Yb, Eu, and (Yb+Eu)-stabilized 3×1 and 3×2 reconstructions on Si(111)

Kuzmin, M.; Vaara, R.-L.; Laukkanen, P.; Perälä, R.E.; Väyrynen, I. J.

doi:10.1016/s0039-6028(03)00697-6

Cited by 27 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Together with the strong ϫ3 spots, ϫ2 streaks are clearly observed in the ͓112͔ direction. This observation agrees well with the STM studies, 11,12 in which ϫ2 modulations were observed along the Eu chains in empty state images. Similar ϫ2 streaks were reported in the former LEED studies on a Ca/ Si͑111͒-͑3 ϫ 2͒ surface at 300 K. [17][18][19][20] In the LEED pattern of the Eu/ Si͑111͒-͑2 ϫ 1͒ surface ͓Fig.…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 93%

“…[7][8][9][10][11][12] Of these REM's, Eu has been reported to form a quasi-1D ͑3 ϫ 2͒ reconstruction at a coverage of 1 / 6 ML, and a series of 1D ͓͑n ϫ 1͒ ; n = 5, 7, and 9͔ reconstructions at higher coverages culminating in a ͑2 ϫ 1͒ phase at 0.5 ML. [10][11][12] The lowest coverage ͑3 ϫ 2͒ phase has been proposed to have the same geometric structure as that of alkaline-earth metal ͑AEM͒ induced Si͑111͒-͑3 ϫ 2͒ surfaces ͑Refs. 13-20͒, i.e., the structure is described by the honeycomb-chain-channel ͑HCC͒ model ͑Refs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1͑a͔͒. 11,12 Regarding the geometric structure of the highest coverage ͑2 ϫ 1͒ phase, it has been proposed to be the same as that of the Ca/ Si͑111͒-͑2 ϫ 1͒ surface ͑Refs. 16,19, and 24-26͒, i.e., the Seiwatz structure ͑Ref.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Surface electronic structures of the Eu-induced Si(111)-(3×2)and -(2×1)reconstructions

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The electronic structures of the Eu/ Si͑111͒-͑3 ϫ 2͒ and ͑2 ϫ 1͒ surfaces have been investigated by angleresolved photoelectron spectroscopy. On the ͑3 ϫ 2͒ surface, we identify six surface states in the gap and a pocket of the bulk band projection. Among the five surface states observed in the bulk band gap, the dispersions of three of them agree well with those of the surface states of monovalent atom adsorbed Si͑111͒-͑3 ϫ 1͒ surfaces. The dispersions of the two other surface states observed in the band gap agree well with those observed on the Ca/ Si͑111͒-͑3 ϫ 2͒ surface, which has basically the same structure as that of monovalent atom adsorbed Si͑111͒-͑3 ϫ 1͒ surfaces. Taking these results into account, we conclude that the five surface states observed in the band gap originate from the orbitals of Si atoms that form a honeycomb-chain-channel structure. In the case of the ͑2 ϫ 1͒ surface, two semiconducting states are observed in the bulk band gap. The difference in binding energy of these two states at the ⌫ point agrees well with that of the surface states obtained theoretically for a clean Si͑111͒-͑2 ϫ 1͒ surface with a Seiwatz structure, and the dispersion of the upper state shows good agreement with the corresponding theoretical surface state. These observations indicate that the two surface states in the band gap originate from Si atoms that form a Seiwatz chain. The present results support the structures of the Eu/ Si͑111͒-͑3 ϫ 2͒ and ͑2 ϫ 1͒ surfaces proposed in the literature.

show abstract

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Surface electronic structures of the Eu-induced Si(111)-(3×2)and -(2×1)reconstructions

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[7][8][9][10][11] The Ca/ Si͑111͒ surface has been reported to form quasi-1D and 1D reconstructions that are quite similar to those formed by Eu. [12][13][14] Of these reconstructions, the atomic structure of the lowest-coverage ͑3 ϫ 2͒ phase has been proposed to be basically the same as that of the honeycomb-chain-channel ͑HCC͒ model [15][16][17] for both the Eu-and Ca-induced phases ͓Fig.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface electronic structures of the Eu- and Ca-induced so-calledSi(111)−(5×1)reconstructions

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We have investigated the electronic structures of the so-called Eu-and Ca-induced Si͑111͒-͑5 ϫ 1͒ surfaces by using angle-resolved photoelectron spectroscopy ͑ARPES͒ and low-energy electron diffraction ͑LEED͒. The LEED patterns of these surfaces indicate that the periodicities of both surfaces are actually ͑5 ϫ 4͒. In the ARPES study, seven surface states were observed on each ͑5 ϫ 4͒ reconstruction. Of these surface states, the dispersions of five of them show good agreement with those of the Eu-and Ca-induced ͑3 ϫ 2͒ honeycombchain-channel ͑HCC͒ surfaces and the dispersions of the two other states agree well with those of the Eu-and Ca-induced ͑2 ϫ 1͒ Seiwatz surfaces along the ͓110͔ direction-i.e., the direction parallel to the adsorbate chain. Taking the dispersion behavior of these surface states into account, we conclude that the interaction between the nearest-neighbor HCC chain and Seiwatz chain is quite small and that the electronic structure of one chain hardly affects the electronic structure of its neighboring chain. We also discuss the atomic structure of the Eu-and Ca-induced Si͑111͒-͑5 ϫ 1͒ reconstructions based on their electronic structures.

show abstract

“…This kind of Si(111)-(3×1) surface has been reported to be formed by various adsorbates, e.g., alkali metals (AM's), alkaline-earth metals (AEM's), rare-earth metals (Eu, Sm and Yb), and Ag with a coverage of either 1/3 monolayer (ML) or 1/6 ML. Although some of the adsorbates actually show different diffraction patterns (Ag shows a (6×1) pattern [3][4][5][6], and Ca [7,8], Eu and Yb [9,10] show a (3×2) pattern) all reconstructed surfaces are widely believed to have a quite similar structure based on the similarity of the low-energy electron diffraction (LEED) I-V curves [11,12], scanning-tunnelingmicroscopy (STM) images [13][14][15][16][17], and surface core-level shift measurements [3,8,[17][18][19][20]. That is, the basic structures of all these surfaces follow the honeycomb-chainchannel (HCC) model [21][22][23], which was originally proposed for 1/3 ML monovalent atom induced Si(111)-(3×1) reconstructions, and the difference in diffraction pattern is proposed to originate from the different adsorption sites of the metal atoms.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structural investigation of the Ca/Si(111)-(3*2) surface using photoelectron diffraction

Suzuki

Sakamoto

Abukawa

et al. 2006

e-J. Surf. Sci. Nanotechnol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The atomic structure of the Ca induced Si(111)-(3×2) surface at 300 K has been investigated using X-ray photoelectron diffraction (XPD). After confirming the quality of the single-domain (3×2) surface by LEED, in which weak ×2 streaks were observed likewise the patterns reported in the literature, we have measured the Ca 2p core-level spectra within an azimuthal angle range of ±66• , where 0 • corresponds to the direction perpendicular to the Ca chain, and at takeoff angles from 9• to 15 • using the Mg Kα line. The experimental XPD patterns showed good agreement with the simulated XPD patterns of the T4 site model, while the simulated XPD patterns of the H3 model do not agree with the experimental results. Taking these results into account, we conclude that Ca atoms are adsorbed on the T4 site at 300 K and thus that the weak ×2 streaks do not result from the presence of two adsorption sites as proposed in the literature.

show abstract

Yb, Eu, and (Yb+Eu)-stabilized 3×1 and 3×2 reconstructions on Si(111)

Cited by 27 publications

References 46 publications

Surface electronic structures of the Eu-induced Si(111)-(3×2)and -(2×1)reconstructions

Surface electronic structures of the Eu-induced Si(111)-(3×2)and -(2×1)reconstructions

Surface electronic structures of the Eu- and Ca-induced so-calledSi(111)−(5×1)reconstructions

Structural investigation of the Ca/Si(111)-(3*2) surface using photoelectron diffraction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About