Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T05:31:24.851Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Hydrogen Ion Implantation on Structural Properties of Silver Implantation in ZnO Crystals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 February 2012

Faisal Yaqoob  and
Mengbing Huang
Faisal Yaqoob
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, State University of New York, 1400 Washington Ave, Albany, NY, 12222
Mengbing Huang*
Affiliation:
College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering, University at Albany, State University of New York, 1400 Washington Ave, Albany, NY, 12222
*
* Email: mhuang@albany.edu
Get access

Abstract

In this work, we study the effects of implanted hydrogen ions on defect formation and impurity redistribution in ZnO crystals implanted with silver ions. Hydrogen was first implanted at room temperature in ZnO with energy of 30 keV to a dose of 2 × 1016 /cm2. The ZnO samples with and without prior H implantation were implanted with Ag ions at four different energies, 30, 75, 150, and 350 keV, to doses 3.3×1013, 4.2×1013, 8.3×1013 and 3.4×1014 /cm2, respectively, resulting in a uniform concentration profile of Ag from the surface to depth ~ 150 nm. These samples were annealed at temperatures 850-1050°C for 30 minutes in an oxygen gas flow. The distribution of Ag atoms, either aligned or nonaligned along the crystalline directions, were measured by Rutherford backscattering (RBS) combined with ion channeling. Following Ag ion implantation, the damage level in the ZnO lattice, measured along the <10-11> crystalline direction is higher in the sample without H ion implantation than the sample with H. Lattice damage was found to recover faster in the sample without H implantation than the sample with H, e.g., for Zn signals, the normalized RBS yield χmin for the without H-implanted sample dropped from 27.5% following Ag implantation to 4.3% after annealing at 1050 ˚C, whereas the Zn χmin value for the sample with H implant decreased from 17.6% following Ag implantation to 5.3% after annealing at 1050 ˚C. On the other hand, the χmin values for the Ag dopants before annealing in the H-implanted sample are the same in the sample without H. Post-Ag-implantation annealing resulted in much higher χmin values for Ag in the sample with H implant. For the as-implanted samples, 26.6% of the implanted Ag atoms are on substitutional sites in the sample with H, as compared to 30.3% of the implanted Ag being on the substitutional sites in the sample without H. After annealing at 1050 ˚C, the fraction of substitutional Ag is 73.7% in the H-implanted sample, in contrast to the fraction of 61.6% for substitutional Ag in the sample without H implant. Similar to other oxide crystals, H ion implantation and thermal annealing can result in the formation of nanocavities in the ZnO lattice. We discuss these findings in the context of the effects of nanocavities on formation and annihilation of point defects as well as on impurity diffusion and trapping in ZnO crystals.

Keywords

ion-implantationRutherford backscattering (RBS)structural
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1394: Symposium M – Oxide Semiconductors–Defects, Growth and Device Fabrication , 2012 , mrsf11-1394-m12-20
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2012

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

REFERENCE

1. Look, D. C., Material Science and Engineering B80, 383, (2001).Google Scholar
2. Pearton, S. J., et al. ., Superlattices and Microstructures 34, 3–32, (2003).Google Scholar
3. Minami, T., et al. . Jpn. J. Appl. Phys., Part 2 24, L781 (1985).Google Scholar
4. Walukiewicz, W., Phys. Rev. B 50, 5221 (1994).Google Scholar
5. Van de Walle, C. G., et al. . Phys. Rev. B 47, 9425 (1993).Google Scholar
6. Zhang, S. B., et al. , Phys. Rev. B, 63, 075205, (2001).Google Scholar
7. Look, D. C., et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2552 (1999).Google Scholar
8. Look, D. C., et al. . Solid State Commun. 105, 399 (1998).Google Scholar
9. Seong, Hong et al. ., Applied Physics Letters, 88, 202108, (2006).Google Scholar
10. Rita, E. et al. ., Hyperfine Interactions, 158, 395, (2004).Google Scholar
11. Fan, Jiwei and Freer, Robert, J. Appl. Phys. 9, 4795, (1995).Google Scholar
12. Sakaguchi, Isao, et al. ., Journal of Ceramic Society of Japan, 118[3], 217, (2010).Google Scholar
13. Yan, Yanfa, et al. ., Applied Physics Letters, 89, 181912, (2006).Google Scholar
14. Ip, K., et al. ., Applied Physics Letters, 81, 3696, (2002).Google Scholar
15. Ip, K., et al. ., Applied Physics Letters, 82, 385, (2003).Google Scholar
16. Moutanabbir, O., et al. ., Applied Physics Letters, 93, 031916, (2008).Google Scholar
17. Spratt, William T., et al. ., Applied physics Letters, 99, 111909, (2011).Google Scholar
18. Oga, T. et al. ., J. Appl. Phys. 109, 123702, (2011).Google Scholar
19. Van de Walle, Chris. G, Physics Review Letters, 85, 1012, (2000).Google Scholar
20. Hand Book of Modern Ion Beam Materials Analysis, edited by Joseph. R. Tesmer and Michael Nastasi, Material Research Society, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar