Applied Surface Science 498 (2019) 143812

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Surface Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apsusc

Full length article

Direct probing of the effective surface layer thickness during surface T

electrical breakdown along the solid dielectric and gas interface
⁎
Xu Zheng1, Zhen Li1, Le Zhang , Jianying Li, Shengtao Li
State Key Laboratory of Electrical Insulation and Power Equipment, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, Shaanxi 710049, PR China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Surface property plays a crucial role in the surface electrical breakdown or surface flashover. Although the main
Solid-gas interface electronic processes have been proposed, it is still not clear how thick the surface layer is involved in the
Surface electrical breakdown interaction with the transporting carriers. In the present study, the effective surface layer thickness (Lf) of an
Effective surface layer isotactic polypropylene (iPP) is directly probed by precisely manipulating the iPP layer thickness (diPP) deposited
Thin polymer film
on glass substrates. It is found that the direct-current surface flashover voltage varies significantly with diPP from
Structure-property relation
17.5 kV of the bare glass substrate to the saturated value of 21.0 kV when diPP exceeds 200 nm. The flashover
voltage shows an exponential dependence on diPP, from which Lf is estimated about 45 nm. Morphologies of iPP
thin films are investigated by atomic force microscopy, which exhibits film thickness dependent growth beha-
viour from a discontinuous layer with scattered iPP agglomerates to continuous layer with seaweed-like struc-
ture enclosed by amorphous boundaries. It is concluded that the main electronic interaction between trans-
porting carriers and iPP is confined within the 200 nm thick surface layer, signifying the importance of its
morphological and electrical properties in the further understanding and improvement of the surface flashover.

1. Introduction
Many extraordinary phenomena occur efficiently at solid dielectric-
gas interface, such as adsorption, catalysis, optoelectronic energy con-
version, sensor, and so on [1-5]. Nevertheless, it is also the electrical
weak region in nearly all electrical equipment and electronic devices
whenever a high electric field exists. It is found that under the same
condition, the electrical breakdown voltage along the solid dielectric-
gas interface is far less than that of either solid dielectric or gas alone,
which significantly undermines their scalability, functionality, long-
term reliability and stability [6-10]. With the rapid development of
renewable energy, high-performance compact devices, and devices
used under extreme conditions, there is an increasing demand on the
surface electrical breakdown performance. i.e., surface flashover.
Therefore, to clarify its underlying mechanism and enhance the flash-
over voltage attracts wide attention again recently in both industry and
academia [11-16].
Although various models have been proposed from different as-
pects, the main electronic processes involved in the surface flashover
are widely accepted, including, 1) electron emission from the cathode
due to the local electric field distortion around the cathode-dielectric-
gas triple junction, 2) high energy electrons impinge onto and interact
with the dielectric surface, 3) secondary electron emission (SEE) from
the dielectric surface, resulting in the proliferation of mobile carriers
and dynamic surface charging, 4) electron stimulated surface gas des-
orption, and 5) continuous surface discharging through the solid di-
electric-gas interface [6-8]. It can be seen that the main electronic
processes occur along the solid dielectric-gas interface, among which
SEE and surface charging play a key role. Consequently, to enhance the
flashover voltage, lots of methods are proposed with a focus on redu-
cing SEE yield and/or improving the surface charging state. 1) Reduce
SEE yield. It is found that a thin metal oxide coating layer with a low
SEE coefficient decreases the SEE yield of alumina dielectric, which
improves the surface flashover voltage (Vf) under both dc and 60 Hz
voltage [17]. Depositing a more conductive layer is also effective due to
the mitigated electric field distortion at the triple-junction [18]. In
addition, with a physical micro-fabrication approach, the surface
roughness is precisely manipulated, whose effects on Vf are investigated
both experimentally and theoretically [12,19-22]. The enhancement of
Vf with large surface roughness, usually larger than 1 μm, has been
observed in both polymers and inorganic solids. It is indicated that the
geometry of the modified surface microstructure, i.e., shape, depth and
width, affects the SEE yield directly via the suppression of higher order
secondary electron generation [21]. 2) Create deep surface traps. The

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: l.zhang@xjtu.edu.cn (L. Zhang).
1
Contributed equally to the work.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2019.143812
Received 5 April 2019; Received in revised form 26 June 2019; Accepted 26 August 2019
Available online 31 August 2019
0169-4332/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
X. Zheng, et al.
surface trap state and surface charging state capture the mobile carriers,
resulting in a less efficient SEE and higher Vf [22-25]. Surface mod-
ifications with various chemical treatments such as plasma, fluorina-
tion, ultraviolet and irradiation have been proposed and conducted,
which indeed show promising results [26-29]. In addition, the surface
trap characteristics, i.e., depth, density and distribution, have been
analyzed and related to the flashover behaviour [24]. In recent years,
the concept of nano-dielectrics is applied to the flashover study as well
[30,31]. It is found that a small doping concentration introduces deep
traps into the dielectric matrix, which increases not only the bulk
breakdown voltage but also the surface flashover voltage [31].
Although previous studies have confirmed the essential role of the
solid surface in the flashover, the details are still ambiguous, especially
in terms of its microscopic properties, such as thickness, morphology
and electrical properties. How thick the surface layer is involved and
how does its microscopic property influence the interaction with the
transporting carriers along the solid dielectric-gas interface still remain
unrevealed. Without those details, a direct relationship between the
surface property and flashover is hardly possible. In the present study,
the effective surface layer thickness and its effects on the surface
flashover are directly probed in isotactic polypropylene (iPP) thin films
deposited on glass substrates. It is found that the flashover voltage
depends sensitively on the iPP film thickness in an exponential way,
from which the effective surface layer thickness is estimated about
45 nm. In addition, besides SEE yield, adsorbed gas and surface char-
ging state, it is found that the morphology of surface layer plays an
important role as well, which varies the carrier transport process and
consequently the flashover behaviour.
2. Experimental
The detailed fabrication process could be found in Supplementary
Material and our previous papers [32,33]. Here, the key processes are
briefly introduced. Firstly, cleaned iPP particles (Borealis, AG Vienna,
Austria) were dissolved in xylene solvent with various concentrations,
which was stirred continuously under 140 °C oil bath until a transparent
and uniform solution was obtained. Next, the solution was transferred
and casted onto the glass substrate (diameter: 50 mm and thickness:
1 mm), which was pre-heated and kept at 80 °C. After spin-coating,
samples were heated at 120 °C for 5 min and 150 °C for 30 min in dry N2
atmosphere to remove the residual solvent. For films with thickness less
than 200 nm, the thickness was varied by solution concentration and
spin-coating parameters; for those with larger film thickness, multiple
spin-coating was applied.
The film thickness was characterized by three methods in different
thickness ranges, i.e., atomic force microscopy (AFM, Park XE7, Park
Systems Corp, Korea), an ellipsometry (Sentech Instruments GmbH,
Germany) and a stylus profilometer (Ambios XP2, US). The surface
morphology of the iPP thin film is probed by AFM in a contact mode.
Surface flashover characteristics were measured in dry N2 with gas
pressure about 105 Pa at room temperature. Stainless steel finger-type
electrodes with a radius of 10 mm and 12 mm inter-electrode gap were
used. The applied dc voltage increased continuously at a 1 kV/s
ramping rate. The flashover voltage (Vf) was recorded as the maximum
voltage before it fell down due to the surface discharging. For a reliable
statistic, at least three samples were measured for each thickness. For
each sample, seven flashover measurements were conducted. Thus, the
final Vf was the averaged value over at least 21 measurements.
Occasionally, the sample could be damaged by the flashover. In this
case, another sample was required to guarantee a good statistic or a
deviation less than 10%. Here, it should be noted that differing from the
bulk electrical breakdown process, which produces a permanent and
irreversible conducting channel through the sample, the injected energy
of the surface electrical breakdown is too small to induce a devastating
damage to the sample surface. In other words, the surface still main-
tains a good insulating property after 7 flashover measurements.
2
Applied Surface Science 498 (2019) 143812
GLASS
6L
estimated
3L
GLASS
2L
1L
Fig. 1. iPP film thickness (diPP) and its dependence on solution concentration
and fabrication process, i.e., single- or multi-layer. Three methods (stylus pro-
filometer, AFM and ellipsometry) are applied to measure the film thickness and
the error bar is smaller than the symbol size. The inset shows the thickness
estimation of the discontinuous film when diPP < 40 nm. Dashed lines are
guide-to-eyes.
Nevertheless, with the increasing injection energy and number of
flashover, the surface insulating property deteriorates finally.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. iPP films with various thicknesses
Fig. 1 shows the iPP film thickness (diPP) characterized by various
methods. All the data are averaged over at least three independent
measurements, whose error bars are smaller than the symbol size as
shown in Fig. 1. For iPP thin films with diPP < 200 nm, a single spin-
coating is applied. The film thickness is controlled readily by the so-
lution concentration as well as spin-coating parameters as elaborated in
Supplementary Material. When 40 nm < diPP < 200 nm, the film
thickness is measured by both ellipsometry and profilometer. Results
exhibit good agreements with each other. Nevertheless, when diPP de-
creases below 40 nm, the film becomes discontinuous, whose thickness
is estimated by AFM as shown in Fig 2.
The discontinuous morphology has been observed in ultrathin
polymer films, which is attributed to the depletion of polymer mole-
cules in the growing front of spherulites [34-37]. The thickness of the
discontinuous film is estimated by two methods. One is the direct value
from the AFM height profile, indicating the true height of iPP ag-
glomerates, which are about 15 nm and 20 nm for films prepared from
solution concentrations of 0.2 mg/ml and 0.5 mg/ml, respectively. The
other is an estimated value, which is the equivalent film thickness as-
suming a continuous film with the same volume as indicated by the
empty diamond symbol in Fig 1. The estimation process is illustrated as
the inset in Fig 1, leading to the thickness of 1.1 nm and 4.1 nm for films
prepared from solution concentrations of 0.2 mg/ml and 0.5 mg/ml,
respectively. When diPP is beyond 200 nm, multiple spin-coating is more
feasible. The thickness of one layer is about 140 nm. The good linearity
between diPP and the number of spin-coated layers indicates its validity.
In this manner, the film thickness is manipulated within three orders
from nanometer to microns.
3.2. Thickness dependent film morphology
Due to the growth confinement in the substrate normal direction,
the thickness of polymer thin film has a significant influence on its
morphology and electrical properties [34]. Fig. 2 (a) and (b) illustrates
the typical surface morphology of iPP thin films with estimated thick-
nesses of 1.1 nm and 4.1 nm, respectively. In both cases, films exhibit
discontinuous characteristics with different morphology. Generally, the
film growth follows a heterogeneous nucleation at the surface of glass
X. Zheng, et al.
(a) (b)
b
1 μm
substrates, which then develops into larger size with fine structure. The
film growth is governed by the combined effect of thermodynamic
driven force and mass transport, which is explained by the Hoffman-
Lauritzen theory [37]. For the ultrathin film, the mass transport process
is inhibited due to the polymer depletion in the growing front, leading
to much slower growth rate and unique lamellar orientation. In Fig. 2
(a), the film shows a morphology with elongated iPP agglomerates,
whose height are quite similar to each other around 15 nm. When the
solution concentration is increased, the film is still discontinuous,
though the coverage is much higher. The individual agglomerate in
Fig. 2 (a) grows to long fibril without any observable branches as shown
in Fig. 2 (b). The height of the fibril is about 20 nm and its length ex-
tends to as long as several microns.
Since films are prepared under the same condition, the gradual
change of morphology from rectangular agglomerates to long fibrils
implies an enhanced mass transport process due to more accessible
polymer molecules. Here, it should be noted that no large branches are
observed in both cases, implying a steady lamellar growth process
without giant screw dislocation, tip splitting or induced cilia struc-
ture [37]. Similar morphological evolution is also observed by
others [35]. It is suggested that the a-axis of iPP monoclinic crystal is
the fastest growth direction with b-axis oriented perpendicularly as
shown in Fig. 2 (b). In other words, the lamellar adopt a flat-on or-
ientation, which has been found in other ultrathin polymer films due to
the growth confinement [34-36,38-41]. The reported critical film
thickness for the flat-on lamellar orientation is usually below 100 nm,
which is consistent with the present result.
When the film thickness increases beyond 40 nm, continuous films
are formed with seaweed-like structure enclosed by amorphous
boundaries as shown in Fig. 3. The dramatic change of morphology
implies not only a spherulite growth originated from a sheaf-like core
structure, but also an edge-on lamellar orientation with frequent side
branches and lamellar twist [37,42,43]. In addition, with the increase
of diPP, the structure becomes much clearer as shown from Fig. 3 (a) to
(c). On one hand, the granular size remains almost same with diPP,
which is attributed to the same fabrication procedure, especially the
same heat treatment, i.e., thermodynamic driven force. On the other
hand, the spherulite develops into a well-defined structure with gra-
dually widened boundary from 0.2 μm in Fig. 3 (a) to 0.9 μm in Fig. 3
(c). The surface morphology varies again when diPP increases further
over 200 nm as shown in Fig. 3 (d) and (e). In Fig. 3 (d) with double
spin-coating, small iPP granules with diameter of 1 μm are observed.
3
Applied Surface Science 498 (2019) 143812
Fig. 2. AFM images of iPP thin films with an esti-
mated thickness of (a) 1.1 nm and (b) 4.1 nm, re-
spectively. The height profiles of the drawn hor-
izontal lines are shown below each AFM image. The
coordinate of monoclinic lamellar crystal is shown
in (b). In AFM images, dark color indicates small
relative height. The scale bar is 1 μm.
When more spin-coatings are applied as shown in Fig. 3 (e) with 6
layers, besides the small iPP granules, large ridge-structures are ob-
served as well with a height of 0.5 μm larger than the surroundings. The
morphology observed in multilayer films is quite complicated, which
may be attributed to the substrate effect, growth dynamic, film
roughening and is still under study [44-46].
The film thickness not only affects the morphology as revealed in
Figs. 2 and 3, but also varies its physical and chemical properties, such
as glass transition temperature, dielectric constant, and electrical con-
duction process [43,47-50]. Since the surface roughness affects the
flashover voltage, the arithmetic surface roughness (Ra) is firstly in-
vestigated with respect to diPP as shown in Fig. 3 (f). For both discrete
and continuous films, Ra exhibits a power-law dependence on diPP,
consistent with the coarsening model for thin film growth, i.e., Ra ∝
diPPβ, where β is a growth exponent and equals to 0.5 and 1.1 for dis-
crete and continuous iPP thin films, respectively [51]. For vacuum
evaporated small molecules, the film growth follows a diffusion limited
aggregation (DLA) mechanism with β value about 0.5 [51-54]. Al-
though the value is similar to that of the discontinuous film, the typical
dendrite structure is not observed, implying a different growth me-
chanism. It is proposed that the polymer-substrate interaction, air-
polymer interaction and gradient field in the growing front are re-
sponsible for the polymer thin film growth [43]. When a continuous iPP
film is form, β value increases over unity, implying a fast coarsening
process. The drop in Ra with diPP is attributed to the transition from the
discrete to continuous film. For films with other thicknesses, their 3D
AFM images can be found in Supplementary Material.
3.3. Thickness dependent surface flashover voltage
Since the film morphology and properties are precisely manipulated
by the film thickness, it is proposed that the effective surface layer
during flashover could be directly probed to clarify the electronic
process along the solid dielectric and gas interface. The flashover
characteristics are measured with a finger-type electrode system (inset
of Fig. 4) in dry N2 atmosphere under 105 Pa. Fig. 4 shows the ex-
perimental results of iPP thin films with thicknesses of 1.1, 118.3, 539.0
and 1206.5 nm, respectively. For clarity, data of other film thicknesses
can be found in Supplementary Material. For each thickness, at least
three samples are fabricated, each of which undergoes seven successive
flashover measurements. The typical dependence of flashover voltage
(Vf) on flashover number is observed as shown in Supplementary
X. Zheng, et al. Applied Surface Science 498 (2019) 143812

(a) (b) (c)

10 μm

(d) (e) (f)

Fig. 3. AFM images of iPP thin films with the thickness of (a) 39.7 nm, (b) 58.0 nm, (c) 118.3 nm, (d) 298.2 nm, and (e) 1206.5 nm, respectively. In (a), the dotted
box shows the discontinuous part of the film. The arithmetic surface roughness of all samples is demonstrated in (f) with respective to film thickness. The scale bars
represent 10 μm. In AFM images, dark color indicates small relative height. Dotted red lines in (f) are fits with a power law. (For interpretation of the references to
color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

I II (a)

N2
electron N2 II
cathode anode
I 1
2
4 5

1206.5 nm Φ 50 mm sample
3 iPP
539.0 nm high dc
20 mm

Glass Glass
118.3 nm voltage
1.1 nm electrodes
Glass 12 mm

(b)
Fig. 4. Flashover voltage (Vf) of iPP thin films with various thicknesses from 0,
1.1, 118.3, 539.0, to 1206.5 nm under successive dc flashover experiment. For
each sample, seven flashover measurements are conducted. For clarity, other
data are shown in Supplementary Material. The inset shows the geometry of the cathode
III
anode
electrode system.
III
iPP
Material, i.e., first increasing and then saturated, which implies a
conditioning process or a passivation process of surface defects. In
Fig. 4, a significant increase of flashover voltage (Vf) is confirmed from
the bare glass (Vf ∼ 17.5 kV) to samples with only 1 nm thick iPP layer
Fig. 5. Flashover voltage (Vf) of iPP thin films with respect to film thickness,
(Vf ∼ 18.9 kV). The saturation of Vf (∼21.0 kV) with diPP is observed
dipp, i.e., (a) dipp < 200 nm and (b) dipp < 1500 nm, respectively. The red da-
when diPP > 200 nm, which is 20% increase compared with that of the shed lines are fittings with the exponential equation shown in (b). The de-
bare glass. In the following, Vf is the averaged value over at least 21 pendence of Vf on dipp is divided into three regions, i.e., I (dipp < 40 nm), II (40
flashover measurements. nm < dipp < 200 nm), and III (200 nm < dipp), with the proposed electronic
The film thickness dependent flashover voltage is shown much clear processes drawn as the insets I, II, and III, respectively. Numbers 1–5 in inset II
in Fig. 5, in which error bars are obtained from Figs. 1 and 3. It can be represent electron emission, impingement, interaction with the surface layer,
seen that Vf increases abruptly with respect to dipp within 200 nm and SEE and surface discharging, respectively. Error bars are obtained from
then saturates. Results unambiguously confirm the fact that an effective Figs. 2–4. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the
surface layer with a thickness about 200 nm is involved in the surface reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
discharging process. The dependence could be fitted with an ex-
ponential decay curve, i.e., Vf = Vf0 + Aexp(−dipp/Lf), where A is a
constant, Vf0 is the flashover voltage when dipp is infinite and Lf is the

4
X. Zheng, et al.
defined effective surface layer thickness, which is estimated to be about
45 nm. It has been proposed that many factors influence the flashover
behaviour along the solid dielectric and gas interface. Nevertheless,
variables in the present case are limited to the iPP thin film itself while
others are kept almost the same. When dipp increases, its coverage on
the glass substrate, surface roughness, morphology and electrical
properties vary correspondingly as shown in Figs. 2 and 3. Here, it
should be noted that although surface roughness enhances Vf, it re-
quires the roughness larger than 1 μm, which is one order larger than
the value in our case. In addition, the surface roughness increases with
dipp as shown in Fig 3 (f). Nevertheless, Vf saturates after dipp exceeds
200 nm, implying the negligible role of the surface roughness.
Depending on the film morphology and flashover characteristics,
Vf(dipp) could be divided into three regions. I) Discontinuous layer with
dipp < Lf. In this case, the iPP thin film is discontinuous with a surface
coverage less than unity as shown in Fig. 2. In other words, the solid-gas
interface is a combination of glass surface and iPP polymer surface
shown as the inset I in Fig. 5 (a). With the increase of dipp, the in-
dividual iPP agglomerate develops into long fibrils, resulting in a larger
surface coverage. The gradual change of the surface material from glass
to iPP polymer is responsible for the increase of Vf as shown in region I.
Although the evolution of SEE yield, desorbed gas molecules and sur-
face charging state need further verification, it is suggested that iPP has
a lower SEE yield, smaller conductivity and higher bulk breakdown
voltage than glass under the same conditions [55-58]. The lower di-
electric constant of iPP film is also of help to mitigate the electric field
distortion around the triple-junction. In addition, considering the
Maxwell-Wagner effect, boundaries between iPP agglomerates and
glass serve as trapping sites for the surface charge transport, which
further enhances Vf [59].
II) Continuous ultrathin film with Lf < dipp < 200 nm. When dipp
increases beyond 40 nm, a continuous film is formed with seaweed-like
structure enclosed by amorphous boundaries as shown in Fig. 3. As-
suming a thickness independent SEE yield, gas desorption and surface
charging state, Vf should saturate after the full coverage of iPP, which,
however, is not the case as shown in Fig. 5 (a). In this region, Vf still
increases, implying a strong interaction between transporting carriers
and surface layer illustrated as the inset II of Fig. 5 (a). It is proposed
that after their emission from the cathode, electrons impinge onto the
iPP surface, where four processes are possible: 1) induced SEE from the
iPP thin film; 2) carrier transport inside the iPP surface layer, where it
can either be captured by trapping states or form a surface current; 3)
electrons penetrate into the iPP and glass interface, where electrons
accumulate due to the Maxwell-Wagner effect; 4) electrons penetrate
into the glass surface and induce SEE from glass. Processes 1) and 4)
contribute more mobile carriers to the surface flashover, which, how-
ever, exhibit opposite dependence on dipp. With the increase of dipp,
more interactions between impinging electrons and polymer molecules
are expected, which reduces the energy of impinging electrons, leading
to smaller Process 4). On the contrary, Processes 2) and 3) increase Vf
and depend on the morphology of iPP thin films. It is found that multi-
scale polymer morphology has a direct influence on the carrier trans-
port mechanism, i.e., hopping, which could be understood in terms of
trapping effect, i.e., trap depth, trap density and its distribution
[33,48,49,60-64]. From the surface potential decay measurement, it is
found that there are at least two surface trapping states [65]. In addi-
tion, it is suggested that deep and shallow traps are mainly distributed
inside the spherulite and amorphous boundary, respectively [61].
Therefore, with the increase of granular size and more well organized
spherulite structure, the trapping effect becomes more effective, leading
to enhanced 2) and 3) processes. In this manner, though a continuous
film is formed, Vf still increases with dipp.
III) Continuous thin film with dipp > 200 nm. When dipp is further
increased, the interaction between impinging carriers and iPP thin film
changes little, resulting in a nearly constant Vf as shown in Fig. 5 (b).
The saturated Vf is about 21.0 kV, which is similar to the value of a bulk
5
Applied Surface Science 498 (2019) 143812
iPP film (diPP = 0.15 mm) measured under the similar condition
(∼22.0 kV, not shown here). The thickness independent Vf in this re-
gion implies that penetration length of impinging electrons is limited to
about 200 nm, within which the main electronic processes of surface
flashover occur. Molecules located below the 200 nm thick surface layer
have little or indirect effects on the surface flashover, i.e., inactive
molecules. The surface layer thickness is similar to that in a silicon-
based multilayer device, i.e., 80 nm, which implies that the effective
surface layer is a universal phenomenon in both organic and inorganic
materials [66]. Here, it should be noted that Vf depends weakly on the
surface morphology when diPP > 200 nm, which may be due to the
dominant role of small granules shown in Fig. 3 (d) and (e).
The exponential dependence of Vf on dipp could be probably at-
tributed at least to three factors. Firstly, the film thickness dependence
of morphology. The polymer thin film is spatially confined in the film
thickness direction, implying a unique growth mechanism different
from that of the bulk polymer. The morphological characteristics such
as intra-grain structure, amorphous region and surface roughness
evolve with the film thickness, which maybe result in a film thickness
dependence of the flashover performance. Secondly, the film thickness
dependence of physical properties. As one of the fundamental proper-
ties, the glass transition temperature is found to increase in an ex-
ponential way with the film thickness [47], which implies a balance
between polymer-substrate interaction and polymer-air interaction. The
variation of polymer chain mobility along the thickness direction may
lead to a thickness dependence of the flashover voltage. Thirdly, the
film thickness dependence of electrical property. The film thickness
dependence of morphology and physical property could produce a si-
milar film thickness dependence of electrical property, i.e., secondary
electron emission coefficient, trap distribution and carrier transport,
which is now under study.
4. Conclusions
The surface electrical breakdown process of isotactic polypropylene
(iPP) in N2 is studied with a focus on the effective surface layer. The
thickness (dipp) of iPP thin film deposited on glass substrates is precisely
manipulated from several nanometers to microns, which has a sig-
nificant influence on its surface coverage, lamellar orientation, surface
roughness and morphology. With the increase of dipp, the flashover
voltage (Vf) increases in an exponential way, from which the effective
surface layer thickness is estimated about 45 nm.
The film thickness dependent Vf is divided into three regions: I)
discontinuous film, dipp < Lf, II) continuous ultrathin film,
Lf < dipp < 200 nm, and III) continuous thin film, 200 nm < dipp. It is
proposed that the increasing surface coverage of iPP polymer, enhanced
interaction between impinging electrons and iPP molecules, and sa-
turation of the interaction are responsible for the variation of Vf in each
region, respectively. Results unambiguously clarify the main physical
region during the surface electrical breakdown along the solid-gas in-
terface, which signifies the necessity to revisit the flashover with a focus
on the effective surface layer and its microscopic properties, i.e., mor-
phology, carrier transport, and trapping states, which are now in pro-
gress.
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by National Key Research and Development
Program of China [Grant Nos. 2017YFB0902702 and
2018YFB0905802] and the State Key Laboratory of Electrical Insulation
and Power Equipment [Grant No. EIPE18302].
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2019.143812.
X. Zheng, et al.
References
[1] T. Ando, A.B. Fowler, F. Stern, Electronic properties of two-dimensional systems,
Rev. Mod. Phys 54 (1982) 437–672 https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.
1103/RevModPhys.54.437.
[2] H. Ishii, K. Sugiyama, E. Ito, K. Seki, Energy level alignment and interfacial elec-
tronic structures at organic/metal and organic/organic interfaces, Adv. Mater 11
(1999) 605–625, https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1521-4095(199906)
11:8<605::AID-ADMA605>3.0.CO;2-Q.
[3] K.M. Coakley, M.D. McGehee, Conjugated polymer photovoltaic cells, Chem. Mater
15 (2004) 4533–4542, https://doi.org/10.1021/cm049654n.
[4] G.A. Somorjai, H. Frei, J.Y. Park, Advancing the frontiers in nanocatalysis, bioin-
terfaces, and renewable energy conversion by innovations of surface techniques, J.
Am. Chem. Soc 131 (2009) 16589–16605, https://doi.org/10.1021/ja9061954.
[5] L. Yang, J. Ho, E. Allahyarov, R. Mu, L. Zhu, Semicrystalline structure-dielectric
property relationship and electrical conduction in a biaxially oriented poly(vinyli-
dene fluoride) film under high electric fields and high temperatures, ACS Appl.
Mater. Interfaces 7 (2015) 19894–19905, https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.
5b02944.
[6] H.C. Miller, Flashover of insulators in vacuum the last twenty years, IEEE Trans.
Dielectr. Electr. Insul 22 (2015) 3641–3657 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/
7367566.
[7] A.S. Pillai, R. Hackam, Surface flashover of solid dielectric in vacuum, J. Appl. Phys
53 (1982) 2983–2987 https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.331037.
[8] G. Blaise, C.L. Gressus, Charging and flashover induced by surface polarization
relaxation process, J. Appl. Phys 69 (1991) 6334–6339 https://aip.scitation.org/
doi/10.1063/1.348832.
[9] S. Li, G. Yin, G. Chen, J. Li, S. Bai, L. Zhong, Y. Zhang, Q. Lei, Short-term breakdown
and long-term failure in nanodielectrics: a review, IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul
17 (2010) 1523–1535 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5595554/.
[10] N. Tipirneni, A. Koudymov, V. Adivarahan, J. Yang, G. Simin, M.A. Khan, The 1.6-
kV AlGaN/GaN HFETs, IEEE Trans. Electron. Dev. Lett 27 (2006) 716–718 https://
ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1683856.
[11] J.Z. Gleizer, Y.E. Krasik, J. Leopold, Time- and space-resolved light emission and
spectroscopic research of the flashover plasma, J. Appl. Phys 117 (2015) 073301
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4913213.
[12] Y. Huo, W. Liu, C. Ke, C. Chang, C. Chen, Sharp improvement of flashover strength
from composite micro-textured surfaces, J. Appl. Phys 122 (2017) 115105, https://
doi.org/10.1063/1.4991934.
[13] C. Li, J. Hu, J. He, The potentially neglected culprit of DC surface flashover: electron
migration under temperature gradients, Sci. Reports 7 (2017) 3271 https://www.
nature.com/articles/s41598-017-03657-1.
[14] S. Li, Y. Huang, D. Min, G. Qu, H. Niu, Z. Li, W. Wang, J. Li, W. Liu, Synergic effect
of adsorbed gas and charging on surface flashover, Sci. Reports 9 (2019) 5464,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-41961-0.
[15] F. Kong, C. Chang, Y. Ma, C. Zhang, C. Ren, T. Shao, Surface modifications of
polystyrene and their stability: a comparison of DBD plasma deposition and direct
fluorination, Appl. Surf. Sci 459 (2018) 300–308 https://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0169433218321093.
[16] Y. Li, H. Jin, S. Nie, P. Zhang, N. Gao, Dynamic behavior of water droplets and
flashover characteristics on a superhydrophobic silicone rubber surface, Appl. Phys.
Lett 110 (2017) 201602 https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4983714.
[17] J.D. Cross, T.S. Sudarshan, The effect of cuprous oxide coatings on surface flashover
of dielectric spacers in vacuum, IEEE Trans. Electr. Insul EI-9 (1974) 146–150
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4081837.
[18] S. Li, T. Zhang, J. Sun, Q. Huang, J. Li, Improvement of surface flashover perfor-
mance in vacuum by co-firing Mo/Al2O3 cermets and Al2O3 ceramics, IEEE Trans.
Dielectr. Electr. Insul 17 (2010) 1931–1937 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/
5568064/.
[19] R.G. Bommakanti, T.S. Sudarshan, Influence of mechanical grinding and polishing
operations of brittle polycrystalline alumina on the pulsed surface flashover per-
formance, J. Appl. Phys 67 (1990) 6991–6997 https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/
10.1063/1.345044.
[20] O. Yamamoto, T. Takuma, M. Fukuda, S. Nagata, T. Sonoda, Improving withstand
voltage by roughening the surface of an insulating spacer used in vacuum, IEEE
Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul 10 (2003) 550–556 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/
document/1027311.
[21] M. Pivi, F.K. King, R.E. Kirby, T.O. Raubenheimer, G. Stupakov, F. Le Pimpec, Sharp
reduction of the secondary electron emission yield from grooved surfaces, J. Appl.
Phys 104 (2008) 104904 https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.3021149.
[22] T. Hosono, K. Kato, A. Morita, H. Okubo, Surface charges on alumina in vacuum
with varying surface roughness and electric field distribution, IEEE Trans. Dielectr.
Electr. Insul 14 (2007) 627–633 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4225339/.
[23] S. Tumiran, M. Kobayashi, H. Maeyama, Y.S. Imada, The correlation between sur-
face charge distribution and flashover properties of alumina surface in vacuum,
Appl. Surf. Sci 100 (1996) 238–242 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/0169433296002954.
[24] S. Li, Q. Huang, J. Sun, T. Zhang, J. Li, Effect of traps on surface flashover of XLPE
in vacuum, IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul 17 (2010) 964–970 https://
ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5492273.
[25] G. Blaise, C. Le Gressus, Electron-trapping and energy localization in insulating
materials. Technological impact of space charge electron-beam characterization,
AIP Adv 8 (2018) 095228 https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5047673.
[26] T. Shao, W. Yang, C. Zhang, Z. Niu, P. Yan, E. Schamiloglu, Enhanced surface
flashover strength in vacuum of polymethylmethacrylate by surface modification
6
Applied Surface Science 498 (2019) 143812
using atmospheric pressure dielectric barrier discharge, Appl. Phys. Lett 105 (2014)
071607 https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4893884.
[27] Y. Huang, D. Min, S. Li, Z. Li, D. Xie, X. Wang, S. Lin, Surface flashover performance
of epoxy resin microcomposites improved by electron beam irradiation, Appl. Surf.
Sci 406 (2017) 39–45 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0169433217304555.
[28] Z. Wang, Y. Cheng, K. Wu, Effect of UV illumination on surface flashover char-
acteristics of epoxy resin under pulse with nanosecond rise time in vacuum, IEEE
Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul 18 (2011) 561–569 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/
document/5739462.
[29] C. Li, J. He, J. Hu, Surface morphology and electrical characteristics of direct
fluorinated epoxy-resin/alumina composite, IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul 23
(2016) 3071–3077 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7736871.
[30] L. Milliere, K. Makasheva, C. Laurent, B. Despax, G. Teyssedre, Efficient barrier for
charge injection in polyethylene by silver nanoparticles/plasma polymer stack,
Appl. Phys. Lett 105 (2014) 122908, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4896678.
[31] S. Yu, S. Li, S. Wang, Y. Huang, M.T. Nazir, B.T. Phung, Surface flashover properties
of epoxy based nanocomposites containing functionalized nano-TiO2, IEEE Trans.
Dielectr. Electr. Insul bf 25 (2018) 1567–1576 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/
document/8424397.
[32] X. Zheng, Y. Wang, L. Zhang, C. Ma, S. Li, J. Li, Precise thickness control of solution-
processed alpha-polypropylene thin film in sub-micron range and its morphological
characterization, 2018 Condition Monitoring and Diagnosis (CMD) (2018) 1–6
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8535639.
[33] X. Zheng, L. Zhang, J. Li, S. Li, The effect of multiscale morphology on electrical
conduction characteristics of isotactic polypropylene ultrathin films, Mater. Res.
Express 6 (2019) 046103, https://doi.org/10.1088/2053-1591/aafb3f.
[34] Y. Liu, E. Chen, Polymer crystallization of ultrathin films on solid substrates,
Coordin. Chem. Rev 254 (2010) 1011–1037 https://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/abs/pii/S0010854510000482.
[35] B. Zhang, J. Chen, B. Liu, B. Wang, C. Shen, R. Reiter, J. Chen, G. Reiter,
Morphological changes of isotactic polypropylene crystals grown in thin films,
Macromolecules 50 (2017) 6210–6217 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.
macromol.7b01381.
[36] T.P. Russell, Y. Chai, 50th anniversary perspective: putting the squeeze on poly-
mers: a perspective on polymer thin films and interfaces, Macromolecules 50 (2017)
4597–4609 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.macromol.7b00418.
[37] B. Crist, J.M. Schultz, Polymer spherulites: a critical review, Prog. Polym. Sci 56
(2016) 1–63 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0079670015001288.
[38] D.R. Rueda, J.J. Hernández, M.C. García-Gutiérrez, T.A. Ezquerra, M. Soccio,
N. Lotti, A. Munari, J. Perlich, R. Serna, Flat-on lamellae in spin-coated, stable films
of poly(propylene azelater), Langmuir 26 (2010) 17540–17545 https://pubs.acs.
org/doi/abs/10.1021/la1030153.
[39] O. Mellbring, S. Kihlman Øiseth, A. Krozer, J. Lausmaa, T. Hjertberg, Spin coating
and characterization of thin high-density polyethylene films, Macromolecules 34
(2001) 7496–7503, https://doi.org/10.1021/ma000094x.
[40] V.H. Mareau, R.E. Prud'homme, In-situ hot stage atomic force microscopy study of
poly(ϵ-caprolactone) crystal growth in ultrathin films, Macromolecules 38 (2005)
398–408 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ma0482359.
[41] Y. Liang, M. Zheng, K.H. Park, H.S. Lee, Thickness-dependent crystal orientation in
poly(trimethylene 2,6-naphthalate) films studied with GIWAXD and RA-FTIR,
Methods, Polymer 49 (2008) 1961–1967 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0032386108001353.
[42] J. Varga, Supermolecular structure of isotactic polypropylene, J. Mater. Sci 27
(1992) 2557–2579 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00540671.
[43] Y. Wang, C. Chan, K. Ng, L. Li, What controls the lamellar orientation at the surface
of polymer films during crystallization? Macromolecules 41 (2008) 2548–2553
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ma7021309.
[44] E. Baer, L. Zhu, Dielectric phenomena in polymers and multilayered dielectric films,
Macromolecules 50 (2017) 2239–2256, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.macromol.
6b02669.
[45] D.D.C. Rasi, R.A.J. Janssen, Advances in solution-processed multijunction organic
solar cells, Adv. Mater 31 (2018) 1806499 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/
full/10.1002/adma.201806499.
[46] A. Hinderhofer, F. Schreiber, Organic-organic heterostructures: concepts and ap-
plications, ChemPhysChem 13 (2012) 628–643 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
doi/abs/10.1002/cphc.201100737.
[47] J.S. Sharp, J.A. Forrest, Free surfaces cause reductions in the glass transition tem-
perature of thin polystyrene films, Phys. Rev. Lett 91 (2003) 235701 https://
journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.235701.
[48] A. Kahouli, Effect of film thickness on structural, morphology, dielectric electrical
properties of parylene C films, J. Appl. Phys 112 (2012) 064103 https://aip.
scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.4752022.
[49] T. Liang, Y. Makita, S. Kimura, Effect of film thickness on the electrical properties of
polyimide thin films, Polymer (2001) 4867–4872, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0032-
3861(00)00881-8.
[50] A. Serghei, H. Huth, C. Schick, F. Kremer, Glassy dynamics in thin polymer layers
having a free upper interface, Macromolecules 41 (2008) 3636–3639 https://pubs.
acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ma702381t.
[51] L. Zhang, D. Taguchi, T. Manaka, M. Iwamoto, Dependence of the carrier transport
characteristics on the buried layer thickness in ambipolar double-layer organic
field-effect transistors investigated by electrical and optical measurements, Jpn. J.
Appl. Phys 52 (2013) 05DC01 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.7567/JJAP.52.
05DC01/meta.
[52] A.C. Dürr, F. Schreiber, K.A. Ritley, V. Kruppa, J. Krug, H. Dosch, B. Struth, Rapid
X. Zheng, et al.
roughening in thin film growth of an organic semiconductor (diindenoperylene),
Phys. Rev. Lett 90 (2003) 016104 https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/
PhysRevLett.90.016104.
[53] S. Zorba, Y. Shapir, Y. Gao, Fractal-mound growth of pentacene thin films, Phys.
Rev. B 74 (2006) 245410 https://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/
PhysRevB.74.245410.
[54] S. Yim, T.S. Jones, Growth dynamics of C60 thin films: effect of molecular structure,
Appl. Phys. Lett 94 (2009) 021911 https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.
3072805.
[55] H. Seiler, Secondary electron emission in the scanning electron microscope, J. Appl.
Phys 54 (1983) R1–R18, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.332840.
[56] Y. Kishimoto, T. Ohshima, M. Hashimoto, T. Hayashi, Consideration of secondary
electron emission from organic solids, J. Appl. Polym. Sci 39 (1990) 2055–2066
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/app.1990.070391003.
[57] A.A. Neuber, M. Butcher, H. Krompholz, L.L. Hatfield, M. Kristiansen, The role of
outgassing in surface flashover under vacuum, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci 28 (2000)
1593–1598 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/901239.
[58] M.I. Patino, Y. Raitses, B.E. Koel, R.E. Wirz, Analysis of secondary electron emission
for conducting materials using 4-grid LEED/AES optics, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys 48
(2015) 195204 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0022-3727/48/19/
195204/meta.
[59] K.C. Kao, Dielectric Phenomena in Solids, Academic, San Diego, 2004.
Applied Surface Science 498 (2019) 143812
[60] S.N. Kolesov, The influence of morphology on the electric strength of polymer in-
sulation, IEEE Trans. Electr. Insul EI-15 (1980) 382–388 https://ieeexplore.ieee.
org/abstract/document/4080762.
[61] A. Yagishita, H. Yamanouchi, K. Ikezaki, Charge trapping sites in spherulitic poly-
propylene, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys 38 (1999) 2053–2058 https://iopscience.iop.org/
article/10.1143/JJAP.38.2053/meta.
[62] D.W. Kim, K. Yoshino, Morphological characteristics and electrical conduction in
syndiotactic polypropylene, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys 33 (2000) 464–471 https://
iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0022-3727/33/4/321.
[63] J. Ho, T.R. Jow, High field conduction in biaxially oriented polypropylene at ele-
vated temperature, IEEE Trans. Dielectr. Electr. Insul 19 (2012) 990–995 https://
ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6215104.
[64] X. Zheng, Y. Wang, L. Zhang, J. Li, S. Li, Carrier hopping transport in semi-crys-
talline isotactic polypropylene thin films: A revisit to the overestimated hopping
distance, Polymer 179 (2019) 121650, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymer.2019.
121650.
[65] W. Shen, H. Mu, G. Zhang, J. Deng, D. Tu, Identification of electron and hole trap
based on isothermal surface potential decay model, J. Appl. Phys 113 (2013)
083706 https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.4792491.
[66] R.C. Sterling, M.D. Hughes, C.J. Mellor, W.K. Hensinger, Increased surface flashover
voltage in microfabricated devices, Appl. Phys. Lett 103 (2013) 143504, https://
doi.org/10.1063/1.4824012.