We present a new type of atomic layer deposition (ALD) process for intermetallic thin films, where diethyl zinc (DEZ) serves as a coreactant. In our proof-of-concept study, FeCl3 is used as the second precursor. The FeCl3 + DEZ process yields in situ crystalline Fe4Zn9 thin films, where the elemental purity and Fe/Zn ratio are confirmed by time-of-flight elastic recoil detection analysis (TOF-ERDA), Rutherford backscattering spectrometry (RBS), atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS), and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) analyses. The film thickness is precisely controlled by the number of precursor supply cycles, as expected for an ALD process. The reaction mechanism is addressed by computational density functional theory (DFT) modeling. We moreover carry out preliminary tests with CuCl2 and Ni(thd)2 in combination with DEZ to confirm that these processes yield Cu-Zn and Ni-Zn thin films with DEZ as well. Thus, we envision an opening of a new ALD approach based on DEZ for intermetallic/metal alloy thin films.
We present a new type of atomic layer deposition (ALD) process for intermetallic thin films, where diethyl zinc (DEZ) serves as a coreactant. In our proof-of-concept study, FeCl3 is used as the second precursor. The FeCl3 + DEZ process yields in situ crystalline Fe4Zn9 thin films, where the elemental purity and Fe/Zn ratio are confirmed by time-of-flight elastic recoil detection analysis (TOF-ERDA), Rutherford backscattering spectrometry (RBS), atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS), and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) analyses. The film thickness is precisely controlled by the number of precursor supply cycles, as expected for an ALD process. The reaction mechanism is addressed by computational density functional theory (DFT) modeling. We moreover carry out preliminary tests with CuCl2 and Ni(thd)2 in combination with DEZ to confirm that these processes yield Cu-Zn and Ni-Zn thin films with DEZ as well. Thus, we envision an opening of a new ALD approach based on DEZ for intermetallic/metal alloy thin films.
Atomic layer deposition
(ALD) is the fastest growing thin-film
technology in microelectronics and beyond, owing to the superior film
characteristics it provides.[1−6] In a prototype ALD process, two different gaseous/vaporized precursors
are sequentially pulsed and purged out of the reaction chamber with
prespecified time intervals.[7,8] The precursor pulse
and purge times are selected so that the precursors have enough time
to chemisorb on the surface and react with the available surface groups
for full surface coverage. Another important feature is the self-limitation
of the surface reactions such that the chemisorption of one precursor
is limited to a monolayer; the reaction only continues after the excess
precursor molecules from the gas phase are purged out and the second
precursor is delivered to the reaction chamber. As the two precursors
are not present at the same time in the chamber, no unwanted gas-phase
reactions occur. This unique growth process leads to highly uniform
and conformal thin films with atomic-level control of both thickness
and composition.Most commonly the ALD technique is applied
to the fabrication of
binary metal oxide (e.g., Al2O3, HfO2, TiO2, ZnO),[9,10] sulfide (e.g., ZnS),[1,11] or nitride (e.g., SiN)[12] thin films; in these depositions,
the second precursor is the source of oxygen (e.g., H2O,
O3), sulfur (e.g., H2S, S), or nitrogen (e.g.,
NH3). Ternary and even quaternary processes are possible
as well, but these are more challenging to optimize.[13−15] More recently, the interest in ALD of pure metals has been rapidly
increasing.[16,17] Here, the major challenges are
related to finding the optimal conditions for the reduction of the
metal cations and tackling the agglomeration/island growth issues,
leading to rough and even discontinuous films. In the case of noble
metals, specific reductants are not always needed; a renowned example
in combustion reactions of platinum-group metal precursors is oxygen.[18] For the non-noble metals, molecular H2 is the most common reducing agent.[19] However,
its limited reactivity is a major challenge. Hydrogen plasma is another
possibility,[20] but a common difficulty
is the film conformality. More recently, different organic reactants
have been investigated as well for the growth of metal films.[21,22]Considering the challenges with the ALD fabrication of single-metal
thin films, it is not surprising that the application of ALD in depositing
multimetal (metal alloys or intermetallic compounds) is limited to
a few successful examples only.[23−26] The highlights in this area include the pioneering
work of Christensen and Elam[23] in depositing
Ir–Pt alloys from Ir(III) acetylacetonate/O2 and
(trimethyl)methylcyclopentadienyl Pt(IV)/O2 cycles, and
the more recent successes by Väyrynen et al.[24−26] in depositing
Co3Sn2, Ni3Sn2, and Ni2Ge films using carbene metal hydrides with a metal–hydrogen
bond as a reductant. Hydrides have also been used to deposit single-metal
Al films.[27]Herein, we introduce
a novel ALD approach not relying on hydrogen
or hydride species for multimetal thin films. The process is based
on one of the most common ALD precursors, that is, diethyl zinc (DEZ)
extensively used for the growth of ZnO films.[10] It should be noted that there are a couple of reports on the use
of DEZ as a reductant for pure metallic films;[28−31] interestingly, depending on the
deposition temperature, some unintended inclusions of Zn deposits
in the Cu films were observed in these films occasionally. Now, we
demonstrate that when combining DEZ with FeCl3—another
well-behaving ALD precursor—[32,33][32,33] we can deposit in situ crystalline iron–zinc intermetallic
films in a controlled manner. Here, we may see some similarities to
the works by Xiang et al.[34−36] who deposited Ti–Al films
from trimethylaluminum (TMA) and TiCl4. However, in these
films, the carbon contamination was so high that the films were closer
to the Ti–Al–C carbide composition. We also like to
mention that in another somewhat similar process, Pore et al.[37] deposited Sb and Ge telluride films from chloride
and trialkylsilyl precursors.There are five intermetallic compounds
reported in the Zn–Fe
system, in the order of increasing Fe content: ζ (FeZn13), δ1p (Fe13Zn126), δ1k (FeZn7), Γ1 (Fe11Zn43), and Γ
(Fe4Zn9).[38,39] Among these, the γ-Fe4Zn9 phase with the highest Fe content and a bcc-type
crystal structure is probably the best established one and also the
product of our ALD process. In the literature, the γ-Fe4Zn9 phase has been reported to form with the lower
Fe/Zn ratios of FeZn3 and Fe3Zn10 as well.[38,39] This seems to be the case with
the present study too. In automotive and other industries, Fe–Zn
layers are conventionally produced through electroplating on galvanized
steel or other metal surfaces, e.g., for anticorrosive or mechanical
coatings.[40−42] More recently, Zn–Fe coatings have been investigated,
for example, as biodegradable medical coatings on implants,[43,44] where the ALD technique could offer unique advantages.
Experimental Section
Fe–Zn thin
films were deposited in a flow-type thermal ALD
reactor (ASM Microchemistry F120) on 2 × 2 cm2 glass
and silicon substrates. For the depositions, the FeCl3 precursor
powder (Merck, 95%) was placed inside the reactor and heated at 158
°C for sublimation, while the DEZ precursor (Zn(CH2CH3)2; Sigma-Aldrich, ≥52 wt % Zn basis)
bottle was kept outside the reactor at room temperature. Nitrogen
(99.999%; N2 5.0) was used as the carrier and purge gas.
It should be emphasized that no other reactants were employed, and
the reactor was kept under a constant vacuum (2.6 mbar). The depositions
totaled a fixed number of cycles (100, unless otherwise stated), and
each cycle consisted of the following four gas pulses: DEZ precursor,
N2 purge, FeCl3 precursor, and N2 purge. The purge time was always twice the precursor pulse time
to make sure that all of the possible leftover materials from the
previous pulse were eliminated from the gas phase; to be sure that
this purge length was long enough, we investigated also shorter (1.5
times) and longer (4 times) purges to confirm that the film growth
rates remained the same.Profilometry (Veeco Dektak 6M stylus
profilometer) and X-ray reflectivity
(XRR; Panalytical XPert diffractometer, Cu Kα source) methods
were utilized to determine the film thicknesses. The surface morphology
was studied by scanning electron microscopy (SEM; Hitachi S-4700).
The crystallinity and phase composition of the films were investigated
by grazing incidence X-ray diffraction (GIXRD; incidence angle of
0.5°; the same diffractometer as for XRR).The chemical
composition of the films was addressed through several
different approaches—using both easily accessed in-house techniques
and more advanced characterization tools—to get a comprehensive
view, as the different techniques were assumed to complement each
other regarding the information they provide. Atomic absorption spectroscopy
(AAS; Varian AA240) was used as the first tool to routinely check
the samples for the Fe/Zn ratio. For the AAS analysis, the films were
deposited on a glass substrate from which the film material could
be quantitatively dissolved in nitric acid, followed by dilution with
water; each analysis was repeated three times to obtain the Fe/Zn
ratio with an appreciable certainty. Some of the samples were also
investigated during the initial process development to rule out the
Cl contamination (and also for the semiquantitative Fe/Zn ratio) by
energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX; Tescan Mira 3). In the
EDX measurements, the elemental mapping was carried out on the entire
substrate to also address the homogeneity of the films. Later, the
Fe/Zn ratios were measured using Rutherford backscattering spectrometry
(RBS) and time-of-flight elastic recoil detection analysis (TOF-ERDA)
for a selection of films grown on silicon substrates. Most importantly,
from the ERDA measurements, the light-element (C, O, Cl) contamination
level could be accurately addressed. The RBS measurements were carried
out by the application of a 4He1+/2+ beam with
2 and 3 MeV energies and TOF-ERDA measurements using an 11.9 MeV 63Cu7+ ion beam from a 3 × 3 mm2 surface area.To address the surface reactions, computational
calculations were
performed on the basis of periodic spin-polarized density functional
theory (DFT) within a plane-wave basis set and projector augmented
wave (PAW) formalism, as implemented in the Vienna Ab initio Simulation
Package (VASP 5.3) code.[45] The generalized
gradient approximation (GGA) with the parameterization of Perdew–Burke–Ernzerhof
(PBE) was used for the exchange–correlation functional.[46,47] The plane-wave energy cutoff was set to be 400 eV. The valence electrons
were 12 for Zn, 8 for Fe, 7 for Cl, 4 for C, and 1 for H. The convergence
of energy and forces were set to be 1 × 10–4 eV and 0.02 eV/Å, respectively. A k-point
mesh[45] of 3 × 3 × 1 was used
throughout the calculations. The unit cell of Fe4Zn9, shown in Figure , was obtained from Material Project.[48] The lattice constant was a = b = c = 7.77 Å. The slab model of Fe4Zn9(100) had 20 Fe atoms and 40 Zn atoms, where all of
the atoms were allowed to relax. A 15 Å vacuum region was applied.
The molecular geometries of precursor FeCl3 and DEZ (Zn(Et)2) and byproducts were relaxed in the same supercell as the
slab model of Fe4Zn9, with an energy cutoff
of 400 eV and γ point sampling. The van der Waals correction
was applied with the PBE-D3 method to ensure an accurate description
of the metal precursor adsorption energy. The adsorption energy was
calculated fromwhere Etot, Esubs, and EA are
the energy of the slab with precursors, the slab model for Fe4Zn9, and isolated precursors or the byproduct,
respectively.
Figure 1
Configurations of (a) top view and (b) side view of the
Fe4Zn9 unit cell and (c) Fe4Zn9(100); zinc and iron atoms are represented by dark gray and
orange
colors.
Configurations of (a) top view and (b) side view of the
Fe4Zn9 unit cell and (c) Fe4Zn9(100); zinc and iron atoms are represented by dark gray and
orange
colors.
Results
All our
depositions from DEZ and FeCl3 yielded visually
homogeneous crystalline thin films for which no other elements than
zinc and iron were detected from the EDX analysis. The homogeneity
was additionally confirmed by the EDX mapping over the entire surface
area. For representative samples, the light-element (C, O, Cl) impurity
levels were analyzed in detail using TOF-ERDA, see Figure for a depth profile. On the
very surface of the films, TOF-ERDA detects of C, O, and Cl (presumably
due to the incomplete loss of precursor ligands) were observed, but
deeper in the bulk, the films have impurity concentrations well below
1 atom % for H, C, and O. From both AAS and RBS analysis, all of the
films contained iron and zinc, the Fe/Zn ratio slightly varying depending
on the deposition conditions. The GIXRD patterns indicated that γ
“Fe4Zn9” was the main phase in
all samples, with a minority Fe metal phase in the Fe-rich region.
No indication of Zn metal was seen for any of the samples; this is
an important note, as DEZ has been seen to decompose into metallic
Zn in some ALD processes at high temperatures and with long DEZ pulses.[49] Also, we confirmed that no film growth occurred
when DEZ was pulsed alone into the reactor.
Figure 2
Elemental depth profile
obtained with TOF-ERDA, for example, the
thin-film sample deposited at 260 °C.
Elemental depth profile
obtained with TOF-ERDA, for example, the
thin-film sample deposited at 260 °C.We investigated our DEZ + FeCl3 process systematically
against various deposition parameters; the results are summarized
in Figure . The influence
of the deposition temperature on the growth-per-cycle (GPC) value
is shown in Figure A for the range of 240–300 °C; outside of this temperature
range, the films were found to be nonuniform. In these experiments,
the precursor pulse lengths were kept unchanged at 2 s DEZ and 2 s
FeCl3. The tiny increase in GPC with temperature seen in Figure A could be explained
by the fact that we also observed minor changes in the Fe/Zn ratio
in AAS measurements, the Zn content slightly increasing with increasing
deposition temperature.
Figure 3
Characteristics of the DEZ + FeCl3 process: (A) GPC
value versus deposition temperature, (B) GPC value versus precursor
pulse lengths for both precursors, and (C) film thickness versus the
number of deposition cycles. In (A) and (B), the number of cycles
was 100. In (B) and (C), the deposition temperature was 260 °C;
the GPC values are from profilometry data.
Characteristics of the DEZ + FeCl3 process: (A) GPC
value versus deposition temperature, (B) GPC value versus precursor
pulse lengths for both precursors, and (C) film thickness versus the
number of deposition cycles. In (A) and (B), the number of cycles
was 100. In (B) and (C), the deposition temperature was 260 °C;
the GPC values are from profilometry data.One of the cornerstones of an ALD process is the saturation of
the surface reactions within each precursor pulse. This is typically
demonstrated by showing that the GPC value first increases and then
saturates upon increasing the precursor pulse lengths. In Figure B, we demonstrate
this for our DEZ + FeCl3 process by plotting the GPC value
against the pulse lengths of the two precursors, one varied at the
time, while keeping the other fixed (at 4 s for FeCl3 and
at 2 s for DEZ). These experiments were carried out while keeping
other process parameters fixed, i.e., the deposition temperature at
260 °C and the number of cycles at 100. It should be noted that
we carried out additional experiments where we tested other pulse
length combinations as well to verify that the saturation behavior
for one of the precursor pulse lengths was not sensitively depending
on the choice of the pulse length for the other. From Figure B, we can see that the initially
chosen pulse lengths of 4 s for FeCl3 and 2 s for DEZ are
long enough to reach saturation. The growth rate saturates to the
relatively high GPC value of ca. 9.0 Å/cycle, which is—interestingly—close
to the lattice parameter (8.982 Å)[42] of the γ-Fe4Zn9 phase. This is likely
to result from the highly exothermic reactions involved in the deposition
of FeZn from FeCl3 and DEZ, as described in Section .Another important
criterion for an ALD process is the growth linearity
in terms of the number of precursor pulsing cycles applied. Figure C illustrates this
for the present FeCl3 + DEZ process. For these experiments,
the precursor pulse lengths were fixed to 4 s for FeCl3 and 2 s for DEZ, and the deposition temperature was 260 °C.We then characterized the resultant Zn–Fe films for their
elemental and crystalline phase compositions. In Figure , GIXRD patterns are displayed
for three representative 78–93 nm thick samples, all deposited
at 260 °C but with somewhat different precursor pulse lengths,
together with simulated reference patterns for γ-Fe4Zn9 and α-Fe.[50,51]Table lists the atomic Fe/Zn ratios for the same
samples as obtained from the RBS, AAS, and EDX analyses. Among the
three techniques, RBS is the most accurate, while EDX is considered
only semiquantitative, and moreover surface sensitive. The absolute
values from the different techniques do not match perfectly but the
trends are quite similar though, i.e., the Fe content increases with
increasing precursor pulse lengths. Here, we should recall that among
the three samples, only the one with the longest precursor pulses
(4 s FeCl3, 2 s DEZ) was grown in an area clearly fulfilling
the surface saturation conditions (Figure ).
Figure 4
GIXRD patterns for the Fe–Zn films grown
at 260 °C
with different precursor pulse lengths, together with indexed reference
XRD patterns for γ-Zn9Fe4 and α-Fe;
peaks in the range seen for the (2 s, 1 s) sample in the 50–60°
area are due to the Si substrate.
Table 1
Atomic Fe/Zn Ratio Estimated from
RBS, AAS, and EDX Analyses for the Fe–Zn Films Grown at 260
°C with Different Precursor Pulse Lengths
sample (FeCl3, DEZ)
RBS
AAS
EDX
(4 s, 2 s)
0.51
0.39
0.6
(2 s, 2 s)
0.19
0.32
0.5
(2 s, 1 s)
0.12
0.15
0.2
GIXRD patterns for the Fe–Zn films grown
at 260 °C
with different precursor pulse lengths, together with indexed reference
XRD patterns for γ-Zn9Fe4 and α-Fe;
peaks in the range seen for the (2 s, 1 s) sample in the 50–60°
area are due to the Si substrate.From Figure , while
the Fe4Zn9 phase dominates all of the three
GIXRD patterns, the film deposited with the shortest precursor pulse
lengths (2 s FeCl3, 1 s DEZ) shows the broadest diffraction
peaks, i.e., the lowest degree of crystallinity. Also, the elemental
Fe/Zn ratio for this sample is clearly below the “stoichiometric”
value of 0.44 assumed for Fe4Zn9 (although based
on the previous literature, the Fe4Zn9 phase
may be stabilized over a relatively wide compositional range, even
down to the Fe/Zn ratio of 0.30).[38,39] On the other
hand, for the sample deposited with the longest precursor pulse lengths
(4 s FeCl3, 2 s DEZ), the values obtained for the Fe/Zn
ratio with the different analysis techniques are quite close to the
ideal 0.44 value (Table ). However, for this sample, a trace of the α-Fe phase is distinguished
from the GIXRD pattern. The highest Fe4Zn9 phase
purity is seen for the sample deposited with the pulse lengths 2 s
for FeCl3 and 2 s for DEZ. The density value determined
for this highly crystalline and essentially single-phase Fe4Zn9 sample from the XRR fitting (7 g/cm3) is
quite close to the ideal value of 7.44 g/cm3 calculated
from the crystal structure data for γ-Fe4Zn9. The Fe/Zn value (from the most accurate RBS/TOF-ERDA analysis)
for this sample appears a little low against the nominal Fe4Zn9 stoichiometry; unfortunately, the reason for this
could not be clarified within this study.We also addressed
the surface morphology of the most phase-pure
and highly crystalline sample by measuring its surface profile using
profilometry (Figure ). The film thickness is obtained at ca. 80 nm in good agreement
with the XRR-based estimation, and the small fluctuations detected
in the profilometry data on the film surface are very similar to those
seen on the substrate surface, indicating that the film growth itself
yields smooth films. The SEM image for the same sample is displayed
in the inset, showing the homogeneous nature of the films. The grains
are well dispersed with an average size of 84 ± 12 nm.
Figure 5
Surface profile
and the SEM image for the Fe–Zn film deposited
at 260 °C (2 s, 2 s).
Surface profile
and the SEM image for the Fe–Zn film deposited
at 260 °C (2 s, 2 s).Finally, we like to mention that we carried out very preliminary
experiments for other metal precursors in combination with DEZ and
observed that similar processes with CuCl2 and Ni(thd)2 yielded multimetal (Cu–Zn and Ni–Zn) films
as well. Hence, it tentatively seems that the presence of DEZ plays
an important role in these processes.
Discussion
on the Mechanism
We discuss the film growth mechanism based
on the DFT calculation
results. The proposed plausible ALD reaction steps are shown in Scheme ; upon adsorption,
FeCl3 has strong exothermic adsorption energy at −4.85
eV, resulting in bond breaking of Fe–Cl. The direct Cl2 loss has a high energy cost at a value of 4.69 eV. This direct
Cl2 loss is not considered an elimination pathway. Zn(Et)2 is added to the surface, resulting in exothermic reaction
energy at −5.87 eV. The structures of FeCl3 adsorption
and Zn(Et)2 adsorption on the Fe4Zn9(100) surface are shown in Figure .
Scheme 1
Illustration of the Proposed Reaction
Steps between FeCl3 and Zn(Et)2
(I)
Initial surface reaction
of FeCl3 results in −FeCl2 and −Cl
on the surface. (II) Initial surface reaction of ZnEt2 results
in physisorption of Zn(Et)2. (III) Ligand elimination pathway
via EtCl loss. (IV) Ligand elimination pathway via butane loss and
ZnCl2 loss. (V) Ligand elimination pathway via butane loss
and Cl2 loss.
Figure 6
Structures of (a) slab model of Fe4Zn9(100),
(b) FeCl3 adsorption on Fe4Zn9(100),
and (c) Zn(Et)2 and FeCl3 coadsorption on Fe4Zn9(100). Substrate Zn and Fe atoms are represented
by dark gray and orange colors, Zn and Fe from precursors by dark
green and light gray colors, and C, H, and, Cl by black, white, and
green colors.
Structures of (a) slab model of Fe4Zn9(100),
(b) FeCl3 adsorption on Fe4Zn9(100),
and (c) Zn(Et)2 and FeCl3 coadsorption on Fe4Zn9(100). Substrate Zn and Fe atoms are represented
by dark gray and orange colors, Zn and Fe from precursors by dark
green and light gray colors, and C, H, and, Cl by black, white, and
green colors.
Illustration of the Proposed Reaction
Steps between FeCl3 and Zn(Et)2
(I)
Initial surface reaction
of FeCl3 results in −FeCl2 and −Cl
on the surface. (II) Initial surface reaction of ZnEt2 results
in physisorption of Zn(Et)2. (III) Ligand elimination pathway
via EtCl loss. (IV) Ligand elimination pathway via butane loss and
ZnCl2 loss. (V) Ligand elimination pathway via butane loss
and Cl2 loss.We then simulated
three plausible pathways, as shown in Scheme and plotted the
corresponding reaction pathways in Figure . We first focused on introducing one FeCl3 and one Zn(Et)2 precursor. Pathway 1 via EtCl
loss is the most exothermic reaction pathway, with computed overall
reaction energy at −4.61 eV for the first EtCl loss and −2.94
eV for the second EtCl loss. Pathways 2 and 3 contain butane loss.
For pathway 2, in addition to butane, a Cl group is eliminated via
ZnCl2 loss, resulting in higher overall reaction energy
at −4.29 eV. This pathway is not considered due to no Zn deposition
on the surface. Pathway 3 has byproducts of butane and Cl2. After Cl2 loss, the computed overall reaction energy
is −2.00 eV. Pathway 3 has a high energy cost of 4.81 eV to
lose Cl2. The remaining Cl groups for pathways 1 and 3
can be removed through interaction with another Zn(Et)2 reducing agent in the DEZ pulse.
Figure 7
Plotted reaction energy pathways for eliminating
the Cl group and
the Et ligand via pathways 1, 2, and 3.
Plotted reaction energy pathways for eliminating
the Cl group and
the Et ligand via pathways 1, 2, and 3.After the first Zn(Et)2 adsorption and reaction, the
surface has one Cl group left for pathway 1 and three Cl groups for
pathway 3. We then bring in the second Zn(Et)2 reducing
agent. As shown in Figure , for pathway 1, the second Zn(Et)2 has an exothermic
interaction energy of −4.11 eV and the loss of the Cl group
is exothermic at −4.16 eV. The structures after interaction
with two Zn(Et)2 are shown for pathway 1 in Figure .
Figure 8
Plotted reaction energy
pathways for eliminating the Cl group and
the Et ligand via pathways 1 and 3 after introducing two Zn(Et)2 reducing agents.
Figure 9
Structures
of after ligand elimination of introducing the (a) first
Zn(Et)2 reducing agent and (b) second Zn(Et)2 reducing agent via pathway 1. Substrate Zn and Fe atoms are represented
by dark gray and orange colors, Zn and Fe from precursors by dark
green and light gray colors, and C, H, and Cl by black, white, and
green colors.
Plotted reaction energy
pathways for eliminating the Cl group and
the Et ligand via pathways 1 and 3 after introducing two Zn(Et)2 reducing agents.Structures
of after ligand elimination of introducing the (a) first
Zn(Et)2 reducing agent and (b) second Zn(Et)2 reducing agent via pathway 1. Substrate Zn and Fe atoms are represented
by dark gray and orange colors, Zn and Fe from precursors by dark
green and light gray colors, and C, H, and Cl by black, white, and
green colors.For pathway 3, the second Zn(Et)2 has exothermic adsorption
energy at −7.76 eV and the loss of two Cl groups via EtCl loss
results in exothermic reaction energy at −5.73 eV. The structures
after the first Zn(Et)2 reaction and the second Zn(Et)2 reaction are shown in Figure for pathway 3. These energies are more
exothermic than overall reaction energies from pathway 1.
Figure 10
Structures
of after ligand elimination of introducing the (a) first
Zn(Et)2 reducing agent and (b) second Zn(Et)2 reducing agent via pathway 3. Zn and Fe atoms are represented by
dark gray and orange colors. Cl is represented by green color.
Structures
of after ligand elimination of introducing the (a) first
Zn(Et)2 reducing agent and (b) second Zn(Et)2 reducing agent via pathway 3. Zn and Fe atoms are represented by
dark gray and orange colors. Cl is represented by green color.We conclude that the elimination mechanism of the
Cl group and
the Et ligand is via butane loss and EtCl loss, by introducing one
FeCl3 and two Zn(Et)2. The remaining Cl group
or Et ligand will be eliminated through an additional Zn(Et)2 in this pulse. The composition of deposited intermetallic Fe–Zn
can then be manipulated by controlling the precursor concentration.
Conclusions
This paper reports a new ALD scheme for
the growth of metal alloy/intermetallic
thin films. No additional/actual reductant such as hydrogen or hydrides
is employed; instead, the two metal precursors react directly to yield
both the metal species in a metallic form. Our detailed experimental
data are for the intermetallic γ-Fe4Zn9 phase obtained from the FeCl3 + Zn(CH2CH3)2 process. However, our preliminary tests suggested
that similar processes could be possibly developed for other metal
precursors as well, in combination with DEZ.From the detailed
process parameter investigation for the FeCl3 + DEZ process,
we could conclude that the process fulfills
the basic criteria of an ALD process, that is, the surface-limited
and linear (against the number of precursor supply cycles) film growth.
Computational DFT calculations indicated that the favorable pathway
of eliminating the Cl group and the Et ligand is via butane and subsequent
EtCl formation and desorption.All of the films were crystalline
of the γ-Fe4Zn9 phase, with traces of
the α-Fe phase in some
samples. Depending on the process parameters, some variation was seen
in the degree of crystallinity and also in the Fe/Zn ratio. While
not challenged in this work, these intermetallic films could be beneficial,
e.g., as biodegradable implant coatings, or in other frontier applications
motivated by the simplicity of the fabrication process based on only
two well-known ALD precursors. We foresee that the new ALD scheme
presented here will trigger the research on the emerging field of
high-quality (multi)metal thin films.
Authors: Byoung H Lee; Jae K Hwang; Jae W Nam; Song U Lee; Jun T Kim; Sang-M Koo; A Baunemann; Roland A Fischer; Myung M Sung Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2009 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: Xin Meng; Young-Chul Byun; Harrison S Kim; Joy S Lee; Antonio T Lucero; Lanxia Cheng; Jiyoung Kim Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2016-12-12 Impact factor: 3.623