Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T13:14:56.518Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Interface Structure Of Iron Oxide Thin Films Grown On Sapphire And Single-Crystal MgO

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2011

Ian M. Anderson
Affiliation:
Dept. of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, University of Minnesota, 421 Washington Ave. S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55455
Lisa A. Tietz
Affiliation:
Dept. of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, University of Minnesota, 421 Washington Ave. S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55455
C. Barry Carter
Affiliation:
Dept. of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, University of Minnesota, 421 Washington Ave. S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55455
Get access

Abstract

The ability to tailor thin film interface structure is illustrated by the growth of thin ferric oxide films using different deposition parameters. Low-pressure chemical vapor deposition (CVD) has been used to grow α-Fe2O3 on sapphire while pulsed-laser ablation (PLA) followed by low temperature oxidation has been used to grow γ-Fe2O3 on MgO. The structure of the films and of the film-substrate interfaces has been characterized using transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and selected-area diffraction (SAD) in plan view. The different deposition techniques lead not only to the growth of two different polymorphs of ferric oxide but also to different growth mechanisms and film-substrate interface structures. In addition, changes in the thermodynamic conditions during deposition can give rise to different interface structures between the individual structural domains of the film.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Dimos, D., Chaudhari, P., Mannhart, J., and LeGoues, F.K., Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 219 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Norton, M.G., Scarfone, C., Li, J., Carter, C.B., and Mayer, J.W., J. Mater. Res. 6, 2022 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Susnitzky, D.W., Simpson, Y.K., De Cooman, B.C., and Carter, C.B. in Defect Properties and Processing of High-Technology Nonmetallic Materials, edited by Chen, Y., Kingery, W.D., and Stokes, R.J., (Mater. Res. Soc. Proc. 60, Pittsburgh, PA 1986) pp 219226.Google Scholar
4. Norton, M.G., Summerfelt, S.R., and Carter, C.B., Appl. Phys. Lett. 56, 2246 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Tietz, L.A., Summerfelt, S.R., and Carter, C.B., Phil. Mag., in press, 1992.Google Scholar
6. Ho, H.-M., Goo, E., and Thomas, G., J. Appl. Phys. 59, 1606 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar