Literature DB >> 28663665

Does Your SEM Really Tell the Truth?-How Would You Know? Part 4: Charging and its Mitigation.

Michael T Postek1, András E Vladár1.   

Abstract

This is the fourth part of a series of tutorial papers discussing various causes of measurement uncertainty in scanned particle beam instruments, and some of the solutions researched and developed at NIST and other research institutions. Scanned particle beam instruments, especially the scanning electron microscope (SEM), have gone through tremendous evolution to become indispensable tools for many and diverse scientifc and industrial applications. These improvements have significantly enhanced their performance and made them far easier to operate. But, the ease of operation has also fostered operator complacency. In addition, the user-friendliness has reduced the apparent need for extensive operator training. Unfortunately, this has led to the idea that the SEM is just another expensive "digital camera" or another peripheral device connected to a computer and that all of the problems in obtaining good quality images and data have been solved. Hence, one using these instruments may be lulled into thinking that all of the potential pitfalls have been fully eliminated and believing that, everything one sees on the micrograph is always correct. But, as described in this and the earlier papers, this may not be the case. Care must always be taken when reliable quantitative data are being sought. The first paper in this series discussed some of the issues related to signal generation in the SEM, including instrument calibration, electron beam-sample interactions and the need for physics-based modeling to understand the actual image formation mechanisms to properly interpret SEM images. The second paper has discussed another major issue confronting the microscopist: specimen contamination and methods to eliminate it. The third paper discussed mechanical vibration and stage drift and some useful solutions to mitigate the problems caused by them, and here, in this the fourth contribution, the issues related to specimen "charging" and its mitigation are discussed relative to dimensional metrology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  SEM; calibration; charging; measurements; metrology; modelling; reference materials; scanning electron microscope; standards

Year:  2015        PMID: 28663665      PMCID: PMC5486231          DOI: 10.1117/12.2195344

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng        ISSN: 0277-786X


  13 in total

1.  Application of the low-loss scanning electron microscope image to integrated circuit technology. Part 1--Applications to accurate dimension measurements.

Authors:  M T Postek; A E Vladár; O C Wells; J L Lowney
Journal:  Scanning       Date:  2001 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 1.932

2.  Two-dimensional simulation and modeling in scanning electron microscope imaging and metrology research.

Authors:  Michael T Postek; András E Vladár; Jeremiah R Lowney; William J Keery
Journal:  Scanning       Date:  2002 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.932

3.  The use of environmental scanning electron microscopy for imaging wet and insulating materials.

Authors:  Athene M Donald
Journal:  Nat Mater       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 43.841

4.  Does your SEM really tell the truth? How would you know? Part 2.

Authors:  Michael T Postek; András E Vladár; Kavuri P Purushotham
Journal:  Scanning       Date:  2013-10-28       Impact factor: 1.932

5.  Quantitative electron probe microanalysis of nonconducting specimens: science or art?

Authors:  Guillaume F Bastin; Hans J M Heijligers
Journal:  Microsc Microanal       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 4.127

6.  Modeling for accurate dimensional scanning electron microscope metrology: then and now.

Authors:  Michael T Postek; András E Vladár
Journal:  Scanning       Date:  2011-05-31       Impact factor: 1.932

7.  Charge contrast imaging of suspended nanotubes by scanning electron microscopy.

Authors:  Paul Finnie; Kate Kaminska; Yoshikazu Homma; D Guy Austing; Jacques Lefebvre
Journal:  Nanotechnology       Date:  2008-07-07       Impact factor: 3.874

8.  New insights into subsurface imaging of carbon nanotubes in polymer composites via scanning electron microscopy.

Authors:  Minhua Zhao; Bin Ming; Jae-Woo Kim; Luke J Gibbons; Xiaohong Gu; Tinh Nguyen; Cheol Park; Peter T Lillehei; J S Villarrubia; András E Vladár; J Alexander Liddle
Journal:  Nanotechnology       Date:  2015-02-04       Impact factor: 3.874

9.  A new preparation technique for examination of polymers in the scanning electron microscope.

Authors:  J Sikorski; J S Moss; P H Newman; T Buckley
Journal:  J Sci Instrum       Date:  1968-01

10.  Ion charge neutralization effects in scanning electron microscopes.

Authors:  C K Crawford
Journal:  Scan Electron Microsc       Date:  1980
View more
  2 in total

1.  Characterisation of dust emissions from machined engineered stones to understand the hazard for accelerated silicosis.

Authors:  Chandnee Ramkissoon; Sharyn Gaskin; Leigh Thredgold; Tony Hall; Shelley Rowett; Richard Gun
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-03-14       Impact factor: 4.379

2.  Unusual bromine enrichment in the gastric mill and setae of the hadal amphipod Hirondellea gigas.

Authors:  Satoshi Okada; Chong Chen; Hiromi Kayama Watanabe; Noriyuki Isobe; Ken Takai
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-08-04       Impact factor: 3.752

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.