Influence of surface composition and density on electron inelastic mean free paths in Ge

Lesiak, B.; Jabłoński, A.; Zemek, J.; Jiřı́ček, P.; Pavluch, J.

doi:10.1002/sia.1220

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The PDOBT sample, however, seems to be different from the others having the largest surface roughness. As it was shown previously, variations of surface roughness in Ni [36], Ge [37], and Si [38] in the range of several hundred nm do not appreciably affect the elastic backscattering coefficient. This refers to measurements at emission angles of 35…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 72%

Influence of Recoil Effect and Surface Excitations on the Inelastic Mean Free Paths of Electrons in Polymers

et al. 2006

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this work, the influence of recoil effect and surface excitations on the inelastic mean free paths for polythiophenes is investigated. The inelastic mean free paths of electrons in polythiophenes are measured with the elastic peak electron spectroscopy method using the Ag standard and the electron elastic scattering cross-sections from the database NIST 3.1 in the electron kinetic energy range 200-5000 eV. The Monte Carlo model is applied for evaluating the electron backscattering intensities from the polymers and the Ag standard, as well as for evaluating electrons quasi-elastically backscattered from atoms of different atomic numbers (the recoil effect). The surface excitation corrections are accounted for using the formalism of Chen, with the material parameters for polythiophenes evaluated from the elastic peak electron spectroscopy method. Deviations due to recoil effect and surface excitations to the inelastic mean free paths are compared and discussed. Correction to the inelastic mean free paths due to recoil effect is considerable but is smaller, however, than the correction due to surface excitations. Accounting for recoil effect and surface excitations leads to improvement of the inelastic mean free paths, as compared to the inelastic mean free paths resulting from the predictive formulae of Gries.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 72%

Influence of Recoil Effect and Surface Excitations on the Inelastic Mean Free Paths of Electrons in Polymers

et al. 2006

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Systematic studies on Si 5 -7 and Ni 6 show weak influence of surface roughness, 5,6 and dependence on surface composition and density, 8 texture and average grain size, 6 and Ł Correspondence to: B. Lesiak finally surface excitations, 7 on the accuracy to determine the EPES IMFPs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Elastic electron backscattering from Ti: grain size effect

Lesiak

Zemek

Jiřı́ček

et al. 2004

Surface & Interface Analysis

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Measurements of elastic electron backscattering probabilities may provide the electron inelastic mean free paths (IMFP). This technique is known as elastic peak electron spectroscopy (EPES). The IMFPs in Ti canbe determined from optical data by Tanuma et al., Gries or the TPP-2M predictive formulae. Studies on Si and Ni show a weak influence of surface roughness, but a stronger influence of atomic composition, density, texture, average grain size and surface excitations on the IMFPs. In the present work, the elastic electron backscattering probability and IMFPs are determined for Ti exposed to sputtering and annealing. The atomic composition of Ti is determined by XPS and texture and grain size is determined by x-ray diffraction (XRD). Ti samples exhibit no texture and grain size from 1 µm to 100 µm. For annealed samples the titanium hydride phase can be observed from the binding energy shift of Ti 2p XPS spectra. Scatter in the resulting IMFPs due to density and composition change (O and C contamination, and H from vacuum background) is negligible in comparison to scatter due to the grain size and standard used (Al and Cu). The IMFPs in Ti of grain size 1-10 µm are smaller than IMFPs in Ti of grain size 100 µm. These differences are explained by effects not accounted for in the calculations, i.e. the inelastic losses on the grain boundaries which are more pronounced in Ti of small grain size, and surface excitations which differ for Ti, Al and Cu.

show abstract