Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T00:01:27.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diffusion of ion implanted indium and silver in ZnO crystals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 April 2012

Faisal Yaqoob  and
Mengbing Huang
Faisal Yaqoob
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, State University of New York, 1400 Washington Ave, Albany, NY, 12222
Mengbing Huang*
Affiliation:
College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering, University at Albany, State University of New York, 1400 Washington Ave, Albany, NY, 12222
*
*Email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

We report on diffusion behavior for ion implanted indium and silver atoms in ZnO crystals. Both In and Ag ions were implanted at room temperature at 7-10° relative to c-axis to avoid channeling effects during implantation. In ions were implanted at four different energies (40, 100, 200, and 350 keV, respectively) and doses (4.20×1013, 6.70×1013, 8.10×1013 and 3.10×1014 /cm2, respectively), resulting in a total dose of 5 ×1014 /cm2. For another set of ZnO samples, Ag ions were implanted at energies 30, 75, 150, and 350 keV at doses 3.3×1013, 4.2×1013, 8.3×1013 and 3.4×1014 /cm2, respectively, to reach a total dose of 5×1014 /cm2. Both In and Ag implants resulted in a uniform concentration profile of the implanted dopants from surface to depth ~ 150 nm. The samples were annealed for 30 minutes at temperatures between 850-1050 °C in an oxygen gas flow. The distributions of In and Ag atoms, either aligned or nonaligned along the crystalline directions, were measured by Rutherford backscattering combined with ion channeling. The diffusivities for nonaligned (interstitial) and aligned (substitutional) dopants atoms were determined to vary with annealing temperature via the Arrhenius relationship. The diffusion activation energies (Ea) along the <10-11> direction for substitutional impurity atoms were lower than those for interstitial dopants atoms e.g., in the case of In, Ea ~ 1.52 eV for <10-11> aligned In atoms and Ea ~ 2.61 eV for interstitial In atoms between <10-11> atomic rows and in the case of Ag, Ea ~ 1.77 eV for the interstitial Ag atoms between the <10-11> atomic rows and 1.11 eV for <10-11> aligned Ag atoms. The diffusion activation energies showed a different trend for the two dopants as measured along the <0001> crystalline direction. For Ag implanted in ZnO, the activation energy of Ea ~ 0.91 eV for the aligned Ag atoms along <0001> direction and Ea ~ 1.55 eV were found for the interstitial Ag atoms, whereas in the case of In along the <0001> direction, the interstitial In was found to migrate with a higher activation energy (Ea ~ 1.78 eV) than the substitutional In (Ea ~1.42 eV). These results will be compared with first-principle calculations for understanding the energetics of defect formation and migration in both n- and p-type doping cases.

Keywords

diffusionion-implantationRutherford backscattering (RBS)
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1394: Symposium M – Oxide Semiconductors–Defects, Growth and Device Fabrication , 2012 , mrsf11-1394-m01-10
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2012

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

REFERENCE

1. Look, D. C., Material Science and Engineering B80, 383, (2001).Google Scholar
2. Özgür, Ü. et al. , J. Appl. Phys. 98, 041301 (2005).Google Scholar
3. Janotti, Anderson and Van de Walle, Chris G, Rep. Prog. Phys. 72 (2009), 126501.Google Scholar
4. Look, D.C., Appl. Phys. Lett. 75, 811 (1999).Google Scholar
5. Pearton, S. J., et al. ., Superlattices and Microstructures 34, 3–32, (2003).Google Scholar
6. Minami, T., et al. . Jpn. J. Appl. Phys., Part 2 24, L781 (1985).Google Scholar
7. Walukiewicz, W., Phys. Rev. B 50, 5221 (1994).Google Scholar
8. Van de Walle, C. G., et al. . Phys. Rev. B 47, 9425 (1993).Google Scholar
9. Effects of Hydrogen Ion Implantation on Structural Properties of Silver Implantation in ZnO Crystals, Faisal Yaqoob, Mengbing Huang, Submitted to MRS Fall 2011, Proceedings.Google Scholar
10. Zhang, S. B., et al. , Phys. Rev. B, 63, 075205, (2001).Google Scholar
11. Look, D. C., et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2552 (1999).Google Scholar
12. Seong, Hong, et al. ., Applied Physics Letters, 88, 202108, (2006).Google Scholar
13. Rita, E. et al. ., Hyperfine Interactions, 158, 395, (2004).Google Scholar
14. Fan, Jiwei and Freer, Robert ,J. Appl. Phys. 9, 4795, (1995).Google Scholar
15. Sakaguchi, Isao, et al. ., Journal of Ceramic Society of Japan, 118[3], 217, (2010).Google Scholar
16. Yan, Yanfa, et al. ., Applied Physics Letters, 89, 181912, (2006).Google Scholar
17. Huang, G. Y. et al. ., J. Phys.; Condens. Matter 21, 345802, (2009).Google Scholar
18. Huang, G. Y. et al. ., J. Phys. 105, 073504, (2009).Google Scholar
19. Nakagawa, T. et al. ., Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 47, 7848, (2008).Google Scholar
20. Thomas, D. G., J. Phys. Chem. Solids, 9, 31, (1959).Google Scholar
21. Wan, Q. et al. ., Optical Materials, 30, 817, (2008).Google Scholar
22. Sakaguchi, I., et al. , Nucl. Instr.. and Meth.. in Phys. B 206, 153, (2003).Google Scholar