Institute of Metals Division - Discussion: Tunneling Through Gaseous Oxidized Films of A12O3

John L. Miles (Arthur D. Little, 1nc.)—Pollack and orris" have reported measurements on electron tunneling through A1-A12O3-A1 sandwiches in which the oxide was formed by gaseous oxidation in a glow discharge. From these measurements they deduced the asymmetry of the barrier and, since this is small, conclude that the mechanism suggested by Mott19 for the growth of oxide in thin A12O3 films is inapplicable. In earlier papers20 Pollack and Morris report similar work for oxide films grown thermally. In this case they find a greater asymmetry and conclude that the Mott mechanism is valid. I would like to point out that both these conclusions are quite unjustified. Mott suggests that the growth of the oxide film on aluminum results from the passage of ions through the already present film of oxide under the action of an electric field. This field results from a constant voltage which is in effect a contact potential between metal on one side of the barrier and adsorbed oxygen ions on the other side of the barrier. The theory does not require that the oxide grown is nonuniform either in stoichiometry or structure. It does however specifically assume that the partial layer of ionized oxygen on the surface remains adsorbed on the surface of the growing oxide. In other words, the so-called "built-in field" remains in the oxide only as long as the ionized oxygen is present. When a counter electrode of aluminum is deposited on the oxide, it will react with the adsorbed oxygen on the surface of the oxide, thus forming a small additional amount of oxide. It is clear, then, that there is no requirement in the Mott theory of oxide growth which would necessitate tunneling currents through an Al-A1203-A1 sample to be different when the polarity is reversed. Neither does the theory eliminate the possibility that some additional mechanism could cause the tunneling barrier to be asymmetric and hence tunneling currents to be a function of polarity in such a sandwich. Thus these tunneling-currents measurements are not germane to the question of whether the Mott mechanism is the true method of growth of aluminum oxide films. In fact, it is not surprising that there should be a difference between the oxide properties at the two interfaces (with resulting asymmetry in the tunneling barrier) since the growth conditions and growth rates must have been quite different at these two positions. S. R. Pollack and C. E. Morris (authors' reply)— The point raised by Miles above is one has caused some confusion in the past. The following is an attempt to clarify this point. The built-in field which is responsible for the growth of the thermal oxide at low temperatures arises, according to Mott, because of the passage of electrons from the Fermi surface of the oxidizing metal to surface states introduced by the adsorbed oxygen. It is assumed that the energy of these surface states lies below the Fermi energy of the metal. Electrons therefore continue to flow from the metal to the surface until the built-in electric field raises the potential energy of the surface states to the value of the Fermi energy in the metal, at which time equilibrium is obtained between the surface states and the metal. That is in equilibrium as many excess electrons pass from the metal to the surface per unit time as vice versa. The surface of the oxide prior to deposition of a metallic counterelectrode can then be pictured as follows. The Fermi energy lies in the energy gap of the oxide and is essentially pinned at the energy of the oxygen surface states. The vacuum work function of the oxide is then given by the sum of the electron affinity of the oxide (i.e., the difference in energy between the vacuum and the conduction-band minimum) plus the energy difference between the conduction-band minimum and the Fermi energy. The deposition of a metal onto the surface of the oxide can result in a transfer of electrons across the extremely thin oxide only if there is a contact potential difference between the deposited metal and the parent metal or oxide. That is if the vacuum work function of the deposited metal differs from that of the parent metal, then charge can be redistributed across the oxide in order to equilibriate the Fermi energy across the structure. (It should be