Considerations for Differences in Melt Growth Kinetics Between II–VI and III–V Compound Crystals

The difference in the crystallization kinetics during growth from the melt between II–VIs (CdTe, Cd1−xZnxTe, ZnSe, and ZnTe) and III–Vs (GaAs and InP) is discussed. At the melt growth of II–VI crystals, the most important difference is the lack of controllability of seeding and achievement of a desired growth orientation. A pronounced tendency of self-orientation toward <111>, <110>, and sometimes <112> and <122>, but almost never toward <100> direction, has been observed regardless of whether a seed has been used or not. The main reason proves to be the tetrahedral coordination due to the high binding ratio of ionicity remaining in the II–VI melts but not occurring in III–Vs. As a result, the general effect of pre-ordering into density layers, forced by the solid surface, is in the II–VI liquids superimposed by a {111} self-orientation via tetrahedral in-plane alignment. Fitting growth kinetics seem to only be possible when this melt configuration conforms to the crystal structure, like the {111} but hardly the {100}. Otherwise, the liquid self-orientation determines the continuing crystal orientation. Additionally, an <100>-oriented seed abruptly changed into an <122> direction via a congruent twin plane. Although such considerations still need verifying atomistic simulations, they are helpful to optimize the growth methodology even for larger crystal diameters.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Crystals
Published
2024-12-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst14121067
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Chalcogenide Semiconductor Thin Films
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.63
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Considerations for Differences in Melt Growth Kinetics Between II–VI and III–V Compound Crystals

P. Rudolph
3 citations
Crystals
Chalcogenide Semiconductor Thin Films
0.63
article

Considerations for Differences in Melt Growth Kinetics Between II–VI and III–V Compound Crystals

P. Rudolph
article en
3 citations

Abstract

The difference in the crystallization kinetics during growth from the melt between II–VIs (CdTe, Cd1−xZnxTe, ZnSe, and ZnTe) and III–Vs (GaAs and InP) is discussed. At the melt growth of II–VI crystals, the most important difference is the lack of controllability of seeding and achievement of a desired growth orientation. A pronounced tendency of self-orientation toward <111>, <110>, and sometimes <112> and <122>, but almost never toward <100> direction, has been observed regardless of whether a seed has been used or not. The main reason proves to be the tetrahedral coordination due to the high binding ratio of ionicity remaining in the II–VI melts but not occurring in III–Vs. As a result, the general effect of pre-ordering into density layers, forced by the solid surface, is in the II–VI liquids superimposed by a {111} self-orientation via tetrahedral in-plane alignment. Fitting growth kinetics seem to only be possible when this melt configuration conforms to the crystal structure, like the {111} but hardly the {100}. Otherwise, the liquid self-orientation determines the continuing crystal orientation. Additionally, an <100>-oriented seed abruptly changed into an <122> direction via a congruent twin plane. Although such considerations still need verifying atomistic simulations, they are helpful to optimize the growth methodology even for larger crystal diameters.

CrystalsVol. 14(12)
Crystal Consulting (Germany) (DE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 30%
Chalcogenide Semiconductor Thin Films
0.63
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.