(a) Schematic depiction of the three sputter guns. (b) A front view of the triangular array of sputter guns. Each gun is positioned from the center of the flange and 120° apart.
Plot showing average deposition rate vs gun current for a lead target.
(Color online) A substrate prepared for deposition profile analysis. The line running through the center of the sample is where wax was removed and the depth of material is measured.
(Color online) The surface concentration of Pt, Bi, and Pb as a function of distance from the gun axis. The gun currents were 112, 57, and for Pt, Bi, and Pb, respectively.
Fractional coverage (shaded region) of the Pt–Bi–Pb phase diagram in one sample.
(Color online) Fluorescence images of the nanoparticles of PtRu, PtPb, PtBi, and Pt (from the top to the bottom in the picture) for methanol oxidation at different applied potentials. (a) Identification of each type of nanoparticle in each image. (b) . (c) . (d) (vs a reference electrode).
(Color online) Fluorescence images of the composition spread of Pt, Bi, and Pb at different applied potentials. (a) . (b) . (c) . (d) . (e) XRD data of the active region 1. The orientation of the three sputtering guns relative to the spread is shown in (a). Note that the Pt-coil counterelectrode can be seen running horizontally across the image.
SECM images of the Pt-rich region at different applied substrate potentials. (a) . (b) .
SECM images of active regions at four different applied substrate potentials. (a) . (b) . (c) . (d) .
Constants of the best-fit exponential function for each deposition profile shown in Fig. 4.
Article metrics loading...
Full text loading...