Automated Four-Point Probe Measurement of Nanowires Inside a Scanning Electron Microscope

Ru, Changhai; Zhang, Yong; Sun, Yu; Zhong, Yu Lin; Sun, Xueliang; Hoyle, David; Cotton, Ian

doi:10.1109/tnano.2010.2065236

Cited by 97 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These measurements allow for many possibilities, such as for instance, the coupling with simulations to identify material parameters [7]. However, SEM imaging induces distortions of different natures (e.g., drift or spatial) of the observed object and noise [3][4][5][8][9][10] that are due to the electromagnetic environment of imaging, and that need to be considered to quantify the errors of the DIC measurements [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterization of SEM speckle pattern marking and imaging distortion by digital image correlation

Guery

Latourte

Hild

et al. 2013

Meas. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Surface patterning by e-beam lithography and SEM imaging distortions are studied via digital image correlation. The global distortions from the reference pattern, which has been numerically generated, are first quantified from a digital image correlation procedure between the (virtual) reference pattern and the actual SEM image both in secondary and backscattered electron imaging modes. These distortions result from both patterning and imaging techniques. These two contributions can be separated (without resorting to an external caliper) based on images of the same patterned surface acquired at different orientations. Patterning distortions are much smaller than those due to imaging on wide field images.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterization of SEM speckle pattern marking and imaging distortion by digital image correlation

Guery

Latourte

Hild

et al. 2013

Meas. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Instead, we controlled the vertical displacement of the nanomanipulator while landing a nanoprobe onto the sample to keep the contact forces relatively consistent. Specifically, we visually detected the contact of the nanoprobe with the nanowire by monitoring the starting point of the nanoprobe sliding on the sample [28], and then further lowered the nanoprobe only by 10 nm. This consistent landing operation ensures a relatively consistent level of contact force.…”

Section: R Wmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating the impact of SEM chamber conditions and imaging parameters on contact resistance ofin situnanoprobing

Qu¹,

Lee²,

Hilke³

et al. 2017

Nanotechnology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we investigate the impact of vacuum chamber conditions (cleanliness level and vacuum pressure) and imaging parameters (magnification and acceleration voltage) of scanning electron microscopy (SEM) on the contact resistance of two-point in situ nanoprobing of nanomaterials. Using two typical types of conductive nanoprobe, two-point nanoprobing is performed on silicon nanowires, during which changing trends of the nanoprobing contact resistance with the SEM chamber conditions and imaging parameters are quantified. The mechanisms underlying the experimental observations are also explained. Through systematically adjusting the experimental parameters, the probe-sample contact resistance is significantly reduced from the mega-ohm level to the kilo-ohm level. The experimental results can serve as a guideline to evaluate electrical contacts of nanoprobing and instruct how to reduce the contact resistance in SEM-based, two-point nanoprobing.

show abstract

“…We previously summarized our automated contact detection approach in [24]. Briefly, the nanomanipulation system moves a nanoprobe downwards at a constant speed.…”

Section: Contact Detectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automated nanomanipulation for nanodevice construction

Zhang

et al. 2012

Nanotechnology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nanowire field-effect transistors (nano-FETs) are nanodevices capable of highly sensitive, label-free sensing of molecules. However, significant variations in sensitivity across devices can result from poor control over device parameters, such as nanowire diameter and the number of electrode-bridging nanowires. This paper presents a fabrication approach that uses wafer-scale nanowire contact printing for throughput and uses automated nanomanipulation for precision control of nanowire number and diameter. The process requires only one photolithography mask. Using nanowire contact printing and post-processing (i.e. nanomanipulation inside a scanning electron microscope), we are able to produce devices all with a single-nanowire and similar diameters at a speed of ~1 min/device with a success rate of 95% (n = 500). This technology represents a seamless integration of wafer-scale microfabrication and automated nanorobotic manipulation for producing nano-FET sensors with consistent response across devices.

show abstract

Automated Four-Point Probe Measurement of Nanowires Inside a Scanning Electron Microscope

Cited by 97 publications

References 38 publications

Characterization of SEM speckle pattern marking and imaging distortion by digital image correlation

Characterization of SEM speckle pattern marking and imaging distortion by digital image correlation

Investigating the impact of SEM chamber conditions and imaging parameters on contact resistance ofin situnanoprobing

Automated nanomanipulation for nanodevice construction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About