4.5 Review

Challenges in porosity characterization of thin films: Cross-evaluation of different techniques

期刊

出版社

A V S AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1116/6.0002793

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The review article provides an overview of important techniques for evaluating the porosity of thin films. These methods include ellipsometric porosimetry (EP), positron annihilation spectroscopy (PAS/PALS), and grazing incidence small-angle x-ray scattering (GISAXS). The article highlights the challenges and limitations of each method and demonstrates their unique insights into pore structure. The cross-evaluation of different methods enhances understanding of complex pore structures and emphasizes the importance of appropriate data modeling and interpretation.
The review article provides an overview of the most important and popular techniques for evaluating the porosity of thin films developed for various applications. These methods include ellipsometric porosimetry (EP), positron annihilation (lifetime) spectroscopy (PAS/PALS), and grazing incidence small-angle x-ray scattering (GISAXS). Special attention is given to the challenges associated with interpreting the measured data and the inherent limitations of each method. It is demonstrated that EP, GISAXS, and PALS are all informative for studying the pore structure in thin films, with each method offering unique insights. GISAXS, in particular, allows for the evaluation of three-dimensional mesostructures, including pore arrangement, pore spacing, and structural order. On the other hand, PALS has a unique advantage in its capability to analyze extremely small isolated pores (free volume). The advantage of EP lies in its simplicity and the possibility to analyze multiple properties from the same set of measurements. The cross-evaluation of different methods offers important insights into the complex pore structure of materials, highlighting the significance of appropriate modeling and interpretation of data.

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

4.5
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