SURFACE AND INTERFACE ANALYSIS, VOL.

25, 397È403 (1997)

SIMS Analyses of III–V Semiconductor

Quantum-well and Superlattice Heterostructures

C. Gerardi
PASTISÈCentro Nazionale Ricerca e Sviluppo Materiali, Strada Statale 7 “AppiaÏ, I-72100 Brindisi, Italy

This work deals with the high-resolution SIMS characterization of sharp elemental distributions existing in
quantum-well and superlattice structures. We have analysed III–V semiconductor multiple quantum-well and super-
lattice samples in order to derive useful information for the control of the growth procedure. A study of the depth
resolution has been carried out with the purpose of achieving both highly depth-resolved and accurately calibrated
proÐles. High-resolution SIMS has been obtained by using low-energy primary ion beams. The better result has
been found for InGaAs quantum wells embedded in GaAs, grown by metal organic chemical vapour deposition, for
which decay lengths of 0.62 and 1.30 nm were measured at the leading and trailing edges, respectively, of the
indium proÐle.
The use of mathematical Ðtting procedures and the combined use of SIMS with other complementary techniques
such as photoluminescence, x-ray di†raction and transmission electron microscopy, allows us to have an accurate
method for the determination of layer parameters such as the thickness of a quantum-well, the position in depth
and the element concentration. In addition, useful information on segregation and di†usion phenomena at the
interface can be evidenced from the analysis. ( 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Surf. Interface Anal. 25, 397È403 (1997)
No. of Figures : 7 No. of Tables : 0 No. of Refs : 31
KEYWORDS : SIMS ; quantum wells ; superlattices ; depth resolution

accurate determination of quantum-well width, location

INTRODUCTION
The development of material growth technologies such
as molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) and metal organic
chemical vapour deposition (MOCVD) has largely
improved the fabrication of semiconductor hetero-
structures with very abrupt interfaces such as super-
lattices and quantum wells. As a consequence, the
request for a very accurate characterization has become
more stringent even though the analysis of such struc-
tures is difficult and sometimes a challenge.
Secondary ion mass spectrometry is extensively used
as a proÐling technique, although drawbacks inherent
to the sputtering process make the characterization of
structures with reduced geometrical dimensions and
atomically abrupt interfaces more difficult.1h3 It is
known that the SIMS proÐle of a given atom distribu-
tion is distorted by several e†ects, among which the
most important are : atom relocation induced by the
energetic primary beam, surface roughness and the
induced roughness caused by non-uniform sputtering.4
Nevertheless, several authors in latter years have shown
that by using appropriate experimental conditions and
particular technical and mathematical procedures,
SIMS can reach high levels of performances in the
analysis of very sharp elemental distributions.4h8
This work is dedicated to the potentiality of SIMS
applied to the characterization of IIIÈV semiconductor
quantum-well and superlattice structures grown both by
MOCVD and MBE. In order to collect information on
segregation and interdi†usion e†ects, and to achieve an
CCC 0142È2421/97/060397È07 $17.50
( 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
in the structure and the elemental concentration levels,
SIMS has been used in combination with photolumine-
scence (PL) and high-resolution x-ray di†raction
(HRXRD) or transmission electron microscopy (TEM).
The highly resolved and accurately calibrated SIMS
data shown in this work turn out to be a very useful
source of information for the material grower. More-
over, the determination of layer spacings and concentra-
tion allows for a correct interpretation of the x-ray
experimental pattern and the optical results (see Refs 9
and 11).
EXPERIMENTAL
We have characterized GaAs/InGaAs/GaAs, AlGaAs/
InGaAs/AlGaAs, quantum-well (QW) structures and an
InGaAs/AlInAs superlattice (SL).
The InGaAs/GaAs QW structures with a nominal
indium mole fraction of 0.09 were grown by low-
pressure (LP) MOCVD on GaAs(100) as multiple QW
structures at a temperature of 650 ¡C and a pressure of
20 mbar. Under these conditions several samples were
grown with di†erent QW thicknesses. In this work we
show the results related to QWs of widths 5, 7 and 19
nm, respectively.
The InGaAs/AlGaAs QW structure was grown with
LP-MOCVD at a temperature of 750 ¡C and consists of
a 5 nm InGaAs QW with an indium mole fraction of
0.22 separated by 40 nm AlGaAs deposited on
GaAs(100).
Received 23 October 1996
Accepted 22 January 1997
398 C. GERARDI
The InGaAs/AlInAs superlattice is formed by 20
InGaAs and 19 AlInAs alternate layers of thicknesses
2.7 and 27 nm, respectively. The SL buried at a depth of
400 nm belongs to a complex structure grown by MBE
and described in detail in Ref. 9.
The SIMS analyses were performed with a Cameca
IMS 4f instrument under a variety of experimental con-
ditions : several primary beam species (O ` and Cs`),
2
energies, angles of incidence and di†erent methods of
secondary ion acquisition. When an oxygen molecular
ion (O `) was used as primary beam, positive single
2
ions were recorded. Conversely, under caesium bom-
bardment we monitored the MCs` molecular clusters
(M is the element to be analysed). This latter method
was employed with the purpose of minimizing the
matrix e†ects during the analyses.
Primary currents ranged from 20 to 100 nA for both
of the primary species. Although a raster size of 250 lm
was employed, the secondary ions were collected
through a small aperture in the centre of the raster-
scanned area (8 lm diameter in some cases and 30 lm
in others, in order to ensure an optimum between depth
resolution and dynamic range). This procedure avoids
crater edge e†ects and, in addition, when a low-energy
primary beam is used, minimizes the e†ects of crater
bottom rounding caused by the beam inhomogenities.
For O ` the primary beam energies ranged from 1.5
2 keV per O`) to 10 keV (5 keV per O`), while
keV (0.75
the Cs` beam impacted on the surface with an energy
of 5.5 keV. The instrument geometry does not allow the
beam energy to be independent of the angle of inci-
dence ; useful ways to determine the relation between
the primary energy and the angle of incidence have been
reported by Meuris et al.10 and Zalm et al.5
The SIMS analyses were supported by PL, HRXRD
and TEM. The details of measurements and experimen-
tal settings are reported elsewhere.9,11
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
High depth resolution
The depth resolution is a measure of the ability to dis-
tinguish between two distinct features located at a
certain depth in the sample. Several factors inÑuence the
SIMS depth resolution during the analysis ; some of
these are inherent to the physical processes occurring
during the sputtering4 (random cascade mixing, recoil
implantation, ion beam-enhanced segregation or
di†usion) but others can be introduced by instrumental
conditions (non-uniform beam current, impact angle,
etc.). To obtain an acceptable depth resolution, the
analyst has to work on these parameters in order to
minimize them as much as possible.
It has been shown by many authors4h8,13h16 that on
samples exhibiting a good surface topography the depth
resolution can be improved by reducing the degree of
atomic mixing induced by the implanted primary
species. This is obtained by decreasing the impact
energy and hence the projected range of the primary
particle.
As an example, Fig. 1 shows the behaviour of the
SIMS depth resolution as a function of the primary
( 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Figure 1. Indium depth profile recorded with O ½ at four different
2
energies on a 7 nm QW of InGaAs. Note that due to the experi-
mental setting, the lower the energy, the more grazing is the angle
of incidence. The inset shows the behaviour of the upslope (l )
u
and the downslope (l ) of the In profile as a function of the
d
projected range of the primary ion (calculated with TRIM).
energy and the angle of incidence of the impacting ion.
The SIMS signal is related to the indium distribution
recorded on an InGaAs QW of 7 nm embedded in
GaAs. In the example the energy of the primary O `
beam is decreased from 8 to 2 keV and the angle 2of
incidence of the beam is increased from 38¡ to 60¡ with
respect to the sample normal.
It should be noted that since in our instrument the
primary energy is coupled to the impact angle,5,10 the
lower the primary energy, the higher the angle of inci-
dence with respect to the normal of the sample. Hence,
the momentum imparted to the target atoms depends
also on the impact angle.
In Fig. 1 the coincidence of the indium peaks (both
position and intensity) is artiÐcial in order to dis-
tinguish the behaviour of the edges of the distributions.
They do not actually coincide due to energy- and angle-
dependent changes in the SIMS resolution function.2,4
In agreement with many other works in the literature
regarding SIMS depth proÐling of delta-doped distribu-
tions,2h8,19 the leading and trailing edges of the mea-
sured indium signal have an exponential behaviour
characterized by a leading edge decay length j
(upslope) and a trailing edge decay length j (downslope).u
d related to
The inset in Fig. 1 shows the decay lengths
the indium signals plotted against the projected range of
the primary oxygen beam calculated from the TRIM
code,17 taking into account the energies and angles.
Calculations refer to the InGaAs matrix with 0.09 In
concentration ; however, the simulation produces small
di†erences for the projected ranges calculated in GaAs.
As can be observed from the inset in Fig. 1, the
downslope is strongly inÑuenced by the increasing pen-
etration depth of the primary ions ; conversely, the
upslope results are weakly a†ected by changes in the
projected range. This is consistent with the results
reported in the above-cited works,2h8,19 where it is sug-
gested that the downslope is heavily inÑuenced by col-
SURFACE AND INTERFACE ANALYSIS, VOL. 25, 397È403 (1997)
 SIMS ANALYSES OF IIIÈV SEMICONDUCTOR QUANTUM-WELL AND SUPERLATTICE HETEROSTRUCTURES 399

Figure 2. Indium depth profile recorded with O ½ at 1.8 keV for a multi-QW sample consisting of five InGaAs QWs. The inset shows the
2
fitting of the mathematical model (dashed line) to the In signal (dots) related to the second QW.

lisional e†ects related to the primary beam impact

parameters, while the changes in the upslope are due to
problems inherent to the sample quality, such as rough-
ness and segregation.
Figure 2 shows our best depth-resolved indium
proÐle recorded on a multiple QW sample consisting of
Ðve QWs of InGaAs with a nominal thickness of 5 nm
separated by thicker GaAs layers (barriers) of D60 nm.
The depth proÐle was carried out by using oxygen beam
(O `) accelerated at 1.8 keV (0.9 keV per O` ion) and
2
impacting the sample with an o†-normal angle of 64¡.
The depth scale was calibrated independently using
both a stylus proÐlometer to estimate the erosion depth
and the measurement of the multilayer period recorded
with HRXRD. The procedure provides a very accurate
calibration of the depth scale (within ^3%). Small dif-
ferences of erosion speed observed in the GaAs and
InGaAs matrices were also taken into account.
We have measured an exponential decay length of
0.62 ^ 0.03 nm for the leading edge of the distribution
and a decay length of 1.30 ^ 0.07 nm for the trailing
edge. It should be noted that, comparing these results (5
nm width QW) with those obtained for the 7 and 19 nm
width QWs, the decay length values obtained for the
former sample are smaller with respect to the other two
samples. This is due to a minor degree of surface rough-
ness (measured by x-ray di†raction), likely caused by
the fact that the 7 nm and 19 nm QW width samples Figure 3. Behaviour with peak depth of the leading (l ) and
trailing (l ) edge decay length (a) and of the FWHM (b) ofu the In
were grown on a GaAs substrate that exhibited a higher d to the multi-QW sample.
peaks related
roughness. The measured upslopes of the 7 nm and 19
nm QW width samples, in fact, are 0.7È0.8 nm.
As can be noted at a Ðrst observation, the depth
resolution is preserved with the depth even though a
gradual degradation is testiÐed by the increase of the low values for the decay lengths measured at the edges
decay lengths at higher depths, as is depicted in Fig. of the In distribution show that the interfaces are
3(a). The FWHM values of the In peaks are almost con- abrupt and that the amount of segregation is negligible.
stant [see Fig. 3(b)] with the depth, showing that the A small shoulder, corresponding to a slower increase in
growth parameters are excellently respected during the the signal, at very low indium concentration is observed
growth, the sample is homogeneous and also that the on the front edge of the QWs. The feature is discernible
accuracy of the instrument setting is adequate. Also, the because of the very high concentration dynamic range,
( 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. SURFACE AND INTERFACE ANALYSIS, VOL. 25, 397È403 (1997)
400 C. GERARDI

which allows us to observe very low concentration

levels (1È10 ppm). This feature should be attributed to
some memory e†ect in the MOCVD reactor during the
growth.
Several authors have shown that, in the dilute case,14
the result of a SIMS proÐle can be modelled by con-
volving the true input proÐle with the SIMS resolution
function or response, which depends on instrumental
and fundamental aspects as well (convolution
model).2,4,14,19,21 Dowsett et al.19 have demonstrated
that for low-concentration delta-doped layers character-
ized by few atomic layers and hence below the SIMS
resolution, an excellent approximation of resolution
function can be obtained by convolving a double expo-
nential with a Gaussian distribution.
Although the InGaAs QWs shown in Figs 1 and 2
are thin layers, they cannot be considered delta-doping
distributions for which the linearity of the system (dilute
case) allows for the application of the convolution
model. The investigated QWs, in fact, correspond to
several monolayers with an In sheet concentration
exceeding 1014 atoms cm~2 (usually a delta-layer has a
sheet concentration of 1013È1014 atoms cm~2). Hence, Figure 4. Comparison of the signals related to gallium in an
even though the signal will be a†ected by distortions, AlInAs/InGaAs SL recorded as GaCs½ in the MCs½ mode and as
the di†erent features corresponding to the QWs, i.e. Ga½ in the oxygen mode.
layer width and indium concentration level, can be
resolved. In spite of the fact that the indium sheet con-
centration exceeds 1014 atoms cm~2 (for a 5 nm QW
the In sheet concentration is D2 ] 1015 atoms cm~2),
the linear approximation of the convolution model Cs` at 5.5 keV (MCs` mode ; see later) as well ; the
seems to work in our case. In fact, considering an depth scale was accurately calibrated using the thick-
indium input proÐle characterized by very abrupt inter- nesses measured by TEM.
faces, i.e. a rectangular distribution, we have modelled Note that in spite of the high abruptness of the inter-
the SIMS result by convolving the supposed true proÐle faces, as observed in all the layers of the superlattice by
with the analytical response function described by TEM, the SIMS signal is a†ected by a blurring e†ect
Dowsett et al.19 increasing with the depth. The e†ect is more evident in
The assumption of rectangular shape is consistent the data obtained with 2 keV oxygen due to the better
with the observed sharpness of the leading and trailing depth resolution achieved by the use of a beam with a
edges of the SIMS signals. Furthermore, it is in agree- lower energy. Such a resolution degradation is related
ment with the results obtained from the analysis with to the development of induced roughness, which is more
PL and HRXRD reported elsewhere,11 which has severe at largest depths. The development of macro-
demonstrated the high abruptness of the interfaces topography, e.g. ripples, cones, pyramids and terraces, is
(within 1È2 monolayers). related to the beam species impact angle and energy.8
The inset in Fig. 2 shows the Ðt of the mathematical
model of the SIMS proÐle to experimental data related
to the second QW. Note that the convolution takes into
account only sputtering-related processes and excludes Segregation and di†usion phenomena at the
the presence of segregation or di†usion.22 The good heterointerfaces
Ðtting result shows that the convolution used to model
the SIMS proÐle works quite well in the case studied High-resolution SIMS analysis is very useful for the
here. In fact, a nominal indium concentration of 0.09 in investigation of segregation and di†usion processes at
the thin QW layers appears to be dilute enough to have the interface of heterostructures.21h25 In fact, the advan-
small contributions from the non-linear e†ects caused tage of combining high depth resolution with high
by the mutual interaction of indium atoms. dynamic concentration range is fundamental for the
As we have shown, the depth resolution is almost study of these phenomena.
preserved with the depth up to 300È400 nm. However, The low decay length values measured at the front
the use of o†-normal incidences (mandatory in a interfaces between the QW and the GaAs barrier for the
Cameca instrument) leads to a more rapid development samples shown in Figs 1 and 2 suggest that negligible
of macrotopography at higher depths. Figure 4 shows segregation e†ects have occurred at the front edge
the proÐle of gallium recorded on a superlattice struc- between the InGaAs and the GaAs layers. We have
ture consisting of alternate layers of InAlAs and compared the results obtained for these samples with
InGaAs with thicknesses of 27 and 2.7 nm, respectively. the proÐle of a di†erent system in which the occurrence
The superlattice grown by MBE is buried at a depth of of segregation was expected.
D400 nm in a complex structure (see Ref. 9). The SIMS In the inset of Fig. 5 we have plotted the SIMS depth
measurements were performed using O ` at 2 keV and proÐling of a single 5 nm InGaAs QW (QWA) separat-
2
( 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. SURFACE AND INTERFACE ANALYSIS, VOL. 25, 397È403 (1997)
 SIMS ANALYSES OF IIIÈV SEMICONDUCTOR QUANTUM-WELL AND SUPERLATTICE HETEROSTRUCTURES
Figure 5. Comparison between the In profile obtained under the
same conditions for 5 nm quantum wells AlGaAs/InGaAs/AlGaAs
(QWA) and GaAs/InGaAs/GaAs (QWB). The inset shows the pro-
files of Ga, Al and In (not in scale) to evidence the structure of
QWA.
ed by two thicker layers of AlGaAs ;26 a small GaAs
capping layer is also present. The sample was grown by
LP-MOCVD at a temperature of D100 ¡C higher than
the InGaAs/GaAs multi-QW sample discussed in the
above section. The substrate on which the latter struc-
ture was grown is of the same type as that used for the
InGaAs/GaAs QW with 5 nm thickness.
In Fig. 5 we compare the In proÐle of the single
QWA with one (QWB) of the multi-QW structures
described in the previous section (see Fig. 2). Both pro-
Ðles were obtained under identical experimental condi-
tions (O `, 1.8 keV). The depth scales have been
calibrated2 by taking into account the di†erences of
erosion rates in the distinct matrices (AlGaAs, InGaAs
and GaAs). Note that in Fig. 5, for the sake of clear
comparison, the peak of QWA coincides with that of
QWB ; this explains the di†erent depth scale in the inset
of the Ðgure.
As can be observed, the In proÐle of QWA is
broadened if compared with the proÐle of QWB, whose
interfaces are very abrupt as observed in the previous
section. Furthermore, it can be noted that the indium
signal of QWA exhibits a much slower increase at the
leading edge. The asymmetry towards the surface is
likely ascribed to indium segregation at the front edge
between the AlGaAs and InGaAs layers. The segrega-
tion e†ect is also witnessed, as can be noted in Fig. 5, by
an accumulation of indium at the GaAs/AlGaAs inter-
face. We recall that QWA (AlGaAs/InGaAs) has been
grown at a higher temperature with respect to QWB
and with a higher In concentration ; in addition,
AlGaAs has a di†erent surface energy if compared with
GaAs. Actually, the growth conditions used for the
QWA sample are expected to produce segregation
e†ects at the front interface between AlGaAs and
InGaAs.
( 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
401
The calculation of the areas under the indium curves
provides the indium areal density of the QW. We
observe that the ratio of the areas under the indium
signal in the QWs that have the same nominal thickness
conÐrms the ratio of the respective indium mole frac-
tions. This excludes an enhancement of the indium
signal caused by a strong Al matrix e†ect in the AlGaAs
layer.
Quantitative analysis of ultranarrow element
distributions
Secondary ion mass spectrometry is usually considered
inaccurate when used to determine high concentration
levels due to the dependence of the ion yields on the
matrix changes (matrix e†ect). For the low regimes,
below 1 at.%, the ion intensity is linear with the concen-
tration and the use of well-calibrated implanted stan-
dards allows quite good quantitative results to be
obtained.1
For higher concentrations, however, the matrix e†ects
cause a non-linear behaviour of the intensity with the
concentration and the calibration results to be very
ambiguous. Nevertheless in many systems, including
IIIÈV semiconductors, the detection under Cs` bom-
bardment of molecular ions formed by combination of
the Cs` ions with the elements to be analysed (Al, Ga,
As or In in our case) has been shown to be very e†ective
for quantiÐcation.27h29 In fact, the yields of such
ionized molecular species are in many cases negligibly
a†ected by matrix e†ects.
The proportionality between molecular ion intensity
ratios and concentrations can be used to plot linear
calibration relations. The accuracy of this quantiÐcation
method (MCs` mode) has been shown to be within
^2% during the analysis of thick IIIÈV compound
layers using reference samples accurately calibrated by
PL.27 Similar results were obtained by using XRD and
Rutherford backscattering spectroscopy (RBS).9,26
Nevertheless, even though PL is very accurate for
concentration determination, it has to assume that the
element distribution is known and actually is not very
e†ective for concentration determination in QW and SL
structures, especially in the presence of segregation or
di†usion.30 Analogous considerations can be applied to
x-ray di†raction analysis.31 The use of SIMS in com-
bination with one of these techniques provides comple-
mentary results that can be used for an accurate
quantiÐcation.
Using the “MCs` modeÏ, in fact, we can calibrate the
indium concentration of thin layers of a multi-QW
sample or SL by means of reference thicker layers char-
acterized by PL or x-ray di†raction. Figure 6 shows the
calibrated proÐles of a thick layer of InGaAs and three
InGaAs QWs of 19 nm. The relative sensitivity factors27
for the calibration were determined from the linear
curve (depicted in the inset) obtained from the analysis
of six InGaAs thick layers. It is important to note,
however, that the calibration of very sharp SIMS pro-
Ðles provides only an apparent concentration scale
because of the distortions introduced by the sputtering
process. According to the primary energy used, the dis-
tortions will a†ect more or less the shape of the
SURFACE AND INTERFACE ANALYSIS, VOL. 25, 397È403 (1997)
402
Figure 6. Calibrated InCs½ profiles of a thick reference InGaAs
layer (dashed) and of three 19 nm InGaAs QWs (solid). The inset
shows the InCs½/AsCs½ ratio plotted against the In mole fraction
for six reference samples. All the InGaAs layers and the QWs were
grown on GaAs(100) substrate.
resulting proÐle. Thicker layers are negligibly a†ected
by such distortions, especially for low-energy beams.
For thin layers (\10È20 nm) the broadening causes a
decrease of the peak intensity. Nevertheless, this does
Figure 7. Fitting of a model obtained by convoluting a square
input distribution with analytical resolution functions related to the
2 keV oxygen (a) and 5.5 keV caesium (MCs½) (b) mode analyses
of the 19 nm InGaAs/GaAs QW. (c) Comparison of calibrated
SIMS profiles obtained with 2 keV oxygen (solid line) and 5.5 keV
caesium (solid line with square symbols) with the square well
input (dashed) used for the fitting in (a) and (b).
( 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
C. GERARDI
not lead to a lack of information because the area under
the calibrated curve related to the element distribution
contains the information regarding the element concen-
tration in the layer.
Figures 7(a) and 7(b) depict the indium proÐles
recorded as InCs` and In` (2 keV O `) signals of a 19
2
nm width QW of InGaAs on GaAs. The lines represent
the mathematical models that Ðt the experimental SIMS
proÐles ; the models assume a rectangular-shaped dis-
tribution of indium in the QW [see Fig. 7(c)]. In Fig.
7(c) we have plotted, on a linear scale, the indium
proÐle of the QW as recorded both in the “MCs` modeÏ
(Cs`, 5.5 keV) and with a 2 keV O ` beam. The proÐles
2
have been normalized by comparing the areas under the
curves ; the rectangular input proÐle is also shown. As
can be observed, the proÐle obtained with the lower
energy (2 keV) is best resolved and less distorted.
The information on the concentration can be derived
from the calculation of the area and from the Ðtting
parameters as well. From the calibrated proÐle we have
extracted a value of indium mole fraction x \ 0.085.
The accuracy of the measurement depends both on the
depth and concentration scale and on the accuracy of
the determination of the width of the thin layer as well.
The accuracy on the concentration scale obtained with
the MCs` method can be better than 2%.27 The width
of the layer can be determined with good precision
(\3%) by combining SIMS with other techniques such
as HRXRD or TEM.
The concentration measured by SIMS both in the
InGaAs/GaAs QWs and in the AlInAs/InGaAs SL
studied here were in excellent agreement with the results
of the optical spectroscopy and x-ray di†raction
analysis performed on the same samples, as it has been
reported in Refs 11 and 9.
CONCLUSION
The very thin element distributions in QWs and SLs
can be examined by SIMS provided that some precau-
tions are taken. The sputter-related distortions and the
matrix e†ects cannot be eliminated but can be mini-
mized enough to collect adequate information on the
structure.
The use of the lowest energy reduces the distortions
and allows us to reach a depth resolution that is ade-
quate for the direct study of segregation and di†usion
phenomena. The best depth-resolved result achieved in
this work for InGaAs/GaAs multiple QW samples is a
decay length of 0.62 nm at the leading edge of the
indium signal and 1.30 nm at the trailing edge. The high
resolution allows us to determine, with precision, the
position and the width of a layer. Nevertheless, other
techniques are necessary for an accurate calibration of
the depth scale. For this purpose x-ray di†raction or
TEM can be very useful to provide internal standards,
such as the position of the layers and their thicknesses.
Unfortunately, the high depth resolution obtained
with low-energy primary beams degrades at depths
larger than 400 nm due to the formation of macro-
topography on the surface. This degradation is espe-
SURFACE AND INTERFACE ANALYSIS, VOL. 25, 397È403 (1997)
 SIMS ANALYSES OF IIIÈV SEMICONDUCTOR QUANTUM-WELL AND SUPERLATTICE HETEROSTRUCTURES
cially observed for oxygen, which forms chemical bonds
at the surface leading to the formation of ripples.
An accurate calibration of the concentration scale
can be attained by using the MCs` method, which,
for the systems studied here, minimizes the matrix
e†ects. The linearity between the ion yields and the con-
centration can lead to accurate calibration when the ref-
erence samples are characterized with accurate
techniques such as PL. Nevertheless the sputtering
causes distortions that, for very thin layers (\10 nm),
can heavily a†ect the shape of the true element distribu-
tion. Hence, the calibrated proÐle provides an apparent
distribution that contains the information regarding the
REFERENCES
1. R. G. Wilson, F. A. Stevie and C. W. Magee, Secondary Ion
Mass Spectrometry . Wiley, New York (1988).
2. K. Wittmaack, in Practical Surface Analysis , Vol. 2, ed. by D.
Briggs and M. P. Seah, p. 105. Wiley, Chichester (1992).
3. M. G. Dowsett and E. A. Clark, in Practical Surface Analysis ,
Vol. 2, ed. by D. Briggs and M. P. Seah, p. 229. Wiley, Chi-
chester (1992).
4. K. Wittmaack, Surf . Interface Anal . 21, 323 (1994).
5. P. C. Zalm, C. J. Vzriema, D. J. Gravesteijn, G. F. A. van de
Walle and W. B. De Boer, Surf . Interface Anal . 17, 556
(1991).
6. R. D. Barlow, M. G. Dowsett, H. S. Fox, R. A. A. Kubiak and
S. M. Newstead, Nucl . Instrum . Methods B72, 442 (1992).
7. J. J. Vajo, E.-H. Cirlin, R. G. Wilson and T. C. Hasemberg, in
Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry , Proceedings of SIMS VIII ,
ed. by A. Benninghoven, K. T. F. Janssen, J. TuŽ mpner and
H. W. Werner, p. 355. Wiley, Chichester (1992).
8. E.-H. Cirlin, J. J. Vajo and T. C. Hasemberg, J . Vac . Sci .
Technol . B12, 269 (1994).
9. C. Gerardi, C. Giannini, L. Tapfer, H. Hase and H. KuŽ nzel, in
Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry , Proceedings of SIMS X ,
ed. by A. Benninghoven et al ., MuŽ nster (1995).
10. M. Meuris, P. De Bisschop, J. F. LeClair and W. Vandervorst,
Surf . Interface Anal . 14, 739 (1989).
11. M. DiDio, M. Lomascolo, A. Passaseo, C. Gerardi, C. Giannini,
A. Quirini, L. Tapfer, P. V. Giugno, M. DeVittorio, D. Greco,
A. L. Convertino, L. Vasanelli, R. Rinaldi and R. Cingolani,
J . Appl . Phys . 80, 482 (1996).
12. U. Littmaack and W. O. Hofer, Nucl . Instrum . Methods 168,
329 (1980).
13. R. G. Wilson, Solid State Electron . 39, 1113 (1996).
14. M. G. Dowsett, R. D. Barlow and P. N. Allen, J . Vac . Sci .
Technol . B12, 186 (1994).
( 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
403
real concentrations. This information can be extracted
once the thickness has been accurately and indepen-
dently measured by TEM or HRXRD.
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to L. Tapfer for helpful discussion and support
with the XRD analysis, C. Giannini for the HRXRD measurements,
M. Lomascolo for PL analysis, E. Carlino for TEM observations, A.
Passaseo for the MOCVD growth of the multi-QW structures and H.
Hase and H. KuŽnzel for the MBE growth of the SL.
The author is also very grateful to Antonio Cappello for skilful
support in SIMS analyses and to Valentina Vantaggio for strong
support during manuscript preparation.
15. D. KruŽ ger, P. Gaworzewski, R. Kurps and H. P. Zeindl, J . Vac .
Sci . Technol . B14, 341 (1995).
16. J. B. Clegg, N. S. Smith, M. G. Dowsett, M. J. J. Theunissenm
and W. B. de Boer, J . Vac . Sci . Technol . A14, 2645 (1996).
17. J. F. Ziegler, J. P. Biersack and V. Littmark, The Stopping and
Range of Ions in Solids , Vol. 1. Pergamon, New York (1986).
18. M. V. Makarov, Surf . Interface Anal . 20, 821 (1993).
19. M. G. Dowsett, G. Rowlands, P. N. Allen and R. D. Barlow,
Surf . Interface Anal . 21, 310 (1994).
20. P. C. Zalm and R. C. M. de Kruif, Appl . Surf . Sci . 70/71, 73
(1993).
21. J. B. Clegg and R. B. Beall, Surf . Interface Anal . 14, 307
(1989).
22. K. Muraki, S. Fukatsu, Y. Shiraki and R. Ito, Appl . Phys . Lett .
61, 55 (1992).
23. P. C. Zalm, G. F. A. van de Walle, D. J. Gravestejin and A. A.
van Gorkum, Appl . Phys . Lett . 55, 2520 (1989).
24. T. Kaway, H. Yonezu, Y. Ogasawara, D. Saito and K. Pak, J .
Appl . Phys . 74, 1770 (1993).
25. S. Fukatsu, K. Fujita, H. Yaguchi, Y. Shiraki and R. Ito, Appl .
Phys . Lett . 59, 2103 (1991).
26. C. Gerardi and C. Massaro, Microsc . Microstruct . Microanal . 6,
523 (1995).
27. Y. Gao, J . Appl . Phys . 64, 3760 (1988).
28. K. Wittmaack, Nucl . Instrum . Methods B64, 621 (1992).
29. H. Gnaser and H. Oechsner, Surf . Interface Anal . 21, 257
(1994).
30. S.-W. Ryu, I. Kim, B.-D. Choe and W. G. Jeong, Appl . Phys .
Lett . 67, 1417 (1995).
31. L. Tapfer, in III –V Quantum System Research , ed. by K. H.
Ploog, p. 225. Peter Peregrinus Ltd., The Institution of Electri-
cal Engineers, Herts, UK (1995).
SURFACE AND INTERFACE ANALYSIS, VOL. 25, 397È403 (1997)