Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T23:27:18.218Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Imaging Modes for Scanning Confocal Electron Microscopy in a Double Aberration-Corrected Transmission Electron Microscope

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2007

P.D. Nellist ,
E.C. Cosgriff ,
G. Behan  and
A.I. Kirkland
P.D. Nellist
Affiliation:
Department of Materials, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PH, UK
E.C. Cosgriff
Affiliation:
Department of Materials, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PH, UK
G. Behan
Affiliation:
Department of Materials, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PH, UK
A.I. Kirkland
Affiliation:
Department of Materials, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PH, UK
Get access

Abstract

Aberration correction leads to reduced focal depth of field in the electron microscope. This reduced depth of field can be exploited to probe specific depths within a sample, a process known as optical sectioning. An electron microscope fitted with aberration correctors for both the pre- and postspecimen optics can be used in a confocal mode that provides improved depth resolution and selectivity over optical sectioning in the scanning transmission electron microscope (STEM). In this article we survey the coherent and incoherent imaging modes that are likely to be used in scanning confocal electron microscopy (SCEM) and provide simple expressions to describe the images that result. Calculations compare the depth response of SCEM to optical sectioning in the STEM. The depth resolution in a crystalline matrix is also explored by performing a Bloch wave calculation for the SCEM geometry in which the pre- and postspecimen optics are defocused away from their confocal conditions.

Keywords

optical sectioningconfocal electron microscopytransfer functionaberration correction
Type
Research Article
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 14 , Issue 1: Special Issue: Materials Research in an Aberration-Free Environment , February 2008 , pp. 82 - 88
Copyright
© 2008 Microscopy Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Borisevich, A.Y., Lupini, A.R. & Pennycook, S.J. (2006). Depth sectioning with the aberration-corrected scanning transmission electron microscope. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103, 3044–3048.Google Scholar
Born, M. & Wolf, E. (1980). Principles of Optics. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Corle, T.R. & Kino, G.S. (1996). Confocal Scanning Optical Microscopy and Related Imaging Systems. San Diego: Academic Press.
Cosgriff, E.C. & Nellist, P.D. (2007). A Bloch wave analysis of optical sectioning in aberration-corrected STEM. Ultramicroscopy 107, 626–634.Google Scholar
Cowley, J.M. (1969). Image contrast in a transmission scanning electron microscope. Appl Phys Lett 15, 58–59.Google Scholar
Einspahr, J.J. & Voyles, P.M. (2006). Prospects for 3D nanometer-resolution imaging by confocal STEM. Ultramicroscopy 106, 1041–1051.Google Scholar
Findlay, S.D., Allen, L.J., Oxley, M.P. & Rossouw, C.J. (2003). Lattice-resolution contrast from a focused coherent electron probe. Part II. Ultramicroscopy 96, 65–81.Google Scholar
Frigo, S.P., Levine, Z.H. & Zaluzec, N.J. (2002). Submicron imaging of buried integrated circuit structures using scanning confocal electron microscopy. Appl Phys Lett 81, 2112–2114.Google Scholar
Hetherington, C.J.D., Chang, L.-Y.S., Haigh, S., Nellist, P.D., Cervera Gontard, L., Dunin-Borkowski, R.E. & Kirkland, A.I. (2008). High-resolution TEM and the application of direct and indirect aberration correction. Microsc Microanal 14, 60–67.Google Scholar
Midgley, P.A. & Weyland, M. (2003). 3D electron microscopy in the physical sciences: The development of Z-contrast and EFTEM tomography. Ultramicroscopy 96, 413–431.Google Scholar
Nellist, P.D., Behan, G., Kirkland, A.I. & Hetherington, C.J.D. (2006). Confocal operation of a transmission electron microscope with two aberration correctors. Appl Phys Lett 89, 124105.Google Scholar
Nellist, P.D., Chisholm, M.F., Dellby, N., Krivanek, O.L., Murfitt, M.F., Szilagyi, Z., Lupini, A.R., Borisevich, A., Sides, W.H.J. & Pennycook, S.J. (2004). Direct sub-angstrom imaging of a crystal lattice. Science 305, 1741.Google Scholar
Nellist, P.D. & Pennycook, S.J. (1998). Accurate structure determination from image reconstruction in ADF STEM. J Microsc 190, 159–170.Google Scholar
Nellist, P.D. & Pennycook, S.J. (2000). The principles and interpretation of annular dark-field Z-contrast imaging. Adv Imaging & Electron Phys 113, 148–203.Google Scholar
Oxley, M.P., Cosgriff, E.C. & Allen, L.J. (2005). Nonlocality in imaging. Phys Rev Lett 94, 203906.Google Scholar
Van Benthem, K., Lupini, A.R., Kim, M., Baik, H.S., Doh, S., Lee, J.-H., Oxley, M.P., Findlay, S.D., Allen, L.J., Luck, J.T. & Pennycook, S.J. (2005). Three-dimensional imaging of individual hafnium atoms inside a semiconductor device. Appl Phys Lett 87, 034104.Google Scholar
Varela, M., Findlay, S.D., Lupini, A.R., Christen, H.M., Borisevich, A.Y., Dellby, N., Krivanek, O.L., Nellist, P.D., Oxley, M.P., Allen, L.J. & Pennycook, S.J. (2004). Spectroscopic imaging of single atoms within a bulk solid. Phys Rev Lett 92, 095502.Google Scholar
Zeitler, E. & Thomson, M.G.R. (1970). Scanning transmission electron microscopy. Optik 31, 258–280 & 359–366.Google Scholar