Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T15:38:50.674Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Surface States on Secondary Electron (SE) Dopant Contrast from Silicon p-n Junctions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Augustus K. W. Chee ,
Conny Rodenburg  and
Colin John Humphreys
Augustus K. W. Chee
Affiliation:
kwac2@eng.cam.ac.uk, University of Cambridge, Department of Materials Science and Metallurgy, Pembroke Street, Cambridge, CB2 3QZ, United Kingdom, +44 1223 334 368
Conny Rodenburg
Affiliation:
c.rodenburg@sheffield.co.uk, University of Sheffield, Department of Engineering Materials, Mappin Street, Sheffield, S1 3JD, United Kingdom
Colin John Humphreys
Affiliation:
colin.humphreys@msm.cam.ac.uk, University of Cambridge, Department of Materials Science and Metallurgy, Pembroke Street, Cambridge, CB2 3QZ, United Kingdom
Get access

Abstract

Detailed computer modelling using finite-element analysis was performed for Si p-n junctions to investigate the effects of surface states and doping concentrations on surface band-bending, surface junction potentials and external patch fields. The density of surface states was determined for our Si specimens with a native oxide layer. Our calculations show that for a typical density of surface states for a Si specimen with a native oxide layer, the effects of external patch fields are negligible and the SE doping contrast is due to the built-in voltage across the p-n junction modified by surface band-bending. There is a good agreement between the experimental doping contrast and the calculated junction potential just below the surface, taking into account surface states, for a wide range of doping concentrations.

Keywords

scanning electron microscopy (SEM)Sidopant
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1026: Symposium C – Quantitative Electron Microscopy for Materials Science , 2007 , 1026-C04-02
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2008

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.)

References

1. Venables, D., Jain, H. and Collins, D. C., J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 16(1), 362–366, (1998)10.1116/1.589811Google Scholar
2. Perovic, D. D., Turan, R. and Castell, M. R., The Electron (IOP Communications, London), (1998)Google Scholar
3. Elliott, S. L., Broom, R. F. and Humphreys, C. J., J. Appl. Phys. 91(11), 9116, (2002)10.1063/1.1476968Google Scholar
4. Sealy, C. P., Castell, M. R. and Wilshaw, P. R., J. Electron Microsc. 49(2), 311, (2000)10.1093/oxfordjournals.jmicro.a023811Google Scholar
5. Kazemian, P., Mentink, S.A.M., Rodenburg, C. and Humphreys, C.J., J. Appl. Phys. 100(5), 054901, (2006)10.1063/1.2335980Google Scholar
6. Grant, J. T. P. and Haneman, D., Surf. Sci. 15(42), 117 (1969)10.1016/0039-6028(69)90070-3Google Scholar
7. Reimer, L., Scanning Electron Microscopy: Physics of image formation and microanalysis, Springer-Verlag, (1986)Google Scholar
8. Goldstein, J., Newbury, D., Joy, D., Lyman, C., Echlin, P., Lifshin, E., Sawyer, L. and Michael, J. Scanning Electron Microscopy and X-ray Microanalysis 3rd ed. (Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, New York), (2003)10.1007/978-1-4615-0215-9Google Scholar
9. Sze, S. M., Semiconductor Devices Physics and Technology, John Wiley & Sons, (1985)Google Scholar
10. Allen, F.G. and Gobeli, G. W., Phys. Rev. 127(1) 150 (1962)Google Scholar