## 4 Conclusions  
It was apparent that smoother slow-filtered films (T = 80%) have the potential to produce better performing CNT/Si devices than devices with fast-filtered films (T = 50%). However, inhomogeneity in the results meant that, on average, devices with fast-filtered films performed better. When thinner CNT films were used, slow-filtered films were found to produce CNT/Si devices that performed at a similar level to devices produced with fast-filtered films despite the slow-filtered films being thinner than the fast-filtered films. This indicates that the smooth nature of the films allows for an improved CNT-Si contact and improved charge production and extraction capability despite a thinner film being used. The slow-filtered SWCNT films were found to produce superior \(\sigma_{\text{dc}}\):\(\sigma_{\text{OP}}\) ratios at high transmittance (>90%), indicating that when the CNT films are very thin slow-filtration produces a better thin film conductor.  
This is an important conclusion as it has been determined from previous research that the performance of the CNT/Si device rapidly drops off at film transmittance above 90% as the sheet resistance increases [44]. Clearly, highly transparent and still highly conducting films are of great value and this work shows that a slow filtration approach has the potential to produce high quality transparent films. With improvements in reproducibility, it is clear that the CNT films could be used as thin film conductors for other applications such as gas sensing, display screens, and OLEDs.  
[PERSON], [PERSON] and [PERSON] carried out the investigations and undertook the data analysis. [PERSON] and [PERSON] conceptualised and supervised the project and [PERSON] was also responsible for funding acquisition. [PERSON] and [PERSON] were responsible for the writing--original draft preparation while all authors were involved in writing--review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. This research was funded by the AUSTRALIAN RESEARCH COUNCIL, grant number DP150101354 and DP160101301. We acknowledge the use of the South Australian nodes of Microscopy Australia (formerly known as the Australian Microscopy & Microanalysis Research Facility) and the Australian National Fabrication Facility (ANFF) at Flanders University. The support of the Australian Research Council Discovery Program (DP150101354 and DP160101301) is gratefully acknowledged.  
**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \%**T(450–800)** & \%**T(550)** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Sheet Resistance after Thionyl** \\ **Chloride Doping (f)** \\ \end{tabular} & \(\sigma_{\text{dc}}\):\(\sigma_{\text{OP}}\) **Ratio** \\ \hline Slow Films & 95 & 95.3 & \(2240\pm 1760\) & 0.081953 \\ Slow Films & 97 & 97.9 & \(2870\pm 930\) & 0.064665 \\ Fast Films & 85 & 84.7 & \(3930\pm 960\) & 0.043994 \\ Fast Films & 95 & 97.9 & \(4300\pm 151\) & 0.043187 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: \(\sigma_{\text{dc}}\):\(\sigma_{\text{OP}}\) ratio calculations for slow and fast-filtered films of similar %T. Sheet resistance values calculated after a thionyl chloride dope.