Full text loading...
(a) FGS schematic, (b) SEM image of a contacted graphene sheet.
(a) I/V curves for three representative FGSs. (b) Non-linear response of FGS7.3 compared to linear response of FGS24, curves are normalized with respect to the slope at 0 V. (c)–(e) AFM topography images of the FGSs corresponding to (a). (f)–(h) Cross-sections along the lines in (c)–(e).
Compilation of data from a total of 25 sheets measured with the 2-probe technique.
KPFM data for two FGSs with C/O of (a) 7.3 and (b) 24. Top: Map of potential measured at a bias of +2 V. Bottom: Topography and potential profiles at applied voltages between +2 and −2 V along the indicated cross sections. Through linear fitting and extrapolation to the location of the gold contact edges (see dashed lines in the potential plot for (a)) the individual potential drops at source electrode (V S), across the FGS (V FGS) and at the drain electrode (V D) are determined.
I/V characteristics of FGSs and contacts as determined by KPFM, corresponding to the data shown in Figure 4 . Device currents are plotted for (a) FGS7.3 and (b) FGS24 as a function of the potential drops V FGS across the FGSs (black squares) and as a function of the potential drops across source (V S) and drain (V D) contact for all applied voltages between +2 and −2 V.
C/O of functionalized graphene exfoliated and annealed at various temperatures as used in this study. The specified errors represent the standard deviation between at least 5 measurements on each FGS powder.
Sheet resistance measured by 2-probe technique and KPFM and contact resistances.
Sheet resistance of different types of graphene.
Article metrics loading...