Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T07:22:47.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Coupling Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry and Atom Probe Tomography for Atomic Diffusion and Segregation Measurements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2019

Alain Portavoce ,
Khalid Hoummada  and
Lee Chow
Alain Portavoce*
Affiliation:
CNRS, IM2NP UMR 7334, 13397 Marseille, France
Khalid Hoummada
Affiliation:
Aix-Marseille University, IM2NP UMR 7334, 13397 Marseille, France
Lee Chow
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida 32816, USA
*
*Author for correspondence: Alain Portavoce, E-mail: alain.portavoce@im2np.fr
Get access

Abstract

For a long time, secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS) was the only technique allowing impurity concentrations below 1 at% to be precisely measured in a sample with a depth resolution of few nanometers. For example, SIMS is the classical technique used in microelectronics to study dopant distribution in semiconductors and became, after radiotracers were forsaken, the principal tool used for atomic transport characterization (diffusion coefficient measurements). Due to the lack of other equivalent techniques, sometimes SIMS could be used erroneously, especially when the analyzed solute atoms formed clusters, or for interfacial concentration measurements (segregation coefficient measurements) for example. Today, concentration profiles measured by atom probe tomography (APT) can be compared to SIMS profiles and allow the accuracy of SIMS measurements to be better evaluated. However, APT measurements can also carry artifacts and limitations that can be investigated by SIMS. After a summary of SIMS and APT measurement advantages and disadvantages, the complementarity of these two techniques is discussed, particularly in the case of experiments aiming to measure diffusion and segregation coefficients.

Keywords

atom probe tomographyatomic diffusiongrain boundary segregationsecondary ion mass spectrometry
Type
Materials Science: Non-Metals
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 25 , Special Issue 2: Atom Probe Tomography and Microscopy APT&M 2018 , April 2019 , pp. 517 - 523
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aboulfadl, H, Seifried, F, Stüber, M & Mücklich, F (2019). Interdiffusion in as-deposited Ni/Ti multilayer thin films analyzed by atom probe tomography. Mater Lett 236, 92–95.Google Scholar
Benninghoven, A, Rüdenauer, FG & Werner, HW (1987). Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry: Basic Concepts, Instrumental Aspects, Applications, and Trends. New York, USA: Wiley.Google Scholar
Blavette, D, Cadel, E, Fraczkiewicz, A & Menand, A (1999). Three-dimensional atomic-scale imaging of impurity segregation to line defects. Science 286, 2317–2319.Google Scholar
Blum, I, Portavoce, A, Mangelinck, D, Daineche, R, Hoummada, K, Lábár, JL, Carron, V & Perrin, C (2008). Lattice and grain-boundary diffusion of As in Ni2Si. J Appl Phys 104, 114312.Google Scholar
Chellali, MR, Balogh, Z & Schmitz, G (2013). Nano-analysis of grain boundary and triple junction transport in nanocrystalline Ni/Cu. Ultramicroscopy 132, 164–170.Google Scholar
Chellali, MR, Balogh, Z, Zheng, L & Schmitz, G (2011). Triple junction and grain boundary diffusion in the Ni/Cu system. Scripta Mater 65, 343–346.Google Scholar
De Luca, A, Portavoce, A, Texier, M, Grosjean, C, Burle, N, Oison, V & Pichaud, B (2014). Tungsten diffusion in silicon. J Appl Phys 115, 013501.Google Scholar
Eugène, J, Aufray, B & Cabané, F (1991). Equilibrium of segregation in Ag/Cu(111): Kinetics and isotherms. Surf Sci 241, l–5.Google Scholar
Fournier Dit Chabert, F, Tancret, F, Christien, F, Le Gall, R & Castagne, J-F (2007). Finite element simulation of interfacial segregation in dilute alloys. J Mater Sci 42, 9765–9774.Google Scholar
Gilmer, GH & Farrell, HH (1976 a). Grain-boundary diffusion in thin films. I. The isolated grain boundary. J Appl Phys 47, 3792–3798.Google Scholar
Gilmer, GH & Farrell, HH (1976 b). Grain-boundary diffusion in thin films. II. Multiple grain boundaries and surface diffusion. J Appl Phys 47, 4373–4380.Google Scholar
Gokhale, A & Abbaschian, GJ (1990). Binary Alloy Phase Diagrams. ASM International: www.asminternational.org.Google Scholar
Harrison, LG (1961). Influence of dislocations on diffusion kinetics in solids with particular reference to the alkali halides. Trans Faraday Soc 57, 1191–1199.Google Scholar
Kresse, T, Li, YJ, Boll, T, Borchers, C, Choi, P, Al-Kassab, T, Raabeb, D & Kirchheim, R (2013) Influence of supersaturated carbon on the diffusion of Ni in ferrite determined by atom probe tomography. Scripta Mater 69, 424–427.Google Scholar
Larson, DJ, Prosa, TyJ, Ulfig, RM, Geiser, BP & Kelly, TF (2013). Local Electrode Atom Probe Tomography. New York, USA: Springer.Google Scholar
Luo, T, Perrin Toinin, J, Descoins, M, Hoummada, K, Bertoglio, M, Chow, L, Narducci, D & Portavoce, A (2018). PdGe contact fabrication on Ga-doped Ge: Influence of implantation-mediated defects. Scripta Mater 150, 66–69.Google Scholar
Martinez, E, Ronsheim, P, Barnes, J-P, Rochat, N, Pya, M, Hatzistergos, M, Renault, O, Silly, M, Sirotti, F, Bertin, F & Gambacorti, N (2011). Lanthanum diffusion in the TiN/LaOx/HfSiO/SiO2/Si stack. Microelec Eng 88, 1349–1352.Google Scholar
Mehrer, H (2007). Diffusion in Solids. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Mühlbacher, M, Mendez-Martina, F, Sartory, B, Schalka, N, Keckes, J, Lu, J, Hultman, L & Mitterer, C (2015). Copper diffusion into single-crystalline TiN studied by transmission electron microscopy and atom probe tomography. Thin Solid Films 574, 103–109.Google Scholar
Portavoce, A, Abbes, O, Rudzevich, Y, Chow, L, Le Thanh, V & Girardeaux, C (2012 a). Manganese diffusion in monocrystalline germanium. Scripta Mater 67, 269–272.Google Scholar
Portavoce, A, Berbezier, I, Gas, P & Ronda, A (2004 a). Sb surface segregation during epitaxial growth of SiGe heterostructures: The effects of Ge composition and biaxial stress. Phys Rev B 69, 155414.Google Scholar
Portavoce, A, Blum, I, Hoummada, K, Mangelinck, D, Chow, L & Bernardini, J (2012 b). Original methods for diffusion measurements in polycrystalline thin films. Defect Diffusion Forum 322, 129–150.Google Scholar
Portavoce, A, Chai, G, Chow, L & Bernardini, J (2008). Nanometric size effect on Ge diffusion in polycrystalline Si. J Apply Phys 104, 104910.Google Scholar
Portavoce, A, Chow, L & Bernardini, J (2010). Triple-junction contribution to diffusion in nanocrystalline Si. Appl Phys Lett 96, 214102.Google Scholar
Portavoce, A, Gas, P, Berbezier, I, Ronda, A, Christensen, JS, Kuznetsov, AYu & Svensson, BG (2004 b). Sb lattice diffusion in Si1−xGex/Si(001) heterostructures: Chemical and stress effects. Phys Rev B 69, 155415.Google Scholar
Portavoce, A, Hoummada, K & Chow, L (2016). Atomic transport in nano-crystalline thin films. Defect Diffusion Forum 367, 140–148.Google Scholar
Portavoce, A, Hoummada, K, Ronda, A, Mangelinck, D & Berbezier, I (2014). Si/Ge intermixing during Ge Stranski–Krastanov growth. Beilstein J Nanotechnol 5, 2374–2382.Google Scholar
Portavoce, A, Perrin-Toinin, J & Hoummada, K (2017). Vacancy-mediated atomic transport in nano-crystals. Rev Adv Mater Sci 50, 69–75.Google Scholar
Portavoce, A, Rodriguez, N, Daineche, R, Grosjean, C & Girardeaux, C (2009). Correction of secondary ion mass spectrometry profiles for atom diffusion measurements. Mater Lett 63, 676–678.Google Scholar
Ronsheim, P, Flaitz, P, Hatzistergos, M, Molella, C, Thompson, K & Alvis, R (2008). Impurity measurements in silicon with D-SIMS and atom probe tomography. Appl Surf Sci 255, 1547–1550.Google Scholar
Saha, B & Chakraborty, P (2013). MCsn+-SIMS: An innovative approach for direct compositional analysis of materials without standards. Energy Procedia 41, 80–109.Google Scholar
Seol, JB, Lee, B-H, Choi, P, Lee, S-G & Park, C-G (2013). Combined nano-SIMS/AFM/EBSD analysis and atom probe tomography, of carbon distribution in austenite/ε-martensite high-Mn steels. Ultramicroscopy 132, 248–257.Google Scholar
Seol, JB, Lim, NS, Lee, BH, Renaud, L & Park, CG (2011). Atom probe tomography and nano secondary ion mass spectroscopy investigation of the segregation of boron at austenite grain boundaries in 0.5 wt.% carbon steels. Met Mater Int 17, 413–416.Google Scholar
Sha, G & Cerezo, A (2005). Field ion microscopy and 3-d atom probe analysis of Al3Zr particles in 7050 Al alloy. Ultramicroscopy 102, 151–159.Google Scholar
Stender, P, Balogh, Z & Schmitz, G (2011). Triple line diffusion in nanocrystalline Fe/Cr and its impact on thermal stability. Ultramicroscopy 111, 524–529.Google Scholar
Südkamp, T, Bracht, H, Impellizzeri, G, Lundsgaard Hansen, J, Nylandsted Larsen, A & Haller, EE (2013). Doping dependence of self-diffusion in germanium and the charge states of vacancies. Appl Phys Lett 102, 242103.Google Scholar
Toyama, T, Takahama, F, Kuramoto, A, Takamizawa, H, Nozawa, Y, Ebisawa, N, Shimodaira, M, Shimizu, Y, Inoue, K & Nagai, Y (2014). The diffusivity and solubility of copper in ferromagnetic iron at lower temperatures studied by atom probe tomography. Scripta Mater 83, 5–8.Google Scholar
Vurpillot, F, Bostel, A & Blavette, D (2000). Trajectory overlaps and local magnification in three-dimensional atom probe. Appl Phys Lett 76, 3127.Google Scholar
Yan, Y, Pennycook, SJ, Xu, Z & Viehland, D (1998). Determination of the ordered structures of Pb(Mg1/3Nb2/3)O3 and Ba(Mg1/3Nb2/3)O3 by atomic-resolution Z-contrast imaging. Appl Phys Lett 72, 3145–3147.Google Scholar
Zalm, PC & Vriezema, CJ (1992). On some factors limiting depth resolution during SIMS profiling. Nucl Inst Meth Phys Res B67, 495–499.Google Scholar