2005
DOI: 10.1063/1.2108127
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Electrical contacts to carbon nanotubes down to 1nm in diameter

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

18
171
1

Year Published

2008
2008
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 213 publications
(190 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
(22 reference statements)
18
171
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The fact that the devices belong to the same wafer exclude all the other reasons such as different metal material or different fabrication process to explain this different behavior. A non uniformity in annealing, NW doping level [8,9] and high interface traps density (that pins the Fermi level) as well as the high sensitivity of the metal-NW contact to local surface contaminations [10][11][12][13] might explain the different SBs between S and D. In [11][12][13] the researchers noticed a similar behavior with non linear I-Vs of Carbon Nanotube (CNT) FETs. Lu et al [12] used intentionally a chemical in the process of one of the two metal contacts surface of a CNTFET and they noted asymmetric I-Vs due to the different SB of S and D. Moreover, they presented some ab initio calculations and they showed the increased sensitivity of the metal work-function to these chemicals.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 55%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The fact that the devices belong to the same wafer exclude all the other reasons such as different metal material or different fabrication process to explain this different behavior. A non uniformity in annealing, NW doping level [8,9] and high interface traps density (that pins the Fermi level) as well as the high sensitivity of the metal-NW contact to local surface contaminations [10][11][12][13] might explain the different SBs between S and D. In [11][12][13] the researchers noticed a similar behavior with non linear I-Vs of Carbon Nanotube (CNT) FETs. Lu et al [12] used intentionally a chemical in the process of one of the two metal contacts surface of a CNTFET and they noted asymmetric I-Vs due to the different SB of S and D. Moreover, they presented some ab initio calculations and they showed the increased sensitivity of the metal work-function to these chemicals.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 55%
“…Lu et al [12] used intentionally a chemical in the process of one of the two metal contacts surface of a CNTFET and they noted asymmetric I-Vs due to the different SB of S and D. Moreover, they presented some ab initio calculations and they showed the increased sensitivity of the metal work-function to these chemicals. Kim et al [13] showed that remaining from the PMMA (due to imperfect development) during the lift off process step might have an impact to the SB of the contacts. More specialized experiments should be performed in order to identify the origin of Materials Science Forum Vols.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Kim et al have demonstrated that the on-state current depends on the diameter of the CNT also for metallic CNTs, a somewhat surprising result considering that there should be no Schottky barrier present between metal contacts and metallic CNTs. 90 The authors attribute the diameter dependence of metallic CNTs to the increase of the chemical reactivity of CNTs with decreasing diameter which may lead to a large perturbation of the electronic structure of the CNTs underneath the contacts. Au and Pt have work functions similar to Pd but CNTFETs using these metals as contacts still exhibit low on-currents which have been attributed to the weaker adhesion of these metals to CNTs.…”
Section: A Measurements Of Schottky Barrier Heightsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The resistance of pristine mSWNTs yielded (479 6 193) kX and is comparable to 1.2 nm diameter mSWNTs on Pd electrodes. 16 mSWNTs with nanogaps had a resistance of (643 6 311) TX, which is nine orders of magnitude higher than in pristine devices. We attempted to measure tunneling or field-emission currents through the air gap and to correlate the current with the HIM derived gap size.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%