Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 334 (2014) 8895

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/nimb

Ion beam sputtering of germanium Energy and angular distribution

of sputtered and scattered particles
Rene Feder , Carsten Bundesmann, Horst Neumann, Bernd Rauschenbach
Leibniz-Institut fr Oberchenmodizierung e.V., Permoserstrae 15, D-04318 Leipzig, Germany

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 4 November 2013
Received in revised form 5 May 2014
Accepted 6 May 2014
Available online 14 June 2014
Keywords:
Ion beam sputtering
ESMS
Angular distribution
Energetic distribution

a b s t r a c t
The energy and angular distributions of scattered and sputtered particles produced by ion beam sputtering of a Ge target under variation of geometrical (incidence angle of primary ions and emission angle of
secondary particles) and ion parameters (ion species (Ar, Xe) and energy (0.51.5 keV) are presented.
Several sets of Ge thin lms are deposited and their thickness is measured by prolometry to determine the angular particle ux distribution of the sputtered particles. The particle ux distributions are
of cosine-like shape and tilted in forward direction and the tilt of the maximum position increases with
decreasing energy of the primary ions and increasing incidence angle.
The energy distributions of the sputtered and the scattered ions are measured with an energy-selective
mass spectrometer. The average energy of the sputtered ions increases with increasing incidence angle of
the primary ions and with increasing emission angle, but is nearly unaffected by the species of the primary ions and their energy. The energy distribution of the scattered Ar ions reveals high energetic maxima that originate in direct scattering between Ar/Ge and Ar/Ar and which shift with increasing emission
angle to higher energies. For Xe ion bombardment, there are only maxima for Xe/Xe scattering observed.
All experimental data are compared with Monte Carlo simulations done with the well-known TRIM.SP
code.
2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The ion beam sputter deposition (IBD) technique is a PVD technique for the production of high quality thin lms with tailored
properties. In IBD, the energy and mass of the primary ions, the
mass of the target atoms and the process geometry lead to different angular and energy distributions of the sputtered and scattered
particles and therefore to different thin lm properties [13]. A
systematic analysis of the properties of these lm forming particles
is necessary for further process adaption.
The present report focuses on the energy and angular distributions of the sputtered and scattered particles for ion beam sputtering of a Ge target. The ux distributions of sputtered Ge particles,
the energy distributions of sputtered Ge ions and the energy distributions of scattered primary ions are measured under variation of
the process geometry (incidence and emission angle), the primary
ion energy (0.51.5 keV) and the ion species (Ar, Xe). These data
are compared with simulation results, based on the Monte Carlo
code TRIM.SP [4].
Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 (0)341 235 4021; fax: +49 (0)341 235 2313.
E-mail address: rene.feder@iom-leipzig.de (R. Feder).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2014.05.009
0168-583X/ 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Ge was chosen as target material because it is a monatomic

semiconductor and it is known that semiconductors turn to an
amorphous state under ion bombardment, while a metal target like
Ag stays polycrystalline [5]. Therefore, different results to those
found for Ag [6] can be expected. Additionally, Ge does not have
the restrictions known for Si regarding the measurements with
the energy-selective mass spectrometer (ESMS) [7]. For Si, the
ESMS is not able to differentiate between the mass of Si and the
mass of N2-molecules from the residual gas, what leads to an overlay of the energy distributions. Besides, Ge is important for infrared
optics and micro electronics.
Until now, there are no studies on the energy distribution of
sputtered and scattered particles from Ge for low energy ion
bombardment and only a few other semiconductors where studied. Pellet et al. [8,9] studied the angular resolved energy spectra
of particles sputtered from a Si target, but only under a xed ion
incidence angle. Other studies, like Goehlich et al. [10,11] only
focus on metal targets. There also exist theoretical studies predicting the anisotropic energy distribution of sputtered particles for
oblique incidence [12].
The angular distributions of Ge particles sputtered from a Ge
target have been reported by Andersen et al. [13] and Chini et al.

R. Feder et al. / Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 334 (2014) 8895

[14]. Both studies show over-cosine angular distributions, even for

primary ion energies down to 0.6 keV. The absolute sputter yields
of Ge for different energies and primary ions were studied by
Rosenberg et al. [15] and Laegreid et al. [16].
Recently, we have reported results for sputtering of Ag targets
with Ar and Xe ions under variation of ion incidence angle and
primary ion energy carried out with the same setup [6,7]. The correlation of the primary and secondary process parameters and
electrical and optical properties of the Ag lms have also been
shown [3].
For the energy distribution of sputtered atoms from a collision
cascade the Thompson relationship [17] can be used, predicting
the energy of a sputtered particle to be proportional to E/(E + U)3,
where U is the surface binding energy of the target atoms.
The collision cascade theory also predicts an isotropic distribution of recoil atoms in the target if it is bombarded by ions at normal incidence. In this case a cosine-type angular distribution of
sputtered particles is predicted [18]. Additionally, simulations
and experimental results indicate an energy dependence of the
angular distribution [1921], because for low primary ion energies
the collision cascade is not completely developed. Consequently,
the angular distribution of recoil atoms is not isotropic, resulting
in a changed angular distribution (heart-, under- or over-cosine
types) [5,13].

2. Experimental conditions and simulation

Fig. 1 shows a schematic sketch of the vacuum deposition
chamber. The set up provides the possibility to vary the primary
ion incidence angle (a) and the polar emission angle (b). Therefore,
the target and the ion source are mounted on rotary tables with an
identical rotation axis. Additionally, a sample holder can be
mounted in the chamber for thin lm deposition. The ion source
is an in house development RF type broad beam ion source [22].
A more detailed view on the experimental set up is given elsewhere [6,7].
Ar ions and Xe ions with energies between 0.5 keV and 1.5 keV
are used to sputter the Ge target for different incidence angles (0,
30 and 60). For the determination of the particle ux, polar emission angles between 40 and 90 in steps of 10 are investigated.
Due to the dimensions of the ion source and the ESMS, the emission angle for the measurements of the energy distribution is limited to 60, 30 or 0 for primary ion incidence angles of 0, 30 or
60 respectively.
For the determination of the particle ux distributions, the
sputtered Ge is collected on Si substrates, like described for Ag in

previous work [6,7]. The sticking coefcient of the Ge is about 1

[23]. The thin Ge lms are all amorphous and the thickness is
between 10 nm and 100 nm. Prolometry is used to determine lm
thicknesses by measuring the step height between the lm and the
substrate. For step generation, a part of the substrate is covered
during the deposition process. The average particle ux can be
calculated using the lm thickness and the sputter time. The mass
density needed for this calculation is measured using RBS (Rutherford Backscattering Spectrometry).
An energy selective mass spectrometer (ESMS) is used to measure the energy distributions of sputtered and scattered ions [6,7].
The ESMS operates in a mass range from 1 amu up to 512 amu and
an energy range up to 500 eV with a resolution of 1 amu and
0.5 eV, respectively. For a reasonable interpretation of the ESMS
signal, the transmission probability of the ESMS and the ionization
probability of the sputtered particles must be taken into account.
The transmission probability was simulated by Zeuner et al. [24]
for another ESMS that uses quite the similar ion optics. There is
unfortunately no work reporting on the ionisation probability of
sputtered Ge, but there are generalized considerations like in
[25]. Taking both into account, a relative error of about 10% is estimated. Due to this small deviation, the ESMS signal is taken as the
energy distribution and the relative error is taken into account in
the calculation of the average energies of the sputtered ions.
All experimental data are compared with simulations which are
done using the Monte Carlo code TRIM.SP (version trvmc95) [4].
The input parameters are taken from Eckstein [26]. The number
of simulated primary ions is 108 for each simulation.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Angular distributions of sputtered Ge particles
In Fig. 2, the experimental and simulated particle ux distributions of sputtered Ge particles are shown for varying primary ion
energy Eion and incidence angle a.
The inuence of the primary ion incidence angle a on the particle ux distribution for both inert gases is shown in Fig. 2(a and b).
For all parameter sets, the Ge particle ux is higher for sputtering
with Xe than for sputtering with Ar and the particle ux increases
with increasing incidence angle for both ion species, because the
total sputter yield is increased [15,16].
In Fig. 2(c and d) the inuence of the primary ion energy Eion is
shown for an incidence angle of a = 30 for sputtering with Ar and
Xe ions, respectively. The Ge particle ux increases with increasing
primary ion energy and is again higher for sputtering with Xe ions
than for sputtering with Ar ions.
All particle ux distributions show a cosine-like shape that is
tilted in forward direction depending on the primary ion energy
and the incidence angle. The data can be tted by

U U  cosn b b

Fig. 1. Schematic sketch of the ion beam sputter setup.

89

where U is the maximum value of the particle ux, n is the exponent (under-cosine for n < 1 and over-cosine for n > 1) and b is the
emission angle of the maximum value of the particle ux. Table 1
gives an overview of the best-t parameters. There is no tilting of
the cosine distribution for normal incidence. Additionally, the particle ux distribution is nearly perfectly cosine-like for Ar ion bombardment at a = 0 and under-cosine for Xe ion bombardment at
a = 0. For other incidence angles, the particle ux distribution is
over-cosine and n increases with increasing incidence angle and
decreasing primary ion energy. For sputtering with Xe ions, n is
higher than for sputtering with Ar ions. The tilting of the particle ux
distributions b, also increases with decreasing primary ion energy
and is higher for Xe bombardment than for Ar bombardment. This

90

R. Feder et al. / Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 334 (2014) 8895

Fig. 2. Experimental (symbols) and simulated (lines) Ge particle ux distributions under variation of process parameters (ion species (a, c vs. b, d), incidence angle (a, b),
energy (c, d)).

Table 1
Best-t parameters according to Eq. (1) for the experimental and simulated particle ux distributions for different combinations of ion species, primary ion energy and incidence
angle.
Conditions

Experimental distributions

Simulated distributions

Ion species

Eion (eV)

a ()

U (1013 at cm2s1)

b ()

U (1013 at cm2s1)

b ()

Ar

500
1000
1000
1000
1500

30
0
30
60
30

8.4 0.3
8.8 0.3
13.4 0.2
15.2 0.8
15.8 0.2

2.1 0.3
1.1 0.3
1.8 0.1
1.8 0.3
1.7 0.2

30.4 1.5
0.8 6.0
16.7 0.8
15.6 2.4
12.5 1.7

9.6 0.3
8.7 0.1
13.3 0.3
23.6 0.9
15.8 0.3

1.7 0.1
1.3 0.1
1.5 0.1
1.9 0.1
1.5 0.1

16.1 1.0
0.1 0.2
11.2 0.7
16.4 1.2
9.2 0.6

Xe

500
1000
1000
1000
1500

30
0
30
60
30

11.6 0.5
9.4 0.1
19.2 0.4
24.9 1.6
25.8 0.3

2.8 0.4
0.7 0.1
2.0 0.2
2.2 0.4
2.1 0.1

42.6 1.7
1.9 2.4
27.8 1.1
23.0 2.6
22.7 0.6

12.7 0.5
10.7 0.1
19.5 0.6
45.7 1.7
24.5 0.6

2.1 0.2
1.2 0.1
1.7 0.1
2.5 0.2
1.6 0.1

24.1 1.3
0.1 0.2
15.7 0.9
22.8 1.2
12.9 0.8

tilting of the cosine-distribution and the under-cosine and overcosine behavior are caused by an anisotropic distribution of the
recoil ux in the target. For the lower primary ion energy and the
heavier primary ions, this anisotropy is closer to the target surface
and therefore, the inuence on the angular distribution of the sputtered particles is higher.
The particle uxes calculated from simulation results are in
excellent agreement with the experimental values for a = 0, 30
and for all ion energies. However, the simulation results are about
50% higher for an incidence angle of 60 Fig. 2(a and b), for sputtering with Ar and Xe ions. These deviations can have different origins. The rst possibility is that not the total primary ion beam
hits the target due to the high incidence angle and the beam diameter and divergence. This effect can be excluded, because the angular distribution of the primary ions was measured and the effective
ux of primary ions at the effective area of the sputter target is
taken into account. Other possible origins of the deviations are
likely related to the targets surface roughness and the mixing of
different incidence angles due to the beam divergence. It is known,
that structuring and roughening effects at the targets surface

increase with increasing incidence angle of the primary ions [28].

Measurements on Ag targets have shown a similar behavior [6].
In Refs. [13,14], the over-cosine behavior of the angular distribution of sputtered Ge particles was also studied for Ar bombardment at normal incidence. The values of n for ion energies between
0.6 keV and 1.25 keV are between 1.25 and 1.51 and agree well
with the values presented in this work.
3.2. Energy of sputtered Ge ions
Fig. 3 demonstrates the energy distribution of Ge ions sputtered
from a Ge target with Ar (a) and Xe (b) ions with a primary ion
energy of Eion = 1.5 keV under an incidence angle of a = 30 at
selected emission angles b. Due to the different mass ratio between
primary ion and target atom, the maximum energy of sputtered Ge
ions is higher for sputtering with Xe than for sputtering with Ar.
The energy distribution of the Ge ions shows the expected Eb
behavior according to the Thompson formula [17] for emission
angles b 6 70 for both primary ion species, with b indicating the
exponent in the power function with a value of about 2. For

R. Feder et al. / Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 334 (2014) 8895

b = 80 the shape of the curve for Xe ion bombardment changes

due to the fact that the generation of direct recoils is possible.
These direct recoil particles have higher energies than the particles
sputtered in a collision cascade and can only occur if a + b > 90
[7,27].
The energy distributions are in good agreement with the energy
distributions of sputtered Si observed by Pellet et al. [8,9]. They
also observed a decrease of the number of sputtered particles with
increasing energy according to Thompson with additional high
energetic contributions from directly sputtered particles. These
contributions also increase with increasing incidence and emission
angle. In [10,11], metal targets were studied. They also show the
same behavior, but the inuence of directly sputtered particles is
more pronounced. The same was found in former studies on Ag
[6]. The simulated energy distributions in [12] also show the same
behavior.
In Fig. 4, the average energy <E> of the sputtered Ge ions is
shown as a function of the emission angle for different incidence
angles a (0, 30, 60) and primary ion energies Eion (1.0 keV,
1.5 keV). The values are calculated from experimental energy distributions, see for instance Fig. 3. The average energy <E> of the
sputtered Ge ions increases only slightly with increasing emission
angle b for both primary ion species, less for sputtering with Ar
ions than for sputtering with Xe ions. Also, <E> increases slightly
with increasing primary ion incidence angle. The inuence of the

91

primary parameters is much less than for sputtering a Ag target

[6] and the average energy distribution of the sputtered particles
is closer to the isotropic distribution predicted by the Thompson
model [17]. This can be correlated to the amorphization of the
Ge surface under ion bombardment that leads to a more isotropic
energy distribution [5].
In Fig. 5 the energy distributions of sputtered Ge atoms, calculated from simulation results for sputtering with Ar (a) and Xe (b)
(Eion = 1.5 keV; a = 30) at selected emission angles are shown. The
general behavior of all curves agrees with the experimental curves
of the ESMS signals from Fig. 3. All curves follow the power function behavior predicted by Thompson [17]. In contrast to the
experimental curves in Fig. 3, the change of the curves due to
directly sputtered particles for large emission angles is not visible
and the direct sputtering processes seem to be neglected in the
simulation. Instead, the Ge atoms sputtered with Ar show a slightly
higher maximum energy than the Ge atoms sputtered with Xe.
In Fig. 6 the average energies <E> of sputtered Ge particles as a
function of the emission angle calculated from the simulated
energy distributions (example give in Fig. 5) for sputtering with
Ar (a) and Xe (b) for different primary ion energies Eion (0.5 keV,
1.0 keV, 1.5 keV) and incidence angles a (0, 30, 60) are outlined.
The average energy increases with increasing emission angle b up
to a maximum between 60 and 80, followed by a decrease
towards an emission angle of 90. Additionally the average particle

Fig. 3. Experimental energy distribution of Ge ions sputtered by Ar (a) and Xe (b) ions (Eion = 1.5 keV; a = 30) at selected emission angles b.

Fig. 4. Average energy of Ge ions sputtered by Ar (a) and Xe (b) ions as a function of the emission angle b, under variation of incidence angle a and primary ion energy Eion.
Data are calculated from experimental energy distributions as shown in Fig. 3.

92

R. Feder et al. / Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 334 (2014) 8895

Fig. 5. Energy distributions of Ge atoms sputtered by Ar (a) and Xe (b) (Eion = 1.5 keV; a = 30) at selected emission angles, calculated from simulation results.

Fig. 6. Average energies of Ge atoms sputtered by Ar (a) and Xe (b) as a function of the emission angle b for different combinations of primary ion energy Eion and incidence
angle a, calculated from simulation results.

energy is signicantly higher for an incidence angle of 60 in comparison to the other incidence angles. Increasing the primary ion
energy also leads to an increase of <E> for both primary ion species.
The shape of the curves is similar for sputtering with Ar and Xe
ions. For an incidence angle of 60, the increase of the average particle energy of the sputtered particles is much more pronounced
than for the other incidence angles. This effect is due to the inuence of directly sputtered particles [6,27]. The simulated curves,
with exception of the curves for a = 60, reproduce the shape of
the experimental curves well and the absolute values of the average particle energies are comparable. For an incidence angle of 60,
there is a large deviation between the <E> data calculated from the
experimental and the simulated values. A possible explanation for
this deviation might be a correlation between the surface roughness of the target and the emission of directly sputtered particles
at large emission angles. It has been shown that ion bombardment
can cause smoothing, roughing or structuring of the target surface
depending on ion species, incidence angle and energy of the ions
and that the roughening increases with increasing incidence angle
[28]. A rough surface may cause many more interactions of these
particles with other target atoms. Another possible explanation is
that for Ge, in contrast to sputtering a Ag target, these directly scattered particles are not emitted as charged particles and therefore
they cannot be detected with the ESMS.

3.3. Energy of scattered Ar and Xe ions

The energy distribution of Ar and Xe ions backscattered from
the Ge target for different emission angles at Eion = 1.5 keV and
a = 30 are demonstrated in Fig. 7. The maximum energy of the
backscattered particles increases with increasing emission angle
for both ion species and is higher for Ar ions than for Xe ions due
to the different mass ratio between primary ion and target atom.
In the energy distributions of scattered Ar ions additional high
energetic maxima occur between 200 eV and 400 eV, which shift
with increasing emission angle to higher energies. These maxima
originate from a direct scattering process near or at the target surface and can be calculated as described elsewhere [7].
Additionally, there is a change in the shape of the curve for
b = 80 for both ion species. This behavior can be explained with
a scattering of primary ions at implanted projectiles in the Ge target during the irradiation. Fig. 8 illustrates this for the energy of Ar
and Xe ions backscattered from the Ge target for Eion = 1 keV,
a = 60 and b = 50. The parameters are chosen for a clearer demonstration of the two scattering processes. Two high energetic contributions can be clearly seen for scattered Ar ions. The high
energetic contributions are assigned to Ar/Ar scattering and Ar/
Ge scattering. In contrast, there is only one high energetic maximum in the energy distribution of scattered Xe ions. This is

R. Feder et al. / Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 334 (2014) 8895

93

Fig. 7. Experimental energy distribution of Ar (a) and Xe (b) ions (Eion = 1.5 keV; a = 30) reected from Ge at selected emission angles.

Fig. 8. Experimental energy distribution of Ar and Xe ions reected from a Ge

target. Primary ion energy, incidence and emission angle were chosen to show both
direct scattering maxima (Eion = 1.0 keV; a = 60; b = 50).

explained by the condition for the detection of directly scattered

particles: the mass ratio mtarget/mion must be larger than the sin e
of the scattering angle [7]. In the geometry chosen here, the scattering angle is c = 180ab. Due to that relation, the maximum
scattering angle for Xe ions at a Ge atom is about 33 and therefore

only a contribution to the energy spectra for Xe/Xe scattering and

not for Xe/Ge scattering can be observed.
In Fig. 9 the energy distributions of scattered Ar (a) and Xe (b)
primary ions (Eion = 1.5 keV; a = 30) reected from a Ge target calculated from simulation results at selected emission angles are
shown. High energetic maxima can be observed in the energy distributions of backscattered Ar, but not in the energy distribution of
backscattered Xe. The difference between experimental and simulated data for Xe ion bombardment originates from the fact that in
the simulation, implantation of primary ions is neglected.
In Fig. 10 the average energies <E> of scattered Ar (a) and Xe (b)
primary ions reected from a Ge target are outlined as a function of
the emission angle calculated from simulation results for different
combinations of Eion and a. For both primary ions and all combinations of Eion and a the average energy of the scattered particles
increases with increasing emission angle.<E> also increases with
increasing primary ion energy and primary ion incidence angle
for both species. The average energy of scattered Ar particles is signicantly higher than for Xe particles in every case. This is an effect
of the contributions of the high energetic, directly scattered particles to the average energy of all scattered particles. Only the primary ions directly scattered at Ge atoms contribute to the
average energy, due to the fact that no contamination of the target
by primary ions is considered in the simulation, and therefore no
scattering between Ar/Ar or Xe/Xe is calculated. The contribution
of directly scattered Xe ions at Ge atoms can be neglected due to
the reasons given above.

Fig. 9. Energy distributions of Ar (a) and Xe (b) ions (Eion = 1.5 keV; a = 30) reected from Ge selected emission angles, calculated from simulation results.

94

R. Feder et al. / Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 334 (2014) 8895

Fig. 10. Average energies of Ar (a) and Xe (b) ions reected from Ge as a function of the emission angle b for different combinations of primary ions energy Eion and incidence
angle a, calculated from simulation results.

The average energy of the scattered particles could not be calculated from experimental data, because for most of the Ar ion spectra the maximum energy of the scattered particles exceeds the
energy range of the ESMS.

3.4. Total energies of sputtered and scattered particles

We dene the normalized total energy Etot of the sputtered
particles as the sum of the energy of all sputtered Ge particles

Fig. 11. Normalized total energies of sputtered Ge particles (a, b) and scattered primary ions (c, d) as a function of the emission angle b for different combinations of ion
species (Ar (a, c), Xe (b, d)), primary ions energy Eion and incidence angle a, calculated from simulation results.

R. Feder et al. / Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 334 (2014) 8895

calculated from simulation results, divided by the number of primary ions. The normalized total energy of the scattered particles
is calculated in an analogous manner. Fig. 11 shows the normalized
total energies of sputtered (a, b) and scattered (c, d) particles as a
function of the emission angle for sputtering with Ar (a, c) and Xe
(b, d) ions under variation of primary ion energy and incidence
angle.
For the total energy of the sputtered particles, all curves are of
similar shape for both ion species. Like the average energy of the
sputtered particles, the normalized total energy increases signicantly with increasing ion incidence angle and slightly with the
primary ion energy. Additionally, the normalized total energies of
the sputtered particles are slightly higher for sputtering with Xe
ions than for sputtering with Ar ions, especially for the highest
investigated primary ion energies, high incidence angles and high
emission angles, due to the different mass ratio.
The normalized total energy of the scattered particles also
increases with increasing incidence angle and slightly with
increasing primary ion energy. For sputtering with Ar ions, the normalized total energies of the scattered particles are comparable
with the normalized total energies of the sputtered Ge particles.
Although the average energy of the sputtered particles is much less
than the average energy of the scattered ions, the large difference
between the sputter yield and the backscatter yield lead to comparable total energies. For sputtering with Xe ions, a large inuence
of the primary ion incidence angle is obvious. For a = 0, the normalized total energies of the sputtered particles are too small
and therefore out of the scale. For a = 30 and the three different
primary ion energies the normalized total energies of the scattered
Xe ions are about two orders of magnitude lower than the normalized total energies of the scattered Ar ions, and also more than two
orders of magnitude lower than the normalized total energies of
the sputtered Ge particles. For a = 60, the curve gets a different
shape, because of additional energy contributions from directly
scattered particles like shown in Fig. 10(b).
4. Summary
The properties of secondary (sputtered and scattered) particles
were analyzed for sputtering Ge with Ar and Xe ions under systematic variation of the ion beam and geometrical parameters: primary ion energy, incidence angle, emission angle and ion species.
The measured particle ux distributions for sputtered Ge particles
are in a good agreement with the values calculated from the
TRIM.SP simulations. For incidence angles different from 0, the
angular distributions of the sputtered particles are of over-cosine
type and tilted in forward direction with respect to the target normal. The tilting of the cosine-distribution for a 0 is caused by an
anisotropic distribution of the recoil ux in the target, especially
for the lower and heavier primary ion energies. In contrast to measurements on a Ag target [6], the energy distributions of sputtered
Ge particles show only a small dependence on the emission angle.
The values of the average energy of the sputtered particles therefore only slightly increase with increasing emission angle and
increasing primary ion incidence angle. The average energies of
the sputtered particles calculated from simulation results show
the same behavior and are of comparable value, except the simulation results for an incidence angle of 60. The experimental energy

95

distributions of scattered Ar and Xe ions differ signicantly. In the

energy distributions of the Ar ions, additional maxima from direct
scattering processes between primary ion and target atoms as well
as between primary ion and implanted primary ions occur. For Xe,
there are only additional maxima related to scattering processes
between primary ions and implanted primary ions. The average
energy of the Ar particles scattered from the Ge target are much
higher than those of the Xe particles as a result of the contribution
of the directly scattered particles. Simulations and experimental
data show a considerable difference in the ratio of the normalized
total energies of sputtered and scattered particles between
sputtering with Ar or Xe ions, originating from the different energy
distributions of backscattered particles.
The results presented in this paper should inuence the Ge thin
lm properties. It is expected that the properties of the Ge lms are
not as sensitive to the geometrical and primary particle properties
as the properties of the Ag lms studied before [3,6,7], because the
properties of the lm forming particles are less affected by the
geometrical and primary ion parameters.
Acknowledgements
The authors want to thank the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) for nancial support (Project BU2625/1-1), F. Scholze,
I. Herold, P. Hertel, M. Mller, R. Woyciechowski and the IOM
Workshop for technical support as well as R. Wunderlich for help
with the RBS measurements.
References
[1] C. Bundesmann, I.-M. Eichentopf, S. Mndl, H. Neumann, Thin Solid Films 516
(2008) 8604.
[2] C.A. Davis, Thin Solid Films 226 (1993) 30.
[3] C. Bundesmann, R. Feder, J.W. Gerlach, H. Neumann, Thin Solid Films 551
(2014) 46.
[4] J.P. Biersack, W. Eckstein, Appl. Phys. A: Mater. Sci. Process. 34 (1984) 73.
[5] H. Oechsner, Appl. Phys. 8 (1975) 185.
[6] R. Feder, C. Bundesmann, H. Neumann, B. Rauschenbach, Nucl. Instrum.
Methods B 316 (2013) 198.
[7] R. Feder, F. Frost, H. Neumann, C. Bundesmann, B. Rauschenbach, Nucl.
Instrum. Methods B 317 (2013) 137.
[8] C. Pellet, C. Desgranges, C. Schwebel, J. Aubert, Appl. Phys. A 55 (1992) 359.
[9] C. Pellet, C. Schwebel, C. Resseguier, Nucl. Instrum. Methods B 78 (1993) 294.
[10] A. Goehlich, N. Niemller, H.F. Dbele, Phys. Rev. B 62 (2000) 9349.
[11] A. Goehlich, D. Gillmann, H.F. Dbele, Nucl. Instrum. Methods B 179 (2001)
351.
[12] M. Stepanova, S.K. Dew, Nucl. Instrum. Methods B 215 (2004) 357.
[13] H.H. Andersen, B. Stenum, T. Sorensen, H.J. Whitlow, Nucl. Instrum. Methods B
6 (1985) 459.
[14] T.K. Chini, M. Tanemura, F. Okuyama, Nucl. Instrum. Methods B 119 (1996)
387.
[15] D. Rosenberg, G.K. Wehner, J. Appl. Phys. 33 (1962) 1842.
[16] N. Laegreid, G.K. Wehner, J. Appl. Phys. 32 (1961) 365.
[17] M.W. Thompson, Philos. Mag. 18 (1968) 377.
[18] R. Behrisch, Sputtering by Particle Bombardment, vol. 1, Springer, Berlin, 1981.
[19] G.K. Wehner, D. Rosenberg, J. Appl. Phys. 31 (1960) 177.
[20] Y. Yamamura, Nucl. Instrum. Methods 194 (1982) 515.
[21] J. Roth, J. Bohdansky, W. Eckstein, Nucl. Instrum. Methods 218 (1983) 751.
[22] M. Zeuner, F. Scholze, B. Dathe, H. Neumann, Surf. Coat. Technol. 142144
(2001) 39.
[23] F. Jona, H.R. Wendt, Surf. Sci. 24 (1971) 343.
[24] M. Zeuner, H. Neumann, J. Meichsner, J. Appl. Phys. 81 (1997) 2985.
[25] M.L. Yu, in: R. Behrisch, K. Wittmaack (Eds.), Sputtering by Particle
Bombardment, vol. 3, Springer, Berlin, 1991.
[26] W. Eckstein, IPP Rep. 9 (132) (2002) 162.
[27] W. Eckstein, Nucl. Instrum. Methods B 27 (1987) 78.
[28] F. Frost, B. Ziberi, A. Schindler, B. Rauschenbach, Appl. Phys. A 91 (2008) 551.