21 October 2015 Does your SEM really tell the truth? How would you know? Part 4: Charging and its mitigation
Author Affiliations +
Proceedings Volume 9636, Scanning Microscopies 2015; 963605 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2195344
Event: SPIE Scanning Microscopies, 2015, Monterey, California, United States
Abstract
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.
© (2015) COPYRIGHT Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE). Downloading of the abstract is permitted for personal use only.
Michael T. Postek, Michael T. Postek, András E. Vladár, András E. Vladár, } "Does your SEM really tell the truth? How would you know? Part 4: Charging and its mitigation", Proc. SPIE 9636, Scanning Microscopies 2015, 963605 (21 October 2015); doi: 10.1117/12.2195344; https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2195344
PROCEEDINGS
12 PAGES


SHARE
Back to Top