Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-20T09:15:04.918Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Low-Energy Electron Microscopy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2013

Get access

Extract

For surface science, the 1980s were the decade in which the microscopes arrived. The scanning tunneling microscope (STM) was invented in 1982. Ultrahigh vacuum transmission electron microscopy (UHVTEM) played a key role in resolving the structure of the elusive Si(111)-7 × 7 surface. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) as well as reflection electron microscopy (REM) were applied to the study of growth and islanding. And low-energy electron microscopy (LEEM), invented some 20 years earlier, made its appearance with the work of Telieps and Bauer.

LEEM and TEM have many things in common. Unlike STM and SEM, they are direct imaging techniques, using magnifying lenses. Both use an aperture to select a particular diffracted beam, which determines the nature of the contrast. If the direct beam is selected (no parallel momentum transfer), a bright field image is formed, and contrast arises primarily from differences in the scattering factor. A dark field image is formed with any other beam in the diffraction pattern, allowing contrast due to differences in symmetry. In LEEM, phase contrast is the third important mechanism by which surface and interface features such as atomic steps and dislocations may be imaged. One major difference between TEM and LEEM is the electron energy: 100 keV and above in TEM, 100 eV and below in LEEM. In LEEM, the imaging electrons are reflected from the sample surface, unlike TEM where the electrons zip right through the sample, encountering top surface, bulk, and bottom surface. STM and TEM are capable of ~2 Å resolution, while LEEM and SEM can observe surface features (including atomic steps) with -100 Å resolution.

Type
Materials Science in the Electron Microscope
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1994

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

1.Binnig, G. and Rohrer, H., Helv. Phys. Acta 55 (1982) p. 726.Google Scholar
2.Takayanagi, K., Tanishiro, Y., Takahashi, M., Motoyoshi, H., and Yagi, K., Proc. 19th Int. Congr. Electron Microscopy, Volume 2 (Hamburg, 1982), p. 285.Google Scholar
3.Bauer, E., Ultramicroscopy 17 (1985) p. 51; W. Telieps and E. Bauer, Ultramicroscopy 17 (1985) p. 57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Tromp, R.M. and Reuter, M.C., Ultramicroscopy 36 (1991) p. 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.van der Gon, A.W. Denier and Tromp, R.M., Phys. Rev. Lett. 69 (1992) p. 3519; J. Tersoff, A.W. Denier van der Gon, and R.M. Tromp, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 (1993) p. 1143; J. Tersoff and R.M. Tromp, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 (1993) p. 2782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Tromp, R.M., Denier|van der Gon, A.W., LeGoues, F.K., and Reuter, M.C., Phys. Rev. Lett. 71 (1993) p. 3299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Cherns, D. and Stowell, M.J., Thin Solid Films 29 (1975) p. 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Tromp, R.M. and Reuter, M.C., Phys. Rev. Lett. 61 (1988) p. 1756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Rose, H. and Preikszas, D., Optik 92 (1992) p. 31.Google Scholar
10.Jakubith, S., Rotermund, H.H., Engel, W., Oertzen, A. von, and Ertl, G., Phys. Rev. Lett. 65 (1990) p. 3013 and references therein.CrossRefGoogle Scholar