Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Dielectrically Modulated Gan/Aln/Algan Moshemt With A Nanogap Embedded Cavity For Biosensing Applications
A Dielectrically Modulated Gan/Aln/Algan Moshemt With A Nanogap Embedded Cavity For Biosensing Applications
To cite this article: Aasif Mohammad Bhat , Arathy Varghese , Nawaz Shafi & C. Periasamy
(2021): A Dielectrically Modulated GaN/AlN/AlGaN MOSHEMT with a Nanogap Embedded Cavity
for Biosensing Applications, IETE Journal of Research, DOI: 10.1080/03772063.2020.1869593
Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, Malaviya National Institute of Technology, 302017 Jaipur, India
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
In this work, GaN/AlN/AlGaN MOS-HEMT with a cavity below the gate towards the drain side is Biosensor;
studied for its sensitivity analysis and viability as a biosensor. The analysis is done by dielectric modu- Dielectric-modulated; DNA;
lation of the cavity region to emulate the presence of different dielectric biomolecules and charged Embedded cavity;
biomolecules by interface charge variation. MOSFET-based dielectrically modulated sensors have GaN/AlGaN; HEMT
been a success experimentally and this work extends and demonstrates this concept with GaN HEMT.
The device performance is evaluated through the shift in threshold voltage (V th ) and drain current
(IDS ), which are used as performance metrics. The proposed device structure simulations were per-
formed with ATLAS Silvaco device simulation tool which depicts the bio-immobilization in the cavity
leads to the changes in electrostatic properties like conduction band offset, two-dimensional elec-
tron gas (2DEG) sheet carrier concentration and channel potential. The simulation analysis reveals
V th and IDS shift up to 1.1 V and 153.7 mA/mm for the neutral biomolecules, whereas for deoxyribo
nucleic acid, the shift is up to 0.30 mV and 65.2 mA/mm, respectively, implying a highly sensitive
device. The AlGaN layer thickness and cavity fill height variations on device sensitivity are also
reported.
1. INTRODUCTION
of silicon to biological agents in aqueous solutions and
The early detection of disease-causing pathogens in the low sensitivity limits its utility in bioelectronic devices.
wake of life-threatening diseases and globally trans- The quest to develop a highly sensitive and robust biosen-
mitted outbreaks has led to the increased demand for sor has led research focus on advanced materials like
biomolecular analyte monitoring and point-ofcare test- Molybdenum disulphide (MoS2 ) [4] and Gallium Nitride
ing (POCT). The research community aims for the (GaN), because of the favorable properties of superior
applications of environmental monitoring at the macro- biocompatibility and chemical stability [5,6].
scale and bimolecular interactions at the nano-scale. The
inception of the biosensor owes to the work of Bergveld GaN-based biosensors have become a rapidly emerg-
[1], who proposed the ion-sensitive field-effect transis- ing research domain because of its excellent sensitivity,
tor (FET) sensing charged biomolecules with low cost, reduced dimensions, quick response, simple detection
high sensitivity, rapid response and label-free detection, and possibilities of multi-array biosensor integration.
though it could not sense neutral biomolecules. Since These advantages stem from the inherent properties of
then a large number of silicon-based FET semiconduc- chemically stable bulk and surface properties, providing
tor nanostructures have been used to detect biological lower linear drift, higher mobility and higher satura-
analytes because of its well-known properties and estab- tion velocity giving faster response [7]. The polariza-
lished fabrication methods. The concept of dielectric- tion of GaN/AlGaN HEMT generates the electric field
modulated (DM) FET device with a cavity under the which pulls the surface state electrons to the empty con-
gate towards both the source and drain allowed the neu- duction band (CB) states at the heterojunction which
tral biomolecule detection also [2]. A label-free DM FET results in 2DEG formation [8,9]. The availability of 2DEG
biosensor with the ability to detect both the neutral and channel with high-density sheet charge concentration
charged biomolecules was proposed by Kim et al. [3], along with high mobility allows eminent sensitive detec-
taking into account both the dielectric and charge associ- tion of surface charge phenomena [10]. Due to all these
ated with the biomolecule. However, chemical instability favorable material attributes, GaN/AlGaN-based HEMT
*Present address: School of Engineering, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF24 3AA, United Kingdom
© 2021 IETE
2 A. M. BHAT ET AL.: GAN/ALN/ALGAN MOSHEMT WITH A NANOGAP EMBEDDED CAVITY
region as K increases, as shown in Figure 3(b). Figure 4(a) Figure 4: Transfer characteristics of (a) various neutral
depicts the IDS − VGS characteristics of the MOS-HEMT biomolecules having different dielectric constants and for
visualization (b) Uricase, (c) Biotin, and (d) APTES are also shown
biosensor for different target biomolecules having dif- separately
ferent dielectric constants and ρ = 0, Figure 4(b–d)
are shown to depict the variation in transfer char-
acteristics for Uricase, Biotin and APTES where the
shift in characteristics increases with higher dielectric
biomolecule. Due to the threshold voltage shift in neutral
biomolecules and charged biomolecules like the specific
binding of biomolecules antigen–antibody reactions or
DNA hybridization can be identified electrically with
ease eliminating the cumbersome and time-consuming
labeling processes. The magnitude of performance met-
ric, i.e. threshold voltage and drain ON current, is
insignificant from sensitivity point of view, rather the rel- Figure 5: Output characteristics of MOS-HEMT for differ-
ative change in these values is of more interest as it repre- ent dielectric constant biomolecules (a) V DS = 0 V and (b)
sents the device sensitivity. The device output character- V DS = −4 V
istics for various biomolecules are shown in Figure 5(a,b).
There is a relative shift of characteristics in downwards Table 2: Relative change in drain current and threshold volt-
direction, i.e. current decreases as the target biomolecules age for different dielectrics of biomolecules
dielectric constant increases. Also Figure 5(b) shows Change in
more relative change of characteristics, i.e. more sensitiv- Change in threshold ΔVth
current ΔIDS ΔIDS voltage ΔVth (mV)
ity. This is because the device is biased at VGS = −4 Vi.e. Biomolecule (mA/mm) (μA/mm) [32] (V) [32]
near maximum transconductance region. The analysis Uricase 35.1 374.7 0.3058 47–160
atVGS = 0 V (with no gate voltage applied) is done to Urease 41.3 0.4010
Streptavidin 70.6 0.5124
obtain the pure effect of biomolecules on conduction and Protein 94.9 0.7001
not the effect of applied gate bias. The change in threshold Biotin 103.2 0.8156
voltage and drain current in floating gate configuration ChOx 138.4 0.9778
GOx 147.1 1.0895
for various biomolecules of different dielectrics is listed APTES 153.7 1.1250
in Table 2.
The other category of biomarkers has charge associated where Figure 6(a) represents the IDS − VGS characteris-
with them besides dielectric constant. These are mostly tics for different charge densities (different ρ and K = 2)
negatively charged like DNA, PSA, MIG, KIM-1, breast and Figure 6(b) represents the output characteristics
cancer biomarker (c-erbB-2) etc. Therefore, the effect of showing a relative change in characteristics to detect a
charge density variation on the device electrical char- particular biomolecule species. The effect of charge dis-
acteristics is also analyzed, as depicted in Figure 6(a,b) parity is emulated by varying the charge density from
A. M. BHAT ET AL.: GAN/ALN/ALGAN MOSHEMT WITH A NANOGAP EMBEDDED CAVITY 5
ChargedBio
NeutralBio − V
Vth th
SVth(ChargedBio) = NeutralBio
(4)
Vth
S (5)
V Air −V Bio
IDS = th th
V Air
th
ChargedBio
NeutralBio − I
ION ON
SIDS(ChargedBio) = NeutralBio
(6)
ION
where Vth Air and V Bio are threshold voltage for empty
th
(K = 1) and filled cavity (different K’s and ρ = 0) and
Air and I Bio represent drain ON current for empty
ION ON
(K = 1) and filled cavity (different K’s and ρ = 0), respec-
tively. Also for neutral biomolecules, we define rela-
tive change in threshold voltage as ΔVth = Vth Air − V Bio
th
and relative change in drain current as ΔIDS = ION Air − Figure 8: Shift in threshold voltage for (a) different dielectrics
Bio . Similarly, we define relative change in threshold of biomolecules (K’s) and (b) different charge densities (K = 2
ION
and different ρ’s) and corresponding threshold voltage sensitiv-
voltage and drain current for charged biomolecules as ity characteristics for (c) different dielectrics of biomolecules and
ΔVth(ChargedBio) = (Vth NeutralBio − V ChargedBio ) and (d) different charge densities
th
ChargedBio
ΔIDS(ChargedBio) = (ION
NeutralBio − I
ON ), respectively.
NeutralBio ChargedBio
Vth and Vth
are the threshold voltage of
neutral biomolecule (K = 2) and charged biomolecule
(K = 2, differentρ’s), respectively, ION
NeutralBio and
ChargedBio
ION correspond to the drain ON current of the
neutral (K = 2) and charged biomolecules (K = 2, dif-
ferent ρ’s), respectively, and SVth , SIDS are the neutral
biomolecule sensitivities and SVth(ChargedBio) and
SIDS(ChargedBio) refer to the charged biomolecule sensitivity.
The change in the dielectric constant of the biomolecules
introduced into the cavity varies threshold voltage.
If the dielectric constant of a biomolecule increases,
threshold voltage decreases, as shown in Figure 8(a).
The effect of charged analyte is also studied and the
shift in threshold voltage pattern for K = 2 and differ-
ent charge densities (ρ’s) is as shown in Figure 8(b) Figure 9: Relative drain ON current sensitivity for (a) differ-
depicting an increase in Vth as the positive charge ent dielectrics of biomolecules (different K’s and ρ = 0) at
density increases and Vth decreases for the increase V GS = 0 V, (b) different charge densities (ρ’s) with K = 2, (c) dif-
in biomolecule negative charge density. The sensitivi- ferent dielectrics of biomolecules (different K’s and ρ = 0) at V GS
ties are measured in absolute terms. Figure 8(c) repre- = −4 V, and (d) dielectrics of biomolecules at different charge
densities (K = 3.57, 5, 7, 10 and different ρ’s) calculated from
sents the relative change in threshold voltage for neu-
Equation (6)
tral biomolecules which shows rise with the increase in
dielectric constant of the target biomolecule. The inset
in Figure 8(c) shows the sensitivity pattern for respective of MOSHEMT, a relative change in IDS is plotted for
biomolecules of different dielectric constants. Figure 8(d) different VDS and VGS . Figure 9(a) depicts the charac-
shows the relative change in threshold voltage pattern teristics for different dielectric target biomolecules with
for charged biomolecules showing higher threshold volt- respect to the drain voltage without any gate bias. The
age shift when the negative charge density increases graph depicts an increase in relative change or sensi-
when compared with positive charge density. The inset tivity of drain current as the drain voltage and dielec-
of Figure 8(d) shows the bar graph representation of tric constant of the biomolecule species increases. The
sensitivity for different charge densities (K = 2) depict- maximum and minimum relative change observed is
ing the effect of charge density variation. To observe 153.7 mA/mm for APTES (K = 3.57) and 35.1 mA/mm
the effect of drain and gate voltages on the sensitivity for Uricase (K = 1.54), respectively. The sensitivity for
A. M. BHAT ET AL.: GAN/ALN/ALGAN MOSHEMT WITH A NANOGAP EMBEDDED CAVITY 7
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Figure 12: Comparison of half-filled and fully filled cavity, for
The authors would like to extend their sincere gratitude to
different dielectrics of neutral biomolecules (a) threshold volt-
Department of Science and Technology-Science and Engineer-
age sensitivity (SVth ), (b) drain ON current sensitivity (SIDS )
ing Research Board for providing financial support through the
and for different charged biomolecules (c) threshold volt-
sponsored project [Grant no: YSS/2015/000174] to carry out
age sensitivity SVth(ChargedBio) and (d) drain current sensitivity
this research work.
SIDS(ChargedBio) calculated from equations (3) to (6).
FUNDING
analysis. The device behavior and sensitivity analysis are This work was supported by Science and Engineering Research
therefore studied for its fill height, i.e. fully filled and half- Board: [Grant Number YSS/2015/000174].
filled cavity (considering air on the top of the biomolecule
in remaining portion). For this purpose, the threshold ORCID
voltage and drain current variations are investigated in Aasif Mohammad Bhat http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4767
terms of absolute sensitivity. From the sensitivity point of -9885
view, a partially filled cavity has lower threshold voltage Arathy Varghese http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5379-1772
sensitivity, as shown in Figure 12(a). For similar dielec- Nawaz Shafi http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5999-1350
tric constant target biomolecules (ρ = 0), a fully filled C. Periasamy http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1992-804X
cavity is more sensitive. This is due to the modulation of
the equivalent dielectric of the cavity region. The drain
REFERENCES
current sensitivity for various considered biomolecules
(different K and ρ = 0) is also shown in Figure 12(b) at 1. P. Bergveld, “The development and application of FET-
VDS = 12 V and no gate bias. The bar graph representa- based biosensors,” Biosensors, Vol. 2, pp. 15–33, Jan. 1986.
tion depicts a fully filled cavity has higher sensitivity with 2. H. Im, X.-J. Huang, B. Gu, and Y.-K. Choi, “A dielectric-
respect to a partially filled cavity. Figure 12(c) depicts the modulated field-effect transistor for biosensing,” Nat. Nan-
sensitivity variations for the charged biomolecule depict- otechnol., Vol. 2, pp. 430–4, Jul. 2007.
ing an increase in threshold voltage sensitivity with the
increase in the charge of biomolecule, as already shown in 3. C. H. Kim, C. Jung, H. G. Park, and Y. K. Choi, “Novel
dielectric-modulated field-effect transistor for label-free
Figure 6(a,b). However, there is not much change in drain
DNA detection,” Biochip. J., Vol. 2, pp. 127–34, Jun. 2009.
current sensitivity, as shown in Figure 12(d), implying the
dominance of charge over fill height of biomolecule. The 4. A. Moudgil, S. Singh, N. Mishra, P. Mishra, and S. Das,
various biomolecules considered in this study were ana- “Mos2/TiO2 hybrid nanostructure-based field-effect tran-
lyzed in terms of their shift in drain current and threshold sistor for highly sensitive, selective, and rapid detection
voltage. The outcomes of this work are summarized in of Gram-positive bacteria.” Adv. Mater. Tech., Vol. 5, pp.
1900615, 2020.
Tables 2 and 3.
5. R. Kirste, N. Rohrbaugh, I. Bryan, Z. Bryan, R. Collazo,
and A. Ivanisevic, “Electronic biosensors based on III-
5. CONCLUSION Nitride semiconductors,” Annu. Rev. Anal. Chem, Vol. 8,
pp. 149–69, Jul. 2015.
GaN/AlGaN HEMT with a cavity below gate on the
drain side is reported. The shift in electrical charac- 6. X. Li, and X. Liu, “Group III-nitride nanomaterials for
teristics is used for detection of different neutral and biosensing,” Nanoscale., Vol. 9, pp. 7320–41, 2017.
A. M. BHAT ET AL.: GAN/ALN/ALGAN MOSHEMT WITH A NANOGAP EMBEDDED CAVITY 9
7. F. S. Tulip, E. Eteshola, S. Desai, S. Mostafa, S. Roopa, B. 19. Y. Guo, X. Wang, B. Miao, Y. Li, W. Yao, Y. Xie, J. Li, D.
Evans, and S. K. Islam, “Direct label-free electrical immun- Wu, and R. Pei, “An AuNPs-functionalized AlGaN/GaN
odetection of transplant rejection protein biomarker in high electron mobility transistor sensor for ultrasensitive
physiological buffer using floating gate AlGaN/GaN high detection of TNT,” RSC Adv., Vol. 5, pp. 98724–9, 2015.
electron mobility transistors,” IEEE Trans. NanoBioscience,
Vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 138–45, Apr. 2014. 20. Y.-L. Wang, et al., “Fast detection of a protozoan pathogen,
perkinsus marinus, using AlGaN/GaN high electron
8. O. Ambacher, et al., “Two-dimensional electron gases mobility transistors,” Appl. Phys. Lett., Vol. 94, pp. 243901,
induced by spontaneous and piezoelectric polarization Jun. 2009.
charges in N- and Ga-face AlGaN/GaN heterostructures,”
J. Appl. Phys, Vol. 85, pp. 3222–33, Mar. 1999. 21. S. Yang, L. Gu, X. Ding, B. Miao, Z. Gu, L. Yang, J. Li,
and D. Wu, “Disposable gate AlGaN/GaN high-electron-
9. L. Yang, B. Duan, Z. Dong, Y. Wang, and Y. Yang, mobility sensor for trace-level biological detection,” IEEE
“The analysis model of AlGaN/GaN HEMTs with elec- Electron Device Lett., Vol. 39, no. 10, pp. 1592–5, Sep.
tric field modulation effect,” IETE Tech. Rev., 1–12, 2019. 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02564602.2019.1675542
22. J. Yang, P. Carey, F. Ren, Y.-L. Wang, M. L. Good, S. Jang,
10. B. S. Kang, et al., “Prostate specific antigen detection using M. A. Mastro, and S. J. Pearton, “Rapid detection of car-
Al Ga N/ Ga N high electron mobility transistors,” Appl. diac troponin i using antibody-immobilized gate-pulsed
Phys. Lett., Vol. 91, pp. 112106, 2007. AlGaN/GaN high electron mobility transistor structures,”
Appl. Phys. Lett., Vol. 111, pp. 202104, Nov. 2017.
11. G. Chung, T. Vuong, and H. Kim, “Demonstration of
hydrogen sensing operation of AlGaN/GaN HEMT gas 23. H. Liu, W. Hsu, W. Chen, C. Lin, C. Lee, W. Sun, S. Wei,
sensors in extreme environment,” Results Phys., Vol. 12, pp. and S. Yu, “Investigation of AlGaN/GaN ion-sensitive het-
83–4, Mar. 2019. erostructure field-effect transistors-based pH sensors with
Al2 O3 surface passivation and sensing membrane,” IEEE
12. S. A. Eliza, R. Olah, and A. K. Dutta, “Nanocrystalline Sensors J., Vol. 16, no. 10, pp. 3514–22, May 2016.
metal oxide gate AlGaN/GaN HEMT for detection of Co
gas,” Nanosci. Nanotech. Lett, Vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 139–43, Jun. 24. L. Wang, L. Li, T. Zhang, X. Liu, and J. P. Ao, “Enhanced pH
2010. sensitivity of AlGaN/GaN ion-sensitive field effect transis-
tor with Al2 O3 synthesized by atomic layer deposition,”
13. R. Thapa, et al., “Bio functionalized AlGaN/GaN high elec- Appl. Surf. Sci., Vol. 427, pp. 1199–202, 2018.
tron mobility transistor for DNA hybridization detection,”
Appl. Phys. Lett., Vol. 100, pp. 232109, Jun. 2012. 25. N. Sharma, and N. Chaturvedi, “Design approach of traps
affected source–gate regions in GaN HEMTs,” IETE Tech.
14. C.-T. Lee, and Y.-S. Chiu, “Photoelectrochemical passi- Rev., Vol. 33, pp. 34–9, 2016.
vated ZnO-based nanorod structured glucose biosensors
using gate recessed AlGaN/GaN ion-sensitive field-effect- 26. A. Paliwal, M. Tomar, and V. Gupta, “Complex dielectric
transistors,” Sens. Actuators, B, Vol. 210, pp. 756–61, Apr. constant of various biomolecules as a function of wave-
2015. length using surface plasmon resonance,” J. Appl. Phys.,
Vol. 116, pp. 023109, Jul. 2014.
15. J. dong Li, J. jie Cheng, B. Miao, X. wei Wei, J. Xie,
J. cheng Zhang, Z. qiang Zhang, and D. min Wu, 27. S. A. Hafiz, Iltesha, M.Ehteshamuddin, and S. A.Loan,
“Detection of prostate specific antigen with biomolecule- “Dielectrically modulated source-engineered charge-
gated AlGaN/GaN high electron mobility transistors,” J. plasma based schottky-FET as a label-free biosensor,” IEEE
Micromech. Microeng., Vol. 24, pp. 075023, Jun. Trans. Electron Devices, Vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 1905–10, Feb.
2014. 2019.
16. H. F. Huq, I. Hector Trevino, and J. Castillo, “Characteris- 28. N. Shafi, C. Sahu, and C. Periasamy, “Virtually doped SiGe
tics of AlGaN/GaN HEMT for detection of MIG,” J. Mod. tunnel FET for enhanced sensitivity in biosensing applica-
Phys., Vol. 7, pp. 1712, Sep. 2016. tions,” Superlattices Microstruct., Vol. 120, pp. 75–89, Aug.
2018.
17. C. Lee, and Y. Chiu, “Gate-recessed AlGaN/GaN ISFET
urea biosensor fabricated by photoelectrochemical 29. H. Sun, M. Wang, J. Chen, P. Liu, W. Kuang, M. Liu, Y.
method,” IEEE Sensors J., Vol. 16, pp. 1518–23, Dec. Hao, and D. Chen, “Fabrication of high-uniformity and
2016. high-reliability Si3 N4 /AlGaN/GaN MIS-HEMTs with self-
terminating dielectric etching process in a 150-mm Si
18. A. Varghese, C. Periasamy, L. Bhargava, S. B. Dolmanan, Foundry,” IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, Vol. 65, no. 11, pp.
and S. Tripathy, “Linear and circular AlGaN/AlN/GaN 4814–9, Nov. 2018.
MOS-HEMT-based pH sensor on Si substrate: A compara-
tive analysis,” IEEE Sensors Lett., Vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 1–4, Apr. 30. P. D. Ye, B. Yang, K. K. Ng, J. Bude, G. D. Wilk, S. Hal-
2019. dar, and J. C. M. Huang, “Gan metal-oxide-semiconductor
10 A. M. BHAT ET AL.: GAN/ALN/ALGAN MOSHEMT WITH A NANOGAP EMBEDDED CAVITY
high-electron-mobility-transistor with atomic layer 33. Ajay, R.Narang, M.Saxena, and M.Gupta, “Drain current
deposited Al2 O3 as gate dielectric,” Appl. Phys. Lett., Vol. model of a four-gate dielectric modulated MOSFET for
86, no. 6, pp. 063501, 2005. application as a biosensor,” IEEE Trans. Electron Devices,
Vol. 62, no. 8, pp. 2636–44, Jun. 2015.
31. A. Rawat, M. Meer, V. K. Surana, N. Bhardwaj, V. Pen-
dem, N. S. Garigapati, Y. Yadav, S. Ganguly, and D. 34. C. H. Kim, C. Jung, K. B. Lee, H. G. Park, and Y. K.
Saha, “Thermally grown TiO2 and Al2 O3 for GaN-based Cho, “Label-free DNA detection with a nanogap embedded
MOS-HEMTs,” IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, Vol. 65, pp. complementary metal oxide semiconductor,” Nanotechnol-
3725–31, Sep. 2018. ogy, Vol. 22, pp. 135502, Feb. 2011.
32. S. N. Mishra, and K. Jena, “A dielectric-modulated 35. A. Varghese, C. Periasamy, and L. Bhargava, “Ana-
normally-Off AlGaN/GaN MOSHEMT for bio-sensing lytical modeling and simulation-based investigation of
application: Analytical modeling study and sensitivity AlGaN/AlN/GaN bioHEMT sensor for c-erbB-2 detec-
analysis,” J. Korean Phys. Soc., Vol. 74, pp. 349–57, tion,” IEEE Sensors J., Vol. 18, no. 23, pp. 9595–603, Sep.
2019. 2018.