Kinetic growth manipulation of Si(001) homoepitaxy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We have confirmed in a combined diffraction and STM study that the usual kinetic growth manipulation (KGM) applied to Si/Si(0 0 1) (nucleation at relatively low temperatures and completion of monolayer growth at high temperatures) does not lead to a smooth growth front. We have identified the physical reason for this unexpected behaviour: an anti phase boundary (APB) network develops during growth, due to the 2 × 1 reconstruction of the clean Si(0 0 1) surface. The density of this APB network can be substantially reduced by application of a different and optimised KGM procedure. Following a recipe in which 1 ML of Si on Si(0 0 1) is deposited at a relatively low temperature (525 K), followed by a short anneal to 750 K, results in a surface flatness similar to that of the clean Si(0 0 1) 2 × 1 surface. Up to 10 ML of material deposited with a flash anneal after the deposition of each additional layer resulted in a surface with a negligible reduction of the in-phase and out-of-phase intensity of a reflected low energy electron beam, indicative of an almost perfectly smooth growth front. STM images support this observation. The low thermal budget of this method reduces intermixing effects in hetero-epitaxial growth of group IV semiconductor (0 0 1)-faces.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)35-45
Number of pages11
JournalSurface science
Volume552
Issue number1-3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2004

Fingerprint

manipulators
kinetics
antiphase boundaries
flatness
budgets
flash
nucleation
electron beams
diffraction

Keywords

  • IR-73073
  • METIS-220678

Cite this

@article{eccabec1522342a184b190fe449cc5a9,
title = "Kinetic growth manipulation of Si(001) homoepitaxy",
abstract = "We have confirmed in a combined diffraction and STM study that the usual kinetic growth manipulation (KGM) applied to Si/Si(0 0 1) (nucleation at relatively low temperatures and completion of monolayer growth at high temperatures) does not lead to a smooth growth front. We have identified the physical reason for this unexpected behaviour: an anti phase boundary (APB) network develops during growth, due to the 2 × 1 reconstruction of the clean Si(0 0 1) surface. The density of this APB network can be substantially reduced by application of a different and optimised KGM procedure. Following a recipe in which 1 ML of Si on Si(0 0 1) is deposited at a relatively low temperature (525 K), followed by a short anneal to 750 K, results in a surface flatness similar to that of the clean Si(0 0 1) 2 × 1 surface. Up to 10 ML of material deposited with a flash anneal after the deposition of each additional layer resulted in a surface with a negligible reduction of the in-phase and out-of-phase intensity of a reflected low energy electron beam, indicative of an almost perfectly smooth growth front. STM images support this observation. The low thermal budget of this method reduces intermixing effects in hetero-epitaxial growth of group IV semiconductor (0 0 1)-faces.",
keywords = "IR-73073, METIS-220678",
author = "M Esser and E. Zoethout and Zandvliet, {Henricus J.W.} and Herbert Wormeester and Bene Poelsema",
year = "2004",
doi = "10.1016/j.susc.2004.01.012",
language = "English",
volume = "552",
pages = "35--45",
journal = "Surface science",
issn = "0039-6028",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "1-3",

}

Kinetic growth manipulation of Si(001) homoepitaxy. / Esser, M; Zoethout, E.; Zandvliet, Henricus J.W.; Wormeester, Herbert; Poelsema, Bene.

In: Surface science, Vol. 552, No. 1-3, 2004, p. 35-45.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Kinetic growth manipulation of Si(001) homoepitaxy

AU - Esser, M

AU - Zoethout, E.

AU - Zandvliet, Henricus J.W.

AU - Wormeester, Herbert

AU - Poelsema, Bene

PY - 2004

Y1 - 2004

N2 - We have confirmed in a combined diffraction and STM study that the usual kinetic growth manipulation (KGM) applied to Si/Si(0 0 1) (nucleation at relatively low temperatures and completion of monolayer growth at high temperatures) does not lead to a smooth growth front. We have identified the physical reason for this unexpected behaviour: an anti phase boundary (APB) network develops during growth, due to the 2 × 1 reconstruction of the clean Si(0 0 1) surface. The density of this APB network can be substantially reduced by application of a different and optimised KGM procedure. Following a recipe in which 1 ML of Si on Si(0 0 1) is deposited at a relatively low temperature (525 K), followed by a short anneal to 750 K, results in a surface flatness similar to that of the clean Si(0 0 1) 2 × 1 surface. Up to 10 ML of material deposited with a flash anneal after the deposition of each additional layer resulted in a surface with a negligible reduction of the in-phase and out-of-phase intensity of a reflected low energy electron beam, indicative of an almost perfectly smooth growth front. STM images support this observation. The low thermal budget of this method reduces intermixing effects in hetero-epitaxial growth of group IV semiconductor (0 0 1)-faces.

AB - We have confirmed in a combined diffraction and STM study that the usual kinetic growth manipulation (KGM) applied to Si/Si(0 0 1) (nucleation at relatively low temperatures and completion of monolayer growth at high temperatures) does not lead to a smooth growth front. We have identified the physical reason for this unexpected behaviour: an anti phase boundary (APB) network develops during growth, due to the 2 × 1 reconstruction of the clean Si(0 0 1) surface. The density of this APB network can be substantially reduced by application of a different and optimised KGM procedure. Following a recipe in which 1 ML of Si on Si(0 0 1) is deposited at a relatively low temperature (525 K), followed by a short anneal to 750 K, results in a surface flatness similar to that of the clean Si(0 0 1) 2 × 1 surface. Up to 10 ML of material deposited with a flash anneal after the deposition of each additional layer resulted in a surface with a negligible reduction of the in-phase and out-of-phase intensity of a reflected low energy electron beam, indicative of an almost perfectly smooth growth front. STM images support this observation. The low thermal budget of this method reduces intermixing effects in hetero-epitaxial growth of group IV semiconductor (0 0 1)-faces.

KW - IR-73073

KW - METIS-220678

U2 - 10.1016/j.susc.2004.01.012

DO - 10.1016/j.susc.2004.01.012

M3 - Article

VL - 552

SP - 35

EP - 45

JO - Surface science

JF - Surface science

SN - 0039-6028

IS - 1-3

ER -