Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T00:27:43.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interpreting Atom Probe Data from Oxide–Metal Interfaces

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 September 2018

Ingrid McCarroll Open the ORCID record for Ingrid McCarroll [Opens in a new window] ,
Barbara Scherrer ,
Peter Felfer ,
Michael P. Moody  and
Julie M. Cairney
Ingrid McCarroll*
Affiliation:
School of Aerospace Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia Australian Centre for Microscopy and Microanalysis, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
Barbara Scherrer
Affiliation:
Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 3200003, Israel
Peter Felfer
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science, Friedrich-Alexander-University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Martensstrasse 5, D-91058 Erlangen, Germany
Michael P. Moody
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science, The University of Oxford, 16 Parks Rd, Oxford OX1 3PH, UK
Julie M. Cairney
Affiliation:
School of Aerospace Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia Australian Centre for Microscopy and Microanalysis, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
*
*Author for correspondence: Ingrid McCarroll, E-mail: ingrid.mccarroll@sydney.edu.au
Get access

Abstract

Understanding oxide–metal interfaces is crucial to the advancement of materials and components for many industries, most notably for semiconductor devices and power generation. Atom probe tomography provides three-dimensional, atomic scale information about chemical composition, making it an excellent technique for interface analysis. However, difficulties arise when analyzing interfacial regions due to trajectory aberrations, such as local magnification, and reconstruction artifacts. Correlative microscopy and field simulation techniques have revealed that nonuniform evolution of the tip geometry, caused by heterogeneous field evaporation, is partly responsible for these artifacts. Here we attempt to understand these trajectory artifacts through a study of the local evaporation field conditions. With a better understanding of the local evaporation field, it may be possible to account for some of the local magnification effects during the reconstruction process, eliminating these artifacts before data analysis.

Keywords

atom probe tomography/APTreconstructioninterface analysishigh field evaporation
Type
Materials Science Applications
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , August 2018 , pp. 342 - 349
Copyright
© Microscopy Society of America 2018 

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

Amouyal, Y Schmitz, G (2016) Atom probe tomography—A cornerstone in materials characterization. MRS Bull 41(1), 13–18.Google Scholar
Devaraj, A, Colby, R, Vurpillot, F Thevuthasan, S (2014) Understanding atom probe tomography of oxide-supported metal nanoparticles by correlation with atomic-resolution electron microscopy and field evaporation simulation. J Phys Chem Lett 5(8), 1361–1367.Google Scholar
Dmitrieva, O, Choi, P, Gerstl, SSA, Ponge, D Raabe, D (2011) Pulsed-laser atom probe studies of a precipitation hardened maraging TRIP steel. Ultramicroscopy 111(6), 623–627.Google Scholar
Felfer, P Cairney, J (2016) A computational geometry framework for the optimisation of atom probe reconstructions. Ultramicroscopy 169, 62–68.Google Scholar
Felfer, P, Scherrer, B, Demeulemeester, J, Vandervorst, W Cairney, JM (2015) Mapping interfacial excess in atom probe data. Ultramicroscopy 159(Pt 2), 438–444.Google Scholar
Felfer, PJ, Gault, B, Sha, G, Stephenson, L, Ringer, SP Cairney, JM (2012) A new approach to the determination of concentration profiles in atom probe tomography. Microsc Microanal 18(2), 359–364.Google Scholar
Gault, B, Haley, D, de Geuser, F, Moody, MP, Marquis, EA, Larson, DJ Geiser, BP (2011) Advances in the reconstruction of atom probe tomography data. Ultramicroscopy 111(6), 448–457.Google Scholar
Gault, B, Moody, MP, Cairney, JM Ringer, SP (2012) Atom Probe Microscopy. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Gault, B, Saxey, DW, Ashton, MW, Sinnott, SB, Chiaramonti, AN, Moody, MP Schreiber, DK (2016) Behavior of molecules and molecular ions near a field emitter. New J Phys 18(3), 033031.Google Scholar
Gheno, T, Monceau, D Young, DJ (2012) Mechanism of breakaway oxidation of Fe–Cr and Fe–Cr–Ni alloys in dry and wet carbon dioxide. Corros Sci 64, 222–233.Google Scholar
Kelly, TF, Larson, DJ, Thompson, K, Alvis, RL, Bunton, JH, Olson, JD Gorman, BP (2007) Atom probe tomography of electronic materials. Annu Rev Mater Res 37(1), 681–727.Google Scholar
Kingham, DR (1982) The post-ionization of field evaporated ions: A theoretical explanation of multiple charge states. Surf Sci 116(2), 273–301.Google Scholar
Klotz, D, Butz, B, Leonide, A, Hayd, J, Gerthsen, D Ivers-Tiffee, E (2011) Performance enhancement of SOFC anode through electrochemically induced Ni/YSZ nanostructures. J Electrochem Soc 158(6), B587–B595.Google Scholar
Koelling, S, Innocenti, N, Hellings, G, Gilbert, M, Kambham, AK, De Meyer, K Vandervorst, W (2011 a) Characteristics of cross-sectional atom probe analysis on semiconductor structures. Ultramicroscopy 111(6), 540–545.Google Scholar
Koelling, S, Innocenti, N, Schulze, A, Gilbert, M, Kambham, AK Vandervorst, W (2011 b) In-situ observation of non-hemispherical tip shape formation during laser-assisted atom probe tomography. J Appl Phys 109(10), 104909-1--104909-6.Google Scholar
La Fontaine, A, Gault, B, Breen, A, Stephenson, L, Ceguerra, AV, Yang, L, Dinh Nguyen, T, Zhang, J, Young, DJ Cairney, JM (2015 a) Interpreting atom probe data from chromium oxide scales. Ultramicroscopy 159, 354--359.Google Scholar
La Fontaine, A, Yen, H-W, Felfer, PJ, Ringer, SP Cairney, JM (2015 b) Atom probe study of chromium oxide spinels formed during intergranular corrosion. Scr Mater 99, 1–4.Google Scholar
Marquis, EA, Bachhav, M, Chen, Y, Dong, Y, Gordon, LM McFarland, A (2013) On the current role of atom probe tomography in materials characterization and materials science. Curr Opin Solid State Mater Sci 17(5), 217–223.Google Scholar
Marquis, EA, Geiser, BP, Prosa, TJ Larson, DJ (2011) Evolution of tip shape during field evaporation of complex multilayer structures. J Microsc 241(3), 225–233.Google Scholar
Mazumder, B, Purohit, V, Gruber, M, Vella, A, Vurpillot, F Deconihout, B (2015) Challenges in the study of Fe/MgO/Fe interfaces using 3D Atom Probe. Thin Solid Films 589, 38–46.Google Scholar
Melkonyan, D, Fleischmann, C, Arnoldi, L, Demeulemeester, J, Kumar, A, Bogdanowicz, J, Vurpillot, F Vandervorst, W (2017) Atom probe tomography analysis of SiGe fins embedded in SiO2: Facts and artefacts. Ultramicroscopy 179, 100–107.Google Scholar
Moody, MP, Vella, A, Gerstl, SSA Bagot, PAJ (2016) Advances in atom probe tomography instrumentation: Implications for materials research. MRS Bull 41(1), 40–45.Google Scholar
Nguyen, TD, La Fontaine, A, Yang, L, Cairney, JM, Zhang, J Young, DJ (2018) Atom probe study of impurity segregation at grain boundaries in chromia scales grown in CO2 gas. Corros Sci 132, 125–135.Google Scholar
Picone, A, Riva, M, Brambilla, A, Calloni, A, Bussetti, G, Finazzi, M, Ciccacci, F Duò, L (2016) Reactive metal–oxide interfaces: A microscopic view. Surf Sci Rep 71(1), 32–76.Google Scholar
Rüsing, J, Sebastian, JT, Hellman, OC Seidman, DN (2000) Three-dimensional investigation of ceramic/metal heterophase interfaces by atom-probe microscopy. Microsc Microanal 6(5), 445–451.Google Scholar
Sinnott, SB Dickey, EC (2003) Ceramic/metal interface structures and their relationship to atomic- and meso-scale properties. Mater Sci Eng R Rep 43(1–2), 1–59.Google Scholar
Stiller, K, Thuvander, M, Povstugar, I, Choi, PP Andrén, H-O (2016) Atom probe tomography of interfaces in ceramic films and oxide scales. MRS Bull 41(1), 35–39.Google Scholar
Sun, Z, Hazut, O, Yerushalmi, R, Lauhon, LJ Seidman, DN (2018) Criteria and considerations for preparing atom-probe tomography specimens of nanomaterials utilizing an encapsulation methodology. Ultramicroscopy 184, 225–233.Google Scholar
Sun, Z, Tzaguy, A, Hazut, O, Lauhon, LJ, Yerushalmi, R Seidman, DN (2017) 1-D metal nanobead arrays within encapsulated nanowires via a red-Ox-induced dewetting: Mechanism study by atom-probe tomography. Nano Lett 17(12), 7478–7486.Google Scholar
Vurpillot, F, Cerezo, A, Blavette, D Larson, DJ (2004) Modeling image distortions in 3DAP. Microsc Microanal 10(3), 384–390.Google Scholar
Xu, Z, Li, D, Xu, W, Devaraj, A, Colby, R, Thevuthasan, S, Geiser, BP Larson, DJ (2015) Simulation of heterogeneous atom probe tip shapes evolution during field evaporation using a level set method and different evaporation models. Comput Phys Commun 189, 106–113.Google Scholar
Young, DJ, Nguyen, TD, Felfer, P, Zhang, J Cairney, JM (2014) Penetration of protective chromia scales by carbon. Scr Mater 77, 29–32.Google Scholar