TY - JOUR A1 - Seah, M.P. A1 - Spencer, S.J. A1 - Bensebaa, F. A1 - Vickridge, I. A1 - Danzebrink, H. A1 - Krumrey, M. A1 - Gross, Thomas A1 - Österle, Werner A1 - Wendler, E. A1 - Rheinländer, B. A1 - Azuma, Y. A1 - Kojima, I. A1 - Suzuki, N. A1 - Suzuki, M. A1 - Tanuma, S. A1 - Moon, D.W. A1 - Lee, H.J. A1 - Cho, H.M. A1 - Chen, H.Y. A1 - Wee, A. T. S. A1 - Osipowicz, T. A1 - Pan, J.S. A1 - Jordaan, W.A. A1 - Hauert, R. A1 - Klotz, U. A1 - van der Marel, C. A1 - Verheijen, M. A1 - Tamminga, Y. A1 - Jeynes, C. A1 - Bailey, P. A1 - Biswas, S. A1 - Falke, U. A1 - Nguyen, N.V. A1 - Chandler-Horowitz, D. A1 - Ehrstein, J.R. A1 - Muller, D. A1 - Dura, J.A. T1 - Critical review of the current status of thickness measurements for ultrathin SiO2 on Si - Part V: Results of a CCQM pilot study N2 - Results are reported from a pilot study under the Consultative Committee for Amount of Substance (CCQM) to compare measurements of and resolve any relevant measurement issues in, the amount of thermal SiO2 oxide on (100) and (111) orientation Si wafer substrates in the thickness range 1.5 - 8 nm. As a result of the invitation to participate in this activity, 45 sets of measurements have been made in different laboratories using 10 analytical methods: medium-energy ion scattering spectrometry (MEIS), nuclear reaction analysis (NRA), RBS, elastic backscattering spectrometry (EBS), XPS, SIMS, ellipsometry, grazing-incidence x-ray reflectrometry (GIXRR), neutron reflectometry and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). The measurements are made on separate sets of 10 carefully prepared samples, all of which have been characterised by a combination of ellipsometry and XPS using carefully established reference conditions and reference parameters. The results have been assessed against the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) data and all show excellent linearity. The remaining data sets correlate with the NPL data with average root-mean-square scatters of 0.15 nm, half being better than 0.1 nm and a few at or better than 0.05 nm. Each set of data allows a relative scaling constant and a zero thickness offset to be determined. Each method has an inherent zero thickness offset between 0 nm and 1 nm and it is these offsets, measured here for the first time, that have caused many problems in the past. There are three basic classes of offset: water and carbonadeous contamination equivalent to ~1 nm as seen by ellipsometry; adsorbed oxygen mainly from water at an equivalent thickness of 0.5 nm as seen by MEIS, NRA, RBS and possibly GIXRR; and no offset as seen by XPS using the Si 2p peaks. Each technique has a different uncertainty for the scaling constant and consistent results have been achieved. X-Ray photoelectron spectroscopy has large uncertainties for the scaling constant but a high precision and, critically, if used correctly, has zero offset. Thus, a combination of XPS and the other methods allows the XPS scaling constant to be determined with low uncertainty, traceable via the other methods. XPS laboratories returning results early were invited to test a new reference procedure. All showed very significant improvements. The reference attenuation lengths thus need scaling by 0.986 ± 0.009 (at an expansion factor of 2) deduced from the data for the other methods. Several other methods have small offsets and, to the extent that these can be shown to be constant or measurable, then these methods will also show low uncertainty. Recommendations are provided for parameters for XPS, MEIS, RBS and NRA to improve their accuracy. KW - Calibration KW - Ellipsometry KW - GIXRR KW - Interlaboratory study KW - MEIS KW - Neutron reflectometry KW - NRA KW - RBS KW - Silicon dioxide KW - SIMS KW - XPS PY - 2004 DO - https://doi.org/10.1002/sia.1909 SN - 0142-2421 SN - 1096-9918 VL - 36 IS - 9 SP - 1269 EP - 1303 PB - Wiley CY - Chichester AN - OPUS4-5549 LA - eng AD - Bundesanstalt fuer Materialforschung und -pruefung (BAM), Berlin, Germany ER - TY - RPRT A1 - Seah, M.P. A1 - Spencer, S.J. A1 - Bensebaa, F. A1 - Vickridge, I. A1 - Danzebrink, H. A1 - Krumrey, M. A1 - Gross, Thomas A1 - Österle, Werner A1 - Wendler, E. A1 - Rheinländer, B. A1 - Azuma, Y. A1 - Kojima, I. A1 - Suzuki, N. A1 - Suzuki, M. A1 - Tanuma, S. A1 - Moon, D.W. A1 - Lee, H.J. A1 - Cho, H.M. A1 - Chen, H.Y. A1 - Wee, A. T. S. A1 - Osipowicz, T. A1 - Pan, J.S. A1 - Jordaan, W.A. A1 - Hauert, R. A1 - Klotz, U. A1 - van der Marel, C. A1 - Verheijen, M. A1 - Tamminga, Y. A1 - Jeynes, C. A1 - Bailey, P. A1 - Biswas, S. A1 - Falke, U. A1 - Nguyen, N.V. A1 - Chandler-Horowitz, D. A1 - Ehrstein, J.R. A1 - Muller, D. A1 - Dura, J.A. T1 - Ultra-thin SiO2 on Si, Part V: Results of a CCQM Pilot Study of Thickness Measurements KW - SiO2 KW - Thin films KW - Thickness KW - XPS KW - Ellipsometry KW - TEM PY - 2003 SN - 1473-2734 SP - 57 pages AN - OPUS4-4118 LA - eng AD - Bundesanstalt fuer Materialforschung und -pruefung (BAM), Berlin, Germany ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Terborg, R. A1 - Hodoroaba, Vasile-Dan A1 - Falke, M. A1 - Käppel, A. T1 - On the characterization of the geometrical collection efficiency of modern EDS systems N2 - To compare the performance of different energy dispersive X-ray spectrometers (EDS), it is important to define characteristic spectrometer parameters. The ISO 15632 standard defines parameters like energy resolution as FWHM for the Kα lines of carbon, fluorine and manganese. The quantum efficiency, which is the ratio of the detected photons divided by the number of incoming photons for different energies, is another significant spectrometer property. It is important for the light element and low energy line detection sensitivity as well as for higher photon energies above 10 keV. A striking EDS feature, provided and marketed by many manufactures, is the active area of the detector, although actually, the solid angle available for photon collection is the more relevant geometrical parameter. It is defined as: Ω = A /r2 with A being the active area of a spherical detector and r being the distance between the point of the radiation origin and the center of the surface of the active detector chip. A more accurate calculation should be used for large flat detector areas. One should note that the solid angle Ω is not an intrinsic spectrometer property. It can only be defined for a specific detector in combination with a specific system (e.g. SEM, EPMA or TEM). Thus, the minimal possible distance r is determined by the particular geometry e.g. a possible interference with the pole piece or other detectors/components in the chamber of a microscope. New EDS technologies use e.g. integrated SDD chips or inclined chips in thinner detector fingers which can be placed closer to the sample with the final result of larger real solid angles. Therefore, the knowledge of the real solid angle is one of the crucial parameters of an EDS microscope combination. A straightforward way to estimate the real solid angle is to simply determine A and r. If respective data are not provided by the manufacturer, this approach can be difficult. KW - EDS KW - EDX KW - Geometrical collection efficiency KW - Solid angle PY - 2014 DO - https://doi.org/10.1017/S1431927614007454 SN - 1431-9276 SN - 1435-8115 VL - 20 IS - Suppl. S 3 SP - 1144 EP - 1145 PB - Cambridge University Press CY - New York, NY AN - OPUS4-31388 LA - eng AD - Bundesanstalt fuer Materialforschung und -pruefung (BAM), Berlin, Germany ER - TY - CONF A1 - Terborg, R. A1 - Hodoroaba, Vasile-Dan A1 - Falke, M. A1 - Käppel, A. ED - Hozak, P. T1 - Characterization of EDS systems with respect to the geometrical collection efficiency T2 - IMC 2014 - 18th International microscopy congress CY - Prague, Czech Republic DA - 07.09.2014 KW - EDS KW - EDX KW - Geometrical collection efficiency KW - Solid angle PY - 2014 SN - 978-80-260-6720-7 SP - IT-5-P-1533, 1-2 AN - OPUS4-31945 LA - eng AD - Bundesanstalt fuer Materialforschung und -pruefung (BAM), Berlin, Germany ER -