Oxidation and Etching of CVD Diamond by Thermal and Hyperthermal Atomic Oxygen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The chemical bonding and morphology of chemical vapor deposited (CVD) diamond films exposed to thermal (∼0.04 eV) and hyperthermal (5 and 7.5 eV) atomic oxygen (AO) were studied by using high resolution electron energy loss spectroscopy (HREELS), atomic force microscopy, and theoretical simulations. Although exposure to thermal AO caused subtle changes to the surface morphology, hyperthermal AO resulted in selective etching of the diamond facets: (100) facets remained essentially unaffected, whereas (111)-oriented and other facets were severely etched. HREELS reveals that hydrogen is removed from the diamond surfaces during both thermal and hyperthermal AO exposures. By using isotopic labeling in the CVD growth procedure, it is observed that exposure to ambient conditions after the AO exposure leads to adsorption of adventitious hydrocarbons on the surface. The high background in the HREEL spectrum of samples exposed to hyperthermal AO suggests the presence of a graphitic layer. Simulations of the interaction between hyperthermal AO and (100) and (111) diamond surfaces were conducted by using direct dynamics based on density-functional-based tight binding methods, in an attempt to elucidate relevant reaction mechanisms. They suggest mechanisms for the partial graphitization of the (111) surface and for etching of this surface by way of CO 2 desorption. Such damaged graphitic layers have been previously shown to erode easily when exposed to a hyperthermal AO beam. The simulations also suggest that the (100) surface, fully covered with ketones, is inert to carbon removal upon exposure to hyperthermal oxygen atoms, which scatter inelastically from this surface without reaction. The simulations suggest that a nearly full ketone coverage is the steady-state configuration for a (100) diamond surface exposed to AO.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".