4.8 Article

Correlation between Resistance and Field Emission Performance of Individual ZnO One-Dimensional Nanostructures

期刊

ACS NANO
卷 2, 期 10, 页码 2015-2022

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/nn800283u

关键词

single ZnO nanostructure; field emission; anode probe; resistance; vacuum breakdown

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [U0634002, 60601019, 60771055, 50725206, 60571035]
  2. Science and Technology Ministry of China [2003CB314701, 2007CB935501, 2008AA03A314]
  3. Education Ministry of China
  4. Science and Technology Department of Guangdong Province
  5. Education Department of Guangdong Province
  6. Science and Technology Department of Guangzhou City
  7. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province [06300340]
  8. Sun Yat-sen University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Both electrical and field emission measurements were carried out to study the correlation between resistance and field emission performance of individual one-dimensional (1D) ZnO nanostructures. Three types of 1D ZnO nanostructures were investigated (i.e., agave-like shape, pencil-like shape, and hierarchical structure) and were prepared by thermal chemical vapor transport and condensation without using any catalyst. The 1D ZnO nanostructures have obvious differences in resistance and thus conductivity from type to type. In addition, in the same type of I D ZnO nanostructure, each individual emitter may also have variation in resistance and thus in conductivity. The field emission performance of the ZnO emitters was found to be strongly correlated with the resistance of each individual ZnO nanostructure: (i) a ZnO emitter with low resistance will have better emission; (ii) a high resistance region in a ZnO nanostructure is liable to the initiation of a vacuum breakdown event. The results indicate that, besides the uniformity in the geometrical structure, the uniformity in conductivity of the emitters in an array should be ensured, in order to meet the requirement of device application.

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