Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nmvwc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T23:01:28.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Degradation of Luminescence from GaN During Electron Bombardment: Effects of Beam Voltage, Current and Scanned Area

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 March 2011

E. M. Campo
Affiliation:
Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA 18015
G. S. Cargill III
Affiliation:
Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA 18015, gsc3@lehigh.edu
J. Ramer
Affiliation:
EMCORE Corp., Somerset, NJ 08873
M. Schurman
Affiliation:
EMCORE Corp., Somerset, NJ 08873
I. T. Ferguson
Affiliation:
EMCORE Corp., Somerset, NJ 08873
Get access

Abstract

Near-band-edge cathodoluminescence emission for some nominally undoped GaN samples decreases with time during electron bombardment in a scanning electron microscope. The rate of decrease depends on the incident beam voltage and current and on the size of the area being scanned, which is determined by the magnification used for the scanning electron microscope. Faster intensity decreases occur with lower beam voltages (10kV versus 20kV), higher beam currents (600nA or 200nA versus 35nA) and smaller scanned areas (120K magnification versus 15K magnification). For larger scanned areas, the maximum luminescence intensity occurs 10's or 100's of seconds after the start of electron bombardment, and the intensity then decreases with further bombardment. In some cases the size of the degraded region is larger than the bombarded area. These observations suggest that the degradation is caused by electromigration of impurities or other charged defects within the GaN resulting from local charging by electron bombardment.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2001

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

REFERENCES

[1] Toth, M., Fleischer, K., and Phillips, M. R., Phys. Rev. B 59, 1575 (1999).Google Scholar
[2] X. Li. Gu, S. Q., Reuter, E. E., Verdeyen, J. T., Bishop, S. G., and Coleman, J. J., J. Appl. Phys. 80, 2687 (1996).Google Scholar
[3] Chao, L. L., Cargill, G. S. III, and Kothandaraman, C., MRS Symp. Proc. 449, 719 (1997).Google Scholar
[4] Cargill, G. S. III, Campo, E., Yue, L., Ramer, J., Schurman, M., and Ferguson, I. T., MRS Symp. Proc. 622, T5.2.1 (2000).Google Scholar
[5] Fleischer, K., Toth, M., Phillips, M. R., Zou, J., Li, G. and Chua, S. J., Appl. Phys. Lett. 74, 1114 (1999).Google Scholar