A COMPARISON OF X-RAY PHOTOELECTRON-SPECTROSCOPY AND AUGER-ELECTRON SPECTROSCOPY DEPTH PROFILES FOR MAGNESIUM IMPLANTS

Citation
Ja. Schreifels et al., A COMPARISON OF X-RAY PHOTOELECTRON-SPECTROSCOPY AND AUGER-ELECTRON SPECTROSCOPY DEPTH PROFILES FOR MAGNESIUM IMPLANTS, Applied surface science, 84(1), 1995, pp. 23-29
Citations number
21
Categorie Soggetti
Physics, Condensed Matter","Chemistry Physical","Materials Science, Coatings & Films
Journal title
ISSN journal
01694332
Volume
84
Issue
1
Year of publication
1995
Pages
23 - 29
Database
ISI
SICI code
0169-4332(1995)84:1<23:ACOXPA>2.0.ZU;2-9
Abstract
The analysis of depth profiles when magnesium is present gives rise to several analytical problems with either X-ray photoelectron spectrosc opy (XPS) or Auger electron spectroscopy (AES). With both techniques t he relative sensitivity is low for the main transition usually employe d, i.e., the 2s photoemission line in XPS and the KLL transition in el ectron-excited AES. With XPS, the A1 X-ray-excited Mg KLL peak has a r elative intensity that is greater than the 2s transition, but not with Mg radiation. The peak-to-peak height of the electron-excited AES pea k can vary with the chemical state of Mg. Also, in some instances over lapping peaks can cause problems. In this study Mg was implanted into metal foils at various levels. Depth profiles were obtained with both XPS and AES, and the instrument-based quantitative analysis computer r outines were used with slight modifications. It was found that each te chnique had its own set of advantages, and both approaches gave roughl y comparable profiles. The estimated maximum amounts were below those anticipated from the implant conditions. As expected with XPS, chemica l effects could easily be determined. However, a relative sensitivity factor was needed to use the X-ray-excited KLL Auger transition. With AES certain low-level contaminants were more easily detected and monit ored. Overall, the XPS profiles appeared to offer better results in mo st respects for these systems. Other factors, e.g., time of analysis, data treatment methods, detection limits, etc., will be discussed also .