Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:12:40.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Inexpensive Approach for Bright-Field and Dark-Field Imaging by Scanning Transmission Electron Microscopy in Scanning Electron Microscopy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2014

Binay Patel  and
Masashi Watanabe
Binay Patel*
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA 18015, USA
Masashi Watanabe
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA 18015, USA
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: bsp210@lehigh.edu
Get access

Abstract

Scanning transmission electron microscopy in scanning electron microscopy (STEM-in-SEM) is a convenient technique for soft materials characterization. Various specimen-holder geometries and detector arrangements have been used for bright-field (BF) STEM-in-SEM imaging. In this study, to further the characterization potential of STEM-IN-SEM, a new specimen holder has been developed to facilitate direct detection of BF signals and indirect detection of dark-field (DF) signals without the need for substantial instrument modification. DF imaging is conducted with the use of a gold (Au)-coated copper (Cu) plate attached to the specimen holder which directs highly scattered transmitted electrons to an off-axis yttrium-aluminum-garnet (YAG) detector. A hole in the copper plate allows for BF imaging with a transmission electron (TE) detector. The inclusion of an Au-coated Cu plate enhanced DF signal intensity. Experiments validating the acquisition of true DF signals revealed that atomic number (Z) contrast may be achieved for materials with large lattice spacing. However, materials with small lattice spacing still exhibit diffraction contrast effects in this approach. The calculated theoretical fine probe size is 1.8 nm. At 30 kV, in this indirect approach, DF spatial resolution is limited to 3.2 nm as confirmed experimentally.

Keywords

holder developmentsoft materialsatomic number contrast (Z contrast)polymersimage resolutionSMART macro
Type
Techniques, Software, and Instrumentation Development
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , February 2014 , pp. 124 - 132
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acevedo-Reyes, D., Perez, M., Verdu, C., Bogner, A. & Epicier, T. (2008). Characterization of precipitates size distribution: Validation of low-voltage STEM. J Microsc 232, 112–122.Google Scholar
Bogner, A., Jouneau, P.H., Thollet, G., Basset, D. & Gauthier, C. (2007). A history of scanning electron microscopy developments: Towards “wet-STEM” imaging. Micron 38, 390–401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brodusch, N., Demers, H. & Gauvin, R. (2013). Dark-field imaging of thin specimens with a forescatter electron detector at low accelerating voltage. Microsc Microanal 19(6), 1688–1697.Google Scholar
Crawford, B.J. & Liley, C.R.W. (1970). A simple transmission stage using the standard collection system in the scanning electron microscope. J Phys E Sci Instrum 3, 461–462.Google Scholar
Darliński, A. (1981). Measurements of angular distribution of the backscattered electrons in the energy range of 5 to 30 keV. Physica Status Solidi (a) 63, 663–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drouin, D., Couture, A.R., Joly, D., Tastet, X., Aimez, V. & Gauvin, R. (2007). Casino V2. 42—A fast and easy-to-use modeling tool for scanning electron microscopy and microanalysis users. Scanning 29, 92–101.Google Scholar
Geng, X., Zhai, M.X., Sun, T. & Meyers, G. (2013). Morphology observation of latex particles with scanning transmission electron microscopy by a hydroxyethyl cellulose embedding combined with RuO4 staining method. Microsc Microanal 19, 319–326.Google Scholar
Goldstein, J., Newbury, D.E., Joy, D.C., Lyman, C.E., Echlin, P., Lifshin, E., Sawyer, L. & Michael, J.R. (2003). Scanning Electron Microscopy and X-Ray Microanalysis. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guise, O., Strom, C. & Preschilla, N. (2011). STEM-in-SEM method for morphology analysis of polymer systems. Polymer 52, 1278–1285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joy, D.C. (2002). SMART—A program to measure SEM resolution and imaging performance. J Microsc 208, 24–34.Google Scholar
Joy, D.C. & Maher, D.M. (1976). Is STEM possible in a SEM? Scanning Electron Microsc 1, 361–368.Google Scholar
Klein, T., Buhr, E. & Frase, C.G. (2012). TSEM: A review of scanning electron microscopy in transmission mode and its applications. In Advances in Imaging and Electron Physics, vol. 171, Hawkes, P.W. (Ed.), pp. 297–356. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Ltd. Google Scholar
Klein, T., Buhr, E., Johnsen, K.P. & Frase, C.G. (2011). Traceable measurement of nanoparticle size using a scanning electron microscope in transmission mode (TSEM). Meas Sci Technol 22, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotula, P.G. (2009). STEM in SEM for medium-resolution X-ray microanalysis. Microsc Microanal 15, 474–475.Google Scholar
Merli, P.G. & Morandi, V. (2005). Low-energy STEM of multilayers and dopant profiles. Microsc Microanal 11, 97–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nellist, P.D. & Pennycook, S.J. (2000). The principles and interpretation of annular dark-field Z-contrast imaging. In Advances in Imaging and Electron Physics, vol. 113, Hawkes, P.W. (Ed.), pp. 147–203. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Ltd. Google Scholar
Oho, E., Baba, M., Baba, N., Muranaka, Y., Sasaki, T., Adachi, K., Osumi, M. & Kanaya, K. (1987a). The conversion of a field-emission scanning electron microscope to a high-resolution, high-performance scanning transmission electron microscope, while maintaining original functions. J Electron Microsc Tech 6, 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oho, E., Sasaki, T., Adachi, K., Muranaka, Y. & Kanaya, K. (1987b). An inexpensive and highly efficient device for observing a transmitted electron image in SEM. J Electron Microsc Tech 5, 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Probst, C., Gauvin, R. & Drew, R.A.L. (2007). Imaging of carbon nanotubes with tin–palladium particles using STEM detector in a FE-SEM. Micron 38, 402–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roussel, L.Y., Stokes, D.J., Gestmann, I., Darus, M. & Young, R.J. (2009). Extreme high resolution scanning electron microscopy (XHR SEM) and beyond. In Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, vol. 7378, pp. 14–22. Monterey, CA: Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers.Google Scholar
Schneider, C.A., Rasband, W.S. & Eliceiri, K.W. (2012). NIH Image to Image J: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods 9, 671–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, D. J. & Baken, E. (2007). Electron microscopy of soft nano-materials. Imaging Microsc 9, 18–20.Google Scholar
Vanderlinde, W.E. & Ballarotto, V.W. (2004). Microscopy at the nanoscale. In ISTFA 2004: 30th International Symposium for Testing and Failure Analysis, pp. 1–8. Materials Park, OH: ASM International.Google Scholar
Volkenandt, T., Müller, E., Hu, D.Z., Schaadt, D.M. & Gerthsen, D. (2010). Quantification of sample thickness and in-concentration of InGaAs quantum wells by transmission measurements in a scanning electron microscope. Microsc Microanal 16, 604–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolf, R.J., Joy, D.C. & Tansley, D.W. (1972). A transmission stage for the scanning electron microscope. J Phys E Sci Instrum 5, 230–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, R.J. & Lovell, P.A. (1991). Introduction to Polymers. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Zuo, J.M. & Mabon, J.C. (2004). Web-based electron microscopy application software: Web-EMAPS. Microsc Microanal 10, 1000–1001. Available at http://emaps.mrl.uiuc.edu/.Google Scholar