Simulation study on nanocluster growth deposited on a substrate

Enomoto, Yoshihisa; Sawa, Masataka

doi:10.1016/j.physa.2003.09.001

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The formation of QDs in lattice-mismatched heteroepitaxial growth is frequently interpreted as an adatom aggregation process on a growth surface [81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92], which is very similar to the well-known physical scenario for epitaxial growth of 2D islands in the submonolayer stage in homoepitaxial growth. In the conventional description of homoepitaxial growth in the submonolayer regime, the growth process of 2D epitaxial islands is divided into three distinct regimes: nucleation, steady growth, and coalescence; this is very similar to the kinetic theory of first-order phase transformations.…”

Section: Physical Scenario In the Submonolayer Regime Of Homoepitaxiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-assembly of InAs quantum dots on GaAs(001) by molecular beam epitaxy

Jin

2015

Front. Phys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Currently, the nature of self-assembly of three-dimensional epitaxial islands or quantum dots (QDs) in a lattice-mismatched heteroepitaxial growth system, such as InAs/GaAs(001) and Ge/Si(001) as fabricated by molecular beam epitaxy (MBE), is still puzzling. The purpose of this article is to discuss how the self-assembly of InAs QDs in MBE InAs/GaAs(001) should be properly understood in atomic scale. First, the conventional kinetic theories that have traditionally been used to interpret QD self-assembly in heteroepitaxial growth with a significant lattice mismatch are reviewed briefly by examining the literature of the past two decades. Second, based on their own experimental data, the authors point out that InAs QD self-assembly can proceed in distinctly different kinetic ways depending on the growth conditions and so cannot be framed within a universal kinetic theory, and, furthermore, that the process may be transient, or the time required for a QD to grow to maturity may be significantly short, which is obviously inconsistent with conventional kinetic theories. Third, the authors point out that, in all of these conventional theories, two well-established experimental observations have been overlooked: i) A large number of “floating” indium atoms are present on the growing surface in MBE InAs/GaAs(001); ii) an elastically strained InAs film on the GaAs(001) substrate should be mechanically unstable. These two well-established experimental facts may be highly relevant and should be taken into account in interpreting InAs QD formation. Finally, the authors speculate that the formation of an InAs QD is more likely to be a collective event involving a large number of both indium and arsenic atoms simultaneously or, alternatively, a morphological/structural transformation in which a single atomic InAs sheet is transformed into a three-dimensional InAs island, accompanied by the rehybridization from the sp 2-bonded to sp 3-bonded atomic configuration of both indium and arsenic elements in the heteroepitaxial growth system.

show abstract