Ar ion beam and CCl4 reactive ion etching: A comparison of etching damage and of damage passivation by hydrogen

Abstract

Damage produced in single‐crystal silicon by two distinctly different dry etching techniques, Ar ion beam etching and CCl₄ reactive ion etching is characterized and compared using spectroscopic ellipsometry, reflected high‐ energy electron diffraction, and current‐voltage (I‐V) characteristics of Au contacts to the etched Si. Secondary ion mass spectroscopy is also used to further characterize the CCl₄ exposed samples. The effectiveness of low‐energy hydrogen ion implants in passivating this dry etching induced damage is explored. The restoration of I‐V characteristics caused by H⁺ implants is correlated with the evolution of the spectroscopic ellipsometry, reflected high‐ energy electron diffraction, and secondary ion mass spectroscopy data.