Premium
Comparison of depth profiling analysis of a thick, electrolytically‐coloured porous alumina film by EPMA and GDOES
Author(s) -
Shimizu K.,
Habazaki H.,
Skeldon P.,
Thompson G. E.,
Wood G. C.
Publication year - 1999
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(199912)27:12<1046::aid-sia673>3.0.co;2-x
Subject(s) - electron microprobe , glow discharge , materials science , copper , analytical chemistry (journal) , sputtering , transmission electron microscopy , nickel , porosity , anode , microanalysis , electron probe microanalysis , plasma , chemistry , composite material , thin film , metallurgy , electrode , nanotechnology , physics , organic chemistry , chromatography , quantum mechanics
Through analysis of a porous anodic oxide film (10 µm thick) with controlled distributions of colouring species (namely copper and nickel) deposited electrolytically within the innermost 1 µm of the film, the effective depth resolutions of electron probe microanalysis (EPMA) line scan analysis across the film section and of glow discharge optical emission spectroscopy (GDOES) depth profiling have been compared. The excellent depth resolution of GDOES (∼100 nm for the buried layers of the present specimen) is revealed by the relatively good agreement between the measured average thickness of copper and nickel layers and the average deposited thickness for the particular deposition conditions: ∼700 and 500 nm, respectively. The difference in thickness is related to slight non‐uniformity in sputtering and to variations in thickness of colouring material, with local thicknesses up to 1200 nm indicated by transmission electron microscopy. In contrast, owing to a more limited spatial resolution, EPMA line scan analysis revealed layers of increased thickness, namely ∼3 µm. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.