Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Sprache
- Englisch (4)
Schlagworte
- EDS (2)
- EDX (2)
- Ellipsometry (2)
- Geometrical collection efficiency (2)
- Solid angle (2)
- XPS (2)
- Calibration (1)
- GIXRR (1)
- Interlaboratory study (1)
- MEIS (1)
- NRA (1)
- Neutron reflectometry (1)
- RBS (1)
- SIMS (1)
- SiO2 (1)
- Silicon dioxide (1)
- TEM (1)
- Thickness (1)
- Thin films (1)
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.
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.