Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T03:28:23.140Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The New Methodology and Chemical Contrast Observation by Use of the Energy-Selective Back-Scattered Electron Detector

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2016

Marek Drab*
Affiliation:
USI, Unit of Nanostructural Bio-Interactions, Institute of Immunology and Experimental Therapy, Polish Academy of Sciences, Weigla 12 Street, 53-114 Wroclaw, Poland
Janusz Krajniak
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Isotope Geology and Geoecology, Department of Applied Geology, Geochemistry and Environmental Management, Institute of Geological Sciences, University of Wroclaw, Cybulskiego 30, 50-205 Wrocław, Poland
Krzysztof P. Grzelakowski*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Microsystem Electronics and Photonics, Division of Microelectronics and Nanotechnology, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Dluga Street 65, 53-633 Wroclaw, Poland
Get access

Abstract

We report on a robust method for chemical element-sensitive imaging by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The commercial Auriga FE-SEM microscope (Carl Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany), equipped with an energy-selective grid detector (EsB) as a part of the experimental setup, was applied for generation of chemical contrast at low accelerating voltages, which is gentle for sensitive samples. The EsB-grid detector, conceptually adapted by us as an energy retarding field analyzer (RFA), was used to detect the two-dimensional (2D) energy spectrum for the first time. The electron energy spectrum measured by sweeping the retarding grid potential revealed thresholds corresponding to electronic transitions in the specimen, followed by 2D-derivation treatment applied just at the observed thresholds. This allowed chemical mapping by SEM. In this report the 273 eV Auger transition in carbon deposited onto the Si(100) sample was chosen as a source for chemical contrast in the SEM image. In addition to Auger electrons, we expect analogous energy-selective contrast enhancement for inelastically scattered electrons, for example, in plasmonic contrast and elastically scattered electrons, for example in phase contrast, our method, proved for carbon, is expected to apply to a broader list of elements as a general capability of chemical mapping, at several-fold better lateral resolution when compared with energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS).

Type
Instrumentation and Software Techniques
Copyright
© Microscopy Society of America 2016 

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

Bauer, E. (2014). Surface Microscopy with Low Energy Electrons. New York, USA: Springer Science+Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brueche, E. (1932). Elektronenmikroskop. Naturwissenschaften 20, 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castaing, R. (1960). Electron probe microanalysis. Adv Electron Electron Phys 13, 317386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erskine, J.L. (1995). Electron energy analyzers. In Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics: Charged Particles. 29, Part A Experimental Methods in the Physical Sciences, Celotta R. & Lucatorto, T. (Eds.), pp. 209230. San Diego, CA: Academic Press Inc.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 Science+Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grzelakowski, K.P. (2015). Energy-filtered real- and k-space secondary and energy-loss electron imaging with dual emission electron spectro-microscope: Cs/Mo(110). Ultramicroscopy 164, 7887.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grzelakowski, K.P., Duden, T., Bauer, E., Poppa, H. & Chiang, S. (1994). A new surface microscope for magnetic imaging. IEEE Trans Magn 30, 45004502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaksch, H. (2008). Low loss BSE imaging with the EsB detection system on the Gemini Ultra FE-SEM. In EMC 2008. Volume 1: Instrumentation and Methods, Luysberg, M., Tillmann, K. & Weirich, T. (Eds.), pp. 555556. Berlin Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Knoll, M. (1935). Aufladepotential und sekundaeremission elektronenbestrahlter Koerper. Z Tech Physik 16, 467475 (in German).Google Scholar
Krivanek, O.L., Gubbens, A.J., Dellby, N. & Meyer, C.E. (1992). Design and first applications of a post-column imaging filter. Microsc Microanal Microstruct 3, 187199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leder, L.B. & Simpson, J.A. (1958). Improved electrical differentiation of retarding potential measurements. Rev Sci Instrum 29, 571574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matlab (R2007b). MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA. Available at http://www.mathworks.com/.Google Scholar
Powell, C.J. (1974). Attenuation lengths of low-energy electrons in solids. Surf Sci 44, 2946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reimer, L. (1998). Scanning Electron Microscopy—Physics of Image Formation and Microanalysis. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruska, E. (1986). The development of the electron microscope and of early electron microscopy. Nobel Lecture. Available at http://www.nobelprize.org (retrieved May 20, 2016).Google Scholar
von Ardenne, M. (1938). Das Elektronen-Rastermikroskop. Theoretische Grundlagen. Z Tech Phys 19, 407416 (in German).Google Scholar
Wells, O.C. (1979). Effects of collector take-off angle and energy filtering on the BSE image in the SEM. Scanning 2, 199216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, O.C. (1986). Low‐loss electron images of uncoated photoresist in the scanning electron microscope. Appl Phys Lett 49, 764766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar