Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T15:37:59.518Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Comparative Optical Studies of Cu, Mn, and C Impurities in Bulk Lec grown GaAs by Electron Beam Electroreflectance (EBER) and Photoluminescence (PL).

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2011

M. H. Herman
Affiliation:
Charles Evans & Associates, Redwood City, CA 94063
P. J. Pearah
Affiliation:
Spectrum Technology, Holliston, MA 01746
K. Elcess
Affiliation:
Charles Evans & Associates, Redwood City, CA 94063
I. D. Ward
Affiliation:
Charles Evans & Associates, Redwood City, CA 94063
Get access

Abstract

We have used 300K Electron Beam Electroreflectance (EBER) and 4. 2K photoluminescence (PL) to measure optical transitions in a series of LEC grown GaAs samples. The contaminants primarily consisted of the individual elements Cu, Mn, and C at levels above 1016/cm3. In unmodified control samples we find evidence of strong excitonic effects in the EBER lineshape even at 300K. For the contaminated samples, we find characteristic impurity transitions below the E0 bandgap of the GaAs in both optical spectroscopies. However, in general the estimated impurity binding energies by EBER are not equivalent to established PL or DLTS values. Specifically, from EBER data we find below E0 (1.424eV at 300K) a Cu peak near 49meV (1.375eV) and a C peak about 39meV (1.385eV) below E0 . An EBER spectrum of the Cu-contaminated sample at 124K shows an asymmetric Cu impurity peak 47meV below E0 . The C feature has been ascribed to either Si or Ge from corresponding PL energies by several earlier researchers. Two samples which had been implanted with Mn and annealed show a peak about 43meV below E0 (1.381eV), and what appears to be a sharp, excitonic transition 10 to 16meV above the E0 . Although these features may be due to Mn alone, the latter observation is suggestive of strain-induced valence band splitting.

The correlated appearance of impurity peaks below the split-off E00 band may allow their assignment to either donors or acceptors in modulated reflectance studies [1,2]. None of the present cases showed corresponding transitions below E00 , suggesting that the observed impurity features arise only from acceptor transitions. Alternatively, the reduction of light penetration into the GaAs above the E0 bandgap, reducing the sample interaction volume, may also explain this null observation.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1990

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 Cardona, M., Shaklee, K. L. & Pollak, F. H., Phys. Rev. 154 (3) 696, 1967.Google Scholar
2 Williams, E. W., Solid State Comm. 7, 541, 1969.Google Scholar
3 See for example Ashen, D. J., Dean, P. J., Hurle, D. T. J., Mullin, J. B., White, A. M. & Greene, P. D., J. Phys. Chem. Solids 36 10411053, 1975.Google Scholar
4 See for example Herman, M. H., Ward, I. D., Buttrill, S. E. Jr. and Francke, G. L., “Characterization of III-V Semiconductor Structures Using Electron Beam Electroreflectance (EBER) Spectroscopy,” MRS 144, 21–26, 1989. Also see M. H. Herman and I. D. Ward, “Characterization of GaAs-based Heterostructures Using Electron Beam Electroreflectance (EBER) Spectroscopy,” proceedings of the 16th International GaAs and Related Materials Conference, Karuizawa Japan, 1989, in press.Google Scholar
5 Seraphin, B. O., J. Appl. Phys. 37 (2) 721, 1966.Google Scholar
6 Seraphin, B. O., Proc. Phys. Soc. London 87, 239, 1966.Google Scholar
7 Glembocki, O. J., Bottka, N., & Furneau, J. E., J. Appl. Phys. 57 (2) 432, 1985.Google Scholar
8 Pikhtin, A. N., Airaksinen, V.-M., Lopsanen, H., & Tuomi, T., J. Appl. Phys. 65 (6) 2556, 1989.Google Scholar
9 Herman, M. H., Bowman, R. C., Smith, D. D., and Moss, S. C., and Chand, N., “Observation of Impurities in GaAs by Electron Beam Electroreflectance (EBER),” presented at the American Physical Society meeting in St. Louis, MO during March 20–24, 1989.Google Scholar
10 See for example the discussion by Bube, R. H., Electrons in solids Academic Press: New York, pp 126127.Google Scholar
11 Williams, E. W. & Rehn, V., Phvs. Rev. 172 (3), 1968.Google Scholar
12 Pearah, P. J., Tobin, R., Tower, J. P., Ware, R. M., Sargent, L., Blakemore, J. S., Proc. of Semi-Insulating III-V Materials. Grossmann, G. and Ledebo, L., eds., Adam Hilger, Bristol, 1988, p. 195.Google Scholar
13 Raccah, P. M., Garland, J. W., Buttrill, S. E. Jr., Franke, L., Jackson, J., Appl. Phvs. Lett. 52 (19) 1584, 1988.Google Scholar
14 See the excitonic peak present in the 300K absorption data, discussed by Blakemore, J. S., J. Appl. Phys. 53 (10) R123R181, 1982.Google Scholar
15 The 39meV peak has been ascribed to C in earlier ER studies. See for example Tober, R. L., Pamulapati, J., Bhattacharya, P. K. & Oh, J. E., Journal of Electronic Materials 18 (3) 379384, 1989.Google Scholar
16 Bowman, R. C. Jr., Adams, P. M., Herman, M. H., & Buttrill, S. E., “Effects of rapid thermal anneals on boron implanted GaAs,” Materials Research Society, MRS 144, 471–6, 1989.Google Scholar
17 Eagles, D. M., J. Phys. Chem. Solids. 16 76, 1960.Google Scholar
18 Williams, E. W., Solid State Comm. 4, 585, 1966.Google Scholar