4.8 Article

In Situ Ion Counting for Improved Implanted Ion Error Rate and Silicon Vacancy Yield Uncertainty

期刊

NANO LETTERS
卷 22, 期 8, 页码 3212-3218

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.1c04646

关键词

focused ion beam; silicon vacancy; in situ ion counting; photoluminescence; autocorrelation

资金

  1. U.S. DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration [DE-NA0003525]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study presents an in situ counted ion implantation experiment that significantly reduces the error on the number of ions required to form a single optically active silicon vacancy (SiV) defect in diamond compared to traditional timed implantation. By analyzing the ion number using in situ detection and postimplantation analysis, the error is improved by 7-fold compared to timed implantation. Additionally, the study confirms the presence of single-photon emitters in 82% of the analyzed positions through Hanbury-Brown-Twiss interferometry.
An in situ counted ion implantation experiment improving the error on the number of ions required to form a single optically active silicon vacancy (SiV) defect in diamond 7-fold compared to timed implantation is presented. Traditional timed implantation relies on a beam current measurement followed by implantation with a preset pulse duration. It is dominated by Poisson statistics, resulting in large errors for low ion numbers. Instead, our in situ detection, measuring the ion number arriving at the substrate, results in a 2-fold improvement of the error on the ion number required to generate a single SiV compared to timed implantation. Through postimplantation analysis, the error is improved 7-fold compared to timed implantation. SiVs are detected by photoluminescence spectroscopy, and the yield of 2.98% is calculated through the photoluminescence count rate. Hanbury-Brown-Twiss interferometry is performed on locations potentially hosting single-photon emitters, confirming that 82% of the locations exhibit single photon emission statistics.

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

4.8
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