Aes 1
Aes 1
Surface Science
• Methodology
• Data analysis
• Experimental considerations
Short historic of the Auger spectroscopy
• Pierre Auger, in 1925 observed (at first in the cloud chamber, then in
photographic plates) the occurrence of electrons with precisely determined
energies. These electrons have been later named Auger electrons) may serve
to identify their parent atoms.
1953 J. J. Lander – the idea of using the Auger electrons in surface analysis..
• The AES has been implemented as an analytic tool in 1967 (Larry Harris),
Pierre Auger after increasing the method sensitivity by using differential spectra to
discriminate the tiny Auger peaks in the electronic spectra.
• 1968 – Auger spectrometer with CMA in modern configuration.
Auger electron
Labelling:
KL1L2 AVV
Incident
electron
KE = EK-EL1-E*L2- ,
EK, EL1, and EL2 – the energy levels mentioned in the labeling (generally
different from the neutral atom, due to the presence of electron vacancies).
Factors influencing the Auger peak area
3keV incident
1. Ionisation cross section
electron beam
LMM MNN
KLL
10 keV incident
electron beam
Factors influencing the Auger peak area
(cont’d)
3. Backscattering
Auger electron spectra
1. Direct spectrum
Electrons in the Auger spectra have
energy values between 280 eV (KLL, Zn)
si 2100 eV (S).
Example:
2. Differential spectrum
• The scattered electrons vill have energies less energy than Auger electrons, thus they
will occur in the “tail” of the spectrum, towards smaller KE values, along with secondary
electrons.
• Many electrons will fully lose their energy via inelatic collisions in the solid.
• Therefore, only Auger electrons originating in the surface region (which did not
experience inelastic scattering) will be collected by the analyser.
d
I out I 0 e
MNN
x
3
e
0
dx
1 e3
0.95
x
1
e
0
dx
Background
Auger electrons 95% of the electrons leaving the surface
originate in a layer 3 depth.
Experimental arrangement
Instrumentation
Electron gun
Electron
detector
Cylindrical mirror
analyser (CMA)
• UHV chamber
• Specimen import unit
• Electronics
am
Ion be • Computer and software
Specimen
Scanning Auger Microscopy (SAM)
AES Auger Electron Spectroscopy
Applications
• Verification of surface
contamination freshly prepared in
Focussing &
UHV.
scanning system of
the incident e-beam • Investigation of the thin film
growth process + elemental
analysis.
Ni
Example:
Fe
From the differential AES spectrum Cr
Ni, Fe and Cr have been identified.
Information concerning chemical composition
• Peak shape and the energy values,
corresponding to maxima contain
information on the nature of the
environment, due to addition relaxation
effects during the Auger process
• A full theoretical model is difficult to
construct.
• In practice, Auger spectra of standard
samples are used and the results are
drawn from spectra comparison.
SAM
Al+F+O
SEM and Auger images of an aluminium oxide surface, in absence and presence of
fluorine contramination.
Quntitative analysis
dEN(E)/dE vs. E
N(E) vs. E
Advantages: Drawbacks:
No need to know “obscure” physical quantities:
• Necessity to prepare standard samples,
• ionization cross-section, i on the A-level of the
• Valid only for homogeneous samples,
element i by the electrons in the primary beam,
• Quite low accuracy.
• the Auger yield,
• backscattering cross-section and electron escape
depth values.
Quantitative analysis using sensitivity factors
• Measurements are done under the same conditions on standard samples to cancel the
correction factors, associated to the set-up particularities:
Ix I pur
N x S x N pur S pur
Sensitivity factors, Si, have been measured for certain energy values of the electrons in the
primary beam. They are tabulated for all the chemical elements.
• The atomic concentration of the elment a in the sample with N elements can be derived using
the equation:
The method is semi-quantitative, since the back-scattering effects and the escape depth of
the electrons are negliged.
Drawbacks of empirical methods
They do not include the so-called matrix effect of the sample:
the inelastic mean free path (),
the back-scattering factor (r),
chemical effects on the peak shape in the Auger spectra,
effect of the surface roughness.
All these drawbacks result in errors of about 15%. The errors can be diminished to
1% by using standard samples with the same matrix, to derive S i.
Fe
Cr Example
Ni
Peak-to-peak height: Si