Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-wpx69 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-20T11:32:14.095Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Surface Termination of the Ge(100) and Si(100) Surfaces by Using DHF Solution Dipping

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2011

M. Sakuraba ,
T. Matsuura  and
J. Murota
M. Sakuraba
Affiliation:
Laboratory for Electronic Intelligent Systems, Research Institute of Electrical Communication, Tohoku University, 2-1-1 Katahira, Aoba-ku, Sendai 980-8577, JAPAN, Fax: +81-22-217-5565, E-mail:sakuraba@riec.tohoku.ac.jp
T. Matsuura
Affiliation:
Laboratory for Electronic Intelligent Systems, Research Institute of Electrical Communication, Tohoku University, 2-1-1 Katahira, Aoba-ku, Sendai 980-8577, JAPAN, Fax: +81-22-217-5565, E-mail:sakuraba@riec.tohoku.ac.jp
J. Murota
Affiliation:
Laboratory for Electronic Intelligent Systems, Research Institute of Electrical Communication, Tohoku University, 2-1-1 Katahira, Aoba-ku, Sendai 980-8577, JAPAN, Fax: +81-22-217-5565, E-mail:sakuraba@riec.tohoku.ac.jp
Get access

Abstract

Surface termination of Ge(100) and Si(100) was investigated after diluted HF (DHF) solution dipping. On the Ge(100) surface as picked up from DHF, Ge-hydride was observed only in the HF concentration (CHF) region above 10%. The adsorbed fluorine increased with increasing CHF, and the concentration reached around 1014 cm−2 at the CHF of 40-50%. In the case of the DHF dipped Si(100) surface, Si-hydride and hydrophobicity against both DHF and deionized water (DIW) were observed for all the conditions studied, while the fluorine concentration increased and saturated to about 1014 cm−2 in the CHF region above 15%. Hydrophobicity against DHF was observed in the CHF region of 10-30%, but degraded below 5% and above 30%. By transferring the DHF dipped Ge(100) into DIW, hydrophobicity appeared within a few seconds and then was degraded with increase of DIW dipping time. The degradation proceeded slower after dipped in higher concentration DHF. Corresponding to the degradation, it was observed that the total amount of the adsorbed fluoride was gradually decreasing, while the Ge-hydride coverage scarcely decreased. From these results, hydrophobicity of Ge(100) seems to be attributed not only to the hydrogen termination but also to the fluoride adsorption, which is much different from the case of Si(100).

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 535: Symposium D/I – III-V and IV-IV Materials & Processing Challenges for Highly… , 1998 , 281
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1999

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. Iyer, S. S., Patton, G. L., Stork, J. M. C., Meyerson, B. S., and Harame, D. L., IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, ED-36, 2043 (1989).Google Scholar
2. Bean, J. C., in Proceedings of IEEE, Vol.80, p. 571 (1992).Google Scholar
3. Meyerson, B. S., Vol.80, p. 1592 (1992).Google Scholar
4. Sakuraba, M., Murota, J., Mikoshiba, N., and Ono, S., J. Crystal Growth, 115, 79 (1991).Google Scholar
5. Murota, J., Sakuraba, M., and Ono, S., Appl. Phys. Lett. 62, 2353 (1993).Google Scholar
6. Murota, J., Sakuraba, M., Watanabe, T., Matsuura, T., and Sawada, Y., J. Phys. IV France 5, C5-1101 (1995).Google Scholar
7. Watanabe, T., Sakuraba, M., Matsuura, T., and Murota, J., Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 36, 4042 (1997).Google Scholar
8. Kobayashi, S., Sakuraba, M., Matsuura, T., Murota, J., and Mikoshiba, N., J. Crystal Growth 174, 686 (1997).Google Scholar
9. Chabal, Y. J., Surf. Sci. 168, 594 (1986).Google Scholar
10. Takahagi, T., Nagai, I., Ishitani, A., Kuroda, H., and Nagasawa, Y., J. Appl. Phys. 64, 3516 (1988).Google Scholar
11. Sakuraba, M., Murota, J., and Ono, S., J. Appl. Phys. 75, 3701 (1994).Google Scholar
12. Papagno, L., Shen, X. Y., Anderson, J., Spagnolo, G. S., and Lapeyre, G. J., Phys. Rev. B 34,Google Scholar
13. Kobayashi, S., Cheng, M-L., Kohlhase, A., Sato, T., Murota, J., and Mikoshiba, N., J. Crystal Growth 99, 259 (1990).Google Scholar
14. Sakuraba, M., Matsuura, T., and Murota, J., Proc. of the 5th Int. Symp. on Cleaning Technology in Semiconductor Device Manufacturing (The Electrochem. Soc., Pennington, NJ), Vol.PV97–35, pp. 213–220 (1997).Google Scholar
15. Sheldon, B. W. and Haggerty, J. S., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 74, 1417 (1991).Google Scholar
16. Vatel, O., Verhaverbeke, S., Bender, H., Caymax, M., Chollet, F., Vermeire, B., Mertens, P., Andre, E., and Heyns, M., Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 32, L1489 (1993).Google Scholar
17. Ishida, S., and M. Miyamoto (private communication).Google Scholar
18. Peignon, M. C., Cardinaud, Ch., Turban, G., Charles, C., and Boswell, R. W., J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 14, 156 (1996).Google Scholar
19. Chuang, T. J., J. Appl. Phys. 51, 2614 (1980).Google Scholar
20. Wagner, C. D., Riggs, W. M., Davis, L. E., Moulder, J. F., and Muilenberg, G. E., Handbook of X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (Perkin-Elmer Corporation, Eden Prairie, MN, 1978), p.169.Google Scholar