Premium
Depth profile analysis: STEM‐EDX vs. RBS
Author(s) -
Markwitz A.,
Matz W.,
Schmidt B.,
Grötzschel R.
Publication year - 1998
Publication title -
surface and interface analysis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.52
H-Index - 90
eISSN - 1096-9918
pISSN - 0142-2421
DOI - 10.1002/(sici)1096-9918(19980501)26:5<359::aid-sia379>3.0.co;2-y
Subject(s) - annealing (glass) , scanning transmission electron microscopy , amorphous solid , rutherford backscattering spectrometry , materials science , analytical chemistry (journal) , vacuum evaporation , transmission electron microscopy , spectroscopy , nanoscopic scale , scanning electron microscope , chemistry , thin film , crystallography , nanotechnology , metallurgy , composite material , physics , chromatography , quantum mechanics
Results obtained from scanning transmission electron microscopy combined with energy‐dispersive X‐ray imaging (EDX) and from Rutherford backscattering spectroscopy (RBS) of implanted and multilayered structures are compared in order to demonstrate the depth profiling capabilities of both analysis methods, especially at interfaces. Typical samples for dilute and concentrated systems are compared. The dilute system is represented by Ge nano‐clusters in an amorphous SiO 2 matrix on a Si substrate produced by ion implantation and subsequent annealing. The concentrated system of alternating Ag–Al multilayers (typical thickness ∽200 nm) is produced by evaporation on Si substrates under high vacuum conditions. A significant advantage of STEM–EDX is the two‐dimensional mapping and depth profiling of light and heavier elements in heavy‐ Z substrates (depth scale in nanometres) without the lack of a deteriorating depth resolution at increasing depth, as happens in RBS. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.