[ÇóÖú] ¹òÇ󼸸ö¹ØÓÚXRDÓëTEM±íÕ÷µÄÎÊÌâ ÒÑÓÐ1È˲ÎÓë

ÂÛÎÄͶ¸åºóÉó¸åÈËÌá³ö¼¸¸öXRDºÍTEM±íÕ÷·½ÃæµÄרҵÐÔÎÊÌ⣬Âé·³´óÉñÃÇ°ïÎÒ¿´¿´£¬µ½µ×Ôõô»Ø´ð»òÕ߸ĽøµÄ¸üºÃ£¿ ×Ô¼ºÕâ·½ÃæµÄ֪ʶ±È½ÏØÑ·¦£¬Ò²Ã»ÓÐÕÒµ½ºÜÓаïÖúµÄ×ÊÁÏ£¬°ÝÍдó¼ÒÁË£¬¸Ð¼¤²»¾¡£¡ 1. Ordinary XRD detects reflections from the planes parallel to the interface. Thus, the lattice spacing corresponding to any diffraction peak should be that between the lattice planes parallel to the interface. However, the authors present a lattice spacing of 0.31 nm (in Fig. 1) between the planes perpendicular to the interface, in order to support that the observed peak comes from (102) planes. In addition, (102) is a notation for the crystal plane, not for the direction. 2. It would be very difficult to obtain a single-crystalline film on an amorphous layer. The existence of a single XRD peak does not necessarily means that the film is grain boundary-free, completely single-crystalline. It may have multiple in-plane orientations. Once the film has a single out-of-plane orientation, the two states will reveal the same XRD pattern because an ordinary theta-2theta scan does not detect in-plane orientations. Have you ever seen any plane-view TEM image of the film?. 3. Consider, as an extreme case, that the annealed film has many grains. Some grains are (102)-oriented with their surfaces parallel to the (102) planes of your sample, but many others are amorphous. Even in this case, we will have only a single XRD peak corresponding to the (102) reflection. The authors will have to present a plane-view image of the film in order to support their arguments and eliminate any doubts previously aroused by other reviewers. ·Ç³£¸Ðл£¡ ͼƬ.png

»Ø¸´´ËÂ¥