Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-21T05:11:08.639Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dynamic Monte Carlo Simulation on the Electron-Beam-Induced Deposition of Carbon, Silver, and Tungsten Supertips

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2006

Zhi-Quan Liu ,
Kazutaka Mitsuishi  and
Kazuo Furuya
Zhi-Quan Liu
Affiliation:
High Voltage Electron Microscopy Station, National Institute for Materials Science, 3-13 Sakura, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0003, Japan
Kazutaka Mitsuishi
Affiliation:
High Voltage Electron Microscopy Station, National Institute for Materials Science, 3-13 Sakura, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0003, Japan
Kazuo Furuya
Affiliation:
High Voltage Electron Microscopy Station, National Institute for Materials Science, 3-13 Sakura, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0003, Japan
Get access

Abstract

The process of electron-beam-induced deposition (EBID) was simulated with a dynamic Monte Carlo profile simulator, and the growth of carbon, silver, and tungsten supertips was investigated to study the dependence of material composition on the spatial resolution of EBID. Because light atoms have a smaller scattering angle and a longer mean free path, the carbon supertip has the smallest lateral size and the highest aspect ratio of a bottom tip compared to silver and tungsten supertips. Thus the best spatial resolution of EBID can be achieved on materials of low atomic number. The calculation also indicated a significant contribution of primary electrons to the growth of a supertip in EBID, which is consistent with the experimental observations. These results lead to a more comprehensive understanding of EBID, which is a complex interaction process between electrons and solids.

Keywords

Monte Carlo simulationelectron-beam-induced deposition (EBID)fabricationsupertipspatial resolutionelectron scatteringprimary electronsecondary electron
Type
Research Article
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 12 , Issue 6: Special Issue: Frontiers of Electron Microscopy in Materials Science , December 2006 , pp. 549 - 552
Copyright
© 2006 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

REFERENCES

Akama, Y., Nishimura, E., Sakai, A., & Murakami, H. (1990). New scanning tunneling microscopy tip for measuring surface topography. J Vac Sci Technol A 8, 429–433.Google Scholar
Alman, D.A., Ruzic, D.N., & Brooks, J.N. (2000). A hydrocarbon reaction model for low temperature hydrogen plasmas and an application to the Joint European Torus. Phys Plasmas 7, 1421–1432.Google Scholar
Castagné, M., Benfedda, M., Lahimer, S., Falgayrettes, P., & Fillard, J.P. (1999). Near field optical behaviour of C supertips. Ultramicroscopy 76, 187–194.Google Scholar
Dapor, M., Miotello, A., & Zari, D. (2000). Monte Carlo simulation of positron-stimulated secondary electron emission from solids. Phys Rev B 61, 5979–5986.Google Scholar
Ding, Z.J., Li, H.M., Goto, K., Jiang, Y.Z., & Shimizu, R. (2004). Energy spectra of backscattered electrons in Auger electron spectroscopy: Comparison of Monte Carlo simulations with experiment. J Appl Phys 96, 4598–4606.Google Scholar
Ding, Z.J., Li, H.M., Pu, Q.R, Zhang, Z.M., & Shimizu, R. (2002). Reflection electron energy loss spectrum of surface plasmon excitation of Ag: A Monte Carlo study. Phys Rev B 66, 085411.Google Scholar
Ding, Z.J., Shimizu, R., & Goto, K. (1994). Background formation in the low-energy region in Auger electron spectroscopy. J Appl Phys 76, 1187–1195.Google Scholar
Dubus, A., Dehaes, J.C., Ganachaud, J.P., Hafni, A., & Cailer, M. (1993). Monte Carlo evaluation of the influence of the interaction cross sections on the secondary-electron-emission yields from polycrystalline aluminum targets. Phys Rev B 47, 11056–11073.Google Scholar
Kohlmann-von Platen, K.T., Chlebek, J., Weiss, M., Reimer, K., Oertel, H., & Brünger, W.H. (1993). Resolution limits in electron-beam induced tungsten deposition. J Vac Sci Technol B 11, 2219–2223.Google Scholar
Liu, Z.Q., Mitsuishi, K., & Furuya, K. (2004). The growth behavior of self-standing tungsten tips fabricated by electron-beam-induced deposition using 200 keV electrons. J Appl Phys 96, 3983–3986.Google Scholar
Liu, Z.Q., Mitsuishi, K., & Furuya, K. (2005a). Modeling the process of electron-beam-induced deposition by dynamic Monte Carlo simulation. Jpn J Appl Phys 44, 5659–5663.Google Scholar
Liu, Z.Q., Mitsuishi, K., & Furuya, K. (2005b). Nanofabrication of tungsten supertip by electron-beam-induced deposition. Physica E 29, 702–706.Google Scholar
Mitsuishi, K., Liu, Z.Q., Shimojo, M., Han, M., & Furuya, K. (2005). Dynamic profile calculation of deposition resolution by high-energy electrons in electron-beam-induced deposition. Ultramicroscopy 103, 17–22.Google Scholar
Schiffmann, K.I. (1993). Investigation of fabrication parameters for the electron-beam-induced deposition of contamination tips used in atomic force microscopy. Nanotechnology 4, 163–169.Google Scholar
Silvis-Cividjian, N., Hagen, C.W., Leunissen, L.H.A, & Kruit, P. (2002). The role of secondary electrons in electron-beam-induced-deposition spatial resolution. Microelectron Eng 61–62, 693–699.Google Scholar
Weber, M., Koops, H.W.P., & Görtz, W. (1992). Scanning probe microscopy of deposits employed to image the current density distribution of electron beams. J Vac Sci Technol B 10, 3116–3119.Google Scholar
Weber, M., Rudolph, M., Kretz, J., & Koops, H.W.P. (1995). Electron-beam induced deposition for fabrication of vacuum field emitter devices. J Vac Sci Technol B 13, 461–464.Google Scholar
Winters, H.F. & Inokuti, M. (1982). Total dissociation cross section of CF4 and other fluoroalkanes for electron impact. Phys Rev A 25, 1420–1430.Google Scholar