cessing. Principally, this variation leads to some difficulty in
comparing oxides grown in different furnaces, as growth
recipes often do not include sufficient information on flow
velocity and gas residence time. This effect has been known
for some time.4 However, our work suggests that at 900 °C
the variation of oxide properties with flow velocity is far
greater than might be anticipated from higher temperature
studies. We also acknowlede that, because of our neglect in
dealing with turbulence and the details of heat transfer, there
may be other factors influencing furnace performance which
prevent the scalability of our NO concentration measure-
ments. Most notably, the shape of the furnace inlet and its
size in comparison with the rest of the furnace may have
secondary effects on the decomposition process. However,
the mechanism by which these factors and the flow velocity
influence the nitrogen incorporation are identical: the NO
concentration at the wafer depends directly upon the tem-
perature profile of the gas near the inlet. These changes in the
temperature profile can arise from finite gas heat-up time, or
can be produced by heat liberated during the decomposition
of N2O.
FIG. 3. N depth profile for two furnace N2O gate oxides, showing the effect
of flow rate on N concentration. The oxides were grown at 1 and 4 SLM,
corresponding to flow velocities of 0.15 and 0.6 cm/s, at a temperature of
900 °C, in O2 ͑5 min͒, N2O ͑30 min͒, O2 ͑30 min͒, and N2O ͑30 min͒.
rates of 1, 2, and 4 slm, corresponding to flow velocities of
0.15, 0.3, and 0.6 cm/s. The oxide thicknesses were 143, 139,
and 117 Å, respectively, as measured ellipsometrically with
nϭ1.462. A comparison of the N profiles of the 1 and 4 slm
oxides is given in Fig. 3. These N profiles were obtained by
an XPS etchback process described elsewhere.2 The inte-
grated N concentration of the 4 slm oxide was twice that of
the 1 slm oxide.
This research was supported by the Semiconductor Re-
search Corporation. Additional support was provided by the
National Science Foundation, through the use of the Cornell
Nanofabrication Facility and the use of the facilities of the
Cornell Materials Science Center.
It is important to note that the wafers grown by Saks
et al.,15 had nitrogen exclusively at the interface, while our
oxides clearly showed a bimodal nitrogen distribution. This
difference appears to be due solely to a change in the flow
rate. Their observation was that nitrogen which is incorpo-
rated during the initial N2O oxidation step is removed during
the final N2O step. This was attributed by Saks et al., to the
removal of N through a reaction with NO. Since NO is also
clearly present during the growth of our oxides, and action
by O2 was ruled out by Saks,15 we suggest that the species
responsible for N removal is atomic oxygen. It has been
shown previously, with low pressure O3 annealing, that
atomic oxygen is capable of scavenging N from an oxide.16
Under sufficiently high flow rates, atomic oxygen from reac-
tion ͑2͒ may survive to reach the wafer. The short residence
time used by Saks, reported as less than 10 s, is longer than
the calculated N2O lifetime of 2 s;4 however, given the un-
known time required to heat the gas to 900 °C, and the pos-
sibility of thermal inhomogeneities, we suspect that some
N2O survived to decompose near the wafer, resulting in ex-
posure of the wafers of Saks et al., to atomic oxygen.
We conclude that the variation of flow rate presents an
important tool for optimizing nitrogen incorporation. It also
brings to the surface several concerns regarding N2O pro-
1 W. Ting, H. Hwang, J. Lee, and D. L. Kwong, Appl. Phys. Lett. 57, 2808
͑1990͒.
2 E. C. Carr and R. A. Buhrman, Appl. Phys. Lett. 63, 54 ͑1994͒.
3 T. Aoyama, K. Suzuki, H. Tashiro, T. Toda, T. Yamazaki, Y. Arimoto, and
T. Ito, J. Electrochem. Soc. 140, 3624 ͑1993͒.
4 P. J. Tobin, Y. Okada, S. A. Ajuria, V. Lakhotia, W. A. Feil, and R. I.
Hedge, J. Appl. Phys. 75, 1811 ͑1994͒.
5 K. Jones, Comprehensive Inorganic Chemistry ͑Pergamon, Oxford, 1973͒,
Vol. 2, p. 350.
6 W. A. Rosser and H. Wise, J. Chem. Phys. 24, 493 ͑1956͒.
7 E. Briner, Ch. Meiner, and A. Rothen, J. Chim. Phys. 23, 609 ͑1926͒.
8 C. N. Hinshelwood and F. J. Lindars, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A 231,
162 ͑1955͒.
9 F. Kaufman, N. J. Gerri, and R. E. Bowman, J. Chem. Phys. 25, 106
͑1956͒.
10 F. F. Musgrave and C. N. Hinshelwood, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A 168,
23 ͑1923͒.
11 Z.-Q. Yao, H. B. Harrison, S. Dimitrijev, D. Sweatman, and Y. T. Yeow,
Appl. Phys. Lett. 64, 3584 ͑1994͒.
12 M. L. Green, D. Brasen, L. C. Feldman, W. Lennard, and H.-T. Tang,
Appl. Phys. Lett. 67, 1600 ͑1995͒.
13 T. S. Chao, W. H. Chen, S. C. Sun, and H. Y. Chang, J. Electrochem. Soc.
140, L160 ͑1993͒.
14 K. Jones, Comprehensive Inorganic Chemistry ͑Pergamon, Oxford, 1973͒,
Vol. 2, p. 354.
15 N. S. Saks, D. I. Ma, and W. B. Fowler, Appl. Phys. Lett. 67, 374 ͑1995͒.
16 E. C. Carr, K. A. Ellis, and R. A. Buhrman, Appl. Phys. Lett. 66, 1492
͑1995͒.
1698 Appl. Phys. Lett., Vol. 68, No. 12, 18 March 1996 K. A. Ellis and R. A. Buhrman
142.157.183.114 On: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 16:12:00