Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
www.elsevier.com/locate/pmatsci
Oxidation electronics: bond–band–barrier
correlation and its applications§
Chang Q. Sun*
School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Block S2, Nanyang Technological University,
Singapore 639798, Singapore
Institute of Advanced Materials Physics and Faculty of Science, Tianjin University, 300072, China
Abstract
This report features the recent progress in understanding the behaviour of atoms and
valence electrons involved in the process of oxidation, and some technological development
driven by the new knowledge. It is initiated and verified that a chemical bond contracts
spontaneously at a surface associated with magnitude rise of the bond energy due to the
coordination imperfection and that an oxygen atom hybridizes its sp orbitals upon reacting
with a solid surface. The former leads to the bond order–length–strength (BOLS) correlation
for the physical aspect of a surface and a nano-solid and the latter to a bond–band–barrier
(BBB) correlation for chemical reaction. In the process of oxidation, non-bonding lone pairs,
anti-bonding dipoles and hydrogen-like bonds are involved, which add corresponding densityof-states (DOS) features to the valence band of the host. Bond forming also alters the sizes
and valencies of the involved atoms and causes a collective dislocation of these atoms, which
corrugate the morphology or the potential barrier of the surface. Based on the above premises, the oxidation of the low-index surfaces of transition metals Cu, Co, Ag and V, noble
metals Rh, Ru, and Pd and non-metallic diamond has been consistently analyzed. Identities
probed with various techniques, such as STM, LEED, XRD, STS, PES, TDS, EELS and
Raman, have been systematically defined in terms of atomic valencies, bond geometry,
valence DOS, bond strength and bond forming kinetics. It is understood that formation of the
basic oxide tetrahedron, and consequently, the four discrete stages of bond forming kinetics
and the oxygen-derived DOS features, are intrinsically common for all the analyzed systems
though the patterns of observations may vary from situation to situation. What differs one
oxide surface from another in observations are: (i) the site selectivity of the oxygen adsorbate,
(ii) the order of the ionic bond formation and, (iii) the orientation of the tetrahedron at the
host surfaces. The valencies of oxygen, the scale and geometrical orientation of the host lattice
and the electronegativity of the host elements determine these specific differences extrinsically.
§
Supplementary multimedia movie showing the quantified four-stage Cu3O2 bonding kinetics can be
found at doi:10.1016/S0079-6425(03)00010-0.
* Tel.: +65-6790-4517; fax: +65-6792-0415.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C.Q. Sun).
0079-6425/03/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0079-6425(03)00010-0
522
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
Extending the premise of sp-orbital hybridization to the reactions of (C, N)–Ni(001) surfaces
has led to a novel approach neutralizing the diamond–metal interfacial stress and hence
strengthening the diamond–metal adhesion substantially. The BOLS correlation has provided
consistent insight into the shape-and-size dependence of a number of properties for nanosolids. The BBB correlation has led to new findings in designing and fabricating materials for
photoluminescence, electron emission and ultrahigh elasticity, etc.
# 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Surface interface; Crystal growth; Chemisorption; Materials design; Oxygen
Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................525
1.1. Scope ......................................................................................................................525
1.2. Overview.................................................................................................................526
1.3. Challenges...............................................................................................................528
1.3.1. Bond nature and bond forming kinetics.....................................................528
1.3.2. Alteration of atomic valencies .................................................................... 529
1.3.3. Spectroscopes correspondences ..................................................................529
1.3.4. Driving forces behind reconstruction .........................................................530
1.3.5. Work function and inner potential change.................................................532
1.3.6. Factors controlling bond formation ...........................................................532
1.4. Objectives ...............................................................................................................533
2. Principle: bond–band–barrier (BBB) correlation ............................................................534
2.1. Foundations ...........................................................................................................534
2.1.1. Basic concepts.............................................................................................534
2.1.2. Bonding effects ........................................................................................... 536
2.2. Chemical bond: the basic tetrahedron .................................................................... 539
2.3. Valence density-of-state (DOS) .............................................................................. 542
2.4. Surface potential barrier (SPB) .............................................................................. 543
2.4.1. One-dimensional SPB model ...................................................................... 543
2.4.2. 3-D effect with DOS contribution ..............................................................545
2.4.3. Physical indications .................................................................................... 545
2.5. Summary ................................................................................................................546
3. STM and LEED: atomic valencies and bond geometry..................................................547
3.1. Phase ordering ........................................................................................................547
3.2. O–Cu{(001), (110), (111)}....................................................................................... 548
3.2.1. Observations............................................................................................... 548
3.2.2. Analysis ......................................................................................................556
3.2.3. Quantification: bond geometry and bonding kinetics ................................561
3.2.4. Summary ....................................................................................................568
3.3. O–(Rh, Pd)(110) .....................................................................................................570
3.3.1. Observations............................................................................................... 570
3.3.2. Analysis ......................................................................................................573
3.4. O–(Co, Ru)(1010) ...................................................................................................576
3.4.1. Observations............................................................................................... 576
3.4.2. Analysis ......................................................................................................577
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
523
3.5. O–Rh(111) and O–Ru(0001) .................................................................................. 584
3.5.1. Observations............................................................................................... 584
3.5.2. Analysis ......................................................................................................586
3.6. O–Rh(001) and (N, C)–Ni(001).............................................................................. 590
3.6.1. Observations............................................................................................... 590
3.6.2. Analysis ......................................................................................................594
3.6.3. Quantification: driving force and bond stress ............................................597
3.7. O–(Ag, V)(001) .......................................................................................................599
3.7.1. O–Ag(001) ..................................................................................................599
3.7.2. O–V(001) ....................................................................................................601
4. STS and PES: valence DOS ............................................................................................ 604
4.1. Signature generality ................................................................................................ 604
4.1.1. STS .............................................................................................................604
4.1.2. PES, IPES and XPS ................................................................................... 606
4.1.3. Indication ...................................................................................................611
4.2. Specification ...........................................................................................................611
5. TDS: bond nature and bond strength ............................................................................. 612
5.1. Identity similarity ...................................................................................................612
5.2. Specification ...........................................................................................................618
6. EELS and Raman: fingerprints of weak interaction .......................................................619
6.1. EELS: dipole vibration........................................................................................... 619
6.2. Raman: lone-pair in oxides, nitrides and bio-molecules.........................................620
6.3. Confirmation: ultra-elasticity of nitride surfaces ....................................................620
7. Kinetics of bond forming and bond switching................................................................ 622
7.1. Four-stage bond forming kinetics .......................................................................... 622
7.2. Bond switching: O-floating and O-diffusing ...........................................................624
8. Application: I. Bond contraction and charge transport ..................................................625
8.1. Introduction ...........................................................................................................625
8.2. Nano-solid: bond order–length–strength (BOLS) correlation................................626
8.2.1. Principle......................................................................................................627
8.2.2. Application: lattice strain and surface mechanics ......................................628
8.2.3. Other applications ...................................................................................... 634
8.3. Catalytic effect on band-gap expansion..................................................................636
8.3.1. Blue light emission of PZT ......................................................................... 636
8.3.2. O-induced blue-shift in PL ......................................................................... 639
8.3.3. PL of III- and IV-nitride ............................................................................ 641
8.4. Joint size and catalytic effects: PL of nanometric SiO2 ..........................................642
8.5. Work function reduction: cold cathode field emission ...........................................647
8.5.1. Current understanding ............................................................................... 647
8.5.2. Explanation ................................................................................................ 649
8.6. Magnetic enhancement ........................................................................................... 649
9. Application: II. Synthetic diamond................................................................................. 650
9.1. Thermal oxidation ..................................................................................................651
524
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
9.2. Adhesion improvement........................................................................................... 654
9.3. Dielectric relaxation and transition ........................................................................ 655
10. Summary .........................................................................................................................655
10.1. General understanding ........................................................................................... 655
10.1.1. Essential events at a surface ....................................................................... 655
10.1.2. Bond nature and bond forming kinetics.....................................................656
10.1.3. Orientation specificity of the tetrahedron...................................................657
10.1.4. Consequences of bond forming ..................................................................659
10.1.5. Driving forces behind reconstruction .........................................................660
10.1.6. Factors controlling bond formation ...........................................................661
10.2. Capability-enhancement of probing techniques .....................................................661
10.2.1. STM and STS............................................................................................. 661
10.2.2. PES, TDS, EELS and VLEED ..................................................................662
10.3. Findings in applications ......................................................................................... 663
11. Recommendations ...........................................................................................................663
Acknowledgements...............................................................................................................665
Nomenclature
Y (ML)
gi
a.u.
AES
APECS
AR
ARIPES
BA
BBB
BL
BOLS
BR
BZ
CN
CNT
CVD
DFT
DLC
DOS
DSIC
Electronegativity
Oxygen coverage (unit in Monolayer)
Surface-to-volume ratio
Atomic unit (e=m=h=1; 1 a.u.=1 Bohr radii=0.529 Å;
E=27.21 eV)
Auger electron spectroscopy
Auger photoelectron coincidence spectroscopy
Added-row
Angular-resolved inverse photoemission spectroscopy
Bond angle
Bond–band–barrier
Bond length
Bond order–length–strength
Buckled-row
Brillouin zone
Coordination number
Carbon nano-tube
Chemical vapor deposition
Density function theory
Diamond like carbon
Density of states
Deep submicron integrated circuit
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
E/LDS
EELS
EF
EMT
FWHM
GGA
H-/M-/LEIS
HREELS
ICISS
L
LDA
L
LDOS
LEISS
MR
PED
PEEM
PES
PL
PZT
Qi
RSGF
SBC
SEM
SEXAFS
SIB
SPA-LEED
SPB
STM/S
TDS
TOF
UPS
V/LEED
XPD/S
525
Electron/laser stimulated desorption spectroscopy
Electron energy loss spectroscopy
Fermi energy
Effective-medium theory
Full width at half maximum
Generalized gradient approximation
High-, medium-, and low-energy ion scattering
High-resolution electron-energy-loss spectroscopy
Impact-collision ion-scattering spectrometry
Langmuir (106 torr.sec)
Local density approximation
Local work function
Local DOS
Low-energy-ion scattering spectroscopy
Missing row
Photoelectron diffraction
Photoelectron emission microscopy
Photoelectron spectroscopy
Photoluminescence
PbZrTi oxide
Bond contracting factors
Real-space Green’s function method
Surface-bond contraction
Scanning electron microscopy
Surface extended X-ray absorption fine-structure spectroscopy
Saturated image barrier
Spot analysis LEED
Surface potential barrier
Scanning tunneling microscopy/spectroscopy
Thermal desorption spectroscopy
Time-of-flight
Ultraviolet photoelectron spectroscopy
Very/low-energy electron diffraction
X-ray photoelectron diffraction/spectroscopy
1. Introduction
1.1. Scope
The report will start, in Section 1, with a brief overview on oxygen adsorption studies. The long-lasting puzzles in this field are summarized, which
challenge the current efforts towards generalizing knowledge from various systems
observed with various techniques. Section 2 will describe the original approaches
526
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
to oxide-tetrahedron bonding and its effect on the valence density-of-states (DOS)
and the surface potential barrier (SPB). The basic conditions for an oxide tetrahedron formation and the effects of bond forming on the charges of surrounding
atoms are classified. Some crucial yet often-overlooked events, such as non-bonding
lone pairs, anti-bonding dipoles and the hydrogen-like bonds will be emphasized. In
Sections 3–7, observations using STM, LEED/XRD, STS, UPS/XPS, TDS, EELS
and Raman of a number of typical samples are systematically analyzed based on the
core idea of the chemical-bond–valence-band–potential-barrier (BBB) correlation
for deeper insight and generalized information. Emphasis will be given to deriving:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
The formulae of reaction with specification of individual atomic valencies;
Kinetics of charge transportation/polarization;
Bond geometry and atomic dislocation;
The driving forces and bond strength for surfaces with chemisorbed oxygen;
and,
(v) The correspondence between the BBB correlation and various signatures of
observations.
As a result, two essential concepts are developed. One is the bond contraction at surface
or sites surrounding defects where the atomic coordination number (CN) is reduced, and
the other is the essentiality of sp-orbital hybridization for an oxygen atom upon interacting with a solid surface, which widens the band-gap by charge transportation and polarization. It is shown that this premise can also be applicable to reactions involving carbon
and nitrogen. Sections 8 and 9 will introduce some findings in practical applications
driven by the developed BBB and BOLS correlation knowledge. In Section 10, a
summary of the main conclusions will be given in responding to the challenges
addressed in Section 1. The report will end (Section 11) with recommendations on
further extension of the current approaches in materials design.
1.2. Overview
The atomic and electronic process of catalytic oxidation plays an essential role in
many fields such as environmental chemistry (CO and NO oxidation, radiation
protection and ozone layer protection), bioelectronics (DNA folding and protein
signaling) and pharmacology (NO regulating and messaging). Oxygen interaction
with solid surfaces of metals and non-metals relates to the technical processes of
corrosion, bulk oxidation, and heterogeneous catalysis. Studies of these processes
laid the foundations for applications in microelectronics (MOSFET gate devices
and DSIC (deep submicron integrated circuit) technologies), photo-electronics
(photoluminescence, photo-conductance and field emission), magneto-electronics
(superconductivity and colossal magneto-resistance) and dielectrics (ferro-, piezo-,
pyro-electrics). For both scientific and technological reasons, oxygen interaction
with solid surfaces has formed the subject of extensive study over many years [1,2].
Solid surfaces with chemisorbed oxygen have been examined in detail from a
macroscopic to an atomistic point of view, and both experimentally and theoreti-
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
527
cally. Various techniques have been used to characterize the atomic and electronic
properties. The experimental techniques include:
Crystallography includes low-energy-electron diffraction (LEED), surface
X-ray diffraction (XRD), X-ray photoelectron diffraction (XPD), high-,
medium-, and low-energy ion scattering (HEIS, MEIS, LEIS)
Microscopy contains scanning tunneling microscopy (STM), photoelectron
emission microscopy (PEEM).
Spectroscopy includes the angular-resolved X-ray or ultraviolet photoelectron spectroscopy (ARUPS, or XPS) for the valence DOS features, X-ray
photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) for the energy shift of a core-band, scanning tunneling spectroscopy (STS) for the on-site DOS and the inverse
photoelectron spectroscopy (IPES) for surface image states. It also contains
the surface extended X-ray absorption fine-structure spectroscopy (SEXAFS)
and the impact-collision ion-scattering spectroscopy (ICISS).
Techniques for bond activation and lattice vibration include the thermal,
electron and laser stimulated desorption spectroscopy (TDS, EDS, and LDS),
as well as high-resolution electron energy loss spectroscopy (EELS).
Numerous theoretical approaches have been employed to investigate the details of
oxygen chemisorption. Theoretical methods include the semi-empirical effectivemedium theory (EMT) [3], the tight binding theory [4–6], and the first principle
method [7,8], including the density function theory (DFT) [9–13].
Usually, the process in which an oxygen atom exchanges electrons with the solid surface
is defined as chemisorption otherwise it is physisorption. The kinetics of surface oxidation
is generally believed to involve dissociation of the initial oxygen molecules at the surface
followed by trapping of the oxygen atoms into the chemisorption-well of potential energy
of the surface. The chemisorption of oxygen breaks the host–host surface bonds and then
creates new kinds of oxygen–host bonds [14]. In the oxidation of metals, oxygen in the
atmosphere is adsorbed onto the surface and reacts with the metallic atoms to form an
ionic or ionic–covalent type of compound. To a certain extent, the degree of adsorption
and reaction is a function of the orientation of the crystal face exposed to the gas and the
partial pressure or activity of the oxygen in the atmosphere. The actual mechanism for the
oxidation of each surface was thought to be quite different and very complicated [15].
Therefore, the atomic processes involved in the oxidation were far from clear [16].
The invention of STM and STS has led to enormous impact onto studying the
oxidation of metal surfaces on an atomic scale and in real time. In spite of the difficulties in interpreting the STM images, valuable, direct, yet qualitative, information
for systems with chemisorbed oxygen has been gained from such observations
[17,18]. It is possible to investigate the kinetic and the static features of the chemisorbed systems with the STM and STS and hence to [14]:
(a) Distinguish between the different reconstruction models and thus eliminate
the inappropriate ones, and,
(b) Elucidate the driving force behind such surface phase transitions.
528
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
Models derived from STM observations or from the fitting of diffraction (such as
LEED and XRD) provide information about static atomic structures of the surface.
These structural models succeeded in describing specific situations in terms of the
static positions of the adsorbates that were often assumed rigid spheres. The general
characteristics of electronic structures and atomic arrangement on a variety of metal
oxide surfaces have been now fairly determined [19,20]. There have been many landmark reviews on the progress in this field published recent years [14,16,19,21–31].
1.3. Challenges
Although the physical picture of the oxidation process is now fairly understood,
the underlying mechanism for the various observations still needs to be established.
Much more needs to be known about the correlation between the chemical bonds,
valence DOS, surface morphology and the corresponding properties of an oxide.
Generally, our understanding of the nature and kinetics of oxide bonding and its
consequences on the behavior of atoms and valence electrons at surfaces is far from
complete [14–30]. The following issues have formed the long-lasting puzzles that are
still a great challenge.
1.3.1. Bond nature and bond forming kinetics
Controversies remain regarding the nature of the oxide bond and the long-range
ordered O–M(metal)–O chains that appear on the oxygen chemisorbed surfaces. The
O–M–O chain formation was believed to provide the major forces that stabilize the
reconstructed surface. For instance, one opinion [32] suggests that oxygen bonds
more covalently to a Cu atom than to a Ni, and with very small 3d-electron participation in the bonding between oxygen and copper. An alternative opinion [33] is
that the O–Cu bond is an ionic one with a significant Cu-3d electron contribution. A
co-linear O–Cu–O chain model [34,35] suggests that the chain is linked through the
O(2pxy)–Cu(3dx2 y2 ) interaction; in comparison with this idea, it is suggested [36] that
the O–Cu–O chain is connected by the delocalized O–Cu anti-bonding states. The
latest investigations [37–40] suggest that the O–M bond have a mixture of ionic–
covalent character and that the O–M bond transforms from ionic/covalent to covalent/
ionic
p inpnature when the Cu(001)-c(22)-2O phase transforms into the Cu(001)( 22 2)R45 -2O structure (Section 3.2). The covalent bond character is found to
be weaker in the case of Cu(001)-c(22)-2O than the case of Ni(001)-c(22)-2O
[39,40]. Through a study of dc resistance and infrared reflectance changes induced in
epitaxial Cu(100) films by adsorbed oxygen, McCullen et al. [41] found that the
standard surface resistivity models based on free electrons and point scatters are
inadequate, even if the adsorbate-induced changes in conduction electron density are
considered. They found that interpreting their findings within a free electron model
would require that each adsorbate localize an unreasonably large number of conduction electrons. However, it is yet to be known how the electron transports among the
bonding constituent atoms or how the adsorbate localizes the electrons or even what
the exact nature of the interaction between the oxygen and the Cu is. Oxidation is
actually a kinetic process of bond forming and it is difficult to determine accurately
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
529
the static position of the moving surface atoms with altered valencies and sizes.
Therefore, the nature and kinetics of oxide bonding and its consequences on the
behavior of atoms and valence electrons at the surface is of key importance.
1.3.2. Alternation of atomic valencies
The common features of the STM images of metal surfaces with chemisorbed
oxygen are the pronounced dimensions and contrasts of protrusions compared with
those on clean metal surfaces. STM studies have confirmed the presence or absence of
the O–M–O chains. It has been accepted that the oxygen adsorbates ‘squeeze out’ atoms
at a certain number of surfaces so that metal rows are missing from these surfaces.
Furthermore, the shapes of the protrusions and the orientations of the O–M–O
chains vary considerably with the material andpthe
ffiffiffi crystal
pffiffiffi orientation. For instance,
O–Cu pairing chains form on the Cu(001)-( 2 2 2)R45 -2O surface and the
‘dumb-bell’ protrusions are as high as 0.45 Å [36]. In contrast, zigzagged O–O chains
form between two Co rows along the close-packed direction on the Co(1010)-c(42)4O surface [42]. The ‘honeycomb’ protrusions on the O-Co(1010) surface are up to 1.0
Å [43]. The resulting reconstructed phases of (Ag, Ni, Cu, Pt)(110)-(21)-O surfaces
[9,44–46] possess ‘a high degree of similarity in the sense that they all are stabilized by
single O–M–O strings perpendicular to the close packed direction’. The ‘spherical’
protrusion on the Cu(110)-(21)-O surface is about 0.8 Å in height contrasting to that
of 0.15 Å for the clean Cu(110) surface [47]. The ‘oval’ protrusions are observed in the
Cu(110)-c(62)-8O phase [48] and the ‘honeycomb’ protrusions composed of the
‘dumbbells’ are observed from the Cu(111)-O surfacepat higher
p temperature [49]. All
the (Ag, Cu, Ni, Pt)(110)-(21)-O and the Cu(001)-( 22 2)R45 -2O phases have
missing rows. However, some others have no atoms that are missing during the reaction. These include Ni(001)–O [50], Pd(001)–O [51], (Co, Ru)(1010)–O [42,43],
Cu(111)–O [49], Rh(001)–O [52], Rh(111)–O [53,54] and Ru(0001)–O surfaces [55,56].
STM studies should be able to reveal inherently common features caused by oxygen adsorption from all these many specific forms. The determination of the behavior of surface electrons is far beyond the scope of models in terms of rigid spheres.
It has been noted [18] that the STM features for metal surfaces with chemisorbed
oxygen can hardly be explained crystallographically. What needs to do first is to
define correctly the correspondence between the STM and STS signatures and the
valencies of surface atoms. The atomic valencies may alter from metallic to ionic,
polarized, or to missing-row vacancies upon reaction. The definition of surface
atomic valency may then enable the reaction of a specific surface to be formulated.
The patterns of morphology and crystallography may vary from situation to situation; the oxide bond configuration and the valence DOS distribution modified by
oxidation should be naturally common for all the oxide surfaces. This would eventually lead to deeper insight into the various observations of different oxidized systems for generalized information.
1.3.3. Spectroscopes correspondences
Spectroscopes such as STS, PES, and TDS as well as EELS are important tools
commonly used in chemisorption studies. UPS with E < 50 eV (He-I and He-II
530
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
excitation) is often used to obtain direct information about the distribution of
valence electrons below the Fermi level (EF) of a specimen. XPS at higher energy
(102 eV) reveals the energy shift of the core bands of the surface. The core-level shift
depends on the strength of the crystal field experienced by the core electrons. Shortened bond length and alternatively charged ions will enhance the binding energy
and hence the crystal field. Charge transportation alters the nature of atomic interaction and also weakens the effect of valence screening on the particular core-level
states [57]. Therefore, the chemical shift in XPS reflects the occurrence of electron
transport and atomic dislocation due to the oxidation. STS provides on-site DOS
information around the EF level of atoms at the surface. UPS and STS also provide
information about any work-function change caused by dipole layer formation at
the surface [58]. For example, STS profiles from the O–Cu–O chain region on the
O-Cu(110) surface have revealed two DOS features around EF [47]. One is the empty
energy states located at 0.8–1.8 eV above EF and the other is the newly occupied
state that is 1.4–2.1 eV below EF. The STS DOS features below EF are substantially
the same as those detected using UPS from the Cu(110)–O [59], Cu(001)–O [35] and
Pd(110)–O [60] surfaces. It is unlikely that oxygen adds simply its 2s and 2p states to
the valence bands of the host metals without charge exchange. Therefore, the oxygen-derived DOS features need yet to be classified.
On the other hand, as remarked by Redhead [61], the pioneer of TDS, it is possible to identify, from the TDS features, the individual process of bond breaking, i.e.,
the opposite process of bond forming. TDS profiles possess several peaks and the
intensities of the peaks oscillate with increasing oxygen exposure. For example, TDS
from O–Pd [62] and O–Rh [173] surfaces show a similar number of peaks (4–5) with
slight difference of peak temperatures. A correspondence needs to be identified
between: (i) the TDS peaks and the bond strength and, (ii) the peak intensity oscillation and bond forming kinetics.
High-resolution EELS from O–Ru [63,64] and O–Rh surfaces showed that the
stretch modes of dipole vibration were around 0.05 eV energy. The peak shifts
towards higher binding energy when oxygen coverage increases. However, the nature of the weak interaction and the origin for the peak shift are yet to be defined. It
is interesting to note that the value 0.05 eV is at the same energy level as that for the
hydrogen bond vibration detected from protein, H2O and DNA molecules.
Clear and consistent definition of the outstanding features of STS, UPS, TDS and
EELS is essential. These spectral features should correspond to the bond forming
kinetics, bond strength and the oxygen-derived valence DOS features.
1.3.4. Driving forces behind reconstruction
Questions still remain such as what mechanism generates a force which is so
strong that it enables the oxygen adsorbates to ‘push’ or ‘pull’ the entire first atomic
layer outward by 8–30%. Where do the forces come from that ‘push’ the second and
the third atomic layers closer by 5%? For a pure-metal surface the first interlayer
spacing often contracts by 3–30%, instead [65–72]. It is hard to imagine that the
oxygen adsorbates resting above the surface are able to ‘pull out’ the entire first
atomic layer without external forces ‘pulling’ the adsorbates. It is not clear yet how
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
531
the adsorbates remove metal atoms from the surface to form the missing rows. It is
not certain yet how the oxygen atoms weaken the interaction between the top and
the second atomic layer, and how the oxygen adsorbates enhance the interaction
between the second and the third substrate atomic layer.
Theoretical studies [39,40] suggest that the long range Coulomb interaction
between the O overlayer and the metal surface provides the driving force for the
p
p
phase reconstruction from the Cu(001)- c(22)-2O phase to the ( 22 2)R45 -2O.
The long-range electrostatic interaction that increases with reducing the O–Cu layer
separation, also controls the charge transfer and chemical binding in the system [73].
The O valence charge density is found to be anisotropic and non-monotonically
dependent on the separation between the O overlayer and the Cu surface, varying
from 0.54 and 1.08 Å. Based on the effective-medium theory, Jacobsen and Nørskov
[3] assumed that oxygen atoms penetrate into the Cu(001) and the Cu(110) surfaces
and push the top Cu layer outward. Such a subsurface-oxygen structural configuration on the Cu(110) surface agrees with the conclusion drawn by Feidenhans’l et al.
[74] from their surface XRD studies. A first-principles study of the O–Al(111) surface by Kiejna and Lundqvist [75,76] recently revealed that the oxygen adsorbate
prefers the hcp tetrahedral site, 1.92 Å below the topmost Al layer that has
relaxed by 25–37%. For the simultaneous sub-surface and on-surface adsorption at
Y=1.0, the binding energy in the hcp-hollow sub-surface site is 0.2 eV/atom lower
than the binding energy in the on-surface fcc-hollow sites. The hcp-hollow subsurface oxygen is apparently favourable in the Al(111) surface due to the lower
binding energy. These sub-surface-oxygen hypotheses should be reasonably true, as
the oxygen adsorbate needs to move into the surface to form bonds with its surrounding atoms in both the top first and the second atomic layers and then penetrate into the bulk, preceding the oxygen-attacked corrosion. The oxygen
adsorbates push up the entire top layer and squeeze some metal atoms away from
their original sites, as a result of bond formation. The interaction between metal
ions in the second layer with metal atoms in the third layer should be stronger than
the original pure metallic interaction, which may drive the second and the third
atomic planes come closer.
The driving force for reconstruction were attributed to the formation of the O–M–
O chains and the formation of the missing rows at the surface. However, neither
missing rows nor O–M–O strings form on the (Co, Ru)(1010)–O, Rh-(111)–O,
Ru(0001)–O and Rh(001)–O surfaces. Therefore, formation of the missing row and
the O–M–O chain may not be an essential mechanism driving the reconstruction.
Jacobsen and Nørskov [3] related the driving force to a ‘stronger O–metal bond’
formation on the reconstructed surface, because they noticed that the oxygen 2p
states hybridise (bond) more strongly with the d states of metal atoms. Further, they
noted that the O–M bond becomes stronger if the oxygen bonds with metal atoms of
lower CN, though the bond contracts insignificantly at a curved surface of a nanosolid according to their EMT calculations [77]. These ideas provide highly possible
mechanisms for the forces that drive the reconstruction. Further correlations
between the binding energy (driving force) and the bond nature and the extent of
bond contraction are still needed.
532
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
1.3.5. Work function and inner potential change
The work function of a surface is the separation in energy between EF and the
vacuum level. The work function often changes when dipoles form at the surface. If
the negative end of the dipole is directed into the vacuum the work function reduces,
and vice versa. The muffin-tin inner potential constant corresponds to the net
quantity of electrons around the atom [78]. For metal surfaces with chemisorbed
oxygen, the work function often reduces by about 1.2 eV and such a reduction
depends on the phases and oxygen exposure [23,79]. Zhang et al. [80] detected that
the work function of a Gd(0001) surface reduces from 3.3 to 2.5 eV upon oxygen
chemisorption. They noted that the work function initially changes quickly with
exposure but becomes slower at overages over 0.5 L. Occasionally, the work function of a surface is observed to increase at higher oxygen exposures. The inner
potential constants for the Cu [81] and the Ru [82] surfaces were found to reduce
upon oxygen adsorption. Pfnür et al. [83] found it necessary to assume such a
reduction in analyzing the VLEED (very-low-energy electron diffraction) spectra
from the O–Ru system. The VLEED calculations with rigid-sphere models by
Thurgate and Sun [81] showed a 1.2 eV or higher reduction of the inner potential for
the top layer of the O–Cu(001) surface. The inner potential reduction also varies for
different phases due to the different possible crystal structures [84]. VLEED optimization with the current bond model revealed that the inner potential for the top Cu
atomic layer reduces by 9.5% (from 11.56 to 10.5 eV) upon oxygen chemisorption
[78]. Besides the strong localization of surface charges due to the missing-row formation and charge transportation, the residual ion cores provide an additional likely
mechanism for reducing the inner potential. Quantification and explanation of the
reduction of both the work function and the inner potential constant for the
O-chemisorbed surfaces are also big challenges.
1.3.6. Factors controlling bond formation
Models of rigid spheres for a specific reconstructed system can illustrate the static
atomic positions at a certain moment of snapshot. However, such models reveal little information about the kinetics and dynamics of atoms and electrons at the surface. During the reaction, atomic position and atomic size change; atomic valencies
and the form of atomic interaction change; electrons are strongly localized by
transporting from one specimen to the other, and from one energy level to another;
some occupied energy states in the valence band are emptied and some empty ones
are filled up. It seems impractical to locate accurately the static positions of the
individual atoms at a surface. It is not realistic to base all observations on atomic
dislocation or crystal-structure change. As pointed out by King [22], the task in the
future decades is to grips with the factors controlling bond forming and breaking.
It is worth noting that, from an experimental and theoretical point of view,
bond-forming kinetics and dynamics are beyond the scope of currently available
instrumentation and theoretical approximations. For example, results of numerical
optimizations are subject to the assumptions made or to the initial conditions
taken, [55,85,86] and simulation of diffraction data often involves a huge number
of strongly correlated parameters [87]. The independent treatment of the correlated
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
533
parameters often leads to an infinite number of numerical solutions [88–90]. In
addition, theoretical calculations often consider the electrostatic interaction between
the adsorbates and host atoms, being treated as rigid spheres, rather than the true
bond formation [91], with essential contraction of bonds at the surface. Therefore,
physical constraints on all the observations and their interdependence are necessary.
It is quite often that some undetectable factors play the dominant roles behind the
observations. It would be interesting and rewarding to cope with the above-mentioned challenges, and thus perhaps to discover methods to control the processes of
bond making or breaking.
1.4. Objectives
The aforementioned long-lasting challenges and the availability of the advanced
VLEED methods (the data and the calculation code) at Murdoch University, Australia, and some outstanding STM/S observations [47,49] brought the present practitioner into this field in 1992. At the starting point of time, the crystallography,
electronic spectroscopy, and the surface morphology were treated independently as
convention and the hard sphere models with electrostatic interaction were dominant
in chemisorption studies. In the trial-error VLEED calculations, numerous (around
30) independent parameters were needed to be dealt with. Therefore, an attempt
allowing the sp orbitals of an oxygen atom to hybridize when the oxygen interacts
with a solid surface and an alternative way of modeling considerations and decoding
techniques were timely necessary.
Based on decoding the kinetic VLEED data from the O–Cu(001) surface, a compact model has been developed for the oxide tetrahedron bonding [92,93] and its
subsequent effects on the valence DOS [94,95] and the SPB of surfaces with chemisorbed oxygen [88]. The developed BBB correlation has enabled in turn the capacity
and reliability of VLEED to be fully explored [96], and the outstanding STM images
(see Fig. 4 in Section 3) to be explained in terms of bond geometry and atomic
valencies. The corresponding decoding technique and the BBB models have enabled
the kinetic VLEED from the O–Cu(001) surface to be quantified and consistently
understood in terms of four-stage Cu3O2 bonding kinetics and its effects on the
valence DOS [97]. Hence, the reliability of both the BBB theory and the advanced
VLEED technique has been justified. For more details about the VLEED quantification of the O–Cu(001) bond forming kinetics the reader may be referred to recent
reports [98,99]. For the purpose of completeness, we need to highlight some key
points in the present report.
With respect to the literature documented and previous reviews of this practitioner
[98–100] the current report focus more on extending the BBB correlation mechanism
to the electronic process of surface oxidation of metals and thermal oxidation of
nonmetallic diamond, and enhancing the capacity of STM, STS, PES, TDS and
EELS for general understanding. This has led to some designer process and materials with desired functions. The main objectives of this report are to share with the
community what the practitioner experienced and learnt in the past decade as the
following:
534
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
(i) Surface oxidation is a kinetic process in which charge transportation/polarization dominates and atomic dislocation is merely one of the consequences.
The events of O–M bonding, oxygen lone pair non-bonding, metal dipole
anti-bonding, and H-like bonding are crucial to the process of oxidation.
Meanwhile, atomic sizes and atomic valencies change, and the bonds at the
surface contract. These events dislocate surface atoms collectively and modify
the valence DOS of the host. These events also roughen the surface (or SPB)
and change the physical properties of an oxide surface.
(ii) The electronegativity, the scale of lattice constant and the geometrical
orientation of the surface determine the specific details of the adsorbate site,
bond ordering and the orientation of the oxide tetrahedron. This gives rise to the
versatile modes of crystal reconstruction and surface morphology change. For
the analyzed representatives of transition metals, noble metals and a nonmetallic diamond it is consistently concluded that the phase ordering, crystallography and surface morphology vary from situation to situation. However,
formation of the basic oxide tetrahedron, with sp-orbital hybridization and
lone pair production, oxygen derived valence DOS features and the kinetic
processes of bond formation are all the same by nature.
(iii) The combination of STM, LEED/VLEED, PES/STS, TDS and EEELS/
Raman are essential for a comprehensive insight into the electronic process
occurring at a surface. Furnished with the new BBB correlation premise, these
techniques allow one to extract information about the surface atomic
valencies, bond geometry, valence DOS, bond strength and bond forming
kinetics.
(iv) The tetrahedron bond model can be applied to reactions involving carbon
and nitrogen. The concepts of bond contraction and band-gap expansion
have been extended to some practical applications, which has led to some
innovative findings in technical applications, as will be discussed in the
context.
2. Principle: bond–band–barrier (BBB) correlation
2.1. Foundations
2.1.1. Basic concepts
As will be demonstrated, patterns of observations of the oxidized surfaces depend
on the scale and geometry of the surface lattice, and the difference in electronegativity between the bonding constituents. Therefore, it is necessary to classify
these basics first.
Fig. 1 illustrates the typical coordination environment of the low-index fcc and
hcp surfaces. Host atoms are arranged at the first two planes of the fcc{(001), (110),
(111)} and the hcp{(1010), (0001)} surfaces in the regular lattice sites. The C4v, C3v
and C2v point-group symmetries can be applied to the unit cells. The shortest atomic
535
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
Fig. 1. Possible coordination environment for the oxide bond formation. (a) Atoms surrounding the
fcc(001) fourfold (C4v) hollow-site form an upside-down pyramid. (b) On the fcc(111) and hcp(0001) surfaces, there are two types of threefold (C3v) hollow sites. Atoms surrounding the hcp(0001) hollow (I)
form a tetrahedron. No atom exists in the substrate second layer below the fcc(111) hollow site (II). (c)
The fcc(110) and its analogue (d) hcp(1010) surfaces possess alternate hcp(0001) (I) and fcc(111) (II) facet
sites along the close packed direction.
separation (atomic diameter) is a. These structures represent majority of coordination environments so far documented for surface oxidation studies. Table 1 compares the lattice geometry of the unit cells. In the fcc(001) surface unit cell [see
Fig. 1(a)], five atoms surrounding the C4v hollow site form an upside-down pyramid.
The atomic structure of the fcc(111) and the hcp(0001) surfaces in Fig. 1(b) are the
same in the top two atomic planes where atoms arrange in the same AB order.
Table 1
Comparison of the lattice geometry of the unit cells of various surfaces (unit in atomic diameter, a)
a1
fcc(001)
fcc(110)
hcp(1010)
fcc(111)
hcp(0001)
1
1
1
1
1
a2
p
1
2
1.747
1
1
a3 (layer spacing)
p
1/ 2
1/2
0.2887
0.6934
0.8735
536
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
Atoms surrounding the hcp(0001) hollow (indicated I) site form a tetrahedron while
atoms surround the fcc(111) hollow (indicated II) site cannot because there is no
atom in the second layer. Atoms surrounding the fcc(110) and the hcp(1010) hollow
sites [in Fig. 1(c and d)], form a rectangular-pyramid of C2v symmetry. Besides the
long-bridge hollow site, there are two facet sites along the close packed direction in
the fcc(110) and the hcp(1010) surfaces. One is the hcp(0001) facet hollow site (I)
that involves one atom in the top layer and two atoms in the second layer; the other
is the fcc(111) facet (labeled II) that contains two atoms in the top layer and one in
the second layer along the close packed direction. The fcc{(110), (111)} surfaces are
analogous to the hcp{(1010), (0001)} surfaces with a slight difference in the interatomic spacing.
Table 2 lists the values of electronegativity (), possible valencies and the atomic
radius of representative elements of different electronic structures. The difference in
electronegativity between atoms of two elements determines the nature of the bond
between them. If the is sufficiently high (around 2), the bond is ionic, otherwise it is
covalent or polar-covalent [102]. Normally, the atomic size of a noble (4d) metal is
greater than that of a transition (3d) metal and the electronegativity of the noble
metals is higher than that of transition metals. It is noted that an atomic radius is
not a constant but varies with the coordination number of this atom. Importantly,
atomic radii change with alteration of valencies. It will be shown that, these basics
play important roles in specifying the site of the adsorbate and the orientation of the
basic oxide tetrahedron and hence the patterns of observations for the chemisorbed
surfaces.
2.1.2. Bonding effects
Bond formation is a process in which valence electrons transport. This should
have enormous effects on the surroundings by polarization and mass transportation.
Alteration of atomic sizes will change the atomic distances and modify the surface
morphology. Besides the well known bonding states of metallic, covalent, ionic and
Van der Waals bonds in nature, polar-covalent bonds, non-bonding lone pairs, antibonding dipoles, H-like bonds and hydrocarbon-like bonds also exist.
Table 2
Electronegativity, possible valencies and the CN-related atomic radius of typical elements after Goldschmidt [101] and Pauling [102]
Element
C
N
O
Si
Co
Cu
Electronic
structure
2s2p2
2s2p3
2s2p4
3s2p2
3d74s2 3d104s1 4d105s1 4d75s1 4d85s1 4d105s0 3d34s2
Rion (Valency)
Rm (CN=1)
Rm (CN=12)
2.5
2.6 (4)
0.771
0.914
3.0
1.71 (3)
0.70/0.74
0.88/0.92
3.5
1.32 (2)
0.66/0.74
-
1.9
1.9
0.41 (4) 0.82 (2)
1.173 1.157
1.316 1.252
1.9
0.53 (1)
1.173
1.276
Ag
1.9
1.00 (1)
1.339
1.442
Ru
2.2
–
1.241
1.336
Rh
2.2
–
1.252
1.342
Pd
2.2
–
1.283
1.373
V
1.6
–
1.224
1.338
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
537
Despite the well known bonding events illustrated in Fig. 2(a and b), Fig. 2(c–h)
describes the formation of an ionic bond, non-bonding lone pairs and their consequences on the wave functions of their atomic neighbors. The electronegative
adsorbate or additive (smaller broken circle labeled A) interacts with the heavier
host atoms (bigger broken circle labeled B) by either capturing electrons from the
host B atom or polarizing the electrons of B. The energy of the polarized electrons
will rise to higher energy levels because the polarization provides additional energy
to the polarized electrons. Electron transport alters the atomic valencies and atomic
sizes of both the adsorbate A and the host B. For example, an oxygen atom changes
its radius from 0.66 to 1.32 Å when the oxygen atom evolves into an O2 ion. A
copper atom alters its radius from 1.278 to 0.53 Å when the Cu atom becomes a
Cu+ ion.
All the ions, whether positive or negative, and the non-bonding lone pairs are apt
to polarizing their neighbors giving rise to the host dipoles. Dipoles are formed with
Fig. 2. Schematic illustration of the possible bond configurations and their consequences on the electron
clouds of surrounding atoms (shaded areas stand for dipoles). (a) and (b) are the well-known bonding
events. (c) Ionic bond formation alters atomic sizes (broken circles) and valencies. (d) Non-bonding lone
pair formation (represented by ‘:’) induces Bdipole. (e) H-like bond forms if B+/dipole replaces the H+/dipole.
(f) O–M bonds involve non-bonding lone pairs, bonding electron pairs and (g) anti-bonding dipoles. (h)
Hydrocarbon-like bonds can form by replacing the H+ with B+, which also induces anti-bonding dipoles.
538
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
expansion of atomic sizes and elevation of the DOS in energy space. The production
of the dipoles and the dipole–dipole interaction in the opposite direction will raise
the system energy. It is therefore reasonable to term such an event as anti-bonding
dipole formation—an extreme case of the Van der Waals bond interaction. Antibonding is a by-product of reaction and it never forms between atoms of different
electronegativity [108].
Non-bonding lone pairs form when a pair of electrons of a specific atom occupies
a directional bonding orbital. This happens to electronegative elements in the upperright part of the periodic table, such as nitrogen, oxygen and fluorine when the 2s,
2px, 2py 2pz orbitals of these elements are hybridised [103]. It is often the case that
part of the hybridized orbitals are occupied by shared electron pair (bonding)
between A and B and the remaining orbitals by the lone electron pairs (non-bonding) of the electronegative additives. The number of lone pairs of an adsorbate follows a ‘4 n’ rule and the n is the valence value of the adsorbate. For oxygen (n=2),
two lone pairs are present while for nitrogen (n=3) only one lone pair forms during
the sp-orbital hybridization. The ‘4 n’ rule holds for any elements in which the sp
orbitals hybridize. The lone pair requires an interaction with a B atom through
polarization without any charge transport. The lone pair is actually not a bond but
the weaker part of the hydrogen bond.
The classical hydrogen bond (O2–H+/dipole : O2), known for over 50 years, plays
an essential role in the structure and function of biological molecules. The ‘–’ and ‘:’
represent the bond and the lone pair, respectively. Hydrogen bonds are responsible
for the strength and elasticity of materials, such as wood or a spider’s web, molecular binding, as well as base pairing and folding in DNA. Hydrogen bonds are also
responsible for the synthesis and transferring of protein signaling [104,105]. It is to
be noted that the formation of the hydrogen bond is not due to the existence of
atoms of hydrogen or oxygen but due to the existence of the non-bonding lone pairs.
If the lone-pair-induced Bdipole bonds further to an electronegative element A, then
an H-like bond (O2–B+/dipole :O2) forms. H-like bonding differs from the classical
hydrogen bond simply in that, the B+/dipole replaces the H+/dipole in the hydrogen
bond (see Fig. 2e). If an atom of another electronegative element, such as C, replaces
one of the oxygen ions then the (C-4–B+/dipole : O2) configuration forms, which was
specified in some cases as the anti-hydrogen bond [106]. This is also a H-like bond.
Formation of such a H-like bond depends merely on the existence of the lone pair
rather than the particular elements involved. Hence, the H-like bond is more generally applicable though it is not often referred to as such. The same is true for the
hydrocarbon-like bonds. The hydrocarbon bond is polar covalent in nature. The
naked H+ also polarizes and attracts electrons of its neighboring atoms. Hydrocarbon-like bond can form by replacing the H+ with B+. The B+ is less electronegative than the carbon.
Unfortunately, the production of nonbonding lone pairs, anti-bonding dipoles,
H-like bonds and the hydrocarbon-like bonds are often overlooked. However, these
events indeed play crucial roles in determining the physical properties of a system
that involves electronegative additives. Quite often, a system contains several kinds
of chemical bonds, such as in graphite and in an oxide. Because of the sp2-orbital
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
539
hybridization of carbon, the Van der Waals bond dominates in the [0001] direction
while the stronger covalent bond dominates in the (0001) plane of the graphite. As
can be seen from Fig. 2(f and g), O–B bond formation involves sharing pairs of
electrons (bond), non-bonding lone pairs and anti-bonding dipoles. The electronic
environment surrounding an oxygen atom varies from site to site at the subatomic
scale.
From an energy point of view, bond formation lowers the system energy and stabilizes the system. Anti-bond (dipole) formation requires additional energy.
Although it is energetically less favorable, the anti-bond can still form as a by-product of the events of bonding and non-bonding. Occupation of the orbitals by nonbonding electron lone pairs of an electronegative element, in principle, neither raises
nor lowers the system energy with respect to the energy level of the isolated atoms of
the electronegative element [107,108]. From the band structure point of view, the
anti-bond derived DOS (or polaron) should locate at energy above EF or near to it
due to the energy rise of the polarized electrons. The DOS features for bonding are
located below the originally occupied levels of the electronegative element; while the
DOS features of non-bonding lone pairs are located between that of the bond and
that of the anti-bond. Hydrogen-like bond formation will stabilize the system as
electrons transport from the high-energy anti-bonding states to the lower bonding
states. Bond and anti-bond formation will produce holes below the EF of the host
material [93], which should be responsible for the transition from metal to semiconductor when a compound forms.
2.2. Chemical bond: the basic tetrahedron
The original idea of the model is to extend the H2O molecular structure to a solid
surface with chemisorbed oxygen by replacing the H atom with a host atom of an
arbitrary element B, as illustrated in Fig. 3(a). Two factors are taken into account in
the modeling considerations. First, the atomic radius is not constant but varies with
changes in not only its atomic valency, but also, its CN. Second, the sp orbitals of
oxygen hybridize and a quasi-tetrahedron forms. The bond angles and the bond
lengths are not constant but vary within limits. Therefore, an oxygen atom can react
with atoms, in any gaseous, liquid or solid states of an arbitrary element B through
two bonding electron pairs and two non-bonding lone pairs.
Besides the well-known fact that an atom changes its radius when its valency
alternates, both the ionic and metallic radii of an atom contract with reducing the
CN of this atom. Goldschmidt [101] suggested that, if an atom changes its CN from
12 to 8, 6 and 4, then the ionic radius would be reduced by 3, 4 and 12% correspondingly. Pauling [102] also noted that the metallic radius contracts considerably
with reduction of the CN of the metal atom (see examples in Table 2). One may extend
the CN-imperfection induced radius contraction to atoms at a solid surface or sites
surrounding defects (such as point defects and stacking errors) though no such attempt
has been reported previously. It is understandable that the surface provides an ideal
environment for CN reduction. Termination of the lattice periodicity in the surface
normal direction reduces the CN of an atom at the surface. Such a CN-reduction
540
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
Fig. 3. (a) The primary oxide quasi-tetrahedron and (b) the corresponding DOS features of bonding, nonbonding, anti-bonding and holes [94]. Each of the two ions, 1 and 2, donates one electron to the central
oxygen to form the Goldschmidt-contraction ionic bonds. Atoms labeled 3 are the lone-pair-induced
metal dipoles with expansion of sizes and elevation of energy states. Arrows represent the process of
charge transportation. The arrow from the anti-bonding sub-band to the bond states corresponds to the
process of H-like bond formation.
shortens the remaining bonds of the surface atom. It is reasonable to consider the
CN-effect on the atomic radius as a Goldschmidt-contraction for an ionic bond or a
Pauling-contraction for a metallic. There exists sufficient evidence for the bond
contraction at metal surfaces [65–72]. For instance, about a 10% reduction of the
first layer spacing of the (Ru [109], Co [110] and Re [111])(1010) surface has been
detected using LEED measurements and DFT calculations. The interlayer distance
between the first and second layer of the diamond (111) surface is 30% smaller
than the interlayer separation in the bulk, which leads to a substantial reduction of
the surface energy [112]. However, it has been reported that the dimer bond lengths
for the IIA (Be and Mg(0001) surface) and IIB (Zn, Cd, and Hg) elements are longer
than the corresponding nearest neighbor atomic separation of the bulk values [72],
which is conflicting with Pauling’s premise [102]. Table 3 summarizes the surface
interlayer relaxations of some metals caused by the Pauling-contraction.
Oxygen interacts with atoms of element B [Fig. 3(a)] and hybridizes its sp orbitals
to form four directional orbitals. Oxygen captures two electrons from B atoms and
the 2s and 2p levels of oxygen are fully occupied with eight electrons that will repopulate in the four directional orbitals. Therefore, two of the four hybridized orbitals
are occupied by shared electron pairs (bonding orbitals). The remaining two orbitals
are occupied by the lone electron pairs of oxygen (non-bonding orbitals). It may be
necessary to point out that the sp orbitals of oxygen hybridize independently without the involvement of orbitals of atoms of other elements, but the hybrid orbitals
may be occupied by electrons of the others. Therefore, the orbital to be occupied is
one thing; the actual occupancy of the hybridized orbital is another. The orbital can
541
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
Table 3
Summary of the observed surface interlayer relaxation of clean metal surfaces. Origin for the conflicting
relaxation of the Be(0001) surfaces is yet not clear [72]
Metal
Method
d12/d12
Metal
Rh(001)
W(001)
W(110)
W(320)
Al(001)
Al(210)
Ti/Zr(0001)
LEED [113,114]
DFT [116]
LEED [114,117]
DFT [118]
DFT [68]
LEED [122]
DFT [72,123]
LEED [114]
(110)[127,128]
(111), LEED
(100) [67]
DFT [393,133]
LEED [134]
1.2;1.4
5.7
3.0
22.3
10
16
6.17.8
-4.9
69
12 [131]
23
10.0;13.0
+5.8
Fe(210)
Fe(310)
Pd(310)
Pt(210)
Cu(331)
Cu(551)
Cu(211)
Ag/Cu/Ni
Ag/Cu/Ni
Ag/Cu/Ni
Fe/W(110)
Be(0001)
a
Method
LEED [115]
LEED [115]
DFT [71]
LEED/EAM [119]
DFT [125,120] RSGF [121]
RSGFa [121]
DFT [124,125,121]
LEED [126]
Cu(117) LEED [129] DFT [130]
Al(113) DFT [132]
Al(115) DFT [132]
Al(117) DFT [132]
Al(331) LEED [135]
d12/d12 (%)
22
16
14.1
23.0/31;
22.0;13.8;10.4
9.8
14.4;28.4;-10.8
14.9
13.0;-9.5
6.8
8.0
8.3
11.7
RSGF: Real-space Green’s function method. d12 is the separation between the top two atomic layers.
be occupied by any kind of electron pairs (sharing or non-sharing). In a bonding
orbital, the extent of electron sharing, or the nature of the bond, depends on the
difference in electronegativity () between the oxygen and element B. Due to the
high value (see Table 2), oxygen catches an electron from B (labeled 1 and 2) to
form the Goldschmidt-contraction ionic bond at the surface. Formation of the nonbonding lone pairs, however, is independent of the nature of element B. The lone
pairs are likely to polarize atom B (labeled 3) and the B atom becomes a Bdipole with
associated expansion of size and elevation of energy of the polarized electrons that
occupy the anti-bonding energy levels.
In an oxide tetrahedron, the plane (3O3) composed of the lone pairs and the
oxygen nucleus should be ideally perpendicular to the plane (1O2) that consists of
the two bonding orbitals. The distance (1–2) between the two B+ ions and the spacing (3–3) between the Bdipole and Bdipole match closely the first and second shortest
atomic spacing at a surface, which involves two atomic layers. The Bdipole tends to
locate at the open end of a surface due to the strong repulsion between the dipoles.
The B2O primary tetrahedron is not a standard one but it is distorted due to the
following two effects: (i) The difference in repulsion between the occupied orbitals
varies the bond angles [BAij (angle ffiOj), i, j=1, 2, 3 correspond to the atoms as
labeled; BA124104.5 , BA33 > 109.5 ] and, (ii) the difference in CN of atoms at
different sites adjusts the bond length [BLi=(RM++RO2 )(1-Qi), i=1, 2; Qi are
the effective bond contracting factors]. The length of BL3 and the angle BA33 may
vary with the coordination circumstances in a real system.
It is unavoidable that the oxide tetrahedron formation dislocates the B atoms
collectively in the otherwise regular lattice sites. Moreover, oxygen always seeks four
neighbors to form a stable quasi tetrahedron. On the other hand, the expansion of
atomic radius and the energy rise of the dipole electrons are responsible for the
protrusions in the STM images and the reduction of the local work function. The
542
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
localized dipole electrons are also responsible for the non-Ohmic rectification at the
surface, even though the local work function reduces significantly. The strong localization of dipole electrons at the surface increases the surface contact resistance
because these electrons cannot move easily. The consequences of dipole formation in
this model agree with Lang’s theory [136–138] that an oxygen adsorbate affects the
STM current predominantly by polarizing metal electrons, as a result of anti-bonding dipole formation.
At the initial stage of oxidation, the oxygen molecule dissociates and the oxygen
atom interacts with the host atoms through a single bond. It will be shown later
(Section 3) that the O1 occupies a specific position where the O1 bonds directly to
one of its neighbors and polarizes the rest. For the transition metals, such as Cu and
Co, of lower electronegativity ( < 2) and smaller atomic radius (< 1.3 Å), oxygen
often bonds to an atom at the surface first. For noble metals, such as Ru and Rh, of
higher electronegativity ( > 2) and larger atomic radius ( > 1.3 Å), oxygen tends to
sink into the hollow site and bonds to the atom underneath first. The ordering of
bond formation leads to different patterns of reconstruction. The O1 also polarizes
other neighbors and pushes the Bdipole at the surface radially outward from the
adsorbate. Because of oxide tetrahedron formation with lone pair non-bonding and
dipole anti-bonding, the electronic structure surrounding a certain atom varies from
site to site.
2.3. Valence density-of-state (DOS)
The formation of bonds, non-bonding lone pairs and anti-bonding dipoles as well
as the H-like bonds generates corresponding features adding to the DOS of the
valence band and above of the host, as illustrated in Fig. 3(b). Arrows represent the
kinetic processes of electron transportation. Initially, energy states below the EF of a
metal are fully occupied in the ideal case at T=0. The work function, 0, Fermi
energy, EF, and the vacuum level, E0, follow the simple relation: E0=0+EF. For
Cu, as an example, E0=12.04 eV, 0=5.0 eV and EF=7.04 eV. The Cu-3d band
locates at energies range over from 2.0 to 5.0 eV below EF. The oxygen 2p states
are around 5.5 eV with respect to EF for Cu. At the initial stage of reaction, an
electron from a metal is transported from its outermost shell to the unoccupied 2p
orbital of the oxygen, which produces a hole in the outermost shell of the metal. The
O1 polarizes its rest neighbors to form a polaron, as a result. This simple process
creates additional DOS features of bonding ( < < EF), holes (4EF) and anti-bonding
dipoles (4EF).
With the full occupancy of the p-orbital of oxygen, the sp orbitals of the O2
hybridize, which brings about four additional DOS features, as illustrated in
Fig. 3(b):
Electronic vacancies are produced right below EF, generating a gap between
the conduction band and the valence band of a metal. The electron transportation can also expand the original band-gap of a semiconductor from
EG0 to EG1.
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
543
The non-bonding (lone pair) states of O2 locate below EF without apparent
energy change, in principle, compared to the 2p-level of an isolated atom of
oxygen [107].
The bonding states are close to the originally occupied 2p-level of the isolated
oxygen.
The anti-bonding (lone-pair-induced dipole) states are located above EF or
near to it. The oxygen-induced dipole reduces the work function from 0 to
1.
Upon being overdosed with oxygen, H-like bonds form at the surface. The
overdosed oxygen gets electrons from the dipoles and the Bdipole becomes
B+/dipole. The arrow from the anti-bonding states above EF to the deeper bonding
sub-band represents the process of H-like bond formation. Apparently, this
process lowers the system energy.
It is noted that the hole-production and the lone-pair production are independent but
simultaneous, which result in the joint DOS features below EF. If the products of both
processes are compatible in quantity, the joint DOS features derived by the two processes may not be easily separated. The hole-production is due to two mechanisms:
bonding and anti-bonding. For the Cu example, the 4s electrons (in the conduction
band, CB) either contribute to oxygen for the bonding or jump up to the outer emptyshell (Cu 4p for example) for the anti-bonding dipole. Such bonding and antibonding processes empty the states just below EF, which result in the Cu-oxide being
a semiconductor with a known band-gap ranging from 1.2 to 1.5 eV [139,140].
STS and VLEED revealed that the states of anti-bonding of the O–Cu system range
over 1.3 0.5 eV above the EF and the non-bonding states 2.1 0.7 eV below.
Angular-resolved inverse PES [141] detected that the features of empty states at +2.0
eV decrease with increasing oxygen coverage on the Cu(110) surface. The PEEM studies of O–Pt surfaces [79,142–144] have detected the conversion of the dark islands, in
the scale of 102 mm, into very bright ones with work functions 1.2 eV lower than that
of the clean Pt surface. As will be shown in Section 4, the bonding states are around
5.5 eV below EF which is shifted slightly towards an energy lower than the 2p-level
of the oxygen because the hybrid bond forming lowers the system energy. Most
strikingly, all the oxygen-derived DOS features are strongly localized in real space.
2.4. Surface potential barrier (SPB)
2.4.1. One-dimensional SPB model
The SPB experienced by electrons traversing the surface region contains two parts
[145]:
Vðr; EÞ ¼ ReVðrÞ þ iImVðr; EÞ ¼ ReVðrÞ þ iIm½VðrÞ VðEÞ
ð2:4:1Þ
The real part, ReV(r), describes the elastic scattering of the incident electron
beam. Integration of the ReV(r) along the moving path of the electron beam determines the phase-shift of the electron beam.
544
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
It is adequate to consider the surface normal direction and the Re(r) will be
ReV(z) which has the form [146]:
ReVðzÞ ¼fV0 = 1 þ Aexp½Bðz z0 Þ ; z 5 z0 ða pseudo-Fermi-z functionÞ
1-exp½lðz z0 Þ =½4ðz z0 Þ; z < z0 ðthe classical image potentialÞ
ð2:4:2Þ
where A and B are constants given by B=V0/A and A=1+4V0/l. The z-axis
is directed into the crystal. V0 is the muffin-tin inner potential constant of the
crystal and z0 is the origin of the image plane. l describes the degree of
saturation.
The imaginary part, ImV(r), describes the spatial decay of the incident beams.
ImV(E) represents the joint effects of all the dissipative processes including excitation of phonons, photons and single-electron as well as plasmon excitation. Plasmon
excitation occurs at energy much higher than EF (normally 15 eV above EF). At
very low energy, plasmon excitation does not come into play. Excitation of phonon
and photon requires energy smaller than the work function. Single-electron excitation occurs at any beam-energy that is greater than the work function and in the
space occupied by electrons. The spatial distribution of electrons is described by (r)
(charge density) which relates to the inelastic damping potential, ImV(r). Spatial
integration of the ImV(r, E) determines the amplitude-loss of the scattered electron
waves. An ImV(z, E) can be defined to include the effects that damping occurs in the
electron-occupied space (Fermi z decay) and that damping takes place at incident
beam energy being greater than the work function, which depends on the occupied
DOS [88]:
ImVðz; EÞ ¼ Im½VðzÞ VðEÞ
ImVðE; zÞ ¼ ðzÞ exp½½E L ðEÞ=
E L ðEÞ
z z1 ðz0 Þ
= 1 þ exp ¼ exp
ðz0 Þ
ð2:4:3Þ
and,
L ðx; yÞ ¼ E0 EF ; and EF / n
ð2:4:4Þ
where and are constants depending on the calibration of the measured
spectral intensities. The terms z1(z0) ((z1)=0.5bulk) and (z0) (saturation
degree) involved in the Fermi z function describe the spatial distribution of
electrons contributing to the damping of incident beams. The spatial integration
of (z) from a position inside the crystal to infinitely far away from the surface
gives the local DOS (n(x, y)). Therefore, L(E) can extend to cover situations
that are E dependent and to large surface areas over which the LEED method
integrates.
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
545
2.4.2. 3-D effect with DOS contribution
The ReV(r) correlates with the ImV(r) through the Poisson equation [147]:
r2 ½ReVðrÞ ¼ ðrÞ; and; ImVðrÞ / ðrÞ:
ð2:4:5Þ
The gradient of the ReV(r) relates to the intensity of the electric field "(r):
![ReV(r)]="(r). If (r)=0, then the ReV(r) corresponds to a conservative field in
which the moving electrons will suffer no energy loss and the spatial variation of the
inelastic potential ImV(r) / (r)=0. It is to be noted that the ReV(z) transforms at
z=z0 from the pseudo-Fermi z function to the 1/(zz0) dominated classical image
potential. Therefore,
r2 ½ReVðz0 Þ ¼ ðz0 Þ ¼ 0:
ð2:4:6Þ
The origin of the image-plane, z0, acts as the boundary of the surface region
occupied by electrons. If we permit z0 to vary with the surface coordinates, then the
z0(x, y) provides a contour of the spatial electron distribution, which should be
similar to that plotted using STM imaging method. The SPB features are thus
characterized by the z0 and this effect allows us to choose z0 as the parameter in the
single-variable parameterization of the nonuniform-SPB [88].
In order to correlate the parameters that used to be treated as independent, and to
ensure the uniqueness of solutions, we define the SPB parameters as functional
dependents of z0. They are supposed to be correlated with z0 through a Gaussiantype function:
n 2 o
z1 ðz0 Þ ¼ z0 exp ðz0 z0M Þ= 1 ;
ð2:4:7Þ
n 2 o
ðz0 Þ ¼ 1=lðz0 Þ exp ðz0 z0m Þ=2 ;
n
2 o
lðz0 Þ ¼ l0M x þ ð1 xÞ exp ðz0 z0M Þ=lz
; ðx ¼ 0:4732Þ
Constants 1 and 2 are the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the Gaussian
functions and optimized to be 0.75 and 1.50, respectively [148]. The minimum z0m is
estimated to be 1.75 Bohr radii. The l0M=1.275 is the maximum of l corresponding to maximum z0M=3.425 Bohr radii and to lz=0.8965 for the
O–Cu(001) surface. These constants may vary with materials considered.
2.4.3. Physical indications
Eqs. (2.4.2–2.4.4) represent not only correlation among the SPB parameters but
also correlate to STM profiles. At the dipole site, z1Mz0M, l1, while in the
atomic vacancy or ion positions, z1m < < z0m due to the strong localization of
electrons at the surface. The ImV(z) is much less saturated than is the ReV(z) in
the site giving STM depressions. The SPB increases its degree of saturation with the
546
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
outward-shift of the image plane z0. This means that formation of metal dipoles
shifts the electron clouds outward and enhances the density of the shifted clouds.
Except for the inner potential constant V0, all the SPB parameters l, and z1
become functional dependents of z0. The number of SPB variables is thus reduced
from four to one. In addition, decoding VLEED using the correlation produces
results of clearer physical indication.
More importantly, the electronic structure described with the SPB ties in closely
with the valencies and positions of atoms at the surface. In order to reflect the interdependence of the SPB and bond geometry, we have developed a decoding technique
used for the particular O–Cu(001) surfaces [98,99]. In calculations, the VLEED code
reads in the SPB constants and the atomic positions that were converted from the
bond geometry. The code then automatically optimizes the z0 towards a duplication
of the measured intensity at each point of energy. Besides the bond geometry and the
SPB constants, the calculation duplicates the spectrum and produces a z0(E) profile of
which the shape varies with the atomic structure employed. The z0(E) profile shows
joint features of surface morphology and the valence DOS as VLEED integrates over
large (mm level) areas of surface. One can judge an optimal atomic geometry by analyzing the shape of the z0(E) profile against physical constraints [98]. A combination
of the parameterized SPB and the z0-scanning calculation method reconciles the bond
geometry (atomic positions), surface morphology [ReV(z) and ImV(z)] and the DOS
change [z0(E) and ImV(E)] as a coherent system. This original approach may reflect
the real process of reaction because electrons are tied in closely with the positions and
valencies of surface atoms, and the reaction is a kinetic process in which atoms move
collectively. Typical results will be shown in Section 3.2.3.
2.5. Summary
We may end up the modeling section with a brief summary. The H2O molecule
structure and the concept of CN-imperfection induced atomic radius contraction
have been extended to the oxidation of a solid surface. This leads to the current
model for oxide-tetrahedron bond formation and its effects on the valence densityof-states and the surface potential barrier, as well as their interdependence:
Oxygen can interact with atoms of an arbitrary element B to form a tetrahedron with bonding and non-bonding states, as well as anti-bonding dipoles
due to polarization.
Oxygen derives four additional DOS features that add to the valence band
and above of the host. These features of bonding, non-bonding, anti-bonding
and electron holes are strongly localized.
Oxygen induces the non-uniformity of the SPB. All the SPB parameters are
correlated to the image plane (z0) which corresponds to the boundary of the
surface region occupied by electrons.
The bond geometry, atomic valency, valence DOS and the SPB are interdependent. One may need to pay equal attention to these categories in dealing
with the surface chemisorption.
547
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
Some important yet often-overlooked events, such as non-bonding lone pairs,
anti-bonding dipoles and the H-like bond are crucial in practice.
In the next section, we report our exercises of applying the original BBB model to
results drawn from a database of surface oxidation. It will be shown that the signatures of STM/S, LEED, PES and TDS as well as the EELS and Raman can be
explained in terms of atomic valencies, bond geometry, valence DOS and bond
strength as well as bond forming kinetics. Formation of the oxide tetrahedron and
the valence DOS and the bond forming kinetics are found to provide common base
to explain all the systems analyzed.
3. STM and LEED: atomic valencies and bond geometry
3.1. Phase ordering
Table 4 summarizes the phase orderings occurred at the low-index O–(Cu,
Rh){(001), (110), (111)} surfaces and their analogues of O–(Co, Ru){(1010), (0001)}
surfaces. The O–Pd(110) surface performs in the same way as the O–Rh(110) surface.
It will be shown later that the O–(V, Ag)(100) surfaces perform differently from the
O–(Cu, Rh)(001) surfaces despite the same geometrical configuration. Incorporating
the primary bond model to these phase structures, we can derive the formulae of
Table 4
Oxygen induced phase ordering on the typical metal surfaces. The hcp(0001) and hcp(1010) faces are
analogues to the fcc(111) and fcc(110) faces, respectively. Please refer to Fig. 1 for the lattice geometry
Cu(fcc)
fcc(001)
Refs.
Rh(fcc)
1
c(22)-2O offcentered pyramid
p
p
( 22 2)R45
-2O2 missing row
[21,36,38,81,94,97,
149–155]
fcc(110) or
hcp(1010)
Refs.
(21)-O2 (Ni,
Ag, Pt)
c(62)-8O2
[2,16,21,34,35,9,47,
48,3,74,94,168–170]
fcc(111) or
hcp(0001)
‘29’ & ‘44’
structures
Refs.
[188,49]
Co(hcp)
Ru(hcp)
Disordered
(21)-2O1 (atop)
c(24)-4O2
c(24)-4O2
1
c(22)-2O radial
and inverse pyramid
c(22)p4g-2O2 or
p
p
c(4 24 2)-16O2
[52,156,–167]
Disordered
(11)-O1 (hollow)
c(22n)p2mg-nO2
(n=2,3,4) (Pd)
[17–182]
radial (22)-O1
(hcp-hollow)
c(22)-2O2
pairing row
(11)-O2
[52,53,54,189–194]
(21)p2mg-2O2
[42,43,183,184,109,
185]
(21)p2mg-2O2
[110,168,187]
radial (22)-O1
(hcp-hollow)
c(22)-2O2
pairing row
(11)-O2
[55,56,257,85,189,
195–200]
548
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
reaction at various stages, which enables the atomic valencies in the first two atomic
layers to be specified. As will be discussed in detail subsequently, the phase transition originates from nothing more than the alteration of the oxygen valency (as
assigned in Table 4) under a certain geometrical configuration at different oxygen
coverage. In the following sections, we will analyze these well-determined representatives from the perspective of bond forming.
3.2. O–Cu{(001), (110), (111)}
3.2.1. Observations
3.2.1.1. O–Cu(001). Since 1956 when Young et al. [1] found that the Cu(001)
surface is more easily oxidized than other faces of the copper single crystal, there
have been many conflicting opinions regarding the oxygen-induced Cu(001) surface
reconstruction. Different atomic superstructures have been derived with various
experimental techniques
p [201]
p and theoretical approaches [33,202]. The missing-row
(MR) type Cu(001)-( 22 2)R45 -2O reconstruction, first proposed by Zeng and
Mitchell in 1988 [149,150], has been elegantly accepted. The latest conclusion
[19,38,94,15] about the phase forming kinetics was that a short-ordered nanometric
Cu(001)-c(22)-O1 precursor phase forms at 25 L (Langmuir=106 torr.sec) oxyp
p
gen exposure or lower, and then the ordered MR ( 22 2)R45 -2O2 structure
follows (the valencies of oxygen are denoted based on the current model for readers’
convenience).
It was resolved from the STM images in Fig. 4 that oxygen prefers the next-nearest-neighboring hollow site throughout the course of reaction. This implies the
strong site-specificity of the oxygen adsorbate [151,203]. At the initial stage of reaction (Fig. 4a), nanometric c(22)-2O1 domains dominate with zigzag and U-type
protruding boundaries. Upon increasing oxygen exposure, the short ordered c(22)p
p
O1 phase evolves into the ordered ( 22 2)R45 -2O2 structure by every fourth
row of Cu atoms becoming missing. In the second phase, the ‘dumb-bell’ shaped
protrusions in Fig. 4b bridge over the missing rows. The ‘dumb-bell’ protrusions
was interpreted as [36]: ‘the pairing of Cu–O–Cu chains by displacing the Cu and/or
O atoms next to the missing row by about 0.35 Å towards the missing row’ and ‘the
O-Cu-O chain is formed by the delocalized anti-bonding states’. The separation of
the paired rows was estimated to be 2.9 0.3 Å. The length of the bright spot was
about 5.1 Å. The height of the bright spot was 0.45 Å compared to the 0.3 Å protrusions on the pure Cu(001) surface [36].
Clearly, as can be resolved from the STM images for the precursor, the atomic
valencies of the Cu atoms sitting inside the domain of ‘depression’ differ completely
from that of the Cu atoms composing the protruding boundaries. The atomic
valencies of the paired protrusions should also differ from the depressions in the
second phase. This was the starting point that triggered the original exercise to
identifying the atomic valencies at the surface. We may note that obtaining a highquality STM image is infrequent and the form of the image is often subject to the tip
conditions and the applied bias voltages [204,205]. For instance, an asymmetrical tip
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
549
Fig. 4. STM images and the corresponding models [94] for the O–Cu(001) bi-phase structures. (a) and (c)
correspond to the nanometric c(22)-O1 domains with zigzag- and U-shaped protruding boundaries
p
p
[151]; (b) and (d) are the fully developed ( 22 2)R45 -2O2 structure [36]. The O–Cu–O pairing chains
(dumbbell-shaped bright spots) lie along the <010> direction.
or a different bias may modify the appearance of the image but it has less effect on
the nature of the bonding occurring at the surface. However, the STM images
documented for the O–Cu(001) second phase [206] show a similarity to that in
Fig. 4b. The tip effect on the STM image should be very interesting, but it is beyond
the scope of the BBB model for oxygen-metal interaction. Therefore, a model for the
interaction between the tip and the surface is necessary in this regard. Nevertheless,
it would be useful to note that the two sequential phases on the O–Cu(001) surface
p
p
are reversible. It has been found [207] that the ( 22 2)R45 -2O2 phase reverses
550
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
+
into the initial precursor state after sputtering by an energetic
followed
p Ar pbeam and
by flashing the sample up to 520 K. When annealing the ( 22 2)R45 -2O2 surface at a temperature corresponding to the ‘dull-red’ color of the Cu surface for half
an hour [208], sp-orbital de-hybridization occurs to the oxygen [209]. The atomic
geometry of the O–Cu(001) surface has been intensively studied using various techniques. The divergence of opinions is summarized in Table 5.
3.2.1.2. O–Cu(110). The O–Cu(110) surface has also been investigated intensively ever since the pioneer LEED study reported by Ertl in 1967 [2]. LEIS [210,211]
and SEXAFS [169,212,213] studies suggest a missing-row type reconstruction where
every other [010] Cu row on the surface is absent. In comparison, HEIS [214] and
STM [47,215] investigations support a buckled-row (BR) model in which the every
other row of Cu atoms is not missing but is shifted outwards instead. Moreover,
XRD [57], LEED [216] and ICISS [217,218] measurements indicate an added-row
(AR) type reconstruction. STM imaging [219–221] could finally settle the disagreement in favor of the missing-row reconstruction, which, however, should be viewed
as an ‘added-row’ phase due to the mass transportation mechanism. The MR and
AR models were thought to be the same at the saturation coverage, although the
mass transport for these two models is different [222]. The MR model requires
removal of alternate [010] Cu rows while the AR model requires addition of alternate [010] Cu rows by Cu-surface diffusion. Step edges presumably serve as sinks or
sources for Cu atoms at lower oxygen coverage. However, discrepancies exist on the
height of the oxygen atom and on the extent of the interlayer relaxation between the
two topmost Cu layers.
A summary of the structural parameters pertaining to the O–Cu(110) surface is
given in Table 6. It shows clearly that the results vary considerably depending on the
data sources. XRD [74] gives a considerably large first-layer expansion D12=1.65 Å
Table 5
Structural discrepancies for O-Cu(001) surface (Unit in Å)a
Ref.
Method
[81]
VLEED
DCux
DOx
DOz
DCuz
D12
Bond length
0.8
1.90 c(22)
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.1
1.90
[38
SEXAFS
0.25
0.03
0.2
0.1
1.86 2.07
0.15 0 3
0.1
0.8
0–0.25
c(22)
[206] STM, LEED
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.1
1.94 1.91
[150] LEED
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.1
1.94 1.81, 2.04 1.84(2)
[154] LEED, PED, NEXAFS 0.10.2
00.25
0.25
0.10.2 2.05 1.94
[152] LEED
0.10
0.0
0.10 0.05
2.06
[3]
EMT
>0.0
<0.0
0.30.5
[36]
STM
0.35
0.35
[93,97] VLEED
Bond length: 1.63(1); 1.77(1); 1.94 (2) Å, ionic bond angle: 102.5, lone
pair angle: 140.0
a
All are missing row structures unless otherwise denoted c(22). Parameters are the first interlayer
spacing, D12, the shift of the atom near the missing row (DCux, DCuz) and the displacement of the
adsorbate (DOx, DOz).
551
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
Table 6
The geometrical details of the Cu(110)-(21)-O surface (unit in Å)a
ICISS [170]
ICISS [210]
ICISS [217,218]
LEED [216]
SEXAFS [213]
SEXAFS [283]
XRD [48]
Theory [8]
Theory [23]
Model [93] +data [48]
Theory [293]
D12
D23
1.60 0.13
1.51 0.04
1.51 0.04
1.49 0.03
1.15 0.06
1.31
1.65 0.05
1.331
1.60 0.05
1.655
1.8770.2
D
1.28 0.20
1.21 0.03
0.12 0.07
0.03 0.03
1.28 0.01
0.0310.005
0.0310.005
DO
DCu(1)-O
DCu(2)-O
0.100.10
0.080.15
0.04 0.03
0.35
0.2
0.340.17
0.48
0.210.1
0.60
0.10.2
1.810.01
1.810.01
1.810.01
1.820.02
1.840.02
1.840.06
1.900.10
2.000.14
2.010.05
1.990.02
2.000.05
1.850.16
1.675
1.92
a
Listed are layer spacing D of the corresponding layers, the lateral shift of the second-layer atoms
towards the missing first-layer rows, the vertical O position DO relates to the first layer, and the bond
length to the nearest and the next-nearest Cu neighbors of the O adsorbate [21].
(+30%) and a second-layer contraction D23=1.15 Å (11%), and the oxygen is
located, DO=0.34 Å, beneath the missing-row layer. In contrast, a theoretical optimization [9] suggested a smaller first layer-expansion D12=1.331 Å (+4%) with
oxygen located 0.5 Å above the top layer. For the clean Cu(110) surface,
D12=1.17 Å (8.5%) and D23=1.307 Å (+2%) [66,170], as compared to the bulkinterlayer distance Dbulk=1.278 Å. The lateral displacements (parallel to the surface) of the Cu atoms remain very small. The measured vertical position of the
oxygen is quite uncertain and it varies considerably from positions above to below
the expanded first-layer of Cu atoms. An average of the reported values is often
used.
Pouthier et al. [223] examined the reported data and found a strong correlation
between the values of DO and D12. By taking parameters for charge transfer [223],
and the surface potential barrier [89,93] into account, numerical solutions would be
more complex. As can be seen from Fig. 5, the overall trend of the correlation
between D0 and D12 can be accounted for by a simple linear expression [88]:
DO ¼ 1:982 D12 þ 2:973 0:136 A :
The coefficients have no apparent physical meanings. The correlation between DO
and D12 has generated numerous mathematical solutions that have caused longlasting arguments.
Nevertheless, all the numerical solutions covered by the correlation region (Fig. 5)
could be correct from a numerical point of view. This should be true as the diffraction intensity depends on the arrangement of the scattering centers with various
diffraction cross-sections. The cross-section of diffraction should vary with the
effective number of electrons of the scattering atom. The arrangement of scattering
centers determines the phase-shift of the diffracted beams. The cross-section of the
scatter determines the amplitude of the diffracted waves. Therefore, the diffraction
552
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
Fig. 5. Correlation between the interlayer spacing D12 and the oxygen position DO with respect to the
topmost Cu plane (see inset) [88]. The data are given in Table 6. The symmetry points for O and Cu are
0.010.59 and 1.500.16 Å. Case [8] transforms to [10] can be realized by rotating the O–Cu–O chain
around its axis 180 and shifting the axis from 1.166 (O above) to 1.540 Å (O below). This indicates the
uncertainty of atomic positions derived from diffraction.
can identify nothing about the nature of the scattering centers but only show the
resultant effect of scattering from the geometrical arrangement of the scattering
centers of different cross-sections. With XRD and DFT, Vlieg et al. [224] determined
for the Cu(410)–O surface two detailed structural solutions which give equally
acceptable fits to the XRD data after imposition of a Leonard–Jones penalty factor.
These models differ especially in the O positions, but one is found to be more
favored by comparison with the results of the DFT calculations, and by considerations based on bond lengths and valence.
It can be found from Fig. 5 that the vertical position of the adsorbate ranges from
DO=0.01 0.59 Å relative to the buckled Cu layer. The spacing between the second and the top Cu layer D12 is 1.50 0.16 Å. If the top Cu layer buckles upward,
the adsorbate will buckle inward, and vice versa. For each pair of values of (D12,
DO) that fit the diffraction data there must exist a counterpart set that also fit. For
example, the value at point [8] couples with the value at point [10]. Both are the
numerical solutions for the same system. This couple can be obtained by rotating the
O–Cu–O chain 180 around its axis, and followed by offsetting the O–Cu–O chain in
the vertical direction. A half lattice-constant glide shift along the O–Cu–O chain is
also necessary. The exchange in the vertical position of O and Cu (0.59/0.16=3.68)
seems to approach the ratio of atomic numbers ZCu/ZO=58/16=3.63. This relation
infers indeed, to a certain extent, that the cross-section depends on the charge of the
specific scattering center. Therefore, all the solutions along the line from [8] to [10]
can find a counterpart that could fit the diffraction data. The vertical change of
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
553
positions for both the partners should satisfy the numerical relation between D0 and
D12. However, the simple operation on the O–Cu–O chain provides entirely different
physical meanings. Therefore, physical constraints should be necessary for the multiple solutions. For instance, the on-surface oxygen should be excluded for the fully
developed surface oxidation. This is because the Cu+ and O-2 are hardly detectable
using an STM due to the altered atomic valencies. The on-surface oxygen should
produce no protrusions in the STM images. As will be discussed later, the vertical
positions of the sub-surface oxygen also give different geometrical configurations of
the oxide tetrahedron.
Considerable efforts with STM imaging have also been made on studies of the
O–Cu(110) surface [47,168,215,217,218,220]. A typical STM image and the corresponding model for the (21)-O phase are illustrated in Fig. 6. In the STM image,
the round bright spots of 0.8 0.2 Å in height are separated by 5.1 Å in the [110]
direction and 3.6 Å in the [010] direction. Single O–Cu–O strings are formed along
the [010] direction, or perpendicular to the close-packed Cu row. In contrast, the
protrusion for the clean Cu(110) surface is about 0.15 Å [47].
Exposing the Cu(110)-(21)-O2 surface to higher amounts of oxygen at T > 300
K initiates a second structural phase of c(62)-8O2. STM images of the c(62)8O2 structure [48,168,225,226] show a corrugation pattern consisting of a quasihexagonal arrangement of ‘ellipsoid’ protrusions. Fig. 7 shows the c(62) domains
adjacent to the (21) phase. Higher resolution images of the c(62) structure in the
right-hand panel display additional weaker features between the large ‘bumps’. The
height of the bright spots was reported to be 0.6 0.1 Å, slightly lower than the
Fig. 6. STM image [47] and the corresponding models [93] for the surface atomic valencies of Cu(110)(21)-O2 [219]. The STM grey-scale is 0.85 Å, much higher than that of metallic Cu on a clean (110)
surface (0.15 Å). The single ‘O2 : Cudipole : O2’ chain is zigzagged by the non-bonding lone pairs and
composed of the tetrahedron.
554
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
Fig. 7. STM image [48] and the corresponding models [93] for the surface atomic valencies of Cu(110)c(62)-8O2 phase. The STM grey-scale is 0.66 Å. The ‘O2 : Cudipole : O2’ chains are paired by the
rotation of every other tetrahedron that produce the dipole bridge over the missing row. The pairing
chains interlock the Cu+/dipole at the surface with regularly protruding dipoles.
round spot in the (21)-O2 surface, but much higher than that of the clean Cu(110)
surface.
Feidenhans’l et al. [48,226] derived a structural model based on their studies using
the combination of STM and XRD measurements and EMT computations. The
model illustrates that, in the second phase of the O–Cu(110) surface, there are two
kinds of oxygen atoms with different vertical positions; every third row of Cu atoms
is missed and additional Cu atoms are buckled up, crossing over the missing rows
(see Fig. 7). Liu et al. [227] and Dorenbos et al. [228] further confirmed this structure
by using the tensor-LEED and LEISS (low energy ion scattering spectroscopy),
respectively. The vertical positions of the atoms are listed in Table 7. In the model of
Fig. 7, the sublayers (labeled 1 and 3) are composed of Cu and the layers 2 and 4 are
oxygen. The atomic valencies in various layers will be specified in the next section
based on a reaction formula.
555
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
Table 7
Summary of the vertical positions of ion cores for the Cu(110)-c(62)-8O surface
STM, XRD, EMT [48,226], Tensor-LEED [227]
LEIS [228]
D13
D23
D34
1.2
0.450.12
0.4
0.40 0.12
0.2
0.120.12
3.2.1.3. O–Cu(111). It has been understood that the dissociate adsorption of
oxygen on the Cu(111) surface roughens the surface with short-range order [2,229].
HREELS studies [230] suggest that oxygen chemisorbs at the threefold hollow site,
either in, or below, the outermost plane of Cu atoms, resulting in a small work function change. LEISS studies [231] revealed that oxygen induces a restructuring that
involves a 0.3 Å displacement of Cu atoms. SEXAFS [232] determined that oxygen
atoms adsorb in the threefold hollow sites with the O–Cu bond of 1.83 0.02 Å in
length, close to the corresponding bulk value for Cu2O (also the average bond length
determined in the current study). The Cu–Cu distance is considerably relaxed
(3.15 0.1 Å) with respect to the Cu-Cu separation in the bulk (2.555 Å). Furthermore,
an IPES study [233] revealed that an extra band around 3.0 eV is produced above EF at
%, the center of the first Brillouin zone. These earlier observations provide strong evidence that the O–Cu(111) surface reconstructs with short-range order. The rearrangement of the Cu atoms indicates that the impinging oxygen adsorbate ‘pushes
out’ the Cu atoms that roughen the surface of the disordered oxide precursor [21].
With a combination of STM, HEISS, and LEED, Jensen et al. [188] found two
new well-ordered, O-induced commensurate reconstructions with extremely large
unit cells, 29 and 44 times the (11) surface lattice, after an exposure of 300 L oxygen at 673 K and post-annealing to 723 and 773 K, respectively. Matsumoto et al.
[234] confirmed these structural phases in a recent LEED and STM study. As shown
in Fig. 8, there is a series of ‘double-holes’ and distorted ‘honey-comb’ frames composed of the ‘dumb-bell’ shaped bright spots as observed in the O–Cu(001) surface.
Fig. 8. (a) STM topography (It=2.9 nA, Vs=55 mV) of a 6060 Å2 region of O–Cu(111) surface showing the ‘29’ structure. Grey scale is 0.27 Å. (b) Topography (It=4.9 nA, Vs=7 mV) of a 6060 Å2 region
showing the ‘44’ structure. The grey-scale from black to white corresponds to 0.55 Å [188].
556
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
3.2.2. Analysis
We now turn to revisiting the well-determined O–Cu{(001), (110), (111)} surface
reconstructions from the perspective of bond forming. It is shown that the reaction
can be formulated by specifying the atomic valencies at the surfaces. The phase
ordering and the derivatives originate from the formation of the O1 and subsequently the O2 with sp-orbital hybridization. The various observations from
Cu{(001), (110), (111)} surfaces with chemisorbed oxygen are purely the result of
geometrical coordination effects on bond forming, because of the same atomic size
and electronegativity.
3.2.2.1. Cu(001)-c(22)-2O1: off-centered CuO2 pairing pyramid. Initially, the
O2 molecule dissociates and then the oxygen atom immediately bonds to one atom
at the surface. Bond theories [103,235] indicate that it is forbidden for an oxygen
adsorbate to form identical bonds with four atoms which are located in the same
plane, because oxygen possesses at most four directional orbitals. The model in
Fig. 4c states that the O1 forms a bond with one of its four neighbors at the surface
1
and
polarizes the rest. This gives rise to two typical domains in a
p the
pO
( 22 2)R45 complex unit cell, which can be represented by:
O2 ðadsorbateÞ þ 7Cu ðsurfaceÞ
) 2O1 þ Cuþ2 ðdomainÞ þ 6Cudipole ðdomain boundaryÞ;
ðCuO2 pairing pyramidÞ
p
p
or a (2 22 2)R45 complex unit cell:
2½O2 ðadsorbateÞ þ 6Cu ðsurfaceÞ
) 4 O1 þ Cuþ1 ðdomainÞ þ 8Cudipole ðdomain boundaryÞ
ð3:2:1aÞ
ð4CuO off-centered pyramidÞ
The [2O1+Cu+2] or the 4[O1+Cu+1] domains form the depressed domains and
the O1-induced Cudipole builds up the ‘engaged-cogwheels’ domain boundary that
are detected as U- or zigzag-shaped patches of protrusions in STM imaging (Fig. 4a).
Larger domains consisting of c(22)-2O1 unit cells can be constructed by adding
more oxygen adsorbates to the surface. The additional oxygen catches one electron
from a dipole and polarizes its rest neighbors in the top layer. The model of the
surface matrix in Fig. 4c shows the alternative sign of charge distribution both
within the domains and in the domain boundaries. Therefore, the surface is fully
covered with dipoles in a way that stabilizes not only the domains but also the domain
boundaries. At this phase, the surface stress should be tensile though further confirmation is needed. Clearly, the atomic valencies of the copper atoms within the
domain (O1, Cu+1 or Cu+2) differ from that at the domain boundary (Cudipole). It is
to be noted that the surface reaction takes place without the second atomic layer being
involved at the precursor stage. There are no atoms missing in the short-ordered
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
557
c(22)-2O1 surface. As optimized with VLEED, the small off-centered shift of the
adsorbate (DOz 0.40 Å. DOx 0.18 Å is about 5% of the fourfold hollow
dimension) is beyond the resolution of an STM.
p
p
Cu(001)-( 22 2)R45 -2O2: Cu3O2 pairing tetrahedron. Upon increasing
oxygen-exposure the ‘disordered’ nanometric Cu(001)-c(22)-2O1 domain develp
p
ops into the ‘ordered’ ( 22 2)R45 -2O2 phase in which every fourth row of Cu
atoms is missing. As an intermediate and quasi-stable state, the O1 tends to catch
another electron from its neighbors. Once its two bonding orbitals are fully occupied, the sp-orbital hybridization follows [97]. As a consequence, a tetrahedron
forms with two additional orbitals that are occupied by lone electron pairs of the
oxygen. The Cu(001) surface geometry allows the intriguing Cu3O2 pairing tetrahedron to form in such a way that the substrate is involved, as shown in Fig. 4d. A
perspective view of the Cu3O2 pairing tetrahedron is illustrated in Fig. 9. We may
formulate the O–Cu(001) bi-phase ordering as the effect of the O1 and subsequently the hybridized-O2 formation. The complete process of reaction is described
as follows:
p p
Fig. 9. Perspective of the Cu3O2 pairing tetrahedron in the Cu(001)-(2 2 2)R45 -2O2 unit cell [97]
2
[reaction formula is given in Eq. (3.2.1b)]. O prefers the center of a quasi tetrahedron. Atoms 1 and 2
are Cu+2 and Cu+. Atom 3 is Cudipole and M is the vacancy of the missing Cu. Atom 4 is metallic Cu
atom. The pairing dipoles 3–3 cross over the missing row.
558
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
O2 ðadsorbateÞ þ 4Cu ðsurfaceÞ þ 2Cu ðsubstrateÞ
) 2O1 þ Cu2þ ðsurfaceÞ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ðCuO2 pairing pyramidsÞ
þ 3Cudipole ðO1 -inducedÞ þ 2CuðsubstrateÞ - - - - - - - - - - - ðbonding effectÞ
then, upon increasing oxygen exposure,
) 2O2 ðhybridÞ þ Cu2þ ðsurfaceÞ þ 2Cuþ ðsubstrateÞ - - - - - - - - - - ðCu3 O2
pairing tetrahedronÞ
þ 2Cudipole ðlone-pair inducedÞ þ Cu ðMR vacancyÞ - - - - - - ðbonding effectÞ
ð3:2:1bÞ
In the first phase, the Cu2+ connects the two off-centered pyramids on the surface to
form a CuO2 (see lower side in Fig. 4c). In the second phase, the Cu2+ couples two
Cu
giving rise to the Cu3O2 structure. The top layer of the Cu(001)p 2O-tetrahedra,
p
( 22 2)R45 -2O2 surface contains rows of Cu2+, a pairing [O2 : Cudipole : O2]
row and the missing-row vacancy; the second layer is composed of alternate rows of
Cu and Cu+. In the second phase, the surface stress seems to be compressive due to
the repulsion among the surface dipoles. The adsorbate–adsorbate interaction is
always repulsive throughout the course of phase transformation because the identical
valencies of them. It is pointed out that as the origin of the observations, the bond
forming processes are hardly detectable with currently available means. What one is
able to observe is the effect of bonding–dipole protrusions and missing row vacancies.
3.2.2.2. Cu(110)-(21)-O2 : single O–Cu–O chain. Comparatively, the Cu(110)(21)-O-2 surface reaction, as shown in Fig. 6, can also be expressed as an effect
of the hybridized-O2 formation. The characteristics of this phase is the
combination of the alternate missing-row (MR) of Cu and the buckled row (BR)
of the ‘O2 : Cudipole : O2’ chain. The ‘:’ represents the lone electron pair of oxygen
that zigzags the buckled string.
The formula for the MR+BR reconstruction is given as (for a c(22) unit cell):
O2 ðadsorbateÞ þ 4 Cu ðsurfaceÞ þ 4 Cu ðsubstrateÞ
) 2 O2 ðhybridÞ þ 2Cuþ ðsubstrateÞ - - - - - - - - - - - - - ðCu2 O bondingÞ
þ 2 Cu ðMR vacancyÞ þ Cudipole ðBRÞ - - - - - - - - - - - ðthe bonding effectÞ
ð3:2:2aÞ
or even the added row (AR) model:
O2 ðadsorbateÞ þ 4Cu ðsurfaceÞ þ 2Cu ðterrace edgesÞ
) 2 O2 ðhybridÞ þ 2Cuþ ðsurfaceÞ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ðCu2 O bondingÞ
þ 2Cudipole ðbuckled ARÞ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ðthe bonding effectÞ
ð3:2:2bÞ
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
559
From the mass-transport point of view, the Cu(110)-(21)-O2 phase is made
simply by every other Cu-row missing or an O–Cu–O raw being added which is
buckled up. Although the mass-transport mechanisms [222] in the MR+BR and the
AR models are different, as reflected in the formulae, the cause of the reconstruction
(Cu2O bonding) is the same.
Formulae (3.2.2) indicate that all the MR, BR and the AR models are correct in
the sense of bonding effect, but the combination with their cause (Cu2O bond
forming), would be complete. The model can also be applied to the similar
fcc(110)-c(n1)-O2 surface of Ni, Ag [21], Pt [236] and Cu(112) surface, as well as
the bcc(112) surface of Mo and Fe with chemisorbed oxygen. Recently, Schroeder et
al. [237] and Santra et al. [238] noted that the O–Mo(112) surface shares similar
STM patterns to that of the O–Cu(110) surface. Tan et al. [239] have found with
STM and LEED similar one-dimensional Cu–O–Cu strings added on the Cu(112)
surfaces upon oxygen chemisorption. LEED study [240] revealed a missing-row type
reconstruction forms at the Fe(112)-p(21)-O phase where the O–M–O chain runs
perpendicular to the close-packed rows of the substrate.
From the bond forming point of view, the bi-phase and related phenomena on the
O–Cu{(001), (110)} surfaces can be originated from charge transportation, that is, the
O1 and the hybridized-O2 formation. Oxygen catches electrons one by one from its
two nearest neighbors. As the effect of hybridized-O2 on both the Cu(001) and the
Cu(110) surfaces, the lone-pair-induced dipoles are responsible for the protrusions in
the STM images. It is clear that the [: O2 : Cudipole : O2 :] chain is ‘zigzagged’ by the
lone pairs (Fig. 6) rather than it is co-lined by states of anti-bonding, covalent bonding
or even ionic bonding. The removal of the missing-row atom from both surfaces
results from the isolation of the specific Cu atom as its neighbors have already bonded
2
to the oxygen. The Cu(110)-(21)-O
phase, whether added-row or missing-row,
p
p
differs in origin from the Cu(001)-( 22 2)R45 -2O2 surface by nothing more than
that the [O2 : Cudipole : O2 :] chain rotates around its axis by 45 to fit itself to the
coordination surroundings. The simple rotation has indeed yielded different valencies
of atoms in the surface planes. The difference in the coordination geometry between
the two surfaces appears to be the origin of the complexity of surface oxidation.
Instead of an intermediate-O1 state like that on the Cu(001) surface, O2 forms
directly at the Cu(110) surface. The oxygen adsorbate may catch two electrons from
its nearest neighbors (shortest spacing, 2.552 Å) in sequence. Meanwhile, the adsorbate also requires extra atoms for the Cudipole to complete the tetrahedron. Due to the
expansion of dipole dimension and the repulsion between the non-bonding lone pairs,
dipoles tend to expose to the open end of the surface. Apparently, oxygen atoms can
hardly find edge atoms from a perfectly finished Cu(110) surface. The situation may
change, however, if the (110) face has sufficient terrace defects. This is suggested to
be the origin as to why the Cu(001) face is oxidized easier or harder. We may
therefore infer that the tetrahedron is the basic and stable building block in oxidation. If the tetrahedron is destroyed, oxygen will seek new partners for a new tetrahedron—a process of re-bonding or bond switching. This may provide a mechanism
for O-penetrating in bulk oxidation and O-floating in the epitaxial growth of metals
on the oxygen pre-covered metal surfaces [241,242].
560
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
We may also suggest a formula for the Cu(110)-c(62)-8O2 phase with specification of the atomic valencies in different sublayers (Fig. 6d):
4O2 þ 12Cu ðsurfaceÞ þ 12Cu ðsubstrateÞ
) 4Cu ðMR vacancyÞ þ 2Cudipole ðsupplied by the MRÞ - - - - - - - ðlayer 1Þ
þ 4O2 ðhybrid; large filled circleÞ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ðlayer 2Þ
þ 8Cuþ=dipole ðserve as Cuþ for the upper O2 Þ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ðlayer 3Þ
þ 4O2 ðhybridÞ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ðlayer 4Þ
þ 4Cudipole ðinteracting with the upper O2 Þ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ðlayer 5Þ
þ 8Cuþ ðsmall open circleÞ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ðlayer 6Þ
ð3:2:3Þ
Instead of varying the valencies of the oxygen adsorbate, further exposure at
raised temperature increases the oxygen-coverage from 1/2 to 2/3 ML. The
process of oxygen re-bonding, which reorganizes the tetrahedron and the Cu
atoms at the surface, changes the structural pattern. Self-organization of the
Cu2O tetrahedron yields two kinds of oxygen positions (layer 2 and 4), as can
be seen from the side view of Fig. 7. The lower O2, the Cu+ at layer 6 and
the Cudipole at layer 3 build up the first Cu2O tetrahedron, which orientates the
same as the Cu2O in the (21)-O2 phase. Acting as a donor for further
bonding, the Cudipole at layer 3 provides an electron to the upper O2 and the
Cudipole becomes Cu+/dipole. The non-bonding lone pairs of the upper O2 then
induce the Cudipole at layer 1 and 5 to form another Cu2O tetrahedron with altered
orientation, which interlocks the O–Cu–O chains near to the missing row. Differing
from the (21)-O2, the substrate (sublayer 5 and 6) is composed of Cu+ and
Cudipole alternatively along the original O–Cu–O chain. They are arranged in a much
more complicated array than even that of the second layer of the Cu(001)p
p
( 22 2)R45 -2O2 phase. It is to be noted that two of the four missing Cu atoms
become the Cudipole that bridge over the missing row and they are responsible for the
recorded STM ‘ellipsoid’ protrusions. The atomic arrangement specified by the tetrahedron agrees with that determined by other researchers (refer to Table 7). One
oxygen adsorbate atom locates below the Cu layer labeled 3 and the other oxygen
above. The possible mechanism causing such a more complicated phase is suggested
to be that thermal energy relaxes the Cu2O bonding and further exposure enhances
the self-organization. The reversibility of the bond forming and a suitable ambient
produces a phase with more close-packed Cu2O and H-like bond involvement,
which is even stable. Fig. 7 also shows the molecule structure of the pairing O–Cu–O
chain bridges over the missing row. The protruding dipoles are responsible for the
‘ellipsoid’ STM protrusions.
It is worth mentioning that the lone-pair-induced Cudipole (layer 3) interacts further with the upper O2. Such a set of interactions (O2 : Cu+/dipole-O2) forms an
identical system to the hydrogen bond by definition. Such configuration has been
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
561
defined as an H-like bond to discriminate the Cu+/dipole from the H+/dipole in
the hydrogen bond. According to the bond theory of Atkins [107], one may
further infer that the H-like bond forms if the lone-pair-induced dipole combines further with other electronegative specimen through bonding orbitals.
Otherwise, an anti-bonding dipole is retained. It is known that the major contribution to an anti-bonding state is made by the less electronegative element
[107]. Therefore, anti-bonding dipole-dipole interaction hardly ever forms
between specimens with large differences in electronegativity. A typical example
of the anti-bonding configuration
the quadruples in Fig. 4d, or the ‘dumb-bell’
p is p
protrusions in the Cu(001)-( 22 2)R45 -2O2 STM image. This inference
may be necessary in understanding the heterogeneous catalysis. For example,
the formation of H-like bonds may provide a more feasible mechanism for forming
isocyanate (N, C, O) on the Ru(0001) surface. As found by Kostov et al. [203],
the isocyanate could only be formed on the Ru(0001) surface in the presence of
pre-adsorbed oxygen. It is expected that the anti-bonding electrons of the dipoles
readily combine with new adsorbates (nitrogen or carbon), lowering the system
energy.
3.2.2.3. O–Cu(111). Reconstruction phases on the Cu(111)-O surface are most
complicated and the corresponding reaction formulae need to be defined. The Cu–
Cu lattice distortion (3.15 0.10 Å being the scale of dipole-dipole separation) is
indicative of oxide tetrahedron formation. The STM protrusions (Fig. 8) and the
oxygen-derived DOS ( 3.0 eV) above the EF imply the presence of anti-bonding
dipoles in the Cu(111)-O surface.
3.2.3. Quantification: bond geometry and bonding kinetics
3.2.3.1. Kinetic VLEED from O–Cu(001). It is known that energetic electron
beams in LEED (E5102 eV) interact with a stack of ordered layers of ion cores.
Information derived from LEED patterns is the symmetry and size of the unit cells.
Decoding LEED I–V profiles generates knowledge about atomic positions but the
accuracy is always under question. In the VLEED (LEED with E < 30 eV, or lower
than the plasma excitation energy), electron beams interact with the valence electrons of a few surface atomic layers and with the potential barrier of the surface.
VLEED provides highly informative data but sophisticated data processing is
required. It has been shown that VLEED (at E < 16 eV) could simultaneously collect
non-destructive information from the top layer of a surface about the behavior of
atoms (bond geometry) and valence electrons (DOS features) and the morphology
(SPB) of the surface [99].
Intensive calculations have been carried out on VLEED from an O–Cu(001)
surface [208,243]. The calculations used the code developed by Thurgate [81].
The codep involves
multiple-diffraction events and multi-atoms in a complex
p
Cu(001)-( 22 2)R45 -2O2 unit cell. Fig. 9 gives the Cu3O2 structure used in the
calculations. First, the calculation code reads in the parameters of the first interlayer
spacing, D12, the shift of the Cudipole (DCux, DCuz) and the displacement of
the adsorbate (DOx, DOz). These data are converted from variables of bond
562
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
geometry. The bond variables vary within a range that is subject to physical
constraints. The bonds contract by Q1=0.12, Q2=0.04 0.04, the Cudipole shifts
within DCux=0.25 0.25 Å, and the bond angle BA12 varies within 104.5 . Secondly, the VLEED code optimizes the SPB constants such as the inner potential
constant, V0, the amplitude of the inelastic potential, g, and the slope of the
energy dependence, d, of the imaginary part of the SPB (Section 2.4). Calculations are performed based on the parameterized SPB by varying z0 over-2.5 1.25
[for pure Cu(001)] in steps of 0.25 (atomic unit). A contour plot of z0 versus E is
then drawn with a matching between the calculated intensity and the measurement, Ic(z0i, E)/Im(E)=1.0 0.05. The z0(E) contour plot is the unique yield of the
calculation of this method. The plot shows the shape of the z0(E) curve that gives
the desired best fit of the measurement and shows all the possible solutions within
the limits of parameter variation. This z0-scanning method is also a convenient
way to compare different models and to refine the parameters of the SPB and the
bond geometry.
Once the refinement of the z0(E) plot is complete, the program automatically fits
the value of the z0(Ei) to give a desired level of agreement (for example 3% error
bar). In contrast to the z0-scanning method, the step of z0 automatically varies
from 0.25 to 0.0005 depending on the ratio of =Ic(Ei)/Im(Ei). If reaches the
required precision, calculation will automatically turn to the next energy step Ei+1
of measurement. This method yields simply the geometry-dependent z0(E) profile
and reproduces the measured VLEED spectrum. Quantities such as the bond geometry, work function, barrier shapes and energy band structure are automatically
given as the product of the data processing.
Decoding of the angular-resolved VLEED profiles from the O–Cu(001) surface
has yielded static information about the Brillouin zones, band structure and bond
geometry [244,245]. Calculations also reveal the non-uniformity and anisotropy of
the SPB, and the distribution of the DOS in the upper part of the valence band. It
has been revealed that oxygen adsorption has reduced the inner potential constant
(V0) by 9.6% (from 11.56 a.u. to 10.5 a.u) and the work function by 1.2 eV from 5.0
to 3.8 eV. The oxygen-reduced V0 is due to the transport of atoms and valence
electrons at the surface. The lowered work function arises from surface dipole formation that increases the local charge density.
VLEED revealed that, apart from long-term aging, the reaction upon aging and
annealing differs only slightly from that upon increasing the exposure of the
O–Cu(001) surface. It was discovered from the decoding that annealing at a temperature of ‘dull red’ supplies energy for oxygen de-hybridization rather than the
driving force that enhances bond formation. Calculations excluded both the offcentered pyramid structure with oxygen higher than 0.4 Å above the top layer and
the centered pyramid structure with four identical O–Cu bonds for the precursor
c(22)-O1 phase [209]. More details about the VLEED quantification of the
O–Cu(001) bonding kinetics have been reported in Ref. [99]. For comprehensiveness, here we introduce briefly the results that are of immediate relevance.
Fig. 10(a–c) shows the VLEED (00) beam reflectance I00/I0 versus the incident
beam energy measured at 70 incidence and 42 azimuth angles [208]. It is obvious
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
563
Fig. 10. Exposure-resolved VLEED spectra (a–c) measured at 70.0 incidence and 42.0 azimuth from the
O–Cu(001) surface [208], and the calculated results (d–f) from varying the individual bond variables of Q2,
BA12 and DCux. Variations of intensities in panel (a–c) at 7.1, 9.1 and 10.3 eV show four reaction stages.
Calculations (d–f) for 400 L oxygen-exposure by using bond variables can reproduce the trends of
measurement at different stages [97].
that the VLEED spectral features are very sensitive to the oxygen-exposure. The
variations of the typical peaks at 7.1, 9.1 and 10.3 eV show that the reaction progresses in four discrete stages:
YO 430 L: When the exposures are smaller than 30 L, the peak at 7.1 eV
decreases in magnitude until oxygen exposure reaches 30 L, while other peaks
show little change.
564
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
30 L < YO 435 L: In the region of 30–35 L, the decreased peak intensity at
7.1 eV recovers a little.
35 L < YO 4200 L: From 35 to 200 L, the first peak attenuates while one new
peak at 9.1 eV emerges; and then both the peak at 9.1 eV and the peak at 10.3
eV have increasing to maximum values up to 200 L.
YO > 200 L: When the exposures are greater than 200 L, a general
attenuation of the entire spectrum occurs.
The calculations for the 400 L oxygen-exposure by individually varying the bond
variables BA12, Q2 and BL2 can reproduce the measured trends, as summarized in
Fig. 10(d–f). Results indicate that:
The oxygen-coverage is maintained at 0.5 ML throughout the course of
reaction.
The results, especially, in panels (e) and (f), agree remarkably well with the
measured trends given in panels (b) and (c), respectively. This indicates that
the process of Cu2O bond forming dominates in the reaction while the SPB is
relatively insensitive to the oxygen exposures.
The four discrete stages of reaction can be simply simulated by varying the
bond variables individually. For instance, features appearing in the range from 35
to 200 L are dominated by either the increase of ff1O2 or BL2 extension. However,
ff1O2 expansion and BL2 contraction is physically reasonable process. The
spectral features for samples with oxygen exposure greater than 200 L result
from the increase of DCux alone. From 30 to 35 L, the recovery of the peak
at 7.1 eV can be realized by increasing the Q2 with smaller ff1O2 and smaller
DCux.
Variation of DCuz gives a little change of the spectral intensity between 9.5
and 11.5 eV. Varying the DCuz produces no features that could match
measurements. Therefore, the individual shift of an atom at a time does not
occur in the real process of bond formation.
Fig. 11 shows the offset of the oxygen-exposure resolved z0(E) profiles, which
reproduce the measured spectra in Fig. 10(a–c). It is seen that the z0(E) profiles, in
general, are relatively insensitive to the variation of the exposure. The z0(E) profiles
are similar in shape except for the slight difference below 7.5 eV for 25 L exposure.
This further confirms the assumption that the SPB is much less sensitive to the
exposure than the bond geometry. The slight outward-shift (-z direction, relative to
2.5 a.u. as indicated by broken lines) of the z0(E) curves at higher exposures
increases the n(E), which reduces the work function in the area over which VLEED
integrates (mm level). The shape of the z0(E) profile is a joint contribution of the
occupied DOS, n(E), and the surface corrugation (local spatial DOS n(x, y)). The
non-constant form of the z0(E) can be understood as due to the O-induced ‘rather
local’ properties as revealed by STM and due to the non-uniform DOS in the
valence band as well. The z0(E) in the z-direction is about (2.3)–(3.3) (atomic
unit)=0.53 Å which coincides with the 0.45 Å STM grey-scale [36]. The vacating,
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
565
Fig. 11. (a and b) The exposure-resolved z0(E) profiles provide duplication of the spectra in Fig. 10(a–c).
The z-axis is directed into the bulk. The 7.1 eV features on the z0(E) curves (4600 L) agree with those
appearing in STS from O–Cu–O chain [47]. Absence of the feature below 7.1 eV for 25 L indicates that the
O1 dominates at this coverage. Straight lines indicate the z0 value (2.5 a.u.) for a pure Cu(001) surface.
The general outward-shift of the z0(E) profiles corresponds to a reduction in the work function [97].
ionizing and polarizing of atoms at the surface result in the strong corrugation of the
surface.
The small features at 7.1 eV which appeared in the z0(E) curves of 30–600 L coincide with the sharp peak at 2.1 eV below-EF probed with STS from the O–Cu–O chain
region [47]. The new occupied states below 7.5 eV are identified as the contribution
from non-bonding lone pairs. Hence, the absence of the lone-pair features below 7.5
eV at 25 L oxygen exposure implies that the sp orbitals of the O1 have not yet
hybridized in the O1-derived precursor phase. It is thus clear that the sp orbitals of
oxygen can never hybridize unless the two bonding orbitals of the oxygen are fully
occupied. The absence of the 7.1 eV sharp features above 600 L oxygen-exposure is
the annihilation of the lone pair information by the anti-bonding dipoles that are
shifted outward and are highly saturated, as specified in the SPB model [98].
The violent features at 11.8–12.5 eV come from the band-gap reflection. Features
surrounding the band-gap come from electron-excitation near band edges and the
formation of standing waves at the boundaries of Brillouin zones. It is noted that the
shapes of all the z0(E) profiles are quite similar at energies higher than 7.5 eV. The
DOS at the bottom of the valence band of Cu, and even the deeper p-band, are less
affected by oxidation. The DOS features for the bonding (5 eV below EF) are not
detectable with VLEED because these features are annihilated by the standing
waves at the boundary of the Brillouin zone. Therefore, exercises focusing on the
variation of the valence DOS are on right track.
The BBB model and the new decoding method for VLEED have thus enabled the
O–Cu(001) surface bonding kinetics to be decoded and consistently understood. The
566
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
four-stage Cu3O2 bond forming kinetics is quantified as follows (refer to Fig. 9 and
Table 8, also a multimedia as supplementary information):
YO 430 L: The dissociated oxygen atom forms one contracting (Q1=12%)
ionic bond with a Cu atom (labeled 1) on the surface. Meanwhile, metallic bonds
break up and the missing row forms. The DCux reaches 0.15 Å and ff1O2 reaches
94.0 . The O1 locates above the surface and forms an off-centered pyramid with
its surface dipole neighbors. The missing-row atom seems to be attracted by the
pairing O1 and repelled by the dipoles, and eventually evaporates.
30 L < YO 435 L: The O1 forms the second contracting (increase Q2 from 0
to 4%) ionic bond with a Cu atom (labeled 2) in the substrate second layer;
the sp orbitals of the O2 start to hybridize. The O2 penetrates into the bulk;
meanwhile, the angle ff1O2 expands from 94.0 to 98.0 .
35 L < YO 4200 L: The angle ff1O2 increases from 98.0 to a saturation value
of 102.0 , which causes the first interlayer spacing D12 to expand by about
10%, while other parameters have little change.
YO > 200 L: The interaction between the O2 and the lone-pair-induced
Cudipole develops. Lone pairs push the Cudipole outward, and consequently,
pairing dipoles form and bridge over the missing row. The DCux increases
from 0.15 to a maximum 0.45 Å at 800 L and above.
Table 8
Four-stage O–Cu(001) surface bonding kinetics [97]a
Reaction
stage
1 ( <30 L: BL1 formation); 2 (3035 L: BL2 and ff1O2 change);
3 (35200 L: ff1O2 expansion); 4 ( ff 200L: DCux increase)
Exposure
(L)
Q2
Bond
BA12
geometry
(Q1=0.12) DCux
25
30
35
0
92.5
0.125
0
94.0
0.150
0.04
98.0
50
0.04
100.0
100
200
101.0
102.0
Atomic shift DCuz 0.1460 0.1440
(Å)
DOx
0.1814 0.1796
DOz
0.0889 0.0447
0.1268
0.1802
0.0618
0.0938
0.1831
0.1158
0.0844
0.1852
0.1422
0.0709
0.1877
0.1682
Layer
D12
1.7522
1.7966
1.8287
1.8824
1.9086
1.9343
Bond length BL1
(Å)
BL2
BL3
1.628
1.850
1.8172
1.8326
1.776
1.8833
1.8983
1.9053
1.9121
Bond angle BA13 95.70
( )
BA23 91.80
BA33 165.87
98.82
93.11
160.83
104.24
95.75
145.26
105.12
96.46
144.32
105.64
96.83
143.02
105.33
95.18
141.82
400
600
5800
0.250
0.355
0.450
0.1495
0.2239
0.2849
1.9262
1.9396
1.9505
105.30
99.52
139.43
104.01
101.67
135.38
103.83
103.43
135.71
a
Empty space is identical in value to that in the corresponding cell of the previous column. All information is provided by the controlling variables (BA12, Q2, DCux). Error bar for bond length is 0.010 Å
and for bond angle is 0.2 . The SPB constants: V0=10.50 eV, =0.9703, =6.4478.
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
567
Representing the joint spatial and energy DOS, the variations of the structuraldependent z0(E) profiles (Fig. 11) agree with the bonding kinetics:
The slight outward-shift of the z0(E) profile at higher exposures reduces the work
function, which corresponds to the development of the anti-bonding Cudipole.
Features below 7.5 eV, particularly the small sharp peak at 7.1 eV, are
derivatives of the non-bonding lone pairs of the O2. The absence of these
features at 25 L originates from the O1 precursor, in which no lone pair has
formed; while at higher oxygen exposures the lone pair information is annihilated by the protruding Cudipole characteristics.
Similarity of the fine-structure shapes at energies higher than 7.5 eV of all the
profiles implies that electrons in the lower part of the valence band involve no
much in the process of charge transportation. In contrast, electrons in the
upper part of the valence band dominate in oxidation: holes and lone pairs
form simultaneously. The DOS features of bonding (around 12 eV) are not
detectable with VLEED due to the standing wave formation in the boundaries of Brillouin zones.
3.2.3.2. XRD from O–Cu(110). Feidenhans’l et al. [74] determined the atomic
structures of the O–Cu(110) surface using XRD. Their results agree with the trend
predicted by EMT optimisations for the minimized total binding energy of the system [3]. Both XRD and EMT approaches revealed that the oxygen adsorbates are
located underneath the missing-row top layer and the zigzag O–Cu–O chains are
formed (refer to Fig. 6). Referring to the inset in Fig. 5, the vertical displacement of
the dipole (labeled 3) is denoted as D3z. The distance from oxygen to the buckled Cu
top layer is DOz. The lateral displacement of the Cu+ row in the second layer is
D1x. The z-axis is directed into the bulk. Thus the bond parameters can be converted from these data [74]:
ðD1x ; DOz ; D3z Þ ¼ ð0:0310:005; 0:340:17; -0:370:05Þ A :
ð3:2:4Þ
As can be seen from Table 9, a slight change of the DOz varies the bond geometry.
The different values of bond lengths represent quite different meanings in the
physics. The value of DOz=0.34 Å gives a tetrahedron with four O–Cu bonds
that are nearly identical in length (Column I). The value of BL3 41.85 Å
implies that the atom labelled 3 is an ionic one. The Cu+ ion is hardly detectable by STM due to the partially emptied d-states and the reduced atomic
radius (from 1.27 to 0.53 Å). This is apparently conflicting with the STM images that show the Cu atom buckling out of the surface. Lowering the oxygen
adsorbate within the error bar (0.17 Å) to DOz=0.51 Å gives results in Column
II. BL1 has a 6.5% contraction and BL3 extends slightly compared with the
standard ionic bond length, 1.85 Å. The bond geometry is now acceptable as
the shorter bond corresponds to the ionic state of the Cu. Structural parameters
in column II are acceptable while those in column I are strictly forbidden in line
568
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
Table 9
Comparison of the tetrahedron bond geometries derived from the XRD from Cu(110)-(21)-O2 and the
p
p
VLEED from Cu(001)-( 22 2)R45 -2O2 [93]
p
p
( 22 2)R45 -2O2
Conclusion
Variable
Cu(110) (21)-O2
DOz
BL1 (Å)
BL2 (Å)
BL3(2) (Å)
BA12 ( )
BA33 ( )
BA13/23 ( )
I
II
III
40.34
51.85
51.85
41.84
490.0
5156.7
497.4
0.51
1.73
1.73
1.88
96.0
146.5
100.2
0.60
1.675
1.675
1.921
102.5
140.3
102.3
1.628
1.776
1.926
102.0
139.4
99.5/105.3
< 1.85
< 1.85
1.92
<104.5
140.0
102.5
with physical constraints and STM observations. The ideally suggested case,
assuming the CN of the O2 and the Cu+ as 4 (Q=0.12) and 8 (Q=0.03), is
shown in column III. By adopting the value D3z=0.37+0.05 Å, one can then
insert into this frame a tetrahedron [BL1=BL2=1.32(10.12)+0.53(10.03)
=1.675 Å], in which the O2 ion is located 0.6 Å beneath the dipole layer. The
geometry of this tetrahedron is nearly identical to that determined for the
p
p
Cu(001)-( 22 2)R45 -2O2 phase. Although the patterns of reconstruction
and morphology are different, the basic tetrahedron is the same in both the
Cu(001)-O2 and the Cu(110)-O2 surfaces.
3.2.4. Summary
In summary, we have obtained the quantitative information about the bond
geometries and bond forming kinetics on the O–Cu(001) and the O–Cu(110) surfaces. VLEED calculations revealed that the Cu3O2 pairing-tetrahedron evolves
from the CuO2 pyramid on the Cu(001) surface [Fig. 4(c and d)]. Both the
bond theories and the VLEED calculations suggest that, in the precursor phase,
the O1 locates eccentrically above the fourfold hollow-site of the c(22)-2O1
domain to form an off-centered pyramid. The off-center shift of the O1 is
DOx1.807[1.85(10.12)]0.18 Å, which is comparable to the values of 0.10–
0.13 Å, as reported previously [38,154]. The vertical distance of the O1 to the surface is 0.4 Å above the surface. The absence of the lone-pair DOS features implies
that no sp-orbital hybridization occurs of oxygen in the O1-induced precursor
phase.
Except for the Cu(001)-c(22)-2O1, all the available phases on the O–Cu(001)
and the O–Cu(110) surfaces are composed of the primary Cu2O tetrahedron. The
parameters for the Cu2O tetrahedron are nearly the same, as summarized in Table 9.
The VLEED gave quantitative data that the work function is reduced by 1.2 eV
and the inner potential constant decreases from 11.56 eV for the clean Cu(001) surface to 10.50 eV upon being oxidized. The SPB parameters vary from site to site on
the surface [88]. At the dipole site, z1 ffi z0, ffi l1. This means that the metal dipoles
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
569
enhance the SPB through the outward shift of the wave function. Dipole formation
also strengthens the degree of saturation of both the real and the imaginary part of
the SPB at the dipole site.
The SPB of the Cu(001)O2 surface varies considerably from that of the clean
Cu(001) surface. The z0M at dipole site is (z0M/z0(Cu)=3.37/2.50) 1.35 times and
p
the lM is (lM/l(Cu)=1.27/0.9) 2 times that of the pure Cu(001) surface. The
values of z0M and lM quantify the protrusions in the STM image to a certain extent
as the higher the electronic islands are, the denser the electrons will be there. In the
missing-row site, z1 < < z0, > > l1, i.e., the missing-row vacancy is not occupied
by ‘free electrons’ of the solid. This may quantify the depression in the STM imaging. On the Cu(001)–O2 surface, the lowest saturation degree andpthe smallest
z-scale of the SPB is (z0m/z(Cu)=1.75/2.5 ffi lm/l(Cu)=0.65/0.9) 1/ 2 times that
of the clean Cu(001) surface. Therefore, electrons at the surfaces with chemisorbed
oxygen are rather local. It is reasonable to describe metal surfaces with chemisorbed
oxygen at higher coverage as a non-Fermi system. This is because of the lack of freely
moving electrons at the surface. This mechanism should cause the non-Ohmic rectifying and higher contact resistance even though the local work function is much lower
than that of the clean Cu(001) surface. It is understandable now why a standard freeelectron resistance mechanism could not work in such as strongly localized system [41].
Decoding the exposure-resolved VLEED data from the Cu(001)–O2 surface
revealed that three bond parameters dominate the four-stage bonding kinetics. In
the process of oxidation, the oxygen adsorbate first forms one Goldschmidt-contraction ionic bond (1-O) to a Cu atom on the surface, and then another contracting
ionic bond (2-O) follows between the oxygen and a Cu in the substrate. As a result,
the oxygen adsorbate buckles into the bulk. Then, the ionic bond angle (ff1O2)
increases, leading to the relaxation of layer spacing. Finally, interaction develops
between the lone pairs of oxygen and the lone-pair-induced metal dipoles (3-O).
During the process of oxidation the change of the SPB is not apparent except for the
DOS features of the non-bonding lone pairs.
From the perspective of bond forming, the origin of the bi-phase ordering on both
the O–Cu(001) and the O–Cu(110) surfaces has been clear. It is interpreted that
2
the formation of O1 and subsequently the hybridized-O
gives in nature the
p
p
1
Cu(001)-c(22)-2O
and then the Cu(001)-( 22 2)R45 -2O2 phases. Reassembling of the primary Cu2O tetrahedron transforms the Cu(110)-(21)-O2
into the Cu(110)-c(62)-8O2 phase at elevated temperatures
p andphigher exposures. As consequences of O-2-hybridization, the Cu(001)-( 22 2)R45 -2O2
differs from the Cu(110)-(21)-O2 in origin by nothing more than the fact that the
[O2 : Cudipole : O2] string rotates itself by 45 to match the specific coordination
environment. Such a chain-operation yields entirely different reconstruction patterns
and surface morphologies of the two surfaces. Therefore, the phase ordering on the
Cu(001)–O and the Cu(110)–O surface is simply the consequence of the Cu2O formation at different stages and under various bonding circumstances. The mechanism
for the O–Cu(111) surface reconstruction should be the same because the Cu{(001),
(110), (111)} surfaces differ one from another by nothing more than the crystal
orientation.
570
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
3.3. O–(Rh, Pd)(110)
3.3.1. Observations
It has been clear that oxygen adsorbate occupies the long-bridge hollow-site on
the fcc(110) surfaces of Cu, Ni, Ag, and Pt to form a tetrahedron with its four surrounding atoms. Such a manner of occupation yields the alternative ‘O2 : Mdipole :
O2:’ string and the ‘missing-row’ vacancies perpendicular to the close-packed
direction of the fcc(110) surface. In contrast, the oxygen adsorbate was found to
prefer the alternate hcp(0001) or fcc(111) facet site (see Fig. 1) and form rope-like
strings along the close-packed direction of the fcc(110) surface of Rh [171–182] and
Pd [246–249]. Adsorbates tend to locate at the troughs crossing a row of Rh or Pd
atoms to form the zigzag O–M–O chains instead. The preference of hcp or fcc site of
the oxygen is still under debate. LEED studies [250–254] revealed five patterns of
(12), (13), c(24), c(26) and a ‘complex’ structure. A series of the ‘complex’
superstructures of (23) and c(24) has also been observed at 100 K and under 3 L
oxygen-exposure. A tensor-LEED study [255] suggested that the reconstruction
occurs in the (23) and c(24) modes. This gives rise to the corresponding (13)
and (12) periodicity at the Pd(110) surface. At low temperature (170 K) and low
coverage, photoelectron diffraction study [256] suggested that the oxygen adsorbate
prefers short bridge or nearly short-bridge sites on the Rh(110) surface rather than
the threefold sites [161].
Fig. 12 shows the STM images of the O-Rh(110) surface obtained for various values
of oxygen coverage. [174,177–179] These images are essentially the same as those probed from the O–Pd(110) surface [246]. Grids may be applied to the STM photographs,
in order to specify the locations of the adsorbates as represented by the small dark
spots. The zigzag or ‘saw-tooth’ like protrusions form along the close-packed direction.
Oxygen adsorbates rest beside a protrusion spot. The distinct features of the STM
images and the corresponding interpretations can be summarized below:
Two kinds of zigzag strips of depressions appear. The depressions were
assumed rows of metals that have been missed out upon reconstruction. One
strip of depression corresponds to the (22)pmg-2O (a mirror and a glide
symmetry) arrangement and the other to the (22)p2mg-2O phase (twofold
mirror and a glide symmetry).
The strips of bright protrusions were explained as buckled Rh or Pd atoms of
the first layer with lateral displacements in a zigzag fashion.
The scale difference crossing the missing-row is 0.7 Å while it is 0.16 Å
along the row of protrusions.
It is interesting to note that, in Fig. 12(d), the protrusions of the rows next to
the ‘missing rows’ are higher relative to that of other protruding rows.
The O-induced reconstruction, in both the O–Rh(110) and O–Pd(110) surfaces, is
usually assumed as the missing-row type. One out of a certain number of the Rh(Pd)
rows is removed from the surface. Common to other oxygen–metal systems, the first
layer spacing expands and the second contracts.
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
571
Fig. 12. STM images of the O–Rh(110) surfaces [174,177]. The bright protrusions were explained as
buckled metal atoms with lateral displacement while the dark stripes were assumed as missing row
vacancies. Grids were applied to locate the positions of oxygen adsorbates as the dark spots. Images were
recorded at conditions for (a) and (b) (2.0 V, 1 nA); (c) (0.4V, 0.25 nA) and (d) (0.35 V, 0.25 nA). Panel
(d) distinguishes the z-scale difference of the protrusions next to the missing rows.
Fig. 13 illustrates the atomic structural models for the O–(Pd, Rh)(110) surfaces
for different values of oxygen coverage. Indicated are the (21)p2mg-2O (1.0 ML),
(22)p2mg-2O and (22)pmg-2O (0.5 ML) unit cells. These unit cells compose the
complex c(22n) (n=3, 4, 5) structures. Indicated are also phases corresponding to
1/3 ML, 2/3 ML and 4/5 ML oxygen coverage. The atomic structural model suggested that:
At very low coverage, oxygen occupies a fourfold hollow site (refer to Fig. 1b)
of C2v symmetry.
At YO < 0.5 ML, the oxygen adsorbate starts to induce a (12) missing-row
reconstruction of the surface. Oxygen atoms occupy every other fcc(111) facet site
along both sides of a metal row at the close-packed direction. Each adsorbate
interacts with two atoms at the surface and one atom in the second substrate layer.
At YO=0.5 ML, the (12) missing-row reconstruction is fully developed.
At YO > 0.5 ML, the (12) missing-row reconstruction starts to degrade.
The missing-rows are gradually replaced by the protruding metal rows until
all the missing rows are fully recovered.
At YO=1, the O-fcc(110) surface is again unreconstructed and the oxygen
adsorbates form a (21)-2O LEED pattern.
572
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
Fig. 13. Missing-row type atomic structural models for the Rh(110) and Pd(110) surfaces with chemisorbed oxygen [179]. Different phases are produced depending on oxygen coverage. Oxygen occupies the
apical site of a tetrahedron and forms O-metal bonds to two atoms at the surface and one atom in the
second substrate layer. The number of missing rows decreases with increasing oxygen coverage. Unit cells
for typical phases and the corresponding coverages are indicated. The D represents the distance between
the O–O zigzagged chains across the protrusions.
It is surprising that, as the oxygen coverage increases, the number of missing rows
reduces from every second (1/2) to one in n (1/n) and, finally, to zero. A reasonable
explanation is yet lacking how the adsorbates can turn the atomic vacancies into real
atoms that are then buckled up.
LEED [173,176,179,181,182] and DFT [172,175] optimizations suggested that
oxygen adsorbate prefers the hcp(0001)-facet site in the Rh(110)-(21)p2mg-2O
phase. Oxygen atom sits 0.5–0.6 Å above the top layer and bonds to one atom in the
first layer and to two in the second. The O–Rh bond lengths are 1.86–1.97 Å to the
Rh in the top layer and 2.04–2.07 Å to the Rh in the second layer.
Table 10 summarizes the geometrical values for the O–Rh(110) surface reconstruction. The D in Fig. 13, labeling the distance between the oxygen rows, is
2.26–2.80 Å. Under the influence of oxygen chemisorption, the [100] row in the
Table 10
O–Rh(110) surface atomic geometry (Dbulk=1.34Å)
(21)p2mg-2O [182]
(21)pg-2O (22)pg-O [176]
(22)p2mg-2O
(21)p2mg-2O (DFT)[172]
Sub-surface O [179]
DOz
D
D12
D23
Bond length
0.60
0.6
0.54
0.71
0.66
0.50
1.13
1.16
6.99
1.13
0.70
1.10
1.33
1.36
1.34
3%
3%
3%
1.39
1.38
1.27
1.86, 2.07
1.97; 2.04
2.00; 2.05
1.99; 2.06
2.00, 1.88
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
573
second layer is distorted in a zigzag fashion by 0.1 Å with the Rh atomic
positions shifted towards the nearest oxygen positions. However, agreement
needs to be reached on the preferential site of oxygen, which of the fcc(111) or
the hcp(0001) facet is preferable and what the vertical distance of the oxygen
atom is.
3.3.2. Analysis
In order to examine the effects of electronegativity and the scale of the lattice
constant on the observations, we may compare the patterns of reconstruction of the
O–(Rh, Pd)(110) surfaces with those of the O–Cu(110) surface.
It is easy to understand that, reacting with the more open (Pd, Rh)(110) surfaces,
oxygen adsorbates move from the C2v hollow sites to the threefold fcc(111)-facet
sites rather than the hcp(0001) facet sites of the fcc(110) surface (Fig. 1). Bonding to
two atoms in the second layer will create the same pattern of reconstruction occurring on the O–Cu(110) surface: a protruding row perpendicular to the close packed
direction. The fcc(111)-facet sited oxygen must find a fourth atom to form the tetrahedron inside which the oxygen adsorbate locates. As illustrated in Fig. 14, the
triangles indicate the primary tetrahedron (1233) in the corresponding (21)p2mg2O, (22)p2mg-2O and the (22)pmg-2O phases. The nature and kinetics of the
bonding, as well as the individual valencies of surface atoms can be formulated as
below.
In the precursor phase, or at very low oxygen coverage, oxygen deposits
randomly into the C2v hollow site to form a B5O cluster. This cluster can be
expressed as:
O þ 4Bð1st layerÞ þ Bð2nd layerÞ
) O1 þ Bþ beneath the O1 þ 4Bdipole induced by O1
ð3:3:1Þ
B5O forms by bonding to the B atom underneath and the O1 polarizes its four
surface neighbors.
At YO=1/3 ML, O2 develops and the (23)-2O2 unit cell forms. The (23)
unit cell contains two quasi-tetrahedron, which can be expressed as:
O2 þ 6Bð1st layerÞ þ 6Bð2nd layerÞ
) 2O2 ðhybridÞ þ 2Bþ ð1st layerÞ þ 2Bþ ð2nd layerÞ ðB2 O bondingÞ
þ 2Bdipole ðbuckled upÞ þ 4Bð1st layerÞ þ 2Bð2nd layerÞ ðthe bonding effectÞ
ð3:3:2Þ
Oxygen retains the bond to the B atom underneath and gets another electron from
the B atom in the surface row near the protrusions. Lone pair formation induces B
dipoles that form the row of protrusions. The protrusions are zigzagged because
the atomic coordination determines that the tetrahedron has to rotate slightly
574
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
Fig. 14. Bond model for the pmg and p2mg reconstructions of the O-(Pd, Rh)(110) surface [171] specifies
the STM protrusions to be the metal dipoles. Depressions arise from the B+ ions rather than missing row
vacancies. O2 locates always in the center of a quasi-tetrahedron represented by the unit 1233. Surface
bond network with involvement of H-like bond interlocks all the surface atoms and hence there are no
atoms are missing during the reaction. The top left insertion illustrates how the lone pairs of the oxygen
adsorbates polarize and deform the metal dipoles. Two kinds of depression rows correspond to the pmg
and p2mg glide symmetry of adsorbate distribution. The number of depressed rows decreases with
increasing oxygen exposure because the B+ converts to Bdipole with oxygen coverage increase.
(imagine a triangle consisting of three apexes of a tetrahedron). On the other hand,
the tetrahedron rotation releases the compression between the lone pairs of an
adsorbate as the atomic distance along the close packed direction may be too short
for the Bdipole–Bdipole spacing (see model in Fig. 3a). Except for the dipole in the
buckled-row, every other B atom in the top and the second layers near the oxygen
becomes B+. Therefore, interaction between the B+ and B along the B–B+–B row
(which used to be assumed as a missing-row) becomes stronger than the interaction
between pure metals. The nearly free electrons along the B–B+–B row become less
dense. The B atoms and B+ ions are hardly detectable with an STM, being similar
to the images of missing row. Therefore, it is understandable why the invisible rows
are often referred to being ‘missing row’ in previous models. If the adsorbate locates
at the hcp(0001) facet site, the B–B+–B row should be composed of a Bdipole, which
is the case for the O–Cu(110) surface.
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
575
At YO=0.5 ML oxygen coverage, the hybridized-O2 gives rise to the
(22)pmg-2O2 or the (22)p2mg-2O2 phase. The unit cells contain each a
pair of quasi-tetrahedron and it can be formulated as:
O2 þ 4Bð1st layerÞ þ 4Bð2nd layerÞ
) 2O2 ðhybridÞ þ 2Bþ ð1st layerÞ þ 2Bþ ð2nd layerÞ ðB2 O bondingÞ
þ 2Bdipole ðbuckled upÞ þ 2Bð2nd layerÞ ðthe bonding effectÞ
ð3:3:3Þ
At YO=1.0 ML oxygen coverage, the (21)p2mg-2O2 phase forms:
O2 þ 2Bð1st layerÞ þ 2Bð2nd layerÞ
) 2O2 ðhybridÞ þ 2Bþ=dipole þ 2Bþ ð2nd layerÞ ðB2 O bondingÞ
ð3:3:4Þ
At this stage, an H-like bond forms, which lowers the STM protrusions and stabilizes the surface. As the surface atomic ratio O : B=1, each adsorbate must interact with three B atoms at the surface. Therefore, each B atom becomes B+/dipole as
two lone pairs are acting on it. The adsorbate drags the electron cloud of the dipoles
to compensate for the lack of one atom for the tetrahedron.
The formulae for all the possible phases on the O–(Rh, Pd)(110) surfaces represent
the kinetics of bond formation. The oxide tetrahedron forms by evolving a B5O
cluster into a B4O and then a B3O cluster. During the transition of the B5O into the
B4O, the fifth B atom at the surface is released and then it is involved in another new
B4O cluster formation. The lack of one atom in the B3O cluster at even higher coverage is compensated for by the formation of the H-like bond, as illustrated in
Fig. 14. Dipoles provide electrons to the oxygen to form the second ionic bond. In
the (22)-2O2 phase (0.5 ML), the entire second layer is half composed of B+ ions
and another half of B atoms; in the (21)p2mg-2O2 phase (1.0 ML), the second
layer is fully composed of B+ ions. The displacement of B and B+ in the second
layer is not avoidable subjecting to the bond geometry.
The reaction formulae indicate that the Bdipole or B+/dipole gradually replaces the
+
B that used to be assumed as the ‘missing row’ vacancy. Hence, the number of the
invisible rows decreases with increasing oxygen coverage. This figure agrees well
with experimental observations. In terms of missing-row formation, a mechanism
for the mass-transport can hardly be established. It is unlikely that the oxygen
adsorbate is able to turn the atomic vacancies into metal atoms that are buckled up.
The current model, however, defines a feasible mechanism for the mass-transport. It
is understandable that the B+ row evolves into the Bdipole or the B+/dipole row with
oxygen addition. Therefore, the zigzag depressions in the STM image correspond to
B+ ions (row-I and row-II in Fig. 14) rather than to missing-row vacancies. The
shape-difference between the depressed row-I and row-II is due to the different glide
symmetries of the oxygen adsorbates as can be seen from Fig. 14. Row-I corresponds to the (22)pmg-2O-2 symmetry while row-II to the (22)p2mg-2O2. It was
noted earlier that the H-like bond forms by dragging the electron cloud of the protruding dipoles to the bonding orbitals of the oxygen and hence the H-like bond
576
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
formation lowers the protrusions. Therefore, the slightly higher STM protrusions
near the invisible row can be understood as the absence of the H-like bond near the
B+ rows.
It is important to note that the B4O tetrahedron bonding requires that oxygen is
located inside a tetrahedron rather than at the apical site. Therefore, the bond geometry determines the relaxation of the first interlayer distance. Due to the reduced
atomic sizes of metal ions in the second layer and the strong interaction between the
second B+ layer and the B in the third layer, the second interlayer distance contracts. In this sense, the bond model is able to account for the observed layer spacing
relaxation and mass transportation as well as the surface morphologies of various
phases. It is obvious that the difference in the host atomic size and host electronegativity determines the site specificity of the oxygen and the orientation of the
tetrahedron. This delineates the (Rh, Pd)(110)–O surface from the Cu(110)–O surface in terms of reconstruction patterns, although the basic oxide tetrahedron is
common.
3.4. O–(Co, Ru)(1010)
3.4.1. Observations
The hcp(1010) plane with close-packed rows separated by the c-axis distance is an
analog to the fcc(110) surface with slight difference in layer spacing (as illustrated in
Fig. 1). In contrast to the (21) missing-row structures formed on the O–(Cu, Ni,
Ag, Pt)(110) surfaces, three intriguing superstructures have been observed in
sequence on the O–Co(1010) surface [42,43,183–185] and two phases on the
O–Ru(1010) surface [110,186,187]. From the standpoint of microscopy and crystallography, O–(Co, Ru)(1010) multiphase ordering has been well identified. Discrepancies still exist on the vertical positions and the site specificity of the oxygen
adsorbates. In an earlier LEED study, Schwarz et al. [184] found that the Co(1010)(21)p2mg-2O phase is developed from the p(21)-O or the c(24)-4O phase by
increasing the oxygen coverage at higher temperature. Based on the STM observations, Koch et al. [42,43] proposed several models for the reconstructed O–Co(1010)
phases. LEED calculations [185] suggested that in the final (21)p2mg-2O phase,
oxygen occupies the threefold-coordinated fcc(111) facet site and bonds to two Co
or Ru atoms in the first atomic layer and one Co or Ru atom in the second, this
being the same as that occurring at the O–(Rh, Pd)(110) surface. Oxygen adsorbate
rests above the top layer of the otherwise unreconstructed surface. The oxygen
adsorbates prefer locations between two neighboring metal rows and form a zigzag
O–O chain along the close-packed direction. Contrastively, oxygen adsorbates prefer the same fcc(111) facet sites but locate beside one specific (Rh, Pd) metal row to
form the zigzag O–M–O row at lower coverages. This is the major difference
between O–(Rh, Pd)(110) and O–(Co, Ru)(1010) in observation. Furthermore, chemisorption of oxygen causes a significant expansion ( 25%) of the first Co interlayer spacing and a slight contraction ( 5%) of the second Co interlayer spacing
with respect to those of the bulk. A LEED, DFT and HREELS study conducted by
Schwegmann et al. [63] revealed that the O–Ru(1010) surface shares the same
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
577
reconstruction patterns as the last two phases of O–Co(1010) despite the slightly
different details concerning atomic positions and layer spacings. Tight-binding calculations yielded the apparent O-derived DOS features in the valence band and
above of Ru, which are quite the same as those for the N–Ru(0001) surface calculated by the same group [257]. The DOS features for both the N–Ru(0001) and
O–Ru(1010) coincide with the current model specifications (Section 2.3) of bonding,
non-bonding, holes and anti-bonding states.
The O–Co(1010) tri-phase ordering and the structural models are summarized
below:
The disordered p(21)-O forms upon flashing the c(24)-4O phase to 450 K.
It can be seen from Fig. 15 (a) that the STM image exhibits a checkered
pattern, randomly filled by black and white rectangles. The dimensions of the
rectangles are 5.0 Å ( 2aCo) by 4.0 Å ( cCo) along the [1210] and the [0001]
directions, respectively. The gray scale is about 1.1 Å. It is reasonable to
Fig. 15. (a) STM image [43] and (b) the corresponding bond configuration [183] for the Co(1010)-p(21)2O1 precursor phase with randomly filled checkered domains. The pairing O1–O1 dimer rests on the
Q
top of surface atoms forming a ‘ -shape’ dimer bond along the close-packed direction.
578
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
consider this less-ordered p(21)-O phase as the precursor state because we
have found, using VLEED, that the annealing supplies a disturbance rather
than a driving force to enhance the reaction and that the O–Cu bonding
processes are reversible [99].
The c(24)-4O phase forms when the clean Co(1010) surface is exposed to 2.5
L oxygen at 300 K. STM imaging revealed that the ordered c(24)-4O phase
forms uniformly over large areas [see Fig. 16(a)]. Rows of white oval bumps
with double Co periodicity (2aCo 5.0 Å) are present in the direction of the
close-packed Co rows. The rows of bumps are separated by 8.0 Å ( 2cCo).
The bright bumps, 1.1 Å in height, are resolved as a honeycomb-like
pattern separated by the zigzag depressions. From the STM image, Koch et
Fig. 16. (a) STM image of the Co(1010)-(24)-4O2 surface [43]; (b) the corresponding bond configuration [183]; and, (c) the hard-sphere model for the Ru(1010)-(24)-4O2 structure [63]. A tetrahedron is
framed by a dotted square. The lack of one (Co, Ru) atom for the tetrahedron is compensated by a virtual
bond between O2 and the electron cloud labeled 2, which sharpens the tip of the honeycomb-like bumps
in the STM images.
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
579
al. suggested that oxygen occupies the hcp(0001) facet site and reacts with
one Co atom in the top layer.
The (21)p2mg-2O phase was obtained by dosing oxygen (5 10 L) at room
temperature to either the c(24)-4O or the (21)-O phase. STM revealed a
regular array of protrusions, being similar to that of clean metal surfaces in
the scale of 40.3 Å. All the Co atoms of the topmost plane are at nearly the
same levels of height. The model proposed for this phase interlocks the model
for the c(24)-4O phase with oxygen preferring the hcp(0001) facet site.
However, LEED studies by Gierer et al. [185] have ruled out the hcp(0001)
facet site preference of the adsorbate. It is suggested that the adsorbate atoms
are located above the fcc(111) facet site instead, agreeing with the model
proposed by Comelli et al. [180] for the O–(Rh, Pd)(110) surfaces. The
optimal atomic geometry is that oxygen atoms reside in the fcc(111) facet sites
0.74 0.05 Å above the first Co layer. The lateral distance between oxygen
and the densely packed Co rows is 1.13 0.10 Å (D/2 in Fig. 13). The O–Co
bond lengths are estimated to be 1.83 0.10 Å(1) (to the Co atom in the first
layer) and 1.99 0.10 Å(2) (to the Co atoms underneath the oxygen). The
oxygen-derived structure of the Co(1010) surface is one where the first Co
interlayer expands from 0.62 Å to 0.90 Å, which amounts to 25% with respect
to the bulk value, 0.72 Å.
Comparatively, the O–Ru(1010) bi-phase ordering and the structural models are
nearly the same:
The c(24)-4O and the (21)p2mg-2O phases form in sequence on the
O–Ru(1010) surface at room temperature by oxygen exposure of 0.7 L and
2.5 L, respectively. This is easier to achieve than the formation of these
phases on the O–Co(1010) surface.
According to the LEED and DFT data, [63] the oxygen adsorbate locates at
the apical site of a tetrahedron and interacts with two Ru atoms in the top
layer and one in the second layer. Oxygen atoms reside in the threefold hollow
sites 1.02 (LEED) 1.05 (DFT) Å above the first Ru layer in the first phase,
with a lateral distance to the densely packed Ru rows of 1.18 1.19 Å (/2). The
O–Ru bond lengths are 2.09(1) Å and 2.10(2) Å. In the second phase,
oxygen sites 0.96 (LEED) 1.06 (DFT) Å above the first layer. All the three
O–Ru bonds are identical in length, 2.03 Å. The O–Ru distance (D/2)
becomes 1.13 (LEED) –1.19 (DFT) Å. Oxygen adsorption expands slightly
the Ru(1010) first interlayer by 4%.
3.4.2. Analysis
3.4.2.1. Co(1010)-p(21)-O1 : pairing-O1 (< 0.5 ML). Fig. 15 shows the bond
model for the STM image of the Co(1010)-p(21)-O precursor phase. The oxygen
adsorbates are usually imaged with STM as depressions, even if the oxygen atoms
are located above the surface, because the O-2p state is lower than the EF of a metal.
Hence, the rectangular STM depressions can be identified as the pairing O1–O1
580
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
Q
dimers. The O1–O1 dimer rests atop of two Co atoms forming the ‘ ’ shaped
Co2O2 bond along the close-packed direction. The O1 catches one electron from
the Co atom underneath and shares one electron with the other O1. The O1
polarizes its rest neighbors, which are responsible for the STM protrusions of this
precursor phase. The second layer is not affected by the reaction at this stage, as
there is no charge transport between the oxygen adsorbate and Co atom in the second layer. The dark or bright rectangular domains (5.04.0 Å in two-dimensions)
are in the scale of the regular lattice. This result may be inferred by carefully scaling
the STM images. The reaction at this stage may be formulated as follows:
O2 þ 8Co ðsurfaceÞ
) 2O1 þ 2Coþ þ 6Codipole
or
2O2 þ 12Co ðsurfaceÞ
) 2 2O1 þ 2Coþ þ 4Codipole ; etc:
ð3:4:1Þ
Unlike the nanometric Cu(001)-c(22)-O1 precursor state, in which oxygen
forms an off-centered pyramid (4(O1 + Cu+1) or 2O1 + Cu+2) with its surface
neighbors, the oxygen adsorbates in the Co(1010)-p(21)-O1 phase prefer the atop
atomic positions. In contrast, in the O-(Rh, Pd)(110) precursor states, O1 occupies
the C2v-hollow site and bonds to the atom underneath first. Obviously, the O1
performs quite differently at these surfaces. This can be attributed to the differences
in basic conditions as discussed in Section 2.1, i.e., the scale and geometry of the
host lattice and the electronegativity of the host atom.
3.4.2.2. (Co, Ru)(1010)-c(24)-4O2: hybridized-O2 (0.5 ML). With increasing oxygen exposure, the O1 evolves into O2 and the oxide tetrahedron forms
through a process of re-bonding, as shown in Fig. 16. The basic quasi-tetrahedron
denoted as (1233) is expressed as (B=Ru, Co):
O þ B ðsubstrateÞ þ 2B ðsurfaceÞ
þ
) O2 ðhybridÞ þ Bþ ðsubstrateÞ þ 2Bdipole þ 2Bdipole
In a c(24)-4O2 unit cell,
2O2 þ 8B ðsurfaceÞ þ 8B ðsubstrateÞ
h
i
þ
) 4 O2 ðhybridÞ þ Bþ ðsubstrateÞ þ 2Bdipole þB ðsubstrateÞ ;
ð3:4:2Þ
where the (2Bdipole)+ represents the fact that a virtual bond forms between the O2
and the electron cloud of the two dipoles. The virtual bond is not a real one but it
compensates for the lack of one atom in the oxide tetrahedron formation.
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
581
The honeycomb-like or oval-shaped protrusions in the STM image are composed of four Codipole that are headed towards the center of the ‘oval’. In the
Co2O tetrahedron, the lack of one Co atom for the bond is compensated by the
polarized electron-cloud (as denoted 2) as do the (Rh, Pd)(110)-c(2n2)pmg-2O2
phases. This process leads to a ‘virtual bond’ between the O2 and the pairing
dipoles, which sharpens the ‘tip’ of the ‘honeycomb’ protrusion, as can be
observed from Fig. 16. As all the surface atoms are interlocked by the bond
network, no atoms are missing there, being the same as that occurred in the
O–(Pd, Rh)(110)-(2n2)-2O2 surfaces. In addition, every other close-packed row
in the second layer is composed of Co+. Although the STM images for the
Ru(1010)-c(24)-4O2 phase are lacking, the reconstruction pattern determined
by LEED and DFT is the same as the Co(1010)-c(24)-4O2 surface, as can be
compared with models in Figs. 15 and 16. Therefore, the specification here should
hold for both surfaces.
The contribution from the electron clouds of the dipoles to the oxide tetrahedron
formation in the (Co, Ru)(1010)-(24)-4O2, the (Co, Ru)(1010)-(21)p2mg-2O2
and the Cu(110)-c(62)-8O2 phases evidences that the sp orbitals hybridization of
an O2 is independent of its bonding constituents. Oxygen can bond to any component whether it is an atom or electron-cloud of a single or a cluster of dipoles,
which is able to supply electrons to fill the hybridized orbital of the oxide tetrahedron. It is even interesting that the minor geometrical difference between the (Pd,
Rh)(110), (Co, Ru)(1010) and the (Cu, Ni, Ag, Pt)(110) causes entirely different
orientations of the ‘O2 : Mdipole : O2’ chains. Contrary to the single O–Cu–O
chain perpendicular to the close-packed direction of the (Cu, Ni, Ag, Pt)(110) surfaces, the pairing O–O zigzag chains in Fig. 16 run along the close-packed direction
of Ru and Co. The fact that the c-axis lattice 4.06/4.33 Å of Co/Ru is too long for
the distance of Bdipole–Bdipole and the a-axis lattice 2.51/2.68 Å may be too short for
the ionic bonds forces the oxygen to create a new environment for the Co2O or
Ru2O tetrahedron. This leads to the entirely different orientation of the O–(Co,
Ru)–O chain and the shapes of the protrusions. As discussed, in the (Pd, Rh)(110)c(22)-2O2 surface, oxygen adsorbates prefer to locating in the troughs beside a
specific metal row, which yields the alternating ionic-row and buckled dipole-row
observed as the zigzag O–M–O chain. However, oxygen atoms prefer positions,
located in the (Co, Ru)(1010)-c(24)-4O2 phase, between two nearest metal rows.
The latter leads to the ‘honeycomb’ pairing-dipole rows on the (Co, Ru)(1010) surface rather than the ‘saw-tooth’ like single protruding rows on the (Rh, Pd)(110)
surface. It is obvious that the lattice geometry determines the site specificity of
the adsorbate, which results in the different reconstruction patterns. The variation
of the reconstruction patterns originates from nothing more than the specific site of
the adsorbate.
3.4.2.3. (Co, Ru)(1010)-(21)p2mg-2O2: H-like bond dominates (1.0 ML).
The (Co, Ru)(1010)-(21)p2mg-2O2 phase, as shown in Fig. 17, interlocks with the
c(24)-2O2 phase by adding the zigzagged O–O chains at positions between the
pairing dipole rows. The chemical reaction is formulated as:
582
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
Fig. 17. (a) STM image of the Co(1010)-(21)p2mg-2O-2 surface [43]; (b) the hard-sphere model for
Ru(1010)-(21)p2mg-2O-2 surface [63]; (c) the bond configuration [183] for the reconstruction. Shown in
the middle are the lone pairs of the oxygen adsorbate atoms that squeeze the electron cloud of a Co or Ru
atom, which leads to the corrugated morphology. The STM protrusions in this case correspond to dense
polarized electrons () rather than ion core (+) positions. As the bond network interlocks all the surface
atoms, no atoms are missing. The H-like bond formation restores significantly the decreased work function.
O2 þ 2BðsurfaceÞ þ 2BðsubstrateÞ
) 2 O2 ðhybridÞ þ Bþ ðsubstrateÞ þ Bþ=dipole
ð3:4:3Þ
In the present phase, each Co and Ru atom at surface has three O2 neighbors due
to the 1.0 ML coverage. Every Co or Ru atom at the surface becomes the ‘+/
dipole’. Therefore, H-like bonds dominate at the surface, which lowers the STM
protrusions and narrows the anti-bonding band of the surface. It has been revealed
using UPS63 that the oxygen-reduced work function of the Ru(1010)–O surface is
583
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
restored by 0.49 eV and 1.12 eV, respectively, as the c(24)-4O2 phase changes to
the (21)p2mg-2O2 phase. The effect of H-like bonds becomes more apparent on
the STM protrusions and the work-function recovery when the oxygen coverage
increases from 0.5 ML to 1.0 ML. This can be compared using the STM images and
the structural models in Figs. 16 and 17. The scale of the image in the latter reduces
to a level similar to that for clean metals (0.15–0.3 Å).
All the Co atoms in the second layer become Co+ ions with reduced radii and
lowered energy states. The interaction between the Co+ second layer and the third
metallic Co layer is obviously stronger than it is between two Co metallic layers.
Therefore, it is readily understood again that the first interlayer distance expands by
an amount that depends on the bond geometry and the second interlayer spacing
contracts driven by the enhanced Co+–Co interlayer interaction. This mechanism
should hold for the Ru(1010)–O surface though LEED and DFT revealed a different
amount of relaxation from that for the Co(1010)–O surface. However, we should
note that the geometrical solution is not unique, and it is subject to the parameterization in data processing.
Fig. 17 also shows how the non-bonding lone pairs of the two O2 ions squeeze
and deform the electron-cloud of one Co or Ru atom. This configuration accounts
for the STM protrusions not only of the current Co(1010)-O2 phases but also of
the (Rh, Pd)(110)-O2. At these surfaces, STM protrusions correspond to the dense
electron-cloud (labeled ‘’) rather than the ion core positions as labeled with ‘+’.
As indicated, the slight protrusion in Fig. 17 locates between two ion cores. Therefore, it is not realistic to derive atomic structural information simply from the locations of the protrusions. Obviously, only the current bond model can explain
consistently the dislocation of surface atoms and the alteration of atomic valencies.
Comparing the reconstruction which has occurred to the (Co, Ru)(1010)(21)p2mg-2O2 surfaces with that to the (Rh, Pd)(110)-(21)p2mg-2O2 surfaces,
it can be found that both systems have the same adsorbate arrangement. However,
they yield entirely different patterns in the STM imaging. The former presents zigzag
strips, while the latter gives a regular array of depressions and protrusions. One may
attribute such a difference to the values in Figs. 13 and 17:
For the Rhð110Þ-ð21Þp2mg-2O2 : D1 ¼ 3:81 D2 ¼ 3:81-21:13 ¼: 1:55A :
For the Co 101 0 -ð21Þp2mg-2O2 : D1 ¼: 2:26A and D2 ¼ 4:06 D1 ¼:1:80A :
An alternation of the D1 and D2 values and a small geometrical difference (0.25 Å)
determines the site-specificity of oxygen and gives quite a remarkable difference in
the form of the STM images.
Knowledge about the O–(Co, Ru)(1010) surface reaction has thus been developed
in terms of bond forming. The disordered
Co(1010)-p(21)-O precursor is identified
Q
as the derivative of the O1. The ‘ ’-shaped O1–O1 dimer rests atop of surface
Co atoms along the close-packed direction. Meanwhile, O1 polarizes its rest
neighbors leading to the protruding domain boundaries. At higher oxygen coverage
of the (Ru, Co)(1010) surface, oxygen performs quite the same, as it does in the (Rh,
584
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
Pd)(110) surfaces. O2 locates at the fcc(111) facet site and forms a tetrahedron with
two Co or Ru atoms at the surface and one Co or Ru atom in the second layer. The
lacking of one atom for the tetrahedron formation is compensated by dragging the
electron cloud of the dipoles. For both the Ru and Co, a c(24)-4O2 phase forms
and then a (21)p2mg-2O2 phase follows. The H-like bond lowers substantially the
STM protrusions and narrows the anti-bonding sub-band, which recovers the
reduced work function significantly, as observed.
3.5. O–Rh(111) and O–Ru(0001)
3.5.1. Observations
Both the O–Rh(111) and the O–Ru(0001) surfaces share considerable similarities
in the patterns of O-induced reconstruction [194]. For instance, three phases of
p(22)-O, c(22)-2O and p(11)-O form sequentially on these two surfaces. The
Ru(0001)-p(11)-O phase can form under N2O pre-treatment [55,85] while the
Rh(111)-p(11)-O phase can be obtained by low-energy oxygen-ion-beam irradiation [53]. Common to all other O-chemisorbed systems, the first layer spacing
expands and the second contracts. In the p(22)-O precursor phase (0 0.25 ML),
the R (=Ru, Rh) atoms buckle up radially away from (or towards, as disputed) the
adsorbate and the original C3v symmetry of the unit cell remains. In the c(22)-2O
phase (0 0.5 ML), pairing-row forms at the surface. In the p(11)-O phase
(0=1.0 ML), the surface becomes unreconstructed. However, discrepancies yet
remain regarding the vertical position and the site specificity of the adsorbate. DFT
[55,85,194] and LEED optimisations [190,195,200,258,259] suggested that oxygen
adsorbates are located 1.2 Å above the top layer of the surface and the oxygen
site-specificity follows the rules of homo-epitaxial growth of the regular fcc(111) or
hcp(0001) crystal lattices. The adsorbate prefers the apical site of a tetrahedron and
remains identical bond length to the surface atoms throughout the course of reaction. The bond length, 2.00–2.10 Å, equals approximately to the sum of the atomic
radii of oxygen and R atoms (values are given in Table 2). A recent DFT calculation
[260] on the incorporation of oxygen into the basal plane of the late 4d transition
metals (TMs) of Ru, Rh, Pd to Ag suggested that occupation of subsurface sites is
always connected with a significant distortion of the host lattice, rendering it initially
less favorable than on-surface chemisorption, and that O always favors adsorption
in the hollow sites, which represent a continuation of the bulk stacking sequence,
i.e., hcp sites on Ru(0001) and fcc sites on Rh(111), Pd(111), and Ag(111). The
combination on-surface O in fcc sites and subsurface O in tetra-I sites to be either
most stable or energetically very close to the most stable geometry. The tetra-I site
for Ru would only allow for an O-metal bond length of 1.65 Å. This situation gradually becomes better for the other elements, yet for Ag, which has the largest lattice
constant, this value is with 1.80 Å still significantly too short. Thus, subsurface O
incorporation always induces a substantial local expansion of the metallic lattice.
With increasing on-surface coverage, the repulsive interaction among the more
densely packed adsorbates decreases the preference for on-surface adsorption;
eventually O penetration may then become more favorable than a continued filling
585
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
of the on-surface sites. It is concluded that O incorporation into the subsurface
region commences at progressively lower coverages for the late 4d TM sequence
from Ru to Ag.
In contrast, STM studies of the O–Ru(0001) surface by Meinel et al. [56] and Over
et al. [262] implied that a sub-surface oxygen layer exists, and the bond nature of the
different phases is entirely different. In a velocity-distribution spectroscopic study,
Gibson et al. [193] suggested that both the sub-surface and on-surface oxygen coexist and they share common kinetics. Ganduglia and Scheffler [194] proposed that, at
higher coverage, oxygen might occupy either the fcc(111) or the hcp(0001) hollow
site of the Rh(111) surface due to the small difference in binding energy between
these two sites. Table 11 gives information about the O–Ru(0001) and the
O–Rh(111) surface reconstruction determined using LEED and DFT.
In the DFT studies, Stampfl et al. [85] found that an oscillation takes place of both
the work-function-change () and the dipole moment with increasing oxygen coverage onto the Ru(0001) surface. The dipole moment reaches its maximum at 0.5
ML oxygen coverage and then drops down swiftly. Madey et al. [263] observed that
decreases from its maximal 1.2 eV at 0.75 ML with increasing oxygen. In
observing oxygen motion on the Ru(0001) surface with an STM, Renisch et al. [264]
found it is essential to include the lateral interaction in modeling the collective
phenomena such as surface diffusion or reaction.
Table 11
Structural information for O–Rh(111) (Dbulk=2.20 Å) and O–Ru(0001) surface reconstruction (units in
Å)
O-position (Ref.)
Rh(111)-fcc
(21) (LEED) [190]
(22)
(21)
(11)(DFT) [194]
(22)
(21)
(11) (LEED) [54]
Ru(0001)-hcp
(21)
(LEED) [200]
(22) (LEED) [82]
(22)
(21)
(11)
(DFT/LEED) [55,85]
(21) (0.6 ML)
(11) (0.9 ML)
(11) (1.6 ML)
MEIS [261]
DOz
DOs D12
D23
Bond length D//
1.22
1.24
1.18
1.16
1.24
1.23
1.16
0.05 2.23
2.11
0.03 2.19
2.37
2.25
0.03 2.24
2.37
2.21
2.21
2.19
2.25
2.19
2.19
2.25
1.92; 2.01
1.25
2.00
1.95
0.03 radial 0.07;
0.01 Pairing-row
0.02 radial -0.06;
-0.01 Pairing-chain
2.00
1.95
2.02
1.220.02
1.3
1.26
1.25
2.26
2.10
2.14
2.22(+2.7%)
2.25
2.03 0.06
2.16
2.03
2.18
2.13(0.9%)
1.23
1.19
1.16
2.14
2.17
2.22
2.15
2.11
2.10
Pairing-row
0.12
0.09
Radial
Pairing
Buckle-in
Z-axis is directed into the bulk. DOs stands for the lateral dislocation of oxygen. D// is the lateral
dislocation of R atoms.
586
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
Fig. 18 presents the STM images for the p(22)-O and c(22)-2O phases at the
Ru(0001) surface. [56,199]. Fig. 19 also gives the reconstruction models for the
O–Rh(111) [54,194] and O–Ru(0001) surfaces [55,85] determined by LEED and
DFT. The on-surface oxygen adsorbate derives the ‘radial’ and ‘pairing-row’ structure patterns at the surfaces. Similar STM patterns have been observed from
O–Au(111) [265] and Ag(111) [266] surface after prolonged annealing in oxygen
(1bar) at 800 C. These observations form the up-to-date knowledge about the
O-hcp(0001) and the O-fcc(111) surface reconstruction.
3.5.2. Analysis
It is known that the electronic configuration for Ru is 4d75s1and for Rh it is 4d85s1.
The electronegativity of both Ru and Rh is of the same value of 2.2. Their atomic
radii [a=2.672(Ru) and 2.684(Rh) Å] are similar. As shown in Fig. 1, the top two
Fig. 18. STM images of Ru(0001) surface with chemisorbed oxygen at 400 K. The images correspond to
(a) 0.20, (b) 0.25; and (c) 0.5 ML oxygen exposures, respectively. The p(22)-O (radial) and the p(21)-O
(pairing row) structures are fully developed at 0.25 and 0.5 ML [56].
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
587
Fig. 19. R4O cluster bonding [189,197] and the reconstruction models for the O–Rh(111) [54,194] and O–
Ru(0001) surfaces of C3v symmetry [55,85]. (a) At YO 41/4 ML coverage, O1 locates in the center of a
tetrahedron and forms one bond with atom labeled 1. The O1 induces and pushes the dipoles labeled 2
radially away and the C3v symmetry remains, producing the clusters of STM protrusion. (b) At YO 41/2
ML, O1 evolves into O2 by forming one more bond with a surface R atom labeled 1. Dipoles (labeled 2)
are sustained then by the lone pairs. The dipole and ionic row move closer towards the sites without
adsorbates, which generates the pairing STM protrusion-depression patterns. (c) At YO 41.0 ML, H-like
bonds dominate at the surface. Two lone pairs polarize each surface R atom (1/2) which donates meanwhile one electron to the adsorbate. Formation of the H-like bonds restores the reduced work function
and lowers the STM protrusions. The entire surface network is stabilized and becomes unreconstructed in
crystallography.
588
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
layers of both hcp(0001) and fcc(111) surfaces share the same lattice geometry,
packing in an AB order. The tetrahedral hcp(0001) site is more favorable than the
fcc(111) hollow site to facilitate a R4O tetrahedron according to the current bond
model. The nature and kinetics of the R4O cluster bonding and its consequences
on the atomic valency and surface morphology for the two systems can be formulated as follows.
3.5.2.1. O1 effect (YO=0.25 ML): radial reconstruction with C3v symmetry. For
the p(22)-O-1 precursor phase, the reaction can be expressed as:
O þ 4R ð1st layerÞ þ 4R ð2nd layerÞ
) O1 ðsub-surfaceÞ þ Rþ ð2nd layerÞ
þ 3Rdipole buckled away of the O1
ð3:5:1Þ
þ R ð1st layerÞ þ 3R ð2nd layerÞ
Instead of locating above the top layer, oxygen atom tends to sink into the
center of one of the four tetrahedral sites to form an R4O cluster [Fig. 19(a)].
Oxygen forms one bond with the R (labeled 1) underneath. The O1 then
polarizes and pushes its three surface neighbors (labeled 2) radially outwards.
Therefore, the C3v symmetry remains. The clustered dipoles are responsible for
the STM protrusions. At the surface, there is still a metal atom in a unit cell as
it can be seen.
3.5.2.2. O2 effect (YO=0.5 ML): paring row reconstruction. The p(21)-O2 or
c(22)-2O2 phase can be decomposed as:
O2 þ 4R ð1st layerÞ þ 4R ð2nd layerÞ
) 2O2 ðhybridÞ þ 2Rþ ð1st layerÞ þ 4Rdipole ð1st layerÞ ðpairing chainÞ
þ 2Rþ ð2nd layerÞ þ 2R ð2nd layerÞ
At this stage, oxygen forms the second bond with one (labeled 1) of its three
surface neighbors and then the sp orbitals of oxygen start to hybridize
[Fig. 19(b)]. The number of dipoles of the same R4O tetrahedron reduces from
three to two. The lone pairs of oxygen replace the role of O1 in sustaining the
Rdipole (labeled 2). On the surface, the atoms with altered valencies form the
alternative rows of protrusion (Rdipole) and depression (R+), and the original
C3v symmetry of the tetrahedron breaks, as predicted by the DFT and LEED
optimizations and detected with STM imaging. The valence of the R+ underneath the O2 remains. The mechanism for the surface relaxation is common to
the situations addressed in previous sections, that is, the bond geometry determines
the first layer expansion and the altered atomic valency in the second layer shortens
the second interlayer spacing.
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
589
3.5.2.3. O2 effect (YO=1.0 ML): H-like bond dominates. The p(11)-O-2 phase
on the C3v surface can be formulated as:
2O2 þ 4R ð1st layerÞ þ 4R ð2nd layerÞ
) 4O2 ðhybridÞ þ 4Rþ=dipole ðsurfaceÞ þ 4Rþ ð2nd layerÞ
ð3:5:3Þ
As shown in Fig. 19(c), oxygen adsorbates have occupied all the tetrahedral sites
on the surface. Each adsorbate needs one R atom for the bond and two to be
polarized at the surface. Because the atomic ratio O : R=1, each of the surface R
atoms has to interact with three oxygen neighbors through one ionic bond and two
lone pairs. Therefore, all the R+ and Rdipole at the surface turn to be R+/dipole
(labeled 1/2) and hence H-like bonds dominate at the surface. In such a way, the
surface-dipole moment and the dipole-related are weakened substantially due to
the H-like bond formation, and the surface becomes unreconstructed in crystallography, agreeing with the DFT calculations and work function measurements, as
mentioned above. This trend is the same as that occurring to the (Co, Ru)(1010)O2 surfaces and the (Rh, Pd)(110)-O2 surfaces at higher oxygen coverage.
The analysis strongly supports the model of sub-surface oxygen formation though
most of the numerical optimizations favor an on-surface oxygen mechanism (see
Table 11) for oxygen chemisorption on these C3v surfaces. One cannot however
exclude the possibility of multiple numerical solutions due to the correlation among
the parameters used in optimization and the initial conditions being taken, as discussed earlier. Nevertheless, existing grounds exclude the possibility that three
identical bonds form and remain unchanged throughout the course of reaction. If
the oxygen is located above the top layer and if the oxygen bonds to its three surface
neighbors identically, one could explain neither the interlayer relaxation nor the
STM protrusions. The on-surface oxygen mechanism should shrink the D12 instead,
as the R+ reduces its size considerably and the R+ produces STM depressions
under normal tip conditions.
Actually, the adsorbate, whether it is O1 or O2, is retained always at the nearly
central position of the oxide tetrahedron throughout the course of reaction with the
C3v surfaces. The striking significance of the precursor is that the O1 polarizes all of
its surface neighbors that maintain the original C3v symmetry. O2 forms two ionic
bonds with the host atom in the p(21)-O-2 phase or electron clouds in the p(11)-O2
phase, which breaks the C3v symmetry. The O2 polarizes its two atomic neighbors
through the lone pair interaction. The O2 should be slightly off-centered inside
the tetrahedron by an amount, which might be too small to be detectable. The oxidation alters the valencies of O into the O1 and O2, and R atoms into R+, Rdipole and
R+/dipole with the measurable variation of and the surface dipole moment. The real
process of oxidation is thus suggested to be that electron transport dominates and
oxygen adsorbates reside inside the bulk rather than float atop the surface. This is the
case for thermal oxidation of the diamond {111} plane, which has been confirmed to
go through the {111} channels throughout the course of oxidation (Section 9.1) [267].
In summary, the bond model suggests that oxygen adsorbates sink into and
remain at the hcp(0001) hollow sites throughout the course of reaction with the C3v
590
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
surfaces. The rule of homo-epitaxial growth of the fcc(111) or the hcp(0001) surface
seems unlikely. During the process of reaction, the R4O cluster configuration
remains the same but the valencies of atoms at the surface change continually and
substantially. The O1 reconstructs the surface in a radial mode and then the O2
produces the pairing-row pattern. Overdosing with oxygen (Y 50.5 ML) yields the
p(11)-O2 phase in which H-like bonds are dominant, which stabilize the surface.
The H-like bond formation interlocks all the surface atoms, which may form a barrier for surface diffusion [268]. This conclusion should be valid for other fcc(111)
and hcp(0001) surfaces with chemisorbed oxygen. For instance, a first principle
approximation of the well-defined O–Al(111) interaction [75] indicates that the
adsorbate atoms prefer the hcp tetrahedral sites, 1.92 Å below the topmost Al layer
which has relaxed by 25%. A DFT calculation of Ganduglia et al. [269] suggests that
oxygen switches from the on-surface fcc site to the subsurface hcp sites of the
Rh(111) plane, and indicates that at even higher coverages oxygen incorporation is
followed by oxygen agglomeration in two-dimensional sub-surface islands directly
below the first metal layer. Inside these islands, the metastable hcp/octahedral (onsurface/sub-surface) site combination will undergo a barrierless displacement,
introducing a stacking fault of the first metal layer with respect to the underlying
substrate and leading to a stable fcc/tetrahedral site occupation. The subsurface
oxygen atoms in tetrahedral sites are fourfold coordinated to metal atoms. It has
been suggested that these elementary steps, namely, oxygen incorporation, aggregation into sub-surface islands and destabilization of the metal surface may be more
general and precede the formation of a surface oxide at close-packed transition
metal surfaces. A DFT calculation by Reuter et al. [270] predicted that the oxidation
of the Ru(0001) surface proceeds via the accumulation of subsurface oxygen in twodimensional islands between the first and second substrate layers. This leads locally
to a decoupling of an O–Ru–O trilayer from the underlying metal. Continued oxidation results in the formation and stacking of these trilayers, which unfold into the
RuO2(110) rutile structure once a critical film thickness is exceeded. Along this oxidation pathway, they identified various metastable configurations in which oxygen
occupies the octahedral and tetrahedral sites, respectively. These configurations are
found to be rather close in energy, indicating a likely lively dynamics between them
at elevated temperatures.
3.6. O–Rh(001) and (N, C)–Ni(001)
3.6.1. Observations
With increasing oxygen exposure of the Rh(001) surface, three outstanding phases
form sequentially, as identified using LEED, [157,164,271], STM, SPA-LEED and
PES. [52,166]. The disordered p(22)-O phase (Y=1/4 ML) forms first and then is
followed by the c(22)-2O (Y=1/2 ML) radial reconstruction and, finally, the
c(22)p4g-2O (Y=1/2 ML) clockwise-and-anticlockwise rotation of the unit cells, or
clock reconstruction. These reconstruction patterns are the same as those occurring
on the Ni(001) surfaces with chemisorbed carbon and nitrogen. Baraldi et al. [161–
163] suggested that this sequence of phase transitions belongs to the Ising uni-
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
591
versality, or order–disorder transition. Fig. 20 shows the STM images of the two
ordered phases for the O–Rh(001) surface. The oxygen adsorbate fills in the next
nearest fourfold hollow-site of the Rh(001) surface, in the same way as does oxygen on
the Cu(001) surface. It can be seen that both the c(22)-2O and the c(22)p4g-2O
Fig. 20. STM images [52] and the corresponding bond models [167] for (a) the Rh(001)-c(22)-2O1
radial and (b) the c(22)p4g-2O2 phases. During the reaction, a Rh5O pyramid evolves into the Rh4O
tetrahedron defining half of the surface atoms to be Rhdipole (labeled 2) and another half Rh+/dipole
(labeled 1/2). The electrostatic forces create rhombi-chains along the <11> directions. Here, (c) the
‘centered pyramid’ [272] and (d) the ‘off-centered rhombus’ [254] models are compared.
592
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
phases require the same local oxygen coverage of 1/2 ML. It was noted [52] that
formation of the two ordered phases depends not on the local oxygen coverage but
rather the overall oxygen exposure. Direct LEED studies [272], revealed, however,
that oxygen resides in hollow sites of the Ni(001) surface; the first substrate layer
distance is expanded and the second substrate layer reconstructs into a buckled
layer. It is suggested that [273] bond form between oxygen and the second-layer
nickel atom below it. No apparent rotation was identified [274].
Fig. 21 shows the STM images of the ordered Ni(001)-(22)p4g-2C [287] and
Ni(001)-(22)p4g-2N [286] surfaces that exhibit the same type of ‘clock’ reconstruction as that occurring on the O–Rh(001) surface albeit the slight difference in
the rotation angles. However, the calculated STM image shows the C atoms as
depressions while in the experiment, a small protrusion is suggested [275]. It is
interesting to note that the Ni(100)-(22)p4g-2N STM image exhibits two orientations of the depressions. With slight deviation, one is along the [10] direction and the
Fig. 21. STM images [286,287] and the corresponding atomic and bond model (insertions) for Ni(001)(22)p4g-(C4, N3) clock reconstruction. Individual atomic valencies and the orientation of the depressions are indicated. Although they appeared quite similar to that of the Rh(001)-(22)p4g-O2 phase, the
surface atomic valencies and the driving force are different.
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
593
other closes to the [01] direction. This provides the opportunity for one to identify
the atomic valencies at the surface.
In 1979, Onuferko et al. [276] proposed a centered-pyramid model [Fig. 20(c)] for
the ‘p4g’ reconstruction. The model indicates that a ‘stress release’ mechanism provides forces driving the ‘radial’ reconstruction phase to transit into the ‘clock’ rotation. The oxygen adsorbate was determined to locate DOz > 0.6 Å156 above the C4v
hollow site and form a centered-pyramid with the four Rh atoms at the surface. It
was interpreted that the compressive stress of the pyramid in the Rh(001)-c(22)-2O
surface is released through the rotation of the Rh4O pyramid. The release of stress
provides the forces that drive the reconstruction while the basic R4O pyramid
remains during the process of reconstruction despite a slight change of the vertical
position of the oxygen. This model applied well to all the (N, C)–Ni(001) and the
O–Rh(001) surface reconstructions.
In 1998, Alfe et al. [160,161,277] suggested an alternative (Fig. 20d) for the
Rh(001)-c(22)p4g-2O second phase. Instead of forming a pyramid with the four
surface neighbors in the C4v hollow site, the adsorbate was assumed to prefer the site
eccentrically above the ‘rhombus’. It is suggested that the adsorbate jumps back and
forth along the longer axis of the rhombus. Norris et al. [278] derived from XRD
measurement that, in the second ‘p4g’ phase, the Rh atom is displaced by 0.19 0.02
Å in the plane along the < 11 > direction. The oxygen atom is situated in the
rhombus sites with an in-plane shift of 0.20 0.05 Å on either side of the center. The
‘off-centered-rhombus’ model leads to the conclusion [161] that for all the Rh{(001),
(110), (111)} surfaces at medium-high oxygen coverage, oxygen adsorbate tends to
locates at an apical site of a tetrahedron and to form three identical bonds with the
Rh atoms. So formed Rh3O tetrahedron was taken to be a C3v point-group symmetry and the lengths of all the three O–Rh bonds in the Rh{(001), (110), (111)}
surfaces to be in the range of 2.00–2.06 Å. The Rh–O–Rh bond angle was suggested
to be around 90 . DFT calculations suggested that the ‘off-centered rhombus’ model
is less favorable than the ‘centered-pyramid’ model for the (C, N)–Ni(001) surfaces
[277]. Table 12 summarizes the geometrical information for the ‘p4g’ reconstruction
for the Rh(001)-c(22)p4g-2O and the Ni(001)-c(22)p4g-2(C, N) surfaces.
Kirsch and Harris [279] calculated surface reconstructions of Ni(001) surface
induced by C, N and O adsorption and suggested that C and N atoms prefer the
nearly coplanar sites with the top Ni surface and induce the ‘‘clock’’ reconstruction
of the surface while O atoms prefer sites slightly above the Ni(100) surface plane and
have little effect on the overall surface structure. The local environments of the C, N,
and O atoms on these surfaces are similar to their environments in a series of late
transition metal carbonyl clusters, suggesting that some of the same electronic factors may play a role in favouring the different structures. Results of the calculations
suggest that when adsorbates occupy coplanar sites on Ni(100), much of the Ni–Ni
bonding within the surface layer and between the surface- and second-layers is disrupted. On the C- and N-covered surfaces the disruption is more than compensated
for by the formation of strong adsorbate–Ni bonds and by new Ni–Ni surface bonds
resulting from the clock reconstruction. When O is forced into a coplanar site,
however, both the higher electron count and increased electronegativity of the O
594
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
Table 12
Atomic geometry of the Rh(001)-c(22)p4g-2O surface (D12=1.902 Å; z is directed into the bulk) and the
Ni(001)-c(22)p4g-2(C, N) surfaces
Model [Ref.]
DOz
DOs
D <11 >
Off-centered
rhombus model
[254] for
O–Rh(001)
O-Rh(001)
(LEED) [161]
(DFT) [160]
DFT [277]
SXRD [278]
1.01 0.05 0.290.15 0.2 0.07
Centered
pyramid model
[276] for all the
‘p4g’
N-Ni(001) (IES) [156]
SEAFS [280,281]
PED [282]
SXRD [283]
C–Ni(001), PED [282]
LEED [276]
SEXAFS [284]
LEED [285]
0.6 0.1
D12
D23
1.940.05
1.870.03
1.02
0.08 0.20 1.99
1.00 0.04 0.21
0.35
1.922
0.64 0.06 0.200.05 0.19 0.02 1.960.05
0.2 0.1
0.77 0.10
0.55 0.20
0.30 0.01
0.55 0.20
0.35 0.05
0.25 0.05
0.20 0.10
0.30 0.05
0.30 0.12
0.2 0. 2
0.31 0.05
Rhombus chain Rh2O [100] +STM [52] > 0
model [100] for Ni3N [100] + STM [286] > 0
all the ‘p4g’
Ni4C [100] +STM [287] > 0
+0.150.10
+0.170.01
+0.150.10
+0.200.05
0.45 0.07 +0.190.04
>0
>0
>0
0.3
0.37
0.64
atoms lead to severe disruption of the surface bonding and weak Ni–O bonds. When
O atoms sit above the surface, they form more polar Ni–O bonds, contribute less
electron density to the Ni surface bands, and cause less disruption to Ni–Ni surface
bonds. These results suggest that, similar to the organometallic clusters, the site
preferences of C, N, and O atoms are directly related to their electron count, and in
turn to the relative occupation of both Ni–Ni and X–Ni (X=C, N, O) antibonding
bands.
3.6.2. Analysis
We now show that the O–Rh(001) radial and the subsequent clock reconstruction
results from the formation of the oxide tetrahedron, in which the O1 transits to an
O2 with sp-orbital hybridization. The sp-orbital hybridization also holds for the C
and N when they react with the Ni(001) surface. It is derived that the electrostatic
force due to charge redistribution drives the p4g reconstruction [100,288,289]. The
balance of bond tension against the electrostatic force along the < 11> direction
stabilizes the clock rotation on the O–Rh(001) and N–Ni(001) surfaces. However,
equilibrium of electrostatic repulsion along the < 11> direction and a response of
bond compression stabilize the C–Ni(001) clock rotation. Although the patterns of
reconstruction and morphology for the O–Rh(001) and the (C, N)–Ni(001) surfaces
are nearly the same, the surface atomic valencies and the driving forces are different
due to different valencies of the C4, N3 and O2. The O–Rh bond experiences
tension rather than compression.
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
595
With the bond model, the Rh(001)-c(22)-2O1 radial and the subsequent
Rh(001)-(22)p4g-2O2 clock reconstruction can be formulated as follows [Fig. 20(a
and b)]:
O2 ðadsorbateÞ þ 4Rh ðsurfaceÞ þ 4Rh ð2nd layerÞ
) 2O1 ðsub-surfaceÞ þ 2Rh þ ð2nd layerÞ
þ 2Rh ð2nd layerÞ þ 4Rhdipole O1 -induced
ð3:6:1Þ
this O1-induced phase transits into the Rh(001)-(22)p4g-2O2 second phase (see
the corresponding deformed unit cell in Fig. 20b):
) 2O2 ðhybridÞ þ 2Rhþ ð2nd layerÞ þ 2Rhþ=dipole
þ 2Rh ð2nd layerÞ þ 2Rhdipole O2 -induced
ð3:6:2Þ
Similarly, the Ni(001)-(22)p4g-2(N3, C4) surfaces can be formulated as
(Fig. 21) [100]:
N2 ðadsorbateÞ þ 4Ni ðsurfaceÞ þ 4Ni ð2nd layerÞ
) 2N3 ðhybridÞ þ 2Niþ ðsurfaceÞ þ 2Niþ=dipole ðsurfaceÞ
þ 2Niþ ð2nd layerÞ þ 2Nið2nd layerÞ
ð3:6:3Þ
and,
C2 ðadsorbateÞ þ 4Ni ðsurfaceÞ þ 4Ni ð2nd layerÞ
) 2C4 ðhybridÞ þ 2Niþ ðsurfaceÞ þ 2Ni2þ ðsurfaceÞ
þ 2Niþ ð2nd layerÞ þ 2Ni ð2nd layerÞ
ð3:6:4Þ
It is to be noted that from the rhombi-chain formation point of view, the p4g
STM images induced by C4, N3 and O2 are substantially the same despite the
rotation angles. However, Ni(001)-(22)p4g-N3 STM image shows two apparent
orientations of the alternative thick lines of depressions, with slight deviation from
the [10] direction and the [01] direction. Linking the Ni+ ions labeled 1 in N–Ni(001)
surface [see Fig. 21(b)], one can find that the 1–1 bridge matches ideally the orientations of the STM depressions. This verifies that the radius of a Ni+ ion is much
smaller than that of a Ni+/dipole. Therefore, applying the model of bonding to the
STM images enables the individual atomic valencies of the surface Ni atoms to be
identified.
Table 13 summarizes information for the C4, N3 and O2 derived ‘p4g’ phases
on the Ni(001) and Rh(001) surfaces. For instance, oxygen sinks into the C4v hollow
site in the Rh(001) surface and bonds to the Rh atom underneath. An Rh5O cluster
forms in the c(22)-2O1 precursor phase. The O1 polarizes and pushes the electron cloud of the surface atoms radially away from the central adsorbate. In the
second phase, the c(22) cell deforms into two rhombi (without adsorbate) and two
596
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
squares with adsorbates inside, as can be seen from Fig. 20(b). The Rh5O pyramid
will evolve into an Rh4O tetrahedron with an off-centered shift of the adsorbate in
the hollow and one Rh atom at surface was released from the original Rh5O pyramid. As the O2 has already bonded to one Rh underneath, the tetrahedron defines
one Rh+ (labeled 1) and two lone-pair-induced Rhdipole dipoles (labeled 2) of the
four nearest surface neighbors. The Rh5O ! Rh4O transition gives rise to the
overall ‘p4g’ reconstruction. As can be seen from the primary unit cell containing
the adsorbate [Fig. 20(b)], three of the four surface neighbors are labeled with 1, 2
and 2, respectively. Because the surface atomic ratio O : Rh=1 : 2 and each oxygen
bonds to one atom at surface and needs two atoms to be polarized, half of the
overall surface atoms are thus defined as Rhdipole and another half as Rh+/dipole. The
Rh+/dipole contributes to the H-like bond. One can find that atoms labeled 1 change
their positions in a clockwise fashion if one counts the O-occupied hollows along the
< 11> direction (gray thick lines). The adsorbate dislocates eccentrically in direction in a periodic
p way.
p From this point of view, it would be essential and complete to
consider a c(4 24 2)R45 -16O2 complex unit cell in practice due to the periodicity of the off-centered adsorbate positions. Strikingly, the ‘rhombi’ hollows
without adsorbates form chains along the < 11 > direction. The above argument is
also applicable to the (N3, C4)-Ni(001) surfaces.
From the atomic structure point of view, the current description favors both the
existing models to a certain extent. Oxygen prefers the site inside (sub-surface) the
C4v hollow (Onuferko’s model) and eccentrically (Alfe’s model) in a periodic way
(detected as oscillation). It is understandable that periodicity can be detected as
oscillation. Most importantly, specification of the valencies of the adsorbates gives
great detail about the electronic structures, driving forces and bond stresses, of the
Rh(001)–O and the Ni(001)–(C, N) surfaces [100]. Although the STM and LEED
signatures appeared the same for these three ‘p4g’ reconstructed surfaces derived by
C, N and O, the underlying mechanisms are quite different. Therefore, the reaction
is a process in which charge transportation dominates. What one often observes
with STM and LEED is simply a portion of the consequences. For more details
regarding the sp-orbital hybrid bonding of C, N, and O to the fcc(001) surfaces of
Rh and Ni please refer to a recent report [100].
Table 13
Summary of the geometrical change, driving force, Fi, and bond tension, T, of the ‘p4g’ clock rotation (2)
derived from the STM images with the current model [100]
(22)p4g
Rh(100)-O-2
Ni(100)-N-3
Ni(100)-C-4
Rotation angle F ( )
S <11 > (Å)
Bond strain L/L (%)
Electrostatic forces Fi
Bond stress Fb (dyn)
Surface atomic states
0.0; 9.0
0.00; 0.30
1.2
7.99; 11.09
35.16
Dipole; +/dipole
0.0; 12.0
0.00; 0.37
2.2
8.21; 14.59
35.95
+; +/dipole
0.0; 20.0
0.00; 0.64
6.4
3.11;91.17
133.00
+; 2+
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
597
3.6.3. Quantification: driving force and bond stress
One can estimate the lateral displacements of the Rh atoms by measuring the
sharp angle of a rhombus in the STM image [Fig. 20(b)]. The average value of is
measured as 72 . The unit cell containing O2 adsorbate rotates, hence, 2=(90 )/
2=9 , which displaces the Rh atom along the < 11 > direction by
p
S <11 > = 2Rtg2=0.30 Å, where R=1.342 Å is the atomic radius of Rh. Table 13
summarizes the geometrical change, driving force, Fi, and bond stress, T, of the ‘p4g’
clock rotation (2) derived from the C4, N3 and O2 induced ‘p4g’ reconstruction
on the fcc(001) surface of Rh and Ni [100].
Inspecting Figs. 20(b) and 21 one can find that the surface network is composed of
one-dimensional ‘- 2 - (1/2) – (1/2) - 2 – 2 - (1/2) – (1/2)-’ rhombi-chains along the
< 11> directions. Label 1 and 2 represents the valencies of ‘+’ and ‘dipole’,
respectively. The electrostatic charges of the Rh+/dipole (1/2) and the Rhdipole (2) are
not equal and the Rh+/dipole is slightly positive compared to the Rhdipole that has a
negative feature. The intensity of interaction is in such an order: 2 - 2 (1/2) - (1/2)
> 0 > (1/2) - 2. The repulsion between the 2 - 2 or (1/2) - (1/2) and the slight
attraction between the 2 - (1/2) determines that the distance of 2 - 2 or (1/2) - (1/2) is
longer than the distance of (1/2) - 2. Rhombus formation displaces the Rh atoms
along the < 11> direction, and consequently, leads to the overall rhombi-chain
network at the surface. The alternate attraction and repulsion along the chain will
squeeze the 2-(1/2) closer without otherwise a response of bond tension to equilibrate the electrostatic force along the chain. From Fig. 22(a and b), it is seen that the
bond expands by an amount L/L=1/cosF1=1.2%, which is negligibly small
and, therefore, a mechanism of bond-tension-increase rather than the mechanism of
bond-compression-release
dominates in the Rh(001)p4g-(22)-2O2 or the Rh(001)p
p
2
(4 24 2)R45 -16O phase transition.
Without knowing the exact dipole moment, one may assume that Coulomb interaction dominates along the rhombi-chain that contains infinite
number of atoms (n 5 100 is sufficient for calculation). The Coulomb
potential Vi and the electrostatic force Fi acting on the ith atom in the
rhombi-chain are:
1 X qj
1 X
1
1
j
Vi ¼
¼
ð1Þ
4"0 i6¼j rij 4"0 i6¼j
ð2j 1Þa 2s ð2j 1Þa þ 2s
Fi ¼ qi
@Vi
@r
ð3:6:6Þ
The relative charges for Rhdipole and Rh+/dipole are defined as qi="e and "e,
respectively, by introducing an effective charge factor "="c + ' ("i"c)/2 which
takes the valence screening effect into account. "c=0.5 ('=0) and "i=1.0 ('=2)
correspond to covalent and ionic states, respectively. For the current O–Rh system,
=3.5 2.2=1.3, "=0.825.
As a component of the electrostatic force Fi, the Fb in Fig. 22(b) balances the bond
tension T and hence the clock rotation of the unit cell:
598
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
Fig. 22. (a) The non-uniform ‘- 2 - 1/2 – 1/2 - 2 -’ rhombi-chain is extracted from Figs. 20(b) and 21 to
estimate (b) the atomic dislocation and (c) the driving force and bond stress. Labels 2 and 1/2 stand for
different valencies (refer to Table 13) for O2, N3 and C4 induced chains. The clock rotation angle F is
p
derived from the STM rhombus sharp-angle Y. F=(90 Y)/2; S= 2R tgF; L/L=1/cosF1; Fi is
decomposed as Fb. (c) Shows the rotation angle dependence of the driving force Fi. Rotation is stabilized
at 9 by T=Fb. If F > 9 , T > Fb; otherwise, T <Fb.
Fi
Fb ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2½1 þ cosð2ð90 FÞÞ
ð3:6:7Þ
When the Rh4O tetrahedron rotates from 0 to 9 (see Table 13), S <11 > shifts from
0 to 0.3 Å and the electrostatic force Fi increases from 8 to 11 dyn. The tensile bond
stress, T, increases to 35 dyn at F=9 . It is easy to understand that, at F < 9 , T
< Fb, while at F > 9 , T > Fb. Therefore, the coupling of the alternative electrostatic attraction and repulsion along the rhombus chain with the response of bond
tension stabilizes the rotation.
The bond tension might be over-estimated because the dipole potential should
take the r6
ij form rather than the simple Coulomb potential. However, this can be
precisely determined provided there is a known dipole moment. Nevertheless, we
have justified that the driving force behind the Rh(001)-O2 clock rotation comes
from the electrostatic interaction along the rhombi-chain and further rotation of the
tetrahedron is constrained by the response of a bond tension. This bond-tensionincrease mechanism also holds for the Ni(001)-N3 surface. The Ni(001)-C4 rota-
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
599
tion is driven by the nonequivalent electrostatic repulsion in the < 11 > direction
and the rotation is balanced by the response of bond-compression-increase, instead
[100].
3.7. O–(Ag, V)(001)
3.7.1. O–Ag(001)
3.7.1.1. Observations. Using a combination of LEED and HREELS, Fang [290]
found that oxygen could induce two different phases on the Ag(001) surface. At low
temperature, the system displays a c(22) LEED pattern with an EELS peak at 37
meV. By increasing the temperature from 180 to 300 K, a transition to a (11)
LEED pattern happens, and the EELS peak shifts from 37 meV to a lower value of
30 meV. The EELS peak shift indicates that the stretch interaction of oxygenadsorbate is weakened. This phase transition was found to be reversible. It is interpreted that the high-temperature (11) structure correspond to full oxygen coverage
(0=1 ML), while the low-temperature c(22) structure arise from a lower coverage
(0=0.5 ML), with a substantial amount of oxygen adsorbed in subsurface.
Recently, Rocca et al. [291] reported a more complete investigation of O–Ag(001)
surface, using the techniques of LEED, HREELS, XPS, and XPD. Measurements
confirmed the existence of the phase transition observed by Fang, but leads to a
different structural model. The estimated oxygen coverage is never greater than 0.4
ML. By fitting the surface geometry to high-temperature XPD results, it was predicted that atomic oxygen would sit in the fourfold hollow site, while
low temp at p
perature the fit of XPD data suggests that the substrate undergoes a ( 22 2)R45
missing-row reconstruction, being the same to the O-Cu(001) second phase with the
Cu3O2 pairing-tetrahedron configuration. In the second phase, oxygen atoms sit in
the hollow sites near the Ag missing rows of the substrate, thus giving rise to a
c(22) LEED pattern. A first principle DFT calculation by Cipriani et al. [292]
examined the phase stability at different oxygen coverage. It was found that the
missing-row reconstruction is almost degenerate in energy with the non-reconstructed c(22) structure, both of which share the same LEED pattern. The geometrical details of the DFT calculation structure slightly differ from those inferred
from XPD measurements [290]. Both the local density approximation (LDA) and
the generalized gradient approximation (GGA) predicted that the surface fourfoldcoordinated hollow site and the sub-surface fivefold-coordinated hollow site are
most stable, practically degenerated, and separated by an energy barrier of 25
meV or less. It is striking to note that the first Ag interlayer spacing expands by up
to 30% upon oxygen adsorption [292]. According to the XPD results [291], oxygen
adsorbates displace laterally by 0.36 Å toward the missing row and shift vertically
by 0.15 Å down below the top Ag atoms. The Ag atoms close to the missing row are
shifted up by 0.3 Å and laterally by a negligible amount. In the calculated structure,
oxygen atoms sit 0.3 Å above the Ag atoms that moves 0.2 Å close to the
missing row and 0.1 Å below the other surface atoms. Oxygen atoms do not relax
laterally. However, the origin of the structural discrepancy is unclear. Nonetheless,
600
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
p
p
the overall missing row structure coincides with the Cu(001)-( 22 2)R45 -2O2
phase which is dominated by the Cu3O2 structure where oxygen atoms move away
from the missing row and go below the Cu atoms near the missing row for the tetrahedron formation. The Cu (dipoles) are shifted up and relax laterally towards the
missing row by 0.25 Å to form the ‘dumb bell’ protrusion cross over the missing
row. As discussed previously, accurate determination of the static position of atoms
is not practical as the reaction is a kinetic process. In addition, errors are often
involved in measurement and approximations in theoretical determination as well.
The significant difference between the O–Cu(001) and the O–Ag(001) is the critical
temperature for phase transition. Missing row forms at the O–Cu(001) surface at
700 K while it forms at the O–Ag(001) surface below 300 K. XPS profiles [291]
from O–Ag(001) show that the O 1s lower binding energy (528.3 eV) component
increases its intensity with temperature rise at an expenses of decreasing the high
binding energy (530.9 eV) peak that dominates at T4300 K. This is also in line with
the 37!30 meV EELS peak transition. The transition of both the XPS binding
energy and the EELS stretch energy indicates that the O–Ag(001) surface undergoes
a phase transition from stable to quasi-stable at 300 K or lower with temperature
rise. At 246 K, the stable phase forms gradually with aging time. The stable phase
formation completes after a 3200 s aging at 246 K.
With oxygen adsorption, an additional DOS feature at 2.0 to 3.0 eV emerges
[291,293] which agrees with those observed from the O–Ag(110) (1.5 3.3 eV)
[294] and O–Ag(111) (2.0 eV) [295] surfaces. These features were attributed to the
contribution from O 2p states [291] while we have ascribed them as contribution
from non-bonding lone pairs of O2.
3.7.1.2. Analysis. It is interesting to note that the O–Ag(001) bi-phase structures
are partly analogies of the O–Rh(001) and the O–Cu(001) surfaces. The fivefold
coordinated oxygen is the same as that in the Rh(001)-c(22)-2O1 first phase and
the low temperature missing-row structure is the same as the Cu(001)p
p
( 22 2)R45 -2O2 second phase. Formulae of reaction and the surface atomic
valencies of these two phases may refer to the conventions of the corresponding
Rh(001)-O-1 and Cu(001)-O-2 phases (Sections 3.3.2 and 3.2.2, respectively). Neither
like the transition from CuO2 paring-pyramid to the Cu3O2 pairing tetrahedron at
the Cu(001) surface nor the transition from the Rh5O to the rotated Rh4O at the
Rh(001) surface, the O–Ag(001) surface transits from the Ag5O (O–Rh(001) first
phase) to the Ag3O2 [O–Cu(001] second phase] at much lower critical temperature.
This intriguing fashion of low-temperature phase transition may originate from the
low electronegativity (1.9) and the large atomic size (rAg=1.442 Å) of Ag atom (see
Table 1). At the low temperature, O2 is more stable than the O1 according to the
XPS and EELS spectral features.
The valence DOS features agree with that detected from other oxide surfaces.
These features can be unambiguously specified as the contribution from the nonbonding lone pairs of oxygen upon the sp-orbital hybridization. The transition of
XPS O 1s peak energy and the EELS stretch vibration are indication of oxygen dehybridization, which happens to the O–Cu(001) at about 700 K [209].
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
601
3.7.2. O–V(001)
3.7.2.1. Observations. With the STM, LEED, and DFT approaches, Koller et al.
[296] investigated the O-induced V(001) surface reconstruction. The STM images in
Fig. 23 show apparently the bi-phase structures beside the visible dark lines
arranged regularly at the surface along the < 100> directions. The distance
between the dark lines is usually 4–6 vanadium < 100 > lattice constants, and,
therefore, a (15) reconstruction mode was suggested. In the simulated STM images, the fourfold hollow sites occupied by oxygen atoms appeared as dark spots
while the unoccupied hollow sites remain bright. The first phase within the domain
is the same as the Rh(001)-c(22)-2O1 phase [see Fig. 20(a)]. Oxygen occupies the
next nearest fourfold hollow-site and induces the radial reconstruction, as indicated
in the STM image (b). AES detected oxygen coverage as 2/3 ML. With increasing
oxygen coverage to 0.73 ML, the second phase appears, in which the dark lines
remain. The short-ordered, zigzagged ‘O–O’ chains run along the < 11> direction.
The bright spot is composed of four atoms. Ab initio calculations at very low oxygen coverage revealed that the C4v-hollow sited oxygen along the dark lines is energetically most favorable (4.89 eV, Fig. 24a) and is followed by the twofoldcoordinated bridge site (3.17 eV) and then the site atop a vanadium atom (2.97
eV). The optimal structures at higher oxygen coverage are given in Fig. 24(b, c) with
corresponding binding energies of 5.26 eV and 5.20 eV, respectively. One should
note that the oxygen atoms in the dark lines now prefer the bridge sites in the two
phases involving the reconstructed domains compared with the initial phase of
oxidation.
LEED optimisation [296] with a total number of 26 independent parameters leads
to a structural model for the second phase (Fig. 24d, with R-factor value of 0.17),
which is inconsistent with the models derived from STM imaging and ab initio calculations. The oxygen atoms in the bridge sites reside 0.12–0.18 Å above the top
vanadium layer, while the oxygen atoms in the C4v-hollow sites are 0.5 Å above
the top layer. The structural discrepancy determined by different methods was
attributed to: (i) the ab initio data are for T=0 K, whereas the LEED was taken at
room temperature; (ii) the involvement of the (14) and (16) superstructures may
influence the LEED measurements. Nevertheless, both the LEED and DFT optimization revealed an expansion of the first layer spacing (+4.2%) and a contraction
(3.2%) of the second with respect to the clean V(001) surface that contracts by
7 8.5% (determined by LEED) or 15% (by DFT).
3.7.2.2. Analysis. Disregarding the accuracy in the vertical positions of the oxygen atoms in the dark lines, the bi-phase structure for the O–V(001) surface can be
easily formulated. The formula for the first O1-derived phase may refer to that for
the Rh(001)-c(22)-2O1(Y=1/2 ML) surface which showed the radial reconstruction (Section 3.6.2). The oxygen forms a bond with a Vanadium atom underneath and then polarizes the surface neighbors, which form the V5O structure.
With the increase of oxygen
the O1 evolves into the O2 that gives
p coverage,
p
rise to the short-ordered ( 23 2)R45 -4O2 phase, which can be formulated as
follows:
602
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
Fig. 23. (a) and (c) show the STM images of the O–V(001) bi-phase structure [296] and the corresponding
models. (b) and (d) denote the corresponding models for the V(001)-c(22)-2O1 and the
p
p
( 23 2)R45 -4O2 phases. The first phase (a) is the same as that of the Rh(001)-O1 surface which is
composed of V5O. The second phase (c) consists of the V4O tetrahedron. In the second, the zigzagged O–
O chain forms along the <11> direction.
p
p
V(001)-( 23 2)R45 - 4O2 (Y=2/3 ML):
2O2 þ 6V ðsurfaceÞ þ 6V ð2nd layerÞ
) 4O2 þ 4Vþ ð2nd layerÞ þ 4Vþ=dipole þ 2V ð1st layerÞ þ 2V ð2nd layerÞ
p
p
A V(001)-( 23 2)R45 -4O2 complex unit cell is shown in Fig. 24(e). The
bright protrusions correspond to V+/dipole. Compared with the patterns of reconstructions on the fcc(001) surface of Cu and Rh, the V(001)–O surface exhibits a
quite different pattern of reconstruction.
There are two outstanding issues needing clarification. One is the inconsistency
between structures determined by LEED and by DFT/STM observations; the other
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
603
Fig. 24. Comparison of the structural models. Ab initio optimization of (a) the C4v-hollow sited oxygen in
the dark lines and the arrangement of oxygen for (b) the first and the (c) second phase as observed with
STM. Panel (d) shows the LEED optimal structural model for the reconstructed surface at higher oxygen
p
p
coverage. Panel (e) is the current bond model suggesting a short-ordered V(001)-( 23 2)R45 -4O2
(2/3 ML) reconstruction.
is the oxygen coverage. AES detected higher oxygen coverage (0.67 and 0.73 ML
for the two phases, respectively) but the model gives only 1/2 and 2/3 ML ideally for
the two corresponding phases. The structural discrepancy may arise from the huge
parameter space that warrants non-unique solutions [99]. The agreement between the
STM and the DFT results supports each other, which may indicate the essentiality
of searching for other possible numerical solutions in LEED optimization, such as
sub-surface oxygen. Modeling analysis conducted here insofar indicates that the
oxygen atom always tends to be located inside the tetrahedron. On the other hand,
the V atoms in the center of the bright protrusions are expected to be missing as
these V atoms interact with no oxygen atoms but they experience strong repulsion
604
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
from the neighboring V+/dipole. The expected missing V atoms may reduce the
number of V atoms at the surface layers. In addition, the density of oxygen in the
dark lines may be higher than the oxygen atoms inside the reconstructed domains.
This may further increase the surface atomic ratio of O : V. These two factors,
would account for the difference in the oxygen coverage between the AES measurement and the model specification. Further confirmation of the missing row formation at the V(001)-O surface is needed.
It is interesting to compare the O–(Cu, Rh, Ag, V)-(001) surface reconstruction.
The different atomic sizes and different values of electronegativity give rise to
the entirely different patterns of reconstruction on the four surfaces of the same
lattice geometry. The process of tetrahedron bond formation is the same despite
the different transition temperatures and the corresponding patterns of observations.
4. STS and PES: valence DOS
4.1. Signature generality
Chemisorption is a process in which chemical bond forms and the valence electrons
transport among the bonding constituent atoms. Processes of charge transport modify
the valence band structure and introduce additional DOS features. The derived DOS
features are detectable using STS (around EF), PES (E< EF), and IPES (inverse PES,
E> EF). The database for the oxygen-derived DOS for metals has been well established.
However, identification of the DOS features in the valence band and above is still under
debate and a clear definition of the DOS features is necessary.
4.1.1. STS
STS measurements can be carried out by recording the dIt/dVtVt or d(lnIt)/
d(lnVt)Vt curves, at a constant tip current, It, and various tip voltages, Vt. The
features of an STS spectrum are associated with the on-site DOS of a few atoms at a
surface [297,298]. Features below EF (tip negative bias) correspond to the occupied
DOS at the surface while features above EF (tip positive) represent the allowed, yet
unoccupied, DOS of the sample surface [16].
Fig. 25 shows the STS spectra of a Cu(110) surface [47] and of an Nb(110) surface
[304] with and without chemisorbed oxygen. In the first panel, spectrum A was
taken from the clean Cu(110) surface while B and C were taken from, respectively,
the site above the bright spot (dipole) and the site between two bright spots along a
‘O2 : Cudipole : O2’ chain at the Cu(110)-(21)-O2 surface (Fig. 6 in Section 3.2).
On the clean surface, empty DOS of 0.8–1.8 eV above EF are resolved and no extra
DOS structures are found below EF. The STS spectra recorded from the
Cu(110)-(21)-O2 islands reveal that the original empty-DOS above EF are partially occupied by electrons upon chemisorption, which result in a slight shift of the
empty DOS to higher energy. Additional DOS features are generated around 2.1
eV below the EF. The sharp features around 1.4 eV have been detected with
ARPES [233] and with the de-excitation spectroscopy of metastable atoms [300]. The
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
605
Fig. 25. STS profiles of (a) a Cu(110) surface [47] and of (b) a Nb(110) surface [304] with and without
chemisorbed oxygen. Spectra in panel (a) were obtained (A) at a metallic region, (B) on top of, and, (C)
between protrusions of the ‘O2 : Cudipole : O2 :’ chain [299] on the Cu(110)-(21)-O2 surface. Insert in
panel (b) shows the STM image of O–Nb(110) surface with O–Nb chains and triangle-shaped atomic
vacancies.
Cu–3d DOS are between 2 and 5 eV [35,233,301], and the O–Cu bonding derivatives are around the 2p-level of oxygen, 5.6 to 7.8 eV below EF [302]. Both Cu–3d
and O–Cu bond DOS features are outside the energy range of the STS (EF 2.5 eV).
Recently, Uehara et al. [303] measured from the O–Cu(110) surface a 2.3 eV peak
using the STM light-emission spectra. This feature was associated with the electron
transition from the Cu 4s–4p hybridized orbitals of Cu to the empty O-2p orbitals.
It is to be noted that the STS features of spectrum C (taken from between the
bright spots) is more pronounced than that of spectrum B. Taking the tip-size effect
606
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
of an STS (with 2.5 Å lateral uncertainty) and the constant current mode into
account, the origin of the intensity difference between spectra B and C can easily be
understood. Spectrum C is taken from the depression (inward curvature) that is atop
an oxygen adsorbate. The above-EF feature is dominated by the two neighboring
dipole protrusions while the below-EF information comes from the lone pair of the
O2 underneath. Thus, it is understandable that the above-EF features of profile C
are stronger than those of profile B as profile C is collected mainly from a dipole
(from outward curvature) site. The tip above the dipole collects information of both
the lone pair and the dipole but the information is relatively weaker because of the
positive curvature at the dipole site. So the intensity of an STS spectrum is determined by (i) the tip size, (ii) the on-site curvature and, (iii) the energy states of O2
adsorbate ( < EF, lone pair electrons) and Cudipole (> EF, polarized electron).
Therefore, the origin for the new peaks at 2.1 eV and the shift of the surface states
at 0.8–1.8 eV become clear now with the current BBB modeling specifications [299].
STS spectra in a broader energy range (8, 8 eV) from the O–Nd(110) surface
(Fig. 25) show DOS features near to the EF of O–Nb(110) is not that apparent as
from the O–Cu–O chain [304]. They are rather weak compared with the intense
resonant features. The resonant peaks at positive bias (unoccupied states) were
assigned to a tunneling via quantized states in a potential well induced by the combination of image states and the applied electrical field [305,306]. Since the lowest
image state is energetically tied to the vacuum level, the position of the first resonance can be used for an estimation of the work function [306]. The successive
higher resonance at 6.4 and 7.7 eV are in accordance with resonance found for other
transition metals such as Cu/Mo(110) [305] and Ni(001) surfaces [306,307]. These
resonances are shifted to lower energies on the O–Nb surfaces, independent of the
tip positions, i.e., on or away from the O–Nb chains. The resonance shift was related to
the variation of work function upon oxidation [304]. During oxygen chemisorption at
room temperature an initial decrease by =0.45 eV for less-than-monolayer coverage was observed followed by an increase of 0.8 eV beyond the value for the clean
surface for higher coverages [308]. The shift of the second peak at 5.6 eV coincides well
with the work function increase and the rest two peaks are attributed to satellites of
resonance. The occupied DOS features on the O–Nb chain are at 5.8 eV and at 6.2
eV at the STM triangular vacancy position compared to the DOS at 5.0 eV for clean
Nb(110) surface. The energy shift of the occupied states was attributed to the overlap of
O 2p and Nb 4d states with convolution of the reconstruction effect [304].
4.1.2. PES, IPES and XPS
Fig. 26 shows the ARPES spectra from the O–Cu(110) surface. Three apparent
features were recognized and they are interpreted as follows [59]. The assignment of
py and pz comes from two sources. Based on the geometrical structure it was
assumed that the strongest Cu–O interaction is along the O–Cu–O chains and thus
one will make the assignment py to the structure with the largest dispersion. Secondly, this feature is only observed at large incident angles # (angle between the
incident beam and the surface normal), which suggests that one is observing an
orbital in the plane, and this could only be the py orbital (along the O–Cu–O chain)
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
607
Fig. 26. ARPES spectra for O–Cu(110) [59] surfaces. Two additional features around 2 eV and 6 eV
are resolved coinciding with the features resolved with STS.
because of the polarisation dependence. The assignment of the pz structure (the asterisk indicates an anti-bonding level) stems from the observed polarisation dependence
and the comparison with the dispersion of the pz orbital. Hüfner [59] explained that the
O–p bands located below the Cu–d band corresponds to the O–Cu bonding band, and
those above the Cu–d band are the occupied O–Cu ‘anti-bonding’ bands. The oxygen
2py band shows the largest dispersion, as expected from the geometrical arrangement,
which was suggested as indicative of strong bonding along the O–Cu–O strings.
A set of PES profiles from an O–Cu(001) [309] surface shows three new DOS
features around 1.45, 3.25 and 5.35 eV within the valence band region (above
7.04 eV) compared to that of a clean Cu(001) surface. The states around 1.45 eV
(which coincide with the 1.4 eV STS feature in Fig. 25) were found to be antiresonant, i.e., the intensity has no apparent change with varying incident beam
energy. The anti-resonant DOS feature is believed to be the character of electrons
that are strongly confined in one-dimension such as molecular chains [310]. Thus,
608
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
the anti-resonant DOS features around 1.45 eV can be related to the electron lone
pairs that zigzag the ‘O2:Cudipole
:O2’ strings at the Cu(001)-O2 surface.
In the He-II h! ¼ 21:22 eV PES studies, Belash et al. [301] found that, with
increasing number of oxygen atoms on a polycrystalline Cu surface, oxidation takes
place in three steps:
In the first step (the lowest, 12 L, exposures), oxidation begins, which immediately
leads to the rise of a shoulder at 1.5 eV and a small peak at 6.0 eV in the PES
spectra. The emergence of the new DOS features is at the expense of a sharp fall of
the DOS features between 3.0 eV and EF. At the second step (12 1000 L), a further increase in the oxygen exposure leads to the increase of both the 6.0 eV DOS
feature and the sharp-fall at EF > E > 3.0 eV. The DOS at EF falls to zero and a
band-gap of 1.0 eV width is produced. At the third step with an oxygen exposure
of 5103 L, a surface compound forms, which displays semiconductive properties.
Its electronic structure is quite the same as that of the bulk Cu2O.
These reaction steps agree well with the O–Cu(001) surface bonding kinetics as
determined with VLEED (please refer to Section 3.2.3).
A set of ARPES spectra, as shown in Fig. 27(a and b), from the O–Pd(110) surface [60] displays that two adjacent clusters of DOS populate below the EF of the
Pd(110) surface. One is around 2.0 eV and the other is around 5.0 eV. These
signatures arise at the expense of the weakening of the DOS close to the EF. PES
investigations on the O–Rh(001) surface [157,159,166] showed that oxygen induces
significant change in the energy states around 2 to 6 eV below EF. Fig. 27(c and
d) [166] compares the ARPES spectra from the c(22)-O1 (radial reconstruction)
and (22)p4g-O2 phase on the Rh(001) surface. DOS for holes below the EF can be
resolved from the PES profiles of both phases. Additional O-derivatives can be
identified at around 5 eV for the first (22)-O1 phase. The feature around 5 eV
shifts down a little with an additional peak at about 2.0 eV at the some azimuth
angles for the O2-induced ‘p4g’ phase. The PES features of the O–Pd(110) and
O–Rh(001) surfaces are substantially the same as those observed from the
O–Rh(110) [173] and the O–Cu{(001),(110)} [309] surfaces as well, despite the slight
difference in peak positions. The DOS evolution kinetics of the O–Rh(001) surface
in the phase transition agrees with the trend for the O–Cu(001) phase transition as
determined with VLEED [97] and PES [301].
Fig. 28 shows the exposure dependence of the unoccupied bands of the O–Cu(110)
surface measured using ARIPES ðh ! ¼ 9:7 eVÞ [141] of which the resonant features
are quite similar to the STS from O–Nb(110) surface (Fig. 25). It was explained in
Ref. [141] that the state centred at 4 eV above EF corresponds to a Cu-3d [10] state,
in keeping with the Cu-3d [9] interpretation for the ground state, because with
the IPES technique an additional electron is added to the copper–oxygen system.
The obviously symmetric dispersion of this state with respect to the occupied oxygen
2py states is in agreement with a two-level approximation for the O–Cu s-bond.
Chen and Smith [311] suggested that the band above EF is an empty surface state,
which means that the agreement of its dispersion with that of the O-2py state below
EF is accidental. There appears to be no definite interpretation to this phenomenon up
to now. One might, however, take a very pragmatic view of that problem. Any state in
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
609
Fig. 27. ARPES profiles for (a and b) O–Pd (110) [60] and (c and d) O–Rh(001) [166] surfaces. Shaded
areas are features derived by oxygen adsorption. A notable aspect upon the reconstruction is the two new
humps around 2 eV and 5 eV. It should be noted that the ARPES intensity near EF at some angles
such as 0 and 44 is reduced. For O–Rh(001), additional O-derivatives can be identified at around 5 eV
for the (22)-2O phase. The feature at 5.0 eV shifts to 6.0 eV with an additional feature at about 2.0
eV at some azimuth angles when the (22)p4g-2O phase is developed.
a monatomic surface layer can be viewed as a surface state. In this sense, the two different interpretations given for the unoccupied state of the O–Cu(110) surface may
not be all that different as commented by Hüfner [59]. Nevertheless, it should be noted
that the feature at +2 eV coincides with those probed using STS on the same
O–Cu(001) surface. This empty feature decreases with increasing oxygen exposure.
610
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
Fig. 28. IPES (inverse photoemission) spectra of Cu(110)-O ðh ! ¼ 9:7 eVÞ [141] show the similar STS
resonant features to that from the O–Nb(110) surface [304]. Feature D was explained as a direct transition
in the bulk band structure, while S a surface state. Feature A is an oxygen-induced orbital. It should be
noted that the peak at 2.0 eV decreases with increasing oxygen exposure, indicating the occupancy of the
empty surface states due to dipole formation.
PES, IPESS and XPS data are available for systems of PdO [312,313] O–Cu(110) [314]
O–Nb(110) [315] AgO [316] and Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8 [317], which share considerable DOS
similarities in the valence band and above. Au nanoclusters deposited on TiO2(110)
substrate also exhibits a weak feature at 1.0 eV due to the interfacial oxidation [318].
XPS study [62] revealed that oxygen adsorption shifts the Pd(3d5/2) core-level by
0.6 eV towards higher binding energy, which coincides with the O-1s core-level
shift detected from the O–Cu(001) surface [319]. The O-1s level (529.5 eV) shifts
0.6 to 530.1 eV when the oxygen reacts with the Cu(001) surface. It has also been
reported recently [194] that the Rh-3d binding energy increases by about 0.3 eV per
bond to an oxygen adsorbate at the Rh(111) surface. Two distinct components in
the Ru-3d5/2 core-level spectra have been detected from the clean Ru(0001) surface
[320]. With increasing oxygen coverage to the Ru(0001) surface, the Ru-3d5/2 corelevel peaks shift to higher binding energies by up to 1.0 eV. Recently, Yang and
Sacher [321] found that the Cu-2p3/2 peak shifts positively with the particle size, D,
which follows the relation: DEC ðDÞ ¼ A þ B=D. The A and B are constant depend-
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
611
ing on both surface treatment and substrate type. Nitridation of the sample could
raise the slope B from 2 (Cu/graphite) to 4.2 (Cu–N/polymer), demonstrating nicely
the joint physical and chemical effects on the core level shift. Therefore, as physical
origin (without charge transport), surface relaxation and nanosolid formation share
considerable similarity in splitting and shifting the core-levels of a specimen.
The core-level shift detected with an XPS shows that: (i) the O-adsorbate does
capture electrons from metal atoms, and, (ii) the core-level shift of the clean
Ru(0001) surface may be indicative of the bond relaxation at the surface, which
modifies the crystal field upon which core-level shift depends. Therefore, chemisorption is indeed a kinetic process in which electron transport dominates. Unfortunately, an XPS is unable to reveal direct information about the process of valence
charge transport. In this sense, STS and UPS are more favorable than XPS but
mechanism for charge transportation must be clear.
4.1.3. Indication
Comparing the DOS features detected using STS, PES and IPES, one may conclude immediately that the oxygen-derived valence DOS features are very common
for all the analysed systems. Slight difference in the peak positions may result from
the difference in electronegativity that determines the ease of charge transport. One
might have noted that the patterns of morphology and crystallography vary indeed
from situation to situation, as discussed in Section 3, but the DOS spectral features
detected are quite common. The challenge for us is to find a common mechanism
behind these phenomenological observations.
4.2. Specification
Opinions regarding the O-induced valence DOS features are often conflicting. For
instance, there are have been several arguments on the additional DOS features around
1.4 to 2.0 eV of the copper oxide: (i) O–Cu anti-bonding states [233,309,322]; (ii) O2p anti-bonding states [59,233,322]; (iii) oxygen 2s states [323,324] and (iv) the interaction of O-2p electrons with the spd hybridized electrons of Cu [301]. The additional
DOS features around 5.5 eV are interpreted as O-2p states adding to the valence band
of the host surface [35,59,233]. The sharp fall of the DOS features at EF > E> 3.0 eV
corresponds to the disappearance of the clean Cu surface states. Therefore, a consistent
definition of the O-derived DOS features in the valence band of the hosts is essential.
It has been clear now that chemisorption is a kinetic process in which the valencies of the
bonding constituent change and hence the sizes and positions of surface atoms change.
Electrons are transported from the valence band of the host to the empty p-orbital of
oxygen for the bonding; then the oxygen hybridizes with the production of lone pairs. The
lone pairs polarize in turn their surrounding neighbors and the electrons of the host dipoles
move from the original energy level to the higher energy levels. These sequential processes
will redistribute electrons at the valence band and above of the host (Section 2.3).
Table 14 summarizes the adsorbate-derived DOS features in the valence band of
metals. With the BBB model developed, we are able to define the O-derived DOS
features consistently (Section 2.3):
612
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
The DOS features above EF ( 2.0 eV for Cu) correspond to the occupation
of empty surface states by the anti-bonding dipoles, which lower the work
function. Resonant peaks may come from the surface image states. The shift
of the resonances for O–Nb(110) lowered energy corresponds to the work
function increases due to H-like bond formation at the surface. Lone-pair
production generates the DOS feature between 1.5 and 2.0 eV below EF.
Features around 5.5 eV are derivatives of the O-metal bonding. The sharp
fall of the DOS features near the EF results from the hole-production in the
process of bond and anti-bonding dipole formation.
It is to be noted that the hole-production and lone-pair production have opposite
effects on the DOS distribution between 3.0 eV and EF. The former weakens the
DOS intensity while the latter enhances it. What one can detect is the resultant of
these two effects. The DOS change detected in this region may be insignificant if
these two opposite processes are comparable in quantity.
Such a DOS definition may be applied to catalytic reactions involving other electronegative elements such as N and S. DFT approaches indicated that the adsorbateinduced DOS features for both the N–Ru(0001) [257] and the O–Ru(1010) [63] surfaces
are the same and the identities agree with those specified by the current BBB correlation
premise. Further experimental evidence for the sp-orbital hybridization with lone pair
production of nitrogen has been reported recently [92,325–327]. STS [328] revealed
strong DOS features in the conduction band of CNx nanotubes close to the Fermi level
(0.18 eV). The sp orbitals of other electronegative elements are also anticipated to
hybridize upon reaction with a solid surface but further confirmation is necessary.
5. TDS: bond nature and bond strength
5.1. Identity similarity
One of the striking features observed from the O–Pd(110) surface is that the kinetics
of surface adsorption, as detected with the exposure-resolved TDS, coincides with the
trend in the work function change () [62]. The TDS and the work function
observations are given in Fig. 29 and their coincidence is summarized as follows:
(i) The four TDS peaks assigned as b1, b2, g1 and g2 oscillate with increasing
oxygen exposure. The changes of the TDS peak intensities show clearly the
discrete stages of reaction:
o b2 emerges first upon introduction of oxygen to the surface and the b2
peak saturates at 2.5 L exposure, and then keeps constant until 240 L;
o b1 emerges at 1.5 L and increases gradually in intensity until 240 L;
o after an extremely high oxygen-exposure (22,800 L), a reversal, or oscillation, in the spectral intensities of b1 and b2 occurs. b1 is substantially
more intense than b2, which differs significantly from the trends at lower
oxygen exposures, where b1 is always weaker than b2. At the extremely
613
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
Table 14
The adsorbate-derived DOS features adding to the valence band of metals (unit in eV). Holes are produced below EF. All the data were probed with ARPES unless otherwise indicated
Other methods
[Ref.]
Definition
Anti-bond
dipole > EF
O–Cu(001) [309]
VLEED [88] 1.2
O–Cu(001) [322]
O–Ni(001) [329]
O–Cu(110) [35,141,
233,330]
O–Cu(poly) [301]
O–Rh(001) [160]
O–Pd(110) [62]
O–Al(poly) [331]
O–Gd(0001) [80]
O–Ru(0001) [332]
O–Ru(0001) [333]
O–Ru(0001) [334]
O–Ru(0001) [335]
O–Ru(1010) [63]
MgO/Ag(001) [336]
O–Co(Poly) [337]
O-diamond (001)
[338]
O–C(nanotube) [339]
N-Cu(001) [340]
Lone pair
<EF
Metal
<EF
O–M bond
<EF
1.50.5
2.1
1.37;1.16
3.0 1.0
6.5 1.5
1.50.5
2.10.5
1.5
3.1
2.00.5
3.0 1.0
EF 6.0
6.5 1.5
SXES
STS [47]
2.0
1.3 0.5
DFT
1.0
STS
1.0
Ab initio
DFT
1.5
1.7
2.5
UPS
UPS
XAS
XES [329]
DFT
N–Ru(0001) [257]
(O, S)–Cu(001) [340]
TiCN [341]
XPS
a-CN [342]
XPS
CN [343]
XPS
(N, O, S)–Ag(111)
[344]
0.8
3.0
3.0
3.0
1.01.0
0.8
4
3.0
23.0
3.01.0
2.0
3.0
1.2
1.0
3.0
1.3
0.01.0
4.5
2.3
3.4
3.0 1.0
0.5, 3.0
6.5 1.5
5.8
4.5 1.5
1.0, 8.0 6.0
5.5 1.5
4.4
5.5, 7.8
5.8
5.0
0.7
4.0
5.0
5.6
5.5
6.0
6.0
5.7
7.1
8.0
Previous
Surf. states
O2s [324]
Anti-bond O-2p [35,59,233]
explanations antibond [334]
O2p [59,233]
O–Cu
O–M
O–M anti-bond [322]
higher exposure, two troughs, g1 (600 K) and g2 (705 K), emerge at the
expense of slowing the intensity-increase of b2.
(ii) The exposure-derived of the O–Pd(110) surface agrees with that of the
O–Ru(0001) surface [86,263] and the O–Gd(0001) surface as well [80]. The
trend for the for the O–Pd(110) surface can be summarized as follows [62]:
o the reaches 500 meV at 1.0 L oxygen exposure and then to a maximum
520 meV at 1.5 L;
o from 1.5 to 2.5 L the decreases from 520 meV to 430 meV;
614
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
Fig. 29. (a) TDS profiles from Pd(110) surface [62] exposed to oxygen at 304 and 400 K, showing the
oscillation of the TDS peaks with increasing oxygen exposure, and, (b) the oxygen-exposure dependence
of the work function change derived from the UPS spectra of the O–Pd(110) surface [62]. The separated regions correspond to the O1, O2-hybrid and H-like bond formation.
o the reduces from 430 meV at 2.5 L and less significantly to 400 meV at
10 L.
Zheng and Altman [345] observed the similar trend of TDS from an O–Pd(001)
surface. The Pd(001) surfaces exposed to oxygen at 350 K temperature results in a
single TDS peak at 850 K. The peak shifts from 850 K at lower coverage to 800 K
after a 10 L exposure at which the highest temperature peak saturates. After the 800
K peak saturates, a new TDS peak appears at 700 K that saturates at an exposure of
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
615
20 L. Meanwhile, another peak shows up at 650 K, which shifts towards 700 K with
further increasing exposure. Above 1000 L the oxygen uptake slows and an additional peak shoulder at 600 K is observed.
Fig. 30 shows the exposure-resolved TDS profiles recorded from the O–Rh(110)
surface [173]. The TDS profiles exhibit five desorption maxima around 797, 835,
909, 1095 and 1150–1190 K. Besides the addition of the fifth peak, the peak temperatures for the O–Rh(110) surface are slightly higher than those for the
O–Pd{(001),(110)} surface. Comelli et al. [27] have observed the peaks b2 and b3 at
lower exposures to the O–Rh(110) surface. Bowker et al. [346] also resolved three
TDS peaks of b2–b4 from the same O–Rh(110) surface. The emerging trend and the
oscillation of these peaks are substantially the same as the set for the
O–Pd{(001),(110)} surfaces though the peak positions differ slightly. The broadened
peak b5 which shifts to lower temperature with increasing population of desorption
states indicates the second-order desorption kinetics. All the other TDS maxima are
invariant with coverage according to the first-order kinetics.
By combining the TDS profiles and LEED crystallography of the O–Rh(110)
surface, Schwarz et al. [173] correlated the TDS peaks to the LEED patterns of
various reconstructed phases. Comelli et al. [27] re-interpreted the TDS data of the
O–Rh(110) surface based on the known adsorbate’s locations. It was suggested that
the most stable structure is the p2mg phase and so the adsorbate binds to the surface
more strongly. Due to the repulsive interactions, the adsorbate in the unreconstructed troughs binds to the surface weakly.
Fig. 30. TDS profiles for the Rh(110) surface exposed to oxygen at 573 K [173]. Features oscillate with a
similar trend to those for the O–Pd(110) surface upon increasing oxygen exposure.
616
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
Similarly, TDS studies [158,347–349] revealed that the O–Rh(001) surface reaction
involves three phases. The first phase gives no desorption feature up to 350 K, when
it converts to a state tentatively assigned as ‘oxygen atomic state’—or physisorption.
For temperatures above 500 K, a new state appears, which was assigned as ‘oxide
state’—chemisorption. The latter two states yield oxygen ions of different kinetic
energies. Fisher and Schmieg [165] reported three peaks (820, 920, and 1325–1200 K
with the corresponding enthalpy of 210, 260 and 360 kJ/mol) in the TDS spectrum
of the same O–Rh(001) surface. A kinetic Monte Carlo simulation of the O–Rh(001)
TDS features [350] derived the desorption peaks of 820, 925, and 1250 K agreeing
with the measurement. The state of desorption at T > 1200 K was related to the
p(22)-O structure (corresponding to the O1 state at oxygen coverage smaller than
0.5 ML, as analyzed in this report) and it is a second order. The 920 K state showed
first order kinetics, which was related to the c(22)-2O phase (corresponding to the
O1 state at 0.5 ML coverage). The 820 K peak was associated with desorption from
the c(22)p4g-2O structure (O2 dominates with H-like bond involvement at 0.5
ML coverage, see Section 3.6). This implies that the adsorption enthalpy of oxygen
decreases with the evolution of the O1 to O2. The initial precursor states are more
stable than the fully developed ‘p4g’ phase, according to Ref. [350], which is conflicting with the descriptions of Schwarz et al. [173] and Comelli et al. [27] for the
O–Rh(110) surface.
Based on their TDS measurement and the time-of-flight profiles from the
O–Rh(111) surface, Peterlinz and Sibener [192] suggested that: (i) sub-surface oxygen forms first on the Rh(111) surface at a temperature below 375 K; (ii) the subsurface oxygen starts to segregate to the surface at 375 K and, (iii) the desorption
occurs at above 650 K. Desorption is associated with a fairly sharp TDS peak at
about 800 K. The velocity distribution of oxygen molecules was found to be the
same for the same oxide bulk to that for the surface with adsorbed oxygen. This can
be indicative that oxygen desorbing from the surface is in the same state as the original state of oxygen before desorbing from the surface. Logan et al. [351] obtained
a set of TDS data from the O–Rh(111) surface in the temperature range of 850–1050
K, higher than those reported by Peterlinz and Sibener who used lower oxygen
doses. Using the time-of-flight spectroscopy, Gibson et al. [53,193] found that the
velocity distribution of the desorbed oxygen follows approximately the Maxwell–
Boltzmann description. They relate such characteristics to a ‘hot’ desorption, that is,
the temperature of the desorbing gas is higher than the surface temperature. The gas
temperature of 1175 K is higher than the sample temperature detected with TDS
(700–1100 K), which implies that the TDS value of the heat of adsorption should be
corrected slightly. Böttcher et al. [352] detected two TDS peaks at 400 and 1100 K
from the Ru(0001) surface at oxygen coverage below 0.25 ML. This differs somewhat from the phase diagram reported by Piercy et al. [353] The phase diagram
shows two peaks at 754 and 555 K. Despite the slight difference in the number of the
TDS peaks and the binding strength that varies with the surface orientation and
with materials, one may conclude that the TDS features of oxide surfaces share
considerable similarities as compared in Fig. 31 showing the temperatures of the
TDS peaks for the O–Rh and O–Pd surfaces.
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
617
Controversies surrounding the origins of the TDS identities are apparent, as
addressed above. For the O–Pd(110) surface example, one opinion [62,247,354]
relates the b1 feature to sub-surface oxygen and the more strongly bound b2 peak to
surface oxygen. Another opinion [355] assumes that the two peaks come from the
18
O and 16O isotopes. There is still a dispute on the reason for the oscillation of b1
and b2 for O–Pd(110). Bondzie et al. [62] attributed the oscillation to a process of
oxidation–reduction while Bassett and Imbihl [354] and Ladas et al. [247] related the
oscillation to the filling and depletion of sub-surface oxygen. As indicated by
Comelli et al. [27] the detailed nature of the sub-surface state or states of oxygen has
not been defined precisely though the sub-surface oxygen has been widely reported
on the Rh surfaces.
Gottfried et al. [356] investigated gold (110) surface oxidation by bombarding the
surface with energetic oxygen ion. TDS revealed four TD peaks at 415, 545, 620 and
750–950 K. These peaks are associated with chemisorbed atomic oxygen, oxygen
atoms chemically dissolved in the bulk as well as gold oxide. The peak positions
are found to depend strongly on the ion energy (penetration depth) and substrate
temperature as well. Increasing the ion energy from 1.0 to 5.0 keV, the 750 K peak
shifts to 850 K with attenuation of peak intensity of the lower temperatures, indicating the bulk site occupation. With a constant ion energy, 2.0 keV, the 750 peak
shifts to 800 K with announced low temperature peaks present when the sputtering
time is prolonged from 1 to 20 min. The heating rate in the TDS measurement also
affects the TDS features. Raising the heating rate has the similar effect to prolong
the sputtering duration.
Fig. 31. Comparison of the transition temperatures and the number of TDS peaks for O–Pd(110) [62] and
O–Rh(001) [165], O–Rh(110) [173] and O–Rh(111) [351] surfaces. The number of the TDS peaks is nearly
the same although the binding strength varies with the surface orientations and with materials.
618
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
5.2. Specification
Thermal desorption, known as bond breaking, is actually a reverse process of
adsorption. As noted by Redhead [61], TDS can clearly separate the multiple binding states of the adsorbate atoms. Therefore, the peaks in the TDS profiles are
associated with the individual process in which a specific bond forms. The similarity
of the TDS signatures and generality of the DOS features for all the analyzed systems exhibit the inherent correlation of bond formation and charge transportation.
Encouragingly, the process of electronic transportation and the nature of the chemical bonds involved are intrinsically common for all the analyzed systems, even
though the patterns of observations by other means may be different. This enables
us to relate the TDS signatures to the bonds of different nature, and to the DOS
features in the valence band, for the O–Pd(110) surface example, as listed in
Table 15.
Similarly, the TDS signatures in Fig. 30 can also be specified correspondingly.
The peaks correspond to the activation energies for the individual bond breaking. It should be a helpful practice for interested readers to interpret the TDS of
the O–Rh(110) surface. The fifth peak may relate to the contracting ionic bond
at the initial stage of reaction and the bond length relaxes with the development of the tetrahedron, which lowers the activation energy. The two peaks at
754 and 555 K appearing in the O–Ru(0001) phase diagram [353] can also be
related to the ionic bond and the non-bonding lone pair interaction, which has
been confirmed to exist in the DFT approaches [63,257], but the TDS features
[352] at low oxygen coverage may correspond to the on-surface oxygen (400 K)
and the first contracting bond (1100 K) between the O1 and the Ru atom
underneath.
As will be shown in Section 7, such specification allows the TDS oscillation
for O–Pd{(001), (110)} to be related to the bond forming kinetics, agreeing with
observations using other means, such as PES and VLEED, for other systems with
chemisorbed oxygen.
Table 15
Correlation between the bond nature and the TDS and valence DOS features for the O–Pd(110) and
O–Pd(001) surfaces
Bond nature
Ionic bond
Non-bonding lone pair
H-like bond
H-like bond
Anti-bonding dipole
TDS features (K)
DOS features
O–Pd(110) [62]
O–Pd(001) [345]
O–Pd(110)
b2(816)
b1(774)
g2(705)
g1(660)
850!800
800
700
600–650
5 eV
2 eV
recovery
recovery
+2 eV
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
619
6. EELS and Raman: fingerprints of weak interaction
6.1. EELS: dipole vibration
In a high-resolution EELS study, He and Jacobi [64] observed a dipole-active
stretch vibration mode, ?(Ru–O), from an O–Ru(0001) surface. The energy of the
p(Ru–O) mode shifts from 54 to 81 meV, when the (22)-O (O1 dominates at 0.25
ML coverage) and the (21)-O adlayer (O2 and lone pairs dominate at 0.5 ML)
develops into the p(11)-O phase (O2 and H-like bonds dominate at 1.0 ML coverage). The low-frequency EELS and infrared peaks have also been observed from
other oxide surfaces [357,358]. The observed trend is just the same as that occurring
to the O–Rh{(111), (110), (001)} surfaces upon oxygen adsorption. HREELS [359]
revealed that the characteristic losses for the O–Rh(111) surface increase from 62 to
68 meV with oxygen coverage. On the O–Rh(001) surface [165], a single loss at 48
meV at lower oxygen coverage (O1 dominates) shifts to 54 meV at higher oxygen
coverage (O2 dominates). Upon the Rh(110)-(21)p2mg-O structure formation,
two losses at 46 1 and 64 1 meV are observed simultaneously under dipole scattering conditions. The EELS peak transits at low temperature from 36 to 30 meV
[290] when the O–Ag(001) surface changes from the O2 derived phase to the O1
derived one. The transition from lower energies to slightly higher indicates a higher
binding energy since the (22)p2mg structure is more stable. However, the origin
and the energy shift of the detected mode still has to be defined although this
observed energy difference has usually been suggested as fortuitous [27,181].
A nuclear inelastic scattering of synchrotron radiation measurement [360] of the
vibrational DOS of nanocrystalline (6–13 nm) a-Fe with oxide covered surface
revealed: (i) enhanced population of low-energy vibrational modes around 18 meV,
(ii) a broadening of the DOS peaks at 30–35 meV and, (iii) an additional intensity at
40–50 meV. The softened feature (i) is attributed to vibrational modes of interface
atoms, arising from the high fraction of interfacial sites connected with the small
crystallite size. The broadening mode (ii) is caused by phonon confinement and the
stiffening mode (iii) from oxidation. Experiments and computer simulations indicate
that the DOS contains low- and high-energy modes not exhibited by coarse-grained
counterparts. These modes seem to originate from vibrations of atoms with reduced
atomic coordination and modified local environment, i.e., at surface/interface sites.
It is concluded that oxidation similarly contributes to the low-energy DOS but
additionally brings about stiff modes above the high-frequency cutoff of bulk a-Fe.
It is surprising to note that the energy of the stretch vibration of O–M in EELS
around 50 meV coincides with the typical strength of the hydrogen bond detected
using infrared and Raman spectroscopy from H2O, protein and DNA [104]. The
energy for an ionic bond is normally around 3.0 eV and the energy for a Van der
Waals bond is about 0.1 eV. Therefore, the vibrations detected with EELS from the
Ru, Rh and Ag oxide surfaces correspond to the weak non-bonding interaction
between the host dipole and the oxygen adsorbate. For the O–Ru and O–Rh surfaces, it has been clear that, in the precursor states at lower oxygen coverage, the
weak interaction between the dipole and oxygen is dominated by the O1 that
620
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
induces the dipoles. A lone pair replaces the O1 when the O1 evolves into the O2 with
increasing oxygen coverage. The lone-pair dominates the weaker part of a hydrogen
bond. Finally, a H-like bond forms, which stabilizes the bond network at the surface by
reducing the dipole moment. Therefore, it is understandable that the interaction
between oxygen adsorbate and the metal dipoles increases with the evolution from O1,
O2 to O2 with H-like bond formation. Dipole-oxygen interaction through a lone
pair seems to be stronger than that through the O1. The H-like bond formation stabilizes the surface bond network and hence raises the frequencies of vibration. Therefore,
the detected EELS and vibration DOS features correspond to the non-bonding interaction and their energy-shifts agree with the transition of the non-bonding components
from O1 induction to lone pair interaction and then to the H-like bond contribution in
the process of oxidation. The soften mode in the vibration DOS of nano-Fe oxide may
be due to interparticle interaction, which even weaker than the nonbonding interaction.
6.2. Raman: lone-pair in oxides, nitrides and bio-molecules
It is known that the lone-pair is produced intrinsically by the sp-orbital hybridization.
The number of lone-pairs in a tetrahedron follows the ‘4-n’ rule (Section 2.2), where ‘n’
is the valence value of the electronegative additive. Vibration of the dipole induced by
the lone pairs should be detectable by Raman spectroscopy in the frequency range
below 1000 cm1. An experimental survey with Raman (HeNe laser, normal incidence)
has been conducted to examine the following specimens [327]: (i) Al2O3 and TiO2
powders; (ii) thin films of Ti nitride (TiN) and amorphous carbon nitride (CN); and,
(iii) films of amorphous carbon (a-C) and Ti carbide (TiC). As anticipated and shown in
Fig. 32(a), the lone-pair features of the oxides (n=2) are stronger than those of the
nitrides (n=3) while no such features can be resolved from carbides (n=4). The
appearance and the relative intensity of these low-frequency Raman features support the modeling prediction and the rules of ‘4 n’ for lone-pair formation as well.
The detected Raman features are quite similar to that of H2O, protein and DNA
[104]. The peak positions depend on the reduced atomic mass, =m1m2/(m1+m2),
of the components, and the force constant, fk, of the weak interaction [! / (fk/)1/2].
The multi-peak corresponds to different orders of the Fourier coefficients in the
numerical solutions. These features in bio-molecules used to be attributed to the
hydrogen bond vibrations with 50 meV binding energy. It is known that the
hydrogen bond is actually composed of a lone pair (‘:’) on one side and a covalent
bond (‘–’) on the other side of the B+/dipole (An–B+/dipole : An). The B is less electronegative than A of which the sp orbitals hybridize upon reaction. The covalent
bond vibration contributes to the spectra at much higher frequencies. Therefore,
Raman low-frequency features come from the vibration of the lone-pair-induced
dipoles that seem to be common to oxides, nitrides and bio-molecules.
6.3. Confirmation: ultra-elasticity of nitride surfaces
The ultra-hard and self-lubricative behavior of nitride surfaces may provide further evidence for the lone-pair interaction. The quasi-tetrahedron bond geometry of
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
621
Fig. 32. (a) Low-frequency Raman shifts indicate that weak bond interaction exists in Ti and Al oxides
and TiN and amorphous CN, which correspond to the non-bonding electron lone pairs generated during
the sp-orbital hybridization of nitrogen and oxygen. Therefore, the peak intensities of oxides are stronger
than that of nitrides while there are no such peaks at all for a-C and TiC [327] films. (b) The elastic
recovery profiles for GaAlN and a-C evidence the lone-pair interaction dominating at the nitride surface
and the strong intralayer ionic interaction [327].
a nitride prefers the C3v symmetry because a nitrogen atom needs three electrons
from its surrounding atoms for a tetrahedron formation [92]. This explains why most
nitride compounds such as group III-nitride wide-band-gap semiconductors prefer
the cubic fcc(111) or the hexagonal hcp(0001) orientations. Ideally, nitrogen tends to
locate at the hcp hollow site to form a tetrahedron with three identical bonds to the
surface atoms and with one lone pair interacting with the atom underneath. Therefore,
622
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
the nitride surface-bond network is composed of ions (N3 and M+) and these ions
are surrounded with densely packed electron clouds. On the other hand, instead of
the original strong interlayer metallic bonds, lone pairs dominate the interaction
between the interatomic layers. Hence, the nitride surface-bond network of densely
packed electrons ensures the hardness at the surface atomic layer while the weak
interlayer interaction gives rise to the high elasticity perpendicular to the surface.
Nanoindentation profiles in Fig. 32(b) confirm the predictions of high elasticity of
the nitride surfaces contributed by the lone pair interaction. For GaAlN film [361],
the elastic recovery is as high as 100% under lower indentation load (0.7 mN)
compared with that of amorphous carbon film. The GaAlN surface is also harder
than the a-C film under the lower indentation load. The absence of lone pairs in a-C
film makes the carbide less elastic than a nitride under the same scale of indentation load.
For CN and TiN, the elastic recovery ranges from 65 to 85% with higher load (5 mN) of
indentation [362]. The plastic deformation of the nitride films at higher indentation force
indicates the existence of a critical value of load that breaks the lone pair interaction.
Therefore, the non-bonding interlayer interaction enhances the elasticity of nitride surfaces at very low load. Such high elasticity and high hardness by nature furnishes the
nitride surfaces with self-lubricative property for nano-tribological applications.
7. Kinetics of bond forming and bond switching
7.1. Four-stage bond forming kinetics
The correlation of the chemical bond, surface morphology, and valence DOS and the
bond strength to the spectral signatures of LEED, STM, PES/STS, TDS and EELS
enables the kinetics of oxide tetrahedron formation to be readily understood, in general. As an additional example, we may look at the particular O–Pd(110) surface based
on the kinetic TDS and UPS profiles (please refer to Fig. 29 for the profiles and Section
3.3 for structural details) obtained during the increase of oxygen exposure:
Stage 1 (Y < 1.5 L): O1 dominates giving a Pd5O cluster with one ionic bond
to the Pd atom underneath and four surface metal dipoles. In TDS, the ionic
bond feature b2 emerges before the lone pair feature b1 which does not appear
yet until the turning point at 1.5 L. The O1-induced anti-bonding dipoles
reduce considerably. The highest value at 1.5 ML is evidence of the
precursor in which O1dominates. This agrees with data derived with
VLEED from the O–Cu(001) surface at an oxygen-coverage lower than 25 L.
No lone pair features can be detected at the O1 dominated stage.
Stage 2 (1.54Y42.5 L): O2-hybridization occurs and completes, giving rise
to a tetrahedron with two ionic bonds and two non-bonding lone pairs. The
lone pair feature b1 emerges upon the sp orbitals of the O2 being hybridized.
The lone pair feature b1 becomes apparent at 2.5 L. The bond feature b2
increases its intensity until the number of the ionic bonds saturates at 2.5 L.
drops from 520 meV at 1.5 L down to 430 meV at 2.5 L because the
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
623
number of dipoles decreases. Two of the four surface dipoles are retained and
the remaining two become Pd+ or metallic Pd when the Pd5O evolves into the
Pd4O tetrahedron.
Stage 3 (2.5 < Y4240 L): Interaction develops between the adsorbate and the
anti-bonding dipoles. The non-bonding feature b1 increases its intensity
gradually indicating that more lone pairs are produced and the lone-pair
interaction develops. The constant intensity b2 implies that the oxygen coverage saturates gradually with the exposure. In fact, there exists no direct
correspondence between the oxygen coverage and the exposure. The slight
decrease of from 430 meV at 2.5 L to 400 meV at 10 L implies that the Hlike bonds start to form. The H-like bonds reduce the width of the anti-bond
sub-band and the work function reduction is restored, consequently.
Stage 4 (Y 22,800 L): The number of H-like bonds increases with increase
in the O: M ratio at the surface. Each O2 needs three surface neighbors of
which one bonds to the oxygen and the rest two are to be polarized.
Therefore, the increased number of H-like bonds replaces some of the original
ionic bonds at the surface. The development of H-like bond features g1(600 K)
and g2 (705 K) can be regarded as a process in which the H-like bond dominates.
H-like bonds replace the ionic bonds at the surface, and the ionic bond peak b2 is
thus apparently lowered relative to the lone-pair peak b1. The considerable
increase of b1 intensity indicates that more lone-pairs have been produced, and,
thereby, oxygen coverage is increased. Unfortunately, the database of at
higher exposures is lacking but we may anticipate that the will recover further
as the H-like bond narrows the width of the anti-bond band. This is also the case
for the hcp(1010)-(21)p2mg-2O2 phase of Co and Ru.
The TDS oscillation of the O–Pd{(001),(110)} corresponds to the sequence of
bond formation: (i) an ionic bond forms first, (ii) a lone pair follows upon second bond formation, and then, (iii) an H-like bond replaces the ionic bond at
the surface with increase in the number of oxygen atoms adsorbed. These processes are the same as for the O–Cu(001) surface, and this has been quantified
with VLEED (Section 3.2.3). The trend also agrees with the reaction kinetics of
the polycrystalline O–Cu surface revealed with PES [30]. In general, the identities of kinetic UPS and VLEED correspond to the oxygen-derived DOS features. The exposure-resolved TDS signatures can be related to the processes of
bond forming. Therefore, it is easy to view the oxide bond and band forming
kinetics from any complete kinetic spectra database, using the original BBB
model that has been proven appropriate.
It has been found general to all the analyzed samples that an oxide tetrahedron
forms in four discrete stages: (i) O1 dominates initially at very low oxygen coverage; (ii) O2-hybridization begins with lone pair and dipole formation upon second
bond formation; (iii) interaction develops between lone pairs and dipoles, and
finally, (iv) H-like bonds form at higher exposure and the H-like bonds replace the
surface ionic bonds. These processes give rise to the corresponding DOS features
in the valence band and modify the surface morphology and crystallography,
624
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
accordingly. Therefore, the events of sp-hybrid bonding, non-bonding lone pair, antibonding dipole and the H-like bonding are essential in the electronic process of oxidation, and in the catalytic reactions involving other electronegative additives as well.
7.2. Bond switching: O-floating and O-diffusing
We now turn to the kinetics of O-diffusing in bulk oxidation and O-floating during epitaxial growth of metals on oxygen pre-recovered metal surfaces. It is known
that, in the process of oxidation and corrosion of metals, oxygen breaks the
adsorption barrier and the metal–metal bond to move into the bulk. The bulk oxidation can be observed with the naked eye as the oxide powders peeling off the
metals, known as rusting. However, in epitaxial growth of metals onto oxygen precovered metal surfaces, oxygen atoms always float up to the surfaces. These two
opposite processes seem to be very complicated and involve the kinetics and
dynamics of oxide bond switching. Understanding the driving force and the kinetic
process of oxide-bond switching is particularly important to both fundamental
understanding and technological applications.
AES [363], ICISS [242], work function measurements [198,364] and STM observations [241,365] have revealed that oxygen atom is always present on the surface of
the grown Cu films deposited on an oxygen pre-covered Ru(0001) surface. Under
certain conditions (YO=0.2–0.4 ML, T 400 K), the work function, monitored
during film deposition, oscillates with a period of one monolayer of copper epitaxial
growth. It was explained that oxygen serves as a surfactant for a layer-wise Cu
growth on the O–Ru(0001) surface, periodically inducing a high density of islands.
For lower YO, densely packed triangular islands are partially covered with an O/Cu
surfactant structure. The O–Cu structure is locally ordered in a distorted hexagonal
lattice, namely, with the hcp(0001) or fcc(111) features. The structure also consists of
O–Cu–O strings inducing the observed corrugation. One possible mechanism proposed by Wolter et al. [241] is that the strain of the first Cu layer promotes the forp
mation of the Cu2O-like (32 3) structure. Once the structure is formed, elements
of it float onto the top of the growing film and act as a surfactant layer for further
Cu film growth. SIMS and secondary electron emission examination [366] revealed
that the Cu layers deposited on the c(22)-O/Ni(001) substrate are always covered
by an adsorbed layer of oxygen.
Wulfhekel et al. [367] also detected similar phenomena in the epitaxial growth of
Cu on the O–Cu(111) surface. The oxygen-induced He-scattering features oscillate
at 400 K. Interestingly, Yata et al. [368] observed that oxygen atoms segregate
back to the surface during the epitaxial growth of Cu on the Cu(001)p
p
p
p
( 22 2)R45 -2O surface, while the ( 22 2)R45 -2O structure is retained at
the grown surface.
It has been found that co-adsorption of Ni and O on W(110) and subsequent
annealing to 500–1000 K leads to segregation of Ni and O, with the formation of Ni
crystallites largely < 111> oriented along the surface normal. The heights of these
Ni ‘towers’ can be adjusted by varying the amounts of co-adsorbed oxygen and Ni
[369].
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
625
Therefore, oxygen floating in the process of Cu/O/Ru(0001), Cu/O/Cu(111) and
Cu/O/Cu(001) growth and Ni cluster on O–W(110) surface is driven by a common,
yet poorly known, mechanism. As pointed out by Wolter et al. [241] the detailed
mechanism of oxygen segregation on the top of a metal surface is still an open
question.
The ideas reported in the present treatise have provided us with a possible
mechanism for the kinetics and dynamics of oxide bond switching. It has been
shown in Sections 3.2.3 and 7 that oxidation takes place in four discrete stages in
which O1 forms first and then O2 follows with sp-orbital hybridisation and lone
pair production. VLEED investigation [209] has revealed that annealing the
O–Cu(001) surface at a ‘dull red’ temperature removes the lone-pair DOS features
from the z0(E) profile, which means that the hybridised sp orbitals of the O2 dehybridize [99]. Hence, annealing at a certain temperature provides forces that reverse
the reaction by oxide bond breaking rather than enhancing.
One should note that oxygen floating occurs at 400 K. At the elevated temperature, the processes of O2 de-hybridizing and oxygen re-bonding tend to occur
because annealing activates the bond breaking. At the thermally activated state,
oxygen can adjust itself towards a stable tetrahedron with two bonding and two
non-bonding orbitals. It is worth mentioning that the lone pair induced dipoles tend to
be directed into the open end of a surface. The dipole forms periodically with the epitaxial layer growth, observed experimentally as the periodic change of the work function. Therefore, the strong repulsion between the dipoles and the repulsion between the
lone pairs provide the driving force for oxygen to float up under a thermal activation in
the process of homo- or hetero-epitaxial growth of metals [67].
We noted that the interaction between the dipoles and oxygen is rather weak ( 50
meV, Section 6). With an external stimulus or under certain circumstances, the
dipoles may escape from the bound by lone pairs, and then oxygen reactants have to
re-bond to other atoms to form the stable tetrahedron, which is the case of bulk oxidation or rusting. Although O-diffusing and O-floating are inverse processes, they share
the same mechanism of bond switching. The mechanism for the oxide bond switching
may be extended to bioelectronics such as the folding, signaling and regulating of
DNA, proteins and NO, in which the lone pair, dipole and H-like bond may dominate.
8. Application: I. Bond contraction and charge transport
8.1. Introduction
The study of nanocrystalline materials with dimensions less than 100 nm is an
active area of research in physics, chemistry, and engineering [370,371]. Nanocrystals have large surface-to-volume ratios, and surface effects take on a significance
that is normally inconsequential for bulk materials. The small volume can confine
free carriers, allowing observation of quantum behavior. While of immense intrinsic
interest, the study of nanocrystals is also propelled by technological promise. Various physical properties such as mechanical strength [372], plasticity [373], melting
626
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
temperature [374], sintering ability [375,376], diffusion [377], and electronic structures [378,379] as well as the chemical reactivity [380,381] may be dependent upon
particle size. That nanomaterials may display novel or enhanced properties compared to traditional materials opens up possibilities for new technological applications. There have been numerous studies on the relationship between the size of
nanocrystals and their properties. However, consistent insight into the size and
shape dependency of the nanostructured solid is still lacking.
So far, we have developed two essential concepts through the study of surface oxidation, which should be of immediate application. One is the surface bond contraction and
the other is sp-orbital hybridization of O, N and C in reaction. Predictions of the functions
and potential applications of the bonding events at a surface with chemisorbed oxygen are
summarized in Table 16. The bond contraction is not limited to an oxide surface but it
happens at any site, where the atomic CN reduces. It is known that the physical properties
of a solid are often related to atomic interaction and to the distribution of the valence
charges. The spontaneous bond contraction enhances the single bond energy of the
remaining bonds of the lower-coordinated atom. Catalytic reaction modifies directly the
occupied valence DOS by charge transportation or polarization. Band-gap expansion
and surface bond contraction are suggested to play major roles dictating the property
changes of a solid. Importantly [382], all the detectable physical quantities relating to the
cohesive energy or binding energy density will change with the dimension of a nanosolid of which the portion of surface atoms and the curvature of the surface vary with
its dimension. Developments so far have led to the following advances in applications.
8.2. Nano-solid: bond order–length–strength (BOLS) correlation
With reduced dimensions of solids or devices, quantum and interface effects
become dominant. The size-and-shape dependency of the physical properties of a
nano-solid has attracted tremendous interest. The striking significance of nanometric materials is that the conventionally detectable quantities are no longer conTable 16
Summary of model predictions and potential applications of compounds with electronegative additives
Events
Characterization
techniques
Functions
Anti-bonding
(dipole) >EF
Holes <EF
Nonbonding
(Lone pair)
<EF
H- or CHlike
Bonding
STM/S, IPES UPS
Work function-reduction (f) Cold-cathode field emission
Photoemission
Raman/FTIR STS,
VLEED
Band-gap expansion
PL Blue-shift UV detection
Polarization of metal electrons High elasticity Far-IR activity
STM/S, UPS EELS -Recovery
XRD, LEED UPS,
XPS
Surface bond XRD/XPS
contraction
Mass transport atomic shift
phase change
Crystal field cohesive energy
Hamiltonian
Potential applications
Surface bond network stabilization
Compound formation
Origin for the tunability of
nano-solids
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
627
stant but they are adjustable by simply controlling the shape and size of the solid.
The continuous change of the properties has been leading to a revolution in materials science and device technology. It is possible to tune the physical performance of
a device by adjusting the sizes of particles that compose the medium of the device.
However, from a fundamental point of view, the origins and the general trend of the
property change are yet to be understood, although there are often several models
describing a specific phenomenon. As will be shown in the following sections that
the CN imperfection induced bond contraction at the surface and the rise in the
portion of surface atoms may unify the enormous variations of nano-solid properties.
8.2.1. Principle
The finding of surface bond contraction has led to a bond order–length–strength
(BOLS) correlation mechanism that is given as follows [383]:
di ¼ c i d
"i ¼ cm
ð8:1Þ
i "
ci ¼ 2= 1 þ exp½ð12 zi Þ=ð8zi Þ
where d is the bulk bond length and " is the single bond energy of atom in the bulk.
The i is counted up to at most three from the outermost atomic layer to the center of
the particle, as no apparent CN(zi) reduction is expected for i> 3. The m is an
adjustable parameter introduced to describe the change of binding energy. Normally, for metals or semiconductors [384], m is around one, whereas, for compounds
and alloys, m around four [327,385]. The contraction coefficient ci should be anisotropy and vary with solid dimension because the surface curvature of the solid
changes with particle size. Fig. 33 illustrates the BOLS correlation which states that
the lengths of the remaining bonds of the lower-coordinated atom reduce (with
coefficient ci) spontaneously; as such, the single bond energy ("i) will rise with CN(zi)
reduction. The bond energy rise and the reduction of the CN contribute to the
cohesive energy of the specific atom, which relates the process of self-organization
growth, phase transition and thermal stability. The bond energy rise raises the
binding energy density in the relaxed surface region, as the bond number in a circumferential unit area does not change. The binding energy density rise contributes
to the Hamiltonian and related properties such as the entire band structure and the
surface mechanics. Most strikingly, a recent DFT calculation [386] reveals that for Au,
Cu, Pt, Pd, Ni and Ag single atomic chains, the binding energy per bond is (3 to 1
eV) 2–3 times larger in the chains than the single bond energy (1 to 0.4 eV) of the
bulk fcc structures. Meanwhile, the equilibrium atomic separation contracts by up to
10% (Cu, Ag) 15% (Pt). The binding energy rise due to reduced coordination is
attributed to the multi-atom effect that enhances the interatomic interaction of the single atomic chain. This finding concurs with the current BOLS correlation mechanism.
For a spherical particle with radius R there are k atoms arranged along the R. The
thickness of the ith atomic shell is di. The number of atoms in the ith atomic shell is
Ni=4R2i di, Ri=[k(i0.5)]d; the total number of atoms of the entire sphere is
N=4(kd)3/3. Then the number or volume ratio of the ith atomic shell to that of the
bulk is,
628
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
Fig. 33. Illustration of the BOLS correlation mechanism which states that the bond length reduces with
the reduction of the atomic CN(zi); the bond energy of the shortened bond will rise. Large open circles
and the square are data after Goldschmidt [101] and Feibelman [72].
i ¼ Ni =N ¼ 4½ðk ði 0:5ÞÞd 2 di = 4ðkdÞ3 =3
ci
¼ 3 1 ½ði 0:5Þ=k2
; ðR ¼ kdÞ
k
Generally, the surface-to-volume ratio for solid (L=0) or hollow (L > 0) a spherical dot (p=3), a rod (p=2) and a plate (p=1) can be expressed as:
ip ðk; L; ci Þ ¼
p½k ði 0:5Þp1
ci
kp L p
ð8:2Þ
As the k is an integer, the property change will show quantized features at small
particle sizes. For a solid, the pi is proportional to pk1, or pD1, the dimensional
size (k, and D) and dimensionality (p) of the solid.
8.2.2. Application: lattice strain and surface mechanics
8.2.2.1. Lattice contraction and strain energy
For a freestanding nano-solid, the lattice constants are often measured to contract
while for a nano-solid embedded in a matrix of different materials or passivated
chemically, the lattice constants may expand. For example, oxygen chemisorption
could expand the first metallic interlayer by up to 10–25% [65] though the oxygenmetal bond contracts [78,110]. Reddy et al. [387] detected with XRD that the lattices
of a ZnMnTe ally contract by as high as 7–8% and the amount of contraction
decreases with increasing particle sizes. They ascribed such contraction as the atomic
density rise in the core of the nanoparticles. Using XRD and Raman, Zhang et al.
[388] measured that the lattice constant of Wurtzite CdSe nanocrystals contracts
0.06–0.23% and suggested that the surface tension provides the force driving the
surface optimization/reconstruction and hence to minimize the non-radiative traps
originated from the dandling bonds on the surface, which cause the red shift of the
LO frequency of the nanosolid. Yu et al. [389] found that the mean lattice constants
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
629
of Sn and Bi nano-particles contract with the decrease of particle size. The c-axis
lattice contracts more significant than the a-axis lattice. Yu et al. have attributed
such lattice variation to the super-saturation of the vacant lattice sites inside the
particle. Stoneham [390] ascribed the lattice contraction of Bi and Sn as the effect of
surface stress and the compressibility of these materials. Nanda et al. [391] adopted a
liquid-drop model to illustrate the lattice strain and indicated that the anisotropic
lattice contraction comes from the anisotropy of compressibility and thermal
expansion coefficient of the corresponding bulk materials. Despite the different
physical mechanisms, all the arguments could fit the experimental measurements
very well.
In previous work [392], we showed that the mean lattice contraction of an isolated
nano-solid is averaged over the entire solid. The change of the mean lattice constant
of the entire solid originates from the spontaneous contraction of the bond at the
surface and the rise in the surface-to-volume ratio. Actually, surface stress and surface energy results from, not in, the bond contraction as there is no external stimulus
(pressure, field, heat, etc.) applied to the surface.
For instance, the compressibility,
1 @V ¼
;
V @P T
and the thermal expansion coefficient,
1 @V ¼
;
V @T P
are intrinsic properties of a solid. They describe the response of the lattice (V / d 3),
DV
Dd
DP; T ¼ const
ð8:3Þ
¼3
¼
DT; P ¼ const
V
d
to the external stimulus such as pressure, P, or temperature change, T. The
external stimulus simply provides a probe detecting the responses: compression or
expansion. However, the degree of easiness of lattice change depends on the shape of
the inter-atomic interaction potential. For example, if the pair-wise atom potential
well is broader, the compressibility and the thermal expansion coefficient of the
atomic pair would be higher, and vise versa. Interestingly, a recent X-ray diffraction
study [131] revealed that the compressibility and the phase transition pressure of
nanometric PbS particles are no longer constant but change with varying particle
size. It was found that the compressibility increases and the transition pressure
decreases considerably with reducing particle size. This indicates that reducing particle size not only changes the minimal binding energy but also the shape of the
potential well. Actually, the compressibility and thermal expansion vary with the
shape of potential well but the pressure (surface stress) depends on the minimal
binding energy at equilibrium atomic separation, as will be shown in the next section. Therefore, one needs to identify what the cause is and what the effect would be.
It is not applicable to assume a constant compressibility and a constant thermal
expansion coefficient in dealing with a nanometric solid. As will be shown in the
630
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
following sections, the surface stress and interface energy are derivatives of the
binding energy that is enhanced at the surface by the spontaneous bond contraction.
The mean lattice constant in a nano-particle can be derived from the relation:
"
#
"
#
X
X p
d ¼ Nd0 þ
Ni ðci 1Þd0 =N ¼ d0 1 þ
i ð c i 1Þ
i¼2
i¼2
and, the relative change of the mean lattice-constant is
Dd d d0 X p
¼
¼
i ðci 1Þ < 0:
d0
d0
i¼2
ð8:4Þ
The relative change in the mean lattice-constant of a particle depends on both the
surface-to-volume ratio ip and the bond-contraction coefficient ci. By adjusting the
ci values, the trends of lattice contraction of Sn and Bi particles can be quantified, as
for the Sn sample shown in Fig. 34(a). The possible errors in measurement may
result from the accuracy of shapes and sizes of the particles that could lead to different ip values [382]. The fact that the c-axis lattice contracts more significantly
than does the a-axis lattice may results from the anisotropy of the CN or from the
bond strength in different directions. Such a bond contraction should lead to an
increase in binding energy, or strain energy, at equilibrium atomic separation.
Therefore, the premise of spontaneous bond contraction is able to describe the origin of the size-dependency of lattice contraction and its derivatives of a nanometric
solid.
Fig. 34(b) shows the distribution of nearest-neighbor (NN) atomic distances (bond
length) for relaxed Ag nanocrystals [393]. The NN distance, for the 2.0, 2.5, and 3.5
nm size crystals, becomes shorter than the bulk one. For the 5.0 nm crystal, 60% of
the atoms have the bulk value but 40% have a shorter NN distance. Fig. 34(c) shows
the size-dependence of the average NN distance for the relaxed Ag, Cu, and Ni
nanocrystals. One can see that the average NN distance for the three elements, Ag,
Cu, and Ni, is shortened by as much as 1.6–2.0% for small nano-crystals and about
0.6% for relatively large ones, as compared with the bulk value. Using extended
X-ray-absorption fine structure, Montano et al. [394] measured the microstructure
of Cu microstructures (0.7–1.5 nm mean diameter) and found the Cu–Cu bond
contracts from the bulk value of 0.255–0.221 nm for Cu2 dimer and the structure
remains the fcc structure. The trends of NN distance contraction in Fig. 34(c) agree
with the current modeling predictions [see sample in Fig. 34(a)]. For Ag nanocrystals, Kara and Rahman [393] found that the atomic force constants experience a
stiffening of up to 120% when compared with that for bulk Ag, which should be one
of the consequences of binding energy enhancement, as discussed.
By examining the bond length between neighboring atoms in Ag, Cu, Ni, and Fe
in different structures with different coordination numbers, Kara and Rahman [393]
pointed out that these elements belong to a class of elements showing a strong bondorder–bond-length correlation [72]. Because of this correlation, the bond length
between an atom and its neighbors would decrease with decreasing coordination.
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
631
Fig. 34. (a) Simulation of the experimental observations (broken lines) of Yu et al. [389]. (b) Distribution
of bond length (nearest neighbor distance) in relaxed Ag nanocrystals with diameters 2.0 (dashed line), 3.5
(long-dashed line), and 5.0 nm (dot-dashed line); the bold vertical line represents the NN distance in the
bulk. (c) Relative average NN distance as a function of the nano-crystalline diameter for Ag (solid line),
Cu (dot-dashed line), and Ni (long-dashed line) [393]. Agreement [392] in (a) is acceptable within error by
introducing different bond contraction parameters, as indicated. An atomic radius of 0.162 nm was used
for the Sn atom.
Thus the dimer bond lengths (2.53, 2.22, 2.15, and 2.02 Å, for Ag, Cu, Ni, and Fe,
respectively [72]), are shorter than the NN distance in their respective bulk values by
12.5% for Ag, 13.2% for Cu, 13.6% for Ni, and 18.6% for Fe. Note that Fe shows
the strongest bond-order–bond-length correlation, as far as the dimer bond-length is
concerned. The pattern is similar for the surface relaxations of the top layer atoms
for these elements, for several crystallographic orientations. Because of the lowered
CN at the surface, elements show a contraction of the interlayer separation at the
surface. Experiments and first principle calculations agree that the interlayer
632
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
separation between the first and the second layers contracts for these four elements.
Bond contraction has also been detected as (multi) layer relaxation from a number
of clean metal surfaces, as listed in Table 3. It was predicted [72] that bonds to
under-coordinated Ti or Zr should be unusually short, given the small ratio, 0.7,
of dimer bond length to NN distance for these elements. The argument and findings
agree with the premises of Pauling and Goldschmidt, though the extent of contraction may vary from situation to situation. According to Pauling and Goldschmidt,
all the elements will suffer the global shrinkage because of the reduced CN at surfaces, and the global shrinkage has no selectivity of elements.
8.2.2.2. Surface stress and Young’s modulus
Surface stress links the microscopic bonding configuration at an interfacial region
with its macroscopic properties [395,396]. It plays a central role in the thermodynamics and acoustics of solid surfaces. During the last decade, increasing interest
has been paid to processes that are strongly influenced by surface stress effects such
as reconstruction, interfacial mixing, segregation and self-organization at solid surfaces. However, detailed knowledge about the underlying atomistic processes of
surface stress is yet lacking [395,396]. The BOLS correlation premise may provide us
with insight into the physical origin of the enhanced surface stress and Young’s
modulus, as discussed as follows.
The CN-derived bond contraction has been defined as di ¼ ci d by introducing a
contraction coefficient ci < 1. Hence, a specific bond length and the correspondingly
local properties such as interatomic potential u(di) at equilibrium atomic separation
will change:
Ddi
¼ ci 1 < 0;
d
Duðri Þ D"i
¼ cm
1>0
¼
i
uðrÞ r¼d
"
ð8:5Þ
The Young’s modulus, B, and the surface stress or hardness, P, can be derived as
[327]:
@uðrÞ "
/ 3;
@v r¼d
d
@P @2 uðrÞ "
¼v
/ 3
B ¼ v @v r¼d
@v2 r¼d
d
P¼
ð8:6Þ
Both the P and B share the same dimension and they depend uniquely on the
binding energy at equilibrium atomic separation, or the bond length. In another
word, the hardness is a sum of bond energies per unit volume [397]. The derivative is
independent of the exact form of an interatomic potential. Therefore, the relative
changes of the surface stress (corresponding to hardness) and the Young’s modulus
can be expressed as:
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
DB DP D"
Dd
3
¼ cm
¼
¼
1 3ð c i 1Þ
i
B0
P0
"
d
633
ð8:7Þ
This relation implies that the B and P at a surface are both higher than the bulk
values due to the spontaneous bond contraction and that the tensile surface stress
dominates at an elemental solid surface [395,396].
A study to compare the hardness and Young’s modulus of the surface with the
bulk value was carried out using nanoindentation [327]. The force-depth profile in
Figure 35 shows a maximal 200% hardness at 10 nm depth of a TiCrN thin film (2
mm thick) deposited on tungsten carbide substrate. The peak shift is due to the surface roughness (Ra=10 nm was confirmed with an atomic force microscopy). The
geometrical shape of the nanoindenter tip determines the subsequent decrease in the
profile with depth. Shi et al. [398] have detected 180% increase of both the hardness
and Young’s modulus of the bulk value of amorphous carbon thin films deposited
on silicon substrate. Caceres et al. [361] have also observed the similar enhancement
of both the Young’s modulus and the hardness at an AlGaN surface.
Solving Eq. (8.7) with the measured value of DP=P ¼ 1; we found the ci values of
0.770, 0.824, 0.860 and 0.883 that correspond to m=1, 2, 3, and 4. Therefore, m=3–4 is
reasonable, if the surface bond contracts by 12–14%, according to Goldschmidt [101].
The m> 1 value is an intrinsic property of compounds and alloys [399].
It is not surprising that, if one can establish the functional dependence of any
physical property, Q(r, "), on the atomic distance or its derivatives, it is possible to
express the size-induced change of the property Q(r, ") of a nano-solid by using the
quantized statistical relation:
DQðDÞ X DQi ðdi ; "i Þ
¼
;
ð8:8Þ
i
Qð1Þ
Q
i43
P
43
Eqs. (8.3 and 8.8) indicate that, for a solid nano-rod
i¼1 i / 1=k DQ=Q
depends on the inverse radius (1/k) of the rod; while for a hollow nanotube with
Fig. 35. Nanoindentation depth profile of a TiCrN thin film on a tungsten carbide substrate with roughness of 10 nm. The hardness increases by 200% compared to the bulk value [327].
634
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
P
43
limited number of walls
1, Q/Q approaches a constant value and the
i
i¼1
Q(D) is much greater than that for the corresponding bulk value. These predictions
agree with what has been discovered by Wong et al. [400]. By using atomic force
microscopy, they found that the multiwall carbon nanotubes are about two times as
stiff as the SiC nano-rods and that the strengths of the SiC nano-rods are substantially greater than those found for large SiC structures (600 GPa). The Young’s
modulus is 610 Gap and 660 Gap for SiC rods of 23.0 and 21.5 nm across, respectively. For hollow carbon tubes, the modulus is 1.28 0.59 TPa with no apparent
dependence on the diameter of the nanotubes. Zeng et al. [401,402] have found that
the hardness and elasticity of nanometric TiN/CrN and TiN/NbN multi-layered
thin films increase with reducing the structural wavelength (optimal at 7.0 nm). This
may be indicative of the bond contraction at the surface and interfaces.
These results provide direct evidence for the essential concept of surface-bond
contraction that enhances the mechanical strength at a surface and of nanobeams. It
is important to note that, in the Nanoindentation test, errors may arise due to the
shape and size effect of the tip. However, such errors may affect the precision of the
derived m values but never affect the origin and the general trend of the measurements. By taking the relative change of the quantity into account errors due to the
measuring technique should be removed.
8.2.3. Other applications
The bond contraction at the surface has indeed enormous effects on various physical properties of nano-solids. A theoretical calculation conducted by Ian and
Huber [403] reveals that the Fe–W and Fe–Fe interlayer contracts by 10% compared to the corresponding bulk Fe–W and Fe–Fe interlayer spacings. Compared to
the Fe bcc bulk moment of 2.2B, the magnetic moment for the surface layer of Fe
is enhanced (i) by 15% to 2.54B for 1 ML Fe/5 ML W (110) and (ii) by 29% to
2.84B for 2 ML Fe/5 ML W (110). The inner Fe layer for 2 ML Fe/5 ML W(110)
has a bulk-like moment of 2.3B. The significant surface relaxation of Fe(310)
(12%) [404] and Ni(210) (12%) [405] has also been found to enhance the atomic
magnetic momentum by up to 27%. The surface relaxation of the (110), (211), (311),
(511), (331) and (221) surfaces of Al, Ag, Cu and Pd has been found to lead to a shift
in the frequencies of the surface states and to a change in the number and localization of the states [406]. It has been found [407] that the vibrational free energy and
the heat capacity of the step and the terrace atoms on a Cu(711) surface are sensitive
to the local atomic environment. The vibrational contribution to the excess free
energy of the step atoms near room temperature is a significant fraction of the kink
formation energy. Batra [68] concluded that the Al(001) surface relaxation has an
effect on the total bandwidth for the relaxed monolayer, which is about 1.5 eV larger
than the value for the bulk truncated monolayer. The cohesive energy is increased by
about 0.3 eV per atom upon relaxation.
The concept of surface-bond contraction has been incorporated into a number of
other observations [399]. For instance, the band-gap expansion of nanometric
semiconductors will lead to the reduction of dielectric constant and hence the blue
shift of the photo-absorption edges of a nanometric semiconductor [384]. The sur-
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
635
face stress enhancement has an influence on the Gibbs free energy that determines
the transition behavior of ferroelectric [408] and pyroelectric [409] properties of
nanometric PZT oxides. It has been shown that the CN-imperfection-induced
relaxation influences not only the band-gap of a solid but also the entire band
structure of the nano-solid including the core-level shift, bandwidth and the band
tails [383]. The electronic structure of nano-composites was proposed to deviate
from one of the coarse-grained materials if a large volume fraction consists of electronically modified regions at interface boundaries [410]. Typical samples of applications are introduced below.
Ferroelectrics constitutes a special group of materials with high dielectric constants. The dielectric properties vary with external stimulus, such as temperature,
electric field, pressure and particle size. Introducing such materials into a photonic
crystal could thus help modulate its band-gap, which is not only sensitive to the
excitations but also tunable by varying the particle sizes. In line with this, a silicon–
dioxide colloid crystal infilled with barium titanate (BaTiO3) has been synthesized
[411] with a method combining a self-assembly process and a sol-gel technique. In
the vicinity of the ferroelectric phase-transition point of BaTiO3 (100–150 C), the
photonic band-gap of the resulting assembly exhibited strong temperature dependence. At the Curie point, a 20-nm red shift in the band-gap has been detected. This
is also where optical transmittance is at a minimum. The tuning of the band-gap
could be used not only for simple on-off switching, but also in devices requiring
more localized control of light propagation.
The atomic cohesive energy, or the sum of the binding energy of a single bond
over the CN of an atom, determines the thermal energy required to melt the atom of
a solid. The critical thermal energy also causes the order-disorder transition of a
ferromagnetic nano-solid. This principle has enabled the melting behavior of (Cu,
Au, Ag, Al, InAl, Sn, etc.) nano-solids [412] to be consistently formulated, which
agrees with experimental observations. The predicted size dependency [413] of the
Curie temperatures for the spin–spin order–disorder transition of ferromagnetic
(Fe, Co, Ni) solids also agrees with measurements. The approach favors closely the
atomistic model of Jiang and Shi [414] who relate the amplitude of atomic vibration to
the melting behavior of a surface and the surface energy. With few adjustable parameters, the model based on Lindemann and Mott premises for the relationship of
vibrational melting entropy and melting temperature has applied well to the sizedependent melting of compounds [415], metals [416], nanotubes [417], polymers [418],
glasses [419], inert gases [420], ice [421], and semiconductors [422]. In conjunction with
Jiang’s approach, the current BOLS premise could provide deeper insight into the physical origin and the general trends of the phase transition behavior of a nanometric solid.
Matching the BOLS modeling predictions to the Auger photoelectronic coincidence spectroscopies (APECS) from surfaces or to the size dependence of the
APECS from nanosolids derive information about the single energy levels of an
atom isolated from solid and their shifts upon solid formation as well as the bonding
of a monatomic chain [423–425]. With the measured values of coalescent temperature of the tip-end (Tm=1593 K) [426] and the known product of the Young’s
modulus with the wall (bond) thickness (Yt ffi 0.3685 TPa.nm) [400,427,428] for a
636
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
single-walled carbon nantube (SWCNT) as well as their functional dependence on
atomic coordination, bond length and bond energy, represented by the BOLS
correlation, a single C–C bond in the SWCNT has been determined to be 0.142
nm thick and 0.116 nm long, associated with 68% bond energy rise in magnitude [429]. The melting point of the tube wall is found 12 K higher than the tube
terminal. Besides, the predicted diameter-dependence matches the observed trends of
Tm-suppression and Y-enhancement of nanorod and multi-walled carbon nanotubes
(MWCNTs). Findings provide not only consistent insight into the origin of the
Y-enhancement and the Tm-suppression of the NTs but also an effective method
obtaining information that is beyond the scope of direct measurement using currently available techniques.
Further work towards a single and simple model aiming to generalize the shape
and size dependency and reconcile all the reasonable models for nano-solids to the
effect of CN imperfection is in progress.
8.3. Catalytic effect on band-gap expansion
Solids made of elements in group-II and group-III are conductors without
apparent gap existing between the conduction and the valence band of the bulk.
Upon introducing the electronegative additives to the conductors, a band-gap EG is
generated due to the mechanism of electron-hole pair production, as discussed in
Section 2.3. The width of a band-gap can be detected by measuring the wavelength
of the absorbed or emitted photons [430]. In the following sections, we will show
that the band-gap expansion mechanism not only leads to a new finding of the blue
light emission of a PZT oxide but also provides a consistent understanding of the
blue shift in photoluminescence of both oxides and nitrides. We also show that both
the physical-size effect and the catalytic effect enhance each other in the band-gap
expansion.
8.3.1. Blue light emission of PZT
The band-gap-expansion mechanism implies that it is possible to discover or
invent new sources for light emission with a desired wavelength by controlling the
extent of catalytic reaction. Oxide ceramics are much cheaper and easier to produce
compared with the group-III nitrides. Driven by this motivation, we have searched for
visible light emission during the sintering of PZT [Pb(ZrxTi1x)O3] ceramics [431].
Intense blue-light was indeed found to emit from the sample under Ar+ ultraviolet (UV)
irradiation. This was first observed in a vacuum chamber in which we were depositing
the conducting Au layer by Ar+ sputtering on to the samples for scanning electron
microscopic characterization. The light is stable after a period of 2-year ageing [432].
The Pb(ZrxTi1x)O3 pellets were synthesized using the traditional sintering process [431]. The dried slurry of the ball-milled mixture of PbO, TiO2 and ZrO2 powders was pressed into pellets and then calcined in air at 900 C for 2 h. After
calcination, the pellets were crushed and wet-ball milled again. The pellets were
sintered in air at 500 C for 2 h, and subsequently 1200 C for another 2 h. For all
the sintering profiles, the heating and cooling rate was 5 C/min.
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
637
The photoluminescence (PL) and photo-excitation (PE) spectra and the temporal
profiles were measured using a Spex Fluorolog-3 spectrometer in ambient atmosphere. The excitation beams were applied directly onto the surface of the pellets
and the signals were collected in front of the surface. Fig. 36(a) plots the PL (I–l)
spectra of the PZT samples. There is only one broad band located at 475 50 nm.
The single excitation mode implies that the mechanism of direct band-gap transition
dominates. The corresponding excitation spectra (monitored at 475 nm PL) in
Fig. 36(b) exhibit that the excitation band is in the range of 305 45 nm. Changing
Fig. 36. (a) The photoluminescence (PL) spectra and (b) the photo-excitation (PE) spectra for the PZT
ceramics obtained at room temperature. The peak corresponds to 2.65 eV (467 nm) and the FWHM is 0.5
eV. The lifetime (c) varies from 0.03 to 0.6 ms [432]. (d) Room temperature blue PL of PZT observed
under Ar+ UV radiation in a glass chamber for film deposition.
638
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
Fig. 36. (continued)
the x value causes a negligible shift of both the PL and PE peaks. The fluorescence
decay curves of the PZT samples show that the lifetime of the photons varies
markedly from 0.03 ms (at x=0.5) to 0.6 ms (at x=1.0). The 0.6 ms lifetime is much
longer than that for other reported defect luminescence. However, the mechanism
for the unusual temporal behavior is not clear though x=0.5 corresponds to the
phase boundary between the tetragonal and the rhombohedral ferroelectric in the
phase diagram [431]. This finding not only justifies the BBB modeling predictions
but also adds another advantage to the PZT oxide ceramics.
The BBB modeling argument provides the possible mechanisms for the band-gap
production and the x-value effect on the PL and PE peak shift. The energy difference
between the PE and PL gives information about electron–phonon interaction
termed as Stokes shift, in conjunction with non-irradiative combination of the carriers [430]. As it is known, the band-gap depends on both the valence DOS distribution and the interatomic interaction. The mechanism of electron-hole pair
production in Section 2.3 anticipates that a band-gap generates between the conduction and the valence band upon reacting with electronegative additives. On the
other hand, the width of the band-gap depends on the first Fourier coefficient of the
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
639
crystal field. Further, the crystal field is a function of atomic distance and the
quantity of charge transportation during the reaction. There are several means for
enhancing the interatomic potential. For instance, the spontaneous lattice contraction enhances the binding energy density in the relaxed region and the corresponding properties. Moreover, solid transits from one phase to another that is more
stable, which enhances the atomic interaction. Even further, defects production in
materials processing may form centers of photoluminescence and influence the
crystal field and charge distribution as well. Therefore, besides the direct gap
expansion by hole-production, modifying the crystal field by chemical reaction and
lattice revision at the surface or through phase transition will expand intrinsically
the band-gap.
Except for the similar electronic configuration (d4), Ti (3d4; =1.5; r=0.1467 nm;
r(4+)=0.068 nm) differs slightly from Zr (4d4; =1.3; r=0.1597 nm; r(4+)=0.079
nm;) in the electronegativity (), metallic and ionic radius (r). Adding an element
with a smaller atomic radius could raise interatomic potential energy, which expands
the band-gap intrinsically; increasing atoms of lower value means that a higher
amount of charge transportation to oxygen would take place, which would expand
the band-gap extrinsically. The smaller radius of Ti and the lower value of Zr may
compensate for each other in the gap expansion when the x-value is adjusted. The
atomic-size–electronegativity compensation mechanism may explain why the bandgap of the PZT is less sensitive to the x-values, though the actual mechanism should
be much more thoroughly investigated.
It was found that samples of ZrO2 and TiO2 or their mixtures without Pb presence
give no light though the samples were prepared under the same processing conditions. This means that the Pb plays some unclear yet important catalytic roles in
determining the PL features. On the other hand, the temporal behavior of the photons is a high challenge. The actual mechanism for the PL of PZT should be much
more complicated and an understanding of the role of Pb and the temporal behavior
would be necessary.
Visible light emission of other oxides has been reported [433] such as SrCu2O2 [434],
Sr2CeO4 [435], SiON [436], and ITO/SiO [437]. The current band-gap expansion
mechanism may provide interpretation for the photoluminescence of these oxides.
8.3.2. O-induced blue-shift in PL
Fig. 37 shows the room temperature PL spectra of (a) the Al0.3Ga0.7As/GaAs
‘quantum-well’ lasers [438], (b) the SiO2 films containing Si nanoparticles (2–5 nm in
diameter) [440] and (c) ZnO/Ga2O3 nanofibers [439]. Rapid thermal annealing at
920 C for 120 s causes a blue shift and intensified PL spectra of the devices coated with
an anodic SiO2. The ZnO/Ga3O2 fibres were synthesized at 850 C in a tube furnace
and atmosphere using graphite powder as catalysis. Adding Ga2O3 improves the
quality of the PL. Thermal oxidation of the Si/SiO2 system also shifts the PL to high
energy but the intensity of the PL peak is reduced significantly. The blue shift of the
PL peak is often attributed to a ‘quantum-size’ effect in which a reduction of the
average nanocrystal size leads to emission at shorter wavelengths [440]. The width of
the emission band is attributed to a wide distribution in nanocrystal sizes.
640
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
Fig. 37. Room temperature PL spectra of (a) the GaAs–Al0.3Ga0.7As ‘quantum-well’ laser with and
without anodic SiO2 annealed at 920 C for 120 s [438]. (b) 100 nm thick SiO2 films containing Si nanocrystals oxidized for 0, 3, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 29 min at 1000 C. (c) ZnO–Ga2O3 nanofibres (150 nm in
diameter) synthesized at 850 C in tube furnace using graphite powder as catalysis [439], by heating the
mixture of ZnO+Ga2O3+C (Curve I), and ZnO+C (Curve II). For each spectrum, the corresponding
oxidation time is indicated. An arrow indicates the band-gap wavelength of bulk Si. The inset shows
schematically the change in the nanocrystal size distribution upon oxidation [440]. Thermal annealing of
the oxidized laser causes a blue shift and enhancement of the PL spectrum.
According to the band-gap expansion mechanism developed in this work, it is easy
to understand that the oxidation-induced blue-shift of the PL is purely due to the
effect of electron-hole pair production during annealing when oxygen switches its
bond and moves into the bulk. On the other hand, annealing also enhances the socalled ‘quantum-size’ effect in the device with oxygen diffusion because the nonoxide core reduces its size upon being oxidized of the outer atomic layers [438].
Oxide emission cannot be detectable within the infrared wavelength range.
There are two possible effective ways that are hence applicable to tune the wavelength of the PL of a compound solid. One is to reduce the physical size and the
other is to enhance the catalytic reaction of the system. The rise in the portion of
surface atoms in conjunction with surface bond contraction enhances the crystal
field in the surface region and hence the Hamiltonian that determines the entire band
structure including the band-gap. Catalytic reaction removes electrons from the top
of the valence band, which widens the gap directly. It is known that the quantum
efficiency (YPL) of photoluminescence follows the relation [430]: YPL=Pr/(Pr+Pnr),
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
641
where Pr and Pnr are the probability of radiative and non-radiative combination of
electron-hole pairs. Electron transiting from the conduction band tail to the valence
band tail is responsible for the radiative combination, while electron transiting from
the conduction band tail to the defect states that are located within the band-gap is
responsible for the non-radiative irradiation [441]. The decrease of the PL intensity
of Si in SiO2 indicates that oxidation creates defects in this particular system due to
the nonbonding lone pair production.
8.3.3. PL of III- and IV-nitride
Similarity in the band-gap-enlargement of oxides and nitrides has been widely
noted. Fig. 38 shows the band-gap enlargement of (a) III-nitrides and (b) amorphous Ge- and Si-nitrides. It is noted that nitrogen incorporation into the group-III
metallic solids generates a considerably large band-gap when the compound forms.
The width of the band-gap depends on the bond length [442] or the electronegativity
of the corresponding element (Al=1.5, Ga=1.6, and In=1.7). Nitrogen expands the
band-gap of the semiconductive a-Ge and a-Si from 1.1 to 4.0 eV [443], depending
on nitrogen content. Nitrogen also widens the band-gap of amorphous carbon (aCNx : H) [444]. Corresponding band-gap changes of a-CNx : H films have been observed
in the He-II valence band spectra showing a recession of the leading edge of more than
0.9 eV while the optical band-gap widens from 0 to more than 1 eV.
Reynolds et al. [445] suggested that the green-band of ZnO and the yellow-band of
GaN share some common yet unclear mechanisms. Chambouleyron et al. [443]
related the band-gap expansion of a-Ge:N and a-Si:N compounds to the substitution of Si–Si or Ge–Ge bonds by stronger Si–N or Ge–N bonds. It was suggested
that, as the N content increases, the nitrogen lone-pair band develops and that the
lone-pair band dominates the valence-band maximum as the stoichiometry is
reached. The largest optical band-gap is obtained for the stoichiometric compound.
On the contrary, for smaller N content, Si–Si or Ge–Ge bonds dominate the valence
band maximum.
For amorphous semiconductors, it is generally accepted that the transition of
carriers is between the conduction-band tail and valence-band tail states. Luminescence spectra [430] of the a-Si:H showed that the n-type (phosphorous) doping shifts
the luminescence peak of the a-Si:H from 1.1 to 0.81 eV, and the p-type (boron)
doping shifts the peak to 0.91 eV. This can be easily understood in terms of impurity
levels. The shallow n-donor levels and the deeper p-acceptor levels are located within
the initial band-gap (1.1 eV width) near to the band tails, which should narrow the
gap, as observed. However, the luminescence peak of the a-Si:N:H compound
moves to higher energy with increasing nitrogen concentration [446]. The broadened
band-gap through nitridation could not be explained in terms of the traditional
donor effect, though the nitrogen addition is always believed as n-type doping.
Clearly, the band-gaps of metal oxides, III-nitride, and IV-nitride are enlarged by
the same hole-production mechanism proposed in the current exercise (Section 2.3).
The change of bond nature and bond length has an effect on the crystal field, and
consequently, the width of the band-gap; charge transport in the reaction re-populates with valence electrons of the host materials.
642
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
Fig. 38. (a) Band-gap expansion of the group III-nitride [442] and (b) the N-concentration dependence of
the optical band-gap (ETauc) of a-Ge:N:H [447,448] and a-Si:N:H [449] thin films [443]. Nitrogen generates
a band-gap to the metallic group III materials and the width of the band-gap depends on the bond length
or the electronegativity.
8.4. Joint size and catalytic effects: PL of nanometric SiO2
Owing to the new phenomena of blue shift in photoluminescence, the investigation
of nano-crystalline or porous Si oxide has attracted tremendous interest. Nanostructured SiO2 compounds also have potential applications as low-dielectric layer, in
the deep submicron integrated circuit (DSIC) technology. The emitted wavelengths
of the nanometric Si oxide varies in a wide spectral range from infrared to the
ultraviolet, depending on the shape and size of the particles and the process of
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
643
chemical treatment [450]. There are several conflicting models concerning the
mechanisms responsible for the band-gap expansion. Existing models include quantum confinement [451,452], phonon-assisted free-exciton collision [453], impurity
centers [454], surface alloying [455], cluster interaction and oxidation effects [456].
According to the quantum confinement theory [451], electrons in the conduction
band and holes in the valence band are confined spatially by the potential barrier of
the surface. Because of the confinement of both electrons and holes, the lowest
energy optical transition from the valence to the conduction band increases in
energy, effectively increasing the band-gap. Within a simple effective-mass approximation, the confined gap is given as [457,458]:
EG ðRÞ ¼ EG ð1Þ þ
where
1
h2 2
1:786e2
þ 0:284ER
2
2R
"r R
ð8:9Þ
¼ m1 þ m1 , being the reduced mass of an electron-hole (e-h) pair, is an
h
e
adjustable parameter, where ER is the Rydberg (spatial correlation) energy for the
bulk semiconductor:
e4
¼ 13:56 2
ER ¼
ðeVÞ
ð8:10Þ
"r m e
2"2r "20 h2
The effective dielectric constant "r and the effective mass, , describe the effect of
the homogeneous medium in the quantum box. For CdS [459], the "r=5.5,
me=0.19, and mh=0.8. The energy of the freely moving carriers is responsible for
the band-gap expansion according to this expression. The width of the confined
band-gap grows as the characteristic dimensions D of the crystallite decrease. One
question may arise whether the carriers move indeed freely inside the solid that is far
greater than the localized length (several Angstrom) and the nano-solid contains
numerous atoms each of which acts as a trapping center?
The free-exciton collision [453] model suggests that the excitation laser heats the
free excitons that collide with the boundaries of nanometer-sized fragments.
According to this model, laser heating the free-excitons up to a temperature in
excess of the activation energy required for the self-trapping give rise to the extremely hot self-trapping excitons (STEs). Because the resulting temperature of the
STEs is much higher than the lattice temperature, the cooling of STEs is dominated
by the emission of lattice phonons. However, if the STE temperature comes into
equilibrium with the lattice temperature, the absorption of lattice phonons becomes
possible. As a result, the blue shift of the STE-PL band is suggested to originate
from the activation of hot-phonon-assisted electronic transitions. The blue shift of
the STE-PL band depends on the temperature of laser-heated free-excitons, which,
in turn, is determined by the size of nanometer-sized (silica example was considered
only) fragments. This happens because the temperature (kinetic energy) of the laserheated free-exciton increases with the number of collisions within the boundary of
confined regions, which tends to be higher with decreasing the size of the silica
fragments in nanoscale materials. The energy gained by laser heating increases with
644
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
decreasing nano-particle diameters in an exp(1/D) fashion. It is indicated that the
blue shift of the PL bands in nanoscale materials in general does not need to be
related always to a quantum confinement effect.
A recent first-principle study by Luo et al. [460] of the Si/O(001) multi-
(n
Si+1O) layers suggested that the quantum-confinement effect does not provide the
observed optical functionality. They referred the oxygen enlarged band gap of Si to
the effects that are of atomic origin. It is suggested that by adding oxygen atoms,
one introduces new non-tetrahedral bonds and extra electronic states. These new
states interact with the Si host states, resulting in changes in the energy levels and in
the characteristics of the host wave functions. The added oxygen-layers are suggested to have two effects. First, the strongly electronegative oxygen atoms (assumed
as rigid spheres without valence alternation) form a potential barrier that causes
quantum confinement on the Si host states. This will lower the energies of the
Si-valence band states and increase the energies of the Si-conduction band states,
thus increasing the band gap. The second effect of the added oxygen-layer is the
lowering of the crystal symmetry that can lead to significant coupling between the
Si states that otherwise do not couple, as well as between the Si and oxygen states.
The coupling between the Si states will be large if they have the same folded symmetry, and their overlaps with the oxygen state are large. Coupling results in level
repulsion that pushes up the valence band maximum and lowers the conduction
band minimum, thus lowering the band gap, opposite of the quantum confinement.
The combined effect of quantum-confinement, level repulsion and splitting makes
the band structure of the (8Si +1O) layers a direct gap of 1.4 eV in the center of
Brillouin zone of Si.
Here we show that the PL frequency shift of Si oxide nanoparticles is determined
by the joint effect of oxidation and surface-bond contraction—BOLS and BBB
mechanism [382]. It is known that the frequency-shift of PL reflects the band-gap
change of the system. The band-gap depends on the crystal field or a sum of the
binding energies over the entire solid. The interatomic potential, or binding energy,
depends on atomic distance and charge quantity of the atoms [382]. Shortened bond
length and alternatively charged ions enhance the crystal field and hence the bandgap. Chemical reaction also enhances the crystal field by weakening the ‘screen
effect’ due to the charge repopulation upon reaction. The process of charge transfer
further widens the band-gap directly by emptying the occupied DOS below EF, as
specified in the BBB model (Section 2.3).
Considering the effect of surface relaxation, the Hamiltonian of a solid is
defined as:
2 2
^ ¼H
^0þH
^ 0 ¼ h r þ Vatom ðrÞ þ Vcrystal ðr þ RC Þ½1 þ Dsurf H
2m
ð8:11Þ
where the Vatom(r) is the intra-atomic trapping potential of an isolated atom and the
^ 0 ¼ Vcrystal ðr þ RC Þ½1 þ Dsurf is the periodic potential of the surrounding atoms,
H
i.e., the inter-atomic binding potential or crystal field. RC is the lattice constant.
surf is the contribution from surface relaxation:
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
Dsurf ¼
and, ¼
645
X X Dvðdi Þ
þ
¼
i
i cm
1 þ ;
i
v
ð
d
Þ
i43
i43
nVðDÞ
N 2 v ð dÞ
ð8:12Þ
where v(d) is the binding energy density and v(di) / "i is proportional to the single
bond energy as no bond number decrease occurs between two circumferential
atomic layers. The "i is the bond energy at equilibrium atomic separation. describe
the contribution from cluster interaction V(D), which becomes insignificant with
increasing particle dimension D. The particle size determined band-gap and the
core-level shift of a nano-solid are expressed as follows [382]:
X DEG ðDÞ DEcore ðDÞ
¼
¼ Dsurf ¼
i cm
1 þ
ð8:13Þ
i
EG ð1Þ
Ecore ð1Þ
i43
Eq. (8.12) indicates that the band-gap expansion and the core-level shift of a
nano-solid result from the surface-bond contraction (ci) and the rise in surface-tovolume ratio ( i) that depends on the shape (p, L) and size (k) of the particles as well
as the type of atomic interaction (m).
Fig. 39 shows that the modeling predictions agree with observations of the sizedependent PL energy of SiOx nano-particles. Bond contraction of 12% and 4% was
Fig. 39. Agreement between prediction [385] and observations [474] of the PL blue shift of nano-sized Si
oxide. Data 1–13 are after Refs. [468–480].
646
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
applied, respectively, to the first two atomic layers of a spherical dot. It can be seen
that the curve of m=4 follows better the trend of observation than the curve of
m=2 [385]. The resultant m value describes well both the size and the oxidation
effects of smaller particle sizes. The cluster interaction seemed to play an insignificant role in the band-gap expansion. Based on the same premise, consistency
between predictions and observations of the blue shift in the PL of CdS and CdSe
nanosolid has been achieved [461]. This agreement evidences that a surface bond
contracts more than it does on a flat surface when the surface curvature increases
and that the Cd–Se bond contracts faster than the Cd–S bond when the solid
approaches to the lower end of size limit.
On the other hand, XPS investigations of O–Cu [462], O–Sn, O–Ta [463], ZnS
[464] and CdS [465] nanoclusters have revealed additional features at higher binding
energy besides the well-known chemical shift (see Fig. 40). A core-level shift towards
higher binding energy of the clean Ru(0001) surface has also been detected with
high-resolution XPS [320]. Both the components of core-level shifts result from the
increase of crystal field experienced by the core electrons, which are dominated
by different mechanisms (the charge transportation and the bond contraction).
Zacchigna et al. [159] have found that a clean Rh(001) surface has a core-level
shift of 0.65 eV relative to the bulk value, while with O addition, the shift extends
0.40 eV further towards higher binding energy. Photoemission from highly oriented
pyrolytic graphite by Balasubramanian et al. [466] reveals two C 1s components
Fig. 40. XPS Cu 2p3/2 core-level shifts of O–Cu nano-particles of (a) 4.0 (b) 6.0 and (c) 25 nm in diameter which indicate the increase of binding energy with reduced particle size, with, as yet, unclear
mechanism. The slight decrease (101 eV level) of the separation between the main peak and the satellite
peak with reducing particle size and the slight increase of the peak intensity Is/Im were ascribed as the
increase of ionicity of the O–Cu bond [462].
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
647
separated in binding energy by 0.12 eV. The high binding energy component is
ascribed as atoms in the outermost atomic layer and the other to atoms in deeper
layers. This interpretation is based on the relative intensity change with incident
beam energy and the incident angles. The intensity of the higher binding energy line
(surface feature) increases with lower photo energy and smaller incident angles.
These size-induced core-level offsets may provide further evidence for the spontaneous bond contraction at the surface that contributes directly to the crystal field
[467].
The band-gap expansion and core-level shifts are consequences of the binding
energy that can be enhanced by either surface-bond contraction and charge transportation. Strikingly, these effects enhance each other on the electronic structures
and related properties of a nano-solid. Hence, the overall PL features and the corelevel shifts of nano-compounds can be consistently understood in terms of bond
contraction and chemical reaction effects. The former defines the band-gap; the latter widens it by charge transportation.
The above analysis may lead to a conclusion about the band-gap generation of
nanometric compounds. Although it cannot be accounted for using the traditional
wise of impurities in semiconductor physics, the phenomenon of blue shift in the
light emission from the compound semiconductors can be consistently explained
with the current BBB correlation for both oxides and nitrides [92], and the size effect
for nanometer-sized particles. The occupied DOS at the top of the valence or conduction band are emptied by electron transportation for bond and anti-bonding
dipole formation. The width of the generated band-gap depends on: (i) the DOS
distribution of the host, (ii) the electronegativity difference and, (iii) the stoichiometry of the compound.
8.5. Work function reduction: cold cathode field emission
8.5.1. Current understanding
Field emission from semiconductors in general can originate from the valence
band, gap states, or the conduction band, from an accumulation layer at the surface.
Previous models have attributed field emission from diamond and DLC to the low
affinity of diamond [481,482], the so-called antenna effect of conducting channels
[483], emission from defect gap states [484], and band bending at depletion layers
[485].
Emitters doped with N or O could reduce the threshold of the field emission.
Experimental evidence [486–489] has shown that an addition of N to CVD polycrystalline diamond thin films significantly reduces the threshold of cold-cathode
emission of the diamond. The threshold of the N-doped diamond is even lower than
those doped with boron and phosphorous. It has recently been found that boron
nitride coated graphite nanofibers also emit electrons at much reduced (from 1.5 to
0.8 V/mm) the threshold with high (102 level) intensity compared with the uncoated
carbon fibers [490]. It is explained that introduction of the BN nanofilm leads to a
significant reduction in the effective potential barrier height [491]. A tendency of
N-buckling outward the BN nanotubes has been observed theoretically [492]. This is
648
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
explained as arising from the different hybridizations of B and N in the curved
hexagonal layer and the N-bucking is expected to form a surface dipole.
Similarly, ceramic oxides, such as PZT, can also be used as cold-field electron
emitters [493,494]. Pickett [495] found that Cs–O–C surface bonds reduce the work
function of diamond surface to F=1.25 eV and he indicated that the low-F surface
promotes non-charging electron emission of the surface. Lin [339] proved experimentally that lowering the work function of a cathode by adsorbing both oxygen and
electropositive metallic elements on its surface is more effective than by adsorbing
simply the metallic element. He noted that an appropriate quantity of oxygen adsorbed on the cathode surface would be essential to result in a better dispenser cathode
and also high quantum yield negative electron affinity photo cathodes, while fluorine
would play an important part in the electron emission stability. First-principles calculations by Park et al. [496] reveal that the calculated emission currents of carbon
nanotubes are significantly enhanced when oxygen is adsorbed at the tip. This finding
is attributed to the change in the electronic structure by oxidation and the local field
increase at the adsorption site. Treated by O2 and O3, the emission current of the
carbon-nanotube array was found to increase by 800% along with a decrease of
the onset field emission voltage from 0.8 to 0.6 V/mm [497]. This is in conflict with
the experimental results [498] at higher oxygen exposures ( > 65 L) that cause adverse
effect on the field emission.
Several models have been developed to explain the effect of N and O lowered
threshold of cold emission. Nitrogen is soluble in diamond, but it forms a distorted
substitutional site with one long bond. This site forms a deep singly occupied donor
level, localized mainly on the carbon orbital of the weak C–N bond, 1.7 eV below
the conduction band edge Ec, and also a doubly occupied state just above Ev due to
the quasi-N lone pair of this C–N bond [499]. Nitrogen can also form aggregates in
diamond. The simplest is the nearest-neighbor substitutional pair, known as the A
center [500]. The two nitrogen atoms relax away from each other, so that the N lone
pair states interact to form two filled states, just below Ev and about 1.5 eV above Ev
[499]. The carbon dangling bonds within grains have an energy 1.4 eV above Ev.
C–H and C–O bonds possess dipoles which cause a surface dipole layer and a voltage step at the surface [501]. The C–H bond has a positive H site that lowers the
affinity; while the C–O bond has a negative O that raises the affinity.
It is also explained [500] that nitrogen impurities in the diamond can aid emission
if they form deep donor levels. They would create a depletion layer, which causes
band bending at the back contact. At sufficiently high donor concentrations, this
band bending narrows the tunneling distance there, and allows emission into the
diamond conduction band. Some N electrons are donated to intrinsic defect levels, and
current is injected into the N levels to hop across the diamond to the front surface, where
it is emitted. A possible mechanism for films like SiO2 is proposed as due to ohmic loss or
a space charge layer [485], so that the Fermi level of the back contact now lies close to the
vacuum layer, and that electrons could tunnel from the back contact into the diamond
or DLC conduction band, become hot electrons, and be emitted into the vacuum.
The N-lowered threshold has also been attributed to a certain sub-band formed by
the N above EF, while such a band is lacking with P or B doping because boron is a
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
649
shallow substitutional acceptor in diamond with a level at 0.38 eV above the valence
band edge Ev, and phosphorus can act as a shallow donor with a level 0.46 eV below
Ec [499]. As expected, a Cs- and Li-dopant might add their higher energy states to
the conduction band of diamond to reduce the work function of the diamond.
However, this measure was found less effective than N-doping [502].
8.5.2. Explanation
As an additional consequence of chemisorption of oxygen and nitridation discussed
in this work, the local work function changes with altering the surface atomic valencies. The dipole towards the open end of a surface will easily emit electrons under an
external electrical stimulus. This may provide an additional possible mechanism for
lowering the threshold voltage of emitters in cold-cathode field emission.
It is known that the emitting-current density (j) follows the Fowler–Nordheim
(FN) relation [503]:
j¼
AE 2
B3=2
exp
E
where A and B are constant is the dimensionless field enhancement factor (for a
smooth surface =1), and E and the external electric field and the work function,
respectively. Obviously, reducing the work function is the only means to enhance the
capability of a cold cathode. The possible mechanisms of reducing the work function may include the charge tunneling [493], surface roughening or nano-structuring
that enlarge the local curvature of the emitters, as well as chemical adsorption.
The low-threshold effect of the cold-cathode field emission due to oxygen and
nitrogen addition could be a clear evidence for the BBB modeling predictions. The
presence of the anti-bonding states above EF lowers the work function that eases the
cathode field emission. Actually, the phosphorus-3p electrons are more mobile than
are the N-2p and O-2p electrons, but P-doping gives little reduction of the threshold
with respect to the O and N doping. The work function of Cs and Li ( 3.5 eV) is
much lower than that of other metals ( 5.0 eV). However, adding the Cs and Li to
the diamond surface improves little in the emission properties. Therefore, lowering
the threshold of field emission is the special ability of electronegative additives such
as nitrogen and oxygen. The lone pair induced dipoles lowers the work function and
hence the threshold of field emission. However, it is anticipated that the production
of the H-like bond at the surface due to over-dosing may have detrimental effect on
the work function reduction, such as the case [498] of carbon nanotubes with overdoped oxygen.
8.6. Magnetic enhancement
Inclusion of oxygen and nitrogen could enhance the magnetic momentum by as
high as 25% of the ferromagnetic materials [504,505]. Coey and Sun [506], and Pan
et al. [507] found that the addition of N to the rare earth–Fe(Co) (R–Fe) system
650
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
improves the Ms and the Tc considerably. The Ms of the R–Fe(Co) alloys were
increased by about 30–40% relative to their parent alloys. The N-enhanced Ms may
enable these kinds of materials to be used in high-density data storage and as new
kind of strong permanent magnets. However, mechanism for the magnetic
enhancement is yet to be clear.
The BBB correlation indicates that the chemical reaction could transport electrons
from the less electronegative element to the higher ones. The charge transport
modulates the valence state and hence the angular momentum that is the sum of
spin and angular contributions. It can be seen from Table 17 that the total angular
momentum increases when the Fe alters its atomic states to Fe+ or Fe dipole. In the
former, the Fe donates one 3d electron to the sp3 hybrid orbital of the N acceptor. In the
latter, a Fe 3d electron is excited to its own outer shells, 4p or 4d, corresponding to the
higher antibonding energy. The N3 and its electrons contribute nothing to the magnetization. The total momentum of the Fe+ is 2.5 and the Fe dipole is 4.0 (3d54s24p1) or
even 5.0 (3d54s24d1). The average momentum is then 2.875 or 3.125, 25–40% greater
than is a pure Fe (2.22 measurement). Apparently, this interpretation, being well
account for the experimental observations, should be reasonable.
For the N3+3Fe+1+Fe (dipole) unit, the estimated average angular-momentum
increases to 2.875 or 3.125 relative to the pure Fe (2.22 measurement), which agrees
with the reported findings.
9. Application: II. Synthetic diamond
The original ideas of sp-orbital hybridization of C, N and O upon interacting with
solid surfaces have been applied to solving critical issues in the synthesis of diamond
films, which has led to progress as introduced below:
Preferential oxidation of diamond {111};
Adhesion enhancement between diamond and metal substrate;
Grain size and annealing effects on the dielectrics of diamond.
Table 17
Variations of angular momentum of Fe with its atomic states [325]
P
P
L= Li
Valence state
Configuration
S= Si
Fe
Fe+
Fe+2
Fe (dipole 1)
Fe (dipole 2)
3d64s2
3d54s2
3d54s1
3d54s24p1
3d54s24d1
2
2.5
2.5+0.5
2.5+0.5
2.5+0.5
0 (L-frozen)
0
0
0+1
0+2
Dipole 2 corresponds to the antibonding states being well above the EF.
a
The total angular momentum is governed by the Hund’s rule.
P
Ja= (LS)i
2 (2.22)
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
651
9.1. Thermal oxidation
Oxidation and graphitization of synthetic diamond is an important issue for
practical applications. Oxidation limits the performance of diamond used in cutting
tools, optical windows and electronic devices when the diamond piece is experiencing working conditions under which its temperature rises in air or in other gaseous
ambient. Johnson et al. [508] heated diamond optical windows in the temperature
range of 970–1170 K in air and examined the infrared (l=10.6 mm) transmittance of
the windows. They found that the forward scattering of the infrared from the diamond windows changes from 0.8% before heating to 6.2% after heating at 1070 K
for 255 seconds while the transmittance drops by 6–12% after heating. Nimmagadda et al. [509] suggested that oxidation occurs preferentially at regions of grain
boundaries, local defects and diamond-like carbon phase during the earlier stages of
oxidation. An investigation by Zhu et al. [510] revealed that diamond oxidation
occurs at 1070 K and suggested that diamond oxidation depends on the crystal
orientation and defect density. Thermal-programmed desorption (TPD), EELS and
AES investigating the oxidation of single crystal diamond (111) and (110) surfaces
[511] revealed that molecular oxygen is easily chemisorbed on the clean diamond
surfaces at room temperature. Carbon monoxide was the only product of thermal
desorption from both surfaces. Apart from a low temperature desorption peak present in all TPD spectra, two CO desorption peaks at 790 and 1030 C were observed
for the C(111)-(21) surface, whereas, only one desorption peak in the 760–890 C
range was observed in case of the C(110) surface. In a mimic of low-earth-orbital
atomic oxygen dominated environment, Li et al. [512] examined the reaction of
polycrystalline diamond films with energetic atomic oxygen of 5.0 eV at ambient
temperature. They found a low reaction rate of R=8.281026 cm3/atom (volume
eroded by per oxygen atom) at room temperature, suggesting the erosive-resistant of
CVD diamond in the space ambient.
Hence, it is widely believed that the {001} faces have fewer defects than the
{111} faces and thus the {001} face is more resistant to oxidation. Understanding of
diamond oxidation so far is constrained to the ‘defect density’ mechanism. Recently,
Theije et al. [513] examined the oxidative etching of the diamond {111} surface
using ‘dry’ oxygen, ‘wet’ oxygen/water vapor mixture and in molten potassium
nitrate. They found upon dry-oxygen etching the {111} surface roughens very
fast and becomes unstable. It is proposed that the rugged surface is due to the
chemical roughening in which oxygen destabilizes the surface by different bond
configurations. In a thermal oxidation of the hydrogenated diamond {100} surface,
Pehrsson et al. [514] found that the {100} surface is largely inert to oxygen below
1220 K. Thermal oxidation with un-activated oxygen occurred only after the surface
hydrogen had been removed, usually at about 1220 K. Obviously, the {100} surface
is far harder to be oxidized than the {111} surface. The preferential oxidation of the
diamond {111} surface is in contrast to the ‘periodic bond chain’ theory [515] that
predicted the {111} to be the only stable face of diamond and, therefore, the {111}
should be the face with slowest etching rate or more oxidative resistant than other
faces [516].
652
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
Challenges for the underlying mechanism for the oxidation of a diamond yet
remain. We need to answer why are the densely packed diamond {111} planes oxidized easier than diamond {001} or {220} planes, and how does the oxygen penetrate into diamond {111} face in the course of reaction? Here we present our findings
on the geometrical selectivity of oxidation with a mechanism based on the premise
of oxide bond switching (Section 7.2).
Fig. 41 shows the SEM image of the oxidized diamond single crystal obtained
after heating at 1070 K in air [267]. It is seen that diamond erosion occurs preferentially in the planes possessing C3v symmetry. However, the rectangular planes
experience no change apart from the defect sites. Generally, the {111} planes grow in
CVD synthesis at a relatively higher temperature than the {220} planes [517]. At
1–2% CH4/H2 gas ratio, the synthetic diamond changes at 1100 50 K from {220}
plane dominated to a {111} dominated phase. The {111} planes can form hexagonal
platelets, truncated hexagonal platelets, decahedrons (pseudo five-fold symmetry),
icosahedral (20 faces) and triangular shapes, depending on stacking errors [518].
Nevertheless, the {111} faces cannot form platelets with 90 corner angles. Therefore, the square or rectangle platelets in Fig. 41(a) can be identified as the {220}, or
equivalent planes.
It is important to note that the lone pairs of oxygen possess the special ability of
inducing dipoles. The interaction between the dipole and the oxygen, and hence the
dipole to the bulk, is very weak ( 50 meV, Section 6) as there is no electron sharing
between the dipole and the oxygen. Due to the strong repulsion of the non-bonding
lone pairs, the dipoles tend to locate at the open end of a surface. The loosely
bounded dipoles therefore tend to be eroded away of the surface in the process of
corrosion.
The atomic density ratio of the {111} plane to that of the {220} plane is given as
[refer to Fig. 41(b and d) being the lattice parameter]:
Fig. 41. (a) SEM image showing that oxygen atoms penetrate into the {111} plane throughout the course
of reaction. (b) Schematic illustration of the geometrical environment of the {111} and {220} planes of
diamond. The {111} plane accommodates more easily an oxide tetrahedron than the {220} plane, as it is
harder for oxygen to find a nearest neighbor C in the second atomic layer [524].
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
nf111g
¼
nf220g
1
pffiffiffi 2
2d sinð60 Þ=2
1:5
pffiffiffi
2d 2
653
rffiffiffiffiffi
32
¼
>1
27
p
The {111} inter-plane distance is ( 3-1)d/2 (from p
the plane comprising atoms
labeled 123 to atom 0). The {220}-plane separation is 3d/2 (from atom 0 to atom
4). It is seen from the diamond unit cell in Fig. 41(b) that each of the two planes cuts
through three C atoms but the geometrical arrangement of these atoms in the planes
is entirely different. The three atoms (labeled
1, 2 and
p
p 3) in the {111} plane form a
C3v hollow with identical edges of a= 2d, and of ( 3-1)d/2 in depth. The diamond
p
bond length is 3d/2 or 1.54 Å. However, the three atoms (labeled 0, 1 and 2) in the
p
{220} plane are arranged in such a way that the triangle edges are at d, d and 2d.
Therefore, it is easier for an oxygen adsorbate to find the fourth C atom (labeled 0)
underneath the C3v-hollow site in the {111} plane to form a quasi-tetrahedron. However, the atom (labeled 3 or 4) underneath the {220}-plane composed of atoms labeled 0,
1, and 2 could hardly form a frame in which an oxide tetrahedron could fit. Therefore, it
is harder to facilitate the oxide tetrahedron in the {220} plane than in the {111} plane.
This explains why the densely packed {111} plane oxidizes easier than the {220} plane.
Although the atomic sizes and the geometrical arrangement of the considered
metals (Sections 3–4) are different, the oxide tetrahedron formation is essentially the
same, as we have already noted in the context. During the process of oxidation of
the diamond, oxygen atoms penetrate easily into the {111} planes and loosen the C
atoms at the surface by forming the weakly bound dipoles. The dipoles are readily
eroded away at elevated temperatures and then the oxygen seeks new partners for
the tetrahedron. Oxygen can always survive by fitting itself into a suitable bonding
environment to build up the tetrahedron through bond switching.
It may be questioned that diamond is not essentially the same as metals in the
process of reaction. In fact, we have shown that the factors dominating the oxidation of a solid surface are: (i) the difference in electronegativity, (ii) the scale and
geometry of the lattice, and, (iii) the temperature and oxygen pressure. Electronegativity determines the nature of the bond or the easiness and amount of charge
transportation between the bonding constituents. The atomic geometry and lattice
constant determines the way of facilitating the oxide tetrahedron. The temperature
and the ambient oxygen pressure determine the rate of reaction. Therefore, the
mechanism of oxidation should be valid for a solid surface whether it is a metal or not.
No specification of element or its phase is necessary for oxide tetrahedron formation.
It is clear now that diamond erosion starts at 750 K in air showing strong geometric selectivity, an indication of oxide tetrahedron formation as in the case of
metal surface oxidation. It is also clear now that the {111} planes provide a more
suitable bonding environment than the loosely packed {220} planes. Oxygen penetrates into the bulk by bond switching and leaves behind the weakly bound dipoles
that are eroded away during the process of corrosion. Loh and his co-workers [519]
have recently detected, using the UPS He-II emission, that the lone-pair DOS
654
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
features (around 3.0 eV below EF) are present at the diamond {111} planes with
chemisorbed oxygen. This provides further evidence that the oxide tetrahedron
forms on the non-metal diamond surface with lone pair production. Therefore, the
preferential oxidation of diamond {111} shows that our model premise is valid not
only for metals but also for the non-metallic diamond.
9.2. Adhesion improvement
The poor adhesion of diamond films to metal substrates has been a long-standing
issue that prevents practical applications of the excellent properties of synthetic diamond. Earlier analysis (Section 3.6) [100] for Ni surface reaction indicated that the
C–Ni(001) bond experiences strong compression and the surface is covered with Ni+
and Ni2+ while the N–Ni(001) bond stress is slightly tensile and the surface comprises
alternating Ni+ and Ni+/diple. It is possible to extend the ideas (summarized in Table 13)
to the adhesion of diamond to metals by adopting the conclusions derived in Section
3.6. XRD measurement [520] has confirmed the prediction that carbon turns the tensile
stress of Ti surface to be compressive. Comparison of the surface morphology of TiC
with that of TiN indicates that the surface stresses are different in nature [521].
Based on these predictions and justifications, we have designed and inserted a
graded TiCN interlayer between metal substrate and the synthetic diamond to neutralize the interface stress, which has improved the adhesion between diamond and
the Ti substrate substantially [521]. Fig. 42 compares the cross-section of the diamond/Ti system with and without the graded TiCN interlayer. It can be seen that
the graded TiCN interlayer is able to remove the cracks and has enabled the diamond to adhere to the Ti substrate strongly. The critical scratch load for the
adherent diamond is as high as 135 N compared to the adhesion strength of 55 N for
nanostructured diamond on the tungsten carbide substrate. These exercises may
provide a prototype for joining metals with non-metals in composite materials.
The success of this approach evidences that the extension of the sp-hybrid bonding
of oxygen to carbon and nitrogen is on an essentially correct track. The extension of
the sp-hybrid bonding to nitrogen has also led to the new understanding that the
Fig. 42. SEM cross-section observation of diamond with or without the designed graded TiCN buffer
layer. The porous carbide with strong bond repulsion prohibits the adhesion while the buffer layer allows
the diamond and Ti substrate to bond strongly.
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
655
crystalline carbon-nitride formation is harder than the hexagonal SiCN crystallite
[326], and that overdosed ( > 75% partial pressure) nitrogen in diamond deposition
could turn the diamond to be SiCN [522]. Further results show that the surface bond
contraction and the lone pair interaction play dominant roles in the extraordinary
mechanical performance of the hard and self-lubricant nitride surfaces [327].
9.3. Dielectric relaxation and transition
Lowering the dielectric constant of a medium is increasingly demanded by the
‘copper-low k’ DSIC technology and for photonic devices. Dielectric reduction will
lead to the blue shift in the photo absorption, in particular for semiconductors
having an indirect band-gap transition [384]. Diamond films with reduced domain
size may have high potential to serve as the dielectric layer in DSIC technology,
provided suitable thermal performance and adequate adhesion. The mechanism of
surface bond contraction implies that adjusting the particle size or introducing pores
into the solid can reduce the dielectric constant. This is because the spontaneous
bond contraction of the surface atoms enhances the crystal field of the system. The
dielectric constant is inversely proportional to the square width of the band-gap
(E2
g ) [523], which depends functionally on the crystal field [384]. An impedance
(resistance and capacitance) spectroscopic investigation reveals that [524,525]: (i)
reduction of the particle size from the micrometer scale to the nanometer scale can
reduce the static dielectric constant of the synthetic diamond films; (ii) raising the
measuring temperature has the opposite effect to that caused by reducing the particle size; and, (iii) for the nanostructured diamond, the impedance transits at 520
K. The transition corresponds to the mechanism of electron-polarization at the
grain interior and electron-polarization at grain boundaries, respectively. It is suggested that the grain interior is activated at lower temperature and the impurities at
grain boundaries are activated at higher temperature. The activation energies for the
two mechanisms were measured as 0.13 and 0.67 eV, respectively. The opposite
effects of heating and particle-size reduction on the dielectric behavior of the nanometric diamond are due to the variation of the mean atomic separation that expands
upon heating while contracts with reduced particle size. Lattice contraction enhances the crystal field and subsequently decreases the dielectric constant. On the other
hand, the crystal field can be weakened by lattice expansion under thermal excitation. Hence, heating the sample has the opposite effect to that caused by reducing
the grain size on the dielectric constant of the diamond.
10. Summary
10.1. General understanding
10.1.1. Essential events at a surface
Two events are found essential at a surface with and without adsorbed oxygen. The
underlying mechanism and the consequences of these events should be useful in practice:
656
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
First, a chemical bond contracts at a surface or at sites surrounding defects
where the CN of the atom reduces. An extension of the concept of ‘atomic
size shrinks with its CN reduction’, initiated by Goldschmidt and Pauling
long ago, to solid surfaces has led to the bond order-length-strength correlation mechanism, which dictates the tunable properties of a nano-solid of
which the portion of surface atoms increases with reducing particle size. The
BOLS correlation modifies both the cohesive energy of an atom at a surface
and the binding energy density in the relaxed surface region.
The BOLS correlation is expected to provide impact on the fields of nanometric materials and surface science as well, as we have demonstrated.
Second, it is essential for O, N, and C atoms to hybridize their sp orbitals
upon reacting with atoms whether in the gaseous phase or at a solid surface.
It is valid to adopt the orbital configuration of a single molecule, such as CH4,
NH3 and H2O, to the interaction of O, N and C with atoms at the solid
surfaces of transition metals, noble metals and a non-metal diamond. Such
exercises have led to the correlation of chemical-bond–valence-band–potential-barrier with the often overlooked events of lone pair non-bonding, H-like
bonding, and dipole anti-bonding, which have indeed brought us enormous
new insight into the electronic process of oxidation and practical applications.
The combination of BOLS and BBB mechanisms may cover the major
sources that determine the unusual behavior of a surface. Bond contraction at
a surface provides perturbation to the Hamiltonian that defines the entire
band structure and related properties of a solid; chemical reaction causes a
repopulation of valence electrons in the valence band and modifies the
binding energy as well. Catalytic reaction changes the bond nature while the
physically sizing of the solid changes the average bond length. All the physical
properties should be derivatives of the Hamiltonian of the system or the DOS
distribution in the valence band of the solid.
10.1.2. Bond nature and bond forming kinetics
It has been clear that surface oxidation is a kinetic process in which O1 forms
first and then the O2 follows with sp-orbital hybridization and, H-like bond formation, if necessary. An oxide tetrahedron forms intrinsically, which is independent
of the bonding environment or the nature of the host element. A host atom may
donate more than one-electron to different oxygen atoms while one oxygen atom
can never catch more than one-electron from a specific host atom because of the
directionally hybridized orbitals. The sp orbitals of an oxygen atom cannot hybridize until its two bonding orbitals are fully occupied. The two bonding orbitals can
be occupied by sharing electrons with atoms of a metal or a non-metal, or even by
dragging the electron-cloud of dipoles, thereby, being able to stabilize the primary
M2O tetrahedron. The production of the non-bonding lone pairs and the induced
dipoles is also intrinsic and is independent of the environment or the nature of the
bonding constituents.
One oxide surface may contain atoms with different valencies: O1; O2; M+;
M+2; Mdipole; M+/dipole and Mvacancy. An oxide system is composed of various
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
657
chemical bonds: the ionic or polar-covalent bond between the oxygen and the host
atom, the non-bonding lone pair of oxygen, anti-bonding host dipoles, and the
H-like bond. Covalent bond and anti-bond can never form between the adsorbate
and the host substrate atom due to the huge difference in electronegativity between
them [107]. Although most of these atomic valencies and bonding events are often
overlooked, these bonding events and the corresponding atomic valencies play crucial roles in the process of catalytic oxidation and in determining the properties of an
oxide system, as demonstrated in this report.
An oxide tetrahedron forms in the following discrete stages:
(i) First, an ionic or polar-covalent bond forms. The surface bond contracts
because of CN imperfection. Ions polarize their surrounding atoms.
(ii) The second contraction bond follows.
(iii) The sp orbitals of oxygen hybridize with the production of two non-bonding
lone pairs.
(iv) Interaction develops between the adsorbate and the lone pair induced antibonding dipoles.
(v) At higher oxygen coverage, H-like bonds may form by dragging the electron
cloud of the dipoles to the bonding orbital of the oxygen adsorbate.
Measurements have revealed that the bond process is reversible by heating or by
bombardment of energetic particles. Bond switching is responsible for the bulk oxidation and for oxygen floating in the process of epitaxial growth of metal on oxygen
pre-covered metals. Oxide tetrahedron formation could be the cause of observed
atomic dislocation, phase formation and transition, charge and mass transportation.
The theme of sp-orbital hybridization has been extended to the reaction of carbon
and nitrogen with a Ni(001) surface. Although the observed patterns of reconstruction and morphology for the O–Rh(001) and the (C, N)–Ni(001) surfaces are the
same, the valencies of surface atoms, the bond stress and the driving forces for these
surfaces are quite different. This is simply due to the variation of the valencies of the
p
p
adsorbates. A ‘rhombi-chain’ model or a c(4 24 2)R45-16O2 phase structure
could describe these ‘p4g’ reconstructions better.
10.1.3. Orientation specificity of the tetrahedron
Formation of the oxide tetrahedron and its kinetics are common while the adsorbate-site specification, the order of the two bonds formation and the orientation of the
oxide tetrahedron vary with the bonding environment. Except for the initial stage of
oxidation, the oxygen adsorbate prefers a position inside a tetrahedron. However, the
scale and geometry of the lattice, and the electronegativity of the host determine the
bond-formation order and the site-and-orientation specificity of the tetrahedron.
Oxygen prefers the next-nearest-neighboring C4v hollow site of the fcc(001)
surface. However, the orders of the ionic bond formation at the Cu(001)
and (Rh, V, Ag)(001) surfaces are opposite owing to their different atomic
sizes and the values of electronegativity. Different patterns of reconstruction
658
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
of the O–Rh(001) and O–Cu(001) surfaces are suggested to arise from
nothing more than the minor difference in their atomic sizes [radius,
1.342(Rh)–1.277(Cu)=0.065pÅ] and electronegativity [2.2(Rh)–1.9(Cu)=0.3].
The smaller hollow [d=2R( 2–1)=1.058 Å] and the lower electronegativity of
the Cu(001) surface allow the oxygen [d=1.32 Å] to bond to one Cu surface
atom first, and then to another Cu underneath. The wider hollow [1.112 Å]
and the higher electronegativity of the Rh(001) surface permit oxygen to
sink into the hollow and form the first bond to the Rh atom underneath.
The inverse orders of ionic bond formation generate entirely different patterns
of reconstruction and morphology, as well as the different surface atomic
valencies and phase structures on the fcc(001) surface of Cu, Rh, V and Ag.
Adsorption of oxygen to the Rh(001) surface creates the Rh5O radial and
then the Rh4O tetrahedron that gives the ‘p4g’ clockwise reconstruction and the
‘rhombi-chain’ fashion. Oxygen reaction with the Cu(001) surface gives rise
to the off-centered pyramid and then the missing-row structure in which the
pairing ‘Cudipole : O2 : Cudipole’ strings form. The pairing Cudipole–Cudipole
crosses over the missing row vacancy. Alternation of the valency of oxygen
from O1 to O2 gives rise to the off-centered CuO2 pairing pyramid into
the Cu3O2 pairing tetrahedron on the Cu(001) surface. The analysis also
applies to the phase transition of O–V(001) and O–Ag(001) surfaces.
The fcc(110) surface of Cu, Ni, Ag and Pt could fit the oxide tetrahedron
ideally by locating the adsorbate at the long-bridge hollow site with ‘missingrow’ production. However, the slightly opened fcc(110) surface of Rh and Pd
allows the oxygen to locate at the fcc(111) facet site in a zigzag fashion along
the close packed direction without row missing. The former produces the
alternative rows of metal vacancies and the single ‘Mdipole : O2 : Mdipole’
string. The latter leads to the sequential phases that correspond to the M5O,
M4O and M3O structures with H-like bonds dominant at the surface. The
observable differences on these fcc(110) surfaces result from nothing more
than the difference in the atomic size and electronegativity.
The slight geometrical difference between the (Rh, Pd)-fcc(110) surface and
the (Co, Ru)-hcp(1010) surface allows the oxygen adsorbates to prefer the
troughs in different ways. Oxygen adsorbates prefer the fcc(111) troughs
located beside a certain close-packed metal row at the fcc(110) surface. In
contrast, the adsorbates locate in the same fcc(111) facet troughs but locate
between two neighboring metal rows at the hcp(1010) surface. Such a difference in the adsorbate’s site-specificity generates entirely different patterns
in STM observations. The zigzagged dipole-row is seen at the (Rh, Pd)(110)
surface but the grouped octopoles appear at the (Ru, Co)(1010) surfaces at
0.5 ML oxygen coverage.
Oxygen prefers the hcp(0001) hollow site in both the (Rh, Al)(111) surfaces
and the Ru(0001) surface. Although the basic tetrahedron remains during the
course of reaction the electronic configurations of the constituent atoms
alternate in the process of oxidation. Electron transportation leads to the
‘C3v-radial’ and then the ‘pairing-row’ type reconstruction and, finally, H-like
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
659
bonds dominate at the surface. In comparison, oxidation of the Cu(111) and
the Pd(111) [526] surfaces gives rather complicated patterns of reconstruction.
At the O1-induced precursor phases, O1 forms one bond to a host atom
nearby and the O1 polarizes its surroundings. The O1-induced dipoles
interact with the O1 adsorbate through the non-bonding O1Mdipole
interaction that is rather weak as revealed with EELS from the O–Ru and O–
Rh surfaces at the initial stages of oxidation (Section 6.1). It seems that
oxygen tends to form the first bond with an atom at the transition metal
surface such as the Cu(001) and Co(1010) surfaces, because of the lower
electronegativity (< 2.0) and shorter atomic radius (< 1.3 Å). The O1–O1
dimer rests above the Co atoms forming the ‘8’-shaped Co2O2 bond with two
Co atoms at the Co(1010) surface because of the dimension of the C2v hollow
of Co(1010) (dimension of 2.504.06 Å2). The O1 locates 40.4 Å eccentrically ( 0.18 Å) above the Cu(001) hollow (2.553.61 Å2) and forms the
CuO2 off-centered pyramid at the surface. In contrast, oxygen sinks into the
hollow site and bonds firstly to the noble metal (Ag, Rh, Pd and Ru) atom
underneath. Therefore, it is safe to say that O1 prefers the on-surface
position of a transition metal and then the O2 buckles in, and that O1 and
O2 locate at a sub-surface position inside the surfaces of noble metals
throughout the course of reaction.
In the O2 valence situations, the sp-orbital hybridization allows the O2 to
seek four suitable neighbors for a stable quasi-tetrahedron. Oxygen prefers the
nearly central position of the tetrahedron rather than any other alternatives.
Therefore, difference in the bonding environment determines the orientation
of the tetrahedron of which the lone pairs tend to point into the open end
of the surface. The Cu(001) surface supports the pairing Cu3O2 tetrahedron,
while the (Cu, Ni, Ag, Pt)(110) surface supports the primary Cu2O tetrahedron.
The Rh(001) surface supports the single Rh2O tetrahedron with rotation,
which forms the rhombi-chain along the < 11 > direction. The O–Cu(001)
surface differs only from the O–Cu(110) surface in that the O–Cu–O chain
rotates itself by 45 to fit the crystal orientation.
p
p The V(001) surface allows
the ‘radial’ and then the short ordered ( 23 2)R45 -4O2 reconstruction.
The missing row type Ag3O2 structure is more stable at lower temperature
while the ‘radial’ Ag5O (O1) is table at room temperature and above.
Oxygen can penetrate into the bulk or float back to the surface subjecting to
external conditions, such as raised temperature or higher exposure, through
bond switching. Oxide tetrahedron formation shows strong geometric selectivity at the hardest diamond surface and the diamond {111} plane is preferable throughout the course of reaction. The weakly bound dipoles are
readily eroded away under thermal excitation.
10.1.4. Consequences of bond forming
The external conditions determine the site-and-orientation specificity of the basic
oxide tetrahedron, which generate versatile changes in observations. The main
identities observed so far from the oxide surfaces are summarized below:
660
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
O–M–O protruding chains form at most of the surfaces. It is recognized that
all the O–M–O chains are zigzagged by the lone-pair non-bonding states
rather than by any other kinds of chemical bonds. The observed metal
dipoles in the O–M–O chains are not those belonging to the M2O system, as
these dipoles exchange no electrons with the O2. Those belonging to the
M2O molecule are perpendicularly connected to the O–M–O chain and they
cannot be detected by STM imaging because of the reduced size and lowered
energy levels of occupancy.
The missing-rows could form on a very limited number of surfaces due to
oxygen chemisorption. The missing atoms in the O–(Cu, Ag)(001) surface and
the O–(Cu, Ni, Ag, Pt)(110) surfaces are isolated during bond formation as
the metallic neighbors of the missing-row atoms have combined with oxygen
adsorbates. These ‘extra’ atoms for tetrahedron formation are readily
squeezed away from their regular positions by a small disturbance such as
being dragged out by the two neighboring O1 at the initial stage of
Cu(001) surface reaction.
H-like bond formation is, however, more general than the missing row in the
surfaces analyzed. The process of H-like bond formation compensates for the
lack of an atom for the tetrahedron formation, in which the adsorbate drags
the electron-cloud of the dipoles to its bonding orbitals. This process sharpens
the ‘tip’ of the ‘honey-comb’ protrusions such as in the (Co, Ru)(1010)c(24)-4O2 phase (Fig. 16). There are no atoms to be missing. Importantly,
the H-like bond lowers the STM protrusions and stabilizes the system by
reducing the dipole moment at the surface, as do the phases of (Co,
Ru)(1010)-(21)p2mg-2O2, (Rh, Pd)(110))-(21)p2mg-2O2 and Ru(0001)(11)-O2. Except for those phases induced by O1 and indicated with
‘missing row’ in Table 4, all the phases contain the H-like bond. At
higher oxygen coverage, the H-like bonds interlock all the surface atoms.
Such bond interlocking may allow the top layer to prevent atomic diffusion
into the bulk, which may act as a barrier that should be of use in many
fields.
Because of oxygen penetrating into the top layer for tetrahedron formation,
the first interlayer spacing expands, which depends on the bond geometry.
The production of metal ions in the second layer strengthens the interaction
between the ionic second layer and the third metallic layer. Therefore, the
spacing between the second and third atomic layer often contracts.
10.1.5. Driving forces behind reconstruction
It is known that the binding energy for a metallic bond is about 1.0 eV and for
an ionic bond it is about 3.0 eV. The energies for the H-like bond and the nonbonding lone pair are around 0.05 to 0.1 eV. Disregarding the minor energies for
the weak bound states, the transition of metallic bond to the contracted ionic bond
is associated with a gain in energy:
DE ¼ 3:0=ð1 QÞ ð1:0Þ ¼ ð2 þ QÞ=ð1 QÞ < 2:0 ðeV=bondÞ:
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
661
The net gain in energy provides forces that drive the reconstruction, though the
orbital hybridization and the anti-bonding formation would consume some amount
of energy. Analysis of the Rh(001)-O2 clock reconstruction indicates that the driving force for the atomic dislocation also comes from other sources such as the
alternative electrostatic repulsion and attraction along the < 11 > rhombi chain, and
a response of bond tension that stabilizes the clock rotation.
10.1.6. Factors controlling bond formation
It has been clear that the sp orbitals of an oxygen atom hybridize intrinsically
upon the full occupancy of the two bonding orbitals. Formation of the oxide
tetrahedron is independent of the nature of the host element and the geometrical
environment. However, external factors determine the site-and-orientation of the
oxide tetrahedron and the order of the two ionic bonds of the tetrahedron. The
extrinsic dominating factors are:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
difference in electronegativity between the bond constituents
lattice geometrical orientation and the scale of lattice constant of the host
valencies of the oxygen adsorbate
substrate temperature and oxygen exposure as well as aging conditions.
Obviously, only the last one is controllable. The valencies of oxygen can be
changed by varying oxygen exposure or by annealing the sample at a certain temperature. The multiphase ordering on the metal surfaces results from the variation
of the oxygen valency under various bonding circumstances. However, it is still
puzzling how the oxygen exposure changes the valencies of the oxygen.
10.2. Capability-enhancement of probing techniques
The developed knowledge allowed us to enhance the capabilities of the following
techniques in terms of atomic valencies, bond geometry, valence DOS, bond
strength and bond forming kinetics as summarized below.
10.2.1. STM and STS
The striking significance of the current modeling exercise is that, based on the
STM and STS observations, the individual atomic valencies at the surface
have been identified and the kinetics of oxidation has been formulated. For
instance, electron clouds of metal dipoles, induced by either the O1 or the
non-bonding lone pairs of the O2, dominate the STM protrusions; ions of
metals or oxygen (M+, O1 or O2) or vacancies of missing atoms cause the
STM depressions. Even though it locates well above the surface atomic plane,
the oxygen adsorbate is still not detectable by an STM because the occupied
energy states of the oxygen are still lower than the EF of metals, even though
the size of the adsorbate increases. The M+ is undetectable because of both
the reduced atomic size and the lowered energy states of occupancy.
662
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
The various shapes of STM protrusions represent the configuration of
dipoles. For example, (i) a single dipole forms on the Cu(110)-O2 surface; (ii)
an engaged-cogwheel and paired dipoles (quadruple) grow on the Cu(001)O1 surface; and, (iii) the grouped dipoles (octupole) form a congested array
p
p
on the (Co, Ru)(1010)-c(24)-4O2 and the V(001)-( 23 2)R45 -4O2
surfaces.
The unique STS profiles covering energies of EF 2.5 eV from the O–Cu(110)
surface give the on-site DOS information about the lone pairs ( < EF) and
anti-bonding dipoles (> EF). The STS features from O–Nb(110) show the
resonant features due to the surface image potential, which is in agreement
with inverse PES observations.
10.2.2. PES, TDS, EELS and VLEED
As analyzed in Sections 4–6, the spectral identities of STS, PES, TDS, EELS and
VLEED correspond to individual processes of bond formation or their consequences
on the energetic behavior of valence electrons. Oxygen-induced phase ordering and
patterns of observations vary indeed from situation to situation. However, formation of the primary tetrahedron, the oxygen-derived DOS features and the bond
forming kinetics are naturally common for all the analyzed representatives.
The four valence DOS features in a PES correspond to the oxygen-host
bonding ( 5 eV), non-bonding lone-pairs of oxygen ( 2 eV), electron
holes of the host (4EF) and the anti-bonding host dipoles (5EF), rather than
simply the addition of the 2s or 2p states of the isolated oxygen to the valence
DOS of the host.
The change of work function corresponds to the bandwidth of the antibonding dipole states, which provides information about the dipole formation
and H-like bond formation. Dipole formation widens the bandwidth of the
anti-bonding states and reduces the work function; H-like bond formation
narrows the anti-bonding sub-band and causes the reduced work function to
restore, which stabilizes the entire system. The reduced work function could be
of use in the cold-cathode electron emission but the H-like bond formation may
have an adverse effect.
TDS provides information about the activation energy for individual bond
breaking. The oscillation of the TDS signatures of the O–Rh and O–Pd
surfaces has been related to the sequence of bonding, non-bonding and the Hlike bonding contribution.
The energy increase of the dipole-stretch mode in EELS relates directly to the
strength of non-bonding interaction that varies from the O1Mdipole to the
O2:Mdipole and the H-bind-like contribution. Raman spectroscopy gives
information at low frequencies about the non-bonding lone pair interaction,
being similar to that revealed by EELS. As the weaker part of a hydrogen
bond, the lone pair interaction is found to exist in the oxides, nitrides and biomolecules such as protein and DNA chains.
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
663
It has been verified that LEED at very low energy ( < 30 eV) provides a unique
technique that can collect nondestructive information from the top atomic
layer and the VLEED covers the valence band in energy. VLEED gives
simultaneous information about the surface morphology, lattice geometry
and valence DOS features, though sophisticated decoding and a proper model
is required.
The BOLS correlation enables the APECS (a combination of AES and XPS)
to reveal information about the single energy levels of an atom isolated from
solid and their shifts upon solid formation as well as the bonding of a
monatomic chain, which is beyond the scope of direct measurement in
convention.
10.3. Findings in applications
The knowledge of BOLS and BBB correlation has led to a systematic understanding of the catalytic effect and the shape-and-size dependency of a nano-solid,
which has led to some new findings in nano-tribology, nano-dielectrics and nanophotonics, etc. The BBB correlation knowledge has also led to the process design for
strengthening diamond-metal adhesion. Designing new functional materials for
photo and electron emitters and photonic crystal with tunable optical band-gap has
also been possible. Progress made in these practical applications could be indicative
that our approach is in a correct track, which should bring along new findings.
Further efforts, I am sure, towards materials design based on the BOLS and BBB
correlations would be more effective, interesting and rewarding.
11. Recommendations
With the bond-forming premise, we have been able to generalize various observations of oxidation occurring at different surfaces. Developed knowledge should
pave the path towards bond engineering. Further work would be even more
encouraging and rewarding. Recommendations on further study are given below.
In crystallographic studies of chemisorbed surfaces, it might not be essential
to locate precisely the static positions of the adsorbate atoms at a surface, as
the reaction is a kinetic process in which charge transportation dominates and
all the involved atoms move collectively and continually. Identifying the
nature, the dynamics and kinetics of bond formation, and their consequences
on observations and practical applications should be a foremost concern in a
study. The bond angle and bond length are retractable depending on surface
coordinates and the bonding environment. During the reaction, all atoms
change their sizes and valencies, and hence hard-sphere models have limitations. As demonstrated, a small variation of oxygen positions in the O–
Cu(110) surface gives an entirely different physical picture. Therefore, in
simulating diffraction data (such as the LEED I–V profiles), it would be
664
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
necessary to replace the traditional trial-error wisdom of individual displacement of the hard spheres with variation of bond geometry and atomic
valency. The value of the R-factor in LEED optimizations may be improved;
on the other hand, if one allows the oxygen to reside inside a tetrahedron and
allows the bond to contract at surface.
Due to the correlation among the parameters, the number of numerical
solutions may not be unique and physical constraints should be applied. It
would be more realistic in theoretical approaches to consider the actual
occupancy of the orbitals that may hybridize, by the lone pairs and antibonding dipoles, in particular. The interatomic potential for the O2 : Mdipole
(lone pair) differs from that for the O2–M+ (ionic bond). Such modifications
may improve the outcome of calculations such as minimizing the system total
energy. Bond contraction is also an intrinsic process at the surface and a bond
switching mechanism would be necessary. Exercises in terms of rigid adsorbate being trapped in the potential well at the surface without breaking the
barrier seem to be less adequate in chemisorption studies. Recent photoelectron diffraction measurement [91] indicated that the bond lengths of CO,
NO and NH3 molecules are much shorter (by up to 0.79 Å) on a Ni(001) and
a NiO(001) surface than those determined by theoretical calculations and,
therefore, the currently widely-used theoretical methods are questioned as in
very serious errors in the particular cases [91]. It is pointed out that the
shortened bond length indicates true bond formation, and not simply electrostatic interaction as has been concluded based on currently popular theoretical treatments [91].
Importantly, chemisorption is a process in which charge transportation
dominates. Atomic dislocation is only one of the numerous consequences of
bond formation. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the system by all the
effective means, and their correlation in terms of crystallography, morphology,
desorption and electronic spectroscopy to avoid misinterpreting the results.
The sp-orbital hybridization may extend to catalytic reactions involving other
electronegative elements. Interestingly, based on DFT pseudo-potential and
tight-binding theoretical calculations, Lefebvre et al. [527] pointed out that
the electronic structures of the tin monochalcogenide (SnX, X=O, S, Se, or
Te) family possesses similar DOS features that are consistent with the presence of a lone pair. This might be indicative the essentiality of sp orbital
hybridizations for other electronegative additives. The weak non-bonding
interaction, such as the lone pair and H-like bond, may play an important
role in bioelectronics such as the folding, signaling, and regulating of protein
and DNA chains as well as cell binding. The non-bonding weak interaction
and the dipole formation may also contribute to the mechanism for medicinecell interaction, such as messaging and regulation of NO. It is expected that
the lone pair and the dipoles may play dominant roles in determining the
high-Tc superconductivity of nitride and oxide compounds.
Furnished with the BOLS and BBB correlations and knowledge about the
mentioned bonding events and the factors controlling bond switching, we
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
665
would be able to develop methods towards controllable bond making and
breaking for designer materials with anticipated functions in the not too
distant future.
Acknowledgements
I am pleased to thank Professors P. J. Jennings, A. Stelbovics, S. M. Thurgate, G.
Hitchen, S. Y. Tong, C. L. Bai, F. M. Ashby and E. Y. Jiang for valuable
communications, which enlightened me very much. The VLEED data and calculation code provided by the Murdoch group has enabled the reported advances. I
would also like to express my sincere thanks to Professor J. S. Colligon for his critical readings of the manuscript and his valuable input. Kind endorsement of the
works linked to the current report by M. Donath, S. Tear, G. Russell, L. A. Bursill,
L. Holland, O. S. Heavens, R. E. Hurley, and A. Mookerjee and helpful discussions
with K. P. Loh, A. T. S. Wee, A. C. H. Huan are all gratefully acknowledged. I am
indebt to S. Li, B. K. Tay, F. R. Zhu, K. Liao, Z. L. Dong, H. Huang, Y. Q. Fu,
H. L. Bai, J. Zhou, W. T. Zheng and Q. Jiang for their support and input in one
way or another. Permission reprinting diagrams from Elsevier Science, IOP, World
Scientific, and AIP is also acknowledged.
References
[1] Young FW, Cathcart JV, Gwathmey AT. The rates of oxidation of several faces of a single crystal
of copper as determined with elliptically polarized light. Acta Metall 1956;4:45–152.
[2] Ertl G. Untersuchung von oberflachenreaktionen mittels beugung langsamer elektronen (LEED).
Surf Sci 1967;6:208–32.
[3] Jacobsen KW, Nørskov JK. Theory of the oxygen-induced restructuring of Cu(110) and Cu(100)
surfaces. Phys Rev Lett 1990;65:1788–891.
[4] Liu P, Wang Y. A tight-binding molecular dynamic simulation of the Cu(110) surface covered with
oxygen. Surf Sci 1999;440:81–6.
[5] Liu P, Wang Y. Theoretical study on the structure of Cu(110)-p21-O reconstruction. J Phys:
Condens Matter 2000;12(17):3955–66.
[6] Tjeng LH, Meinders MBJ, Sawatzky GA. Relationship between atomic and electronic structure of
clean and oxygen covered copper (110) surface. Surf Sci 1990;233(1–2):163–83.
[7] Ricart JM, Torras J, Illas F, Rubio J. Bonding of atomic oxygen to Cu(110) and Ag(110) surfaces: a
study of the nature of the interaction. Surf Sci 1994;307/309:107–12.
[8] Ricart JM, Torras J, Clotet A, Sueiras JE. Atomic oxygen chemisorption on Cu(110) and Ag(110):
an ab initio study. Surf Sci 1994;301(1–3):89–96.
[9] Schimizu T, Tsukada M. Origin of the different formation modes of the oxygen added row overlayer on Ag(110) and Cu(110) surfaces. Surf Sci 1993;295(1-2):L1017–22.
[10] Lynch M, Hu P. A density functional theory study of CO and atomic oxygen chemisorption on
Pt(111). Surf Sci 2000;458(1–3):1–14.
[11] McClenaghan ND, Hu P, Hardacre C. A density functional theory study of the surface relaxation
and reactivity of Cu2O,100). Surf Sci 464(2–3 2000;223-232.
[12] Zhang CJ, Hu P. Why must oxygen atoms be activated from hollow sites to bridge sites in catalytic
CO oxidation? J Am Chem Soc 2000;122:2134–5.
[13] Noguera C. Insulating oxides in low dimensionality: a theoretical review. Surf Rev Lett 2001;8:121–67.
666
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
[14] Besenbacher F. STM studies of metal surfaces. Rep Prog Phys 1996;59:1737–802.
[15] Sinnott MJ. The solid state for engineers. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc; 1963.
[16] Wintterlin J, Behm RJ. Adsorbate on metals. In: Günthert HJ, Wiesendanger R, editors. The
scanning tunnelling microscopy I; 1992. Springer-Verlag, Berlin [Chapter 4]. Bai CL. Scanning
tunnelling microscopy and its applications. Springer Series in Surface Science vol. 32. Springer:
Berlin.
[17] Bonnell DA. STM and STS of oxide surfaces. Prog Surf Sci 1998;57(3):187–252.
[18] Van Hove MA, Cerda J, Sautet P, Bocquet ML, Salmeron M. Surface structure determination by
STM vs LEED. Prog Surf Sci 1997;54:315–29.
[19] Kittel M, Polcik M, Terborg R, Hoeft J-T, Baumgartel P, Bradshaw AM, et al. The structure of
oxygen on Cu(100) at low and high coverages. Surf Sci 2001;470(3):311–25.
[20] Henrich VE. Metal-oxide surfaces. Prog Surf Sci 1995;50:77–90.
[21] Besenbacher F, Nørskov JK. Oxygen chemisorption on metal surfaces: general trends for Cu, Ni
and Ag. Prog Surf Sci 1993;44:5–66.
[22] King DA. Chemisorption on metals: a personal review. Surf Sci 1994;299/230:678–89.
[23] Ertl G. Reactions at well-defined surfaces. Surf Sci 1994;299/230:742–54.
[24] Van Hove MA, Somorjai GA. Adsorption and adsorbate-induced restructuring: a LEED perspective. Surf Sci 1994;299:487–501.
[25] Liu W, Wong KC, Zeng HC, Mitchell KAR. What determines the structures formed by oxygen at
low-index surfaces of copper. Prog Surf Sci 1995;50:247–57.
[26] Leibsle FM, Murray PW, Condon NG, Thornton G. STM studies of reaction on metal surfaces and
model oxide supports. J Phys D: Appl Phys 1997;30:741–56.
[27] Comelli G, Dhanak VR, Kiskinova M, Prince K C, Rosei R. Oxygen and nitrogen interaction with
rhodium single crystal surfaces. Surf Sci Rep 1998;32:165–231.
[28] Over H. Crystallographic study of interaction between adspecies on metal surfaces. Prog Surf Sci
1998;58(4):249–376.
[29] Freund H-J, Kuhenbeck H, Staemmler V. Oxide surfaces. Rep Prog Phys 1996;59:283–347.
[30] Noguera C. Dipolar oxide surface. J Phys Condens Matter 2000;12:R367–410.
[31] Gilles Renaud. Oxide surfaces and metal-oxide interfaces studied by grazing incidence X-ray
scattering. Surf Sci Rep 1998;32:1–90.
[32] Mattsson A, Panas I, Siegbahn P, Wahlgren U, Akeby H. Model studies of the chemisorption of
hydrogen and oxygen on Cu(100). Phys Rev 1987;B36:7389–401.
[33] Bagus PS, Illas F. Theoretical analysis of the bonding of oxygen to Cu(100). Phys Rev B 1990;42:
10852–7.
[34] Fritsche L, Weimert B, Kranefeld H, Noffke J. Bonding in the Cu(110)-p(21)-O system analyzed
in terms of Cu–O–Cu chain properties. Surf Sci 1993;291(3):309–16.
[35] DiDio RA, Zehner DM, Plummer EW. An angle-resolved UPS study of the oxygen-induced
reconstruction of Cu(110). J Vac Sci Technol 1984;A2(2):852–5.
[36] Jensen F, Besenbacher F, Lagsgaard E, Stensgaard I. Kinetics of oxygen-induced reconstruction of
Cu(100) studied by scanning tunneling microscopy. Phys Rev B 1990;42:9206–9.
[37] Arvanitis D, Comelli G, Lederer T, Rabus H, Baberschke K. Characterization of two different
adsorption states for O on Cu(100): ionic versus covalent bonding. Chem Phys Lett 1993;211:53–9.
[38] Lederer T, Arvanitis D, Comelli G, Troger L, Baberschke K. Adsorption of oxygen on Cu(100). 1.
Local-structure and kinetics for 2 atomic chemisorption states. Phys Rev B 1993;48(20):15390–404.
[39] Stolbov S, Kara A, Rahman TS. Electronic structure of the c(22)O/Cu(001) system. Phys Rev B
2002;66:245–405.
[40] Stolbov S, Rahman TS. Role of Long range interaction in oxygen superstructures formation on
Cu(001) and Ni(001). Phys Rev Lett 2002;89:116101.
[41] McCullen EF, Hsu CL, Tobin RG. Electron density changes and the surface resistivity of thin metal
films: oxygen on Cu(100). Surf Sci 2001;481(1–3):198–204.
[42] Koch R, Schwarz E, Schmidt K, Burg B, Christmann K, Rieder KH. Oxygen adsorption on
Co(101 0): different reconstruction behavior of hcp(101 0) and fcc(110). Phys Rev Lett 1993;71:1047–
50.
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
667
[43] Koch R, Burg B, Schmidt K, Rieder KH, Schwarz E, Christmann K. Oxygen adsorption on
Co(101 0). The structure of p(21)2O. Chem Phys Lett 1994;220:172–6.
[44] Taniguchi M, Tanaka K, Hashizume T, Sakurai T. Ordering of Ag–O chains on the Ag(110)
surface. Surf Sci 1992;262(3):L123–8.
[45] Eierdal L, Besenbacher F, Lagsgaard E, Stensgaard I. Interaction of oxygen with Ni(110) studied
by STM. Surf Sci 1994;312:31–53.
[46] Pascal M, Lamont CLA, Baumgärtel P, Terborg R, Hoeft JT, Schaff O, et al. Photoelectron diffraction study of the Ag(110)-(21)-O reconstruction. Surf Sci 2000;464(2–3):83–90.
[47] Chua FM, Kuk Y, Silverman PJ. Oxygen chemisorption on Cu(110): an atomic view by scanning
tunneling microscopy. Phys Rev Lett 1989;63:386–9.
[48] Feidenhans’l R, Grey F, Nielsen M, Besenbacher F, Jensen F, Lægsgaard E, et al. Oxygen chemisorption on Cu(110): a model for the c(6 2) structure. Phys Rev Lett 1990;65:2027–30.
[49] Jensen F, Besenbacher F, Lagsgaard E, Stensgaard I. Oxidation of Cu(111): two new oxygen
induced reconstructions. Surf Sci 1991;259:L774–80.
[50] Batra IP, Barker JA. Helium diffraction from adsorbate-covered surfaces: a study of the O–Ni(001)
system. Phys Rev B 1984;29:5286–91.
[51] Vu DT, Mitchell KAR, Warren OL, Thiel PA. Tensor LEED analysis of the Pd(100)p p
( 5 5)R27 -O surface structure. Surf Sci 1994;318(1–2):129–38.
[52] Mercer JR, Finetti P, Leibsle FM, McGrath R, Dhanak VR, Baraldi A, et al. STM and SPA-LEED
studies of O-induced structures on Rh(100) surfaces. Surf Sci 1996;352–354:173–8.
[53] Gibson KD, Viste Mark, Sanchez Errol C, Sibener SJ. High density adsorbed oxygen on Rh(111)
and enhanced routes to metallic oxidation using atomic oxygen. J Chem Phys 1999;110(6):2757–60.
[54] Schwegmann S, Over H, De Renzi V, Ertl G. The atomic geometry of the O and CO+O phases on
Rh(111). Surf Sci 1997;375:91–106.
[55] Stampfl C, Schwegmann S, Over H, Scheffler M, Ertl G. Structure and stability of a high-coverage
(11) oxygen phase on Ru(0001) Phys. Rev Lett 1996;77:3371–4.
[56] Meinel K, Wolter H, Ammer C, Beckmann A, Neddermeyer H. Adsorption stages of O on
Ru(0001) studied by means of STM. J Phys: Cond Matter 1997;9:4611–9.
[57] Briggs D, Rivière JC. Practical surface analysis, vol. 1. USA: John Wiley and Sons Press; 1990.
[58] Ertl G, Rhodin TN. The nature of surface chemical bond. USA: North-Holland Press; 1979.
[59] Hüfner S. Photoelectron spectroscopy: principles and applications. USA: Springer-Verlag; 1995.
[60] Yagi K, Higashiyama K, Fukutani H. Angle-resolved photoemission study of oxygen-induced
c(24) structure on Pd(110). Surf Sci 1993;295:230–40.
[61] Redhead PA. The first 50 years of electron stimulated desorption (1918–1968). Vacuum 1997;48:585–
96.
[62] Bondzie VA, Kleban P, Dwyer DJ. XPS identification of the chemical state of subsurface oxygen in
the O/Pd(110) system. Surf Sci 1996;347:319–28.
[63] Schwegmann S, Seitsonen AP, De Renzi V, Dietrich D, Bludau H, Gierer M, et al. Oxygen
adsorption on the Ru(101 0) surface: anomalous coverage dependence. Phys Rev B 1998;57(24):
15487–95.
[64] He P, Jacobi K. Vibrational analysis of the 11-O overlayer on Ru(0001). Phys Rev 1997;B55:
4751–4.
[65] Jennings PJ, Sun CQ. In: O’Connor DJ, Sexton BA, Smart RC, editors. In the surface analysis
methods in materials science. 4th ed. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1992.
[66] Adams DL, Nielsen HB, Andersen JN, Stensgaard I, Feidenhans’l R, Sørensen JE. Oscillatory
relaxation of the Cu(110) surface. Phys Rev Lett 1982;49(9):669–72.
[67] Frenken JWM, Van der Veen Allan JFG. Relation between surface relaxation and surface force
constants in clean and oxygen-covered Ni(001). Phys Rev Lett 1983;51(20):1876–9.
[68] Batra IP. Lattice relaxation in aluminum monolayers. J Vac Sci Techn 1985;A3(3):1603–6.
[69] Gupta RP. Lattice relaxation at a metal surface. Phys Rev B 1981;23(12):6265–70.
[70] Hwang Y-N, Park S-H, Kim D. Size-dependent surface phonon mode of CdSe quantum dots. Phys
Rev B 1999;59(11):7285–8.
668
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
[71] Li YS, Jona F, Marcus PM. Low-energy-electron-diffraction study of multilayer relaxation on a
Pb{311} surface. Phys Rev B 1991;44(15):8267–73.
[72] Feibelman PJ. Relaxation of hcp(0001) surfaces: a chemical view. Phys Rev B 1996;53(20):13740–6.
[73] Stolbov S, Rahman TS. Relationship between electronic and geometric structures of the O/Cu(001)
system. J Chem Phys 2002;117(18):8523–30.
[74] Feidenhans’l R, Grey F, Johnson RL, Mochrie SGJ, Bohr J, Nielsen M. Oxygen chemisorption on
Cu(110): a structural determination by X-ray diffraction. Phys Rev 1990;B41:5420–3.
[75] Kiejna A, Lundqvist BI. First-principles study of surface and subsurface O structures at Al(111).
Phys Rev 2001;B63:085405.
[76] Kiejna A, Lundqvist BI. Stability of oxygen adsorption sites and ultrathin aluminum oxide films on
Al(111). Surf Sci 2002;504(C):1–10.
[77] Hansen LB, Stoltze P, Nørskov JK, Clausen BS, Niemann W. Is there a contraction of the interatomic distance in small metal particles? Phys Rev Lett 1990;64(26):3155–8.
[78] Sun CQ. Oxygen-reduced inner potential and work function in VLEED. Vacuum 1997;48:865–9.
[79] Rotermund HH. Investigation of dynamic processes in adsorbed layers by photoemission electron
microscopy (PEEM). Surf Sci 1993;283:87–100.
[80] Zhang J, Dowben PA, Li D, Onellion M. Angle-resolved photoemission study of oxygen chemisorption on Gd(0001) Surf. Sci 1995;329(3):177–83.
[81] Thurgate SM, Sun CQ. Very low-energy electron diffraction analysis of oxygen on Cu(001). Phys
Rev 1995;B51:2410–7.
[82] Lindroos M, Pfnür H, Held G, Menzel D. Adsorbate induced reconstruction by strong chemisorption: Ru(001)p(22)-O. Surf Sci 1989;222:451–63.
[83] Pfnür H, Lindroos M, Menzel D. Investigation of adsorbates with LEED at very low energies
(VLEED). Surf Sci 1991;248:1–10.
[84] Thurgate SM, Hitchen G, Sun CQ. Surface structural determination by VLEED analysis. In:
MacDonald RJ, Taglauer EC, Wandelt KR, editors. The surface science: principles and applications. New York: Springer; 1996. p. 29.
[85] Stampfl C, Scheffler M. Theoretical study of O adlayers on Ru(0001) Phys. Rev B 1996;54:2868–72.
[86] Materer N, Starke U, Barbieri A, Döll R, Heinz K, Van Hove MA. Reliability of detailed LEED
structural analysis: Pt(111) and Pt(111)-p(22)-O. Surf Sci 1995;325:207–22.
[87] Wang YM, Li YS, Mitchell KAR. LEED crystallographic analysis for the half monolayer structure
formed by O(0001) at the Zr surface. Surf Sci 1995;342(1-3):272–80.
[88] Sun CQ, Tay BK, Sun XW, Lau SP. Solution certainty of the Cu(110)-(2 1)-O2 crystallography.
Int J Mod Phys B 2002;16(1-2):71–8.
[89] Sun CQ, Bai CL. Modeling of non-uniform electrical potential barriers for metal surfaces with
chemisorbed oxygen. J Phys: Condens. Matter 1997;9(27):5823–36.
[90] Sun CQ, Bai CL. Oxygen-induced non-uniformity in surface electrical potential barrier. Mod Phys
Lett 1997;B11(5):201–8.
[91] Hoeft JT, Kittle M, Polcik M, Bao S, Toomes RL, Kang JH, et al. Molecular adsorption bond
length at metal oxide surfaces: failure of current theoretical methods. Phys Rev Lett 2001;87(8):
086101.
[92] Sun CQ. A model of bonding and band-forming for oxides and nitrides. Appl Phys Lett 1998;
72(14):1706–8.
[93] Sun CQ, Bai CL. A model of bonding between oxygen and metal surfaces. J Phys Chem Solids
1997;58(6):903–12.
[94] Sun CQ. What effects in nature the two-phase on the O–Cu(001)? Mod Phys Lett 1997;B11:81–6.
[95] Sun CQ. Origin and processes of the O–Cu(001) and O–Cu(110) biphase ordering. Int J Mod Phys
B12(10) 1998:951–64.
[96] Sun CQ. Spectral sensitivity of the VLEED to the bonding geometry and the potential barrier of the
O–Cu(001) surface. Vacuum 1997;48(5):491–8.
[97] Sun CQ. Exposure-resolved VLEED from the O–Cu(001): bonding kinetics. Vacuum 1997;48:535–41.
[98] Sun CQ. O–Cu(001): I. Binding the signatures of LEED, STM PES in a bond-forming way
(review). Surf Rev Lett 2001;8(3):367–402.
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
669
[99] Sun CQ. O–Cu(001): II. VLEED quantification of the four-stage Cu3O2 bond- forming kinetics
(review). Surf Rev Lett 2001;8(6):703–34.
[100] Sun CQ. The sp orbital hybrid bonding of C, N and O to the fcc(001) surface of nickel and rhodium
(review). Surf Rev Lett 2000;7(3):347–63.
[101] Goldschmidt VM. Ber Deut Chem Ges 1927;60:1270.
[102] Pauling L. Atomic radii and interatomic distances in metals. J Am Chem Soc 1947;69(1):542–53.
[103] Keenan CW, Kleinfelter DC, Wood JH. General college chemistry. 6th ed. USA: Harper and Row
Publishers; 1979.
[104] Han WG, Zhang CT. A theory of non-linear stretch vibration of hydrogen bonds. J Phys: Cond
Mat 1991;3:27–35.
[105] Crabtree RH. A new type of hydrogen bond. Science 1998;282:2000.
[106] Hobza P, Havlas Z. The fluoroform. . .ethylene oxide complex exhibits a C–H. . .O anti-hydrogen
bond. Chem Phys Lett 1999;303(3-4):447–52.
[107] Atkins PW. Physical chemistry. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1990.
[108] Morrison SR. The chemical physics of surfaces. NY and London: Plenum Press; 1977.
[109] Baraldi G, Silvano L, Comelli G. Oxygen adsorption and ordering on Ru(101 0). Phys Rev B63
2001:115410.
[110] Over H, Kleinle G, Ertl G, Moritz W, Ernst KH, Wohlgemuth H, Christmann K, Schwarz E.
LEED structural analysis of the Co(101 0) surface. Surf Sci 1991;254(1–3):L469–74.
[111] Davis HL, Zehner DM. Structure of the clean Re(101 0) surface. J Vac Sci Technol 1980;17:190–3.
[112] Halicioglu T. Calculation of surface energies for low index planes of diamond. Surf Sci 1991;259:
L714–8.
[113] Begley AM, Kim SK, Jona F, Marcus PM. Surface relaxation of Rh{001}. Phys Rev B 1993;48(16):
12326–9.
[114] Teeter G, Erskine JL. Studies of clean metal surface relaxation experiment–theory discrepancies.
Surf Rev Lett 1999;6:813–7.
[115] Sokolov J, Jona F, Marcus PM. Parallel and perpendicular multilayer relaxation of Fe{310}. Phys
Rev B 1985;31:1929–35.
[116] Fu CL, Ohnishi S, Wimmer E, Freeman AJ. Energetics of surface multilayer relaxation on W(001):
evidence for short-range screening. Phys Rev Lett 1984;53(7):675–8.
[117] Teeter G, Erskine JL, Shi F, Van Hove MA. Surface roughness and LEED crystallography: analysis of flat and vicinal W(110). Phys Rev 1999;B60(3):1975–81.
[118] Cho JH, Oh DH, Kleinman. Core-level shifts of low coordination atoms at the W(320) stepped
surface. Phys Rev 2001;B64:115404.
[119] Zhang XG, Van Hove MA, Somorjai GA, Rous PJ, Tobin D, Gonis D, et al. Efficient determination
of multilayer relaxation in the Pt(210) and densely stepped kink surface. Phys Rev Lett 1991;67(10):
1298–303.
[120] Tian Y, Lin K-W, Jona F. Anomalous multilayer relaxation on a Cu(331) surface. Phys Rev B
2000;62(19):12844–8.
[121] Durukanoglu S, Kara A, Rahman TS. Local structural and vibrational properties of stepped surfaces: Cu(211), Cu(511), and Cu(331). Phys Rev 1997;B55(20):13894–993.
[122] Adams DL, Jensen V, Sun XF, Vollesen JH. Multilayer relaxation of the Al(210) surface. Phys Rev
B 1988;38(12):7913–31.
[123] Cho JH, Terakura K. Plane-wave-basis pseudopotential calculations of the surface relaxations of
Ti(0001) and Zr(0001). Phys Rev B 1997;56(15):9282–5.
[124] Wei CY, Lewis SP, Mele EJ, Rappe AM. Structure and vibrations of the vicinal copper (211) surface. Phys Rev B 1998;57(16):10062–8.
[125] Geng WT, Freeman AJ. Multilayer relaxation of Cu(331). Phys Rev B 2001;64:115401.
[126] Seyller T, Diehl RD, Jona F. Low-energy electron diffraction study of the multilayer relaxation of
Cu(211). J Vac Sci Technol A 1999;17(4):1635–8.
[127] Bohnen KP, Ho KM. Structure and dynamics at metal surfaces. Surf Sci Rep 1993;19:99–120.
[128] Rodriguez AM, Bozzolo G, Ferrante J. Structure and energetics of high index Fe, Al, Cu and Ni
surfaces using equivalent crystal theory. Surf Sci 1994;307–309:625.
670
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
[129] Walter S, Baier H, Weinelt M, Heinz K, Fauster Th. Quantitative determination of Cu(117) multilayer surface relaxations by LEED. Phys Rev B 2001;63:155407.
[130] Tian ZJ, Rahman TS. Energetics of stepped Cu surfaces. Phys Rev B 1993;47(15):9751–9.
[131] Qadri SB, Yang J, Ratna BR, Skelton EF, Hu JZ. Pressure induced structural transitions in
nanometer size particles of PbS. Appl Phys Lett 1996;69(15):2205–7.
[132] Gravil PA, Holloway S. Roughening and melting of stepped aluminum surfaces. Phys Rev B 1996;
53(16):11258–75.
[133] Meyerheim HL, Sander D, Popescu R, Kirschner J, Steadman P, Ferrer S. Surface structure and
stress in Fe monolayers on W(110). Phys Rev B 2001;64:045414.
[134] Davis HL, Hannon JB, Ray KB, Plummer EW. Anomalous interplanar expansion at the surface of
Be(0001). Phys Rev Lett 1992;68:2632–5.
[135] Adams DL, Sorensen CS. Multilayer relaxation of the Al(331) surface. Surf Sci 1986;166:495–511.
[136] Lang ND. Apparent barrier height in scanning tunneling microscopy. Phys Rev B 1988;37(17):
10395–8.
[137] Lang ND. Small adsorption dipole moment need not imply small charge transfers. Surf Sci 1983;
127:L118–22.
[138] Lang ND. Scanning tunneling microscopy III. Springer Series in Surf. Sci., vol. 29 Wiesendanger R,
Güntherodt HJ, editors (Berlin), 1993, p. 7–12.
[139] Ghijsen J, Tjeng LH, Van Elp J, Eskes H, Westerink J, Sawatzky GA, Czyzyk MT. Electronic
structure of Cu2O and CuO. Phys Rev 1988;B38:11322–30.
[140] Marabelli F, Parravicini GB, Salghetti-Drioli F. Optical gap of CuO. Phys Rev 1995;B52:1433–6.
[141] Dose V. Momentum-resolved inverse photoemission. Surf Sci Rep 1986;5:337–78.
[142] Rotermund HH, Lauterbach J, Haas G. The formation of subsurface oxygen on Pt(100). Appl Phys
A: Solids and Surf 1993;57(6):507–11.
[143] Lauterbach J, Rotermund HH. Spatio-temporal pattern formation during the catalytic CO-oxidation on Pt(100). Surf Sci 1994;311:231–46.
[144] Lauterbach J, Asakura K, Rotermund HH. Subsurface oxygen on Pt(100): kinetics of the transition
from chemisorbed to subsurface state and its reaction with CO, H2 and O2. Surf Sci 1994;313:52–
63.
[145] Pendry JB. Low energy electron diffraction: the theory and its application to the determination of
surface structure. London: Academic Press; 1974.
[146] Jones RO, Jennings PJ, Jepsen O. Surface barrier in metals: a new model with application to
W(001). Phys Rev B 1984;29(12):6474–80.
[147] Jennings P. Private communication, Murdoch University, Perth; 1994.
[148] Sun CQ. Modeling of bond structure and potential barrier of the O–Cu(100) surface characterized
by STM/S and VLEED. PhD Thesis, Murdoch University Press; 1995.
[149] Zeng HC, McFarlane RA, Sodhi RNS, Mitchell KAR. LEED crystallographic studies for the
chemisorption of oxygen on the (100) surface of copper. Can J Chem 1988;66:2054–62.
[150] Zeng HC, Mitchell KAR. Further LEED investigations of missing row models for the Cu(100)p
p
( 22 2)R45 -O surface structure. Surf Sci 1990;239:L571–8.
[151] Fujita T, Okawa Y, Matsumoto Y, Tanaka K. Phase boundaries of nanometer scale c(22)-O
domains on the Cu(100) surface. Phys Rev 1996;B54:2167–74.
[152] Atrei A, Bardi U, Rovida G, Zanazzi E, Casalone G. Test of structural models for Cu(001)p
p
( 22 2)R45 -O by LEED intensity analysis. Vacuum 1990;41(1–3):333–6.
[153] Robinson IK, Vlieg E. Oxygen-induced missing-row reconstruction of Cu(001) and Cu(001)-vicinal
surfaces. Phys Rev B 1990;42:6954–62.
[154] Asensio MC, Ashwin MJ, Kilcoyne ALD, Woodruff DP, Robinson AW, Lindner T, et al. The
structure of oxygen adsorption phases on Cu(100). Surf Sci 1990;236:1–14.
[155] Wuttig M, Franchy R, Ibach H. Oxygen on Cu(100): a new type of an adsorbate induced reconstruction. J Electr Spectro 1987;44:317–23.
[156] Shen YG, Qayyum A, O’Connor DJ, King BV. Oxygen-induced surface (2 2)p4g reconstruction
of Rh(001). Phys Rev B 1998;58(15):10025–30.
[157] Tucker CW. Oxygen faceting on Rh(210) and Rh(100) surfaces. Acta Meta 1967;15:1465–74.
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
671
[158] Ueda K, Takano A, Tanaka K. Oxygen adsorption study on Rh(100) surface by electron-stimulated
desorption spectroscopy. Jpn J Appl Phys B 1995;34:3662–5.
[159] Zacchigna M, Astaldi C, Prince KC, Sastry M, Comicioli C, Rosei R, et al. Photoemission from
atomic and molecular adsorbates on Rh(100). Surf Sci 1996;347:53–62.
[160] Alfe D, de Gironcoli S, Baroni S. The reconstruction of Rh(100) upon oxygen adsorption. Surf Sci
1998;410(2–3):151–7.
[161] Baraldi A, Cerdá J, Martı́n-Gago JA, Comelli G, Lizzit S, Paolucci G, et al. Oxygen induced
reconstruction of the Rh(100) surface: general tendency towards threefold oxygen adsorption site
on Rh surfaces. Phys Rev Lett 1999;82(24):4874–7.
[162] Baraldi A, Dhanak VR, Comelli G, Prince KC, Rosei R. Order–disorder phase transition of oxygen
on Rh(100). Phys Rev B56 1997:10511–7.
[163] Baraldi A, Dhanak VR, Comelli G, Prince KC, Rosei R. O/Rh(100) p(22) ! c(22) order–disorder phase transition. Phys Rev 1996;B53:4073–7.
[164] Dubois LH. Vibrational spectra of atomic adsorbates: carbon, oxygen, and sulfur on Rh(100).
J Chem Phys 1992;77:5228–33.
[165] Fisher GB, Schmieg SJ. The molecular and atomic states of oxygen adsorbed on Rh(100): adsorption. J Vac Sci Technol A 1983;1:1064–9.
[166] Mercer JR, Finetti P, Scantlebury MJ, Beierlein U, Dhanak VR, McGrath R. Angle-resolved photoemission study of half-monolayer O and S structures on the Rh(100) surface. Phys Rev B 1997;55:
10014–21.
[167] Sun CQ. Driving force behind the O–Rh(100) radial and clock reconstruction Mod. Phys Lett B
1998;12(20):849–57.
[168] Wintterlin J, Schuster R, Coulman DJ, Ertl G, Behm RJ. Atomic motion and mass transport in the
oxygen induced reconstructions of Cu(110). J Vac Sci Technol B 1991;9(2):902–8.
[169] Bader M, Puschmann A, Ocal C, Haase J. Surface extended x-ray absorption fine-structure study of
the O(2 1)/Cu(110) system: missing-row reconstruction and anisotropy in the surface mean free
path and in the surface Debye–Waller factor. Phys Rev Lett 1986;57:3273–6.
[170] Yarmoff JA, Donna MC, Huang JH, Kim S, Stanley WR. Impact-collision ion-scattering spectroscopy of Cu(110) and Cu(110)-(2 1)-O using 5-keV 6Li+. Phys Rev B 1986;33:3856–8.
[171] Sun CQ. On the nature of the O–Rh(110) multiphase ordering. Surf Sci 1998;398(3):L320–0L326.
[172] Stokbro K, Baroni S. Surface chemistry of metal–oxygen interactions: a first-principles study of
O:Rh(110). Surf Sci 1997;370:166–78.
[173] Schwarz E, Lenz J, Wohlgemuth H, Christmann K. Interaction of oxygen with a Rh(110) surface.
Vacuum 1990;41:167–70.
[174] Murray PW, Leibsle FM, Li Y, Guo Q, Bowker M, Thornton G, et al. STM Study of the oxygeninduced reconstruction of Rh(110). Phys Rev 1993;B47(19):12976–9.
[175] Kundrotas PJ, Lapinskas S, Rosengren A. Theoretical study of the oxygen-induced missing-row
reconstruction on the Rh(110) surface. Surf Sci 1997;377–379:7–10.
[176] Gierer M, Over H, Ertl G, Wohlgemuth H, Schwarz E, Christmann K. LEED analysis of the
Rh(110)-(2 2)-O phase. Surf Sci 1993;297:L73–8.
[177] Dhanak VR, Prince KC, Rosei R, Murray PW, Leibsle FM, Bowker M, et al. STM study of oxygen
on Rh(110). Phys Rev 1994;B49(8):5585–90.
[178] Dhanak VR, Comelli G, Cautero G, Paolucci G, Prince KC, Kiskinova M, et al. (1 n) Reconstruction of the Rh(110) surface with N=2, 3, 4, 5. Chem Phys Lett 1992;188(3–4):237–40.
[179] Comicioli C, Dhanak VR, Comelli G, Astaldi C, Prince KC, Rosei R, et al. Structure of
Rh(110)(12) and Rh(110)-(22)p2mg-O surfaces. Chem Phys Lett 1993;214(5):438–42.
[180] Comelli G, Dhanak VR, Kiskinova M, Paolucci G, Prince K C, Rosei R. Adsorption of oxygen on
Rh(110) and reactivity of different overlayer structures. Surf Sci 260- 1992;270:360–4.
[181] Comelli G, Dhanak VR, Kiskinova M, Pangher N, Paolucci G, Prince KC, et al. Adsorption of
oxygen on Rh(110)—A LEED, Auger-electron spectroscopy and thermal-desorption study. Surf Sci
1992;260(1–3):7–13.
[182] Batteas JD, Barbieri A, Starkey EK, Van Hove MA, Somorjai GA. Rh(110)-p2mg(21)-2O surface
672
[183]
[184]
[185]
[186]
[187]
[188]
[189]
[190]
[191]
[192]
[193]
[194]
[195]
[196]
[197]
[198]
[199]
[200]
[201]
[202]
[203]
[204]
[205]
[206]
[207]
[208]
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
structure determined by automated tensor LEED: structure changes with oxygen coverage. Surf Sci
1995;339:142–50.
Sun CQ. On the nature of the O-Co(101 0) triphase ordering. Surf Rev Lett 1998;5(5):1023–8.
Schwarz E, Ernst KH, Gonser-Buntrock C, Neuber M, Christmann K. Ordered oxygen phases on a
Co(101 0) surface. Vacuum 1990;41(1–3):180–4.
Gierer M, Over H, Pech P, Schwarz E, Christmann K. The adsorption geometry of the (21)-2O
oxygen phase formed on the Co(101 0) surface. Surf Sci 1997;370:L201–6.
Poluston S, Tikhov M, Lambert. The adsorption geometry of the (21)-2O oxygen phase formed
on the Co(101 0) surface. Surf Rev Lett 1994;1:655.
Orent TW, Hansen RS. Interactions of nitric-oxide and oxygen with Ru(1010) Surf. Sci 1977;67:
325–50.
Jensen F, Besenbacher F, Lagsgaard E, Stensgaard I. Two new oxygen induced reconstructions on
Cu(111). Surf Sci 269/ 1992;270:400–4.
Sun CQ. Oxygen interaction with the Ru(0001) and Rh(111) surfaces: bond forming kinetics. Mod
Phys Lett B 2000;14:219–28.
Wong KC, Liu W, Mitchell KAR. LEED crystallographic analysis for the Rh(111)-(21)-O surface
structure. Surf Sci 1996;360:137–43.
Thiel PA, Yates Jr JT, Weinberg WH. The interaction of oxygen with the Rh(111) surface. Surf Sci
1979;82:22–44.
Peterlinz KA, Sibener SJ. Absorption, adsorption, and desorption studies of the oxygen/Rh(111)
system using O2, NO and NO2. J Phys Chem 1995;99:2817–25.
Gibson KD, Colonell JI, Sibener S. Velocity distribution of recombinatively desorbed O2 originating from surface and sub-surface oxygen/Rh(111). J Surf Sci 1995;343:L1151–5.
Ganduglia-Pirovano MV, Scheffler M. Structural and electronic properties of chemisorbed oxygen
on Rh(111). Phys Rev B 1999;59(23):15533–43.
Narloch B, Held G, Menzel D. Structural arrangement by co-adsorption: a LEED IV determination of the Ru(001)-p(22) (2O+CO) structure. Surf Sci 1994;317:131–42.
Fuggle JC, Madey TE, Steinkilberg M, Menzel D. Photoelectron spectroscopic studies of adsorption of CO and oxygen on Ru(001). Surf Sci 1975;52:521–41.
Sun CQ. O-Ru(0001) surface bond-and-band formation. Surf Rev Lett 1998;5(2):465–71.
Schmidt M, Wolter H, Wandelt K. Work-function oscillations during the surfactant induced layerby-layer growth of copper on oxygen pre-covered Ru(0001) Surf. Sci 1994;307:507–13.
Schmid AK, Hwang RQ, Bartelt NC. Predicting the future of a complicated surface structure: grain
coarsening of p(22)O/Ru(0001) Phys. Rev Lett 1998;80:2153–6.
Pfnür H, Held G, Lindroos M, Menzel D. Oxygen induced reconstruction of a close-packed
surface: a LEED IV study on Ru(001)-p(21)O. Surf Sci 1989;220:43–58.
Woodruff DP, Delchar TA. Modern techniques of surface science. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press; 1986.
Nørskov JK. Theory of adsorption and adsorbate-induced reconstruction. Surf Sci 1994;299/300:
690–705.
Kostov KL, Reauscher H, Menzel D. The role of coadsorbed oxygen in NCO formation on
Ru(001). Surf Sci 287/ 1993;288:283–7.
Mills DL. Theory of STM-induced enhancement of dynamic dipole moments on crystal surfaces.
Phys Rev B 2002;65:125419.
Kuk Y, Silverman PJ. Role of tip structure in scanning tunneling microscopy. Appl Phys Lett 1986;
48:1597.
Wöll C, Wilson RJ, Chiang S, Zeng HC, Mitchell KAR. Oxygen on Cu(100) surface structure
studied by STM and by LEED multiple-scattering calculations. Phys Rev B 1990;42:11926–9.
Tanaka K-I, Fujita T, Okawa Y. Oxygen induced order-disorder restructuring of a Cu(100) surface.
Surf Sci 1998;401:L407–12.
Hitchen G, Thurgate SM, Jennings P. A LEED fine structure study of oxygen adsorption on
Cu(001) and Cu(111). Aust J Phys 1990;43:519–34.
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
673
[209] Sun CQ. Time-resolved VLEED from the O–Cu(001): atomic processes of oxidation. Vacuum 1997;
48:525–30.
[210] Van de Riet E, Smeets JBJ, Fluit JM, Niehaus A. The structure of a clean and oxygen covered
copper surface studied by low energy ion scattering. Surf Sci 1989;214:111–40.
[211] Bronckers RPN, De Wit AGJ. Reconstruction of the oxygen-covered Cu(110) surface identified
with low energy Ne+ and H2O+ ion scattering. Surf Sci 1981;112(1–2):133–52.
[212] Döbler U, Baberschke K, Haase J, Puschmann A. Azimuthal- and polar-angle-dependent surface
extended x-ray-absorption fine-structure study: (2 1)O on Cu(110). Phys Rev Lett 1984;52:1437–40.
[213] Döbler U, Baberschke UK, Vvedensky DD, Pendry JB. X-ray absorption near-edge structure of
adsorbate-induced reconstruction (21)O on Cu(110). Surf Sci 1986;178:679–85.
[214] Feidenhans’l R, Stensgaard I. Oxygen adsorption induced reconstruction of Cu(110) studied by
high energy ion scattering. Surf Sci 1983;133:453–68.
[215] Kuk Y, Chua FM, Silverman PJ, Meyer JA. O chemisorption on Cu(110) by STM. Phys Rev B
1990;41(18):12393–402.
[216] Parkin SR, Zeng HC, Zhou MY, Mitchell KAR. LEED crystallographic determination for the
Cu(110)2 1-O surface structure. Phys Rev B 1990;41:5432–5.
[217] Dürr H, Schneider R, Fauster T. Added-row growth of the (21)O–Cu(110) reconstruction. Phys
Rev B 1991;43(2):1802–4.
[218] Dürr H, Fauster Th, Schneider R. Surface structure determination of the (2 1)O–Cu(110) reconstruction by low-energy ion scattering. Surf Sci 1991;244:237–46.
[219] Jensen F, Besenbacher F, Lagsgaard E, Stensgaard I. Surface reconstruction of Cu(110) induced by
oxygen chemisorption. Phys Rev B 1990;41:10233–6.
[220] Coulman DJ, Wintterlin J, Behm RJ, Ertl G. Novel mechanism for the formation of chemisorption
phases: the (21)O–Cu(110) ‘added-row’ reconstruction. Phys Rev Lett 1990;64:1761–4.
[221] Kern K, Niehus H, Schatz A, Zeppenfeld P, Goerge J, Comsa G. Long-range spatial self-organization in the adsorbate-induced restructuring of surfaces: Cu{100}-(2 1)O. Phys Rev Lett 1991;
67:855–8.
[222] Haase J, Hillert B, Bradshaw AM. Comment on ‘Oxygen chemisorption on Cu(110): an atomic
view by scanning tunneling microscopy’. Phys Rev Lett 1990;64(25):3098–101.
[223] Pouthier V, Ramseyer C, Girardet C, Zeppenfeld P, Diercks V, Halmer R. Characterization of the
Cu(110)-(2 1)O reconstruction by means of molecular adsorption. Phys Rev B 1998;58(15):9998–
10002.
[224] Vlieg E, Driver SM, Goedtkindt P, Knight PJ, Liu W, et al. Structure determination of Cu(410)-O
using X-ray diffraction and DFT calculations. Surf Sci 2002;516(1–2):16–32.
[225] Coulman DJ, Wintterlin J, Barth JV, Ertl G, Behm RJ. An STM investigation of the Cu(110)-C(6 2)O system. Surf Sci 1990;240:151–62.
[226] Feidenhans’l R, Grey F, Johnson RL, Nielsen M. Determination of the Cu(110)-c(62)-O structure
by X-ray diffraction. Phys Rev B 1991;44:1875–9.
[227] Liu W, Wong K C, Mitchell K A R. Structural details for the Cu(110)-c(6 2)-O surface determined by tensor LEED. Surf Sci 1995;339(1–2):151–8.
[228] Dorenbos G, Breeman M, Boerma DO. Low-energy ion-scattering study of the oxygen-induced
reconstructed p(2 1) and c(6 2) surfaces of Cu(110). Phys Rev B 1993;47(3):1580–8.
[229] Thurgate SM, Jennings PJ. Effects of oxygen adsorption on the LEED fine structure features of
Cu(001), Cu(110), Cu(111) and Ni(001). Surf Sci 1983;131:309–20.
[230] Dubois LH. Oxygen chemisorption and porous oxide formation on Cu(111):a high resolution
EELS study. Surf Sci 1982;119:399–410.
[231] Niehus H. Surface reconstruction of Cu(111) upon oxygen adsorption. Surf Sci 1983;130:41–9.
[232] Haase J, Kuhr H-J. Reconstruction and relaxation of the oxygen covered Cu(111) surface: a SEXAFS study. Surf Sci 1988;203:L695–699.
[233] Jacob W, Dose V, Goldmann A. Atomic adsorption of oxygen on Cu(111) and Cu(110). Appl Phys
A 1986;41:145–50.
[234] Matsumoto T, Bennett RA, Stone P, Yamada T, Domen K, Bowker M. Scanning tunneling
microscopy studies of oxygen adsorption on Cu(111). Surf Sci 2001;471(1–3):225–45.
674
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
[235] Pauling L. The nature of the chemical bond. 3rd ed. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press; 1960.
[236] Janin E, Schenck H, Von Göthelid M, Karlsson UO, Svensson M. Bridge-bonded atomic oxygen
on Pt(110). Phys Rev B 2000;61(19):13144–9.
[237] Schoeder T, Giorgi JB, Hammoudeh A, Magg N, Bäumer M, Freund H-J. Oxygen-induced p(23)
reconstruction on Mo(112) studied by LEED and STM. Phys Rev B 2002;65:115411.
[238] Santra AK, Min BK, Goodman DW. Oxygen-induced p(1x3)-O reconstruction on Mo(112): a
precursor to the epitaxial formation of MoO2(100). Surf Sci 2002;513(3):L441–4.
[239] Tan KC, Guo YP, Wee ATS, Huan CHA. (21) oxygen superstructure on Cu(210) surface studied
by quantitative LEED analysis and STM. Surf Rev Lett 1999;6:859–63.
Guo YP, Tan KC, Wang HQ, Huan CHA, Wee ATS. Low-energy electron diffraction study of
oxygen-induced reconstructions on Cu(210). Phys Revb 2002;B66:165410.
[240] Sokolov J, Jona F, Marcus PM. Europhys Lett 1986;1:401.
[241] Wolter H, Meinel K, Ammer Ch, Wandelt K, Neddermeyer H. O-mediated layer growth of Cu on
Ru(0001). J Phys: Condens Matter 1999;11:19–37.
[242] Shen YG, O’Connor DJ, Vanzee H, Wandelt K, Macdonald RJ. The growth of thin Cu films
on an O-precovered Ru(0001) surface studied by low-energy ion-beams. Thin Solid Films 1995;
263(1):72–8.
[243] Hitchen G, Thurgate S. Determination of azimuth angle, incidence angle, and contact-potential
difference for LEED fine-structure measurements. Phys Rev B 1988;38(13):8668–72.
[244] Sun CQ. Coincidence in angular-resolved VLEED: Brilluion zones, atomic shift, and energy bands.
Vacuum 1997;48(6):543–6.
[245] Sun CQ. Angular-resolved VLEED from O–Cu(001): valence bands, chemical bonds, potential
barrier, and energy states. Int J Mod Phys 1997;B11(25):3073–91.
[246] Tanaka H, Yoshinobu J, Kawai M. Oxygen-induced reconstruction of the Pd(110) surface—an
STM study. Surf Sci 327(1–2 1995;L505–L509.
[247] Ladas S. Kinetic oscillation during the catalytic CO oxidation on Pd(110): the role of subsurface
oxygen. Surf Sci 1989;219:88–106.
[248] Nishijima M. Electron energy loss spectra of a Pd(110) clean surfaces. Solid State Commun 1986;
58:75–82.
[249] Sun CQ. Nature and kinetics of the O-Pd(110) surface bonding. Vacuum 1998;49(3):227–32.
[250] He J-W, Ulrich M, Norton PR. Interaction of oxygen with a Pd(110) surface. II. Kinetics and
energetics. J Chem Phys 1989;90:5088–93.
[251] He J-W, Ulrich M, Griffiths K, Norton PR. Interaction of oxygen with a Pd(110) surface. I.
Structures and coverages. J Chem Phys 1989;90:5082–7.
[252] Jo M. Oxygen adsorption on Pd(110) at 300 K low energy electron diffraction and electron energy
loss spectroscopy study. Chem Phys Lett 1986;131:106–11.
[253] Tucker CW. Chemisorbed oxygen structures on the rhodium (110) surface. J Appl Phys 1966;
37(11):4147–55.
[254] Alfe D, Rudolf P, Kiskinova M, Rosei R. HREED spectra of various oxygen structures on
Rh(110). Chem Phys Lett 1993;211(2–3):220–6.
[255] Brena B, Comelli G, Ursella L, Paolucci G. Oxygen on Pd(110)-substrate reconstruction and
adsorbate geometry by tensor LEED. Surf Sci 1997;375:150–60.
[256] Bondino F, Comelli G, Baraldi A, Rosei R. Photoelectron diffraction study of the low-temperature
low-coverage oxygen layer on Rh(110). Phys Rev B 2002;66:075402.
[257] Schwegmann S, Seitsonen AP, Dietrich H, Bludau H, Over H, Jacobi K, et al. The adsorption of
atomic nitrogen on Ru(0001): geometry and energetics. Chem Phys Lett 1997;264(6):680–6.
[258] Castner DG, Somorjai GA. LEED, AES and thermal desorption studies of the oxidation of the
rhodium (111) surface. Appl Surf Sci 1980;6:29–38.
[259] Starke U, Van Hove MA, Somorjai GA. Adsorbate-induced relaxation of close-packed fcc and hcp
metal surfaces. Prog Surf Sci 1994;46:304–19.
[260] Todorova M, Li WX, Ganduglia-Pirovano MV, Stampfl C, Reuter K, Scheffler M. Role of
subsurface oxygen in oxide formation at transition metal surfaces. Phys Rev Lett 2002;89:096103.
[261] Quinn P, Brown D, Woodruff DP, Noakes TCQ, Bailey P. Structural analysis of the
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
[262]
[263]
[264]
[265]
[266]
[267]
[268]
[269]
[270]
[271]
[272]
[273]
[274]
[275]
[276]
[277]
[278]
[279]
[280]
[281]
[282]
[283]
[284]
675
Ru(0001)(11)-O and Ru(0001)(21)-O structures by medium energy in scattering. Surf Sci 2001;
491(1-2):208–18.
Over H, Kim YD, Seitsonen AP, Wendt S, Lundgren E, Schmid M, et al. Atomic-scale structure
and catalytic reactivity of the RuO2(110) surface. Science 2000;287:1474–6.
Madey TE, Engelhardt HA, Menzel D. Absorption of oxygen and oxidation of CO on the
ruthenium (001) surface. Surf Sci 1975;48:304–28.
Renisch S, Schuster R, Wintterlin J, Ertl G. Kinetics of adatom motion under the influence of
mutual interactions: O/Ru(0001) Phys. Rev Lett 1999;82(19):3839–42.
Huang L, Chevrier J, Zeppenfeld P, Cosma G. Observation by STM of hexagonal Au(111) surface
reconstruction induced by oxygen. Appl Phys Lett 1995;66(8):935–7.
Carlisle CI, Fujimoto T, Sim WS, King DA. Atomic imaging of the transition between oxygen
chemisorption and oxide film growth on Ag{111}. Surf Sci 2000;470(1–2):15–31.
Sun CQ, Xie H, Zhang W, Ye H, Hing P. Preferential oxidation of diamond {111}. J Phys D 2000;
33(17):2196–9.
Egelhoff Jr WF, Chen PJ, McMichael RD, Powell CJ, Deslattes RD, Serpa FG, et al. Surface
oxidation as a diffusion barrier for Al deposited on ferromagnetic metals. Journal of Applied
Physics 2001;89(9):5209–14.
Ganduglia-Pirovano MV, Reuter K, Scheffler M. Stability of subsurface oxygen at Rh(111). Phys
Rev B 2002;65:245426.
Reuter K, Ganduglia-Pirovano MV, Stampfl C, Scheffler M. Metastable precursors during the
oxidation of the Ru(0001) surface. Phys Rev B 2002;65:165403.
Daniel WM, Kim Y, Peebles HC, White JM. Adsorption of Ag, O2 and N2O on Rh(100). Surf Sci
1981;111:189–204.
Heinz K, Oed W, Pendry JB. Direct low-energy electron-diffraction analysis of c(2 2)O/Ni(100)
including substrate. Phys Rev B 1990;41:10179.
Chubb SR, Marcus PM, Heinz K, Müller K. Adsorption-induced relaxation of Ni(001)-c(2 2)-O.
Phys Rev B 1990;41:5417.
Norman D, Stöhr J, Jaeger R, Durham PJ, Pendry JB. Determination of local atomic arrangements
at surfaces from near-edge X-ray absorption fine-structure studies: O on Ni(100). Phys Rev Lett
1983;51:2052.
Hörmandinger G, Pendry JB, Leibsle FM, Murray PW, Joyner RW, Thornton G. Scanningtunneling-microscopy investigation of the Ni(100)-p(2 2)C surface. Phys Rev B 1993;48:8356.
Onuferko JH, Woodruff DP, Holland BW. LEED structure analysis of the Ni{100}-(22)p4g-C
structure: a case of adsorbate-induced substrate distortion. Surf Sci 1979;87:357–74.
Alfe D, de Gironcoli S, Baroni S. The reconstruction of nickel and rhodium (001) surfaces upon
carbon, nitrogen and oxygen adsorptions. Surf Sci 1999;437:18–28.
Norris AG, Schedin F, Thornton G, Dhanak VR, Turner TS, McGrath R. Surface X-ray diffraction study of the Rh(100)(22)-O reconstruction. Phys Rev 2000;B62(3):2113–7.
Kirsch JE, Harris S. Electronic structure studies of Ni(001) surface reconstructions resulting from
carbon, nitrogen, or oxygen atom adsorption. Surf Sci 2003;522:125–42.
Wenzel L, Arvanitis D, Daum W, Rotermund HHJ, Stohr J, Babershke K, et al. Structural determination of an adsorbate-induced surface reconstruction: p4g(2 2)N versus c(2 2)O on Ni(100).
Phys Rev B 1987;36:7689.
Arvanitis D, Babershke K, Wenzel L. Multiple-scattering effects in surface extended X-ray absorption fine structure. Phys Rev B 1988;37:7143.
Kilcoyne ALD, Woodruff DP, Robinson AW, Lindner T, Somers JS, Bradshaw AM. Photoelectron diffraction study of the Ni(100) (2 2)-C(p4g) and Ni(100) (2 2)-N(p4g) structures. Surf Sci
1991;253:107.
Dudzik E, Norris AG, McGrath R, Charlton G, Thornton G, Murphy B, et al. The
Ni(100)(22)p4g-N reconstruction determined by surface X-ray diffraction. Surf Sci 1999;433/435:
317.
Bader M, Ocal C, Hillert B, Hass J, Bradshaw AM. Surface extended-x-ray-absorption finestructure study at the carbon K edge: the p4g(22)-C/Ni(100) system. Phys Rev B 1987;35:5900.
676
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
[285] Gauthier Y, Baudoing-Savois R, Heinz K, Landskron H. Structure determination of p4g Ni(100)(2 multiplied by 2)C by LEED. Surf Sci 251/ 1991;252:493–7.
[286] Leibsle FM. STM study of the (22) p4g nitrogen-induced surface reconstruction on Ni(100). Surf
Sci 1993;297:98–105.
[287] Klink C, Olesen L, Besenbacher F, Stensgaad I, Lagsgaard E, Lang ND. Interaction of C with
Ni(100): atomic-resolved studies of the ‘clock’ reconstruction. Phys Rev Lett 1993;71:4350–3.
[288] Sun CQ. Mechanism for the N–Ni(100) clock reconstruction. Vacuum 1999;52(3):347–51.
[289] Sun CQ, Hing P. Driving force and bond strain for the C-Ni(100) surface reaction. Surf Rev Lett
1999;6(1):109–14.
[290] Fang CSA. Surface structural transition of absorption of oxygen on Ag(100). Surf Sci 1990;235:
L291–4.
[291] Rocca M, Savio L, Vattuone L, Burghaus U, Palomba V, Novelli N, et al. Phase transition of dissociatively adsorbed oxygen on Ag(001). Phys Rev B 2000;61(1):213–27.
[292] Cipriani G, Loffreda D, Dal Corso A, de Dironcoli S, Baroni S. Adsorption of atomic oxygen on
Ag(001): a study based on density-functional theory. Surf Sci 2002;501(3):182–90.
[293] Savio L, Vattuone L, Rocca M, De Renzi V, Gardonio S, Mariani C, et al. Substrate reconstruction
and electronic surface states: Ag(001). Surf Sci 2001;486(1–2):65–72.
[294] Tjeng LH, Meinders MB, Sawatzky GA. Electronic structure of clean and oxygen covered silver
(110) surface. Surf Sci 1990;223:341–68.
[295] Felter TE, Weinberg WH, Ya Lastushkina G, Boronin AI, Zhdan PA, Borskov GK, et al. A LEED
study of the (100) and (111) surfaces of the intermetallic. Surf Sci 1982;118:369–79.
[296] Koller R, Bergermayer W, Kresse G, Hebenstreit ELD, Konvicka C, Schmid M, et al. The structure
of the oxygen induced (15) reconstruction of V(100). Surf Sci 2001;480:11–24.
[297] Kuk Y, Silverman PJ. Scanning tunneling microscope instrumentation. Rev Sci Instrum 1989;60:
165–80.
[298] Pendry JB, Pretre AB, Krutzen BCH. Theory of the scanning tunnelling microscope. J Phys: Condens Matter 1991;3:4313–21.
[299] Sun CQ, Li S. Oxygen derived DOS features in the valence band of metals. Surf Rev Lett 2000;7(3):
L213–7.
[300] Sesselmann W, Conrad H, Ertl G, Küppers J, Woratschek B, Haberland H. Probing the local
density of states of metal surfaces by de-excitation of metastable noble-gas atoms. Phys Rev Lett
1983;50:446–50.
[301] Belash VP, Klimova IN, Kormilets VI, Trubjtsjn V Y, Finkelstein L D. Transformation of the
electronic structure of Cu into Cu2O in the adsorption of oxygen. Surf Rev Lett 1999;6(3/4):383–8.
[302] Courths R, Cord B, Wern H, Saalfeld H, Hüfner S. Dispersion of the oxygen-induced bands on
Cu(110)-an angle-resolved UPS study of the system p(21)O/Cu(110). Solid State Commun 1987;
63(7):619–23.
[303] Uehara Y, Matsumoto T, Ushioda SIdentification of O atoms on a Cu(001) surface by scanning
tunneling microscope light emission spectra. Phys Rev 2002;B66:075413.
[304] Sürgers C, Schöck M, Löhneysen HV. Oxygen-induced surface structure of Nb(110). Surf Sci 2001;
471:209–18.
[305] Binnig G, Frank KH, Fuchs H, Garcia N, Reihl B, Rohrer H, et al. Tunneling spectroscopy and
inverse photoemission: image and field states. Phys Rev Lett 1985;55:991.
[306] Jung T, Mo YW, Himpsel FJ. Identification of metals in scanning tunneling microscopy via image
states. Phys Rev Lett 1995;74:1641.
[307] Portlupi M, Duo L, Isella G, Bertacco R, Marcon M, Ciccacci F. Electronic structure of epitaxial
thin NiO(001) films grow on Ag (0001): towards a firm experimental basis. Phys Rev B 2001;64:
165402.
[308] Pantel R, Bujor M, Bardolle J. Continuous measurement of surface potential variations during
oxygen adsorption on the (100), (110) and (111) faces of niobium using mirror electron microscope.
Surf Sci 1977;62:589–609.
[309] Warren S, Flavell W R, Thomas AG, Hollingworth J, Wincott PL, Prime AF, et al. Photoemission
studies of single crystal CuO(100). J Phys: Condens Matter 1999;11(26):5021–43.
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
677
[310] Emberly EG, Kirczenow G. Anti-resonances in molecular wires. J Phys: Condens Matter 1999;11:
6911–26.
[311] Chen CT, Smith NV. Unoccupied surface states on clean and oxygen-covered Cu(110) and Cu(111).
Phys Rev B 1989;40(11):7487–90.
[312] Pillo T, Zimmermann R, Steiner P, Hufner S. The electronic structure of PdO found by photoemission (UPS and XPS) and inverse photoemission (BIS). J Phys Condens Matter 1997;9(19):
3987–9912.
[313] Yagi K, Fukutani H. Oxygen adsorption site of Pd(110)c(2*4)-O: analysis of ARUPS compared
with STM image. Surf Sci 1998;412-413:489–94.
[314] Ozawa R, Yamane A, Morikawa K, Ohwada M, Suzuki K, Fukutani H. Angle-resolved UPS study
of the oxygen-induced 21 surface of Cu(110). Surf Sci 1996;346(1–3):237–42.
[315] Wang Y, Wei X, Tian Z, Cao Y, Zhai R, Ushikubo T, Sato K, Zhuang S. An AES, UPS and
HREELS study of the oxidation and reaction of Nb(110). Surf Sci 1997;372(1–3):L285–90.
[316] Boronin AI, Koscheev SV, Zhidomirov GM. XPS and UPS study of oxygen states on silver. J Elec
Spec Rel Phen 1998;96(1–3):43–51.
[317] Aprelev AM, Grazhulis VA, Ionov AM, Lisachenko AA. UPS (8.43 and 21.2 eV) data on the
evolution of DOS spectra near EE of Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8 under thermal and light treatments. Physica
C 1994;235–240(pt.2):1015–6.
[318] Howard A, Clark DNS, Mitchell CEJ, Egdell RG, Dhanak VR. Initial and final state effects in
photoemission from Au nanocluaters on TiO2(110). Surf Sci 2002;518:210–24.
[319] Tillborg H, Nilsson A, Hernnas B, Martensson N. O/Cu(100) studied by core level spectroscopy.
Surf Sci 1992;260–70:300–4.
[320] Lizzit S, Baraldi A, Groso A, Reuter K, Ganduglia-Pirovano MV, Stampfl C, et al. Surface corelevel shifts of clean and oxygen-covered Ru(0001). Phys Rev B 2001;63:205419.
[321] Yang DQ, Sacher E. Initial- and final-state effects on metal cluster/substrate interactions, as determined by XPS: copper clusters on Dow Cyclotene and highly oriented pyrolytic graphite. Appl Surf
Sci 2002;195:187–95.
[322] Pforte F, Gerlach A, Goldmann A, Matzdorf R, Braun J, Postnikov A. Wave-vector-dependent
symmetry analysis of a photoemission matrix element: the quasi-one-dimensional model system
Cu(110)(21)O. Phys Rev B 2001;63(16):165405.
[323] Benndorf C, Egert B, Keller B, Seidel H, Thieme F. Oxygen interaction with Cu(100) studied by
AES, ELS, LEED and work function changes. J Phys Chem Solids 1979;40:877–86.
[324] Benndorf C, Egert B, Keller G, Thieme F. The initial oxidation of Cu(001) single crystal surfaces:
an electron spectroscopic investigation. Surf Sci 1978;74:216–28.
[325] Sun CQ. A bond-and-band model for the behavior of nitrides. Mod Phys Lett 1997;11:1021–9.
[326] Fu YQ, Sun CQ, Du HJ, Yan BB. Crystalline CN forms harder than the hexagonal SiCN crystallite. J Phys D Appl Phys 2001;34:1430–5.
[327] Sun C Q, Tay BK, Lau SP, Sun XW, Zeng XT, Bai HL, et al. Bond contraction and lone pair
interaction at nitride surfaces. J Appl Phys 2001;90(5):L2615–7.
[328] Terrones M, Ajayan PM, Banhart F, Blase X, Carroll DL, Charlier JC, et al. N-doping and
coalescence of carbon nanotubes: synthesis and electronic properties. Applied Physics A 2002;74(3):
355–61.
[329] Tillborg H, Nilsson A, Wiell T, Wassdahl N, Mårtensson N, Nordgren J. Electronic structure of
atomic oxygen adsorbed on Ni(100) and Cu(100) studied by soft-X-ray emission and photoelectron
spectroscopies. Phys Rev B 1993;47(24):16464–70.
[330] Spitzer A, Luth H, The adsorption of oxygen on copper surface, I. Cu(100) and Cu(110). Surf
Sci 1982;118:121–35. The adsorption of oxygen on copper surface, II. Cu(111). Surf Sci
1982;118:136–44.
[331] Perrella AC, Rippard WH, Mather PG, Plisch MJ, Buhrman RA. Scanning tunneling spectroscopy
and ballistic electron emission microscopy studies of aluminum-oxide surfaces. Phys Rev 2002;B65:
201403(R).
[332] Böttcher A, Niehus H. Oxygen adsorption on oxidized Ru(0001) Phys. Rev B 1999;60(20):14396–
404.
678
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
[333] Böttcher A, Conrad H, Niehus H. Reactivity of oxygen phases created by the high temperature
oxidation of Ru(0001) Surf. Sci 2000;452:125–32.
[334] Bester G, Fähnle M. On the elelctronic structure of the pure and oxygen covered Ru(0001) surface.
Surf Sci 2002;497(1–3):305–10.
[335] Stampfl C, Ganduglia-Pirovano MV, Reuter K, Scheffler M. Catalysis and corrosion: the theoretical
surface-science context. Surf Sci 2002;500:368–94.
[336] Altieri S, Tjeng LH, Sawatzky GA. Electronic structure and chemical reactivity of oxide-metal
interfaces: MgO(001)/Ag(001). Phys Rev B 2000;61(24):16948–55.
[337] Mamy R. Spectroscopic study of the surface oxidation of a thin epitaxial Co layer. Appl Surf Sci
2000;158:353–6.
[338] Zheng JC, Xie XN, Wee ATS, Loh KP. Oxygen induces surface states on diamond (100). Diamond
and Rel Mater 2001;10:500–5.
[339] Lin LW. The role of oxygen and fluorine in the electron emission of some kinds of cathodes. J Vac
Sci Technol 1988;A6(3):1053–7.
[340] Tibbetts GG, Burkstrand JM, Tracy JC. Electronic properties of adsorbed layers of nitrogen,
oxygen, and sulfur on copper (100). Phys Rev B 1977;15(8):3652–60.
[341] Fuentes GG, Elizalde E, Sanz JM. Optical and electronic properties of TiCxNy films. J Appl Phys
2001;90(6):2737–43.
[342] Souto S, M Pickholz MC, dos Santos, Alvarez F. Electronic structure of nitrogen-carbon alloys
(a-CNx) determined by photoelectron spectroscopy. Phys Rev 1998;B57(4):2536–40.
[343] Chen ZY, Zhao JP, Yano T, Ooie T. Valence band electronic structure of carbon nitride from
X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. J Appl Phys 2002;92:281–7.
[344] Tibbetts GG, Burkstrand JM. Electronic properties of adsorbed layers of nitrogen, oxygen, and
sulfur on silver (111). Phys Rev B 1977;16(4):1536–41.
[345] Zhang G, Altman EI. The oxidation mechanism of Pd(001). Surf Sci 2002;504(c):253–70.
[346] Bowker M, Guo QM, Joyner RW. Oxidation of carbon monoxide catalysed by rhodium (110). Surf
Sci 1993;280:50–62.
[347] Craig Jr JH. Characteristic energy of electronically desorbed ions from Rh(001). Appl Surf Sci
1989;35:520–6.
[348] Gorodetskii VV, Niuwenhuys BE, Aachtler WHH, Boreskov WMH. Adsorption of oxygen and its
reactions with carbon monoxide and hydrogen on rhodium surfaces: comparison with platinum and
iridium. Appl Surf Sci 1981;7:355–71.
[349] Salanov AN, Savchenko VI. Oxygen interaction with rhodium at low pressure. Surf Sci 1993;296:
393–9.
[350] Hansen EW, Neurock M. First-principles-based Monte Carlo methodology applied to O/Rh(100).
Surf Sci 2000;464(2-3):91–107.
[351] Logan AD, Datye AK, Houston JE. The nature of the oxygen phase formated during progressive
oxidation of the rhodium (111) surface. Surf Sci 1991;245:280–8.
[352] Böttcher A, Conrad H, Niehus H. Thermal arrangement of oxygen adsorbed on oxygen-rich
Ru(0001) Surf. Sci 2001;478:229–39.
[353] Piercy P, Maier M, Pfnür H. The structure of surface II, Vol. 11, p480. [Van der Veen JF, Van Hove
MA, editors.]. Berlin: Springer; 1986.
[354] Bassett MR, Imbihl R. Mathematical modeling of kinetic oscillations in the catalytic CO oxidation
on Pd(110): The subsurface oxygen model. J Chem Phys 1990;93(1):811–21.
[355] Rar A. Desorption and dissociation of oxygen admolecules on a stepped platinum (533) surface.
Surf Sci 1994;318:89–96.
[356] Gottfried JM, Elghobashi N, Schroeder SLM, Christmann K. Oxidation of gold by oxygen-ion
sputtering. Surf Sci 2002;523:89–102.
[357] Moritz T, Menzel D, Widdra W. Collective vibrational modes of the high-density (11)-O phase on
Ru(001). Surf Sci 1999;427/428:64–8.
[358] Frank M, Wolter K, Magg N, Heemeier M, Kühnemuth R, Bäumer M, Freund H-J. Phonons
of clean and metal-modified oxide films: an infrared and HREELS study. Surf Sci 2001;492(3):
270–84.
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
679
[359] Root TW, Fisher GB, Schmidt LD. Electron energy loss characterization of NO on Rh(111). I. NO
coordination and dissociation. J Chem Phys 1986;85:4679–87.
[360] Pasquini L, Barla A, Chumakov AI, Leupold O, Rüffer R, Deriu A, et al. Size and oxidation effects
on the vibrational properties of anocrystalline a-Fe. Phys Rev B 2002;66:073410.
[361] Caceres D, Vergara I, Gonzalez R, Monroy E, Calle F, Munoz E, Omnes F. Nanoindentation of
AlGaN thin films. J Appl Phys 1999;86(12):6773–8.
[362] Sjöström H, Stafström S, Boman M, Sundgren J-E. Superhard and elastic carbon nitride thin films
having fullerenelike microstructure. Phys Rev Lett 1995;75:1336.
[363] Kalki K, Schick M, Ceballos G, Wandelt K. Thin-film growth on an O-precovered Ru(0001)
surface. Thin Solid Films 1993;228(1–2):36–9.
[364] Schmidt M, Wolter H, Schick M, Kalki K, Wandelt K. Compression phases in copper/oxygen
coadsorption layers on a Ru(0001) surface. Surf Sci 1993;287-B:983–7.
[365] Meinel K, Ammer Ch, Mitte M, Wolter H, Neddermeyer H. Effects and structures of the O/Cu
surfacant layer in O-mediated film growth of Cu on Ru(0001). Prog Surf Sci 2001;67:183–203.
[366] Karolewski MA. Determination of growth modes of Cu on O/Ni(100) and NiO(100). Surf Sci 2002;
517(1–3):138–50.
[367] Wulfhekel W, Lipkin NN, Kliewer J, Rosenfeld G, Jorritsma LC, Poelsema B, et al. Conventional
and manipulated growth of Cu/Cu(111). Surf Sci 1996;348(3):227–42.
[368] Yata M, Rouch H, Nakamura K. Kinetics of oxygen surfactant in Cu(001) homoepitaxial growth.
Phys Rev B 1997;56(16):10579–84.
[369] Whitten JE, Gomer R. Reactivity of Ni on oxygen-covered W(110) surfaces. J Vac Sci Technol A
1995;13:2540.
[370] Edelstein AS, Cammarata RC. Nanomaterials: synthesis, properties and applications. Bristol:
Institute of Physics; 1996.
[371] Gleiter H. Prog Mater Sci 1989;33:223.
[372] Goldstein AN, Echer CM, Alivisatos AP. Science 1992;256:1425.
[373] Lu L, Sui ML, Lu K. Superplastic extensibility of nanocrystalline copper at room temperature.
Science 2000;287(5457):1463–6.
[374] Christenson HK. Confinement effects on freezing and melting. J Phys Condens Matt 2001;13:R95.
[375] Mintova S, Olson NH, Valtchev V, Bein T. Mechanism of zeolite a nanocrystal growth from
colloids at room temperature. Science 1999;283:958–60.
[376] Campbell CT, Parker SC, Starr DE. The effect of size-dependent nanoparticle energetics on catalyst
sintering. Science 2002;298:811.
[377] Horch S, Lorensen HT, Helveg S, Laegsgaard E, Stensgaard I, Jacobsen KW, et al. Enhancement
of surface self-diffusion of platinum atoms by adsorbed hydrogen. Nature 1999;398(6723):134–6.
[378] van Buuren T, Dinh LN, Chase LL, Siekhaus WJ, Terminello LJ. Changes in the electronic
properties of Si nanocrystals as a function of particle size. Phys Rev Lett 1998;80:3803.
[379] Yoffe AD. Semiconductor quantum dots and related systems: electronic, optical, luminescence and
related properties of low dimensional systems. Adv Phys 2001;50(1):1–208.
Yoffe AD. Low-dimensional systems: quantum size effects and electronic properties of semiconductor microcrystallites (zero-dimensional systems) and some quasi-two-dimensional systems.
Adv Phys 2002;51(2):799–890.
[380] Tan OK, Zhu W, Yan Q, Kong LB. Size effect and gas sensing characteristics of nanocrystalline
xSnO2(1x)a-Fe2O3 ethanol sensors. Sensors and Actuators B 2000;65:361–5.
[381] Rao CNR, Kulkarni GU, Thomas PJ, Edwards PP. Size-dependent chemistry: properties of nanocrystals. Chem-European J 2002;8(1):29–35.
[382] Sun CQ, Gong HQ, Hing P, Ye H T. Behind the quantum-confinement and surface passivation of
nanoclusters. Surf Rev Lett 1999;6(2):L171–6.
[383] Sun CQ, Chen TP, Tay BK, Li S, Huang H, Zhang YB, et al. An extended. quantum confinement
theory: surface coordination imperfection modifies the entire band structure of a nano-solid. J Phys
D 2001;34(24):3470–9.
[384] Sun CQ, Tay BK, Lau SP, Sun XW. Dielectric suppression and its effect on photon absorbance of
nanometric semiconductors. J Phys D 2001;34:2359–62.
680
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
[385] Sun CQ, Sun XW, Gong HQ, Huang H, Ye H, Jin D, et al. Frequency shift in the photoluminescence of nanostructured SiOx: surface-bond contraction and oxidation. J Phys Condens
Matter 1999;11:L547–50.
[386] Bahn SR, Jaconsen KW. Chain formation of metal atoms. Phys Rev Lett 2001;87:266202.
[387] Reddy DR, Reddy BK. Laser-like mechanoluminescence in ZnMnTe-diluted magnetic semiconductor. Appl Phys Lett 2002;81(3):460–2.
[388] Zhang JY, Wang XY, Xiao M. Lattice contraction in free-standing CaSer nanocrystals. Appl Phys
Lett 2002;81(11):2076.
[389] Yu XF, Liu X, Zhang K, Hu ZQ. The lattice contraction of nanometer-sized Sn and Bi particles
produced by an electrohydrodynamic technique. J Phys Condens Matter 1999;11:937–44.
[390] Stoneham AM. Comment on: the lattice contraction of nanometersized Sn and Bi particles. J Phys
Condens Matter 1999;11:8351–2.
[391] Nanda KK, Behera SN, Sahu SN. Comment on: the lattice contraction of nanometer sized Sn and
Bi particles. J Phys Condens Matter 2001;13:2861–4.
[392] Sun CQ. Comment on: the lattice contraction of nanometersized Sn and Bi particles. J Phys Cond
Matt 1999;11(24):4801–3.
[393] Kara A, Rahman TS. Vibrational properties of metallic nanocrystals. Phys Rev Lett 1998;81(7):1453.
[394] Montano PA, Shenoy GK, Alp EE, Schulze W, Urban J. Structure of copper clusters isolated in
solid argon. Phys Rev Lett 1996;56(19):207602079.
[395] Ibach H. The role of surface stressing reconstruction, epitaxial growth and stabilization of mesoscopic structures. Surf Sci Rep 1997;29:193–263.
[396] Haiss W. Surface stress of clean and adsorbate-covered solids. Rep Prog Phys 2001;64:591–648.
[397] J. Robertson, 1991??
[398] Shi X, Tay BK, Flynn DL, Sun Z. Tribological properties of tetrahedral carbon films deposited by
filtered cathodic vacuum arc technique. Mat Res Symp Proc 1997;436:293.
[399] Sun CQ, Tay BK, Zeng XT, Li S, Chen TP, Zhou J, et al. Bond-order–bond-length–bond-strength
correlation mechanism for the shape and size dependency of a nanosolid. J Phys Condens Matter
2002;14(34):7781–95.
[400] Wong EW, Sheehan PE, Lieber CM. Nanobeam mechanics: elasticity, strength, and toughness of
nanorods and nanotubes. Science 1997;277:1971–4.
[401] Zeng XT. TiN/NbN superlattice hard coatings deposited by unbalanced magnetron sputtering. Surf
Coat Technol 1999;113:75–9.
[402] Zeng XT, Zhang S, Sun CQ, Liu YC. Nanometric-layered CrN/TiN thin films: mechanical strength
and thermal stability. Thin Solid Films 2003;424(1):99–102.
[403] Qian X, Hübner W. First-principles calculation of structural and magnetic properties for Fe
monolayers and bilayers on W(110). Phys Rev B 1999;60(23):16192–7.
[404] Geng WT, Freeman AJ, Wu RQ. Magnetism at high-index transition-metal surfaces and the effect
of metalloid impurities: Ni(210). Phys Rev B 2001;63:064427.
[405] Geng WT, Kim M, Freeman AJ. Multilayer relaxation and magnetism of a high-index transition
metal surface: Fe(310). Phys Rev B 2001;63:245401.
[406] Sklyadneva Yu I, Rusina GG, Chulkov EV. Vibrational states on vicinal surfaces of Al, Ag, Cu and
Pd. Surf Sci 1998;416:17–36.
[407] Kara A, Durukanoglu S, Rahman TS. Local thermodynamic properties of a stepped metal surface:
Cu(711). Phys Rev B 1996;53(23):15489–92.
[408] Huang H, Sun CQ, Zhang TS, Hing P. Grain-size effect on ferroelectric Pb(Zr1-xTix)O3 solid
solutions induced by surface-bond contraction. Phys Rev B 2001;63:184112.
[409] Huang H, Sun CQ, Hing P. Surface-bond contraction and its effect on the behavior of nanometric
PZT. J Phys Condens Matter 2000;12:L127–32.
[410] Gleiter H, Weissmüller J, Wollersheim O, Würschum R. Nanocrystalline materials: a way to solids
with tunable electronic structures and properties? Acta Mater 2001;498:737–45.
[411] Zhou J, Sun CQ, Pita K, Lam YL, Zhou Y, Ng SL, et al. Thermally tuning of the photonic bandgap of SiO2 colloid-crystal infilled with ferroelectric BaTiO3. Appl Phys Lett 2001;78(5):661–3.
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
681
[412] Sun CQ, Wang Y, Tay BK, Li S, Huang H, Zhang Y. Correlation between the melting of a nanosolid and the cohesive energy of a surface atom. J Phys Chem B 2002;106:10701.
[413] Zhong WH, Sun CQ, Tay BK, Li S, Bai HL, Jiang EY. Curie temperature suppression of ferromagnetic nanosolids. J Phys Condens Matter 2002;14:L399–405.
[414] Shi FG. Size dependent thermal vibrations and melting in nanocrystals. J Mater Res 1994;9:1307.
[415] Jiang Q, Zhang Z, Li JC. Superheating of nanocrystals embedded in matrix. Chem Phys Lett 2000;
322(6):549–52.
[416] Jiang Q, Liang LH, Li JC. Thermodynamic superheating and relevant interface stability of lowdimensional metallic crystals. J Phys Condens Matter 2001;13(4):565–71.
[417] Jiang Q, Aya N, Shi FG. Nanotube size-dependent melting of single crystals in carbon nano-tubes.
Appl Phys A 1997;64:627–9.
[418] Jiang Q, Shi HX, Zhao M. Melting thermodynamics of organic nanocrystals. J Chem Phys 1999;
111:2176–80.
[419] Jiang Q, Shi HX, Li JC. Finite size effect on glass transition temperatures. Thin Solid Films 1999;
354:283–6.
[420] Wen Z, Zhao M, Jiang Q. The melting temperature of molecular nanocrystals at the lower bound of
the mesoscopic size range. J Phys Condens Matter 2000;12:8819–24.
[421] Jiang Q, Liang LH, Zhao M. Modeling of the melting temperature of nano-ice in MCM-41 pores.
J Phys Cond Mat 2001;13:L397–401.
[422] Zhang Z, Zhao M, Jiang Q. Melting temperature of semiconductor nanocrystals in the mesoscopic
size range. Semicond Sci Technol 2001;16:L33–5.
[423] Sun CQ, Pan LK, Fu YQ, Sun XW, Li S., Tay BK. Communicated. The 3d5/2 and 2p3/2 levels of a
Cu atom isolated from solid and their shifts upon nanosolid formation andf surface passivation.
[424] Sun CQ, Tay BK, Fu YQ, Li S, Chen TP, Bai HL, Jiang EY. Discriminating crystal binding from
atomic trapping of a core electron at energy levels shifted by surface relaxation or nanosolid formation. J Phys Chem B Lett 2003;107(2):411–4.
[425] Sun CQ, Pan LK, Fu YQ, Tay BK, Li S. Size dependence of the 2p-level shift of nanosolid silicon.
J Phys Chem B 2003;107(22):5113–5.
[426] An B, Fukuyama S, Yokogawa K, Yoshimura M. Surface superstructure of carbon nanotubes on
highly oriented pyrolytic graphite annealed at elevated temperatures. Jap J Appl Phys (part 1) 1998;
37:3809–11.
[427] Yakobson BI, Brabec CJ, Bernholic J. Nanomechanics of carbon tubes: instabilities beyond linear
response. Phys Rev Lett 1996;76:2511–4.
[428] Falvo MR, Clary GJ, Taylor RM, Chi V, Brooks FP, Washburn S, Superfine R. Bending and
buckling of carbon nanotubes under large strain. Nature 1997;389:582–4.
[429] Sun CQ, Bai HL, Tay BK, Jiang EY. Communicated. The dimension and strength of a single C–C
bond in carbon nanotubes. [Submitted to J Phys Chem B].
[430] Street RA. Hydrogenated amorphous silicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1991 [p 276,
315, 295].
[431] Jin D, Hing P, Sun CQ. Growth kinetics and electrical properties of Pb(Zr0.9Ti0.1)O3 doped with
Cerium oxide. J Phys D: Appl Phys 2000;33:744–52.
[432] Sun CQ, Jin D, Zhou J, Li S, Tay BK, Lau SP, et al. Intensive and stable blue light emission of
Pb(ZrxTi1-x)O3. Appl Phys Lett 2001;79(8):1082–4.
[433] Hirata GA, McKittrick J, Devlin D. Growth and analysis of red, green and blue luminescent oxide
thin films. Surf Rev Lett 1998;5(1):413–7.
[434] Kudo A, Yanagi H, Hosono H, Kawazoe H. SrCu2O2: a p-type conductive oxide with wide bandgap. Appl Phys Lett 1998;73(2):220–2.
[435] Jiang YD, Zhang F, Summers CJ, Wang ZL. Synthesis and properties of Sr2CeO4 blue emission
powder phosphor for field emission displays. Appl Phys Lett 1999;74(12):1677–8.
[436] Price KJ, Sharpe LR, McNeil LE, Irene EA. Electroluminescence in silicon oxynitride films. J Appl
Phys 1999;86(5):2638–41.
[437] Wang YQ, Zhao TP, Liu J, Qin GG. Near-ultraviolet and near-infrared electroluminescence from
an indium-tin-oxide film/native Si oxide/p-Si structure. Appl Phys Lett 1999;74(25):3815–7.
682
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
[438] Yuan S, Jagadish C, Kim Y, Chang Y, Tan H, Cohen RM, et al. Anodic-oxide-induced intermixing
in GaAs-AlGaAs Quantum-well and quantum wire structures. IEEE J Select Topics in Quantum
Elelctronics 1998;4:629–35.
[439] Xu CX, Sun XW, Chen BJ, Sun CQ, Tay BK, Li S. Photoemission of aligned ZnO nanofiber array
prepared by vapor transport in air. Chinese Phys Lett 2003;20(8):1319–22.
[440] Brongersma ML, Polman A, Min KS, Boer E, Tambo T, Atwater HA. Tuning the emission wavelength of Si nanocrystals in SiO2 by oxidation. Appl Phys Lett 1998;72(20):2577–9.
[441] Liu A. Microstructure and photoluminescence spectra of porous InP. Nanotechnology 2001;12:L1–3.
[442] Ponce FA, Bour DP. Nitride-based semiconductors for blue and green light-emitting devices.
Nature (London) 1997;386(6623):351–9.
[443] Chambouleyron I, Zanatta AR. Nitrogen in germanium. J Appl Phys 1998;84:1–30.
[444] Hammer P, Victoria NM, Alvarez F. Electronic structure of hydrogenated carbon nitride films.
J Vac Sci Technol A 1998;16(5):2941–9.
[445] Reynolds DC, Look DC, Jogai B, Morkoc H. Similarities in the band edge and deep-center photoluminescence mechanisms of ZnO and GaN. Solid State Commun 1997;101:643.
[446] Austin IG, Jackson WA, Searle TM, Bhat PK, Gibson RA. Philos Mag 1985;B52:271.
[447] Zanatta AR, Chambouleyron I. Nitrogen in the amorphous-germanium network: from high dilution to the alloy phase. Phys Rev 1993;B48:4560–70.
[448] Vilcarromero J, Marques FC. Influence of the deposition conditions on the properties of amorphous germanium nitrogen alloys. Phys Status Solidi B 1995;192(2):543–7.
[449] Hasegawa S, Matsuda M, Kurata Y. Bonding configuration and defects in amorphous SiNx:H
films. Appl Phys Lett 1991;58:741–3.
[450] Theib W. Optical properties of porous silicon. Surf Sci Rep 1997;29:91–192.
[451] Collins RT, Fauchet PM, Tischler MA. Porous silicon: from luminescence to LEDs. Phys Today
1997;1:24–31.
[452] Canham LT. Silicon quantum wire array fabrication by electrochemical and chemical dissolution of
wafers. Appl Phys Lett 1990;57:1046–8.
[453] Glinka YD, Lin S-H, Hwang L-P, Chen Y-T, Tolk NH. Size effect in self-trapped exciton photoluminescence from SiO2-based nanoscale materials. Phys Rev B 2001;64:085421.
[454] Qin GG, Jia YQ. Mechanism of the visible luminescence in porous silicon. Solid State Commun
1993;86:559–63.
[455] Koch F, Petrova-Koch V, Muschik T, Nikolov A, Gavrilenko V. Microcrystalline Semiconductors:
Materials Science and Devices vol. 283. Pittsburgh, PA: Materials Research Society; 1993. p. 197.
[456] Iwayama TS, Hole DE, Boyd IW. Mechanism of photoluminescence of Si nanocrystals in SiOx
fabricated by ion implantation: the role of interactions of nanocrystals and oxygen. J Phys Condens
Matter 1999;11:6595–604.
[457] Brus JE. On the development of bulk optical properties in small semiconductor crystallites. J Lumin
1984;31:381.
[458] Kayanuma Y. Quantum-size effects of interacting electrons and holes in semiconductor microcrystals with spherical shape. Phys Rev B 1988;38:9797.
[459] Steigerwald ML, Brus LE. Acc Chem Res 1990;23:183.
[460] Luo X, Zhang SB, Wei S-H. Chemical design of direct-gap light-emitting silicon. Phys Rev Lett
2002;89:076802.
[461] Sun CQ, Li S, Tay BK, Chen TP. Upper limit of blue shift in the photoluminescence of CdS and
CdSe nanosolids. Acta Materilia 2002;50(8):4687–93.
[462] Borgohain K, Singh JB, Rao MVR, Shripathi T, Mahamuni S. Quantum size effect in CuO nanoparticles. Phys Rev B 2000;61(16):11093–6.
[463] Schmeiber D, Böhme O, Yafantis A, Heller T, Batcherlor DR, Lundstrom I, et al. Dipole mement
of nanparticles at interfaces. Phys Rev Lett 1999;83(2):380–3.
[464] Nanda J, Sarma DD. Photoemission spectroscopy of size selected zinc sulfide nanocrystallites.
J Appl Phys 2001;90:2504.
[465] Nanda J, Kuruvilla A, Sarma DD. Photoelectron spectroscopic study of CdS nanocrystallites. Phys
Rev B 1999;59:7473.
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
683
[466] Balasubramanian T, Andersen JN, Walldén L. Surface-bulk core-level splitting in graphite. Phys
Rev 2001;B64:205420.
[467] Sun CQ, Bai HL, Tay BK, Jiang EY. Length, strength, extensibility and thermal stability of
metallic bond in a gold monatomic chain. J Phys Chem B [in press].
[468] Wang X, Huang DM, Ye L, Yang M, Hao PH, Fu HX, Hou XY, Xie XD. Pinning of photoluminescence peak positions for light-emitting porous silicon: An evidence of quantum size effect.
Phys Rev Lett 1993;71:1265–7.
[469] Delerue C, Lannoo M, Allan G. Properties of porous silicon. London: INSPEC; 1997. p 213.
[470] Dorigoni L, Bisi O, Bernardini F, Ossicini S. Electron states and luminescence transition in porous
silicon. Phys Rev B 1996;53:4557–64.
[471] Sanders GD, Chang Y-C. Theory of optical properties of quantum wires in porous silicon. Phys
Rev B 1992;45:9202–13.
[472] Hybertsen MS, Needels M. First-principles analysis of electronic states in silicon nanoscale quantum wires. Phys Rev B 1993;48:4608–11.
[473] Kanemitsu Y, Uto H, Masumoto Y, Matsumoto T, Futagi T, Mimura H. Microstructure and
optical properties of free-standing porous silicon films: size dependence of absorption spectra in Si
nanometer-sized crystallites. Phys Rev B 1993;48:2827–30.
[474] Schuppler S, Friedman SL, Marcus MA, Adler DL, Xie YH, Ross FM, et al. Size, shape, and
composition of luminescent species in oxidized Si and H-passivated Si. Phys Rev 1995;B52:4910.
[475] Ohno T, Shiraishi K, Ogawa T. Intrinsic origin of visible light emission from silicon quantum wires:
Electronic structure and geometrically restricted exciton. Phys Rev Lett 1992;69:2400–3.
[476] Yeh CY, Zhang SB, Zunger A. Confinement, surface, and chemisorption effects on the optical
properties of Si quantum wires. Phys Rev 1994;40:14405–15.
[477] Read AJ, Needs RJ, Nash KJ, Canham LT, Calcott PDJ, Qteish A. First-principles calculations of
the electronic properties of silicon quantum wires. Phys Rev Lett 1992;69:1232–5.
[478] Polatoglou HM. J Lumin 1993;57:117–20.
[479] Pavesi L, Giebel G, Ziglio F, Mariotto G, Priolo F, Campisano FU, Spinella C. Nanocrystal size
modifications in porous silicon by preanodization ion implantation. Appl Phys Lett 1994;65(17):2182–4.
[480] Pan LK, Sun CQ, Tay BK, Chen TP, Li S. Photoluminescence of Si nanosolid near the lower end of
size limit. J Phys Chem B 2002;106:11725.
[481] Zhu W, Kochanski GP, Jin S. Low-field electron emission from undoped nanostructured diamond.
Science 1998;282:1471–3.
[482] Geis MW, Efremow NN, Krohn KE, Twitchell JC, Lyszczarz TM, Kalish R, et al. A new surface
electron-emission mechanism in diamond cathodes. Nature (London) 1998;393:431–5.
[483] Xu WS, Tzeng T, Latham RV. Similarities in the ‘cold’ electron emission characteristics of diamond
coated molybdenum electrodes and polished bulk graphite surfaces. J Phys D 1993;26:1776–80.
[484] Huang ZH, Cutler PH, Miskovsky NM, Sullivan TE. Calculation of local-density of states at an
atomically sharp Si tip. J Vac Sci Technol B 1995;13:522–4.
[485] Amaratunga GAJ, Silva SRP. Nitrogen containing hydrogenated amorphous carbon for thin-film
field emission cathodes. Appl Phys Lett 1996;68:2529.
[486] Okano K, Koizumi S, Silva SRP, Amaratunga GAJ. Low-threshold cold cathodes made of nitrogen-doped chemical-vapour-deposited diamond. Nature 1996;381:140.
[487] Cheah LK, Shi X, Liu E, Tay BK. Electron field emission properties of tetrahedral amorphous
carbon films. J Appl Phys 1999;85(9):6816–21.
[488] Lim SC, Stallcup II RE, Akwani IA, Perez JM. Effects of O2, H2, and N2 gases on the field emission properties of diamond-coated microtips. Appl Phys Lett 1999;75(8):1179–81.
[489] Sowers AT, Ward BL, English SL, Nemanich RJ. Field emission properties of nitrogen-doped
diamond films. J Appl Phys 1999;86(7):3973–82.
[490] Sugino T, Yamamoto T, Kimura C, Murakami H, Hirakawa M. Field emission characteristics of
carbon nanofiber improved by deposition of boron nitride nanocrystalline film. Appl Phys Lett
2002;80(20):3808–10.
[491] Sugino T, Kimura C, Yamamoto T. Electron field emission from boron-nitride nanofilms. Appl
Phys Lett 2002;80(19):3602–4.
684
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
[492] Hernández E, Goze C, Bernier P, Rubio A. Elastic Properties of C and BxCyNz composite nanotubes. Phys Rev Lett 1998;80(20):4502.
[493] Riege H, Boscolo I, Handerek J, Herleb U. Features and technology of ferroelectric electron emission. J Appl Phys 1988;84(3):1602–13.
[494] Stolichnov I, Tagantsev AK, Colla EL, Setter N. Cold-field-emission test of the fatigued state of
Pb(ZrxTi1x)O3 films. Appl Phys Lett 1998;73(10):1361–3.
[495] Pickett WE. Negative electron affinity and low work function surface: cesium on oxygenated diamond (100). Phys Rev Lett 1994;73(12):1664–7.
[496] Park N, Han S, Ihm J. Effects of oxygen adsorption on carbon nanotube field emitters. Phys Rev
2001;B64:125401.
[497] Kung S-C, Hwang KC, Lin IN. Oxygen and ozone oxidation-enhanced field emission of carbon
nanotubes. Appl Phys Lett 2002;80(25):4819–21.
[498] Wadhawan A, Stallcup II REM, Stephens II KF, Perez JM, Akwani IA. Effects of O2, Ar, and H2
gases on the field-emission properties of single-walled and multiwalled carbon nanotubes. Appl
Phys Lett 2001;79(12):1867–9.
[499] Briddon P, Jones R. Theory of impurities in diamond. Physica B 1993;185:179–89.
[500] Robertson J. Mechanisms of electron field emission from diamond, diamond-like carbon, and
nanostructured carbon. J Vac Sci Technol B 1999;17(2):659–65.
[501] Rutter MJ, Robertson J. Ab initio calculation of electron affinities of diamond surfaces. Phys Rev B
1998;57:9241–5.
[502] Geis MW, Twichell JC, Macaulay J, Okano K. Electron field emission from diamond and other
carbon materials after H2, O2, and Cs treatment. Appl Phys Lett 1995;67:1328–30.
[503] Böer K. Survey of semiconductor physics vol. II. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1992. p. 359.
[504] Jiang EY, Sun CQ, Liu Y, Li J. The structures and magnetic properties of facing targets sputtered
Fe-nitride films. J Appl Phys 1989;65:1659–63.
[505] Schaaf P. Laser nitriding of metals. Prog Mater Sci 2002;47(1):1–161.
[506] Coey JMD, Sun HJ. Mag Mag Mater 1990;87:L251.
[507] Pan H, Yang F, Chen Y, Han X, Tang N, Chen C, Wang Q. Magnetic properties of a new series of
rare-earth iron nitrides R3(Fe, Mo)29Nx (R=Ce, Nd, Sm, Gd, Tb, Dy or Y) J. Phys Condens Matt
1997;11:2499–505.
[508] Johnson CE, Bennett JM, Nadler MP. Oxidation of diamond windows. J Mater Res 1995;10(10):
2555–63.
[509] Joshi A, Nimmagadda R, Herrington J. Oxidation kinetics of diamond, graphite, and chemical
vapor deposited diamond films by thermal gravimetry. J Vac Sci Technol 1990;A8:2137.
[510] Zhu W, Wang XH, Pickrell DJ, Badzian AR, Messier R. The oxidation of CVD diamond films.
Carbon 1990;28(6):796–9.
[511] Bobrov K, Shechter H, Hoffman A, Folman M. Molecular oxygen adsorption and desorption from single crystal diamond (1 1 1) and (1 1 0) surfaces. Appl Surf Sci 2002;196(1–4):
173–80.
[512] Li J, Zhang Q, Yoon SF, Ahn J, Zhou Q, Wang S, Yang D, Wang Q, Li Z, Wang J, Lei Q. Reaction
of diamond thin films with atomic oxygen simulated as low earth orbit environment. J Appl Phys
2002;92(10):6275–7.
[513] Theije FKde, van Veenendaal E, van Enckevort WJP, Vlieg E. Oxidative etching of cleaved synthetic diamond {111} surfaces. Surf Sci 2001;492(1–2):91–105.
[514] Pehrsson PE, Mercer TW, Chaney JA. Thermal oxidation of the hydrogenated diamond (100) surface. Surf Sci 2002;497(1–3):13–28.
[515] Hartman P, Perdok WG, On the relations between structure and morphology of crystals. I. Acta
Crys 1955;8(9):49–52; On the relations between structure and morphology of crystals. II. Acta Crys
1955;8(9):52–4; On the relations between structure and morphology of crystals. III. Acta Crys 1955;
8(9):525–9.
[516] Hartman P. Non-uniform distribution of faces in a zone. Z Kristallogr 1965;121:78.
[517] Kim YK, Lee KY, Lee JY. Texture-controlled diamond films synthesized by microwave plasmaenhanced chemical vapor deposition. Thin Solid Films 1996;272(1):64–70.
C.Q. Sun / Progress in Materials Science 48 (2003) 521–685
685
[518] Angus JC, ArgoitiaA, Gat R, Li Z, Sunkara M, Wang L, Wang Y. In: Lettington A, Steeds JW,
editors. The thin film diamond. London: Chapman and Hall; 1994. p. 9.
[519] Loh KP. Private communication. May, 2001.
[520] Fu YQ, Yan BB, Sun CQ, Du HJ. Carbon turns the tensile surface stress of Ti into compressive.
J Phys D 2001;34(24):L129–132.
[521] Sun CQ, Fu YQ, Yan BB, Lau SP, Sun XW, Tay BK. Improving diamond–metal adhesion with
graded TiCN interlayers. J Appl Phys 2002;91(4):2051–4.
[522] Fu YQ, Sun CQ, Du HJ, Yan BB. From diamond to crystalline silicon carbonitride: effect of
introduction of nitrogen in CH4/H2 gas mixture using MW-PECVD 2003;424(1):107–14.
[523] Tsu R, Babic D, Loriatti Jr L. Simple model for the dielectric constant of nanoscale silicon particle.
J Appl Phys 1997;82:1327.
[524] Ye HT, Sun CQ, Huang HT, Hing P. Dielectric transition of nanostructured diamond films. Appl
Phys Lett 2001;78(13):1826–8.
[525] Ye HT, Sun CQ, Hing P. Size control and size effect on the dielectric constant of nanostructured
diamond films. J Appl Phys D 2000;33(23):L148–152.
[526] Lundgren E, Kresse G, Klein C, Borg M, Andersen JN, De Santis M, et al. Two-dimensional oxide
on Pd(111). Phys Rev Lett 2002;88:246103.
[527] Lefebvre I, Szymanski MA, Olivier-Fourcade J, Jumas JC. Electronic structure of tin monochalcogenides from SnO to SnTe. Phys Rev 1998;B58(4):1896–906.