Subtle Nanostructuring of the Au/Ru(0001) Surface
- 290 Downloads
We report on a scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) study of the nanostructuring of the Au/Ru(0001) thin film system for the cases of 5 monolayers (ML) and 9 ML of Au deposited at 300 K and subsequently annealed at 1050 K. A new laterally periodic superstructure is observed at the surface of the 9 ML film, which is essentially a rippling in height of the surface atomic layer with the magnitude up to 0.03 ± 0.01 nm and in-plane periodicity of 4.6 ± 0.4 nm, the long-range order being absent.
KeywordsGold Ruthenium Surface Reconstruction Scanning tunneling microscopy (STM)
Scanning tunneling microscopy
The Au(111) surface of bulk samples exhibits a rather unique 22 × √3 reconstruction as observed by STM [1, 2], which is now well understood in terms of atomic structure and electronic properties [3, 4, 5, 6]. Normally, the Au(111)-22 × √3 reconstruction is explained by 23 atoms of the first surface layer sitting on top of the 22 atoms of the second layer, leading to orientationally degenerate contraction along the (110) direction. In order to minimize the free energy of the surface, the later splits into physically equivalent elastic stress domains of alternating orientation, which arrange themselves into a well-known herringbone pattern . Obviously, a surface stress has a tremendous influence on the reconstruction of Au(111), so that one might expect its structural alterations if the surface stress varies. Indeed, it was found that single atomic steps release the tensile surface stress resulting in modifications to the herringbone pattern as a function of the terrace width [8, 9]. Additionally, the abovementioned pattern could have been modified locally amidst an atomically flat terrace by inducing local stress through artificially created surface defects by means of atomic manipulation with a scanning tunneling microscope tip . Thin film samples of Au(111) can experience additional interface stress  due to lattice constant mismatch with the supporting substrate, again, influencing the subtleties of the surface reconstruction .
Our interest in thin film systems involving Au(111) stems from our previous work, where we observed an atomically flat surface of gold for a 14 monolayer (ML) film buried under a single layer of BN  and a 2 ML film , in both cases on top of the Ru(0001) substrate after annealing at 1050 K. Also, in the previous work of one of us, an atomically flat wetting layer was formed by 2 ML of Au deposited onto Ru(0001) at 700 K . The flatness of the film surface at the atomic scale signals the possibility of the reconstruction, as intuitively expected for gold; however, there can be a departure from the standard (22 × √3-herringbone) picture due to additional stress, which is induced by the lattice mismatch between Ru(0001) and Au(111) characterized by in-plane lattice constants of 0.271 and 0.288 nm respectively. Indeed, a herringbone with unusually large period of about 100 nm was found for a 1 ML Au film and a distinctive trigon structure for a 2 ML film, both deposited on the Ru(0001) substrate at ~ 420 K and flash annealed at 790 K . In the literature, one can also find investigations of the Au deposition on Ru(0001) at room temperature (RT), showing two-dimensional fractal or dendritic structures within the submonolayer films  and gradual nucleation and completion of subsequent atomic layers up to 3 ML coverage .
Evidently, the experiments reported in the literature mentioned above relate to the Au/Ru(0001) interface prepared in rather different temperature regimes, with an evident lack of information above the 3 ML thickness. Therefore, investigating thicker Au film on top of Ru(0001) was the goal of the present work. Here, we choose the following preparation scheme: deposition at RT and subsequent annealing at 1050 K — similar to our previous work.
All experiments, including sample preparation and its characterization, were performed in a custom-built ultra-high vacuum (UHV) system; details have been described elsewhere . The initial preparation of the single-crystal Ru(0001) substrate (sample size 5 mm × 5 mm × 5 mm, delivered by Mateck) consisted of sputtering with 1.5 keV Ar+ ions (Ar purity of 99.999%, delivered by Linde), the sample being kept at 1100 K to heal the damage to the crystalline structure of ruthenium. Next, the surface was exposed to molecular oxygen (purity 99.999%, delivered by Linde) at 5 × 10−7 mbar range for several dozen minutes, while keeping the same sample temperature. This treatment had removed carbon contamination from the near-surface region of the sample. Gold was evaporated onto the substrate at room temperature (RT) from Ø 0.25 mm wire (purity 99.99%, delivered by Sigma Aldrich) by an e-beam evaporator (delivered by Omicron) at a rate of 1 ML/min. The purity of our Au source was checked by means of Auger electron spectroscopy in a separate experimental setup, as well as calibrated by monitoring the Au (NVV, 69 eV)/Ru (MNN, 273 eV) peaks ratio. The surface topography of the samples was investigated in-situ by means of STM in constant current mode (VT-STM, delivered by Omicron). All measurements were performed at the background pressure in the UHV range and always after the sample has cooled to RT, the later in order to minimize a thermal drift and associated image distortions. We have used metallic probe tips hand cut from the Pt80%Ir20% Ø 0.25 mm wire (purity 99.9%, delivered by Sigma Aldrich). These tips were conditioned in the tunneling regime by voltage and current pulses of the magnitude up to 10 V and 300 nA correspondingly, at surface locations far away from the actual imaging area. The pulses were applied until a stable imaging was possible at certain tunneling conditions, albeit different among different samples and experiments. A well-established (2 × 2)-O/Ru(0001) surface structure, featuring an easily resolved hexagonal array of O atoms with 0.54 nm lateral periodicity [20, 21], was used for calibration of our STM instrument. It was chosen because of the ease of its preparation in our experimental setup, essentially by a slight variation of the substrate preparation procedure. Namely, the oxygen exposure was terminated by turning off the sample heater while the oxygen supply was kept on for several minutes, leading to sample cooling in oxygen atmosphere. All STM data processing was performed using the Gwyddion software, which is freely available from the gwyddion.net website.
Results and Discussion
The case of as-deposited 5 ML film is presented in Fig. 1b. Essentially, we observe a roughening of the sample surface as a result of either Stranski-Krastanov or Volmer-Weber growth mode of Au on Ru(0001) at RT. It manifests itself by nucleation of some next atomic layer, while the previous atomic layer of the growing film is not yet complete. However, the Stranski-Krastanov and Volmer-Weber types of growth  can be differentiated on the basis of ref. , where the onset of the second layer nucleation was reported at 0.8 ML nominal Au coverage. Thus, our current data is in line with the Volmer-Weber growth mode in the Au/Ru(0001) system at RT. In Fig. 1b, we observe already three consecutive atomic layers of the adsorbate being simultaneously exposed to vacuum within the visible region of the sample—designated by the cross, plus, and minus signs. Keeping in mind the 5 ML coverage, one can tentatively assign them to fourth (“−”), fifth (“×”), and sixth (“+”) atomic layers of the growing Au film. Also, at this growth stage, one can still recognize the original surface locations above the buried argon bubbles, which are on average slightly brighter (higher) than their surroundings.
Finally, in Fig. 3d, we observe a small surface area (17 nm × 17 nm) containing several superstructure unit cells, which can be considered laterally periodic at this scale. This image was obtained with atomic resolution, so the cross-sections in Fig. 3e, f were obtained along high-symmetry directions of the atomic lattice (white dashed lines 1 and 2). The magnitude of the height corrugation between the individual atoms is typically within the range from 0.005 to 0.015 nm, while the magnitude of the surface rippling is roughly 0.03 nm, slightly higher than in Fig. 3a (which may be explained by a higher setting of the constant tunneling current). Therefore, based on available data, the best estimate of the uncertainty of the measured surface rippling is ± 0.01 nm. We were reluctant to extract the exact interatomic distance within the topmost layer from cross-sections (3e, f), due to STM artifacts already mentioned above, pending a dedicated investigation by means of diffraction techniques. White arrows outline the sides of a unit cell of the superstructure arising due to surface rippling. In the given location, its lateral periodicity is roughly 5 nm, which is somewhat larger than the average value obtained by FFT from Fig. 3a. An important observation is a directional non-coincidence of the superstructure’s translation vectors and the high symmetry directions of the atomic lattice. Further, this angular deviation is different for both of these vectors, which may indicate the first and the second surface layer being rotated relative to one another. Again, the exact angular values could not be extracted due to lateral distortions within the image. If the true periodicities along the dashed lines 1 and 2 are different (meaning an oblique unit cell of the surface atomic lattice), then there is an anisotropic contraction of the topmost atomic layer, which is also the case for the standard Au(111)-22 × √3 reconstruction. On single-crystal Au(111), the resulting stress is released through spontaneous formation of the herringbone superstructure, while in the case of Figs. 2b and 3a, it is the absence of the long-range order, which will be equivalent to spontaneous formation of a set of orientation-degenerate elastic strain domains.
The superstructure in Fig. 3d resembles the trigon structure reported by Ling et al. for the 2 ML Au film on Ru(0001) ; however, a precise examination of the corresponding STM images reveals that they are not identical. They are also very different by the nature of their preparation: deposition at ~ 420 K and flash annealing at 790 K for the trigon structure  as opposed to RT deposition and prolonged annealing at 1050 K in the present work. Clearly, all these structures, including a disordered surface rippling on top of the 5 ML in Fig. 2a, result from different stress experienced by the Au film. However, caution is advised in relating a certain film thickness to the superstructure observed on its surface, as differences in thermal treatment may result in different structures with different stress values even for the same nominal thickness. Although Au and Ru do not form bulk alloys [24, 25], there is experimental evidence that surface alloys can be formed in this system . We speculate that the degree of such alloying can be influenced by the temperature and duration of thermal treatment, resulting in the strained Au film with a lattice constant anywhere from bulk Ru to bulk Au values. This uncertainty prevents us from trying to build a tentative atomic model of the new superstructure depicted in Figs. 2b and 3a,d. This can be realistically performed only knowing the precise actual values of the lattice constants in both the first and the second atomic layers, which can be obtained from diffraction experiments. In parallel, more precise STM measurements should be performed with thermal drift correction being applied in order to increase the accuracy of the obtained real-space data on the first atomic layer.
Further experiments are also required to further elucidate the thickness dependence of the nanostructuring pattern. The most intriguing question if the bulk-like herringbone pattern will be achieved at high enough thickness values. The data available so far show three qualitatively different cases (for our preparation route): no nanostructuring up to 3 ML Au, unordered rippling at 5 ML, and ordered rippling of the surface of the 9 ML film. Therefore, our preliminary experiments reported in this paper confirm our initial hypothesis that the varying film thickness will lead to different reconstructions of the Au(111) surface in the Au/Ru(0001) system. They hint on some intricate dependence of the nanostructuring on the Au film thickness, thus warranting further detailed studies with more different amounts of deposited material. Additional effort will be required to avoid any possible instrumental artifacts or uncertainties, in particular, obtaining all the STM images in identical tunneling conditions (this will require more attempts to prepare the probe tips, which produce stable tunneling current at the same bias voltage on different samples).
Any possible applications of the new superstructure would be roughly of the same practical value as that of the Au(111) herringbone self-assembled nanoscopic pattern (keeping in mind traditionally high cost of the single-crystal metal substrates). The latter is a proven nanotemplate for creating highly regular molecular arrays by exploiting preferential adsorbtion of suitable molecules in certain parts of the surface unit cell. In a similar manner, the newly found 4.6 nm superstructure may find uses as a nanotemplate for molecular arrays but of lateral periodicity and symmetry different from that on single-crystal Au(111).
In conclusion, we have identified by means of STM investigation both disordered and ordered rippling of the surface of Au(111) film on top of Ru(0001) substrate for 5 ML and 9 ML nominal thickness, respectively. In the latter case, a hexagonal or oblique superstructure is formed with an average in-plane periodicity of 4.6 ± 0.4 nm but with no long-range order. It is believed that this rippling is similar in nature to the well-known Au(111)-22 × √3 herringbone reconstruction observed on single-crystal samples of gold. The exact rippling pattern of the newly reported superstructure results from the interplay of different interatomic distances on the surface and inside of the Au film, which are not yet precisely established. Further investigations with various diffraction techniques as well as ab-initio modeling would be required in order to establish an exact atomic model of the reported surface superstructure.
Availability of data and materials
The datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are included within the article and its additional files as supplementary material. There is one separate data file (named accordingly) for each STM image. They can be opened with a Gwyddion software package, which is freely available from the http://gwyddion.net/ website for all major operating systems.
Both authors have contributed equally to the present work.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
- 21.Calleja F, Arnau A, Hinarejos JJ, de Parga AL V’z, Hofer WA, Echenique PM, Miranda R (2004) Contrast reversal and shape changes of atomic adsorbates measured with scanning tunneling microscopy. Phys Rev Lett 92:206101Google Scholar
- 24.Curtarolo A, Morgan D, Ceder G (2005) Accuracy of ab initio methods in predicting the crystal structures of metals: a review of 80 binary alloys. Thermochem 29:163–211Google Scholar
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.