High field-emission current density from β-

Ga2O3 nanopillars
Cite as: Appl. Phys. Lett. 114, 193101 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5096596
Submitted: 19 March 2019 . Accepted: 01 May 2019 . Published Online: 17 May 2019

Alessandro Grillo , Julien Barrat , Zbigniew Galazka , Maurizio Passacantando , Filippo Giubileo
, Laura Iemmo , Giuseppe Luongo , Francesca Urban , Catherine Dubourdieu, and Antonio Di
Bartolomeo

ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

Selective lateral epitaxy of dislocation-free InP on silicon-on-insulator

Applied Physics Letters 114, 192105 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5095457

Light confinement and high current density in UVB laser diode structure using Al composition-
graded p-AlGaN cladding layer
Applied Physics Letters 114, 191103 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5095149

Extended short wavelength infrared heterojunction phototransistors based on type II

superlattices
Applied Physics Letters 114, 191109 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5093560

Appl. Phys. Lett. 114, 193101 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5096596 114, 193101

© 2019 Author(s).
 Applied Physics Letters ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/apl

High field-emission current density from b-Ga2O3

nanopillars
Cite as: Appl. Phys. Lett. 114, 193101 (2019); doi: 10.1063/1.5096596
Submitted: 19 March 2019 . Accepted: 1 May 2019 .
Published Online: 17 May 2019

Alessandro Grillo,1 Julien Barrat,2 Zbigniew Galazka,3 Maurizio Passacantando,4 Filippo Giubileo,5
1,5 1,5 1,5 2,6,a)
Laura Iemmo, Giuseppe Luongo, Francesca Urban, Catherine Dubourdieu,
and Antonio Di Bartolomeo1,5,7,a)

AFFILIATIONS
1
Physics Department “E. R. Caianiello,” University of Salerno, via Giovanni Paolo II n. 132, Fisciano 84084, Italy
2
Helmholtz-Zentrum Berlin fu € r Materialien und Energie GmbH, Hahn-Meitner-Platz 1, D-14109 Berlin, Germany
3
€ r Kristallzu
Leibniz-Institut fu € chtung (IKZ), Max-Born-Strasse 2, 12489 Berlin, Germany
4
Department of Physical and Chemical Science, University of L’Aquila and CNR-SPIN L’Aquila, via Vetoio, Coppito, L’Aquila 67100,
Italy
5
CNR-SPIN Salerno, via Giovanni Paolo II n. 132, Fisciano 84084, Italy
6
€ t Berlin, Institut fu
Freie Universita € r Chemie und Biochemie, Physical Chemistry, Takustrasse 3, 14195 Berlin, Germany
7
Interdepartmental Centre NanoMates, University of Salerno, via Giovanni Paolo II n. 132, Fisciano 84084, Italy

a)
Electronic addresses: catherine.dubourdieu@helmholtz-berlin.de and adibartolomeo@unisa.it

ABSTRACT
Field emission from gallium oxide (b-Ga2O3) nanopillars, etched by Neþ ion milling on b-polymorph (100) single crystals, is reported. A sta-
ble field emission current, with a record density over 100 A/cm2 and a turn on field of  30 V/lm, is achieved. We expect that the high field
enhancement factor of about 200 at a cathode-anode distance of 1 lm can be further increased by optimizing the shape of the nanopillar
apex. This work demonstrates that the material properties combined with an appropriate nano-patterning can make b-Ga2O3 competitive or
better than other well-established field emitters.
Published under license by AIP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5096596

Gallium oxide (Ga2O3) is considered a promising candidate for
high power electronics application owing to its excellent physical and
chemical properties.1 Among the five polymorphs, b-Ga2O3 is the
thermodynamically stable phase at room temperature and atmo-
spheric pressure.2 It has a wide bandgap of about 4.8 eV (Ref. 3) and a
very high breakdown electric field4 (Ebr  8 MV cm1), three times
larger than that of SiC and GaN, which enables handling huge switch-
ing voltages. Moreover, its Baliga figure of merit (BFOM ¼ erlEg,
where er is the relative dielectric constant, l is the electron mobility,
and Eg is the bandgap of the semiconductor), a parameter used to
assess the suitability of a semiconductor for power device applications,
is several times larger than that of SiC and GaN.5 Hence, b-Ga2O3
based power devices offer a significant reduction in the current loss.6
Despite the recent interest in this material, few research groups
have explored opportunities for different applications, such as field
emission.
Due to the high mechanical strength, chemical stability, heat dis-
sipation, and charge transport capability, the patterning of nanowires
or nanopillars renders b-Ga2O3 a good candidate for field emission
applications.7–12 Huang et al. reported field emission from quasi-
aligned Ga2O3 nanowires fabricated using a brass wire mesh as the
substrate and estimated a field enhancement factor of about 880 at a
cathode-anode distance of about 100 lm.13 Lopez et al. investigated
the field emission properties of Ga2O3 nanowires with Sn-dopant
enhanced electrical conductivity.14 They reported a field enhancement
factor of 3287 measured at a cathode-anode distance of 400 lm.
Finally, Tien et al. investigated field emission from Ga2O3 nanobelts
synthesized in different oxygen ambient and achieved a field enhance-
ment factor as high as 2242 for the 1% oxygen level.15
So far, all field emission studies have been dealing with meshes
or arrays of Ga2O3 nanostructures, where the field emission proper-
ties are averaged over a large number of emitters. In this paper, we
report the patterning of a b-Ga2O3 single crystal into individual
nanopillars, purposely designed for the investigation of the field
emission current. Different from other groups, we investigate the
field emission from a single b-Ga2O3 nanopillar. We show that the

Appl. Phys. Lett. 114, 193101 (2019); doi: 10.1063/1.5096596 114, 193101-1
Published under license by AIP Publishing
 Applied Physics Letters
b-Ga2O3 nano-patterning, combined with the intrinsic properties
of the material, enables a class of performant and competitive field
emitters with a low turn-on field and a very high current density
and field enhancement factor.
The sample used is a (100) b-Ga2O3 single crystal, which was pro-
duced using the Czochralski method.16–18 The unit cell of b-gallium
oxide as well as the crystal orientation of the samples is presented in
Fig. 1(a). The size of the samples is 10  10 mm2. The electron concen-
tration is 5.9  1016 cm3, and the mobility is 62 cm2 V1 s1 (the
resistivity is 1.8 X cm1). Prior to the patterning process, the sample
was cleaned in a sequence of 1-min ultrasonic baths with ethanol,
acetone, and distilled water, at a temperature of 22  C. Finally, an argon
plasma was applied on it for about 5 min at a pressure of 0.3 mbar and
a power of 40 W. The cleanliness of a sample is a critical factor in the
process of nanofabrication.
A Carl Zeiss Orion NanoFab microscope was used for the fabri-
cation and imaging of the nanopillars. The corresponding experimen-
tal setup is shown in Fig. 1(b). The imaging of the nanopillars is
realized through the collection of the sputtered secondary electrons
with an Everhart-Thornley detector. The use of a helium source results
in images with a great contrast and a large depth of field, because of
the small De Broglie wavelength of the ions [the probe size is typically
0.5 nm (Ref. 19)]. However, this imaging technique is also destruc-
tive since the target atoms are also sputtered by the ions.20 For milling
purposes, the use of helium ions is not appropriate because of surface
blistering.21 It is possible to switch to neon ions in the Orion setup, for
which there is no noticeable blistering effect. The Neþ beam was used
all throughout this work for the fabrication of nanostructures, while
the Heþ beam is used for convenient in-situ imaging. The Neþ beam
was regulated at an energy of 30 keV for producing an isolated pillar.
To increase the control on the single pillar diameter, the nanofabrica-
tion process was divided into three steps: (i) milling of a 2  2 lm2
FIG. 1. (a) Monoclinic unit cell of b-Ga2O3 with the lattice parameters: a ¼ 12.214
Å, b ¼ 3.0371 Å, c ¼ 5.7981 Å, and ß ¼ 103.8 .3 A projection of the cell in the
(100) plane is shown below the unit cell. (b) Experimental setup of the Carl Zeiss
Orion NanoFab helium ion microscope. The inset shows an in-situ image of the tri-
mer. (c) SEM image of three nanopillars with a height of 400 nm and a diameter
of 70 nm.
Appl. Phys. Lett. 114, 193101 (2019); doi: 10.1063/1.5096596
Published under license by AIP Publishing
ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/apl
square with a central pillar of 500 nm diameter, (ii) rough polishing
of the central pillar, reduced to a diameter of 150 nm, and (iii) fine
polishing of the central pillar to obtain the sharpest and finest pillar
possible. This process results in spatially separated individual pillars
with a height of 400 nm and a diameter of 70 nm [Fig. 1(c)]. Some
squares were intentionally etched without the central pillar.
All electrical measurements were performed with the sample
kept inside a Zeiss LEO 1530 SEM chamber in high vacuum (pressure
< 106 mbar) and at room temperature. A W-tip, mounted on a
piezoelectric-driven arm, installed inside the SEM chamber, and the
SEM sample holder were electrically connected to a semiconductor
parameter analyzer (Keithley 4200-SCS) and used as the anode and
the cathode for the two-terminal device characterization. The W-tip
positioning was controlled with a resolution better than 5 nm in all
directions. Figure 2(a) shows a diagram of the measurement setup.
The W-tip (anode), guided by the SEM arm, is gently approached to
the surface of the sample until it establishes an intimate electrical con-
tact with it [Fig. 2(b)]. An ohmic contact (cathode) on the back-side of
the sample is created with silver paste covering a large scratched area
of the b-Ga2O3 sample.
The I-V characteristics between top and bottom contacts are
shown in Fig. 2(c). The curve exhibits a pronounced rectifying behav-
ior with a rectification ratio, defined as the current ratio at 65 V,
greater than 106, pointing to the formation of Schottky barriers.22
The forward current at positive bias confirms the n-type behavior
of the b-Ga2O3 sample, which can facilitate the extraction of a field
emission current. To check that the Ag-contact on the bottom of the
device is nonrectifying, we created a similar contact of silver paste on
the top of the sample and performed I-V measurements between these
two contacts. The results are shown in Fig. 2(d), from which a sym-
metrical although nonlinear characteristic is noted as a confirmation
of the nonrectifying nature of the Ag-paste contacts.
FIG. 2. (a) Diagram of the measurement setup: a tungsten tip, placed on the top
surface of the sample, and a large silver paste bottom contact are electrically con-
nected to a source measurement unit (SMU Keithley 4200 SCS). (b) SEM image of
the tungsten tip used as a contact for the electrical measurements. (c) Two-probe
I-V characteristics between the W-tip and the back Ag-paste contact used as the
anode and the cathode of a two-terminal device. (d) I-V characteristic between two
silver paste contacts placed on the top and on the bottom of the device, respec-
tively (the inset shows the current on a linear scale).
114, 193101-2
 Applied Physics Letters
To perform field emission measurements, the W-tip was moved
away from the sample surface at given distances. The field emission
current was first measured from the edge of a box that does not con-
tain the pillar, at two selected tip-edge distances of d0  200 nm and d0
 350 nm [Fig. 3(a)]. The current was monitored while the voltage
was ramped up to 60 V (a constraint imposed to avoid damage of the
device and of the measurement setup).
The measured current is shown in Fig. 4(a). For a voltage up to
40 V the current fluctuates around the noise floor 1013 A, and no
clear charge flow is detected. For V > 40 V, an exponential increase in
the current is observed. Measurements at a distance d0 < 200 nm easily
result in uncontrolled tip-edge contacting caused by the attractive
electrostatic-force, while for d0 > 350 nm, a field emission current is
hardily extracted, given the limitation imposed to the maximum
applied voltage.
Next, the current was measured with the W-tip positioned above
the top of the nanopillar as shown in Fig. 3(b), at three different dis-
tances. This time, a field emission current was measured, over the
same voltage range, even at a distance of d ¼ 1 lm, clearly indicating
the better field emission performance of the nanotip-shaped b-Ga2O3.
Compared to the similar measurements from the step edge, the extrac-
tion of the current from the nanopillar occurs at a much lower voltage
and achieves a higher current value under the same applied electric
field [Fig. 4(b)]. The smoother increase in the field emission current at
higher voltages, as noticed from Fig. 4(b) compared to Fig. 4(a), is due
to the series resistance of the nanopillar. At d ¼ 400 nm and 45 V bias,
a remarkable current density higher than 100 A/cm2 is obtained. This
current density, although affected by an incertitude around 10%, is
particularly relevant when compared to the one obtained from several
other materials under similar experimental conditions. For instance, at
comparable high electric fields, gallium nitride,23–25 zinc oxide,26 or
molybdenum oxide27 emit a current with a density that is few orders
of magnitude lower. The achieved current density is also higher than
10 A/cm2 reported for carbon nanotubes.28–30 We note that the
b-Ga2O3 nanopillar also competes with individual carbon nanotubes,
measured in similar conditions, for the turn-on field31,32 and the
stability.32,33
To confirm the field emission nature of the measured current,
the I-V curves are analyzed in the framework of the classical Fowler-
Nordheim (FN) theory.32,34 According to the FN model, the field
emission current is obtained as
! The FN behavior of the measured emission current is confirmed
AaEs2 u3=2
I¼ exp b ; (1)
u Es
FIG. 3. SEM images showing the W-tip positioning for field emission measure-
ments. The W-Tip is close to (a) the step edge of the box or to (b) the apex of the
nanopillar, which is the emitter site.
Appl. Phys. Lett. 114, 193101 (2019); doi: 10.1063/1.5096596
Published under license by AIP Publishing
ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/apl
FIG. 4. (a) Field emission current as a function of the applied voltage measured at
tip-box edge distances d0 of 200 nm (black line) and 350 nm (red line); the inset
shows the measurement setup. (b) Field emission current as a function of the
applied voltage measured at tip-top nanopillar distances d of 400, 700, and
1000 nm; the inset shows the measurement setup. (c) and (d) show the Fowler-
Nordheim plots corresponding to the currents of figures (a) and (b), respectively.
where A is the emitting area, Es is the local electric field, u is the work-
function of the semiconducting material (4.8 eV for Ga2O335), and
a ¼ 1.54  106 A eV V2 and b¼ 6.83  109 V m1 eV3/2 are con-
stants. In a parallel plate configuration, the electric field is simply V=d.
To account for the spherical termination of the W-tip in our setup, an
anode-correction factor of k  1.5 must be introduced36 and the
V
applied electric field is expressed as kd . The data in Fig. 4(b) show a
field emission current starting at 20 V for d ¼ 400 nm, which corre-
sponds to the low applied turn-on field Eon  30 V=lm. The pointed
cathode enables a local amplification of the applied field, owing to the
accumulation of the field lines at the apex of the emitting site.
Introducing a b factor to account for such amplification, the local field
V
Es is finally expressed as: Es ¼ b dk . The so-called field enhancement
factor b constitutes an important figure-of-merit in field emission
studies, being strictly dependent on the shape of the emitter. The
higher the b value, the more performant the field emitter.
by the linearity of ln(I/V2) vs 1/V curves (FN plot), shown  in3 Figs.
 4(c)
and 4(d). The slope of the fitting straight lines ½m ¼ bu2 dk =b] is
used to estimate the field enhancement factor,37 which is displayed in
Fig. 5(a) for different cathode-anode distances. The nanopillar has a b
about ten times larger than that of the box edge because of its shaper
form and higher aspect ratio which greatly enhance the local electric
field. We also remark that b increases with the cathode-anode dis-
tance, consistently with what has been reported for field emission
from carbon nanotubes32,36 or nanowires.37 The field enhancement
factor is often used as the parameter to benchmark a field emitter,
despite the fact that it can strongly depend on the measurement setup.
A significant comparison is therefore possible only when the measure-
ments are performed under the same experimental conditions. That
said, for a rough assessment of the single Ga2O3 nanopillar field emis-
sion performance against other cold cathodes, we extrapolated the
114, 193101-3
 Applied Physics Letters ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/apl

REFERENCES
1
J. Millan, P. Godignon, X. Perpi~ na, A. Perez-Tomas, and J. Rebollo, IEEE
Trans. Power Electron. 29, 2155 (2014).
2
R. Roy, V. G. Hill, and E. F. Osborn, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 74, 719 (1952).
3
S. I. Stepanov, V. I. Nikolaev, V. E. Bougrov, and A. E. Romanov, Rev. Adv.
Mater. Sci. 44, 63 (2016).
4
A. J. Green, K. Chabak, E. R. Heller, R. C. Fitch, M. Baldini, A. Fiedler, K.
Irmscher, G. Wagner, Z. Galazka, S. E. Tetlak, A. Crespo, K. Leedy, and G. H.
Jessen, IEEE Electron Device Lett. 37, 902 (2016).
5
M. Higashiwaki, A. Kuramata, H. Murakami, and Y. Kumagai, J. Phys. D:
Appl. Phys. 50, 333002 (2017).
6
FIG. 5. (a) Field enhancement factor b vs cathode-anode distance for the single M. Higashiwaki, K. Sasaki, A. Kuramata, T. Masui, and S. Yamakoshi, Appl.
nanopillar and for the box edge emitter. (b) Field emission current vs time. The inset Phys. Lett. 100, 013504 (2012).
7
shows the histogram of the current with the mean and standard deviation. F. Giubileo, A. D. Bartolomeo, A. Scarfato, L. Iemmo, F. Bobba, M.
Passacantando, S. Santucci, and A. M. Cucolo, Carbon 47, 1074 (2009).
8
F. Urban, M. Passacantando, F. Giubileo, L. Iemmo, and A. Di Bartolomeo,
linear b-distance behavior of Fig. 5(a) to distances comparable with
Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) 8, 151 (2018).
the ones of 100–400 lm (Refs. 13–15) reported in previous studies 9
A. D. Bartolomeo, M. Passacantando, G. Niu, V. Schlykow, G. Lupina, F.
that have used differently shaped Ga2O3. This is a reasonable assump- Giubileo, and T. Schroeder, Nanotechnology 27, 485707 (2016).
10
tion, based on the experimental observation that the field enhance- L. Iemmo, A. D. Bartolomeo, F. Giubileo, G. Luongo, M. Passacantando, G.
ment factor increases with the distance.31,32,38 The resulting b > 4000 Niu, F. Hatami, O. Skibitzki, and T. Schroeder, Nanotechnology 28, 495705
at a distance of 100 lm suggests that the nanopillars here presented (2017).
11
A. Di Bartolomeo, F. Urban, M. Passacantando, N. McEvoy, L. Peters, L. Iemmo,
are not only better than other, differently shaped, Ga2O3 field emit-
G. Luongo, F. Romeo, and F. Giubileo, Nanoscale 11(4), 1538–1548 (2019).
ters13–15 but also competitive with emitters known for their high field 12
F. Giubileo, L. Iemmo, M. Passacantando, F. Urban, G. Luongo, L. Sun, G.
enhancement factor and low turn on field like carbon nanotubes.39,40 Amato, E. Enrico, and A. Di Bartolomeo, J. Phys. Chem. C 123, 1454 (2019).
13
The current stability is another important parameter that a Y. Huang, Z. Wang, Q. Wang, C. Gu, C. Tang, Y. Bando, and D. Golberg,
good field emitter must possess. We checked the field emission sta- J. Phys. Chem. C 113, 1980 (2009).
14
bility of the b-Ga2O3 nanopillar under the applied bias of 40 V with I. Lopez, E. Nogales, P. Hidalgo, B. Mendez, and J. Piqueras, Phys. Status Solidi
A 209, 113 (2012).
the W-tip at 400 nm. Figure 5(b) plots the current for a time of 15
L.-C. Tien, C.-C. Tseng, and C.-H. Ho, J. Electron. Mater. 41, 3056 (2012).
25 min and shows fluctuations within 10% of the average value, 16
Z. Galazka, R. Uecker, K. Irmscher, M. Albrecht, D. Klimm, M. Pietsch, M.
which is a satisfactory result, especially if we take into account the Br€utzam, R. Bertram, S. Ganschow, and R. Fornari, Cryst. Res. Technol. 45,
difficulty to control the W-tip/nanopillar distance over time. As is 1229 (2010).
17
well known, the emission current instability is mainly caused by the Z. Galazka, K. Irmscher, R. Uecker, R. Bertram, M. Pietsch, A. Kwasniewski, M.
Naumann, T. Schulz, R. Schewski, D. Klimm, and M. Bickermann, J. Cryst.
local heating effect in metal oxide semiconductor emitters.41 Then,
Growth 404, 184 (2014).
the observed good stability indicates an efficient heat dissipation of 18
Z. Galazka, R. Uecker, D. Klimm, K. Irmscher, M. Naumann, M. Pietsch, A.
the fabricated nanopillar, despite the low thermal conductivity of Kwasniewski, R. Bertram, S. Ganschow, and M. Bickermann, ECS J. Solid State
b-Ga2O3 ( 21 W m1 K1).42 Sci. Technol. 6, Q3007 (2017).
19
We fabricated nanopillars with a height of 400 nm and a diame- G. Hlawacek, V. Veligura, R. van Gastel, and B. Poelsema, J. Vac. Sci. Technol.
ter of 70 nm from b-Ga2O3 single crystals using Neþ ion milling. The 20
B 32, 020801 (2014).
R. Livengood, S. Tan, Y. Greenzweig, J. Notte, and S. McVey, J. Vac. Technol.
field emission properties of such nanopillars were experimentally
B 27, 3244 (2009).
investigated using a tip-shaped anode with fine movement control. A 21
S. E. Donnelly, Radiat. Eff. 90, 1 (1985).
stable field emission current, with a high current density over 100 A/ 22
A. Di Bartolomeo, A. Grillo, F. Urban, L. Iemmo, F. Giubileo, G. Luongo, G.
cm2, well described by the standard Fowler-Nordheim theory, was Amato, L. Croin, L. Sun, S.-J. Liang, and L. K. Ang, Adv. Funct. Mater. 28,
extracted with a turn on field of 30 V=lm. The field enhancement fac- 1800657 (2018).
23
tor was found to be a linear function of the distance and achieves the I. Berishev, A. Bensaoula, I. Rusakova, A. Karabutov, M. Ugarov, and V. P.
Ageev, Appl. Phys. Lett. 73, 1808 (1998).
remarkable value of about 200 at 1 lm distance. The turn-on field and 24
R. D. Underwood, D. Kapolnek, B. P. Keller, S. Keller, S. P. Denbaars, and U.
the b factor could be further improved by sharpening the nanopillar K. Mishra, Solid-State Electron. 41, 243 (1997).
25
tip. This work shows that b-Ga2O3 nanopillars are suitable candidates T. Kozawa, M. Suzuki, Y. Taga, Y. Gotoh, and J. Ishikawa, in 10th
for field emission applications and, if appropriately patterned, can International Conference on Vacuum Microelectronics (1997), pp. 750–753.
26
compete with well-established emitters such as carbon nanotubes. Y.-K. Tseng, C.-J. Huang, H.-M. Cheng, I.-N. Lin, K.-S. Liu, and I.-C. Chen,
Adv. Funct. Mater. 13, 811 (2003).
27
J. Zhou, N.-S. Xu, S.-Z. Deng, J. Chen, J.-C. She, and Z.-L. Wang, Adv. Mater.
Z.G., C.D., and J.B. performed this work in the framework of 15, 1835 (2003).
GraFOx, partially funded by the Leibniz Association and by the 28
X. Calder on-Colon, H. Geng, B. Gao, L. An, G. Cao, and O. Zhou,
German Science Foundation (Grant Nos. DFG-FI932/10-1 and Nanotechnology 20, 325707 (2009).
29
DFGFI932/11-1). The fabrication of the nanopillars was performed Q. Zhang, X. Wang, P. Meng, H. Yue, R. Zheng, X. Wu, and G. Cheng, Appl.
Phys. Lett. 112, 013101 (2018).
at the Zeiss labs@location of the Helmholtz Zentrum Berlin. A.D.B., 30
W. Zhu, C. Bower, O. Zhou, G. Kochanski, and S. Jin, Appl. Phys. Lett. 75, 873
A.G., and L.I. acknowledge the financial support of Project PICO & (1999).
PRO, No. ARS S01_01061, and PON MIUR “Ricerca e Innovazione” 31
J.-M. Bonard, K. A. Dean, B. F. Coll, and C. Klinke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 197602
2014–2020. (2002).

Appl. Phys. Lett. 114, 193101 (2019); doi: 10.1063/1.5096596 114, 193101-4
Published under license by AIP Publishing
 Applied Physics Letters ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/apl

32 37
M. Passacantando, F. Bussolotti, S. Santucci, A. D. Bartolomeo, F. Giubileo, L. F. Giubileo, A. Di Bartolomeo, L. Iemmo, G. Luongo, M. Passacantando, E.
Iemmo, and A. M. Cucolo, Nanotechnology 19, 395701 (2008). Koivusalo, T. V. Hakkarainen, and M. Guina, Nanomaterials (Basel,
33
V. Semet, V. T. Binh, P. Vincent, D. Guillot, K. B. K. Teo, M. Chhowalla, G. A. Switzerland) 7, 275 (2017).
38
J. Amaratunga, W. I. Milne, P. Legagneux, and D. Pribat, Appl. Phys. Lett. 81, J.-M. Bonard, M. Croci, I. Arfaoui, O. Noury, D. Sarangi, and A. Ch^atelain,
343 (2002). Diamond Relat. Mater. 11, 763 (2002).
34 39
R. H. Fowler and L. Nordheim, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 119, 173 J.-M. Bonard, J.-P. Salvetat, T. St€ ockli, W. A. de Heer, L. Forr o, and A.
(1928). Ch^atelain, Appl. Phys. Lett. 73, 918 (1998).
35 40
S. J. Pearton, J. Yang, P. H. Cary, F. Ren, J. Kim, M. J. Tadjer, and M. A. L. Nilsson, O. Groening, C. Emmenegger, O. Kuettel, E. Schaller, L. Schlapbach,
Mastro, Appl. Phys. Rev. 5, 011301 (2018). H. Kind, J.-M. Bonard, and K. Kern, Appl. Phys. Lett. 76, 2071 (2000).
36 41
A. D. Bartolomeo, A. Scarfato, F. Giubileo, F. Bobba, M. Biasiucci, A. P. Feng, X. Q. Fu, S. Q. Li, Y. G. Wang, and T. H. Wang, Nanotechnology 18,
M. Cucolo, S. Santucci, and M. Passacantando, Carbon 45, 2957 165704 (2007).
42
(2007). M. D. Santia, N. Tandon, and J. D. Albrecht, Appl. Phys. Lett. 107, 041907 (2015).

Appl. Phys. Lett. 114, 193101 (2019); doi: 10.1063/1.5096596 114, 193101-5
Published under license by AIP Publishing