4.8 Article

Homoepitaxy of Crystalline Rubrene Thin Films

期刊

NANO LETTERS
卷 17, 期 5, 页码 3040-3046

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.7b00380

关键词

Homoepitaxy; screw dislocation; line defect; roughness; electron backscatter diffraction; crystals; thin films; rubrene

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Division of Materials Sciences and Engineering [DE-SC0012458]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The smooth surface of crystalline rubrene films formed through an abrupt heating process provides a valuable platform to study organic homoepitaxy. By varying growth rate and substrate temperature, we are able to manipulate the onset of a transition from layer-by-layer to island growth modes, while the crystalline thin films maintain a remarkably smooth surface (less than 2.3 nm root-mean-square roughness) even with thick (80 nm) adlayers. We also uncover evidence of point and line defect formation in these films, indicating that homoepitaxy under our conditions is not at equilibrium or strain-free. Point defects that are resolved as screw dislocations can be eliminated under closer-to-equilibrium conditions, whereas we are not able to eliminate the formation of line defects within our experimental constraints at adlayer thicknesses above similar to 25 nm. We are, however, able to eliminate these line defects by growing on a bulk single crystal of rubrene, indicating that the line defects are a result of strain built into the thin film template. We utilize electron backscatter diffraction, which is a first for organics, to investigate the origin of these line defects and find that they preferentially occur parallel to the (002) plane, which is in agreement with expectations based on calculated surface energies of various rubrene crystal facets. By combining the benefits of crystallinity, low surface roughness, and thickness-tunability, this system provides an important study of attributes valuable to high-performance organic electronic devices.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据