Metallic contamination in hydrogen plasma immersion ion ...

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSICS

VOLUME 90, NUMBER 8

15 OCTOBER 2001

Metallic contamination in hydrogen plasma immersion ion implantation of silicon Paul K. Chu,a) Ricky K. Y. Fu, Xuchu Zeng, and Dixon T. K. Kwok Department of Physics & Materials Science, City University of Hong Kong, 83 Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong

共Received 27 March 2001; accepted for publication 23 July 2001兲 In plasma immersion ion implantation 共PIII兲, ions bombard all surfaces inside the PIII vacuum chamber, especially the negatively pulsed biased sample stage and to a lesser extent the interior of the vacuum chamber. As a result, contaminants sputtered from these exposed surfaces can be reimplanted into or adsorb on the silicon wafer. Using particle-in-cell theoretical simulation, we determine the relative ion doses incident on the top, side, and bottom surfaces of three typical sample chuck configurations: 共i兲 a bare conducting stage with the entire sample platen and high-voltage feedthrough/supporting rod exposed and under a high voltage, 共ii兲 a stage with only the sample platen exposed to the plasma but the high-voltage feedthrough protected by an insulating quartz shroud, and 共iii兲 a bare stage with a silicon extension or guard ring to reduce the number of ions bombarding the side and bottom of the sample platen. Our simulation results reveal that the ratio of the incident dose impacting the top of the sample platen to that impacting the side and bottom of the sample stage can be improved to 49% using a guard ring. To corroborate our theoretical results, we experimentally determine the amounts of metallic contaminants on 100 mm silicon wafers implanted using a bare chuck and with a 150 mm silicon wafer inserted between the 100 mm wafer and sample stage to imitate the guard ring. We also discuss the effectiveness of a replaceable all-silicon liner inside the vacuum chamber to address the second source of contamination, that from the interior wall of the vacuum chamber. Our results indicate a significant improvement when an all-silicon liner and silicon guard ring are used simultaneously. © 2001 American Institute of Physics. 关DOI: 10.1063/1.1404422兴

I. INTRODUCTION

oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, and water can cause significant sputtering of the exposed surfaces. The interior wall of the vacuum chamber is another source of contamination but can be shielded by a liner made of silicon.11 On the other hand, it is difficult to cover the sample stage entirely with a siliconcompatible material on account of the stringent requirements for high electrical conductance, high voltage operation, in situ monitoring devices, as well as a sample cooling mechanism.9 A sample chuck made of a more conventional material such as stainless steel is easier to machine12,13 but introduces metallic impurities into the plasma. These contaminants may decrease the SOI yields and also introduce detrimental effects such as leakage current in devices fabricated in the materials. In this study, we theoretically and experimentally investigate the contamination issues in hydrogen PIII. Using particle-in-cell 共PIC兲 modeling, we simulate the relative ion doses impacting the top and other surfaces of the sample chuck assembly. The ions impacting the top of the sample chuck are the ‘‘good’’ ones because they go directly into the silicon wafer provided the wafer covers the entire sample platen, but those impinging into the other areas of the sample chuck can lead to sputtered particles. If the sample chuck or stage is made of stainless steel, transition metals can be released which can be reintroduced into the silicon wafer as contaminants. The number of particles sputtered from each region is proportional to the relative ion dose, and so it is important to understand the relationship between the relative

Silicon-on-insulator 共SOI兲 introduces many advantages over bulk silicon substrates such as the elimination or mitigation of latch up, alpha-particle soft errors, short-channel effects, source/drain punch through, and hot carriers.1,2 There are several methods to produce SOI substrates and hydrogen plasma immersion ion implantation 共PIII兲 coupled with wafer bonding and ion cut3–5 has been demonstrated to be an effective and economical means. The biggest advantage of PIII compared to conventional beam-line ion implantation is its high throughput as the implantation time does not depend on the wafer dimensions and also because of the high ion flux (⬎1016 cm⫺2 s⫺1). 6 –9 The absence of an ion filtering mechanism reduces the cost and footprint of a PIII instrument, but all ion species, including contaminants that are sputtered or etched from exposed surfaces including the inner wall of the vacuum chamber and sample stage, are coimplanted into the silicon wafers. Although the sputtering yield of hydrogen is relatively small, the dose required in the ion-cut process is quite high 共between 5⫻1016 and 1 ⫻1017 cm⫺2兲. In addition, there exist heavier ionized atmospheric contaminants such as C, N, and O in the plasma because PIII equipment is typically not designed for ultrahigh vacuum operation.10 These atmospheric ions including a兲

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; electronic mail: [email protected]

0021-8979/2001/90(8)/3743/7/$18.00

3743

© 2001 American Institute of Physics

3744

Chu et al.

J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 90, No. 8, 15 October 2001

Owing to the complexity of the plasma, two assumptions are made in our PIC modeling.14 –18 First, the ions are assumed to be noncollisional and cold. Second, they acquire directed motion only by the electric field. The electrons are assumed to be in thermal equilibrium, and so the electron density n e is given by Boltzmann’s relationship n e ⫽n 0 exp

冉冊

e␾ , kT e

共1兲

where n 0 is the initial ion density, k is the Boltzmann constant, and T e is the electron temperature. The simulation region displayed in Fig. 1 is evenly divided into finite grids of the same area. Initially, particles are evenly distributed among them except in the region adjacent to the wafer holder and supporting rod. The initial values of the potential, density, radial velocity, longitudinal velocity, position, and electric field are first entered into each grid. The pulse duration is divided into a series of time steps, and in each time step, Poisson’s equation is solved to determine the particle motion and redistributed ion density. Poisson’s equation relates the potential ␾ to the electron density n e and ion density n i as follows: FIG. 1. Schematic diagram of the three PIII configurations, the right half being the simulation region: 共a兲 Plain wafer holder. 共b兲 Supporting rod/highvoltage feedthrough shielded by a grounded quartz tube. 共c兲 A 100 mm wafer holder covered by a 150 mm silicon wafer to imitate a silicon guard ring.

ion doses impacting the top, side, and bottom of the sample stage and the processing parameters. We theoretically investigate three practical sample stage configurations: 共i兲 a bare conducting sample chuck with an exposed high-voltage feedthrough, 共ii兲 a conducting sample chuck with the highvoltage feedthrough/supporting rod shielded by a quartz 共insulating兲 shroud, and 共iii兲 a bare conducting sample chuck with a silicon guard ring to reduce the number of ions impacting the side and bottom of the sample chuck. We derive the evolution of the ion dose ratio for different accelerating voltages as well as pulse durations. To verify the theoretical results, hydrogen PIII experiments are conducted under configurations 共i兲 and 共iii兲. Total-reflection x-ray fluorescence 共TXRF兲 and secondary ion mass spectrometry 共SIMS兲 are employed to determine the amount of metallic contaminants on the implanted silicon wafers. We also discuss the role of a replaceable all-silicon liner inside the vacuum chamber with respect to contamination control.

ⵜ 2 ␾ ⫽⫺

e 共 n ⫺n 兲 , ⑀0 i e

where ⑀ 0 is the permittivity in free space and e is the electron charge. The ion motion is governed by Newton’s equations of motion F⫽M a,

共3兲

V共 f 兲 ⫽V共 I 兲 ⫹at,

共4兲

⌬d⫽V共 I 兲 ⫹ 21 at 2 ,

共5兲

where F is the force applied on the particle and given by F⫽⫺q“ ␾ ,

共6兲

where q is the charge of the particle, M is the mass of the particle, a is the acceleration, V( f ) and V(I) are the final and initial velocity, and ⌬d is the distance traversed by the particle in time t. Due to the cylindrical symmetry of the three configurations, these equations can be rewritten in cylindrical coordinates

冋

冉冊册

⳵ 2␾ 1 ⳵ ␾ ⳵ 2␾ e␾ e n i ⫺n 0 exp ⫹ 2 ⫽⫺ 2 ⫹ ⳵r r ⳵r ⳵z ⑀0 kT e

II. THEORETICAL SIMULATION

The potential, ion density distribution, and incident ion doses at various locations of the sample platen are theoretically investigated. Three sample chuck configurations are considered here 共Fig. 1兲: 共a兲 wafer chuck with all areas exposed to the plasma; 共b兲 wafer chuck with the high-voltage feedthrough/ supporting rod shielded by a quartz tube; and 共c兲 100 mm wafer holder covered by a 150 mm silicon wafer on which another 100 mm silicon wafer is placed to imitate the situation with a 25 mm guard-ring extension.

共2兲

,

共7兲

Vri 共 f 兲 ⫽Vri 共 I 兲 ⫺

q ⳵␾ t, M ⳵r

共8a兲

Vzi 共 f 兲 ⫽Vzi 共 I 兲 ⫺

q ⳵␾ t, M ⳵z

共8b兲

⌬r⫽Vri 共 I 兲 t⫺

1 q ⳵␾ 2 t , 2 M ⳵r

共9a兲

⌬z⫽Vzi 共 I 兲 t⫺

1 q ⳵␾ 2 t . 2 M ⳵z

共9b兲

Chu et al.


To approximate the potential, we use the centered difference approach,19 and

␾ i⫹1,j ⫹ ␾ i⫺1,j ␾ i⫹1,j ⫺ ␾ i⫺1,j ␾ i, j⫹1 ⫹ ␾ i, j⫺1 ⫹ ⫹ 2i 共 dr 兲 2 共 dr 兲 2 共 dz 兲 2

⳵ 2 ␾ ␾ i⫹1,j ⫺2 ␾ i, j ⫹ ␾ i⫺1,j ⬇ , ⳵r2 共 dr 兲 2

⫹

⳵ 2 ␾ ␾ i, j⫹1 ⫺2 ␾ i, j ⫹ ␾ i, j⫺1 ⬇ ⳵z2 共 dz 兲 2 ⳵ ␾ ␾ i⫹1,j ⫺ ␾ i⫺1,j ⬇ , ⳵r 2dr

⳵ ␾ ␾ i, j⫹1 ⫺ ␾ i, j⫺1 ⬇ . ⳵z 2dz

⫽

共10兲

The potential along the surface to the chuck is represented in the following ways:

⳵ ␾ ␾ i⫹1,j ⫺ ␾ i, j ⬇ ⳵r dr

radial direction,

共11兲

⳵ ␾ ␾ i, j⫹1 ⫺ ␾ i, j ⬇ ⳵z dz

longitudinal direction.

共12兲

Equation 共7兲 is solved via numerical iteration by first letting ⌽ be an initial solution and linearizing Eq. 共7兲 about this value using the relationship exp c 共 ␾ 兲 ⫽exp c 共 ␾ ⫺ ␺ ⫹ ␺ 兲 ⫽exp c 共 ␾ ⫺ ␺ 兲 exp共 c ␺ 兲 ⫽ 关 1⫹c 共 ␾ ⫹ ␺ 兲兴 exp共 c ␺ 兲 ,

共13兲

where c⫽e/kT e and kT e is in eV. Equation 共7兲 can be simplified to be

⳵ 2␾ 1 ⳵ ␾ ⳵ 2␾ ⫹ ⫹ 2 ⳵r2 r ⳵r ⳵z ⫽⫺

e 关 n ⫺n exp共 c ␺ 兲共 1⫹c 共 ␾ ⫺ ␺ 兲兲兴 . ⑀0 i 0

共14兲

We then plug in ⌽ using ⌿ calculated from the previous time step, solve Eq. 共14兲 to obtain a new ⌿, set ⌽ equal to this new ⌿, and reiterate until the process converges. Applying the centered difference relationship, Eq. 共14兲 can be rewritten in a two-dimensional coordinate system as

␾ i⫹1,j ⫺2 ␾ i, j ⫹ ␾ i⫺1,j 1 ␾ i⫹1,j ⫺ ␾ i⫺1,j ⫹ idr 2dr 共 dr 兲 2 ⫹

␾ i, j⫹1 ⫺2 ␾ i, j ⫹ ␾ i, j⫺1 共 dz 兲 2

⫺

e n 0e n 0 ec n⫹ exp共 c ␺ 兲 ⫹ exp共 c ␺ 兲 ␾ i, j ⑀0 i ⑀0 ⑀0 n 0 ec exp共 c ␺ 兲 ␺ . ⑀0

After further expanding the equation

⫽

e n 0e n 0 ec n i⫺ exp共 c ␺ 兲 ⫹ exp共 c ␺ 兲 ␺ ⑀0 ⑀0 ⑀0 2

共 dr 兲 2

冉

␾ i, j ⫹

2 共 dz 兲 2

␾ i, j ⫹

n 0 ec exp共 c ␺ 兲 ␾ i, j ⑀0

冊

2 2 n 0 ec exp共 c ␺ 兲 ␾ i, j . 2⫹ 2⫹ ⑀0 共 dr 兲共 dz 兲

共16兲

Finally, the potential ␾ i, j can be directly input into the computer program for numerical iteration. The position and velocity of each particle at a particular time step are defined by Eqs. 共8兲 and 共9兲. ⳵ ␾ / ⳵ r and ⳵ ␾ / ⳵ z are estimated according to the particle position in space. After the new position and velocity of all the particles are updated, they are weighted to the four corners of the mesh containing the particle. Finally, the ion density n i, j , radial velocity V ri, j and longitudinal velocity V zi, j are obtained within the simulation region to be used in the next iteration. When the particle impacts the wafer chuck, it will be removed and the dose is automatically accumulated. If the particle crosses the boundary r⫽0 or z⫽0, it is assumed that another particle from the other side with reverse ion velocity V r or V z will cross the boundary refilling the lost particle. The input parameters are: applied voltages to the target ⫽20 and 40 kV, pulse rise time⫽1 ␮ s, pulse width⫽30 ␮s, electron temperature⫽4 eV, ion density⫽1⫻109 cm⫺3, radius of the supporting rod⫽2.25 cm, length of the supporting rod 共high-voltage feedthrough兲⫽20 cm, radius of the chamber⫽38 cm, height of the chamber⫽100 cm, and thickness of the sample platen⫽6.75 cm. These values are typical conditions used in hydrogen PIII or based on the actual dimensions of our semiconductor PIII machine.20 The simulation parameters are: grid spacing h⫽wafer radius/10 and time step ⌬t⫽(h/10)⫻(1/␻ pi) where ␻ pi is ion plasma frequency. Initially, 100 particles are uniformly placed in each cell. In the first configuration, the whole wafer stage and supporting rod are totally exposed to the plasma. In the second configuration, the supporting rod is totally shielded by a quartz tube which is assumed to have a negligible thickness and has a zero surface potential at all times. In this case, no ions will impact the quartz shroud. In the third configuration, the feedthrough is exposed but the wafer holder is covered by a 150-mm-diam conducting wafer with a negligible thickness. III. EXPERIMENT

e n 0e n 0e ⫽⫺ n i ⫹ exp共 c ␺ 兲 ⫹ exp共 c ␺ 兲 c 共 ␾ ⫺ ␺ 兲 ⑀0 ⑀0 ⑀0 ⫽⫺

3745

共15兲

Silicon wafers 100 mm in diameter were implanted at below 150 °C using our semiconductor PIII instrument.20 The hydrogen dose was approximately 5⫻1016 atoms/cm2 as calculated from the SIMS results. The implantation conditions were: 0.4 mTorr hydrogen pressure, 20 kV pulse bias, 30 ␮s pulse duration, and 100 Hz pulsing frequency. To assess the effectiveness of a liner shielding the interior of the vacuum chamber, one wafer was implanted with an Al liner in place. The second wafer was implanted using

3746


TABLE I. Sample description. Sample

PIII conditions

1 2 3

Al liner Si liner Si liner and 150 mm Si guard ring

our replaceable silicon liner.11 The silicon liner consists of a stainless steel cage that fits inside the vacuum chamber. Silicon wafers were cut to different sizes to line the interior of the cage and held on by quartz pins, similar to putting tiles on the wall. Individual silicon wafers can be replaced if damaged or contaminated. The third wafer was implanted with a 150 mm silicon wafer inserted between the sample chuck and itself to imitate a silicon guard ring. The sample description is summarized in Table I. The silicon liner is expected to reduce Al contamination while the guard ring should block stainless steel contamination sputtered from the side and bottom of the sample chuck in the third configuration. However,

Chu et al.

it should be noted that since our aluminum liner has been used extensively before these experiments, it contains metallic contaminants from prior experiments, and our results should be evaluated with this in mind. TXRF analysis was performed to measure the amount of surface metals on the implanted wafers. TXRF uses a glancing x-ray beam to excite fluorescence of elements in the top 5–10 nm. The energy-dispersive detector of TXRF detects elements heavier than sulfur in a 1 cm2 area. Two spots were analyzed on each sample: center and 1 cm from the edge. To measure the light elements such as B and Al, secondary ion mass spectrometry 共SIMS兲 was utilized. In addition, since some of the sputtered contaminants may be reimplanted into the silicon wafer to some depth, TXRF does not convey the full story and SIMS is used to measure Fe deeper than 5 nm. Oxygen ion bombardment was employed to determine the B, Al, and Fe depth profiles, whereas cesium ion bombardment SIMS was utilized to disclose the H, C, O, and N in-depth distributions and doses in the samples. The latter information

FIG. 2. Normalized temporal potential contour lines showing the change in the applied electric field about the sample stage at ⫺20 kV biased voltage for a pulse duration of 4 ␮s: 共a兲 100 mm bare stage, 共b兲 150 mm bare stage, 共c兲 100 mm shielded stage, 共d兲 150 mm shielded stage, and 共e兲 100 mm stage with 150 mm guard ring 共25 mm radial extension兲.


Chu et al.

3747

FIG. 3. Normalized temporal density contour lines showing the change about the stage at ⫺20 kV biased voltage for a pulse duration of 4 ␮s: 共a兲 100 mm bare stage, 共b兲 150 mm bare stage, 共c兲 100 mm shielded stage, 共d兲 150 mm shielded stage, and 共e兲 100 mm stage with 150 mm guard ring 共25 mm radial extension兲.

is important because, even though these atmospheric ions only constitute a few percent of the total ion current 共primarily hydrogen兲, their sputtering yield is much higher and they contribute significantly to sputtered metallic contaminants. IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

PIC simulation is conducted in a cylindrical symmetry and only half of the chamber needs to be included in the process. We simulate cases in which ⫺20 or ⫺40 kV with a pulse duration of 30 ␮s is applied to the sample stage. Figure 2 illustrates the temporal evolution of the potential contour lines for the three configurations shown in Fig. 1 at a bias voltage of ⫺20 kV. At the initial state 共rise time兲 of the pulse, the contour of the sheath is quite similar to the shape of the stage. As time elapses, the sheath expands at different speeds in different regions and gradually loses its conformal shape, finally evolving into a sphere-like or disk-like shape and reaching the chamber wall. As shown in Figs. 2共a兲 and 2共b兲共bare sample stage兲, the edge of the electron sheath has al-

ready hit the chamber wall. When the ions cross the sheath, the strong electric field between the stage and the chamber wall pushes them towards the stage. Under the influence of the quartz tube and the covering wafer, the expansion of the potential contour lines is more restricted as illustrated in Figs. 2共c兲–2共e兲. As the supporting rod is totally shielded and has a zero potential, no ions will be accelerated towards and impinge into it. With a 150 mm silicon wafer covering the 100 mm sample stage, the incident ions from the top of the chuck will not impact the edge of the chuck because they are blocked by the extension or guard ring. The temporal evolution of the ion density is exhibited in Fig. 3. When the implantation duration is long, a zero ion density contour line is observed. The ions begin to exhaust from the supporting rod and gradually extend in both cases 共i兲 and 共iii兲 whereas in case 共ii兲, the ions exhaust from the corner between the chuck and the supporting rod. Consequently, more and more ions will be exhausted in the lower part of the chamber and lesser ions will impact the edge and

3748

Chu et al.


ing the side and bottom of the sample stage 共including the high-voltage feedthrough in the case of the bare chuck— versus the implantation time during each voltage pulse are exhibited in Fig. 4. A higher incident dose ratio is observed on the top surface at ⫺40 kV. It is because the expansion speed of the ion sheath is faster at a higher voltage due to the following relationship: ds 4 ⑀ 0 ⫽ dt 9 n i

冑

2 V 3/2 a , qm s 2

where ⑀ 0 is the permittivity of free space, n i is the ion density, q is electron charge, m is the mass of the ion, V a is the potential applied to the stage, and s is the location of the sheath edge relative to the stage. As the ion sheath area relative to the exposed area of the top surface of the chuck changes as the ion sheath gradually expands, more ions are collected at the top surface to the chuck. It is also the main reason for the increase in the incident dose ratio as time elapses in all three cases. Initially, the exposed area ratios are 14.66% and 19.17% for the 100 and 150 mm bare sample chuck, respectively, whereas they are 34.65% and 38.60% for the shielded chuck. This is because no ions impact the supporting rod/high-voltage feedthrough in the latter case. For the sample chuck with a guard ring, the exposed area ratio is 19.17%. During an individual pulse, the incident dose ratio at the top surface of the bare chuck is about 25%– 40% depending on the implantation time. These ratios reach about 35%– 41% and 40%– 49% for the shielded stage and the stage with the guard ring, respectively. The dose ratio is higher in case 共iii兲 than in case 共i兲. The extension or guard ring in configuration 共iii兲 blocks ions from impacting the edge of the chuck, and so a higher effective dose on the silicon wafer surface results. Consequently, the guard ring reduces the amount of contaminants sputtered from the edge and bottom of the stage. Though not simulated, it is reasonable to assume that the guard ring also blocks such sputtered contaminants from reaching the top of the sample stage. It should be noted that even though the use of a quartz shroud such as the one described in configuration 共ii兲 eliminates sputtering of the supporting rod as well as reduces the ion current and subsequently the load of the power modulator, it is sometimes not preferred in hydrogen PIII experiments. It has been shown that an insulating shroud perturbs the electric field and ion motion, thereby causing lateral variation in the ion implant dose across the wafer.21 Hence, in spite of some of the attractive features, configuration 共ii兲 must be

FIG. 4. Ratio of incident dose impacting the top of chuck or wafer to that impacting the other parts of the stage under ⫺20 and ⫺40 kV biased treatment: 共a兲 bare chuck, 共b兲 chuck with shielded feedthrough, and 共c兲 stage with guard ring.

bottom of chuck as well as the supporting rod as the ions will not be refilled during the duration of the pulse. Hence, the top of the sample stage receives a higher relative dose. The plots of the incident dose ratio—number of ions impacting the top surface of the sample platen to that impactTABLE II. TXRF results 共in units of 1010 atoms/cm2兲. S Sample 1 Center 1500 Edge 1200 Sample 2 Center 1000 Edge 1000 Sample 3 Center 400 Edge 900

Cl

K

Ca

Ti

Cr

Mn

Fe

Ni

Cu

Zn

4700 3100

2700 1200

3800 7600

1100 400

200 200

80 60

1600 1700

100 50

200 100

200 300

1300 2000

⬍20 40

50 200

⬍5 ⬍5

⬍3 70

10 20

200 500

2 40

1 ⬍1

40 50

300 300

⬍20 ⬍20

200 200

⬍5 ⬍5

⬍3 ⬍3

2 ⬍1

40 20

1 1

⬍1 ⬍1

7 6

Chu et al.

J. Appl. Phys., Vol. 90, No. 8, 15 October 2001 TABLE III. B, Al, and Fe doses 共atoms/cm2兲 determined by SIMS.

3749

V. CONCLUSION

Sample

B

Al

Fe

1 2 3

3⫻1011 1⫻1011 7⫻1010

5⫻1011 2⫻1011 1⫻1011

1⫻1012 1⫻1012 2⫻1011

used with caution. All in all, with regard to contamination control, configuration 共iii兲 is the most practical and effective one if an all-silicon chuck cannot be made. Therefore, we have only conducted experiments to compare the differences between configurations 共i兲 and 共iii兲, and the results will be discussed in the next section. Table II shows the TXRF results acquired from two spots on each of the wafers described in Table I: center and 1 cm from the edge. The TXRF data show that the dirtiest sample is 1 that was implanted using the Al liner without a guard ring. In comparison, the silicon wafer implanted using the silicon liner and silicon guard ring 共sample 3兲 has the least amount of transition metals on the surface. Comparing samples 1 and 2, the silicon liner shows an appreciable effect, but as aforementioned, it should be noted that our Al liner has been contaminated by metals sputtered from the stainless steel stage in prior experiments. To measure the light elements such as B and Al as well as implanted Fe, oxygen bombardment SIMS was used, and the results are exhibited in Table III. Since there is a SIMS artifact in the near surface region, integrated dose calculation is performed only from 5 nm from the surface for Fe or 10 nm from the surface for B and Al. That is to say, the SIMS Fe results complement the TXRF results. The amounts of implanted hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen are determined by cesium ion bombardment SIMS 共Table IV兲. There is a slight difference in the calculated hydrogen doses in sample 1 versus the other two samples. The combined C, O, and N doses in the three samples also display a similar trend, about a factor of 2 between sample 1 and samples 2 and 3. This may be due to the silicon liner changing the characteristics of the plasma. Even after normalizing the TXRF results by multiplying the metal concentrations observed on samples 2 and 3 by two, there is still a big difference between samples 1 and 3. The improvement in the surface metal concentration using the silicon liner and guard ring is very significant. It should also be mentioned that C, O, and N are implanted and not adsorbed, as demonstrated by their Gaussian-like shape in the SIMS profiles.

TABLE IV. H, C, O, and N doses 共atoms/cm2兲 determined by SIMS. Sample

H

C

O

N

1 2 3

8⫻1016 5⫻1016 5⫻1016

3⫻1014 5⫻1014 3⫻1014

4⫻1015 3⫻1015 2⫻1015

5⫻1015 2⫻1015 2⫻1015

Using theoretical simulation, we investigate the dose ratios impacting the top, side, and bottom surfaces of three sample chuck configurations. Knowing the relative incident dose on the top of the chuck provides an effective way to control and adjust the operating conditions to minimize sputtered contaminants from the side and bottom of the sample stage. Our model shows that the incident dose ratio at the top surface of the chuck can reach 49% if a guard ring is used. Experimentally, we observe significant improvement with regard to transition metal contamination using an all-silicon liner for the interior of the vacuum chamber and a silicon guard ring on the sample stage. These components are mechanically easy to implement in PIII and other plasma equipment. Our SIMS results also show that Fe, C, N, and O not only adsorb onto the silicon surface but also are implanted into the silicon wafers. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The work described in this article was jointly supported by grants from the Hong Kong Research Grants Council 共CERG No. 9040412 or CityU No. 1003/99E and No. 9040498 or CityU No. 1032/00E兲 as well as City University of Hong Kong 共SRG No. 7001028兲. 1

H. Vogt, G. Burbach, J. Belz, and G. Zimmer, Solid State Technol. 34, 79 共1991兲. 2 J. P. Colinge, Silicon-on-Insulator Technology: Materials to VLSI 共Kluver, Boston, MA, 1991兲. 3 X. Lu, N. W. Cheung, M. D. Strathman, P. K. Chu, and B. Doyle, Appl. Phys. Lett. 71, 1804 共1997兲. 4 P. K. Chu, X. Lu, S. S. K. Iyer, and N. W. Cheung, Solid State Technol. 40, S9 共1997兲. 5 X. Lu, S. S. K. Iyer, C. M. Hu, N. W. Cheung, J. Min, Z. N. Fan, and P. K. Chu, Appl. Phys. Lett. 71, 2767 共1997兲. 6 J. R. Conrad, J. L. Radtke, R. A. Dodd, F. J. Worzala, and N. C. Tran, J. Appl. Phys. 62, 4591 共1987兲. 7 P. K. Chu, S. Qin, C. Chan, N. W. Cheung, and L. A. Larson, Mater. Sci. Eng., R. R17, 207 共1996兲. 8 N. W. Cheung, Mater. Chem. Phys. 46, 132 共1996兲. 9 P. K. Chu, N. W. Cheung, C. Chan, B. Mizuno, and O. R. Monteiro, in Handbook of Plasma Immersion Ion Implantation and Deposition, edited by A. Anders 共Wiley, New York, 2000兲, Chap. 11, p. 637. 10 Z. Fan, X. Zeng, P. K. Chu, C. Chan, and M. Watanabe, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 155, 75 共1999兲. 11 US patent No. 6,120,660. 12 P. K. Chu, B. Y. Tang, Y. C. Cheng, and P. K. Ko, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 68, 1866 共1997兲. 13 J. Matossian, G. A. Collins, P. K. Chu, C. P. Munson, and J. V. Mantese, in Ref. 9, Chap. 6, p. 343. 14 D. T. K. Kwok, P. K. Chu, B. P. Wood, and C. Chan, J. Appl. Phys. 86, 1817 共1999兲. 15 T. E. Sheridan, J. Appl. Phys. 74, 4903 共1993兲. 16 X. C. Zeng, T. K. Kwok, A. G. Liu, P. K. Chu, B. Y. Tang, and T. E. Sheridan, Appl. Phys. Lett. 71, 1035 共1997兲. 17 T. E. Sheridan, T. K. Kwok, and P. K. Chu, Appl. Phys. Lett. 72, 1826 共1998兲. 18 X. C. Zeng, T. K. Kwok, A. G. Liu, P. K. Chu, and B. Y. Tang, J. Appl. Phys. 83, 44 共1998兲. 19 D. T. K. Kwok, P. K. Chu, and C. Chan, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 26, 1669 共1998兲. 20 P. K. Chu, S. Qin, C. Chan, N. W. Cheung, and P. K. Ko, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 26, 79 共1998兲. 21 Z. Fan, P. K. Chu, C. Chan, and N. W. Cheung, Appl. Phys. Lett. 73, 202 共1998兲.