Atomic structure of the reactive Fe/Si(111)7x7 interface

Thumbnail Image
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
Avila, J.
Teodorescu, C.
Asensio, M. C.
Michel, E. G.
Advisors (or tutors)
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
American Physical Society
Google Scholar
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
The early stages of Fe/Si(111) interface formation have been investigated using x-ray photoelectron diffraction. Deposition of Fe in the range of one monolayer on Si(111)7x7 at room temperature results in the destruction of the 7x7 reconstruction. After a slight anneal, a well ordered interface is formed. This reacted layer is terminated by a top Si bilayer, which is rotated 180 degrees with respect to the substrate stacking sequence. Fe atoms occupy substitutional Si lattice sites in the next bilayer underneath, keeping an interface coordination similar to the eightfold type. Thus, this initial interface already exhibits several of the most important features of thicker epitaxial silicide films. This result is evidence of the importance of the earliest stages of epitaxial growth to understand the properties of thicker layers.
© 1997 The American Physical Society. This work was financed by DGICYT (Spain) under Grant No. PB-94-1527 and Grant No. PB-94-0022-C02-01. The access of A.M. and E.G.M. to LURE, Centre Universitaire Paris-Sud, was supported through the Large Scale Facilities program of the European Union. A.M. thanks Eusko Jaurlaritza for financial support. We thank Dr. V. Fritzsche for providing us with the multiple scattering code.
Unesco subjects
1. R. Tung, in Contacts to Semiconductors, edited by L.J. Brillson (Noyes Publication, New Jersey, 1993). 2. H. von Kánel, Mater. Sci. Rep. 8, 193 (1992), and references therein. 3. M.C. Bost and J.E. Mahan, J. Appl. Phys. 58, 2696 (1985). 4. T.E. Mason et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 490 (1992). 5. H. von Känel et al., Phys. Rev. B 45, 13 807 (1992). 6. A.L. Vázquez de Parga et al., Europhys. Lett. 18, 595 (1992). 7. H. von Känel et al., Appl. Surf. Sci. 70/71, 559 (1993). 8. E.E. Fullerton et al., J. Appl. Phys. 73, 6335 (1993). 9. J.E. Mattson et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 185 (1993). 10. R.T. Tung, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 5, 1840 (1987). 11. W.F. Eggelhof, CRC Crit. Rev. Solid State Mater. Sci. 16, 213 (1990). 12. J. Osterwalder et al., Surf. Sci. 331-333, 1002 (1995). 13. C.S. Fadley, in Synchrotron Radiation Research, Advances in Surface Science, edited by R.Z. Bachrach (Plenum, New York, 1990). 14. S. Tanuma, C.J. Powell, and D.R. Penn, Surf. Interface Anal. 17, 927 (1991). 15. J. Alvarez et al., Phys. Rev. B 45, 14 042 (1992). 16. J. Alvarez et al., Phys. Rev. B 47, 16 048 (1993). 17. H. Sirringhaus et al., Phys. Rev. B 47, 10 567 (1993). 18. U. Kafader et al., Appl. Surf. Sci. 64, 297 (1993). 19. S. Hong et al., Appl. Surf. Sci. 90, 65 (1995). 20. C. Pirri et al., Phys. Rev. B 29, 3391 (1984). 21. L. Luo et al., Surf. Sci. 249, L338 (1991). 22. A. Mascaraque et al. (unpublished). 23. All Rm values cited in this paper are obtained adding the six individual Rm-s calculated in each model for Q530°, 40°, and 50° for Fe 3p and Si 2p. 24. R. Dippel et al., Chem. Phys. Lett. 199, 625 (1992). 25. The simulated traces were obtained using bulklike atomic positions, with the exception of the vertical distance of the top Si bilayer, which was allowed to relax in model (g). 26. V. Fritzsche, J. Phys., Condens. Matter. 2, 9735 (1990). 27. V. Fritzsche, J. Electron Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom. 58, 299 (1992). 28. J.B. Pendry, J. Phys. C 13, 937 (1980). 29. Two different registries are possible for a 180°- rotated top bilayer with respect to the substrate. The first involves bonding between second and fourth layer atoms, as illustrated in Fig. 4 (bottom) and produces trace (g) in Fig. 2 and all the simulated traces shown in Fig. 3. The second possibility involves direct bonding between second and third layer atoms. It corresponds to the simple stacking fault found in a 737 reconstruction. This second possibility gives rise to trace (h) (Rm50.243) in Fig. 2. This and related structures were discarded due to their much worse agreement with the experiment. 30. L.J. Brillson, Surf. Sci. Rep. 2, 123 (1982). 31. R.J. Hamers and J.E. Demuth, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 2527 (1988). 32. I.W. Lyo, E. Kaxiras, and Ph. Avouris, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 1261 (1989). 33. C.W.T. Bulle-Lieuwma et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 55, 648 (1989).