Table 1.
A performance comparison of biocomposite-based RRAM
| Biocomposite unit | Device structure | Device type | Set/Reset voltage | ON/OFF ratio | Cycle number | Retention time | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pt NPs-tobacco mosaic virus (TMV) |
Al/TMV–Pt NPs/Al | RRAM | 3/–2.4 V | 103 | 400 | – | [16] |
| Au NPs-silk | Al/silk-Au NPs/PET | Flexible RRAM |
2/–2 V | 104~106 | 10 | 103 s | [42] |
| Au NPs-sulfhydryl groups | Al/Albumen layer/Pt | RRAM | 2/–1.5 V | 30 | 100 | 104 s | [44] |
| Au NPs-alkali lignin | Al/Au NPs-alkali lignin/Al | FlexibleWORM | 4.7 V | >104 | – | >103 s | [45] |
| Ag-cellulose nanofiber paper (CNP) | Ag/Ag-CNP/Pt Ag/Ag-CNP/Al foil |
Flexible RRAM |
0.28/–0.22 V | 106 | 100 | 105 s | [46] |
| Ag-chitosan | Pt/Ag-chitosan/Ag | RRAM | 0.4 V/–0.48 V | 105 | 100 | 104 s | [47] |
| Ag-chitosan | Mg/Ag-chitosan/ITO-coated PET | Flexible RRAM | 1.63/–0.82 V | >102 | 60 | 104 s | [48] |
| Azurin-CdSe/ZnS QDs | Azurin-CdSe/ZnS/Au | RRAM | 2/0.3 V | 103 | 50 | – | [53] |
| Silk fibroin-CdSe QDs | Al/CdSe-CF/ITO | Multilevel RRAM |
0.17/0.03 V | 103 | 50 | 104 s | [54] |
| Carbon dots (CDs)-silk protein | Ag/CDs-silk/ITO | RRAM | 0.5/–0.9 V | >106 | 100 | 106 s | [56] |
| MoS2 -DNA | MoS2 -DNA/Au | RRAM | 2.4/0.01 V | – | – | 10 days | [57] |
| Carboxymethyl cellulose-graphene oxide | Al/CMC-GO/Al | Flexible RRAM (WORM) |
2.22 V | 105 | – | >104 s | [58] |
| DNA- cetyltrimethylam- monium (CTMA) |
Ag/DNA-CTMA/ITO | RRAM (WORM) (WREM) |
1 ~ 4/–2~-9 V | – | 200 | >104 s | [62] |
| Starch−chitosan | Au/starch−chitosan/ITO-PET | Flexible RRAM |
0.9/–1.6 V | >102 | 200 | >104 s | [64] |
| Wool keratin (WK)@AuNCs- Silk Fibroin | Ag/WK@AuNCs-SF/ITO | RRAM | 0.3/–0.3 V | 102 | – | >104 s | [28] |