Hostname: page-component-669899f699-vbsjw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-05T17:53:57.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Dependence of ETCH Pit Density on the Interfacial Oxygen Levels in Thin Silicon Layers Grown by Ultra High Vacuum Chemical Vapor Deposition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2011

Manu J. Tejwani  and
Paul A. Ronsheim
Manu J. Tejwani
Affiliation:
IBM, Semiconductor Research and Devlopement Center, East Fishkill, NY 12533
Paul A. Ronsheim
Affiliation:
IBM, Semiconductor Research and Devlopement Center, East Fishkill, NY 12533
Get access

Abstract

For low temperature silicon epitaxy it is not only important to have an oxygen free environment during growth but also an initial silicon surface free of trace concentrations of oxygen, carbon and other impurities. Variations in the pre-clean process (using the standard ex-situ aqueous hydrofluoric acid dip) used for ultra high vacuum chemical vapor depostion (UHVCVD) of silicon, result in interfacial oxygen levels ranging from 2 × 1012atoms/cm2 to 1014atoms/cm2 as measured by secondary ion ion mass spectroscopy (SIMS). Using a dilute Schimmel etch we have delineated the dislocations in the thin silicon epitaxial layers grown by UHVCVD. Correlation of the etch pit density to the interfacial oxygen levels suggests a power law dependence. Plausibility arguments are presented to explain this power law dependence.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 259: Symposium B – Chemical Surface Preparation, Passivation and Cleaning for Semiconductor Growth and Processing , 1992 , 467
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

1. Thornton, J. M. C. and Williams, R. H., Semicon. Sci. Intl. 4, 847(1989)Google Scholar
2. Higashi, G. S., Chabal, Y. J., Trucks, G. W., and Raghavachari, K., Appl. Phys. Lett 56, 656(1990)Google Scholar
3. Hirashita, N., Kinoshita, M., Aikawa, I., and Aijoka, T., Appl. Phys. Lett 56, 451(1990)Google Scholar
4. Meyerson, B.S, Himpsel, F. J., and Uram, K. J., Appl. Phys. Lett. 57, 1034 (1990). S. Iyer, M Arienzo, and E. de Fresart,, Appl. Phys. Lett., 57, 893(1990).Google Scholar
5. Comfort, J., ECS Meeting Extended Abstracts 91–2, 827 (1991)Google Scholar
6. Danilchuck, L. N. and Georgiev, A. I., Soy. Phys. Cryst. 11, 349 (1966)Google Scholar
7. Sedgwick, T. O. and Agnello, P. D., ECS Meeting, Extended abstracts, 1990 Google Scholar
8. Lou, I. C. and Oldham, W. G., J. Appl. Phys. 70, 685 (1991)Google Scholar
9. Tuppen, C. O., Gibbings, C. J., and Hockly, M., 3. Cryst. Growth, 94, 394 (1989)Google Scholar
10. Kuan, T. S. and Bretz, K., unpublishedGoogle Scholar