2006
DOI: 10.1116/1.2132319
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ultrashallow profiling using secondary ion mass spectrometry: Estimating junction depth error using mathematical deconvolution

Abstract: Depth profiling of ultrashallow B implants in silicon using a magnetic-sector secondary ion mass spectrometry instrument J.As implant energies get lower and lower, significant errors can be present in junction depth measurements in secondary ion mass spectrometry ͑SIMS͒ ultrashallow depth profiling. Primary beam ion mixing is one of the main sources of errors leading to overestimation of junction depths in SIMS measurements. In this article, we systematically study the correlations between the implant profile … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
4
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2009
2009

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
1
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This is consistent with surface manganese oxide, in agreement with other reports [16] and the broad UV-vis peak below 500 nm (figure 1) [19]. Therefore, to avoid introduction of Mn due to beam-induced mixing [20], and to focus on the Mn that has been incorporated into Si exclusively by the UV process, the UV-irradiated samples were Pirhana cleaned to remove any Mn-rich surface contaminants. Figure 2(a) shows a sample that has been UV-treated and subjected to a Piranha clean.…”
supporting
confidence: 90%
“…This is consistent with surface manganese oxide, in agreement with other reports [16] and the broad UV-vis peak below 500 nm (figure 1) [19]. Therefore, to avoid introduction of Mn due to beam-induced mixing [20], and to focus on the Mn that has been incorporated into Si exclusively by the UV process, the UV-irradiated samples were Pirhana cleaned to remove any Mn-rich surface contaminants. Figure 2(a) shows a sample that has been UV-treated and subjected to a Piranha clean.…”
supporting
confidence: 90%
“…The APT indicates As in the native oxide at a concentration of 3 × 10 20 /cm 3 , whereas SIMS analysis indicates 10 20 /cm 3 . APT provides equal collection efficiencies for atoms across the mass spectrum, whereas SIMS analysis at interfaces suffers from aberrations associated with variable sputter and ionization rates as a function of material type (28)(29)(30)(31). APT therefore provides a more accurate analysis than SIMS at the interface of dissimilar materials.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This sputter removal process mixes the top several nm of the exposed surface. Additionally, the energetic primary ion beam drives certain atomic species deeper into the sample, inhibiting the characterization of sharp composition gradients [15][16][17][18][19]. The result is an exaggeration of the transition between two layers or accumulation artefacts at this interface.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%