Premium
Models for the sputter correction factor in quantitative AES for compound semiconductors
Author(s) -
Malherbe J. B.,
Odendaal R. Q.
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(199810)26:11<841::aid-sia437>3.0.co;2-9
Subject(s) - sputtering , chemistry , x ray photoelectron spectroscopy , semiconductor , auger electron spectroscopy , argon , analytical chemistry (journal) , binding energy , sublimation (psychology) , ion , atomic physics , context (archaeology) , thin film , materials science , nanotechnology , optoelectronics , nuclear physics , physics , nuclear magnetic resonance , chromatography , psychology , paleontology , organic chemistry , psychotherapist , biology
Quantification in Auger electron spectroscopy using the relative elemental sensitivity method with matrix correction factors is a popular method. Matrix factors for bombardment‐induced compositional changes and topography development are, however, seldomly used. The main emphasis of this study is to find a sputter correction factor for bombardment‐induced surface compositional changes in compound semiconductors after low‐energy argon ion bombardment. For this purpose several analytical preferential sputter models are employed. In these models several approximations for the surface binding energy are also used. The calculated factors are compared with experimental averages of 13 binary compound semiconductors bombarded with argon ions. Based on the Sigmund preferential sputter model, a generalized formula for the sputter correction factor for room‐temperature AES and XPS analyses with readily available parameters is given by K AB Y =( M B M A ) 0.29 (2 X B Δ H B a + X A Δ H A a + X A Δ H B a 2 X A Δ H A a + X B Δ H A a + X B Δ H B a ) 0.71 where M i is the atomic mass of atomic species i , Δ H i a is the heat of atomization (which is equal to the heat of sublimation) and X i is the measured surface composition after sputtering. In the context of the presented models, this study also shows that mass effects are more important than chemical binding effects in the bombardment‐induced compositional changes in compound semiconductors. The analysis also shows that elemental sputter yield ratio approximation for the sputter correction factor is not valid. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.