Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T14:51:57.860Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preferential Evaporation in Atom Probe Tomography: An Analytical Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2020

Constantinos Hatzoglou ,
Solène Rouland ,
Bertrand Radiguet ,
Auriane Etienne ,
Gérald Da Costa ,
Xavier Sauvage ,
Philippe Pareige  and
François Vurpillot
Constantinos Hatzoglou*
Affiliation:
Normandie Université, UNIROUEN, INSA Rouen, CNRS, Groupe de Physique des Matériaux, 76000Rouen, France Department of Materials Science and Engineering, NTNU, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim7491, Norway
Solène Rouland
Affiliation:
Normandie Université, UNIROUEN, INSA Rouen, CNRS, Groupe de Physique des Matériaux, 76000Rouen, France
Bertrand Radiguet
Affiliation:
Normandie Université, UNIROUEN, INSA Rouen, CNRS, Groupe de Physique des Matériaux, 76000Rouen, France
Auriane Etienne
Affiliation:
Normandie Université, UNIROUEN, INSA Rouen, CNRS, Groupe de Physique des Matériaux, 76000Rouen, France
Gérald Da Costa
Affiliation:
Normandie Université, UNIROUEN, INSA Rouen, CNRS, Groupe de Physique des Matériaux, 76000Rouen, France
Xavier Sauvage
Affiliation:
Normandie Université, UNIROUEN, INSA Rouen, CNRS, Groupe de Physique des Matériaux, 76000Rouen, France
Philippe Pareige
Affiliation:
Normandie Université, UNIROUEN, INSA Rouen, CNRS, Groupe de Physique des Matériaux, 76000Rouen, France
François Vurpillot
Affiliation:
Normandie Université, UNIROUEN, INSA Rouen, CNRS, Groupe de Physique des Matériaux, 76000Rouen, France
*
*Author for correspondence: Constantinos Hatzoglou, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Atom probe tomography (APT) analysis conditions play a major role in the composition measurement accuracy. Preferential evaporation (PE), which significantly biases the apparent composition, more than other well-known phenomena in APT, is strongly connected to those analysis conditions. One way to optimize them, in order to have the most accurate measurement, is therefore to be able to predict and then to estimate their influence on the apparent composition. An analytical model is proposed to quantify the PE. This model is applied to three different alloys such as NiCu, FeCrNi, and FeCu. The model explains not only the analysis temperature dependence, as in an already existing model, but also the dependence to the pulse fraction and the pulse frequency. Moreover, the model can also provide an energetic constant directly linked to the energy barrier required to field evaporate atom from the sample surface.

Keywords

atom probe tomographyfield evaporationpreferential evaporation
Type
Software and Instrumentation
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , August 2020 , pp. 689 - 698
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America 2020

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

Amirifar, N, Lardé, R, Talbot, E, Pareige, P, Rigutti, L, Mancini, L, Houard, J, Castro, C, Sallet, V, Zehani, E, Hassani, S, Sartel, C, Ziani, A & Portier, X (2015). Quantitative analysis of doped/undoped ZnO nanomaterials using laser assisted atom probe tomography: Influence of the analysis parameters. J Appl Phys 118, 215703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angseryd, J, Liu, F, Andrén, H-O, Gerstl, SSA & Thuvander, M (2011). Quantitative APT analysis of Ti(C,N). Ultramicroscopy 111, 609–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashton, M, Mishra, A, Neugebauer, J & Freysoldt, C (2020). Ab initio description of bond-breaking in large electric fields. arXiv:2002.02808 [cond-mat]. Available at http://arxiv.org/abs/2002.02808.Google Scholar
Bacchi, C, Costa, GD & Vurpillot, F (2019). Spatial and compositional biases introduced by position sensitive detection systems in APT: a simulation approach. Microsc Microanal 25, 418–424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blum, I, Zanuttini, D, Rigutti, L, Vurpillot, F, Douady, J, Jacquet, E, Anglade, P-M, Gervais, B, Vella, A & Gaillard, A (2016). Dissociation of molecular ions during the DC field evaporation ZnO in atom probe tomography. Micros Microanal 22, 662–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrasco, T, Peralta, J, Loyola, C & Broderick, SR (2018). Modeling field evaporation degradation of metallic surfaces by first principles calculations: A case study for Al, Au, Ag, and Pd. J Phys Conf Ser 1043, 012039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernst, N (1979). Experimental investigation on field evaporation of singly and doubly charged rhodium. Surf Sci 87, 469–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, RG (1995). Field evaporation theory: A review of basic ideas. Appl Surf Sci 87–88, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gault, B, Danoix, F, Hoummada, K, Mangelinck, D & Leitner, H (2012 a). Impact of directional walk on atom probe microanalysis. Ultramicroscopy 113, 182–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gault, B, Moody, MP, Cairney, JM & Ringer, SP (2012 b). Atom Probe Microscopy, 2012th ed. Springer. ISBN 978-1-4614-3436-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomer, R & Swanson, LW (1963). Theory of field desorption. J Chem Phys 38, 1613–1629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruber, M, Vurpillot, F, Bostel, A & Deconihout, B (2011). Field evaporation: A kinetic Monte Carlo approach on the influence of temperature. Surf Sci 605, 2025–2031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatzoglou, C, Radiguet, B & Pareige, P (2017). Experimental artefacts occurring during atom probe tomography analysis of oxide nanoparticles in metallic matrix: Quantification and correction. J Nucl Mater 492, 279–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haydock, R & Kingham, DR (1980). Post-ionization of field-evaporated ions. Phys Rev Lett 44, 1520–1523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellogg, GL (1984). Measurement of activation energies for field evaporation of tungsten ions as a function of electric field. Phys Rev B 29, 4304–4312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingham, DR (1982). The post-ionization of field evaporated ions: A theoretical explanation of multiple charge states. Surf Sci 116, 273–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreuzer, HJ & Nath, K (1987). Field evaporation. Surf Sci 183, 591–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lefebvre, W, Vurpillot, F & Sauvage, X (2016). Atom Probe Tomography: Put Theory into Practice. Boston, MA: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Meisenkothen, F, Steel, EB, Prosa, TJ, Henry, KT & Prakash Kolli, R (2015). Effects of detector dead-time on quantitative analyses involving boron and multi-hit detection events in atom probe tomography. Ultramicroscopy 159, 101–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, MK (2000). Atom Probe Tomography: Analysis at the Atomic Level. USA: Springer. ISBN 978-0-306-46415-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, MK, Cerezo, A, Hetherington, MG & Smith, GDW (1996). Atom probe field ion microscopy. ISBN 978-0-19-851387-2.Google Scholar
Miller, MK & Forbes, RG (2009). Atom probe tomography. Mater Charact 60, 461–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, E, Nakamura, S, Nishikaw, O & McLane, S (1965). Gas-surface interactions and field-ion microscopy of nonrefractory metals. J Appl Phys 36, 2496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohnuma, T (2019). Surface diffusion of Fe and Cu on Fe (001) under electric field using first-principles calculations. Microsc Microanal 25, 547–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peng, Z, Choi, P-P, Gault, B & Raabe, D (2017). Evaluation of analysis conditions for laser-pulsed atom probe tomography: Example of cemented tungsten carbide. Microsc Microanal 23, 431–442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peralta, J, Broderick, SR & Rajan, K (2013). Mapping energetics of atom probe evaporation events through first principles calculations. Ultramicroscopy 132, 143–151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prosa, TJ, Strennen, S, Olson, D, Lawrence, D & Larson, DJ (2019). A study of parameters affecting atom probe tomography specimen survivability. Microsc Microanal 25, 425–437.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russo, ED, Blum, I, Houard, J, Costa, GD, Blavette, D & Rigutti, L (2017). Field-dependent measurement of GaAs composition by atom probe tomography. Microsc Microanal 23, 1067–1075.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sánchez, CG, Lozovoi, AY & Alavi, A (2004). Field-evaporation from first-principles. Mol Phys 102, 1045–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saxey, DW (2011). Correlated ion analysis and the interpretation of atom probe mass spectra. Ultramicroscopy 111, 473–479.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shu, S, Wirth, BD, Wells, PB, Morgan, DD & Odette, GR (2018). Multi-technique characterization of the precipitates in thermally aged and neutron irradiated Fe-Cu and Fe-Cu-Mn model alloys: Atom probe tomography reconstruction implications. Acta Mater 146, 237–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takahashi, J & Kawakami, K (2014). A quantitative model of preferential evaporation and retention for atom probe tomography. Surf Interface Anal 46, 535–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takahashi, J, Kawakami, K & Raabe, D (2017). Comparison of the quantitative analysis performance between pulsed voltage atom probe and pulsed laser atom probe. Ultramicroscopy 175, 105–110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thuvander, M, Weidow, J, Angseryd, J, Falk, LKL, Liu, F, Sonestedt, M, Stiller, K & Andrén, H-O (2011). Quantitative atom probe analysis of carbides. Ultramicroscopy 111, 604–608.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tsong, TT (2005). Atom-Probe Field Ion Microscopy: Field Ion Emission, and Surfaces and Interfaces at Atomic Resolution. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-01993-4.Google Scholar
Wada, M (1984). On the thermally activated field evaporation of surface atoms. Surf Sci 145, 451–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zanuttini, D, Blum, I, Rigutti, L, Vurpillot, F, Douady, J, Jacquet, E, Anglade, P-M & Gervais, B (2017). Simulation of field-induced molecular dissociation in atom-probe tomography: Identification of a neutral emission channel. Phys Rev A 95, 061401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar