Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Sprache
- Englisch (6)
Referierte Publikation
- ja (6)
Schlagworte
- CCQM (2)
- CIGS (2)
- Transmission function (2)
- X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (2)
- AES (1)
- Alloy films (1)
- BET specific surface area (1)
- EPMA (1)
- Intensity scale calibration (1)
- Key comparison (1)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
A pilot study for the thickness measurement of HfO2 films was performed by the Surface Analysis Working Group (SAWG) of the Consultative Committee for Amount of Substance (CCQM). The aim of this pilot study was to ensure the equivalency in the measurement capability of national metrology institutes for the thickness measurement of HfO2 films. In this pilot study, the thicknesses of six HfO2 films with nominal thickness from 1 nm to 4 nm were measured by X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS), X-ray Reflectometry(XRR), X-ray Fluorescence Analysis (XRF), Transmission Electron Spectroscopy (TEM), Spectroscopic Ellipsometry (SE) and Rutherford Backscattering Spectrometry (RBS). The reference thicknesses were determined by mutual calibration of a zero-offset method (Medium Energy Ion Scattering Spectroscopy (MEIS) of KRISS) and a method traceable to the length unit (the average thicknesses of three XRR data except the thinnest film). These reference thicknesses are traceable to the length unit because they are based on the traceability of XRR. For the thickness measurement by XPS, the effective attenuation length of Hf 4f electrons was determined. In the cases of XRR and TEM, the offset values were determined from a linear fitting between the reference thicknesses and the individual data by XRR and TEM. The amount of substance of HfO2, expressed as thickness of HfO2 films (in both linear and areal density units), was found to be a good subject for a CCQM key comparison.
To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report.
The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by the CCQM.
The CCQM-K136 key comparison for determination of the porosity properties of aluminum oxide has been organized jointly by the surface and micro/nano analysis working groups of CCQM to test the abilities of the metrology institutes to measure the porosity properties (specific adsorption, BET specific surface area, specific pore volume and pore diameter) of nanoporous Al2O3.
Ural Scientific Research Institute for Metrology (UNIIM) acted as the coordinating laboratory for this comparison with BAM Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing (BAM) as co-coordinating laboratory. Five NMIs and one DI participated in this key comparison. All participants used a gas adsorption method, here nitrogen adsorption at 77.3 K, for analysis according to the international standards ISO 15901-2 and 9277.
CCQM key comparison K-129 for the quantitative analysis of Cu(In,Ga)Se2 (CIGS) films has been performed by the Surface Analysis Working Group (SAWG) of the Consultative Committee for Amount of Substance (CCQM). The objective of this key comparison is to compare the equivalency of the National Metrology Institutes (NMIs) and Designated Institutes (DIs) for the measurement of mole fractions of Cu, In, Ga and Se in a thin CIGS film. The measurand of this key comparison is the average mole fractions of Cu, In, Ga and Se of a test CIGS alloy film in the unit of mole fraction (mol/mol). Mole fraction with the metrological unit of mol/mol can be practically converted to atomic fraction with the unit of at%.
In this key comparison, a CIGS film with certified mole fractions was supplied as a reference specimen to determine the relative sensitivity factors (RSFs) of Cu, In, Ga and Se. The mole fractions of the reference specimen were certified by isotope dilution - inductively coupled plasma/mass spectrometry (ID-ICP/MS) and are traceable to the SI. A total number counting (TNC) method was recommended as a method to determine the signal intensities of the constituent elements acquired in the depth profiles by Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry (SIMS), X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) and Auger Electron Spectroscopy (AES). Seven NMIs and one DI participated in this key comparison. The mole fractions of the CIGS films were measured by depth profiling based-SIMS, AES and XPS. The mole fractions were also measured by non-destructive X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Analysis and Electron Probe Micro Analysis (EPMA) with Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectrometry (EDX).
In this key comparison, the average degrees of equivalence uncertainties for Cu, In, Ga and Se are 0.0093 mol/mol, 0.0123 mol/mol, 0.0047 mol/mol and 0.0228 mol/mol, respectively. These values are much smaller than that of Fe in a Fe-Ni alloy film in CCQM K-67 (0.0330 mol/mol). This means that the quantification of multi-element alloy films is possible by depth profiling analysis using the TNC method.
A pilot study for the quantitative surface analysis of multi-element alloy films has been performed by the Surface Analysis Working Group (SAWG) of the Consultative Committee for Amount of Substance (CCQM). The aim of this pilot study is to ensure the equivalency in the measurement capability of national metrology institutes for the quantification of multi-element alloy films. A Cu(In,Ga)Se2 (CIGS) film with non-uniform depth distribution was chosen as a representative multi-element alloy film. The atomic fractions of the reference and the test CIGS films were certified by isotope dilution - inductively coupled plasma/mass spectrometry. A total number counting (TNC) method was used as a method to determine the signal intensities of the constituent elements, which are compared with their certified atomic fractions. The atomic fractions of the CIGS films were measured by various methods, such as Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry (SIMS), Auger Electron Spectroscopy (AES), X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS), X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) analysis and Electron Probe Micro Analysis (EPMA) with Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectrometry (EDX). Fifteen laboratories from eight National Metrology Institutes (NMIs), one Designated Institute (DI) and six non-NMIs participated in this pilot study. Although the average atomic fractions of 18 data sets showed rather poor relative standard deviations of about 5.5 % to 6.8 %, they were greatly improved to about 1.5 % to 2.2 % by excluding 5 strongly deviating data sets from the average atomic fractions. In this pilot study, the average expanded uncertainties of SIMS, XPS, AES, XRF and EPMA were 3.84%, 3.68%, 3.81%, 2.88% and 2.90%, respectively. These values are much better than those in the key comparison K-67 for composition of a Fe-Ni alloy film. As a result, the quantification of CIGS films using the TNC method was found to be a good candidate as a subject for a CCQM key comparison.
We report the results of a Versailles Project on Advanced Materials and Standards interlaboratory study on the intensity scale calibration of x-ray photoelectron spectrometers using low-density polyethylene (LDPE) as an alternative material to gold, silver, and copper. An improved set of LDPE reference spectra, corrected for different instrument geometries using a quartz-monochromated Al Kα x-ray source, was developed using data provided by participants in this study. Using
these new reference spectra, a transmission function was calculated for each dataset that participants provided. When compared to a similar calibration procedure using the NPL reference spectra for gold, the LDPE intensity calibration method achieves an absolute offset of ∼3.0% and a systematic deviation of ±6.5% on average across all participants. For spectra recorded at high pass energies (≥90 eV), values of absolute offset and systematic deviation are ∼5.8% and ±5.7%, respectively, whereas for spectra collected at lower pass energies (<90 eV), values of absolute offset and systematic deviation are ∼4.9% and ±8.8%, respectively; low pass energy spectra perform worse than the global average, in terms of systematic deviations, due to diminished count rates and signal-to-noise ratio. Differences in absolute offset are attributed to the surface roughness of the LDPE induced by sample preparation. We further assess the usability of LDPE as a secondary reference material and comment on its performance in the presence of issues such as variable dark noise, x-ray warm up times, inaccuracy at low count rates, and underlying spectrometer problems. In response to participant feedback and the results of the study, we provide an updated LDPE intensity calibration protocol to address the issues highlighted in the interlaboratory study. We also comment on the lack of implementation of a consistent and traceable intensity calibration method across the community of x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) users and, therefore, propose a route to achieving this with the assistance of instrument manufacturers, metrology laboratories, and experts leading to an international standard for XPS intensity scale calibration.
The lead authors failed to name two collaborators as co-authors. The authors listed should include:
Miss Claudia L. Compean-Gonzalez (ORCID:
0000-0002-2367-8450) and Dr. Giacomo Ceccone (ORCID:
0000-0003-4637-0771).
These co-authors participated in VAMAS project A27, provided data that were analyzed and presented in this publication (and supporting information), and reviewed the manuscript before submission.