4.8 Article

Electrical contacts in monolayer blue phosphorene devices

期刊

NANO RESEARCH
卷 11, 期 4, 页码 1834-1849

出版社

TSINGHUA UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1007/s12274-017-1801-2

关键词

monolayer blue phosphorene; interface property; Schottky barrier; field-effect transistor; density functional theory; quantum transport simulation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11274016, 11474012, 11674005, 11274233, 11664026]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China [2013CB932604, 2012CB619304]
  3. Ministry of Science and Technology (National Materials Genome Project) of China [2016YFA0301300, 2016YFB0700600]
  4. Foundation of Henan Educational Committee [17A430026]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Semiconducting monolayer (ML) blue phosphorene (BlueP) shares similar stability with ML black phosphorene (BP), and it has recently been grown on an Au surface. Potential ML BlueP devices often require direct contact with metal to enable the injection of carriers. Using ab initio electronic structure calculations and quantum transport simulations, for the first time, we perform a systematic study of the interfacial properties of ML BlueP in contact with metals spanning a wide work function range in a field effect transistor (FET) configuration. ML BlueP has undergone metallization owing to strong interaction with five metals. There is a strong Fermi level pinning (FLP) in the ML BlueP FETs due to the metal-induced gap states (MIGS) with a pinning factor of 0.42. ML BlueP forms n-type Schottky contact with Sc, Ag, and Pt electrodes with electron Schottky barrier heights (SBHs) of 0.22, 0.22, and 0.80 eV, respectively, and p-type Schottky contact with Au and Pd electrodes with hole SBHs of 0.61 and 0.79 eV, respectively. The MIGS are eliminated by inserting graphene between ML BlueP and the metal electrode, accompanied by a transition from a strong FLP to a weak FLP. Our study not only provides insight into the ML BlueP-metal interfaces, but also helps in the design of ML BlueP 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