Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:23:33.540Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Examining the Effect of Evaporation Field on Boron Measurements in SiGe: Insights into Improving the Relationship Between APT and SIMS Measurements of Boron

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2019

Andrew J. Martin  and
Brett Yatzor
Andrew J. Martin*
Affiliation:
Globalfoundries, Inc., 400 Stone Break Rd Ext, Malta, NY 12020, USA
Brett Yatzor
Affiliation:
Globalfoundries, Inc., 400 Stone Break Rd Ext, Malta, NY 12020, USA
*
*Author for correspondence: Andrew J. Martin, E-mail: andy.martin@globalfoundries.com
Get access

Abstract

Understanding and resolving discrepancies between atom probe tomography (APT) and secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS) measurements of B dopants in Si-based materials has long been a problem for those in the semiconductor community who wish to measure B within the source/drain SiGe of a device. APT data collection of Si-based materials is typically optimized for Si, which is logical, but perhaps not ideal for field evaporation of B. Increasing the evaporation field well beyond the typically used 28Si2+:28Si+ ratio of approximately 10:1 up to a ratio of ~200:1 is demonstrated to improve B detection while retaining well-matched Si and Ge concentrations with respect to those measured by SIMS. A range of evaporation conditions are examined from a very low field with high laser energy to an extremely high field with extremely low laser energy demonstrating problems at both far ends of the spectrum and a sweet spot when the operating conditions used produce a 28Si2+:28Si+ ratio of approximately 200:1 (in terms of total counts of each ionization state), which is more than an order of magnitude higher than normally used conditions and results in nicely matched B, Si, and Ge APT measurements with those of SIMS.

Keywords

atom probe tomographycorrelative microscopydopantevaporation fieldSiGesemiconductor
Type
Materials Applications
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , June 2019 , pp. 617 - 624
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America 2019 

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

Blavette, D & Duguay, S (2014). Atom probe tomography in nanoelectronics. Eur Phys J Appl Phys 68, 10101.Google Scholar
Da Costa, G, Wang, H, Duguay, S, Bostel, A, Blavette, D & Deconihout, B (2012). Advance in multi-hit detection and quantization in atom probe tomography. Rev Sci Instrum 83, 123709.Google Scholar
Egerton, RF (1991). Factors affecting the accuracy of elemental analysis by transmission EELS. Microsc Microanal Microstruct 2, 203–213.Google Scholar
Estivill, R, Grenier, A, Duguay, S, Vurpillot, F, Terlier, T, Barnes, J-P, Hartmann, J-M & Blavette, D (2015). Quantitative analysis of Si/SiGeC superlattices using atom probe tomography. Ultramicroscopy 159, 223–231.Google Scholar
Estivill, R, Juhel, M, Servanton, G, Gregoire, M, Lorut, F, Clement, L, Chevalier, P, Grenier, A & Blavette, D (2017). Boron atomic-scale mapping in advanced microelectronics by atom probe tomography. Appl Phys Lett 110, 252105.Google Scholar
Grenier, A, Duguay, S, Barnes, JP, Serra, R, Haberfehlner, G, Cooper, D, Bertin, F, Barraud, S, Audoit, G, Arnoldi, L, Cadel, E, Chabli, A & Vurpillot, F (2014). 3D analysis of advanced nano-devices using electron and atom probe tomography. Ultramicroscopy 136, 185–192.Google Scholar
Izumida, T, Okano, K, Kanemura, T, Kondo, M, Inaba, S, Itoh, S, Aoki, N & Toyoshima, Y (2011). Advantages of plasma doping for source/drain extension in bulk fin field effect transistor. Jpn J Appl Phys 50, 04DC15.Google Scholar
Kambham, AK, Mody, J, Gilbert, M, Koelling, S & Vandervorst, W (2011). Atom-probe for FinFET dopant characterization. Ultramicroscopy 111, 535–539.Google Scholar
Kambham, AK, Kumar, A, Florakis, A & Vandervorst, W (2013). Three-dimensional doping and diffusion in nano scaled devices as studied by atom probe tomography. Nanotechnology 24, 275705.Google Scholar
Kouzminov, D, Cournoyer, J, Norasetthekul, S, Muthuraman, H & Gao, Q (2018). Quantitative aspects of PLAD sidewall doping characterization by SIMS and APT. Microsc Microanal 1–6, doi:10.1017/S1431927618015301.Google Scholar
Larson, DJ, Prosa, TJ, Ulfig, RM, Geiser, BP & Kelly, TF (2013). Local Electrode Atom Probe Tomography: A User's Guide. New York: Springer Scientific+Business Media.Google Scholar
Martin, AJ, Weng, W, Zhu, Z, Loesing, R, Shaffer, J & Katnani, A (2016). Cross-sectional atom probe tomography sample preparation for improved analysis of fins on SOI. Ultramicroscopy 161, 105–109.Google Scholar
Martin, AJ, Kambham, AK & Katnani, AD (2017). Advantages and challenges of 3-D atom probe tomography characterization of FinFETs. Electron Device Failure Anal 19,(2), 22–30.Google Scholar
Martin, AJ, Wei, Y & Scholze, A (2018). Analyzing the channel dopant profile in next-generation FinFETs via atom probe tomography. Ultramicroscopy 186, 104–111.Google Scholar
Meisenkothen, F, Steel, EB, Prosa, TJ, Henry, KT & Kolli, RP (2015). Effects of detector dead-time on quantitative analyses involving boron and multi-hit detection events in atom probe tomography. Ultramicroscopy 159, 101–111.Google Scholar
Parikh, P, Senowitz, C, Lyons, D, Martin, I, Prosa, TJ, DiBattista, M, Devaraj, A & Meng, YS (2017). Three-dimensional nanoscale mapping of state-of-the-art field-effect transistors (FinFETs). Microsc Microanal 23(5), 916–925.Google Scholar
Ronsheim, P, Hatzistergos, M & Jin, S (2010). Dopant measurements in semiconductors with atom probe tomography. J Vac Sci Technol B 28(1), C1E1.Google Scholar
Takamizawa, H, Shimizu, Y, Nozawa, Y, Toyama, T, Morita, H, Yabuuchi, Y, Ogura, M & Nagai, Y (2012). Dopant characterization in self-regulatory plasma doped fin field-effect transistors by atom probe tomography. Appl Phys Lett 100, 093502.Google Scholar
Thompson, K, Bunton, JH, Kelly, TF & Larson, DJ (2006). Characterization of ultralow-energy implants and towards the analysis of three-dimensional dopant distributions using three-dimensional atom probe tomography. J Vac Sci Technol B 24(1), 421–427.Google Scholar
Thompson, K, Lawrence, D, Larson, DJ, Olson, JD, Kelly, TF & Gorman, B (2007). In situ site-specific specimen preparation for atom probe tomography. Ultramicroscopy 107, 131–139.Google Scholar
Tu, Y, Takamizawa, H, Han, B, Shimizu, Y, Inoue, K, Toyama, T, Yano, F, Nishida, A & Nagai, Y (2017). Influence of laser power on atom probe tomographic analysis of boron distribution in silicon. Ultramicroscopy 173, 58–63.Google Scholar
Zhu, Y, Egerton, RF & Malac, M (2001). Concentration limits for the measurement of boron by electron energy-loss spectroscopy and electron-spectroscopic imaging. Ultramicroscopy 87, 135–145.Google Scholar