Premium
Secondary ion mass spectrometry round‐robin study of impurity analysis in gallium arsenide using uniformly‐doped standard gallium arsenide specimens
Author(s) -
Shichi Hiroyasu,
Ogawa Tomoya,
Kurosawa Satoru,
Homma Yoshikazu,
Kubota Yoshikane,
Nakamura Yasushi,
Nomura Koichi,
Shibata Masahiro,
Takahashi Junichi,
Yoshioka Yoshiaki,
Adachi Tatsuya,
Akai Toshio,
Hirano Masataka,
Ihara Ayako,
Kamejima Taibun,
Koyama Hiroshi,
Maruo Tetsuya,
Matsunaga Hironori,
Nakamura Takashi,
Obata Takeshi,
Okuno Kazuhiko,
Shimanuki Yasushi,
Tachikawa Iwao,
Takase Hiromitsu,
Tanigaki Takeshige,
Tsukamoto Kazuyoshi
Publication year - 1994
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/sia.740210104
Subject(s) - impurity , gallium arsenide , secondary ion mass spectrometry , doping , analytical chemistry (journal) , gallium , ion , materials science , mass spectrometry , matrix (chemical analysis) , round robin test , chemistry , optoelectronics , metallurgy , chromatography , composite material , statistics , mathematics , organic chemistry
This paper reports results of the second SIMS round‐robin study on GaAs impurity analysis in which 16 laboratories participated. Three different types of SIMS instruments, including Cameca IMS‐3F or IMS‐4F, Atomika ADIDA‐3000 and Hitachi IMA‐3, were used for this study. The specimens were cut from identical multielement‐doped GaAs crystals and distributed as common standards for the quantitative impurity analyses. The interlaboratory deviations in quatitative results based on the common standards were found to be 10–20%, except for some low‐concentration specimens and the results for zinc. This was approximately half of the corresponding results produced from standard specimens provided by the laboratories themselves. The interlaboratory deviations of relative ion intensity between impurity and matrix were <50% for those laboratories employing instruments of the same type, except for low‐concentration specimens. These results show that quantitative analysis to an accuracy of 50% can be performed without standard specimens by utilizing relative sensitivity factors for each type of instrument.