Theory of semiconductor surface reconstruction

Abstract

We present a review of semiconductor surface reconstruction. Experimental and theoretical results on atomic geometry, electronic states, phonon modes, and bonding are presented for clean cleaved, clean epitaxially grown, overlayer covered, surfactant mediated epitaxially grown, and defect induced reconstructed semiconductor surfaces. Energetic aspects of reconstructions are discussed using empirical as well as first-principles theoretical approaches.

Viral capsomere structure, surface processes and growth kinetics in the crystallization of macromolecular crystals visualized by in situ atomic force microscopy

“…They have also served as mechanisms for molecular repositioning [9,10] and selective cleavage of molecular bonds [11]. They have been used to investigate reconstruction of semiconductor surfaces upon cleavage, epitaxial growth, annealing, deposition of surfactant layers, even controlled manipulation of individual atoms [12]. These kinds of investigations have not been widely applied in structural biology because of the fragile character of the materials and their liquid environments.…”

Breakdown of cation vacancies into anion vacancy-antisite complexes on III-V semiconductor surfaces

“…[1][2][3][4][5][6] In contrast to the anion vacancy, there are only a few studies of cation vacancies. In scanning tunneling microscopy ͑STM͒ images of the unoccupied states of GaAs ͑110͒ surfaces, two features interpreted as being caused by Ga vacancies have been reported: Lengel et al 7 observed a dark contrast that appears on an array consisting of about 3 ϫ 3 missing unoccupied dangling bonds, whereas Ebert and Urban 8 and Domke et al 9 observed an X-shaped dark contrast consisting of one missing unoccupied dangling bond.…”

Atomic-scale modeling of next-layer nucleation and step flow at the Ge(105) rebonded-step surface

“…Due to the high energetic cost related to dangling-bond formation, semiconductor surfaces tend to display major reconstructions, 5 where the atomic arrangement in the outermost layers strongly differs from the bulk crystal one. As a consequence, growth modeling gets particularly challenging: newly deposited atoms might not find epitaxial sites directly at the surface, and further evolution could be needed before the reconstruction can be rebuilt.…”