4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

XPS, SIMS and FTIR-ATR characterization of boronized graphite from the thermonuclear plasma device RFX-mod

期刊

APPLIED SURFACE SCIENCE
卷 354, 期 -, 页码 408-419

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2015.04.109

关键词

Boronization; Getter; Wall conditioning

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper the characterization of a thin (tens of nanometers) boron layer on fine grain polycrystalline graphite substrate is presented. The boron film is used as conditioning technique for the full graphite wall of the Reversed Field eXperiment-modified (RFX-mod) experiment, a device for the magnetic confinement of plasmas of thermonuclear interest. Aim of the present analysis is to enlighten the chemical structure of the film, the trapping mechanism that makes it a getter for oxygen and hydrogen and the reason of its loss of effectiveness after exposure to about 100 s of hydrogen plasma. X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS), Secondary Ions Mass Spectrometry (SIMS) and Fourier Transform Infra Red spectroscopy in combination with the Attenuated Total Reflectance (FTIR-ATR) were used to obtain the structure and the chemical composition of graphitic samples as coated or coated and subsequently exposed to hydrogen plasma after boron deposition. The boron layers on the only coated samples were found to be amorphous hydrogenated boron carbide plus a variety of bonds like B-B, B-H, B-O, B-OH, C-C, C-H, C-O, C-OH. Both the thickness and the homogeneity of the layers were found to depend on the distance of the sample from the anode during the deposition. The samples contained oxygen along the layer thickness, at level of 5%, bound to boron. The gettering action of the boron is therefore already active during the deposition itself. The exposure to plasma caused erosion of the boron film and higher content of H and O bound to boron throughout the whole thickness. The interaction of the B layer with plasma is therefore a bulk phenomenon. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据