4.4 Article

Assessment of surface recombination in mid-wave infrared InAsSb nBn detectors using transient microwave reflectance

Journal

AIP ADVANCES
Volume 13, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

AIP Publishing
DOI: 10.1063/5.0137126

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates the minority carrier lifetime of InAsSb nBn structures under three conditions: As-Grown, Barrier-Etched, and Passivated blanket barrier-etched, using transient microwave reflectance. Qualitative comparison shows that the minority carrier lifetime decreases for the Barrier-Etched sample compared to the As-Grown sample, indicating sensitivity to changes in the sample surface. Quantitative comparison using a polynomial fit reveals the specific values of parameters A, B, and C for each sample.
Investigation of surface recombination is an important area for infrared detectors as the demand for smaller pixels increases. In this study, we use transient microwave reflectance to characterize the minority carrier lifetime of InAsSb nBn structures under three conditions: As-Grown, blanket Barrier-Etched, and SU-8 Passivated blanket barrier-etched. A qualitative comparison of these three samples shows that the minority carrier lifetime decreases for the Barrier-Etched sample compared to the As-Grown sample, indicating that the minority carrier lifetime is sensitive to changes in the sample surface, specifically the introduction of surface states. We compare these samples quantitatively using a polynomial fit (A(-1) + Bn + Cn(2)). We find for the As-Grown sample A = 1.22 +/- 0.45 mu s, B = 2.5 +/- 0.2 x 10(-12) cm(3)/s, and C = 5.004 +/- 4.996 x 10(-31) cm(6)/s, for the Barrier-Etched sample A = 1.17 +/- 0.40 mu s, B = 9.9 +/- 0.2 x 10(-12) cm(3)/s, and C = 9.502 +/- 9.498 x 10(-30) cm(6)/s, and for the Passivated sample A = 1.34 +/- 0.45 mu s, B = 5.3 +/- 0.5 x 10(-12) cm(3)/s, and C = 5.500 +/- 4.500 x 10(-33) cm(6)/s.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available