Specific Process Knowledge/Characterization/XPS/Processing/Basics/1intro: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| (8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Feedback to this page''': '''[mailto:labadviser@danchip.dtu.dk?Subject=Feed%20back%20from%20page%20http://labadviser.danchip.dtu.dk/index.php?title=Specific_Process_Knowledge/Characterization/XPS/Processing/Basics/1intro click here]''' | |||
<!--Checked for updates on 14/5-2018 - ok/jmli --> | |||
<!--Checked for updates on 24/8-2021. ok/ jmli--> | |||
<!--Checked for updates on 9/5-2023 - ok/jmli --> | |||
{{Contentbydryetch}} | |||
<!--Checked for updates on 4/9-2025 - ok/jmli --> | |||
== Open data and save the processing document == | == Open data and save the processing document == | ||
| Line 67: | Line 75: | ||
Several things are worth noting: | Several things are worth noting: | ||
* A peak table pops up above the spectrum. It contains information (which elements, fitted atomic percentages etc.) obtained in the automatic fitting routine. One can still scroll through the levels (if more levels in a depth profile are available) but the elements fitted will not change. | * A peak table pops up above the spectrum. It contains information (which elements, fitted atomic percentages etc.) obtained in the automatic fitting routine. One can still scroll through the etch levels (if more etch levels in a depth profile are available) but the elements fitted will not change. | ||
* Only a fraction of the peaks in the spectrum have labels. The reason is that only the peaks from the peak table have a label - the remaining peaks in the spectrum are NOT unidentified elements but peaks (core levels or Auger transitions) of the elements already identified in the peak table. | * Only a fraction of the peaks in the spectrum have labels. The reason is that only the peaks from the peak table have a label - the remaining peaks in the spectrum are NOT unidentified elements but peaks (core levels or Auger transitions) of the elements already identified in the peak table. | ||
| Line 74: | Line 82: | ||
<span style="font-size: 90%; text-align: right;">[[Specific_Process_Knowledge/Characterization/XPS/Processing/Basics/1intro#top|Go to top of this page]]</span> | <span style="font-size: 90%; text-align: right;">[[Specific_Process_Knowledge/Characterization/XPS/Processing/Basics/1intro#top|Go to top of this page]]</span> | ||
To add the peaks that are not present in current level (for copper and silicon), click 'Manual Peak ID' as shown below. A window called 'Manual Peak ID' opens - here select Cu and Si. | To add the peaks that are not present in current etch level (for copper and silicon), click 'Manual Peak ID' as shown below. A window called 'Manual Peak ID' opens - here select Cu and Si. | ||
[[File:XPS-basics06d.jpg|700px]] | [[File:XPS-basics06d.jpg|700px]] | ||
| Line 95: | Line 103: | ||
* '''Which peaks to add''': The two spin-orbit doublets Si2p and Cu2p should be treated differently. The Si2p doublet peak is treated as one peak because of the small spin-orbit splitting (the splitting is 0.63 eV less than the 1 eV step size of the survey spectrum, see [[Specific Process Knowledge/Characterization/XPS/Processing/Basics/2highres#anchor_peaktable1|table in the next section]]). In contrast, the Cu2p doublet has some 20 eV's of spin-orbit splitting - as such the peaks may be fitted individually. The best way of fitting and quatinfying is to omit one of the peaks as is the case with the Zn2p doublet. This is easily done by removing the checkmark in the 'Q' column of one of the Cu2p peaks. | * '''Which peaks to add''': The two spin-orbit doublets Si2p and Cu2p should be treated differently. The Si2p doublet peak is treated as one peak because of the small spin-orbit splitting (the splitting is 0.63 eV less than the 1 eV step size of the survey spectrum, see [[Specific Process Knowledge/Characterization/XPS/Processing/Basics/2highres#anchor_peaktable1|table in the next section]]). In contrast, the Cu2p doublet has some 20 eV's of spin-orbit splitting - as such the peaks may be fitted individually. The best way of fitting and quatinfying is to omit one of the peaks as is the case with the Zn2p doublet. This is easily done by removing the checkmark in the 'Q' column of one of the Cu2p peaks. | ||
* '''Etching through thin layers: Probe depth and etch rates''': It looks as if the copper layer is contaminated with ZnO - at least the signals of Zn and O are not zero. There are several explanations for this: | * '''Etching through thin layers: Probe depth and etch rates''': It looks as if the copper layer is contaminated with ZnO - at least the signals of Zn and O are not zero. There are several explanations for this: | ||
** The etching is too aggressive so the Cu layer is removed within too few levels. Lower the parameters of the ion bombardment to have more points. | ** The etching is too aggressive so the Cu layer is removed within too few etch levels. Lower the parameters of the ion bombardment to have more points. | ||
** The etching is non-uniform across the area that is probed. | ** The etching is non-uniform across the area that is probed. | ||
** The probing depth is long compared to the thickness of Cu layer. | ** The probing depth is long compared to the thickness of Cu layer. | ||
| Line 101: | Line 109: | ||
The data may be exported to Excel or Word by using the options on the 'W Reporting' tab next to the 'Display Modes' in the upper right corner of the GUI. | The data may be exported to Excel or Word by using the options on the 'W Reporting' tab next to the 'Display Modes' in the upper right corner of the GUI. | ||
Click [[Specific Process Knowledge/Characterization/XPS/Processing/Basics/2highres|here]] to continue the analysis on the high resolution spectra. | Click [[Specific Process Knowledge/Characterization/XPS/Processing/Basics/2highres|'''here''']] to continue the analysis on the high resolution spectra. | ||
<span id="anchor_1introbottom"></span> | <span id="anchor_1introbottom"></span> | ||