Applied Surface Science 206 (2003) 187±195
Emission of CsM‡ clusters
Yu. Kudriavtsev*, A. Villegas, A. Godines, R. Asomoza
Departmento Ingenieria Electrica-SEES, Centro de Investigacion y Estudios Avanzados del IPN, Avenue IPN # 2508,
Apdo Postal 14-740 Col San Pedro Zacatenco, C.P. 07340, Mexico D.F., Mexico
Received 21 April 2002; received in revised form 21 April 2002; accepted 24 October 2002
Abstract
Emission of CsM‡ ion clusters (where M represents different elements) was studied experimentally for different elements and
matrixes. We analyzed the ionization probability of sputtered Cs particles under different oxygen pressure and found that it
varied from 0.05 to 1, and depends on analyzed matrix. Experimental results for CsM‡ emission were compared with predictions
of an existing model of CsM‡ ion formation: some con¯ict was noticed. We developed another model of CsM‡ ion emission
based on our results and on data of computer simulations, taken from literature. The model considers recombination of
independently sputtered Cs and M atoms on a very short distance from the surface in a ®eld of surface dipoles. Molecule
formation process is presumed to be ahead of the molecule ionization process.
# 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Ion sputtering; SIMS; Charged clusters
1. Introduction
Secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS) is a
powerful method for elemental analysis, depth pro®ling analysis and chemical mapping of different elements and materials. However, the so-called matrix
effect is still one of the main problems in the SIMS
data interpretation. It makes impossible to perform
quantitative SIMS analysis from the ®rst principles
without using special standards.
Emission of CsM‡ ions under Cs‡ ion sputtering
demonstrates an essential decrease of the matrix effect
in the SIMS measurements. During the last years, this
technique has been successfully used for semi-quantitative SIMS analysis of different semiconductors
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: ‡52-55-57-47-38-00;
fax: ‡52-55-57-47-71-14.
E-mail address: [email protected] (Yu. Kudriavtsev).
[1,2]. But one needs to understand the CsM‡ ion
formation mechanism to fully exploit its analytical
application.
The ®rst and the more popular model of CsM‡ ion
formation is based on the recombination of Cs‡ ions
and M0 atoms over the sample surface [3]:
Cs‡ ‡ M0 ) CsM‡ :
(1)
In this case, the bonding and therefore, the probability of CsM‡ formation was expected to be in¯uenced by the polarization of the neutral species due to
the presence of charged ion. Gnaser and Oechsner [4]
demonstrated a correlation between yields of CsM‡
clusters and the polarizability of sputtered atoms.
Experimentally obtained corroboration [4,5] as well
as disagreements [6,7] with the model have been
reported. In this paper, we consider some logical
con¯icts of the model (1) and discuss another possible
mechanism of CsM‡ ions formation.
0169-4332/02/$ ± see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 6 9 - 4 3 3 2 ( 0 2 ) 0 1 2 1 2 - 6
188
Yu. Kudriavtsev et al. / Applied Surface Science 206 (2003) 187±195
2. Experimental
All the experiments were performed with a Cameca
IMS-6f ion microprobe. Sputtering was performed by
means of Cs‡ ions with 5 and 5.5 keV impact energies.
The impact angles were 39.2 and 42.28, respectively,
off the surface normal. The primary ion beam with the
current of 20±60 nA was raster-scanned across a surface area of 200 mm 200 mm. Secondary ions
emitted from a central area of 60 mm in diameter,
with energy ranging from 0 to 130 eV, were detected
by pulse counting with an electron multiplier or by
using a Faraday cup. The mass spectrometer was
operated at the mass resolution of M/DM ˆ 300.
We applied oxygen ¯ooding by using a standard
Cameca scheme. It was estimated that the oxygen
pressure at the sample surface was approximately a
factor of 10 larger than the pressure registered by the
ion gauge attached to the target chamber.
The investigated specimens were single crystals of
elemental and compound semiconductors: Si, GaAs,
GaN and InGaAsP. The GaN and InGaAsP ®lms with
known composition were grown by MBE.
3. Result and discussion
Firstly, let us perform an experimental test of the
model (1). According to the model, formation of
CsM‡ cluster ions takes place over the sample surface
by the recombination of Cs‡ ion and neutral atoms M
sputtered independently (the recombination model
(RM) of cluster formation). So, we need to test
separately an ``applicability'' of the RM for CsM
cluster emission and the ionization probability of
the sputtered Cs particles (b‡
Cs ).
Let us start from the analysis of the ionization
probability of sputtered Cs particles. Most authors,
when they describe CsM‡ emission, suggest that
‡
b‡
Cs 1. But the real value of bCs is under question.
In order to analyze it, we have measured the secondary
Cs‡ intensity under different oxygen pressure at the
sample surface. Fig. 1a shows the intensities of sputtered Cs‡ ions as a function of oxygen pressure during
Cs‡ ion sputtering of silicon, GaAs and titanium (last
data were taken from the work [5]) targets. All data
were normalized on the maximum value of the Cs‡ ion
signal, which correlates with the maximum value of
the used oxygen pressure (9 10 5 Torr). Generally, the secondary Cs‡ ion signal is given by
‡
‡
ICs
ˆ I0 CCs Ytot b‡
Cs TrCs ˆ I0 YCs bCs TrCs ;
(2)
where I0 is the primary ion current, CCs the bulk
concentration of implanted Cs particles, Ytot and YCs
are the total and partial cesium yield, respectively;
TrCs is the transmission coef®cient of the instrument
(which includes the probability of Cs‡ detection). To
simplify, we suggest equation between TrCs under and
without oxygen ¯ooding.
For the steady-state sputtering, the partial cesium
yield YCs equals unity: number of primary Cs particles
equals to number of secondary Cs particles, under and
without of the oxygen ¯ooding. So, the monitored
increase of Cs‡ signal during the oxygen ¯ooding
corresponds, in the ®rst approximation, to the change
of the ionization probability of cesium b‡
Cs (see Eq. (2),
the right side). Taking the maximum value of Cs‡ ion
intensity at the P…O2 † 9 10 5 Torr as b‡
Cs 1, we
found that the ionization probability of Cs without the
oxygen ¯ooding does not exceed 0.12 for silicon
sputtering and 0.05 for titanium sputtering. In other
words, only 12 and 5% of secondary cesium particles
can take part in reaction (1) (without oxygen ¯ooding)
during sputtering of silicon and titanium, respectively.
The close value of b‡
Cs was obtained in the work [8] for
silicon target by another way. In the case of GaAs
sputtering, we did not observe any change of Cs‡ ion
intensity under different oxygen pressure, so we can
suppose that b‡
Cs in this case is really close to unity.
Before proceeding to the next step, we would like to
notice several interesting observations. According to
Eq. (2) (the right side), the monitored Cs‡ ion signal
does not depend on the sputtering yield of target for
the steady-state sputtering. For GaAs and related
materials (with b‡
Cs ˆ 1), the cesium ion intensity is
proportional to the primary ion current and the trans‡
mission of instrument: ICs
ˆ I0 TrCs .
‡
In the case of bCs < 1, the experimental change of
‡
ICs
means the change of b‡
Cs only. Hence, we can notice
that the monitored cesium signal for GaAs target allows
to calculate the transmission coef®cient of the instrument ``in situ''. On the other hand, the normalization of
‡
CsM‡ ion intensities on the signal ICs
, performed by
many analysts, makes no physical sense.
We studied the in¯uence of the ionization probability of cesium on the CsM‡ ion emission with Cs2 ‡
Yu. Kudriavtsev et al. / Applied Surface Science 206 (2003) 187±195
189
Fig. 1. (a) Secondary Cs‡ ion intensity during Cs‡ ion sputtering of Si, GaAs and Ti [4] as a function of oxygen pressure at the sample
surface. All curves were normalized on the maximum of Cs‡ intensity (obtained under P…O2 † 10 4 Torr). (b) Secondary Cs2‡ ion intensity
during Cs‡ ion sputtering of Si and GaAs as a function of oxygen pressure at the sample surface.
cluster ions. We compared Cs2 ‡ ion intensities
for GaAs and Si targets sputtered under different
oxygen pressures (see Fig. 1b). Actual situation with
theoretical developments of both models of cluster
formation: direct emission model (DEM) and recom-
bination model (RM), does not allow us to perform a
``quantitative'' comparison of ``theoretical'' and
``experimental'' values of Cs2 ‡ ion intensities. So,
we performed a ``qualitative'' analysis of experimental data only.
190
Yu. Kudriavtsev et al. / Applied Surface Science 206 (2003) 187±195
Fig. 2. Velocity distribution of sputtered silicon isotopes and cesium atoms. See details in the text.
There is a serious difference, which reaches almost
1 order of magnitude, between the ionization probabilities of cesium for Si and GaAs targets (see
Fig. 1a). In contrast to that, the monitored intensities
of Cs2 ‡ are very close (see Fig. 1b) for both matrixes.
The observed difference of Cs2 ‡ intensities under the
high oxygen pressure (>10 6 Torr) can be explained
by a different surface concentration of adsorbed oxygen (different sticking coef®cient for Si and GaAs), as
well as by different concentration of Cs implanted into
the targets during Cs‡ ion sputtering. For GaAs target,
b‡
Cs is close to unity (see Fig. 1a). For silicon matrix,
b‡
Cs increases from 0.12 to 1 (almost 10 times) with
increase in oxygen pressure. But both the curves in
Fig. 1b demonstrate a very similar behavior. The
conclusion is that the ionization probability of Cs‡
does not play a decisive role in CsM‡ formation. This
conclusion is in a contrast to the estimation that
Gnaser and Oechsner used in their model [4].
At the end of this part of the study, we would like to
note another evident contradiction of the model (1).
The formation of Cs2 ‡ clusters looks unclear in the
case of GaAs and related targets where b‡
Cs 1. The
evident question here is: ``what is the mechanism of
the recombination of two Cs‡ ions?'' The same
question arises in the case of CsNa‡, CsK‡ clusters
emission, etc. which demonstrate (with Cs2 ‡ ) the
highest relative yield among all CsM‡ clusters.
As the next step of the study, we analyzed mechanism of CsM molecule formation. Recombination of two
atoms happens when the directions and the velocities of
their emission are similar and the atoms are quite close.
Any change in the velocity of one partner leads to a
change in the probability of cluster formation. We
tested this effect by the method considered in [9]: by
a comparison of CsM‡ ion yield for two isotopes of one
element. In this case, the average emission energy of
each isotope (E) is equal, in the ®rst approximation, to
the half of the surface binding energy of element.
However, the ``large'' isotope has a smaller velocity
(V) than the ``light'' one, because of an evident relation:
E ˆ …1=2†mV2 (where m is the mass of the isotope). As
a consequence, the ``large'' isotope has a higher probability to form a cluster with a secondary cesium
particle (see Fig. 2). And the experimental ratio of
the cluster ion intensities, drawn as I…CsM1 ‡ †=
I…CsM2 ‡ † (where mM2 > mM1 ), will be smaller than
the natural isotope abundance: …C…mM1 †=C…mM2 ††.
In this work, we compared experimental intensities of Cs28Si‡ and Cs30Si‡ clusters. The natural ratio
of these silicon isotopes is 29.75. And 29.72
approximate the experimentally obtained value of
Yu. Kudriavtsev et al. / Applied Surface Science 206 (2003) 187±195
Y…Cs28 Si‡ †=Y…Cs30 Si‡ †. In other words, we have the
``qualitative'' experimental con®rmation of RM
model. Of course, we cannot believe, by the evident
reasons, that this result is the absolute proof of RM for
CsM clusters. So, in future, we should keep in our
mind the possibility of CsM clusters formation due to
the direct emission.
Let us consider more carefully the recombination
character of CsM‡ clusters emission. And the next
object of our study is a characteristic distance from the
sample surface of the recombination process. In our
opinion, this is one of the ``key'' points for understanding CsM‡ ion emission process. We cannot
measure this distance experimentally. Only computer
simulations can give us an answer.
We analyzed data of both popular computer code
simulations: the Monte Carlo method and the molecular dynamics (MD) simulation published in literature.
MD simulations of cooper sputtering by Ar‡ ions
demonstrated [10] that almost all Cu2 clusters were
Ê apart
formed from atoms, which were less than 6 A
before sputtering. In another work [11], the authors
obtained that the process of cluster formation must
Ê of the surface.
occur within 4 A
Monte Carlo simulation [12] of silver sputtering by
Ar‡ ions and Ag2 cluster emission demonstrates that
both mechanisms takes place: almost the half of
dimers leaves surface as clusters; and the second half
are formed due to the recombination of independently
sputtered atoms. The recombination happens on a very
short distance from the sample surface (so-called
``association'' mechanism). Yamamura estimated
[12] that the ``critical'' distance of the recombination
Ê from the sample surface.
is less than 8 A
Fig. 3 demonstrates schematically the recombination of pairs of atoms formed by the ``central'' atom
(marked) and atoms located on a limited distance
(limited by the circle) from it. Taking into account
the data of the computer simulations, we can believe
that all possible recombination happens in the ``cylinÊ and with
der'' with the diameter of approximately 6 A
Ê . It is absolutely clear that only
the height of 6 2 A
close neighbors can form molecules. So, the effective
interaction between atoms, leaving the surface, starts
immediately after emission because of a very short
distance separating them. During the initial time of
emission, when the distance between an atom and solid
191
Fig. 3. Scheme of secondary dimer emission due to recombination
of independently sputtered atoms above the surface. See details in
the text.
Ê [13], outgoing
surface is less than approximately 4±5 A
atom is ``common'' with the solid electronic structure,
so the charged state of the particle cannot be de®ned
yet. Characteristic distance of the secondary atom
Ê [14]. It
ionization process equals approximately 10 A
means that molecule formation process is ahead of the
charge formation process. And we can consider emission of two recombining atoms as emission of a ``quasimolecule'' (see Fig. 3) which is ionized due to the same
mechanism as sputtered atoms.
The ionization probability of sputtered particles is
given by
P‡ / exp‰ …IP
F†=ep Š;
(3)
where IP is the ionization potential, F the work
function of the target, ep are the parameters which
depend on the normal component of the ion emission
velocity. Therefore, the secondary ion yield of CsM‡
cluster ions is drawn as
Y…CsM‡ † / P‡ Pcl ;
‡
(4)
where P is de®ned by Eq. (3) with corresponding IP
of CsM molecule and Pcl is the probability of CsM
molecule formation due to recombination of Cs and M
atoms.
192
Yu. Kudriavtsev et al. / Applied Surface Science 206 (2003) 187±195
Fig. 4. Relative sensitivity factors (RSF) for M‡ and CsM‡ ions, sputtered from InGaAsP solid solution, as a function of ionization potential
of element M.
Fig. 4 shows an example of the suggested model.
We calculated the relative sensitivity factors (RSF) of
CsMj ‡ clusters (where Mj is the analyzed element)
measured for Cs‡ ion sputtering of Inx Ga1 x Asy P1 y
with known x and y. It is seen that the RFSs for CsM‡
cluster ions and atomic ions depend in a similar
manner on the ionization potential of elements.
The estimations made above lead to a reasonable
question: ``what is the reason for a very poor matrix
effect in CsM‡ ion yield?'' In order to answer this
question, we compared the secondary ion yield for
atomic and molecular ions.
Experimental data demonstrate [15,16] that the
ionization probability of clusters in the most cases
is essentially higher than the ionization probability of
atoms: the difference achieved is 80 times for Ti, 30
times for Fe, 25 times for Cr, 3±5 times for Ag, and so
on (we mean normalized yield of ionized dimers
compared with normalized yield of neutral dimers).
There is no information about IP of CsM molecules in
the literature. Generally, IP of Mn clusters (where
n ˆ 1, 2, 3, . . .) decreases from the IP of atom (at
n ˆ 1) down to the work function (F) of materials (at
n @ 1), because IP for most elements lies in the range
of 5±12 eV, whereas value of the work function lies in
the range of 2±6 eV. Of course, this decrease (with
corresponding increase of their ionization probability)
is non-monotonic and strongly depends on the electronic structure and chemical nature of partners, forming clusters. So, experimental study of ionization
probability of CsM clusters is strongly necessary in
order to make the ®nal conclusion.
We found b‡
Cs 1 for the GaAs matrix. And in
this case, we can suggest that the ionization probability for CsM molecules be close to unity for most
elements M.
In the case of the Si target (b‡
Cs 0:12), the ionization probability of CsM clusters can be roughly
approximated by the range of 0.1±1.0. And any change
of the matrix composition (for example, from Si to
SiGe) can lead to a minor (in comparison with atomic
ions) matrix effect, observed experimentally [7].
The ionization potential for Cs2 is 3.2 eV [17]
whereas IP…Cs† ˆ 3:85 eV, and we can estimate that
the ionization probability for the Cs2 molecule is close
to unity (Eq. (3)) for both Si and GaAs matrixes. We
have observed it before: the oxygen ¯ooding does not
increase the I(Cs2 ‡ ) (see Fig. 1b).
The last subject we would like to discuss in the
work is: ``is there any in¯uence of the solid surface on
the CsM‡ cluster formation?'' Indeed, we supposed
that recombination of sputtered particles Cs and M
Yu. Kudriavtsev et al. / Applied Surface Science 206 (2003) 187±195
happens in a very short distance from the surface. And
we can estimate that the surface plays a role of the
third ``partner'' in the recombination process.
In the ®rst moment of emission, when the atom±
surface distance is close to the inter-atomic distance in
Ê ), an outgoing particle has a strong
solids (<4±5 A
interaction with electrons of solid. This interaction
leads to a shift and spread of energy levels of core
electrons in the outgoing atom. But this interaction
decreases exponentially with increase in the distance.
Of course, we should take into account this interaction
in our study, but it looks more important for us to
consider another atom±surface interaction, caused by
implanted cesium ions. The matter is as follows:
during cesium ion bombardment, essential part of
cesium ions (for ``light'' targets it is almost 100%)
is implanted in a near surface layer. When these
cesium particles reach the top surface layer (after
removing previous layers), they can form strong surface dipoles (Cs-X type, where X is the matrix atom).
The surface dipoles in their turn form an electric ®eld,
which can be estimated as follows [18]:
s 3=2
E 9m…NCs
† ;
(5)
where m is the dipole moment of the M±Cs dipole (see
s
Fig. 5), and NCs
is the cesium surface concentration.
The real amount of this ®eld can be estimated based on
experimental data presented in [19]: Cs‡ ion bombardment of silicon leads to a shift of the work
function to about 2.5 eV. From a simple model [19],
based on surface dipoles formation, the dipole
moment of Cs estimated equals 1:22 10 29 (C m)
for the cesium surface concentration of about 12 at.%.
For our consideration, this gives the electric potential
of approximately 2 106 V/cm at the surface. Note
that we neglected here depolarization effect between
separated dipoles because of a small number of the
dipoles.
Returning to ``our'' atom±surface interactions, we
can make a conclusion that outgoing particles are in a
quit strong electric ®eld, which polarizes these particles and induces a dipole moment m ˆ aE (where a is
the atomic polarizability) in these particles. As a
result, the so-called dipole±dipole interaction appears
(see Fig. 5) between outgoing Cs and M particle [20]:
Udd ˆ
2mCs mM
x3
(6)
193
Fig. 5. Scheme of the dipole±dipole interaction between Cs and M
atoms during the CsM cluster formation near the sample surface.
See details in the text.
where x is the distance between dipoles.
Now is the time to make several important notes.
First of all, this form of dipole±dipole interaction
(Eq. (6)) can be used because of a strong correlation
in the directions and velocities of the particle
emission (RM asks).
Ê 3), and
Cesium has a very high polarizability (59.6 A
the potential of dipole±dipole interaction is proportional to x 3. So, we can conclude that the dipole±
dipole interaction becomes the major concern (in
comparison with other dispersion forces) for the
distance between the particles lying in the range
a0 < x < 3a0 (where a0 is the inter-atomic distance
in the solid (see Fig. 3)).
Again, a strong atom±solid interaction for a very
short atom±surface distance leads to a core electron
level shift in outgoing atom. But from the point of
view of the classical physics, this shift can be
considered as the atom polarization in an external
field formed by solid electrons. Again, we can
estimate a dipole moment (and just higher than in
the field of the surface dipoles) for outgoing atoms.
The total potential of interaction between Cs and M
can be drawn now as following:
U…x† ˆ
A
x12
2mCs mm
;
x3
(7)
194
Yu. Kudriavtsev et al. / Applied Surface Science 206 (2003) 187±195
where the ®rst term describes the repulsion between
Cs and M for a very short distance between particles; A
is the constant, which is determined experimentally.
According to RM model, the secondary yield of
dimers for mono-atomic target is given by [21]
1=2
D0
Y2 /
Y 2;
(8)
Es
where D0 is the dissociation energy of molecule, Es is
the surface binding energy. Real value of D0 is
unknown for CsM molecules. But we can estimate
it from Eq. (7) using a simple relation: D0 ˆ U…xm †,
where xm is the inter-atomic distance in CsM molecule
(or the equilibrium distance). From Eq. (7), the dissociation energy correlates with characteristics of
element as follows:
D0 ˆ
U…xm † / A
3=2 4=3
aM :
(9)
A combination of Eqs. (8) and (9) gives us the
following relation between the CsM cluster yield and
the polarizability and the surface binding energy of
element M:
Y…CsM† /
a2M
Es …M†1=2
(10)
Please note that we are considering relative values,
so we can neglect Es(Cs) and a‡
Cs in this development.
Eq. (10) predicts that the yield of CsM‡ ion cluster
is proportional to a2M . Similarly, the same relation was
found in work [4] with use of a great number of
experimental data: the power n (in an) was equal to
1:92 0:21 for a set of different semiconductors and
2:01 0:12 for implanted silicon standards. Gnaser
and Oechsner did not take into account, in their work
[4], the surface binding energies of elements. But Es
can in¯uence strongly the CsM cluster formation as it
is clearly seen in Fig. 2 and from Eq. (10). In order to
show it, we compared experimentally measured intensities of CsM‡ ion clusters for implanted GaN standards with predictions of the developed model.
Fig. 6 demonstrates the relative intensities of CsM‡
ion clusters as a function of the ionization potential of
element M where M: H, C, N, O, Mg, Al, Zn, Ga, As,
Cd and In. The ionization probability of CsM clusters
was suggested close to unity for all implanted elements. Fig. 6 shows the average values of independent
measurements performed with three different instruments: two IMS-4f and one IMS-6f Cameca ion
microprobes. We compared experimentally obtained
values, normalized on intensity of CsN‡ and on the
polarizabilities of element M (data I), with ones
normalized on the ``full'' coef®cient in Eq. (10):
1=2
a2 =Es (data II). Data for a and Es (as the sublimation
energy) were taken from [22]. As it is seen in Fig. 6, all
points for the last normalization lie close to unity, that
Fig. 6. Relative intensities of CsM‡ clusters (related to CsN‡ intensity) formed due to sputtering of implanted GaN standards and normalized
on the polarizability (I), as well as the polarizability and the surface binding energy (II) (see Eq. (10)) of each element M.
Yu. Kudriavtsev et al. / Applied Surface Science 206 (2003) 187±195
is a good proof of the developed model. Observed
difference can be explained by a small deviation from
the unity of the ionization probability of CsM‡ clusters (see Eq. (4)) and (or) by incorrect values of Es.
Last value is still under question in the ion sputtering
physics: different authors give different values of Es,
especially for elements like N, O, and Zn, etc.
It is necessary to note that suggested model could
easily explain another effect noted before: high ion
yields for Cs2 ‡, CsNa‡, CsK‡ cluster ions, that take
place independently on the ionization probability of
Cs. Indeed, it follows directly from Eq. (10) that any
increase in the polarizability of M leads to increase in
the CsM‡ intensity.
4. Conclusions
In such a manner, the CsM cluster formation can be
considered as a recombination of the independently
sputtered Cs and M atoms on a distance smaller then
Ê from the sample surface (the associative mechanism
6A
of cluster formation). The sample surface ``plays'' as the
third partner in CsM cluster formation process: the
electric ®eld, formed by surface dipoles, polarizes both
particles and leads to a strong dipole±dipole interaction
between them. Ionization of such CsM clusters happens
during their formation or just after their formation on a
Ê from the surface as ionizadistance smaller then 10 A
tion of the quasi-molecule with corresponding ionization potential. Mechanism of ionization of CsM clusters
is similar to the ionization of sputtered atoms.
Most of the experimental data are in a good agreement with predictions or can be explained within the
limits of the developed model.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Dr. A.P. Kovarsky (Ioffe Institute,
S-Petersburg) for his experimental RSFs of implanted
GaN standards.
Yu.K. thanks CONASYT (Mexico) for the ®nancial
support for this work.
References
[1] Y. Yoshioka, D. Komyoji, F. Tohjou, T. Matsunaga,
K. Tsukamoto, in: Proceedings of the 9th International
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
195
Conference on Secondary Ion Mass SpectrometryÐ
SIMS IX, Yokohama, Japan, 7±12 November 1993, pp. 377±
381.
M. Haag, H. Gnaser, H. Oechsner, in: Proceedings of the 9th
International Conference on Secondary Ion Mass SpectrometryÐSIMS IX, Yokohama, Japan, 7±12 November 1993,
pp. 390±393.
Y. Gao, J. Appl. Phys. 64 (1988) 3760.
H. Gnaser, H. Oechsner, Surf. Sci. Lett. 302 (1994) L289±
L292.
J.M. Schroeer, H. Gnaser, H. Oechsner, in: Proceedings of the
9th International Conference on Secondary Ion Mass SpectrometryÐSIMS IX, Yokohama, Japan, 7±12 November 1993,
pp. 386±389.
Y. Homma, Y. Higashi, T. Maruo, C. Maekawa, S. Ochiai, in:
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Secondary
Ion Mass SpectrometryÐSIMS IX, Yokohama, Japan, 7±12
November 1993, pp. 398±401.
G. Prudon, B. Gautier, J.C. Dupuy, C. Dubois, M. Bonneau, J.
Delmas, J.P. Vallard, G. Bremond, R. Brenier, Thin Solid
Films 294 (1997) 54±58.
Y. Marie, Y. Gao, F. Saldi, H.N. Migeon, Surf. Interf. Anal. 23
(1995) 38±43.
P. Ecker, Estude de la reÂpercussion des proprieÂteÂs moleÂculaires et des caracteÂristiques de la pulveÂrisation sur la
deÂtection des ions MCs‡ et MCs2‡ en spectromeÂtrie de
masse d'ions secondaires, Thesis, University of Metz, France,
December 1998.
B.J. Garrison, N. Winograd, D.E. Harrison, Surf. Sci. 78
(1978) 467.
B.J. Garrison, N. Winograd, D.E. Harrison, J. Vac. Sci.
Technol. 16 (2) (1979) 789±792.
Y. Yamamura, in: A. Benninghoven, et al. (Ed.), Proceedings
of the 9th International Conference on Secondary Ion Mass
SpectrometryÐSIMS IX, 1994, pp. 3±9.
V.I. Veksler, Secondary Ion Emission from Metals, Moscow,
Nauka, 1978, p. 240 (in Russian).
P.C. Zalm, Vacuum 45 (6±7) (1994) 753±772.
H. Gnaser, W.O. Hofer, Appl. Phys. A 48 (1989) 261.
A. Wucher, M. Wahl, H. Oechsner, in: Proceedings of 10th
International Conference on Secondary Ion Mass SpectrometryÐSIMS X, Yokohama, Japan, 7±12 November 1993,
pp. 100±103.
L.V. Gurvich, V. Karachevtsev, V.N. KondrateÁv, Yu.A.
Lebedev, V.A. Medvedev, B.K. Potapov, Yu.S. Khodeev,
Energii razruva chemicheskich sviazey, Potencialy ionizatsii i
srodstvo k elektronu, str. 351, Moskva, izd-vo, Nauka, 1974
(in Russian).
J. Tooping, Proc. R. Soc. London A114 (1927) 67.
A. Villegas, Yu. Kudriavtsev, A. Godines, R. Asomoza, Appl.
Surf. Sci., in press.
A.W. Anderson, Physical Chemistry of Surfaces, Wiley, New
York, 1982, p. 664.
H. Gerhard, Z. Physik B22 (1975) 31±39.
D.R. Lide (Ed.), CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics,
77th ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1997.