phys. stat. sol. (a) 191, No.

1, 77–88 (2002)

Effects of Hg Evaporation in Numerical Simulation

of Laser Induced Changes in Hg1–xCdxTe
M. Jevtić1) and M. Sˇćepanović

Institute of Physics, Pregrevica 118, Belgrade, Yugoslavia

(Received August 1, 2001; in revised form November 26, 2001;

accepted December 14, 2001)

Subject classification: 61.80.Ba; 64.70.Dv; 64.75.+g; 68.35.Fx; S8.13

Results obtained using a numerical model for laser induced effects in Hg1––xCdxTe including Hg
concentration change and heat flow feedback calculation are presented. Distribution of tempera-
ture, phase states and composition in the surface layers during and after the laser irradiation of
Hg1––xCdxTe were calculated taking into account the effects of heat removal from the sample sur-
face by evaporating Hg atoms. These results are in accordance with the experimentally observed
polycrystallization of near surface layers of Hg1––xCdxTe induced by laser irradiation in air.

1. Introduction
Laser melting of semiconductors has been shown to be a powerful tool to induce a
variety of surface modifications through two effects: the dramatic increase of diffusion
coefficients of impurities and defects in the liquid phase with respect to the solid phase,
and the out-of-equilibrium segregation at the rapidly moving liquid–solid interface at
the recrystallization stage. Because of the complexity of the process and evolution of
the semiconductor substrate during the laser pulse, a quantitative description of experi-
ments can only be achieved through their numerical simulation [1]. Powerful pulsed
laser irradiation of a semiconductor compound containing a volatile component besides
melting causes intense surface evaporation which may result in compositional changes
of the near-surface region [2].
Full interpretation of the experimental results [2] of the nanosecond pulsed laser
induced effects on the HgCdTe surface requires a dynamic model which takes into
account both thermal and compositional changes. The high volatility of Hg is a major
problem in any annealing work on HgCdTe. In reported experimental conditions, the
problem is increased because out-diffusion of Hg occurs under very short thermal
pulses and this is a not well known process. The modeling of compositional profiles
during laser irradiation is then extremely difficult. Consequently, the application of heat
flow calculations to estimate the temperature profiles and the thickness of the molten
layer is not straightforward. Both compositional and thermal gradients should be taken
into account. Further difficulties come from the lack of data on the dependence of
optical and thermodynamic parameters on the temperature and composition in the high
temperature range as well as for liquid HgCdTe.
In our earlier works [3, 4] we reported the results of calculations of Hg concentration
changes in Hg1––xCdxTe irradiated by nanosecond laser pulses, starting from tempera-
ture distribution and melt depth under certain irradiation conditions [5]. The feedback
from the change in Hg concentration and heat flow was neglected. However, it is clear

1
) Corresponding author; e-mail: mjevt@phy.bg.ac.yu

# WILEY-VCH Verlag Berlin GmbH, 13086 Berlin, 2002 0031-8965/02/19105-0077 $ 17.50þ.50/0

78 M. Jevtić and M. Sˇćepanović: Effects of Hg Evaporation in Numerical Simulation

that this feedback really exists. In our opinion it can be introduced in the calculations
through two main effects: (i) influence of the change in Hg concentration, i.e. change in
the composition of individual layers, on the change in thermal and optical parameters of
these layers; and (ii) heat flow from the sample surface due to evaporation of Hg atoms.
Note that the evaporation effects on laser induced solid–liquid phase transition in
HgCdTe were investigated in Ref. [6]. However, there were only carried out results of
numerical calculation of thermal fields in HgCdTe under pulsed laser irradiation. These
results demonstrated the possibility of solidification starting from the surface due to the
evaporation of the most volatile component (Hg) without calculation of the changes in
composition and state of the surface layers. In the present paper the results of numer-
ical calculations of the Hg concentration change and the width of the surface layer that
becomes polycrystalline after the laser irradiation of Hg1––xCdxTe have been presented
and are discussed in detail.

2. Influence of the Hg Concentration Change on the Thermal

and Optical Parameters of Hg1–xCdxTe
The change in Hg concentration in Hg1––xCdxTe reflects primarily in the change in com-
position x, which determines all physical characteristics of the material. We analyzed
the effects of a single Nd:YAG laser pulse, tuned to the second harmonic (wavelength
of 0.53 mm) with an 8 ns duration and energy density of 143 mJ/cm2, on Hg0.8Cd0.2Te.
The experimental results for the depth distribution of Hg concentration after laser irra-
diation of Hg1––xCdxTe under the same condition are given in [2].
The results for the depth distribution of Hg concentration in Hg1––xCdxTe at the se-
lected moments during and after pulsed laser irradiation, obtained using our earlier
numerical model [3, 4], are presented in Fig. 1. As evident, the change in Hg concentra-

1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7 C(X,t)
0.6
0.5
46
37 0.4
28
0.3
19
Depth 10 296
248
200
[5 nm ] 1 152
104
56 Tim e [ns]
8

Fig. 1 (online colour). Calculated dependences of Hg concentration C(X, t) on depth X in assigned

moments during and after irradiation by a Nd : YAG laser pulse
phys. stat. sol. (a) 191, No. 1 (2002) 79

tion at the surface before the melting caused by laser irradiation is negligible. The
greatest decrease in Hg concentration occurs in the first surface layers of the melted
material which is a consequence of intense mercury evaporation at very high tempera-
ture. This leads to an increase in melt composition from its initial value x0 ¼ 0.2 to at
most x
0.6. After irradiation by laser pulses the material begins to cool. This causes
solidification of the melted layers. As a consequence of the segregation process, how-
ever, the Hg concentration at the moment of solidification does not differ much from
its initial value. Hence, the difference between the composition at this moment and in
the beginning is at most about 0.12 at a depth between 10 and 20 nm. Note that this
change in the composition is most important since the composition at the moment of
solidification determines the parameters, such as temperature and latent heat of solidifi-
cation and segregation coefficient, which control the solidification process. The Hg con-
centration in the solidified material varies little as a consequence of diffusion and out-
diffusion processes. So, under these conditions the maximum final composition of the
solid material is x
0.48, at a depth of about 20 nm.
Let us examine now how the mentioned change in composition affects the thermal
and optical parameters of Hg1––xCdxTe. As the change in composition of the solid mate-
rial before melting is very small we take into account only dependences of thermal and
optical parameters on temperature and initial composition. After melting, a great
change in thermal and optical parameters occurs primarily due to the phase transition
[5]. Besides, the behavior of Hg1––xCdxTe at temperatures above the solidus is deter-
mined in the first place by chemical changes and formation of a large number of de-
fects [7, 8]. Therefore, we suppose that the composition dependence of thermal and
optical parameters of the melted material with respect to the dependence of these
parameters on phase and defect states can be neglected in the first approximation. On
the basis of available experimental data [7–10] we also conclude that the temperature
dependence of the thermal parameters in solidified Hg1––xCdxTe is much more impor-
tant than their composition dependence. For example, the heat capacity cp for x ¼ 0.2
varies from about 0.17 to 0.36 J/gK when the temperature rises from 25 to 685  C [7],
whereas the change in cp value at 25  C is only about 0.01 J/gK for the composition
variation from 0.2 to 0.43 [9].
The composition dependence of the thermodynamic parameters, which determine the
solidification process remain to be considered. Table 1 sums up the values of tempera-
tures of solidification (solidus) Ts and liquidation (liquidus) Tl, latent heat of solidifica-
tion DHc, and equilibrium segregation coefficient ke of Hg1––xCdxTe for the initial com-
position x0 ¼ 0.2, and the highest value of composition at the moment of solidification
x ¼ 0.32 (according to Fig. 1).
Taking the data given in Table 1 it is possible to determine the dependence of tem-
perature T on enthalpy H near the phase transition for two assigned compositions.
These dependences are shown in Fig. 2. They were obtained with the assumption that
the first order phase transition occurs at the temperature Ts [7]. This means that during
the melting the whole absorbed energy wears out on the enthalpy increase (i.e. tem-
perature remains constant) until the enthalpy reaches a value (points B0 and C in
Fig. 2) that is equal to the sum of enthalpy when melting starts (points B and C0 ) and
its increment DHc . As a consequence, the plateaus BB0 and C0 C are present in Fig. 2.
Melting of the layers (whose composition is very close to the initial one) goes along the
full line AD0. On the contrary, the solidification will exhibit a different curve, if the
80 M. Jevtić and M. Sˇćepanović: Effects of Hg Evaporation in Numerical Simulation

Ta b l e 1
Thermodynamical parameters of Hg1––xCdxTe for two compositions x

x 0.2 0.32 ref.

Ts ( C) 707 728 [11]

Tl ( C) 780 840 [11]
ke 2.717 2.161 [12]
DHc (J/g) 130.88 142.66 [13]

undercooling is neglected. For the layers whose composition does not differ much from
the initial one, transition to the solid state is to go along the full line, starting at the
liquidus Tl ¼ 780  C (point D) and finishing at the solidus Ts ¼ 707  C (point B). For
the layers whose composition at the moment of solidification is near x ¼ 0.32, solidifica-
tion is to follow the D0 CC0A0 line, starting at about 840  C (point D0 ), and finishing at
about 728  C (point C0 ). Note that the difference in the enthalpies corresponding to the
points B and C0 , whose values are taken into calculation as criteria for the melt to solid
state transition is of the order of 10 J/g.
The trend in the enthalpy dependence on temperature for different compositions
shown in Fig. 2 is similar to that in the state diagram for amorphous and crystalline
silicon in the vicinity of the phase transition [14]. Hence, it could be introduced in the
calculation in a similar way. Unfortunately, due to a continuous dependence of solidifi-
cation temperature and latent heat on composition, the state diagram for Hg1––xCdxTe
should be presented by several curves. Besides, there are no sufficient data for the
dynamics of Hg1––xCdxTe solidification under nonequilibrium conditions (dynamics of
crystal growth and undercooling degree depends on the kinetics of the solid–liquid
interface) [15]. Therefore, in the first approximation, we did not include in our model
the composition dependence of temperature and latent heat of solidification, consider-
ing (on the basis of the T(H) dependence for two extreme values of composition shown

Fig. 2. Assumed dependences of temperature on enthalpy in the vicinity to the solid–liquid phase
transition of Hg1––xCdxTe for compositions x0 ¼ 0.2 (solid line) and x ¼ 0.32 (dashed line)
phys. stat. sol. (a) 191, No. 1 (2002) 81

in Fig. 2) that it does not introduce a great error in the final temperature distribution.
Quite contrary, the dependence of the segregation coefficient on composition directly
influences the composition of the solidified material. Namely, the segregation appears
during the solidification of melted Hg1––xCdxTe as a consequence of separation of soli-
dus and liquidus for this quasibinary solid solution. Based on the relation for the
equilibrium segregation coefficient ke in Hg1––xCdxTe the relation between the equili-
brium segregation coefficient k0Hg of Hg in mercury–cadmium–telluride and the compo-
sition z of melted material can be introduced as [4]
z
1
1  x k 0:21
k0Hg ¼ ¼ e
¼ ; ð1Þ
1z 1z 0:21 þ 0:79z
where x is the composition of solidified material. According to this relation, k0Hg varies
from 0.57 to 0.454 for two extreme compositions at the moment of solidification
(Fig. 1). As at this moment the segregation coefficient directly determines the Hg con-
centration, we assume that its composition dependence must not be neglected, and so it
is included in the calculations.

3. Influence of the Heat Flow through the Sample Surface Due to

Evaporation of Hg Atoms on the Heat Transport in Hg1—xCdxTe
The surface cooling, caused by the fact that the leaving Hg atoms carry away the corre-
sponding latent heat of evaporation, can be so intensive to lead to the solidification of
the melted surface layers. These layers can become polycrystalline because they have
no contact with the oriented crystal substrate at the moment of solidification [6].
Taking into account the heat flows through the surface requires formulation of a new
boundary condition [6]
@T


K
¼ Q ; ð2Þ
@X X¼0
where K is the thermal conductivity, T is the temperature, X is the distance from the
surface in the direction of laser radiation, whereas Q is the heat flux through the sur-
face, due to latent heat of evaporation carried by Hg atoms. According to the usual
numerical procedure [16] this boundary condition is introduced in the numerical calcu-
lation by a finite-difference equation for the surface cell
H1nþ1  H1n K1 þ K2 2Q
r ¼2 ðT2n  T1n Þ  þ Sn1 ; ð3Þ
Dt ðDXÞ2 DX

where r is the mass density, S is a term corresponding to the heat generation by laser
radiation, Dt and DX are the chosen elementary steps of time and space in the numerical
scheme, respectively. H1n and H1nþ1 are the enthalpies of the first surface cell in n-th and
(n þ 1)-st moment, respectively. Note that the effective thermal conductivity for heat con-
duction between the first and second cell is given as an average of the conductivity in the
two cells [14]. Also, it should be noted that the last relation relative to the analogous
relation in Ref. [14] has a term originating from the heat loss due to the evaporation. The
heat flux Q depends on the mercury flux jHg through the surface as follows [6]:
Q ¼ LHg jHg ; ð4Þ
82 M. Jevtić and M. Sˇćepanović: Effects of Hg Evaporation in Numerical Simulation

where LHg is the specific heat of the mercury evaporation, which is taken to be equal
to that of pure mercury LHg ¼ 295 J/g [6]. It is required to determine jHg and its depen-
dence of temperature and Hg concentration at the surface of Hg1––xCdxTe under certain
irradiation conditions. There are two approaches to solve this problem.
According to the first approach, proposed in Ref. [6] the mass flux of atoms j(T) is
related to the surface temperature T and the component vapor pressure p(T) by the
Hertz-Knudsen formula [17]
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
M
jðTÞ ¼ pðTÞ ; ð5Þ
2pkB T
where M is the atomic mass, and kB is the Boltzmann constant. As the vapor pressure
of mercury in Hg1––xCdxTe is two orders of magnitude higher than those of the other
components, fluxes of Cd and Te through the surface can be neglected. Then, the rela-
tion for the heat flux (4) becomes valid, as the energy losses on dissociation were also
neglected. However, the mercury vapor pressure over Hg1––xCdxTe differs from the
vapor pressure p0Hg ðTÞ over pure material, and the so-called mercury activity coefficient
gHg must be taken into account as [18]
pHg ðTÞ=p0Hg ðTÞ
gHg ðTÞ ¼ ; ð6Þ
xHg
where xHg = 1 –– x is the molar part of Hg in Hg1––xCdxTe. The Hg vapor pressure over
pure mercury is [18]
p0Hg ðTÞ ¼ 7:84  104 exp ð0:62=kB TÞ ; ð7Þ

where kBT is expressed in eV. A considerably high value for the mercury activity coeffi-
cient in Hg0.8Cd0.2Te gHg = 0.345 is assumed in Ref. [6]. The vapor pressure over the
irradiated surface is also assumed to be pHg ¼ 0.53p0Hg , when the mercury atoms evapo-
rate into vacuum. Taking into account that 18% of the vaporized Hg atoms are coming
back, the final relation for the flow of removed atoms becomes [6]
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
I 0 M
jHg ðTÞ ¼ 0:435pHg ðTÞ : ð8Þ
2pkB T
The mentioned model has, however, several serious faults. It does not take into ac-
count possible formation of an undercooled liquid or influence of composition variations
I
on the termodynamical and optical characteristics. Also, the fact that jHg ðTÞ is deter-
mined for x ¼ 0.2 and depends on temperature T only introduces a significant error,
I
especially over the liquidus, so the values of jHg ðTÞ are unrealistically high. To determine
I
jHg ðTÞ we therefore introduce the temperature dependence of the partial Hg pressure
pHg(T) over Te-saturated Hg1––xCdxTe in relation (8). As the surface composition of the
melted material, at the highest Hg evaporation, varies between 0.5 and 0.6 for pHg(T) we
choose the following temperature dependences of the mercury partial pressure [19]:
log pHg ¼ 5:9721  5515:6=T ; for T < 700 K ðwhen x ¼ 0:54Þ ð9aÞ
and [20]
log pHg ¼ 6:88  6214:58=T ; for 700 K < T < 1100 K ðwhen x ¼ 0:6Þ :
ð9bÞ
phys. stat. sol. (a) 191, No. 1 (2002) 83

The second approach introduces mercury evaporation in the model for the calcula-
tion of the Hg concentration change in laser irradiated Hg1––xCdxTe [4] by the boundary
condition [21]


II @ CðX; tÞ


jHg ðT; tÞ ¼ hðTÞ Cð0; tÞ ¼ D ; ð10Þ
@ X
X¼0
II
where D is the diffusion coefficient of mercury and jHg ðT; tÞ is the flux density of
mercury through the sample surface. h(T) is the surface transfer rate constant of mer-
cury, usually assigned as the surface penetration velocity of Hg atoms. The temperature
dependence of h(T) can be expressed by the equation of the usual form for the Hg loss
rate [22]
 
B
hðTÞ ¼ A exp  ; ð11Þ
kB T
where kB is the Boltzmann constant, B is an exponential factor determined by interpo-
lation of the experimental data for h(T) given in the temperature range 300–400  C
[21], and A is the pre-exponential that depends on material temperature and state. It
should be noted that the wide divergence of the experimental data reported for h(T) is
the consequence of a strong dependence of the surface transfer rate h(T) on the sur-
face preparation or accelerated loss through defects [21]. Also, substantial differences
exist between diffusion in Hg1––xCdxTe materials at low temperatures and diffusion at
temperatures higher than T0, where T0 ¼ 500–600  C [23]. Therefore it is assumed that
the low-temperature value of A determined by interpolation of the experimental data
for h(T) given in Ref. [21] and assigned as A0, should be multiplied by a factor z0 > 1 at
temperatures higher than T0 [3, 4]. It is also known [24] that diffusion constants in
melted semiconductors can be 3–5 orders of magnitude greater than in solid materials.
Hence, it is assumed that out-diffusion in Hg1––xCdxTe additionally increases because of
melting. So the multiplication factors zm > 10 and zl > 10 for mixed and liquid state are
introduced in the expression for h(T). In such a way the pre-exponential factor be-
comes A ¼ z0A0 for the solid state (at temperatures above T0), A ¼ z0zmA0 for the
mixed state and A ¼ z0zlA0 for the liquid state. In this study the multiplication con-
I
stants were determined in accordance with the required mutual similarity of jHg ðTÞ and
II
jHg ðT; tÞ and their values are z0 ¼ 10, zm ¼ 100 and zl ¼ 150.
According to Eqs. (10) and (11), the mercury flux through the surface is a function
not only of temperature but also of surface concentration. It is assumed that the sample
is held in open space during irradiation and that mercury evaporates from the surface
without any disturbances. This means that the removal of mercury atoms is so dynamic
that it enables the local vapor pressure of mercury on the outer sample surface to
become approximately equal to zero. However this is only partially right and some
authors [6, 25] take into account subsequent condensation of mercury atoms at the
cooled material surface. Note that the mentioned effect would certainly have had a
greater influence if the process proceeded in closed space.
Using our model for numerical simulation of the heat flow in irradiated Hg1––xCdxTe
[3–5] together with the boundary condition (2), we obtained results for the tempera-
ture and time dependences of the mercury mass flux through the surface of
Hg0.8Cd0.2Te irradiated by an Nd:YAG laser pulse with a duration of 8 ns and an en-
ergy density of 143 mJ/cm2.
84 M. Jevtić and M. Sˇćepanović: Effects of Hg Evaporation in Numerical Simulation

Fig. 3. Temperature dependence of the flux of mercury atoms

II
The temperature and time dependences of jHg ðT; tÞ are shown by solid lines in Figs.
I
3 and 4, respectively. The results for jHg ðTÞ, obtained by Eq. (5) and relations (9a) and
(9b) for the partial pressure are shown by dashed lines in the same figures. The dotted
I
line in Fig. 3 presents the results for jHg ðTÞ obtained by using data from Ref. [6], i.e.
equations (2)–(8), and shows that the flux calculated in such a way increases rapidly
already at temperatures T > 500  C. As evident from Fig. 3, jHg II
ðT; tÞ does not depend
unambiguously on temperature, since it depends on the surface Hg concentration
C(0, t) as well. The mercury flux through the surface, as a multiplication of the surface
transfer rate constant h(T) and surface concentration C(0, t), is greater during the heat-
ing than during the subsequent cooling. Namely, C(0, t) decreases with time due to
II
continuous evaporation. It is also seen from Fig. 4 that jHg ðT; tÞ differs a little from
I
jHg ðTÞ (whose time dependence is indirect via temperature) during the sample heating
to about 1000  C, as it was a criterion for the choice of mercury outdiffusion param-

Fig. 4. Time dependence of the flux of mercury atoms

phys. stat. sol. (a) 191, No. 1 (2002) 85

Fig. 5. Time dependence of the surface temperature T(0, t) for neglected (dashed line) and in-
cluded (solid line) heat loss from the sample surface. The enlarged part of this graphic in the
vicinity of the maximum of the surface temperature is shown in the inset

II I
eters. However, the difference between jHg ðT; tÞ and jHg ðTÞ increases during further
heating and especially during the subsequent sample cooling due to the drastic decrease
of the Hg surface concentration C(0, t).
The total mass loss of mercury Mevp per area is calculated as [6]
ðth
Mevp ¼ jHg ðtÞ dt ; ð12Þ
0

Fig. 6. Calculated depth distribution of Hg concentration C(X) after irradiation by a laser pulse
with assign characteristics for neglected (dashed line) and included (solid line) heat loss from
the sample surface. Experimental results [2] are labeled by triangles D. The inset shows the
shape of the Hg depth distribution obtained by calculations comprising the Hg evaporation ac-
cording Ref. [6]
86 M. Jevtić and M. Sˇćepanović: Effects of Hg Evaporation in Numerical Simulation

Fig. 7. Depth distribution of cell states in time for a) included and b) neglected heat loss due to
Hg outdiffusion. C labels the solid state of the crystal cell, P: polycrystal, M: mixed state, and L:
liquid state

where th is the duration of sample cooling to the temperature where jHg(t) becomes
sufficiently small. According to this relation, the total mass loss of mercury for the
I I
jHg ðTÞ dependence (shown in Fig. 4 by the dashed line) is Mevp ¼ 21.0189 mg/cm2,
II
whereas that for the jHg ðT; tÞ dependence (shown in Fig. 4 by the solid line) is
II
Mevp ¼ 9.9234 mg/cm2. Note that the values of Mevp are equal to the area below the
I II
corresponding curves jHg ðTÞ and jHg ðT; tÞ.
Figure 5 shows how the application of the model which takes into account the heat
release from the surface reflects in the calculation of the surface temperature. As ex-
pected, the maximum surface temperature Tmax ¼ 1065  C obtained by taking into ac-
count the heat losses due to evaporation is lower than Tmax ¼ 1072  C obtained by the
model which neglects the heat losses. Note that the difference between the surface
temperature values calculated in these two ways increases with process duration to
about 13  C after 500 ns.
The influence of the heat loss from the surface due to mercury evaporation on the
final depth distribution of Hg concentration is illustrated in Fig. 6. Earlier results [4]
obtained neglecting the heat loss from the surface are presented by a dashed line. It is
obvious from Fig. 6 that the laser induced changes in Hg concentration are somewhat
phys. stat. sol. (a) 191, No. 1 (2002) 87

smaller when the heat loss from the surface is included in their calculation. It results
from the lower surface temperature and earlier solidification of the surface layer. Also,
it can be seen from Fig. 6 that the calculated results both with included and ne-
glected heat loss from the surface are within the experimental error [2], except for
the first 6 nm. The excess Hg concentration in this region is a consequence of the
subsequent mercury condensation at the sample surface and it is not comprised by
the numerical model. On the contrary, the shape of the Hg depth distribution shown
in the inset of Fig. 6, obtained by calculations comprising the Hg evaporation accord-
ing Ref. [6], is completely different from the above mentioned one. Namely, the
evaporation under such conditions is so strong that the first layer becomes comple-
tely Hg depleted.
Figures 7a and b present the time distribution of the states of elementary (in nu-
merical sense) cells with a dimension DX ¼ 5 nm, obtained in the case of a) included
and b) neglected heat loss from the surface. Material cooling and solidification are
faster due to the released heat from the surface, as could be expected. This is espe-
cially evident with the first surface layer which solidifies after 130 ns in the case a,
and after 170 ns in the case b. Besides, if the cooling originates not only from the
cold substrate but from the surface as well, it may happen that the surface layers
solidify before deeper ones. Therefore the structure of the surface layers that during
the solidification are not in contact with the oriented crystal substrate can become
polycrystalline. This has just happened with the first surface layer under the assigned
condition, as can be seen in Fig. 7a. This important result points out the fact that an
adequate choice of the irradiation condition must be taken into consideration when
one wants to avoid polycrystallization of the surface layer. Note, that the application
of the data proposed in Ref. [6] has as a result polycrystallization of the first eight
elementary cells because of a very high Hg outdiffusion. This means that the surface
layer of a thickness of 40 nm becomes polycrystalline and this is a much higher value
than that obtained using our data.

4. Conclusion
Laser induced changes in temperature, states and composition of the surface layers of
Hg1––xCdxTe calculated by a numerical model including release of the heat from the
sample surface due to Hg are presented. Comparison of these results with those ob-
tained earlier using a model which neglects the heat flow through the surface shows
that the maximum temperatures obtained by the new model are lower by about 8  C
and that the cooling of the sample is somewhat faster, as it originates from the sample
surface too. The calculated changes in Hg concentration are in a good agreement with
the experimental data for the depth distribution of the Hg concentration under the
same irradiation conditions, except at the sample surface, where excess of Hg is the
consequence of a subsequent condensation of mercury (that was not included in the
numerical model). The most important results, however, refer to the final structure of
the surface layers. The new model allows appearance of polycrystalline surface layers
due to the fact that these layers solidify without being in contact with the oriented
crystal substrate. This is in accordance with the experimentally found high degree of
disorder and defectiveness of the near surface layer of Hg1––xCdxTe caused by laser
irradiation in air.
88 M. Jevtić and M. Sˇćepanović: Effects of Hg Evaporation in Numerical Simulation

Acknowledgement The authors are grateful to the reviewers for their helpful sugges-
tions and for contributing to the improvement of the revised version of the article.

References
[1] B. Dragnea, J. Boulmer, J-P. Budin, D. Debarre, and B. Bourguignon, Phys. Rev. B 55, 13904
(1997).
[2] C. N. Afonso, M. Alonso, J. L. H. Neira, A. D. Sequeira, M. F. da Silva, and J. C. Soares, J.
Vac. Sci. Technol. A 7, 3256 (1989).
[3] M. Sˇćepanović and M. Jevtić, phys. stat. sol. (a) 143, 289 (1994).
[4] M. Sˇćepanović and M. Jevtić, phys. stat. sol. (a) 147, 379 (1995).
[5] M. M. Jevtić and M. J. Sˇćepanović, Appl. Phys. A 53, 332 (1991).
[6] L. A. Golovan, B. A. Markov, P. K. Kashkarov, and V. Yu. Timoshenko, Solid State Com-
mun. 108, 707 (1998).
[7] K. R. Mendibaev, V. N. Vigdorovich, A. M. Sokolov, and E. Sadi’kov, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR,
Neorg. Mater. 21, 344 (1985).
[8] W. M. Higgins, G. N. Pultz, R. G. Roy, R. A. Lancaster, and J. L. Schmit, J. Vac. Sci. Technol.
A 7, 271 (1989).
[9] L. R. Holland, and R. E. Taylor, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 1, 1615 (1983).
[10] Ching-Hua Su, J. Cryst. Growth 78, 51 (1986).
[11] Tse Tung, Ching-Hua Su, Pok-Kai, and R. F. Brebrick, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 21, 117 (1982).
[12] J. C. Brice, P. Capper, and C. L. Jones, J. Cryst. Growth 75, 395 (1986).
[13] Li Chi and Huang Xingliang, Infrared Phys. 29, 261 (1989).
[14] R. F. Wood and G. A. Giles, Phys. Rev. B 34, 2606 (1986).
[15] L. Biao, J. Chu, and D. Tang, J. Cryst. Growth 171, 311 (1997).
[16] S. Selberherr, Analysis and Simulation of Semiconductor Devices, Springer-Verlag, New York
1984.
[17] L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Statisticheskaya Fizika, Nauka, Moskva 1964.
[18] H. R. Vydyanath, J. Appl. Phys. 59, 958 (1986).
[19] K-T. Chen and H. Wiedemeier, J. Electron. Mater. 24, 405 (1995).
[20] C-H. Su, P-K. Liao, and R. F. Brebrick, J. Electrochem. Soc. 132, 942 (1985).
[21] W. G. Opyd, K. C. Dimiduk, T. W. Sigmon, and J. F. Gibbons, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 3, 276
(1985).
[22] K. C. Dimiduk, W. G. Opyd, J. F. Gibbons, T. W. Sigmon, T. J. Magee, and R. D. Ormond, J.
Vac. Sci. Technol. A 1, 1661 (1983).
[23] Yu L. Khait, Semicond. Sci. Technol. 6, C84 (1991).
[24] R. F. Wood, J. R. Kirkpatrick, and G. E. Giles, Phys. Rev. B 23, 5555 (1981).
[25] P. V. Goloshihin, K. E. Mirnov, and A. Ya. Polyakov, Poverkhn., Fiz. Khim. Mekh. 12, 12
(1991).