Abstract:Charge carrier mobility is one of the important parameters to measure to compare the behavior of different organic transistors. A high carrier mobility is essential for the organic transistors to operate at a high frequency. Recently, there have been discussions on the mobility overestimation due to gate bias dependent Schottky contacts which lead to severe nonlinearities in the current voltage characteristics, i.e., the double-slope feature. In addition, an accurate evaluation of the carrier mobility from the transfer curves requires accurate parameters such as channel dimensions or dielectric capacitance. Many of the organic field-effect transistors (OFETs) reported in the literature employ unpatterned semiconductor active layers or gate/gate dielectrics where the effective channel dimensions significantly deviate from the values defined by the source drain electrodes due to the fringe effect. To reveal the importance of the fringe effect on the mobility evaluation, here we perform a systematic investigation of OFETs with vacuum-deposited active layers in relation to the fringe effect, followed by the same analysis of solution-processed OFETs with tunable crystal morphology. By continuously narrowing down the active layer toward the actual channel region defined by the source drain electrodes, we show that the carrier mobilities are 110% and 60% overestimated in the vacuum-deposited and solution-processed devices, respectively, even with ideal linearity in the transfer curves. Herein, we suggest a model to evaluate the degree of mobility overestimation in these two families of OFETs and provide the guidelines for the design of the device geometry and channel dimensions to minimize mobility overestimation induced by the fringe effect. In our solution-processed OFETs, we conclude that a large channel width to length ratio over 20 is essential to alleviate the fringe current outside the channel, while a channel ratio greater than 40 is needed for the OFETs with vacuum-deposited semiconductor layers.

Reliable Mobility Evaluation of Organic Field-Effect Transistors with Different Contact Metals

Precise Extraction of Charge Carrier Mobility for Organic Transistors

A Transfer Method for High‐Mobility, Bias‐Stable, and Flexible Organic Field‐Effect Transistors

Evaluating mobility extraction reliability in non-ideal organic transistors utilizing weak epitaxy-grown pentacene films

A method for direct determination of voltage dependent contact resistance and mobility of an organic field effect transistor

The Importance of Contact Resistance in High-Mobility Organic Field-Effect Transistors Studied by Scanning Kelvin Probe Microscopy

Accurate Field‐Effect Mobility and Threshold Voltage Estimation for Thin‐Film Transistors with Gate‐Voltage‐Dependent Mobility in Linear Region

Extracting contact effects in organic field-effect transistors

Overestimation of Carrier Mobility in Organic Thin Film Transistors Due to Unaccounted Fringe Currents

Recent Efforts in Understanding and Improving the Nonideal Behaviors of Organic Field‐Effect Transistors

Comparing the Gate Dependence of Contact Resistance and Channel Resistance in Organic Field-Effect Transistors for Understanding the Mobility Overestimation Issue

Charge Carrier Mobility: Precise Extraction of Charge Carrier Mobility for Organic Transistors (adv. Funct. Mater. 20/2020)

New Method of Mobility Measurement for Organic Semiconductors by Optoelectronic Coupling

Enhanced Mobility in C8-BTBT Field-effect Transistors with Iodine-doping

Mobility Measurement With Organic Optoelectronic Couplers

Mobility–stability trade-off in oxide thin-film transistors

Comparison of Mobility Extraction Methods Based on Field-Effect Measurements for Graphene

Generalized Transport-Band Field-Effect Mobility in Disordered Organic and Inorganic Semiconductors

Analysis of Ultrahigh Apparent Mobility in Oxide Field‐Effect Transistors

Recent Progress in High-Mobility Organic Transistors: A Reality Check

Intrinsic Charge Carrier Mobility in Single-Crystal OFET by “fast Trapping Vs. Slow Detrapping” Model