4.8 Article

Perfluorinated Ionomer-Modified Hole-Injection Layers: Ultrahigh-Workfunction but Nonohmic Contacts

期刊

ADVANCED FUNCTIONAL MATERIALS
卷 25, 期 34, 页码 5504-5511

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/adfm.201500784

关键词

contact resistance; ohmic contact; organic semiconductors; workfunction; perfluorinated ionomers

资金

  1. National Research Foundation, Prime Minister's Office, Singapore under its Competitive Research Programme (CRP) [NRF-CRP 11-2012-03]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recently it has been reported that Nafion oligomers, i.e., 2-(2-sulfonatotetrafluoroethoxy)-2-trifluoromethyltrifluoroethoxyfunctionalized oligotetrafluoroethylenes, also called perfluorinated ionomers (PFIs), can be blended into poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene):poly(styrenesulfonic acid) (PEDT:PSSH) films to increase their workfunctions beyond 5.2 eV. These PFI-modified films are useful for energy-level alignment studies, and have been proposed as hole-injection layers (HILs). It is shown here however that these HILs do not provide sufficiently fast hole transfer into adjacent polymer semiconductor layers with ionization potentials deeper than approximate to 5.2 eV. X-ray and ultraviolet photoemission spectroscopies reveal that these HILs exhibit a molecularly-thin PFI overlayer that sets up a surface dipole that provides the ultrahigh workfunction. This dipolar layer persists even when the subsequent organic semiconductor layer is deposited, as evidenced by measurements of the diode built-in potentials. As a consequence, the PFI-modified HILs produce a higher contact resistance, and a lower equilibrium density of holes at the semiconductor contact than might have been expected from simple thermodynamic considerations of the reduction in hole-injection barrier. Thus the use of insulating dipolar surface layers at the charge-injection contact to tune its workfunction to match the relevant transport level of the semiconductor is of limited utility to achieve ohmic contact in these 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