PPLN Λ = 6.82 µm · 1064 → 532 nm · 2 px/µm

1.6 Dopants

L1 Damage-resistant dopants

Volk & Wöhlecke 2008; Bryan et al. 1984; Furukawa et al. 2000

Most foreign ions in LiNbO3 take a lithium site, whatever their charge, because the lithium octahedron is the larger one P-comp. Iron is the famous troublemaker: it switches between Fe2+ and Fe3+, donates electrons under visible light and holds them in the dark, which writes light patterns into the refractive index (Fe doping, Chapter 04).

Magnesium does the opposite. Above about 5 mol% MgO in congruent crystal, optical damage drops by more than a hundredfold P-comp. The magnesium displaces the niobium antisites that trap charge P-comp and raises the photoconductivity a hundredfold, so light-induced fields leak away before they can grow P(abs). Zinc, indium, scandium, hafnium and zirconium act the same way, each above its own threshold P-comp.

Damage-resistance thresholds of Mg, Zn, In, Sc, Hf, ZrP-comp P(abs) template
dopant
host
2.5 mol%
MgO 2.5 mol% host CLN below all sourced (4.5-5.5)
^printed value=spread between sources<--^upper bound slider
a≥ 4.5 at.%Bryan et al. 1984 P(abs)photoconductivity ×100; Glass current unchanged
b4.6 % MgVolk & Wöhlecke 2008 p. 34 P-compdamage reduced; first report
c~5 mol%Volk & Wöhlecke 2008 p. 34 P-compin the congruent melt
d5.5 %Volk & Wöhlecke 2008 p. 38 P-comp“close to the NbLi content”
a3 %Volk & Wöhlecke 2008 p. 35 P-comp“lowered to 3%” in Li-rich melt
c> 0.78 mol%Furukawa et al. 2000 P(abs)no damage at 532 nm to 2 MW/cm2; [Li]/[Nb] 0.993
a b0.2; 0.67 mol%Volk & Wöhlecke 2008 p. 43 P-compother reports; 0.67 mol% by TSSG
d e~1 %; 1–2 %Volk & Wöhlecke 2008 p. 43 P-compother reports
b a~7 mol%Volk & Wöhlecke 2008 p. 35 P-comp6 mol% in one report
c7.5 %Volk & Wöhlecke 2008 p. 40 P-comp“the largest threshold”
a< 2 mol% oxideVolk & Wöhlecke 2008 p. 35 P-comp= 4 at.% In, in the melt
a< 2 mol% oxideVolk & Wöhlecke 2008 p. 35 P-comp= 4 at.% Sc, in the melt
a< 2 mol%Volk & Wöhlecke 2008 p. 35 P-compthreshold below this value
a< 2 mol%Volk & Wöhlecke 2008 p. 35 P-compthreshold below this value
no sourced threshold
Li sites, 400 derived
.LiLi VLi (blank)#NbLimMgLi
[Li0.95Nb0.01V0.04]NbO3 P-comp0 % state shown; no data between 0 and 3 %
OH band, congruent ([Li]/[Nb] 0.945) P-comp P(abs)
below < 4.5 % MgOabove > 4.5 % MgO
3484 cm−1
2.87 µm2.83 µm
Basis: MgO/(Li2O + MgO + Nb2O5) or MgO/(LiNbO3 + MgO); the second is about 2× the first (approximate). No exact conversion is sourced, so values sit on the axis as printed. P-compZn in crystal vs melt: ccrys = 1.649 cmelt − 0.082 cmelt2; distribution coefficient about 1 at 5–6 mol%. P-comp2 mol% In2O3 carries 4 at.% In (two cations per oxide); the value is a melt concentration. P-comp2 mol% Sc2O3 carries 4 at.% Sc (two cations per oxide); the value is a melt concentration. P-compMelt and crystal concentrations differ through the distribution coefficient: 1.2–1.3 at low concentration. P-compMelt and crystal concentrations differ through the distribution coefficient: 1.2–1.3 at low concentration. P-comp
Damage-resistance thresholdsprinted values only, no interpolationP-comp P(abs)
Dopant
Host crystal
2.5 mol%
0123456789mol% as printedabcd
34403480352035602.802.852.90µmcm−13484
no sourced site occupancy in this host
LiVLiNbLiMgLiderived
Setting
MgO 2.5 mol% host CLN
Against printed thresholds
below all sourced (4.5-5.5)
OH band P-comp
3484 cm⁻¹, below 4.5 % MgO
Li sites P-comp
[Li0.95Nb0.01V0.04]NbO3
Shown
0 % state shown; no data between 0 and 3 %
a≥ 4.5 at.%Bryan et al. 1984 P(abs)photoconductivity ×100; Glass current unchanged
b4.6 % MgVolk & Wöhlecke 2008 p. 34 P-compdamage reduced; first report
c~5 mol%Volk & Wöhlecke 2008 p. 34 P-compin the congruent melt
d5.5 %Volk & Wöhlecke 2008 p. 38 P-comp“close to the NbLi content”
a3 %Volk & Wöhlecke 2008 p. 35 P-comp“lowered to 3%” in Li-rich melt
c> 0.78 mol%Furukawa et al. 2000 P(abs)no damage at 532 nm to 2 MW/cm2; [Li]/[Nb] 0.993
a b0.2; 0.67 mol%Volk & Wöhlecke 2008 p. 43 P-compother reports; 0.67 mol% by TSSG
d e~1 %; 1–2 %Volk & Wöhlecke 2008 p. 43 P-compother reports
b a~7 mol%Volk & Wöhlecke 2008 p. 35 P-comp6 mol% in one report
c7.5 %Volk & Wöhlecke 2008 p. 40 P-comp“the largest threshold”
a< 2 mol% oxideVolk & Wöhlecke 2008 p. 35 P-comp= 4 at.% In, in the melt
a< 2 mol% oxideVolk & Wöhlecke 2008 p. 35 P-comp= 4 at.% Sc, in the melt
a< 2 mol%Volk & Wöhlecke 2008 p. 35 P-compthreshold below this value
a< 2 mol%Volk & Wöhlecke 2008 p. 35 P-compthreshold below this value
no sourced threshold

Basis: MgO/(Li2O + MgO + Nb2O5) or MgO/(LiNbO3 + MgO); the second is about 2× the first (approximate). No exact conversion is sourced, so values sit on the axis as printed. P-compZn in crystal vs melt: ccrys = 1.649 cmelt − 0.082 cmelt2; distribution coefficient about 1 at 5–6 mol%. P-comp2 mol% In2O3 carries 4 at.% In (two cations per oxide); the value is a melt concentration. P-comp2 mol% Sc2O3 carries 4 at.% Sc (two cations per oxide); the value is a melt concentration. P-compMelt and crystal concentrations differ through the distribution coefficient: 1.2–1.3 at low concentration. P-compMelt and crystal concentrations differ through the distribution coefficient: 1.2–1.3 at low concentration. P-comp

OH stretch line, 2.8–2.9 µm: infrared, false colour, dasheddiamonds: solid = read in the paper (abstract), half = via Volk & Wöhlecke 2008

Pick a dopant and a host, then move the content slider; markers are printed values on the basis each source printed. Cross 4.5 % MgO in congruent crystal and the OH band steps from 3484 to 3534 cm−1. In the one proposed site scheme the Nb antisites are already gone at 3 % MgO, below the damage threshold. Switch to near-stoichiometric and the markers fall to 0.2–2 %, with no measurable damage above 0.78 mol%.

L2 Thresholds and sites

congruent crystal unless stated

Damage-resistant dopants

DopantThresholdStatus
MgO, first reportdamage reduced at 4.6 % MgP-comp
MgO≥ 4.5 at.% MgO; photoconductivity up 100×, Glass current unchanged; activation energy 0.1 eV vs 0.5 eVP(abs)
MgOabout 5 mol% MgO in the congruent melt; 5.5 % “close to the NbLi content”P-comp
MgO, melt [Li]/[Nb] = 1.2lowered to 3 %P-comp
MgO, near-stoichiometric ([Li]/[Nb] = 0.993)> 0.78 mol%: no measurable photorefractive damage at 532 nm up to 2 MW/cm2P(abs)
MgO, near-stoichiometric (other reports)1–2 %; about 1 %; 0.67 mol% (TSSG); 0.2 mol%P-comp
ZnOabout 7 mol% (6 mol% in one report); 7.5 % “the largest threshold”P-comp
In2O3, Sc2O3below 2 mol% oxide (4 at.%) in the meltP-comp
HfO2, ZrO2below 2 mol%P-comp

Site occupancy with Mg

Li-site vacancy compensation, one proposed scheme P-comp. The 0 % formula has [Li]/[Nb] = 0.941 derived.

MgO (%)Formula
0[Li0.95 Nb0.01 V0.04] Nb O3
3.0[Li0.94 Mg0.03 V0.03] Nb O3
8.0[Li0.84 Mg0.08 V0.08] Nb O3

Threshold signatures

SignatureBelowAboveStatus
OH band, Mg ([Li]/[Nb] = 0.945)3484 cm−1 (< 4.5 % MgO)3534 cm−1 (> 4.5 % MgO)P-comp
OH band, Zn3484 cm−1 (< 7 % Zn)3506, 3535 cm−1P-comp
OH line, Mg2.87 µm2.83 µmP(abs)
Fe3+ EPR with Mg or ZnLi-site axial spectrumnew isotropic line above 5.5 % MgO or 7 % ZnO; Fe3+ on Nb sites deducedP-comp

Other effects of damage-resistant dopants

Tc and density increase, the UV edge shifts to shorter wavelength, and the noncritical phase-matching temperature rises; no new absorption appears within 0.35–4 µm P-comp. Distribution coefficient: 1.2–1.3 at low concentration, about 1 for MgO and ZnO at 5–6 mol% P-comp. Zn in the crystal vs the melt: ccrys = 1.649 cmelt − 0.082 cmelt2 P-comp.

Photorefractive and spectroscopic dopants

IonSite and statesSpectroscopyStatus
FeFe2+ and Fe3+ on Li sites (congruent); [Fe2+]/[Fe3+] = 0.1–0.2 as grown, set by oxidation-reduction annealsFe2+ to Nb5+ intervalence band at 2.6 eV (oscillator strength 10−2); Fe2+ d-d at 1.1 eV (4 × 10−4); O to Fe3+ charge transfer at 3.1 eVP-comp
Fe, near-stoichiometricpartial Fe3+ on Nb sites proposed from EPR; disputedP-comp
Fe, Cuphotovoltaic (Glass) constants 2.8 × 10−9 and 5.5 × 10−10 cm/Vsaturated photovoltaic fields 104–105 V/cmP-comp
TiTi4+ substitutes for Li (congruent); Ti3+ EPR at Li sites independent of [Li]/[Nb]; with 6 % Mg, Ti3+ mainly on Nb sitesP-comp
ErEr3+ on Li sites; site-selective spectroscopy resolves at least 11 centres in SLN:Er and 13 in CLN:Er, narrower lines in SLNlanthanides sit 30–50 pm off-centre in the Li octahedronP-comp
CrCr3+ on Li sites in low-doped congruent crystal; not photovoltaic-activeP-comp

L3 Mechanism and units

two mechanisms; concentration basis; Ti in-diffusion

Two mechanisms, both partly right. (1) Mg fills Li vacancies and replaces NbLi until the antisites are gone; the threshold scales with the antisite content and falls with Li enrichment P-comp. (2) Diffraction on Zn- and In-doped crystal shows that near and above threshold the dopant begins to occupy Nb sites; Volk & Wöhlecke 2008 calls this association of the threshold with partial Nb-site incorporation “unambiguous” P-comp. Whether antisites vanish at the threshold or at a lower “first threshold” is open; one energetic analysis finds the two-step scheme unfavourable and simultaneous substitution more likely P-comp.

Units trap. MgO content is written either as MgO/(Li2O + MgO + Nb2O5) or as MgO/(LiNbO3 + MgO); for usual concentrations the second is about twice the first P-comp. Melt and crystal concentrations also differ through the distribution coefficient (L2). No exact conversion between the two bases is given, so the threshold axes place each value on the basis its source printed.

Ti in-diffusion at 950–1020 °C inverts the polarization of a surface layer on the +c face only P(abs) P-comp; domains and their inversion: 1.8. Waveguide fabrication belongs to Chapter 05.

Sources

6 cited in 1.6
  1. Volk & Wöhlecke 2008T. Volk, M. Woehlecke, Lithium Niobate: Defects, Photorefraction and Ferroelectric Switching, Springer Series in Materials Science 115 (Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2008). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-70766-0
  2. Bryan et al. 1984D. A. Bryan, R. Gerson, H. E. Tomaschke, "Increased optical damage resistance in lithium niobate", Appl. Phys. Lett. 44, 847-849 (1984). doi:10.1063/1.94946
  3. Furukawa et al. 2000Y. Furukawa, K. Kitamura, S. Takekawa, A. Miyamoto, M. Terao, N. Suda, "Photorefraction in LiNbO3 as a function of [Li]/[Nb] and MgO concentrations", Appl. Phys. Lett. 77, 2494-2496 (2000). doi:10.1063/1.1318721
  4. Zhong et al. 1980G.-G. Zhong, J. Jin, Z.-K. Wu, conference abstract, 11th International Quantum Electronics Conference (IQEC), Washington DC, 1980-06, IEEE Cat. 80CH1561-0, p. 631; also cited as J. Opt. Soc. Am. 70, 631 (1980).
  5. Miyazawa 1979S. Miyazawa, "Ferroelectric domain inversion in Ti-diffused LiNbO3 optical waveguide", J. Appl. Phys. 50, 4599-4603 (1979). doi:10.1063/1.326568
  6. Iyi et al. 1995N. Iyi, K. Kitamura, Y. Yajima, S. Kimura, Y. Furukawa, M. Sato, "Defect structure model of MgO-doped LiNbO3", J. Solid State Chem. 118, 148-152 (1995). doi:10.1006/jssc.1995.1323