Conducting atomic force microscopy for nanoscale tunnel barrier characterization

Review of Scientific Instruments

Volumn 75, Issue 8, 2004, Pages 2726-2731

  Lang, K M ^a,b   Hite, D A ^a   Simmonds, R W ^a   McDermott, R ^a   Pappas, D P ^a   Martinis, John M ^a,c  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b University of Colorado College of Nursing   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANODIC OXIDATION THRESHOLD; CANTILEVER DEFLECTIONS; PINHOLE SUSCEPTIBILITY; STATISTICAL PROPERTIES;

AMPLIFIERS (ELECTRONIC); ANODIC OXIDATION; ATOMIC FORCE MICROSCOPY; EVAPORATION; IMAGING TECHNIQUES; JOSEPHSON JUNCTION DEVICES; SOLID STATE DEVICES; STATISTICAL METHODS; THERMAL EFFECTS; VACUUM;

ALUMINUM COMPOUNDS;

EID: 4944260198     PISSN: 00346748     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1063/1.1777388     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. S. J. O'Shea, R. M. Atta, M. P. Murrell, and M. E. Weiland, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 13, 1945 (1995).
2. R. W. Simmonds, K. M. Lang, D. A. Hite, D. P. Pappas, and John M. Martinis, Phys. Rev. Lett. (to be published).
3. G. Ceballos, Z. Song, J. I. Pascual, H.-P. Rust, H. Conrad, M. Bäumer, and H.-J. Freund, Chem. Phys. Lett. 359, 41 (2002).
4. O. Kizilkaya, D. A. Hite, D. M. Zehner, and P. T. Sprunger, Surf. Sci. 529, 223 (2003).
5. W. H. Rippard, A. C. Perrella, F. J. Albert, and R. A. Buhrman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 046805 (2002).
6. K. M. Mang, Y. Khang, Y. J. Park, Y. Kuk, S. M. Lee, and C. C. Williams, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 14, 1536 (1996).
7. Y. Ando, H. Kameda, H. Kubota, and T. Miyazaki, J. Appl. Phys. 87, 5206 (2000).
8. V. Da Costa, C. Tiusan, T. Dimopoulos, and K. Ounadjela, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 876 (2000).
9. E. Z. Luo, S. K. Wong, A. B. Pakhomov, J. B. Xu, I. H. Wilson, and C. Y. Wong, J. Appl. Phys. 90, 5202 (2001).
10. A. Olbrich, B. Ebersberger, C. Boit, J. Vancea, H. Hoffmann, H. Altmann, G. Gieres, and J. Wecker, Appl. Phys. Lett. 78, 2934 (2001).
11. A. Olbrich, B. Ebersberger, and C. Boit, Appl. Phys. Lett. 73, 3114 (1998).
12. S. J. O'Shea, R. M. Atta, and M. E. Weiland, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 66, 2508 (1995).
13. M. A. Lantz, S. J. O'Shea, and M. E. Weiland, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 69, 1757 (1998).
14. M. A. Lantz, S. J. O'Shea, and M. E. Weiland, Phys. Rev. B 56, 15345 (1997).
15. K. M. Lang, S. Nam, J. Aumentado, C. Urbina, and J. M. Martinis, IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 13, 989 (2003).
16. Certain commercial instruments are identified to specify the experimental study adequately. This does not imply endorsement by NIST or that the instruments are the best available for the purpose.
17. We define an intrinsic pinhole as one which is present in the as-grown sample and not created by the scanning of the tip.
18. E. S. Snow, P. M. Campbell, and D. Park, Superlattices Microstruct. 20, 545 (1996).
19. J. T. Dickinson, L. C. Jensen, K. H. Siek, and K. W. Hipps, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 66, 3802 (1995).
20. P. De Wolf, J. Snauwaert, T. Clarysse, W. Vandervorst, and L. Hellemans, Appl. Phys. Lett. 66, 1530 (1995).
21. J. G. Park, S. H. Lee, B. Kim, and Y. W. Park, Appl. Phys. Lett. 81, 4625 (2002).
22. The observant reader might notice a correlation between increased topographic roughness and greater pinhole susceptibility for the particular maps of Fig. 1. Having looked at several samples fabricated by other means, we do not observe this correlation to be universal.
23. With the exception of s1, the statistical properties of a pinhole susceptibility map stayed substantially the same with the time the sample spent stored in air. For s1, it was possible to create a relatively small number of pinholes within ∼ 1 day of sample fabrication and exposure to air, after which it was no longer possible to create any pinholes for V<5 V and cantilever deflection <25 nm. For consistency, all maps in Fig. 1 were taken several weeks after sample fabrication, and hence s1 shows no pinholes in these maps.