2013
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-33848-9_4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ehrlich-Schwoebel Barriers and Island Nucleation in Organic Thin-Film Growth

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
7
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 58 publications
1
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, the observed deviations of the molecular arrangement from the ideal herringbone structure are most probably caused, besides the stepped substrate itself, by the larger molecular tilting, which is twice as large as in the 6P crystal bulk. This could also explain why the molecular structure is much more regular in one direction since the same tilting direction/azimuth of the molecular long axis within one island was pointed out in the literature …”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 86%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Therefore, the observed deviations of the molecular arrangement from the ideal herringbone structure are most probably caused, besides the stepped substrate itself, by the larger molecular tilting, which is twice as large as in the 6P crystal bulk. This could also explain why the molecular structure is much more regular in one direction since the same tilting direction/azimuth of the molecular long axis within one island was pointed out in the literature …”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 86%
“…This could also explain why the molecular structure is much more regular in one direction since the same tilting direction/azimuth of the molecular long axis within one island was pointed out in the literature. 71…”
Section: ■ Experimental Sectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A level dependent ESB (e.g. as described above and in [76,135]) often goes hand in hand with a change in tilt angle of the molecular backbone. However, the proposed Fosbury Flop-like step edge crossing can not explain the experimentally observed step edge barrier reduction.…”
Section: Mound Formationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The field of organic electronics has attracted large attention during the last decades because of its promising perspective for the fabrication of flexible thin-film devices. Compared with covalently bound inorganic semiconductors, organic semiconductors (OSCs) are only weakly bound, which results in small sublimation enthalpies and low barriers for diffusion processes, , hence making the preparation of ordered (possibly crystalline) thin films and heterostructures challenging. , Owing to the shape anisotropy of the molecular entities, the optoelectronic properties of OSC solids are also rather anisotropic and further depend on the molecular and crystalline orientation , as well as on the adopted packing motifs (e.g., polymorphs), which adds another complexity to the task of producing ordered OSC films for optoelectronic applications. OSC films on metal or insulator substrates often grow in a Stranski–Krastanov mode and exhibit a notable dewetting and island formation which originates from the structural mismatch between the first monolayer (i.e., wetting layer) and the OSC bulk crystal structure. , In addition, many OSCs exhibit a kinetic roughening upon thin-film deposition, which is attributed to the Ehrlich–Schwöbel barriers at terrace edges or grain boundaries, and aggravates the preparation of smooth OSC films. Such growth instabilities are critical issues because discontinuity and defect-induced trap states significantly reduce the resulting charge carrier mobility in organic thin-film devices. , Besides such device requirements, the fabrication of smooth and crystalline films of homogeneous thickness is also of great interest for more fundamental studies such as time-resolved studies of photoexcitations in OSC films because it enables to obtain thickness-dependent transfer dynamics toward metallic electrodes. , …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%