Nanometer scale patterning using focused ion beam milling

Abstract

Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.

Magnetic biosensor technologies for medical applications: a review

“…Nevertheless, it seems that Hall sensors may be best suited to detect labels of dimension 50 nm and below, due to their simple single-layer construction and relatively high signal-to-noise ratio, as this simplifies the fabrication of sensors of similar size to the labels detected. Hall sensors with a 40 9 40 nm active area have been fabricated in Bi thin films at the apex of an AFM tip [31,136] using focused-ion beam milling. However, the oft-quoted requirement to size-match sensor and label (to maximise the intensity of the magnetic field intercepted by the sensor) has been challenged by a new design by Vavassori et al [167] based on AMR.…”

FIB-Nanostructured Surfaces and Investigation of Bio/Nonbio Interactions at the Nanoscale

“…Imprint lithography [21], [22] is a highresolution technique for the nanopatterning of large surfaces, but it requires moulds and is limited to polymeric materials. FIB milling appears to be an optimal technology for our application [23]: it is a high-resolution technique that is able to write directly on any substrate. By tuning the ion current, the optimal feature size (i.e., the spot size) can be changed from 12 nm up to 2 µm.…”

A New Experimental Method to Obtain the Ion Beam Profile of Focused Ion Beam Nanotechnology Systems

“…The number of trenches in the array (width of the array) was selected so that the total fabrication time for every array was less than 0.5 seconds and therefore the mechanical and thermal stage drift with time was negligible (Petit et al, 2005). The total dose was supplied in 100 scans (etched depth/scan ~ 0.16 nm), thus avoiding the appearing of stepped surfaces at the bottom and top of the trenches from scan to scan and so the possible variation of the sputtering yield of the Ga+ ions arriving to the target with the incident angle (Qiangmin Wei et al).…”

“…In these studies, the authors use other methods to measure the actual sizes of an ion beam. These methods are based on: mechanical probes that are placed between the beam and the target (Gabriel Lopes et al, 2011, Sosolik et al, 2000 which don't provide very low resolution specially when dealing with low ion beam currents (~ 1 pA), or on exposing a target to the ion beam and measuring the damage done to it Wang 1996, Park et al 2004) which requires complicated samples preparation and not standard instrumentation equipment for AES analysis to obtain the Ga concentration profiles in the parallel direction to the incident beam, or on mathematical simulation being the ion beam approximated by a Gaussian distribution (Petit et al, 2005 andOrloff et al 1991).…”