Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T04:44:17.844Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Epitaxial Relationships in Esd Processes on Oxide Surfaces

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2011

M.R. Mccartney  and
David J. Smith
M.R. Mccartney
Affiliation:
Department of Physics and Center for Solid State ScienceArizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287
David J. Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Physics and Center for Solid State ScienceArizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287
Get access

Abstract

During intense electron irradiation inside the electron microscope, the electron—stimulated desorption of oxygen from the surfaces of several maximally—valent transition—metal oxides (TiO2, V2O5, Nb2 O5 and WO3) has been observed [1]. The irradiatedsurfaces become covered with a crystalline layer of the corresponding monoxide phase. These reduced phases, which are all based on cubic structures and have metallic conductivity, grow with a well— defined epitaxial relationship with the bulk oxide. Computer—drawn models of the crystal structures have been used to study the atomic arrangements implied by the epitaxial relationship, and certain structural features were found to be common to the oxides studied.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 129: Symposium B – Laser and Particle-Beam Modification of Chemical Processes on Surfaces , 1988 , 509
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Smith, D.J., McCartney, M.R. and Bursill, L.A., Ultramicroscopy 23, 299 (1987).Google Scholar
2. Hobbs, L.W., in Quantitative Electron Microscopy, edited by Chapman, J.N. and Craven, A.J. (Scottish Universities Summer Schools in Physics, Edinburgh, 1984).Google Scholar
3. Lin, T.T. and Lichtman, D., J. Appl. Phys., 50, 1298 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Berger, S.D., Macaulay, J.M. and Brown, L.M., Phil. Mag. Letts., 56, 179 (1987).Google Scholar
5. Knotek, M.L. and Feibelman, P.J., Surface Sci., 90, 78 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. McCartney, M.R. and Smith, D.J., submitted.Google Scholar
7. McCartney, M.R., in Proc. 46th Ann. Meet. EMSA, edited by Bailey, G.W. (San Francisco Press, San Francisco, 1988) p. 684.Google Scholar
8. Simons, P.Y. and Dachelle, F., Acta Cryst., 23, 334 (1967).Google Scholar
9. Buckett, M.I., Strane, J., Luzzi, D.E., Zhang, J.P., Wassels, B.W. and Marks, L.D., Ultramicroscopy, in press.Google Scholar
10. Smith, D.J., Glaisher, R.W., Lu, P. and McCartney, M.R., Ultramicroscopy, in press.Google Scholar