Energy-dependent anisotropic deformation of colloidal silica particles under MeV Au irradiation

Applied Physics Letters

Volumn 78, Issue 7, 2001, Pages 910-912

  Van Dillen, T ^a   Polman, A ^a   Fukarek, W ^b   Van Blaaderen, A ^a,c  

^a FOM INSTITUTE AMOLF   (Netherlands)

^b INSTITUTE OF ION BEAM PHYSICS AND MATERIALS RESEARCH   (Germany)

^c UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0004885182     PISSN: 00036951     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1063/1.1345827     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. M.-d. Hou, S. Klaumünzer, and G. Schumacher, Phys. Rev. B 41, 1144 (1990).
2. A. Benyagoub, S. Löffler, M. Rammensee, S. Klaumünzer, and G. Saemann-Ischenko, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 65, 228 (1992).
3. S. Klaumünzer and A. Benyagoub, Phys. Rev. B 43, 7502 (1991).
4. E. Snoeks, A. Polman, and C. A. Volkert, Appl. Phys. Lett. 65, 2487 (1994).
5. M. L. Brongersma, E. Snoeks, T. van Dillen, and A. Polman, J. Appl. Phys. 88, 59 (2000).
6. H. Trinkaus and A. I. Ryazanov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 5072 (1995).
7. H. Trinkaus, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 146, 204 (1998).
8. A. I. Ryazanov, A. E. Volkov, and S. Klaumünzer, Phys. Rev. B 51. 12107 (1995).
9. E. Snoeks, T. Weber, A. Cacciato, and A. Polman, J. Appl. Phys. 78, 4723 (1995).
10. E. Snoeks, A. van Blaaderen, T. van Dillen, C. M. van Kats, M. L. Brongersma, and A. Polman, Adv. Mater. 12, 1511 (2000).
11. E. Snoeks, A. van Blaaderen, T. van Dillen, C. M. van Kats, K. Velikov, M. L. Brongersma, and A. Polman, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B (in press).
12. A. van Blaaderen and A. Vrij, Langmuir 8, 2921 (1993).
13. M. Friedrich, W. Bürger, D. Henke, and S. Turuc. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 382, 357 (1996).
14. J. F. Ziegler, J. P. Biersack, and U. Littmark, The Stopping and Range of Ions in Solids (Pergamon. New York, 1985).
15. A. van Blaaderen and A. P. M. Kentgens, J. Non-Cryst. Solids 149, 161 (1992).
16. The error includes the error in the average determined from the size histogram and the pixel dimension in the digital SEM images.
17. The error bar for this point in Fig. 4 (±0.1%) has been scaled to take into account the higher fluence.