly in two-dimensional systems.14) In two-dimensional at high temperatures. In conventional systems, the screening
graphite, the contributions of energy conserving processes constant at high temperatures (DebyeHuckel) is propor-
become weaker with the increase of q even for q < 2kF tional to the inverse of temperature. In the present system,
because of the decrease of the matrix element for large angle the situation is completely dierent and the screening in-
scattering, leading to the decrease of q for q < 2kF . At creases in proportion to the temperature. This is a direct
q 2kF , the matrix element of energy conserving processes consequence of the linear energy dependence of the density
vanishes identically due to the absence of backscattering of states and the presence of the Dirac sea below " 0.
and therefore no strong singular behavior can appear at q Figure 3 shows the temperature dependence of the
2kF . screening constant, i.e., long-wavelength limit of the polar-
In the long-wavelength limit, the dielectric function is ization function, together with the chemical potential. The
written as screening constant takes a small minimum around kB T="F 
0:5 and increases linearly at high temperatures. Figure 4
074716-3
J. Phys. Soc. Jpn., Vol. 75, No. 7 T. ANDO

3.0 1.0 with

(0) 2
Screening Constant (units of gvgse2F/ 2)

(4ln2)-1(F/kBT)
Ws0 k0 ; sk hjVs0 k0 ;sk j2 i"sk  "s0 k0 ; 3:2
2.5 h

Chemical Potential (units of F)

where Vs0 k0 ;sk is the matrix element of scattering potential
and h  i denotes the average over congurations of scat-
2.0
terers. We shall conne ourselves to the case of elastic
scattering and therefore neglect interband processes (s0 6 s).
1.5 0.5 To the lowest order in the applied electric eld E, we have
fskE f "sk gsk ; 3:3
1.0 where f " is the Fermi distribution function and gsk is the
deviation proportional to E. Then, we have
dk @ fskE @f e @gsk
0.5  eE  vsk  vsk B  ; 3:4
dt @k @"sk ch @k
2ln2 kBT/F
where B is the magnetic eld perpendicular to the system
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 and vsk is the velocity given by
Temperature (units of F /kB) @"sk  sk
vsk : 3:5
h @k h jkj
Fig. 3. Calculated temperature dependence of the long-wavelength di-
electric function 0 and chemical potential . The dotted lines denote The vector product is dened as v B B v Bvy ;
the approximate results at zero and high temperatures. vx for vector v vx ; vy .
The transport equation is rewritten as
 
@f e @gsk
1.5 eE  vsk  vsk B 
@"sk ch @k
Z 3:6
Polarization Function (units of gvgsF/2 2)

kBT/F dk0 2 2
 g sk  g sk 0 hjV 0
sk ;sk j i" sk  " sk 0 :
1.2 22 h
1.0
Introduce the relaxation time given by
0.8 Z
1.0 h dk0
0.6 2 hjVsk0 ;sk j2 i
0.4 "sk 22
0.2 1  cosk  k0 "sk  "sk0 ; 3:7
0.0
and the cyclotron frequency

0.5 eBv2
!c "sk ; 3:8
c"sk
with

v  jvsk j : 3:9
h
0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Then, the solution becomes
Wave Vector (units of kF)    
@f 1 B
gsk e  v sk  E ! c E ;
Fig. 4. The polarization function as a function of the wave vector at @"sk 1 !2c 2 B
dierent temperatures. It does not exhibit an apparent singularity at 3:10
q=kF 2 even at zero temperature.
with !c !c "sk and "sk . It should be noted that
the cyclotron frequency diverges in proportion to the inverse
shows the polarization function as a function of the wave of the energy at zero energy and changes the signature
vector at dierent temperatures. corresponding to change in the carrier type from an electron
to a hole.
3. Impurity Scattering Dene
3.1 Boltzmann transport equation Z 
gv gs @f
The Boltzmann transport equation for the distribution D  j"j d"; 3:11
2 2 @"
function fskE is given by
and the average of function p" by
dk @ fskE X Z dk0 Z 
  1 @ f gv gs
dt @k s0 22 3:1 hp"i   j"jp" d": 3:12
D @" 2 2
fskE 1  fsE0 k0  fsE0 k0 1  fskE Ws0 k0 ; sk;
Then, we have the diagonal conductivity
074716-4
J. Phys. Soc. Jpn., Vol. 75, No. 7 T. ANDO

 Z  2
e2  2 h 
d 1 2e2
xx yy 
D ; 3:13 2ni D" 1  cos2  : 3:23
2h 2 1 !2c 2 " 0  2 q"q
and the Hall conductivity where ni is the concentration of impurities and q
2 2  2 2"= sin=2 in the integrand. This equation shows that
e  !c
xy yx  2 D : 3:14 the probability of backward scattering   vanishes
2h 1 !2c 2
identically, which corresponds to the absence of back-
These are essentially the same as the expressions in scattering in metallic carbon nanotubes.20,25)
conventional semiconductors or metals except that !c The relaxation time can be rewritten as
depends strongly on the energy while the velocity remains ns h
independent. " H"; 3:24
gv gs ni j"j
The Hall coecient is given by
yx with the dimensionless quantity H" dened by
RH  ; 3:15 Z
2 2
Bxx d 1
xy H"1 1  cos2 
0  2
and the Hall mobility is given by  2
1 q ~ q

cjRH j0 : 3:16 gv g s  ; 3:25
2U "F
At zero temperature in weak magnetic elds, we have where ~ q is the dimensionless quantity dened by
s gv gs "F ~
RH  ; 3:17 q  q: 3:26
ns ec 2 2
with the electron concentration given by eq. (2.33). The Hall At zero temperature, H0  H"F is independent of the
mobility becomes electron concentration and determined by U alone. The
mobility becomes
ev2

0 "F ; 3:18 e
"F
0 H0 ; 3:27
42 h ni
and then the conductivity is given by
which is independent of ns . The conductivity becomes
0 ns e
; 3:19
e 2 ns
as in conventional two-dimensional systems. 0 H0 ; 3:28
As mentioned above, the cyclotron frequency !c " 42 h ni
diverges at " 0 and as will become clear in the following which is proportional to ns . Figure 5 shows H0 as a function
the relaxation time " diverges also. As a result, the of U. It is clear that H0 increases in proportion to U 2 for
integral over the energy giving the Hall conductivity in small U and approaches a constant for suciently large U.
eq. (3.14) and the eld-dependent part of the diagonal For U  0:06, we have H0  120.
conductivity in eq. (3.13) diverges at " 0 at nonzero
temperatures if we neglect !2c 2 in the denominator. Thus,
the Hall coecient and mobility and the magnetoresistivity
T=0
can exhibit a singular behavior in the limit of vanishing
magnetic eld. As will be shown below, however, this 103
Conductivity (units of nse2/42hni)

singularity is weak for charged-impurity scattering and

easily washed out if eects of a nonzero density of states
at " 0 are considered.6)

3.2 Charged impurity scattering

The Fourier transform of the potential of a charged
impurity is given by 102

2e2
Vi0 q : 3:20
q
Then the matrix element becomes
2e2 y
s0 k qjVi0 jsk Fs0 kq  Fsk : 3:21
q
101
In the presence of the screening eect, this is modied as 10-2 10-1 100 101
Coulomb Interaction: U
2e2
s0 k qjVi jsk Fy0  Fsk : 3:22
q"q s kq Fig. 5. The dimensionless conductivity H"F as a function of the
eective Coulomb interaction U at zero temperature. It is proportional
With the use of eq. (2.10), the transport relaxation time for to U 2 for small U and approaches a constant due to the screening for
energy " (" > 0) is given by large U.

074716-5
J. Phys. Soc. Jpn., Vol. 75, No. 7 T. ANDO

105

Inverse Hall Coefficient (units of -nsec)

kBT/F
0.01
101 1.00
Conductivity (units of nse2/42hni)

0.02
0.50
0.05
104 0.20
0.10
0.10
0.20

103

102
100

U= 0.05
101
10-1 100 101 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

Temperature (units of F/kB) Magnetic Field: c00

Fig. 6. The conductivity limited by charged-impurity scattering as a Fig. 8. The inverse of the Hall coecient limited by charged-impurity
function of the temperature. scattering as a function of a magnetic eld at dierent temperatures.
U 0:05.

1.0
temperature. We have assumed U 0:05 (slightly smaller
U= 0.05
than 0.06 for 0 2:5). Results for dierent values of U are
Conductivities: xx & -xy [units of (T)]

qualitatively the same. The diagonal conductivity exhibits

xx(T)
0.5
-xy(T)
0.0
0.0
Magnetic Field: c00
Fig. 7. The diagonal and Hall conductivity limited by charged-impurity
scattering as a function of the eective magnetic eld at various
temperatures. T is the conductivity in the absence of a magnetic eld.
!c0 !c "F . 0 "F . U 0:05.
The temperature dependence of the conductivity for a
xed electron concentration is shown in Fig. 6. At low
temperatures kB T="F < 0:5, the conductivity decreases
slightly with temperature because of the decrease of the
screening eect as shown in Figs. 3 and 4. At suciently
high temperatures the conductivity increases roughly in
proportion to T 2 because of the increase of the screening
eect and also of the average kinetic energy. The con-
ductivity takes a shallow minimum around kB T="F  0:5.
Figure 7 shows the diagonal and Hall conductivity as
a function of the eective magnetic eld !c0 0 at various
temperatures, where !c0 !c "F and 0 "F at zero
the usual behavior / 1 !2c0 02 1 at suciently low
temperatures, but its feature deviates considerably at high
kBT/F
0.10 temperatures. In fact, the conductivity decreases with the
0.20 eld rapidly particularly in the vicinity of zero eld because
0.50 the contribution in the vicinity of zero energy drops rapidly
1.00
due to the divergent cyclotron frequency. In high magnetic
elds, on the other hand, contributions of states with higher
energies with small !c become important and the conduc-
tivity-decrease becomes slower. The Hall conductivity starts
to decrease when holes start to be populated in the valence
band (kB T="F  1) due to the cancellation of contributions
of electrons and holes (two-carrier regime).
Figure 8 shows the inverse of the Hall coecient. It
exhibits a large eld dependence in the low-eld regime
1.0 2.0 3.0 at low temperatures due to the contribution of states near
" 0. At higher temperatures the Hall coecient is reduced
considerably due to the cancellation of electron and hole
contributions. Figure 9 shows the Hall mobility. It exhibits a
singular increase near zero eld again due to the contribution
of states " 0, but the singularity is weak and can be
smeared out easily by nonzero density of states at " 0. At
higher temperatures it is reduced considerably due to the
cancellation of electron and hole contributions.
4. Discussion
In the previous calculation of the conductivity,6) short-
range scatterers with amplitude independent of the electron
concentration were assumed. In this case the scattering
probability h = "F is proportional to the nal-state density
of states with a coecient independent of "F . Because the
density of states is proportional to "F , the relaxation time
is inversely proportional to "F . As a result the mobility is
inversely proportional to ns / "2F , leading to the conductivity
independent of the Fermi energy and the electron concen-
074716-6
J. Phys. Soc. Jpn., Vol. 75, No. 7
1.5
kBT/F
Hall Mobility (units of 0)
1.0
0.5
U= 0.05
0.0
0.0 0.5
Magnetic Field: c00
Fig. 9. The Hall mobility limited by charged-impurity scattering as a
function of a magnetic eld at dierent temperatures.
0 is dened in Center, Institute for Solid State Physics, University of
eq. (3.27). U 0:05.
tration. For charged-impurity scattering, the matrix element
itself is proportional to the inverse of the Fermi energy both
in the presence and absence of screening. Consequently,
the low-temperature mobility becomes independent of the
electron concentration and the conductivity increases in
proportion to the electron or hole concentration ns .
Recent experiments seem to indicate that the mobility at
low ns decreases rapidly with increasing ns and nearly
converges at a value independent of ns for suciently large
ns .5) The rapid reduction at low ns is consistent with the
singular behavior predicted previously.6) The observed value
at high ns close to
 104 cm2 /Vs5) corresponds to the
impurity concentration of ni  4 1011 cm2 . Such amount
of impurities are highly likely to be present on a substrate
surface. It is interesting that this concentration is comparable
to the concentration of charged impurities present in the
vicinity of the Si and SiO2 interface in typical MOSFETs.14)
The singularity appearing in the magnetoconductivity in
weak magnetic elds at nonzero temperatures should be
removed by nonvanishing density of states in actual systems
with disorder.13) This nonzero density of states causes a
singular drop of the conductivity from the Boltzmann value
to a universal value e2 =h in the vicinity of zero energy.6)
The observed minimum conductivity at zero energy4,5) is
3 4 times as large as the predicted conductivity for model
short-range scatterers.6) It is dicult to discuss this con-
ductivity in the vicinity of zero energy assuming realistic
charged-impurity scattering, because a self-consistent deter-
mination of the screening and the density of states is
necessary. Further, the linear screening may not be valid
near "  0.24) This problem is left for a future study.
T. ANDO
5. Summary and Conclusion
0.10 The static dielectric function has been calculated in a
0.20
0.50 monolayer graphite system and shown to be considerably
1.00 dierent from that in conventional two-dimensional systems
mainly due to the absence of backward scattering. The result
has been used for the calculation of transport coecients
based on a Boltzmann transport equation. The mobility
limited by charged impurities is shown to be independent
of the electron concentration, leading to the conductivity
proportional to the electron concentration. This dependence
is consistent with recent experimental results.
Acknowledgments
The author thanks useful discussion with Mikito Koshino
and Hidekatsu Suzuura. This work was supported in part by
a 21st Century COE Program at Tokyo Tech Nanometer-
1.0
Scale Quantum Physics and by Grant-in-Aid for Scientic
Research from Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology Japan. Numerical calculations were
performed in part using the facilities of the Supercomputer
Tokyo.
1) K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, D. Jiang, Y. Zhang,
S. V. Dubonos, I. V. Grigorieva and A. A. Firsov: Science 306 (2004)
666.
2) C. Berger, Z. Song, T. Li, X. Li, A. Y. Ogbazghi, R. Feng, Z. Dai,
A. N. Marchenkov, E. H. Conrad, P. N. First and W. A. de Heer:
J. Phys. Chem. B 108 (2004) 19912.
3) Y. Zhang, J. P. Small, W. V. Pontius and P. Kim: Appl. Phys. Lett. 86
(2005) 073104.
4) K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, D. Jiang, M. I.
Katsnelson, I. V. Grigorieva, S. V. Dubonos and A. A. Firsov: Nature
438 (2005) 197.
5) Y. Zhang, Y.-W. Tan, H. L. Stormer and P. Kim: Nature 438 (2005)
201.
6) N. H. Shon and T. Ando: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 67 (1998) 2421.
7) Y. Zheng and T. Ando: Phys. Rev. B 65 (2002) 245420.
8) V. P. Gusynin and S. G. Sharapov: Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 (2005) 146801.
9) N. M. R. Peres, F. Guinea and A. H. Castro Neto: Phys. Rev. B 73
(2006) 125411.
10) H. Kumazaki and D. S. Hirashima: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 75 (2006)
053707.
11) H. Suzuura and T. Ando: Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 266603.
12) E. McCann, K. Kechedzhi, V. I. Falko, H. Suzuura, T. Ando and B. L.
Altshuler: cond-mat/0604015.
13) T. Ando, Y. Zheng and H. Suzuura: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 71 (2002) 1318.
14) T. Ando, A. B. Fowler and F. Stern: Rev. Mod. Phys. 54 (1982) 437.
15) P. R. Wallace: Phys. Rev. 71 (1947) 622.
16) G. S. Painter and D. E. Ellis: Phys. Rev. B 1 (1970) 4747.
17) J. W. McClure: Phys. Rev. 108 (1957) 612.
18) J. C. Slonczewski and P. R. Weiss: Phys. Rev. 109 (1958) 272.
19) H. Ajiki and T. Ando: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 62 (1993) 1255.
20) T. Ando: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 74 (2005) 777.
21) E. A. Taft and H. R. Philipp: Phys. Rev. 138 (1965) A197.
22) J. Gonzalez, F. Guinea and M. A. H. Vozmediano: Nucl. Phys. B 424
(1994) 595.
23) J. Gonzalez, F. Guinea and M. A. H. Vozmediano: Phys. Rev. B 59
(1999) 2474.
24) D. P. DiVincenzo and E. J. Mele: Phys. Rev. B 29 (1984) 1685.
25) T. Ando and T. Nakanishi: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 67 (1998) 1704.
074716-7