Controlling semiconductor/metal junction barriers by incomplete, nonideal molecular monolayers

Journal of the American Chemical Society

Volumn 128, Issue 21, 2006, Pages 6854-6869

  Haick, Hossam ^a,e   Ambrico, Marianna ^b   Ligonzo, Teresa ^c   Tung, Raymond T ^d   Cahen, David ^a  

^a WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE   (Israel)

^b CNR   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BARI   (Italy)

^d CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

^e TECHNION ISRAEL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADSORPTION; CHARGE TRANSFER; ELECTRON TRANSPORT PROPERTIES; INTERFACES (MATERIALS); MONOLAYERS; SEMICONDUCTING GALLIUM ARSENIDE; SEMICONDUCTOR DOPING;

CURRENT VOLTAGE TEMPERATURE; HIGH QUALITY MONOLAYERS; METAL JUNCTION BARRIERS; MODIFIED SURFACES;

SEMICONDUCTOR JUNCTIONS;

DICARBOXYLIC ACID; GALLIUM ARSENIDE; GOLD; METAL; PALLADIUM;

ADSORPTION; ARTICLE; CALCULATION; DIPOLE; ELECTRIC CONDUCTIVITY; ELECTRIC CURRENT; ELECTRIC POTENTIAL; ELECTRODE; ELECTRON TRANSPORT; EVAPORATION; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MEASUREMENT; MOLECULAR SIZE; MOLECULE; SEMICONDUCTOR; SIMULATION; TEMPERATURE DEPENDENCE; TEMPERATURE SENSITIVITY;

EID: 33744789190     PISSN: 00027863     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ja058224a     Document Type: Article

References (111)

1. Gersten, J. I.; Smith, F. W. The Physics and Chemistry of Materials; Wiley: New York, 2001.
2. Cahen, D.; Chernyak, L. Adv. Mater. 1997, 9, 861-876.
3. Hsu, J. W. P. Mater. Today 2005, 8, 42-54.
4. Hipps, K. W. Science 2001, 294, 536-537.
5. Kushmerick, J. G. Mater. Today 2005, 8, 26-30.
6. Cahen, P.; Kahn, A.; Umbach, E. Mater. Today 2005, 8, 32-41.
7. Rampi, M. A.; Whitesides, G. M. Chem. Phys. 2002, 281, 373-391.
8. Salomon, A.; Cahen, D.; Lindsay, S.; Tomfohr, J.; Engelkes, V. B.; Frisbie, C. D. Adv. Mater. 2004, 16, 477.
9. Cahen, D.; Modes, G. Adv. Mater. 2002, 14, 789-798.
10. Shen, Y.; Hosseini, A. R.; Wong, M. H.; Malliaras, G. G. ChemPhysChem 2004, 5, 16-25.
11. Chabinyc, M. L.; Chen, X.; Holmlin, R. E.; Jacobs, H.; Skulason, H.; Frisbie, C. D.; Mujica, V.; Ratner, M. A.; Rampi, M. A.; Whitesides, G. M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 11730-11736.
12. Hsu, J. W. P.; Loo, Y. L.; Lang, D. V.; Rogers, J. A. J. Vac. Sci. Technol., B 2003, 21, 1928-1935.
13. Lebedev, M. V. Prog. Surf. Sci. 2002, 70, 153-186.
14. Ashkenasy, G.; Cahen, D.; Cohen, R.; Shanzer, A.; Vilan, A. Acc. Chem. Res. 2002, 35, 121-128.
15. Seker, F.; Meeker, K.; Kuech, T. F.; Ellis, A. B. Chem. Rev. 2000, 100, 2505-2536.
16. Lodha, S.; Janes, D. B. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2004, 85, 2809-2811.
17. Ulman, A. Chem. Rev. 1996, 96, 1533-1554.
18. Hagfeldt, A.; Graetzel, M. Acc. Chem. Res. 2000, 33, 269-277.
19. Heath, J. R.; Ratner, M. A. Phys. Today 2003, 56, 43-49.
20. Carmeli, I.; Skakalova, V.; Naaman, R.; Vager, Z. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2002, 41, 761-764.
21. Campbell, I. H.; Rubin, S.; Zawodzinski, T. A.; Kress, J. D.; Martin, R. L.; Smith, D. L.; Barashkov, N. N.; Ferrariis, J. P. Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 1996, 54, R14321-R14324.
22. Evans, S. D.; Ulman, A. Chem. Phys. Lett. 1990, 170, 462-6.
23. Bruening, M.; Cohen, R.; Guillemoles, J. F.; Moav, T.; Libman, J.; Shanzer, A.; Cahen, D. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1997, 119, 5720-5728.
24. Taylor, D. M.; Bayes, G. F. Phys. Rev. E: Stat. Phys., Plasmas, Fluids, Relat. Interdiscip. Top. 1994, 49, 1439-1449.
25. Iozzi, M. F.; Cossi, M. J. Phys. Chem. B 2005, 109, 15383-15390.
26. Vilan, A.; Cahen, D. Trends Biotechnol. 2002, 20, 22-29.
27. The dipole moment is a vector, oriented from the (-) to the (+) charge. We define as negative a dipole whose negative pole is closer to the semiconductor surface than its positive one. Because of its parallel orientation with the electric field at the surface of an n-type semiconductor, a negative dipole is more stable than a positive dipole because of the antiparallel alignment with respect to the field.
28. Kruger, J.; Bach, U.; Gratzel, M. Adv. Mater. 2000, 12, 447-451.
29. Nuesch, F.; Rotzinser, F.; Si-Ahmed, L.; Zuppiroli, L. Chem. Phys. Lett. 1998, 288, 861-867.
30. Ganzorig, C.; Kwak, K.-J.; Yagi, K.; Fujihira, M. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2001, 79, 272-274.
31. Salomon, A.; Berkovich, D.; Cahen, D. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2003, 82, 1051-1053.
32. Haick, H.; Ambrico, M.; Ghabboun, J.; Ligonzo, T.; Cahen, D. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2004, 6, 4538-4541.
33. Fisher, G. L.; Hooper, A. E.; Opila, R. L.; Allara, D. L.; Winograd, N. J. Phys. Chem. B 2000, 104, 3267-3273.
34. Fisher, G. L.; Walker, A. V.; Hooper, A. E.; Tighe, T. B.; Bahnck, K. B.; Skriba, H. T.; Reinard, M. D.; Haynie, B. C.; Opila, R. L.; Winograd, N.; Allara, D. L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 5528-5541.
35. Jung, D. R.; Czanderna, A. W.; Herdt, G. C. J. Vac. Sci. Technol., A 1996, 14, 1779-1787.
36. Haick, H.; Ghabboun, J.; Cahen, D. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2005, 86, 042113/1-042113/3.
37. Vilan, A.; Shanzer, A.; Cahen, D. Nature 2000, 404, 166-168.
38. Vilan, A.; Cahen, D. Adv. Fund. Mater. 2002, 12, 795-807.
39. Vilan, A.; Ghabboun, J.; Cahen, D. J. Phys. Chem. B 2003, 107, 6360-6376.
40. Ishii, H.; Sugiyama, H.; Ito, E.; Seki, K. Adv. Mater. 1999, 11, 605-625.
41. Crispin, X.; Geskin, V.; Crispin, A.; Cornil, J.; Lazzaroni, R.; Salaneck, W. R.; Bredas, J. L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2002, 124, 8131-8141.
42. Haick, H.; Ghabboun, J.; Niitsoo, O.; Cohen, H.; Cahen, D.; Vilan, A.; Hwang, J.; Wan, A.; Amy, F.; Kahn, A. J. Phys. Chem. B 2005, 109, 9622-9630.
43. Carrara, M.; Nuesch, F.; Zuppiroli, L. Synth. Met. 2001, 121, 1633-1634.
44. Loo, Y.-L.; Lang, D. V.; Rogers, J. A.; Hsu, J. W. P. Nano Lett. 2003, 3, 913.
45. Schroder, D. K. Semiconductor Material and Device Characterization; Wiley: New York, 1990.
46. Tung, R. T. Mater. Sci. Eng., R 2001, R35, 1-138.
47. Cahen, D.; Naaman, R.; Vager, Z. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2005, 15, 1571-1578.
48. Cohen, R.; Kronik, L.; Shanzer, A.; Cahen, D.; Liu, A.; Rosenwaks, Y.; Lorenz, J. K.; Ellis, A. B. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1999, 121, 10545-10553.
49. Liu, G.-Y.; Xu, S.; Qian, Y. Acc. Chem. Res. 2000, 33, 457-466.
50. Cohen, S. R. Scanning Probe Microscopy: Electrical and Electromechanical Characteri-zation at the Nanoscale; Springer-Verlag, in press.
51. Haick, H.; Ambrico, M.; Ligonzo, T.; Cahen, D. Adv. Mater. 2004, 16, 2145-2151.
52. Cohen, R.; Bastide, S.; Cahen, D.; Libman, J.; Shanzer, A.; Rosenwaks, Y. Opt. Mater. 1998, 9, 394-400.
53. Bastide, S.; Butruille, R.; Cahen, D.; Dutta, A.; Libman, J.; Shanzer, A.; Sun, L.; Vilan, A. J. Phys. Chem. B 1997, 101, 2678-2684.
54. Vilan, A.; Ussyshkin, R.; Gartsman, K.; Cahen, D.; Naaman, R.; Shanzer, A. J. Phys. Chem. B 1998, 102, 3307-3309.
55. Vilan, A. Ph.D. Thesis, Weizmann Institute of Science, 2002.
56. We use here as the relevant dipole moment that of the molecule bound to the GaAs surface, as calculated in ref 25, rather than the free molecule's dipole moment, as we did in earlier work. We note that, as noted also in ref 25, the general trends are very similar, reflecting the changes within the series of molecules with identical binding group.
57. Moench, W. Semiconductor surfaces and interfaces, 3rd ed.; Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 2001.
58. Bruening, M.; Moons, E.; Cahen, D.; Shanzer, A. J. Phys. Chem. 1995, 99, 8368-8373.
59. Gershevitz, O.; Sukenik, C. N.; Ghabboun, J.; Cahen, D. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 125, 4730-4731.
60. Cohen, R.; Bastide, S.; Cahen, D.; Libman, J.; Shanzer, A.; Rosenwaks, Y. Adv. Mater. 1997, 9, 746-749.
61. Rhoderick, E. H. Metal-semiconductor contacts; Oxford University Press: London, U.K., 1978.
62. Ishida, T.; Ikoma, H. J. Appl. Phys. 1993, 74, 3977-3982.
63. Fowler, R. H. Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 1931, 38, 45-56.
64. Margaritondo, G. Prog. Surf. Sci. 1998, 56, 311-346.
65. Okumura, T.; Tu, K. N. J. Appl. Phys. 1983, 54, 922-927.
66. If a metal and a semiconductor are brought in electronic contact, an electrostatic potential barrier can form between them as a result of the flow of electrons between them to equilibrate their Fermi levels (the electrochemical potentials of the electrons). The result of this is a rectifying contact, described by the so-called Schottky-Mott model. The barrier is called a Schottky barrier. The height of this barrier is the Schottky Barrier Height (SBH).
67. Sze, S. M. Physics of semiconductor devices, 2nd ed.; Wiley-Interscience: New York, 1981.
68. Tung, R. T. Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 1992, 45, 13509-13523.
69. A short summary of the basic concepts of the "dipole layer approach" and the main results are provided in section 3 of the Supporting Information, which also contains a discussion of a minor modification that needs to be made for the boundary values bordering the molecular layer.
70. Werner, J. H.; Guettler, H. H. J. Appl. Phys. 1991, 69, 1522-1533.
71. Shvarts, D.; Haran, A.; Benshafrut, R.; Cahen, D.; Naaman, R. Chem. Phys. Lett. 2002, 354, 349-353.
72. b2), where T is the transmission coefficient through the ith interface. Although we did refine the data to extract these two parameters, they are, not surprisingly, coupled. Such analysis showed smaller T than S variations between molecules.
73. Selzer, Y.; Salomon, A.; Cahen, D. J. Phys. Chem. B 2002, 106, 10432-10439.
74. Selzer, Y.; Cahen, D. Adv. Mater. 2001, 13, 508-511.
75. Marginean, C.; Tivarus, C.; Haick, H.; Cahen, D.; Pelz, J. P. Unpublished results.
76. Ohdomari, I.; Tu, K. N. J. App. Phys. 1980, 51, 3735-3739.
77. d is the doping density, and ξ is defined in the following footnote.
78. ξ is a measure of the geometry of SBH variation and is determined empirically by fitting the functional form of the experimentally observed currents. Theoretically, it was found that SBHs with circular or stripe geometries that are homogeneously distributed at the interface have ξ = 2/3 or ξ = 1/2, respectively. The lower are the ξ values that are obtained by fitting the functional form of the experimentally observed currents, the higher is the SBH variation, i.e., the larger is the degree of inhomogeneity. We find ξ = 1/6, which indicates a high degree of inhomogeneity, relative to the ideal case.
79. In contrast to what is the case with vacuum evaporation, with LOFO it is extremely unlikely that any diffusion of the metal will occur through the organic monolayer.
80. d.
81. In metal/dC-X/n-GaAs junctions, there are basically three types of SBH: (1) metal/dC-X/n-GaAs; (2) nonpinched-off metal/n-GaAs (i.e., large 2D pinholes); and (3) pinched-off metal/n-GaAs (i.e., small pinholes). However, C-V measurements cannot distinguish between pinched-off and non-pinched-off domains. This can be understood as follows. The capacitance at a given voltage is essentially determined by the depletion width at that voltage, which is determined by the average conduction band energy at the GaAs interface, the doping density in the GaAs, and the Fermi energy in the bulk of the GaAs. The detailed shape of the conduction band in the depletion region makes little difference, because there are no free carriers there anyway. This is why image force effects are not important, as pointed out in refs 46 and 61. In this case, it does not matter whether there are pinched-off points or not in the depletion region. Because that is so, the analysis of the C-V data can be used only to distinguish between large metal-GaAs pinholes and metal-molecules-GaAs domains.
82. Weizer, V. G.; Fatemi, N. S. J. App. Phys. 1988, 64, 4618-4623.
83. Persson, A. I.; Larsson, M. W.; Stenstroem, S.; Ohlsson, B. J.; Samuelson, L.; Wallenberg, L. R. Nat. Mater. 2004, 3, 677-681.
84. Gupta, R. P.; Khokle, W. S.; Wuerfl, J.; Hartnagel, H. L. Thin Solid Films 1987, 151, L121-L125.
85. Yablonovitch, E.; Sands, T.; Hwang, D. M.; Schnitzer, I.; Gmitter, T. J.; Shastry, S. K.; Hill, D. S.; Fan, J. C. C. Appl. Phys. Lett. 1991, 59, 3159-3161.
86. Chor, E. F.; Zhang, D.; Gong, H.; Chong, W. K.; Ong, S. Y. J. Appl. Phys. 2000, 87, 2437-2444.
87. Bonapasta, A. A.; Buda, F. Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2002, 65, 045308/1-045308/9.
88. Chang, S.; Raisanen, A.; Brillson, L. J.; Shaw, J. L.; Kirchner, P. D.; Pettit, G. D.; Woodall, J. M. J. Vac. Sci. Technol., B 1992, 10, 1932-1939.
89. Vilan, A.; Ussyshkin, R.; Gartsman, K.; Cahen, D.; Naaman, R.; Shanzer, A. J. Phys. Chem. B 1998, 102, 3307-3309.
90. Walker, A. V.; Tighe, T. B.; Cabarcos, O. M.; Reinard, M. D.; Haynie, B. C.; Uppili, S.; Winograd, N.; Allara, D. L. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2004, 126, 3954-3963.
91. Haynie, B. C.; Walker, A. V.; Tighe, T. B.; Allara, D. L.; Winograd, N. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2003, 203-204, 433-436.
92. Tung, R. T. Appl. Phys. Lett. 1991, 58, 2821-2823.
93. Freeouf, J. L.; Jackson, T. N.; Laux, S. E.; Woodall, J. M. J. Vacu. Sci. Technol. 1982, 21, 570-573.
94. Okumura, T.; Tu, K. N. J. Appl. Phys. 1987, 61, 2955-2961.
95. Gershewitz, O.; Grinstein, M.; Sukenik, C. N.; Regev, K.; Ghabboun, J.; Cahen, D. J. Phys. Chem. B 2004, 108, 664-672.
96. Haick, H. et al. and Azulay, D. et al. To be published.
97. Before contacting the molecularly modified surfaces, there will be some oxide in the pinholes and (at least) under the outer regions of dC-X/GaAs domains (because it should be relatively easy for O to reach there). After contacting, Pd but not Au reacts with and removes the GaAs-oxide in the pinhole areas only, leaving behind oxides below the molecularly modified domains.
98. Li, Y.; DePristo Surf. Sci. 1996, 351, 189-199.
99. [99) Schmidt, A. A.; Eggers, H.; Herwig, K.; Anton, R. Surface Science 1996, 349, 301-16.
100. Ohgi, T.; Sheng, H.-Y.; Dong, Z.-C.; Nejoh, H. Surf. Sci. 1999, 422, 277-282.
101. Wang, B.; Xiao, X.; Sheng, P. J. Vac. Sci. Technol., B 2000, 18, 2351-2358.
102. This can happen due to deposition of Pd clusters directly on the pinholes and/or diffusion of clusters from the molecular domains into the Pd-filled pinholes.
103. Miramond, C.; Vuillaume, D. J. Appl. Phys. 2004, 96, 1528-1536.
104. Wolkenstein, T. Electronic Processes on Semiconductor Surfaces During Chemisorption; Consultants Bureau: New York, 1991.
105. Rothschild, A.; Komem, Y.; Ashkenasy, N. J. App. Phys. 2002, 92, 7090-7097.
106. 3 requires intentional addition of small amounts (4% v/v) of water to accomplish the adsorption properly (cf. refs 38 and 39). This need was ascribed to the high concentration of negative charge on the binding group that results from the negative dipole. This negative charge favors the formation of the radical or the carboxylate form, compared to what is the case for molecules with a positive dipole. Adding water screens the charge and decreases the activation energy barrier, thus allowing their (slow) adsorption.
107. Schwartz, D. K. Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 2001, 52, 107-137.
108. Love, J. C.; Estroff, L. A.; Kriebel, J. K.; Nuzzo, R. G.; Whitesides, G. M. Chem. Rev. 2005, 105, 1103-1169.
109. Schreiber, F. Prog. Surf. Sci. 2000, 65, 151-256.
110. For our samples, assuming all other factors being equal, the higher dopant concentration in high-doped n-GaAs was found to give a ∼10 times higher net (negative) surface charge than the low-doped n-GaAs, both before and after dC-X adsorption.
111. To increase injection efficiency with the help of an interfacial layer of molecules (excluding "conducting" ones, for which different conditions apply), the layer should be porous with maximal length of edges/area, to give highly a strongly inhomogeneous lateral electric field distribution and with a polarity to lower the barrier.