The sputtering of light target material during implantation of heavy ions

Determination of the nitrogen abundance in organic materials by NanoSIMS quantitative imaging

“…Note that below 2 Â 10 17 Cs + cm À2 , the count rates oscillated independently; this phenomenon is typical of low-Z targets bombarded by heavy particles. [21][22][23] ABS is the material with the lowest ) among all the samples studied here (for kerogens, 24 1.04-1.8 g cm À3 ; for nylon, 1.15 g cm À3 ). This saturation uence is thus an upper value, and the saturation uence can be lower for denser materials.…”

“…Similar oscillations have been recorded for Cs + sputtered from Be and C targets. 23 Such a change in the sputtering yield is understood as a change in the surface concentration of implanted Cs + while the uence increases. 21 The penetration range of a 16 keV Cs + ion in the native ABS surface is $28 nm (SRIM simulation 32 ).…”

Structural, optical, and magnetic properties of Ag+, Mn+ and Ar+ ions implanted ZnO thin films: effect of implantation dose and stopping energy

“…The thickness reduction at higher doses is due to implantation-induced sputtering. 37,38 These results can also be predicted through energy deposition in the form of nuclear and electron excitation of ions using SRIM calculation ( Fig. 1c ).…”

Experimental apparatus for investigation of sputtering and secondary ion emission induced by energetic ion beams

“…The peak corresponding to previously implanted 40 Ar + ions is also visible, but the primary 84 Kr + ions were not observed as a result of the short irradiation time (and low fluence) of the primary Kr + beam and also the great mass difference between Kr (implanted ions) and C (target). The projected range (R p ) and straggling (ΔR p ) of the depth distribution concentration of Kr + implanted with 40 keV energy are about 250 and 60 Å, respectively (calculated by the SATVAL code15), so the Kr atoms are not sputtered in the early stages of the irradiation of the C sample.…”

“…On increasing the implantation dose the probability of ‘knock on’ of the previously implanted primary atom increases also and, as a consequence, may lead to its being removed from the target. As a result of such phenomena, the real dose of implanted impurities is always smaller than that deduced from the measurement of ion current irradiating the target 11–13. Increasing amounts of the implanted species and the consequent radiation damage may also influence the sputtering process and change the sputtering yield of the target, as discussed previously 14, 15…”