Time-resolved study of carbonization and growth of ultrathin 3C-SiC on Si(111) under ultra-high vacuum

Eva Kol\'ibalov\'a; Jan Michali\v{c}ka; Josef Pol\v{c}\'ak; Michal Hor\'ak; Mojdeh Fallahpour; Petr B\'abor; Pranjali Jadhao; Stanislav Voborn\'y; Tom\'a\v{s} \v{S}ikola

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 27 references

Time-resolved study of carbonization and growth of ultrathin 3C-SiC on Si(111) under ultra-high vacuum

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Exposing Si(111) to ethylene at 800 °C turns the surface into a 9 nm 3C-SiC layer.

desk verdict A useful time-resolved dataset for C2H4 carbonization of Si(111); the qualitative island-to-coalescence picture is convincing, but the XPS-derived crossover and plateau numbers need an attenuation correction before they are taken literally. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09431 v1 pith:MGCV57EM submitted 2026-08-10 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hall

Pranjali Jadhao , Mojdeh Fallahpour , Josef Polčák , Eva Kolíbalová , Michal Horák , Jan Michalička , Petr Bábor , Stanislav Voborný

show 1 more author

Tomáš Šikola

This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.mes-hall

keywords 3C-SiCSi(111)carbonizationethyleneexposureX-rayphotoelectronspectroscopyVolmer-Webergrowthheteroepitaxialbufferultra-highvacuumislandcoalescence

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 tracks, in time, what happens when a clean Si(111) surface is held at 800 °C in ethylene under ultra-high vacuum: the outermost silicon is progressively converted into silicon carbide. From XPS peak areas it reports that the SiC fraction overtakes elemental silicon between 120 and 160 minutes and saturates near 80–81 percent after about 180 minutes, leaving roughly 19–20 percent residual elemental Si. Correlative SEM and AFM show a matching morphological story: sparse islands nucleate, grow, and coalesce into a near-continuous layer that contains deep voids and sits on a rough interface. The paper concludes that carbonization on Si(111) proceeds by island-mediated (Volmer–Weber) growth into a self-limiting, not fully closed, 3C-SiC layer about 9 nm thick, which matters because such layers are used as buffers for III-nitride and other carbide heteroepitaxy on silicon.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing instrument is the time-resolved XPS peak decomposition of the Si 2p doublet: each spectrum is fitted with a fixed 2:1 spin–orbit doublet (0.61 eV splitting, GL(30) line shapes), and the relative areas of the Si–Si and Si–C components are converted directly into elemental-Si and SiC fractions as a function of exposure time. This quantifies the chemical conversion that the morphology story is built on. Supporting the XPS time axis are correlative SEM/AFM height and roughness profiles, site-specific AES C/Si ratios at islands versus valleys, SIMS depth profiling, and STEM/EELS on one FIB-prepared lamella, which together assign the islands to carbide nuclei and the final state to a rough, voided ~9 nm 3C-SiC layer.

What would settle it

Measure the same carbonization with angle-resolved XPS or with a calibrated overlayer-thickness standard: if the elemental-Si signal corrected for inelastic attenuation still leaves about 19–20 percent at saturation, the area-ratio claim survives; if it disappears or the crossover time moves by tens of minutes, the direct conversion of component areas is wrong. Alternatively, cross-section many grains by STEM to see whether 9 nm is the mean thickness or an outlier.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On clean Si(111) exposed to C2H4 at 800 °C under UHV, silicon converts to cubic silicon carbide through a nucleation–coalescence sequence rather than uniform layer-by-layer growth. The central quantitative evidence is the Si 2p core-level decomposition: the Si–C doublet rises from below 15 percent at 40 min to 81 percent at 220 min and 80.8 percent at 240 min, while the elemental Si doublet falls to about 19 percent and does not vanish. That persistent elemental signal is interpreted as substrate silicon visible through a layer that is not fully continuous, with voids and a rough SiC/Si interface. AES shows carbon enrichment localized at islands; SIMS and STEM/EELS give a layer thickness around 9 nm and identify the zinc-blende 3C-SiC polytype through {111} and {220} interplanar spacings. The paper frames this as a direct time-resolved picture of SiC buffer-layer formation on Si(111), with the reaction saturating rather than proceeding to complete coverage.

Load-bearing premise

The direct conversion of Si 2p component areas into a SiC fraction assumes negligible attenuation of the underlying elemental-Si signal through the growing carbide, and the single 9 nm thickness measured on one island grain in one TEM lamella is taken as representative of the whole layer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

After roughly 180–240 min the carbide fraction plateaus near 80–81 percent, so the reaction is self-limiting under these conditions, not complete.
The residual ~19–20 percent elemental Si signal comes from substrate silicon visible through voids and incomplete coverage, not from a homogeneous partially converted layer.
SiC nucleates at islands whose carbon content is 2.0–2.3 times that of the surrounding substrate, so early carbonization is spatially localized.
A near-continuous ~9 nm 3C-SiC layer with sharp local interfaces and a rough average interface is achievable at 800 °C in UHV.
For buffer applications, the paper suggests that shorter exposures near 80–100 min and lower growth temperatures are preferable to minimize voids.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper: if the elemental-Si XPS signal were corrected for attenuation by the overlying SiC layer, the reported crossover time and 80–81 percent plateau could shift; measuring the same reaction with angle-resolved XPS would test this directly.
Beyond the paper: the ~9 nm thickness rests on one selected island grain in a single TEM lamella, so the average film thickness could be meaningfully different, which would change the interpretation of the SIMS profile width.
Beyond the paper: the same island-nucleation framework may apply to other carbide buffer layers grown on Si(111) by reactive carbon exposure, suggesting that void control, not just carbide purity, is the key template-quality parameter.
Beyond the paper: a practical extension would be to monitor void formation during growth with in-situ scattering or spectroscopic methods, since the paper identifies voids as the main obstacle for subsequent Mo2C growth.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This is a solid, useful time-resolved study, and the central picture — SiC nucleates as islands, grows, coalesces, and leaves voids — is convincing. The quantitative XPS numbers should not be taken literally until an attenuation correction is applied.

What's actually new: the dataset. A time series from 2 min to 4 h for C2H4 carbonization of Si(111) in UHV, tracked by XPS, SEM/AFM, site-specific AES, SIMS, and STEM-EELS, is not in the cited literature. The qualitative growth mode is not a surprise — Volmer–Weber island growth and coalescence have been seen on Si(100) and with other precursors — but this specific precursor/orientation/time-resolved combination fills a genuine gap.

What works well: the multi-technique convergence. XPS assignments are checked against published binding energies, C 1s and Si 2p trends agree, AES shows persistent carbon enrichment at islands, and SIMS and STEM-EELS give a consistent thickness. TEM interplanar spacings confirm 3C-SiC. I also give credit for explicitly stating what AES cannot determine (polytype) and deferring to TEM. No circular reasoning.

Soft spots, in order of importance. First, the main quantitative claim — SiC crossing 50% between 120 and 160 min and saturating at 80–81% — comes directly from fitted Si 2p component areas with no attenuation correction. The stress-test formula is correct: for a patchy layer, the measured ratio is not the coverage fraction. At the reported 9 nm thickness and λ ≈ 2.5–3 nm, the correction shifts the long-time residual elemental Si from 19–20% to roughly 14–17%, so the qualitative conclusion survives. But at early times (40–80 min), when islands are thin, the uncorrected ratio can overestimate the carbide fraction substantially, making the shape of Fig. 2(a) and the exact crossover time insecure. Second, the 9 nm thickness is from one selected island-grain in a single FIB lamella, while AFM height profiles at 240 min show features of 3–4 nm, so the representative thickness is unclear. Third, there are no error bars or replicate samples, and Table 2 lists a 220 min sample while the text discusses 180 and 240 min; the crossover time is asserted from the graph but is absent from the table.

None of this is fatal. The qualitative story holds, and the quantitative issues are addressable with a stratified-layer model, error bars, and more TEM sampling.

Who it is for: people working on SiC buffer layers on Si(111) for III-nitrides, and anyone growing carbides on silicon. It deserves a serious referee — I would send it out with the expectation of revision.

Recommendation: engage with it. Ask for the attenuation correction and broader TEM sampling, but treat it as a legitimate contribution.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a time-resolved study of the carbonization of Si(111) by C2H4 exposure at 800 °C under UHV, using in-situ XPS and ex-situ SEM, AFM, AES, SIMS, and STEM/EELS. The authors claim that SiC forms via island nucleation, growth, and coalescence, with the Si 2p carbide component overtaking the elemental component between 120 and 160 min and saturating at 80–81%, leaving about 19–20% elemental Si, and that the resulting layer is a rough, partially continuous 3C-SiC film about 9 nm thick with interfacial voids.

Significance. The qualitative picture—carbidic Si–C appears, islands nucleate and coalesce, and TEM shows a zinc-blende lattice consistent with 3C-SiC—is supported by multiple complementary techniques and is a useful contribution to the sparse literature on Si(111) carbonization. The paper appropriately acknowledges in Section 3.3 that AES does not provide diffraction-based polytype identification and uses TEM as the structural confirmation. The main value is the combined chemical and morphological time sequence. However, the quantitative time course and the 'self-limiting' conclusion currently rest on uncorrected XPS component areas and on a single TEM measurement, so those quantitative claims need revision before they can be considered established.

major comments (4)

[Section 3.1, Fig. 2(a), Table 2] The Si 2p component areas are converted directly into phase fractions without any attenuation correction for the growing carbide layer. For a patchy overlayer with coverage θ and thickness d, the measured carbide fraction is approximately θ(1−exp(−d/λ)) / [1−θ exp(−d/λ)], where λ is the effective attenuation length; therefore the reported 80–81% plateau and 19–20% residual elemental Si are not equal to the true uncovered surface fraction, and the crossover time between 120 and 160 min is not a direct readout of the converted fraction. Because the interpretation of residual Si as substrate visible through voids (Section 3.1) and the 'self-limiting' conclusion (Section 4) both depend on this ratio, the authors should re-analyze the XPS data with a stratified overlayer model using realistic λ values and the island thickness distribution.
[Section 3.4, Fig. 10] The reported 9 nm SiC thickness and the 'roughly 50% at composition over the depth from 0 to 9 nm' are extracted from one homogeneous part of one island-grain in a single FIB lamella. No statistics over multiple grains or lamellae and no uncertainty estimate are provided. Since the XPS interpretation in Section 3.1 relies on the thickness of the carbide layer, the representativeness of this single 9 nm value must be demonstrated.
[Section 3.1, Table 2, Fig. 2(a)] No error bars, replicate measurements, or fitting-sensitivity analysis are reported. Each time point corresponds to a single sample and a single CasaXPS fit with fixed FWHM, GL(30) line shape, and 2:1 doublet ratio; the quoted fractions (85.2%, 73.7%, 81.1%, 80.8%) are presented without any uncertainty. The quantitative curve in Fig. 2(a) should include uncertainties and a demonstration that the crossover time and saturation plateau are robust to reasonable variation of the fitting constraints.
[Section 3.4, Fig. 10(c)] The interplanar spacings of 2.60 Å and 1.62 Å are assigned to {111} and {220} planes of 3C-SiC, but the corresponding bulk 3C-SiC values are approximately 2.52 Å and 1.54 Å. The 3–5% discrepancy requires an explanation (e.g., strain, calibration, or measurement uncertainty). Without this, the d-spacing evidence for the 3C polytype is weaker than stated, although the growth conditions and the observed symmetry are supportive.

minor comments (6)

[Table 2 and Section 3.1] Table 2 lists a growth time of '220 min' and a saturation value at that time, while the growth-duration list, Fig. 1, and the text use 240 min; please clarify which exposure time is correct.
[Section 3.1, Fig. 2] The y-axis label 'relative fractions of phases in the modified layer' should be defined more precisely; the reader needs to know whether these are signal-area ratios or atomic fractions, especially because the two are not identical without matrix and attenuation corrections.
[Section 3.1] The statement that the high C–Si fraction (>90%) from C 1s and the saturating Si–C fraction (~81%) from Si 2p provide 'internally consistent evidence' is not directly justified, because C 1s and Si 2p probe different depths and have different sensitivity factors; this should be reworded or quantified.
[Section 3.2] There are several typographical issues, including 'In [Fig. 3(a)] these terraces are obviously seen by the decoration of the SiC islands' (brackets and wording), 'SEM images of of SiC nanostructures,' and 'the two the longest exposures'; these should be corrected.
[Section 3.4] Reference [26] appears to contain duplicated author text ('J.P. Li, A.J. Steckl, J. J.P. Li, A.J. Steckl, J.'); please fix the reference formatting.
[Conclusion] The term 'Mo2C MXenes' is used without introduction; consider clarifying the connection to the earlier discussion of 2D Mo2C growth and provide the appropriate context or reference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the central claims are direct experimental measurements checked against published reference values, with no fitted-input-as-prediction or load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's principal claims—the progressive rise of the SiC component in Si 2p spectra to 80–81%, the accompanying morphological progression from islands to a coalesced layer, the localized carbon enrichment at AES island sites, and the identification of 3C-SiC by TEM interplanar spacings—are all direct measurements, not outputs of a fitted model that presupposes the result. The SiC fraction is defined operationally as the fitted Si 2p Si–C component area normalized within the Si 2p doublet, and the paper explicitly states that the plotted fractions are those areas (Table 2, Section 3.1), so no hidden reduction occurs. The binding-energy assignments are checked against published literature ranges rather than derived from the claim. The polytype assignment is initially inferred from growth conditions with external citations and then independently confirmed by STEM/EELS lattice-spacing measurements against known 3C-SiC and Si values, so the confirmation is not circular. The only self-citation is reference [14], which describes the UHV apparatus and is not load-bearing for any scientific conclusion. The skeptical concern about attenuation of the elemental-Si signal through the growing carbide layer is a legitimate quantitative refinement of the reported fractions, but it does not make the derivation circular: the paper's fraction is what it says it is, a signal-ratio measurement, and the paper's own interpretation of the residual silicon signal is separately supported by AFM and TEM observations. No step reduces by construction to its own inputs, and no load-bearing claim rests on an unverified self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central quantitative claims rest on standard, unchecked analysis choices: XPS peak-fitting constraints, a linear mapping from peak areas to phase fractions, and the assumption that separate samples can be plotted as one time course. The paper introduces no new theoretical entities, and its 3C-SiC identification is checked against known lattice spacings.

free parameters (1)

XPS Si 2p peak-fitting constraints = FWHM 0.61 eV, spin-orbit splitting 0.61 eV, doublet intensity ratio 2:1
These fixed values are taken from a clean Si reference [16] and used for all Si 2p fits; the reported SiC fraction, crossover time, and saturation plateau depend on them.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption XPS chemical-state assignments follow published binding energies for elemental Si and SiC.
The identification of the Si 2p and C 1s components as Si-Si, Si-C, and C-C relies on reference values from Refs 17-20 rather than on independent standards measured in this work.
domain assumption Fixed XPS lineshape constraints are valid for all Si 2p fits.
A single FWHM, spin-orbit splitting, and 2:1 doublet ratio are applied to elemental and carbidic components alike; the derived SiC fractions depend on these constraints.
domain assumption Si 2p component area ratios map linearly to phase fractions without attenuation correction.
The text states that the integrated Si-C area is a direct measure of the carbide fraction; this neglects differential photoelectron attenuation between the substrate and the overlayer.
domain assumption Separate samples prepared for each exposure time form a single time course.
Ex-situ characterization uses a different sample per time point and no replicate samples, so the plotted evolution assumes negligible sample-to-sample variation.
domain assumption At 800 C and 2.5e-4 Pa, ethylene dissociates completely, and hydrogen desorption leaves carbon as the only reacting species.
The interpretation of the C 1s C-C component as minor contamination assumes the chosen conditions produce clean carbonization; the paper does not measure gas-phase products.
domain assumption The SIMS erosion rate remains constant across the SiC layer and the Si substrate.
The 11 nm depth estimate from the C+ signal width assumes a uniform sputter rate of 1.55 nm/s, while matrix effects and ion-beam mixing are acknowledged as broadening factors.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Time-resolved study of carbonization and growth of ultrathin 3C-SiC on Si(111) under ultra-high vacuum." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MGCV57EM

@misc{pith2026260809431,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Time-resolved study of carbonization and growth of ultrathin 3C-SiC on Si(111) under ultra-high vacuum},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MGCV57EM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09431}
}

abstract

The early-stage formation of silicon carbide (SiC) on Si(111) by ethylene exposure under ultra-high vacuum (UHV) was investigated to resolve the time-dependent chemical and morphological evolution of an ultrathin layer. Clean Si(111) substrates were exposed to C$_2$H$_4$ at 800 {\deg}C for 2 min to 4 h, and the surfaces followed by in-situ X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and ex-situ AFM, SEM, AES, SIMS and TEM. Si 2p and C 1s peak analysis shows the progressive conversion of elemental silicon into a carbidic Si-C phase, the SiC fraction overtaking the elemental component between 120 and 160 min and saturating near 80-81% beyond 180 min, leaving about 19-20% residual elemental silicon. Correlative SEM and AFM reveal a parallel morphological progression, from sparse isolated islands to a coalesced, near-continuous layer. AES depth profiling confirms carbon incorporated into the near-surface region rather than weakly adsorbed as contamination, assigning the islands to early SiC nuclei. TEM confirms the zinc-blende lattice and the presence of cubic silicon carbide (3C-SiC). Together, these results provide a time-resolved picture of SiC nucleation, coalescence and layer growth on Si(111), relevant to 3C-SiC heteroepitaxy, and can be utilized in the optimization of SiC/Si(111) templates for growth of III-nitride and other carbide systems on silicon (e.g. Mo$_2$C).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09431 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Si 2p and C 1s XPS spectra during SiC growth on Si(111) at 800 °C. (a) Si 2p waterfall spectra for selected C2H4 exposure times (in min), (b–d) Fitted Si 2p spectra at t = 0, 80, and 240 min. (e) C 1s waterfall at selected exposure time (in min), (f) Fitted C 1s spectrum for t = 240 min (carbidic C–Si at 282.85 eV, minor C–C at 284.3 eV) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Height profiles extracted along the lines marked in the AFM images in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** RMS surface roughness versus exposure time, calculated from the AFM topography images in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: SIMS depth profile of the 240 min sample showing the ³⁰Si⁺ (red) and C⁺ (blue) secondary ion intensities versus sputter time on a logarithmic intensity scale. The C⁺ maximum corresponds to the SiCcontaining surface layer; its gradual decay reflects a broad SiC/Si tran…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Overview of the SiC layer grown for 240 min on the Si (111) substrate covered in situ by a Mo capping layer to prevent mixing of the carbon from the SiC and C protective layer and possible oxidation. (a) SEM image of the surface. (b) High-angle annular dark field (HAAD…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Cross section of a homogeneous part of the 240 min SiC layer selected in an island – grain and investigated by STEM EELS. (a) Annular dark field (ADF) STEM image. (b) Elemental maps and profile of the SiC layer and its surroundings within the yellow rectangle marked i…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

[1]

Severino, C

A. Severino, C. Locke, R. Anzalone, M. Camarda, N. Piluso , A. La Magna, S.E. Saddow, G. Abbondanza, G. D’Arrigo, F. La Via, 3C -SiC film growth on Si substrates, ECS Trans. 35 (6) (2011) 99

work page 2011
[2]

B. Wang, J. Yin, D. Chen, X. Long, L. Li, H. -H. Lin, D.N. Talwar, R. -X. Jia, Y. -M. Zhang, I.T. Ferguson, W. Sun, Z.C. Feng, L. Wan, Optical and surface properties of 3C -SiC thin epitaxial films grown at different temperatures on 4H-SiC substrate, Superlattices Microstruct. 156 (2021) 106960

work page 2021
[3]

F. Li, F. Roccaforte, G. Greco, P. Fiorenza, F. La Via, A. Pérez -Tomas, J.E. Evans, C.A. Fisher, F.A. Monaghan, P.A. Mawby, M. Jennings, Status and prospects of cubic silicon carbide power electronics device technology, Materials 14 (19) (2021) 5831

work page 2021
[4]

Casady, R.W

J.B. Casady, R.W. Johnson, Status of silicon carbide (SiC) as a wide-bandgap semiconductor for high- temperature applications: a review, Solid-State Electron. 39 (10) (1996) 1409–1422

work page 1996
[5]

Nishino, J.A

S. Nishino, J.A. Powell, H.A. Will, Production of large -area single-crystal wafers of cubic SiC for semiconductor devices, Appl. Phys. Lett. 42 (5) (1983) 460–462. 16

work page 1983
[6]

Deura, Y

M. Deura, Y. Ohno, I. Yonenaga, H. Fukuyama, Mechanism of SiC formation by Si surface carbonization using CO gas, Appl. Surf. Sci. 660 (2024) 159965

work page 2024
[7]

Björketun, L

L.-O. Björketun, L. Hultman, I.P. Ivanov, Q. Wahab, J.-E. Sundgren, Interfacial void formation during vapor phase growth of 3C -SiC on Si(001) and Si(111) substrates – characterization by transmission electron microscopy, J. Cryst. Growth 182 (1997) 379–388

work page 1997
[8]

Watanabe, T

Y. Watanabe, T. Horikawa, K. Kamimura, The influence of the carbonization mechanisms on the crystalline quality of the carbonization layer for heteroepitaxial growth of 3C -SiC, Mater. Sci. Forum 778–780 (2014) 230–233. [9 ] K. Tonisch, W. Jatal, F. Niebelschütz, H. Romanus, U. Baumann, F. Schwierz, J. Pezoldt, AlGaN/GaN- heterostructures on (111) 3C -SiC...

work page 2014

Show all 27 references

[10]

M.S. Hu, L.S. Hong, Surface carbonization of Si(111) by C2H2 and the subsequent SiC(111) epitaxial growth from SiH4 and C2H2, J. Cryst. Growth 265 (2004) 382

2004
[11]

Perova, J

T.S. Perova, J. Wasyluk, S.A. Kukushkin, A.V. Osipov, N.A. Feoktistov, S.A. Grudinkin, Micro - Raman mapping of 3C-SiC thin films grown by solid–gas phase epitaxy on Si(111), Nanoscale Res. Lett. 5 (2010) 1507

2010
[12]

Milenov, I

T. Milenov, I. Avramova, V. Mehandziev, I. Zahariev, G. Avdeev, D. Karashanova, B. Georgieva, B. Blagoev, K. Kirilov, P. Rafailov, S. Kolev, D. Dimov, D. Karaivanova, D. Kalchevski, D. Trifonov, I. Grozev, V. Popov, A comparative study on synthesizing SiC via carbonization of ...

2025
[13]

C. Xu, L. Wang, Z. Liu, L. Chen, J. Guo, N. Kang, X.-L. Ma, H.-M. Cheng, W. Ren, Large-area high- quality 2D ultrathin Mo 2C superconducting crystals, Nat. Mater. 14 (2015) 1135 –1141. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat4374

2015 doi
[14]

Voborný, M

S. Voborný, M. Kolíbal, J. Mach, J. Čechal, P. Bábor, S. Průša, J. Spousta, T. Šikola, Deposition and in-situ characterization of ultra-thin films, Thin Solid Films 459 (2004) 17–22

2004
[15]

Takagaki, Y

T. Takagaki, Y. Igari, T. Takaoka, I. Kusunoki, XPS study of the reaction of the Si(100) surface with a C2H4 beam, Appl. Surf. Sci. 92 (1996) 287

1996
[16]

Himpsel, F.R

F.J. Himpsel, F.R. McFeely, A. Taleb-Ibrahimi, J.A. Yarmoff, G. Hollinger, Microscopic structure of the SiO2/Si interface, Phys. Rev. B 38 (1988) 6084

1988
[17]

Severino, G

A. Severino, G. D’Arrigo, C. Bongiorno, S. Scalese, F. La Via, G. Foti, Thin crystalline 3C-SiC layer growth through carbonization of differently oriented Si substrates, J. Appl. Phys. 102 (2007) 023518

2007
[18]

Kusunoki, Y

I. Kusunoki, Y. Igari, XPS study of a SiC film produced on Si(100) by reaction with a C 2H2 beam, Appl. Surf. Sci. 59 (1992) 95–104

1992
[19]

Delplancke, J.M

M.P. Delplancke, J.M. Powers, G.J. Vandentop, M. Salmeron, G.A. Somorjai, Preparation and characterization of amorphous SiC:H thin films, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 9 (3) (1991) 450–455

1991
[20]

Önneby, C.G

C. Önneby, C.G. Pantano, Silicon oxycarbide formation on SiC surfaces and at the SiC/SiO2 interface, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 15 (1997) 1597–1602

1997
[21]

Fujita, Y

K. Fujita, Y. Kusumi, M. Ichikawa, Nucleation along step edges during Si epitaxial growth on the Si(111) surface observed by STM, Surf. Sci. 380 (1997) 66–74. 17

1997
[22]

Ishikawa, N

Y. Ishikawa, N. Ikeda, M. Kenmochi, T. Ichinokawa, UHV-SEM observations of cleaning process and step formation on silicon (111) surfaces by annealing, Surf. Sci. 159 (1985) 256–264

1985
[23]

Borowik, N

Ł. Borowik, N. Chevalier, D. Mariolle, E. Martinez, F. Bertin, A. Chabli, J.C. Barbé, Controlled synthesis of SiC nanoparticles from surface silicon contamination, Thin Solid Films 527 (2013) 133– 136

2013
[24]

G. Ecke, H. Rößler, V. Cimalla, J. Pezoldt, T. Stauden, Auger investigations of thin SiC films, Fresenius J. Anal. Chem. 361 (1998) 564–568

1998
[25]

Mogab, H.J

C.J. Mogab, H.J. Leamy, Conversion of Si to epitaxial SiC by reaction with C₂H₂, J. Appl. Phys. 45 (1974) 1075

1974
[26]

J.P. Li, A.J. Steckl, J. J.P. Li, A.J. Steckl, J. Microstructural investigation of low temperature chemical vapor deposited 3C -SiC/Si thin films using single -source precursors, Electrochem. Soc. 142 (1995) 634

1995
[27]

Scholz, U

R. Scholz, U. Gösele, F. Wischmeyer, E. Niemann, Prevention of micropipes and voids at β - SiC/Si(100) interfaces, Appl. Phys. A 66 (1998) 59

1998
[28]

L. Wang, G. Walker, J. Chai, A. Iacopi, A. Fernandes, S. Dimitrijev , Kinetic surface roughening and wafer bow control in heteroepitaxial growth of 3C-SiC on Si(111) substrates, Sci. Rep. 5 (2015) 15423

2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Severino, C

A. Severino, C. Locke, R. Anzalone, M. Camarda, N. Piluso , A. La Magna, S.E. Saddow, G. Abbondanza, G. D’Arrigo, F. La Via, 3C -SiC film growth on Si substrates, ECS Trans. 35 (6) (2011) 99

work page 2011

[2] [2]

B. Wang, J. Yin, D. Chen, X. Long, L. Li, H. -H. Lin, D.N. Talwar, R. -X. Jia, Y. -M. Zhang, I.T. Ferguson, W. Sun, Z.C. Feng, L. Wan, Optical and surface properties of 3C -SiC thin epitaxial films grown at different temperatures on 4H-SiC substrate, Superlattices Microstruct. 156 (2021) 106960

work page 2021

[3] [3]

F. Li, F. Roccaforte, G. Greco, P. Fiorenza, F. La Via, A. Pérez -Tomas, J.E. Evans, C.A. Fisher, F.A. Monaghan, P.A. Mawby, M. Jennings, Status and prospects of cubic silicon carbide power electronics device technology, Materials 14 (19) (2021) 5831

work page 2021

[4] [4]

Casady, R.W

J.B. Casady, R.W. Johnson, Status of silicon carbide (SiC) as a wide-bandgap semiconductor for high- temperature applications: a review, Solid-State Electron. 39 (10) (1996) 1409–1422

work page 1996

[5] [5]

Nishino, J.A

S. Nishino, J.A. Powell, H.A. Will, Production of large -area single-crystal wafers of cubic SiC for semiconductor devices, Appl. Phys. Lett. 42 (5) (1983) 460–462. 16

work page 1983

[6] [6]

Deura, Y

M. Deura, Y. Ohno, I. Yonenaga, H. Fukuyama, Mechanism of SiC formation by Si surface carbonization using CO gas, Appl. Surf. Sci. 660 (2024) 159965

work page 2024

[7] [7]

Björketun, L

L.-O. Björketun, L. Hultman, I.P. Ivanov, Q. Wahab, J.-E. Sundgren, Interfacial void formation during vapor phase growth of 3C -SiC on Si(001) and Si(111) substrates – characterization by transmission electron microscopy, J. Cryst. Growth 182 (1997) 379–388

work page 1997

[8] [8]

Watanabe, T

Y. Watanabe, T. Horikawa, K. Kamimura, The influence of the carbonization mechanisms on the crystalline quality of the carbonization layer for heteroepitaxial growth of 3C -SiC, Mater. Sci. Forum 778–780 (2014) 230–233. [9 ] K. Tonisch, W. Jatal, F. Niebelschütz, H. Romanus, U. Baumann, F. Schwierz, J. Pezoldt, AlGaN/GaN- heterostructures on (111) 3C -SiC...

work page 2014