Abstract
On the basis of a kinetic growth model we discuss new methods to grow atomically flat homoepitaxial layers in a controlled way. The underlying principle of these methods is to change the growth parameters during growth of an atomic layer in such a way that nucleation on top of a growing layer is suppressed, and thus, layer-by-layer growth is achieved. Experimentally, this can be realized by changing the substrate temperature or deposition rate during monolayer growth in a well-defined way. The same can be achieved at constant temperature and deposition rate by simultaneous ion bombardment during the early stages of growth of a monolayer, or by adding suitable surfactants to the system. Model experiments on Ag(111) and on Cu(111) using thermal energy atom scattering and scanning tunneling microscopy demonstrate the success of these methods.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
G. Ehrlich, F.G. Hudda: J. Chem. Phys.44, 1039 (1966).
R. Kunkel, B. Poelsema, L.K. Verheij, G. Comsa: Phys. Rev. Lett.65, 733 (1990)
B. Poelsema, R. Kunkel, N. Nagel, A.F. Becker, G. Rosenfeld, L.K. Verheij, G. Comsa: Appl. Phys. A53, 369 (1991)
J. Tersoff, A.W. Denier van der Gon, R.M. Tromp: Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 266
G. Rosenfeld, B. Poelsema, G. Comsa: Unpublished
The best way of growing atomically smooth layers is, of course, to raise the substrate temperature to such a value that adatoms are fast enough to reach the pre-existing steps before they can accumulate and nucleate on the terraces in between the steps at all. This growth mode is called step flow and isnot limited by the step-edge barrier, because no step crossing is required: Step flow is obtained if all atoms landing on a terrace attach to theAscending steps bordering the terrace. We will not discuss this growth mode further in this paper because it is in many respects desirable to achieve smooth growth on substrates as ideal as possible (i.e., with very low step densities), for which step. flow would require high temperatures
R.L. Schwoebel, E.J. Shipsey: J. Appl. Phys.37, 3682 (1966)
M. Bott, T. Michely, G. Comsa: Surf. Sci.272, 161 (1992)
M. Villarba, H. Jonsson: Phys. Rev. B49, 2208 (1994) M. Villarba, H. Jonsson. Surf. Sci.317, 15 (1994)
J. Jacobsen, K.W. Jacobsen, P. Stoltze, J.K. Nørskov: Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 2295 (1995)
S. Esch, M. Hohage, T. Michely, G. Comsa: Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 518 (1994).
G. Rosenfeld, B. Poelsema, G. Comsa: J. Cryst. Growth151, 230 (1995)
B. Poelsema, G. Comsa:Scattering of Thermal Energy Atoms, Springer Tracts Mod. Phys., Vol. 115 (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg 1989)
K.H. Besocke: Surf. Sci.181, 145 (1987)
Y. Suzuki, H. Kikuchi, N. Koshizuka: Jpn. J. Appl. Phys.27, L1175 (1988)
K. Meinel, M. Klaua, H. Bethge: J. Cryst. Growth89, 477 (1988) K. Meinel, M. Klaua, H. Bethge: Phys. Stat. Sol.110, 189 (1988)
H.A. van der Vegt, H.M. van Pinxteren, M. Lohmeier, E. Vlieg, J.M.C. Thornton: Phys. Rev. Lett.68, 3335 (1992)
G. Rosenfeld: Manipulation von Wachstumsmodi in der Homoepitaxie am Beispiel einer Ag(111)-Fläche. Dissertation, Forschungszentraum Jülich (1994)
G. Rosenfeld, R. Servaty, C. Teichert, B. Poelsema, G. Comsa: Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 895 (1993)
For a three-level system and an ideal instrument, the coverage of the first layer close to monolayer completion is:\(\theta _1 = {{(1 + 2\theta + \sqrt {{I \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {I {I_0 }}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {I_0 }}} )} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{(1 + 2\theta + \sqrt {{I \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {I {I_0 }}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} {I_0 }}} )} 4}} \right. \kern-\nulldelimiterspace} 4}\)
Note that a similar direct evaluation of absolute intensities at ML coverage is not possible for the cases of no or little island density enhancement. First, there is no unique connection between the absolute anti-phase intensity and the layer distribution except for special cases like growth close to ideal 2D growth as manifested by the high quality oscillation of, e.g., Fig. 1d [18]. Second, the limited transfer width of the instrument affects the measured intensity for large structures, increasing the intensity above its ideal value. Its influence is therefore different for the different experiments of Fig. 1, being strongest for the conventional case which has the largest structures
M. Henzler, T. Schmidt, E.Z. Luo: In:The Structure of Surfaces IV, ed. by X. D. Xie, S.Y. Tong, M.A. van Hove (World Scientific, Singapore 1994), p. 619
P.C. Dastoor, J. Ellis, A. Reichmuth, H. Bullman, B. Holst, W. Allison: Surf. Rev. Lett.1, 509 (1994)
W. Wulfhekel, N.N. Lipkin, J. Kliewer, G. Rosenfeld, L.C, Jorritsma, B. Poelsema, G. Comsa: Surf. Sci. (submitted)
K. Morgenstern, G. Rosenfeld, B. Poelsema, G. Comsa: Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 2058 (1995)
B. Poelsema, A.F. Becker, G. Rosenfeld, R. Kunkel, N. Nagel, L.K. Verheij, G. Comsa: Surf. Sci.272, 269 (1992)
From Venables' theory,n ∞ Ri/(i+2), wherei is the size of the critical nucleus J.A. Venables, G.D.T. Spiller, M. Hanbücken: Rep. Prog. Phys.47, 399 (1984) ForT=100 K we assumei=1, forT=150, 200 and 260 K,i=2 (see Appendix)
From Tersoff's theory for a high barrier and compact islands,θ c ∞ (n 1/n 2)5/7 where we have assumed the critical cluster to be a dimer (see Appendix)
V.A. Markov, O.P. Pchelgakov, L.V. Sokolov, S.I. Stenin, S. Stoyanov: Surf. Sci.250, 229 (1991)
A.K. Swan, J.F. Wendelken: Paper presented at the 41st Nat'l Symp. of the AVS, Denver (1994)
J.J. de Miguel, A. Sanchez, A. Cebollada, J.M. Gallego, J. Feron, S. Ferrer: Surf. Sci.189/190, 1062 (1987)
H.J. Ernst, F. Fabre, J. Lapujoulade: Surf. Sci.275, L682 (1992)
T. Michely, G. Comsa: Phys. Rev. B44, 8411 (1991)
T. Michely, C. Teichert: Phys. Rev. B50, 11156 (1994)
S. Esch, T. Michely, G. Comsa: Verhandl. DPG (VI)30, O 37.37 (1995)
Landolt-Börnstein New Series III/25 (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg 1991) pp. 203, 231
S.E. Donelly: Vacuum28, 163 (1978)
P.A. Redhead, J.P. Hobson, E.V. Kornelsen:The Physical Basis of Ultrahigh Vacuum (Chapman & Hall, London 1968) p. 187
J.A. Meyer, R.J. Behm: Phys. Rev. Lett.73, 364 (1994)
G. Rosenfeld, B. Poelsema, G. Comsa: Phys. Rev. Lett.73, 365 (1994)
We note that the film morphology we observe here differs from the one shown by Vrijmoeth et al. under similar conditions [J. Vrijmoeth et al.: Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 3842 (1994)] If we correct for the different deposition rates the island density we measure is larger by a factor of 4–5 compared to the scan shown by Vrijmoeth et al. at a coverage of 0.6. Also the coverage at which nucleation on top of islands is observed is different: ≈ 0.4 ML in our case vs ≈ 0.55 ML as obtained by Vrijmoeth et al. The difference might be due to different evaporators used (in the evaporator used in our STM experiments, a small fraction of the Ag atoms is ionized), different crystal qualities (i.e., initial step separations: in our experiments greater than 10 000Å) or to different substrate temperatures (a higher temperature in the experiments by Vrijmoeth et al.). In any case, the island density we observe perfectly reproduces the island density in the earlier experiments by Meinel et al. Ref. [16].
K.L. Chopra:Thin Film Phenomena (McGraw-Hill, New York 1969) p. 230
E. Bauer, H. Poppa: Thin Solid Films12, 167 (1972)
R. Kern, G. LeLay, J.J. Metois: InCurrent Topics in Materials Science, Vol. 3, ed. by E. Kaldis (North-Holland, Amsterdam 1979) p. 382
Gaigher, N.G. van der Berg, J.B. Malherbe: Thin Solid Films12, 167
W.F. Egelhoff, Jr., D.A. Steigerwald: J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A,7, 2167 (1989)
M. Copel, M.C. Reuter, E. Kaxiras, R.M. Tromp: Phys. Rev. Lett.63, 632
K. Fujita, S. Fukatso, H. Yaguchi, Y. Shiraki, R. Ito: Jpn. J. Appl. Phys.29 L1981 (1990)
R.M. Tromp, M.C. Reuter: Phys. Rev. Lett.68, 984 (1992)
D.J. Eaglesham, F.C. Unterwald, D.C. Jacobson: Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 933 (1993)
M. Horn-von Hoegen: Appl. Phys. A59, 503 (1994)
B. Voigtländer, A. Zinner: Surf. Sci.292, L775 (1993)
S. Oppo, V. Fiorentini, M. Scheffler: Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 2437 (1993)
J. Vrijmoeth, H.A. van der Vegt, J.A. Meyer, E. Vlieg, R.J. Behm: Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 3842 (1994)
V. Fiorentini, S. Oppo, M. Scheffler: Appl. Phys. A60, 399 (1995)
A.F. Becker: Die ersten Stadien des Schichtwachstums von Pt auf Pt(111) sowie Ag auf Pt(111) untersucht mittels der Streuung thermischer Heliumatome. Dissertation, Forschungszentrum Jülich (1994)
T. Michely, M. Hohage, S. Esch, G. Comsa: Phys. Rev. Lett (submitted)
B. Poelsema, A.F. Becker, G. Rosenfeld, R. Kunkel, L.K. Verheij, G. Comsa: Unpublished
M. Bott, M. Hohage, T. Micnely, G. Comsa: Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 1489 (1993)
J.E. Greene, S.A. Barnett, J.-E. Sundgren, A. Rockett: In:Ion Beam Assisted Film Growth, ed. by T. Itoh (Elsevier, Amsterdam 1989) p. 101
J.K. Hirvonen: Mater. Sci. Rep.6, 215 (1991)
D.B. Chrisey, G.K. Hubler (eds.).Pulsed Laser Deposion of Thin Films (Wiley, New York 1994)
J.A. Venables, G.D.T. Spiller, M. Hanbücken: Rep. Prog. Phys.47, 399 (1984)
E.Z. Luo, J. Wollschläger, F. Wegner, M. Henzler: Appl. Phys. A60, 19 (1995)
W.K. Rilling, C.M. Gilmore, T.D. Andreadis, J.A. Sprague: Cdn J. Phys.68, 1035 (1990)
C.L. Liu, J.M. Cohen, J.B. Adams, A.F. Voter: Surf. Sci.253, 334 (1991)
R.C. Nelson, T.L. Einstein, S.V. Khare, P.J. Rous: Surf. Sci.295, 462 (1993)
P. Stoltze: J. Phys. Condens. Matter6, 9495 (1994)