III/V semiconductor nanostructures have significant potential in device applications, but effective surface passivation is critical due to their large surface-to-volume ratio. For InP such passivation has proven particularly difficult, with substantial depassivation generally observed following dielectric deposition on InP surfaces. We present a novel approach based on passivation with a phosphorus-rich interfacial oxide deposited using a low-temperature process, which is critical to avoid P-desorption. For this purpose we have chosen a POx layer deposited in a plasma-assisted atomic layer deposition (ALD) system at room temperature. Since POx is known to be hygroscopic and therefore unstable in atmosphere, we encapsulate this layer with a thin ALD Al2O3 capping layer to form a POx/Al2O3 stack. This passivation scheme is capable of improving the photoluminescence (PL) efficiency of our state-of-the-art wurtzite (WZ) InP nanowires by a factor of ∼20 at low excitation. If we apply the rate equation analysis advocated by some authors, we derive a PL internal quantum efficiency (IQE) of 75% for our passivated wires at high excitation. Our results indicate that it is more reliable to calculate the IQE as the ratio of the integrated PL intensity at room temperature to that at 10 K. By this means we derive an IQE of 27% for the passivated wires at high excitation (>10 kW cm-2), which constitutes an unprecedented level of performance for undoped InP nanowires. This conclusion is supported by time-resolved PL decay lifetimes, which are also shown to be significantly higher than previously reported for similar wires. The passivation scheme displays excellent long-term stability (>7 months) and is additionally shown to substantially improve the thermal stability of InP surfaces (>300 °C), significantly expanding the temperature window for device processing. Such effective surface passivation is a key enabling technology for InP nanowire devices such as nanolasers and solar cells.
III/V semiconductor nanostructures have significant potential in device applications, but effective surface passivation is critical due to their large surface-to-volume ratio. For InP such passivation has proven particularly difficult, with substantial depassivation generally observed following dielectric deposition on InP surfaces. We present a novel approach based on passivation with a phosphorus-rich interfacial oxide deposited using a low-temperature process, which is critical to avoid P-desorption. For this purpose we have chosen a POx layer deposited in a plasma-assisted atomic layer deposition (ALD) system at room temperature. Since POx is known to be hygroscopic and therefore unstable in atmosphere, we encapsulate this layer with a thin ALDAl2O3 capping layer to form a POx/Al2O3 stack. This passivation scheme is capable of improving the photoluminescence (PL) efficiency of our state-of-the-art wurtzite (WZ) InP nanowires by a factor of ∼20 at low excitation. If we apply the rate equation analysis advocated by some authors, we derive a PL internal quantum efficiency (IQE) of 75% for our passivated wires at high excitation. Our results indicate that it is more reliable to calculate the IQE as the ratio of the integrated PL intensity at room temperature to that at 10 K. By this means we derive an IQE of 27% for the passivated wires at high excitation (>10 kW cm-2), which constitutes an unprecedented level of performance for undoped InP nanowires. This conclusion is supported by time-resolved PL decay lifetimes, which are also shown to be significantly higher than previously reported for similar wires. The passivation scheme displays excellent long-term stability (>7 months) and is additionally shown to substantially improve the thermal stability of InP surfaces (>300 °C), significantly expanding the temperature window for device processing. Such effective surface passivation is a key enabling technology for InP nanowire devices such as nanolasers and solar cells.
III/V semiconductor nanostructures
are the subject of increasing interest for device applications as
researchers seek to overcome the intrinsic material limitations of
Si while continuing device scaling and taking advantage of novel properties
available at the nanoscale.[1−4] However, the high surface-to-volume ratio of such
nanostructures makes effective surface passivation critical for many
device applications, and passivation of III/V surfaces has historically
proven far from trivial.[5−7] In this work, we aim to address
this problem for the case of InP, a technologically important III/V
semiconductor with applications in a variety of electronic and optoelectronic
devices. InP is notable for its high electron mobility and velocity,
ease of integration with important ternary and quaternary III/V compounds
(including In0.53Ga0.47As and InGa1AsP1–), and direct
bandgap of 1.34 eV which is ideal for photovoltaic applications. InP/dielectric
gate stacks have been employed in InGaAs buried-channel field-effect
transistors which are the first to outperform Si-based devices.[1,8] InP nanowires can be grown with good bulk material quality in both
zinc-blende (ZB) and wurtzite (WZ) crystal phases, and InP nanowire
solar cells have achieved some of the highest conversion efficiencies
among nanowire photovoltaic devices,[9,10] while InP-based
nanolasers hold promise as optical sources for silicon-integrated
photonics.[11]Despite the widespread
use of InP in devices, there exists no established
method to stably and effectively passivate InP surfaces. It was early
recognized[12] that (in contrast to GaAs)
the native InP surface exhibits a relatively low surface recombination
velocity (on the order of ∼102–104 cm/s depending on dopant concentration[13−17]), and this is frequently cited as an advantage for
device applications. However, this level of passivation is still limiting
for many devices, and the native surface displays poor thermal stability.[18−20] More critically, this native surface passivation is generally not
maintained following the deposition of standard dielectric layers
(e.g., SiO2 or Al2O3) on the InP
surface,[18,19] as required for the fabrication of many
types of devices. More recent attempts to passivate InP nanowire surfaces
have encountered similar difficulties. Wet chemical treatments have
been shown to provide some degree of surface passivation,[21,22] but this is generally not stable. Münch et al.[23] found that atomic layer deposition (ALD) of
HfO2 significantly degraded surface passivation regardless
of surface pretreatment or deposition conditions. Dhaka et al.[24] reported similar surface degradation following
ALD of Al2O3, AlN, TiN, GaN, and TiO2 on InP nanowires and pillars. Some improvement was observed for
very thin Al2O3 films below a critical thickness
of 2–3 nm, though carrier lifetimes remained well below 1 ns.
Zhong et al.[25] recently reported an increase
in photoluminescence (PL) intensity and lifetime following plasma-enhanced
chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) of SiN on InP nanowires; however, they also observed a significant decrease
in the open-circuit voltage of nanowire solar cells with the same
films, making the significance of this result somewhat ambiguous.
In sum, despite the acknowledged importance of surface recombination
in InP nanowire devices, there remains no clearly established, stable,
and effective surface passivation method for this material.In attempting to devise an effective surface passivation scheme
for InP nanowires, it is instructive to look back at historical work
on the development of InPmetal–insulator–semiconductor
(MIS) devices. As noted above, early work showed that the deposition
of standard dielectrics on InP tended to result in interfaces with
poor electrical properties. It was conjectured that this might be
linked to thermally induced degradation of the InP surface observed
by various authors at temperatures ranging from 150 to 225 °C[18−20] and thought to be linked to the desorption of surface P known to
occur at least above 200 °C.[26] Following
this line of thought, or inspired by alternative structural considerations,[27] a number of groups investigated the use of various
P-rich layers, including deposition of P,[28] PO,[29] AlPO,[27] InPO,[30] PN,[31] or PON films (usually by PECVD),[32] growth of P-rich anodic oxides,[33,34] or deposition of other dielectrics in P overpressure,[35,36] to improve the interface characteristics of InP MIS structures.
Such approaches appear to have been relatively successful, in most
cases leading to significant improvements in MIS electrical characteristics.
Since few of these groups employed PL characterization, it is not
clear whether any of these approaches resulted in passivation improvements,
or at least avoided degradation, relative to the native InP surface
(those few who did perform such a comparison observed relative degradation[31]), but such approaches nevertheless show significant
promise as a path toward effective surface passivation of InP.In this work, we adopt a novel approach inspired by this early
work on InP MIS technology to develop an effective dielectric passivation
scheme for InP nanowires. Specifically, we investigate the use of
a deposited phosphorus oxide (PO) film
to passivate the InP surface. Since phosphorus oxides are known to
be hygroscopic and consequently unstable under ambient conditions
(indeed uncapped PO films were observed
to visibly degrade upon exposure to atmosphere), we encapsulate this
layer with a thin ALDAl2O3 capping layer to
form a PO/Al2O3 stack. We deposit both layers in an ALD reactor at room temperature
(25 °C) using a plasma-assisted process in order to avoid thermal
degradation of the InP surface. Using this novel surface passivation
scheme, we are able to increase the PL internal quantum efficiency
and PL lifetime to levels representing unprecedented performance for
undoped InP nanowires. The investigated passivation scheme displays
excellent long-term stability and is additionally shown to improve
the thermal stability of InP surfaces, significantly expanding the
temperature window for InP device processing.The InP nanowires
studied in this work were grown by catalyst-free
selective-area vapor-phase epitaxy on Zn-doped InP (111)A substrates
using a SiN mask patterned by nanoimprint
lithography.[37] Growth was performed at
750 °C from trimethyl indium (TMI) and phosphine (PH3) (PH3/TMI molar ratio = 82) for 20 min. The wires were
not intentionally doped. High-resolution transmission electron microscopy
(TEM) showed that the wires were pure wurtzite phase, consistent with
photoluminescence spectroscopy. The wires had a length of ∼2.7
μm and a hexagonal cross-section with an average diameter of
∼180 nm and were arranged in a square array with a 500 nm pitch. Figure shows top-down and
tilted SEM images of the nanowire array.
Figure 1
(a) Top-view and (b)
30° tilt SEM images of as-grown WZ InP
nanowire array. (c) Bright-field TEM image of single nanowire with
PO/Al2O3 passivation
stack. (d) Bright-field and (e) HAADF scanning TEM images taken around
the center of the same nanowire, which show the bilayer structure
of the deposited amorphous PO/Al2O3 stack. (f) Expanded partial view of panel e.
(a) Top-view and (b)
30° tilt SEM images of as-grown WZ InP
nanowire array. (c) Bright-field TEM image of single nanowire with
PO/Al2O3 passivation
stack. (d) Bright-field and (e) HAADF scanning TEM images taken around
the center of the same nanowire, which show the bilayer structure
of the deposited amorphous PO/Al2O3 stack. (f) Expanded partial view of panel e.Deposition of the PO/Al2O3 thin film passivation
stacks was performed in an Oxford
Instruments FlexAL ALD reactor. Immediately prior to loading samples
for deposition, they were immersed for 1 min in a 1% aqueous HF solution
to remove the native oxide, followed by rinsing in deionized water.
Phosphorus oxide (PO) deposition was
performed at 25 °C by exposing the samples alternately to trimethyl
phosphate (TMP), (CH3)3PO4), and
an O2plasma, with separating N2 purges, in
an ALD-like manner. The deposition of ALDAl2O3 capping layers was performed in situ immediately following PO deposition from trimethyl aluminum [TMA,
Al(CH3)3] and O2plasma at the same
temperature. More information on the deposition processes is given
in the Supporting Information (SI). The
use of a room-temperature deposition process was found to be critical
to achieving the best passivation quality. Deposition of PO/Al2O3 stacks at higher temperatures
(50 or 100 °C) resulted in consistently lower PL intensity and
shorter PL lifetimes for both planar and nanowire InP samples compared
to that obtained at room temperature (see SI). The thickness of the PO and Al2O3 layers was ∼5 nm and ∼16 nm, respectively
(each process was run for 100 cycles), as determined by in situ spectroscopic
ellipsometry on planar InP surfaces. The PO layer appeared to be transparent within the measured range
(<5 eV) with a refractive index of 1.67 at 632 nm.Figure shows TEM
images of an InP nanowire after deposition of such a PO/Al2O3 thin film stack. From
the bright-field images the films appeared to be amorphous, as also
indicated by X-ray diffraction measurements of similar film stacks
on planar Si surfaces. The distinct bilayer structure of the passivation
stack is clearly apparent in the contrast of the high-angle annular
dark-field (HAADF) scanning TEM image. High-resolution TEM imaging
of the PO/Al2O3 stack was unfortunately found to be impossible due to a pronounced
beam sensitivity of the PO layer, which
was observed to undergo rapid partial crystallization and delamination
from the nanowire surface when exposed to higher fluences of the electron
beam (see TEM images in SI). This also
precluded accurate analysis of the composition profile by energy-dispersive
X-ray spectroscopy (EDX).To establish the composition of the
deposited layers, depth-resolved
(sputtered) X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) measurements (Thermo
Scientific K-Alpha system) were performed on PO/Al2O3 stacks deposited in parallel on
HF-etched, polished (100) InP wafer substrates. Figure a shows the compositional depth profile determined
from these measurements, while Figure b shows the main photoelectron peaks at several representative
depths. Consistent with the TEM measurements, the profile exhibits
a distinct bilayer structure. Beneath the capping Al2O3 there is a P-rich oxide layer, as expected. Surprisingly,
however, this layer also appears to contain significant Al (Al–P–O
ratio ≈ 0.5:1:4). This is despite the low deposition temperature
and absence of postdeposition annealing which could promote Al diffusion.
Near the substrate interface, indium oxides are also present in low
concentrations, which can be attributed to the oxidizing effect of
the O2plasma during the initial deposition cycles when
the PO film is still nucleating. The
carbon concentration in the phosphate layer was ∼0.7%, close
to the detection limit. Note that the relative concentration of both
In and Al in the PO layer is likely to
be overestimated due to known selective sputtering of P with respect
to both elements (this also accounts for the apparent nonstoichiometry
of the InP substrate bulk: measurements of unsputtered InP wafers
both as-received and after HF etching showed stoichiometric composition
using the same sensitivity factors—see SI).[27,38] The apparent composition of the
phosphate layer, as well as the binding energy of the bulk P 2p oxide
peak (135.2 eV), are most consistent with a phosphorus-rich aluminum
polyphosphate structure Al(PO3) analogous with In(PO3),
most likely incorporating excess oxygen in the form of OH groups (see SI for additional discussion of the XPS data).[39−42]
Figure 2
(a)
Relative atomic composition determined by XPS as a function
of sputtering time for the optimized PO/Al2O3 passivation stack on a polished InP
(100) substrate. (b) P 2p, In 3d5/2, Al 2p, and O 1s photoelectron
spectra for sputter times of 20, 240, and 330 s, approximately corresponding
to the Al2O3 bulk, PO bulk, and near-interfacial regions, respectively.
(a)
Relative atomic composition determined by XPS as a function
of sputtering time for the optimized PO/Al2O3 passivation stack on a polished InP
(100) substrate. (b) P 2p, In 3d5/2, Al 2p, and O 1s photoelectron
spectra for sputter times of 20, 240, and 330 s, approximately corresponding
to the Al2O3 bulk, PO bulk, and near-interfacial regions, respectively.Steady-state and time-resolved photoluminescence
(PL) measurements
were performed to characterize the electrical and optical quality
of the nanowires and the effectiveness of the surface passivation.
In all cases the nanowires were measured as upright arrays on the
growth substrate with excitation and detection parallel to the nanowire
growth axis. A “positive aging” effect was noted for
the passivated nanowire samples, whereby PL intensity and lifetime
were observed to increase substantially over a period
of weeks and months during sample storage under dark, ambient conditions.
Such an effect has previously been noted for other semiconductor/dielectric
interfaces, for example, Al2O3-passivated Si.[43] It was found that this effect could be accelerated
by postdeposition annealing at moderate temperatures. For instance,
a 1 min anneal at 250 °C in N2 shortly after PO/Al2O3 deposition was
sufficient to increase the PL lifetime to a level similar to that
obtained after months of aging at room temperature (see SI). Unless otherwise mentioned, the PL measurements
of the PO/Al2O3-passivated nanowires reported below represent stabilized values
measured more than 7 months after PO/Al2O3 deposition, without annealing.The stabilized
passivation layers were found to significantly enhance
the PL efficiency of the nanowires. The integrated steady-state PL
intensity at room temperature (295 K) was observed to increase by
a factor of ∼10–20 for the passivated wires compared
to the as-grown wires depending on excitation intensity (Figure b), with the greatest
increase observed at low excitation. The PL spectrum, shown in Figure a, is typical of
pure WZ InP,[44,45] with an emission peak close to
1.42 eV at room temperature. Interestingly, the dependence of PL intensity IPL on excitation intensity Iexc for both as-grown and passivated wires closely follows
a power law (IPL ∝ Iexc) over at least 7 orders
of magnitude in PL intensity, with average exponents n of 1.52 and 1.41, respectively [the local value of n may be evaluated from the slope of log(IPL) vs log(Iexc)]. These values can be
considered as ideality factors in the one-diode equivalent circuit
of the wires. While the physical interpretation of such apparent ideality
factors should be treated with caution,[46] increasing values in the range of 1 < n <
2 are consistent with increasing nonradiative recombination associated
with bulk or surface states.
Figure 3
(a) Room-temperature (RT) steady-state PL intensity
spectra of
the InP nanowires, as-grown and after surface passivation with PO/Al2O3, measured at
an excitation intensity of ∼4.3 × 1018 photons
cm–2 s–1. (b) Integrated steady-state
PL intensity of the same wires vs excitation flux at 10 and 295 K.
(c) PL IQE and implied loss in solar cell open circuit voltage Voc(37,47) at 295 K vs excitation
flux, derived from the data of panel b. (d) Peak PL internal quantum
efficiency (IQE) at room temperature reported in the literature[51−53] and in this work for undoped WZ InP nanowires and pillars versus
wire or pillar diameter. Contour lines show the expected IQE versus
diameter for a constant surface recombination velocity (SRV) assuming
that all nonradiative recombination is surface-related, where each
contour step toward the lower part of the figure represents a doubling
of SRV.
(a) Room-temperature (RT) steady-state PL intensity
spectra of
the InP nanowires, as-grown and after surface passivation with PO/Al2O3, measured at
an excitation intensity of ∼4.3 × 1018 photons
cm–2 s–1. (b) Integrated steady-state
PL intensity of the same wires vs excitation flux at 10 and 295 K.
(c) PL IQE and implied loss in solar cell open circuit voltage Voc(37,47) at 295 K vs excitation
flux, derived from the data of panel b. (d) Peak PL internal quantum
efficiency (IQE) at room temperature reported in the literature[51−53] and in this work for undoped WZ InP nanowires and pillars versus
wire or pillar diameter. Contour lines show the expected IQE versus
diameter for a constant surface recombination velocity (SRV) assuming
that all nonradiative recombination is surface-related, where each
contour step toward the lower part of the figure represents a doubling
of SRV.In addition to the relative increase
in PL efficiency apparent
from Figure b, it
is desirable to quantify the absolute PL internal quantum efficiency
(IQE). This quantity relates directly to the efficiency potential
of light-emitting devices and to the open-circuit voltage potential
of photovoltaic devices.[37,47] Yoo et al.[48] have previously proposed that the PL IQE may
be determined by fitting the room-temperature excitation-dependent
PL intensity at high excitation levels with an idealized “rate
equation” describing the recombination dynamics. Using this
approach, Gao et al.[49] have reported an
IQE of ∼50% for as-grown, undoped WZ InP nanowires of a similar
diameter (200 nm) to our own, which constitutes the highest IQE reported
for such structures. If we apply the same analysis to our own data
at similar high excitation levels, we derive an IQE of 61% for the
as-grown wires and 75% for the passivated wires (see SI for details). Gratifying as such values would be, they
are clearly not reliable given the much larger (∼10 times)
relative difference in PL intensity between the same samples, and
thus serve rather to highlight the general unreliability of this method
for determining the PL IQE.An alternative method of determining
the PL IQE which is widely
used in the literature is to take the ratio of integrated PL intensity
at room temperature (295 K) to that at low temperature (10 K in our
case). In this approach it is assumed that the efficiency of radiative
recombination is 100% at low temperature, where nonradiative processes
are strongly suppressed. This assumption, though not always justified,[50] is supported in our case by the n = 1 power dependence of the integrated PL intensity on excitation
at 10 K for both the as-grown and passivated nanowires (Figure b). This provides strong evidence
that the PL IQE determined in this way (Figure c) is reliable in the present case. Resulting
PL IQE values of 3.5% for the as-grown and 27% for the passivated
nanowires are obtained at the highest excitation levels. The latter
represents an unprecedented level of performance for undoped WZ InP
nanowires, taking into account differences in nanowire dimensions,
as illustrated in Figure d.Time-resolved PL (TRPL) measurements provide additional
support
for the effectiveness of the investigated surface passivation scheme.
As shown in Figure a, PO/Al2O3 passivation
resulted in a significantly longer PL decay, evidencing an enhanced
carrier lifetime due to reduced surface recombination. As observed
previously for InP nanowires,[54,55] this decay is nonexponential.
We therefore choose to take the time constant characteristic of the
initial, most rapid portion of the TRPL decay, which we designate
τmin, as a conservative measure of the excess carrier
lifetime at the peak injection level of the measurement. This yields
PL decay lifetimes of 1.8 and 5.4 ns, respectively, for the as-grown
and passivated nanowires, indicating a 3 times increase in carrier
lifetime due to passivation. Conversely, nanowires with only the Al2O3 layer (i.e., without the PO interlayer) displayed a significantly reduced PL lifetime
of 0.3 ns, showing the importance of the PO layer for passivation. The PL decay characteristics were observed
to be dependent on excitation intensity (Figure b). While such a dependence is expected,
its exact form is rarely measured or reported. τmin was observed to first increase then decrease with increasing excitation
intensity, with a qualitatively similar excitation dependence for
both as-grown and passivated wires, but a significantly increased
(by a factor of ∼2–3) lifetime for the passivated wires
over the whole excitation range. Peak PL lifetimes of 1.9 and 5.4
ns were measured for the as-grown and passivated wires, respectively.
It should be noted that the behavior of the TRPL decay at longer times,
subsequent to the initial decay, deviated from this excitation dependence
at the lowest excitation intensities, becoming longer as the excitation
intensity was decreased (see SI), which
may indicate the presence of trapping.[56]
Figure 4
(a)
Room-temperature time-resolved PL decay at 870 nm of the nanowires
as-grown and with either a surface-passivating PO/Al2O3 stack or Al2O3 only. Measurements were performed at an excitation intensity of
∼1012 photons cm–2 pulse–1. Dashed lines show graphically the extraction of the initial minimum
PL decay lifetime τmin from the data. (b) τmin extracted from time-resolved PL measurements of the same
as-grown and PO/Al2O3-passivated samples as a function of excitation intensity. Carrier
lifetimes reported in the literature[25,49,57−59] for undoped WZ InP nanowires
of similar diameter to our own are shown for comparison.
(a)
Room-temperature time-resolved PL decay at 870 nm of the nanowires
as-grown and with either a surface-passivating PO/Al2O3 stack or Al2O3 only. Measurements were performed at an excitation intensity of
∼1012 photons cm–2 pulse–1. Dashed lines show graphically the extraction of the initial minimum
PL decay lifetime τmin from the data. (b) τmin extracted from time-resolved PL measurements of the same
as-grown and PO/Al2O3-passivated samples as a function of excitation intensity. Carrier
lifetimes reported in the literature[25,49,57−59] for undoped WZ InP nanowires
of similar diameter to our own are shown for comparison.In Figure b we
also show carrier lifetimes reported in the literature by various
authors[25,49,57−59] for undoped WZ[25,49,57,59] or predominantly WZ[58] InP nanowires of similar diameter to our own (160,58 200,49 220,57 240,25 and 335 nm[59]). None of these wires were deliberately passivated.
It is interesting to observe that the highest values fall just below,
but very close to, the data for our own as-grown wires. Since the
dimensions of our wires are similar, this suggests that the bulk quality
of these wires is comparable to the state-of-the-art. The large increase
in lifetime observed for the passivated wires, however, shows that
the lifetime of the as-grown wires is still significantly surface-limited.
This is contrary to the conclusions of some authors that surface recombination
is practically negligible for such wires.[49,58] The lifetimes observed for the passivated wires appear to be the
longest so far reported for InP nanowires by a significant margin.
Li et al.[45] have reported lifetimes of
up to 7.4 ns for WZ InP micropillars; however, these had a diameter
greater than 1 μm, which significantly reduces the influence
of surface recombination. Given the significantly larger (microscale)
dimensions of these structures we do not include this result in the
comparison of Figure b.It is desirable to quantify the contribution of surface
recombination
in the passivated and unpassivated wires. This is not straightforward,
because the contribution from bulk recombination processes for such
WZ InP nanowires is not known. For a cylindrical geometry (and when
diffusion is not limiting), the effective surface recombination velocity Seff is given by[60]Seff = (D/4)(τeff–1 – τb–1) where D is the nanowire diameter, τeff is the effective excess carrier lifetime, and τb is the bulk lifetime due to radiative and nonradiative processes.
An upper limit on Seff may be derived
by assuming that all recombination occurs at the nanowire surface
(τb = ∞). If we take τeff as equal to the highest measured τmin for the passivated
wires (6.5 ns, see Figure ), we derive an upper limit to Seff of 690 cm/s. For the as-grown wires (τmin = 1.9
ns), we similarly derive an upper limit to Seff of 2.4 × 103 cm/s. A lower limit to Seff for the as-grown wires may be derived by
assuming that τb is equal to the maximum measured
lifetime for the passivated samples. This yields a lower limit of Seff = 1.7 × 103 cm/s for the
as-grown wires. This value is an order of magnitude higher than the
value of 170 cm/s reported by Joyce et al.,[58] which they derived from transient terahertz photoconductance measurements
of as-grown WZ/ZBInP nanowires with a range of diameters, but it
is comparable to the value of 2.7 × 103 cm/s which
may be derived in the same way from the diameter-dependent TRPL data
of Tedeschi et al.[59] for pure WZ wires
(see SI). Note that in general Seff is expected to be dependent on dopant concentration.[61]
Figure 5
Initial PL decay lifetime τmin of (a)
undoped
InP nanowires and (b) planar (100) n-type (S-doped, Nd = 1.3 × 1018 cm–3) InP wafers, both as-grown/as-received (with native oxide) and with
either a PO/Al2O3 passivation stack or Al2O3 only, as a function
of annealing temperature (N2 ambient, 1 min). Each data
point represents a separate sample (i.e., samples were not annealed
sequentially). An anneal temperature of zero indicates no anneal.
Dashed lines show the decay time constant of the excitation pulse
(“system response”) in panel a, which is the lifetime
measured for the nanowires when the surface recombination is very
high (as observed for samples with an Al2O3 film
deposited at 200 °C instead of room temperature), and in (b)
τmin measured for the same samples subjected to an
HF dip followed by evaporation of a thin (∼5 nm) Au coating.
The latter has the effect of producing an effectively infinite surface
recombination velocity,[63] leading to diffusion-limited
surface recombination and thus represents a lower limit on the lifetime
that can be obtained by degradation of the surface.
Initial PL decay lifetime τmin of (a)
undoped
InP nanowires and (b) planar (100) n-type (S-doped, Nd = 1.3 × 1018 cm–3) InP wafers, both as-grown/as-received (with native oxide) and with
either a PO/Al2O3 passivation stack or Al2O3 only, as a function
of annealing temperature (N2 ambient, 1 min). Each data
point represents a separate sample (i.e., samples were not annealed
sequentially). An anneal temperature of zero indicates no anneal.
Dashed lines show the decay time constant of the excitation pulse
(“system response”) in panel a, which is the lifetime
measured for the nanowires when the surface recombination is very
high (as observed for samples with an Al2O3 film
deposited at 200 °C instead of room temperature), and in (b)
τmin measured for the same samples subjected to an
HF dip followed by evaporation of a thin (∼5 nm) Au coating.
The latter has the effect of producing an effectively infinite surface
recombination velocity,[63] leading to diffusion-limited
surface recombination and thus represents a lower limit on the lifetime
that can be obtained by degradation of the surface.The passivated nanowires were found to be significantly
more thermally
stable than the as-grown wires. As mentioned earlier, the InP surface
is known to be unstable at elevated temperatures, undergoing P-desorption
and associated electrical degradation at temperatures above at least
200 °C.[18−20,62] In fact, time-resolved
PL measurements, which are extremely sensitive to surface quality,
show that the onset of electrical degradation occurs already between
100 and 150 °C for “bare” (native oxide only) nanowire
and planar InP surfaces, as shown in Figure for such samples annealed at various temperatures
for 1 min in N2. In contrast, the PL lifetime of PO/Al2O3-passivated samples
was initially lower but was observed to increase with
annealing temperature between 100 and 300 °C, reaching values
significantly higher (up to 6.5 ns) than those of the unannealed,
unpassivated samples. Although the lifetimes of the passivated samples
also declined at temperatures above 300 °C, they remained higher
than those of the unpassivated samples annealed at the same temperatures,
indicating an improvement in the thermal stability of the surface. Figure also shows that
the lifetime of samples coated with the same Al2O3 film without a PO interlayer remained
well below those of the unpassivated surface regardless of annealing
temperature up to 400 °C, emphasizing the critical role of the
PO interlayer to passivation. The fact
that similar trends are observed both for the undoped WZ nanowires
and for heavily doped n-type (100) ZBInP is a nontrivial result and
suggests the effectiveness of the investigated passivation scheme
for InP surfaces in general. The improved thermal stability of PO/Al2O3-passivated surfaces
should allow the use of higher thermal budgets for InP device fabrication
without compromising surface electrical properties, thereby expanding
the temperature window for InP device processing.Finally, we
note that the fact that we obtain good passivation
of InP with a P-rich interfacial oxide runs counter to some recent
thinking on InP surface passivation. It is not uncommon in the more
recent InP passivation literature to find studies in which the goal
is the elimination of P oxides, ostensibly for the purposes of surface
passivation.[64,65] For example, on the basis of
a comparison of capacitance–voltage and XPS measurements of
Al2O3 and HfO2 interfaces with InP,
Galatage et al. concluded that the formation of P-rich oxides was
probably harmful for InP passivation.[66] Density functional theory studies have been interpreted in a similar
light.[67] Our results suggest that, on the
contrary, P-rich oxides may be beneficial for InP surface passivation.In conclusion, we have reported evidence of the effective surface
passivation of InP nanowire and planar surfaces by PO/Al2O3 thin-film stacks deposited
at room temperature. The application of this passivation scheme allows
us to achieve PL internal quantum efficiencies and lifetimes significantly
higher than previously reported for wurtziteInP nanowires of similar
diameter. The passivation displays excellent long-term stability and
is additionally shown to significantly improve the thermal stability
of InP surfaces. Further improvements in passivation may be possible
by optimizing the surface pretreatment and PO/Al2O3 film thicknesses in combination
with postdeposition annealing conditions. Such passivation layers
are a key enabling technology for InP nanowire device applications
such as nanolasers and solar cells.
Authors: Lambert K van Vugt; Sandra J Veen; Erik P A M Bakkers; Aarnoud L Roest; Daniël Vanmaekelbergh Journal: J Am Chem Soc Date: 2005-09-07 Impact factor: 15.419
Authors: Hannah J Joyce; Jennifer Wong-Leung; Chaw-Keong Yong; Callum J Docherty; Suriati Paiman; Qiang Gao; H Hoe Tan; Chennupati Jagadish; James Lloyd-Hughes; Laura M Herz; Michael B Johnston Journal: Nano Lett Date: 2012-09-13 Impact factor: 11.189
Authors: Jesper Wallentin; Nicklas Anttu; Damir Asoli; Maria Huffman; Ingvar Aberg; Martin H Magnusson; Gerald Siefer; Peter Fuss-Kailuweit; Frank Dimroth; Bernd Witzigmann; H Q Xu; Lars Samuelson; Knut Deppert; Magnus T Borgström Journal: Science Date: 2013-01-17 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Thai-Truong D Tran; Hao Sun; Kar Wei Ng; Fan Ren; Kun Li; Fanglu Lu; Eli Yablonovitch; Constance J Chang-Hasnain Journal: Nano Lett Date: 2014-05-19 Impact factor: 11.189
Authors: D Tedeschi; M De Luca; H A Fonseka; Q Gao; F Mura; H H Tan; S Rubini; F Martelli; C Jagadish; M Capizzi; A Polimeni Journal: Nano Lett Date: 2016-04-27 Impact factor: 11.189
Authors: Y Cui; D van Dam; S A Mann; N J J van Hoof; P J van Veldhoven; E C Garnett; E P A M Bakkers; J E M Haverkort Journal: Nano Lett Date: 2016-09-12 Impact factor: 11.189
Authors: Dick van Dam; Niels J J van Hoof; Yingchao Cui; Peter J van Veldhoven; Erik P A M Bakkers; Jaime Gómez Rivas; Jos E M Haverkort Journal: ACS Nano Date: 2016-12-05 Impact factor: 15.881
Authors: Kun Li; Hao Sun; Fan Ren; Kar Wei Ng; Thai-Truong D Tran; Roger Chen; Connie J Chang-Hasnain Journal: Nano Lett Date: 2013-12-16 Impact factor: 11.189
Authors: L Gagliano; M Kruijsse; J D D Schefold; A Belabbes; M A Verheijen; S Meuret; S Koelling; A Polman; F Bechstedt; J E M Haverkort; E P A M Bakkers Journal: Nano Lett Date: 2018-05-14 Impact factor: 11.189
Authors: Sebastian Z Oener; Alessandro Cavalli; Hongyu Sun; Jos E M Haverkort; Erik P A M Bakkers; Erik C Garnett Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2018-08-14 Impact factor: 14.919