Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T07:45:28.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Interpretation of the Constant Photocurrent Method in Terms of Deep Defect Density of States in A-SI.H

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2011

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

Abstract

The constant photocurrent Method (CPM) is often used to measure the sub-bandgap absorption for the determination of the defect density. However, the absolute value of the derived defect density depends on the method of data analysis and the calibration factor. Normally the calibration factor is obtained from electron spin resonance (ESR) but the defect pool model gives rise to doubt whether ESR detects the same defects as CPm. Therefore, we propose combined total-yield photoelectron spectroscopy (TYPES) and CPM Measurements on n-type a-Si:H to determine the calibration factor. Furthermore, we calculate CPM spectra by extending an approach to simulate photoconductivity, taking into account the full set of optical transitions, and compare the results with standard evaluation Methods.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 336: Symposium A – Amorphous Silicon Technology - 1994 , 1994 , 371
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1994

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

REFERENCES

1. Hack, M. and Shur, M., J. Appl. Phys. 58, 997 (1985)Google Scholar
2. Stiebig, H. and Böhm, M., J. Non-Cryst. Sol. 164–166, 785 (1993)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. Wang, N.W., Xu, X. and Wagner, S., AIP Conference Proceedings 234, edited by Stanford, B.C. (AIP New York 1991) 186 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Wyrsch, N., Finger, F., McMahon, T.J., Vanecek, M., J. Non-Cryst. Sol. 137&138, 347 (1991)Google Scholar
6. Pierz, K., Hilgenberg, B., Mell, H. and Weiser, G., J. Non-Cryst. Sol. 97&98, 63 (1987)Google Scholar
7. Schumm, G., J. Non-Cryst. Solids 164–166, 323 (1993)Google Scholar
8. Powell, M.J. and Deane, S.C., Phys. Rev. B 48, 10815 (1993)Google Scholar
9. Winer, K. and Ley, L., Phys. Rev. B 36, 6072 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Siebke, F., Beyer, W., Herion, J. and Wagner, H., 11th E.C Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference Proceedings, edited by Guimaraes, L. (harwood academic publishers 1993) 100 Google Scholar
11. Jackson, W.B., Kelso, S.M., Tsai, C.C., Allen, J.W., Oh, S.-J., Phys. Rev. B 31, 5187 (1985)Google Scholar
12. Hattori, K., Fukuda, S., Nishimura, N., Okamoto, H. and Hamakawa, Y., J. Non-Cryst. Sol. 164–166, 351 (1993)Google Scholar
13. Street, R.A., Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1187 (1982)Google Scholar
14. Stutzmann, M., Phil. Mag. B 60, 531 (1989)Google Scholar