Limits in detecting an individual dopant atom embedded in a crystal

Ultramicroscopy

Volumn 111, Issue 8, 2011, Pages 1101-1110

  Mittal, Anudha ^a   Mkhoyan, K Andre ^a  

^a University of Minnesota   (United States)

Author keywords

ADF; Annular dark field; Dopant; Ge; High resolution; Imaging; Multislice; Scanning transmission electron microscope; Si; Simulations; STEM

Indexed keywords

ADF; DARK FIELD; DOPANT; HIGH RESOLUTION; MULTI SLICES; SCANNING TRANSMISSION ELECTRON MICROSCOPE; SIMULATIONS; STEM;

ATOMS; CRYSTALS; ELECTRON MICROSCOPES; GERMANIUM; TRANSMISSION ELECTRON MICROSCOPY;

DOPING (ADDITIVES);

GERMANIUM; SILICON; TIN;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; ATOMIC PARTICLE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; CRYSTAL STRUCTURE; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE PROCESSING; LIMIT OF DETECTION; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; NONLINEAR SYSTEM; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION; SCANNING TRANSMISSION ELECTRON MICROSCOPY; SURFACE PROPERTY; VISIBILITY;

EID: 79960026132     PISSN: 03043991     EISSN: 18792723     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ultramic.2011.03.002     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Meyer J.C., Girit C.O., Crommie M.F., Zettl A. Nature 2008, 454:319.
2. Crewe A.V., Wall J., Langmore J. Science 1970, 168:1338.
3. Haider M., Braunshausen G., Schwan E. Optik 1995, 99:167.
4. O.L. Krivanek, N. Dellby, A.J. Spence, R.A. Camps, L.M. Brown, in: J.M. Rodenburg (Ed.), Institute of Physics Conference Series (EMAG Meeting Proceedings), vol. 153, 1997, p. 35.
5. Haider M., Rose H., Uhlemann S., Kabius B., Urban K. J. Electron. Microsc. 1998, 47:395.
6. Krivanek O.L., Dellby N., Lupini A.R. Ultramicroscopy 1999, 78:1.
7. Batson P.E., Krivanek O.L., Dellby N. Nature 2002, 418:617.
8. Nellist P.D., Chisholm M.F., Dellby N., Krivanek O.L., Murffit M.F., Szilagyi Z.S., Lupini A.R., Borisevich A., Sides W.H., Pennycook S.J. Science 2004, 305:1741.
9. Mkhoyan K.A., Batson P.E., Cha J., Schaff W.J., Silcox J. Science 2006, 312:1354.
10. Fertig J., Rose H. Optik 1981, 59:407.
11. Loane R.F., Kirkland E.J., Silcox J. Acta. Crystallogr. A 1988, 44:912.
12. Voyles P.M., Muller D.A., Kirkland E.J. Microsc. Microanal. 2004, 10:291.
13. Xin H.L., Intaraprasonk V., Muller D.A. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2008, 92:013125.
14. Voyles P.M., Muller D.A., Grazul J.L., Citrin P.H., Gossmann H.J.L. Nature 2002, 416:826.
15. 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. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2004, 92:095502.
16. Shibata N., Findlay S.D., Azuma S., Mizoguchi T., Yamamoto T., Ikuhara Y. Nat. Mater. 2009, 8:654.
17. Lupini A.R., Borisevich A.Y., Idrobo J.C., Christen H.M., Beigalski M., Pennycook S.J. Microsc. Microanal. 2009, 15:441.
18. Sato Y., Mizoguchi T., Shibata N., Yamamoto T., Hirayama T., Ikuhara Y. Phys. Rev. B 2009, 80:094114.
19. Okuno H., Rouvi Ar̈e J.-L., Jouneau P.-H., Bayle-Guillemaud P., Daudin B. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2010, 96:251908.
20. R.R. Vanfleet, M. Robertson, M. McKay, J. Silcox, in: AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 449, 1998, p. 901.
21. Loane R.F., Xu P., Silcox J. Acta. Crystallogr. A 1991, 47:267.
22. Dwyer C., Etheridge J. Ultramicroscopy 2003, 96:343.
23. Cowley J.M., Moodie A.F. Acta. Crystallogr. 1957, 10:609.
24. Kirkland E.J. Advanced Computing in Electron Microscopy 2010, Springer. second ed.
25. Alternating (111) planes of atoms in Si are spaced apart at 0.8 and 2.35Å. Due to the unequal spacing, Si (111) cannot be sliced so that each slice contains exactly one plane of atoms. Therefore, STEM images with two slice thicknesses, 0.7 and 1Å, were simulated. Results show that both slice thicknesses lead to the same intensity around each atomic column. Consequently, results are not sensitive to this small range of slice thicknesses, and 0.7Å slice thickness is used in Si (111) simulations.
26. Mkhoyan K.A., Maccagnano-Zacher S.E., Kirkland E.J., Silcox J. Ultramicroscopy 2008, 108:791.
27. Reid J.S., Pirie J.D. Acta. Crystallogr. A 1980, 36:957.
28. Sears V.F., Shelley S.A. Acta. Crystallogr. A 1991, 47:441.
29. Voyles P.M., Grazul J.L., Muller D.A. Ultramicroscopy 2003, 96:251.
30. Maccagnano-Zacher S.E., Mkhoyan K.A., Kirkland E.J., Silcox J. Ultramicroscopy 2008, 108:718.
31. To calculate the error in visibility values, Si [100] Sn-doped specimen was imaged over a 7×7Å2 area using a 100keV aberration-corrected probe, averaged over 10 phonon configurations. This simulation was repeated nine times. The mean standard deviation between each set of 9 pixels was used as uncertainty for the intensity of an atomic column. Propagation of error calculation for the Eq. (1) led to less then 7% fractional uncertainty in visibility. Increasing the number of phonon configurations can further improve the accuracy in simulated results. Uncertainty due to experimental noise depends on the experimental setting and is not considered here.
32. Xin H.L., Muller D.A. J. Electron. Microsc. 2009, 58:157.
33. Borisevich A.Y., Lupini A.R., Pennycook S.J. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2006, 103:3044.
34. Kirkland E.J., Loane R.F., Silcox J. Ultramicroscopy 1987, 23:77.
35. Pennycook S.J., Boatner L.A. Nature 1988, 336:565.
36. Pennycook S.J. Ultramicroscopy 1989, 30:58.
37. Hillyard S., Loane R.F., Silcox J. Ultramicroscopy 1993, 49:14.
38. Hillyard S., Silcox J. Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 1994, 332:361.
39. Hillyard S., Silcox J. Ultramicroscopy 1993, 52:325.
40. LeBeau J.M., Findlay S.D., Allen L.J., Stemmer S. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2008, 100:206101.
41. LeBeau J.M., Findlay S.D., Wang X., Jacobson A.J., Allen L.J., Stemmer S. Phys. Rev. B 2009, 79:214110.
42. Taylor J.R. An Introduction to Error Analysis 1997, University Science Books. second ed.
43. Krivanek O.L., Dellby N., Murfitt M.F., Chisholm M.F., Pennycook T.J., Suenaga K., Nicolosi V. Ultramicroscopy 2010, 110:935.
44. Egerton R.F. Electron Energy Loss Spectroscopy in the Electron Microscope 1996, Plenum. second ed.
45. Kelly P.M., Jostons A., Blake R.G., Napier J.G. Phys. Status Solidi A 1975, 31:771.