Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T03:41:15.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Charge Neutralization in the ESEM for Quantitative X-ray Microanalysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2004

Robert A. Carlton ,
Charles E. Lyman  and
James E. Roberts
Robert A. Carlton
Affiliation:
Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Collegeville, PA 19426, USA
Charles E. Lyman
Affiliation:
Lehigh University, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Bethlehem, PA 18015, USA
James E. Roberts
Affiliation:
Lehigh University, Department of Chemistry, Bethlehem, PA 18015, USA
Get access

Abstract

Quantitative chemical analysis by energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry (EDS) in the environmental scanning electron microscope (ESEM) is difficult. This analysis is complicated by the spread of the electron beam by chamber gas molecules and the necessity for surface charge neutralization. Without charge neutralization, errors in quantitative analysis can range up to 15–20% relative. It is possible to achieve the error expected of traditional EDS, ±5% relative error, using a newly developed surface charge neutralization scheme for the ESEM. Estimates of accuracy and precision are based on studies of the National Bureau of Standards (now National Institutes for Science and Technology) Standard Reference Material 482, a series of certified copper–gold alloys. The scheme for charge neutralization requires an independent path to ground at or near the surface of the specimen. The current through the ground path must be maintained at zero by adjusting the voltage on the Gaseous Secondary Electron DetectorTM when the sample chamber is at a gas pressure of 1–2 torr. This procedure forms the exact number of chamber gas positive ions to neutralize negative electrical charge on the specimen surface from electron bombardment.

Keywords

environmental scanning electron microscopyenergy dispersive X-ray spectrometrycharge neutralizationquantitative analysiscopper–gold alloysNIST SRM 482
Type
Research Article
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 10 , Issue 6 , December 2004 , pp. 753 - 763
Copyright
© 2004 Microscopy Society of America

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

REFERENCES

Armstrong, J.T. (1995). CITZAF: A package of correction programs for the quantitative electron microbeam X-ray analysis of thick polished materials, thin films, and particles. Microbeam Anal 4, 177–200.Google Scholar
Bilde-Soerenson, J.B. & Appel, C.C. (1997). X-ray spectrometry in ESEM and LVSEM: Corrections for beam skirt effects. In Extended Abstracts of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Scandinavian Society for Electron Microscopy, Tholen, A.R. (Ed.), pp. 12–15. Sweden: Svenski i Goteburg AB.
Bolon, R.B. (1991). X-ray microanalysis in the ESEM. In Microbeam Analysis-1991, Bailey, G.W. (Ed.), pp. 199–200. San Francisco: San Francisco Press.
Carlton, R.A. (2001). Quantitative X-ray spectrometry using the environmental scanning electron microscope. Ph.D. Dissertation. Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University.
Cazaux, J. (1996). Electron probe microanalysis of insulating materials: Quantification problems and some possible solutions. X-Ray Spectrom 25, 265–280.Google Scholar
Danilatos, G.D. (1988). Foundations of environmental scanning electron microscopy. In Advances in Electronics and Electron Physics, vol. 71, pp. 109–250. New York: Academic Press, Inc.
Danilatos, G.D. (1993). Introduction to the ESEM instrument. Microsc Res Technol 25, 354–361.Google Scholar
Doehne, E. (1997). A new correction method for high-resolution energy-dispersive X-ray analyses in the environmental scanning electron microscope. Scanning 19, 75–78.Google Scholar
Doehne, E. & Bower, N.W. (1993). Empirical evaluation of the electron skirt in the environmental SEM: Implications for energy dispersive X-ray analysis. Microbeam Anal 2, S35–36.Google Scholar
Fiori, C.E. & Myklebust, R.L. (1978). Observations on the sequential simplex method and its application to peak fitting in energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry. MAS-1978. San Francisco, CA: San Francisco Press.
Fiori, C.E., Swyt, C.R., & Myklebust, R.L. (1993). Desktop Spectrum Analyzer. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, US Patent 529913.
Gauvin, R. (1999). Some theoretical considerations on X-ray microanalysis in the environmental or variable pressure scanning electron microscope. Scanning 21, 388–393.Google Scholar
Gilpin, C. & Sigee, D.C. (1995). X-ray microanalysis of wet biological specimens in the environmental scanning electron microscope. 1. Reduction of specimen distance under different atmospheric conditions. J Microsc 179, 22–28.Google Scholar
Goldstein, J.I., Newbury, D.E., Echlin, P., Joy, D.C., Lyman, C.E., Lifshin, E., Sawyer, L., & Michael, J.R. (2003). Scanning Electron Microscopy and X-ray Microanalysis, 3nd ed. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Griffin, B.J. (1992). Effects of chamber pressure and accelerating voltage on X-ray resolution in the ESEM. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Electron Microscopy Society of America, Bailey, G.W. (Ed.), pp. 1324–1325. San Francisco: San Francisco Press.
Griffin, B.J. & Suvorova, A.A. (2003). Charge-related problems associated with X-ray microanalysis in the variable pressure scanning electron microscope at low pressures. Microsc Microanal 9, 155–165.Google Scholar
Heinrich, F.K.J., Myklebust, R.L., Rasberry, S.D., & Michaelis, R.E. (1971). Preparation and evaluation of SRM's 481 and 482 gold–silver and gold–copper alloys for microanalysis. NBS Special Publication 260-28. Washington, DC: National Bureau of Standards.
Joy, D.C. (1996). Modeling the electron–gas interaction in low-vacuum SEM's. In Proceedings of the Annual Microscopy Society of America and the Microbeam Analysis Society, Bailey, G.W. (Ed.), pp. 836–837. San Francisco: San Francisco Press.
Mansfield, J. (1997). Review of techniques for overcoming XEDS problems in the environmental scanning electron microscope. Microsc Microanal 3 (Suppl 2), 1207–1208.Google Scholar
Meredith, P., Donald, B., & Thiel, B. (1996). Electron–gas interactions in the environmental scanning electron microscopes gaseous detector. Scanning 18, 467–473.Google Scholar
Mohan, A., Khanna, N., Hwu, J., & Joy, D.C. (1998). Secondary electron imaging in the variable pressure scanning electron microscope. Scanning 20, 436–441.Google Scholar
Newbury, D.E. (1996). Imaging deep holes in structures with gaseous secondary electron detection in the environmental scanning electron microscope. Scanning 18, 474–482.Google Scholar
Newbury, D.E. (1999). Standardless quantitative electron excited X-ray microanalysis by energy-dispersive spectrometry: What is its proper role? Micros Microanal 4, 585–597.Google Scholar
Thiel, B.L., Bache, I.C., Fletcher, A.L., Meredith, P., & Donald, A.M. (1997). An improved model for gaseous amplification in the environmental SEM. J Microsc 187, 143–157.Google Scholar
Wight, S.A., Gillen, G., & Herne, T. (1997). Development of environmental scanning electron microscopy electron beam profile imaging with self-assembled monolayers and secondary ion mass spectroscopy. Scanning 19, 71–74.Google Scholar