Experimental comparison between photoconductive and graphene-based photogating detection in a UV-A region

Zahra Sadeghi Neisiani; Mahdi Khaje; Abdollah Eslami Majd; Amir Hossein Mehrfar

doi:10.1364/AO.486493

Applied Optics
Vol. 62,
Issue 16,
pp. 4213-4220
(2023)
•https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.486493

Experimental comparison between photoconductive and graphene-based photogating detection in a UV-A region

Zahra Sadeghi Neisiani, Mahdi Khaje, Abdollah Eslami Majd, and Amir Hossein Mehrfar

Not Accessible

Your library or personal account may give you access

Get PDF
Email
Share
Get Citation
Copy Citation Text
Zahra Sadeghi Neisiani, Mahdi Khaje, Abdollah Eslami Majd, and Amir Hossein Mehrfar, "Experimental comparison between photoconductive and graphene-based photogating detection in a UV-A region," Appl. Opt. 62, 4213-4220 (2023)

Export Citation
- BibTex
- Endnote (RIS)
- HTML
- Plain Text
Citation alert
Save article

Check for updates

Abstract

Photoconductive detectors that use intrinsic absorbent materials include a wide range of detectors. In this paper, a photoconductive detector is fabricated using a titanium dioxide (${{\rm TiO}_2}$) thin film. The mechanism of the photodetector is changed to the photogating mechanism by transferring monolayer graphene onto the ${{\rm TiO}_2}$ thin film, which shows a great responsivity with a slight change in the fabrication process. Since the maximum responsivity can be obtained by applying and adjusting the gate voltage, the gate voltage is set in all experiments, and the effect of the gate voltage is investigated in both detectors. It is observed that by increasing the gate voltage, the responsivity of the photogating detector increases to 40 A/W at a gate voltage of 15 V. However, in the photoconductive detector, the increase in the gate voltage does not have a particular effect on the detector responsivity. In the photogating detector, the increase in the responsivity due to the increase in the gate voltage is attributed to applying the gate voltage to the graphene layer and not the absorber layer. The efficiency of both detectors is confirmed up to a frequency of 5 kHz.

Full Article | PDF Article

More Like This

Responsivity enhancement of a PtSi photodetector with graphene by the photogating effect

Amir Hossein Mehrfar and Abdollah Eslami Majd
Appl. Opt. 62(5) 1160-1166 (2023)

Photoswitching effect of graphene photogated diodes with interfacial layers

Masaaki Shimatani, Shoichiro Fukushima, Manabu Iwakawa, and Shinpei Ogawa
J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 40(9) 2349-2355 (2023)

Ultrahigh detectivity, high-speed and low-dark current AlGaN solar-blind heterojunction field-effect phototransistors realized using dual-float-photogating effect

Kai Wang, Xinjia Qiu, Zesheng Lv, Zhiyuan Song, and Hao Jiang
Photon. Res. 10(1) 111-119 (2022)

Previous Article Next Article

Data availability

All data is presented in this paper.

Cited By

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Cited by links are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Figures (10)

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Figure files are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Tables (2)

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Article tables are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Equations (9)

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Equations are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

$V_{DS}$ (V)	0.1	0.5	1.5
Responsivity (A/W) (Photoconductive)	0.36325	0.3867	0.4527
Responsivity (A/W) (Photogating)	4.3863	5.227	8.329
$\frac{I_{p h}}{I_{d a r k}} %$ (Photoconductive)	0.046	0.011	0.00373
$\frac{I_{p h}}{I_{d a r k}} %$ (Photogating)	0.877	0.209	0.111
$I_{d a r k} (µ A)$ (Photoconductive)	0.078	0.351	1.213
$I_{d a r k} (µ A)$ (Photogating)	0.05	0.25	0.75

UV Photodetector	Year	Responsivity A/W	References
Photoconductive	This work	$0.45 \frac{A}{W}$ at 1.5 V and 1 µW	_
Photogating	This work	$8 .32 \frac{A}{W}$ at 1.5 V and 1 µW	_
${T i O}_{2} / g r a p h e n e$	2018	80 mA/W at 1 V and 1 µW	[32]
${T i O}_{2}$ nanotubes/gaphene	2016	0.126 A/W at 365 nm and 5 mW	[31]
ZnO micro/nanowire Arrays	2013	1/62 A/W at	[37]
ZnO Schottky UV photodetectors	2001	1/5 A/W, 5 V, 0.1 µW and 368 nm	[38]

$V_{DS}$ (V)	0.1	0.5	1.5
Responsivity (A/W) (Photoconductive)	0.36325	0.3867	0.4527
Responsivity (A/W) (Photogating)	4.3863	5.227	8.329
$\frac{I_{p h}}{I_{d a r k}} %$ (Photoconductive)	0.046	0.011	0.00373
$\frac{I_{p h}}{I_{d a r k}} %$ (Photogating)	0.877	0.209	0.111
$I_{d a r k} (µ A)$ (Photoconductive)	0.078	0.351	1.213
$I_{d a r k} (µ A)$ (Photogating)	0.05	0.25	0.75

UV Photodetector	Year	Responsivity A/W	References
Photoconductive	This work	$0.45 \frac{A}{W}$ at 1.5 V and 1 µW	_
Photogating	This work	$8 .32 \frac{A}{W}$ at 1.5 V and 1 µW	_
${T i O}_{2} / g r a p h e n e$	2018	80 mA/W at 1 V and 1 µW	[32]
${T i O}_{2}$ nanotubes/gaphene	2016	0.126 A/W at 365 nm and 5 mW	[31]
ZnO micro/nanowire Arrays	2013	1/62 A/W at	[37]
ZnO Schottky UV photodetectors	2001	1/5 A/W, 5 V, 0.1 µW and 368 nm	[38]

Abstract

Data availability

Cited By

Figures (10)

Tables (2)

Equations (9)

Applied Optics