| Literature DB >> 29232871 |
Pawel E Malinowski1, Epimitheas Georgitzikis2,3, Jorick Maes4,5, Ioanna Vamvaka6,7, Fortunato Frazzica8,9, Jan Van Olmen10, Piet De Moor11, Paul Heremans12,13, Zeger Hens14,15, David Cheyns16.
Abstract
Imaging in the infrared wavelength range has been fundamental in scientific, military and surveillance applications. Currently, it is a crucial enabler of new industries such as autonomous mobility (for obstacle detection), augmented reality (for eye tracking) and biometrics. Ubiquitous deployment of infrared cameras (on a scale similar to visible cameras) is however prevented by high manufacturing cost and low resolution related to the need of using image sensors based on flip-chip hybridization. One way to enable monolithic integration is by replacing expensive, small-scale III-V-based detector chips with narrow bandgap thin-films compatible with 8- and 12-inch full-wafer processing. This work describes a CMOS-compatible pixel stack based on lead sulfide quantum dots (PbS QD) with tunable absorption peak. Photodiode with a 150-nm thick absorber in an inverted architecture shows dark current of 10-6 A/cm² at -2 V reverse bias and EQE above 20% at 1440 nm wavelength. Optical modeling for top illumination architecture can improve the contact transparency to 70%. Additional cooling (193 K) can improve the sensitivity to 60 dB. This stack can be integrated on a CMOS ROIC, enabling order-of-magnitude cost reduction for infrared sensors.Entities:
Keywords: PbS; image sensor; imaging; infrared; monolithic integration; quantum dot
Year: 2017 PMID: 29232871 PMCID: PMC5751686 DOI: 10.3390/s17122867
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Integration route for a hybrid III–V infrared image sensor (a) and a monolithic quantum dot photodiode (QDPD) infrared image sensor (b).
Figure 2Positioning of a QDPD-based image sensor: higher wavelength than monolithic Si and higher resolution than hybrid alternatives.
Figure 3Schematic external quantum efficiency curves for silicon, InGaAs and PbS QD photodetectors (a) and indicative absorption peak dependence on quantum dot size (b).
Figure 4Methodology used for the development of CMOS-compatible QDPD pixel stacks.
Figure 5Cross-section (left: schematic; right: Transmission Electron Micrograph) of a 3-layer active stack based on 5.5 nm PbS quantum dots.
Figure 6Current density vs. voltage of a bottom illuminated QDPD (a) and external quantum efficiency curves for different QD sizes used in the photoactive layer (b).
Figure 7External quantum efficiency of QDPD devices with 3.4 nm (a) and 5.5 nm (b) quantum dots.
Figure 8Microscope image of the silicon substrate with different pixel sizes showing TiN bottom contact and inorganic edge cover layer.
Figure 9Dark and photocurrent density vs. voltage curves (a); and current vs. pixel area curves (b) for active areas between 50 × 50 μm2 and 2 × 2 mm2.
Figure 10Current density—voltage characteristics (a) of a QDPD on Si substrate in dark (black line) and under 1450 nm IR LED with varying power (color lines); and linearity curve of the photocurrent density (b).
Figure 11Top illuminated photodetector stack optimized for NIR transparency: Improvement of the top contact transparency (a); and experimental EQE verification (b).
Figure 12Dark and photocurrent vs. photodetector temperature, indicating an increasing current ratio with lowering the operating temperature.
Figure 13Transient characteristics of a test QDPD device with an active area of 0.041 cm2 and under illumination with a switching NIR LED.