4.6 Article

Atomic layer deposition of B-doped ZnO using triisopropyl borate as the boron precursor and comparison with Al-doped ZnO

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS CHEMISTRY C
卷 3, 期 13, 页码 3095-3107

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c4tc02707h

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Community [FP7-MC-IEF-272444]
  2. Dutch Technology Foundation STW through the Flash Perspectief Programma
  3. Solliance, a solar energy R&D initiative of ECN, TNO, Holst, TU/e, imec
  4. Forschungszentrum Julich
  5. Dutch province of Noord-Brabant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Doped ZnO films are an important class of transparent conductive oxides, with many applications demanding increased growth control and low deposition temperatures. Therefore, the preparation of B-doped ZnO films by atomic layer deposition (ALD) at 150 degrees C was studied. The B source was triisopropyl borate, B((OPr)-Pr-i)(3) (TIB), which has a significantly lower vapour pressure and is a safer alternative precursor to highly toxic diborane(6), B2H6. The doping fraction (DF) of the films was varied by the ratio of ZnO and dopant ALD cycles. The electrical, structural and optical properties of the ZnO: B films were studied as a function of the dopant concentration and deposition temperature, and were compared with ZnO: Al films, where dimethylaluminium isopropoxide, [Al(CH3)(2)((OPr)-Pr-i)](2) (DMAI) and trimethylaluminium, Al-2(CH3)(6) (TMA) were the Al sources. A low resistivity of 3.5 m Omega cm was achieved for 45 nm-thick ZnO: B deposited at 150 degrees C with a doping fraction (DF) of 0.016, which was similar to the results obtained for ZnO: Al films prepared with DMAI and lower compared to the 8 m Omega cm achieved for ZnO: Al prepared with TMA at an optimized DF of 0.040. Hence TIB, as well as DMAI, outperformed the conventionally employed TMA in terms of doping efficiency at 150 degrees C. It was found that the optical band gap could be easily tuned over the range of similar to 3.2-3.7 eV by modifying the doping fraction.

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

4.6
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