[논문]Does your SEM really tell the truth? How would you know? Part 2

Postek, Michael T.; Vladá; r, Andrá; s E.; Purushotham, Kavuri P.

doi:10.1002/sca.21124

Does your SEM really tell the truth? How would you know? Part 2

Scanning, v.36 no.3, 2014년, pp.347 - 355

Postek, Michael T. (Semiconductor and Dimensional Metrology Division, Physical Measurement Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Gaithersburg, Maryland) , Vladár, András E. (Semiconductor and Dimensional Metrology Division, Physical Measurement Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Gaithersburg, Maryland) , Purushotham, Kavuri P. (Semiconductor and Dimensional Metrology Division, Physical Measurement Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Gaithersburg, Maryland)

Abstract ▼ AI-Helper

SummaryThe scanning electron microscope (SEM) has gone through a tremendous evolution to become indispensable for many and diverse scientific and industrial applications. The improvements have significantly enriched and augmented the overall SEM performance and have made the instrument far easier to operate. But, the ease of operation also might lead, through operator complacency, to poor results. In addition, the user friendliness has seemingly reduced the need for thorough operator training for using these complex instruments. One might then conclude that the SEM is just a very expensive digital camera or another peripheral device for a computer. Hence, a person using the instrument may be lulled into thinking that all of the potential pitfalls have been eliminated and they believe everything they see on the micrograph is always correct. But, this may not be the case. An earlier paper (Part 1), discussed some of the potential issues related to signal generation in the SEM, instrument calibration, electron beam interactions and the need for physics‐based modeling to understand the actual image formation mechanisms. All these were summed together in a discussion of how these issues effect measurements made with the instrument. This second paper discusses another major issue confronting the microscopist: electron‐beam‐induced specimen contamination. Over the years, NIST has done a great deal of research into the issue of sample contamination and its removal and elimination and some of this work is reviewed and discussed here. SCANNING 36:347–355, 2014. Published 2013. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

주제어

참고문헌 (17)

Akishige O. 1986 . Influence of incident electron energy on specimen contamination in SEM mode. Proceedings of the XI th International Congress on Electron Microscopy, Kyoto, Japan, August 31–September 7, 1986.
Black , JT. 1974 . The scanning electron microscope: operating principles . In: Hayat MA , editor. Principles and techniques of scanning electron microscopy , vol. 1 . New York : Van Nostrand Reinhold . p 1 – 43 .
Bruenger WH , Kleinschmidt H , Hassler‐Grohne W , Bosse H. 1997 . Contamination reduction in low voltage electron‐beam microscopy for dimensional metrology . J Sci Technol B 15 : 2181 .
Harada Y , Tomita T , Watabe T , Watanabe H , Etoh T. 1979 . Reduction of contamination in analytical electron microscopy . Scan Electron Microsc 1979/II : 103 – 110 .
Hirsch P , Kassens M , Puttmann M , Reimer L. 1994 . Contamination in a scanning electron microscope and the influence of specimen cooling . Scanning 16 : 101 .

상세보기
Hren JJ. 1979 . Specimen contamination in analytical electron microscopy: sources and solutions . Ultramicroscopy 3 : 375 .
Marton L , Das Gupta NN , Marton C. 1946 . Modifications of specimens in electron microscopy . Science 104 : 35 – 36 .

상세보기
Postek MT. 1994 . Critical issues in scanning electron microscope metrology . NIST J Res 99 : 641 – 671 .
Postek MT. 1996 . An approach to the reduction of hydrocarbon contamination in the SEM . Scanning 18 : 269 – 274 .
Postek MT , Keery WJ. 1991 . Cryopump vibration isolation system for an SEM . Scanning 13 : 404 – 409 .
Postek MT , Vladár AE. in press. Does your SEM really tell the truth? How would you know? Part 1 . Scanning. Available online ahead of print: DOI: 10.1002/sca.21075

상세보기
Postek MT , Vladár AE , Keery W , et al. 2010 . Multipurpose instrument calibration standard for particle beam, scanned probe and optical microscopy: NIST reference material (RM) 8820 SPIE optics and photonics 7767 77670D 1‐11.
Reimer L. 1993 . Image formation in low‐voltage electron microscopy . vol TT 12 . Bellingham, WA : SPIE . 140p.
Stewart RL. 1934 . Insulating films formed under electron and ion bombardment . Phys Rev 45 : 488 – 490 .
Vladár AE , Postek MT , Vane R. 2001 . Active monitoring and control of electron‐beam‐induced contamination . SPIE 4344 : 835 – 843 .
Vladár AE , Purushotham KP , Postek MT. 2008 . Contamination specification for dimensional metrology SEMs . Proc SPIE 6922 : 692217‐1 – 692217‐5 .
Watson JHL. 1947 . An effect of electron bombardment upon carbon black . J Appl Phys 18 : 153 – 161 .

내보내기 구분	파일저장 인쇄 메일전송
구성항목	기본정보 상세정보 관리번호, 논문명, 저널/프로시딩명, 저자 , 발행년, 권, 호, 시작페이지, 끝페이지, 발행기관 관리번호, 논문명, 대등논문명, 저자 , 저널/프로시딩명, 발행기관, 발행년, 발행언어, 권, 호, 시작페이지, 끝페이지, ISBN, ISSN, 주제분야, 키워드, 초록(한글), 초록(영문), 저자(소속기관)
저장형식	Text(ASCII format) Excel format RefWorks Direct Export RIS format (for Reference Manager, ProCite, EndNote), Scholar's Aids, Mendeley
메일정보	받는사람 (필수) @ 보내는사람 (선택) @ 제목 내용 KISTI 검색결과 이메일 서비스
안내	총 건의 자료가 검색되었습니다. 다운받으실 자료의 인덱스를 입력하세요. (1-10,000) 검색결과의 순서대로 최대 10,000건 까지 다운로드가 가능합니다. 데이타가 많을 경우 속도가 느려질 수 있습니다.(최대 2~3분 소요) 다운로드 파일은 UTF-8 형태로 저장됩니다. 파일의 내용이 제대로 보이지 않을실 때는 웹브라우저 상단의 보기 -> 인코딩 -> 자동선택 여부를 확인하십시오. ~ Text(ASCII format) Excel format

연합인증

Does your SEM really tell the truth? How would you know? Part 2

Abstract ▼ AI-Helper

주제어

참고문헌 (17)

이 논문을 인용한 문헌

관련 콘텐츠

연관된 기능

이 논문과 함께 이용한 콘텐츠

AI-Helper ※ AI-Helper는 오픈소스 모델을 사용합니다.

선택된 텍스트