Charging of Small Particles in the Scanning Electron Microscope

Author(s):  
W. Krakow ◽  
W. C. Nixon

Charging effects in the scanning electron microscope (SEM) have been investigated and various contrast mechanisms have been explained which include both the primary beam and secondary electron trajectories and take into account specimen parameters. In particular, Weitzenkamp measured potentials of cylindrical fibers which could be suspended above a replica of a ruled surface to measure charge density on these organic polymer materials.We have been able to obtain the equivalent information on the charge density from SEM micrographs of small charged particles. Fig. 1, shows a backseattered electron image of a 10μm polystyrene particle supported on a gold coated linear hologram grating having spacing of approximately 3.6μm. The grating distortion indicates a strong negative charge on the particle which deflects the 10 kV primary beam. The grating distortion is asynmetric due to a specimen tilt of 70 degrees.

Author(s):  
S. Takashima ◽  
H. Hashimoto ◽  
S. Kimoto

The resolution of a conventional transmission electron microscope (TEM) deteriorates as the specimen thickness increases, because chromatic aberration of the objective lens is caused by the energy loss of electrons). In the case of a scanning electron microscope (SEM), chromatic aberration does not exist as the restrictive factor for the resolution of the transmitted electron image, for the SEM has no imageforming lens. It is not sure, however, that the equal resolution to the probe diameter can be obtained in the case of a thick specimen. To study the relation between the specimen thickness and the resolution of the trans-mitted electron image obtained by the SEM, the following experiment was carried out.


Author(s):  
Oliver C. Wells

The low-loss electron (LLE) image in the scanning electron microscope (SEM) is useful for the study of uncoated photoresist and some other poorly conducting specimens because it is less sensitive to specimen charging than is the secondary electron (SE) image. A second advantage can arise from a significant reduction in the width of the “penetration fringe” close to a sharp edge. Although both of these problems can also be solved by operating with a beam energy of about 1 keV, the LLE image has the advantage that it permits the use of a higher beam energy and therefore (for a given SEM) a smaller beam diameter. It is an additional attraction of the LLE image that it can be obtained simultaneously with the SE image, and this gives additional information in many cases. This paper shows the reduction in penetration effects given by the use of the LLE image.


Author(s):  
Arthur J. Saffir ◽  
Tyler A. Woolley ◽  
Nelson Yew

The secondary electron image of the scanning electron microscope is similar to a light image of a three dimensional specimen. These two forms of "illumination", light and secondary electrons, have in common a contrast characteristic that makes photography or SEM micrography difficult. .. a tendency toward extreme highlights. The photographer encounters this phenomenon if his subject has a shiny surface, e.g., an automobile bumper. He overcomes this problem with dulling spray to suppress the undesirable highlights (reflections).This problem is also common in SEM studies, especially with biological specimens of poor conductivity. It is undesirable or impossible to subject thermolabile or living specimens to the deposition of conductive coatings.


Author(s):  
Oliver C. Wells

The low-loss electron (LLE) image in the scanning electron microscope (SEM) is formed by collecting backscattered electrons (BSE) that have lost less than a specified energy. Compared to the secondary electron (SE) image, these images are less affected by specimen charging and show the surface topography clearly when examining uncoated photoresist. However, LLE images sometimes contain dark shadows caused by the limited solid angle of the LLE detector. Here, we describe a way to position the sample (with a given LLE detector) so as to reduce these shadows as far as possible.The SEM was a Cambridge S-250 Mk. III with a tungsten filament. An experimental LLE detector was added. The SE image was obtained using the SE detector ordinarily present in the SEM.The LLE detector is shown in Fig. 1. The specimen is mounted close to the lens in the SEM with a glancing angle of incidence of 30°.


Author(s):  
Jan Hejna

An electron signal in the scanning electron microscope (SEM) usually consists of contributions caused by different contrast mechanisms. The most common in practice are material and topographic contrasts. Quantification of material contrast is rather a simple matter. A backscattered electron detector placed over a specimen gives mainly material contrast which can be quantified by the use of a multichannel analyser like in the energy-dispersive x-ray spectrometry.In case of topographic contrast two problems arise. One of them is dimensional metrology, especially linewidth measurements in microelectronics, the second is reconstruction of a surface relief. The first problem needs detection conditions at which the results of SEM measurements correspond exactly with real dimensions, the second needs a signal which is related with a known formula to a local surface inclination and a procedure for converting the signal into the surface relief.Experiments in the SEM and Monte-Carlo calculations have shown that results of dimensional measurements depend on an energy of a primary beam, on a type of detected electrons (secondary electrons (SE) or backscattered electrons (BSE)) and on a type of a detector.The use of low primary beam voltages and BSE is advisable, The problem of a poor efficiency of BSE detectors at low primary beam voltages can be overcome by accelerating BSE, after they have passed through a grid rejecting SE, by high voltage applied to a scintillator in a BSE detector.


1997 ◽  
Vol 3 (S2) ◽  
pp. 883-884 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raynald Gauvin

Conventional quantitative X-ray microanalysis in the scanning electron microscope or in the electron microprobe is valid for specimens of bulk homogeneous composition and with flat and polished surfaces. Quantitative methods, using X-ray microanalysis and Monte Carlo simulations of electron trajectories in solids, have been developed for the chemical analysis of spherical inclusions embedded in a matrix and for multilayered specimens. In this paper, the effect of porosity and of the size of the pores are investigated concerning their effect on X-ray emission using Monte Carlo simulation of electron trajectories in solids since porous materials are of great technological importance.This new Monte Carlo program uses elastic Mott cross-sections to compute electron trajectories and the Joy & Luo modification of the continuous Bethe law of energy loss and the details are given elsewhere. This program assumes that all the pores are spherical and have the same size.


Author(s):  
Hiroshi Suga ◽  
Takafumi Fujiwara ◽  
Nobuhiro Kanai ◽  
Masatoshi Kotera

An image contrast given in the scanning electron microscope(SEM) is due to differences in a detected number of secondary electrons (SE) coming from the specimen surface. The difference arises from the topographic, compositional and voltage features at the specimen surface. Two kinds of approaches have been taken for the quantification of SE images. One is to simulate electron trajectories in vacuum toward the detector, assuming the typical angular and energy distributions of electrons emitted from the specimen surface. However, the typical angular and energy distributions are not always applicable if a topographic or a compositional feature is present at the surface. The other is to simulate electron trajectory in the specimen. It is possible to obtain angular, energy, and spatial distributions of electrons emitted from the specimen surface. However, in order to discuss the SEM contrast based on these data, one has to assume that, for example, all slow electrons (<50eV) may be collected by the SE detector, or fast electrons ((>50eV) electrons may take a straight trajectory in the vacuum specimen chamber of the SEM. In a practical SEM picture of, for example, an etch-pit, different crystallographic plane surface shows different contrast even if the angle of the primary electron incidence toward all those surfaces is the same. This is because of the acceptance of the signal detection system. In a present study we combined two electron trajectory simulations mentioned above and calculated electron trajectories both in and out of the specimen, to simulate the trajectory from the point of the signal generated until the signal is detected.Although several simulation models of electron scatterings in a specimen have been reported to estimate the SE intensity at the surface, the model should be available to trace low energy (<50eV) electron trajectories. The model used here is basically the same as that reported in previous papers, and only a brief explanation is given in the following. Here, we made several assumptions as; [l]the energy loss of the primary and excited fast electrons is proportion to the number of SEs generated in the specimen, [2]the generated SE has an energy distribution as described by the Streitwolf equation, [3]the energy of the generated SEs are transferred to free electrons of the atom by the elastic-binary-collision, then one SE excited by the primary electron produces a ternary electron after the collision, and each one of the SE and the ternary electron produces higher order electrons in a cascade fashion. The simulation continues until the energy of each electron is less than the surface potential barrier. Angular and energy distributions and number of electrons emitted at the surface agree quite well with each experimental result in a typical case.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document