4.8 Article

Resolving the Heat of Trimethylaluminum and Water Atomic Layer Deposition Half-Reactions

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 144, 期 33, 页码 15203-15210

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jacs.2c05460

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study provides new insight into the thermodynamics and kinetics of the trimethylaluminum (TMA) and H2O atomic layer deposition (ALD) reactions. The experimental heat is found to closely align with the predicted heat based on computational models and standard heats of formation, but the TMA reaction exhibits significantly faster kinetics compared to the H2O reaction.
Atomic layer deposition (ALD) is a surface synthesis technique that is characterized by self-limiting reactions between gas-phase precursors and a solid substrate. Although ALD processes have been demonstrated that span the periodic table, a greater understanding of the surface chemistry that affords ALD is necessary to enable greater precision, including area- and site-selective growth. We offer new insight into the thermodynamics and kinetics of the trimethylaluminum (TMA) and H2O ALD half-reactions with calibrated and time-resolved in situ pyroelectric calorimetry. The half-reactions produce 3.46 and 2.76 eV/Al heat, respectively, which is greater than the heat predicted by computational models based on crystalline Al2O3 substrates and closely aligned with the heat predicted by standard heats of formation. The pyroelectric thin-film calorimeter offers submilisecond temporal resolution that uniquely and clearly resolves precursor delivery and reaction kinetics. Both half-reactions are observed to exhibit multiple kinetic rates, with average TMA half-reaction rates at least 2 orders of magnitude faster than the H2O half-reaction kinetics. Comparing the experimental heat with published computational literature and additional first-principles modeling highlights the need to refine our models and mechanistic understanding of even the most ubiquitous ALD reactions.

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