Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T13:28:38.925Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Irradiation Effects of Methanol Cluster Ion Beams on Solid Surfaces

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Gikan Takaoka
Affiliation:
[email protected], Kyoto University, Ion Beam Engineering Experimental Laboratory, Nishikyo-ku, Kyoto, 615-8510, Japan, +81-75-383-2329, +81-75-383-2343
Masakazu Kawashita
Affiliation:
[email protected], Kyoto University, Ion Beam Engineering Experimental Laboratory, Nishikyo-ku, Kyoto, 615-8510, Japan
Takeshi Okada
Affiliation:
[email protected], Kyoto University, Ion Beam Engineering Experimental Laboratory, Nishikyo-ku, Kyoto, 615-8510, Japan
Get access

Abstract

In order to investigate the interactions of methanol cluster ion beams with solid surfaces, Si substrates and SiO2 films were irradiated at different acceleration voltages. The sputtered depth increased with increase of the acceleration voltage. When the acceleration voltage was 9 kV, the sputtered depths of Si and SiO2 at a dose of 1×1016ions/cm2 were 1497.1 nm and 147.8 nm, respectively. The selectivity between Si and SiO2 surfaces arose from the volatility of the reaction products. Furthermore, the sputtering yield for the Si surface was approximately seven hundreds times larger than that by Ar monomer ion beams. This suggested that chemical sputtering was predominant for the methanol cluster ion irradiation. In addition, the etching and cleaning process by the methanol cluster ion irradiation was performed on the Si surfaces contaminated with a small amount of metal particles such as Au and Al. Thus, methanol cluster ion beams have unique characteristics such as surface etching and cleaning with high sputtering yield and smooth surface.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2007

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

1. Hawker, C.J. and Russell, T.P., MRS Bull. 30 (2005) 952.Google Scholar
2. Bakajin, O., Fountain, E., Morton, K., Chou, S.Y., Sturm, J.C. and Austin, R.H., MRS Bull. 31 (2006) 108.Google Scholar
3. Faul, J. W. and Henke, D., Nucl. Inst. Methods Phys. Res. B 237, (2005) 228.Google Scholar
4. Yamada, I. and Takaoka, G. H., Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 32 (1993) 2121.Google Scholar
5. Meinander, K., Nordlund, K. and Keinonen, J., Nucl. Inst. Methods Phys. Res. B 242, (2006) 161.Google Scholar
6. Fujiwara, Y., Kondou, K., Teranishi, Y., Nonaka, H., Fujimoto, T., Kurokawa, A., Ichimura, S. and Tomita, M., Surf. Interface Anal. 38 (2006) 1539.Google Scholar
7. Takaoka, G. H., Noguchi, H., Yamamoto, T. and Seki, T., Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 42, (2003) L1032.Google Scholar
8. Takaoka, G. H., Noguchi, H., Nakayama, K., Hironaka, Y. and Kawashita, M., Nucl. Inst. Methods Phys. Res. B 237 (2005) 402.Google Scholar
9. Takaoka, G. H., Noguchi, H. and Kawashita, M., Nucl. Inst. Methods Phys. Res. B 242 (2006) 417.Google Scholar
10. Takaoka, G. H., Nakayama, K., Okada, T. and Kawashita, M., Proc. 16th Int. Conf. on Ion Implant. Technol. (CP866, AIP, 2006) p.321.Google Scholar
11. Insepov, Z. and Yamada, I., Surf. Rev. Lett. 3, (1996) 1023.Google Scholar