Home

Search

Collections

Journals

About

Contact us

My IOPscience

Secondary electron emission of 10-100 keV electrons from transparent films of Al and Au

This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.
1977 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 10 805
(http://iopscience.iop.org/0022-3727/10/5/022)
View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more
Download details:
IP Address: 148.247.198.220
This content was downloaded on 10/01/2017 at 21:22
Please note that terms and conditions apply.

You may also be interested in:

Enhanced secondary electron emission from multilayer surfaces: experiment and Monte Carlo
simulation
K L Hunter, I K Snook and H K Wagenfeld
Backscattering of 10-100 keV electrons from thick targets
E H Darlington
Measurements of the back-scattering and absorption of 15-60 keV electrons for transparent solid
films at various angles of incidence
G Neubert and S Rogaschewski
Anisotropic X-ray generation in thin and bulk single crystals (of gold)
B Neumann and L Reimer
Secondary electron emission due to primary and backscattered electrons
K Kanaya and H Kawakatsu
Secondary electron and backscattering measurements for polycrystalline copper with a spherical
retarding-field analyser
T Koshikawa and R Shimizu
Monte Carlo calculation of the contribution of backscattered electrons to secondary electron
emission from aluminium
K L Hunter, I K Snook, D L Swingler et al.
Backscattering of 05-10 keV electrons from solid targets
E H Darlington and V E Cosslett

J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., Vol. 10, 1977. Printed in Great Britain.

0 1977

Secondary electron emission of 10-100 keV electrons

from transparent fdms of A1 and Au
L Reimer and H Drescher
Physikalisches Institut der Universitat Munster, 44 Munster, Schlossplatz 7,
Federal Republic of Germany

Received 5 October 1976

Abstract. Measurements of the secondary electron yields 6 and ST on the incident

and the opposite surfaces respectively of transparent AI and Au films are reported for
the normal incidence of 10-100 keV electrons, using an apparatus with accurate separation of secondary, backscattered and transmitted electrons. Results are discussed for
the ratios /J and /JT of the mean secondary electron yield of respectively backscattered
and transmitted electrons for one incident primary electron. The results are compared
with calculated values using the energy and angular distributions of the backscattered
and transmitted electrons. They can be explained by the assumption that the mean
secondary electron yield of one primary, backscattered or transmitted electron is
proportional to the Bethe energy loss inside the exit depth of the secondaries. There
is no experimental evidence that the conservation of momentum causes an additional
factor r to be used for the secondary electron emission of electrons with a momentum
directed outside the surface. Reported values of /J and r obtained with the secondary
electron detector of a scanning electron microscope cannot be accurate, because of
the incomplete detector efficiency and the unverifiable generation of secondaries by
the backscattered and transmitted electrons in the specimen chamber.

1. Introduction
The emission of secondary electrons (SE) by primary electrons (PE) in the energy range
EO=10-100 keV is of interest for the interpretation of contrast in scanning electron
microscopy or if one wants to use the SE signal from either the electron incident (top)
or the exit (bottom) surface of transparent films for the imaging of surface structures
in scanning transmission electron microscopy. The secondary electron yield 6 is composed of the contributions
from the primary electrons and SEE from the reflected
(backscattered) electrons (RE) :

where r ) is the backscattering coefficient. Secondary electrons are conventionally defined

as having exit energies E < 5 0 e V and backscattered electrons have E>50eV. The
ratio /3 is larger than 1 because the RE show a broader energy and angular distribution.
One can assume that an electron with energy EeEo and an angle 0 between the exit
direction and surface normal makes a fractional contribution

805

806

L Reimer and H Drescher

to the total secondary electron yield. The proportionality to (E/Eo)-0*8

can be concluded
from experiments resulting in 6 EO-0.8(Reimer et aZl968, Reimer 1973) for EO=10-100
keV and the fact that 7) is nearly independent of Eo in this range. One expects theoretically
from the Bethe stopping formula that 6 I dE/ds 1 E-1 In (E/I) (I= mean ionization
potential, Kanter 1961a, b). This energy dependence also approximately obeys an
EO-0.8law for EO=10-100 keV (Drescher et aZl970).
The secondary electron yield ST generated by the transmitted electrons (TE) on the
bottom surface of a transparent film can be analogously expressed by

8~ =SPE, TPVT

(3)
where YT is the transmission coefficient. Transmitted electrons are defined as having
exit energies E > 50 eV.
There are contradictory values of in the literature (Seiler 1967, Robinson 1974).
Robinson (1975) concluded from measurements in a scanning electron microscope that
a factor r more SE are generated on the exit surface of a transparent film than on the
incident surface and that the ratio r = 4 for A1 and r = 6 for Au. A scanning electron
microscope is not however a suitable instrument for measuring secondary electron
yields because of the unknown collection efficiency of the specimen-detector geometry
and the SE generation by the RE on the walls of the specimen chamber (Drescher et aZ
1970). We have therefore measured 6 of the primary and backscattered electrons and ST
of the transmitted electrons as a function of film thickness and electron energy in a
special apparatus. The backscattering coefficient 7 and the transmission. YT are measured
in the same apparatus because of their importance in discussing equations (1) and (3).
2. Experimental technique
Figure 1 shows the experimental arrangement for measuring (a) 8 ~ TT,
, and (b) 6, 7,
which can be positioned in the plate chamber of a Siemens 100 keV electron microscope.
Electron b e o m E, = l 0 - 1 0 0 k e V
d

-i-i
I

Figure 1. Experimental arrangement for measuring (a) transmission t ) and

~
secondary
electron yield ST at the electron exit surface of transparent films; (b) backscattering
coefficient 7 and secondary electron yield 13 on the electron incident surface.

Secondary electron emission from transparent AI and Au films

807

The entrance aperture of 200 pm is shielded by a larger aperture biased with - 125 V
to reject SE generated at the aperture. The thin films are evaporated on to glass slides
with a NaH2P04 intermediate layer for improved flotation of the films on water. The
films are mounted on metallic cylinders of 2 mm inner diameter. A cylinder is fixed
to a metallic box, which can be biased by a voltage u b . This potential varies the incident
energy of the PE but only of the order of 1 % at 10 keV. The film is surrounded by a
hemispherical grid with a high transparency at zero bias. The lower box in (a) and the
upper one in (b) are biased at +87 V with respect to this grid. Therefore SE generated
by the TE or RE on the walls of the box return because of the retarding field between
grid and box. The area of the film is small compared to the dimensions of the box,
which results in a low probability of electrons backscattered at the box hitting the
specimen again. But with this arrangement, penetration of the film by some of the
transmitted electrons causing a contribution to the backscattering coefficient cannot be
avoided.

-- --------------I

IRE+SE

I
I
I

I
i

Figure 2 shows a typical retarding field curve z ( u b ) for backscattering with the
current from the grid and the box in figure l(b). The incident current IO is obtained
by connecting the upper and lower boxes together. The sharp step in the retarding
field curve near Ub =0 demonstrates the correct collection efficiency and separation
of the SE and RE. For ub > 0, the current I is constant, for u b < 0, I shows a small decrease
with decreasing Ub because of the tails in the energy distributions of the SE and RE.
Because of the convention that SE are electrons with exit energies smaller than 50 eV,
we used only bias voltages u b = f 50 V for measuring 6 and 7. For measuring 6~ and
7~ the two boxes are rotated 180".
The measurements were made at a pressure of 10-3 Pa. Because a large area was
irradiated with a low beam current, (of the order of lo= 10-8 A), the contamination
of the specimen can be neglected.

808

L Reimer and H Drescher

3. Results and discussion

Figures 3-6 show measurements of 6 , ~ ,ST and 7~ on the same set of A1 and Au films.
The extrapolation of the backscattering coefficient 7 to zero film thickness in figure
4(a, b) shows positive values caused by transmitted electrons which are backscattered
V

J
V

100

200

300

LOO

5 00

A"'

200

LOO
600
Film thickness

8 00

1000

I
1200

t ( p g cm-')
Figure 3. Secondary electron yield S on the electron incident surface as a function
of the thickness t of (a) A1 and (6) Au films for different energies EO of the incident;
electrons. V E0=9*3keV; x 11.0keV; A 13.4keV; 0 11.3keV; 0 25.2keV
32.4 keV; 4 41.5 keV; Ir, 62.1 keV;
81.8 keV; 0 102 keV.

Secondary electron emissionfrom transparent Al and Au jilms

809

in the lower box of figure l(b) passing through the film again. More accurate experiments have been done by Seidel, who presented this backscattering of transmitted
electrons by means of a cylindrical carbon collector (see Krefting and Reimer 1973),
but a smaller positive value still remained which might be caused by fast secondary

-$

I
0

100

200

300

LOO

200

LOO

I
1000

1200
I

800

600

Fllm thlckness f i p g

I
500

Cm-)

Figure 4. Backscattering coefficient q on the electron incident surface as a function

of the thickness f if (U) AI and (b) Au films for different energies EO of the incident
electrons. EOvalues are given in the caption of figure 3.

810

L Reimer and H Drescher

electrons. However, the differences in these experiments are unimportant for the discussion of the results in this paper concerning secondary electron emission, and we
therefore use these experiments on the same films with the same apparatus.
The measurements of 6 in figure 3 confirm that the increase in 6 with increasing
film thickness t is caused by the increase in the backscattering coefficient r] (figure 4).

Film thickness t ( p g cm-*)

Figure 5. Secondary electron yield ST on the exit surface as a function of the thickness
t of (U) A1 and (6) Au films for different energies EOof the incident electrons. EOvalues
are given in the caption of figure 3.

Secondary electron emission from transparent AI and Au films

811

Figure 7 shows an example of 6 plotted against 7. One obtains the value ~ P Efrom
equation (1) by extrapolating to zero film thickness, and the ratio ,8 from the slope
of the straight line (table 1). One can argue that ,8 has to depend on film thickness
because equation (2) shows that ,8 depends on the energy and angular distribution of
the RE. The energy distribution of the RE from very thin films contains relatively more

Film

thickness

(pig cm-)

Figure 6. Transmission coefficient TT on the electron exit surface as a function of

the thickness t of ( U ) A1 and (6)Au films for different energies EOof the incident electrons.
EOare given in the caption of figure 3.

L Reimer and H Drescher

Figure 7. Plot of 6 versus 7 for Au films at E0=32*4keV calculated from equation (1).

electrons with smaller energy losses and the maximum of the emission is not in the
backward direction. Therefore one can expect a larger mean value of sec 0 than for
very thick films with an angular distribution approximately proportional to cos 0. It
follows that with increasing film thickness, the ratio /3 is more independent of film
thickness because the energy distribution causes an increase and the angular distribution
a decrease in the contribution to /3 with increasing film thickness.
On extrapolating the values of ST (figure 5 ) to zero thickness, one obtains the values
of BPE, T given in table 1 which are not significantly different from the values of SPE
on the incident surface. The small differences in 8 p and
~ &E, T therefore do not confirm
the assumption of Robinson (1975) that a larger factor r more electrons are generated
on the exit than on the incident surface.
ST increases at first with increasing film thickness because of the decrease in the
energy of the transmitted electrons, and then shows a decrease for large thicknesses
Table 1. Dependence of the secondary electron yields SPE and SPE,T caused by the
incident primary electrons at the incident and the exit surfaces respectively of thin AI
and Au films on the electron energy EO./3 is the ratio of the mean secondary electron
generation of one backscattered electron to that one of a primary electron. R is the
electron range
Aluminium
EO(kev)
R (pg cm-2)
8PE

8PE,T

B
Gold
EO(kev)
R (pg cm-2)
SPE
aPE, T

/3

9.3
238
0.21
0.21
2.0

11.0
304
0.17
0.16
2.5

13.4
420
0.15
0.15
1.8

17.3
683
0.11
0.12
2.8

25.2
1550
0.08
0.09
2.1

32.4

9.3
240
0.22
0.26
1.9

11.0
310
0.20
0.23
1.7

13.4
410
0.17
0.19
1.6

17.3
580
0.12
0.13
2.1

25.2
990
0.08
0.10
2.9

32.4
1450
0.07
0.08
2.3

0.06
0.06
2.4

Secondary electron emissionfrom transparent A1 and AuJiIms

813

because of the decrease in the number of transmitted electrons (figure 6). Therefore
the dependence of 8~ on thickness shown in figure 5 has a maximum which is, for some
electron energies, outside the range of film thicknesses employed.
From equation (3) one can plot ST=8T/8PE,T and TT against a reduced film thickness
t / R (figure 8). R is the extrapolated electron range (table 1) from the straight part of

X
4

la I

lb I
d

X
A
0

v
CI

X
A

xn v
0

8
,

0.5

1.0

1.5

flR

Figure 8. Plot of / ~ T = ~ T / ~ P E and

, T qT versus the reduced thickness t/R of (U) A1 and
(b) Au films (R=range of electrons, see table 1). Comparison with calculated
is made from equation (5). EOvalues are given in the caption of figure 3.
values (0)

the transmission curves of figure 6 (see examples for 13.4 keV in figure 6(a) and for
25.2 keV in figure 6(b)), and it can be seen that there is a large increase inPT with increasing
t/R. The data for / 3 plotted
~
in figure 8 show a wide scatter that increase with increasing
t/R even for a given value of EO,because the experimental values of 8~ and TT show a
scatter for different films and one has to divide by small values of V T with a large per~
centage error at large t/R. At the reduced thickness t / R = 1 , AI films show a l g value
of the order of 3 and Au films of the order of 2. This difference can be qualitatively
explaned by differences in the Bethe range RB and the practical electron range R . RB is
about 2R for AI and the electrons have therefore lost most of their primary energy
and generate more secondary electrons because of equation (2). RB is about 4R for
Au and the mean energy of transmitted electrons is therefore larger because many
electrons can penetrate the film with lower energy losses. Because of these differences
in the ratio RB/R,the transmission VT (figure 6) of the Au films also shows a longer tail
for larger thicknesses than VT of the A1 films.

814

L Reimer and H Drescher

4. Calculation of

p and g,

To interpret the values of /3 and / 3 it~ is of interest to calculate them from equation (2)
with results concerning the energy and angular distribution f ( E , e) = dq(E, e)/dE dR of
the RE and TE:

Completef(E, e) values are not available. Measurements and theoretical approximations

exist for the angular distribution of the RE and TE without considering their energy
distribution. In addition, the total energy distribution has been measured by a retarding
field method and energy distributions in distinct directions 0 are also known. It is
therefore an approximation if /3 is calculated from a product f(E, e)=fi(E)fi(B):

If thefi(E) distribution of Kulenkampff and Spyra (1954) for backscattered electrons

is used, a value of 1.7 (Al) and 1.5 (Pt) is obtained for the first factor in equation (5).
If fi(e)-cos 6 is assumed, the second factor has the value 2. Experimental angular
distributions of the backscattered electrons show higher values for O=O (Reimer and
Pfefferkorn 1973) and result in 1.72 (AI) and 1.68 (Au). The resulting values/3=2.92
(Al) and /3=2.52 (Au) are larger than the experimental values in table 1. But these
calculated values are upper limits for p. One has to bear in mind that backscattered
electrons with low energy losses are concentrated on large 0 values and show a low
probability for 0 =0, whereas the angular distribution of the electrons with higher
energy losses are more concentrated on smaller 0 than the f i ( 0 ) distribution employed.
Monte Carlo calculations by Murata (1973) result in /3 = 3 (Al) and 2.2 (Au) and confirm
these low values of /3 in the energy range EO=10-100 keV.
For transmitted electrons, the angular distribution for thicker films is given approximately by fz(6) cos2 0 (Cosslett and Thomas 1964a, b) and the second factor in
equation (5) is 1.5. Measurements of f i ( E ) are only available for 6=0. We used our
own unpublished measurements which show lower values for higher energy losses
than those of Cosslett and Thomas and obtained the calculated values of / 3 shown
~
in figure 8(a, b) which have the same trends as the measured values. For the thinner
films we also used the measured valuesf2(19) which are in agreement with those of Cosslett
and Thomas. One has to expect that these calculated values are lower limits for / 3
because the energy distribution for larger 0 shows larger probabilities for higher energy
losses because of longer mean electron paths inside the film.
N

5. Conclusions

The measured secondary electron emission of 10-100 keV electrons at the electron
incident and exit surface of transparent A1 and Au films can be explained by the energy
and angular distribution of the backscattered and transmitted electrons. These electrons
contribute to the secondary electron emission in proportion to their Bethe energy loss
within the small exit depth of the secondary electrons. The ratio /3 for the mean secondary

Secondary electron emissionfrom transparent A1 and Au films

815

electron yield of one backscattered electron to that of a primary electron has a value
of the order of 2. The increasing values of / 3 ~for transmitted electrons with increasing
film thickness can also be explained in terms of the energy and angular distribution
of the transmitted electrons. There is no experimental evidence that electrons with
momentum directed out of the surface generate more secondaries than those with
momentum directed into it.
References
Cosslett VE and Thomas R N 1964a Br. J. Appl. Phys. 15 883-907 1283-1300

-1964b Br. J. Appl. Phys. 15 1283-1300

Drescher H, Reimer L and Seidel H 1970 2.Angew. Phys. 29 331-6

Kanter H 1961a Phys. Reu. 121 677-81
-1961b Phys. Rev. 121 681-4
Krefting E R and Reimer L 1973 Quantitative Analysis with Electron Microprobes and Secondary Ion
Mass Spectroscopy, KernforschungsanlageJulich Jiil-Conf-8 p 114-48
Kulenkampff H and Spyra W 1954 2.Phys. 137 416-25
Murata K 1973Proc. Symp. on Scanning Electron Microscopy ed. 0 Johari and I Corvin (Chicago: IITRI)
267-76
Reimer L 1973 Scanning Electron Microscopy: Systems and Applications Con$ Ser. No. 18 (The Institute
of Physics: London and Bristol) pp 120-5
Reimer L and Pfefferkorn G 1973 Raster-Elektronenmikroskopie(Springer-Verlag: Berlin) p 39
Reimer L, Seidel H and Gilde H 1968 Beitr. Elektr. Mikr. Direktabb. Oberflachen (Munster: RemyVerlag) 1 53-65
Robinson V N E 1974 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 7 2169-73
-1975 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 8 74-6
Seiler H 1967 Z. Angew. Phys. 22 249-63