Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:58:52.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Impurities on Diffusion and Activation of ion Implanted Boron in Silicon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 March 2011

L. S. Robertson ,
R. Brindos ,
K. S. Jones ,
M. E. Law ,
D. F. Downey ,
S. Falk  and
J. Liu
L. S. Robertson
Affiliation:
Dept. of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Florida
R. Brindos
Affiliation:
Dept. of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Florida
K. S. Jones
Affiliation:
Dept. of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Florida
M. E. Law
Affiliation:
Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Florida
D. F. Downey
Affiliation:
Varian Ion Implant Systems
S. Falk
Affiliation:
Varian Ion Implant Systems
J. Liu
Affiliation:
Varian Ion Implant Systems
Get access

Abstract

The interaction between boron and silicon interstitials caused by ion implant damage is a physical process which hinders the formation of ultra-shallow, low resistivity junctions. The possibility of mitigating the effective interstitial point defect population via introduction of nonmetallic impurities in ion implanted silicon has been investigated. Amorphization of a n-type Czochralski wafer was achieved using a series of Si+ implants of 40 keV and 150 keV, each at a dose of 1×1015/cm2. The Si+ implants produced a 2800Å deep amorphous layer, which was then implanted with 8 keV 1×1014/cm2 B+. The samples were then implanted with high doses of either carbon, oxygen, sulfur, chlorine, selenium, or bromine. The implant energies of the impurities were chosen such that the damage and ion profiles of the impurity were contained within the amorphous layer. This allowed for the chemical species effect to be studied independent of the implant damage caused by the impurity implant. Post-implantation anneals were performed in a tube furnace at 750° C. Secondary ion mass spectrometry was used to monitor the dopant diffusion after annealing. Hall effect measurements were used to study the dopant activation. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) was used to study the end-of-range defect evolution. The addition of carbon and chlorine appear to reduce the boron diffusion enhancement compared to the boron control. Carbon and chlorine also appear to prevent boron out-diffusion during annealing compared to the control, which exhibited 20% dose loss following annealing.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 610: Symposium B – Si Front End Processing - Physics & Technology..II , 2000 , B5.8
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2000

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 Giles, M. D., J. Electrochem. Soc. 138, 1160 (1991).10.1149/1.2085734Google Scholar
2 Servidori, M., B19/20, 443 (1987).10.1016/S0168-583X(87)80087-3Google Scholar
3 Fahey, P. M., Griffin, P. B., and Plummer, J. D., Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 289 (1989).10.1103/RevModPhys.61.289Google Scholar
4 Cowern, N. E. B., Janssen, K. T. F., and Jos, H. F. F., J. Appl. Phys. 68, 6191 (1990).10.1063/1.346910Google Scholar
5 Hodgson, R. T., Deline, V. R., Mader, S., and Gelpey, J. C., Appl. Phys. Lett. 44, 589 (1984).10.1063/1.94836Google Scholar
6 Packan, P. A. and Plummer, J. D., Appl. Phys. Lett. 56, 1787 (1990).10.1063/1.103100Google Scholar
7 Pennycook, S. J., Narayan, J., and Holland, O. W., J. Electrochem. Soc. 132, 1962 (1985).10.1149/1.2114262Google Scholar
8 Gosele, U., in Proceedings of Materials Research Society Symposium, San Francisco, CA, 1986 (Materials Research Society), Vol. 59, p. 419.Google Scholar
9 Nishikawa, S., Tanaka, A., and Yamaji, T., Appl. Phys. Lett. 60, 2270 (1992).10.1063/1.107051Google Scholar
10 Stolk, P. A., Eaglesham, D. J., Gossmann, H. J., and Poate, J. M., Appl. Phys. Lett. 66, 1370 (1995).10.1063/1.113204Google Scholar
11 Wong, H., Cheung, N. W., Chu, P. K., Liu, J., and Mayer, J. W., Appl. Phys. Lett. 52, 1023 (1988).10.1063/1.99233Google Scholar
12 Nishikawa, S. and Yamaji, T., Appl. Phys. Lett. 62, 303 (1993).10.1063/1.108968Google Scholar
13 Muller, H., Ryssel, H., and Schmid, K., J. Appl. Phys. 43, 2006 (1972).10.1063/1.1661439Google Scholar
14 Beanland, D. G., Sol. Stat. Elec. 21, 537 (1978).10.1016/0038-1101(78)90024-2Google Scholar
15 Downey, D. F., Chow, J. W., Ishida, E., and Jones, K. S., Appl. Phys. Lett. 73, 1263 (1998).10.1063/1.122146Google Scholar
16 Ban, I., Ozturk, M. C., and Demirlioglu, E. K., IEEE Trans. on Elec. Dev. 44, 1544 (1997).10.1109/16.622613Google Scholar