4.7 Article

A novel approach of chemical mechanical polishing for cadmium zinc telluride wafers

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep26891

关键词

-

资金

  1. Excellent Young Scientists Fund of NSFC [51422502]
  2. Integrated Program for Major Research Plan of NSFC [91323302]
  3. Science Fund for Creative Research Groups of NSFC [51321004]
  4. Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University [NCET-13-0086]
  5. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [DUT14YQ215]
  6. State Key Laboratory of Tribology, Tsinghua University [SKLTKF14A03]
  7. State Key Laboratory of Metastable Materials Science and Technology, Yanshan University [201501]
  8. Xinghai Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars at Dalian University of Technology
  9. Outstanding Creation Talents Cloud Project of Changzhou City [CQ20140008]
  10. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province [BK20151190]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A novel approach of chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) is developed for cadmium zinc telluride (CdZnTe or CZT) wafers. The approach uses environment-friendly slurry that consists of mainly silica, hydrogen peroxide, and citric acid. This is different from the previously reported slurries that are usually composed of strong acid, alkali, and bromine methanol, and are detrimental to the environment and operators. Surface roughness 0.5 nm and 4.7 nm are achieved for R-a and peak-to-valley (PV) values respectively in a measurement area of 70 x 50 mu m(2), using the developed novel approach. Fundamental polishing mechanisms are also investigated in terms of X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and electrochemical measurements. Hydrogen peroxide dominates the passivating process during the CMP of CZT wafers, indicating by the lowest passivation current density among silica, citric acid and hydrogen peroxide solution. Chemical reaction equations are proposed during CMP according to the XPS and electrochemical measurements.

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

4.7
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