In a recent rewiew article we have reported—among other things—on preliminary computational studies regarding the effect of nitridation on the SiC/SiO2 interface, in case of n-type doping. We have since discovered a few numerical errors in the paper, which also influence some of our statements. Here we present the correct results and their consequences.
1. Introduction
In our review we reported energies of reactions occurring at the SiC/SiO2 interface upon nitridation. Our computational approach was to calculate the energy of incoming and outgoing molecules in a bulk supercell of SiO2, and that of interface defects before or after the reaction in a slab model of the 4H-SiC/SiO2 interface. Incoming molecules in bulk SiO2 were assumed to be neutral, but the interface was coupled to a reservoir of electrons with energy corresponding to the Fermi level of the semiconductor. The latter was determined by the temperature of nitridation (~1100 °C) and the usual doping of the channel region (1015–1016 cm-3) of a MOS (metal-oxide-semiconductor) transistor with an n-type channel, to be 1.9–2.2 eV, with respect to the valence band edge of SiC. Using the calculated total energies, energies of exchange reactions between the models have been calculated, adding a band off-set correction for each electron transfer between the models (to account for the error introduced by using the pseudopotential approximation in two different models).
Unfortunately, some of the results were erroneously given. Here we present the correct values, and briefly state the consequences.
2. Corrected results
(A) The energy gain on reaction (1) of the original paper
is equal to 3EF − 2.7 eV, which gives 3.0–3.9 eV in the Fermi-energy range considered (not, as erroneously reported 1.0–1.3 eV). As a consequence, this reaction is, in fact, dominating over reaction (2) of the original paper
with an energy gain of EF + 0.7 eV, i.e., 2.6–2.9 eV in the chosen Fermi-level range. Therefore, nitrogen insertion into an interstitial position at the interface is more likely, than as a carbon substitutional.
(B) The energy gain on reactions (8) of the original paper
is, in fact, 2EF + 0.8 eV (not EF + 0.8 eV, as given), leading to as much as 4.4–5.2 eV in the chosen EF range.
(C) The energy gains on reactions (10)--(11) of the original paper
are, in fact, EF + 2.1 eV, and 3EF − 1.3 eV, respectively. (The latter was given erroneously as EF − 1.3 eV.) Consequently, in the chosen EF range the latter is (with 4.4–5.3 eV) somewhat even more favourable, than the former (with 4.0–4.3 eV). This indicates, together with (1), a pronounced nitrogen incorporation.
(D) Finally, the correct energy gain on reaction (14) of the original paper
is 2EF + 0.8 eV, i.e., 4.6–5.0 eV in the chosen range, underlining the possible importance of atomic oxygen.
The full equations (1), (2), (8), (10), (11) and (14) are displayed in the attached PDF file.
We apologize for our mistakes which, however, do not affect the conclusions of the paper, which are not mentioned here.