PROC.
21st INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MICROELECTRONICS (MIEL'97), NIŠ, SERBIA, 14-17 SEPTEMBER, 1997
Dispersion of Refractive Index
in Degenerate Mercury Cadmium Telluride
Zoran Jakšić, Olga Jakšić
Abstract – The work presents an approximate expression for
refractive index of mercury cadmium telluride (Hg1-xCdxTe)
applicable to both intrinsic and degenerate material. The
relation is applicable for cadmium mole fractions x=0.165-1 at
300 K and 0.165-0.54 at 77 K and electron concentrations up
to 1017cm–3. The results are compared to available experi-
mental data and to the results of calculation using Kramers-
Kronig relation. A unified expression for interband absorp-
tion coefficient based on the Kane three-band model was used
in the calculation, whilst the Urbach band-tailing and the
electron-electron interaction were also taken into account.
I. INTRODUCTION
Due to the possibility to engineer its bandgap, mercury
cadmium telluride (Hg1-xCdxTe, MCT) is today surely the
most important semiconductor material for detection in
long wavelength infrared range [1]. The dispersion of
refractive index is one of its most important properties
determining behavior of optoelectronic devices fabricated
in it. It is especially important to know the refractive index
near the fundamental absorption edge.
A number of authors handled the dispersion of refractive
index in mercury cadmium telluride single crystals [2-4].
Its value was usually determined by the interference in
transmission spectroscopy, by the multioscillator model or
using the Kramers-Kronig relation. The most exhaustive
model based on quantum mechanical approach was pro-
posed by Jensen and Torabi [4]. The authors of [3] point
out that the refractive index calculated according to [4]
decreases much quicker than observed in recent experi-
mental results, the probable reason for this being the
chosen set of calculation parameters. Therefore various
empirical relations are used today [1-3].
The most accurate expression to date for the dispersion
relation of refractive index of MCT was reported by Liu,
Chu and Tang [3]. They used the Kramers-Kronig relation
to handle their enormous body of experimental data
obtained by intrinsic absorption spectroscopy and to
furnish an empirical formula. Their expression is
applicable in the range 0.276<x<0.443 and at temperatures
from 4.2 to 300 K. At room temperature it is valid for
0.205<x<1.
To the best of the authors knowledge, none of the empi-
rical expressions on refractive index of MCT reported until
now was applicable for the case of degenerate MCT.
Authors are with IHTM – Institute of Microelectronic Techno-
logies and Single Crystals, Njegoševa 12, Belgrade University,
11000 Belgrade, Yugoslavia, fax (++381 11 182 995), e-mail
jaksa@hf01.chem.bg.ac.yu
0-7803-3664-X/97/$10.00 © 1997 IEEE
95
In this work we propose a simple empirical relationship
for refractive index dispersion in dependence on bandgap
energy, temperature, infrared radiation wavelength and car-
rier concentration. The expression is valid both in nonde-
generate and in degenerate case.
II. THEORY
There are several mechanisms determining the optical
behaviour of mercury cadmium telluride single crystals.
The whole wavelength region is usually divided into three
regions, depending on the prevailing mechanism of optical
processes [5]. The short-wavelength part corresponds to
the absorption transitions in near ultraviolet (UV); the
middle part, which is the most important for our
calculation, stems from interband transitions near the cutoff
energy (CO), while the low-frequency part, in the far
infrared region, is connected with the free-carrier
absorption (FC). It is known that the contributions to the
absorption coefficient from various mechanisms are
additive. Therefore the total absorption coefficient (αtot)
may be written as follows:
αtot=αUV+αCO+αFC (1)
The term corresponding to the short-wavelength range
(UV) is usually determined by simple extrapolation of the
absorption coefficient in the (CO) range within the
log(λ)~λ coordinate system [3, 6].
The well-known Kramers-Kronig relation [6] may be
used to furnish a dependence between the real part of the
refractive index and the absorption coefficient
∞
α (ω )
∫
c
n(ω 0 ) = 1 + dω (2)
2 ω 2 − ω 02
0
Because of the linearity of the integrand in the Kramers-
Kronig relation, the above expression can be regarded as a
sum of two independent contributions, one off them caused
by the interband transitions and comprising the terms (CO)
and (UV), while the other is the result of the free-carrier
absorption (FC),
n=ninterband+nFC (3)
Let us consider first the interband part of the refractive
coefficient. We use our modification of the empirical ex-
pression for refractive index in the interband range, which
was obtained in [3] by applying the Kramers-Kronig
relation to experimental absorption data
 A2 validity, typically about 1017 cm–3. However, as shown by
ninterband = A1 + 2 2 2 experiments, the expression is often used beyond its
1 − A3 h ω validity range [9,11] without a marked loss of the accuracy.
(4)
The second mechanism of the bandgap decrease is the
where the coefficients are Coulomb interaction between electrons and impurities in
~ degenerate semiconductor [9]
A1 = 5.37941 − 0.00343T + (6.65569 + 0.00492T )e
Eg

⎛ π 4 / 3h 2 ⎞⎛ 1 ⎞⎛ Φ ⎞ 2/3
⎟⎜ ⎟n
( ) E imp = ⎜⎜ 1 / 3 ⎟⎜
⎟⎜ m * ⎟⎜ 1 − 2 E
~ (9)
−4 −4 − Eg
A2 = 0.8915 − 8.5 ⋅ 10 T + 0.14027 + 10 T e (5) ⎟
⎝ 3 ⎠⎝ 0 ⎠⎝ g ⎠
~
A3 = −3.712 − 0.00956T + (1.8334 + 0.004463T ) E g where the third bracket takes into account the influence of
~
−Eg nonparabolicity of the conduction band for strong
+ (6.797 + 0.0115T )e
degeneracy of carriers. We calculated the term Φ/Eg by
~ applying a formalism similar to that in [9], but using the
where E g =Eg[eV]/eV and sample temperature T is in K.
Moss-Burstein bandfilling factor instead of the Fermi level.
The influence of mechanisms appearing in degenerate In this manner we avoided the introduction of an additional
semiconductor was taken into account by introducing an fitting parameter into (9) which was used in [9]. The final
effective bandgap energy in a manner which represents a expression for the nonparabolicity correction is
generalization of that described in [7]. The effective
bandgap is obtained as a sum of the fundamental bandgap Φ 4∆E MB m0*
= −1 (10)
energy Eg and the terms corresponding to the bandgap shift
due to the Moss-Burstein bandfilling, electron-electron
Eg 3π 2 ( )
2/3 2 2/3
h n
interaction and electron-impurities interaction.
In (9) and (10) m0* is the effective mass at the bottom of
The term corresponding to the Moss-Burstein bandfilling
the conduction band and may be written as [1]
was calculated according to Scacham and Finkman [2] as
the photon energy for which the intrinsic absorption * Eg + ∆
coefficient of MCT reached 500 cm-1 (the optical me = 0.7168 m0 (11)
bandgap). To this purpose we utilized our unified model of 3 + 2∆ / E g
interband absorption coefficient in mercury cadmium
telluride [8] which takes into account the nonparabolicity where we used the spin split-off energy value ∆=0.9 eV
of bands and effects of carrier degeneration, as well as the and the Kane’s matrix element P=8⋅10-10 eVm. The value
Urbach band tailing for energies below the cutoff. We m0 denotes the free-electron mass.
obtained the following approximate dependence of the It should be noted that in (8, 9) and in our model of the
Moss-Burstein bandfilling factor on cadmium molar absorption coefficient we applied the expression for the
fraction x, temperature T (in K) and electron concentration high-frequency dielectric permittivity in nondegenerate
ne (in cm–3) [7] semiconductor, as reported in [1]. It is given as ε∞=19–11x
and we used it as a fitting parameter independent on
ξ temperature and carrier concentration in order to avoid a
1− x ⎛ ⎞
∆E MB (eV ) =
ne
⎜ ⎟ , (6) self-consistent numerical procedure.
2 ⎝ 7.85 ⋅ 1018 e 0.002T ⎠
We used Hansen’s expression for bandgap energy [12]
−4 −4
ξ = 0.63x + 3.8 ⋅10 T + 0.294 , (7) E g = −0.302 + 193
. x + 5.35 ⋅ 10 T (1 − 2 x )
(12)
2 3
Injected carriers decrease the bandgap due to two main − 0.81x + 0.832 x
mechanisms. One of them is electron-electron interaction
(exchange energy). We used the following expression where T is temperature in K and x is Cd mole fraction in
[9,10] Hg1–xCdxTe. The bandgap energy is obtained in eV.
The effective bandgap is finally calculated as
⎛ e ⎞ ⎛ 3 ⎞ 1/ 3 1/ 3
∆Eel ( eV ) = ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ne . (8) E g eff = E g − ∆E MB − ∆Eel − ∆Eimp (13)
⎝ 2πε 0 ε r ⎠ ⎝ π ⎠

where the exchange energy is obtained in eV if all the
factors are given in SI units.
Strictly speaking, the above expression is applicable only
if the ratio between the mean distance between carriers and
the Bohr radius for electrons in the crystal is larger than 1,
i.e. there is an upper electron concentration limit for its
By introducing (13) instead of Eg into (4, 5) we obtain an
approximate expression for the dispersion of refractive
index due to interband transitions which takes into account
bandgap shift caused by increased carrier concentration,
i. e. valid both in nondegenerate and in degenerate case:

96
 {
ninterband = 5.379 − 0.00343T + [6.655 + 0.00492T ]e
~
− E geff The Cauchy principal value of the Kramers-Kronig inte-
gral (2) is determined according to [15]. For carrier
( )
~
+ ⎡0.8915 − 8.5 ⋅ 10 − 4 T + 0.14 + 10 − 4 T e ⎤ concentrations below 1017 cm–3 the FC absorption causes a
− E geff
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦ faster decrease of refractive index with wavelength far in
[ ( ~
× 1 − h 2ω 2 − 3.71 − 0.0095T + (1.833 + 0.00446T ) E geff (14) the longwave region, while the changes in the CO part
remain negligible. Thus we conclude that for most of the
1/ 2
−1 ⎫ MCT photonic devices the expression (14) can be regarded
⎞⎟ ⎤ ⎪
~2
− E geff
+ (6.797 + 0.0115T )e ⎥ ⎬ as a relatively valid approximation for the total refractive
⎠ ⎦ ⎪ index in the limited range near the absorption edge and for
⎭
~ moderate dopings.
where E geff is dimensionless and equal to the value of Egeff
in eV. III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The next mechanism of influence to be considered is the
free carrier absorption. The wavelength dependence of the Figure 1 shows the spectral dependence of refractive in-
absorption coefficient in the FC region may be written as dex at room temperature for different values of x in the
[13] case of nondegenerate semiconductor at room temperature.
The peaks on the left side of the diagram correspond to the
α FC = (δ v1v 2 + δ v1 )P + δ nn N (15)
energies equal to the optical bandgaps for given
where δv1v2 is the cross-section for the intervalence band compositions. The approximation (14) is compared to the
transitions between heavy and light hole band, calculated experimental data published in [3] and to the results of
Kramers-Kronig analysis presented in the same paper.
according to the Kane model. δv1 is the cross-section for
intraband hole transitions [13, 14]. P, N are hole and 4.0
electron concentrations, respectively. The term δnn
describes free-electron absorption by various scattering
mechanisms, and is equal to the sum of the cross-sections 0.165
for scattering on ionized impurities (I), polar optical 3.5
phonons (OP) and deformational potential (DEF) of the
Refractive index

0.205
0.33
acoustical and optical phonons [14]:
0.416
6
e NI 7/ 2
δI = λ (16) 3.0 0.7
4 *3 9
hε ∞ ε s m0 c

δ OP =
(
e 4ω LO χ OP ε ∞−1 − ε s−1 )λ 5/ 2
(17) 2.5
1

hε s m0*π 3 c 7 0 5 10 15 20
Wavelength, µm

e 2 m0* ⎡ Ξ u2 D 2 h 2 ⎤ 3 / 2
δ DEF = ⎢ + ⎥λ
ρ ε ∞π 3 c 5 h 5 ⎢⎣ v II ω TO ⎥⎦
where εs=20.5–15.5x+5.7x2 [16] and ε∞ (given above) are
static and high-frequency dielectric permittivity of undoped
material, NI is the concentration of the scattering ions,
ρ=8.0756-2.2571x g/cm3 [16] is MCT density at 300 K,
D=14.8 eV [14] is the constant of deformation potential for
optical phonons, Ξu=14 eV [13] is the constant of
deformation potential, vII=3000 m/s [13] is the longitudinal
sound velocity in MCT. The values of the other parameters
are taken from [14].
In the 10-25µm range the FC absorption coefficient has
the characteristic shape α∼λr, where r≈2 for p-type MCT at
300 K, and 0 for p-type at 77 K. The main mechanisms in
this case are the intervalence (light hole-heavy hole) band
transitions and intraband (heavy holes) absorption. For n-
type semiconductor r≈3, and the prevailing mechanism is
the scattering of electrons on optical phonons.
Fig. 1 The refractive index dispersion near the bandgap for dif-
(18)
ferent cadmium molar fractions x (0.165; 0.2; 0.33; 0.416;
0.7; 1) of mercury cadmium telluride at 300 K in nonde-
generate case (solid lines). Circles denote experimental data
according to [3] and triangles according to [17], both for
x=0.205 and 1. Dashed lines are the results of application of
Kramers-Kronig relation for x=0.205 and 1 [3]. The x-
marks denote our experimental values for x=0.205.
To check the validity of the expression (14) we compared
it with the results of calculation using the Kramers-Kronig
relation published in [3], with experiments in [3] and [17]
and with our own experimental results. Our samples were
grown by open tube isothermal vapor-phase epitaxy and
their transmission characteristics were measured on the
Specord IR-75 spectrophotometer in the range 2.5 to 25
µm at 293 K. The total absorption coefficient for an
epilayer was determined as the mean value through the
whole layer, i. e. the integral of α(x)dx divided it by the
total layer thickness. In our calculation of α from
transmission we took into account the multiple reflections

97
at the sample interfaces as described in [13] and used the
value R=31% for reflection coefficient of MCT for
composition x=0.205 [14]. The carrier concentration was
determined by the Hall measurement. We used two
samples 30 µm and 33 µm thick, for both of which we
obtained x=0.198 using (13). Their hole concentration was
P=1016 cm–3. The longwave part of both the absorption
characteristics had the typical λr shape, with r=2, which is
in agreement with [13]. Our values of refractive index were
slightly higher than 3.5, as shown by x marks in Fig. 1.
Thus we conclude that the use of (14) was justified for our
samples.
4.0
3.9
1013 cm–3
3.8
Refractive Index
3.7
1015 cm–3
3.6
3.5
1017 cm–3
3.4 10 cm–3
18
3.3
1019 cm–3
3.2
0 5 10 15
Wavelength, µm
Fig. 2 Influence of degeneration to the refractive index dispersion
around the bandgap for mercury cadmium telluride. T=77K,
x=0.2.
The refractive index calculated for different electron
concentrations according to (11) at T=77K and for x=0.2 is
shown in Fig. 2. As expected, for larger degenerations the
refractive index peak moves toward shorter wavelengths,
while the decrease is faster in the whole range compared to
the undoped case.
IV. CONCLUSION
We investigated the behavior of refractive index in
mercury cadmium telluride taking into account the effects
of increased doping. We proposed an approximation taking
into account the effects of temperature, composition and
carrier concentration influence. The relation is applicable
for cadmium mole fractions x=0.165-1 at 300 K and 0.165-
0.54 at 77 K and electron concentrations up to 1017cm–3.
We compared the approximation with experimental and
theoretical values.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank Prof. Z. Djuric for stimulating
discussions and Dr. Z. Djinovic for doped HgCdTe
samples.
REFERENCES
[1] J. Piotrowski, W. Galus, M. Grudzien, “Near Room-Tempe-
rature Infrared Photo-Detectors”, Infrared Phys. 31, 1, pp.
1-48, 1991
[2] S. E. Schacham and E. Finkman, “Recombination Mecha-
nisms in p-type HgCdTe: Freezout and Background Flux
Effects”, J. Appl. Phys. 57 (6), pp. 2001-2009, 1985.
[3] K. Liu, J. Chu, D. Tang, “Composition and Temperature
Dependence of the Refractive Index in Hg1-XCdXTe”, J.
Appl. Phys. 75, 8, pp. 4176-4179, 1994
[4] B. Jensen, A. Torabi, “Linear and Nonlinear Intensity
Dependent Refractive Index of Hg1-xCdxTe”, J. Appl. Phys.
54, 10, pp. 5945-5949, 1983
[5] C. Tanguy, “Temperature Dependence of the Refractive
Index of Direct Band Gap Semiconductors near the
Absorption Threshold: Application to GaAs”, J. Appl. Phys
80, 8, pp. 4626-4631, 1996
[6] V. V. Sobolev, S. A. Alekseeva, V. I. Doneckih, Calculation
of Optical Functions of Semiconductors According to the
Krammers-Kronig Relations (in Russian), Shtiinca, Kishi-
nev, Moldavia, 1976
[7] Z. Jakšić, O. Jakšić, “Simple Approximation for Absorption
Coefficient in Degenerate Mercury Cadmium Telluride",
IEEE Proc. 20th International Conference on Microelec-
tronics MIEL 95, Vol 1, Niš, Serbia, pp. 117-120, 1995
20 [8] Z. Djurić, Z. Jakšić, Z. Djinović, M. Matić, Ž. Lazić, “So-
me Theoretical and Technological Aspects of Uncooled
HgCdTe Detectors: A Review”, Microelectronics Journal
25, 2, pp. 99-114, 1994
[9] D. Hahn, O. Jaschinski, H. H. Wehmann, A. Schlachetzki,
M. von Ortenberg, “Electron-Concentration Dependence of
Absorption and Refraction in n-In0.53Ga0.47As Near the
Band-Edge”, J. Electronic Materials, 24, 10, pp. 1357-1361,
1995
[10] J. Camassel, D. Auvergne, H. Mathieu, “Temperature De-
pendence of the Band Gap and Comparison with the
threshold Frequency of Pure GaAs Lasers”, J. Appl. Phys.
46, 6, pp. 2683-2689, 1975
[11] M. Bugajski, W. Lewandowski, “Concentration-Dependent
Absorption and Photoluminescence of n-type InP”, J. Appl.
Phys. 57, 2, pp. 521-530, 1985
[12] G. Hansen, J. Schmit, T. Casselman, “Energy Gap Versus
Alloy Composition and Temperature in HgCdTe”, J. Appl.
Phys. 53, 10, pp. 7099-7101, 1982
[13] B. Li, J. Chu, Z. Chen, Y. Chang, H. Ji, D. Tang, "Free-
Carrier Absorption of Hg1-xCdxTe Epitaxial Films", J. Appl.
Phys. 79, 10, pp. 7738-7742, 1996
[14] P. Baranskii, O. Gorodnichii, N. Shevchenko, "IR Optical
Absorption and Reflection Spectra in Narrow Gap Semicon-
ductors", Infrared Phys. 30, 3, pp. 259-263, 1990
[15] L. Schoenfeld, “On Integrals of the Type ∫f(x)log|x+1|/|x-1|
dx”, SIAM Review, 1, pp. 154-157, 1959
[16] A. Rogalski, J. Piotrowski, “Intrinsic Infrared Detectors”,
Prog. Quant. Electr. 2, 12, pp. 87-289, 1988
[17] E. Finkman, S. Schacham, "The Exponential Optical Ab-
sorption Band Tail of Hg1-xCdxTe", J. Appl. Phys. 56, 10,
pp. 2896-2900, 1984
98