4.6 Article

Carrier removal rates in 1.1 MeV proton irradiated α-Ga2O3 (Sn)

期刊

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/1361-6463/acd06b

关键词

carrier; removal; rates; proton; irradiated; Ga2O3

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Films of alpha-Ga2O3 (Sn) grown on sapphire using halide vapor phase epitaxy with donor densities ranging from 5 x 10(15) to 8.4 x 10(19) cm(-3) were irradiated with 1.1 MeV protons at 25 degrees C. The carrier removal rate for lightly doped samples was 35 cm(-1) at a proton fluence of 10(14) cm(-2) and 1.3 cm(-1) at a proton fluence of 10(15) cm(-2). Deep acceptors with optical ionization energies of 2 eV, 2.8 eV, and 3.1 eV were responsible for the observed removal rate. The electron removal rate for heavily doped samples was similar to that of samples doped at 4 x 10(18) cm(-3). Lightly doped alpha-Ga2O3 films showed higher radiation tolerance compared to similarly doped beta-Ga2O3 layers.
Films of alpha-Ga2O3 (Sn) grown by halide vapor phase epitaxy on sapphire with donor densities in the range 5 x 10(15)-8.4 x 10(19) cm(-3) were irradiated at 25 degrees C with 1.1 MeV protons to fluences from 10(13) to 10(16) cm(-2). For the lowest doped samples, the carrier removal rate was similar to 35 cm(-1) at 10(14) cm(-2) and similar to 1.3 cm(-1) for 10(15) cm(-2) proton fluence. The observed removal rate could be accounted for by introduction of deep acceptors with optical ionization energies of 2 eV, 2.8 eV and 3.1 eV. For samples doped at 4 x 10(18) cm(-3), the initial electron removal rate was 5 x 10(3) cm(-1) for 10(15) cm(-2) fluence and similar to 300 cm(-1) for 10(16) cm(-2) fluence. The same deep acceptors were observed in photocapacitance spectra, but their introduction rate was orders of magnitude lower than the carrier removal rate. For the heaviest doped samples, the electron removal rate was close to that for the 4 x 10(18) cm(-3) sample. The radiation tolerance of lightly doped alpha-Ga2O3 is higher than for similarly doped beta-Ga2O3 layers.

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