Track synthesis, materials and catalysis as it is published.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
We compare ARPES, LEED, and XPS on Cu(001) surfaces prepared via sputtering and annealing to assess surface quality. While LEED and XPS show similar $(1\times1)$ patterns and core levels for both surfaces, ARPES spectra reveal a momentum-independent signal for the sputtered surface, with band dispersion only recovering after annealing. This highlights ARPES's superior sensitivity to defects that disrupt electronic momentum, even when macroscopic periodicity is preserved.
ARPES reveals subtle surface defects invisible to LEED and XPS, demonstrating that a $(1\times1)$ LEED pattern doesn't guarantee momentum-resolved electronic structure.
Angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES) requires a well-ordered surface, whose quality is routinely judged from low-energy electron diffraction (LEED) and x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS). We compare LEED, XPS, and ARPES of a Cu(001) single crystal measured in situ at four stages of surface preparation: as-prepared, after aging for 24 h at 6 K, after Ar$^+$ sputtering, and after annealing. The sputtered and annealed surfaces show nearly identical $(1\times1)$ LEED patterns and Cu 2$p$ core levels, but the sputtered surface yields a momentum-independent ARPES spectrum, and the band dispersion recovers after annealing. We attribute this contrast to how each probe responds to sputtering-induced defects: LEED reflects the average lattice, which remains periodic, whereas ARPES reflects the electronic states, whose crystal momentum is no longer well defined. Our results indicate that a sharp LEED pattern and clean core-level spectra do not guarantee a surface suitable for ARPES.