4.6 Article

The comparison between CdS thin films grown on Si(111) substrate and quartz substrate by femtosecond pulsed laser deposition

Journal

APPLIED PHYSICS A-MATERIALS SCIENCE & PROCESSING
Volume 84, Issue 1-2, Pages 143-148

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00339-006-3574-4

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Two kinds of cadmium sulfate (CdS) thin films have been grown at 600 degrees C onto Si(111) and quartz substrates using femtosecond pulsed laser deposition (PLD). The influence of substrates on the structural and optical properties of the CdS thin films grown by femtosecond pulsed laser deposition have been studied. The CdS thin films were characterized by X-ray diffraction (XRD), atomic force microscopy (AFM), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), photoluminescence (PL) and Raman spectroscopy. Although CdS thin films deposited both on Si(111) and quartz substrates were polycrystalline and hexagonal as shown by the XRD , SEM and AFM results, the crystalline quality and optical properties were found to be different. The size of the grains for the CdS thin film grown on Si(111) substrate were observed to be larger than that of the CdS thin film grown on quartz substrate, and there is more microcrystalline perpendicularity of c-axis for the film deposited on the quartz substrate than that for the films deposited on the Si substrate. In addition, in the PL spectra, the excitonic peak is more intense and resolved for CdS film deposited on quartz than that for the CdS film deposited on Si(111) substrate. The LO and TO Raman peaks in the CdS films grown on Si(111) substrate and quartz substrate are different, which is due to higher stress and bigger grain size in the CdS film grown on Si(111) substrate, than that of the CdS film grown on the amorphous quartz substrate. All this suggests that the substrates have a significant effect on the structural and optical properties of thin CdS films.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available