Reference
1. M. Upton, C. M. Wei, M. Y. Chou, T. Miller, and T.-C. Chiang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 933, 026802 (2004).
2. W. B. Jian, W. B. Su, C. S. Chang, and T. T. Tsong, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 196603 (2003).
3. M. Hupalo, V. Yeh, T. L. Chan, C. Z. Wang, K. M. Ho, and M. C. Tringides, Phys. Rev. B 711, 193408 (2005).
4 Phys. Rev. Lett. 933, 216804 (2004).
5. S.-J. Tang, Chang-Yeh Lee, Chien-Chung Huang, Tay-Rong Chang, Cheng-Maw Cheng, Ku-Ding Tsuei, H.-T. Jeng, V. Yeh, and Tai-Chang Chiang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 066802 (2011)
6. S.-J. Tang, T. Miller, and T.-C. Chiang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 036802 (2006).
|
It has been a long-standing puzzle for years that metal films can grow smoothly on
semiconductor surfaces, retaining its own lattice constant, in spite of large
lattice mismatch [1, 2, 3, 4]. In the past, scientists have either overlooked
the reason or naively assumed that the large lattice mismatch caused the metal
films to be free-standing-film-like. In a recent Phys. Rev. Lett. paper [5],
Shu-Jung Tang of TUNational
Tsing Hua UniversityUT, TUHsinchuUT, TUTaiwanUT and co-workers
reported the discovery of an important clue to this puzzle by investigating the
system of Pb films on Ge(111). They showed that the growth of an incommensurate
(1×1) parallel-epitaxy configuration is bound to another mysterious driving
force for the epitaxial growth: electronic match. The perfect electronic match
would cause the maximum hybridization between the quantum-well states (QWS) of
the metal films and band edges of the semiconductor substrate so as to reduce
the energy of the system.
The mismatch between the Pb and Ge
lattice constants, 4.92 Å and 5.65 Å, is 13%. However, if the Pb film is rotated
by 30º from the I(1×1) configuration, the Pb (2×2) unit cell and the substrate
unit
cell become well matched (Fig. 1).
Low energy
electron diffraction (LEED) measurements reveal the film growth orientation
(Fig.2). Patterns from the bare Ge(111)-c(2×8) and the Pb/Ge(111) - -R b phase
establish the reference
orientations and scale factors. Upon Pb coverage at 2 monolayers (ML), the -R pattern is suppressed. An attenuated Ge(111)-(1×1) substrate pattern remains and is
accompanied by six short arcs with the same orientation but farther out. The
radius of the arcs indicates an I(1×1) Pb overlayer. Also evident in the data is
the emergence of domains
at 3 ML which eventually dominates at higher Pb coverages . Angle-resolved
photoemission mapping of Pb overlayers of thicknesses 2, 4, 6, 8, and 15 ML
along the direction
yield spectral functions shown in Fig. 3. At 2 ML, the results closely resemble
the k-resolved one-dimensional density of states of the Ge bulk band
structure because of a strong hybridization of the Pb and Ge states and the
large contribution from the Ge states within the photoemission probing depth
[6].
The data at higher coverages (4-15 ML) in Fig. 4 are quite different;
an Anderson model involving a hybridization interaction of the discrete Pb QWS
subbands and the Ge states [5] is used to construct a model spectral function.
The solid purple curve shows ,
the dispersion of the "bare" QWS subband.
Two competing factors are at play: one is the interfacial energy, which is
independent of the film thickness and favors the lattice-matched configuration, and the other is the
electronic energy associated with quantum confinement, which diminishes as
1/N and also depends on the degree of electronic hybridization across the
Pb-Ge interface. A strong hybridization as a result of electronic match
minimizes the effects of confinement, leading to a lower system energy. The
authors convincingly argue that the I(1×1) configuration presents a much better
electronic match than the configuration based on general symmetry considerations.
Thus, the I(1×1) configuration is preferred at small thicknesses for
Pb/Ge(111).
The
general understanding established in Tang, et al. [5], is important for
devising strategies for smooth film growth with prescribed configurations – a
key issue relevant to thin film electronics.
|