V) measurements, and Am-241 spectral response measurements to characterize and compare the effects of each solution. The results show that the HBr-based solution produced lower leakage current than the BME solution. Results from using the same chemomechanical polishing solution on two samples confirmed that the surface treatment affects the measured bulk current (a combination of bulk and surface currents). XPS results indicate that the tellurium oxide to tellurium peak ratios for the mechanical polishing process were reduced significantly by chemomechanical polishing using the BME solution (78.9% for Te 3d 5/2O2 and 76.7% for Te 3d 3/2O2) compared with the HBr-based solution (27.6% for Te 3d 5/2O2 and 35.8% for Te 3d 3/2O2). Spectral response measurements showed that the 59.5-keV peak of Am-241 remained under the same channel number for all three CdZnTe samples. While the BME-based solution gave a better performance of 7.15% full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) compared with 7.59% FWHM for the HBr-based solution, the latter showed a smaller variation in performance of 0.39% FWHM over 7 days compared with 0.69% for the BME-based solution. Keywords CdZnTe chemomechanical polishing leakage current spectral response x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy" />
Effects of Chemomechanical Polishing on CdZnTe X-ray and Gamma-Ray Detectors
详细信息    查看全文
  • 作者:Stephen U. Egarievwe ; Anwar Hossain…
  • 关键词:CdZnTe ; chemomechanical polishing ; leakage current ; spectral response ; x ; ray photoelectron spectroscopy
  • 刊名:Journal of Electronic Materials
  • 出版年:2015
  • 出版时间:September 2015
  • 年:2015
  • 卷:44
  • 期:9
  • 页码:3194-3201
  • 全文大小:865 KB
  • 参考文献:1.L. Verger, J.P. Bonnefoy, F. Glasser, and P. Ouvrier-Buffet, J. Electron. Mater. 26-, 738 (1997).CrossRef
    2.R.B. James, T.E. Schlesinger, J.C. Lund, and M. Schieber, Semiconductors for Room Temperature Nuclear Detector Applications, vol. 43 (San Diego: Academic, 1995).
    3.T.E. Schlesinger, J.E. Toney, H. Yoon, E.Y. Lee, B.A. Brunett, L. Franks, and R.B. James, Mater. Sci. Eng. 32, 103 (2001).CrossRef
    4.S. Del Sordo, L. Abbene, E. Caroli, A.M. Mancini, A. Zappettini, and P. Ubertini, Sensors 9, 3491 (2009).CrossRef
    5.C. Scheiber, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 448, 513 (2000).CrossRef
    6.L. Verger, M. Boitel, M.C. Gentet, R. Hamelin, C. Mestais, F. Mongellaz, J. Rustique, and G. Sanchez, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 458, 297 (2001).CrossRef
    7.O. Limousin, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 504, 24 (2003).CrossRef
    8.M.C. Duff, D.B. Hunter, A. Burger, M. Groza, V. Buliga, and D.R. Black, Appl. Surf. Sci. 254, 2889 (2008).CrossRef
    9.T.H. Prettyman, F.P. Ameduri, A. Burger, J.C. Gregory, M.A. Hoffbauer, P.R. Majerus, D.B. Reisenfeld, S.A. Soldner, and C. Szeles, Proc. SPIE 4507, 25 (2001).
    10.A. Hossain, A.E. Bolotnikov, G.S. Camarda, Y. Cui, S. Babalola, A. Burger, and R.B. James, J. Electron. Mater. 38, 1356 (2008).CrossRef
    11.T.H. Prettyman, F.P. Ameduri, A. Burger, J.C. Gregory, M.A. Hoffbauer, P.R. Majerus, D.B. Reisenfeld, S.A. Soldner, and C. Szeles, Proc. SPIE 4507, 25 (2001).
    12.T.H. Prettyman, M.A. Hoffbauer, J.A, Rennie, S. Cook, J.C. Gregory, M.A. George, P.N. Luke, M. Amman, S.A. Soldner and J.R. Earnhart, Nucl. Instrum. Methods. A 422, 179 (1999).
    13.A. Hossain, S. Babalola, A.E. Bolotnikov, G.S. Camarda, Y. Cui, G. Yang, M. Guo, D. Kochanowska, A. Mycielski, A. Burger, and R.B. James, Proc. SPIE 7079, 70791E-1 (2008).CrossRef
    14.K. Chattopadhyay, M. Hayes, J.O. Ndap, A. Burger, M.J. Lu, H.G. McWhinney, T. Grady, and R.B. James, J. Electron. Mater. 29, 708 (2000).CrossRef
    15.A. Hossain, A.E. Bolotnikov, G.S. Camarda, Y. Cui, D. Jones, J. Hall, K.H. Kim, J. Mwathi, X. Tong, G. Yang, and R.B. James, J. Electron. Mater. 43, 2771 (2014).CrossRef
    16.A. Hossain, A. Dowdy, A.E. Bolotnikov, G.S. Camarda, Y. Cui, U.N. Roy, R. Tappero, X. Tong, G. Yang, and R.B. James, J. Electron. Mater. 43, 2941 (2014).CrossRef
    17.D.E. Jones, S.U. Egarievwe, A. Hossain, I.O. Okwechime, M.L. Drabo, J. Hall, A.L. Adams, S.O. Babalola, G.S. Camarda, A.E. Bolotnikov, W. Chan, and R.B. James, IEEE Records of Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference (2012), p. 4124.
    18.I.O. Okwechime, S.U. Egarievwe, A. Hossain, Z.M. Hales, A.A. Egarievwe, and R.B. James, Proc. SPIE 9213, 92130Y (2014).CrossRef
    19.G. Zha, W. Jie, T. Tan, and X. Wang, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 566, 495 (2006).CrossRef
    20.G. Zha, W. Jie, T. Tan, and P. Li, Appl. Surf. Sci. 253, 3476 (2007).CrossRef
  • 作者单位:Stephen U. Egarievwe (1) (2)
    Anwar Hossain (2)
    Ifechukwude O. Okwechime (1)
    Rubi Gul (1) (2)
    Ralph B. James (2)

    1. Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Science Center, Alabama A&M University, Normal, AL, 35762, USA
    2. Department of Nonproliferation and National Security, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY, 11973, USA
  • 刊物类别:Chemistry and Materials Science
  • 刊物主题:Chemistry
    Optical and Electronic Materials
    Characterization and Evaluation Materials
    Electronics, Microelectronics and Instrumentation
    Solid State Physics and Spectroscopy
  • 出版者:Springer Boston
  • ISSN:1543-186X
文摘
Mechanically polishing cadmium zinc telluride (CdZnTe) wafers for x-ray and gamma-ray detectors often is inadequate in removing surface defects caused by cutting them from the ingots. Fabrication-induced defects, such as surface roughness, dangling bonds, and nonstoichiometric surfaces, often are reduced through polishing and etching the surface. In our earlier studies of mechanical polishing with alumina powder, etching with hydrogen bromide in hydrogen peroxide solution, and chemomechanical polishing with bromine–methanol–ethylene glycol solution, we found that the chemomechanical polishing process produced the least surface leakage current. In this research, we focused on using two chemicals to chemomechanically polish CdZnTe wafers after mechanical polishing, viz. bromine–methanol–ethylene glycol (BME) solution, and hydrogen bromide (HBr) in a hydrogen peroxide and ethylene–glycol solution. We used x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), current–voltage (I-em class="EmphasisTypeItalic ">V) measurements, and Am-241 spectral response measurements to characterize and compare the effects of each solution. The results show that the HBr-based solution produced lower leakage current than the BME solution. Results from using the same chemomechanical polishing solution on two samples confirmed that the surface treatment affects the measured bulk current (a combination of bulk and surface currents). XPS results indicate that the tellurium oxide to tellurium peak ratios for the mechanical polishing process were reduced significantly by chemomechanical polishing using the BME solution (78.9% for Te 3d 5/2O2 and 76.7% for Te 3d 3/2O2) compared with the HBr-based solution (27.6% for Te 3d 5/2O2 and 35.8% for Te 3d 3/2O2). Spectral response measurements showed that the 59.5-keV peak of Am-241 remained under the same channel number for all three CdZnTe samples. While the BME-based solution gave a better performance of 7.15% full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) compared with 7.59% FWHM for the HBr-based solution, the latter showed a smaller variation in performance of 0.39% FWHM over 7 days compared with 0.69% for the BME-based solution. Keywords CdZnTe chemomechanical polishing leakage current spectral response x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy

© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号

地址:北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编:100083

电话:办公室:(+86 10)66554848;文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新:66554700