Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-11T04:55:10.325Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of Conductivity Produced in Polymers and Carbon Films by Pyrolysis and High Energy Ion Irradiation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2011

T. Venkatesan ,
R. C. Dynes ,
B. Wilkens ,
A. E. White ,
J. M. Gibson  and
R. Hamm
T. Venkatesan
Affiliation:
Bell Laboratories Murray Hill, New Jersey 07974
R. C. Dynes
Affiliation:
Bell Laboratories Murray Hill, New Jersey 07974
B. Wilkens
Affiliation:
Bell Laboratories Murray Hill, New Jersey 07974
A. E. White
Affiliation:
Bell Laboratories Murray Hill, New Jersey 07974
J. M. Gibson
Affiliation:
Bell Laboratories Murray Hill, New Jersey 07974
R. Hamm
Affiliation:
Bell Laboratories Murray Hill, New Jersey 07974
Get access

Abstract

The electrical properties of pyrolyzed polymers have been studied recently.1,2 It has been shown that organic, polymeric3 and non-polymeric4 films can be made conductive (ρ ~ 10−3Ωcm) by ion beam irradiation. Common to all of the films was the presence of carbon as a constituent element and both pyrolysis and ion beam irradiation3 was shown to increase the relative carbon content of the films. The ion beam irradiated organic films 3,4 exhibited a temperature dependence of their resistivity of the form ρ(T) = ρ∞e−(TЛ)*, where ρ is the ion-induced resistivity, ρ∞ and T0 are constants and T is the temperature. At very high doses of irradiation (1017cm−2Ar+@ 2MeV) the film resistivity was temperature independent. Very similar transport properties were observed in the pyrolyzed polymers1 as well, though the lowest resistivities achieved were higher than the resistivity values observed in the ion irradiated3 polymer films. In both the pyrolysis and ion-irradiation experiments the temperature dependence has been explained by a model due to Sheng and Abeles,5 which involves charge transport by hopping between conducting islands embedded in an insulating matrix. Such striking similarities between two distinctly different modes of energy deposition in the films, prompted us to compare the effects of pyrolysis and ion irradiation in different carbon containing films. We compared both a polymer (HPR-204°) and a film of electron beam evaporated carbon film. While in the former case one would observe chemical degradation as well as structural modification, by studying pure carbon films the physical nature of the processes could be clarified. We report metallic carrier densities in both films and evidence for significant structural rearrangement. We conclude that pyrolysis and ion beam irradiation have similar effects on both polymer and carbon films.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 27: Symposium E – Ion Implantation and Ion Beam Processing of Materials , 1983 , 449
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Sichel, E. K. and Emma, T., Solid State Comm. (1982) 41, 747.Google Scholar
2. Carbon Black - Polymer Composites, edited by Sichel, E. K., Published by Marcel Decker Inc., NY (1982).Google Scholar
3. Venkatesan, T., Forrest, S. R., Kaplan, M. L., Murray, C. A., Schmidt, P. H., and Wilkens, B. J., J. Appl. Phys., June 1983.Google Scholar
4. Forrest, S. R., Kaplan, M. L., Schmidt, P. H., Venkatesan, T. and Lovinger, A., Appl. Phys. Lett. (1982) 41, 708.Google Scholar
5. Abeles, B. and Sheng, P., Coutts, M. D. and Arie, Y., Advances in Phys., 2A, 407 (1975);Google Scholar
Sheng, P., Abeles, A. and Arie, Y., Phys. Rev. Letts. 31, 44 (1973).Google Scholar
6. Hauser, J. J., Solid State Comm. (1975) 17, 1577.Google Scholar
7. Mooij, J. H., Phys. Stat. Sol. (1973) 17, 521.Google Scholar
8. Morgan, M., Thin Solid Films, (1971) 7, 313.Google Scholar
9. Sander, U., Bukow, H. H. and Von Buttlar, H., J. Phys. Colloq. (1979) 1, 301.Google Scholar
10. Howe, L. M., Rainville, M. H., Harigan, H. K. and Thompson, D. A., Nucl. Instrum. and Meth. (1980) 170, 419.Google Scholar
11. Elman, B. S., Dresselhaus, M. S., Dresselhaus, G., Maloy, B. W. and Mazurele, H., Phys. Rev. B24, 1027 (1981).Google Scholar
12. Murray, C. A., private communications.Google Scholar
13. Hauser, J. J., Patel, J. R. and Rodgers, J. W., Appl. Phys. Lett. 30, 129 (1977).Google Scholar