Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:04:03.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Review of Techniques for Overcoming XEDS Problems in the Environmental Scanning Electron Microscope

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2020

John Mansfield
John Mansfield*
Affiliation:
North Campus Electron Microbeam Analysis Laboratory (EMAL, University of Michigan, 2455 Hayward, Ann Arbor, MI48109-2143
Get access

Extract

Full characterization of materials in the environmental scanning electron microscope (Environmental SEM) often requires chemical analysis by X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS). However, a major problem arises because the spatial resolution of the XEDS signal is severely degraded by the gaseous environment in the sample chamber. The significant fraction of the primary electron beam is scattered after it passes through the final pressure limiting aperture and before it strikes the sample. Bolon and Griffin have both published data that illustrates this effect very well. Bolon revealed that 45% of the primary electron beam was scattered by more than 25μm in an Environmental SEM operating at an accelerating voltage of 30kV, with a water vapor pressure of 3Torr and a working distance of 15mm. Griffin’s work demonstrated that even at higher voltages (30 kV), shorter working distances (<10mm) and lower chamber pressures (2Torr), there is a significant fraction of the electron beam scattered out to over 400 μm away from the point where the primary beam strikes the sample.

Type
Environmental SEM
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 3 , Issue S2: Proceedings: Microscopy & Microanalysis '97, Microscopy Society of America 55th Annual Meeting, Microbeam Analysis Society 31st Annual Meeting, Histochemical Society 48th Annual Meeting, Cleveland, Ohio, August 10-14, 1997 , August 1997 , pp. 1207 - 1208
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America 1997

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.Bolon, R.B., Microbeam Analysis (Ed. Howitt, D.G., San Francisco Press), 1991, pl99.Google Scholar
2.BJ., Griffin, Proc. 50th EMSA, 1992, p1324.Google Scholar
3.Horsewell, A., Appel, C. & J.B. Bilde-Sørensen, , “Leaky Vacuum SEM for Materials Scientists”, Microscopy & Microanalysis 1996, San Francisco Press, 1996, p846.Google Scholar
4.Bilde-Serensen, J.B. & Appel, C., “Improvement of the Spatial Resolution of XEDS in the Environmental SEM”, EUREM 1996,1 lth European Congress on EM, Dublin, Ireland, published by EUREM 96. On CD-ROM.Google Scholar
5.Danilatos, G.D., Advances in Electronics and Electron Physics, 78 (1990) 1–102.10.1016/S0065-2539(08)60388-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Nockolds, C.E., Microbeam Analysis, (1987) 9.Google Scholar
7.Griffin, BJ. and Nockolds, C.E., Scanning 13 (1991) 307.10.1002/sca.4950130406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Griffin, BJ. and Nockolds, C.E., Microscopy & Microanalysis 1996, (1996) 842.10.1017/S0424820100166671Google Scholar
9.I.C. Bache, S. Kitching, B.L. Thiel & A.M. Donald, "Variations in the Probe Beam Broadening with Operating Conditions in ESEM: Monte-Carlo Simulations and EDX Measurements, 1997, These proceedings.CrossRefGoogle Scholar