English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Kelvin probe force microscopy (KPFM) is a popular tool for studyingproperties of semiconductors. However, the interpretation of its results iscomplicated by the possibility of so-called band bending and the presence ofsurface charges. In this work we study two different interpretations for KPFMon semiconductors: the contact potential difference (CPD) interpretation, whichinterprets the measured potential as the work function difference between thesample and the probe, and a newer, alternative, interpretation proposed byBaumgart, Helm and Schmidt (BHS). By performing model calculations wedemonstrate that these models generally lead to very different results. Henceit is important to decide which one is correct. We demonstrate that BHSpredictions for the Kelvin voltage difference between the $p$ and $n$ parts ofa $pn$-junction are inconsistent with a set of experimental results from theliterature. In addition, the BHS interpretation predicts an independence fromthe probe material as well as from surface treatments, which we both find todisagree with experiment. On the other hand, we present a theoretical argumentfor the validity of the CPD interpretation and we show that the CPDinterpretation is able to accommodate all of these experimental results. Thuswe posit that the BHS interpretation is generally not suitable for the analysisof KPFM on semiconductors and that the CPD interpretation should be usedinstead.

Two competing interpretations of Kelvin Probe Force Microscopy on semiconductors put to test