ABSTRACT
We report here a practical application of known local Joule heating processes to reduce the contact resistance between carbon nanotubes and metallic electrical contacts. The results presented in this study were obtained from a series of systematic Joule heating experiments on 289 single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) and 107 multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs). Our experimental results demonstrate that the Joule heating process decreases the contact resistances of SWCNTs and MWCNTs to 70.4% and 77.9% of their initial resistances, respectively. The characteristics of metallic nanotubes become more linear and eventually become independent of the gate voltages . For semiconducting nanotubes, the contact resistance has a similar decreasing tendency but the dependency of source-drain current on does not change with the Joule heating process. This suggests that the reduction of the contact resistance and the decrease of the transport potential barrier are largely attributed to the thermal-energy-induced desorption of adsorbates such as water and oxygen molecules from the nanotube surface and the interface region, as well as thermal-energy-enhanced bonding between the nanotubes and electrode surfaces. In comparison to several other methods including rapid thermal annealing, e-beam lithography patterning of the top metal layer, and focused ion beam induced metal deposition of the top layer, the Joule heating process not only effectively reduces the contact resistance but also simultaneously measures the resistance and monitors the change in the transport potential barrier at the interface region.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was financially supported by the Intel Corp. and the National Science Foundation (DMR-220926). The authors would like to thank Jennifer Lo, Hector Oporta, Vachara Chirayos, and Devon McClain for their help in some of the experiments.
- 1. S. Tans, A. Verschueren, and C. Dekker, Nature (London) https://doi.org/10.1038/29954 393, 49 (1998). Google ScholarCrossref
- 2. R. Martel, T. Schmidt, H. R. Shea, T. Hertel, and Ph. Avouris, Appl. Phys. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.122477 73, 2447 (1998). Google ScholarScitation, ISI
- 3. A. Javey, J. Guo, Q. Wang, M. Lundstrom, and H. J. Dai, Nature (London) https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01797 424, 654 (2003). Google ScholarCrossref, ISI
- 4. S. Frank, S. P. Poncharal, Z. L. Wang, and W. A. de Heer, Science https://doi.org/10.1126/science.280.5370.1744 280, 1744 (1998). Google ScholarCrossref, ISI
- 5. C. Berger, Y. Yi, Z. L. Wang, and W. A. de Heer, Appl. Phys. A: Mater. Sci. Process. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003390201279 74, 363 (2002). Google ScholarCrossref, ISI
- 6. M. Bockrath, D. H. Cobden, J. Lu, A. G. Rinzler, R. E. Smalley, L. Balents, and P. L. McEuen, Nature (London) https://doi.org/10.1038/17569 397, 598 (1999). Google ScholarCrossref, ISI
- 7. M. Ouyang, J. L. Huang, and C. M. Lieber, Acc. Chem. Res. https://doi.org/10.1021/ar0101685 35, 1018 (2002). Google ScholarCrossref, ISI
- 8. Z. H. Chen, J. Appenzeller, J. Knoch, Y. M. Lin, and Ph. Avouris, Nano Lett. https://doi.org/10.1021/nl0508624 5, 1497 (2005). Google ScholarCrossref, ISI
- 9. M. Liebau, E. Unger, G. S. Duesberg, A. P. Graham, R. Seidel, F. Kreupl, and W. Hoenlein, Appl. Phys. A: Mater. Sci. Process. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00339-003-2207-4 77, 731 (2003). Google ScholarCrossref
- 10. S. Heinze, J. Tersoff, R. Martel, V. Derycke, J. Appenzeller, and Ph. Avouris, Phys. Rev. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.106801 89, 106801 (2002). Google ScholarCrossref, ISI
- 11. J. Kong, C. Zhou, A. Morpurgo, H. T. Soh, C. F. Quate, C. Marcus, and H. J. Dai, Appl. Phys. A: Mater. Sci. Process. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003390051005 69, 305 (1999). Google ScholarCrossref
- 12. A. Bachtold, M. Henny, C. Terrier, C. Strunk, and C. Schönenberger, Appl. Phys. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.121778 73, 274 (1998). Google ScholarScitation, ISI
- 13. H. Maki, M. Suzuki, and K. Ishibashi, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys., Part 1 https://doi.org/10.1143/JJAP.43.2027 43, 2027 (2004). Google ScholarCrossref
- 14. J. O. Lee, C. Park, J. J. Kim, J. H. Kim, J. W. Park, and K. H. Yoo, J. Phys. D https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3727/33/16/303 33, 1953 (2000). Google ScholarCrossref
- 15. L. F. Dong et al., J. Phys. Chem. B 109, 13148 (2005). Google ScholarCrossref
- 16. L. F. Dong, J. Jiao, S. Foxley, C. L. Mosher, and D. W. Tuggle, J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 2, 155 (2002). Google ScholarCrossref
- 17. L. F. Dong, J. Jiao, C. C. Pan, and D. W. Tuggle, Appl. Phys. A: Mater. Sci. Process. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00339-003-2295-1 78, 9 (2004). Google ScholarCrossref
- 18. M. J. O’Connell et al., Science https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1072631 297, 593 (2002). Google ScholarCrossref, ISI
- 19. C. Richard, F. Balavoine, P. Schultz, T. W. Ebbesen, and C. Mioskowski, Science https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1080848 300, 775 (2003). Google ScholarCrossref, ISI
- 20. L. F. Dong, J. Bush, V. Chirayos, J. Jiao, Y. Ono, J. F. Conley Jr., and B. D. Ulrich, Nano Lett. https://doi.org/10.1021/nl051650+ 5, 2112 (2005). Google ScholarCrossref
Please Note: The number of views represents the full text views from December 2016 to date. Article views prior to December 2016 are not included.

