Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T01:01:12.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Surface Roughness Evolution of PECVD Cathodic and Anodic a-Si:H.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

George T. Dalakos,
Joel L. Plawsky and
Peter D. Persans
George T. Dalakos
Affiliation:
General Electric Corporate Research and Development, Niskayuna, NY
Joel L. Plawsky
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Peter D. Persans
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Get access

Abstract

Surface or interface roughness can impact optical, electronic, and MEMS applications of thin a-Si:H films. Deposition at lower temperatures can be advantageous for some applications of a-Si:H, but lower temperature deposition generally leads to rougher films. We have found that the evolution of surface roughness growth can be modified substantially by ion bombardment due to the self-bias of the plasma during Plasma-Enhanced Chemical Vapor Deposition (PECVD). Notable differences in the surface roughness evolution and deposition rate are shown for films deposited in “cathodic” versus “anodic” mode – where the substrate is placed on the powered and grounded electrode respectively. Suppression of surface roughness growth of a-Si:H can be achieved under conditions of relatively high ion bombardment even at deposition temperatures as low as 75 C. Atomic force microscopy (AFM) was used to measure the relative surface roughness profile as a function of deposition time. Analysis of the power spectral density of the roughness yielded important statistical surface parameter information. Based on these observations, insight is given into growth mechanisms under the two deposition conditions.

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. Agarwal, A.M. et al., J. Appl. Phys., 80 (11), 6120, (1996).10.1063/1.363686Google Scholar
2. Sark, W.G.J.H.M. van, in Handbook of Thin Film Materials, edited by Nalwa, H.S. Volume 1: Deposition and Processing of Thin Films, (Academic Press, 2002), pp.1–79.Google Scholar
3. Vicsek, T., Fractal Growth Phenomena (World Scientific Publishing Company, Singapore, 1989), p.182.Google Scholar
4. Zhao, Y.P., Wang, G.C., and Lu, T.M., Characterization of Amorphous and Crystalline Rough Surfaces: Principles and Applications (Academic Press, San Diego, 2000).Google Scholar
5. Olsen, E. (private communication)Google Scholar
6. Robertson, J., Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc., Vol. 609, A.1.4, (2000).10.1557/PROC-609-A1.4Google Scholar
7. Perrin, J. in Plasma Deposition of Amorphous Silicon-based Materials, (Academic Press, San Diego, 1995), pp.177–237.10.1016/B978-012137940-7/50005-XGoogle Scholar
8. Tanenbaum, D.M. et al., Phys., Rev., B 56, 4243 (1997).Google Scholar
9. Flewitt, A.J. et al., J. Appl. Phys., 85, 8032 (1999).Google Scholar
10. Kondo, M. et al., J. Non-Cryst. Solids 227-230, 890 (1998).10.1016/S0022-3093(98)00274-9Google Scholar
11. Ikuta, K. et al., Mat. Res. Soc.Symp. Proc. 420, 413 (1996).10.1557/PROC-420-413Google Scholar
12.Karabacak, Zhao, Y.P., Wang, G.C. and Lu, T.M., Phys. Rev. B, 64, 085323–1, (2001).Google Scholar
13. Smets, A.H.M., Schram, D.C. and Sanden, M.C.M. can de, Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 609, A.7.6, (2000).Google Scholar
14. Unagami, T., Lousa, A., and Messier, R., Jpn. J. Appl. Phys., 36 L737, 1997.Google Scholar
15. Zeigler, J. (private communication)Google Scholar