Full text loading...
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Chemical depth profile of ultrathin nitrided films
1.M. Suzuki and Y. Saito, Appl. Surf. Sci. 173, 171 (2001).
2.E. C. Carr and R. A. Buhrman, Appl. Phys. Lett. 63, 54 (1993).
3.The position and width of the peaks of the Si chemical species present in ultrathin oxide are known and have been reported previously (Refs. 4, 5, and 6). In Ref. 4 binding energies (relative to bulk Si) of 0.95, 1.75, 2.48, and 3.9 eV for and are reported, while in Ref. 5 0.97, 1.8, and 2.6 eV for and are reported. The small disagreement is likely due to the differences in the preparation of the film (Ref. 7), which were grown in situ. The films employed in this study were thermally grown, and the relative binding energy for was 4.1 eV.
4.F. J. Himpsel, F. R. McFeely, A. Taleb-Ibrahimi, and J. A. Yarmoff, Phys. Rev. B 38, 6084 (1988).
5.Z. H. Lu, S. P. Tay, R. Cao, and P. Pianetta, Appl. Phys. Lett. 67, 2836 (1995).
6.A. Herrera-Gomez, F. S. Aguirre-Tostado, Y. Sun, P. Pianetta, Z. Yu, D. Marshall, R. Droopad, and W. E. Spicer, J. Appl. Phys. 90, 6070 (2001).
7.G. Lucovsky, A. Banerjee, H. Niimi, K. Koh, B. Hinds, C. Meyer, G. Lupke, and H. Kurz, Appl. Surf. Sci. 117/118, 202 (1997).
8.A copy of AAnalyzer can be obtained at http://arcos.qro.cinvestav.mx/∼aanalyzer/
9.L. G. Gosset, J. J. Ganem, H. J. von Bardeleben, S. Rigo, I. Trimaille, J. L. Cantin, T. Akermark, and I. C. Vickridge, J. Appl. Phys. 85, 3661 (1999).
10.H. Yamamoto, Y. Baba, and T. A. Sasaki, Surf. Sci. Lett. 349, L133 (1996).
11.Relative sensibility factors are obtained from model samples with different chemical depth profiles. For this reason when the stoichiometry varies in the same range or shorter than the escape depth (precisely the case of the ultrathin nitrided films), the use of relative sensibility factors yields to large uncertainties.
12.J. P. Chang, M. L. Green, V. M. Donnelly, R. L. Opila, J. Eng, J. Sapjeta, P. J. Silverman, and B. Weir, J. Appl. Phys. 87, 4449 (2000).
13.P. Cumpson, J. Electron Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom. 73, 25 (1995); as discussed by Cumpson, a Laplace transform is only of very limited use in this connection, whether it is done with a maximum entropy method or with any other regularization method. It also shows that, without a regularization method, it is impossible to perform the Laplace back transform because the problem is numerically unstable.
14.W. E. Spicer, Phys. Rev. 112, 114 (1958).
15.M. H. Horchella and A. H. Carim, Surf. Sci. Lett. 197, L260 (1988).
16.J. J. Yeh and I. Lindau, Atomic Data and Nuclear Tables 32, 1 (1985).
17.M. P. Seah and W. A. Dench, Surf. Interface Anal. 1, 2 (1979).
18.Silicon oxynitride is slightly denser than and most likely its corresponding escape depth is slightly smaller. Then, the reported values for should be regarded as an upper limit of the actual film thickness, and those reported in Table II as the lower limit of the actual density.
19.If the analysis were done without accounting for depth profile effects, the amount of N and O would be subestimated due to their smaller escape depth.
Article metrics loading...