Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T09:26:03.504Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CPM and PDS - A Critical Interpretation of Experimental Results

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2011

Helmut Stiebig ,
Frank Siebke  and
Reinhard Carius
Helmut Stiebig
Affiliation:
Forschungszentrum Jülich, Institute of Thin Film and Ion Technology (ISI-PV), P.O.Box 1913, D-52425 Jülich, Germany
Frank Siebke
Affiliation:
Forschungszentrum Jülich, Institute of Thin Film and Ion Technology (ISI-PV), P.O.Box 1913, D-52425 Jülich, Germany
Reinhard Carius
Affiliation:
Forschungszentrum Jülich, Institute of Thin Film and Ion Technology (ISI-PV), P.O.Box 1913, D-52425 Jülich, Germany
Get access

Abstract

CPM and PDS spectra of a-Si:H yield identical shape of the Urbach tail, while the defect absorption measured by PDS differs significantly from CPM. In this work an analysis of CPM and PDS spectra of annealed and degraded films is presented. Numerical simulations of CPM and PDS data, taking into account optical transitions, capture and emission processes as well as the Fermi level, yield information on the energy distribution and the charge state of the defects. The simulations reveal the coexistence of defects in the D−, D+ and D0 states. The defect distribution is dominated by charged states as predicted by the defect-pool model. Good agreement between measured and simulated PDS and CPM spectra can be obtained in the case of a homogeneous defect density. It is shown that differences between CPM and PDS are due to different sensitivities of the techniques to charged and neutral defect states. Microscopic inhomogeneities may cause significant additional differences.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 420: Symposium A – Amorphous Silicon Technology-1996 , 1996 , 715
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1996

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. Pierz, K., Fuhs, W. and Mell, H., Phil. Mag. B 63, 123 (1991).Google Scholar
2. Wyrsch, N., Finger, F., McMahon, T.J. and Vanecek, M., J. Non-Cryst. Sol. 137&138, 347 (1991).Google Scholar
3. Vanecek, M., Kocka, J., Stuchlik, J., Kozizek, Z., Stika, O. and Triska, A., Solar Energy Mater. 8, 411 (1983).Google Scholar
4. Jackson, W.B., Amer, N.N., Boccara, A.C. and Fournier, D., Appl. Optics 20, 1333 (1981).Google Scholar
5. Powell, M.J. and Deane, S.C., Phys. Rev. B 48, 10815 (1993).Google Scholar
6. Stiebig, H. and Siebke, F., Phil. Mag B 72, 489 (1995).Google Scholar
7. Becker, F., Carius, R., Zettler, J.-T., Klomfaß, J., Walker, C. and Wagner, H., Material Science Forum 173–174, 177 (1995).Google Scholar
8. Siebke, F. and Stiebig, H., J. Non-Cryst. Sol. (in print).Google Scholar
9. Zanzig, L., Berichte des Forschungszentrums Jülich 3087 (Forschungszentrum Jülich, 1995).Google Scholar