Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-20T22:16:30.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Native Oxide Growth Behavior on Silicon Surface with Various Resistivity in Ultrapure Water and CuF2 Solution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2011

Katsuyuki Sekine
Affiliation:
Department of Electronic Engineering, Tohoku University, Sendai 980-77, Japan
Geun-Min Choi
Affiliation:
Memory R&D Division, Hyundai Electronics Co., LTD, San 136-1 Ami-Ri Bubal-Eub, Kyoungki-Do, 467–701, Korea
Yuji Saito
Affiliation:
Department of Electronic Engineering, Tohoku University, Sendai 980-77, Japan
Tadahiro Ohmi
Affiliation:
Department of Electronic Engineering, Tohoku University, Sendai 980-77, Japan
Get access

Abstract

We have studied native oxide growth behavior on silicon surface with various resistivity in ultra pure water (UPW), SPM (sulfuric acid-hydrogen peroxide mixture, H2SO4:H2O2 = 4:1) cleaning and UPW contaminated with CuF2 by X-Ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS). The results show that the native oxide growth behavior in UPW is different from that in UPW contaminated with CuF2 and that grown by SPM cleaning. Native oxide thickness grown in UPW depends on resistivity. Native oxide thickness grown during SPM cleaning has the relationship of steric hinderance effect. However, in CuF2 solution, native oxide thickness is more influenced by the redox reaction between Cu ions and silicon atoms.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1997

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. Maeda, A. S. and Ogino, M., in Extended Abstract of 169th Electrochmical Society Meeting, Boston, 372, (1986).Google Scholar
2. Hattori, T. and Igarshi, T., Ohi, M. and Yamagishi, H.: Jpn. J.Appl. Phys. 28, 1436 (1989).10.1143/JJAP.28.L1436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Morita, M., Ohmi, T., Hasegawa, E., Kawakami, M. and M.Google Scholar
4. Ohwada, : J. Appl. Phys. 68, 1272 (1990).Google Scholar
5. Ermolieff, A., Martin, F., Amouroux, A., Marthon, S. and Westendorp, J. F. M.: Semicond. Sci. Technol. 6, 98 (1991).10.1088/0268-1242/6/2/005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Hirose, M., Yasaka, T., Hiroshima, M., Takakura, M. and Miyazaki, S.: Mat. Res. Soc. symp. Proc. 315, 367 (1993)10.1557/PROC-315-367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Morita, M., Ohmi, T.: Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 33, 370 (1994)10.1143/JJAP.33.370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Hi, T., Ourmazd, A., Tayor, D.W. and Rentschler, A.: the American Physical Society 59, 213 (1987).Google Scholar
9. Himpsel, F. J., McFree, F. R., Taleb-Ibrahimi, A. Yarmaff, J. A., “Microscopic structure of Si/SiO2 interface,” Phys. Rev., B38, No.9, 6084 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Cabrera, N. and Motto, N. F., Rep. Prog. Phys. 12,163 (1949).10.1088/0034-4885/12/1/308CrossRefGoogle Scholar