The Effects of Plasma Cleaning on Carbon and Hydrocarbon-contaminated Samples and Quantification of Decontamination in the Scanning Electron Microscope
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Plasma cleaning of specimens prior to electron microscopy has proven to be a highly effective method of mitigating specimen-borne contamination [1]. In plasma processing, oxidative or reductive gases react chemically with different materials. An oxygen plasma generated from air or oxygen/inert gas mixtures is highly effective in removing hydrocarbon contamination. The disassociated oxygen radicals created by the plasma chemically react with the hydrocarbon residues present on the object being processed, converting hydrocarbons to CO, CO2, and H2O, volatile species which are evacuated by the vacuum system. Previously hydrocarbon contamination has been monitored by means of quartz crystal microbalance experiments [2] and residual gas analysis [3] to generate quantitative measures of cleaning efficiency in test chambers at XEI Scientific. Nanoflight® movies recorded the sequence of hydrocarbon removal for a 1000 nm-thick layer of contamination in a SEM [4] with an estimated rate of removal of 1nm per 9 seconds. In this report we present quantitative data obtained from experiments in a SEM for real world cleaning rates for hydrocarbon decontamination and an exploration of the effect of plasma cleaning on graphite grids. Experiments were performed in a Zeiss Supra VP40 SEM equipped with an Evactron E50 E-TC® alternate gas plasma cleaner (Figure 1A). For a hydrocarbon standard, bare silicon squares were spin-coated with polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) to a thickness of ∼250 nm as shown in Figure 1B. The squares were placed at fixed distances from the plasma source, facing towards or facing away from the plasma source. Oxygen was used as the source gas and samples were cleaned at 50 Watts for 5 minutes. Carb-N-Grids™ (Figure 1C) made of graphite were cleaned with oxygen plasma at 50 Watts for 6 cycles of 5 minutes each. The results of experiments to plasma clean PMMA are shown in Figure 1D. The rate of hydrocarbon removal is strongly influenced by the distance of the specimen from the plasma source, generating removal rates from 0.75nm/sec at the closest point to 0.22 nm/sec at the most distant point when facing the plasma source. Sample distance has negligible effect on PMMA layer thickness reduction when facing away from the source, generating a relatively constant rate of 0.22 nm/sec. The images of graphite grids before (Figure 1E) and after (Figure 1F) plasma cleaning showed removal of surface water and organic material but minimal effect on the basic structure of the grids. These results will be compared with previous studies and Monte Carlo simulations to understand the contributions of line-of-sight and scattering of the reactive oxygen species to effective decontamination of complex interior surfaces of vacuum chambers and specimens. Typically, vacuum chambers can be plasma cleaned at turbo molecular pressures of 10-2 to 10-3 Torr with cleaning times of 2 - 10 minutes to maintain pristine conditions, with chambers returning to normal operating pressures in < 20 minutes. Current users of Evactron plasma cleaners report significant reduction in pump down time as well as easier maintenance of the pristine state of cleanliness of SEMs, CDSEMs, FIBs, TEMs HV and UHV chambers. (A) A Zeiss Supra VP40 SEM chamber rendering was created to exactly position the sample in relation to the Evactron during the experiments. The purple beam represents the aperture opening of the Evactron plasma system. The sample is directly facing the Evactron. (B) Silicon squares spin-coated with 250 nm PMMA are hydrocarbon standards. (C) A strip of graphite grids examined under a stereomicroscope. The grids are 3 mm in diameter and 70 nm thick. (D) Hydrocarbon removal rates as a function of distance from the plasma source and orientation to the plasma source. (E) Comparison of a graphite grid before plasma cleaning and (F) after plasma cleaning show removal of surface contamination.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».