Upload
others
View
8
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Supplementary Information
Engineering carbon quantum dots for enhancing broadband
photoresponse in silicon process line compatible photodetector
K. Sarkar1, Pooja Devi2, A. Lata1, R. Ghosh1 and Praveen Kumar1*
School of Materials Science, Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science, Kolkata 700032
Central Scientific Instruments Organization, Sector-30C, Chandigarh- India-160030, India
Figure S1. Process steps for synthesizing AgNPs
Electronic Supplementary Material (ESI) for Journal of Materials Chemistry C.This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2019
2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18Co
unts
(a.u
.)Diameter (nm)
(a) (b)
Figure S2. (a) Transmission electron microscope image of AgNPs. (b) Histogram showing size distribution with an average diameter at 9 nm.
Figure S3. Selected area electron diffraction due to AgNPs reveals polycrystalline structure.
3
(a) (b)
Figure S4. Scanning electron microscope image of (i) rGO-CQD composite, (ii) rGO-CQD-AgNP composite
Figure S5. (a) Atomic force microscopy of S3 sample displays layers of rGO with randomly distributed nanostructures on it. (b) AFM image of CQDs coated on Si shows regular distribution over the scanned area.
Figure S6. UV-Vis absorption spectroscopy of AgNPs displays localized surface plasmon resonance at 420 nm.
4
0.40 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.48
Abso
rban
ce (a
.u.)
Photon energy (eV)
Eg = 0.42 eV
Figure S7: Optical bandgap of rGO estimated from absorption spectroscopy
500 1000 1500 2000 25000
20
40
60
80
100
% T
(nm)
Figure S8: Broadband optical transmission from rGO (from UV to IR)
5
400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750
Inte
nsity
(a.u
.)
Wavelength (nm)
(b)
3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0F(
h)2
Energy (eV)
(a)
Figure S9. (a) Optical bandgap of CQD coated on Si substrate estimated by applying Kubelka-Munk theory. (b) Photoluminescence spectra of the CQDs exhibiting emission around 450 nm.
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.60.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
I (A
)
V (Volt)
S1
Dark
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.60
10
20
30
40
50
60
I (nA
)
V (Volt)
S2
Dark
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.60
2
4
6
8I (
nA
)
V (Volt)
S3
Dark(a) (b) (c)
Figure S10. Dark current increases exponentially with a forward bias for all three sets of devices. S3 exhibits minimum dark current out of all sets of devices.
6
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6-24
-23
-22
-21
-20
-19
-18
-22
-21
-20
-19
-18
lnI
V (volt)
ln(I/V
)S3
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6-19
-18
-17
-16
-15
-14
-13
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6-19
-18
-17
-16
-15
-14
lnI
V (Volt)
S1
ln(
I/V)
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6-20
-19
-18
-17
-16
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6-20
-19
-18
-17
lnI
V (Volt)
ln(I/V
)
S2
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure S11: Semi-logarithmic plot of dark current with respect to forward bias voltage for three sets of devices. ln(I/V) as a function of forward bias for three sets of devices.
ESI Note: Figure S11 displays the variation of as a function of forward bias for S1, S2 𝑙𝑛( 𝐼
𝑉) (𝑉)
and S3 respectively in (a), (b) and (c). Sample S1 exhibits a continuously varying slope with
increasing forward bias which signifies the gradual saturation of defect states and interfacial trap
states through complex recombination process. In Sample S2 the distinct difference in the
7
variation of the slope is observed compared to S1 which can be ascribed to the diminished trap
states due to reduced graphene oxide. Whereas in S3, almost constant slope is observed in 𝑙𝑛( 𝐼
𝑉)vs plot which signifies considerable decrease in unsaturated trap states due to highly reduced 𝑉
graphene oxide. Therefore, Sample S3 exhibits lowest value of ideality factor and highest value
of on/off ratio under present experimental conditions.
230 239 240
4
8
12
I (A
)
Time (S)
S1360 nm
820 ms 345 ms
250 251 252 260 261 2622
3
4
5
I (A
)
Time (s)
S1
250 ms
510 ms
550 nm
69 70 79 800.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
I (A
)
Time (Sec)
S2
360 nm
413 ms113 ms
64 65 66 74 75 76
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
I (A
)
Time (S)
550 nmS2
882 ms 499 ms
468 470 480 482
3
4
5
6
7
8
I (A
)
Time (S)
S3 360 nm
485 ms
810 nm
211 212 219 220 221
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
I (A
)
Time (S)
S3 550 nm
556 ms
526 ms
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
(e) (f)
Figure S12. Calculation of rise time and fall time for three sets of samples under UV and Vis excitation.
8
Table T1: Estimated rise time and fall time
UV VisSample
tr tf tr tf
S1 820 ms 345 ms 250 ms 500 ms
S2 413 ms 113 ms 882 ms 499 ms
S3 810 ms 485 ms 526 ms 562 ms
10 100
0.01
0.1
1
I (A
)
Intensity (W/cm2)
1.5 V 1 V 0.5 V
Si/CQD
550 nm
1 10 100 1000
0.1
1
I (A
)
Intensity (A/cm2)
1.5 V 1V 0.5 V
S3
360 nm
10 100
0.1
1
I (A
)
Intensity (A/cm2)
1.5 V 1V 0.5 V
S3
550 nm
1 10 100 1000
0.01
0.1I (A
)
Intensity (W/cm2)
1.5 V 1 V 0.5 V
360 nm
S2(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure S13. Photocurrent as a function of optical intensity
9
Table T2: Fitting parameters for excitation power dependence of three sets of devices
0.5 V 1 V 1.5 VSample Fitting
function a b c a b c a b c
S1 𝑎 + 𝑏𝑥𝑐 0.06 0.002 0.56 0.4 0.01 0.61 1.18 0.09 0.43
S2 𝑎 + 𝑏𝑥𝑐 4.4×10-9 10-13 1.6 3×10-8 1.25×10-10 0.88 6.2×10-8 1.06×10-9 0.78
S3 𝑏𝑥𝑐 -- 0.03 0.04 -- 0.2 0.06 -- 1.49 0.13