University of Alberta National Institute for Nanotechnology Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
description
Transcript of University of Alberta National Institute for Nanotechnology Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
No Slide Title
University of AlbertaNational Institute for NanotechnologyEdmonton, Alberta, Canada
Molecules in Circuits, a New Type of Microelectronics?
Richard L. McCreery
#1Organic Electronics:Sony organic LED display
charge transport by hopping across 100 nm 10 m distancescarriers are radical ions and/or polarons, often low stabilityWhat happens when charge transfer distance is decreased to 1-25 nm, and electric fields may exceed 106 V/cm ? #26000 rpmcommercial photoresist (novolac resin)Soft Baking90OCClean Si WaferSpin-CoatingGas Flow95% N2;5% H2(1000OC, 1 hour)Pyrolysis
50 mOptionalLithographyOur substrate: Pyrolyzed Photoresist Films (PPF)PPF (roughness < 0.4 nm rms)
50 m
Kim, Song, Kinoshita, Madou, and White, J. Electrochem. Soc., 1998, 145, 2315Ranganathan, McCreery, Majji, and Madou, J. Electrochem. Soc., 2000. 147, 277282Ranganathan, McCreery, Anal. Chem, 2001, 73, 893-900.#3Delamar, M.; Hitmi, R.; Pinson, J.; Saveant, J. M.; J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1992, 114, 5883. Liu, McCreery, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1995, 117, 11254. Belanger, Pinson, Chem. Soc. Reviews 2011, 40, 3995 .PPF electrodeeCH3CN+RN2+RNH2HNO2 surface bond stable to > 500 oC high coverage very low in pinholes prone to multilayer formation. Surface modification via diazonium reduction:sp2 carbonRRN2+ Re-#4modified electrode Ox Redsp2 carbonAdv. Mater. 2009, 21, 4304 J. Phys. Chem. C 2010, 114, 15806J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2011, 133, 191681-6 nmVCuFIB/TEM:
silicon (for contrast)CuSi10 nmBTB
PPFe-CAuAue-carbon
Packaged: #5
Pyrolyzed Photoresist Film (PPF) microfabrication:100 mm
1. lithography2. pyrolysisPPF structure and conductivity similar to glassy carbon roughness < 0.5 nm rms by AFM
#6
PPF Echip 4 waferMagnification = 1molecules attached to PPF by electrochemical reduction of diazonium ions
PPF leadsJunctionMag. = 10
Cu/Au depositedthrough shadow maskMag. = 10next slide#7
cleave through junction region, then SEM of edgeTEMMag. = 60
SiO2SiPPFSiO2Cu/Au1 mjunction regionMag. = 30,000
Cu/AuSiO2PPFMolecules(not resolved)100 nmMag. = 300,000
5 nmsilicon (for contrast)FIB/TEM:Mag. = 5,000,000CuAusp2 carbon#
near Jasper, Alberta#9
log scaleexponential above ~0.2 VV
frequency independent, 0.01 to 105 Hz symmetric can scan > 109 cycles without change survived 150 oC for > 40 hrsACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 2010, 2, 369380 x 80m junctionNNNOO V1 mA0.5 Vno molecule-2-1012-1.0-0.50.00.51.0J(A/cm2)NAB(nitroazobenzene)NAB
32 junctionslooks likeMarcus kineticsIs it?#10
1000/T, K-1Arrhenius:
T = 5 K37 meV0.03 meVstrong thickness dependence
d = 2.2 nm2.8 nm3.3 nm4.5 nm5.2 nmmolecular layerthicknessJ. Phys. Chem C, 2010, 114, 15806not activated for T400 junctions)More molecules:NO EFFECT!
Sayed, Fereiro, Yan, McCreery, Bergren; PNAS (2012) 109, 11498.
#13
PPFNO2BrCCHEnergy levels of PPF/molecule from Ultraviolet Photoelectron Spectroscopy:
* method of Kim, Choi, Zhu, Frisbie, JACS 2011, 133, 19864*hv=21.2 eVEFermieEF - EHOMOeWFmean for 8aromatics=1.3 0.2 eValiphatic=2.0 0.1 eVvacuumWF=4.404.534.884.97#14Energy (eV vs. Vacuum)-5-6-7-4-3-2-8PPFBTBABPhBrNABNPNC8H17Free molecule HOMOs:1.3 0.2 eV(aromatics)NC8H172.0 0.1 eVMolecules bonded to PPF:UPS and Simmons barriersare consistent, and correlatewith observed values0.692.99Sayed, Fereiro, Yan, RLM, Bergren, PNAS, 109, 11498 (2012)#15Why?PPF(unmodified)WF ~ 4.6+ eVelectron donating0.7 eVNNNOOWF ~ 5.1+ eV4.6 eVelectron withdrawingHOMO ~6.6*2.0NNNOOSSWF ~ 4.4+ eV4.6 eV+1.2 eV1.3 eVHOMO ~5.3*SSFree molecules:leveling effect of strong coupling need to consider the system, not just isolated components* B3LYP 6-31G(d)+ experimental#16
90o dihedralHOMO-1 orbital*
Strongcoupling:graphene electrodemolecule
60o dihedral
37o dihedral
20o dihedral
0o dihedraldihedral anglebetween G9and NABSubstituents on moleculeaffect both HOMO and Fermi levels in strong coupling limit*Gaussian 03, B3LYP/6-31G(d)Where does the electrodestop and the molecule begin?Cu#17Something special about molecular tunnel junctions:
electron transit time 15 fsec (15 x 10-15 seconds)maximum frequency > 10,000 GHzwhatever we can do with tunnel junctionsshould be VERY fast5 nm+1 V0 Vemolecules#18a problem with tunneling:
J (A/cm2) = K exp(-d)
so far, we are really doing barrier electronicswe need to seriously reduce if molecular electronics is to be broadly practical = 9 nm-1 (alkane)
= 3 nm-1 (aromatic)
= 1 nm-1 (??) = 0.03 nm-1 (??)00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91012345distance, nm9310.03probability#19
= 8.7 nm-1 metalliccontactsEfermie (electron tunnellingbarrier)h (holetunnellingbarrier)what happens beyond tunnelling?
SSBTBd#204.5 22 nm multilayerPPF (sp2 carbon)Aue-beam carbonVSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSScollaboration with: Maria Luisa Della Rocca, Pascal Martin, Philippe Lafarge, Jean-Christophe Lacroix, University of Paris
BTB (bis-thienyl benzene) in all-carbon junctionmetalliccontacts-4.8-5.3-1.5 eVEnergy vs. vacuum, eVSS#21
300 K4.55.08.0132216
4.55.08.010.513227.016300 Kthickness, nm:tunnelling? unlikely across 22 nmnote curvature, notsimple exponentialconventional wisdom: activated hopping by redox exchange for d > 5-10 nm#22
4.5 nm8.010.522 15 nm, T>200 K Arrhenius slope=160 meV (>200 K)0.3 meV (5-50 K)(bulk polythiophene:130 280 meV)#24
300 K4.5 nm8.010.522
< 10K4.5 nm22 10.58.0the usual suspects: characteristic plot:
Fowler Nordheim (field emission) linear lnJ vs 1/E (E= electric field)variable range hopping linear lnJ vs T-1/2 or T-1/4Schottky emission (i.e. thermionic) linear lnJ vs 1/Tredox hopping linear ln J vs 1/Tspace charge limited conduction linear J vs V2
Poole-Frenkel transport between traps linear ln (J/E) vs E1/2 R2 = 0.9989(note: controlled by electric field, not thickness. certainly NOT tunneling)
#25
(trap-Poole-Frenkel transport between coulombic traps:trape-V=0V < 0'trape-trap depth decreases with increasing electric fieldV 106NAB, AB, etc#31