Structural Origin of Magnetotransport Properties in APCVD Deposited Single and Bi-Layer Tin Oxide Thin Films

Transparent conducting oxides (TCO) with high electrical conductivity and at the same time high transparency in the visible spectrum are an important class of materials widely used in many devices requiring a transparent contact such as light-emitting diodes, solar cells and display screens. Since the improvement of electrical conductivity usually leads to degradation of optical transparency, a fine-tuning sample preparation process and a better understanding of the correlation between structural and transport properties is necessary for optimizing the properties of TCO for use in such devices. Here we report a structural and magnetotransport study of tin oxide (SnO2), a well-known and commonly used TCO, prepared by a simple and relatively cheap Atmospheric Pressure Chemical Vapour Deposition (APCVD) method in the form of thin films deposited on soda-lime glass substrates. The thin films were deposited at two different temperatures (which were previously found to be close to optimum for our setup), 590 °C and 610 °C, and with (doped) or without (undoped) the addition of fluorine dopants. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and Grazing Incidence X-ray Diffraction (GIXRD) revealed the presence of inhomogeneity in the samples, on a bigger scale in form of grains (80–200 nm), and on a smaller scale in form of crystallites (10–25 nm). Charge carrier density and mobility extracted from DC resistivity and Hall effect measurements were in the ranges 1–3 × 1020 cm−3 and 10–20 cm2/Vs, which are typical values for SnO2 films, and show a negligible temperature dependence from room temperature down to -269 °C. Such behaviour is ascribed to grain boundary scattering, with the interior of the grains degenerately doped (i.e., the Fermi level is situated well above the conduction band minimum) and with negligible electrostatic barriers at the grain boundaries (due to high dopant concentration). The observed difference for factor 2 in mobility among the thin-film SnO2 samples most likely arises due to the difference in the preferred orientation of crystallites (texture coefficient).