An anomalous contrast effect in the scanning electron microscope

Clarke, David R.; Stuart, P. R.

doi:10.1088/0022-3735/3/9/308

Cited by 27 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The study of insulator charging effect in a SEM has led to several interesting observations. For instance Clark et al observed a distorted image of the electron collector grid instead of the specimen surface, while tilting the certain uncoated insulating specimen [6]. Similar image have also been observed by Shaffner et al, and Le Gressus et al, are realized to be attributed to the deflection of the primary electron by electrostatic (negative) field formed on the insulator surface [7,8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 52%

“…The first one is the charging up of part of the surface of the material until it acts as an electron mirror of sufficient strength to deflect the electrons of the primary beam towards the electron collector. The second step is the building up of an image of the detector as the reflected beam scans over it [9]. Electron mirror effect (EME) is a physical phenomenon occurs inside the chamber of the SEM when the irradiating electron beam scans a dielectric sample.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

New way to overcome on the mirror effect for imaging the surface of insulator

Zoory¹

2014

IOSRJAP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This work use the ion beam of a focused ion beam (FIB)/scanning electron microscope (SEM) microscope to investigate the ion mirror effect (IME) on the poly-methyl-methacrylate (PMMA). From study of parameter that influence the ion mirror effect (IME), we find easy and fast way to imaging the surface of the sample. To our knowledge this is the first observation of what can be called 'Imaging by Different Currents (IDC). This way is based on the measurement of the trapped charge as well as to evaluate the charge landing through imaging the ion mirror effect (IME) by using different currents (I sc) . We observed begin overcome on the mirror effect when and it allows to imaging the surface of insulator. This way (IDC) enables of imaging the surface of the sample in all the scanning potential of imaging (Vsc), all the scanning potential of irradiation (V i ) and also at any time radiation (t). Keywords -Anomalous contrast, Focused Ion Beam (FIB), Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM), ElectronMirror Effect (EME), Pseudo mirror Effect (PME), Ion Mirror Effect (IME) and Trapped charge.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 52%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

New way to overcome on the mirror effect for imaging the surface of insulator

Zoory¹

2014

IOSRJAP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Negative charging is the most evident and troublesome type of charging and under the most extreme circumstances can disrupt and defect the electron beam, and cause intolerable distortions. One of the first references to this, for the SEM, was Clarke and Stuart [19]. They formulated an explanation for the “formation of the distorted image of the electron collector of the scanning electron microscope when the instrument is used to observe uncoated insulating materials.” This was provided as a cautionary note because they correctly felt it could lead to image misinterpretation when uncoated insulating materials were being observed.…”

Section: 0 Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does your SEM really tell the truth? How would you know? Part 4: Charging and its mitigation

Postek

Vladár

2015

SPIE Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the fourth part of a series of tutorial papers discussing various causes of measurement uncertainty in scanned particle beam instruments, and some of the solutions researched and developed at NIST and other research institutions. Scanned particle beam instruments, especially the scanning electron microscope (SEM), have gone through tremendous evolution to become indispensable tools for many and diverse scientifc and industrial applications. These improvements have significantly enhanced their performance and made them far easier to operate. But, the ease of operation has also fostered operator complacency. In addition, the user-friendliness has reduced the apparent need for extensive operator training. Unfortunately, this has led to the idea that the SEM is just another expensive “digital camera” or another peripheral device connected to a computer and that all of the problems in obtaining good quality images and data have been solved. Hence, one using these instruments may be lulled into thinking that all of the potential pitfalls have been fully eliminated and believing that, everything one sees on the micrograph is always correct. But, as described in this and the earlier papers, this may not be the case. Care must always be taken when reliable quantitative data are being sought. The first paper in this series discussed some of the issues related to signal generation in the SEM, including instrument calibration, electron beam-sample interactions and the need for physics-based modeling to understand the actual image formation mechanisms to properly interpret SEM images. The second paper has discussed another major issue confronting the microscopist: specimen contamination and methods to eliminate it. The third paper discussed mechanical vibration and stage drift and some useful solutions to mitigate the problems caused by them, and here, in this the fourth contribution, the issues related to specimen “charging” and its mitigation are discussed relative to dimensional metrology.

show abstract

“…Negative charging is the most evident and troublesome type of charging and under the most extreme circumstances can disrupt and deflect the electron beam, and cause intolerable distortions. One of the first references to this, for the SEM, was Clarke and Stuart [15]. They formulated an explanation for the “formation of the distorted image of the electron collector of the scanning electron microscope when the instrument is used to observe uncoated insulating materials.” This was provided as a cautionary note because they correctly felt it could lead to image misinterpretation when uncoated insulating materials were being observed.…”

Section: 0 Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nanomanufacturing concerns about measurements made in the SEM part IV: charging and its mitigation

Postek

Vladár

2015

SPIE Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the fourth part of a series of tutorial papers discussing various causes of measurement uncertainty in scanned particle beam instruments, and some of the solutions researched and developed at NIST and other research institutions. Scanned particle beam instruments especially the scanning electron microscope (SEM) have gone through tremendous evolution to become indispensable tools for many and diverse scientific and industrial applications. These improvements have significantly enhanced their performance and made them far easier to operate. But, the ease of operation has also fostered operator complacency. In addition, the user-friendliness has reduced the apparent need for extensive operator training. Unfortunately, this has led to the idea that the SEM is just another expensive “digital camera” or another peripheral device connected to a computer and that all of the problems in obtaining good quality images and data have been solved. Hence, one using these instruments may be lulled into thinking that all of the potential pitfalls have been fully eliminated and believing that, everything one sees on the micrograph is always correct. But, as described in this and the earlier papers, this may not be the case. Care must always be taken when reliable quantitative data are being sought. The first paper in this series discussed some of the issues related to signal generation in the SEM, including instrument calibration, electron beam-sample interactions and the need for physics-based modeling to understand the actual image formation mechanisms to properly interpret SEM images. The second paper has discussed another major issue confronting the microscopist: specimen contamination and methods to eliminate it. The third paper discussed mechanical vibration and stage drift and some useful solutions to mitigate the problems caused by them, and here, in this the fourth contribution, the issues related to specimen “charging” and its mitigation are discussed relative to dimensional metrology.

show abstract

An anomalous contrast effect in the scanning electron microscope

Cited by 27 publications

References 0 publications

New way to overcome on the mirror effect for imaging the surface of insulator

New way to overcome on the mirror effect for imaging the surface of insulator

Does your SEM really tell the truth? How would you know? Part 4: Charging and its mitigation

Nanomanufacturing concerns about measurements made in the SEM part IV: charging and its mitigation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About