4.6 Article

Experimental estimation of electron-hole pair creation energy in β-Ga2O3

期刊

APPLIED PHYSICS LETTERS
卷 118, 期 20, 页码 -

出版社

AIP Publishing
DOI: 10.1063/5.0053301

关键词

-

资金

  1. Program to increase Competitiveness of NUST MISiS among the World Leading Scientific and Educational centers (Russian Ministry of Science and Education) [K2-2020-040]
  2. Department of the Defense, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, part of Interaction of Ionizing Radiation with Matter University Research Alliance (IIRM-URA) [HDTRA1-20-2-0002]
  3. NSF DMR [1856662]
  4. [075-00920-20-00]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The applicability of using Electron Beam Induced Current (EBIC) measurements on Schottky barriers to obtain the mean electron-hole pair creation energy in beta-Ga2O3 has been demonstrated. When combined with Monte Carlo simulation, this approach yielded consistent data sets for Si, GaN, and 4H-SiC, in agreement with empirical expressions proposed for various semiconductors. The method was then successfully applied to beta-Ga2O3, where complications related to hole trapping in the material were carefully addressed, resulting in a mean electron-hole pair energy formation of 15.6eV, in reasonable agreement with predicted values.
The applicability of using Electron Beam Induced Current (EBIC) measurements on Schottky barriers to obtain the mean electron-hole pair creation energy in beta-Ga2O3 is reported. It is shown that, when combined with Monte Carlo simulation, this approach yields for Si, GaN, and 4H-SiC a data set consistent with empirical expressions proposed earlier in the literature for many different semiconductors. The method is then applied to beta-Ga2O3, where complications related to hole trapping in the material give rise to a strong gain in EBIC and have to be carefully treated and taken into account. When this is done, the mean electron-hole pair energy formation is found to be 15.6eV, in reasonable agreement with the values predicted by empirical expressions.

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