Effect of hydrogen on the growth kinetics of Si(0 0 1) during GSMBE from disilane

Journal of Crystal Growth

Volumn 175-176, Issue PART 1, 1997, Pages 509-513

  Mizushima, Kazuki ^a,d   Vvedensky, Dimitri D ^a   Šmilauer, Pavel ^b   Zangwill, Andrew ^c   Zhang, Jing ^a   Joyce, Bruce A ^a  

^a IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b FORSCHUNGSZENTRUM JÜLICH   (Germany)

^c GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^d MITSUBISHI MATERIALS CORPORATION   (Japan)

Author keywords

Growth kinetics; Hydrogen; Monte Carlo simulation; Silicon surface

Indexed keywords

COMPOSITION EFFECTS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DECOMPOSITION; DESORPTION; HYDROGEN; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; MOLECULAR BEAM EPITAXY; MONTE CARLO METHODS; REACTION KINETICS; SEMICONDUCTOR GROWTH; SURFACE PHENOMENA; THERMAL EFFECTS;

GAS SOURCE MOLECULAR BEAM EPITAXY (GSMBE);

SILICON WAFERS;

EID: 0031141324     PISSN: 00220248     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0022-0248(96)00990-6     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. S.M. Gates, C.M. Greenlief, S.K. Kulkarni and H.H. Sawin, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 8 (1990) 2965.
2. Y. Suda, D. Lubben, T. Motooka and J.E. Greene, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 8 (1990) 61.
3. S.M. Gates and S.K. Kulkarni, Appl. Phys. Lett. 58 (1991) 2963.
4. S.M. Gates and S.K. Kulkarni, Appl. Phys. Lett. 60 (1992) 53.
5. S.M. Mokler, W.K. Liu, N. Ohtani, J. Zhang and B.A. Joyce, Surf. Sci. 275 (1992) 16.
6. S.M. Mokler, N. Ohtani, J. Zhang and B.A. Joyce, Surf. Sci. 275 (1992) 401.
7. W.K. Liu, S.M. Mokler, N. Ohtani, C. Roberts and B.A. Joyce, Surf. Sci. 264 (1992) 301.
8. Y. Wang, M.J. Bronikowski and R.J. Hamers, Surf. Sci. 311 (1994) 64.
9. J.E. Vasek, Z. Zhang, C.T. Salling and M.G. Lagally, Phys. Rev. B 51 (1995) 17207.
10. D.J. Chadi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59 (1987) 1691.
11. J.D. Weeks and G.H. Gilmer, Adv. Chem. Phys. 40 (1979) 157.
12. J. Zhang, A.K. Lees, A.G. Taylor, M.H. Xie, D. Raisbeck, B.A. Joyce, Z. Sobiesierski and D.I. Westwood, to be published.
13. 6 on Si(0 0 1) [8], which show a significantly reduced surface hydrogen concentration in the vicinity of step edges.
14. This desorption barrier is somewhat lower than the value of ≈ 2.0 eV typically quoted. It must be borne in mind, however, that in models such as this we first estimate the relative rates of reactions before attempting the more ambitious task of obtaining absolute rates by comparisons with experiments. The 1.0 eV barrier is required to obtained appreciable desorption and might be a reflection of the fact the barriers for some of the other rates are incorrect in absolute terms.
15. A. Vittadini, A. Selloni and M. Casarin, Surf. Sci. 289 (1993) L625.
16. Y.-W. Mo, J. Kleiner, M.B. Webb and M.G. Lagally, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66 (1991) 1998.
17. G. Brocks, P.J. Kelly and R. Car, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66 (1991) 1729.
18. T. Shitara, T. Kaneko and D.D. Vvedensky, Appl. Phys. Lett. 63 (1993) 3321.
19. H.B. Elswijk, A.J. Hoeven, E.J. van Loenen and D. Dijkkamp, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 9 (1991) 451.
20. A.J. Hoeven, J.M. Lenssinck, D. Dijkkamp, E.J. van Loenen and J. Dieleman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63 (1989) 1830.
21. Y.-W. Mo, B.S. Swartzentruber, R. Kariotis, M.B. Webb and M.G. Lagally, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63 (1989) 2393.
22. C. Pearson, M. Krueger and E. Ganz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76 (1996) 2306.