Photothermal Activation of Shallow Dopants Implanted in Silicon

Fiory, A. T.; Stevenson, B. A.; Agarwal, Aditya; Ravindra, Nuggehalli M.

doi:10.1007/s11664-007-0259-5

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some laboratories examined the electrical activation of implanted dopants (which is loosely related to diffusion), but observed similar variability in the results. 8 Better progress has been made for surface diffusion, where experiments that fully decoupled heating from illumination showed that low-level photostimulation can affect the diffusion of adsorbed Ge and In on Si(111) by nearly an order of magnitude. 9,10 The experiments also showed clear correlation between doping type and diffusion.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement of photostimulated self-diffusion in silicon

Seebauer¹,

Jung

Kwok

et al. 2011

Journal of Applied Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Photostimulated diffusion within solid semiconductors has been examined for many years, but its existence above room temperature has not been unambiguously confirmed. Here, diffusion rates for silicon self-diffusion are shown to change by factors of up to 25 in response to optical fluxes on the order of 1 W/cm 2 . Results depend on doping type; the rates of both interstitial formation and migration are affected in the case of n-type material. A model based on photostimulated changes in defect charge state explains the primary results, and the basic outlines should apply to a wide variety of semiconductors.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement of photostimulated self-diffusion in silicon

Seebauer¹,

Jung

Kwok

et al. 2011

Journal of Applied Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because the athermal component of annealing is less than about 10-20% of the thermal component, from an experimental point of view, it is quite challenging to design the experiment where the light component is completely separated from the thermal component of annealing. For example, Fiory [4] used wafers implanted on both sides and stacked with a second light shielding wafer. The problem with this type of experiment is that the temperature and energy of incident photons of exposed and shielded surface differs significantly.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Light-Induced Annealing of Silicon Implanted Layers

Lojek

2008

MSF

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since introducing Rapid Thermal Annealing, there has been disagreement among experimental data of ion-implanted and annealed layers. One explanation of these differences is the impact of optical irradiation and its interaction with semiconductor material. Although no plausible explanation has been offered, experimental evidence of “photonic effects” was reported in many works. In this work we estimate energy per atom available during recombination of the excited carriers. It is argued that the localization of energy states inside the band gap in ion-implant damaged material is responsible for “photonic effects.”

show abstract

“…1 The optical stimulation was long thought to supply heating alone, although scattered experimental evidence had hinted at additional nonthermal influences on diffusion and activation of phosphorous, 2 arsenic, [3][4][5] and boron. 4,[6][7][8] However, the experiments were difficult to interpret reliably because lamps supplied the heating, thereby complicating the decoupling of heating and photostimulation effects. Some progress was achieved in quantifying photoenhanced diffusion in II-VI semiconductors (using computational methods) 9 and a-Si:H (experimentally), 10 yet the understanding of the photostimulated dopant diffusion in c-Si remained inadequate.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Interface-Mediated Photostimulation Effects on Diffusion and Activation of Boron Implanted into Silicon

Kondratenko

Seebauer

2013

ECS J. Solid State Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent work has demonstrated the existence of nonthermal illumination effects on the diffusion of boron, arsenic, and isotopic silicon ion-implanted into silicon for ultra-shallow junction applications. In some cases, the degree of electrical activation is affected as well. The effects arise from super-bandgap light's direct action on bulk point defects via changes in their charge state. By contrast, the present work demonstrates the existence of a distinct mechanism whereby light acts indirectly on bulk defects via changes at a nearby interface. The changes occur in interfacial annihilation probability and/or electric potential, and affect the efficiency with which the interface absorbs point defects emitted by extended end-of-range defects during annealing.Formation of shallow pn junctions for integrated circuits requires ion implantation of dopants followed by annealing to reduce implantation damage and to promote electrical activation of the dopants. Annealing technology relies upon rapid heating by incandescent lamps, flash lamps or lasers. 1 The optical stimulation was long thought to supply heating alone, although scattered experimental evidence had hinted at additional nonthermal influences on diffusion and activation of phosphorous, 2 arsenic, 3-5 and boron. 4,6-8 However, the experiments were difficult to interpret reliably because lamps supplied the heating, thereby complicating the decoupling of heating and photostimulation effects. Some progress was achieved in quantifying photoenhanced diffusion in II-VI semiconductors (using computational methods) 9 and a-Si:H (experimentally), 10 yet the understanding of the photostimulated dopant diffusion in c-Si remained inadequate. This laboratory has employed a novel experimental configuration to eliminate the ambiguity, and has thereby demonstrated the influences of low-intensity (<1 W/cm 2 ) super-bandgap illumination − first on the surface diffusion of various adsorbates on Si, 11,12 and subsequently on the bulk self-diffusion of Si 13,15 as well as the bulk diffusion and electrical activation of As and B implanted into silicon. 14 As first suggested for surface diffusion 11,12,15,16 and later modeled quantitatively for bulk Si self-diffusion, 13 photostimulation can influence diffusional flux rates by changing the average electrical charge state of point defects involved with diffusion, although the exact mechanism depends upon the specific case. For surface diffusion of Group III, IV and V elements on Si, the mass flux is carried by adatoms that can be rendered immobile by substitution into the top layer of the substrate. Escape from this substitutional state leaves behind a surface vacancy that can take on a variety of charge states depending upon the local concentrations of electrons and holes. Photostimulation exerts its influence by changing these carrier concentrations, which propagates into the average charge state of the vacancies, then into the effective formation energy for creating an adatom and vacancy, and finally into the concentration of ad...

show abstract

Photothermal Activation of Shallow Dopants Implanted in Silicon

Cited by 4 publications

References 25 publications

Measurement of photostimulated self-diffusion in silicon

Measurement of photostimulated self-diffusion in silicon

A Light-Induced Annealing of Silicon Implanted Layers

Interface-Mediated Photostimulation Effects on Diffusion and Activation of Boron Implanted into Silicon

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About