Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 28 references

Mechanism of Si doping in Plasma Assisted MBE Growth of \b{eta}-Ga2O3

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes that silicon doping in plasma-assisted molecular beam epitaxy of beta-Ga2O3 is controlled by the formation of volatile SiO at the silicon source, not by silicon's sublimation vapor pressure.

desk verdict Convinces me that SiO active oxidation explains the anomalous Si flux in beta-Ga2O3 MBE, but the quantitative case rests on an unvalidated SIMS-fluent assumption and missing uncertainties. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01101 v1 pith:ROR3ZUW6 submitted 2019-08-03 physics.app-ph

Nidhin Kurian Kalarickal , Zhanbo Xia , Joe McGlone , Sriram Krishnamoorthy , Wyatt Moore , Mark Brenner , Aaron R. Arehart , Steven A. Ringel
show 1 more author
Siddharth Rajan
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.app-ph
keywords Sidopingbeta-Ga2O3plasma-assistedMBEvolatileOactiveoxidationSIMSmolecularbeamepitaxyoxidesemiconductors
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the anomalously high silicon flux seen when doping beta-Ga2O3 by plasma-assisted MBE comes from a chemical reaction at the silicon cell: oxygen in the chamber oxidizes solid silicon into volatile SiO gas, which then delivers the dopant. This explains why the measured doping depends weakly on cell temperature but strongly on oxygen pressure, following a power law with exponent near 0.5. It also explains why long shutter openings and higher plasma power reduce the flux: extended exposure to activated oxygen converts the silicon surface to solid SiO2, shutting off the SiO supply until the cell is refreshed at high temperature. The result matters because it turns Si doping in oxide MBE from a sublimation problem into an oxidation-chemistry problem, with oxygen pressure and plasma conditions as the practical control knobs.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Si-O pressure-temperature diagram, specifically the boundary between active oxidation, which produces volatile SiO and leaves a clean Si surface, and passive oxidation, which forms solid SiO2. The three-step surface process (oxygen adsorption, surface reaction to SiO, and SiO desorption) converts the silicon source into a chemical reactor whose output flux is set by the oxygen partial pressure through the stoichiometric relation $Si_{3s} = k P_{O_2}^{0.5}$. The paper uses SIMS-derived silicon sheet density from short shutter pulses as the operational measure of that flux.

What would settle it

Direct line-of-sight mass spectrometry of the species leaving the silicon cell during oxygen exposure: if mass 44 (SiO) flux does not rise with oxygen pressure roughly as $P_{O_2}^{0.5}$ and remain nearly flat with cell temperature, the active-oxidation mechanism is wrong. A simpler check is to pre-oxidize the cell and show that no silicon doping occurs until the >1100 degrees Celsius refresh step is performed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in plasma-assisted MBE growth of $\beta$-Ga2O3, the silicon dopant flux is not limited by the vapor pressure of elemental silicon but by the formation of volatile silicon monoxide, SiO. In the Si-O pressure-temperature regime of the MBE chamber, solid silicon undergoes active oxidation $\mathrm{Si(s)} + \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{O_2(g)} \rightarrow \mathrm{SiO(g)}$, and this reaction sets the delivered flux. Evidence comes from integrated SIMS sheet densities from 3-second Si shutter pulses: the sheet density changed only 28% as the cell temperature went from 800 to 1000 degrees Celsius, whereas sublimation would predict about three orders of magnitude; the same sheet density scaled with oxygen chamber pressure as $P_{O_2}^{0.44}$, close to the stoichiometric exponent 0.5; and raising plasma power (more activated oxygen) suppressed the flux by pushing the surface toward passive oxidation and SiO2 formation. Extended shutter-open time likewise quenched the flux after about 15 minutes, consistent with growth of a solid SiO2 layer, and heating the cell above 1100 degrees Celsius restored it via the disproportionation reaction $\mathrm{SiO_2(s)} + \mathrm{Si(s)} \rightarrow 2\mathrm{SiO(g)}$.

Load-bearing premise

The integrated SIMS silicon sheet density from a 3-second shutter pulse is a faithful measure of the SiO flux delivered by the cell; if silicon atoms desorb, migrate, or incorporate unevenly during the growth interrupts, the fitted 0.44 pressure exponent and the weak temperature trend would misrepresent the source chemistry.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Si cell temperature is a weak control knob over a wide range, so reproducible doping in oxide MBE must be controlled primarily through oxygen pressure and plasma conditions.
  • Oxygen pressure stability during growth becomes a doping-stability requirement: fluctuations in chamber pressure will translate directly into fluctuations in delivered silicon flux.
  • Sustained doping runs with the shutter open for tens of minutes will suffer a decaying flux as the cell surface passivates, so long doping layers may need pulsed shutter operation or a mid-growth refresh step.
  • Higher oxygen plasma power, often desirable for oxide growth quality, suppresses SiO formation and therefore reduces silicon doping efficiency, creating a trade-off that growers must manage.
  • A high-temperature (>1100 degrees Celsius) silicon refresh step is an effective, practical way to restore a passivated Si source, and should be included in oxide MBE procedures for reproducible doping.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the active-oxidation mechanism is general, other dopant sources that form volatile suboxides, such as germanium (GeO) and tin (SnO), should show analogous oxygen-pressure-dependent fluxes in oxide MBE; this is a testable prediction for future work.
  • The near-0.5 pressure exponent suggests that doping calibrations in oxide MBE could be expressed as universal functions of oxygen pressure and plasma power rather than cell temperature, potentially simplifying transfer of recipes between different MBE systems.
  • A direct line-of-sight mass spectrometry measurement of mass 44 (SiO) during oxygen exposure would cleanly confirm the mechanism and quantify the active-oxidation probability, which the SIMS integration approach only infers indirectly.
  • The finite lifetime of the SiO source before SiO2 passivation implies that the Si cell has a limited total dopant dose per refresh cycle; this may set practical design constraints for high-dose or long-duration doping profiles.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that the anomalously high Si doping flux observed in plasma-assisted MBE of beta-Ga2O3 arises from active oxidation of the Si source to volatile SiO, rather than from Si sublimation. The authors support this mechanism with SIMS-derived integrated Si sheet densities (Si3s) measured under variations of Si cell temperature, oxygen chamber pressure, plasma power, and shutter-open time. They report a weak temperature dependence (28% increase between 800 and 1000 °C), a power-law oxygen-pressure dependence with fitted exponent 0.44 close to the stoichiometric 0.5 expected for Si(s) + 1/2 O2(g) -> SiO(g), suppression by activated oxygen, and a time-dependent reduction of Si flux under extended shutter-open conditions due to SiO2 formation. The paper concludes that Si flux is controlled by oxidation chemistry at the source, a result of practical relevance for Si doping in oxide MBE.

Significance. If the proposed mechanism is correct, it provides a coherent explanation for why Si doping in oxide MBE requires much lower cell temperatures than in non-oxide MBE, and it identifies source oxidation chemistry, not Si sublimation, as the flux-limiting process. The qualitative picture is supported by several independent observables (temperature trend, pressure trend, plasma-power effect, time-dependent passivation), and the comparison with D'Evelyn's reaction-probability data provides a useful external anchor. The main weakness is that the quantitative confirmation rests on the unvalidated assumption that SIMS-integrated Si3s equals the delivered SiO fluence with a constant, unity conversion factor, and the pressure-exponent fit includes a plasma-off data point together with plasma-on points. These issues are addressable with additional experiments and analysis, so the central claim is defensible but needs revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Oxygen-pressure variation (Eq. 5)] The load-bearing quantitative claim is the fitted exponent 0.44, which is interpreted through Eq. (6) as the stoichiometric signature of reaction (3). This interpretation requires that Si3s is a faithful, constant-factor measure of the SiO flux delivered to the substrate. The manuscript states that 'all the Si atoms are expected to stick to the epitaxial layer irrespective of whether the growth is on or off' (oxygen-pressure variation section), but no experiment verifies this. If Si desorbs from the Ga2O3 surface at 630 °C, or if its sticking coefficient depends on oxygen pressure or on the surface condition during the 3-s pulse, the measured exponent and the temperature trend would be artifacts of the measurement rather than properties of the source chemistry. The authors should provide replicate runs, SIMS error bars, and a control experiment (e.g., varying the substrate temperature or the post-pulse dwell time) that tests the unity-sticking assumption.
  2. [Oxygen-pressure variation (Eq. 5)] The power-law fit of Eq. (5) includes the 5 × 10−10 Torr data point taken after 12 h of pumping with the plasma off, whereas all other pressure points have the plasma on. Because Fig. 2(c) shows that activated oxygen strongly suppresses SiO flux, the 5 × 10−10 Torr point represents a different oxidation regime from the plasma-on points. Inclusion of this point in the fit can bias the exponent; the authors should refit the data excluding this point, or explicitly model the plasma contribution, or measure the pressure dependence with the plasma off for all points.
  3. [Eq. (6) and theoretical exponent] The manuscript asserts that under equilibrium active oxidation, the Si flux should scale as P_O2^0.5, but no derivation is given and the MBE environment is not in equilibrium because SiO is continuously removed by pumping. The 0.5 exponent follows from stoichiometry only under an additional assumption, such as local equilibrium at the surface or a specific rate-limiting step (e.g., dissociative adsorption of O2). The authors should state that kinetic assumption explicitly or cite a kinetic model for active oxidation under non-equilibrium, plasma-assisted conditions. Without this, the agreement between the fitted 0.44 and the theoretical 0.5 is suggestive but not a quantitative confirmation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption and text] The caption of Fig. 2 lists panels as (a) oxygen chamber pressure, (b) Si cell temperature, and (c) plasma power, but the text refers to Fig. 2(a) as temperature and Fig. 2(b) as oxygen pressure. Please correct the panel labels or the in-text references.
  2. [Eq. (5)] Please specify the units of the fitting constant k and state the confidence interval or R2 for the fitted exponent 0.44, so readers can assess the closeness to 0.5.
  3. [Introduction] The text states that 'group II elements like Si' provide shallow donor levels; Si is a group IV element. This appears to be a typo and should be corrected.
  4. [Oxygen-pressure variation] The sentence listing 'seven different oxygen pressures' actually lists eight values (3e-6, 5e-6, 1e-5, 1.25e-5, 1.5e-5, 1.7e-5, 1.9e-5, and 5e-10 Torr). Please correct the count or clarify that the base-pressure point is additional.
  5. [References] Reference [27] is not cited in the text; either cite it where relevant or remove it from the reference list.
  6. [Eq. (2)] In Eq. (2), the symbol rendered as π for the atomic mass should be m (or the appropriate mass variable), and the equation formatting should be cleaned up to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SiO mechanism is tested against external benchmarks and independent stoichiometry.

full rationale

The paper's central claim — that Si flux in plasma-assisted MBE of beta-Ga2O3 is controlled by active oxidation of Si to volatile SiO — is supported by SIMS measurements of Si3s as a function of cell temperature, oxygen pressure, plasma power, and shutter time, and it is compared against independent external benchmarks: the Si-O pressure-temperature diagram (Starodub et al.) and the measured active-oxidation probability of D'Evelyn et al. Equation (5) is an empirical power-law fit to the pressure-dependent Si3s data, while Eq. (6) is an independent stoichiometric expectation derived from the assumed reaction Si(s) + 1/2 O2(g) -> SiO(g). The fitted exponent 0.44 is compared with the theoretical 0.5 as a confirmation, not inserted into the mechanism as an input, so the match is not forced by construction. The temperature trend (28% increase between 800 and 1000 C) is compared with D'Evelyn's 30% increase, again an external check rather than a fitted parameter. Self-citations in the introduction ([22], [23]) merely document previously observed low Si-cell temperatures; the present paper independently reproduces the anomalous flux in its own SIMS structures, so those citations are not load-bearing. The main weakness is the stated assumption that all Si atoms stick to the epitaxial layer at 630 C, so that Si3s faithfully measures delivered SiO fluence; if Si desorbed or incorporated with a pressure-dependent sticking coefficient, the fitted exponent and temperature trend could be distorted. However, this is an unvalidated metrological assumption, not a circular reduction: no equation in the paper is equivalent to its own input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The circularity burden is therefore low.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on established Si oxidation thermodynamics, the equilibrium rate law from reaction stoichiometry, and the experimental assumption that SIMS sheet density tracks incident SiO flux. The only fitted parameters are the empirical prefactor and exponent of the pressure power law. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • power-law prefactor k = 10^15.47 (cm^-2 Torr^-0.44, units implied)
    Fitted constant in Eq. (5) relating Si3s to oxygen chamber pressure; no independent physical interpretation is given.
  • oxygen pressure exponent n = 0.44
    Exponent in the fit Si3s = k P_O2^n; compared to the theoretical 0.5 from active-oxidation stoichiometry, but no confidence interval is reported.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Clausius-Clapeyron vapor-pressure relation (Eq. 1) and the effusion-cell flux formula (Eq. 2) describe the baseline Si beam flux.
    Used to compute the expected Si flux from vapor-pressure data [26] and to establish the four-order discrepancy with observed Si3s.
  • domain assumption The Si-O pressure-temperature diagram, with active oxidation to volatile SiO and passive oxidation to solid SiO2, applies to the Si effusion cell in the MBE chamber.
    The paper's central mechanism depends on this external phase/kinetics picture from ref. [28] being valid at cell temperatures of 750-1000 C and oxygen pressures of 5e-10 to 1.9e-5 Torr.
  • domain assumption Under equilibrium active oxidation Si(s) + 1/2 O2(g) -> SiO(g), the SiO partial pressure scales as P_O2^0.5 (Eq. 6).
    This stoichiometric equilibrium relation is assumed without derivation; the observed exponent 0.44 is compared to it.
  • domain assumption All Si atoms incident on the beta-Ga2O3 surface stick at 630 C, including during growth interruptions, so integrated SIMS sheet density is proportional to integrated Si flux.
    Explicitly stated in the pressure-variation section; if Si desorbs or migrates during the 10-minute pressure-hold steps, the Si3s measurements would not directly represent SiO flux.
  • domain assumption Activated oxygen species have short lifetimes, so the Si source is directly exposed to them only when the shutter is open.
    Used to explain why extended shutter-open time passivates the source while short pulses do not (Fig. 3c).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mechanism of Si doping in Plasma Assisted MBE Growth of \b{eta}-Ga2O3." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ROR3ZUW6

@misc{pith2026190801101,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mechanism of Si doping in Plasma Assisted MBE Growth of \beta-Ga2O3},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ROR3ZUW6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01101}
}
read the original abstract

We report on the origin of high Si flux observed during the use of Si as a doping source in plasma assisted MBE growth of \b{eta}-Ga2O3. We show on the basis of secondary ion mass spectroscopy (SIMS) analysis that Si flux is not limited by the vapor pressure of Si but by the formation of volatile SiO. The low sublimation energy of SiO leads to weak dependence of the SiO flux of Si cell temperature and a strong dependence on the background oxygen pressure. Extended exposure to activated oxygen results in reduction of SiO flux due to the formation of SiO2 on the Si surface. The work reported provides key understanding for incorporating Si into future oxide-based semiconductor heterostructure and device MBE growth.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01101 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    and Wang, H., Applied Physics Letters, 112(3), p.032101

    Yan, X., Esqueda, I.S., Ma, J., Tice, J. and Wang, H., Applied Physics Letters, 112(3), p.032101. 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    and Romanov, A.E., Rev

    Stepanov, S.I., Nikolaev, V.I., Bougrov, V.E. and Romanov, A.E., Rev. Adv. Mater. Sci, 44, pp.63-86. 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    and Yamakoshi, S., physica status solidi (a) , 211(1), pp.21-26

    Higashiwaki, M., Sasaki, K., Kuramata, A., Masui, T. and Yamakoshi, S., physica status solidi (a) , 211(1), pp.21-26. 2014

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    and Chua, C.L., Advanced Electronic Materials, 4(1), p.1600501

    Tsao, J.Y., Chowdhury, S., Hollis, M.A., Jena, D., Johnson, N.M., Jones, K.A., Kaplar, R.J., Rajan, S., Van de Walle, C.G., Bellotti, E. and Chua, C.L., Advanced Electronic Materials, 4(1), p.1600501. 2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    and Hao, Y., IEEE Electron Device Letters, 39(10), pp.1564-1567

    Hu, Z., Zhou, H., Feng, Q., Zhang, J., Zhang, C., Dang, K., Cai, Y., Feng, Z., Gao, Y., Kang, X. and Hao, Y., IEEE Electron Device Letters, 39(10), pp.1564-1567. 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    and Xing, H.G., 2018

    Hu, Z., Nomoto, K., Li, W., Zhang, Z., Tanen, N., Thieu, Q.T., Sasaki, K., Kuramata, A., Nakamura, T., Jena, D. and Xing, H.G., 2018. Applied Physics Letters, 113(12), p.122103

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    and Leedy, K., IEEE Electron Device Letters, 38(6), pp.790-793

    Green, A.J., Chabak, K.D., Baldini, M., Moser, N., Gilbert, R., Fitch, R.C., Wagner, G., Galazka, Z., Mccandless, J., Crespo, A. and Leedy, K., IEEE Electron Device Letters, 38(6), pp.790-793. 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    and Rajan, S., IEEE Electron Device Letters, 39(4), pp.568-571

    Xia, Z., Joishi, C., Krishnamoorthy, S., Bajaj, S., Zhang, Y., Brenner, M., Lodha, S. and Rajan, S., IEEE Electron Device Letters, 39(4), pp.568-571. 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    and Yamakoshi, S., Applied Physics Letters, 103(12), p.123511

    Higashiwaki, M., Sasaki, K., Kamimura, T., Hoi Wong, M., Krishnamurthy, D., Kuramata, A., Masui, T. and Yamakoshi, S., Applied Physics Letters, 103(12), p.123511. 2013

    2013

  2. [10]

    and Isai, M., Journal of the American Ceramic Society , 90(9), pp.2879-

    Bartic, M., Baban, C.I., Suzuki, H., Ogita, M. and Isai, M., Journal of the American Ceramic Society , 90(9), pp.2879-

  3. [11]

    and Mastro, M.A., Applied Physics Reviews, 5(1), p.011301

    Pearton, S.J., Yang, J., Cary IV, P.H., Ren, F., Kim, J., Tadjer, M.J. and Mastro, M.A., Applied Physics Reviews, 5(1), p.011301. 2018

    2018

  4. [12]

    and Speck, J.S., Applied Physics Express , 7(9), p.095501

    Okumura, H., Kita, M., Sasaki, K., Kuramata, A., Higashiwaki, M. and Speck, J.S., Applied Physics Express , 7(9), p.095501. 2014

    2014

  5. [13]

    and Speck, J.S., Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A: Vacuum, Surfaces, and Films, 28(2), pp.354-359

    Tsai, M.Y., Bierwagen, O., White, M.E. and Speck, J.S., Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A: Vacuum, Surfaces, and Films, 28(2), pp.354-359. 2010. [14] Zhang, Y., Alema, F., Mauze, A., Koksaldi, O.S., Miller, R., Osinsky, A. and Speck, J.S., APL Materials, 7(2), p.022506. 2019

    2010

  6. [15]

    and Yamakoshi, S., Applied Physics Express, 8(1), p.015503

    Murakami, H., Nomura, K., Goto, K., Sasaki, K., Kawara, K., Thieu, Q.T., Togashi, R., Kumagai, Y., Higashiwaki, M., Kuramata, A. and Yamakoshi, S., Applied Physics Express, 8(1), p.015503. 2014

    2014

  7. [16]

    and Zhao, H., Applied Physics Letters , 112(5), p.052104

    Rafique, S., Karim, M.R., Johnson, J.M., Hwang, J. and Zhao, H., Applied Physics Letters , 112(5), p.052104. 2018

    2018

  8. [17]

    and Speck, J.S., Semiconductor Science and Technology , 33(4), p.045001

    Han, S.H., Mauze, A., Ahmadi, E., Mates, T., Oshima, Y. and Speck, J.S., Semiconductor Science and Technology , 33(4), p.045001. 2018

    2018

  9. [18]

    and Chabak, K.D., Applied Physics Letters, 113(6), p.062101

    Neal, A.T., Mou, S., Rafique, S., Zhao, H., Ahmadi, E., Speck, J.S., Stevens, K.T., Blevins, J.D., Thomson, D.B., Moser, N. and Chabak, K.D., Applied Physics Letters, 113(6), p.062101. 2018

    2018

  10. [19]

    and Jena, D., Applied Physics Letters, 101(3), p.032109

    Afroz Faria, F., Guo, J., Zhao, P., Li, G., Kumar Kandaswamy, P., Wistey, M., Xing, H. and Jena, D., Applied Physics Letters, 101(3), p.032109. 2012

    2012

  11. [20]

    and Merlin, R., Journal of applied physics , 72(7), pp.3129-3135

    Li, W.Q., Bhattacharya, P.K., Kwok, S.H. and Merlin, R., Journal of applied physics , 72(7), pp.3129-3135. 1992

    1992

  12. [21]

    and Fitch, R.C., IEEE Electron Device Letters, 39(1), pp.67-70

    Chabak, K.D., McCandless, J.P., Moser, N.A., Green, A.J., Mahalingam, K., Crespo, A., Hendricks, N., Howe, B.M., Tetlak, S.E., Leedy, K. and Fitch, R.C., IEEE Electron Device Letters, 39(1), pp.67-70. 2017

    2017

  13. [22]

    and Jessen, G., Applied Physics Letters, 112(17), p.173502

    Zhang, Y., Neal, A., Xia, Z., Joishi, C., Johnson, J.M., Zheng, Y., Bajaj, S., Brenner, M., Dorsey, D., Chabak, K. and Jessen, G., Applied Physics Letters, 112(17), p.173502. 2018

    2018

  14. [23]

    and Rajan, S., Applied Physics Letters , 112(23), p.233503

    Zhang, Y., Joishi, C., Xia, Z., Brenner, M., Lodha, S. and Rajan, S., Applied Physics Letters , 112(23), p.233503. 2018

    2018

  15. [24]

    Journal of Chemical Education 28.8: 428

    Brown, Oliver LI. Journal of Chemical Education 28.8: 428. 1951

    1951

  16. [25]

    Molecular Beam Epitaxy

    Franchi, Secondo. Molecular Beam Epitaxy. Elsevier, 2013. p.6

    2013

  17. [26]

    Journal of physical and chemical reference data 15.3: 967-983

    Desai, Pramond D. Journal of physical and chemical reference data 15.3: 967-983. (1986) [27]Krishnamoorthy, S., Xia, Z., Joishi, C., Zhang, Y., McGlone, J., Johnson, J., Brenner, M., Arehart, A.R., Hwang, J., Lodha, S. and Rajan, S., Applied Physics Letters, 111(2), p.023502. 2017

    1986

  18. [28]

    and Gustafsson, T., Surface Review and Letters, 6(01), pp.45-52

    Starodub, D., Gusev, E.P., Garfunkel, E. and Gustafsson, T., Surface Review and Letters, 6(01), pp.45-52. 1999

    1999

  19. [29]

    See https://www.eag.com/techniques/mass-spec/secondary-ion-mass-spectrometry-sims/ for more information on SIMS scan (last accessed July 18, 2019)

    2019

  20. [30]

    and Engel, T., 1987

    D'evelyn, M.P., Nelson, M.M. and Engel, T., 1987. Surface science, 186(1-2), pp.75-114. 1987

    1987

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.