Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-22T03:16:19.077Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beam Size in the Environmental SEM: a Comparison of Model and Experimental Data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2020

S. A. Wight
S. A. Wight*
Affiliation:
Surface and Microanalysis Science Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 20899
Get access

Extract

Knowledge of the magnitude of the scattered electron skirt in the environmental scanning electron microscope (ESEM) or low vacuum scanning electron microscope (LVSEM) is important to the understanding of the analytical spatial resolution of energy dispersive spectrometry (EDS). The extent of beam scattering is a function of the distance from the final aperture to the specimen, composition of the gas present, chamber pressure, accelerating voltage, and beam current. This work compares model predictions of electron scattering to experimental measurements of electron scattering. Several of the popular Monte Carlo programs written for electron-solid interactions were not designed for low vacuum conditions. Joy has developed a model that takes into account the electron scattering which takes place in the chamber before interacting with the specimen; thus it is useful for LVSEM conditions. That model is incorporated in Electron Flight Simulator - E (Small World, Vienna VA)1 and is used in this work.

Type
New Trends in Scanning Electron Microscopy and Microanalysis
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 4 , Issue S2: Proceedings: Microscopy & Microanalysis '98, Microscopy Society of America 56th Annual Meeting, Microbeam Analysis Society 32nd Annual Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia July 12-16, 1998 , July 1998 , pp. 298 - 299
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Certain commercial software, equipment, instruments, or materials are identified in this report to specify adequately the experimental procedure. Such identification does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor does it imply that the materials or equipment identified are necessarily the best available for the purpose.Google Scholar
2.Joy, D. C., Microscopy and Microanalysis, (1996)836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Bache, I.C. et al., Microscopy and Microanalysis, Supp 2, 3(1997)1211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Danilatos, G.D., Advances in Electronics and Electron Physics, 71(1988)109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Bolon, R.B., Microbeam Analysis, (1991)199.Google Scholar
6.Griffin, B.J., Proc. 50th Ann Mtg of EMSA, (1992)1324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Doehne, E. and Bower, N.W., Microbeam Analysis, 2(1993)S35.Google Scholar
8.Griffin, B.J. et al., Microbeam Analysis, 2(1993)S37.Google Scholar
9.Griffin, B.J. et al., Microbeam Analysis, (1994)245.Google Scholar
10.Gilpin, C. and Sigee, D.C., Journal of Microscopy, Pt. 1, 179(1995)22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Griffin, B.J. et al., Microbeam Analysis, (1995)383.Google Scholar
12.Griffin, B.J. and Nockolds, C.E., Microscopy and Microanalysis, (1996)842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Wight, S.A. et al., Microscopy and Microanalysis, Supp 2, 3(1997)1209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar