Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T14:41:00.669Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Simultaneous Scanning Electron Microscope Imaging of Topographical and Chemical Contrast Using In-Lens, In-Column, and Everhart–Thornley Detector Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2016

Xinming Zhang ,
Xi Cen ,
Rijuta Ravichandran ,
Lauren A. Hughes  and
Klaus van Benthem
Xinming Zhang
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA
Xi Cen
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA
Rijuta Ravichandran
Affiliation:
Center for Nano-MicroManufacturing, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA
Lauren A. Hughes
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA
Klaus van Benthem*
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA
*
*Corresponding author.Benthem@ucdavis.edu
Get access

Abstract

The scanning electron microscope provides a platform for subnanometer resolution characterization of material morphology with excellent topographic and chemical contrast dependent on the used detectors. For imaging applications, the predominantly utilized signals are secondary electrons (SEs) and backscattered electrons (BSEs) that are emitted from the sample surface. Recent advances in detector technology beyond the traditional Everhart–Thornley geometry have enabled the simultaneous acquisition and discrimination of SE and BSE signals. This study demonstrates the imaging capabilities of a recently introduced new detector system that consists of the combination of two in-lens (I-L) detectors and one in-column (I-C) detector. Coupled with biasing the sample stage to reduce electron–specimen interaction volumes, this trinity of detector geometry allows simultaneous acquisition of signals to distinguish chemical contrast from topographical changes of the sample, including the identification of surface contamination. The I-C detector provides 4× improved topography, whereas the I-L detector closest to the sample offers excellent simultaneous chemical contrast imaging while not limiting the minimization of working distance to obtain optimal lateral resolution. Imaging capabilities and contrast mechanisms for all three detectors are discussed quantitatively in direct comparison to each other and the conventional Everhart–Thornley detector.

Keywords

backscattered electronssecondary electronsSEMin-lens detectorin-column detector
Type
Technique and Instrumentation Development
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , June 2016 , pp. 565 - 575
Copyright
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

Drouin, D., Couture, A.R., Joly, D., Tastet, X. & Aimez, V. (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
Everhart, T.E. & Thornley, R.F.M. (1960). Wide-band detector for micro-microampere low-energy electron currents. J Sci Instrum 37, 246–248.Google Scholar
Goldstein, J., Newbury, D.E., Joy, D.C., Lyman, C., Echlin, P.E., Lifshin, E., Sawyer, L. & Michael, J. (2003). Scanning Electron Microscopy and X-ray Microanalysis, 3rd ed. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
Griffin, B.J. (2011). A comparison of conventional Everhart-Thornley style and I-L SE detectors: A further variable in scanning electron microscopy. Scanning 33, 162–173.Google Scholar
Griffin, B.J., Joy, D.C. & Michael, J.R. (2010). The introduction and application of a selective directional capability of the image contrast transfer function in the imageJ “SMARTeR” package. Micros Microanal 16, 598–599.Google Scholar
Heinrich, K. (1966). Electron probe microanalysis by specimen current measurement. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium X-Ray Optics and Microanalysis, R. Castain, P. Deschamps, J. Philibert (Eds.), pp. 159–167. Paris: Herrman.Google Scholar
Homma, Y., Suzuki, S., Kobayashi, Y., Nagase, M. & Takagi, D. (2004). Mechanism of bright selective imaging of single-walled carbon nanotubes on insulators by scanning electron microscopy. Appl Phys Lett 84, 1750–1752.Google Scholar
Kazemian, P., Mentink, S.A.M., Rodenburg, C. & Humphreys, C.J. (2007). Quantitative SE energy filtering in a scanning electron microscope and its applications. Ultramicroscopy 107, 140–150.Google Scholar
Kumagai, K. & Sekiguchi, T. (2009). Sharing of SEs by I-L and out-lens detector in low-voltage scanning electron microscope equipped with immersion lens. Ultramicroscopy 109, 368–372.Google Scholar
Rodenburg, C., Jepson, M.A.E., Bosch, E.G.T. & Dapor, M. (2010). Energy selective scanning electron microscopy to reduce the effect of contamination layers on scanning electron microscope dopant mapping. Ultramicroscopy 110, 1185–1191.Google Scholar
Seiler, H. (1983). SE emission in the scanning electron microscope. J Appl Phys 54, R1–R18.Google Scholar
Thron, A.M., Greene, P., Liu, K. & van Benthem, K. (2012). Structural changes during the reaction of Ni thin films with (100) silicon substrates. Acta Mater 60, 2668–2678.Google Scholar
Vernon-Parry, K.D. (2000). Scanning electron microscopy: An introduction. III-Vs Rev 13, 40–44.Google Scholar
Wang, D. & Schaaf, P. (2012). Ni–Au bi-metallic nanoparticles formed via dewetting. Mater Lett 70, 30–33.Google Scholar
Wittry, D.B. (1965). SE emission in the electron probe. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium X-Ray Optics and Microanalysis, R. Castain, P. Deschamps, J. Philibert (Eds.), pp. 168--180. Paris: Herrman.Google Scholar