Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T03:58:55.238Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Influence of H2 Preconditioning on the Nucleation and Growth of Self-Assembled Germanium Islands on Silicon (001)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2011

Gabriela D.M. Dilliway
Affiliation:
School of Electronics and Computer Science, Univ. of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
Nicholas E.B. Cowern
Affiliation:
Advanced Technology Institute, Univ. of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK
Lu Xu
Affiliation:
Research Institute for Networks & Communications Engineering (RINCE), School of Electronic Engineering, Dublin City University, Dublin 9, Ireland
Patrick J. McNally
Affiliation:
Research Institute for Networks & Communications Engineering (RINCE), School of Electronic Engineering, Dublin City University, Dublin 9, Ireland
Chris Jeynes
Affiliation:
Advanced Technology Institute, Univ. of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK
Ernest Mendoza
Affiliation:
Advanced Technology Institute, Univ. of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK
Peter Ashburn
Affiliation:
School of Electronics and Computer Science, Univ. of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
Darren M. Bagnall
Affiliation:
School of Electronics and Computer Science, Univ. of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
Get access

Abstract

Understanding the effects of growth conditions on the process of self-organisation of Ge nanostructures on Si is a key requirement for their practical applications. In this study we investigate the effect of preconditioning with a high-temperature hydrogenation step on the nucleation and subsequent temporal evolution of Ge self-assembled islands on Si (001). Two sets of structures, with and without H2 preconditioning, were grown by low pressure chemical vapour deposition (LPCVD) at 650°C. Their structural and compositional evolution was characterised by Rutherford backscattering spectrometry (RBS), atomic force microscopy (AFM) and micro-Raman (νRaman) spectroscopy. In the absence of preconditioning, we observe the known evolution of self-assembled Ge nanostructures on Si (001), from small islands with a narrow size distribution, to a bimodal size distribution, through to large islands. Surface coverage and island size increase steadily as a function of deposition time. On the H2 preconditioned surface, however, both nucleation rates and surface coverage are greatly increased during the early stages of self-assembly. After the first five seconds, the density of the islands is twice that on the unconditioned surface, and the mean island size is also larger, but the subsequent evolution is much slower than in the case of the unconditioned surface. This retardation correlates with a relatively high measured stress within the islands. Our results demonstrate that standard processes used during growth, like H2 preconditioning, can yield dramatic changes in the uniformity and distribution of Ge nanostructures self-assembled on Si.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2004

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. Dentel, D., Bischoff, J.L., Angot, T., Kubler, L., Surf. Sci. 402–404, 211 (1998)Google Scholar
2. Oura, K., Lifshits, V.G., Saranin, A.A., Zotov, A.V., Katayama, M., Surf. Sci. Rep. 35, 1 (1999).Google Scholar
3. Copel, M., Tromp, R.M., Appl. Phys. Lett. 58, 2648 (1991).Google Scholar
4. Eaglesham, D.J., Unterwald, F.C., Jacobson, D.C., Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 966 (1993).Google Scholar
5. Grűtzmacher, D.A., Sedwick, T.O., Scandella, L., Zaslavsky, A., Powell, A.R., Iyer, S.S., Vacuum 48 (8-10), 947 (1995).Google Scholar
6. Dentel, D., Vescan, L., Chrétien, O., Holländer, B., J. Appl. Phys. 88(9), 5113 (2000).Google Scholar
7. Wang, C.L., Unnikrishnan, S., Kim, B.Y., Kwong, D.L., Tasch, A.F., Appl. Phys. Lett. 68, 108 (1995).Google Scholar
8. Komeda, T., Kumagai, Y., Phys. Rev. B 58(3), 1385 (1997).Google Scholar
9. Kolobov, A.V., J. Mater. Sci.: Mater. Electron, 15, 195 (2004).Google Scholar
10. Kamins, T.I., Medeiros-Ribeiro, G., Ohlberg, D.A.A., Williams, R. Stanley, Appl. Phys. A 67, 727 (1998).Google Scholar
11. Rastelli, A., Känel, H. von, Surf. Sci. 515, L493 (2002).Google Scholar
12. Walle, A. van de, Asta, M., Voorhees, P.W., Phys. Rev. B 67, 041308 (2003).Google Scholar