Monte Carlo Study of Etching at Silica-Water Interface

1998 ◽  
Vol 543 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Yen ◽  
Xiaolin Zhao ◽  
Raoul Kopelman

AbstractA surface adsorption-diffusion-reaction model is proposed and tested by Monte Carlo simulations. The solvent shell effect is considered as a geometric constraint and the Langmuir adsorption mechanism is also incorporated. An anomalous power law of t1/2 is obtained for the amount of material removed from the surface vs. time. The result agrees well with etching experiments of SAM on a silica surface. We conclude that the unusual power law results from an interplay of vacancy growth and fusion at the surface.

1997 ◽  
Vol 56 (4) ◽  
pp. 3953-3958 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. S. Brown ◽  
K. E. Bassler ◽  
D. A. Browne

Methodology ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Holger Steinmetz

Although the use of structural equation modeling has increased during the last decades, the typical procedure to investigate mean differences across groups is still to create an observed composite score from several indicators and to compare the composite’s mean across the groups. Whereas the structural equation modeling literature has emphasized that a comparison of latent means presupposes equal factor loadings and indicator intercepts for most of the indicators (i.e., partial invariance), it is still unknown if partial invariance is sufficient when relying on observed composites. This Monte-Carlo study investigated whether one or two unequal factor loadings and indicator intercepts in a composite can lead to wrong conclusions regarding latent mean differences. Results show that unequal indicator intercepts substantially affect the composite mean difference and the probability of a significant composite difference. In contrast, unequal factor loadings demonstrate only small effects. It is concluded that analyses of composite differences are only warranted in conditions of full measurement invariance, and the author recommends the analyses of latent mean differences with structural equation modeling instead.


2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick J. Rosopa ◽  
Amber N. Schroeder ◽  
Jessica Doll

1993 ◽  
Vol 3 (9) ◽  
pp. 1719-1728
Author(s):  
P. Dollfus ◽  
P. Hesto ◽  
S. Galdin ◽  
C. Brisset

1987 ◽  
Vol 48 (C5) ◽  
pp. C5-199-C5-202
Author(s):  
T. MIYASAKI ◽  
K. AIZAWA ◽  
H. AOKI ◽  
C. ITOH ◽  
M. OKAZAKI

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document