Compositional dependence of cation impurity gettering in Hg1−xCdxTe
- 26 Downloads
- 4 Citations
Abstract
Cation impurity gettering in Hg1−xCdxTe is described in the context of process models which include the interactions of the impurities and the dominant native point defects. Experimental results are presented using secondary ion mass spectroscopy (SIMS) profiles of Au redistribution in Hg1−xCdxTe (x = 0.2,0.3,0.4) following Hg anneals and ion mills, which are processes known to inject excess Hg interstitials. In either process, the IB impurity distributes preferentially to high vacancy regions. The junction depth of the low to high impurity transition is determined by SIMS. For Hg-rich anneals of Au-doped high vacancy concentration material, the impurity junction behavior with respect to anneal time and temperature is compared to that expected for type converted electrical junctions in vacancy-only material. For milled Au-doped Hg0.7Cd0.3Te with a high vacancy concentration, the impurity junction depths are approximately proportional to the amount of material removed, as was the case with x = 0.2 material. Hg anneal type-conversion rates are found to have a strong compositional dependence which compares favorably with the strong self-diffusion coefficient dependence on x-value. In contrast, the mill conversion rate has a weak x-value dependence. Effects of trace vs dominant Au levels compared to the background vacancy concentration are quantified. True decoration of intrinsic defect processes requires Au <<[Cation Vacancies].
Key words
Defect interactions HgCdTe impurity gettering native point defectsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.H.R. Vydyanath,J. Electrochem. Soc. 128, 2609 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.H.F. Schaake,J. Electron. Mater. 14, 513 (1985).Google Scholar
- 3.N.A. Archer, H.D. Palfrey and A.F.W. Willoughby,J. Electron. Mater. 22, 967 (1993).Google Scholar
- 4.N.A. Archer, H.D. Palfrey and A.F.W. Willoughby,J. Cryst. Growth 117, 177 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.N. Archer and H. Palfrey,J. Electron. Mater. 20, 419 (1991).Google Scholar
- 6.Mei-Fan Sung Tang, Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University (1987).Google Scholar
- 7.D.A. Stevenson and M-F.S. Tang,J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 9, 1615 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.M. Brown and A.F.W. Willoughby,J. Cryst. Growth 59, 27 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.CL. Jones, M.J.T. Quelch, P. Capper and J.J. Gosney,J. Appl. Phys. 53, (1982).Google Scholar
- 10.John-Sea Chen, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southern California (1985).Google Scholar
- 11.D.T. Dutton, E. O’Keefe, P. Capper, C.L. Jones, S. Mugford and C. Ard,Semicond. Sci. Technol. 8, S266 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.J.L. Meléndez and C.R. Helms,J. Electron. Mater. 24, 565 (1995).Google Scholar
- 13.J.L. Meléndez and C.R. Helms,J. Electron. Mater. 24, 573 (1995).Google Scholar
- 14.J.L. Meléndez,, Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University (1993).Google Scholar
- 15.S. Holander, V. Sabnis, J. Hasan, J. Meléndez and C.R. Helms,SUMerCad Process Simulator Software, Stanford University (1994).Google Scholar
- 16.J.L. Meléndez, C.R. Helms, J. Tregilgas and J. Elkind,SPJE 228, 106 (1994).Google Scholar
- 17.H.R. Vydyanath and C.H. Hiner,J. Appl. Phys. 65, 3080 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.R.F. Brebrick and J.P. Schwartz,J. Electron. Mater. 9, 771 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.G.L. Hansen and J.L. Schmit,J. Appl. Phys. 54,1639 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.L.O. Bubulac, W.E. Tennant, R.A. Riedel, J. Bajaj and D.D. Edwall,J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 1, 1646 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.H.F. Schaake, J.H. Tregilgas, J.D. Beck, M.A. Kinch and B.E.Gnade,J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 3, 143 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar