Barriers to AEM: Contamination and Etching

Hren, J. J.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-2037-9_10

Cited by 27 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The decomposition seems to be stronger in compounds with a high ionic part of the bonding (13). The reason could be a partial heating of the specimen area, which is hard to measure experimentally.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Decomposition of MgF2 in the Transmission Electron Microscope

Zenser

Gruehn

Liebscher

2001

Journal of Solid State Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Decomposition of MgF2 in the Transmission Electron Microscope

Zenser

Gruehn

Liebscher

2001

Journal of Solid State Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…1970, Hren 1979, Loveet al 1981, Stewart 1934. The main source of adsorbed organic molecules comes from organic molecules in the atmosphere and comparable quantities from the vacuum by diffusion and rotating pump oils, vacuum grease, rubber gaskets, and finger marks of the user.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Contamination in a scanning electron microscope and the influence of specimen cooling

et al. 1994

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary: Solutions of the stationary and timedependent equations of diffusion are presented for contamination when scanning a rectangular area in the scanning electron microscope (SEM). A method is described to record the thickness of the contamination layer by the signal of secondary or backscattered electrons and to measure the influence of electron current density, beam energy, and specimen cooling on the contamination rate.

show abstract

“…Strategies for dealing with contamination have been developed, and include plasma cleaning (Griffiths A. J. V., 2010;Isabell et al, 1999;McGilvery et al, 2012;Zaluzec, 2001;Zaluzec et al, 1997), baking (Egerton et al, 2004;McGilvery et al, 2012;Soong et al, 2012;Williams and Carter, 1996), exposure to ultraviolet light and ozone (Hoyle et al, 2011;Soong et al, 2012) , cooling (Egerton and Rossouw, 1976;Hren, 1986) and beam showering (Egerton et al, 2004). The need for such contamination mitigation strategies has been made even more pressing with the advent aberration corrected STEM.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contamination mitigation strategies for scanning transmission electron microscopy

Mitchell

2015

Micron

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modern scanning transmission electron microscopy (STEM) enables imaging and microanalysis at very high magnification. In the case of aberration-corrected STEM, atomic resolution is readily achieved. However, the electron fluxes used may be up to three orders of magnitude greater than those typically employed in conventional STEM. Since specimen contamination often increases with electron flux, specimen cleanliness is a critical factor in obtaining meaningful data when carrying out high magnification STEM. A range of different specimen cleaning methods have been applied to a variety of specimen types. The contamination rate has been measured quantitatively to assess the effectiveness of cleaning. The methods studied include: baking, cooling, plasma cleaning, beam showering and UV/ozone exposure. Of the methods tested, beam showering is rapid, experimentally convenient and very effective on a wide range of specimens. Oxidative plasma cleaning is also very effective and can be applied to specimens on carbon support films, albeit with some care. For electron beam-sensitive materials, cooling may be the method of choice. In most cases, preliminary removal of the bulk of the contamination by methods such as baking or plasma cleaning, followed by beam showering, where necessary, can result in a contamination-free specimen suitable for extended atomic scale imaging and analysis. Modern scanning transmission electron microscopy (STEM) enables imaging and microanalysis at very high magnification. In the case of aberration-corrected STEM, atomic resolution is readily achieved. However, the electron fluxes used may be up to three orders of magnitude greater than those typically employed in conventional STEM. Since specimen contamination often increases with electron flux, specimen cleanliness is a critical factor in obtaining meaningful data when carrying out high magnification STEM. A range of different specimen cleaning methods have been applied to a variety of specimen types. The contamination rate has been measured quantitatively to assess the effectiveness of cleaning. The methods studied include: baking, cooling, plasma cleaning, beam showering and UV/ozone exposure. Of the methods tested, beam showering is rapid, experimentally convenient and very effective on a wide range of specimens. Oxidative plasma cleaning is also very effective and can be applied to specimens on carbon support films, albeit with some care. For electron beam-sensitive materials, cooling may be the method of choice. In most cases, preliminary removal of the bulk of the contamination by methods such as baking or plasma cleaning, followed by beam showering, where necessary, can result in a contamination-free specimen suitable for extended atomic scale imaging and analysis.

show abstract

Barriers to AEM: Contamination and Etching

Cited by 27 publications

References 32 publications

Decomposition of MgF2 in the Transmission Electron Microscope

Decomposition of MgF2 in the Transmission Electron Microscope

Contamination in a scanning electron microscope and the influence of specimen cooling

Contamination mitigation strategies for scanning transmission electron microscopy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About