4.3 Article

Evaluation of neon focused ion beam milling for TEM sample preparation

期刊

JOURNAL OF MICROSCOPY
卷 264, 期 1, 页码 59-63

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jmi.12416

关键词

FIB; GFIS; ion milling; LMIS; sample preparation; TEM

资金

  1. National Science Foundation CMMI/MoM program under GOALI Grant [1235610]
  2. U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC02-05CH11231]
  3. NSF grant from Major Research Instrumentation Program (NSF) [DMR-1338139]
  4. Biomolecular Nanotechnology Center/QB3 at the University of California, Berkeley
  5. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1338139] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  6. Directorate For Engineering
  7. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn [1235610] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  8. Division Of Materials Research [1338139] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gallium-based focused ion beams generated from liquid-metal sources are widely used in micromachining and sample preparation for transmission electron microscopy, with well-known drawbacks such as sample damage and contamination. In this work, an alternative (neon) focused ion beam generated by a gas field-ionization source is evaluated for the preparation of electron-transparent specimens. To do so, electron-transparent sections of Si and an Al alloy are prepared with both Ga and Ne ion beams for direct comparison. Diffraction-contrast imaging and energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy are used to evaluate the relative damage induced by the two beams, and cross-sections of milled trenches are examined to compare the implantation depth with theoretical predictions from Monte Carlo simulations. Our results show that for the beam voltages and materials systems investigated, Ne ion beam milling does not significantly reduce the focused ion beam induced artefacts. However, the Ne ion beam does enable more precise milling and may be of interest in cases where Ga contamination cannot be tolerated.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据