Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-tsvsl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-28T16:26:30.465Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A New Mechanism for the Imaging of Crystal Structure in Non-Conductive Materials: An Application of Charge-Induced Contrast in the Environmental Scanning Electron Microscope (ESEM)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2020

Brendan J. Griffin*
Affiliation:
Centre for Microscopy and Microanalysis, The University of Western Australia, Nedlands, WA, Australia6907
Get access

Extract

The mechanism of the contrast in ‘environmental’ or ‘gaseous’ secondary electron images in the environmental scanning electron microscope is at best poorly understood. The original theory suggested a simple gas amplification model in which emitted secondary electrons ionise the chamber gas, leading to signal amplification and finally measurement at a biased detector. This theory is being advanced but little attention has as yet been paid to the factors which influence the actual secondary emission, although unusual contrast effects have been noted in one case. The conven-tional view is that the positive ion product of the gas-electron interaction results in charge neu-tralisation at the sample surface.

The implantation and trapping of charge in non-conductive materials was recently described, in reference to electron range measurements. This work demonstrated that trapped charge influ-enced the secondary electron yield, with enhanced secondary electron emission above the region of trapped charge. The consequence is that the distribution of the trapped charge is seen as a bright circle on the surface of the specimen, centred on the point of beam exposure (Fig.l).

Type
Environmental SEM
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America 1997

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

1.Danilatos, G.D. (1990) Journal of Microscopy, 160, 910.1111/j.1365-2818.1990.tb03043.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Joy, D. (1997) Proc. AMAS-IV, 39.Google Scholar
3.Meredith, P. & Donald, A.M. (1995) Proc. Microbeam Analysis-1995 (Etz, E. Ed.), 387.Google Scholar
4.Griffin, B.J. and Nockolds, C.E. (1996) Proc. Microscopy & Microanalysis 1996, 840.Google Scholar
5.Robinson, B.W. and Nickel, E.H. (1979), American Mineralogist, 64, 1322.Google Scholar
6.Griffin, B.J. et al. (1995) Proc. Microbeam Analysis-1995 (Etz, E. Ed.), 383.Google Scholar
7.Wight, S. (1996) Proc. Microscopy & Microanalysis 1996, 842.Google Scholar
8.Griffin, B.J. (1992) Proc. 50th Annual Meeting of the Electron Microscopy Society of America (Eds.: Bailey, Bentley & Small), 1306.Google Scholar
9. This research has been supported and encouraged by the generous assistance of Alcoa of Aus-tralia Limited, and specifically through the efforts of John Cornell and Gerald Roach.Google Scholar