Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T02:04:15.737Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

In-Situ Observation of Oxide Monolayer Formation on Copper Solid-Liquid Interfaces

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2011

John R. Lagraff
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry and Materials Research Laboratory, The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801
Brandon J. Cruickshank
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry and Materials Research Laboratory, The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801
Andrew A. Gewirth
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry and Materials Research Laboratory, The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801
Get access

Abstract

It is extremely important to characterize the various bare copper surfaces in situ before any subsequent corrosion or deposition chemistry can be understood. In this paper, in situ Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) was used to image the low-index faces of Cu single crystals in H2SO4 and HClO4 acidic solutions. Cu(100) surfaces exhibited potential-dependent c(2x2) adlayers in pH=1 solutions which were attributed to oxide (or hydroxide) overlayers. Images of Cu(1 10) obtained in pH 2.5-2.7 solutions revealed the growth of primarily [001] oriented (nxl) adlayer chain structures, where n is an integer. Preliminary measurements on Cu(111) did not reveal any adlayer structures between pH's of 1-3. The oxide monolayers on Cu(100) and Cu(110) crystals were observed in the thermodynamically forbidden region of the pH-potential phase diagram, which indicates that stable oxide adlayers develop prior to bulk oxide formation.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1994

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] Magnussen, O.M. et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 2929 (1990); X. Gao, A. Hamelin and M.J. Weaver, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 618 (1991); S. Manne et al., Science 251, 183 (1991).Google Scholar
[2] Muller, U. et al. , Phys. Rev. B, 46, 12899 (1992).Google Scholar
[3] Siegenthaler, H. and Juttner, K., J. Electroanal. Chem. 163, 327 (1984).Google Scholar
[4] Vilche, J.R. and Juttner, K., Electrochem. Acta 32, 1567 (1987).Google Scholar
[5] Bradley, R.A. et al. , J. Electroanal. Chem. 309, 319 (1991).Google Scholar
[6] Coulman, D.J. et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 1761 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7] Chua, F.M., Kuk, Y. and Silverman, P.J., Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 386 (1989); F. Jensen et al., Phys. Rev. B 41, 10233 (1990); R. Feidenhans'l et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 2027 (1990).Google Scholar
[8] Spitzer, A. and Luth, H., Surf. Sci. 120, 376 (1982).Google Scholar
[9] Pourbaix, M., Atlas of Electrochemical Equilibria in Aqueous Solutions (Pergamon Press, New York, 1966), p. 387.Google Scholar
[10] Cruickshank, B.J., Sneddon, D.D., and Gewirth, A.A., Surf. Sci. 281, L308 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11] LaGraff, J.R. and Gewirth, A.A., Phys. Rev. Lett. ( submitted, 1993)Google Scholar
[12] Digital Instruments 6780 Cortona Drive, Santa Barbara, CA 93117.Google Scholar
[13] Kolb, D.M., Advances in Electrochemistry and Electrochemical Engineering, Vol. 11, edited by Gerischer, H. Tobias, C.W. (Wiley; New York, 1978), pp 125271.Google Scholar
[14] LaGraff, J.R. and Gewirth, A.A. (unpublished).Google Scholar
[15] Besenbacher, F. and Norskov, J.K., Prog. in Surf. Sci. 44, 5 (1993).Google Scholar