Local characterization of vapor-deposited electrode edges in thin film organic electronic devices

Journal of Vacuum Science and Technology B: Microelectronics and Nanometer Structures

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 421-425

  Sills, S ^a,b   Unal, K ^a   Bozano, L D ^a   Frommer, J ^a   Scott, J C ^a  

^a IBM ALMADEN RESEARCH CENTER   (United States)

^b MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALUMINUM ELECTRODES; GEOMETRIC PENUMBRA; MASK-EDGE PROFILE;

ELECTRODES; ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT; SCANNING PROBE MICROSCOPY; SEMICONDUCTING POLYMERS; THIN FILMS; VAPOR DEPOSITION;

CHARACTERIZATION;

EID: 34047099870     PISSN: 10711023     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1116/1.2699862     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. J. C. Scott, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 21, 521 (2003).
2. C. Joachim, J. K. Gimzewski, and A. Aviram, Nature (London) 408, 541 (2000).
3. J. M. Tour, Acc. Chem. Res. 33, 791 (2000).
4. R. H. Friend et al., Nature (London) 397, 121 (1999).
5. Molecular Electronics: Science and Technology, edited by A. Aviram and M. Ratner (New York Academy of Sciences, New York, 1998), Vol. 852, p. ix.
6. A. V. Walker, T. B. Tighe, O. M. Cabarcos, M. D. Reinard, B. C. Haynie, S. Uppili, N. Winograd, and D. Allara, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 126, 3954 (2004).
7. G. L. Fischer et al., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 124, 5528 (2002).
8. G. L. Fischer, A. E. Hooper, R. L. Opila, D. L. Allara, and N. Winograd, J. Phys. Chem. B 104, 3267 (2000).
9. A. Hooper et al., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 121, 8052 (1999).
10. L. Atanasoska, S. G. Anderson, H. M. Meyer III, Z. Lin, and J. H. Weaver, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 5, 3325 (1987).
11. L. Ma, S. Pyo, J. Ouyang, Q. Xu, and Y. Yang, Appl. Phys. Lett. 82, 1419 (2003).
12. L. D. Bozano, B. W. Kean, V. R. Deline, J. R. Salem, and J. C. Scott, Appl. Phys. Lett. 84, 607 (2004).
13. M. Nonnenmacher, M. P. O'Boyle, and H. K. Wickramasinghe, Appl. Phys. Lett. 58, 2921 (1991).
14. O. Cherniavskaya, L. Chen, V. Weng, L. Yuditsky, and L. E. Brus, J. Phys. Chem. B 107, 1525 (2003).
15. W. R. Salaneck, M. Lögdlund, M. Fahlman, G. Greczynski, and T. Kugler, Mater. Sci. Eng., R. 34, 121 (2001).
16. W. R. Salaneck and M. Lögdlund, Polym. Adv. Technol. 9, 419 (1996).
17. J. W. Bartha, P. O. Hahn, and P. S. Ho, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 3, 1390 (1984).
18. M. J. Vasile and B. J. Bachman, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 7, 2992 (1989).
19. The difference between the surface potential and the Auger spectra may result from different surface sensitivities for each technique; the Kelvin probe is sensitive only to the contact potential difference at the true surface, where Auger electrons are emitted from up to several nanometers beneath the surface. We note that the Auger spectroscopy indicated higher carbon concentrations in the areas with the highest surface potential.
20. Alloy Phase Diagrams, edited by H. Baker (ASM International, Materials Park, OH, 1992), Vol. 3, p. 20.
21. Samples were stored in a dry nitrogen glove box for roughly one day after preparation and were exposed to ambient for several hours prior to measurement. Significant differences in the surface potential were not observed the following day, or for other samples that had aged over a week.
22. Y. Yin, R. M. Rioux, C. K. Erdonmez, S. Huges, G. A. Somorjai, and A. P. Alivisatos, Science 304, 711 (2004).
23. D. Askeland, The Science and Engineering of Materiah, 2nd ed. (PWS.KENT, Boston, 1989), p. 133.