1: %
2: \documentclass[prl,aps,twocolumn,showpacs]{revtex4}
3: % \documentclass[prl,preprint,aps]{revtex4}
4: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
5: \usepackage{dcolumn}
6: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
7: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
8: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
9: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
10: \newcommand{\nn}{ \nonumber}
11: \newcommand{\ds}{\displaystyle}
12: \mathsurround=2pt
13: \begin{document}
14: \topmargin=-25mm
15: % \Large
16:
17: \title{Inelastic electron transport in polymer nanofibers}
18:
19: \author{Natalya A. Zimbovskaya }
20:
21: \affiliation
22: {Department of Physics and Electronics, University of Puerto
23: Rico-Humacao, CUH Station, Humacao, PR 00791;\\ and
24: Institute for Functional Nanomaterials, University of Puerto Rico, San Juan,
25: PR 00931}
26: %%\\ and Institute for Nanoelectronics and
27: %%Computing, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907}
28:
29: \begin{abstract}
30: In this paper we present theoretical analysis of the electron transport
31: in conducting polymers being in a metal-like state.
32: We concentrate on the study of the effects of
33: temperature on characteristics of the transport. We treat a conducting
34: polymer in the metal state as a network of metallic-like grains
35: embedded in poorly conducting environment which consists of randomly
36: distributed polymeric chains. We carry out the present studies assuming
37: that the intergrain conduction is mostly provided by electron quantum
38: tunneling via intermediate states localized on polymer chains
39: between the grains. To analyze the effects of temperature on this kind of
40: electron intergrain transport we represent the thermal environment as a phonon
41: bath coupled to the intermediate state. The electron transmission is computed
42: using the Buttiker model within the scattering matrix formalism. This approach
43: is further developed, and the dephasing parameter is expressed in terms of
44: relevant energies including the thermal energy. It is shown that temperature
45: dependencies of both current and conductance associated with the above
46: transport mechanism differ from those typical for other conduction mechanisms
47: in conducting polymers. This could be useful to separate out the contribution
48: from the intergrain electron tunneling to the net electric current in
49: transport experiments on various polymer nanofibers. The proposed model could
50: be used to analyze inelastic electron transport through molecular junctions.
51: \end{abstract}
52:
53: \pacs{72.15.Gd,71.18.+y}%%{71.18.+y, 71.20-b, 72.55+s}
54:
55: \date{\today}
56: \maketitle
57:
58: \section{i. introduction}
59:
60: At present, electronic transport properties of conducting polymers such as
61: doped polyacetylen and polyaniline-polyethylene oxides attract an intense
62: interest and attention of the research community \cite{1,2}. These materials,
63: as well as carbon nanotubes, are expected to have various applications in
64: fabrication of nanodevices. Significant efforts have been applied to study
65: conduction mechanisms in the polymers. This is a rather complex topic
66: for electron transport in conducting polymers shows both metallic and
67: non-metallic features, and various transport mechanisms contribute to the
68: resulting pattern.
69:
70: An important contribution to
71: the conduction in these substances is provided by the phonon assisted electron
72: hopping between the conducting islands or variable range hopping between localized
73: electronic states \cite{2,3}. The effect of these transport mechanisms strongly
74: depends on the intensity of stochastic nuclear motions. The latter increases as
75: temperature rises, and this brings a significant enhancement of the corresponding
76: contribution to the conductivity. The temperature dependence of the ``hopping"
77: conductivity $\sigma (T) $ is given by the Mott's expression \cite{4}:
78: \be %f1
79: \sigma (T) = \sigma (0) \exp \left[-(T_0/T)^p \right] \label{1}
80: \ee
81: where $T_0$ is the characteristic temperature of a particular material, and
82: the parameter $p$ takes on values $0.25,\,0.33 $ or $0.5 $ depending on the
83: dimensions of the hopping processes.
84: Also, it was proposed that phonon-assisted transport in low-dimensional structures
85: such as nanofibers and nanotubes may be substantially influenced due to electron
86: interactions \cite{5,6}. This results in the power-low temperature dependencies
87: of the conductance $G(T)$ at low values of the bias voltage $V \ (eV < kT,\ k $
88: being the Boltzmann constant), namely: $G \sim T^\alpha. $ Experimental
89: data for the conductance of some nanofibers and nanotubes match this power-low
90: reasonably well, bearing in mind that the value of the exponent $ \alpha$ varies
91: within a broad range. For instance, $\alpha $ was reported to accept values
92: about $0.35 $ for carbon nanotubes \cite{7}, and $\alpha \sim 2.2 \div 7.2 $ for
93: various polyacetylene nanofibers \cite{8,9}.
94:
95: In general, hopping transport mechanism is very important in disordered
96: materials with localized states. For this kind of transport phonons play part
97: of a source of electrical conductivity. Accordingly, the hopping contribution
98: to the conductivity always increases as temperature rises, and more available
99: phonons appear. When polymers are in the insulating state, the hopping transport
100: mechanism predominates and determines the temperature dependencies of transport
101: characteristics.
102:
103: In metallic state of conducting polymers free charge carriers appear, and their
104: motion strongly contributes to the conductance. While moving, the charge carriers
105: undergo scattering by phonons and impurities. This results in the conductivity
106: stepping down. Metallic-like features in the temperature dependencies of dc
107: conductivity of some polymeric materials and carbon nanotubes were repeatedly
108: reported. For instance, the decrease in the conductivity upon heating was observed
109: in polyaniline nanofibers Refs. \cite{10,11} and carbon nanotubes \cite{12}.
110: However, this electron diffusion is not the only transport
111: mechanism in the metallic state.
112: The conducting polymers could be described
113: as granular metals, where conducting metallic-like islands (grains) made out
114: of densely packed polymer chains are embedded in the amorphous poorly
115: conducting environment where the chains are disorderly arranged \cite{1}.
116: Prigodin and Epstein suggested that the electron transport between metallic
117: islands mostly occurs as a result of electron resonance tunneling through
118: intermediate states localized on the polymer chains in between the grains \cite{13}.
119: The effect of phonons on this kind of electron transport may be very significant.
120: These phonons bring an inelastic component to the intergrain
121: current and underline the interplay between the transport by the electron
122: tunneling and the thermally assisted dissipative transport. Also, they may
123: cause some other effects, as was shown while developing the theory of
124: conduction through the molecules \cite{14,15,16,17}.
125:
126: Here, we concentrate on the analysis of temperature dependencies of the electric
127: current and conductance associated with the resonance tunneling transport
128: mechanism. The analysis is motivated by an assumption that various conduction
129: mechanisms may simultaneously contribute to the charge transport in conducting
130: polymers, and their relative effects could significantly differ depending on
131: the specifics of synthesis and processing of polymeric materials. The temperature
132: dependencies of the resulting transport characteristics may help to identify
133: the predominating transport mechanism for a paricular sample under particular
134: conditions, providing a deeper insight in the nature of electron transport in
135: conducting polymers.
136:
137: The issue is of particular importance because the relevant transport
138: experiments are often implemented at room temperature (see e.g. \cite{18}),
139: so that the influence of phonons cannot be disregarded.
140: Therefore we study the effect of temperature (stochastic nuclear motions)
141: on the resonance electron tunneling between metalliclike grains (islands)
142: in polymer nanofibers.
143: We apply the obtained results to analyze electron transport in conducting
144: polymers. However, these results could be easily adapted to study some phonon
145: induced effects in the electron transport through metal-molecule junctions and
146: other kinds of quantum dots coupled to the source and drain reservoirs.
147:
148:
149: \section{ii. model and results}
150:
151: The transmission coefficient for the electron intergrain
152: resonance tunneling is determined with
153: the probability of finding the resonance state. The latter is estimated as
154: $ P \sim \exp(-L/\xi)$ $(L $ is the average distance between the
155: adjacent grains, and $ \xi $ is the localization length for electrons),
156: and takes values much smaller than unity but much greater than the
157: transmission probability for sequental hoppings along the chains, $ P_h
158: \sim \exp (-2L/\xi) $ \cite{19}. The probability for existence of a resonance
159: state at a certain chain is rather low, so only a few out of the whole set
160: of the chains connecting two grains are participating in the process of
161: intergrain electron transport. Therefore one could assume that any two metallic
162: domains are connected by a single chain providing an intermediate state for
163: the resonance tunneling. All remaining chains can be neglected for they
164: poorly contribute to the transport compared to the resonance chain.
165: Within this approach the intergrain conduction strongly resembles the electron
166: conduction through a molecular bridge connecting two metallic leads, and
167: similar formalism could be employed to compute it.
168:
169:
170: Correspondingly, in calculations of the current
171: we employ the formula which describes the electronic transport through a junction
172: including two leads (adjacent grains) and the intermediate state coupled to them.
173: We treat the grains as free electron reservoirs in thermal equilibrium. This
174: assumption is justified when the intermediate state (the bridge) is weakly
175: coupled to the leads and conduction is much smaller than the quantum
176: conductance $G_0 = 2e^2/h\ (e,h $ are the electron charge, and the Planck
177: constant, respectively). Due to the low probabilities for the resonance
178: tunneling between the metallic islands in the conducting polymers the above
179: assumption may be considered as a reasonable one. So, we can employ the
180: well-known expression for the electron current through the junction \cite{20},
181: and we write:
182: \be % f2,1,18
183: I = \frac{2en}{h} \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE T(E) [f_1(E) - f_2(E)]. \label{2}
184: \ee
185: Here, $ n $ is the number of the working channels in the fiber, $f_{1,2} (E)$
186: are Fermi functions taken with the different contact chemical potentials
187: $ \mu_{1,2} $ for the grains. The chemical potentials differ due to the
188: bias voltage $ \Delta V $ applied across the grains:
189: \be % f3,2,19
190: \mu_1 = E_F + (1 - \eta) e \Delta V; \qquad
191: \mu_2 = E_F - \eta e \Delta V. \label{3}
192: \ee
193: The parameter $ \eta $ characterizes how the voltage $ \Delta V $ is divided
194: between the grains; $ E_F $ is the equilibrium Fermi energy of the system
195: including the pair of grains and the resonance chain in between, and $ T (E) $
196: is the electron transmission function.
197:
198: Realistic polymer nanofibers have diameters within the range $ 20\div 100$nm,
199: and lengths of the order of a few microns. This is much greater than the
200: typical size of both metallic-like grains and intergrain separations which
201: take on values $ \sim 5\div 10$nm (see e.g. \cite{18,21}). Therefore, we may
202: treat a nanofiber as a set of working channels connected in parallel, any
203: single channel being a sequence of grains connected with the resonance polymer
204: chains. The net current in the fiber is the sum of currents flowing in these
205: channels, and the voltage $ V$ applied across the whole fiber is distributed
206: among sequental pairs of grains along a single channel. So, the voltage
207: $ \Delta V$ applied across two adjacent grains could be roughly estimated as
208: $ \Delta V \sim V{L/L_0} $ where $ L $ is the average separation between the
209: grains, and $ L_0 $ is the fiber length.
210: In realistic fibers the ratio $ \Delta V/V $ may take on values of
211: the order of $ 10^{-2} \div 10^{-3} . $
212:
213: To proceed we must compute $T(E) $. An important issue in calculation of
214: the transmission is the effect of stochastic nuclear motions in the
215: environment of the resonance state.
216: When the dissipation is strong (e.g. within the strong thermal coupling limit),
217: the inelastic (hopping)
218: contribution to the intergrain current predominates, replacing the
219: coherent tunneling dominating at weak dephasing. Typically, at room
220: temperatures the intergrain electron transport in conducting polymers occurs
221: within an intermediate regime, when both coherent and incoherent contributions
222: to the electron transmission are manifested.
223:
224: The general approach to the electron transport studies
225: in the presence of dissipation is the reduced dynamics density-matrix
226: formalism (see, e.g., Refs. \cite{22} and \cite{23}). This microscopic
227: computational approach has the advantages of being capable of
228: providing the detailed
229: dynamics information. However, this information is usually more redundant
230: than necessary, as far as standard transport experiments in conducting
231: polymer nanofibers are concerned. There exists an
232: alternative approach using the scattering-matrix formalism and the
233: phenomenological Buttiker dephasing model \cite{24,25}. Adopting this
234: phenomenological model we are able to analytically treat the problem, and
235: the results agree with those obtained by
236: means of more sophisticated computational methods, as was demonstrated in
237: the earlier work \cite{14}.
238: However, this alternative approach has some significant shortcomings. Its
239: main disadvantage is that the dissipative effects are described in terms
240: of a phenomenological dephasing parameter $\epsilon $ whose dependence of
241: the characteristic factors affecting the transport (such as the
242: temperature, the electron-phonon coupling strength
243: and some others) remains unclear.
244: Here, we carry out our analysis within the framework of the phenomenological
245: Buttiker's dephasing model but we modify the latter to elucidate the relation
246: of the dephasing parameter $\epsilon $ to the relevant energies characterizing
247: the electron transport in the considered system.
248:
249: In studies of the intergrain electron transport in conducting polymers the
250: ``bridge" between two grains inserts a single
251: electron state. Therefore we may treat the electron transport as a combination
252: of tunneling through two barriers (the first one separates the left metallic
253: domain from the intermediate state in the middle of the resonance chain, and
254: the second separates this state from the right grain, supposing the transport
255: is from the left to the right) affected by inelastic scattering at the bridge,
256: as shown in the Fig. 1. The barriers are represented by the squares, and the
257: triangle in between imitates a scatterer coupling the bridge to a dissipative
258: electron reservoir.
259:
260:
261: An electron could be injected into this system, and/or leave from there via
262: four channels indicated in this Figure. Incoming particle fluxes
263: $(J_i)$ are related to those outgoing from the system $(J_j')$ by means of the
264: transmission matrix $T, $ \cite{24,25}
265: \be %f3
266: J_j' = \sum_i T_{ji} J_i, \qquad 1\leq i, j \leq 4. \label{4}
267: \ee
268: Off-diagonal matrix elements $T_{ji} (E) $ are probabilities for the electron
269: to be transmitted from the channel $ i $ to the channel $j, $ whereas diagonal
270: matrix elements $T_{ii}(E) $ are probabilities for its reflection back to the
271: channel $i $. To provide charge conservation, the net particle flux
272: in the channels connecting the system with the reservoir must be zero. So we
273: have:
274: \be %f5,4
275: J_3 + J_4 - J_3' - J_4' = 0. \label{5}
276: \ee
277: The transmission function $ T(E) $ relates the particle flux outgoing from
278: the channel $2$ to the flux incoming to the channel $1,$ namely:
279: \be %f6,5
280: J_2' = T(E) J_1. \label{6}
281: \ee
282: Using Eqs. (4) and (5) we can express the transmission function in
283: terms of the matrix elements of the scattering matrix $S$ relating the
284: outgoing wave amplitudes $b_1',b_2',a_3', a_4'$ to the incident ones
285: $b_1,b_2,a_3, a_4:\ T_{ij} = |S_{ij}|^2. $ In the considered case
286: of a single site bridge the $S$ matrix takes the form \cite{14}:
287: \be %f7,6
288: S = Z^{-1}\left(
289: \begin{array}{cccc}
290: r_1 + \alpha^2 r_2 & \alpha t_1 t_2 & \beta t_1 & \alpha\beta t_1 r_2
291: \\
292: \alpha t_1 t_2 & r_2 +\alpha^2 r_1 & \alpha\beta r_1 t_2 & \beta t_2
293: \\
294: \beta t_1 & \alpha \beta r_1 t_2 & \beta^2 r_1 & \alpha r_1 r_2 - \alpha
295: \\
296: \alpha \beta t_1 r_2 & \beta t_2 & \alpha r_1 r_2 - \alpha & \beta^2 r_2
297: \end{array} \right) .
298: \label{7} \ee
299: where $Z = 1 - \alpha^2 r_1 r_2,\ \alpha = \sqrt{1- \epsilon}, \ \beta =
300: \sqrt\epsilon,$ $r_{1,2}$ and $t_{1,2} $ are the amplitude transmission an
301: reflection coefficients for the barriers $(|t_{1,2}|^2 + |r_{1,2}|^2 = 1),$
302: and the parameter $ \epsilon $ characterizes the dephasing strength. This
303: parameter takes values within the range $[0,1],$
304: so that $ \epsilon = 0$ corresponds to
305: the completely coherent and $ \epsilon = 1 $ to the fully incoherent transport.
306:
307:
308: \begin{figure}[t] % fig. 1
309: \begin{center}
310: \includegraphics[width=2.8cm,height=8cm,angle=-90]{poly0.eps}%{n20_5.eps}
311: \caption{ Schematic drawing illustrating the intergrain electron transport
312: in the presence of dissipation \cite{24}.
313: }
314: \label{rateI}
315: \end{center}
316: \end{figure}
317:
318: When the bridge is detached from the dephasing reservoir $ T(E) = |S_{12}|^2.$
319: On the other hand, in this case we can employ a simple analytical expression
320: for the electron transmission function \cite{26,27,28}
321: \be %f8,6,7
322: T(E) = 4 \Delta_1(E) \Delta_2 (E) |G(E)|^2, \label{8}
323: \ee
324: where $\Delta_{1,2} (E) = - \mbox{Im} \Sigma_{1,2} (E). $ In this expression,
325: self-energy terms $ \Sigma_{1,2} $ appear due to the coupling of the metallic
326: grains to the intermediate state (the bridge).
327: The retarded Green's function for a single-site bridge could be approximation
328: as follows:
329: \be %f9,8
330: G(E) = \frac{1}{E -E_1 +i\Gamma} \label{9}
331: \ee
332: where $E_1 $ is the site energy. The width of the resonance level between
333: the grains is described by the parameter $ \Gamma = \Delta_1 + \Delta_2 +
334: \Gamma_{en}\ (\Gamma_{en}$ describes the effect of the environment).
335:
336: Equating the expression (8) and $ t_1^2 t_2^2 $ we arrive at the following
337: expressions for the tunneling parameters $ \delta_{1,2} (E) :$
338: \be %f10,9
339: \delta_{1,2}(E)\equiv t_{1,2}^2 =
340: \frac{2 \Delta_{1,2}}{\sqrt{(E- E_1)^2 + \Gamma^2}} . \label{10}
341: \ee
342:
343:
344: Using this result we easily derive the general expression for the electron
345: transmission function:
346: \be %f11,10,3
347: T (E) = \frac{g(E)(1+ \alpha^2) [g(E)(1+ \alpha^2) + 1
348: - \alpha^2]}{[g(E)(1 - \alpha^2) + 1 + \alpha^2]^2} \label{11}
349: \ee
350: where:
351: \be %f12,11,4
352: g(E) = %2 \sqrt{\Delta_1\Delta_2\big/[(E - E_1)^2 + \Gamma^2]},
353: 2 \sqrt{\frac{\Delta_1\Delta_2}{(E - E_1)^2 + \Gamma^2}}, \label{12}
354: \ee
355:
356: In studying the effect of the stochastic nuclear motions (effect of the
357: temperature) on the intergrain electron transport we may treat the former
358: as a phonon bath. In the present work we assume
359: that the intermediate site (the bridge) is directly coupled to the phonons
360: produced by nuclear motions. Such approach was used before in some papers
361: analyzing dissipative effects in the electron conduction through molecules
362: (see e.g. \cite{15}), and we apply it here. Then $\Gamma_{en} $
363: equals $ \Gamma_{ph} $ where $ \Gamma_{ph} (E) $ is the imaginary part of
364: the electronic self-energy correction due to the electron-phonon interaction.
365: However, in analyzing the electron transport in polymers, as well as in
366: molecules, one must keep in mind that besides the bridge sites there always
367: exist other nearby sites. In some cases the presence of such sites may strongly
368: influence the effects of the stochastic nuclear motions on the characteristics
369: of the electron transport. This may happen when the nearby sites somehow
370: ``screen" the bridge sites from the direct interaction with the phonon bath
371: \cite{17}.
372: We elucidate some effects which could appear in the electron transport in
373: conducting polymer fibers in the case of such indirect coupling of the bridge
374: state to the phonon bath elsewhere \cite{29}.
375:
376: To achieve better understanding of the effect of temperature in the electron
377: transport in polymer fibers within the adopted approach we must express the
378: dephasing strength $\epsilon $ in terms of relevant energies. As shown before
379: (see \cite{30}), $\epsilon$ could be written in the form:
380: \be %f13,12,5
381: \epsilon =\frac{ \Gamma_{ph}}{\Gamma}. \label{13}
382: \ee
383:
384: In further calculations we assume that the phonon bath is characterized by the
385: continuous spectral density $J (\omega)$ of the form \cite{31}:
386: \be %f14,13,6,13
387: J(\omega) = J_0 \frac{\omega}{\omega_c} \exp \left(-\frac{\omega}{\omega_c}
388: \right ) \label{14}
389: \ee
390: where $ J_0 $ describes the electron-phonon coupling strength, and
391: $ \omega_c $ is the cut-off frequency of the bath characterizing the thermal
392: relaxation rate of the latter.
393:
394: Starting from the corresponding result of the earlier works \cite{15,27,28} and
395: using this expression \ref{14} we may present $ \Gamma_{ph} (E) $ as follows:
396: \bea %f15,14,7
397: \Gamma_{ph}& =& 2\pi J_0 \int d\omega
398: \frac{\omega}{\omega_c} \exp \left(-\frac{\omega}{\omega_c}
399: \right )
400: \nn\\ &\times&
401: \big \{N(\omega) [\rho_{el}(E-\hbar\omega)
402: +\rho_{el}(E+\hbar\omega)]
403: \nn\\& +&
404: [1-n(E-\hbar\omega) ]\rho_{el} (E-\hbar\omega)
405: \nn\\& +&
406: n(E + \hbar\omega) \rho_{el} (E+\hbar\omega) \big\}. \label{15}
407: \eea
408: Here,
409: \be %f16,15,8
410: n(E) = \frac{\Delta_1 f_1(E) + \Delta_2 f_2 (E)}{\Delta_1 + \Delta_2}
411: \label{16} \ee
412: $\rho_{el} (E) =( -1/\pi) \mbox{Im} (E - E_1 + i \Gamma)^{-1} $ is the
413: electron density of states, $ N(\omega) $ is the Bose-Einstein distribution
414: function for the phonons at the temperature $T. $ The asymptotic expression
415: for the self-energy term $ \Gamma_{ph} $ depends on the relation between two
416: characteristic energies, namely: $ \hbar \omega_c $ and $ kT \ (k$ is the
417: Boltzmann constant). At moderately high temperatures $(T\sim 100\div 300K),$
418: which are typical for the experiments on electrical characterization of polymer
419: nanofibers $kT \sim 10\div 30 meV.$ This is significantly greater than typical
420: values of $ \hbar \omega_c \ (\hbar\omega_c \sim 1 meV $ \cite{15}). Therefore
421: in further calculations we assume $ \hbar \omega_c\ll kT. $ Under this
422: assumption, the main contribution to the integral over $ \omega $ in the Eq.
423: (15) originates from the region where $ \omega\ll \omega_c \ll kT/\hbar, $
424: and we can use the following approximation:
425: \be % f17,16,9,14
426: \Gamma_{ph} (E) = \frac{2 \Gamma \Lambda (J_0,\omega_c, T)}{(E- E_1)^2 +
427: \Gamma^2}. \label{17}
428: \ee
429: Here,
430: \be % f18,17,10,11,16
431: \Lambda = \frac{4 J_0}{\hbar \omega_c} (kT)^2 \zeta
432: \left(2; \frac{kT}{\hbar\omega_c} + 1\right) \label{18}
433: \ee
434: where $\zeta (2; kT/\hbar\omega_c + 1) $ is the Riemann $ \zeta $ function:
435: \be %f19,18,11,12
436: \zeta = (2;kT/\hbar\omega_c + 1) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{(n+ kT/\hbar
437: \omega_c)^2}. \label{19}
438: \ee
439: Under $ \hbar\omega_c \ll kT, $ we may apply the estimation $ \Lambda
440: \approx 4k TJ_0. $
441:
442:
443: Solving the equation (17) we obtain a reasonable asymptotic expression for
444: $ \Gamma_{ph}: $
445: \be %f20,19,12
446: \Gamma_{ph} = \frac{\Delta_1 + \Delta_2}{2} \frac{\rho^2(1 + \sqrt{1 +
447: \rho^2})}{4\big(\frac{E - E_1}{\Delta_1 + \Delta_2}\big)^2 + (1 + \sqrt{1 +
448: \rho^2})^2} . \label{20}
449: \ee
450: where $ \rho^2 = 8 \Lambda/(\Delta_1 + \Delta_2)^2. $
451: Substituting this expression into (13) we arrive at the result for the
452: dephasing strength $ \epsilon :$
453: \be %f21,20,13
454: \epsilon = \frac{1}{2}\frac{\rho^2(1 + \sqrt{1 + \rho^2})}{4\big
455: (\frac{E
456: - E_1}{\Delta_1 + \Delta_2}\big)^2 +\frac{1}{2} (1 + \sqrt{1 + \rho^2})^3}
457: \label{21} \ee
458: This expression shows how the dephasing parameter depends on the temperature
459: $ T ,$ the electron-phonon coupling strength $ J_0, $ and the energy $ E. $ In
460: particular, it follows from the Eq. (21) that $ \epsilon $ reachs its maximum
461: at $ E = E_1, $ and the peak value of this parameter is given by:
462: \be %f22,14,12,13,17
463: \epsilon_{max} = \frac{\sqrt{1 + \rho^2}-1}{\sqrt{1 + \rho^2}+1}. \label{22}
464: \ee
465: The obtained result enables us to analyze the temperature dependencies of the
466: electric current and conductance of the doped polymer fibers assuming that the
467: resonance tunneling predominates in the intergrain electron transport in the
468: absence of phonons.
469:
470: \section{iii. discussion}
471:
472:
473: The maximum value of the dephasing strength is determined with two parameters,
474: namely, $ T $ and $ J_0. $ As illustrated in the Fig. 2,
475: $ \epsilon_{\max}$ increases when the temperature rises, and it takes on
476: greater values when the electron-phonon interaction is getting stronger.
477: This result has a clear physical sense. Also, as follows from the
478: Eq. \ref{21},
479: the dephasing parameter exhibit a peak at $ E = E_1 $ whose shape
480: is determined by the product $ kTJ_0 .$ When either $ J_0$ or $ T $ or both
481: enhance, the peak becomes higher and its width increases.
482: The manifested energy dependence of the dephasing strength allows
483: us to resolve a difficulty occuring when the inelastic contribution to the
484: electron transmission function is estimated using the simplified
485: approximation of the parameter $ \epsilon $ as a constant.
486: Within such approximation, a significant
487: rate of phase randomization appears in the electron transport between the
488: metallic-like islands when $ \epsilon $ reachs values $ \sim 0.3\div0.5 $ or
489: greater \cite{30}. Then the peak at the electron transmission is eroded, and
490: current-voltage characteristics become linear.
491: Therefore, to keep in consideration a distinguishable coherent contribution
492: to the current, one must assume $ \epsilon $ to take on small values.
493: For instance, the agreement with the experimental data reported in the work
494: \cite{18} was achieved assuming $ \epsilon = 0.05 $ \cite{32}. When the
495: experiments are carried out at room temperatures such small values of
496: $ \epsilon $ imply very weak electron-phonon coupling strength. This
497: implication could hardly be given a reasonable physical explanation.
498: On the contrary, if the energy dependence of $\epsilon$ is accounted for,
499: the peak in the electron transmission at $E=E_1$ may be still distinguishable
500: at moderately high values of the electron-phonon coupling strength $J_0.$
501:
502:
503: \begin{figure}[t]
504: \begin{center}
505: \includegraphics[width=5cm,height=9.2cm,angle=-90]{pol1.eps}%%{n21_1.eps}
506: \caption{ Temperature dependencies of the the dephasing parametr $\epsilon$
507: (left panel) and the electron transmission $T $ (right panel).
508: The curves are plotted at $ T_0 = 50K,\ \Delta_1 = \Delta_2 = 4 meV,\
509: E = E_1 = 0,\ J_0 = 9.0 meV$ (solid line), $6.0 meV $ (dashed line), $3 meV $
510: (dash-dotted line), $1.5 meV$ (dotted line).
511: }
512: \label{rateI}
513: \end{center}
514: \end{figure}
515:
516:
517: Current-voltage characteristics and voltage dependencies of the conductance
518: $ G = dI/dV $ computed using the expressions \ref{2}, \ref{11}, \ref{21} are
519: presented in the Fig. 3. We see that as the electron-phonon coupling
520: strengthens, the I-V curves lose their specific shape typical for the coherent
521: tunneling through the intermediate state. They become closer to
522: straight lines corresponding to the Ohmic law. At the same time the maximum in
523: the conductance originating from the intergrain tunneling gets eroded due to the
524: effect of phonons. These are the obvious results discussed in some earlier
525: works (see e.g. \cite{14}). The relative strength of the electron-phonon
526: interaction is determined by the ratio of the electron-phonon coupling constant
527: $J_0 $ and the self-energy terms describing the coupling of the intermediate
528: state (bridge) to the leads $\Delta_{1,2}.$ The effect of phonons on the
529: electron transport becomes significant when $J_0> \Delta_{1,2}.$
530:
531: \begin{figure}[t] %%%fig. 3
532: \begin{center}
533: \includegraphics[width=9.8cm,height=9.2cm,angle=-90]{poly3m.eps}
534: %\includegraphics[width=5cm,height=9.2cm,angle=-90]{pol3b.eps}
535: \caption{ Current (left panels) and conductance (right panels) versus voltage.
536: The curves are plotted at $ T= 50K,\ T = 30 K,\ E_1 = 40 meV,\
537: \Delta_1 = \Delta_2= 4meV,\ n=1, \ \Delta V/V=0.005, $
538: assuming $J_0 = 9meV $ (solid line), $J_0 = 6meV $ (dashed line),
539: $ J_0= 3meV $ (dash-dotted line), and $J_0 = 1.5 meV $ (dotted line).
540: $G_0 = 2e^2/h$ is the quantum conductance.
541: }
542: \label{rateI}
543: \end{center}
544: \end{figure}
545:
546:
547: Otherwise, the coherent tunneling between the metallic-like islands prevails in
548: the intergrain electron transport, and the influence of thermal phonon bath
549: is weak. Again, we may remark that $ J_0$ and $ T $ are combined as $kTJ_0 $
550: in the expression (21) for the dephasing
551: strength $\epsilon.$ Therefore an
552: increase in temperature at a fixed electron-phonon coupling strength enhances
553: the incoherent contribution to the current in the same way as the previously
554: discussed increase in the electron-phonon coupling. Also, at low
555: values of the applied voltage the electron-phonon coupling brings an enhancement
556: in both current and conductance, as shown in the top panels of the Fig. 3,
557: whereas the effect becomes reversed as the
558: voltage grows above a certain value (see Fig. 3, the bottom panels).
559: This happens because the phonon induced
560: broadening of the intermediate energy level (the bridge)
561: assists the electron transport at small bias voltage.
562: As the voltage rises, this effect is surpassed by the scattering effect of
563: phonons which resists the electron transport.
564:
565: Now, we consider temperature dependencies of the electric current and
566: conductance resulting from the intergrain electron tunneling via the intermediate
567: localized state. These dependencies are shown in the Fig. 4. The curves in the
568: figure are plotted at low bias voltage $(V= 0.3 V,\ \Delta V/V = 0.005)$ and
569: $T_0 = 50 K,$ so $e\Delta V < kT.$ This regime is chosen to compare the
570: obtained temperature
571: dependencies with those typical for the phonon assisted hopping transport
572: discussed in the begining of the present work. We see that the tunneling current
573: temperature dependence shown in the left panel of Fig. 4 crucially disagrees
574: with the Mott's expression describing the ``hopping" electron transport. The
575: tunnel current decreases as temperatute rises being proportional to
576: $(T_0/T)^\beta, $ and the exponent $\beta $ takes on values close to unity.
577:
578:
579:
580: \begin{figure}[t]
581: \begin{center}
582: \includegraphics[width=4.7cm,height=8.8cm,angle=-90]{poly4.eps}%%{pol5.eps}
583: \caption{ Temperature dependence of current (left panel) and conductance (right
584: panel) at low voltage bias $(V = 0.3 V).$
585: The curves are plotted at $ T_0 = 50 K, $
586: $J_0 = 9meV $ (solid line), $J_0 = 6meV $ (dashed line),
587: $ J_0= 3meV $ (dash-dotted line), and $J_0 = 1.5 meV $ (dotted line). The
588: values of remaining parameters coincide with those used in the figure 3.
589: }
590: \label{rateI}
591: \end{center}
592: \end{figure}
593:
594: Already it was mentioned that the drop in the conductivity upon heating a
595: sample was observed in polymers and carbon nanotubes. However, such
596: metallic-like behavior could originate from various dc transport mechanisms.
597: Correspondingly, the specific features of temperature dependencies of
598: the conductivity and/or current vary depending on the responsible conduction
599: mechanisms \cite{33}. The particular temperature dependence of the electron
600: tunneling current obtained in the present work and shown in the figure 3
601: differs from those occurring due to other transport mechanisms. Such
602: dependence was observed in the experiment on the electron transport in a
603: single low-defect-content carbon nanotube rope whose metallic-like
604: conductivity was manifested within a wide temperature range $(T\sim 35\div
605: 300K),$ as reported by Fisher et al \cite{34}. The conductivity temperature
606: dependence observed in this work could be approximated as $\sigma (T)/
607: \sigma(300) \sim a+ bT_0/T $ where $A,b$ are dimensionless constants.
608: The approximation includes the temperature
609: independent term which corresponds to the Drude conductivity. The second term
610: is inversely proportional to the temperature in agreement with present
611: results for the current shown in the Fig. 3. It is also likely that a similar
612: approximation may be adopted to describe the experimental data obtained for
613: chlorate-doped polyacetylene samples at the temperatures below $100 K$ \cite{35}.
614: In both cases we may attribute the contribution proportional to $ 1/T$ to the
615: resonance electron tunneling transport mechanism.
616:
617: Also, the conductance due to the electron intergrain tunneling reduces when
618: the temperature increases, as shown in the right panel of the Fig. 4.
619: Irrespective of the electron-phonon coupling strength we may approximate the
620: conductance by the power law $G\sim T^\alpha $ where $\alpha $ takes on values
621: close to $ -1. $ This agrees with the results for the current.
622: At higher bias voltage the temperature dependence of the current changes,
623: as shown in the Fig. 5. The curves shown in this figure could be approximated
624: as $\ln (I/I_0) \sim c + d T_0/T;\ c,d$ being dimensionless constants.
625: This resembles typical temperature dependencies of the tunneling current
626: in quasi-one-dimensional metals which
627: were predicted for conducting polymers being in a metal state
628: (see e.g. Ref. \cite{2}).
629:
630: \begin{figure}[t]
631: \begin{center}
632: \includegraphics[width=6.3cm,height=6cm,angle=-90]{poly5.eps}
633: \caption{ Temperature dependence of the electron current
634: at higher bias voltage $(V = 2 V).$
635: The curves are plotted at $ T_0 = 50 K, $
636: $J_0 = 9meV $ (solid line), $J_0 = 6meV $ (dashed line),
637: $ J_0= 3meV $ (dash-dotted line), and $J_0 = 1.5 meV $ (dotted line). The values
638: of remaining parameters are the same in the figures 3,4. The current $I_0 $
639: is computed using $J_0 = 3 meV;\ T_0/T = 1.5.$
640: }
641: \label{rateI}
642: \end{center}
643: \end{figure}
644:
645: Finally, there exist several mechanisms which could simultaneously
646: work providing the charge
647: transport in highly disodered and inhomogeneous materials as conducting polymers
648: and their relative significance could vary depending on both specific intrinsic
649: characteristics of particular materials (such as crystallization rate and
650: electron-electron and electron-phonon coupling strengths) and on the external
651: factors such as temperature. Various conduction mechanisms give rise to
652: various temperature dependencies of the electric current and conductance which
653: could be observed in polymer nanofibers/nanotubes. In the present work we
654: carried out theoretical studies to find out the character of temperature
655: dependencies of both current and conductance provided by specific transport
656: mechanism, namely, resonance tunneling of elecrons.
657:
658:
659: Accordingly, we
660: treat a conducting polymer as a kind of granular metal, and we assume that
661: the intergrain conduction occurs due to the electron tunneling betweem the
662: metalliclike grains through the intermediate state. To take into account the
663: effect of temperature we represent the thermal environment (stochastic nuclear
664: motions) as a phonon bath, and we introduce the coupling of the intermediate
665: site to the thermal phonons. In calculations of the electron transmission in
666: the presence of dissipation originating from the thermal environment we follow
667: the way proposed in the work \cite{30}. The latter is based on the Buttiker
668: model within the scattering matrix formalism but instead of treating the
669: dephasing strength as a phenomenological parameter, the latter
670: is expressed in terms of relevant energies, such as temperature and
671: electron-phonon coupling strength.
672:
673:
674:
675:
676: %\vspace{2mm}
677:
678: Using this approach we showed that the above described transport mechanism results
679: in the temperature dependencies of transport characteristics which differ from
680: those obtained for other conduction mechanisms such as phonon-assisted hopping
681: between localised states. Being observed in experiments on realistic polymer
682: nanofibers, the predicted dependencies would give grounds to suggest the electron
683: tunneling to predominate in the intergrain electron transport in these particular
684: nanofibers. We believe the present studies to contribute to
685: better understanding of electron transport mechanisms in conducting polymers
686: and carbon nanotubes. Also, we believe that the
687: model developed here may be used to theoretically analyze inelastic electron
688: transport through molecular junctions and nanodevices including quantum dots
689: coupled to the electron reservoirs.
690:
691: \section{Acknowledgments:} Author thanks G. M. Zimbovsky for help with the
692: manuscript.
693: This work was supported by DoD grant W911NF-06-1-0519 and NSF-DMR-PREM 0353730.
694:
695: %\begin{widetext} \end{widetext}
696:
697: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
698:
699: \bibitem{1} A. G. MacDiarmid, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 73}, 701 (2001).
700:
701: \bibitem{2} A. B. Kaiser, Rep. Prog. Phys. {\bf 64}, 1 (2001).
702:
703: \bibitem{3} A. J. Epstein, J. Joo, R. S. Kohlman, G. Du, A. G. MacDiarmid, E. J.
704: Oh, Y. Min, J. Tsukamoto, H. Kaneko, and J. P. Pouget, Synth. Met. {\bf 65}, 149
705: (1994); R. S. Kohlman, A. Zibold, D. B. Tanner, G. G. Ihas, T. Ishiguro,
706: Y. G. Min, A. G. MacDiarmid, and A. J. Epstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. {78}, 3915 (1997).
707:
708: \bibitem{4} N. F. Mott and E. A. Davis, {\it Electronic Processes in
709: Non-Crystalline Materials} (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1971).
710:
711: \bibitem{5} J. Voit, Rep. Progr. Phys. {\bf 58}, 977 (1995).
712:
713: \bibitem{6} R. Mukhopadhyay, C. L. Kane, and T. C. Lubensky, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 64},
714: 045120 (2001).
715:
716: \bibitem{7} A. Bachtold, M. de Jouge, K. Grove-Rasmussen, P. L. McEuen,
717: M. Buitelaar, and C. Schonenberger, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 166801 (2001).
718:
719: \bibitem{8} A. N. Aleshin, H. J. Lee, Y. W. Park, and K. Akagi, Phys. Rev. Lett.
720: {\bf 93}, 196601 (2004).
721:
722: \bibitem{9} A. N. Aleshin, H. J. Lee, K. Akagi, and Y. W. Park, Microelectr. Eng.
723: {\bf 81}, 420 (2005).
724:
725:
726: \bibitem{10} C. O. Yoon, M. Reghu, D. Moses, A. J. Heeger, and Y. Cao,
727: Synth. Met. {\bf 63}, 47 (1994).
728:
729: \bibitem{11} C. K. Subramanian, A. B. Kaiser, R. W. Gibberd, C-J. Liu, and
730: B. Westling, Solid State Comm. {\bf 97}, 235 (1996).
731:
732: \bibitem{12} M. S. Fuhrer, M. L. Cohen, A. Zettl, and V. Crespi, Solid State
733: Comm. {\bf 109}, 105 (1999).
734:
735: \bibitem{13} V. N. Prigodin and A. J. Epstein, Synth. Met. {\bf 125}, 43 (2002).
736:
737:
738: \bibitem{14} X. Q. Li and Y. Yan, Appl. Phys. lett. {\bf 81}, 925 (2001);
739: J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 115}, 4169 (2001).
740: \bibitem{15} M. Galperin, A. Ratner, and A. Nitzan, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 121},
741: 11965 (2004).
742: \bibitem{16} R. G. Endres, D. L. Cox, and R. R. P. Singh, Rev. Mod. Phys.
743: {\bf 76}, 195 (2004).
744: \bibitem{17} R. Gutierrez, S. Mandal, and G. Cuniberti, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 71},
745: 235116 (2005).
746: \bibitem{18} Yangxin Zhou, M. Freitag, J. Hone, C. Stali, A. T. Johnson Jr., N. J.
747: Pinto, and A. G. MacDiarmid, Appl. Phys. Lett. {\bf 83}, 3800 (2003).
748:
749: \bibitem{19} C. J. Bolton-Neaton, C. J. Lambert, V. I. Falko, V. M. Prigodin,
750: and A. J. Epstein, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 60}, 10569 (2000).
751:
752: \bibitem{20} S. Datta, {\it Electronic transport in Mesoscopic Systems}
753: (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1995).
754:
755: \bibitem{21} R. Pelster, G. Nimtz, and B. Wessling, Phys.Rev. B {\bf 49},
756: 12718 (1994).
757:
758: \bibitem{22} S. Skourtis and S. Mukamel, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 197}, 367 (1995).
759:
760: \bibitem{23} D. Segal, A. Nitzan, W. B. Davis, M. R. Wasielewski, and M. A.
761: Ratner, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 104}, 3817 (2000).
762:
763: \bibitem{24} M. Buttiker, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 33}, 3020 (1986).
764:
765: \bibitem{25} J. L. D'Amato and H. M. Pastawski, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 41}, 7411 (1990).
766:
767: \bibitem{26} M. Kemp, V. Mujica, and M. A. Ratner, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 101},
768: 5172 (1994).
769:
770: \bibitem{27} B. N. J. Persson and A. Baratoff, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 59}, 339
771: (1987).
772:
773: \bibitem{28} T. Mii, S. G. Tikhodeev, and Ueba, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 68}, 205406
774: (2003).
775:
776: \bibitem{29} N. A. Zimbovskaya, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 126}, 184901 (2007).
777:
778: \bibitem{30} N. A. Zimbovskaya, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 123}, 114708 (2005).
779:
780: \bibitem{31} G. D. Mahan, {\it Many-Particle Physics} (Plenum, New York, 2000).
781:
782: \bibitem{32} N. A. Zimbovskaya, A. T. Johnson Jr., and N. J. Pinto, Phys.
783: Rev. B {\bf 72}, 024213 (2005).
784:
785: \bibitem{33} The matter is thoroughly discussed by Kaiser (see \cite{2} and
786: references therein).
787:
788: \bibitem{34} J. E. Fisher, H. Dai, A. Thess, R. Lee, N. M. Hanjani, D. L.
789: Dehaas, and R. E. Smalley, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 55}, R4921 (1997).
790:
791:
792: \bibitem{35} Y. W. Park, E. S. Choi, and D. S. Suh, Synth. Met. {\bf 96}, 81
793: (1998).
794:
795:
796: \end{thebibliography}
797:
798: \end{document}
799:
800: So, the energy dependence of $ \epsilon $ is important for it provides
801: better opportunities for the structure of the electron transmission function
802: to remain exhibited at the temperatures within the range $ 100\div 300 K .$
803: It is shown in the Fig. 3 that the peak in the transmission function may be
804: still exhibited even at $\epsilon_{max} \geq 0.5 .$ This occurs because
805: $ \epsilon $ decreases when the energy value moves away from the site energy
806: $E_1. $ Comparing these results with those obtained assuming the dephasing
807: parameter to be a constant, we conclude that taking into consideration the
808: energy dependence of $ \epsilon $ is essential to realistically analyze the
809: inelastic contribution to the electron transport in polymer nanofibers.
810:
811: