semi合集-English.pdf - 第4197页

SEMI F72-1102 © SEMI 2002 8 that the Oxygen concentratio n profile initially in creases to a maximum, then decreases. This is typical of Oxygen concentration profiles seen on actual samples, which will gen erally have so…

100%1 / 7923
SEMI F72-1102 © SEMI 2002 7
Theoretical
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Angstroms
Atomic Concentration
Cr Fe Ni Mo O C
Figure A1-4
Composition Versus Depth of a Pure Cr
2
O
3
Layer
on Stainless Steel
A1-4.2 The second factor to notice is the thickness of
the oxide. Historically, the FWHM (Full Width Half
Maximum; the width of a peak measured at half its
maximum height) of the oxygen profile has been used
as the measure of oxide thickness. It is apparent in
Figures A1-4 and A1-5 that this underestimates the
oxide thickness by 15 to 20 %.
A1-4.3 It should also be noted that the Cr:Fe ratio
measured from Figures A1-4 and A1-5 has its
maximum value at the initial surface, decreasing as the
depth profile progresses, whereas the actual Cr:Fe ratio
in Figure A1-4 is infinite down to 25 angstroms. Most
actual depth profiles exhibit a maximum of the Cr:Fe
ratio at some depth below the initial surface, referred to
as the depth of maximum enrichment. This is a
consequence of variation in the actual composition of
the oxide, possibly having a higher concentration of Fe
near the surface, a phenomenon commonly termed a
“detached iron oxide layer”, or of contamination on the
surface, generally hydrocarbons. These are discussed
in the next section
A1-5 Effects of Detached Iron Oxide Layer
and Surface Contamination
A1-5.1 The model composition profile of Figure A1-6
shows 3 angstroms of pure Fe
2
O
3
over 22 angstroms of
pure Cr
2
O
3
on 316L stainless steel. This is a model of a
detached iron oxide layer. Figure A1-7 is the
theoretical depth profile of this model derived assuming
a depth of analysis of 5λ. Note that the initial Cr value
in the profile is higher than the Fe value, even though
the surface is pure Fe
2
O
3
. This is a consequence of the
depth of analysis detecting the Cr from levels beneath
the surface. The Cr:Fe ratio for this model has its
maximum value at 3 angstroms below the initial
surface. The theoretical depth profile using a depth of
analysis of 3λ is very similar
Convoluted 5 Lambda
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Angstroms
Atomic Concentration
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Cr Fe Ni Mo O C Cr:Fe
Figure A1-5a
Theoretical Depth Profile of Figure 5 Assuming 5λ
Depth of Analysis
Convoluted 3 Lambda
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Angstroms
Atomic Concentration
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Cr Fe Ni Mo O C Cr:Fe
Figure A1-5b
Theoretical Depth Profile of Figure 5 Assuming 3λ
Depth of Analysis
A1-6 Effects of Hydrocarbon Contamination
A1-6.1 The model composition profile of Figure A1-8
shows 3 angstroms of pure carbon over 22 angstroms of
pure Cr
2
O
3
on 316L stainless steel, representing an
idealized model of the adsorbed hydrocarbon
contamination generally found on stainless steel
surfaces exposed to the atmosphere. Figure A1-9 is the
theoretical depth profile of this model assuming a depth
of analysis of 5λ. In this case the O, Cr and Fe atomic
concentration values are reduced by the presence of the
carbon until the depth profiling proceeds past the
carbon, but they have the same relative values (ie: same
Cr:Fe ratio) versus depth as derived in the
uncontaminated model. The maximum of the Cr:Fe
ratio is seen to be at the initial surface. Although the
actual oxide thickness is less in this model, the FWHM
measure of the oxide thickness from the depth profile is
the same due to the presence of the carbon layer. Note
SEMI F72-1102 © SEMI 2002 8
that the Oxygen concentration profile initially increases
to a maximum, then decreases. This is typical of
Oxygen concentration profiles seen on actual samples,
which will generally have some adsorbed hydrocarbon
contamination on the surface.
Theoretical
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Angstroms
Atomic Concentration
Cr Fe Ni Mo O C
Figure A1-6
Composition Versus Depth of a Fe
2
O
3
Layer Over a
Cr
2
O
3
Layer on Stainless Steel
Convoluted 5 Lambda
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Angstroms
Atomic Concentration
0
5
10
15
20
25
Cr Fe Ni Mo O C Cr:Fe
Figure A1-7
Theoretical Depth Profile of Figure A1-6 Assuming
5λ Depth of Analysis
Theoretical
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Angstroms
Atomic Concentration
Cr Fe Ni Mo O C
Figure A1-8
Composition Versus Depth of a Carbon Layer Over
a Cr
2
O
3
Layer on Stainless Steel
Convoluted 5 Lambda
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Angstroms
Atomic Concentration
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Cr Fe Ni Mo O C Cr :Fe
Figure A1-9
Theoretical Depth Profile of Figure A1-8 Assuming
5λ Depth of Analysis
A1-7 Effects of Hydrocarbon Contamination
over Detached Iron Oxide Layer
A1-7.1 The model composition profile of Figure A1-
10 shows a 3 angstrom carbon layer over 3 angstroms
of pure Fe
2
O
3
over 19 angstroms of pure Cr
2
O
3
on 316L
stainless steel. Figure A1-11 is the theoretical depth
profile of this model assuming a depth of analysis of 5
λ. This profile is seen to be similar to the depth profiles
generally observed for passivated stainless steel. The
Cr:Fe ratio maximum occurs below the initial surface,
and the initial surface atomic concentrations of the
elements of interest are diluted by the presence of the
carbon layer on the surface. The oxide thickness, as
measured by the FWHM technique, is affected by both
SEMI F72-1102 © SEMI 2002 9
the presence of the carbon layer and the depth of
analysis.
Theoretical
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Angstroms
Atomic Concentration
Cr Fe Ni Mo O C
Figure A1-10
Composition Versus Depth of a Carbon Layer Over
a Fe
2
O
3
Layer Over a Cr
2
O
3
Layer on Stainless Steel
Convoluted 5 Lambda
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Angstroms
Atomic Concentration
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Cr Fe Ni Mo O C Cr:Fe
Figure A1-11
Theoretical Depth Profile of Figure 11 Assuming 5λ
Depth of Analysis
A1-8
A1-8.1 It must be emphasized that these derived depth
profiles are for models with perfect interfaces and
perfect compositions instead of the compositional
gradients observed in real systems. Additional
measurement uncertainties result from roughness and
non-planarity of the surface, and from differential
sputtering rates for different chemical species during
depth profiling.
A1-8.2 The depth profiles of real systems must be
interpreted with an understanding of the effects
described in this appendix and a realization that they
are not ideal. The same considerations pertain to ESCA
depth profile analysis.
NOTICE: SEMI makes no warranties or
representations as to the suitability of the standards set
forth herein for any particular application. The
determination of the suitability of the standard is solely
the responsibility of the user. Users are cautioned to
refer to manufacturer's instructions, product labels,
product data sheets, and other relevant literature,
respecting any materials or equipment mentioned
herein. These standards are subject to change without
notice.
By publication of this standard, Semiconductor
Equipment and Materials International (SEMI) takes no
position respecting the validity of any patent rights or
copyrights asserted in connection with any items
mentioned in this standard. Users of this standard are
expressly advised that determination of any such patent
rights or copyrights, and the risk of infringement of
such rights are entirely their own responsibility.
Copyright by SEMI® (Semiconductor Equipment and Materials
International), 3081 Zanker Road, San Jose, CA 95134. Reproduction o
the contents in whole or in part is forbidden without express written
consent of SEMI.