TEM Sample Preparation and FIB-Induced Damage

TEM SamplePreparation and FIB-Induced Damage

Joachim Mayer, Lucille A. Giannuzzi,Takeo Kamino, and Joseph Michael

preparation can be applied to almost anymaterial type—hard, soft, or combinationsthereof. The number of materials forwhich successful TEM sample prepara-tion with FIBs has been documented cer-tainly reaches several hundred and spansfrom hard matter such as metals, ceram-ics, and composites to soft matter includ-ing polymers, biological materials, andeven frozen liquids.

The main disadvantage of FIBs, how-ever, is caused by the nature of themilling process: the ion collisions initiat-ing sputter removal can also lead to ionimplantation and cause severe damageto the remaining bulk of the material. Asthe FIB lamellae method spreads to moreadvanced TEM techniques, various pro-cedures have been developed to reduceor repair this damage.

In this article, the major specimen prepa-ration techniques are reviewed; the conse-quences of FIB-induced damage arediscussed, along with strategies to reducethe damage; and an overview on applica-tions in materials science and in relatedinstrumental fields is presented.

Specimen Preparation TechniquesSince the first-generation FIBs were

mainly used as semiconductor tools, earlyattempts to prepare TEM specimens in anFIB also focused on semiconductor mate-rials. The initial methods were based onmechanically polishing the sample downto an approximately 50-mm lamella andthen using the FIB to cut two trenches,one from each side, leaving behind a thinelectron-transparent lamella supported bybulk material on two opposite sides(Figure 1).2 Referring to the geometryseen in Figure 1, this method is frequentlycalled the H-bar technique. This methodwas subsequently refined by employing atripod polisher for the initial thinning ofthe thin slab,3 which is particularly valu-able in the case of complex semiconductordevices.

In parallel, techniques were developedthat make it possible to directly removean electron-transparent lamella from abulk specimen without mechanical pol-ishing (see Figure 2). These so-called lift-out techniques were first proposed byOverwijk et al.4 and further developedto a routinely and reliably applicabletechnique for a broad materials rangeby Giannuzzi et al.5 Whereas the firstattempts were based on an ex situ lift-outof the lamella using a micromanipulatorunder an optical microscope, techniquesbased on an in situ lift-out of the lamellaare gaining increasing importance.6Specimens extracted by in situ lift-out canbe shaped in a number of different and

400 MRS BULLETIN • VOLUME 32 • MAY 2007 • www/mrs.org/bulletin

AbstractOne of the most important applications of a focused ion beam (FIB) workstation

is preparing samples for transmission electron microscope (TEM) investigation.Samples must be uniformly thin to enable the analyzing beam of electrons topenetrate. The FIB enables not only the preparation of large, uniformly thick, site-specific samples, but also the fabrication of lamellae used for TEM samples fromcomposite samples consisting of inorganic and organic materials with very differentproperties. This article gives an overview of the variety of techniques that have beendeveloped to prepare the final TEM specimen. The strengths of these methods aswell as the problems, such as FIB-induced damage and Ga contamination, areillustrated with examples. Most recently, FIB-thinned lamellae were used to improvethe spatial resolution of electron backscatter diffraction and energy-dispersive x-raymapping. Examples are presented to illustrate the capabilities, difficulties, and futurepotential of FIB.

IntroductionWhereas the initial development of

focused ion beam (FIB) instruments wasdriven by their unique capabilities forcomputer chip repair and circuit modifi-cation in semiconductor technology, pres-ent FIB applications support a muchbroader range of scientific and technolog-ical disciplines (for an overview, seeReference 1). However, despite their hugepotential in many different areas, rangingfrom top-down structuring in nanotech-nology to tomographic characterization incomplex microstructures, many FIBs arelargely used to prepare transmission elec-tron microscope (TEM) cross-section sam-ple lamellae. This article explores why FIBpreparation of TEM samples in many lab-oratories has largely displaced ion millersdespite the enormous financial invest-ment and the artifacts created by FIB-induced damage.

The main advantages of using an FIBfor TEM specimen preparation are

� No other technique can select the targetarea as precisely as FIB; that is, with care,lamellae can be prepared with a spatialaccuracy of within ~20 nm.� FIB preparation is fast and reliable; in aslittle as 20 minutes and within a maxi-mum of 2–4 hours, specimens of an almostunlimited range of materials can be pre-pared.� FIB preparation techniques are virtuallyindependent of the nature of the material.Owing to the special geometry and thespecific properties of the protective coveron the surface, the milling proceduresrequire only minor adjustments, if at all,that are dependent on the bulk propertiesof the material.

Special techniques for semiconductorshave been developed that offer optimizedsolutions in terms of speed, reliability,damage removal, or total electron trans-parent area. On the other hand, it iswidely recognized that FIB specimen

MRSBull_May07_Mayer_Final.qxd 5/7/07 6:17 PM Page 400

TEM Sample Preparation and FIB-Induced Damage

MRS BULLETIN • VOLUME 32 • MAY 2007 • www/mrs.org/bulletin 401

very useful geometries and can be treatedwith low-energy gallium or argon ions forfurther thinning and removal of FIB-induced damage.7

In the next three sections, we intro-duce the techniques that require somepre-preparation, such as sectioning andpolishing, and then focus on the moreuniversal techniques based on a lift-outof a thin lamella from an otherwiseunmodified piece of material.

Methods Requiring Pre-ThinningIn this frequently applied case, the ini-

tial specimen must first be trimmedmechanically before the sample is placedin the FIB for milling. In the most com-monly used version of this technique,2,8,9 athin slab of the material is cut from thearea of interest in the sample and mechan-ically polished as thin as possible. Thesample material is then mounted on ahalf-grid and inserted vertically into theFIB chamber. Before cutting, a W or Pt lineis usually deposited on the area of interestto protect the top portion of the specimenand to mark the position of the target area.After cutting two deep trenches, the finallamella, if seen from the top, looks like thecrossbar in the letter “H” (Figure 1). Thetechnique is thus commonly referred to asthe H-bar technique and is still frequentlyused in the semiconductor field, particu-larly when combined with a fast and effi-cient microcleavage tool.

This conventional technique was fur-ther improved by its combination with tri-pod polishing.3,10,11 Reducing the thicknessof the initial piece of material to only 2–3mm or less in the volume of interest offers

several advantages, such as reduced FIBmilling time and a reduced fluorescenceyield contribution from the neighboringmaterial in analytical TEM investigationswith energy-dispersive x-ray analysis(EDX). A modified version of this tech-nique can also be used to prepare plan-view specimens.11

Ex Situ Lift-OutIn the ex situ lift-out (EXLO) technique,

a freestanding site-specific region is FIB-milled to electron transparency, and thenthe thin lamella is removed from its trenchwith a micromanipulator under an opticalmicroscope.5,8 The specimen attaches tothe micromanipulator tip via electrostaticforces and can be removed easily from itstrench. EXLO specimens can be trans-ferred to carbon-coated TEM grids,formvar-coated grids, holey carbon grids,or directly to the surface of small meshgrids. Automated routines were devel-oped to increase throughput and enableautomated FIB specimen preparation.12–15

This technique was first exploited forcross-sectional TEM analysis. Dependingon the geometry of the starting sample,cross-sectional specimens may be FIB-milled either perpendicular to or parallelto the substrate. Plan-view specimensmay also be prepared by directly FIB-milling specific layers parallel to thebeam. Alternatively, EXLO plan-viewspecimens may be prepared using a two-step FIB-milling and lift-out step.16 Anadvantage to the EXLO method is that it isvery fast and often satisfactory for con-ventional TEM analysis. Disadvantages tothe EXLO technique are that it is very dif-

ficult (if not impossible) to further thinthe EXLO specimen once it is mountedto a coated grid; the grid coating canhinder certain TEM analyses such aselectron holography and energy-filteredmicroscopy; and the FIB operator must becareful to avoid redeposition artifacts onthe EXLO specimens, because final FIBmilling is performed while the specimenis still confined within a trench.

In Situ Lift-Out/MicrosamplingThe microsampling method17–19 and the

in situ lift-out (INLO) techniques1,20 arevery similar and consist of extracting andtransferring a small wedge-shaped orparallel-sided piece of sample via an inter-nal nanomanipulator to a TEM half-gridwhile it is still inside the FIB chamber.Final FIB milling is performed when thesample is on the TEM grid. The in situmanipulation is enabled by the FIB depo-sition of a metal layer to first “glue” themanipulator probe to the sample and thento glue it to the grid. FIB milling to elec-tron transparency then progresses in asimilar fashion as for an H-bar specimen.As an example, a very large (i.e., 80 mmlong) INLO wedge of material from aCu-Ni diffusion couple and the subse-quently FIB-thinned TEM specimen areshown in Figures 2a and 2b.21 For suchlong lamellae, sufficient stability canonly be achieved when the lamellae aremounted from the top to a TEM half-grid(Figure 2b). For shorter lamellae, it isadvantageous to mount the piece from theside to a special support grid (Figure 2c).

A modified version of the microsam-pling or INLO method can be used to pre-pare a plan-view specimen from a specificsite, as shown in Figure 3. First, the area tobe observed in plan view is cut out, and asmall wedge-shaped piece of sample isextracted from the site (Figure 3a). Theextracted sample is then transferred(Figure 3b) and mounted (Figure 3c) ontothe edge of a carrier grid. Subsequently,the carrier grid is rotated by 90∞ for thin-ning parallel to the sample surface (Figure3e). The e- beam direction is shown inFigure 3f.

FIB-Induced Damage and RemovalTechniques

The ion impact on the specimen surfacenot only leads to material removal by thesputtering process, but also to the forma-tion of a damaged layer that may extendseveral tens of nanometers into the mate-rial (see also the introductory article byguest editors C.A. Volkert and A.M. Minorin this issue). Whereas this may easily beunderstood for ions that impinge at nor-mal incidence onto the sample surface,

Figure 1. (a) Schematic illustration of the H-bar focused ion beam (FIB) technique.Material on opposite sides of a region of interest is FIB-milled until it is electron-transparent.(b) Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image showing the top-down view of an H-bar FIBspecimen in progress. The metal sample was mechanically thinned to ~40 mm and gluedto a transmission electron microscope (TEM) half-grid. (Figure courtesy of Richard Young,FEI Co.)




momentum transfer and Ga implantationinto the bulk may even occur for ions thatare used for milling at glancing angles of<1∞. The result may range from completeamorphization, as in the case of semi-conductor materials, to the formation ofdefect agglomerates and even intermetal-lic phases, in the case of certain metals.

In semiconductor materials, the thick-ness of the amorphous layer formedon the FIB-prepared sample surfaces isnearly proportional to the range of Ga ionimplantation,22–24 which in turn is roughly

proportional to the primary energy of theGa ions. FIB columns that can be operatedat accelerating voltages as low as 1–2 kVhave recently become available. Thus,low-energy Ga milling is now available,and the effect of radiation damage andamorphization can be studied across abroad range of ion energies. Figure 4shows the reduction of amorphous layerformation in a sidewall of Si as a functionof Ga energy obtained from FIB milling atan 88∞ incident angle. For ion energies of30 keV, 5 keV, and 2 keV, the observed

sidewall damage is ~22 nm, 2.5 nm, and0.5–1.5 nm, respectively.7 The sidewalldamage reduction in Si at 2 keV polishingcan produce TEM specimens that revealsub-angstrom information.7

The advantage to using the FIB is thatthe specimen can be imaged for exactplacement of the final polishing window.In a DualBeamTM instrument, the low-energy FIB polishing can be directly mon-itored in SEM mode. Similar low-energyFIB techniques have been used to preparespecimens for atom probe analysis, whereresults show that no deleterious ion mix-ing occurs and no detectable Ga is presentafter final polishing with 2 keV Ga+.25

Alternatively, low-energy ion millingwith a broad Ar ion beam can be used toremove damage layers created by the FIBduring lamellae formation and also to fur-ther reduce the specimen thickness.12,26,27

Special ion polishers are in developmentthat will enable milling to a controlledfinal specimen thickness. The ideal speci-men thickness depends on the type ofTEM technique and is usually 20–30 nmfor electron energy loss spectroscopyanalysis and should be less than 10 nm fora quantitative atomic-resolution TEMstudy, values which can now be reachedin a final polishing step.

Whereas surface amorphization is themain concern in semiconductor materials,there have been several reports in the liter-ature that FIB milling of fine-grained fccmetals can change the orientation and sizeof the surface grains and form Ga inter-metallic compounds.28–30 The extensiveuse of FIB milling for sample preparationand the use of ion channeling contrast tocharacterize and measure grain sizesrequire that these ion beam–induced mod-ifications be properly understood.

The extreme microstructural modifica-tions that can be caused by FIB areillustrated using an example for polycrys-talline Cu. Sputter-deposited Cu filmswere exposed to various doses of 30 kVGa+ ions in the FIB and then cross-sectioned by the EXLO method for TEM,scanning transmission electron micro-scopy (STEM), and electron backscatterdiffraction (EBSD) investigations. Figures5a and 5c show examples of the Cu grainstructure modification to a depth of 200nm by an ion dose of 2.5 ¥ 1017 Ga/cm2,despite the fact that calculated ranges for30 kV Ga ions are close to 50 nm (Figure5b).29 EBSD orientation mapping of thesample shows that the surface grainsare reoriented so that the ·110Ò direction,the strong channeling direction in fcc crys-tal structures, is oriented parallel to theincident ion beam, as shown in Figure 5c.Similar effects were observed in other fcc

Figure 2. In situ lift-out of a sample piece by means of a nanomanipulator mounted insidethe FIB chamber. (a) An 80-mm-long piece of material is mounted to the nanomanipulatorneedle by Pt deposition. (b) After transfer, the lamella is mounted from the top to a TEMhalf-grid and finally thinned to electron transparency. (c) Shorter lamellae are mounted fromthe side to the central posts in special half-grids.


metals (Au, Ni), and bcc metals wereobserved to reorient at the surface with a·111Ò crystallographic direction normal tothe exposed surface.5,31

This work demonstrates that 30 kV Ga+

ion exposure can cause extensive micro-structural modification of metal samples,even to depths beyond the expected, non-channeling-orientation, ion range. Untilthese effects are understood and/or cata-logued, caution should be used when FIBis employed to prepare samples formicrostructural investigation, as evenshort exposures can result in unwantedchanges to the sample.

One must also be careful that theimplantation of Ga into the sample doesnot result in changes induced by the for-mation of new Ga-containing phases. Theaddition of Ga to many metals can resultin low-melting temperature phases.Cu3Ga has been observed at the bottomof FIB-milled trenches in Cu.28 Thin TEMsamples prepared from Al may show Gaenrichment at the grain boundaries. Inextreme cases, because of its low meltingpoint, Ga can form phases with other met-als that have melting points at or belowroom temperature. For example, Ga addi-tion during ion milling to In results ineutectic formation, with a melting temper-ature of 15.3∞C. Thus, the potential existsto have a liquid phase present in Ga FIB-milled samples of In. The addition of 2.5at.% Ga to Ge will also result in liquid-phase formation. Other metals, like Al, Zn,

and Pb, have similar problems.32 It ishighly recommended the phase diagrambe reviewed before FIB-milling new mate-rials with Ga to avoid problem materialsor prepare them in a different manner.

Applications to Different Classes of Materials

One of the main advantages of the FIBtechnique in many different applicationsis the accurate selection of the site and thecutting and thinning directions of thesample, enabling TEM investigation ofprecisely the desired location. Anotherimportant advantage is the fact that crosssections can successfully be prepared fromalmost any given combination of materi-als, inorganic or organic, hard or soft. As afirst example, Figure 6 shows cross sec-tions from a complex semiconductordevice17 and from a multilayer coating onthe inner side of a light bulb.33

The semiconductor field is one of themain application areas for cross-sectionalTEM, and as the characteristic dimensionsof the latest devices have become smallerthan 100 nm, FIB milling is the most prac-tical and effective method of preparingsite-specific samples. The accuracyrequirements, particularly in nanoelec-tronics, for precisely locating an object in aTEM cross section increase dramatically.As an example, Figure 7 shows the resultsof cross-section investigations of a metaloxide semiconductor–based transistorwith critical dimensions in the 10 nm

range.34,35 The vertical gate contact, struc-tured using e-beam lithography, spans thesource–drain line with a width of 200 nm.34

The required accuracy for positioning an



Figure 3. Method to prepare a plan-view specimen from a specific site based on themicrosampling technique (see text for details).

Figure 4. Reduction of the amorphouslayer thickness in a sidewall of Si as afunction of Ga energy. The crosssections of FIB lamellae show that FIB-milling at an 88∞ incident angle and 30keV, 5 keV, and 2 keV ion energyresults in amorphous layers of (a) ~22nm, (b) 2.5 nm, and (c) 0.5–1.5 nmthickness, respectively.

MRSBull_May07_Mayer_Final.qxd 5/7/07 6:17 PM 03



FIB lamella that intersects the gate contactalong the source–drain line is thus about50 nm. Such accuracy can easily bereached on a modern FIB, as is demon-strated from the TEM image and theinserted elemental distribution image inFigure 7, which show the final transistorafter encapsulating the gate in an oxidelayer and deposition of the upper gatecontact. The active length of the gate con-tact was determined to be 12.5 nm fromthe elemental distribution images.35

Powder particles and thin fibers fre-quently pose unsolvable problems to con-ventional thinning techniques. However,they may also be too small to be held orfixed on a specimen stub and do notremain stable during FIB milling. Severalmethods were developed for this purposeand are practically applied.18,36,37 One ofthe most practical methods is the resinembedding method. To minimize thedamage created during FIB milling, theembedded sample can first be coated witha metal deposition layer. Figure 8 shows aTEM image of an FIB-prepared cross sec-tion through a toner particle. The tonerwas placed on the sharp edge of a metaldisk, and a protective layer was depositedon the sample before FIB milling. Themetal deposition layer minimizes thesample heating caused by FIB irradiation,and the obtained toner shape and inor-ganic particle distribution in the toner wasbetter retained than in a sample preparedby cryo-ultramicrotomy.

Samples prepared with the FIB typicallycontain several tens of square microme-ters of thinned area. In comparison, theelectron transparent area of a thin sampleprepared by conventional ultramicrotomytechniques can be about one hundredtimes larger. Hence, for normal resin-embedded biological tissues, it does notmake sense to use FIB-milling techniques.However, for the site-specific characteri-zation of biological tissues, FIB samplepreparation combined with STEM orTEM observation techniques can be veryadvantageous.

Before the FIB technique was put topractical use, TEM sample preparation ofinterfaces between hard and soft materials(such as semiconductor/polymer ormetal/rubber) was one of the most diffi-cult tasks and frequently could not bedone successfully. One of the advantagesof the FIB milling technique as comparedto standard TEM sample preparationmethods is the possibility of obtaininguniformly thick TEM samples from inter-faces composed of very dissimilar materi-als. The feasibility of using a FIB for thepurpose of thinning vitreously frozen bio-logical specimens for TEM was explored

Figure 5. Sputtered Cu after exposure to a Ga+ ion dose of 2.5 ¥ 1017 ions/cm2 at 30 kV.(a) Scanning transmission electron microscopy (STEM) image of an FIB-prepared crosssection of the surface region. (b) Ga concentration as a function of distance from surface.(c) Electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) orientation map with respect to exposed surfacenormal.

Figure 6. (a) FIB-prepared TEM sample of a Si device sliced and thinned exactly at thedesired position. (b) Multilayer metal/oxide coating on the inner surface of a light bulb.




in a study by Marko et al.38 A concernwas whether heat transfer beyond thedirect ion interaction volume mightdevitrify the ice. In the studies, changesindicative of heat-induced devitrificationwere not observed by TEM, in eitherimages or diffraction patterns. Hence,cryo-FIB thinning of bulk frozen-hydratedmaterial may be used in the future

with much greater efficiency than cryo-ultramicrotomy to prepare specimens forTEM cryo-tomography, without the speci-men distortions and handling difficultiesof the latter.

Related Fields of ApplicationThe techniques for preparing TEM

lamellae described in the section “Speci-

men Preparation Techniques” can be veryuseful for preparing specimens for otherstructural and analytical characterizationtechniques. As examples, we discussapplications in SEM, field ion microscopy,and three-dimensional atom probe (TAP)specimen preparation.

The main advantage of SEM as com-pared with TEM is the capability to ana-lyze bulk specimens and large areas.However, there are SEM modes that canconsiderably benefit from using thinsamples as a means to avoid the largeinteraction volume. By using FIB lamellae,the resolution in an EDX analysis canbe dropped considerably below 100 nm,even at high accelerating voltages. Speci-mens prepared using INLO techniques areideal for this purpose, and the analysis isparticularly fast in a dual-beam instrumentequipped with a an energy-dispersivespectroscopy detector. In the experiment,transmitted electrons must be captured in amaterial with a low x-ray production effi-ciency (e.g., a carbon substrate).

Transmitted electrons can also provideuseful information about the specimen,not only in terms of the thickness of anFIB-prepared TEM lamella, but also withrespect to the microstructure and phasecomposition. High-resolution FEG-SEM(field-emission gun SEM) or dual-beaminstruments can now reach subnanometerresolution and with a STEM detector canprovide information on the specimen at30 kV using similar contrast mechanismsas in a higher-voltage 200–300 kV TEM,but in a much shorter time.

Another important field of applicationthat has recently been demonstrated is theimprovement in EBSD spatial resolution.EBSD of FIB-milled cross-section samplesis possible, and the use of thin samplesimproves the spatial resolution of thetechnique.39 Field-emission SEM and thinsamples have enabled EBSD to achievespatial resolutions that approach 10 nm.One interesting application of this highspatial resolution is in the study ofaustenite/ferrite microstructures thatexist in certain types of iron meteorites.An important field of study in meteoriticsis understanding the thermal history of ameteorite as inferred from the microstruc-ture. In this case, both TEM and EBSDhave played important roles.

There are regions of meteorites, calledcloudy zones (based on their etchedappearance in optical microscopy), wherethere is an intimate mixing of austeniteand ferrite. EBSD orientation mapping ofsamples prepared by careful metallo-graphic techniques was unsuccessfulbecause of the small length scales ofthe microstructure. EXLO of thin TEM

Figure 7. FIB/TEM investigations of a nanoscale metal oxide semiconductor field-effecttransistor with a vertical gate design. TEM overview image of the final transistor in crosssection and (inset) elemental distribution image obtained by energy-filtering TEM, showingthe Si distribution in red (source–drain line, vertical gate, and upper gate) and the oxidelayers in green. The active length of the gate is 12.5 nm (indicated by arrows in the inset).

Figure 8. FIB-prepared toner sample placed on a metal disk and coated in preparation forFIB milling.


lamellae was used to prepare samples ofthe cloudy zone for TEM and EBSD map-ping. Figure 9a is an annular dark-fieldSTEM image of the cloudy zone from anEXLO FIB sample that shows the distribu-tion of the austenite and ferrite phases.Figure 9b is an EBSD orientation mapobtained from the thin sample shown inFigure 9a. The area in gray tones is austen-ite of a single orientation, and the color-coded regions are ferrite. Note that theEBSD map was obtained with a step sizeof 10 nm. The EXLO FIB sample providedsignificantly better EBSD orientation map-ping of the two-phase region than themetallographic sample. Figures 9c and 9dcompare the experimental [110] ferritepole figure obtained from the data shownin Figure 9b to the expected pole distribu-tion based on the accepted descriptions ofaustenite/ferrite orientation relationships,where close-packed directions and close-packed planes of the austenite or ferriteare parallel. In this case, the use of FIB,STEM, and EBSD of the same sampleregions allowed the fine-scale details ofthe microstructure to be studied andenabled a better understanding of thethermal history of the meteorite.

Field ion microscopy and TAP arewidely recognized as powerful tools for

the study of local atomic structure andlocal chemistry with single-atom sensitiv-ity. However, the application of thesetechniques frequently suffers from thestringent requirements of the specimengeometry. An ideal specimen should forma sharp conical tip with an end radius of<50 nm and a taper angle of <5∞.40 Formingsharp needles with electropolishing tech-niques is the most frequently appliedmethod to obtain suitable specimens.

Although these techniques work verywell for many metals and alloys, they can-not be applied for the preparation ofthin films and layered structures or site-specific specimens of grain boundariesor interfaces. In pioneering work, Larsonet al.41–43 demonstrated the potential ofFIB for preparing TAP specimens frommultilayered Co/Cu and related materi-als used for magnetic data storage. Inrecent years, many alternative tech-niques for tip preparation have beendeveloped, an overview of which is givenby Miller et al.40 In particular, Miller et al.developed techniques based on INLO thatmake it possible to prepare site-specificspecimens from a range of different mate-rials. Perez-Willard44 recently demon-strated that specimens containing a singlecrystallographically well-defined grain

boundary can be prepared using thisapproach.

ConclusionsThe rapid development of focused

ion beam technologies has become anenabling factor for transmission electronmicroscopy applications in many differentfields. Whereas the FIB preparation ofTEM specimens became popular in thesemiconductor field more than a decadeago, recent examples of FIB applicationscan be seen in a large variety of fields,from hard to soft matter and from materi-als to life sciences. In many applicationareas, there are no other TEM preparationtechniques that can compete in terms oftime efficiency, site specificity, and versa-tility. With the shorter scientific and tech-nological cycles, TEM characterizationand also related techniques can only keeppace because of the availability of this newand versatile preparation technique.However, there is also no other prepara-tion technique with the same potential todamage the sample and to create artifacts.

In this article, we have tried to providean overview of both the benefits and theproblems of FIB preparation techniques.As experience with the specific methodsand instrumental development advances,the benefits become larger whereas thedetrimental factors are reduced to anextent that makes us believe that FIBmilling will become the most importantpreparation route, even for the newestgeneration of sub-angstrom-resolutionTEMs.

AcknowledgmentsThe authors thank C.A. Volkert and

A.M. Minor for helpful discussions andcomments. J.R. Michael was supportedby Sandia National Laboratories, whichis a multiprogram laboratory operatedby Sandia Corporation, a LockheedMartin Company, for the U.S. Departmentof Energy under contract DE-AC04–94AL85000.

References1. L.A Giannuzzi, F.A. Stevie, Introduction toFocused Ion Beams: Instrumentation, Theory,Techniques, and Practice (Springer, New York,2005).2. E.C. Kirk et al., Inst. Phys. Conf. Series 100, 501(1989).3. D. Basile et al., Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc.254 (Materials Research Society, Pittsburgh, PA,1992) pp. 23–41.4. M.H.F. Overwijk, F.C. van den Heuvel,C.W.T. Bull-Lieuwma, J. Vac. Sci. Technol., B 11,2021 (1993).5. L.A. Giannuzzi et al., Mater. Res. Soc. Symp.Proc. 480 (Materials Research Society,Warrendale, PA, 1997) pp. 19–27.



Figure 9. STEM and EBSD results of an FIB-prepared thin sample of the cloudy zone in ameteorite. (a) Annular dark-field STEM image; (b) EBSD map showing the ferrite in color;(c) [110] ferrite pole figure obtained from (b); and (d) [110] pole figure for ferrite, showingthe distribution of poles expected from well-known austenite/ferrite orientation relationships.




6. T. Yaguchi, T. Kamino, T. Ishitani, R. Urao,Microsc. Microanal. 5, 363 (1999).7. L.A. Giannuzzi, R. Geurts, J. Ringnalda,Microsc. Microanal. 11 suppl. 2, 828 (2005).8. L.A. Giannuzzi, F.A. Stevie, Micron 30, 197(1999).9. F.A. Stevie et al., Surf. Interface Anal. 23, 61(1995).10. R.M. Anderson, Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc.254 (Materials Research Society, Pittsburgh, PA,1992) pp. 141–148.11. R.M. Anderson, S.J. Klepeis, Mater. Res. Soc.Symp. Proc. 480 (1997) p. 187.12. R.M. Langford, D. Ozkaya, B. Huey, A.K.Petford-Long, Proc. Royal Microsc. Soc.:Microscopy of Semiconducting Materials XII (2001)pp. 511–514.13. R.J. Young, P.D. Carleson, T. Hunt, J.F.Walker, Proc. 24th ISTFA Conf. (1998) p. 329.14. R.J. Young, Microsc. Microanal. Proc. (2000,vol. 6, suppl. 2) p. 512.15. M.V. Moore, Microsc. Microanal. Proc. (2002,vol. 8, suppl. 2) p. 60.16. R.M. Langford et al., J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 19(3), 755 (May/June 2001).17. T. Kamino et al., J. Electron Microsc. 53 (6),583 (2004).18. T. Kamino et al., J. Electron Microsc. 53 (5),563 (2004).

19. T. Ohnishi et al., Proc. 25th Int. Symp. Testingand Failure Analysis (November 1999)pp. 449–501.20. L.A. Giannuzzi et al., in Analysis Techniquesof Submicron Defects, 2002 Supplement to theEDFAS Failure Analysis Desktop Reference (ASMInternational, Materials Park, Ohio, 2002)pp. 29–35.21. S.M. Schwarz, B.W. Kempshall, L.A.Giannuzzi, Acta Mater. 51, 2765 (2003).22. T. Kamino et al., J. Electron Microsc. 53 (5),459 (2004).23. J.P. McCaffrey, M.W. Phaneuf, L.D. Madsen,Ultramicroscopy 87, 97 (2001).24. Z. Wanga et al., Appl. Surf. Sci. 241, 80(2005).25. K. Thompson et al., Microsc. Microanal. 12suppl. 2, 1736CD (2006).26. Z. Huang, J. Microsc. 215, 219 (2004).27. N.I. Kato, J. Electron Microsc. 53, 451 (2004).28. J.D. Casey et al., J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 20,2682 (2002).29. J.R. Michael, Microsc. Microanal. 12 suppl. 2,1248CD (2006).30. R. Spolenak, L. Sauter, C. Eberl, ScriptaMater. 53, 1292 (2005).31. S. Olliges et al., Acta Mater. 54, 5393 (2006).

32. J.H. Westbrook, Ed. Moffatt’s Handbook ofBinary Phase Diagrams (Genium Group,Amsterdam, NY, 2004) p. 2/94.33. F.A. Stevie et al., Surf. Interface Anal. 31, 345(2001).34. W. Henschel et al., J. Vac. Sci. Technol., B 21,2975 (2003).35. J. Mayer, T.E. Weirich, Microsc. Microanal. 11suppl. 2, 46 (2005).36. J.K. Lomness, L.A. Giannuzzi, M.D.Hampton, Microsc. Microanal. 7, 418 (2001).37. C.R. Perrey et al., J. Microsc. 214, 222 (2004).38. M. Marko et al., J. Microsc. 222, 42 (2006).39. V.G.M. Sivel et al., J. Microsc. 218, 115 (2005).40. M.K. Miller, K.F. Russell, G.B. Thompson,Ultramicroscopy 102, 287 (2005).41. D.J. Larson et al., Ultramicroscopy 75, 147(1998).42. D.J. Larson et al., Ultramicroscopy 79, 287(1999).43. D.J. Larson, A.K. Petford-Long, Y.Q. Ma, A.Cerezo, Acta Mater. 52, 2847 (2004).44. F. Pérez-Willard et al., Condens. Matter,0601543 (2006). ■■


TEM Sample Preparation and FIB-Induced Damage

Documents

Transcript of TEM Sample Preparation and FIB-Induced Damage