Protein-Electrode Coupling Can Dominates Efficiency Without Affecting the Mechanism of Electronic Transport – Results From a Cross-Lab Comparative Study of Solid State Protein Junctions

69 Pages Posted: 12 Feb 2020

See all articles by Sabyasachi Mukhopadhyay

Sabyasachi Mukhopadhyay

Senthil Kumar Karuppannan

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Cunlan Guo

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Jerry A. Fereiro

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Adam Bergren

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Vineetha Mukundan

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Xinkai Qiu

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Olga E. Castañeda Ocampo

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Xiaoping Chen

Nanyang Technological University (NTU)

Ryan C. Chiechi

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Richard McCreery

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Israel Pecht

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Mordechai Sheves

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Rupali Reddy Pasula

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Sierin Lim

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Christian A. Nijhuis

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Ayelet Vilan

affiliation not provided to SSRN

David Cahen

Weizmann Institute of Science - Department of Materials and Interfaces

Date Written: December 27, 2019

Abstract

Successful integration of proteins in solid-state electronics requires contacting them in a non-invasive fashion, with a solid conducting surface for immobilization as one such contact. The contacts can affect and even dominate the measured electronic transport. Often substrates, substrate treatments, protein immobilization, and device geometries, differ between laboratories. Thus, the question arises in how far results from different laboratories and platforms are comparable. We report and evaluate electronic transport measurements, planned for such comparison between different laboratories, using several schemes to contact a set of three proteins of largely different types. While for the same protein, measured with similar device geometry, results compare reasonably well, there are significant differences in current densities (an intensive variable) between different device geometries. Likely, these originate in the critical contact-protein coupling (~contact resistance), in addition to the actual number of proteins involved, because the effective junction contact area depends on the nanometric roughness of the electrodes and at times, even the proteins may increase this roughness. On the positive side our result show that understanding what controls the coupling can make the coupling a design knob. In terms of extensive variable, such as temperature, our comparison unanimously shows the transport to be independent of temperature. Our study places coupling and lack of temperature activation as key aspects to be considered in both modeling and practice of protein electronic transport experiments.

Keywords: Bioelectronics, electron transport, molecular contact, molecular electronic device

Suggested Citation

Mukhopadhyay, Sabyasachi and Karuppannan, Senthil Kumar and Guo, Cunlan and Fereiro, Jerry A. and Bergren, Adam and Mukundan, Vineetha and Qiu, Xinkai and Ocampo, Olga E. Castañeda and Chen, Xiaoping and Chiechi, Ryan C. and McCreery, Richard and Pecht, Israel and Sheves, Mordechai and Pasula, Rupali Reddy and Lim, Sierin and Nijhuis, Christian A. and Vilan, Ayelet and Cahen, David, Protein-Electrode Coupling Can Dominates Efficiency Without Affecting the Mechanism of Electronic Transport – Results From a Cross-Lab Comparative Study of Solid State Protein Junctions (December 27, 2019). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3510005 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3510005

Senthil Kumar Karuppannan

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Cunlan Guo

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Jerry A. Fereiro

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Adam Bergren

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Vineetha Mukundan

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Xinkai Qiu

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Olga E. Castañeda Ocampo

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Xiaoping Chen

Nanyang Technological University (NTU) ( email )

S3 B2-A28 Nanyang Avenue
Singapore, 639798
Singapore

Ryan C. Chiechi

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Richard McCreery

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Israel Pecht

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Mordechai Sheves

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Rupali Reddy Pasula

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Sierin Lim

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Christian A. Nijhuis

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Ayelet Vilan

affiliation not provided to SSRN

David Cahen

Weizmann Institute of Science - Department of Materials and Interfaces

234 Herzl Street
Rehovot, 76100
Israel

No contact information is available for Sabyasachi Mukhopadhyay

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
39
Abstract Views
178
PlumX Metrics