Surface potential profiling and contact resistance measurements on operating pentacene thin-film transistors by Kelvin probe force microscopy

Applied Physics Letters

Volumn 83, Issue 26, 2003, Pages 5539-5541

  Puntambekar, Kanan P ^a   Pesavento, Paul V ^a   Frisbie, C Daniel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

KELVIN PROBE FORCE MICROSCOPY (KFM); SURFACE CONTAMINATION; SURFACE POTENTIAL;

CHARGE CARRIERS; ELECTRIC CURRENT MEASUREMENT; ELECTRIC POTENTIAL; ELECTRIC RESISTANCE MEASUREMENT; ELECTRON TRANSPORT PROPERTIES; ELECTROSTATICS; FILM GROWTH; GATES (TRANSISTOR); GRAIN BOUNDARIES; SURFACE PHENOMENA; SURFACE TOPOGRAPHY; VOLTAGE MEASUREMENT;

THIN FILM TRANSISTORS;

EID: 0942277751     PISSN: 00036951     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1063/1.1637443     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. P. V. Necliudov, M. S. Shur, D. J. Gundlach, and T. N. Jackson, J. Appl.Phys. 88, 6594 (2000); D. J. Gundlach, L. Jia, and T. N. Jackson, IEEE Electron Device Lett. 22, 571 (2001); P. V. Necliudov, M. S. Shur, D. J. Gundlach, and T. N. Jackson, Solid-State Electron. 47, 259 (2003); H. Kluak, G. Schmid, W. Radik, W. Weber, L. Zhou, C. Sheraw, J. A. Nichols, and T. N. Jackson, ibid. 47, 297 (2003).
2. P. V. Necliudov, M. S. Shur, D. J. Gundlach, and T. N. Jackson, J. Appl.Phys. 88, 6594 (2000); D. J. Gundlach, L. Jia, and T. N. Jackson, IEEE Electron Device Lett. 22, 571 (2001); P. V. Necliudov, M. S. Shur, D. J. Gundlach, and T. N. Jackson, Solid-State Electron. 47, 259 (2003); H. Kluak, G. Schmid, W. Radik, W. Weber, L. Zhou, C. Sheraw, J. A. Nichols, and T. N. Jackson, ibid. 47, 297 (2003).
3. P. V. Necliudov, M. S. Shur, D. J. Gundlach, and T. N. Jackson, J. Appl.Phys. 88, 6594 (2000); D. J. Gundlach, L. Jia, and T. N. Jackson, IEEE Electron Device Lett. 22, 571 (2001); P. V. Necliudov, M. S. Shur, D. J. Gundlach, and T. N. Jackson, Solid-State Electron. 47, 259 (2003); H. Kluak, G. Schmid, W. Radik, W. Weber, L. Zhou, C. Sheraw, J. A. Nichols, and T. N. Jackson, ibid. 47, 297 (2003).
4. P. V. Necliudov, M. S. Shur, D. J. Gundlach, and T. N. Jackson, J. Appl.Phys. 88, 6594 (2000); D. J. Gundlach, L. Jia, and T. N. Jackson, IEEE Electron Device Lett. 22, 571 (2001); P. V. Necliudov, M. S. Shur, D. J. Gundlach, and T. N. Jackson, Solid-State Electron. 47, 259 (2003); H. Kluak, G. Schmid, W. Radik, W. Weber, L. Zhou, C. Sheraw, J. A. Nichols, and T. N. Jackson, ibid. 47, 297 (2003).
5. I. Kymissis, C. D. Dimitrakopoulos, and S. Purushothaman, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 48, 1060 (2001); C. D. Dimitrakopoulos and P. R. L. Malenfant, Adv. Mater. (Weinheim, Ger.) 14, 99 (2002).
6. I. Kymissis, C. D. Dimitrakopoulos, and S. Purushothaman, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 48, 1060 (2001); C. D. Dimitrakopoulos and P. R. L. Malenfant, Adv. Mater. (Weinheim, Ger.) 14, 99 (2002).
7. D. Knipp, R. A. Street, A. Völkel, and J. Ho, J. Appl. Phys. 93, 347 (2003); D. Knipp, R. A. Street, and A. Völkel, Appl. Phys. Lett. 82, 3907 (2003); S. Martin, J. Nahm, and J. Kanicki, J. Electron. Mater. 31, 512 (2002).
8. D. Knipp, R. A. Street, A. Völkel, and J. Ho, J. Appl. Phys. 93, 347 (2003); D. Knipp, R. A. Street, and A. Völkel, Appl. Phys. Lett. 82, 3907 (2003); S. Martin, J. Nahm, and J. Kanicki, J. Electron. Mater. 31, 512 (2002).
9. D. Knipp, R. A. Street, A. Völkel, and J. Ho, J. Appl. Phys. 93, 347 (2003); D. Knipp, R. A. Street, and A. Völkel, Appl. Phys. Lett. 82, 3907 (2003); S. Martin, J. Nahm, and J. Kanicki, J. Electron. Mater. 31, 512 (2002).
10. K. Seshadri and C. D. Frisbie, Appl. Phys. Lett. 78, 993 (2001).
11. L. Burgi, H. Sirringhaus, and R. H. Friend, Appl. Phys. Lett. 80, 2913 (2002).
12. L. Burgi, H. Sirringhaus, and R. H. Friend, Appl. Phys. Lett. 82, 1482 (2003).
13. T. Hassenkam, D. R. Greve, and T. Bjornholm, Adv. Mater. (Weinheim, Ger.) 13, 631 (2001).
14. M. Nonnenmacher, M. P. O'Boyle, and H. K. Wickramasinghe, Appl. Phys. Lett. 58, 2921 (1991); H. O. Jacobs, H. F. Knapp, S. Müller, and A. Stemmer, Ultramicroscopy 69, 39 (1997); H. O. Jacobs, H. F. Knapp, S. Müller, and A. Stemmer, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 70, 1756 (1999).
15. M. Nonnenmacher, M. P. O'Boyle, and H. K. Wickramasinghe, Appl. Phys. Lett. 58, 2921 (1991); H. O. Jacobs, H. F. Knapp, S. Müller, and A. Stemmer, Ultramicroscopy 69, 39 (1997); H. O. Jacobs, H. F. Knapp, S. Müller, and A. Stemmer, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 70, 1756 (1999).
16. M. Nonnenmacher, M. P. O'Boyle, and H. K. Wickramasinghe, Appl. Phys. Lett. 58, 2921 (1991); H. O. Jacobs, H. F. Knapp, S. Müller, and A. Stemmer, Ultramicroscopy 69, 39 (1997); H. O. Jacobs, H. F. Knapp, S. Müller, and A. Stemmer, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 70, 1756 (1999).
17. J. A. Nichols, D. J. Gundlach, and T. N. Jackson, Appl. Phys. Lett. 83, 2366 (2003).
18. -6 Torr, deposition Rate=<0.1 Å/s for the first 60 Å and then between 0.3 and Q.4 Å/s up to final thickness, substrate cooled to RT immediately after deposition.
19. The limited range of -/-10 V for surface potential mapping in the microscope has been modified to increase the range up to +/-50 V, to enable imaging of high applied source-drain bias in the TFTs; Mikromasch U.S.A., NSC12-B tips, Cr/Au coated, resonant frequency between 240 and 405 kHz.
20. T. Li, P. Ruden, I. H. Campbell, and D. L. Smith, J. Appl. Phys. 93, 4017 (2003).
21. E. L. Granstrom and C. D. Frisbie, J. Phys. Chem. B 103, 8842 (1999).
22. H. Sugimura, Y. Ishida, K. Hayashi, O. Takai, and N. Nakagiri, Appl. Phys. Lett. 80, 1459 (2002).
23. We attribute the cracks in the pentacene thin film growth to contamination of the oxide during photolithography of the bottom contacts.
24. The spatial resolution and voltage resolution were ∼100 nm and ∼50 mV, respectively. At any point on the sample, these depend on the surrounding geometry of the sample and the sample placement with respect to the tip cantilever. In addition, the contrast depends on factors such as the lift height and feedback parameters of the surface potential imaging mode of the AFM. These parameters, which differ for every tip, need to be tuned accurately for accurate surface potential measurements. A simple scaling is done to incorporate the difference between the applied bias and observed surface potential (SP) contrast between the source and drain electrodes. In this case, the source was set to a reference of 0 V and the difference SP (source)-SP (drain) is scaled to 10 V.