SURFACE AND INTERFACE ANALYSIS

Surf. Interface Anal. 26, 851È860 (1998)

Characterization of Shallow Implants with SIMS

using Electron-beam-assisted Oxygen
Bombardment with Oxygen BackÐll¤

M. Puga-Lambers1,* and P. H. Holloway1,2

1 MICROFABRITECH, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
2 Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA

Secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS) depth proÐles of shallow implants of boron and arsenic in silicon have
been measured. It was demonstrated that improved depth resolution was achieved at low (1.5 keV) beam energy for
both O ‘ and Cs‘ beams. Oxygen backÐll from the base pressure (10—10 Torr) to 10—6 Torr also improved the
2
depth resolution. Simultaneous electron bombardment during oxygen backÐll further improved the depth resolution,
as measured both by the surface transients in the Si‘ and SiO‘ substrates as well as the B‘ signal. The mechanism
of improvement by electron bombardment during oxygen backÐll was discussed and concluded to be electron-beam-
stimulated oxidation of the Si surface. ( 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEYWORDS : SIMS ; shallow implants ; oxygen backÐll ; electron beam irradiation ; electron-beam-stimulated oxidation

dopant depth distribution. Cascade mixing e†ects can

INTRODUCTION
Characterization of shallow features in integrated cir-
cuits is currently one of the major challenges to the
SIMS community. For several decades, SIMS has been
one of the most indispensable techniques for quantiÐca-
tion of low-level impurities and dopants in semicon-
ductor materials due to its high sensitivity and excellent
depth resolution. However, the incessant shrinkage of
semiconductor device features to well below 1 lm has
placed new demands on the development of SIMS hard-
ware and analytical protocols in order to ensure sub-
nanometer depth resolutions with proÐle accuracy in
the near-surface region.1,2
Shallow doping is formed mainly by low-energy ion
implantation. Implant energies of \5 keV and, most
recently, in the sub-keV range are used for boron.
Arsenic is being implanted at energies of O10 keV. This
means that most of the implanted dose is located within
20È30 nm of the sample surface. For example, from
TRIM calculations, a 11B` implant into Si (100) at 5
keV has a projected range of 23.3 nm, and a 10 keV
75As` implant into Si (100) yields a projected range of
12.1 nm. The depth resolution of SIMS shallow
implants may therefore be limited by the penetration
depth of the primary ion beam. For example, the depth
resolution limit has been reported to be D2.5 times the
projected range of the SIMS primary ions in the
sample.3 Cascade mixing and knock-on e†ects caused
by the primary ion impact tend to induce proÐle
broadening, which lead to distortion of the measured
* Correspondence to : M. Puga-Lambers, MICROFABRITECH,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.
¤ Dedicated to Professor Siegfried Hofmann on the occasion of his
60th birthday.
CCC 0142È2421/98/110851È10 $17.50
( 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
be minimized by using heavier primary ions, by lower-
ing the primary ion energy and by increasing the inci-
dence angle relative to the sample normal up to 60¡.4,5
These conditions signiÐcantly improve depth resolution.
In addition to depth resolution limitations, transient
changes in ion yields and sputter rates occur in the
near-surface region during the initial period of sputter-
ing. This transient condition is associated with pertur-
bation of the sample by the primary ion beam, and with
matrix e†ects caused by the presence of a native surface
oxide on the sample. Both changes cause an error in
quantiÐcation of shallow depth proÐles.6 Particularly
for shallow implants, the pre-equilibrium region may
contain a signiÐcant percentage of the implanted
dopant species, thus any analysis that excludes this
region will lead to an incorrect dose calibration. Conse-
quently, the use of sufficiently low SIMS primary ion
beam energies ( \ 3 keV) is also critical towards estab-
lishing a rapid equilibrium condition between the
primary ion and the samples surface. Recent studies
have suggested that a primary ion beam energy of less
than half the implant energy should be applied for
shallow boron proÐling with a primary oxygen beam.7
This low energy poses difficulties for some instruments
in obtaining a well-focused primary ion beam and a
current density beam high enough to ensure good detec-
tion sensitivity and detection limits.
Some analytical strategies have been devised to over-
come these problems, particularly for boron shallow
proÐle measurements in silicon. A combination of low
primary ion energy at oblique impact angles (60¡) and
oxygen backÐll during depth proÐling of boron in
silicon with an oxygen primary beam has been reported
to improve depth resolution and minimize the surface
ion yield transient.2,8 This is due to the continuous for-
mation of a thin surface oxide layer during sputtering,
which stabilizes the ionization yields and allows for a
Received 14 May 1998
Revised 24 July 1998
Accepted 27 July 1998
852 M. PUGA-LAMBERS AND P. H. HOLLOWAY
constant matrix to be reached within a few Ó from the
surface.2,9 It was demonstrated that this technique pro-
vided uniform sensitivity across the SiO /Si interface
2
and, consequently, should yield reliable quantiÐcation
of the implanted dopant.2 However, the accuracy of the
oxygen backÐll technique has been challenged, based on
the fact that it does not provide an instantaneous full
oxidation and therefore is not sufficient to eliminate
transient e†ects altogether.6 Indeed, it has been report-
ed that before full oxidation is achieved, a fraction of
the outermost surface material is sputtered away at dif-
ferent sputter rates due to oxygen adsorption induced
by exposing the surface to gas.10 The variation in
sputter rate across this transient region results in signiÐ-
cant distortions of the proÐle shape, and subsequently
causes errors in the depth scale calibration.11,12 For
example, boron proÐles shifted towards the surface by
P4 nm have been observed during oxygen bombard-
ment with oxygen backÐll, with the amount of proÐle
shift depending not only on the beam conditions but
also on the oxygen pressure.6,13 An alternative
approach towards eliminating transient e†ects is to
encapsulate the surface with a thin layer of amorphous
silicon.14 In this method, the primary ion beam equi-
librium is established while bombarding the cap layer,
but ion yields and sputter rates still vary through the
underlying native oxide and the substrate. It has been
shown that the enhancement e†ects of the native oxide
can be reduced substantially by using an oxygen backÐll
in conjunction with the amorphous cap layer.15 Even so,
this method su†ers from some drawbacks, which
include the presence of extrinsic impurities trapped at
the interface, difficulty in identifying the original surface
position and extra sample preparation steps.16
This paper presents SIMS depth proÐle results
obtained for shallow arsenic and boron implants
without using the encapsulation procedure. The
purpose of this study was twofold : to evaluate the
e†ects of primary ion mass and beam energy on depth
resolution and peak shape while assessing the lowest
practical energy that we could use with our quadrupole
SIMS system ; and to investigate the possibility of elimi-
nating the surface transient by applying an electron
beam in conjunction with oxygen backÐll during
primary oxygen bombardment. A 0.5 keV boron
implant in silicon was used to test this hypothesis. This
approach is based on the idea that oxidation is strongly
stimulated by electron bombardment.17,18 Several
studies19h22 have been reported on electron-stimulated
oxidation of Si during oxygen exposure. In one recent
report,22 Auger electron spectroscopy clearly demon-
strated the presence of SiÈO bonding at electron-beam-
irradiated Si surfaces. Electron bombardment is known
to dissociate oxygen originally adsorbed in molecular
form, leading to the formation of SiO .23 An assess-
ment to the e†ectiveness of this method 2 is presented,
based on the width of the near-surface transient region.
EXPERIMENTAL
The samples used in this work were an 8 keV/3 ] 1015
cm~2 75As` implant into Si, a 5 keV/5 ] 1015 cm~2
11B` implant into Si and a 0.5 keV/1 ] 1015 cm~2
Surf. Interface Anal. 26, 851È860 (1998)
11B` implant into Si. A silicon sample uniformly doped
with 1 ] 1019 cm~3 11B` was used for calibration of
the 0.5 keV 11B` implant with an oxygen backÐll to
10~6 Torr. The arsenic and boron depth proÐles in Si
were obtained with a quadrupole Perkin-Elmer 6600
PHI SIMS system. A cesium primary ion beam was
used for the analysis of arsenic in silicon, whereas
oxygen bombardment was used for the boron analysis.
For comparison, boron proÐles were also acquired with
the Cs` beam. The angle of incidence of either of the
primary ion beams with respect to the sample normal
was 60¡. Both cesium and oxygen primary ion beam
energies were varied from 5 keV down to 1 keV.
Primary ion beam currents were set within the range
200È20 nA and the raster size was varied between 350
and 650 lm, with a 70% gating to reduce crater edge
e†ects and to maximize sensitivity. The sputter rates
were determined from crater depth measurements per-
formed with a Tencor Alpha-Step 500 surface proÐler
after the SIMS measurements.
An oxygen backÐll in the main chamber from 10~8
Torr up to 10~6 Torr was used during analysis of the
0.5 keV 11B` implant with the oxygen primary beam. A
60¡ incident electron beam was sometimes applied
simultaneously with the oxygen backÐll during oxygen
sputtering in order to investigate the e†ects of electron-
beam-assisted oxidation on the transient region. The
electron beam used for stimulated oxidation was set to
produce a 2 keV beam of 105 nA. The width of the area
scanned by the electron beam was 1000 lm.
During cesium bombardment, boron and arsenic
were monitored using 39BSi~ and 103AsSi~, respec-
tively. Mass 11B` was followed for boron analysis
during oxygen bombardment. Silicon and the primary
oxygen beam were followed with 30Si, 58Si , 44SiO and
16O. QuantiÐcation of the SIMS proÐles 2was accom-
plished by processing the raw data into concentration
vs. depth using PHI-Matlab data processing software.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The e†ect of primary Cs` beam energies on As depth
proÐles is shown in Fig. 1. The As depth proÐles were
acquired for Si implanted with an 8 keV As at a dose of
3 ] 1015 cm~2. It can be seen that proÐle broadening
decreased as the primary beam energy was reduced
from 5 to 1.5 keV. Better proÐle depth resolution at
lower sputtering energies was expected and observed.4,5
Surprisingly, the As proÐle at 1 keV showed depth
resolution similar to the 1.5 keV proÐle, and at concen-
trations below 1 ] 1020 cm~3 it broadened substan-
tially. This may be due to either a poor primary ion
beam shape at 1 keV or sputter-induced roughening.
Increasing electron gating and raster sizes to exclude
crater edge e†ects did not improve depth resolution.
The width of the surface transient region before steady-
state conditions are established (not shown) decreased
by D8 nm when the Cs` beam energy was reduced
from 5 to 1.5 keV. It is well known that lowering the
primary ion beam energy decreases not only cascade
mixing e†ects but also the width of the surface tran-
sient.24 The depth of the As peak [in Fig. 1(a)] was 10
nm for all primary beam energies, which was beyond
( 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
 SIMS OF SHALLOW IMPLANTS WITH OXYGEN BACKFILL 853

Figure 1. The 103AsSiÉ depth profiles from an 8 keV implant in Si for various Cs½ primary SIMS beam energies : (a) complete depth profile ;
(b) peak region.
the transient depth measured under these conditions, as The maximum concentration was observed to be
discussed below. The location of the As peak is in agree- 2.5 ] 1021 cm~3 for a 1.5 keV primary beam. This
ment with the projected range of 10.7 ^ 3.7 nm esti- improvement in depth resolution results from a
mated from TRIM calculations. In Fig. 1(b), the peak in decrease in the surface transition region. Thus, the best
As concentration sharpened and increased gradually in depth resolution was achieved with 1.5 keV Cs`, which
concentration with decreasing energy (except at 5 keV). is well below the implant energy.
( 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Surf. Interface Anal. 26, 851È860 (1998)
854 M. PUGA-LAMBERS AND P. H. HOLLOWAY

Figure 2(a) shows the SIMS boron depth proÐles
obtained from Si implanted with 5 keV boron to a dose
of 5 ] 1015 cm~2 using an O ` primary ion beam. For
2
the purpose of comparison, the proÐles were also
acquired with a Cs` primary ion beam [Fig. 2(b)]. The
boron peak was located at a depth of 22 nm for all
energy conditions (consistent with the projected range
of 23.7 ^ 1.7 nm estimated from TRIM) and showed an
approximate concentration of 1.5 ] 1021 cm~3. For
both Cs` and O ` bombardment, reducing the primary
ion beam energy2slightly improved the depth resolution.
This indicates that the beam conditions provided suffi-

Figure 2. Boron depth profiles of a 5 keV implant in Si at various energies using : (a) O ½ to detect 11B½ ; (b) Cs½ to detect 39BSiÉ.
2
Surf. Interface Anal. 26, 851È860 (1998) ( 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
 SIMS OF SHALLOW IMPLANTS WITH OXYGEN BACKFILL 855

Figure 3. Secondary ion distribution of 30Si½ from the sample in Fig. 2 using O ½ (a) and Cs½ (b) at different energies.
2

cient depth resolution for the proÐles. Boron proÐles
acquired at 4, 3 and 2 keV show similar depth
resolution for both Cs` and O `, whereas the 1 keV
2
proÐle showed both poorer depth resolution and a
lower peak concentration than at higher energies. With
Cs` bombardment, the 1 keV proÐle depth resolution
( 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
deteriorated at concentrations below 1020 cm~3. Using
an O ` primary beam at 1 keV resulted in a poorer
depth2 resolution at concentrations \7 ] 1018 cm~3.
This result is probably due to a poor primary ion beam
shape at 1 keV or increased surface-induced roughness
by oxygen sputtering, which degrades depth
Surf. Interface Anal. 26, 851È860 (1998)
856 M. PUGA-LAMBERS AND P. H. HOLLOWAY

Figure 4. Comparison of boron depth profiles (a) and 30Si½ surface transient (b) obtained from a 0.5 keV boron implant in Si using O ½
2
and Cs½ at 1.5 and 1 keV.

resolution.25 The proÐles in Fig. 2 also show a change
in the slope of the boron distribution at concentrations
of D1019 cm~3. This is due to channeling e†ects of the
implant into silicon, which increase the penetration
depth of the implanted ions.
Surf. Interface Anal. 26, 851È860 (1998)
The location of the arsenic and boron maximum
peaks [Figs 1 and 2] is independent of sputtering
energy over all the primary ion beam energies used.
This result was observed because the penetration depth
of Cs` and O ` primary ions was smaller than the
2
( 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
 SIMS OF SHALLOW IMPLANTS WITH OXYGEN BACKFILL
Figure 5. Boron depth profiles of a 0.5 keV boron implant using electron-assisted O ½ bombardment in combination with oxygen backfill.
depth of the implant proÐles. The penetration depth of
either of the primary ion beams was estimated from the
primary energy and angle of incidence by using an
equation derived in Ref. 24.
Figure 3 illustrates the surface transient of the silicon
matrix signal 30Si` at various energies obtained with
O ` and Cs`, respectively, from the sample implanted
2 boron at 5 keV 5 ] 1015 cm~2. The surface
with
enhancement observed with O ` sputtering is larger
2
than with Cs` sputtering, and increases with decreasing
primary ion energy because the native oxide is mixed to
a deeper point with increased energy. The width of the
transition region decreased by D15 nm (from 25 nm to
10 nm) as the O ` energy was reduced from 5 keV to 1
keV [Fig. 3(a)].2 For the same Cs` energy range, the
width of the transition region only decreased by D3 nm
(from 6 nm at 5 keV to 3 nm at 1 keV) [Fig. 3(b)]. This
agrees with previous Ðndings26 in which a 2 keV Cs`
beam at 60¡ produced a 2 nm deep transition region
sufficient to resolve a 5 keV boron implant in Si. The
same O ` energy resulted in a much deeper transition
2
region width due to the lower mass of oxygen vs.
cesium.
From the results presented in Figs 1È3, it is feasible to
use beam energies down to 1 keV with our quadrupole
SIMS system, although this inherently resulted in a loss
in maximum current and problems in focusing the
primary ion beam. Optimizing the beam shape at very
low beam energies required a substantial increase in
raster size in order to minimize crater edge e†ects and
to compensate for reduced dynamic range. Obviously,
this resulted in longer analysis times. In order to investi-
gate the possibility of enhanced oxidation by electron
bombardment, a 0.5 keV boron implant in Si was
analyzed with O ` and Cs` using 1.5 and 1 keV beam
2
( 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
857
2
energies. Although using sub-keV primary energies
would have been more appropriate to characterize a 0.5
keV boron implant, our choice of conditions was dic-
tated by instrumental constraints and sample avail-
ability.
Figure 4(a) shows a comparison of the boron depth
proÐles obtained from Si implanted with 0.5 keV boron
to a dose of 1 ] 1015 cm~2 using O ` or Cs` primary
ion beams at 1.5 and 1 keV and at an2 incidence angle of
60¡. It is quite clear that reducing the energy from 1.5 to
1.0 keV substantially improved the depth resolution.
Furthermore, O ` proÐling provided a much better
depth resolution2than Cs`. This is true because under
Cs` bombardment there is a linear dependence between
the decay length and the penetration depth of primary
ions, which exclusively determines the amount of
mixing.27 Therefore, stronger mixing (i.e. larger decay
lengths) occurs when the penetration depth of the
primary ion exceeds the depth of the implant proÐle.24
In the case of O ` bombardment, the additional
2
incorporation of oxygen into the Si matrix (swelling
model) causes a change in the matrix density of the
surface region, leading to smaller decay lengths and,
consequently, to improved depth resolution.28
The width of the transition region before the matrix
signal 30Si` reaches steady state is shown in Fig. 4(b).
The transition region obtained with 1 and 1.5 keV O `
2
beams is D 5 nm deep. The peak of the boron implan-
tation distribution was measured to be at a depth of 3
nm [Fig. 4(a)], but this value may not be correct for two
reasons : the calculation of the sputter rate in Figs. 4(a)
and 4(b) did not take into account the increased sputter
rate in the surface oxide, which is about 2.2 times that
in Si ; and, as reported previously, when the penetration
depth of the primary ion exceeds the projected range of
Surf. Interface Anal. 26, 851È860 (1998)
858 M. PUGA-LAMBERS AND P. H. HOLLOWAY

Figure 6. Comparison of 30Si½ (a) and 44SiO½ (b) surface transients from a 0.5 keV boron implant in Si for only O ½ bombardment or for
simultaneous electron bombardment at different oxygen backfill pressures. 2

the implant, the peak position tends to shift towards the
surface due to continuous oxygen incorporation and,
consequently, a variation in sputter rate within the
surface oxide region itself.6 Therefore, quantiÐcation of
the boron depth proÐles illustrated in Fig. 4(a) is signiÐ-
cantly a†ected by the ionization yield changes due to
Surf. Interface Anal. 26, 851È860 (1998)
oxygen incorporation and by the native surface oxide.
Furthermore, wider transition regions result in larger
o†sets on the depth scale due to sputter rate di†erences
between SiO (with x O 2) and Si. A 1 keV O ` beam
was used to xanalyze this sample under oxygen2 backÐll
conditions (5 ] 10~6 Torr) vs. base pressure
( 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
 SIMS OF SHALLOW IMPLANTS WITH OXYGEN BACKFILL
(5.5 ] 10~10 Torr). The SIMS proÐles [Fig. 5] also
show the e†ect of an electron beam under the same
oxygen backÐll conditions. Oxygen backÐll has been
used extensively to reduce surface transient e†ects, but a
simple backÐll is not sufficient to instantaneously form
a stoichiometric oxide.2,6,11,12 By applying electron
irradiation simultaneous with ion sputtering, we stimu-
lated the dissociation of molecular oxygen and the
immediate formation of SiO .
2
In Fig. 5, depth resolution improved as the pressure
was raised from 1.4 ] 10~7 to 5.4 ] 10~6 Torr. It was
improved even further by an electron beam at backÐll
pressures of 3.5 ] 10~7 and 2.8 ] 10~6 Torr. The
dynamic range of the boron proÐles measured with high
oxygen pressure was reduced as the oxygen pressure
was raised above the base pressure. This was observed
both with and without an electron beam ; however, the
electron beam tended to reduce this undesirable e†ect.
Increased raster sizes to exclude crater edge e†ects did
not improve the dynamic range during oxygen backÐll,
in agreement with previous reports.24 In addition, pro-
Ðles measured shortly after the system recovered back
to a base pressure of 10~10 Torr still exhibited low
dynamic ranges, even after 1 day of pumping. This
reduced dynamic range has been attributed to a high
boron background signal caused by memory
e†ects.24,25 Memory e†ects have been attributed to
increased scattering of primary and secondary ions
under oxygen backÐll conditions, a high boron sticking
coefficient on oxidized surfaces and higher ionization
yields.24 The boron background level was consistently
lower at all pressures when an electron beam was
applied. Presumably, the electron beam reduces the
memory e†ect by stimulating the conversion of boron
to oxide with a reduced SIMS signal. In addition, the
improved depth resolution from simultaneous electron
and ion bombardment may be inÑuenced by reduced
ion-beam-induced roughness. Previous studies29 have
shown that electron beam irradiation simultaneous with
ion beam bombardment suppresses ripple growth in Si.
Wittmaack has reported30 that low-energy oxygen
bombardment (0.5È2 keV) of Si at incidence angles
above 40¡ during vacuum and oxygen backÐll condi-
tions caused rapid surface roughening with ripple for-
mation, which may be suppressed by the electron-beam-
stimulated oxidation.
Depth resolution is frequently quantiÐed in terms of
the decay length.2,7,24,31 Decay lengths were derived
over an order of magnitude drop along the trailing edge
of the boron proÐles in Fig. 5. They were larger than
those reported previously.2,31 This discrepancy is prob-
ably caused by ion-beam-induced roughening and
memory e†ects as discussed above, and to some extent
by ion-beam-induced mixing and sample di†erences. In
addition, it has been suggested14 that enhanced di†u-
sion caused by primary ion-beam-induced damage
during boron analysis can cause the depth resolution to
deteriorate.
The sputter rates determined from the proÐles shown
in Fig. 5 decreased by a factor of three when oxygen
was backÐlled into the chamber up to a pressure of
10~7 Torr. Between 10~7 and 10~6 Torr, the sputter
rate remained constant, consistent with previous
reports.6 Under identical backÐll conditions, no changes
in sputter rate were detected when the sample was also
( 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
859
electron beam irradiated. A lower sputter rate during
oxygen backÐll results from lower sputter yields for Si,
which have been reported to decrease by a factor of two
to three25,32 as the oxygen pressure was increased. The
total sputter yields of Si and SiO were reported to level
o† at pressures above 10~6 2Torr, which indicates
similar compositions for the Si surface region and
SiO .32
2
Figure 6 shows the surface transient signals of 30Si`
and 44SiO`, respectively, as a function of depth under
various oxygen backÐll conditions. The depth values
have not been adjusted for sputter rate changes. At base
pressure (not included in Fig. 6), the signals from 30Si`
and 44SiO` reach their equilibrium levels after a tran-
sient depth of 3È4 nm. As the oxygen pressure was
increased, the matrix-speciÐc 30Si` transient width was
substantially reduced, as expected, reaching D0.3 nm at
10~7 Torr and 0.15 nm at 10~6 Torr. No signiÐcant
reduction was observed in the transient depth for elec-
tron beam irradiation. It was previously presumed that
full oxidation was achieved almost instantaneously
under oxygen backÐll conditions, based upon the fact
that the Si` signal reached equilibrium more rapidly
with an oxygen backÐll than at base pressure.32 Under
oxygen backÐll conditions, the sample was saturated
with oxygen, thus maintaining a constant ionization
yield.2 But the 44SiO` transient [Fig. 6(b)] only
reached a stable level at much larger depths (2.5 nm at
10~7 Torr and 2.0 nm at 10~6 Torr). This indicates that
full oxidation was achieved at depths greater than those
observed with the 30Si` transient. By expanding the
near-surface area, a reduction of D 0.3È0.5 nm in the
width of the transition region can be detected for elec-
tron beam irradiation. This supports the fact that simul-
taneous electron beam bombardment accelerates the
oxidation process, in agreement with reports by Kirby
and Litchman.23
CONCLUSIONS
The SIMS depth proÐles of 8 keV arsenic and 5 or 0.5
keV boron implants into Si (100) wafers were measured.
It was shown that the depth resolution of the implant
proÐle improved as the beam energy was reduced from
5 keV to 1.5 keV for both O ` and Cs` primary beams.
The depth resolution was 2not as good for 1.0 keV
beams, presumably because of trouble in focusing the
ion beam at this low energy. Oxygen backÐlling
improved the depth resolution but degraded the
dynamic range of boron implants. Simultaneous elec-
tron bombardment with depth proÐling improved the
depth resolution and maintained the dynamic range of
the SIMS analysis. By analysis of both the 30Si` and
44SiO` transients, it was demonstrated that the extent
of surface oxidation was accelerated by simultaneous
electron bombardment.
Acknowledgements
Extensive discussions with Kevin Jones, Erik Kuryliw and Fred Stevie
are gratefully acknowledged.
Surf. Interface Anal. 26, 851È860 (1998)
860 M. PUGA-LAMBERS AND P. H. HOLLOWAY
REFERENCES
1. N. S. Smith, M. G. Dowsett, B. McGregor and P. Phillips, in
SIMS X , edited by A. Benninghoven, B. Hagenhoff and H. W.
Werner, p. 363. Wiley, New York (1995). 17.
2. C. W. Magee, J. R. Shallenberger, M. S. Denker, D. F. 18.
Downey, M. Meloni, S. D. Cloherty, S. Felch and B. S. Lee,
Fourth International Workshop on the Measurement , Charac- 19.
terization and Modeling of Ultra -Shallow Doping Profiles in
Semiconductors , Research Triangle Park, NC, 6–9 April 1997, 20.
Section 8.1.
3. P. D. Augustus, G. D. T. Spiller, N. G. Dowsett, P. Knightley, 21.
G. R. Thomas, R. Webb and E. A. Clark, in SIMS VI , edited by
A. Benninghoven et al ., p. 488. Wiley, New York (1988). 22.
4. H. H. Andersen, Appl . Phys . 18, 131 (1979).
5. K. Wittmaack, Vacuum 34, 119 (1984). 23.
6. K. Wittmaack and S. F. Corcoran, J . Vac . Sci . Technol . B16, 24.
272 (1998).
7. M. G. Dowsett, in SIMS XI , edited by R. Lareau, G. Gillen, J. 25.
Bennett and F. Stevie, p. 259. Wiley, New York (1998).
8. S. P. Smith, V. K. F. Chia and M. H. Yang, IEEE Proc . 11th Int . 26.
Conf . on Ion Implantation and Technology , Austin, Texas, Vol.
1(1), 1996, p. 512. 27.
9. S. P. Smith, V. K. F. Chia, C. J. Hitzman and G. R. Mount,
Proc . Ion Implant . Technol . 96, 599 (1997). 28.
10. K. Wittmaack, Surf . Sci . 68, 118 (1977).
11. K. Wittmaack, Surf . Interface Anal . 24, 389 (1996).
12. M. G. Dowsett, T. J. Ormsby, D. I. Elliner and G. A. Cooke, in 29.
SIMS XI in, edited by R. Lareau, G. Gillen, J. Bennett and F.
Stevie, p. 371. Wiley, New York (1998).
13. T. Hoshi, K. Miyoshi and M. Tomita, in SIMS IX , edited by A.
Benninghoven, Y. Nihei, R. Shimizu and H. W. Werner, p. 30.
710. Wiley, New York (1993).
14. J. G. M. van Berkum, E. J. H. Collart, K. Weemers, D. J. 31.
Gravesteijn, K. Iltgen, A. Benninghoven and E. Niehuis, J .
Vac . Sci . Technol . B16, 298 (1998). 32.
15. J. G. M. van Berkum, in SIMS XI , edited by R. Lareau, G.
Gillen, J. Bennett and F. Stevie, p. 187. Wiley, New York
(1998).
16. K. Iltgen, A. Benninghoven and E. Niehuis, Fourth Internation-
al Workshop on the Measurement , Characterization and Mod-
Surf. Interface Anal. 26, 851È860 (1998)
eling of Ultra -Shallow Doping Profiles in Semiconductors ,
Research Triangle Park, NC, 6–9 April 1997, Section 10.1.
W. Ranke and K. Jacobi, Surf . Sci . 47, 525 (1975).
H. Ibach, K. Horn, R. Dorn and H. Luth, Surf . Sci . 38, 433
(1973).
B. Carriere, A. Chouiyakh and B. Lang, Surf . Sci . 126, 495
(1983).
R. R. Kunz and T. M. Mayer, J . Vac . Sci . Technol . B5(1), 427
(1987).
D. C. Sun, Z. Q. Yu, F. M. Li, Y. C. Du and H. Wang, Appl .
Phys . A 48, 567 (1989).
M. Matsutani, F. Wakaya, S. Takaoka, K. Murase and K.
Gamo, Jpn . J . Appl . Phys . 36, 7782 (1997).
R. E. Kirby and D. Litchman, Surf . Sci . 41, 447 (1974).
W. Vandervorst and F. R. Shepherd, J . Vac . Sci . Technol . A5,
313 (1987).
J. W. Erickson and R. Brigham, J . Vac . Sci . Technol . B14, 353
(1996).
C. W. Magee, ‘Depth profiling of shallow junction depths’,
Application Brief . Evans East.
M. Meuris, W. Vandervorst and J. Jackman, J . Vac . Sci .
Technol . A5, 1482 (1991).
M. Petravic, R. G. Elliman and J. S. Williams, in SIMS VIII ,
edited by A. Benninghoven, K. T. F. Janssen, J. Tumpner and
H. W. Werner, p. 367. Wiley, New York (1991).
M. Hatada, Y. Nakagawa, M. Saeda, A. Karen, K. Okuno, F.
Soeda and A. Ishitani, in SIMS IX , edited by A. Benningho-
ven, Y. Nihei, R. Shimizu and H. W. Werner, p. 738. Wiley,
New York (1993).
K. Wittmaack, ISSIMS 98 /SIMS II, Beijing, China, 6–10 April
1998.
P. C. Zalm and C. J. Vriezema, Nucl . Instrum . Methods B64,
626 (1992).
M. Nakamura, K. Yamada, K. Okuno, F. Soeda and A. Ishitani,
in SIMS IX , edited by A. Benninghoven, Y. Nihei, R. Shimizu
and H. W. Werner, p. 207. Wiley, New York (1993).
( 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.