We demonstrate the importance of spin polarization using C 864 H 72 (6 nm) as an example (Fig. 2). From a spin-unpolarized calculation, we observe strong and localized edge states (Fig. 2e). These edge states contribute to high electron density along the edges of C 864 H 72 . Furthermore, these edge states become much stronger and more localized as the ZZGNF size increases.28 The presence of strong edge states makes the ZZGNF metallic at the nanoscale.35 The projected density of states (PDOS) of carbon edges of C 864 H 72 plotted in Fig. 2c clearly show a considerably high density of states (DOS) near the Fermi level. This figure confirms that C 864 H 72 is predicted to be metallic in a spin-unpolarized calculation. The metallic nature of the ZZGNF can be attributed to the presence of strong localized edge states.28

However, a spin-polarized calculation shows that half-filled metallic edge states are not stable, and can spontaneously split into two types of occupied and unoccupied states as shown in Fig. 2b, d. As a result, a magnetic configuration transition from a non-magnetic (NM) configuration to a magnetic configuration that exhibits intra-edge FM and inter-edge AFM characters can be observed in Fig. 2f. This transition can be interpreted as the consequence of Mott-type competition between the kinetic (hopping) energy and the intra-edge (on-site) electron–electron interaction energy as the system size increases. Lowering kinetic energy by increasing the system size tends to produce delocalized spin states across all edges, while reducing the electron–electron interaction energy as the system size tends to penalize simultaneous occupation of the same edge by spin up and spin down electrons. Both semi-local GGA-PBE and hybrid HSE06 calculations (the details are given in the Supplemental Material) indicate that for small systems, kinetic energy plays a more dominant role. This observation agrees with previous theoretical prediction of the NM configuration for hexagonal ZZGNFs.25,26,27,28,34,35 Only as the system size increases, the effective electron–electron interaction energy associated with the edge states starts to dominate and is ultimately responsible for this magnetic configuration transition.

Figure 1a shows the variation of relative energy of NM, AFM, and FM magnetic configurations in ZZGNFs and ZZGNRs, respectively, with respect to system size. Our calculations show that AFM states are much more stable than NM and FM states in large ZZGNFs, and a magnetic configuration transition occurs as the diameter of the ZZGNF becomes larger than 4.5 nm (C 486 H 54 ).31 We believe the FM coupling along each zigzag edge that belong to the same sublattice, are likely to be induced by intra-edge direct exchange interactions. The AFM coupling between two nearest-neighbor edges belonging to different sublattices are likely to be induced by inter-edge superexchange interactions facilitated by a carbon–carbon double bond (C=C) at the corner where two nearest-neighbor edges meet in ZZGNFs at the nanoscale. The local magnetic moment defined by M i = \(\mid < \hat n_{i \uparrow } >\) − \(< \hat n_{i \downarrow } > \mid\), where \(< \hat n_{i\sigma } >\) is spin electron density with σ = ↑ (spin-up) or ↓ (spin-down)), at the carbon atom i. Figure 2b shows the local magnetic moment of carbon in the the middle of each zigzag edge in ZZGNFs (with the largest magnetic moment) increases with the system size, and converges to 0.3μ B when the diameter is larger than than 6 nm (C 864 H 72 ). Furthermore, there is no charge transfer (\(< \hat n_{i \uparrow } >\) + \(< \hat n_{i \downarrow } >\) ≈ 4) between carbon atoms sitting on different edges that belong to the same or different sublattices in ZZGNFs as the system size increases.

Fig. 1 a Relative energy per edge atom (ΔE(AFM-NM) and ΔE(AFM-FM)) of NM, AFM, and FM coupling between different edges in ZZGNFs and ZZGNRs and (b) spin electron density \(< \hat n_{i\sigma } >\) (σ = ↑ (spin-up) or ↓ (spin-down)) at the carbon atom i in the middle of each zigzag edge in AFM ZZGNFs under the variation of the diameter size (ZZGNFs) or ribbon-width length size (ZZGNRs). The red and blue regions represent the stable NM (ΔE(AFM–NM) ≈ 0) and AFM (ΔE(AFM–NM) < 0) coupling between different edges in ZZGNFs, respectively. The critical temperature is estimated by the mean-field theory T = ΔE/k B , where k B is the Boltzmann constant Full size image

Fig. 2 Electronic structure of edge states in C 864 H 72 in two different magnetic configurations (NM and AFM), including the schematic illustration of orbital diagram of superexchange interaction of edge states in the (a) NM and (b) AFM configurations, projected density of states (PDOS) of edges in the (c) NM and (d) AFM configurations, (e) local density of states (LDOS) of Fermi level (pink isosurfaces) in the NM configuration and (f) spin density isosurfaces in the AFM configuration. The red and blue isosuraces in (f) represent the spin-up and spin-down states, respectively. The red and blue lines in (d) represent the PDOS contributed by sublattice A (spin-up edges) and B (spin-down edges) atoms in graphene, respectively. The fermi level is marked by green dotted lines and set to zero Full size image

Notice that the intra-edge direct exchange interaction via FM coupling along each zigzag edge in ZZGNFs is similar to that in ZZGNRs. However, the inter-edge superexchange interaction via AFM coupling between two nearest-neighbor edges through a C=C bond (Fig. 2a) in ZZGNFs can be stabilized at room temperature (298 K) and is much stronger than that via AFM coupling between two parallel edges though π-bonds in ZZGNRs as shown in Fig. 1a, where such AFM spin polarization weakens rapidly as the ribbon-width increases in ZZGNRs13 and cannot be stabilized even at ultra-low temperature (3 K).14 Our DFT calculations confirm that the energy difference associated with AFM and FM coupling between two parallel edges in large-scale 1D ZZGNRs is negligible compared to that reported in ZZGNFs.

The enhanced stability of spin-polarized ZZGNFs can be understood by using the Heisenberg model. We consider each FM edge as one site and enumerate all possible magnetic configurations, and the Hamiltonian can be written as

$$\hat H = - {\sum} {J_{i,j}} \overrightarrow {M_i} \overrightarrow {M_j}$$ (1)

where J i,j is the exchange parameter between two sites i and j, \(\overrightarrow {M_i}\) and \(\overrightarrow {M_j}\) are the corresponding spin magnetic moments. There are four different magnetic states in C 864 H 72 , there of which are AFM, AFM1, and AFM2 configurations and one is FM configuration as shown in Fig. 3. The total energies of magnetic configurations E(AFM), E(AFM1), E(AFM2), and E(FM) can be computed by DFT calculations, and the exchange parameters can be evaluated by solving the following least-squares-fitting problem36

$$\begin{array}{c}E({\mathrm{AFM}}) = (6J_1 - 6J_2 + 3J_3)M^2 + E_0\\ E({\mathrm{AFM1}}) = (2J_1 + 2J_2 - J_3)M^2 + E_0\\ E({\mathrm{AFM2}}) = ( - J_1 + 2J_2 + 3J_3)M^2 + E_0\\ E({\mathrm{FM}}) = ( - 6J_1 - 6J_2 - 3J_3)M^2 + E_0\end{array}$$ (2)

where J 1 , J 2 , and J 3 are ortho-edge, meta-edge, and para-edge exchange interaction parameters, respectively, M is the spin magnetic moment at each edge, and E 0 is the nonmagnetic reference total energy. The solution yields J 1 = −0.038351 eV, J 2 = 0.000954 eV, and J 3 = 0.001633 eV for two nearest-neighbor edges of C 864 H 72 , which are 10 times stronger than the exchange interaction parameters between two parallel edges in ZZGNFs and ZZGNRs. Therefore, ZZGNFs at the nanoscale have strong edge magnetism at room temperature and can be directly used in nanospintronics, superior to that in ZZGNRs at the nanoscale.7,13

Fig. 3 Spin density isosurfaces of hydrogen-passivated C 864 H 72 in four different magnetic states, three types of antiferromagnetic ((a) AFM, (b) AFM1, and (c) AFM2) and one type of ferromagnetic ((d) FM) coupling at the inter edges. The red and blue isosurfaces represent the spin-up and spin-down states, respectively Full size image

We perform ab initio molecular dynamics (AIMD) simulations on ZZGNFs and check the effect of temperature on electronic and magnetic properties of C 486 H 54 in different AFM and FM configurations (the details are given in the Supplemental Material). We find that the AFM configuration of C 486 H 54 can remain stable at room temperature of T = 300 K at least within 1.6 ps. Furthermore, the FM configuration of C 486 H 54 rapidly transfers into the AFM configuration within 30.0 fs at room temperature of T = 300 K. Furthermore, after t = 1.5 ps, C 486 H 54 is slightly bent,26 although it still keeps the AFM configuration.

We also check the effects of using different types of atoms (e.g., bare and fluorine) to passivate ZZGNFs, and how the shape (non-hexagonal) of ZZGNFs may alter their electronic and magnetic properties. We find that magnetic configuration transition (from NM to AFM) and semiconductor characteristics (The energy gaps of 0.54, 0.34, and 0.41 eV, respectively, for bare C 864 , fluorine-passivated C 864 F 72 and non-hexagonal C 839 H 71 ) of ZZGNFs are independent of the type of passivating atoms37 as plotted in Fig. 4. These properties suggest that it is relatively easy to create a chemical environment in which the synthesis of large scales ZZGNFs with tunable edge magnetism and energy gaps can be easily accommodated. The possibility of rapid synthesis makes ZZGNFs ideal candidates for electronic and spintronic devices.38

Fig. 4 Spin density isosurfaces and total density of states (TDOS) of (a) bare (C 864 ), (b) fluorine-passivated (C 864 F 72 ), and (c) non-hexagonal (C 839 H 71 ) ZZGNFs in the AFM configuration. The red and blue isosurfaces represent the spin-up and spin-down states, respectively. The energy differences (E AFM −E NM ) between AFM and NM configurations of these ZZGNFs are shown above the figures. For hexagonal hydrogen-passivated C 864 H 72 , ΔE(AFM−NM) = −17.9 meV. The fermi level is marked by green dotted lines and set to zero Full size image

We remark that magnetic configuration transition and the associated tunable electronic structures in ZZGNFs, especially energy gaps, can also be understood in terms of the Hubbard model.31 From our first principle calculations, we find that choosing the parameters t = 2.5 eV and U = 2.1 eV in the Hubbard model can well reproduce the size-dependent energy gaps (the details are given in the Supplemental Material). In Fig. 5, we plot how the HOMO-LUMO energy gap E g changes with respect to the size of ZZGNFs and ACGNFs in two different magnetic configurations (NM and AFM). Our DFT calculations and mean-field Hubbard model show similar results, i.e., the energy gap E g of ZZGNF decreases as its size increases. In particular, we find that the energy gap of NM ZZGNFs decreases more rapidly with respect to the system size than that of AFM ZZGNFs, due to the presence of edge states whose electron density near the edges of ZZGNFs as shown in Fig. 2e. This observation is consistent with previous results obtained from tight-binding models34,35 and DFT calculations.27,28 However, AFM semiconducting ZZGNFs show similar energy gap scaling compared to that of NM ACGNFs at the nanoscale.28 Therefore, edge states should have little effect on the energy gaps of AFM ZZGNFs and the quantum confinement effect30 is the only factor to control the energy gaps in ZZGNFs and ACGNFs (Fig. 5a). In detail, NM ZZGNFs exhibits metallic characters (E g is smaller than the thermal fluctuation (25 meV) at room temperature) when the diameter is larger than 7 nm (C 1350 H 90 ), but AFM ZZGNFs with the diameter of 12 nm (C 3750 H 150 ) still behaves as a semiconductor with a sizable energy gap E g = 0.23 eV, similar to the case of NM ACGNFs.28 Therefore, ZZGNFs at the nanoscale can be directly used in nanoelectronics.

Fig. 5 Energy gap E g (eV) of ZZGNFs and ACGNFs in two different magnetic configurations (NM and AFM) as a function of the number of carbon atoms, computed with two different methods: (a) DFT calculations and (b) Hubbard model (t = 2.5 eV and U = 2.1 eV) Full size image

In summary, using large-scale first principle calculations, we demonstrate that the electronic and magnetic properties of hexagonal zigzag that graphene nanoflakes (ZZGNFs) can be significantly affected by the system size. We found that the zigzag edge states in ZZGNFs become much stronger and more localized as the system size increases. The presence of these edge states induce strong electron–electron interactions along the edges of ZZGNFs, resulting in a magnetic configuration transition from nonmagnetic to intra-edge FM and inter-edge AFM when the diameter is larger than 4.5 nm. On the other hand, such strong and localized edge states are also responsible for making ZZGNFs semiconducting with a tunable energy gap. The energy gap can be controlled by merely adjusting the system size. Therefore, ZZGNFs with strong edge magnetism, tunable energy gaps and room-temperature stability may be promising candidates for practical electronic and spintronic applications.