Vol. 6, No.

11 | 1 Nov 2016 | OPTICAL MATERIALS EXPRESS 3622

Self-consistent optical constants of SiO2 and

Ta 2O 5 films
LUIS V. RODRÍGUEZ-DE MARCOS,1,2 JUAN I. LARRUQUERT,1,* JOSÉ A.
MÉNDEZ,1 AND JOSÉ A. AZNÁREZ1
1
GOLD-Instituto de Óptica-Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas Serrano 144, 28006
Madrid, Spain
2
lv.rodriguez@io.cfmac.csic.es
*j.larruquert@csic.es

Abstract: Self-consistent optical constants of SiO2 and Ta2O5 films have been obtained for
their relevance in optical coatings from the near ultraviolet to the near infrared spectral
ranges, where they are transparent and have a high refractive index contrast. Particular
attention has been paid to wavelengths close to and shorter than each material cutoff. The far
and the extreme ultraviolet ranges are also covered here, where few (SiO2) or almost no
optical constant data (Ta2O5) were available for films of these materials. This work is aimed
at filling the lack of self-consistent sets of optical constants with data in a very broad spectral
range, which can be widely applied in multilayer design for the everyday use of these
materials in multilayer coatings. Oxide films were deposited by reactive electron-beam
evaporation onto various sorts of substrates at 573 K. Transmittance, reflectance, and
ellipsometry measurements were performed for each oxide in spectral intervals jointly
covering from the extreme ultraviolet to the near infrared; starting with these measurements
along with extrapolations, an iterative and double Kramers-Kronig analysis procedure has
been followed to obtain a self-consistent set of optical constants per material. With the final
data sets, we have satisfactorily reproduced the experimental measurements. Global data self-
consistency was successfully evaluated through sum rules, and local consistency at each
photon energy range was also evaluated through a novel sum-rule method which involves
window functions.
© 2016 Optical Society of America
OCIS codes: (120.4530) Optical constants; (310.6860) Thin films, optical properties; (230.4170) Multilayers;
(260.7210) Ultraviolet, vacuum; (260.7190) Ultraviolet; (260.7200) Ultraviolet, extreme

References and links

1. S. Günster, D. Ristau, A. Gatto, N. Kaiser, M. Trovó, and M. Danailov, “Storage ring free-electron lasing at 176
nm--dielectric mirror development for vacuum ultraviolet free-electron lasers,” Appl. Opt. 45(23), 5866–5870
(2006).
2. E. A. West, J. G. Porter, J. M. Davis, G. A. Gary, M. W. Noble, M. Lewis, and R. J. Thomas, “The Marshall
Space Flight Center solar ultraviolet magnetograph,” Proc. SPIE 5488, 801 (2004).
3. F. Bridou, M. Cuniot-Ponsard, J. M. Desvignes, A. Gottwald, U. Kroth, and M. Richter, “Polarizing and non-
polarizing mirrors for the hydrogen Lyman-α radiation at 121.6 nm,” Appl. Phys., A Mater. Sci. Process. 102(3),
641–649 (2011).
4. M. Zukic, D. G. Torr, J. F. Spann, and M. R. Torr, “Vacuum ultraviolet thin films. 1: Optical constants of BaF2,
CaF2, LaF3, MgF2, Al2O3, HfO2, and SiO2 thin films,” Appl. Opt. 29(28), 4284–4292 (1990).
5. R. Thielsch, A. Gatto, J. Heber, and N. Kaiser, “A comparative study of the UV optical and structural properties
of SiO2, Al2O3, and HfO2 single layers deposited by reactive evaporation, ion-assisted deposition and plasma ion-
assisted deposition,” Thin Solid Films 410(1-2), 86–93 (2002).
6. K. Scherer, L. Nouvelot, P. Lacan, and R. Bosmans, “Optical and mechanical characterization of evaporated
SiO(2) layers. Long-term evolution,” Appl. Opt. 35(25), 5067–5072 (1996).
7. J. Kolbe, H. Kessler, T. Hofmann, F. Meyer, H. Schink, and D. Ristau, “Optical properties and damage
thresholds of dielectric UV/VUV-coatings deposited by conventional evaporation, IAD and lBS,” Proc. SPIE
1624, 221–235 (1992).
8. H. R. Philipp, “Optical properties of non-crystalline Si, SiO, SiOx and SiO2,” J. Phys. Chem. Solids 32(8), 1935–
1945 (1971).
9. Q.-Y. Cai, Y.-X. Zheng, P.-H. Mao, R.-J. Zhang, D.-X. Zhang, M.-H. Liu, and L.-Y. Chen, “Evolution of optical
constants of silicon dioxide on silicon from ultrathin films to thick films,” J. Phys. D 43(44), 445302 (2010).

#274105 http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OME.6.003622
Journal © 2016 Received 18 Aug 2016; revised 5 Oct 2016; accepted 5 Oct 2016; published 26 Oct 2016
 Vol. 6, No. 11 | 1 Nov 2016 | OPTICAL MATERIALS EXPRESS 3623

10. A. J. Waldorf, J. A. Dobrowolski, B. T. Sullivan, and L. M. Plante, “Optical coatings deposited by reactive ion
plating,” Appl. Opt. 32(28), 5583–5593 (1993).
11. St. Günster, H. Blaschke, D. Ristau, M. Danailov, M. Trovó, A. Gatto, N. Kaiser, F. Sarto, D. Flori, and F.
Menchini, “Radiation resistance of single and multilayer coatings against synchrotron radiation,” Proc. SPIE
5250, 146–157 (2004).
12. S. Jakobs, M. Lappschies, U. Schallenberg, O. Stenzel, and S. Wilbrandt, “Characterization of metal-oxide thin
films deposited by plasma-assisted reactive magnetron sputtering,” Chin. Opt. Lett. 8(S1), 73–77 (2010).
13. L. Gao, F. Lemarchand, and M. Lequime, “Exploitation of multiple incidences spectrometric measurements for
thin film reverse engineering,” Opt. Express 20(14), 15734–15751 (2012).
14. S. Kitova, S. Youroukov, Tz. Babeva, V. Denishev, and G. Danev, “Argon ion activated deposition of SiO2
films,” J. Optoelectron. Adv. Mater. 7, 2613–2618 (2005).
15. S. M. Edlou, A. Smajkiewicz, and G. A. Al-Jumaily, “Optical properties and environmental stability of oxide
coatings deposited by reactive sputtering,” Appl. Opt. 32(28), 5601–5605 (1993).
16. J. Kischkat, S. Peters, B. Gruska, M. Semtsiv, M. Chashnikova, M. Klinkmüller, O. Fedosenko, S. Machulik, A.
Aleksandrova, G. Monastyrskyi, Y. Flores, and W. T. Masselink, “Mid-infrared optical properties of thin films
of aluminum oxide, titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, aluminum nitride, and silicon nitride,” Appl. Opt. 51(28),
6789–6798 (2012).
17. A. Lamminpää, S. Nevas, F. Manoocheri, and E. Ikonen, “Characterization of thin films based on reflectance
and transmittance measurements at oblique angles of incidence,” Appl. Opt. 45(7), 1392–1396 (2006).
18. H. Liu, Y. Jiang, L. Wang, C. Jiang, Y. Ji, and D. Chen, “Study on optical anisotropy properties of SiO2 films
with different thermal annealing temperatures,” Chin. Opt. Lett. 11, S10305 (2013).
19. K. Postava, M. Aoyama, T. Yamaguchi, and H. Oda, “Spectroellipsometric characterization of materials for
multilayer optics,” Appl. Surf. Sci. 175–176, 276–280 (2001).
20. C. Tarrio and S. E. Schnatterly, “Optical properties of silicon and its oxides,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 10(5), 952–957
(1993).
21. P. Tripathi, G. S. Lodha, M. H. Modi, A. K. Sinha, K. J. S. Sawhney, and R. V. Nandedkar, “Optical constants of
silicon and silicon dioxide using soft X-ray reflectance measurements,” Opt. Commun. 211(1-6), 215–223
(2002).
22. Z. A. Weinberg, G. W. Rubloff, and E. Bassous, “Transmission, photoconductivity, and the experimental band
gap of thermally grown Si02 films,” Phys. Rev. B 19(6), 3107–3117 (1979).
23. E. Filatova, V. Lukyanov, C. Blessing, and J. Friedrich, “Reflection spectra and optical constants of
noncrystalline SiO2 in the soft x-ray region,” J. Electron Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom. 79, 63–66 (1996).
24. E. Filatova, V. Lukyanov, R. Barchewitz, J.-M. André, M. Idir, and Ph. Stemmler, “Optical constants of
amorphous SiO2 for photons in the range of 60–3000 eV,” J. Phys. Condens. Matter 11(16), 3355–3370 (1999).
25. K. Gürtler, K. Bange, W. Wagner, F. Rauch, and H. Hantsche, “Characterization of Ta2O5 layers by electron
spectroscopy for chemical analysis Rutherford backscattering spectrometry, nuclear reaction analysis and optical
methods,” Thin Solid Films 175, 185–189 (1989).
26. Z. Malacara-Hernandez and P. Baumeister, “Refractive index of a tantalum pentoxide film,” Appl. Opt. 19(11),
1737–1738 (1980).
27. J. D. Traylor Kruschwitz and W. T. Pawlewicz, “Optical and durability properties of infrared transmitting thin
films,” Appl. Opt. 36(10), 2157–2159 (1997).
28. I. Porqueras, J. Marti, and E. Bertran, “Optical and electrical characterisation of Ta205 thin films for ionic
conduction applications,” Thin Solid Films 343–344, 449–452 (1999).
29. S.-H. Woo, C. K. Hwangbo, Y. B. Son, I. C. Moon, G. M. Kang, and K.-S. Lee, “Optical properties of Ta2O5
thin films deposited by plasma ion-assisted deposition,” J. Korean Phys. Soc. 46, S187–S191 (2005).
30. M. H. Asghar, F. Placido, and S. Naseem, “Characterization of Ta2O5 thin films prepared by reactive
evaporation,” Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys. 36(2), 119–124 (2006).
31. R. Chandrasekharan, S. Prakash, M. A. Shannon, and R. I. Masel, “Change in radiative optical properties of
Ta2O5 thin films due to high-temperature heat treatment,” J. Heat Transfer 129(1), 27–36 (2007).
32. X. Cheng, Y. Shuai, W. Ji-Fei, N. Ji-Nan, M. Hao, Q. Ying-Huai, L. Jiong-Tian, L. Da-Wei, and T. Chun-Xian,
“Effect of oxygen vacancy on the band gap and nanosecond laser-induced damage threshold of Ta2O5 films,”
Chin. Phys. Lett. 29(8), 084207 (2012).
33. D.-X. Zhang, Y.-X. Zheng, Q.-Y. Cai, W. Lin, K.-N. Wu, P.-H. Mao, R.-J. Zhang, H.-B. Zhao, and L.-Y. Chen,
“Thickness-dependence of optical constants for Ta2O5 ultrathin films,” Appl. Phys., A Mater. Sci. Process.
108(4), 975–979 (2012).
34. B. von Blanckenhagen, D. Tonova, and J. Ullmann, “Application of the Tauc-Lorentz formulation to the
interband absorption of optical coating materials,” Appl. Opt. 41(16), 3137–3141 (2002).
35. F. Rubio, J. Denis, J. M. Albella, and J. M. Martínez-Duart, “Sputtered Ta2O5 antireflection coatings for silicon
solar cells,” Thin Solid Films 90(4), 405–408 (1982).
36. E. Franke, C. L. Trimble, M. J. DeVries, J. A. Woollam, M. Schubert, and F. Frost, “Dielectric function of
amorphous tantalum oxide from the far infrared to the deep ultraviolet spectral region measured by spectroscopic
ellipsometry,” J. Appl. Phys. 88(9), 5166–5174 (2000).
37. J. Zhou, D. Luo, Y. Li, and Z. Liu, “Properties of Ta2O5 thin films deposited by DC reactive magnetron
sputtering,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 23(27), 5275–5282 (2009).
 Vol. 6, No. 11 | 1 Nov 2016 | OPTICAL MATERIALS EXPRESS 3624

38. T. J. Bright, J. I. Watjen, Z. M. Zhang, C. Muratore, A. A. Voevodin, D. I. Koukis, D. B. Tanner, and D. J.

Arenas, “Infrared optical properties of amorphous and nanocrystalline Ta2O5 thin films,” J. Appl. Phys. 114(8),
083515 (2013).
39. H. Demiryont, J. R. Sites, and K. Geib, “Effects of oxygen content on the optical properties of tantalum oxide
films deposited by ion-beam sputtering,” Appl. Opt. 24(4), 490–495 (1985).
40. M. Cevro and G. Carter, “Ion-beam and dual-ion-beam sputter deposition of tantalum oxide films,” Opt. Eng.
34(2), 596–606 (1995).
41. P. S. Sharlandjiev and D. I. Nazarova, “Determination of optical functions of very thin tantalum pentoxide films
on platinum substrate by genetic algorithm approach,” Opt. Quantum Electron. 44(14), 673–681 (2012).
42. E. E. Khawaja and S. G. Tomlin, “The optical properties of thin films of tantalum pentoxide and zirconium
dioxide,” Thin Solid Films 30(2), 361–369 (1975).
43. K. Kukli, J. Aarik, A. Aidla, O. Kohana, T. Uustare, and W. Sammelselg, “Properties of tantalum oxide thin
films grown by atomic layer deposition,” Thin Solid Films 260(2), 135–142 (1995).
44. F. E. Ghodsi, F. Z. Tepehan, and G. G. Tepehan, “Optical properties of Ta205 thin films deposited using the spin
coating process,” Thin Solid Films 295(1-2), 11–15 (1997).
45. J.-Y. Zhang and I. W. Boyd, “Ultrathin high-quality tantalum pentoxide films grown by photoinduced chemical
vapour deposition,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 77(22), 3574–3576 (2000).
46. J.-Y. Zhang and I. W. Boyd, “Pulsed laser deposition of tantalum pentoxide film,” Appl. Phys., A Mater. Sci.
Process. 70, 657–661 (2000).
47. G. A. Stanciu, M. Filipescu, V. Ion, E. Andronescu and M. Dinescu, “Optical properties of tantalum oxide thin
films obtained by laser deposition techniques,” U. P. B. Sci, Bull., Series B 75, 15–22 (2013).
48. J. I. Larruquert, L. V. Rodríguez-de Marcos, J. A. Méndez, P. J. Martin, and A. Bendavid, “High reflectance ta-C
coatings in the extreme ultraviolet,” Opt. Express 21(23), 27537–27549 (2013).
49. http://henke.lbl.gov/optical_constants/.
50. C. T. Chantler, K. Olsen, R. A. Dragoset, J. Chang, A. R. Kishore, S. A. Kotochigova, and D. S. Zucker, “X-Ray
Form Factor, Attenuation and Scattering Tables 2005” (version 2.1) [Online] Available:
http://physics.nist.gov/ffast (2006, May 29). National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD;
originally published as C. T. Chantler, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 29 (2000) 597; and C. T. Chantler, J. Phys.
Chem. Ref. Data 24, 71 (1995).
51. H. R. Philipp, “Influence of Oxide Layers on the Determination of the Optical Properties of Silicon,” J. Appl.
Phys. 43(6), 2835–2839 (1972).
52. L. V. Rodríguez-de Marcos, J. A. Méndez, and J. I. Larruquert, “Tuning sum rules with window functions for
optical constant evaluation,” J. Opt. 18(7), 075606 (2016).
53. D. L. Windt, “IMD: Software for modeling the optical properties of multilayer films,” Comput. Phys. 12(4),
360–370 (1998), http://www.rxollc.com/idl/index.html.
54. Downloaded from the following web of Physical Reference Data, Physics Laboratory at NIST:
http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/FFast/Text/cover.html
55. M. Altarelli and D. Y. Smith, “Superconvergence and sum rules for the optical constants: physical meaning,
comparison with experiment, and generalization,” Phys. Rev. B 9(4), 1290–1298 (1974).
56. E. Shiles, T. Sasaki, M. Inokuti, and D. Y. Smith, “Self-consistency and sum-rule tests in the Kramers-Kronig
analysis of optical data: applications to aluminum,” Phys. Rev. B 22(4), 1612–1628 (1980).

1. Introduction
Oxides are among the most commonly used materials in optical coatings, and SiO2 and Ta2O5
are among the most common pair of oxides to be combined in a multilayer coating. This is so
due to their wide spectral transparency range, to their contrasting refractive indices in the
transparency region, and to the stability of multilayer coatings made with these materials.
This explains the number of papers providing optical constants of these materials in the
visible and adjacent ranges, although over these papers there is a strong dispersion on the
reported extinction coefficient k values in the transparency range; k values smaller than ~0.01
are difficult to determine because of the small dependence on them of reflectance,
transmittance, and ellipsometry parameters.
There are spectral ranges, including the far and the extreme ultraviolet (FUV-EUV, λ in
the 115-200- and 10-115-nm range, respectively), where little or no data are available. The
extended transparency of SiO2 down to the FUV makes it a suitable material for multilayer
coatings in applications such as free electron lasers [1] and space instrumentation [2,3]. In
some of these applications, dichroic optics may require the availability of materials switching
from transparent to reflective or absorptive, so that optical constants in extended ranges are
needed. Other than for applications in the FUV or EUV, the latter ranges have to be covered
because in order to obtain self-consistent optical constants through the Kramers-Kronig (KK)
 Vol. 6, No. 11 | 1 Nov 2016 | OPTICAL MATERIALS EXPRESS 3625

analysis, one function such as k must be known in the whole spectrum. Experimental data in
the FUV-EUV are particularly important because this is a range of strong absorption for most
materials in nature, and hence this range has a heavy weight in KK analysis.
Thin films of the present materials can be deposited by different methods, and their
optical constants somewhat depend on the specific deposition conditions. Two usual
deposition techniques for these materials are electron-beam (e-beam) evaporation and
sputtering, and usually the deposition is performed under an oxygen atmosphere in order to
get stoichiometric films; in both cases the growing film is provided with extra energy through
heating the substrate and/or with ion assistance in order to get compact films. E-beam
deposition on hot substrates was selected here. Other techniques like chemical vapor
deposition (CVD), atomic layer deposition, pulsed laser deposition, sol gel methods, etc.,
have been also successfully used to deposit films of these materials.
Literature reports data on optical constants in various spectral ranges for SiO2 films
deposited by different techniques. Reactive e-beam evaporation was used by Zukic et al. [4]
(O2), Thielsch et al. [5] (O2) and Scherer et al. [6] (H2O or O2). E-beam deposition was
typically performed on heated substrates. Unspecified e-beam was used by Kolbe et al. [7],
Günster et al. [1], Philipp [8], and Cai et al. [9]. Optical constants have been also reported for
e-beam films deposited with some ion assistance [1, 5, 10–14], as well as for films deposited
by sputtering [1, 7, 11, 12, 15–19], CVD [20, 21], and by heating a Si film in oxidizing
atmosphere [22–24]. The above papers report optical constants of SiO2 films in specific parts
of the spectrum and only the works of Phillipp et al. [8], Tarrio and Schnatterly [20], and
Filtatova et al. [23, 24] provided self-consistent data that intended to cover the whole
spectrum, although details on film deposition are either unknown or far away from standard
techniques for multilayer coatings. For films deposited by e-beam on substrates at
temperatures close to 573 K, the technique used in this research, we found no FUV or EUV
data.
Many investigations were also conducted on the optical constants of Ta2O5 films prepared
with various techniques, focussed on the visible and adjacent ranges. Reactive e-beam was
used by Gürtler et al. [25], Malacara and Baumeister [26], Kruschwitz and Pawlewicz [27],
Porqueras et al. [28], Woo et al. [29], Asghar et al. [30], Chandrasekharan et al. [31], and
Cheng et al. [32]; deposition was performed on substrates that were either heated and/or post-
annealed. Zhang et al. [33] used unspecified e-beam deposition. Optical constants were also
reported for e-beam films deposited with some ion assistance [10, 12, 13, 25, 29, 34], as well
as for films deposited by sputtering [12, 15, 19, 35–42], atomic layer deposition [43], sol-gel
[44], and by other techniques [45–47]. No self-consistent set of optical constant data was
found for Ta2O5 films. Regarding short wavelengths, we found no optical-constant data for
Ta2O5 films shortwards of its cut-off at around 260 nm. For this material, optical constants are
reported in the literature in its transparency range, i.e., from the near UV to the near infrared
(NIR).
After reviewing the above literature, we did not find self-consistent optical–constant data
for Ta2O5, and we found few sources reporting it for SiO2, and only for films deposited at
room temperature or at a very high temperature in Refs [23, 24], unsuitable for multilayer
deposition. The lack of self-consistent optical constants may result in an inaccurate
computation of the optical properties of multilayer coatings. This research is devoted to
obtain self-consistent optical constants of SiO2 and Ta2O5 films deposited by reactive e-beam
onto substrates at 573 K in a broad spectral range. The films were deposited in a reactive O2
atmosphere. The optical constants were obtained from measurements between the EUV and
the NIR ranges, and they were extended to a larger spectrum with literature data and
extrapolations, in order to construct wide sets of self-consistent optical constants. Section 2
presents the preparation conditions of the samples and the experimental techniques used to
measure them. Section 3 presents the procedure followed to obtain self-consistent optical
constants. Section 4 successively presents the experimental measurements and the calculated
 Vol. 6, No. 11 | 1 Nov 2016 | OPTICAL MATERIALS EXPRESS 3626

optical constants of SiO2 and Ta2O5, along with the sum-rule tests for the evaluation of the
global and local consistency of the optical constants.
2. Experimental techniques
Thin films of SiO2 and Ta2O5 were prepared using a 3-kW electron beam. Crucibles of
alumina and glassy carbon were used for the evaporation of SiO2 and Ta2O5, respectively.
Substrates were heated to 573 K during deposition. Various samples were simultaneously
prepared on different substrates that were coated in the same run: a c-cut MgF2 crystal was
used for transmittance measurements, a piece cut from a Si wafer was used for ellipsometry
measurements; reflectance measurements were made on films deposited on a piece of Si
wafer (SiO2) or on a piece of glass (Ta2O5).
For SiO2, a three-sample set and an additional single sample (a silicon wafer substrate was
used for the latter) were prepared with film thicknesses of 56 nm and 125 nm, respectively;
deposition rates were 0.43 and 1.71 nm/s, respectively. For Ta2O5, a three-sample set was
prepared with a common film thickness of 53 nm and a deposition rate of 0.44 nm/s. The
crucible-substrate distance was 150 mm; sample centers were within 27 mm over the three
samples, so that the thickness difference over them is estimated to be within 1%.
Depositions were performed in a UHV chamber pumped with a cryopump. The base
pressure was ~8x10−7 Pa for the deposition of SiO2 and 1.2x10−5 Pa for the deposition of
Ta2O5; the difference arises in that the chamber had been baked to ~420 K before the
deposition of SiO2, but not before the deposition of Ta2O5, since in fact the chamber bake-out
was not considered necessary for the deposition of the present materials. During deposition,
pure O2 was let to flow to reach a pressure of 10−2 Pa, as measured with a cold-cathode gauge.
All samples were let to cool down at a rate of ~1 K/min before removing them from the
vacuum chamber. Film thicknesses were obtained through stylus profilometry, and from the
fit to both grazing-incidence x-ray reflectometry and ellipsometry measurements. The
available measurements were averaged to obtain final thicknesses. Thickness uncertainty is
estimated to be within ± 2%.
A reflectometer described elsewhere [48] was used to measure transmittance in the FUV
and reflectance in the FUV and EUV ranges. It has a grazing-incidence, toroidal-grating
monochromator, in which the entrance and exit arms are 146° apart. The monochromator
covers the 12.5-200 nm spectral range with two Pt-coated diffraction gratings that operate in
the long- (250 l/mm) or in the short-wavelength (950 l/mm) spectral sub-ranges. The
reflectometer operates with spectral lines that are generated in a windowless discharge lamp.
The lamp is fed with various pure gases or gas mixtures with which the lamp can generate
many spectral lines to cover the spectral range of interest. The beam divergence was ~1.7
mrad. The sample holder can fit samples up to 50.8x50.8 mm2. A channel electron multiplier
with a CsI-coated photocathode was used as the detector. Reflectance (transmittance) was
obtained by alternately measuring the incident intensity and the intensity reflected
(transmitted) by the sample. FUV-EUV reflectance measurements were performed at 5° from
the normal, whereas transmittance was measured at normal incidence. A Lambda-9 and a
Lambda-900 Perkin-Elmer double-beam spectrophotometers were used to measure regular
transmittance and specular reflectance with the universal reflectance accessory, respectively,
in the 190-1500-nm range. For reflectance and transmittance measurements, samples were
situated at 8° and 1.5° from normal incidence, respectively. FUV-EUV and long-wavelength
reflectance and transmittance uncertainty are estimated to be ~ ± 2%. Ellipsometry
measurements in the 190-950 nm range were performed with a SOPRALAB GES5E
spectroscopic ellipsometer. The incidence angles at which measurements were performed, 76°
and 77° from the normal incidence for SiO2 and 63° from the normal incidence for Ta2O5,
were optimized by confining symmetrically around zero the spectral distribution of
ellipsometry parameter cos Δ in order to maximize accuracy.
 Vol. 6, No. 11 | 1 Nov 2016 | OPTICAL MATERIALS EXPRESS 3627

Samples were mostly stored in vacuum until completing all sets of measurements. For
ellipsometry and EUV-FUV measurements, samples were exposed to the atmosphere not
more than ~1 h. For reflectance measurements in the near UV to the infrared, samples were
exposed to the atmosphere for about one day.
Grazing incidence x-ray reflectometry measurements were performed at Centro de
Asistencia a la Investigación, Universidad Complutense de Madrid. The diffractometer was a
PANalytical X`pert PRO MRD. The source was a Cu anode under 45 kV discharge. The Cu
Kα (λ = 0.154 nm) line was selected by means of a graphite monochromator. Measurements
were performed at the grazing incidence angles from 0.15° to 2.5°, with a step of 0.005°.
3. Optical constants calculation procedure
The optical constants of the two oxides were calculated following an iterative double KK
analysis. This iterative process was repeated twice for each material and the result was a self-
consistent {n,k} set that fitted all experimental photometry and ellipsometry measurements.
KK analysis was performed both in reflectance and in the optical constants:

E ln  R ( E' ) 
∞
ϕ (E) = − P  2 dE' (1)
π 0 E' − E 2

2
∞
E'k ( E' )
n(E) − 1 = P 2 dE ' (2)
π 0 E' − E 2

where P stands for the Cauchy principal value. Equations (1) and (2) relate reflectance with
its phase, and the extinction coefficient k with the real part of the refractive index n,
respectively. R1/2 and φ stand for the modulus and phase of complex reflectance r =
R1/2exp(iφ). Both integrals are presented in terms of photon energy E instead of wavelength to
show them in the most common way. Each KK analysis requires the availability of
reflectance or k data over the whole spectrum.
The iterative, double KK process was aimed at solving the problems that can be
anticipated: initial iterations with the available measurements were affected by either the
contribution of substrate to reflectance in the FUV range (iteration 1) or by the lack of k data
in the EUV range (iteration 2), the latter arising from the lack of transparent massive
substrates. We note here that to obtain n and k from R and φ, the contribution from the inner
interfaces to reflectance must be negligible. With the present procedure, each iteration
provided the necessary data to be used in the next one. At the end, a number of four iterative
KK processes were enough to obtain a self-consistent data set which sufficiently fitted the
experimental photometric and ellipsometry measurements.
The next paragraphs summarize the motivation of the choice of data sources over the
various KK analyses; the spectrum is divided into several spectral ranges for KK integration:
The next paragraphs summarize the motivation of the choice of data sources over the
various KK analyses; the spectrum is divided into several spectral ranges for KK integration:
i) Between 0.041 nm (3·104 eV) and 30 nm, k and reflectance for an opaque film were
obtained from the semiempirical Henke database (downloaded from the Web site of
Center for X-Ray Optics (CXRO) at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory [49]). k
was extended even more up to ~4·105 eV with data obtained from Chantler et al. [50].
To use these databases, densities are required; oxide densities for the present oxide films
were determined by grazing incidence x-ray reflectance measurements and are given in
sub-section 4.3.
ii) Between 30 nm and 115 nm, k could not be obtained from transmittance measurements,
due to the lack of transparent massive substrates in most of the range, so that reflectance
measurements were used instead. For this reason, we started our iteration with an R-ϕ
 Vol. 6, No. 11 | 1 Nov 2016 | OPTICAL MATERIALS EXPRESS 3628

KK analysis. With R-ϕ data at near-normal incidence we can obtain n and k from the
well-known reflectance equation:
( n + ik ) − 1
r= (3)
( n + ik ) + 1
where r=R1/2exp(iφ); in Eq. (3) it is assumed that the oxide layer is opaque. By inverting
Eq. (3), we immediately get the optical constants:
1+ r
n + ik = (4)
1− r
Then we obtain a first set of k (along with n) data, that is introduced in later iterations
and is subsequently refined. Regarding reflectance, experimental values for both
materials were used in the two R-ϕ KK analyses.
iii) Between 115 and 190 nm k was calculated from transmittance measurements. In a first
iteration, k was obtained using the well-known Beer-Lambert law:
T fs  4πkz 
= exp −  (5)
Ts  λ 

where Ts and Tfs represent the transmittance of the uncoated MgF2 substrate and of the
substrate coated with the film, respectively; λ is the radiation wavelength in vacuum; z
stands for the film thickness. Eq. (5) neglects reflectance effects; these effects are
somewhat reduced when working with normalized transmittance compared to the bare
transmittance. After a preliminary set of optical constants was available, exact
transmittance, including internal interferences and reflectance, could be calculated, so
that reflectance was not neglected in the next iteration and the simplified view of Eq. (5)
was not needed any more. For Ta2O5, k obtained from transmittance measurements was
strongly dependent on small variations of the refractive index to be determined, even
when internal interferences and reflectance were taken into account in iteration 3. To
reduce this dependence, in this spectral range we averaged k data obtained either from
Eq. (5) [iteration 2] or from exact transmittance calculations including interferences and
reflectance [iteration 4] with k data obtained from R-ϕ KK in the previous iteration; the
use of averaged k data resulted in a more satisfactory combined fitting of FUV
reflectance and transmittance measurements.
Regarding reflectance, experimental values were used in the first R-ϕ KK analysis for
Ta2O5 and SiO2; in the second R-ϕ KK analysis, calculated reflectance values using Eq.
(3) (with optical constants obtained from iteration 2) were used for SiO2 and calculated
reflectance values using Eq. (3) averaged with experimental reflectance were used for
Ta2O5. Calculated reflectance of an opaque film was used instead of experimental
reflectance since the latter was affected by the substrate contribution, particularly for
SiO2 which turns transparent in this spectral range. As a reminder, to obtain n and k from
reflectance using Eq. (4), the contribution from the inner interfaces must be negligible.
iv) Between 190 and 950 nm, ellipsometry measurements were fitted with one (SiO2) or
three (Ta2O5) Lorentz oscillators. From the fit, k or reflectance was calculated for both
materials, and used in all iterations.
v) Above 950 nm we extrapolated the fitted Lorentz oscillator(s) in the 190-950-nm range,
which were used to calculate k or reflectance for both materials.
The sequence of R-φ and n-k KK integrals through successive iterations is explained in
the following.
An initial {R1} set was used for a first R-φ KK integration [Eq. (1)], from which an initial
{n1,k1} set was obtained using Eq. (4). Then for the first n-k KK integration, a {k2} data set
was gathered, from which a second {n2,k2} set was obtained using Eq. (2). Next, a new {R2}
 Vol. 6, No. 11 | 1 Nov 2016 | OPTICAL MATERIALS EXPRESS 3629

set was gathered for a second R-φ KK integration using Eq. (1), from which a third {n3,k3} set
was obtained using Eq. (4). Finally, {k4} data set was gathered and used in a second n-k KK
integration, from which a fourth and final {nfinal, kfinal} set was obtained using Eq. (2). {k2}
and {kfinal} data sets included parts of {k1} and {k3} data obtained in the previous iteration,
respectively, as displayed in Table 1. {R2} included parts of calculated reflectance with
{n2,k2}. The above procedures and data sources are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Scheme of the procedure and data sources for the iterative KK analysis.
Spectral range Produced
Iteration optical
λ>950 nm 950-190 nm 190-115 nm 115-30 nm λ<30 nm constants

1. R-φ KK. R from Lorentz

R from Lorentz
oscillator(s) R experimental R CXRO {n1, k1}
{R1}: oscillator(s)
extrapolation
k from transmittance, neglecting
k from Lorentz R) (SiO2) k from
2. k-n KK. k from Lorentz
oscillator(s) k from iteration 1 (k1) averaged iteration 1 k CXRO {n2, k2}
{k2}: oscillator(s)
extrapolation with k from transmittance, (k1)
neglecting R (Ta2O5)
R calculated from iteration 2 with
R from Lorentz n2, k2 (SiO2)
3. R-φ KK. R from Lorentz R experim-
oscillator(s) R experimental averaged with R R CXRO {n3, k3}
{R2}: oscillators(s) ental
extrapolation calculated from iteration 2 with
n2, k2 (Ta2O5)
k from transmittance. Exact
calculations including reflectance k
k from Lorentz and interferences (SiO2) k from
4. k-n KK. k from Lorentz CXRO+
oscillator(s) k from iteration 3 (k3), averaged iteration 3 {nfinal, kfinal}
{kfinal}: oscillator(s)
extrapolation with k from transmittance. Exact (k3) Chantler
calculations including reflectance et al. [50]
and interferences (Ta2O5)

4. Experimental results
4.1 Optical constants of SiO2
Figure 1(a) displays the transmittance of the 56-nm thick film normalized to the transmittance
of the bare MgF2 substrate; half of the MgF2 substrate was left uncoated for this purpose.
Figure 1(b) displays the reflectance of the 125-nm thick film deposited on the Si wafer. The
125-nm thick sample was selected to measure reflectance to ensure the opacity of the material
in the EUV range. Figure 2 displays both the ellipsometry measurements at 77° on the 56-nm
thick film and at 76° on the 125-nm thick film deposited on Si wafers, and the fit performed
with a single Lorentz oscillator; the latter provided a precise fit to the experimental data for
both films. The oscillator parameters were used in the iterative process described in section 3
to calculate the optical constants in the 190-950-nm spectral range and also at longer
wavelengths. Silicon wafer substrates were previously characterized: measurements were
performed on wafer spots where no coating was deposited, from which the thickness of the
native SiO2 was obtained; optical constants of Si [51] and SiO2 [8] were used for modeling
the Si wafer and its native oxide.
The final self-consistent set of optical constants, referred to as (nfinal, kfinal), obtained after
iteration 4, is displayed in Fig. 3.
 Vol. 6, No. 11 | 1 Nov 2016 | OPTICAL MATERIALS EXPRESS 3630

Fig. 1. Comparison between the experimental measurements and calculations with SiO2 optical
constants obtained in this subsection. a: transmittance (normalized to the transmittance of the
bare MgF2 substrate) of a 56-nm thick film on a MgF2 substrate. b: reflectance of a 125-nm
thick film on a Si substrate. Wavelength is in log scale.

Fig. 2. Ellipsometry measurements at 77° on a 56-nm thick SiO2 film (a) and at 76° on a 125-
nm thick SiO2 film (b) deposited on Si wafers, along with the fits performed with a single
Lorentz oscillator and calculations with optical constants obtained in this subsection.

With the final optical constants, normalized transmittance, reflectance, and ellipsometry
parameters were calculated and are also plotted in the above figures. There is an excellent
match between calculation and experimental values.
4.2. Optical constants of Ta2O5
Figure 4(a) displays the transmittance of the film normalized to the transmittance of the bare
MgF2 substrate. Figure 4(b) displays the reflectance of the film deposited on a glass substrate.
Figure 5 displays both the ellipsometry measurements at 63° on the film deposited on the Si
wafer and the fit performed with three Lorentz oscillators. The Si wafer was previously
characterized as described above. For this material, a single oscillator did not provide a good
 Vol. 6, No. 11 | 1 Nov 2016 | OPTICAL MATERIALS EXPRESS 3631

fitting of the experimental data, so that the number of oscillators in the model was increased
to three.

Fig. 3. SiO2 optical constants (a: linear axis; b: log-axis) versus wavelength in log axis.

The final self-consistent set of optical constants, referred to as {nfinal, kfinal}, obtained after
iteration 4, is displayed in Fig. 6.

Fig. 4. Comparison between the experimental measurements and calculations with Ta2O5
optical constants obtained in this subsection. a: transmittance (normalized to the transmittance
of the bare MgF2 substrate) of a 53-nm thick film on a MgF2 substrate. b: reflectance of a 53-
nm thick film on a glass substrate. Wavelength is in log scale.

With the final optical constants, normalized transmittance, reflectance, and ellipsometry
parameters were calculated and are also plotted in Figs. 4 and 5. We find somewhat larger
discrepancies between calculations and experimental data than for SiO2 films; normalized
transmittance presents some deviation above ~270 nm, and calculated ellipsometry
parameters are close to the experimental ones but discrepancies could be observed too.
Experimental ellipsometry and transmittance measurements seem to be somewhat
inconsistent for Ta2O5 in a range around 270 nm.
 Vol. 6, No. 11 | 1 Nov 2016 | OPTICAL MATERIALS EXPRESS 3632

Fig. 5. Ellipsometry measurements at 63° on a 53-nm thick Ta2O5 film deposited on a Si wafer,
along with the fit performed with 3 Lorentz oscillators and calculations with the optical
constants obtained in this subsection.

Fig. 6. Ta2O5 optical constants (a: linear axis; b: log-axis) versus wavelength in log axis.

When we compare Ta2O5 k in the transparency range with literature data available for
films prepared in close conditions [27, 30, 32], it seems that the deposition parameters used
might not have been optimal. Unfortunately, a large uncertainty is often obtained when
measuring k values that are smaller than ~0.01, as mentioned in the introduction, which
complicates this comparison. What is distinct in the present research is that the optical
constants are self-consistent and have been obtained in a broad spectrum. Reviewing the data
of Cheng et al. [32], k (calculated from the absorption coefficient α) displays a minimum at
~450 nm and it grows towards longer wavelengths, which can be considered unexpected and
might be the result of measurement uncertainty; in Ref [32], we interpreted α data in their Fig.
2 by correcting units from cm−1 to nm−1 and we avoided the oscillations originated in
interferences by taking middle values through them. In the paper of Asghar et al. [30], they
used the flow of O2 during deposition as a variable and obtain k, along with n, as a function of
this parameter; however, for most flows the dependence of k on wavelength is flat, which
looks inconsistent. At 550 nm, a usual wavelength to compare optical constants, Asghar data
 Vol. 6, No. 11 | 1 Nov 2016 | OPTICAL MATERIALS EXPRESS 3633

oscillate between 0.0018 (for an O2 flow of 20 sccm) and 0.022 (for an O2 flow of 5 sccm),
which is over an order of magnitude difference. At the same wavelength, Cheng data amounts
to 0.018 and the present data stays at 0.011. In spite of the above wide data differences, the
data of Asghar et al. brought them to the conclusion that there is an inverse correlation
between oxygen flow during deposition and k. Such an optimization was not performed here,
and hence the obtained k data might not be the minimum possible values at the present
deposition temperature.
4.3. Optical constant consistency
The consistency of the optical constants was evaluated with sum rules. First we start applying
the standard f- and inertial sum rules to the final sets of optical constants in order to obtain a
global evaluation of the optical-constant consistency. In a second step, we will apply novel
sum rules that can be tuned in the desired spectral range to evaluate the local consistency of
optical constants [52].
f-sum rule is expressed by:
4ε 0 m ∞
π Ne 2  2 0
neff = E ' k ( E ')dE ' (6)

where e and m are the electron charge and mass, respectively, ε0 is the permittivity of
vacuum,  is the reduced Planck’s constant, and N is the electron density. Grazing incidence
x-ray reflectance measurements at Cu Kα line (λ = 0.154 nm) were performed to obtain
density for the Ta2O5 and for the 56-nm-thick SiO2 film samples. Measurements were fitted
with IMD software [53], and the density of the samples was obtained from total reflection
critical angle. A density value of 2.28 g/cm3 was obtained for SiO2 which is 85.4% of its bulk
density, and a value of 7.72 g/cm3 was obtained for Ta2O5, which is 93.2% of its bulk density.
f-sum rule indicates that neff should be 30, and 186 for SiO2 and Ta2O5, respectively, i.e., the
total number of electrons in the molecule. When the relativistic correction on scattering
factors is taken into account, neff is somewhat modified: the theoretical effective number of
electrons is reduced to 29.96 (SiO2) and 184.32 (Ta2O5) [54]. The integral of Eq. (4) with the
present k data results in 29.65 for SiO2 and 187.19 for Ta2O5. The deviations are ∼1.0% and
~1.6% for SiO2 and Ta2O5, respectively, which can be considered acceptable numbers.
Another proof of global consistency is obtained through the inertial sum rule:
∞

 [ n( E ) − 1] dE = 0
0
(7)

The following normalization parameter was used to evaluate the fulfillment of Eq. (7)
[55]:
∞

 [ n( E ) − 1] dE
ζ = 0
∞
(8)
 n( E ) − 1 dE
0

Shiles et al. [56], proposed that a satisfactory value for ζ should stand within ± 0.005. ζ
values of 6.5 × 10−4 and 1.4 × 10−5 for SiO2 and Ta2O5, respectively, were obtained with the
present n data set, well within Shiles's limit.
Other than the previous global sum rules, a procedure to spectrally tune sum rules to
evaluate the local consistency of optical constants has been recently developed [52]. It
enables enhancing the weight of a desired spectral range within the sum-rule integral. The
procedure consists in multiplying the complex refractive index with an adapted function,
 Vol. 6, No. 11 | 1 Nov 2016 | OPTICAL MATERIALS EXPRESS 3634

which is named window function. In the following we use the window functions proposed in
Ref [52]:
1
H1 ( E ) =  L ( E; E2 , c ) − L ( E; E1 , c )  (9)
π
and
1  c1 + c2  
H2 ( E ) = L ( E; E2 , c2 ) + L ( E; E1 , c1 ) − 2 L  E; E1 E2 , (10)
π   2  

with:

L  E; E j , c  ≡ ln  E j 2 − E 2 − icE  j = 1, 2 (11)
   
where ln stands for natural logarithm, which is understood as the logarithm principal value,
i.e., its imaginary part lies in the interval (−π,π]. [E1,E2] is the range where the window
function has larger values, in order to give more weight to the optical constants in that range
in the sum-rule calculation. The shape of H1 and H2 can be seen in a plot in Ref [52].
With H1 and H2 window functions, the following new sum rules have been used here [52]:
∞

E'
−2
{ }
Re H 2 ( E ' )  N ( E ' ) − 1 dE ' = 0 (12)
0

E'
−1
{ }
Im H 2 ( E ')  N ( E ') − 1 dE ' = 0 (13)
0

 Re {H ( E ')  N ( E ') − 1} dE ' = 0

0
2 (14)

 E 'Im {H ( E ')  N ( E ') − 1} dE ' = 0

0
2 (15)

E'
2
{ }
Re H 2 ( E ')  N ( E ') − 1 dE ' = 0 (16)
0

∞
 2ω p 2
{
 E ' Im H1 ( E ')  N ( E ') − 1 dE ' =
3

4
}
( E12 − E22 ) (17)
0
Among these sum rules, the last one is a modified version of f-sum rule and all others are
akin to the inertial sum rule. ωp stands for the plasma frequency, with ωp2 = Ne2/mεo, which
depends on electron density N, electron mass and charge, and vacuum permittivity. What is
distinct with the new sum rules is that the range of larger contribution to the integral is
selected at will through the election of E1 and E2.
The new sum rules are applied here by making the window functions to continuously scan
the spectrum. Hence we center the window function at a variable energy Ew and we scan Ew
over a wide spectral range. In this way, for each Ew we obtain a measurement of the
consistency of the optical constants mostly in the spectral range surrounding Ew and we
extend this information by scanning Ew over the spectrum. Figure 7 plots ζ vs Ew for the
above sets of optical constants of SiO2 and Ta2O5 using the five sorts of inertial-like sum-
rules (Eqs. (12) to 16) with window function H2 and window parameters given by Ew =
(E1E2)0.5, E2/E1 = 3, and c1(2) = E1(2)/10. A straightforward generalization of Shiles’s
 Vol. 6, No. 11 | 1 Nov 2016 | OPTICAL MATERIALS EXPRESS 3635

evaluation parameter given by Eq. (6) has been used [52]. The figure highlights the limits
suggested by Shiles et al. at ± 0.005 [56]. Parameter ζ comfortably stands within these limits
in the whole spectral range investigated for all five sum rules, which indicates that the optical
constants are locally consistent in this wide spectrum. The exception is sum rule given by Eq.
(16) in the limit of high-energy windows, where it diverges.
For the new f-like sum rule, Eq. (17) is rewritten to display it in a manner similar to Eq.
(6):
4ε 0 m ∞
neff = E'
Ne2  2 ( E12 − E2 2 ) 0
3
{ }
Im H1 ( E ')  N ( E ') − 1 dE ' (18)

Fig. 7. ζ versus the central energy Ew for sum rules represented through Eqs. (12) to (16)
calculated with H2 window function and with the optical constants of SiO2 (a) and of Ta2O5
(b). The five inertial-like sum rules are identified in the legend by the power of photon energy
in the integral. Window function parameters at each Ew are given by: Ew = (E1E2)0.5, E2/E1 = 3,
c1(2) = E1(2)/10.

Fig. 8. neff versus the central energy Ew for sum rule represented through Eq. (18) calculated
with H1 window function and with the optical constants of SiO2 (left axis) and of Ta2O5 (right
axis). Window function parameters at each Ew are given by: Ew = (E1E2)0.5, E2/E1 = 3, c = E1/5.
 Vol. 6, No. 11 | 1 Nov 2016 | OPTICAL MATERIALS EXPRESS 3636

Figure 8 plots the new f-like sum rule given by Eq. (18) with H1 window function applied
to the optical constants of both SiO2 and Ta2O5. neff is plotted as a function of the central
energy of the window function Ew, with the edges satisfying Ew = (E1E2)0.5, E2/E1 = 3, and c =
E1/5. The sum of electrons in the molecules, once corrected for relativistic effects, was
mentioned to be 29.96 and 184.32 for SiO2 and Ta2O5, respectively. Looking at data plotted in
Fig. 8, the deviation from these numbers reaches a maximum of ~1.1% and 1.9% for SiO2 and
Ta2O5, respectively, which can be considered satisfactory numbers and are not much larger at
any energy than the global ones reported at the beginning of this sub-section. This again
indicates that the optical constants are locally consistent in the wide spectrum plotted in the
figure. The curves tend to diverge at high energies, which, along with the similar behavior
observed in Fig. 7 for sum rule (16), suggests that the extrapolation using data of Chantler et
al. [50] and/or the power extrapolation at even larger energies are not fully consistent. This
hypothesis is supported by the fact that sum rules corresponding to Eqs. (16) and (18) are
strongly biased towards high energies due to the terms E2 and E3 in the integrand,
respectively. Nevertheless, since this lack of self-consistency is found far away from the
spectral range covered in this research, a negligible effect is expected on the latter.
In conclusion, both classical f- and inertial-sum rules, along with new sum rules involving
window functions, provided a satisfactory evaluation, which suggests a good consistency of
the present optical constants of SiO2 and Ta2O5. This good consistency is found both globally
and also locally in a broad spectral range.
The optical constants are available upon request at the following e-mail address:
j.larruquert@csic.es.
4. Conclusions
Self-consistent optical constants of thin films of SiO2 and Ta2O5 deposited by reactive
electron-beam evaporation onto substrates heated at 573 K were obtained in a wide spectral
range. The optical constants were obtained from a combination of transmittance (FUV range),
reflectance (EUV and FUV ranges), and ellipsometry (from NUV to NIR ranges)
measurements, along with extrapolations, from which data sets of k and reflectance were
gathered over the whole spectrum. A consistent set of optical constants for each oxide was
obtained by means of an iterative double Kramers-Kronig analysis, one relating reflectance
with its phase and the other relating k with n. The obtained sets of optical constants enabled
us to satisfactorily reproduce experimental reflectance, transmittance, and ellipsometry
measurements. The so-obtained sets of optical constants of SiO2 and Ta2O5 thin films can be
widely applied in multilayer design for the everyday use of these materials in multilayer
coatings. Furthermore, the wide range of optical constants so produced can be useful in
applications for which, in addition to a desired performance in the NUV-to NIR ranges, a
certain performance in a secondary range, such as in the EUV or FUV ranges, is required.
Satisfactory self-consistency evaluation parameters were obtained for the optical constants
of SiO2 and Ta2O5 with the use of sum rules. Successful global consistency of optical-
constant data over the spectrum was found through standard f- and inertial sum rules;
additionally, successful local consistency at each photon energy range was also found through
the use of sum rules with window functions. To the best of our knowledge, these are the first
self-consistent sets of optical constants of SiO2 and Ta2O5 thin films deposited onto substrates
heated at a temperature close to 573K that involve experimental data from the EUV to the
NIR.
Funding
Spanish Programa Estatal de Investigación Científica y Técnica de Excelencia, Secretaría de
Estado de Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación (AYA2013-42590-P).
 Vol. 6, No. 11 | 1 Nov 2016 | OPTICAL MATERIALS EXPRESS 3637

Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge J. Campos and A. Pons for measurements with the
spectrophotometers, and I. Carabias and Centro de Asistencia a la Investigación, Universidad
Complutense de Madrid, for performing the grazing incidence x-ray reflectometry
measurements.