Next Article in Journal
Dissolution-Induced Nanowire Synthesis on Hot-Dip Galvanized Surface in Supercritical Carbon Dioxide
Previous Article in Journal
Eco-Friendly Acaricidal Effects of Nylon 66 Nanofibers via Grafted Clove Bud Oil-Loaded Capsules on House Dust Mites
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Nanoporous Structure Formation in GaSb, InSb, and Ge by Ion Beam Irradiation under Controlled Point Defect Creation Conditions

1
School of Environmental Science and Technology, Kochi University of Technology, Tosayamada, Kami, Kochi 782-8502, Japan
2
Center for Nanotechnology, Research Institute, Kochi University of Technology, Tosayamada, Kami, Kochi 782-8502, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
President address: Fuji Kozai Co., Ltd.
President address: Ushio Reinetsu Co., Ltd.
Nanomaterials 2017, 7(7), 180; https://doi.org/10.3390/nano7070180
Submission received: 13 April 2017 / Revised: 6 July 2017 / Accepted: 6 July 2017 / Published: 11 July 2017

Abstract

:
Ion beam irradiation-induced nanoporous structure formation was investigated on GaSb, InSb, and Ge surfaces via controlled point defect creation using a focused ion beam (FIB). ‎This paper compares the nanoporous structure formation under the same extent of point defect creation while changing the accelerating voltage and ion dose. Although the same number of point defects were created in each case, different structures were formed on the different surfaces. The depth direction density of the point defects was an important factor in this trend. The number of point defects required for nanoporous structure formation was 4 × 1022 vacancies/m2 at a depth of 18 nm under the surface, based on a comparison of similar nanoporous structure features in GaSb. The nanoporous structure formation by ion beam irradiation on GaSb, InSb, and Ge surfaces was controlled by the number and areal distribution of the created point defects.

1. Introduction

Nanoporous structures on semiconductor surfaces have important application potential for electronic and photonic devices. Ion beam irradiation-induced nanoporous structure formation on gallium antimonide (GaSb) [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12], indium antimonide (InSb) [1,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20], and germanium (Ge) [21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29] surfaces have been studied previously, with D. Kleitman and H. J. Yearian being the first to report this phenomenon using deuteron irradiation of GaSb and InSb in 1957 [1]. Such nanoporous structure formation by ion beam irradiation has only been observed on GaSb, InSb, and Ge surfaces; Si [30], GaAs [31,32], and InP [33] surfaces were not formed in this way. Layer damage and amorphous structure formation were only observed as a result of high dose irradiation. Recently, similar nanoporous structure formation behavior was also observed in Si1−xGex [34,35] and GaAs1−xSbx [36] irradiated alloys; this formation behavior on Si1−xGex and GaAs1−xSbx was likely influenced by Ge and GaSb, respectively. This nanoporous structure formation mechanism has been previously labeled as the migration of ion beam irradiation-induced point defects (Frenkel pair; interstitial and vacancy) [5]. Many point defects are generated near the surface by collisions cascade from ion beam irradiation. Small voids or elevations are formed in the early stage of irradiation due to numerous interstitials and vacancies. The surface roughness increases due to the migration of these interstitials and vacancies as a result of nanoporous structure formation on the surface. The amount of point defects necessary to impact structure formation is also questionable in this mechanism. The dependence on ion dose on the nanoporous structure size has been reported in numerous prior studies. However, the relationship between the number of point defects and the nanoporous structure formation has not yet been examined in detail.
In this paper, ion beam irradiation-induced nanoporous structure formation was investigated on GaSb, InSb, and Ge surfaces by controlled point defect creation using a focused ion beam (FIB). An accelerator was used with the FIB to allow the examination of a number of different ion beam conditions. The nanoporous structure formation mechanism here is predominantly influenced by point defect behavior. If the same number of point defects is created, the same nanoporous structure formation behavior is expected. This paper compares nanoporous structure formation on these surfaces under different accelerating voltages and ion doses, while keeping the number of point defects constant. The point defects were calculated using stopping and range of ions in matter (SRIM) simulations [37]. The aim of this study is to develop ion beam conditions for the synthesis of nanoporous structures in order to determine the influence of the number of point defects created.

2. Experimental Procedure

FIB ion beam irradiation was conducted using Ga+ with an FEI Quanta 3D 200i at room temperature. Single crystals of GaSb, InSb, and Ge (001) as mirror-polished wafers were used. The accelerating voltages were 2, 5, 8, 16, and 30 kV, at a chamber vacuum of 4 × 10−4 Pa. The Ga ion irradiation utilized an image scanning mode, in which Ga was irradiated in a 512 × 441 dot array over a 12.5 μm × 10.8 μm area of the surface in a single scan. The scanning dose was 5 × 1018 ions/m2 for each scan. 2–84 to eighty-four scans were performed for GaSb and InSb, while 10–240 scans were used for Ge. The total beam dose was 5 × 1018–1.4 × 1021 ions/m2. Structural changes resulting from ion beam irradiation were observed by field-emission scanning electron microscopy (FE-SEM; JEOL JSM-7401F). The accelerating voltage was 5 kV.

3. Results and Discussion

Figure 1 shows the vacancy distributions of (a) GaSb, (b) InSb, and (c) Ge irradiated with a Ga ion beam as functions of distance from the surface, calculated using SRIM simulations [37]. Table 1 summarizes the projected range and vacancies per ion in (a) GaSb, (b) InSb, and (c) Ge, as also calculated by SRIM simulations. SRIM is a Monte Carlo simulation of ion beam collisions in solids. The number of calculated Ga ions was 10,000. We adopted displacement threshold energy values obtained by Thommen (6.2 eV for Ga and 7.5 eV for Sb) [38], Bauerlein (5.8 eV for In and 6.8 eV for Sb) [39], and H. H. Andersen and J. F. Ziegler (15 eV for Ge) [40]. The projected depth and number of vacancies per ion increased with the increasing accelerating voltage in all calculations. The vacancy distribution tendency was nearly identical in GaSb and InSb, while Ge featured half as many vacancies as those. The irradiation doses for the below experiments were determined by these point defect numbers, resulting in nearly identical numbers of vacancies on these irradiated surfaces. Here, we should consider the influence of the implanted Ga ions. The Ga ion concentration was calculated in GaSb unit area. The unit of irradiated region in GaSb 100% was equal to 0.7% Ga ions (5 × 1018 ions/m2 scan). Therefore, the influence of the implanted Ga ions is clear in this experiment.
Figure 2 shows surface SEM images of GaSb irradiated with a Ga+ ion beam at room temperature (left), at accelerating voltages of 2, 5, 8, 16, and 30 kV. The total number of vacancies created on the GaSb surface was estimated using the ion dose (ions/m2) multiplied by the vacancies (/ion) from the SRIM simulation as a function of accelerating voltage (right). Column A shows an average number of vacancies of 2.3 × 1022 vacancy/m2, column B shows 4.5 × 1022 vacancy/m2, and column C shows 6.8 × 1022 vacancy/m2; very similar numbers of vacancies are present in all cases. The nanoporous structure formation was examined under different accelerating voltages and ion dose levels, with a fixed number of point defects. Despite this fixed point defect count, the same structure was not formed on all surfaces, and the nanoporous structure features are different in each column. Voids were formed under the surfaces in Figure 2a, while cavities were observed on the surfaces in Figure 2b–e. In comparing columns A, B, and C, the structure size increases with increasing ion dose. Decreasing the accelerating voltage causes the structure to change from a thin walled setup to more uneven, rugged features. The largest structure size was observed at an acceleration voltage of 16 kV, while surface roughness is observed in Figure 2j,o, resulting from a lower acceleration voltage of 2 kV.
Figure 3 shows surface SEM images of InSb irradiated with a Ga+ ion beam at room temperature (left), at accelerating voltages of 2, 5, 8, 16, and 30 kV and a scanning dose of 5 × 1018 ions/m2 per scan. The total number of vacancies created on the InSb were estimated using the ion dose (ions/m2) multiplied by the vacancy count (/ion) calculated using SRIM simulations as a function of accelerating voltage (right). Column A indicates an average vacancy count of 2.5 × 1022 vacancy/m2, column B shows a value of 4.9 × 1022 vacancy/m2, and for column C this number is 7.4 × 1022 vacancy/m2. As in the case of GaSb, the same structure was not formed on the InSb surface despite the same number of point defects being present. Compared to GaSb, more spherical structures were present in InSb, in terms of both void and elevation structures. These spherical structures likely formed due to the decreased surface energy of this system. Under low accelerating voltage irradiation, rugged structural features emerged in a similar manner as GaSb. The mechanism of InSb nanoporous structure formation has been previously reported as a combination of sputtering and re-deposition [17,18]. Table 2 shows sputtering yield (atoms/ion) calculated by SRIM simulations [37] in (a) GaSb, (b) InSb, and (c) Ge. The sputtering yield in InSb was higher than that in GaSb. This sputtering is more effective for nanoporous structure formation compared to point defect migration in InSb.
The nanoporous structure was not observed on GaSb in Figure 2j,o, and on InSb in Figure 3e,h–j,m–o at low accelerating voltages. It was considered that the influence of sputtering was effective at low accelerating voltages. In spite of the fact that the sputtering yield was low with decreasing accelerating voltage in Table 2, the nanoporous structure was not formed. This sputtering is also more effective for nanoporous structure formation compared to point defect migration at low accelerating voltages. It was considered that the number of point defects was few at accelerating voltages.
Figure 4 shows surface SEM images of Ge irradiated with a Ga+ ion beam at room temperature (left), at accelerating voltages of 2, 5, 8, 16, and 30 kV and a scanning dose of 5 × 1018 ions/m2 per scan. The total number of vacancies created on the Ge surface was estimated using the ion dose (ions/m2) multiplied by the vacancy count (/ion), as calculated by SRIM simulations [37], as a function of accelerating voltage (right). Column A indicates an average vacancy count of 5.7 × 1022 vacancy/m2, column B denotes this value as 8.5 × 1022 vacancy/m2, and column C is 1.1 × 1023 vacancy/m2. The number of vacancies formed in Ge, based on our SRIM simulations (Table 1), was lower than in both GaSb and InSb. Therefore, the ion dose reaching the surface during Ge irradiation is approximately double what was present for GaSb and InSb. Smaller and finer structures were formed on the Ge surface compared to these other surface types, despite the greater ion dose experienced by Ge. This can be explained by the different formation mechanisms between Ge, GaSb, and InSb. In the case of Ge, an amorphous structure first forms on the Ge surface, from which the final nanoporous structure grows [25]. A high ion dose is thus needed for this initial amorphization stage.
The nanoporous structure size is expected to decrease with the decreasing accelerating voltages. However, the largest structure features were observed 16 kV irradiation (Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4). The reason for this behavior is based on the density of the created point defects. As shown in Figure 2g,k, similar GaSb structures were formed in spite of the different number of point defects present in both cases. The ion beam conditions and number of point defects are compared for these samples in Table 3. The accelerating voltage was 16 kV; compared to an accelerating voltage of 30 kV, the ion dose was 1.3 times higher and the number of point defects was 0.7 that of the latter voltage. The number of point defects was low in the case of 16 kV irradiation, but large-scale structures were formed. To compare the distribution of point defects in the depth direction, Figure 5 shows the vacancy distributions of GaSb irradiated with a Ga ion beam as a function of distance from the surface (re-arranged from Figure 1a). The accelerating voltages were (a) 16 kV and (b) 30 kV. The gray hatched regions are 18 nm below the surface. The integrated number of vacancies at this depth was 1363 at 16 kV and 1034 at 30 kV. The number of point defects was estimated at this depth based on the ion dose (ions/m2) and vacancies present (/ion). It is expected that these vacancies require the same formation features as the nanoporous structures. The number of point defects required for nanoporous structure formation was 4 × 1022 vacancies/m2 at a depth of 18 nm from the surface in GaSb.
These evaluated vacancy counts have been validated by previous experiments. In 800 kV Cu+ [41] and 270 kV C602+ [42] fullerene ion beam irradiation, a vacancy count of 4 × 1022 vacancies/m2 appeared at this same depth from the surface in GaSb. Nanoporous structures were also formed on the surfaces in these conditions, despite the different ion species present. This indicates that, while the ion beam conditions such as ion dose, accelerating voltage, and ion species differed, the number of vacancies and their distribution was much more important. Controlled point defect creation is useful for nanoporous structure formation using ion beam irradiation on GaSb, InSb, and Ge surfaces.

4. Conclusions

Ion beam irradiation with the same number of created point defects led to different types of nanoporous structure formation on GaSb, InSb, and Ge surfaces. The depth direction density of the point defect distribution was an important factor for nanoporous structure formation. The required number of created point defects for nanoporous structure formation was 4 × 1022 vacancies/m2 at a depth of 18 nm from the surface in the case of GaSb. Nanoporous structure formation by ion beam irradiation on GaSb, InSb, and Ge surfaces can be controlled based on the number and distribution of point defects, which can serve as an index for nanoporous structure formation in general.

Author Contributions

Y.Y., T.O., and N.N. conceived and designed the experiments; Y.Y., T.O., T.M., C.W., and N.N. performed the experiments; Y.Y., C.W., and N.N. analyzed the data; N.N. wrote the paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kleitman, D.; Yearian, H.J. Radiation-Induced Expansion of Semiconductors. Phys. Rev. 1957, 108, 901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Homma, Y. Anomalous sputtering of gallium-antimonide under cesium-ionbombardment. J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 1987, 5, 321–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Callec, R.; Favennce, P.N.; Salvi, M.; L’ Haridon, H.; Gauneau, M. Anomalous behavior of ion-implanted GaSb. Appl. Phys. Lett. 1991, 59, 1872–1874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Facsko, S.; Dekorsy, T.; Koerdt, C.; Trappe, C.; Kurz, H.; Vogt, A.; Hartnagel, H.L. Formation of Ordered Nanoscale Semiconductor Dots by Ion Sputtering. Science 1999, 285, 1551–1553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Nitta, N.; Taniwaki, M.; Hayashi, Y.; Yoshiie, T. Formation of cellular defect structure on GaSb ion-implanted at low temperatur. J. Appl. Phys. 2002, 92, 1799–1802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kluth, S.M.; Gerald, J.D.F.; Ridgway, M.C. Ion-irradiation-induced porosity in GaSb. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2005, 86, 131920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lugstein, A.; Bernardi, J.; Tomastik, C.; Bertagnolli, E. Synthesis of nanowires in room temperature ambient: A focused ion beam approach. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2006, 88, 163114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Perez-Bergqu, A.G.; Zhu, S.; Sun, K.; Xiang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, L.M. Embedded Nanofibers Induced by High-Energy Ion Irradiation of Bulk GaSb. Small 2008, 4, 1119–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Nitta, N.; Hasegawa, T.; Yasuda, H.; Sato, K.; Xu, Q.; Yoshiie, T.; Taniwaki, M.; Hatta, A. Beam flux dependence of ion-irradiation-induced porous structures in III–V compound semiconductors. Radiat. Effic. Defect Solid 2013, 168, 247–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Datta, D.P.; Kanjilal, A.; Garg, S.K.; Sahoo, P.K.; Satpati, B.; Kanjilal, D.; Som, T. Controlled shape modification of embedded Au nanoparticles by 3MeV Au2+-ion irradiation. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2014, 310, 189–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kluth, P.; Sullivan, J.; Li, W.; Weed, R.; Schnohr, C.S.; Giulian, R.; Araujo, L.L.; Lei, W.; Rodriguez, M.D.; Afra, T.; et al.; Bierschenk, T.; Ewing, R.C.; Ridgway, M.C Nano-porosity in GaSb induced by swift heavy ion irradiation. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2014, 104, 023105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. El-Atwani, O.; Norris, S.A.; Ludwig, K.; Gonderman, S.; Allain, J.P. Ion beam nanopatterning of III-V semiconductors: consistency of experimental and simulation trends within a chemistry-driven theory. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 18207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Destefanis, G.L.; Gailliard, J.P. Very efficient void formation in ion implanted InSb. Appl. Phys. Lett. 1980, 36, 40–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gnaser, H.; Kallmayer, C.; Oechsner, H. Focused-ion-beam implantation of Ga in elemental and compound semiconductors. J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 1995, 13, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kluth, S.M.; Llewellyn, D.; Ridgway, M.C. Irradiation fluence dependent microstructural evolution of porous InSb. Nucl. Instrum. Methods B 2006, 242, 640–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Perez-Bergqu, A.G.; Li, K.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, L.M. Ion irradiation-induced bimodal surface morphology changes in InSb. Nanotechnology 2010, 21, 325602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Wu, J.H.; Goldman, R.S. Mechanisms of nanorod growth on focused-ion-beam-irradiated semiconductor surfaces: Role of redeposition. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2012, 100, 053103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kang, M.; Wu, J.H.; Ye, W.; Jiang, Y.; Robb, E.A.; Chen, C.; Goldman, R.S. Formation and evolution of ripples on ion-irradiated semiconductor surfaces. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2014, 104, 052103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Datta, D.P.; Garg, S.K.; Satpati, B.; Sahoo, P.K.; Kanjilal, A.; Dhara, S.; Kanjilal, D.; Som, T. 60 keV Ar+-ion induced modification of microstructural, compositional, and vibrational properties of InSb. J. Appl. Phys. 2014, 116, 143502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Jany, B.R.; Szajna, K.; Nikiel, M.; Wrana, D.; Trynkiewicz, E.; Pedrys, R.; Krok, F. Energy dependence of nanopillars formation on InSb semiconductor surfaces under gallium FIB and noble gas ions beam irradiation. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2015, 327, 86–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wilson, H. The effects of self-ion bombardment (30–500 keV) on the surface topography of single-crystal germanium. J. Appl. Phys. 1982, 53, 1698–1705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Appleton, B.R.; Holland, O.W.; Narayan, J.; Schow, O.E., III; Williams, J.S.; Short, K.T.; Lawson, E. Characterization of damage in ion implanted Ge. Appl. Phys. Lett. 1982, 41, 711–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Wang, L.M.; Birtcher, R.C. Radiation induced formation of cavities in amorphous germanium. Appl. Phys. Lett. 1989, 55, 2494–2496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wang, L.M.; Birtcher, R.C. Amorphization, morphological instability and crystallization of Krypton ion irradiated germanium. Philos. Mag. A 1991, 64, 1209–1223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Koffel, S.; Scheiblin, P.; Claverie, A.; Benassayag, G. Amorphization kinetics of germanium during ion implantation. J. Appl. Phys. 2009, 105, 013528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Steinbach, T.; Wernecke, J.; Kluth, P.; Ridgway, M.C.; Wesch, W. Structural modifications of low-energy heavy-ion irradiated germanium. Phys. Rev. B 2011, 84, 104108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Romano, L.; Impellizzeri, G.; Bosco, L.; Ruffino, F.; Miritello, M.; Grimaldi, M.G. Nanoporosity induced by ion implantation in deposited amorphous Ge thin films. J. Appl. Phys. 2012, 111, 113515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Impellizzeri, G.; Romano, L.; Bosco1, L.; Spinella, C.; Grimaldi, M.G. Nanoporosity induced by ion implantation in germanium thin films grown by molecular beam epitaxy. Appl. Phys. Express 2012, 5, 5035201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Rudawski, N.G.; Darby, B.L.; Yates, B.R.; Jones1, K.S.; Elliman, R.G.; Volinsky, A.A. Nanostructured ion beam-modified Ge films for high capacity Li ion battery anodes. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2012, 100, 083111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Claverie, A.; Vieu, C.; Fauré, J.; Beauvillain, J. Cross-sectional high-resolution electron microscopy investigation of argon-ion implantation-induced amorphization of silicon. J. Appl. Phys. 1988, 64, 4415–4423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Taniwaki, M.; Koide, H.; Yoshimoto, N.; Yoshiie, T.; Ohnuki, S.; Maeda, M.; Sassa, K. Amorphization and solid-phase epitaxial growth in tin-ion-implanted gallium arsenide. J. Appl. Phys. 1990, 67, 4036–4041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Taniwaki, M.; Yoshiie, T.; Koide, H.; Ichihashi, M.; Yoshimoto, N.; Yoshida, H.; Hayashi, Y. Microtwin formation in gallium arsenide by iron ion implantation and amorphization by annealing. J. Appl. Phys. 1989, 66, 161–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Gasparotto, A.; Carnera, A.; Frigeri, C.; Priolo, F.; Fraboni, B.; Rossetto, A.C.G. Interaction between Fe, dopants, and secondary defects in MeV Fe ion implanted InP. J. Appl. Phys. 1999, 85, 753–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Alkhaldi, H.S.; Kremer, F.; Bierschenk, T.; Hansen, J.L.; Nylandsted-Larsen, A.; Williams, J.S.; Ridgway, M.C. Porosity as a function of stoichiometry and implantation temperature in Ge/Si1−xGex alloys. J. Appl. Phys. 2016, 119, 094303, Erratum in 2017, 121, 049902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Alkhaldi, H.S.; Kremer, F.; Mota-Santiago, P.; Nadzri, A.; Schauries, D.; Kirby, N.; Ridgway, M.C.; Kluth, P. Morphology of ion irradiation induced nano-porous structures in Ge and Si1−xGex alloys. J. Appl. Phys. 2017, 121, 115705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Alkhaldi, H.S.; Kluth, P.; Kremer, F.; Lysevych, M.; Li, L.; Ridgway, M.C.; Williams, J.S. Void evolution and porosity under arsenic ion irradiation in GaAs1−x Sbx alloys. J. Phys. D 2017, 50, 125101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Biersack, J.P.; Haggmark, L.G. A Monte Carlo computer program for the transport of energetic ions in amorphous targets. Nucl. Instrum. Methods 1980, 174, 257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Thommen, K. Energy and orientation dependence of electron-irradiation-induced damage in undoyed GaSb. Phys. Rev. 1968, 174, 938–945, Erratum in 1969, 179, 920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bauerlein, R.Z. Messung der Energie zur Verlagerung eines Gitteratoms durch Elektronenstoß in AIIIBV-Verbindungen. Physics 1963, 176, 498–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Andersen, H.H.; Ziegler, J.F. The Stopping and Range of Ions in Matter 3; Pergamon Press: New York, NY, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  41. Yanagida, Y. Irradiation effect of Cu cluster ion beam for GaSb. Bachelor’s Thesis, Kochi University of Technology, Kochi, Japan, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  42. Nitta, N.; Nakamoto, M.; Tsuchida, H.; Tomita, N.; Sasa, K.; Hirata, K.; Hirano, Y.; Yamada, K.; Chiba, A.; Saito, Y.; et al. Irradiation effect of C60 fast cluster ion beam for GaSb. Presented at the Spring Meeting of the Japan Institute of Metals and Materials, Tokyo, Japan, 16 March 2017. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Vacancy distributions of (a) GaSb, (b) InSb, and (c) Ge irradiated with a Ga ion beam as a function of distance from the surface, calculated by SRIM simulations. Accelerating voltages were 2, 5, 8, 16, and 30 kV.
Figure 1. Vacancy distributions of (a) GaSb, (b) InSb, and (c) Ge irradiated with a Ga ion beam as a function of distance from the surface, calculated by SRIM simulations. Accelerating voltages were 2, 5, 8, 16, and 30 kV.
Nanomaterials 07 00180 g001
Figure 2. Surface SEM images of GaSb irradiated with a Ga+ ion beam at room temperature (left). The accelerating voltages used were 2, 5, 8, 16, and 30 kV at a scanning dose of 5 × 1018 ions/m2 per scan. The total number of vacancies created on GaSb was estimated using the ion dose (ions/m2) multiplied by the vacancy count (/ion) as calculated by SRIM simulations, as a function of accelerating voltage (right).
Figure 2. Surface SEM images of GaSb irradiated with a Ga+ ion beam at room temperature (left). The accelerating voltages used were 2, 5, 8, 16, and 30 kV at a scanning dose of 5 × 1018 ions/m2 per scan. The total number of vacancies created on GaSb was estimated using the ion dose (ions/m2) multiplied by the vacancy count (/ion) as calculated by SRIM simulations, as a function of accelerating voltage (right).
Nanomaterials 07 00180 g002
Figure 3. Surface SEM images of InSb irradiated with a Ga+ ion beam at room temperature (left). The accelerating voltages used were 2, 5, 8, 16, and 30 kV at a scanning dose of 5 × 1018 ions/m2 per scan. The total number of vacancies created on InSb was estimated using the ion dose (ions/m2) multiplied by the vacancy count (/ion) as calculated by SRIM simulations, as a function of accelerating voltage (right).
Figure 3. Surface SEM images of InSb irradiated with a Ga+ ion beam at room temperature (left). The accelerating voltages used were 2, 5, 8, 16, and 30 kV at a scanning dose of 5 × 1018 ions/m2 per scan. The total number of vacancies created on InSb was estimated using the ion dose (ions/m2) multiplied by the vacancy count (/ion) as calculated by SRIM simulations, as a function of accelerating voltage (right).
Nanomaterials 07 00180 g003
Figure 4. Surface SEM images of Ge irradiated with a Ga+ ion beam at room temperature (left). The accelerating voltages used were 2, 5, 8, 16, and 30 kV at a scanning dose of 5 × 1018 ions/m2 per scan. The total number of vacancies created on Ge was estimated using the ion dose (ions/m2) multiplied by the vacancy count (/ion) as calculated by SRIM simulations, as a function of accelerating voltage (right).
Figure 4. Surface SEM images of Ge irradiated with a Ga+ ion beam at room temperature (left). The accelerating voltages used were 2, 5, 8, 16, and 30 kV at a scanning dose of 5 × 1018 ions/m2 per scan. The total number of vacancies created on Ge was estimated using the ion dose (ions/m2) multiplied by the vacancy count (/ion) as calculated by SRIM simulations, as a function of accelerating voltage (right).
Nanomaterials 07 00180 g004
Figure 5. Vacancy distributions of GaSb irradiated with a Ga ion beam as a function of distance from the surface, calculated using SRIM simulations [37] (re-arranged in Figure 1a). Accelerating voltages were (a) 16 kV and (b) 30 kV. The gray hatched regions indicate the region 18 nm below the surface.
Figure 5. Vacancy distributions of GaSb irradiated with a Ga ion beam as a function of distance from the surface, calculated using SRIM simulations [37] (re-arranged in Figure 1a). Accelerating voltages were (a) 16 kV and (b) 30 kV. The gray hatched regions indicate the region 18 nm below the surface.
Nanomaterials 07 00180 g005
Table 1. Projected range and vacancy per ion calculated by SRIM simulations in (a) GaSb, (b) InSb, and (c) Ge.
Table 1. Projected range and vacancy per ion calculated by SRIM simulations in (a) GaSb, (b) InSb, and (c) Ge.
(a) GaSb
Acc. Vol. (kV)2581630
Ion range (nm)3.66.18.212.920.2
Vacancy (/ion)15437459311692156
(b) InSb
Acc. Vol. (kV)2581630
Ion range (nm)4.06.89.013.921.9
Vacancy (/ion)16640864712812382
(c) Ge
Acc. Vol. (kV)2581630
Ion range (nm)3.25.57.311.718.3
Vacancy (/ion)771892985851076
Table 2. Sputtering yield (atoms/ion) calculated by SRIM simulations [37] in (a) GaSb, (b) InSb, and (c) Ge.
Table 2. Sputtering yield (atoms/ion) calculated by SRIM simulations [37] in (a) GaSb, (b) InSb, and (c) Ge.
(a) GaSb
Acc. Vol. (kV)2581630
Total3.5534.9395.6716.3676.928
III element1.802.482.873.243.52
V element1.752.462.803.133.41
(b) InSb
Acc. Vol. (kV)2581630
Total4.1425.8226.6607.9758.537
III element2.183.063.504.194.47
V element1.962.773.163.784.07
(c) Ge
Acc. Vol. (kV)2581630
Total2.9654.2154.8105.7664.801
Table 3. Comparison of ion beam conditions and point defects calculated by SRIM simulations [37] on similar structure formation of GaSb in Figure 2g,k.
Table 3. Comparison of ion beam conditions and point defects calculated by SRIM simulations [37] on similar structure formation of GaSb in Figure 2g,k.
Acc. Vol. (kV)ScanScan Dose (ions/m2 scan)Total Dose (ions/m2)Vacancy (/ion)Total Vacancy (/m2)Vacancy (/ion) under 18 nm from the SurfaceTotal Vacancy (/m2) under 18 nm from the Surface
1685 × 10184 × 101911694.7 × 102213634.1 × 1022
3065 × 10183 × 101921566.5 × 102210344.1 × 1022

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yanagida, Y.; Oishi, T.; Miyaji, T.; Watanabe, C.; Nitta, N. Nanoporous Structure Formation in GaSb, InSb, and Ge by Ion Beam Irradiation under Controlled Point Defect Creation Conditions. Nanomaterials 2017, 7, 180. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano7070180

AMA Style

Yanagida Y, Oishi T, Miyaji T, Watanabe C, Nitta N. Nanoporous Structure Formation in GaSb, InSb, and Ge by Ion Beam Irradiation under Controlled Point Defect Creation Conditions. Nanomaterials. 2017; 7(7):180. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano7070180

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yanagida, Yusuke, Tomoya Oishi, Takashi Miyaji, Chiaki Watanabe, and Noriko Nitta. 2017. "Nanoporous Structure Formation in GaSb, InSb, and Ge by Ion Beam Irradiation under Controlled Point Defect Creation Conditions" Nanomaterials 7, no. 7: 180. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano7070180

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop