Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T10:44:50.492Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Impact of Chemical and Epitaxial Treatment on Surface Defects on Silicon Wafers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

R. Schmolke
Affiliation:
Wacker Siltronic AG, Burghausen, Germany
D. Gräf
Affiliation:
Wacker Siltronic AG, Burghausen, Germany
M. Suhren
Affiliation:
Wacker Siltronic AG, Burghausen, Germany
R. Kirchner
Affiliation:
Wacker Siltronic AG, Burghausen, Germany
H. Piontek
Affiliation:
Wacker Siltronic AG, Burghausen, Germany
P. Wagner
Affiliation:
Wacker Siltronic AG, Burghausen, Germany
Get access

Abstract

Defects on polished as well as hot SC1 treated silicon wafers were investigated with an Atomic Force Microscope (AFM) and Surface Scanning Inspection Systems (SSIS). Measurement with two SSIS of different type allows to identify most of the surface defects as non particulate scatterers. AFM of these defects reveals tiny pits or groups of pits. An almost linear relation is found between the geometrical lateral defect dimension and their average size in units of LSE (Latex Sphere Equivalent; an effective measure for the scattering cross section) as reported by one of the SSIS for the defects on wafers treated with hot SC1. Growth rates of about 40 nmLSE/h are observed for the defects during subsequent treatments of wafers with hot SC1. The LSE-size distribution of as-grown defects with a peak at about 105 and 110 nmLSE is obtained for two types of wafer by modeling the defect evolution during hot SC1 treatment. The number of surface flaws ≥ 0.12 μmLSE on a substrate is reduced by two orders of magnitude for epitaxial layers as thin as 1.5 μm.

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

1. Gräf, D., Suhren, M., Lambert, U., Schmolke, R., Ehlert, A., v.Ammon, W., Wagner, P. in High Purity Silicon IV, edited by Claeys, C.L., Rai-Choudhury, P., Stallhofer, P., and Maurits, J.E. (The Electrochem. Soc. Proc. Vol. PV96–13, San Antonio, TX, 1996), pp. 117131.Google Scholar
2. Ryuta, J., Morita, E., Tanaka, T., and Shimanuki, Y., Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 29, L1947 (1990).Google Scholar
3. Vanhellemont, J., Kissinger, G., Gräf, D., Kenis, K., Depas, M., Mertens, P., Lambert, U., Heyns, M., Claeys, C., Richter, H. and Wagner, P., Inst. Phys. Conf. Ser. No. 149, 331 (1996).Google Scholar
4. Itsumi, M., Akiya, H., Ueki, T., Tomita, M., and Yamawaki, M., J. Appl. Phys. 78, 5984 (1995).Google Scholar
5. Wagner, P., Brohl, M., Gräf, D., Lambert, U., Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. Vol.378, 17 (1995).Google Scholar
6. Wagner, P., Gerber, H.A., Gräf, D., Schmolke, R., and Suhren, M., International Symposium on Optical Science, Engineering, and Instrumentation, Conference on Flatness, Roughness, and Discrete Defect Characterization for Computer Disks, Wafers and Flat Panel Displays, Denver, CO, 1996, SPIE Proc. Vol.2862 (in press).Google Scholar
7. Miyzaki, M., Miyzaki, S., Yanase, Y., Ochiai, T., and Shigematsu, T., Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. Vol.34, 6306 (1995).Google Scholar
8. Shive, L.W., Anderson, G., Shaw, R.W., Malik, I.J., and Pirooz, S., Semicon, Zürich, 1993.Google Scholar