Abstract
In this work, we propose a formation mechanism to explain the relationship between the surface morphology (and microstructure) and dislocations in the In0.82Ga0.18As/InP heterostructure. The In0.82Ga0.18As epitaxial layers were grown on the InP (100) substrate at various temperatures (430 °C, 410 °C and 390 °C) using low pressure metalorganic chemical vapor deposition (LP-MOCVD). Obvious protrusions and depressions were obseved on the surface of the In0.82Ga0.18As/InP heterostructure because of the movement of dislocations from the core to the surface. The surface morphologies of the In0.82Ga0.18As/InP (100) system became uneven with increasing temperature, which was associated with the formation of dislocations. Such research investigating the dislocation of large lattice mismatch heterostructures may play an important role in the future-design of semiconductor films.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Introduction
As a typical III-V compound, InxGa1−xAs is one of the most important semiconductor materials1,2. Because of their excellent photoelectric properties, III-V compound films have been widely used in t infrared detectors3,4, solar cells5,6, transistors2,7, optical switches8 and optical fibre communications devices9. Compared to other InxGa1−xAs films, films of high-In-content semiconductor, such as In0.82Ga0.18As, which has a long cut-off wavelength (more than 2 μm) in spectroscopic applications, have attracted more attention10,11.
The methods used to prepare semiconductor films strongly influence their dislocation density and photoelectric properties, thus, various epitaxial growth technologies such as MBE12,13, SPE14, PVD15 have been explored t in recent years to obtain high performance semiconductor thin films. Among these main thin-film preparation method, metalorganic chemical vapor deposition (MOCVD) has been widely used in the preparation of InxGa1−xAs materials since 196816,17,18. InP and GaAs are common substrates used in the fabrication of heterostructures. The lattice mismatch between the In0.82Ga0.18As epitaxial layer and substrate strongly affects the performance of the In0.82Ga0.18As films. The lattice mismatch in the In0.82Ga0.18As /InP heterostructure is 2%, whereas that in In0.82Ga0.18As /GaAs heterostructure system is greater than 5.6%19. Two-step growth20 or the insertion of step-graded buffer layers between the substrate and the epitaxial layer21 are common and critical approaches used to improve the quality of the epitaxial layers.
In previous studies, researchers invoked the Frank-van der Merwe, Stranski-Krastanov and Volmer-Weber growth-mode models (2D-to-3D growth-mode transition) to discuss the formation mechanism of films22,23,24,25. These models directly explain the growth process of thin films. However, the literature still contains little intuitionistic explanation about the relationship between the surface morphology and the dislocations. In our previous report, we only analysed the dislocation types (60° and 90° dislocations) at the interface in detail (the In0.82Ga0.18As films were prepared at 430 °C)26. As a consequence, the strain in the In0.82Ga0.18As/InP (100) interface was incompletely relaxed because of the formation and multiplication of misfit dislocations (MDs). Various defects including stacking faults as well as 60° and 90° threading dislocations were identified in the region near the interface, and the plastic relaxation of the strained heterostructures was obtained by the creation of MDs. The styles and the formation of the dislocations near the interface in the heterostructures have been analysed systematically in previous reports27,28,29,30.
In this work, we focused on the formation mechanism to explain the relationship between the surface morphology (and microstructure) and dislocations of In0.82Ga0.18As/InP heterostructure. We describe the relationship between the protrusions and depressions on the surface of the epitaxial layers. Furthermore, the movement of dislocations is further investigated. Additionally, we calculate the dislocation density in the epitaxial layers to explore the influence of the movement of dislocations on the surface morphology and the microstructure of epitaxial layers. In this paper, we emphasize our development of a formation mechanism to explain the relationship between the surface morphology (and microstructure) and the dislocations of In0.82Ga0.18As/InP heterostructure. To explain our model more clearly, we have included two additional experiments (at 390 °C and 410 °C) to provide better contrast with previous results.
Results
The In0.82Ga0.18As/InP specimens were grown using the MOCVD (see Methods for details). The samples grown at different temperatures (430 °C, 410 °C and 390 °C) are labelled as sample A, sample B, and sample C, respectively. The surface morphologies of In0.82Ga0.18As layers obtained at different growth temperatures were examined by SEM; the results are shown in Fig. 1(a–c). Numerous small protrusions and depressions were observed on the surface of sample A, as shown in Fig. 1(a), and these protrusions were noticeably smaller on samples B and C, as shown in Fig. 1(b,c), respectively. Our observations demonstrate that the surface morphology became smooth as the preparation temperature was descread. To elucidate the formation of the protrusions and depressions more clearly, we characterized the three specimens by transmission electron microscopy (TEM).
Figure 2 shows the [110] cross-section fragments of the three samples characterized by TEM. For samples A, B and C, the growth rates of the In0.82Ga0.18As epitaxial layer were 300, 187 and 142 nm/h at the same growth time, respectively. For samples A, B and C, shown in Fig. 2(a–c), respectively, the width of the protrusions (depressions) were approximately 520, 200 and 110 nm, whereas the heights were 90, 55 and 10 nm, respectively. These results are consistent with the SEM images in Fig. 1(a–c), respectively. The cross-section of the protrusions and the depressions on the surface arranged according to a definite principle of: depression-protrusion-depression (or protrusion-depression-protrusion); the dislocations gathered in the protrusions (depressions) shown in the red squares on the surface. The numbers of dislocations at the surface especially in the protrusions (depressions) decreased with decreasing temperature. Fig. 2(d), with blue borders, is a high resolution image at the interface of sample B (the blue square in Fig. 2(b)). Moreover, numbers of dislocations were observes at the interface because of the lattice mismatch of 2% between the In0.82Ga0.18As epitaxial layer and the InP substrate of each sample, as shown in Fig. 2(d).
Discussion and Conclusion
On the basis of the aforementioned results, we propose that the surface structures are associated with the movement of the dislocations; this hypothesis can be strongly supported by calculation of the dislocation density. Usually, the full width at half maximum (FWHM) and the magnified inverse fast Fourier transform (IFFT) are used to calculate the dislocation density. The FWHM of the In0.82Ga0.18As epitaxial layer is an important parameter for crystalline structures examined using X-ray diffraction (XRD), according to the following formula:
where b is a constant associated with the lattice parameter of In0.82Ga0.18As31, thus, as the value of the FWHM increases, the dislocation density increases. The values are summarized in Table. 1. The XRD patterns of the InGaAs epitaxial layer and InP substrates for samples A–C are shown in Fig. 3. However, with this method, the FWHM value only reflects the average dislocation density of the epitaxial layers; we therefore calculate the dislocation density of the surface and the interface using the magnified inverse fast Fourier transform (IFFT) technique. We define the dislocation density according to the following formula:
where n is the number of dislocations and A is the area. On the basis of this method, the dislocation density of the interface (or the surface) can be obtained. As shown in Fig. 4, we obtained two groups of (111) half-planes on the basis of IFFT, as shown in the magnified regions of the red and blue squares, we then used Equation (2) to determine the values of the dislocation density and average the values. Using a large number of high-resolution electron microscope images, we calculated the dislocation densities of the different regions; the results are collected in Table. 1. Furthermore, from Table. 1, the dislocation density at the interface was obviously larger than that in the epitaxial layer. As the growth temperature was lowered, the dislocation densities of both the interface and the surface decreased, consistent with the trend obtained from the Equation (1). As evident for sample A, the value of ρs/ρi was 45.8–65.5%, whereas the values were 23.3–47.8% and 16.2–28.1% for sample B and sample C, respectively. These results indicate that at a higher temperature, more dislocations form and move to the surface. This observation is also consistent with the results shown in Fig. 2(a–c).
In previous reports, researchers have applied an acknowledged model in which the thin films grow via the Frank-van der Merwe, Stranski-Krastanov and Volmer-Weber growth mode (2D-to-3D growth-mode transition) to directly explain the formation mechanism of the films, as shown in Fig. 5(a). In this model, as the temperature increases, the diffusion of the atoms becomes much stronger and the strain increases; the growth of the films thus transitions from 2D growth into 3D growth to release the strain. On the basis of this model and the aforementioned analysis in this work, we here establish a simple model in which the dislocation motion in the films explains the formation mechanism of surface morphology, in cases not explained by the aforementioned model. As shown in Fig. 5(b), at the protrusions (or depressions) on the surface of heterostructure film, the dislocations lines generate together, leading to a poor surface. During the film formation process, misfit dislocations (MDs, red lines) are first formed because of the lattice mismatch in In0.82Ga0.18As/InP heterosystem. Second, as the film thickness increases, interaction dislocations incline towards the surface to form threading dislocations (TDs): some TDs form that depend on the dislocations’ glide plane as segments (the yellow lines) and some form from the Frank–Read source (black lines)26. These TDs then propagate to the surface and result in the formation of protrusions (or depressions). At a higher growth temperature, the atomic motion becomes much stronger, and more defects, especially dislocations, are formed. When the film growth rate becomes faster, a thicker film is obtained; in a thicker film, the strain increases, resulting in the generation of more dislocations on the surface. Finally, larger and more protrusions (depressions) are formed.
In summary, the quality of the surface morphology improves and the rough surface becomes smooth with decreasing temperature. We studied the relationship between the surface morphology and the microstructure of the epitaxial layer about the dislocation motion at different temperatures. We then devised a simple model to explain the formations of films and the protrusions (or depressions) on their surface. As the film growth progresses, interaction dislocations incline form threading dislocations (TDs): some TDs form that depend on thedislocations’ glide plane as segments and some form from the multiplication of the misfit dislocations (MDs). These TDs then generate on the surface and result in formation of the protrusions (or depressions). This model has the potential to be very influential in demonstrating how to use dislocations (or other defects) in the surface to improve the performance of films through surface treatments. Although the quality of our films (in terms of dislocation density) is not better than that of the films fabricated with a buffer layer, we are able to design and study how to use the dislocation of the surface to improve the surface morphology and properties, and we are able to take the epitaxial layers in this paper as the buffer layers, which represents an improvement upon the two-step growth method. Our research has the potential to play an important role in the design of semiconductor films (especially using the two-step growth method) and dislocation analysis of large lattice mismatch systems in the future.
Methods
Sample preparation. The In0.82Ga0.18As epitaxial layers on InP(100) were grown by low-pressure MOVCD (AIXTRON 200/4) at three different temperatures (430 °C, 410 °C and 390 °C), because the pyrolysis temperature of trimethylgallium (TMGa) is higher than that of Trimethylindium (TMIn). At lower temperatures, controlling indium-gallium ratio at the same growth time (90 min) to synthesize the In0.82Ga0.18As is difficult. In particular, at 370 °C, the TMGa cannot be broken down32. TMGa, TMIn and 10% arsine (AsH3) in H2 were used as precursors. Palladium-diffused hydrogen was used as a carrier gas. The substrates on the graphite susceptor were heated under inductively coupled radio frequency power. The reactor pressure was maintained at 1 × 104 Pa. The growth time was 90 min, and the growth rates of the In0.82Ga0.18As epitaxial layer were 300, 187 and 167 nm/h, respectively.
Characterization techniques. A high-resolution X-ray diffractometer (D8, Bruker) was used for the FWHM measurements to investigate the crystalline quality of the epitaxial layers. The surface morphology of the In0.82Ga0.18As/InP (100) system was detected by a scanning electron microscope (EVO-18, ZEISS). The samples for TEM observations were thinned manually and made electron-transparent by ion-milling using a Leica RES101 ion polishing system. A transmission electron microscope (JEM-2100F, JEOL) operated at 200KV was used for TEM observations; high resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM) was used to observe [110] cross-section samples.
Additional Information
How to cite this article: Zhao, L. et al. The relationship between the dislocations and microstructure in In0.82Ga0.18As/InP heterostructures. Sci. Rep. 6, 35139; doi: 10.1038/srep35139 (2016).
References
Vurgaftman, I., Meyer, J. R. & Ram-Mohan, L. R. Band parameters for III–V compound semiconductors and their alloys. Journal of Applied Physics 89, 5815, doi: 10.1063/1.1368156 (2001).
Del Alamo, J. A. Nanometre-scale electronics with III-V compound semiconductors. Nature 479, 317–323 (2011).
Tsai, C. L., Cheng, K. Y., Chou, S. T. & Lin, S. Y. InGaAs quantum wire infrared photodetector. Applied Physics Letters 91, 181105, doi: 10.1063/1.2805224 (2007).
Xia, H. et al. Nanoscale imaging of the photoresponse in PN junctions of InGaAs infrared detector. Scientific reports 6, 21544, doi: 10.1038/srep21544 (2016).
Pospischil, A., Furchi, M. M. & Mueller, T. Solar-energy conversion and light emission in an atomic monolayer pn diode. Nature nanotechnology 9, 257–261 (2014).
Geisz, J. F. et al. High-efficiency GaInP∕GaAs∕InGaAs triple-junction solar cells grown inverted with a metamorphic bottom junction. Applied Physics Letters 91, 023502, doi: 10.1063/1.2753729 (2007).
Wang, P.-F. et al. A Semi-floating gate transistor for low-voltage ultrafast memory and sensing operation. science 341, 640–643 (2013).
Wang, S. et al. MOVPE growth of grade-strained bulk InGaAs/InP for broad-band optoelectronic device applications. Journal of Crystal Growth 260, 464–468, doi: 10.1016/j.jcrysgro.2003.09.003 (2004).
Kim, J. et al. Misfit dislocation generated in InAs epilayer and InP substrate interfaces grown by metalorganic chemical-vapor deposition. Materials Letters 53, 446–451 (2002).
Zhang, Y. et al. Wavelength extended 2.4μm heterojunction InGaAs photodiodes with InAlAs cap and linearly graded buffer layers suitable for both front and back illuminations. Infrared Physics & Technology 51, 316–321, doi: 10.1016/j.infrared.2007.09.003 (2008).
Li, C. et al. Distinction investigation of InGaAs photodetectors cutoff at 2.9μm. Infrared Physics & Technology 53, 173–176, doi: 10.1016/j.infrared.2009.11.002 (2010).
Gao, F. et al. Achieving high-quality In0.3Ga0.7As films on GaAs substrates by low-temperature molecular beam epitaxy. CrystEngComm 16, 10774–10779, doi: 10.1039/c4ce01558d (2014).
Zhang, Z. Y. et al. 1.55 microm InAs/GaAs quantum dots and high repetition rate quantum dot SESAM mode-locked laser. Scientific reports 2, 477, doi: 10.1038/srep00477 (2012).
Suzumura, I. et al. Nucleation and growth of Ge on Si (111) in solid phase epitaxy. Thin Solid Films 369, 116–120 (2000).
Speliotis, T. et al. Effect of deposition pressure and post deposition annealing on SmCo thin film properties. physica status solidi (c) 5, 3759–3762 (2008).
Manasevit, H. M. Single-Crystal Gallium Arsenide on Insulating Substrates. Applied Physics Letters 12, 156, doi: 10.1063/1.1651934 (1968).
Wood, C. et al. Terahertz emission from metal-organic chemical vapor deposition grown Fe: InGaAs using 830 nm to 1.55 μm excitation. Applied Physics Letters 96, 194104 (2010).
Byrnes, D. P., Ebert, C., Pulwin, Z., Krahnert, A. & Ramos, F. In Photovoltaic Specialist Conference (PVSC), IEEE 40th. 1135–1138 (IEEE) (2014).
Chang, S.-Z., Chang, T.-C. & Lee, S.-C. The growth of highly mismatched InxGa1−xAs (0.28 ≤ x ≤ 1) on GaAs by molecular-beam epitaxy. Journal of Applied Physics 73, 4916, doi: 10.1063/1.353809 (1993).
Li, J., Miao, G., Zhang, Z. & Zeng, Y. Experiments and analysis of the two-step growth of InGaAs on GaAs substrate. CrystEngComm 17, 5808–5813, doi: 10.1039/c5ce00979k (2015).
Wang, T. Y., Ou, S. L., Horng, R. H. & Wuu, D. S. Growth evolution of Si x N y on the GaN underlayer and its effects on GaN-on-Si (111) heteroepitaxial quality. CrystEngComm 16, 5724–5731 (2014).
Samonji, K., Yonezu, H., Takagi, Y. & Ohshima, N. Evolution process of cross-hatch patterns and reduction of surface roughness in (InAs)[sub m](GaAs)[sub n] strained short-period superlattices and InGaAs alloy layers grown on GaAs. Journal of Applied Physics 86, 1331, doi: 10.1063/1.370891 (1999).
Medel-Ruiz, C. I. et al. In situ monitoring of the 2D–3D growth-mode transition in In0.3Ga0.7As/GaAs (001) by reflectance-difference spectroscopy. Applied Surface Science 221, 48–52, doi: 10.1016/s0169-4332(03)00957-7 (2004).
Leonard, D., Krishnamurthy, M., Reaves, C. M., Denbaars, S. P. & Petroff, P. M. Direct formation of quantum-sized dots from uniform coherent islands of InGaAs on GaAs surfaces. Applied Physics Letters 63, 3203, doi: 10.1063/1.110199 (1993).
Krzyzewski, T., Joyce, P., Bell, G. & Jones, T. Role of two-and three-dimensional surface structures in InAs-GaAs (001) quantum dot nucleation. Physical Review B 66, 121307 (2002).
Zhao, L., Sun, J. G., Guo, Z. X. & Miao, G. Q. TEM dislocations characterization of InxGa1−xAs/InP (100) (x = 0.82) on mismatched InP substrate. Materials Letters 106, 222–224, doi: 10.1016/j.matlet.2013.04.116 (2013).
Chen, Y. et al. Dislocation formation mechanism in strained InxGa1−xAs islands grown on GaAs (001) substrates. Applied physics letters 68, 111–113 (1996).
Chu, S. N. G., Macrander, A. T., Strege, K. E. & Johnston, W. D. Misfit stress in InGaAs/InP heteroepitaxial structures grown by vapor-phase epitaxy. Journal of Applied Physics 57, 249, doi: 10.1063/1.334797 (1985).
Narayan, J. & Oktyabrsky, S. Formation of misfit dislocations in thin film heterostructures. Journal of Applied Physics 92, 7122, doi: 10.1063/1.1521789 (2002).
Mathis, S. K., Chavarkar, P., Andrews, A. M., Mishra, U. K. & Speck, J. S. Strain relaxation of InGaAs by lateral oxidation of AlAs. Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology B: Microelectronics and Nanometer Structures 18, 2066, doi: 10.1116/1.1303739 (2000).
Liu, X. et al. Influence of thermal annealing duration of buffer layer on the crystalline quality of In0.82Ga0.18As grown on InP substrate by LP-MOCVD. Applied Surface Science 257, 1996–1999, doi: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2010.09.041 (2011).
Yoshida, M., Watanabe, H. & Uesugi, F. Mass Spectrometric Study of Ga (CH 3) 3 and Ga (C 2 H 5) 3 Decomposition Reaction in H 2 and N 2. Journal of the Electrochemical Society 132, 677–679 (1985).
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from the National Nature Science Foundation (No. 61474053), the National Key Basic Research Project of China (973 Project, No. 2012CB619200), the 2014 Natural Science Basic Research Open Foundation of the Key Lab of Automobile Materials, Ministry of Education, Jilin University (No. 1018320144001) and the State Key Laboratory for Mechanical Behavior of Materials (No. 20161806).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Z.G. designed the project and guided the research. G.M. carried out the preparation of the In0.82Ga0.18As/InP. Q.W. prepared the samples for TEM observations. Liang Z. and Lei Z. conducted SEM, TEM and HRTEM observations and wrote the paper. Z.G. and G.M. revised the paper. All authors contributed to the discussions.
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Rights and permissions
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
About this article
Cite this article
Zhao, L., Guo, Z., Wei, Q. et al. The relationship between the dislocations and microstructure in In0.82Ga0.18As/InP heterostructures. Sci Rep 6, 35139 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep35139
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep35139
- Springer Nature Limited
This article is cited by
-
Optimization by simulation for photovoltaic applications of the quaternary semiconductor InGaAsP epitaxed on InP substrate
Optical and Quantum Electronics (2021)