We report an on-chip integrated metal graphene-silicon plasmonic Schottky photodetector with 85 mA/W responsivity at 1.55 μm and 7% internal quantum efficiency. This is one order of magnitude higher than metal-silicon Schottky photodetectors operated in the same conditions. At a reverse bias of 3 V, we achieve avalanche multiplication, with 0.37A/W responsivity and avalanche photogain ∼2. This paves the way to graphene integrated silicon photonics.
We report an on-chip integrated metal graphene-silicon plasmonic Schottky photodetector with 85 mA/W responsivity at 1.55 μm and 7% internal quantum efficiency. This is one order of magnitude higher than metal-silicon Schottky photodetectors operated in the same conditions. At a reverse bias of 3 V, we achieve avalanche multiplication, with 0.37A/W responsivity and avalanche photogain ∼2. This paves the way to graphene integrated silicon photonics.
Over the past decade, silicon
photonics[1] has progressed toward miniaturization
and on-chip integration of optical communication systems, where data
are encoded by light signals and distributed over waveguides rather
than conventional metal-based electronic interconnects.[2,3] So far, a variety of passive and active photonic devices in Si have
been demonstrated including low-loss (∼0.3 dB/cm) waveguides,[4,5] high-quality factor optical cavities (∼106),[6−8] high-speed (tens of GHz)[9−11] electro-optic modulators, and
Si light sources based on Raman gain.[12,13] The wealth
of devices, together with the well established complementary metal-oxide–semiconductor
(CMOS) fabrication processes make Si photonics a promising technology
for short-range (board-to-board, chip-to-chip, or intrachip)[1] optical communications.The photodetector
(PD) is one of the basic building blocks of an optoelectronic link,
where it performs optical-to-electrical signal conversion. Development
of SiPDs for telecom wavelengths (1.3–1.6 μm) based
on the mature CMOS technology is an essential step for monolithic,
on-chip, optoelectronic integration.[1] While
SiPDs are widely employed in the visible spectral range[14] (0.4–0.7 μm), they are not suitable
for detecting near-infrared (NIR) radiation above 1.1 μm, because
the energy of NIR photons at telecom wavelengths (0.78–0.95
eV) is not sufficient to overcome the Si bandgap (indirect, 1.12 eV)
and induce photogeneration of electron–hole (e–h) pairs,
i.e., no photocurrent (Iph) is generated.
Over the years, the Si photonics industry has developed solutions
to overcome this deficiency by combining Ge (bandgap 0.67 eV) with
Si[15−17] and integrating compound (III–V) semiconductors on the Si
chip[18,19] using wafer bonding techniques.[20] While these approaches provide a path toward
photodetection in the telecom spectral range,[1] they either require advanced and complex fabrication processes in
the case of SiGe devices[21] or rely on III–V
materials systems not compatible with standard CMOS technology.[14] Motivated by the need of developing Si-based
PDs for telecom wavelengths, several approaches were proposed to date.
These include two-photon absorption (TPA),[22,23] defect mediated band-to-band photogeneration via midbandgap localized
states,[24−26] deposition of polysilicon[27] for NIR absorption, and enhancement by optical cavities.[23,25−29] However, in the cases of defect-mediated and poly-SiPDs, the overall
concentration of defects in the Si lattice affects both Iph and the leakage (dark) current Idark,[14,24,25] i.e., a higher defects density increases both the sub-bandgap optical
absorption and thermal generation processes,[14] thus increasing both Iph and Idark.[14,24,25] As a result, PDs with reduced defects concentration are typically
needed,[24,25] coupled to optical resonators to amplify
the optical power and to enhance the absorption without increasing
either device length or defect density. On the other hand, nonlinear
optical process, such as TPA, could potentially contribute to all-Si
NIR-PDs,[1] but this approach requires increased
optical power[23] with respect to linear
absorption, or PD integration with high quality factor cavities, to
achieve enhanced photon density.[23]An alternative exploits internal photoemission (IPE) in a Schottky
diode.[14,30,31] In this configuration,
photoexcited (“hot”) carriers from the metal are emitted
to Si over a potential ΦB, called Schottky barrier
(SB), that exists at the metal–Si interface.[14,32] In Si, the injected carriers are accelerated by an electric field
in the depletion region of a Schottky diode and then collected as
a photocurrent at the external electrical contacts. Typically, a SB
is lower (0.2–0.8 eV) than the Si bandgap,[14] thus allowing photodetection of NIR photons with energy > ΦB. The
advantages of Schottky PDs are the simple material structure, easy
and inexpensive fabrication process, straightforward integration with
CMOS technology, and broadband (0.2–0.8 eV) operation.[14] The main disadvantage is the limited IPE quantum
yield, i.e., the number of carriers emitted to Si divided by the number
of photons absorbed in the metal, typically <1%.[33,34] This is mainly due to the momentum mismatch between the electron
states in the metal and Si, which results in specular reflection of
hot carriers upon transmission at the metal–Si interface.[33,34] The quantum yield is often called internal quantum efficiency (IQE)[14] so that IQE = Iph/Pabs × /q, where Pabs is the absorbed optical power, is the photon energy, q is the
electron charge, and Iph/Pabs is the PD responsivity (Rph) in units of A/W. One way to improve the Rph and IQE in Schottky PDs is to confine light at the metal–Si
interface by coupling to plasmonic modes.[35,36] The role of plasmonic confinement in enhancing the IPE efficiency
in Si Schottky PDs was intensively studied[37−46] in various M–Si plasmonic structures. Several NIR Si plasmonic
Schottky PDs have been demonstrated, exploiting both localized plasmons[37−40] and guided surface plasmons polaritons (SPP).[41−46] Yet, in these devices, the Rph reported
to date does not exceed few tens mA/W with maximum IQE ∼ 1%.[43] These
values are significantly below that of SiGe PDs (Rph ∼ 0.4–1 A/W and IQE ∼ 60–90%).[15−17] Consequently, Rph of Schottky PDs should
be further improved both by developing advanced device designs or
using novel CMOS-compatible materials.Graphene is appealing
for photonics and optoelectronics because it offers a wide range of
advantages compared to other materials.[47−52] A variety of prototype optoelectronic devices exploiting graphene
have already been demonstrated, such as transparent electrodes in
displays,[53] photovoltaic modules,[54,55] optical modulators,[56−58] plasmonic devices,[59−63] and ultrafast lasers.[51] Amongst these, a significant effort has been devoted to PDs due
to a number of distinct characteristics of graphene.[47−50,52] Single-layer graphene (SLG) is
gapless. This enables charge carrier generation by light absorption
over a very wide energy spectrum. In addition, SLG has ultrafast carrier
dynamics,[64] wavelength-independent absorption,[65,66] tunable optical properties via electrostatic doping,[67,68] high mobility,[69] and the ability to confine
electromagnetic energy to unprecedented small volumes.[49,50] The high carrier mobility enables ultrafast conversion of photons
or plasmons to electrical currents or voltages.[70,71] By integration with local gates, this process is in situ tunable[72,73] and allows for submicron detection resolution and pixelization.[74] SLG absorbs 2.3% of the incident light,[65,66] which is remarkably high for an atomically thin material. This is
an appealing property for flexible and transparent optoelectronic
devices.[47]The most common SLG PDs
exploit the metal–graphene–metal (MGM) configuration,
in which a SLG channel is contacted between source and drain electrodes.[70−72,75] MGM devices are easy to fabricate,[70,71] they are able to operate over a broadband wavelength range,[70,71] and have demonstrated ultrahigh (∼230 GHz)[76] operation speed. However, for visible and NIR wavelengths,
free-space illuminated MGMPDs have Rph ∼ a few mA/W.[70,71] This is primarily because of
the finite optical absorption[65,66] and limited photoactive
area (Aphoto).[77] In the MGM configuration, the built-in electric field that separates
the photoexcited e–h pairs is localized in very narrow (∼100–200
nm)[77] regions next to the edges of the
SLG–metal contacts, while the rest of the SLG channel area
does not contribute to Iph. One way to
increase Rph is to apply a voltage between
source-drain electrodes and increase the electric field penetration
into the SLG channel.[70,71] However, this will drive a current
into SLG (dark current, Idark), which
could be of the same order or even larger than Iph.[70,71] Thus, this approach can significantly
reduce the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and increase power consumption.
Another way consists of combining MGM devices with metal nanostructures[63,78] and enabling light coupling to localized and SPP modes, thus enhancing
light–graphene interaction and light absorption. MGM-PDs can
be also integrated with microcavities,[79,80] where at resonance
the optical absorption in graphene is amplified by multiple light
round trips.[79,80] High Rph can be achieved using a hybrid configuration, in which a MGM structure
is combined with semiconductor quantum dots (QD) as light absorbing
media.[81] This gave Rph ∼ 107 A/W[81] with a photoconducitve gain (i.e., the number of detected charge
carriers per single incident photon, Gph) up to 107. Similar performances to graphene–QD
hybrid devices were also demonstrated in graphene tunneling PDs,[82] comprising two SLGs separated by a thin (<10
nm) dielectric layer. However, in both QDs-integrated or tunneling-based
PDs, the typical response time is limited to ms,[81,82] not suitable for high-speed (tens of GHz) optical communications.Another important performance metric of PDs is the normalized photo-dark-current
ratio, NPDR = Rph/Idark.[83] The larger the NPDR, the
better PD noise rejection and ability to perform when interference
(noise) is present. To achieve higher NPDR, Idark must be reduced and Rph must
be increased. However, since SLG has no gap, a trade-off between improving Rph by using source-drain bias and minimizing Idark exists in all MGM-PDs.[52] In telecom applications, where power consumption and SNR
are parameters of great importance for achieving energy efficient
data transmission with reduced errors rate,[1] MGM-PDs should be operated near zero bias, which, in turn, limits Rph. Even though MGM-PDs can perform in photovoltaic
mode at zero bias with zero dark current,[52,84] the conductance of graphene can lead to enhanced thermal noise as
a result of reduced channel resistance.[84] A promising route to increase Rph, while
minimizing Idark, is to create a Schottky
junction with rectifying characteristics (i.e., a diode) at the SLG–Si
interface.[85−89] By operating a Schottky diode in reverse bias (photoconductive mode), Idark is suppressed compared to Iph, while the entire Schottky contact area contributes
to photodetection.[85−89]Several PDs have been reported to date, operating at telecom
wavelengths and integrating on-chip graphene with Si photonics, based
on MGM structures evanescently coupled to Si waveguides.[89−93] In these cases, the guided mode approach enables longer interaction
between SLG and the optical waveguide modes than free-space illumination.[52] This raises the optical absorption in PD beyond
2.3% and, by increasing the interaction length, 100% light power can
be absorbed and contribute to Iph.[91] Nevertheless, because of the evanescent coupling,
the typical length needed to achieve nearly complete absorption in
MGM-PDs is ∼40–100 μm.[89−93] However, for on-chip optoelectronic integration,
where scalability, footprint, and cost play an important role, the
development of miniaturized, simple to fabricate, Si-based PDs for
telecoms, with Rph comparable to the SiGe
devices currently employed in Si photonics, is needed.[1]Here, we report a compact (5 μm length), waveguide
integrated, plasmonic enhanced metal/graphene/Si (M–SLG–Si)
Schottky PD with Rph ∼ 0.37A/W
at 1.55 μm. The M–SLG–Si structure supports SPP
guiding and benefits from optical confinement at the Schottky interface.
Our data show that graphene integration in M–SLG–SiPDs increases Rph by one order of magnitude
compared to the standard M–Si configuration without SLG. The
SLG-integrated device has Rph ∼
85 mA/W at 1 V reverse bias, with Idark ∼ 20 nA. By taking advantage of the Shottky diode operation
in the reverse bias, Rph can be further
increased up to ∼0.37 A/W at 3 V. To the best of our knowledge,
this is the highest Rph reported so far
for waveguide-integrated Si-PDs operating at 1.55 μm, and it
is comparable to state-of-the-art SiGe devices.[15−17] This is a simple,
inexpensive, easy-processed approach for high responsivity SiPDs
in the telecom spectral range and paves the way to graphene–Si
optoelectronic integration.Our PD is schematically shown in Figure a. The device consists
of a Si-waveguide coupled to a SLG/Au contact that electrically forms
a Schottky diode. The M–SLG–Si structure supports the
fundamental SPP waveguide mode (Figure b). SPP guiding in a similar M–Si waveguide
was experimentally demonstrated in ref (43) using a near-field scanning optical microscope.
Introducing a subnanometre SLG layer at the interface is not expected
to perturb the SPP guiding, as confirmed by the simulation in Figure b. The M–SLG–Si
SPP waveguide mode benefits from optical confinement at the Schottky
interface, where the IPE process takes place. This maximizes the optical
intensity in SLG and enhances light–graphene interaction, increasing
the absorption adjacent to the Schottky interface and, as a result,
enhancing Rph.
Figure 1
(a) Schematic M–SLG–Si
Schottky PD. SOI: silicon-on-insulator. BOX: buried oxide. (b) Finite
element (COMSOL Multiphysics)[94] simulated
optical intensity profile of a SPP waveguide mode supported by a M–SLG–Si
structure.
(a) Schematic M–SLG–Si
Schottky PD. SOI: silicon-on-insulator. BOX: buried oxide. (b) Finite
element (COMSOL Multiphysics)[94] simulated
optical intensity profile of a SPP waveguide mode supported by a M–SLG–Si
structure.The fabrication process is discussed
in Methods. We prepare on the same chip two
types of devices: (1) M−SLG−Si Schottky PDs (our target
devices) and (2) reference M−SiPDs. Figure shows a scanning electron microscope (SEM)
picture of a representative M–SLG–Si Schottky PD integrated
with locally oxidized[5] Si waveguides. The
PD length is ∼5 μm, and the Si waveguide width is ∼310
nm.
Figure 2
(a) SEM micrograph of Schottky
PD coupled to a Si photonic waveguide. False colors: brown, Si; yellow,
Au. (b) Layout of waveguide integrated Schottky PD.
(a) SEM micrograph of Schottky
PD coupled to a Si photonic waveguide. False colors: brown, Si; yellow,
Au. (b) Layout of waveguide integrated Schottky PD.Figure plots a typical current–voltage (I–V) characteristic of our devices, measured
using a probe station and a parameter analyzer (Keithley 4200). The
device shows electrical rectification (i.e., diode behavior). The
current in forward bias is limited by the series resistance,[14] while at reverse bias, the leakage current I0 is limited by thermionic emission from Au/SLG
to Si. In reverse bias, I0 grows with
increasing temperature, consistent with what expected for thermionic-emission
in a Schottky diode.[14] In the thermionic
regime, the variations of I0 are reflected
in the forward bias region, where the forward current also increases
(Figure ). By using
the I–V characteristics in
forward bias, and following the procedure described in refs (95 and 96), we extract the M–SLG–Si
devices Schottky barrier height ΦB ∼ 0.34
and a diode ideality factor n ∼ 1.8 (defined
as the deviation of the measured I–V curve from the ideal exponential behavior).[14] For the reference M–Si devices, we get
ΦB ∼ 0.32 and n ∼
1.7, similar to M–SLG–Si. This indicates that SLG does
not significantly affect the electrical properties of the Schottky
contact.
Figure 3
I–V characteristics of a
representative M–SLG–Si Schottky PD for various temperatures.
I–V characteristics of a
representative M–SLG–Si Schottky PD for various temperatures.For optoelectronic characterization,
we use a 1.55 μm continuous wave (CW) transverse-magnetic (TM)
polarized light from a tunable laser source (Agilent 81680A). The
optical signal is butt-coupled to the waveguide using a polarization-maintaining
(PM) tapered fiber with a mode size ∼2.5 μm. The device
under test is placed on a fixed vacuum holder, while the lensed fiber
is aligned with respect to the waveguide facet under a microscope
using a high precision (0.1 μm step) XYZ translation stage. Figure b shows that our
device has a symmetric Y-branch to split the optical signal between
the active arm with integrated Schottky PD and the reference waveguide.
This is continuously monitored to avoid optical power fluctuations
during the experiment. At the output facet of the reference waveguide,
the light is collected with a similar fiber and detected by an external
InGaAs power meter (Agilent 81634a). After optimizing the optical
coupling conditions by adjusting the positions of both input and output
lensed fibers, and maximizing the optical power reading in the InGaAs
power meter, we measure the I–V characteristics of the Schottky PD. To do so, we place probes on
the contacts pads of the Schottky device under the microscope by using
micromanipulators. Since we perform a steady-state DC characterization
using a CW laser, no special arrangements for impedance matching are
required. We use standard TRIAX/BNC cables to interface between the
needle-based electrical probes and the SMU unit (Keithley 4200).To test the optoelectronic response, we measure the I–V curves of the graphene-integrated M–SLG–Si
and reference M–Si devices at different Popt values inside the SPP waveguide. For each Popt, we perform three independent measurements
and plot in Figure a,b the average results, with a maximal standard deviation ∼5%.
The PDs operate in photoconductive mode,[14] when a Popt increase results in larger
reverse current, since Iph acts as an
external current source added to the Schottky diode I0.
Figure 4
I–V characteristics
of (a) graphene-integrated and (b) reference M–Si PDs for different
optical powers coupled to the Schottky region. Measured photocurrent
in (c) graphene-integrated and (d) reference M–Si PDs as a
function of optical power coupled to the Schottky region. The slope
of the lines in (c,d) corresponds to Rph.
I–V characteristics
of (a) graphene-integrated and (b) reference M–SiPDs for different
optical powers coupled to the Schottky region. Measured photocurrent
in (c) graphene-integrated and (d) reference M–SiPDs as a
function of optical power coupled to the Schottky region. The slope
of the lines in (c,d) corresponds to Rph.Figure c,d plot Iph as
a function of Popt as derived from the I–V curves in Figure . Iph grows linearly
with Popt, and the slope corresponds to Rph, i.e., Iph = Rph × Popt.
We estimate Popt inside the Schottky PDs
by taking into account a coupling loss of ∼18.5 dB (98.5%)
between the external tapered fiber and the Si waveguide (as measured
by monitoring the output signal in the reference waveguide), a propagation
loss (scattering + free carriers) ∼ 1.5 dB/mm (29% per mm)
in the waveguide, ∼3 dB (50/50) power splitting, and ∼1.5
dB (29%) power loss in the Y-branch. Consequently, on the basis of
our I–V measurements and
our Popt, we calculate and plot Rph as a function of reverse voltage VR in Figure a.
Figure 5
(a) Rph of M–SLG–Si
and reference M–Si PDs as a function of reverse bias for different
optical powers coupled to the Schottky region; (b) Rph of M–SLG–Si and reference M–Si
PDs for 0 < VR < 3 V. Colored solid
lines show a fit of the bias dependent Rph based on combined thermionic-field emission and avalanche multiplication
processes.
(a) Rph of M–SLG–Si
and reference M–SiPDs as a function of reverse bias for different
optical powers coupled to the Schottky region; (b) Rph of M–SLG–Si and reference M–SiPDs for 0 < VR < 3 V. Colored solid
lines show a fit of the bias dependent Rph based on combined thermionic-field emission and avalanche multiplication
processes.We get maximal Rph ∼ 85 mA/W (±5%) with I0 ∼ 20 nA at VR = 1
V. The former corresponds to IQE ∼ 7%. By using the values
of device resistance RD = dV/dI, the responsivity Rph and the dark current I0 at VR = 1 V, we estimate a noise equivalent power NEP ∼
1.1 × 10–12 W/Hz0.5. For the reference
M–Si PD, we get Rph ∼ 9
A/W (±5%) and NEP ∼ 1.2 × 10–11 W/Hz0.5, similar to state of the art Si Schottky PDs
at 1.55 μm.[41−46] We conclude that the presence of SLG at the Schottky interface improves
both Rph and NEP by one order of magnitude
compared to our reference M–SiPDs. The improvement is significantly
larger than the ±5% error bar in the measurements. We attribute
this to light absorption in the SLG adjacent to the Schottky barrier,
where the IPE process takes place. The absorption is enhanced by SPP
optical confinement at the M–SLG–Si interface (Figure b). The significant
increase of Rph in SLG-integrated devices
could be due to an higher transmission probability of hot carriers
from SLG to Si when compared to the M-to-Si photoemission process.We then measure Rph for VR > 1 V. Figure b shows that Rph grows monotonically
up to VR ∼ 2 V and then abruptly
increases to ∼0.37 A/W at VR =
3 V. To the best of our knowledge, this is the highest Rph reported so far for waveguide-integrated Si-PDs at
1.55 μm, and it is comparable to state-of-the-art Si–Ge
devices currently employed in Si photonics.[15−17] We attribute
this to the combined effect of two processes that can enhance Iph. First: thermionic-field emission (TFE),
i.e., tunneling of photoexcited carriers from the M–SLG contact
to Si at energies EF < E < ΦB. The relative contribution of TFE with
respect to IPE depends on Si doping, operation temperature, and the
electric field applied to the Schottky junction.[14,97] TFE tends to dominate at higher (>1018 cm–3) doping levels,[14,97] and its voltage dependence is , where E0 and ϵ′ are two analytically defined
constants.[14,97] In our device, with Si doping
∼7 × 1017 cm–3 at room temperature,
we calculate using eqs and 4 (see Methods) E0 and ϵ′ to be ∼1.04
V and ∼2.1 eV, respectively.[14] Second:
avalanche multiplication of photoexcitepd carriers inside the Si depletion
region, where the electrons (or holes) can lose their energy upon
scattering with the Si lattice creating other charge carriers (i.e.,
impact ionization). This process can be empirically modeled by M = 1/[1 – (VR/VBD)],[14] where M is the avalanche multiplication
factor, VBD is the breakdown voltage at
which M goes to infinity, and k is
a power coefficient that empirically acquires values between 2 < k < 6.[14] As first order approximation,
we assume independent contribution of each process. We show in Figure b that our data are
well fitted by Rph (V) ∝ TFE × M with VBD and k as free parameters. From the fit we get VBD ∼ 3.75 V and k ∼ 3.2, corresponding
to M ∼ 2 at VR = 3 V. We note that, under avalanche conditions, the dark current
also increases (∼3 μA), and operation at elevated VR (>2.5 V) reveals a trade-off between improving Rph and higher dark current.In summary,
we demonstrated on-chip, compact, waveguide-integrated metal–graphene–silicon
plasmonic Schottky photodetectors operating at 1.55 μm. The
presence of graphene at the Schottky interface significantly improves
the responsivity. The devices reach 85 mA/W responsivity at 1 V reverse
bias, corresponding to 7% internal quantum efficiency. This is one
order of magnitude higher compared to reference metal–Si photodetectors
under the same conditions. We attribute this improvement to the combined
effect of light confinement and graphene absorption at the metal–graphene–silicon
Schottky interface, as well as enhanced carriers injection from graphene-to-silicon
as compared to the metal–silicon interface. Avalanche multiplication
for higher (>2 V) reverse biases allows us to reach a responsivity
∼0.37 A/W, corresponding to a photogain ∼2. Our device
paves the way toward graphene integrated silicon photonics.
Methods
Si–SLG
Schottky PD Fabrication
Figure outlines the fabrication process of our
devices. We start with a commercial silicon on insulator (SOI, from
SOITEC) substrate with a 340 nm p-type (7 × 1017 cm–3) Si layer on top of a 2 μm buried oxide (BOX).
First, a 100 nm SiN mask is deposited by plasma enhanced chemical
vapor deposition (PECVD, Oxford PlasmaLab100) onto the SOI substrate
at 300 °C (Figure b). Next, a Si photonic waveguide and the PD area are defined by
electron beam lithography (EBL, Raith eLine 150) using positive e-beam
resist (ZEP 520A). The EBL pattern is subsequently transferred to
SiN by reactive ion etching (RIE) (Oxford Plasmalab 100) with a CHF3/O2 gas mixture. Then the SOI substrate is locally
oxidized (wet, 1000 °C) to grow a SiO2 layer only
in localized patterns defined by EBL where Si is exposed to O2, while at the same time a SiN mask prevents O2 diffusion into the Si in protected areas (Figure c). After oxidation, the sacrificial SiN
mask layer is etched in hot phosphoric acid (H3PO4, 180°) followed by SiO2 removal in a buffered oxide
etch (BOE) solution. The ohmic contact to Si is realized by Al evaporation
followed by metal lift-off and thermal alloying at 460 °C in
a forming gas (H2/N2, 5%/95%) environment. This
fabrication process is based on the technique of local-oxidation of
Si (LOCOS) in which a Si waveguide is defined by oxide spacers[5] rather than RIE. The LOCOS process enables the
realization of low-loss (∼0.3 dB/cm)[5] Si photonic waveguides coupled to a Schottky PD using the same fabrication
step.
Figure 6
Fabrication process of Si–SLG Schottky PDs integrated with
photonic waveguides. (a) Planar SOI substrate; (b) PECVD deposition
and patterning of SiN mask; (c) local oxidation; (d) etching of SiN
and SiO2 Al ohmic contact to Si; (e) SLG transfer; (f)
formation of Schottky contact and consequent SLG etching.
Fabrication process of Si–SLG Schottky PDs integrated with
photonic waveguides. (a) Planar SOI substrate; (b) PECVD deposition
and patterning of SiN mask; (c) local oxidation; (d) etching of SiN
and SiO2Al ohmic contact to Si; (e) SLG transfer; (f)
formation of Schottky contact and consequent SLG etching.SLG is grown on a 35 μm Cu foil following
the process described in ref (98). The substrate is annealed in hydrogen atmosphere (H2, 20 sccm) up to 1000 °C for 30 min. Then 5 sccm CH4 is added to initiate growth.[98,99] The substrate
is subsequently cooled in vacuum (1 mTorr) to room temperature and
removed from the chamber. After growth, the quality and uniformity
of SLG are monitored by Raman spectroscopy using a Renishaw InVia
equipped with a 100× objective (numerical aperture NA = 0.85).
The Raman spectrum of SLG on Cu at 514 nm is shown in Figure b (green curve). This has a
negligible D peak, thus indicating negligible defects.[100−104] The 2D peak is a single sharp Lorentzian with full width at half-maximum,
FWHM(2D) ∼ 29 cm–1, a signature of SLG.[100] Different (∼20) point measurements show
similar spectra, which indicate uniform quality. The position of the
G peak, Pos(G), is ∼1589 cm–1, with FWHM(G)
∼ 13 cm–1. The 2D peak position, Pos(2D)
is ∼2698 cm–1, while the 2D to G peak intensity
and area ratios, I(2D)/I(G) and A(2D)/A(G), are 2.6 and 5.8, respectively,
indicating a p-doping ∼300 meV,[105,106] which corresponds to a carrier concentration ∼5 × 1012 cm–2.
Figure 7
(a) Raman spectra of (red curve) Si substrate
and (black curve) SLG transferred on Si. (b) Raman spectra of (green
curve) SLG on Cu, and (blue curve) after normalized, point-to-point
subtraction of the Si substrate spectrum (shown in (a), red curve)
from the spectrum of SLG transferred on Si (shown in (a), black curve).
(a) Raman spectra of (red curve) Si substrate
and (black curve) SLG transferred on Si. (b) Raman spectra of (green
curve) SLG on Cu, and (blue curve) after normalized, point-to-point
subtraction of the Si substrate spectrum (shown in (a), red curve)
from the spectrum of SLG transferred on Si (shown in (a), black curve).SLG is then transferred onto the
SOI with Si waveguides. A ∼500 nm thick layer of poly(methyl
methacrylate) (PMMA) is spin coated on the SLG/Cu sample and then
placed in a solution of ammonium persulfate (APS) in DI water until
Cu is completely etched.[98,107] After Cu etching,
the PMMA membrane with attached SLG is transferred to DI water for
cleaning APS residuals.To obtain a Schottky interface between
the Si waveguide and SLG without the native oxide layer, we perform
the transfer in diluted hydrofluoric acid (HF) and DI water (1:100).
After cleaning from APS residuals, a SLG/PMMA membrane is placed on
a plastic beaker containing 5 mL/500 mL HF and DI water. Next, the
target SOI chips are first dipped in BOE for 5 s to etch the Si native
oxide and then used to lift the floating SLG/PMMA membrane from diluted
HF. As a result, during drying, the presence of HF at the SLG/Si interface
prevents Si oxidation and allows formation of “oxide free”
SLG/Si Schottky contacts. After drying, PMMA is removed in acetone,
which leaves SLG to entirely cover the SOI. We also transfer SLG from
the same Cu foil with the same transfer procedure onto Si. This is
used to check the SLG quality after transfer by Raman spectroscopy.The Raman spectrum of SLG transferred on Si is shown in Figure a (black line). This
is measured at 514.5 nm and with laser power below 300 μW to
avoid possible heating effects or damage. The D peak region overlaps
the bands at ∼1200–1500 cm–1, attributed
to third order Raman scattering from TO phonons in the Si substrate.[108] The peaks at ∼1550 and ∼2330
cm–1 in the Raman spectrum of Si substrate (red
line) arise from molecular vibrations of ambient oxygen (O2)[109] and nitrogen (N2).[110] The Raman spectra of the transferred SLG film
(black line) and reference Si substrate (red line) are acquired using
identical exposure time and laser power. After the intensity of the
third order Si peak at ∼1450 cm–1 in the
Si reference spectrum (red line) is normalized to the same peak in
the spectrum of the transferred SLG film (black line), a point-to-point
subtraction is implemented (Figure b, blue line). The resulting spectrum shows I(D)/I(G)
∼ 0.04, indicating negligible defects.[100−104] The 2D peak retains its single-Lorentzian line-shape with FWHM(2D)
∼ 33 cm–1, validating that SLG has been successfully
transferred. Pos(G) ∼ 1584 cm–1, FWHM(G) ∼ 17 cm–1, and Pos(2D) ∼ 2687 cm–1, while I(2D)/I(G) and A(2D)/A(G) are 3.2 and 5.9, respectively, suggesting a p-doping
∼4 × 1012 cm–2 (∼200
meV).[105,106]After SLG transfer, we use an additional
EBL step followed by O2 plasma etching to selectively remove
SLG from the substrate area containing five waveguides and dedicated
to the reference M–Si devices. Then a Schottky contact is prepared
by evaporation and liftoff of an 3 nm/100 nm Cr/Aumetal strip intersecting
the Si waveguide with SLG on top (Figure f) (or without SLG for reference devices)
and forming a Schottky interface for photodetection. Finally, the
samples are placed in a reactive O2 plasma to remove superfluous
SLG.
Thermionic Field Emission
The TFE current is given
by[14]where A** is the
effective Richardson constant, k is the Boltzmann
constant, T is the temperature, and q is the electron charge. The contribution of TFE to charge injection
across the M–Si interface can be evaluated by comparing the
thermal energy kT to E00, defined as[14]where ℏ is the reduced
Planck constant, N is the Si doping, m* is the effective mass of the charge carriers in Si, and ϵs is the dielectric permittivity of Si. When kT ∼ E00, the TFE process mainly
contributes to charge carriers injection across the Schottky interface.[14] The parameters E0 and ϵ′ are analytically defined as[14]In our case, for Si doping 7 × 1017 cm–3 using eq , we get E00 ∼45 meV, comparable to the thermal
energy at room temperature of 26 meV, reflecting a significant TFE
contribution to carriers injection at the Schottky interface. Hence,
we calculate E0 and ϵ′ to
be ∼1.04 V and ∼2.1 eV, respectively.
Authors: L G Cançado; A Jorio; E H Martins Ferreira; F Stavale; C A Achete; R B Capaz; M V O Moutinho; A Lombardo; T S Kulmala; A C Ferrari Journal: Nano Lett Date: 2011-07-05 Impact factor: 11.189
Authors: Ren-Jye Shiue; Yuanda Gao; Yifei Wang; Cheng Peng; Alexander D Robertson; Dmitri K Efetov; Solomon Assefa; Frank H L Koppens; James Hone; Dirk Englund Journal: Nano Lett Date: 2015-10-07 Impact factor: 11.189
Authors: M Massicotte; P Schmidt; F Vialla; K Watanabe; T Taniguchi; K J Tielrooij; F H L Koppens Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2016-07-14 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Guohua Hu; Tom Albrow-Owen; Xinxin Jin; Ayaz Ali; Yuwei Hu; Richard C T Howe; Khurram Shehzad; Zongyin Yang; Xuekun Zhu; Robert I Woodward; Tien-Chun Wu; Henri Jussila; Jiang-Bin Wu; Peng Peng; Ping-Heng Tan; Zhipei Sun; Edmund J R Kelleher; Meng Zhang; Yang Xu; Tawfique Hasan Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2017-08-17 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: S Schuler; J E Muench; A Ruocco; O Balci; D van Thourhout; V Sorianello; M Romagnoli; K Watanabe; T Taniguchi; I Goykhman; A C Ferrari; T Mueller Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2021-06-18 Impact factor: 14.919