GaSb(001) Surface Reconstructions Measured at the Growth Front by Surface X-ray Diffraction
Surface x-ray diffraction was employed, in situ, to measure the GaSb(001)-(1 × 5) and (1 × 3) surface phases under technologically relevant growth conditions. We measured a large set of fractional-order in-plane diffraction peaks arising from the superstructure of the surface reconstruction. From the data we calculated two-dimensional (2D) Patterson functions, the peaks of which represent inter-atomic distances weighted by the number of electrons in the individual atoms. For the (1 × 3) phase we obtained good agreement between our data and the β(4 × 3) model proposed in recent experimental and theoretical work. Our measurements on the Sb-rich (1× 5) phase provide evidence that the structure under growth conditions is, in fact, different from that of the models previously suggested on the basis of scanning tunneling microscopy (STM). We discuss reasons for this discrepancy as well as the identified structural elements for these reconstructions, which include surface relaxations and subsurface rearrangement.
Key words
GaSb(001) surface molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) x-ray diffractionPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFG 296). We would like to thank Bernd Jenichen and Vladimir Kaganer for helpful discussions, and B.P.T would like to thank the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation for its support. The synchrotron radiation experiments were performed at SPring-8 with the approval of the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) and the Japan Synchrotron Radiation Research Institute (JASRI) as Nanotechnology Support Project of the Ministry␣of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (Proposal No. 2006A1600).
References
- 1.A.S. Bracker, M.J. Yang, B.R. Bennett, J.C. Culbertson, and W.J. Moore. J. Cryst, Growth 220, 384 (2000). doi: 10.1016/S0022-0248(00)00871-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.L.J. Whitman, P.M. Thibado, S.C. Erwin, B.R. Bennett, and B.V. Shanabrook, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 693 (1997). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.693 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.J. Houze, S. Kim, S.-G. Kim, S.C. Erwin, and L.J. Whitman, Phys. Rev. B 76, 205303 (2007). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.76.205303 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.M.D. Pashley, Phys. Rev. B 40, 10481 (1989). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.40.10481 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.W. Barvosa-Carter, A.S.Bracker, J.C. Culbertson, B.Z.Nosho, B.V. Shanabrook, L.J. Whitman, H. Kim, N.A. Modine, and E. Kaxiras. Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4649 (2000). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.4649 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.M.T. Sieger, T. Miller, and T.C. Chiang, Phys. Rev. B 52, 8256 (1995). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.52.8256 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.K. Chuasiripattana and G.P. Srivastava, Surf. Sci. 600, 3803 (2006). doi: 10.1016/j.susc.2005.12.074 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.M.C. Righi, R. Magri, and C.M. Bertoni, Phys. Rev. B 71, 075323 (2005). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.71.075323 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.M. Takahasi, Y. Yoneda, H. Inoue, N. Yamamoto, and J. Mizuki, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 41, 6247 (2002). doi: 10.1143/JJAP.41.6247 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.B.P. Tinkham, W. Braun, V.M. Kaganer, D.K. Satapathy, B. Jenichen, and K.H. Ploog, Surf. Sci. 601, 814 (2007). doi: 10.1016/j.susc.2006.11.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.E. Vlieg, J. Appl. Cryst. 31, 198 (1998). doi: 10.1107/S0021889897009990 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.M. Takahasi, Y. Yoneda, N. Yamamoto, and J. Mizuki, Phys. Rev. B 68, 085321 (2003). doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.68.085321 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.I.K. Robinson, and D.J. Tweet, Rep. Prog. Phys. 55, 599 (1992). doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/55/5/002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.H.X. Gao and L.M. Peng, Acta Crystallogr. A 55, 926 (1999). doi: 10.1107/S0108767399005176 CrossRefGoogle Scholar