The Effect of Chemical Cleaning on the Kinetics of Thermal Oxidation

  • D. B. Kao
  • B. E. Deal
  • J. M. de Larios
  • C. R. Helms


A detailed study concerning the effect of chemical cleaning on the kinetics of silicon thermal oxidation is presented. This investigation included a wide range of temperature, thickness, and chemicals for both (100) and (111) silicon wafers. The results indicate that treatment by ammonium peroxide causes substantial retardation of dry oxide growth as compared with acidic solutions such as HC1, H2SO4, HNO3, and HF. The effect of chemical cleaning varies with thickness, temperature, doping, ambient, and crystal orientation. Analysis based on the Deal-Grove model shows that the principal effect of chemical cleaning is on the linear-rate constant and the initial rapid oxidation. A series of two-step oxidation experiments was also conducted with different thermal and chemical treatments between steps. The results demonstrate that the oxidation is affected by the surface film produced on the silicon by chemical cleaning and that this thin film remains on the outer surface of the growing oxide throughout the oxidation process.


Surface Film Thermal Oxidation Oxide Thickness Thin Oxide Oxide Growth 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    B. E. Deal and D. B. Kao, in Tungsten and Other Refractory Metals for VLSI Applilcations II, Material Research Society, p. 27, (1987)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Wong, N. Kobayashi, R. Browning, D. Paine, and K. C. Saraswat, J. Electrochem. Soc ., 134, 2339, (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    F. J. Grunthaner and J. Maserjian, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., NS-24, 2108 (1977).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    F. N. Schwettman, K. L. Chiang, and W. A. Brown, Paper No. 276 in Spring Meeting of The Electrochemical Society, p. 688 Extended Abstracts 78–1, Seattle, WA (1978).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    G. Gould and E. A. Irene, J. Electrochem. Soc., 134, 1031, (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. M. deLarios, C. R. Helms, D. B. Kao, and B. E. Deal, Appt. Sur. Sci., 30, 17 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Ruzyllo, G. t. Duranko, and A. M. Hoff, J. Electrochem. Soc. 134, 2052 (1987).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    B. E. Deal and A. S. Grove, J. Appl. Phvs . 36, 3770 (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    W. Kern and D. A. Puotinen, RCA Review, 31, 187 (1970).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Moslehi, S. Shatas, K. C. Saraswat, and J. D. Meindl, IEEE Trans, Electron Devices, ED-34, No. 6, 1407 (1987)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. M. deLarios, C. R. Helms, D. B. Kao, and B. E. Deal, Appl. Phvs. Lett., submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  12. L. M. Landsberger and W. A. Tiller, Appl. Phys. Lett., 49, 143 (1986).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. B. Kao
    • 1
  • B. E. Deal
    • 1
  • J. M. de Larios
    • 2
  • C. R. Helms
    • 2
  1. 1.Fairchild Research CenterNational Semiconductor Corp.Santa ClaraUSA
  2. 2.Stanford Electronics Labs Department of Elec. Engr.Stanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations