Response of oxides to ion bombardment

the difference between inert and reactive ions

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

35 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The loss of O from oxides bombarded by chemically neutral ions, i.e. inert gas ions, is widely documented. It is, however, still not possible to relate with certainty such loss to the basic properties of the oxides, namely to such factors as mass, surface binding energy, bulk binding energy, volatility, mass transport, Gibbsian segregation, or electric fields. Even the most basic response of all, namely chemically random behavior [Vertóti et al., Surf. Interf. Anal. 19 (1992) 291), has an unestablished importance. The present work further develops our approach to the problem. The effects of 1-5 keV bombardment with Ar+, O2+, N2+, and N2O+ are compared using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy for a number of oxide pairs with similar stoichiometries and electronic structures: B2O3 and Al2O3, SiO2 and GeO2, ZrO2 and TiO2, V2O5 and Nb2O5. Minor O loss occurred with the first five and major loss with the last three. What is important, however, is that the loss was consistently higher for N2+ than Ar+ impact, yet the overall anion content, expressed as the sum O + N, remained largely unchanged. We take this result as demonstrating a prominent role for chemically random behavior, i.e. the relative strengths of the MO and MN bonds did not enter.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1219-1225
Number of pages7
JournalNuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms
Volume80-81
Issue numberPART 2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1993

Fingerprint

Ion bombardment
Oxides
bombardment
Ions
oxides
ions
Binding energy
binding energy
Noble Gases
volatility
Inert gases
Stoichiometry
Electronic structure
Anions
stoichiometry
rare gases
Negative ions
Mass transfer
X ray photoelectron spectroscopy
Electric fields

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surfaces, Coatings and Films
  • Instrumentation
  • Surfaces and Interfaces

Cite this

@article{1bf2df08cdf54fb0986b596d489db5aa,
title = "Response of oxides to ion bombardment: the difference between inert and reactive ions",
abstract = "The loss of O from oxides bombarded by chemically neutral ions, i.e. inert gas ions, is widely documented. It is, however, still not possible to relate with certainty such loss to the basic properties of the oxides, namely to such factors as mass, surface binding energy, bulk binding energy, volatility, mass transport, Gibbsian segregation, or electric fields. Even the most basic response of all, namely chemically random behavior [Vert{\'o}ti et al., Surf. Interf. Anal. 19 (1992) 291), has an unestablished importance. The present work further develops our approach to the problem. The effects of 1-5 keV bombardment with Ar+, O2+, N2+, and N2O+ are compared using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy for a number of oxide pairs with similar stoichiometries and electronic structures: B2O3 and Al2O3, SiO2 and GeO2, ZrO2 and TiO2, V2O5 and Nb2O5. Minor O loss occurred with the first five and major loss with the last three. What is important, however, is that the loss was consistently higher for N2+ than Ar+ impact, yet the overall anion content, expressed as the sum O + N, remained largely unchanged. We take this result as demonstrating a prominent role for chemically random behavior, i.e. the relative strengths of the MO and MN bonds did not enter.",
author = "I. Bert{\'o}ti and Roger Kelly and M. Mohai and A. T{\'o}th",
year = "1993",
doi = "10.1016/0168-583X(93)90770-7",
language = "English",
volume = "80-81",
pages = "1219--1225",
journal = "Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms",
issn = "0168-583X",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "PART 2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Response of oxides to ion bombardment

T2 - the difference between inert and reactive ions

AU - Bertóti, I.

AU - Kelly, Roger

AU - Mohai, M.

AU - Tóth, A.

PY - 1993

Y1 - 1993

N2 - The loss of O from oxides bombarded by chemically neutral ions, i.e. inert gas ions, is widely documented. It is, however, still not possible to relate with certainty such loss to the basic properties of the oxides, namely to such factors as mass, surface binding energy, bulk binding energy, volatility, mass transport, Gibbsian segregation, or electric fields. Even the most basic response of all, namely chemically random behavior [Vertóti et al., Surf. Interf. Anal. 19 (1992) 291), has an unestablished importance. The present work further develops our approach to the problem. The effects of 1-5 keV bombardment with Ar+, O2+, N2+, and N2O+ are compared using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy for a number of oxide pairs with similar stoichiometries and electronic structures: B2O3 and Al2O3, SiO2 and GeO2, ZrO2 and TiO2, V2O5 and Nb2O5. Minor O loss occurred with the first five and major loss with the last three. What is important, however, is that the loss was consistently higher for N2+ than Ar+ impact, yet the overall anion content, expressed as the sum O + N, remained largely unchanged. We take this result as demonstrating a prominent role for chemically random behavior, i.e. the relative strengths of the MO and MN bonds did not enter.

AB - The loss of O from oxides bombarded by chemically neutral ions, i.e. inert gas ions, is widely documented. It is, however, still not possible to relate with certainty such loss to the basic properties of the oxides, namely to such factors as mass, surface binding energy, bulk binding energy, volatility, mass transport, Gibbsian segregation, or electric fields. Even the most basic response of all, namely chemically random behavior [Vertóti et al., Surf. Interf. Anal. 19 (1992) 291), has an unestablished importance. The present work further develops our approach to the problem. The effects of 1-5 keV bombardment with Ar+, O2+, N2+, and N2O+ are compared using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy for a number of oxide pairs with similar stoichiometries and electronic structures: B2O3 and Al2O3, SiO2 and GeO2, ZrO2 and TiO2, V2O5 and Nb2O5. Minor O loss occurred with the first five and major loss with the last three. What is important, however, is that the loss was consistently higher for N2+ than Ar+ impact, yet the overall anion content, expressed as the sum O + N, remained largely unchanged. We take this result as demonstrating a prominent role for chemically random behavior, i.e. the relative strengths of the MO and MN bonds did not enter.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0001424536&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0001424536&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/0168-583X(93)90770-7

DO - 10.1016/0168-583X(93)90770-7

M3 - Article

VL - 80-81

SP - 1219

EP - 1225

JO - Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms

JF - Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms

SN - 0168-583X

IS - PART 2

ER -