Electric field sensing has various real-life applications, such as early prediction of lightning. In this study, we effectively used graphene as an electric field sensor that can detect both positive and negative electric fields. The response of the sensor is recorded as the change in drain current under the application of an electric field. In addition, by systematic analysis, we established the mechanism of the graphene electric field sensor, and it is found to be different from the previously proposed one. The mechanism relies on the transfer of electrons between graphene and the traps at the SiO2/graphene interface. While the direction of charge transfer depends on the polarity of the applied electric field, the amount of charge transferred depends on the magnitude of the electric field. Such a charge transfer changes the carrier concentration in the graphene channel, which is reflected as the change in drain current.
Electric field sensing has various real-life applications, such as early prediction of lightning. In this study, we effectively used graphene as an electric field sensor that can detect both positive and negative electric fields. The response of the sensor is recorded as the change in drain current under the application of an electric field. In addition, by systematic analysis, we established the mechanism of the graphene electric field sensor, and it is found to be different from the previously proposed one. The mechanism relies on the transfer of electrons between graphene and the traps at the SiO2/graphene interface. While the direction of charge transfer depends on the polarity of the applied electric field, the amount of charge transferred depends on the magnitude of the electric field. Such a charge transfer changes the carrier concentration in the graphene channel, which is reflected as the change in drain current.
Electric
field sensing has important applications in our day-to-day
lives, such as prediction of lightning and detection of supersonic
aircraft. Conventional electric field sensors consist of electric
field mills[1,2] and MEMS electric field sensors.[3−7] While field mills are massive in size and have rotating parts that
are prone to failure, MEMS-based sensors require complex fabrication
processes. In addition, these sensors require external amplification
of the signal to achieve high sensitivity. Thus, it is vital to have
an electric field sensor that has a mechanism different from that
of the conventional electric field sensors while maintaining high
sensitivity. To this end, graphene and analogous two-dimensional nanomaterials,
which have proven to be excellent candidates for various sensing applications,
are of paramount importance.[8] The unique
band structure of graphene, where a slight change in the charge density
is reflected in the electrical characteristics, makes it an ideal
platform for sensing-based applications.[9−12] The carrier density in graphene
is highly sensitive to external perturbations such as light, magnetic
field, strain, adsorption of charged molecules, presence of charge
traps in the dielectric layer, etc.[13−19] In this study, we explore the use of graphene as an electric field
sensor and confirm the sensing mechanism.Although graphene
is widely used for various sensing applications,
the potential of graphene as an electric field sensor and thereby
extending the scope to the early prediction of lightning is lacking.[13] Wang et al. have studied graphene for electric
field sensing and could detect electric fields as low as 200 V/m.[20] While they attribute the sensing mechanism to
the drift of carriers to the traps at the Si/SiO2 interface
and the resultant capacitive coupling-induced drain current change
in graphene, our study reveals that rather than the traps at the Si/SiO2 interface, the traps at the SiO2/graphene interface
play the major role in electric field sensing in graphene. These surface
traps, which originate from the defects and impurities, are positively
charged Coulomb-attractive centers that trap and detrap electrons
to and from graphene under the application of an electric field.[21] Thus, in this study, by systematically analyzing
various possibilities, we confirm the sensing mechanism in graphene
electric field sensors.
Results and Discussion
Figure a shows
the schematic representation of our graphene device. The fabrication
process is as follows. Graphene is exfoliated on a lightly doped silicon
substrate (40–60 Ω·cm) with a SiO2 of
thickness 90 nm. Single-layer graphene is identified using optical
contrast and later confirmed by Raman spectroscopy. The metal contacts
are fabricated using electron-beam lithography, followed by the deposition
of chromium and gold (5/60 nm) using electron beam evaporation. The
hBN-encapsulated device and the device with hBN as a top dielectric
is fabricated using the hot pick-up technique.[22,23]Figure b shows the
schematic representation of the electric field measurement setup.
The wire-bonded device is placed between two parallel disks separated
by a working distance (WD) of 3 cm. Positive as well as negative external
sources with a range of 10 V to 5 kV are used to apply the desired
potential at the top plate. The bottom plate is connected to the ground. Figure c,d shows the response
of the graphene device for positive and negative electric fields,
respectively. The magnitude of the applied electric field is 16.67
kV/m. The measurement procedure is as follows. Initially, an electric
field of the desired magnitude (16.67 kV/m in this case) is applied
across the parallel disks. Next, the drain current measurement as
a function of time is initiated. A constant source–drain voltage
of 100 mV is applied across the terminals. While the drain current
is being measured, the electric field across the plate is turned off.
The dotted lines represent the time at which the electric field is
turned off. As seen in the figure, the device responds differently
to positive and negative electric fields. Under a positive electric
field, the drain current is reduced, whereas under a negative electric
field, the drain current is increased. The mechanism behind such behavior
will be explained later. It can also be noted that while the drain
current decreases(increases) for the positive(negative) electric field,
the amount of change is similar in both cases (around 2.2 μA).
Figure 1
(a) Schematic
diagram showing the graphene device structure. (b)
Schematic representation of the graphene electric field measurement
setup, which consists of two parallel metallic disks across which
a static voltage is applied. The graphene sensor is placed between
them as shown in the figure. Response of the graphene electric field
sensor for (c) positive and (d) negative electric fields. In both
cases, an electric field of magnitude 16.67 kV/m is applied across
the parallel disks.
(a) Schematic
diagram showing the graphene device structure. (b)
Schematic representation of the graphene electric field measurement
setup, which consists of two parallel metallic disks across which
a static voltage is applied. The graphene sensor is placed between
them as shown in the figure. Response of the graphene electric field
sensor for (c) positive and (d) negative electric fields. In both
cases, an electric field of magnitude 16.67 kV/m is applied across
the parallel disks.One of the important
aspects of electric field sensing is the ability
to sense the smallest electric field possible. As one would expect,
the difference in the drain current in the presence and absence of
the field will change with the strength of the applied electric field.
The higher(lower) the electric field, the larger(smaller) the difference
in the drain current. Thus, we define the electric field sensitivity
(SEF) of the sensor as the percentage
change in the drain current.where ION and IOFF are the drain current
in the presence and
absence of the electric field, respectively. Figure a shows the sensitivity calculated as a function
of the electric field applied across the parallel disks for both positive
as well as negative cases. It can be seen that the sensitivity has
a linear relationship with the field strength. Figure b is the magnified version of the area highlighted
in Figure a showing
the sensitivity for lower electric fields. The lowest electric field
detected by the graphene sensor is 333 V/m, which is comparable to
the one detected by the previous study (200 V/m).[20]
Figure 2
(a) Sensitivity as a function of the electric field applied across
the parallel disks for both positive and negative polarities. (b)
Zoomed-in image of the circled area in (a) showing the sensitivity
for small electric fields. The magnitude of the lowest electric field
detected (333 V/m) is highlighted for both positive and negative electric
fields. (c) Difference in the drain current in the presence and absence
of electric field (ΔI = IOFF – ION) as a function
of the source–drain voltage applied across the terminals of
the graphene device (electric field applied: 3.3 kV/m). Although the
ΔI increases linearly with the source–drain
voltage, the sensitivity remains nearly the same (inset).
(a) Sensitivity as a function of the electric field applied across
the parallel disks for both positive and negative polarities. (b)
Zoomed-in image of the circled area in (a) showing the sensitivity
for small electric fields. The magnitude of the lowest electric field
detected (333 V/m) is highlighted for both positive and negative electric
fields. (c) Difference in the drain current in the presence and absence
of electric field (ΔI = IOFF – ION) as a function
of the source–drain voltage applied across the terminals of
the graphene device (electric field applied: 3.3 kV/m). Although the
ΔI increases linearly with the source–drain
voltage, the sensitivity remains nearly the same (inset).In all of the above measurements, the source–drain
voltage
applied across the graphene terminals was kept at 100 mV. Thus, we
studied the effect of the source–drain voltage on various aspects
of the electric field sensing in graphene. Figure c shows the difference in drain current without
and with the application of electric field (ΔI = IOFF – ION) as a function of the source–drain voltage. The measurements
are performed under an electric field of 3.3 kV/m applied across the
parallel disks. Although the change in drain current shows a linear
relationship with the source–drain bias, the electric field
sensitivity remains constant (Figure c inset), implying that the increase in source–drain
bias does not necessarily improve the sensitivity in the graphene
electric field sensor.As it became evident that graphene can
be an excellent electric
field sensor, it is vital to understand the mechanism of the sensing
to further the study, especially to enhance the sensitivity. The mechanism
proposed by Wang et al.,[20] has the following
key elements: (i) graphene shields the electric field as it is grounded
at one of its source–drain electrodes. (ii) Thus, the field
around the graphene drifts carriers in the bulk of Si to the traps
at the Si/SiO2 interface. The trapped charges dope the
graphene with opposite polarity through capacitive coupling, which
varies the drain current. However, our experimental observations suggest
that rather than the traps at the Si/SiO2 interface, the
traps at the SiO2/graphene interface could be playing an
important role in the mechanism of electric field sensing in graphene.
Thus, we conducted a systematic analysis to validate this argument
as described below.To check whether the external electric
field must pass through graphene, we fabricated a graphene device
where the graphene is completely covered with gold with a hexagonal
boron nitride (hBN) dielectric layer between them (Figure a). The gold on top of graphene
will completely block the electric field from reaching the graphene. Figure b shows the electric
field response diagram of the gold-covered graphene device. A high
electric field of 33.3 kV/m is applied across the parallel disks.
No apparent difference in the drain current is observed with the application
of the electric field. This confirms that to see the electric field
sensing response in graphene in terms of the change in drain current,
the electric field has to reach the graphene layer.
Figure 3
(a) Schematic diagram showing the graphene device completely covered
with gold with a dielectric layer of hBN between them. The metal at
the top acts as an electric field shield, blocking the field from
reaching the graphene. (b) Electric field sensing response of the
metal-covered graphene device. No noticeable change in the drain current
is observed in the presence of the electric field, implying that the
field has to reach graphene to induce a change in carrier concentration
and thereby changing the drain current.
The next key aspect is to understand
the role of the interfacial traps in the sensing mechanism of the
graphene electric field sensor. To this end, we fabricated an hBN-encapsulated
graphene device with a thick hBN at the bottom. It has been proven
that the tunneling current from graphene through hBN decreases exponentially
with the number of hBN layers.[24,25] Thus, we chose an hBN
layer of thickness ∼40 nm at the bottom, expecting that it
would prevent the transfer of charges from graphene to the traps at
the interface. As per the mechanism proposed in the previous study,[20] the electric field hitting the substrate around
the graphene drifts the carriers in silicon to the traps at the Si/SiO2 interface. Thus, the presence of the thick hBN should not
affect the electric field sensing. However, our measurements demonstrate
that the encapsulated device with thick hBN underneath shows negligible
sensitivity to the electric field. Figure a compares the electric field response of
the encapsulated device with that of the pristine graphene device.
Both measurements are performed under a negative electric field of
magnitude 16.67 kV/m. A source–drain voltage of 100 mV is applied
across the graphene terminals. It can be seen that while the pristine
graphene device shows a clear change in the drain current in the presence
of an electric field, the hBN-encapsulated device shows no noticeable
change. This indicates that for the pristine graphene device, the
change in drain current in the presence of an electric field comes
from the transfer of charges from the graphene to the traps at the
SiO2/graphene interface and the resultant change in the
carrier concentration in graphene, as shown schematically in Figure b. As for the encapsulated
device, the thick hBN at the bottom prevents the transfer of charges
from the graphene to the traps at the interface (Figure c). This unequivocally proves
the role of traps at the SiO2/graphene interface in the
sensing mechanism of the graphene electric field sensor.
Figure 4
(a) Comparison
of the electric field response of pristine graphene
device and hBN-encapsulated graphene device with a thick hBN at the
bottom. While the pristine graphene device shows a clear response
in terms of the change in drain current in the presence and absence
of the electric field, the hBN-encapsulated graphene device shows
a negligible difference. Schematic diagrams illustrate (b) the transfer
of electrons from graphene to the traps, resulting in a change in
carrier concentration and drain current in pristine graphene, whereas
(c) the thick hBN at the bottom in the case of encapsulated device
prevents the transfer of charges from graphene to the traps, resulting
in a negligible difference in drain current.
(a) Schematic diagram showing the graphene device completely covered
with gold with a dielectric layer of hBN between them. The metal at
the top acts as an electric field shield, blocking the field from
reaching the graphene. (b) Electric field sensing response of the
metal-covered graphene device. No noticeable change in the drain current
is observed in the presence of the electric field, implying that the
field has to reach graphene to induce a change in carrier concentration
and thereby changing the drain current.(a) Comparison
of the electric field response of pristine graphene
device and hBN-encapsulated graphene device with a thick hBN at the
bottom. While the pristine graphene device shows a clear response
in terms of the change in drain current in the presence and absence
of the electric field, the hBN-encapsulated graphene device shows
a negligible difference. Schematic diagrams illustrate (b) the transfer
of electrons from graphene to the traps, resulting in a change in
carrier concentration and drain current in pristine graphene, whereas
(c) the thick hBN at the bottom in the case of encapsulated device
prevents the transfer of charges from graphene to the traps, resulting
in a negligible difference in drain current.Now that we have established the basic mechanism of electric field
sensing in graphene devices, we studied the gate characteristics of
the device to gain further understanding of the mechanism. Thus, we
fabricated a top-gated device with hBN as the dielectric between graphene
and the top electrode (Figure a). A narrow top electrode was fabricated so that the major
area of the graphene is exposed to the field (the dotted white line
outline the graphene region). Figure b,c shows the top-gate characteristics of the device
for different positive and negative electric fields, respectively.
The source–drain voltage applied in all of the measurements
is 100 mV. The asymmetry in the electron and hole branches of drain
current is the result of scattering from inhomogeneous charged impurities
in graphene.[17,26,27] The gate characteristics for the positive electric field show a
consistent decrease in the drain current with the increase in the
field strength (Figure b). Further, the charge neutrality point (CNP) shifts toward the
negative gate voltage, indicating n-doping of the graphene channel.
The above observations can be explained in the light of charge transfer
between graphene and the SiO2/graphene interface as follows.
Graphene, being p-doped, has the Fermi level in the valence band.
Under a positive electric field, the electrons from the traps are
released into the graphene (Figure d), resulting in n-doping of the graphene and the shift
of CNP toward negative gate voltage. Moreover, the electrons injected
into the graphene shift the Fermi level up, reducing the density of
states and hence the drain current. This is consistent with the decrease
in the drain current for the positive electric field in the response
diagram of the sensor (Figure c). As for the negative electric field, the top-gate characteristics
show an opposite trend to that of the positive electric field as anticipated
(Figure c). The charge
neutrality point shifts toward higher positive gate voltages and the
drain current increases with the increase in the field strength. This
implies that under a negative electric field, the electrons from graphene
are pushed to the traps at the interface (Figure e). This leads to further p-doping of graphene,
seen as the right shift of CNP. Additionally, the downward shift of
the Fermi level as a result of increased p-doping increases the density
of states, which in turn increases the drain current. This explains
the response diagram for the negative electric field where an increase
in drain current is observed in the presence of the field (Figure d). The purpose of
using a top gate with hBN as the dielectric is to eliminate the effect
of gate voltage sweeping on the trapping and detrapping of the charges
so that the sole effect of the electric field on these processes could
be understood. It has already been reported that the gate voltage
sweep can introduce hysteresis in the gate characteristics due to
the transfer of charges between graphene and the traps at the dielectric
interface.[28−35] However, hBN, which is a highly crystalline two-dimensional material,
has negligible defects. Figure f shows the dual sweep top-gate characteristics of the device
in the absence of the electric field as well as for both positive
and negative electric fields. No change in the drain current and CNP
is observed between the forward and backward sweep in any of the cases.
This suggests that the gate voltage sweep does not have any effect
on the trapping and detrapping processes. Furthermore, observing an
apparent response to both positive and negative electric fields with
the top-gated device where the hBN covers the graphene completely
confirms that the top hBN did not impact the observed results for
the gold-covered device (Figure ) and the device with thick hBN underneath (Figure a,c).
Figure 5
(a) Schematic diagram
and optical micrograph of the top-gated device.
The white dotted lines outline the graphene region. The scale bar
is 10 μm. Top-gate characteristics of the graphene device under
(b) positive and (c) negative electric fields of various strengths.
Schematic diagram showing (d) the release of electrons from the traps
to the graphene under a positive electric field and (e) the transfer
of electrons from graphene to the interface traps under a negative
electric field. (f) Dual sweep top-gate characteristics of the graphene
device in the absence of an electric field as well as for both positive
and negative electric fields.
(a) Schematic diagram
and optical micrograph of the top-gated device.
The white dotted lines outline the graphene region. The scale bar
is 10 μm. Top-gate characteristics of the graphene device under
(b) positive and (c) negative electric fields of various strengths.
Schematic diagram showing (d) the release of electrons from the traps
to the graphene under a positive electric field and (e) the transfer
of electrons from graphene to the interface traps under a negative
electric field. (f) Dual sweep top-gate characteristics of the graphene
device in the absence of an electric field as well as for both positive
and negative electric fields.
Conclusions
In conclusion, we have successfully used graphene as an electric
field sensor that can detect both positive and negative electric fields.
The lowest electric field detected by the graphene sensor is 333 V/m.
Also, by systematic analysis, we confirmed the mechanism of electric
field sensing, which is attributed to the transfer of electrons between
graphene and the traps at the SiO2/graphene interface.
The direction of electron transfer depends on the polarity of the
applied electric field. Under a positive electric field, the electrons
are transferred from traps to the graphene, while under a negative
electric field, electrons are transferred from graphene to the traps.
Authors: K S Novoselov; A K Geim; S V Morozov; D Jiang; M I Katsnelson; I V Grigorieva; S V Dubonos; A A Firsov Journal: Nature Date: 2005-11-10 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: K S Novoselov; D Jiang; F Schedin; T J Booth; V V Khotkevich; S V Morozov; A K Geim Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2005-07-18 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Sung Min Kim; Emil B Song; Sejoon Lee; Jinfeng Zhu; David H Seo; Matthew Mecklenburg; Sunae Seo; Kang L Wang Journal: ACS Nano Date: 2012-08-22 Impact factor: 15.881
Authors: Liam Britnell; Roman V Gorbachev; Rashid Jalil; Branson D Belle; Fred Schedin; Mikhail I Katsnelson; Laurence Eaves; Sergey V Morozov; Alexander S Mayorov; Nuno M R Peres; Antonio H Castro Neto; Jon Leist; Andre K Geim; Leonid A Ponomarenko; Kostya S Novoselov Journal: Nano Lett Date: 2012-03-01 Impact factor: 11.189
Authors: Filippo Pizzocchero; Lene Gammelgaard; Bjarke S Jessen; José M Caridad; Lei Wang; James Hone; Peter Bøggild; Timothy J Booth Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2016-06-16 Impact factor: 14.919