Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T18:07:55.742Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of the Optical Cross Section for the Si Dangling Bond in a- Si:H and At the c - Si/SiO2 Interface

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2011

W. B. Jackson  and
N. M. Johnson
W. B. Jackson
Affiliation:
Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, Palo Alto, CA 94304
N. M. Johnson
Affiliation:
Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, Palo Alto, CA 94304
Get access

Abstract

The optical properties of the trivalent silicon dangling bond defect in hydrogenated amorphous silicon and at the Si/SiO2 interface are compared. While both defects give rise to ambipolar deep levels within the gap, significant differences in the optical properties between the two systems are found. The absorption in a-Si:H is significantly stronger and is dominated by a transition from the defect to the conduction band while the absorption at the interface is dominated by hole emission. The average dipole matrix element squared is roughly independent of energy in both systems with a magnitude of ∼30Å2. Implications of these results for optical measurements in other silicon systems are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 46: Symposium B – Microscopic Identification of Electronic Defects in Semiconductors , 1985 , 545
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1985

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. Jackson, W. B., Johnson, N. M., and Biegelsen, D. K., Appl. Phys. Lett. 43, 195 (1983).Google Scholar
2. Brower, K. L., Appl. Phys. Lett. 43, 1111 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Dersch, H., Stuke, J., and Beichler, J., Phys. Status Solidi B 105, 265 (1981);Google Scholar
W. Jackson, B., Solid State Comm. 44, 477 (1982).Google Scholar
4. Johnson, N. M., Biegelsen, D. K., Moyer, M. D., and Chang, S. T., Poindexter, E. H., and Caplan, P. J., Appl. Phys. Lett. 43, 563 (1983).Google Scholar
5. Amer, N. M. and Jackson, W. B. in Semiconductors and Semimetals Vol. 21B, ed. by Pankove, J. I., (Academic, Florida, 1984), pg. 83.Google Scholar
6. Jackson, W. B., Nemanich, R. J., and Amer, N. M., Phys. Rev. B 27, 4861 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Triska, A., Shimizu, I., Kocka, J., Tichy, L. and Vanecek, M., Jour. of Non-Cryst. Solids 59&60, 493 (1983).Google Scholar
8. Jackson, W. B., Biegelsen, D. K., Nemanich, R. J., and Knights, J. C., Appl. Phys. Lett. 42, 105 (1983).Google Scholar
9. Cody, G. D. in Semiconductors and Semimetals Vol. 21B, ed. by Pankove, J. I., (Academic, Florida, 1984), pg. 1.Google Scholar
10. Jackson, W. B., Kelso, S. M., Tsai, C. C., Allen, J. W., and Oh, S.-J., Phys. Rev. B 31, 5187 (1985).Google Scholar
11. Johnson, N. M. and Biegelsen, D. K., Phys. Rev. B 31, 4066, (1985).Google Scholar
12. Seager, C. H., Lenahan, P. M., Brower, K. L., and Mikawa, R. these proceedings.Google Scholar
13. Johnson, N. M., Jackson, W. B., and Moyer, M. D., Phys. Rev. B 31, 1194 (1985).Google Scholar