| Literature DB >> 29271755 |
Igor A Makhotkin1, Ryszard Sobierajski2, Jaromir Chalupský3, Kai Tiedtke4, Gosse de Vries5, Michael Störmer6, Frank Scholze7, Frank Siewert8, Robbert W E van de Kruijs1, Igor Milov1, Eric Louis1, Iwanna Jacyna2, Marek Jurek2, Dorota Klinger2, Laurent Nittler2, Yevgen Syryanyy2, Libor Juha3, Věra Hájková3, Vojtěch Vozda3, Tomáš Burian3, Karel Saksl3, Bart Faatz4, Barbara Keitel4, Elke Plönjes4, Siegfried Schreiber4, Sven Toleikis4, Rolf Loch4, Martin Hermann9, Sebastian Strobel9, Han Kwang Nienhuys5, Grzegorz Gwalt8, Tobias Mey10, Hartmut Enkisch9.
Abstract
The durability of grazing- and normal-incidence optical coatings has been experimentally assessed under free-electron laser irradiation at various numbers of pulses up to 16 million shots and various fluence levels below 10% of the single-shot damage threshold. The experiment was performed at FLASH, the Free-electron LASer in Hamburg, using 13.5 nm extreme UV (EUV) radiation with 100 fs pulse duration. Polycrystalline ruthenium and amorphous carbon 50 nm thin films on silicon substrates were tested at total external reflection angles of 20° and 10° grazing incidence, respectively. Mo/Si periodical multilayer structures were tested in the Bragg reflection condition at 16° off-normal angle of incidence. The exposed areas were analysed post-mortem using differential contrast visible light microscopy, EUV reflectivity mapping and scanning X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. The analysis revealed that Ru and Mo/Si coatings exposed to the highest dose and fluence level show a few per cent drop in their EUV reflectivity, which is explained by EUV-induced oxidation of the surface.Entities:
Keywords: EUV optics; FELs; free-electron laser induced damage; thin films
Year: 2018 PMID: 29271755 PMCID: PMC5741122 DOI: 10.1107/S1600577517017362
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Synchrotron Radiat ISSN: 0909-0495 Impact factor: 2.616
Figure 1Out-of-focus (a) and in-focus (b) ablation imprints in PMMA.
Figure 2Examples of damage craters in Mo/Si, Ru and C optical coatings, recorded for fluences above the damage threshold values shown in Table 1 ▸, namely 100 J cm−2 for Mo/Si, 21.8 J cm−2 for Ru and 4.0 J cm−2 for amorphous C.
Summary of single-shot damage analysis results. Note that the SSDT energy in the beam for Mo/Si is less than for amorphous C but on the sample it is the other way around, which is a consequence of the enlarged footprint at grazing angles of incidence
| Material | Threshold energy in the beam | Grazing angle φ (°) | Effective area of the beam | Effective area on the sample | Threshold fluence on the sample |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mo/Si (InF) | 0.03 | 74.5 | 41 | 66.6 | 83 |
| Ru (InF) | 0.2 | 20 | 41 | 187.6 | 199 |
| Amorphous C (InF) | 0.046 | 10 | 41 | 369.5 | 24 |
Figure 3Overview of the exposure conditions in the fluence/number of pulses space.
Figure 4Coarse reflectivity maps of the samples exposed to the highest doses; the colour scale bars show EUV reflectivity.
List of attenuation levels used for exposures with notations (for example, l3 denotes 0.33% of the SSDT)
| l index | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exposure level in % of SSDT | 10 | 1.8 | 0.33 | 0.06 | 0.011 | 0.002 |
List of exposure types and their notations (for example, n5 denotes 4 shots with 400 pulses in each shot and a total of 1600 pulses)
| Exposure type, n | Pulses in a shot |
| Total pulses |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1.0E+00 |
| 2 | 1 | 20 | 2.0E+01 |
| 3 | 1 | 400 | 4.0E+02 |
| 4 | 400 | 1 | 4.0E+02 |
| 5 | 400 | 4 | 1.6E+03 |
| 6 | 400 | 40 | 1.6E+04 |
| 7 | 400 | 400 | 1.6E+05 |
| 8 | 400 | 4000 | 1.6E+06 |
| 9 | 400 | 40000 | 1.6E+07 |
Figure 5Detailed reflectivity maps for C and Ru l1n9 exposures; the colour scale bars show the EUV reflectivity scale.
Figure 6Overview of reflectivity changes detected from EUV reflectivity maps.
Figure 7Detailed EUV reflectivity scans inside and outside the l1n9 spots: (a) for Ru an angle of incidence scan at fixed wavelength of 13.5 nm and (b) for Mo/Si a wavelength scan at a fixed angle of incidence of 73.75°.
Figure 8XPS spectra of Ru inside and outside the exposed (l1n9) spot (a) and combined with the fitting results inside the exposed spot (b).
Figure 9Oxygen content in the surface layer of the Ru film, determined by XPS mapping (a) and the simulated effect of this oxygen amount on the EUV reflectivity (b). The latter can be compared with EUV reflectivity shown in Fig. 5 ▸. The uncertainties of measured atomic concentrations are smaller than their spatial variations over the unirradiated area.
Figure 10XPS data inside and outside the Mo/Si l1n9 spot: (a) and (b) show the Si 2p and O 1s spectra measured in the spot position and at the distance of 0.75 and 8.3 mm from the centre of the irradiated spot. (c) shows the decomposition of Si 2p spectra, and (d) the atomic concentration of the elements versus distance from the irradiation centre.