Premium
Minimizing damage during FIB sample preparation of soft materials
Author(s) -
BASSIM N.D.,
DE GREGORIO B.T.,
KILCOYNE A.L.D.,
SCOTT K.,
CHOU T.,
WIRICK S.,
CODY G.,
STROUD R.M.
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
journal of microscopy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.569
H-Index - 111
eISSN - 1365-2818
pISSN - 0022-2720
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2818.2011.03570.x
Subject(s) - focused ion beam , materials science , scanning electron microscope , xanes , sample preparation , ion beam , microstructure , acceleration voltage , carbon fibers , polymer , composite material , analytical chemistry (journal) , chemical engineering , ion , spectroscopy , cathode ray , electron , chemistry , organic chemistry , chromatography , physics , quantum mechanics , composite number , engineering
Summary Although focused ion beam (FIB) microscopy has been used successfully for milling patterns and creating ultra‐thin electron and soft X‐ray transparent sections of polymers and other soft materials, little has been documented regarding FIB‐induced damage of these materials beyond qualitative evaluations of microstructure. In this study, we sought to identify steps in the FIB preparation process that can cause changes in chemical composition and bonding in soft materials. The impact of various parameters in the FIB‐scanning electron microscope (SEM) sample preparation process, such as final milling voltage, temperature, ion beam overlap and mechanical stability of soft samples, was evaluated using two test‐case materials systems: polyacrylamide, a low melting‐point polymer, and Wyodak lignite coal, a refractory organic material. We evaluated changes in carbon bonding in the samples using X‐ray absorption near‐edge structure spectroscopy (XANES) at the carbon K edge and compared these samples with thin sections that had been prepared mechanically using ultramicrotomy. Minor chemical changes were induced in the coal samples during FIB‐SEM preparation, and little effect was observed by changing ion‐beam parameters. However, polyacrylamide was particularly sensitive to irradiation by the electron beam, which drastically altered the chemistry of the sample, with the primary damage occurring as an increase in the amount of aromatic carbon bonding (C=C). Changes in temperature, final milling voltage and beam overlap led to small improvements in the quality of the specimens. We outline a series of best practices for preparing electron and soft X‐ray transparent samples, with respect to preserving chemical structure and mechanical stability of soft materials using the FIB.