Results are reported from a pilot study under the Consultative Committee for Amount of Substance (CCQM) to compare measurements of and resolve any relevant measurement issues in the amount of thermal oxide on (100) and (111) orientation silicon wafer substrates in the thickness range 1.5-8 nm. As a result of the invitation to participate in this activity, 45 sets of measurements have been made in different laboratories using 10 analytical methods: medium -energy ion scattering spectrometry (MEIS), nuclear reaction analysis (NRA), RBS, elastic backscattering spectrometry (EBS), XPS, SIMS, ellipsometry, grazing -incidence x-ray reflectometry (GIXRR), neutron reflectometry and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). The measurements are made on separate sets of 10 carefully prepared samples, all of which have been characterized by a combination of ellipsometry and XPS using carefully established reference conditions and reference parameters.The results have been assessed against the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) data and all show excellent linearity. The data sets correlate with the NPL data with average root-mean-square scatters of 0.15 nm, half being better than 0.1 nm and a few at or better than 0.05 nm. Each set of data allows a relative scaling constant and a zero thickness offset to be determined. Each method has an inherent zero thickness offset between 0 nm and 1 nm and it is these offsets, measured here for the first time, that have caused many problems in the past. There are three basic classes of offset: water and carbonaceous contamination equivalent to ∼1 nm as seen by ellipsometry; adsorbed oxygen mainly from water at an equivalent thickness of 0.5 nm as seen by MEIS, NRA, RBS and possibly GIXRR; and no offset as seen by XPS using the Si 2p peaks. Each technique has a different uncertainty for the scaling constant and consistent results have been achieved. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy has large uncertainties for the scaling constant but a high precision and critically, if used correctly, has zero offset. Thus, a combination of XPS and the other methods allows the XPS scaling constant to be determined with low uncertainty, traceable via the other methods. The XPS laboratories returning results early were invited to test a new reference procedure. All showed very significant improvements. The reference attenuation lengths thus need scaling by 0.986 ± 0.009 (at an expansion factor of 2), deduced from the data for the other methods. Several other methods have small offsets and, to the extent that these can be shown to be constant or measurable, these methods will also show low uncertainty. Recommendations are provided for parameters for XPS, MEIS, RBS and NRA to improve their accuracy.  Crown

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Rutherford backscattering spectrometry (RBS) and related techniques have long been used to determine the elemental depth profiles in films a few nanometres to a few microns thick. However, although obtaining spectra is very easy, solving the inverse problem of extracting the depth profiles from the spectra is not possible analytically except for special cases. It is because these special cases include important classes of samples, and because skilled analysts are adept at extracting useful qualitative information from the data, that ion beam analysis is still an important technique.We have recently solved this inverse problem using the simulated annealing algorithm. We have implemented the solution in the 'IBA DataFurnace' code, which has been developed into a very versatile and general new software tool that analysts can now use to rapidly extract quantitative accurate depth profiles from real samples on an industrial scale. We review the features, applicability and validation of this new code together with other approaches to handling IBA (ion beam analysis) data, with particular attention being given to determining both the absolute accuracy of the depth profiles and statistically accurate error estimates.We include examples of analyses using RBS, non-Rutherford elastic scattering, elastic recoil detection and non-resonant nuclear reactions. High depth resolution and the use of multiple techniques simultaneously are both discussed. There is usually systematic ambiguity in IBA data and Butler's example of ambiguity (1990 Nucl. Instrum. Methods B 45 160-5) is reanalysed. Analyses are shown: of evaporated, sputtered, oxidized, ion implanted, ion beam mixed and annealed materials; of semiconductors, optical and magnetic multilayers, superconductors, tribological films and metals; and of oxides on Si, mixed metal silicides, boron nitride, GaN, SiC, mixed metal oxides, YBCO and polymers. OverviewWe will review our recent software developments in thin film depth profiling with ion beam analysis (IBA, see the 6 Centre de Física Nuclear da Universidade de Lisboa, Avenida Prog. Gama Pinto 2, 1699 Lisboa Codex, Portugal Glossary in section 2 for an explanation of the acronyms) in the context of the work of the community; discussing the scientific implications of these developments. We hope to show that these developments improve the usability of IBA to such an extent as to effectively establish a new depth profiling tool.We start (section 2) with a simplified overview of IBA since we believe that our new software tool (the IBA