Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T22:45:13.101Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pb Electrodeposition in the Presence of Chlorine Ions on Cu(100): An in Situ Optical Reflectivity Difference Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

J. Gray ,
W. Schwarzacher  and
X.D. Zhu
J. Gray
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, U.S.A.
W. Schwarzacher
Affiliation:
H.H. Wills Physics Laboratory, Tyndall Avenue Bristol BS8 1TL, U.K.
X.D. Zhu
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, U.S.A.
Get access

Abstract

We studied the initial stages of the electrodeposition of Pb in the presence of chlorine ions on Cu(100), using an oblique-incidence optical reflectivity difference (OIRD) technique. The OI-RD results reveal that immediately following the underpotential deposition (UPD) of the first Pb monolayer, two different types of bulk-phase films grow depending upon the magnitude of overpotential and cyclic voltammetry (CV) scan rate. At low overpotentials and/or slow scan rates, we propose that a bulk-phase Pb film grows on top of the UPD monolayer. At high overpotentials and/or fast scan rates, either a PbO, PbCl2, or a rough Pb bulk-phase layer grows on top of the UPD layer such that the reflectivity difference signal from such a film has an opposite sign.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 781: Symposium Z – Mechanisms in Electrochemical Deposition and Corrosion , 2003 , Z4.10
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2003

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

1. Muller, R. H., and Farmer, J.C., Surface Science 135, 521 (1983).Google Scholar
2. Morin, S., Lachenwitzer, A., Magnussen, O.M., and Behm, R.J., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 5066 (1999).Google Scholar
3. Palomar-Pardave, M., Miranda-Hernandez, M., Gonzalez, I., Bitina, N., Surface Science 399, 80 (1998).Google Scholar
4. Andrieu, S., d'Avitaya, F. F. Arnaud, and Pfister, J.C., Surface Science 238, 53 (1990).Google Scholar
5. Voigtlander, B., Weber, T., Smilauer, P., and Wolf, D. E., Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2164 (1997).Google Scholar
6. Brisard, G. M., Entissar, Z., Gasteiger, H.A., Markovic, N. M., Ross, P.N. Jr., langmuir 13, 2390 (1997).Google Scholar
7. Moffat, T. P., J. Phys. Chem. B 102, 10020 (1998).Google Scholar
8. Shima, M., Salamanca-Riba, L.G., McMichael, R.D., and Moffat, T.P., Journal of the Electrochemical Society 148, C518 (2001).Google Scholar
9. Wong, A. and Zhu, X.D., Appl. Phys. A. 63, 1 (1996).Google Scholar
10. Gray, J., Thomas, P., and Zhu, X.D., Review of Scientific Instruments 72, 3714 (2001).Google Scholar
11. Stickney, J. L., Ehlers, C.B. and Gregory, B.W., langmuir 4, 1368 (1988).Google Scholar
12. Kruger, J., Journal of the Electrochemical Society 108, 503 (1961).Google Scholar