Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T09:35:43.702Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Manipulation of Surface Charge on GaN

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

Josephus D. Ferguson ,
Michael A. Foussekis ,
Monika D. Ruchala ,
J. C. Moore ,
Michael A. Reshchikov  and
Alison A. Baski
Josephus D. Ferguson
Affiliation:
[email protected], Virginia Commonwealth University, Physics, 701 W. Grace St., Richmond, Virginia, 23284, United States, 804-828-1613, 804-828-7073
Michael A. Foussekis
Affiliation:
[email protected], Virginia Commonwealth University, Physics, 701 W. Grace St., Richmond, Virginia, 23284, United States, 804-828-1613, 804-828-7073
Monika D. Ruchala
Affiliation:
[email protected], Virginia Commonwealth University, Physics, 701 W. Grace St., Richmond, Virginia, 23284, United States, 804-828-1613, 804-828-7073
J. C. Moore
Affiliation:
[email protected], Longwood University, Chemistry and Physics, Farmville, Virginia, United States
Michael A. Reshchikov
Affiliation:
[email protected], Virginia Commonwealth University, Physics, 701 W. Grace St., Richmond, Virginia, 23284, United States, 804-828-1613, 804-828-7073
Alison A. Baski
Affiliation:
[email protected], Virginia Commonwealth University, Physics, Richmond, Virginia, United States
Get access

Abstract

We have characterized the surface charge on a variety of GaN samples using two surface potential techniques, conventional Kelvin probe and scanning Kelvin probe microscope (SKPM). Kelvin probe was primarily used to measure the change in surface potential under UV illumination, otherwise known as the surface photovoltage (SPV). Due to band bending near the semiconductor surface of about 1 eV in dark conditions, the SPV signal for n-type GaN typically reaches 0.5 to 0.6 eV upon switching on UV light. This value can slowly decrease by up to 0.3 eV during UV illumination in air ambient for 2-3 hours. We report that samples with many hours of ambient UV exposure do not show this slow decrease during SPV measurements, consistent with the UV-induced growth of a thicker surface oxide that limits charge transfer. In addition to prolonged UV exposure, the surface contact potential was also manipulated by local charge injection. In this procedure, the surface is charged using a metallized atomic force microscope tip which is scanned in contact with the sample. Subsequent SKPM measurements indicate an increase or decrease in the surface contact potential for the charged region, depending on the applied voltage polarity. Measurements of the discharge behavior in dark for these regions show a logarithmic time behavior, similar to the decay behavior during our observations of SPV transients after switching off the light. As expected, illumination of the surface increases the discharge rate and restores the charged area to its original state.

Keywords

electrical propertiesscanning probe microscopy (SPM)III-V
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1202: Symposium I – III-Nitride Materials for Sensing, Energy Conversion and Controlled Light-Matter Interactions , 2009 , 1202-I04-01
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2010

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 Kronik, L. and Shapira, Y., Surf. Sci. Rep. 37, 1 (1999).Google Scholar
2 Koley, G. and Spencer, M. G., J. Appl. Phys. 90, 337 (2001).Google Scholar
3 Long, J. P. and Bermudez, V. M., Phys. Rev. B 66, 121308 (2002).Google Scholar
4 Bermudez, V. M., J. Appl. Phys. 80, 1190 (1996).Google Scholar
5 Eyckeler, M., Mönch, W., Kampen, T. U., Dimitrov, R., Ambacher, O., and Stutzmann, M., J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 16, 2224 (1998).Google Scholar
6 Barbet, S., Aubry, R., Forte-Poisson, M.-A. di, Jacquet, J.-C., Deresmes, D., Mélin, T., and Théron, D., Appl. Phys. Lett. 93, 212107 (2008).Google Scholar
7 Petravic, M., Coleman, V. A., Kim, K.-J., Kim, B., and Li, G., J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 23, 1340 (2005).Google Scholar
8 Shalish, I., Shapira, Y., Burstein, L., and Salzman, J., J. Appl. Phys. 89, 390 (2001).Google Scholar
9 Sabuktagin, S., Reshchikov, M. A., Johnstone, D. K., and Morkoç, H., Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 798, Y5.39 (2004).Google Scholar
10 Shalish, I., Kronik, L., Segal, G., Rosenwaks, Y., Shapira, Y., Tisch, U., and Salzman, J., Phys. Rev. B 59, 9748 (1999).Google Scholar
11 Moore, J.C., Reshchikov, M.A., Ortiz, J.E., Xie, J., Morkoç, H., and Baski, A.A., Proc. of SPIE 6894, 68940B1–9 (2008).Google Scholar
12 Foussekis, M., Baski, A. A., and Reshchikov, M.A., Appl. Phys. Lett. 94, 162116 (2009).Google Scholar
13 Sasaki, T. and Matsuoka, T., J. Appl. Phys., 64, 4531 (1998).Google Scholar