Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:21:15.905Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relation between Leakage Current in PIN Photodiodes and Defects in InGaAs(P)/InP Heterostructures Grown Low Pressure MOCVD

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2011

D. G. Knight ,
C. J. Miner  and
A. J. Springthorpe
D. G. Knight
Affiliation:
Bell-Northern Research, P.O. Box 3511 Sin C, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada KIY 4H7
C. J. Miner
Affiliation:
Bell-Northern Research, P.O. Box 3511 Sin C, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada KIY 4H7
A. J. Springthorpe
Affiliation:
Bell-Northern Research, P.O. Box 3511 Sin C, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada KIY 4H7
Get access

Abstract

High resolution maps of the InGaAs photoluminescence intensity over whole 50mm diameter PIN detector wafers grown by low pressure MOCVD were obtained using a scanning photoluminescence (PL) system. The leakage current of PIN detectors was found to decrease exponentially with increased PL intensity. This correlation was quantitatively valid for both variation on a given wafer and for wafer-to-wafer variations. The density of morphological features on the surface of InGaAs(P)/InP heterostructures also was found to decrease exponentially with increased PL intensity, where a simple linear relationship between leakage current and feature density was then determined. The features are likely a manifestation of substrate defects which propagate from the surface of poor quality substrates.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 184: Symposium F – Degradation Mechanisms in III-V Compound Semiconductor Devices and Structures , 1990 , 157
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1990

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

REFERENCES

1. Gallant, M., Puetz, N., Zemel, A. and Shepherd, F.R., Appl. Phys. Lett. 52, 733 (1988).10.1063/1.99363Google Scholar
2. Häussler, W., Rdmer, D., Bauer, J.G. and Scherg, T., Electron. Lett. 25, 1158 (1989).10.1049/el:19890777Google Scholar
3. Puetz, N., Hillier, G. and SpringThorpe, A.J., J. Electron. Materials 17, 381 (1988).10.1007/BF02652122Google Scholar
4. Ingrey, S., Lau, W.M., McIntyre, N.S. and Sodhi, R., J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A5(4) 1621 (1987).10.1116/1.574577Google Scholar
5. Guivarc'h, A., L'Haridon, L., Pelous, G., Hollinger, G. and Pertosa, P., J. Appl. Phys. 55, 1139 (1984).10.1063/1.333207Google Scholar