Characterization of the inverted Ga0.52In0.48P/GaAs (001) junctions using current–voltage and capacitance–voltage measurements

Abstract

Al /u :GaAs /n :Ga 0.52 In 0.48 P inverted-structure (GaAs on top) Schottky diodes on n+ GaAs (001) substrates have been grown by gas source molecular beam epitaxy with several GaAs thicknesses from 10 to 100 nm. The barrier height determined by the capacitance versus voltage method is substantially higher than the barrier height determined by the current versus voltage method. These results suggest that there is a negative interface charge 6–8×1011/cm−2 at the GaAs/Ga0.52In0.48P interface, which is opposite in sign to the interface charge at the normal structure of the Ga0.52In0.48P/GaAs heterojunction reported previously.

Band offsets of InGaP∕GaAs heterojunctions by scanning tunneling spectroscopy

“…Results for a GaAs-on-InGaP interface are consistent with these values, although much greater uncertainty occurs in that case due to the presence of extrinsic (charged) surface states. Comparing our result to prior measurements of the band offsets, [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] we note that some spread exists in those values but our result is near the middle of that range. It is also notable that our values are in fairly good agreement with the theoretical results of Froyen et al 19 of 0.37 and 0.12 eV for the VB and CB, respectively.…”

“…9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18 Varying degrees of ordering in different samples could be one reason leading to these discrepancies of CB offset values, 19 with InGaP films grown by metal-organic chemical vapor deposition exhibiting more ordering than films grown by gas-source molecular beam epitaxy. 20,21 In addition, the heterointerface may also be InGaAs-like or GaP-like, thus providing another possible source of variation in band offset results.…”

Cross-sectional scanning tunneling microscopy and spectroscopy of InGaP/GaAs heterojunctions

“…There are several groups who have reported small conduction band offsets with GSMBE InGaP samples, varying from 0.03 to 0.12 eV (type I) [3,5,9,17,18,19]. Froyen et al [20] theoretically predicted a conduction band offset of 0.12 eV (type I) between GaAs and fully disordered InGaP layer.…”

“…However, there exist discrepancies between band offsets results obtained by different techniques for samples grown by different methods/groups. It is known that properties of the interface depend sensitively on the detailed growth conditions [2][3][4][5][6]. Prior experimental techniques used in this system are not spatially resolved and in order to better understand this material system a study of the atomic-scale structural and electronic properties of the junctions is useful.…”

Thermodynamical analysis of abrupt interfaces of InGaP/GaAs and GaAs/InGaP heterostructures

“…The preparation of this structure is however more difficult particularly as regards the aspect of growing homogeneous material and obtaining abrupt interfaces between heterolayers of arsenide/phosphide materials [4][5][6][7]. Regarding the first problem InGaP has an ordered phase at composition near In 0.5 Ga 0.5 P coexisting with the disordered one [8][9][10]; the causes of the second phenomenon are still under investigation, and the preparation of sharp interfaces GaAs on InGaP (direct interface) or its contrary (inverse interface) is a very difficult process; the reason for this has been imputed to a generic volatility of hydride species and since a precise cause is lacking, everyone has developed a particular growth process to overcome this problem [11][12][13].…”