Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Sprache
- Englisch (6)
Schlagworte
- Ellipsometry (2)
- Imaging XPS (2)
- Lateral resolution (2)
- Transmission function (2)
- X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (2)
- XPS (2)
- Analysis area measurements (1)
- Calibration (1)
- GIXRR (1)
- Grating method (1)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
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.
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.
ISO 18516:2019 Surface chemical analysis—Determination of lateral resolution and sharpness in beam-based methods with a range from nanometres to micrometres revises ISO 18516:2006 Surface chemical analysis—Auger electron spectroscopy and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy—Determination of lateral resolution. It implements three different methods delivering parameters useful to express the lateral resolution: (1) the straight edge method, (2) the narrow line method and (3) the grating method. The theoretical background of these methods is introduced in ISO/TR 19319:2013 Surface chemical analysis—Fundamental approaches to determination of lateral resolution and sharpness in beam-based methods. The revised International Standard ISO 18516 delivers standardized procedures for the determination of the (1) effective lateral resolution by imaging of square-wave gratings, the (2) lateral resolution expressed as the parameter D12–88 characterizing the steepness of the sigmoidal edge spread function (ESF) determined by imaging a straight edge and (3) the lateral resolution expressed as the full width of half maximum of the line spread function (LSF), wLSF, determined by imaging a narrow line. The last method also delivers information on the shape of the LSF, which characterizes an individual imaging instrument. Finally, the implementation of all three standardized methods in the field of imaging laboratory X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) is shortly presented. This part of the letter is based on the use of a new test sample developed at ETH Zurich, Switzerland. This test sample displays a micrometre scaled pattern motivated by the resolving power of recent imaging XPS instruments.
Imaging and small-spot (small area) XPS have become increasingly important components of surface chemical analysis during the last three decades, and its use is growing. Some ambiguity in the use of terminology, understanding of concepts, and lack of appropriate reference materials leads to confusing and not always reproducible data. In this paper, it is shown that by using existing knowledge, appropriate test specimens, and standardized approaches, problems of comparability and such reproducibility issues recently observed for XPS data reported in the scientific literature can be overcome. The standardized methods of ISO 18516:2019, (i) the straight-edge, (ii) the narrow-line, and (iii) the grating method, can be used to characterize and compare the lateral resolution achieved by imaging XPS instruments and are described by reporting examples. The respective measurements are made using new test specimens. When running an XPS instrument in the small-spot (small area) mode for a quantitative analysis of a feature of interest, the question arises as to what contribution to the intensity originates from outside the analysis area. A valid measurement approach to control the intensity from outside the nominal analysis area is also described. As always, the relevant resolution depends on the specific question that needs to be addressed. The strengths and limitations of methods defining resolution are indicated.