Near-field optical lithography of a conjugated polymer

Applied Physics Letters

Volumn 82, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 526-528

  Riehn, Robert ^a   Charas, Ana ^b   Morgado, Jorge ^b   Cacialli, F ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^b INSTITUTO SUPERIOR TÉCNICO   (Portugal)

^c UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATOMIC FORCE MICROSCOPY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; ELLIPSOMETRY; NANOSTRUCTURED MATERIALS; OPTICAL FIBERS; PHOTOLITHOGRAPHY; PHOTOLUMINESCENCE; SCANNING TUNNELING MICROSCOPY; THICK FILMS;

PHOTONIC CRYSTALS;

AROMATIC POLYMERS;

EID: 0037467971     PISSN: 00036951     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1063/1.1539278     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. J. H. Burroughes, D. D. C. Bradley, A. R. Brown, R. N. Marks, K. Mackay, R. H. Friend, P. L. Burns, and A. B. Holmes, Nature (London) 347, 539 (1990).
2. H. Sirringhaus, T. Kawase, R. H. Friend, T. Shimoda, M. Inbasekaran, W. Wu, and E. P. Woo, Science 290, 2123 (2000).
3. M. Granström, K. Petritsch, A. C. Arias, A. Lux, M. R. Andersson, and R. H. Friend, Nature (London) 395, 257 (1998).
4. N. Tessler, G. J. Denton, and R. H. Friend, Nature (London) 382, 695 (1996).
5. C. Kim, P. E. Burrows, and S. R. Forrest, Science 288, 831 (2000).
6. F. Garnier, R. Hajlaoui, A. Yassar, and P. Srivastava, Science 265, 1684 (1994).
7. E. Yablonovitch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 2059 (1987).
8. J. D. Joannopoulos, R. D. Meade, and J. Winn, Photonic Crystals (Princeton University Press, Princeton. 1995).
9. J. A. Rogers, M. Meier, and A. Dodabalapur, Appl. Phys. Lett. 73, 1766 (1998).
10. A. Mekis, M. Meier, A. Dodabalapur, R. E. Slusher, and J. D. Joannopoulos, Appl. Phys. A: Mater. Sci. Process. A69, 111 (1999).
11. S. Riechel, C. Kallinger, U. Lemmer, J. Feldmann, A. Gombert, V. Wittwer, and U. Scheft, Appl. Phys. Lett. 77, 2310 (2000).
12. G. A. Turnbull, P. Andrew, M. J. Jury, W. L. Barnes, and I. D. W. Samuel, Phys. Rev. B 64, 125122 (2001).
13. S. Holdcroft, Adv. Mater. 13, 1753 (2001).
14. F. Cacialli and P. Bruschi, J. Appl. Phys. 80, 70 (1996).
15. G. Gigli, R. Rinaldi, C. Turco, P. Visconti, R. Cingolani, and F. Cacialli, Appl. Phys. Lett. 73, 3926 (1998).
16. M. Granström, Acta Polym. 49, 514 (1998).
17. P. K. Wei, J. H. Hsu, B. R. Hsieh, and W. S. Fann, Adv. Mater. 8, 573 (1996).
18. J. A. DeAro, R. Gupta, A. J. Heeger, and S. K. Buratto, Synth. Met. 102, 865 (1999).
19. S. Taguchi and T. Tanaka, Eur. Pat. Appl., 1988.
20. W. Schmid, R. Dankesreiter, J. Gmeiner, T. Vogtmann, and M. Schwoerer, Acta Polym. 44, 208 (1993).
21. L. J. Rothberg, M. Yah, F. Papadimitrakopoulos, M. E. Galvin, E. W. Kwock, and T. M. Miller, Synth. Met. 80, 41 (1996).
22. E. Betzig and J. K. Trautman, Science 257, 189 (1992).
23. D. Van Labeke, D. Barchiesi, and F. Baida, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 12, 695 (1995).
24. R. Stevenson and D. Richards, Semicond. Sci. Technol. 13, 882 (1998).
25. R. Stevenson, M. Granström, and D. Richards, Appl. Phys. Lett. 75, 1574 (1999).
26. R. Stevenson, R. Riehn, R. G. Milner, D. Richards, E. Moons, D.-J. Kang, M. Blamire, J. Morgado, and F. Caciaili, Appl. Phys. Lett. 79, 833 (2001).
27. For the probe aperture diameters we relied on the data provided by the manufacturer, who is using scanning electron microscopy for the determination of the aperture size of each probe. Although we cannot completely rule out a widening of the aperture after the first shear-force interaction between the probe and the substrate, or as a result of UV illumination, we have not witnessed a change in the transmission rate, during the scans, that would be suggestive of an aperture broadening. This is in line with the observation that the Jasco probes are the most durable we have used.
28. J. Morgado, F. Cacialli, J. Grüner, N. C. Greenham, and R. H. Friend, J. Appl. Phys. 85, 1784 (1999).
29. H. A. Bethe, Phys. Rev. 66, 163 (1944).
30. R. S. Decca, H. D. Drew, and K. L. Empson, Appl. Phys. Lett. 70, 1932 (1997).
31. M. Banach (personal communication).
32. Note that AFM imaging before and after the thermal conversion treatment show a reduction in size of the precursor features upon conversion, as expected on the basis of the tetrahydrothiophenium elimination. We can thus rule out the thermal conversion as the reason for the discrepancy between the probe size and the feature size.
33. M. Stähelin, M. A. Bopp, G. Tarrach, A. J. Meixner, and Zschokke-Gränacher, Appl. Phys. Lett. 68, 2603 (1996).
34. D. I. Kavaldjiev, R. Toledo-Crow, and M. Vaez-Iravani, Appl. Phys. Lett. 67, 2771 (1995).