4.6 Article

Molecular Depth Profiling with Argon Gas Cluster Ion Beams

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY C
卷 119, 期 27, 页码 15316-15324

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcc.5b03482

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [9R01 GM113746-20A1]
  2. National Science Foundation [CHE-0908226]
  3. Division of Chemical Sciences at the Department of Energy [DE-FG02-06ER15803]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Argon gas cluster ion beams (Ar-GCIBs) are remarkable new projectiles for secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS) depth profiling of organic materials. However, the optimal cluster size and kinetic energy to provide the best quality of depth profiles, in terms of high ionization efficiency of the target molecules, little chemical damage, and short experiment time, for organic materials is not fully understood. Hence, the effect of cluster size and kinetic energy on the quality of molecular depth profiling is investigated on a simple platform composed of trehalose thin films to acquire more fundamental information about the ion/solid interaction. The results suggest that the sputter yield (Y/n) of argon clusters is linearly dependent upon kinetic energy per atom (En). When E/n > 5 eV/atom, normal depth profiles are obtained with relatively high sputter yields. When E/n <= 5 eV/atom, however, distorted depth profiles in the steady state region are observed, which exhibit a low sputter yield and variable ionization efficiency. As a consequence of these observations, it was concluded that high kinetic energy increases the useful molecular ion yield of trehalose and that Ar-n(+) clusters with a small E/n value minimize ion beam bombardment induced chemical damage. Hence optimal conditions for molecular depth profiling will be obtained using the highest kinetic energy with the largest clusters while maintaining a value of E/n near a threshold value of 5 eV/atom. In general, this study provides insight into selecting optimal Ar-GCIB characteristics for molecular depth profiling of organic materials.

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

4.6
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