Photoelectron signal simulation from textured overlayer samples

Angular-resolved photoelectron spectroscopy of corrugated surfaces

“…They also found for an overlayer/substrate sample that the error in an overlayer thickness determination due to the roughness reached a minimum for the so-called magic (off-normal) emission angles of $35°or $45°resulting from a simple and fully threedimensional model of a rough surface, respectively. Moreover, Vutova et al [8,9] analytically calculated the influence of surface roughness (including also the shadowing effect and the photoelectron anisotropy) for a prism-shaped corrugated surface. Werner [2] studied the influence of surface roughness effects (shadowing as well as the true emission angles) on total and angle-dependent signal electron intensities.…”

“…On the other hand, it is well established that surface roughness strongly influences the number of signal electrons recorded from layered samples, e.g. a thin film grown on a solid surface [1,[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. As a consequence, considerable systematic errors as high as 50% may be introduced when a non-destructive concentration depth profiling or an overlayer thickness is evaluated from the angular-resolved spectra [3][4][5][6][7][8][9].…”

“…Several attempts have been made to predict the effect of surface roughness by a simple regular form of the roughness as triangular or sinusoidal shapes [1,8,9]. An important step to overcome the general problem of describing realistic surface roughness was taken by Gunter et al [5,6].…”

Surface roughness, waviness, and shape induced effects in angle‐resolved XPS

“…In this manner the AR‐XPS spectra are then numerically corrected to yield more realistic results, e.g. like in the case of thin overlayers …”