Depth profile analysis of the C/Si interface: comparison of destructive and nondestructive techniques

Diamond-like carbon coatings on a CoCrMo implant alloy: A detailed XPS analysis of the chemical states at the interface

“…However, Zehringer and Hauert [10] directly compared non-destructive (angle-resolved XPS) and destructive (3 keV Ar ion sputtering) methods for C/Si interface analysis. Since different interface thicknesses for the same sample were obtained with the two methods, 0.32 nm as determined by angle-resolved XPS and $3 nm with the depth profiling method, they concluded that Ar bombardment has a drastic influence on the interface.…”

“…A further advantage of XPS is that, in many cases, information on the chemical states of the elements can be extracted, and hence the nature of the bonding transition from the coating through the interface into the substrate can be analyzed. Using argon ion sputtering, one easily obtains the elemental compositions vs larger depth [10], but accepting that the true interface configuration possibly gets modified. In the literature, a few XPS studies of the interface of a-C:H on different substrates have been published [8,[11][12][13][14].…”

Corrosion fatigue in DLC-coated articulating implants: an accelerated methodology to predict realistic interface lifetime

“…For example a C/Si interface with only 0.3 nm SiC present, determined by non-destructive angle resolved XPS, will show ca. 3 nm SiC at the interface when analyzed in a depth profile using 3 kV Ar ions [45]. Therefore, when the depth profile the interfaces using 2 kV Ar ions is performed, it is estimated that up to 2 nm of the total 5 nm reactively formed interface material may have been generated by the depth profile analysis.…”