Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 54 references

Time-Resolved Open-Circuit Conductive Atomic Force Microscopy for Quantitative Analysis of Nanowire Piezoelectricity and Triboelectricity

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that standard short-circuit conductive AFM is inadequate for quantitative piezoelectric measurement of nanowires, and that an open-circuit time-resolved variant extracts a direct axial coefficient, giving $d_{33}\approx…

desk verdict A genuinely useful negative result about short-circuit cAFM, wrapped around a clever open-circuit protocol whose quantitative d33 values are not yet trustworthy. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05512 v4 pith:GFCL34YH submitted 2019-08-15 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.app-ph

Yonatan Calahorra , Wonjong Kim , Jelena Vukajlovic Plestina , Anna Fontcuberta i Morral , Sohini Kar-Narayan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.app-ph
keywords piezoelectricnanowiresconductiveatomicforcemicroscopyopen-circuitmeasurementtriboelectriceffectpiezotronictime-resolvedcurrentgalliumarsenideflexoelectricity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the standard short-circuit conductive AFM measurement of piezoelectric nanowires is not quantitative: the true piezoelectric displacement charge is orders of magnitude below instrument noise, so the currents such experiments record are dominated by triboelectricity and the piezotronic effect. To get around this, the authors place a glass slide capacitor in series with the sample and record the current while ramping the tip into the nanowire at different speeds. Because the capacitor acts as a voltage differentiator, integrating the current gives the charge accumulated on a known capacitor, and fitting that charge as $Q=a/\mathrm{rate}+q_\mathrm{PE}$ isolates a rate-independent piezoelectric contribution $q_\mathrm{PE}$. From it they extract a direct axial coefficient $d_{33}\approx 0.4$–$1$ pm/V for GaAs nanowires, consistent with known values; if the method holds, a simple AFM modification yields quantitative direct piezoelectric coefficients for weak piezoelectric nanomaterials.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the rate-resolved charge fit $Q=a/\mathrm{rate}+q_\mathrm{PE}$ (Eq. 14 in the paper). The $1/\mathrm{rate}$ term is proportional to contact duration and collects parasitic currents that scale with time, while the intercept $q_\mathrm{PE}$ is a time-independent charge left on the isolating capacitor, identified as the piezoelectric displacement charge. The electrical circuit that makes this possible is the open-circuit voltage differentiator: a microscope glass slide between sample and AFM stage supplies $c_\mathrm{glass}\approx 5.3$ pF in series, so the recorded current is $c_\mathrm{glass}\,dv/dt$; the nanowire capacitance ($\sim10^{-18}$ F) and resistance are negligible on the measurement timescale. This converts the impossible task of measuring a femtoamp piezoelectric current into the tractable task of integrating charge on a known macroscopic capacitor.

What would settle it

Sweep the maximum ramp force $F$ on a single nanowire and check that $q_\mathrm{PE}$ is proportional to $F$, as piezoelectric charge must be; if the intercept saturates or persists on a non-piezoelectric, non-flexoelectric control under identical tip and force conditions, the extracted $d_{33}$ is not purely piezoelectric. A direct cross-check would be to measure the same nanowire with converse PFM or a known piezoelectric standard and compare $d_{33}$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the measurement configuration, not the material, decides whether cAFM sees piezoelectricity. Under short-circuit conditions the piezoelectric element is a current source with $E_3=0$, and the expected current $Q/\Delta t=d_{33}F/\Delta t$ for a single GaAs nanowire under realistic force is about $10^{-17}$ A, far below the $\sim$100 fA noise floor; the currents actually seen are triboelectric or piezotronic. In the open-circuit configuration, the nanowire is a voltage source and the series glass capacitor ($c_\mathrm{glass}\approx 5.3$ pF) makes the measured current proportional to the voltage derivative, $i=c_\mathrm{glass}\,dv/dt$. Integrating the current during a controlled ramp and separating the charge as $Q=a/\mathrm{rate}+q_\mathrm{PE}$ yields $q_\mathrm{PE}$, from which the piezoelectric voltage coefficient $g_{33}$ and then $d_{33}=g_{33}\epsilon_0\epsilon_r$ follow. For GaAs nanowires the result is $d_{33}\approx 0.4$–$1$ pm/V, somewhat below the $1.5$–$2.5$ pm/V expected from theory, which the authors attribute to partial bending and diameter uncertainty.

Load-bearing premise

The extraction assumes that the rate-independent intercept $q_\mathrm{PE}$ in Eq. (14) is almost entirely piezoelectric charge, so the flexoelectric and triboelectric background seen on the silicon-oxide control—which the paper says was 'lower, though comparable' to the nanowire signal—does not contaminate the nanowire intercept.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim is right, many short-circuit cAFM current maps reported for piezoelectric nanowires are largely triboelectric or piezotronic, not piezoelectric, and should be reinterpreted.
  • Single-nanowire direct piezoelectric coefficients can be measured with a standard AFM plus a glass slide, without an external current amplifier.
  • The rate-resolved fit separates piezoelectric from parasitic mechanisms, so the same dataset can also quantify triboelectric contributions.
  • The method works for a weakly piezoelectric semiconductor like GaAs, so it should extend to stronger piezoelectric materials and to triboelectric or flexoelectric characterization.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the intercept is truly piezoelectric, then $q_\mathrm{PE}$ should scale linearly with applied force; running the same ramp protocol at several peak forces on one nanowire would turn that implication into a direct validation test.
  • The oxide-control signal described as 'comparable' sets an upper bound on how much of the nanowire $q_\mathrm{PE}$ could be flexoelectric; a quantitative subtraction using the control would tighten the $d_{33}$ estimate.
  • Because the open-circuit differentiator detects any rate-independent charge, the same setup could be used to measure flexoelectric coefficients of non-piezoelectric dielectrics by using tips of different radius to separate strain-gradient from uniform-strain responses.
  • The rate-dependent slope $a$ could be compared with contact-area and barrier-height changes extracted from I-V curves on the same nanowire, offering a direct probe of the piezotronic contribution.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an open-circuit conductive atomic force microscopy (cAFM) methodology for extracting the axial piezoelectric coefficient of individual nanowires. The authors first argue, with an order-of-magnitude estimate (Eq. 13), that short-circuit cAFM cannot measure the direct piezoelectric current from a single GaAs nanowire because the expected charge is orders of magnitude below the current noise. They then introduce an open-circuit configuration in which a glass slide capacitor is placed in series with the sample, and the measured current reflects the time derivative of the voltage. By integrating the current during the loading ramp and plotting the integrated charge versus ramping rate, they fit the data to Q = a/rate + q_PE (Eq. 14) and interpret the rate-independent intercept q_PE as the piezoelectric charge. From q_PE they compute the voltage, stress, and finally d33 = 0.4–1.05 pC/N for GaAs nanowires, which they claim is in good agreement with literature values. They also report control experiments on native oxide, ITO, and undoped substrates to argue that the signal is not an artifact.

Significance. The short-circuit inadequacy argument is well founded and important: it provides a clear explanation for the long-standing controversy around single-NW current generation. The open-circuit configuration and time-resolved analysis are a promising and easy-to-implement alternative. If the quantitative extraction is validated, the method would allow direct piezoelectric coefficient measurements on a single nanowire, which is currently difficult. The paper also sheds light on the coexistence of piezoelectric, triboelectric, and piezotronic effects in cAFM. However, the quantitative claim is not yet fully supported because the background separation in Eq. (14) is not independently validated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Open-circuit configuration, Eq. (14) and Fig. 7] The decomposition Q = a/rate + q_PE is assumed without derivation, and the identification of the rate-independent intercept q_PE with the piezoelectric charge is not validated. The manuscript's own control on the native oxide (Fig. 7) produced an electromechanical signal 'lower, though comparable' to the NW signal, which the authors attribute to flexoelectricity; this signal is not subtracted from the NW intercepts. Since d33 is computed as d33 = g33 ε0 εr with g33 = (q_PE / c_glass / L) / (F/A), a comparable rate-independent background can substantially inflate or dominate the reported d33 values. To support the central quantitative claim, the authors should subtract the control intercept from the NW measurements or provide a quantitative estimate showing that the flexoelectric/triboelectric contribution is negligible for the NW geometry (e.g., using a non-piezoelectric nanowire of similar dimensions).
  2. [Open-circuit configuration, Fig. 7 and Eq. (14)] The fits to Eq. (14) are not described with any statistics. The number of data points per NW, the scatter, and the confidence intervals on the fitted parameters a and q_PE are not reported, so the reader cannot assess whether the linear-in-1/rate model is appropriate or whether the intercept is well constrained. Please include the fit parameters, uncertainties, and R² or similar goodness-of-fit values for each nanowire and for the oxide control.
  3. [Time-resolved current measurements, p. 15] The paper states that the absence of an opposite-polarity current on release is 'intriguing' but does not resolve this issue. For a conservative piezoelectric response, unloading should produce a current of opposite sign. The integration in Eq. (14) only considers the loading (charging) portion of the ramp, so the release transient is not analyzed. This is a load-bearing point because the measured charge could include non-conservative (e.g., triboelectric or flexoelectric) contributions that are not reversed on release. The authors should either analyze the release portion of the data or provide a model explaining why no opposite current is observed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Open-circuit configuration, Eq. (15)] The numerical values E1300nN = 2.4 V/m and T1300nN = 258 N/m² are inconsistent with the stated geometry (0.505 V across 210 nm gives 2.4 MV/m; 1300 nN on a 40 nm radius gives 258 MPa). The ratio g33 is correct, but the intermediate values should be corrected to avoid confusion.
  2. [Results and discussion, Open-circuit configuration] The claim of 'good agreement' with known GaAs values (1.5–2.5 pC/N, Ref. 38) is weakened by the fact that the measured range (0.4–1.05 pC/N) is several times lower; a more nuanced discussion (e.g., in terms of bending loss) is already present but could be expanded.
  3. [Abstract and body] The abstract uses 'pm/V' while the manuscript body uses 'pC/N'; these are equivalent for d33 but should be used consistently.
  4. [Title page] The affiliation 'Cambrdige' (p. 1) should be corrected to 'Cambridge'.
  5. [Fig. 5 caption] In the caption of Fig. 5, 'the current axis for (e) and (d) are not identical' should read 'the current axes in (d) and (e) are not identical'.
  6. [References] The reference to the 'known' GaAs piezoelectric coefficients comes from the authors' own previous PFM work (Ref. 38). If possible, please include an independent experimental or computational reference to strengthen the comparison.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No constructional circularity: the d33 value is obtained from measured rate-independent charge intercepts, not fitted to the literature; the only mild issue is that the 'known' GaAs benchmark is a self-cited prior PFM study, and the assignment of the intercept to piezoelectricity is an assumption flagged by the authors' own control data.

  1. other [Open-circuit configuration section, around Eq. (13) and the comparison after Eq. (16)]
    "The piezoelectric charge coefficient of GaAs is d33≃ 1.5− 2.5 pm/V (pC/N) (38). ... These values are in good agreement with known values and theoretical calculations for GaAs of 1.5-2.5 pC/N."

    Reference 38 is the same group's earlier PFM paper on III-V nanowires ('Exploring piezoelectric properties of III-V nanowires using piezoresponse force microscopy', Calahorra et al., Semicond. Sci. Technol. 32, 074006 (2017)), with overlapping authors. The claim of agreement therefore relies on a self-cited benchmark rather than an independent external dataset. The circularity is only mild because the d33 values are not fitted to that benchmark: they are computed from the fitted rate-independent charge intercept q_PE via q_PE/c_glass = V, E = V/L, T = F/A, and d = g ε0 εr (Eqs. 14-16). The comparison is presented as post-hoc validation, not as an input to the derivation.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: the open-circuit configuration is analyzed as a voltage differentiator (Eq. 10); the integrated charge is fitted to Q = a/rate + q_PE (Eq. 14), with q_PE interpreted as the rate-independent charge; d33 is then obtained from q_PE, the measured NW geometry, the known glass capacitance, and the material permittivity (Eqs. 15-16). None of these equations incorporates the literature d33, the reference value is not used as a fitting target, and the reported 0.4-1 pC/N is lower than the cited 1.5-2.5 pC/N, so the quantitative extraction is not forced by construction. The main caveats are correctness risks rather than circularity: the manuscript itself states that the native SiO2 control gave a signal that was 'lower, though comparable' to the NW signal and was attributed to flexoelectricity without subtraction, and it flags the absence of an opposite-polarity release current as 'intriguing'; both suggest that the time-independent intercept may not be purely piezoelectric. In addition, the only external-looking 'known values' used for validation (ref 38) are a self-cited prior PFM measurement by the same authors, so the agreement claim is a mild self-consistency check. These issues lower confidence in the quantitative d33, but they do not reduce the derivation to its inputs: the paper is self-contained in the sense that a different material or a different assumed intercept would give a correspondingly different coefficient.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central extraction relies on the circuit model (Eq. 10), the open-circuit boundary condition, the assumed Q(rate) decomposition (Eq. 14), and the uniform-stress approximation; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • q_PE (piezoelectric charge intercept) = 2.68 pC for NW1; lower values implied for NW2/3
    Obtained by fitting Q = a/rate + q_PE (Eq. 14); d33 is directly proportional to it via V = q_PE/c_glass.
  • a (contact-time parasitic charge coefficient) = not reported in text
    Fitted slope of Eq. 14; the 1/rate form is assumed, not derived.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Piezoelectric constitutive equations D = eps^T E + d T and S = d^t E + s^E T hold with scalar axial d33.
    Eqs. 5-6 in the introduction define the framework; used to connect d, g, eps0, epsr in Eq. 16.
  • domain assumption Open-circuit electrical boundary condition (D = 0 at the NW) makes g33 the relevant coefficient.
    Invoked in the Open-circuit configuration section, citing refs 47-48; the measured voltage is converted to d33 through Eq. 16.
  • domain assumption The measurement circuit acts as an ideal differentiator: i_measured = c_glass dv/dt (Eq. 10).
    Used to recover V by integrating the current; relies on c_glass >> c_NW and 10 kHz bandwidth.
  • ad hoc to paper Parasitic non-piezoelectric charge varies linearly with contact time: Q = a/rate + q_PE.
    Eq. 14; no derivation or independent validation; this decomposition is the basis for calling q_PE the piezoelectric charge.
  • domain assumption Applied vertical force produces uniform axial compression with negligible bending/flexoelectric contribution.
    Used to compute T = F/A for the NW; the authors partially acknowledge bending, and the flexoelectric SiO2 control is noted but not subtracted.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Time-Resolved Open-Circuit Conductive Atomic Force Microscopy for Quantitative Analysis of Nanowire Piezoelectricity and Triboelectricity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GFCL34YH

@misc{pith2026190805512,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Time-Resolved Open-Circuit Conductive Atomic Force Microscopy for Quantitative Analysis of Nanowire Piezoelectricity and Triboelectricity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GFCL34YH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05512}
}
read the original abstract

Piezoelectric nanowires are promising materials for sensing, actuation and energy harvesting, due to their enhanced properties at the nanoscale. However, quantitative characterization of piezoelectricity in nanomaterials is challenging due to practical limitations and the onset of additional electromechanical phenomena, such as the triboelectric and piezotronic effects. Here, we present an open-circuit conductive atomic force microscopy (cAFM) methodology for quantitative extraction of the axial piezoelectric coefficients of nanowires. We show, both theoretically and experimentally, that the standard short-circuit cAFM mode is inadequate for piezoelectric characterization of nanowires, and that such measurements are governed by competing mechanisms. We introduce an alternative open-circuit configuration, and employ time-resolved electromechanical measurements, to extract the piezoelectric coefficients. This method was applied to GaAs, an important semiconductor, with relatively low piezoelectric coefficients. The results obtained for GaAs,~0.4-1 pm/V, are in good agreement with existing knowledge and theory. Our method represents a significant advance in understanding the coexistence of different electromechanical effects, and in quantitative piezoelectric nanoscale characterization. The easy implementation will enable better understanding of electromechanics at the nanoscale.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05512 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Measurement schematic, showing the AFM cantilever descending atop the NW, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Scanning peak-force influence on measured short-circuit current map (a) Single NW [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Bias influence on measured current map. Contact current maps obtained with 42 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: a) Open-circuit cAFM measurement schematic; b,c) consecutive current maps ob [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mechanical ramping induced open-circuit measured current: time-resolved. (a) To [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Electronic circuits depicting the different configurations for piezoelectric generation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Integrated current during force application as a function of cantilever ramping rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G ¨uniat, P

    L. G ¨uniat, P. Caroff, A. Fontcuberta i Morral, Vapor phase growth of semiconductor nanowires: Key developments and open questions, Chemical reviews 119, 8958 (2019)

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Zhao, Z.-L

    M.-H. Zhao, Z.-L. Wang, S. X. Mao, Piezoelectric characterization of individual zinc oxide nanobelt probed by piezoresponse force microscope, Nano Letters 4, 587 (2004)

    work page 2004

  3. [3]

    Z. L. Wang, J. Song, Piezoelectric nanogenerators based on zinc oxide nanowire arrays, Science 312, 242 (2006)

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    Wang, et al., Piezoelectric field effect transistor and nanoforce sensor based on a single ZnO nanowire, Nano letters 6, 2768 (2006)

    X. Wang, et al., Piezoelectric field effect transistor and nanoforce sensor based on a single ZnO nanowire, Nano letters 6, 2768 (2006)

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    Z. L. Wang, Piezopotential gated nanowire devices: Piezotronics and piezo-phototronics, Nano Today 5, 540 (2010). 24

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Z. L. Wang, Triboelectric nanogenerators as new energy technology for self-powered sys- tems and as active mechanical and chemical sensors, ACS nano 7, 9533 (2013)

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Briscoe, S

    J. Briscoe, S. Dunn, Piezoelectric nanogenerators–a review of nanostructured piezoelectric energy harvesters, Nano Energy 14, 15 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Zhu, et al., Toward large-scale energy harvesting by a nanoparticle-enhanced triboelec- tric nanogenerator, Nano letters 13, 847 (2013)

    G. Zhu, et al., Toward large-scale energy harvesting by a nanoparticle-enhanced triboelec- tric nanogenerator, Nano letters 13, 847 (2013)

    work page 2013

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Y . S. Choi, Q. Jing, A. Datta, C. Boughey, S. Kar-Narayan, A triboelectric generator based on self-poled Nylon-11 nanowires fabricated by gas-flow assisted template wetting,Energy & Environmental Science 10, 2180 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    Fr ¨omling, R

    T. Fr ¨omling, R. Yu, M. Mintken, R. Adelung, J. R ¨odel, Piezotronic sensors, MRS Bulletin 43, 941 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    Wang, et al., Effects of free carriers on piezoelectric nanogenerators and piezotronic devices made of GaN nanowire arrays, Small 10, 4718 (2014)

    C.-H. Wang, et al., Effects of free carriers on piezoelectric nanogenerators and piezotronic devices made of GaN nanowire arrays, Small 10, 4718 (2014)

    2014

  4. [12]

    Gogneau, et al., Gan nanowires for piezoelectric generators,physica status solidi (RRL)- Rapid Research Letters 8, 414 (2014)

    N. Gogneau, et al., Gan nanowires for piezoelectric generators,physica status solidi (RRL)- Rapid Research Letters 8, 414 (2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    Gogneau, et al

    N. Gogneau, et al. , From single iii-nitride nanowires to piezoelectric generators: New route for powering nomad electronics, Semiconductor Science and Technology 31, 103002 (2016)

    2016

  6. [14]

    Liu, et al

    G. Liu, et al. , Nanogenerators based on vertically aligned InN nanowires, Nanoscale 8, 2097 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    Mikulik, et al., Conductive-probe atomic force microscopy as a characterization tool for nanowire-based solar cells, Nano Energy 41, 566 (2017)

    D. Mikulik, et al., Conductive-probe atomic force microscopy as a characterization tool for nanowire-based solar cells, Nano Energy 41, 566 (2017). 25

    2017

  8. [16]

    W. Su, Y . Chen, C. Hsiao, L. Tu, Generation of electricity in GaN nanorods induced by piezoelectric effect, Applied Physics Letters 90, 063110 (2007)

    2007

  9. [17]

    P. A. Alekseev, et al., Piezoelectric current generation in wurtzite GaAs nanowires,physica status solidi (RRL)–Rapid Research Letters 12, 1700358 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Wang, et al., Electricity Generation based on One-Dimensional Group-III Nitride Nano- materials, Advanced materials 22, 2155 (2010)

    X. Wang, et al., Electricity Generation based on One-Dimensional Group-III Nitride Nano- materials, Advanced materials 22, 2155 (2010)

    2010

  11. [19]

    Jegenyes, et al

    N. Jegenyes, et al. , High Piezoelectric Conversion Properties of Axial InGaN/GaN Nanowires, Nanomaterials 8, 367 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Alexe, S

    M. Alexe, S. Senz, M. A. Schubert, D. Hesse, U. G ¨osele, Energy harvesting using nanowires?, Advanced Materials 20, 4021 (2008)

    2008

  13. [21]

    M. A. Schubert, S. Senz, M. Alexe, D. Hesse, U. G ¨osele, Finite element method calcula- tions of ZnO nanowires for nanogenerators, Applied physics letters 92, 122904 (2008)

    2008

  14. [22]

    Z. L. Wang, Energy Harvesting Using Piezoelectric Nanowires–A Correspondence on En- ergy Harvesting Using Nanowires? by Alexe et al., Advanced Materials 21, 1311 (2009)

    2009

  15. [23]

    Hong, et al., Charge gradient microscopy, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences 111, 6566 (2014)

    S. Hong, et al., Charge gradient microscopy, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences 111, 6566 (2014)

    2014

  16. [24]

    Gomez, M

    A. Gomez, M. Gich, A. Carretero-Genevrier, T. Puig, X. Obradors, Piezo-generated charge mapping revealed through direct piezoelectric force microscopy, Nature communications 8, 1113 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    Kwon, et al., Direct Probing of Polarization Charge at Nanoscale Level, Advanced Ma- terials 30, 1703675 (2018)

    O. Kwon, et al., Direct Probing of Polarization Charge at Nanoscale Level, Advanced Ma- terials 30, 1703675 (2018). 26

    2018

  18. [26]

    Calahorra, M

    Y . Calahorra, M. Smith, A. Datta, H. Benisty, S. Kar-Narayan, Mapping piezoelectric response in nanomaterials using a dedicated non-destructive scanning probe technique, Nanoscale 9, 19290 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    Curie, P

    J. Curie, P. Curie, Ph´enom`enes ´electriques des cristaux h´emi`edres `a faces inclin´ees, Journal de Physique theorique et appliquee 1, 245 (1882)

  20. [28]

    Damjanovic, Ferroelectric, dielectric and piezoelectric properties of ferroelectric thin films and ceramics, Reports on Progress in Physics 61, 1267 (1998)

    D. Damjanovic, Ferroelectric, dielectric and piezoelectric properties of ferroelectric thin films and ceramics, Reports on Progress in Physics 61, 1267 (1998)

    1998

  21. [29]

    Q. Jing, S. Kar-Narayan, Nanostructured polymer-based piezoelectric and triboelectric materials and devices for energy harvesting applications, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 51, 303001 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    Zhou, et al., Flexible piezotronic strain sensor, Nano letters 8, 3035 (2008)

    J. Zhou, et al., Flexible piezotronic strain sensor, Nano letters 8, 3035 (2008)

    2008

  23. [31]

    P. Keil, T. Fr ¨omling, A. Klein, J. R¨odel, N. Novak, Piezotronic effect at schottky barrier of a metal-zno single crystal interface, Journal of Applied Physics 121, 155701 (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    Bardeen, Surface states and rectification at a metal semi-conductor contact, Physical Review 71, 717 (1947)

    J. Bardeen, Surface states and rectification at a metal semi-conductor contact, Physical Review 71, 717 (1947)

    1947

  25. [33]

    S. M. Sze, K. K. Ng, Physics of semiconductor devices (John wiley & sons, 2006)

    2006

  26. [34]

    Calahorra, et al., Highly sensitive piezotronic pressure sensors based on undoped GaAs nanowire ensembles, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 52, 294002 (2019)

    Y . Calahorra, et al., Highly sensitive piezotronic pressure sensors based on undoped GaAs nanowire ensembles, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 52, 294002 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    Gruverman, S

    A. Gruverman, S. V . Kalinin, Piezoresponse force microscopy and recent advances in nanoscale studies of ferroelectrics, Journal of materials science 41, 107 (2006). 27

    2006

  28. [36]

    Collins, Y

    L. Collins, Y . Liu, O. Ovchinnikova, R. Proksch, Quantitative Electromechanical Atomic Force Microscopy, arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.06776 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Minary-Jolandan, R

    M. Minary-Jolandan, R. A. Bernal, I. Kuljanishvili, V . Parpoil, H. D. Espinosa, Individual gan nanowires exhibit strong piezoelectricity in 3d, Nano letters 12, 970 (2012)

    2012

  30. [38]

    Calahorra, et al

    Y . Calahorra, et al. , Exploring piezoelectric properties of III–V nanowires using piezo- response force microscopy, Semiconductor Science and Technology 32, 074006 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    M. R. Hasan, S.-H. Baek, K. S. Seong, J. H. Kim, I.-K. Park, Hierarchical ZnO nanorods on Si micropillar arrays for performance enhancement of piezoelectric nanogenerators, ACS applied materials & interfaces 7, 5768 (2015)

    2015

  32. [40]

    Johar, et al

    M. Johar, et al. , Stable and high piezoelectric output of GaN nanowire-based lead-free piezoelectric nanogenerator by suppression of internal screening, Nanomaterials 8, 437 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    R. Yang, Y . Qin, L. Dai, Z. L. Wang, Power generation with laterally packaged piezoelectric fine wires, Nature nanotechnology 4, 34 (2009)

    2009

  34. [42]

    Pittenger, N

    B. Pittenger, N. Erina, C. Su, Quantitative Mechanical Property Mapping at the Nanoscale with PeakF orce QNM, Bruker

  35. [43]

    V . A. Sharov, et al. , InP/Si Heterostructure for High-Current Hybrid Triboelec- tric/Photovoltaic Generation, ACS Applied Energy Materials (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    Crossley, S

    S. Crossley, S. Kar-Narayan, Energy harvesting performance of piezoelectric ceramic and polymer nanowires, Nanotechnology 26, 344001 (2015)

    2015

  37. [45]

    ECCOSTOCK dielectric materials chart. 28

  38. [46]

    Calahorra, C

    Y . Calahorra, C. Ou, C. Boughey, S. Kar-Narayan, Semiconductors and Semimetals (Else- vier, 2018), vol. 98, pp. 445–478

    2018

  39. [47]

    Y . Li, S. Hu, Z. Liu, L. Chen, Effect of electrical boundary conditions on ferroelectric domain structures in thin films, Applied physics letters 81, 427 (2002)

    2002

  40. [48]

    E. A. Eliseev, S. V . Kalinin, A. N. Morozovska, Finite size effects in ferroelectric- semiconductor thin films under open-circuit electric boundary conditions, Journal of Ap- plied Physics 117, 034102 (2015)

    2015

  41. [49]

    GaAs basic properties, Ioffe Institute

  42. [50]

    Abdollahi, N

    A. Abdollahi, N. Domingo, I. Arias, G. Catalan, Converse flexoelectricity yields large piezoresponse force microscopy signals in non-piezoelectric materials, Nature communi- cations 10, 1266 (2019)

    2019

  43. [51]

    M.-M. Yang, D. J. Kim, M. Alexe, Flexo-photovoltaic effect, Science 360, 904 (2018)

    2018

  44. [52]

    Colombo, D

    C. Colombo, D. Spirkoska, M. Frimmer, G. Abstreiter, A. F. i Morral, Ga-assisted catalyst- free growth mechanism of GaAs nanowires by molecular beam epitaxy,Physical Review B 77, 155326 (2008)

    2008

  45. [53]

    Matteini, G

    F. Matteini, G. T ¨ut¨unc¨uoglu, H. Potts, F. Jabeen, A. Fontcuberta i Morral, Wetting of Ga on SiOx and Its Impact on GaAs nanowire growth,Crystal Growth & Design 15, 3105 (2015)

    2015

  46. [54]

    Matteini, et al

    F. Matteini, et al. , Impact of the Ga droplet wetting, morphology, and pinholes on the orientation of GaAs nanowires, Crystal Growth & Design 16, 5781 (2016). 29 Acknowledgments Y .C. and S.K-N. are grateful for support from ERC Starting Grant (Grant No. ERC2014STG639526, NAN...

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.