Characterization of InP to GaInAs and GaInAs to InP interfaces using tilted cleaved corner TEM

Yates, M.J.; Aylett, M.R.; Perrin, S.D.; Spurdens, P.C.

doi:10.1016/0022-0248(92)90524-m

Cited by 11 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, it remains difficult to control interfaces that require switching between two different group V elements, such as InGaP/GaAs 1,2 and InGaAs/InP. Extensive work has been done on InGaAs/InP interfaces, using various growth techniques such as metalorganic vapor-phase epitaxy ͑MOVPE͒, [3][4][5][6][7][8][9] gas source molecular beam epitaxy ͑GSMBE͒ 10-13 and chemical beam epitaxy ͑CBE͒. 14,15 The main analytical techniques used in these studies are in situ reflection high energy electron diffraction ͑RHEED͒ for GSMBE and CBE, and ex situ x-ray diffractometry, photoluminescence, and transmission electron microscopy ͑TEM͒ for all growth techniques.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This can lead to a tensile InGaP graded layer, which has a dramatic effect on interface quality. 3,13,17 Most work has been focused on the optimal element switching sequence in order to minimize these effects. The memory effect ͑ii͒ and the diffusion and exchange processes ͑iii͒ are very sensitive to growth parameters, and in particular to the growth temperature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Transmission electron microscopy study of the InP/InGaAs and InGaAs/InP heterointerfaces grown by metalorganic vapor-phase epitaxy

Décobert¹,

Patriarche

2002

Journal of Applied Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

InP/InGaAs and InGaAs/InP interfaces in heterostructures grown by metalorganic vapor-phase epitaxy (MOVPE) have been studied by transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Cross-sectional TEM 002 dark field images of the direct (InP–InGaAs) and inverted (InGaAs–InP) interfaces revealed a great difference in abruptness. Whereas the direct interface is always well defined and flat, the inverted one is compositionally graded and shows surface undulations. InP–InGaAs heterostructures were studied for different layer thicknesses and phosphine flow rates. The results indicate that this effect originates more from the substitution of arsenic by phosphorus atoms in subsurface InGaAs monolayers rather than from As carryover to the InP layer. The strong As–P exchange observed over several InGaAs monolayers is related to the large difference in chemical bond strength between Ga–As and Ga–P. This is supported by comparison with InP/InAlAs/InP and InP/In1−xGaxAsyP1−y/InP (0.1<x<0.4) heterostructures. The inverted InAlAs/InP interface is much more abrupt than the InGaAs/InP one and does not show any surface undulations. Furthermore, the In1−xGaxAsyP1−y/InP interface surface undulations increase with x composition. These results, valid for our experimental configuration, indicate that MOVPE grown InGaAs/InP interfaces can be improved by using very low hydride flow during the switching sequence.

show abstract