IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NUCLEAR SCIENCE, VOL. 39, NO.

2, APRIL 1992

269

Border Traps in MOS Devices

Daniel M. Fleetwood, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract-It is recommended that the terminology for oxide charges developed in 1979 by the Deal committee be updated to include near-interfacial oxide traps that communicate with the underlying Si and that these defects collectively be called border traps. Justification for this nomenclature is presented and defining features of border traps are discussed. Border traps play an important role in determining low-frequency ( l / f ) noise levels in metal-oxide-semiconductor (MOS) transistors and also appear to have been observed in recent spin-dependent recombination studies on irradiated devices at microwave frequencies. This terminology is intended to add focus to discussions of defect type and location in MOS structures.

N 1979 a committee chaired by Bruce Deal attempted to bring order to the chaotic state of defect nomenclature in the Si/Si02 system [l]. Four general classes of defects were recognized by the Deal committee: fixed oxide charge, mobile ionic charge, interface-trapped charge, and oxide-trapped charge. As defined in [l], interface traps are located at the Si/SiO, interface and communicate directly with the underlying Si [l]. Oxide traps and fixed oxide charge lie within the oxide, and do not communicate with the Si [l]. Recently a lot of effort has focused on identifying the microscopic defects responsible for interface- and oxidetrapped charge. Compelling evidence has associated interface traps with P b centers, which are trivalent Si defects at the Si/Si02 interface [2], [3]. Also, radiation-induced oxidetrapped charge has been associated with E centers, which are trivalent Si defects in SiO, [3]. What is missing from the above picture is a standard name for near-interfacial oxide traps that communicate with the Si. Defects of this type include (among others) slow interface (or surface) states [4]- [7], anomalous positive charge [7] and rechargeable E centers [SI. The lack of a standard name for this class of defects can lead to considerable confusion when trying to sort out defect type and location in a given study. This problem is especially acute in the l / f noise literature, for example, where one persons oxide trap [9]-[12] can be anothers interface state [4]-[6], [12], [13]. Although present evidence strongly suggests that 1/ f noise is caused almost entirely by near-interfacial oxide traps [6], [9]- [ 131, one is still likely to get the impression from much of the
Manuscript received December 17, 1991; revised December 19, 1991. The author is with Sandia National Laboratories, Dept. 1332, Albuquerque, NM 87185-5800. IEEE Log Number is 9106440.

literature that interface traps (i.e., P b defects) are causing the noise. And these ambiguities are certainly not unique to the l/f noise field! One possible way to address this problem is suggested by Fig. 1, in which near-interfacial oxide traps are called border traps. Discussing the etymology of this term provides some useful mnemonics. The term derives from border states, which are well known to anyone with passing knowledge of the U.S. Civil War (1861-1865). States just north of the Confederacy were officially part of the Union but retained strong emotional ties to the South. By analogy defect states in Fig. 1 that lie north of the Si/Si02 interface are physically part of the oxide. However, many of these states lie close enough to the Si/Si02 interface to communicate with the Si on time scales of microseconds to seconds, as evidenced by 1/ f noise and conductance studies of MOS structures [6], [9]-[13]. In fact, states lying very close to the Si/SiO, interface likely communicate with the Si at even faster rates, as suggested by the strong E signals observed by Jupina and Lenahan in spin-dependent-recombination studies of irradiated MOS structures at microwave frequencies [141. As a final note on Fig. 1, the analogy also is quite consistent in spirit with emerging models of the transitional region of the oxide that lies between the Si/SiO, interface and the bulk of the oxide [15]. So as not to carry the analogy to extremes, Fig. 1 retains the form of the Deal nomenclature and refers to these sites as border traps, as opposed to the alternative border states. Border-trap charge and the density of border traps would be denoted Qbt and D,, respectively. Focusing the issue of defect geography and nomenclature raises several interesting issues. First, the line between an interface trap and a border trap is difficult to draw based solely on electrical measurements. If defects that lie in the oxide can communicate with the Si at microwave frequencies [14], it is difficult to understand how all interface traps measured via standard electrical test methods can be associated with P,, (or Pb-like) centers. Only studies of defect microstructure, e.g., via electron-spin-resonance or spin-dependent-recombination techniques, allow clear discrimination between interface traps and border traps that are in very rapid communication with the Si. It is also difficult to draw a firm distinction between border traps and oxide traps, since there is not a single distance into the oxide beyond which one can safely say an oxide trap does not communicate with the Si. However, one useful rule of thumb can be extracted from studies of electron tunneling between the Si (or the gate) and trapped positive charge in the oxide. In about 1 min, tunneling electrons will passivate virtually all of the trapped positive charge in SiO, that lies

0018-9499/92$03.00 0 1992 IEEE

270

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NUCLEAR SCIENCE, VOL. 39, NO. 2, APRIL 1992

Gate

l Si02
1-

- I

- - -

I Border

Si

Traps Interface Traps

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of defects in MOS structures. Border states are 3 nm of oxide which newly defined as defects contained within the first can readily exchange charge the with Si or gate.

within a distance of 3 nm of either the Si/SiO, or the gate/SiO, interface [16], [17]. For an order of magnitude more or less in tunneling time, this distance changes only by about kO.25 nm [16], [17]. Thus, it is certainly reasonable for defect sites within about 3 nm of the Si/SiO, or the gate/SiO, interface to be considered border traps, although this cutoff will vary somewhat depending on the time scale of ones measurements. (From studies of thermally activated transitions of carriers with near-interfacial oxide traps in 1/ f noise studies, for example, the cutoff line between border traps and oxide traps in Fig. 1 may be somewhat closer to the interface than 3 nm [13], which may suggest an even closer association between border traps and the transitional oxide layer near the Si/Si02 interface [15].) A fascinating consequence of the above definition of a border trap is that there must be no bulk-like traps (i.e., traps that do not rapidly communicate with the Si) in oxides thinner than about 6 nm! Indeed, given the virtual elimination of the net positive radiation-induced oxide-trapped charge [161- [181 and avalanche-injected positive charge [191 via electron tunneling in oxides of this thickness, one is led to the somewhat surprising conclusion that all defects in ultrathin oxides may act as border traps! A final argument in support of the nomenclature of Fig. 1 is the aforementioned association of (for example) bulk radiation-induced oxide-trapped charge with E centers and of interface traps with Pb centers 121, 131, [14]. Border traps may in some cases be associated with E centers [SI, [lo], [14], [20], [21] or in other cases may be unrelated to E centers [7], [22]. I find it less confusing to think of donor and acceptor levels associated with an E border trap [SI, [ll], [14] than to think of an E center (a trap in the oxide) as an interface state. So the nomenclature of Fig. 1 is intended to provide added focus to discussions of the location, electrical properties, and microstructure of near-interfacial traps in SiO, . In summary, it is recommended that traps which lie within about 3 nm of the Si/SiO, interface and are in communication with the Si be referred to as border traps. This fills a gap in the Deal committees picture of defects at or near the Si/SiO, interface [I]. Adopting this nomenclature is one way to clarify discussions of defect type and location in MOS devices. I thank P. S. Winokur, J. H. Scofield, J. R. Schwank, F. W. Sexton, M. J. Uren, and D. B. Brown for stimulating

discussions. Supportive comments received at the 1991 IEEE Semiconductor Interface Specialists Conference in Orlando, are also gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES
B. E. Deal, Standardized terminology for oxide charges associated with thermally oxidized silicon, IEEE Trans. Electron Dev., vol. ED-27, no. 3, pp. 606-607, 1980. E. H. Poindexter, P. J. Caplan, B. E. Deal, and R. R. Razouk, Interface states and electron spin resonance centers in thermally oxidized (111) and (100) silicon wafers, J. Appl. Phys., vol. 52, p. 879, 1981. P. M. Lenahan and P. V. Dressendorfer, Hole traps and trivalent silicon centers in MOS devices, J. Appl. Phys., vol. 55, no. 10, pp. 3495-3499, 1984. C . T. Sah and F . H. Hielscher , Evidence of the surface origin of the l/f noise, Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 17, no. 18, pp. 956-958, 1966. E. H. Nicollian and J. R. Brews, MOS (Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor) Physics and Technology, New York: Wiley, 1982, pp. 175-798. M. J. Uren, S. Collins, and M. J. Kirton, Observation of slow states in conductance measurements on Si MOS capacitors, Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 54, no. 15, pp. 1448-1450, 1989. D. A. Buchanan and D. J. DiMaria, Interface and bulk trap generation in MOS capacitors, J. Appl. Phys., vol. 67, no. 12, pp. 7439-1452, 1990. M. E. Zvanut, F. J. Feigl, W. B. Fowler, and J. K. Rudra, Rechargeable E centers in sputter-deposited SiO, films, Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 54, p. 2118, 1989. J. J . Simonne, G. Blasquez, and G. Barbottin, l/f Noise in MOSFETs, in Instabilities in Silicon Devices: Silicon Passivation and Related Instabilities, vol. 2, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1989, pp. 639-657. D. M. Fleetwood and J. H. Scofield, Evidence that similar point defects cause 1/ f noise and radiation-induced-hole trapping in MOS transistors, Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 64, no. 5 , pp. 579-582, 1990. T. L. Meisenheimer and D. M. Fleetwood, Effect of radiationinduced charge on I / f noise in MOS devices, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1696-1702, 1990. P. J. Restle, Individual oxide traps as probes into submicron devices, Appl. Phys. Lett.. vol. 53, no. 19, pp. 1862-1864, 1988. M. J. Kirton and M. J. Uren, Noise in solid-state microstructures:A new perspective on individual defects, interface states, and lowfrequency ( I / f) noise, Advances in Physics, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 367-468, 1989. M. A. Jupina and P. M. Lenahan, A spin dependent recombination study of radiation induced defects at and near the Si/SiO, interface, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sei., vol. NS-36, no. 6, pp. 1800-1807, 1989. A. Ourmazd and J. Bevk, The structure of the Si/SiO, interface: An overview, in The Physics and Chemistry of SiO, and the Si/SiO, Interface, edited by C. R. Helms and B. E. Deal, (eds.), New York: Plenum, 1988, pp. 189-198. J . M. Benedetto, H. E. Boesch, Jr., F. B. McLean, and J. P. Mize, Hole removal in thin-gate MOSFETs by tunneling, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. NS-32, no. 6, pp. 3916-3920, 1985. F. B. McLean, H. E. Boesch, Jr., and T. R. Oldham, Electron-hole generation, transport, and trapping in SiO, , in Ionizing Radiation Effects in MOS Devices and Circuits, T. P. Ma and P. V. Dressendorfer, (eds.), New York: Wiley, 1989, pp. 158-167.

BORDER TRAPS IN MOS DEVICES

27 1

N. S. Saks, M. G. Ancona, and J. A. Modolo, Radiation effects in MOS capacitors with very thin oxides at 80 K, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sri., vol. NS-31, no. 6, pp. 1249-1255, 1984. L. Lipkin, A. Reisman, and C. K. Williams, Hole trapping phenomena in the gate insulator of as-fabricated insulated gate field effect transistors, J. Appl. Phys., vol. 68, no. 9, pp. 4620-4633, 1990. A. J. Lelis, T. R. Oldham, H. E. Boesch, Jr., and F. B. McLean, The nature of the trapped hole annealing prccess, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sri., vol. 36, No. 6, pp. 1808-1815, 1989. D. M. Fleetwood, R. A. Reber, Jr., and P. S. Winokur, Effect of bias on thermally stimulated current in irradiated MOS devices, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sri., vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 1066-1077, 1 9 9 1 . R. E. Stahlbush, B. J. Mrstik, and R. K. Lawrence, Post-irradiation behavior of the interface state density and the trapped positive charge, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sri., vol. 37, no. 6 , pp. 1641-1649, 1990.

Daniel M. Fleetwood (M87-SM90) is a Distinguished Member of the Technical Staff in the Radiation Technology and Assurance Division at Sandia National Laboratories. He is an active member of the nuclear and space radiation effects community. He served as a Guest Editor of the ON NUCLEAR December 1988-1990 special issues of the IEEE TRANSACTIONS SCIENCE. Editorial Comment: This Guest Editorial takes on a different flavor than previous editorials. It is a recommendation to improve the present definition of certain interface traps in MOS devices, I trust that this and future discussions will clarifr the location and types of these defects.
DICK A. MACK Editor