4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

The structural properties of CdS deposited by chemical bath deposition and pulsed direct current magnetron sputtering

期刊

THIN SOLID FILMS
卷 582, 期 -, 页码 323-327

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.tsf.2014.11.062

关键词

Pulsed direct-current magnetron sputtering; Chemical bath deposition; Cadmium sulphide; Thin films; Film uniformity; Pinhole free films; Void-free films

资金

  1. Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC) under the Supergen SuperSolar Hub [EPJ017361/1]
  2. EPSRC [EP/N508433/1, EP/J017361/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/N508433/1, EP/J017361/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. The British Council [172726566] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cadmium sulphide (CdS) thin films were deposited by two different processes, chemical bath deposition (CBD), and pulsed DC magnetron sputtering (PDCMS) on fluorine doped-tin oxide coated glass to assess the potential advantages of the pulsed DC magnetron sputtering process. The structural, optical and morphological properties of films obtained by CBD and PDCMS were investigated using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, X-ray diffraction, scanning and transmission electron microscopy, spectroscopic ellipsometry and UV-Vis spectrophotometry. The as-grown films were studied and comparisons were drawn between their morphology, uniformity, crystallinity, and the deposition rate of the process. The highest crystallinity is observed for sputtered CdS thin films. The absorption in the visible wavelength increased for PDCMS CdS thin films, due to the higher density of the films. The band gap measured for the as-grownCBD-CdS is 2.38 eV compared to 2.34 eV for PDCMS-CdS, confirming the higher density of the sputtered thin film. The higher deposition rate for PDCMS is a significant advantage of this technique which has potential use for high rate and low cost manufacturing. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据