Thin Film quantitative analysis

[Probeman]

My real name is Justinas

The EDS software was the one that came with the Buker SEM. it's Quantax.

By the way, could you give me any link or an explanation of how exactly does the CalcZAF thin film correction works? Im actually using your software and the info from our discussion for an assingment that im doing in my university right now, so it would usefull to understand it better

Also, using Ti L line for quantification actually made things look better in the simulations. Perhaps i will also try it on the actual SEM.

Justinas

Hi Justinas,
I am surprised the Ti L line made things better as both Ti L and N K interfere with each other!   I worry that you might have compensating errors or something...

CalcZAF utilizes the Armstrong particle and thin film methods. Here's a link to a presentation he gave on thin film and particle corrections a few years ago:

http://www.microbeamanalysis.org/topical-conferences/particles-2009/PTC2009_Armstrong.pdf

Also, here is the original paper (you'll need academic access):

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/xrs.1300140408/pdf

Also, the source code for the corrections is here on Github:

https://github.com/openmicroanalysis/calczaf

[franzine]

Hi everybody,

my company is used to work with a laserflash to test thermophysical properties of thin films.
We are now looking to implement some software solutions, to help with our current analysis (we are using a TFA Laserflash right now).
Would EPMA be a capable alternative for us?

best regards

[John Donovan]

Hi everybody,

my company is used to work with a laserflash to test thermophysical properties of thin films.
We are now looking to implement some software solutions, to help with our current analysis (we are using a TFA Laserflash right now).
Would EPMA be a capable alternative for us?

best regards

Absolutely yes. 

About 60% of my lab work is thin film quantification using multi-voltage analysis.  The neat thing is that this MVA EPMA method can determine both the composition and thickness of the film.  Even with multiple films.

Our facility is mandated to provide priority service for commercial users, so if you are interested in having some EPMA characterization on your thin films to see how it works for you, you should contact my lab manager Julie Chouinard who runs the MicroAnalytical Facility at the University of Oregon.  Our web page is here:

http://camcor.uoregon.edu/

john

[Ben Buse]

Hi

I was just trying John Armstrong thin film correction. For a film without a substrate.

The instructions say set the particle diameter to the film thickness.

But then if you set the particle thickness factor (sample thickness to diameter ratio), which for a thin film would be very large. It is wrong.

If the thickness factor is 10, not 1, the totals are much higher, suggesting a thicker film.

It makes more sense setting the diameter to 100 microns, and the thickness factor to 0.0015, to give a 150nm film.

Something not right?

Thanks

Ben

[Ben Buse]

Sorry I am being stupid, and when 'thin film or thick polished section' is selected - you set particle diameter, and particle density, but keep particle thickness factor as 1?

It gives same answer as setting diameter to 100um, and factor to 0.0015.

Ben

[UofO EPMA Lab]

Sorry I am being stupid, and when 'thin film or thick polished section' is selected - you set particle diameter, and particle density, but keep particle thickness factor as 1?

It gives same answer as setting diameter to 100um, and factor to 0.0015.

Ben

Hi Ben,
Yes, keep the Particle Thickness Factor = 1.0, and just set the Particle Diameter to the actual film thickness in microns. Of course you need to set the density to a reasonable number. Often I simply adjust the thickness until the totals are close to 100% and that usually gives a reasonable thickness (see link below).

I wrote up a short tutorial on this to help remind everyone (including myself!) what the steps are:

https://probesoftware.com/smf/index.php?topic=1241.0

john