Effect of Gate Electrode Work‐Function on Source Charge Injection in Electrolyte‐Gated Organic Field‐Effect Transistors
Source abstract
Abstract
Systematic investigation of the contact resistance in electrolyte‐gated organic field‐effect transistors (OFETs) demonstrates a dependence of source charge injection versus gate electrode work function. This analysis reveals contact‐limitations at the source metal‐semiconductor interface and shows that the contact resistance increases as low work function metals are used as the gate electrode. These findings are attributed to the establishment of a built‐in potential that is high enough to prevent the Fermi‐level pinning at the metal‐organic interface. This results in an unfavorable energetic alignment of the source electrode with the valence band of the organic semiconductor. Since the operating voltage in the electrolyte‐gated devices is on the same order as the variation of the work functions, it is possible to tune the contact resistance over more than one order of magnitude by varying the gate metal.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Advanced Memory and Neural Computing · Organic Electronics and Photovoltaics · Analytical Chemistry and Sensors
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Organic Electronics, Department of Science and Technology Linköping University SE‐601 74 Norrköping Sweden
Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biology Linköping University SE‐581 83 Linköping Sweden
Funding
Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation · VINNOVA · STEM · Swedish Energy Agency
References (31)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1039/b909902f10.1039/b909902f ↗
2. 10.1021/cr900150b10.1021/cr900150b ↗
3. 10.1002/adma.20090405410.1002/adma.200904054 ↗
4. 10.1002/adma.20110420610.1002/adma.201104206 ↗
5. 10.1002/adfm.20110142710.1002/adfm.201101427 ↗
6. 10.1002/cphc.20030094210.1002/cphc.200300942 ↗
7. Li J. H. · Appl. Phys. Lett. · 2007 · 90 · 3
8. 10.1002/(SICI)1521-4095(199906)11:8<605::AID-ADMA605>3.0.CO;2-Q10.1002/(SICI)1521-4095(199906)11:8<605::AID-ADMA605>3.0.CO;2-Q ↗
9. 10.1038/nmat211910.1038/nmat2119 ↗
10. 10.1021/am400786c10.1021/am400786c ↗
11. 10.1016/S1566-1199(03)00016-810.1016/S1566-1199(03)00016-8 ↗
12. 10.1063/1.346456010.1063/1.3464560 ↗
13. 10.1103/PhysRevB.72.23530210.1103/PhysRevB.72.235302 ↗
14. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.23760110.1103/PhysRevLett.95.237601 ↗
15. 10.1021/nl060731i10.1021/nl060731i ↗
16. 10.1002/adfm.20090031510.1002/adfm.200900315 ↗
17. 10.1002/adma.20060087110.1002/adma.200600871 ↗
18. 10.1002/adma.20080175610.1002/adma.200801756 ↗
19. 10.1073/pnas.112031110910.1073/pnas.1120311109 ↗
20. 10.1002/adfm.20090038310.1002/adfm.200900383 ↗
21. 10.1063/1.163994510.1063/1.1639945 ↗
22. 10.1063/1.280428810.1063/1.2804288 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.orgel.2012.04.02910.1016/j.orgel.2012.04.029 ↗
24. 10.1063/1.351807510.1063/1.3518075 ↗
25. 10.1103/PhysRevB.57.1295110.1103/PhysRevB.57.12951 ↗
26. 10.1063/1.220162710.1063/1.2201627 ↗
27. 10.1002/adma.20080289310.1002/adma.200802893 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.orgel.2009.10.01810.1016/j.orgel.2009.10.018 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.orgel.2012.05.04110.1016/j.orgel.2012.05.041 ↗
30. Here we assume again that the ≈0.2 eV potential drop over the polyelectrolyte film (peeled and reversed samples) is due to ordering effects in the polyelectrolyte and are not due to chemical reactions with the gate metal although this would make only minor difference as discussed for the P3HT case (see Ref. 20. Due to the polyelectrolyte we expect that half of the necessary potential drop occurs at the P3HT/polyelectrolyte interface (4.65–4.1 = 0.55 eV; half 0.275 eV).
31. 10.1038/ncomms258710.1038/ncomms2587 ↗