In this work, a novel parameter called the surface skirt (Ss) is introduced. The electron beam scattering by gaseous environment is the fundamental parameter limiting the performance of the Gaseous Scanning Electron Microscopy (GSEM). The result is the enlargement of the primary beam characterized by the radius skirt Rs. The scattering phenomena require a much closer re-examination. In fact, depending on the localization of EDX detector and the particles shape to analyze, the collected signal after the beam skirt will be different and Rs also will be different. So, except for homogeneous materials, Rs can not describe the scattering behavior. In this study, the surface skirt Ss instead of the radius skirt is introduced. Unlike Rs, the results show that Ss is a linear function versus pressure. This may help to use Ss in different scattering regimes and for a best interpretation of the consequences of electron scattering beam by gaseous environment. For demonstration, two gases environment: helium and water vapor are given but the results are valid whatever the environment used.
References
[1]
G. D Danilatos, “Foundations of Environmental Scanning Electron Microscopy,” Advances in Electronics and Electron Physics, 71, 1988, pp. 109-250.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2539(08)60902-6
[2]
L. Khouchaf, “Gaseous Scanning Electron Microscope (GSEM): Applications and Improvement,” In: V. Kazmiruk, Ed., Scanning Electron Microscopy, InTech, Croatia, 2012, pp. 1-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/34930
[3]
L. Reimer, “Scanning Electron Microscopy,” Springer- Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, Tokyo, 1985.
[4]
D. Stokes, “Principles and Practice of Variable Pressure: Environmental Scanning Electron Microscopy (VP-ESEM),” Wiley, Hoboken, 2008.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470758731
[5]
J. F. Mansfield, “X-Ray Microanalysis in the Environmental SEM: A Challenge or a Contradiction?” Micro- chimica Acta, Vol. 132, No. 2, 2000, pp. 137-143.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s006040050054
[6]
C. Gilpin and D. C. Sigee, “X-Ray Microanalysis of Wet Biological Specimens in the Environmental Scanning Electron Microscope. 1. Reduction of Specimen Distance under Different Atmospheric Conditions,” Journal of Microscopy, Vol. 179, No. 1, 1995, pp. 22-28.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2818.1995.tb03610.x
[7]
R. Gauvin, “Some Theoretical Considerations on X-Ray Microanalysis in the Environmental or Variable Pressure Scanning Electron Microscope,” Scanning, Vol. 21, No. 6, 1999, pp. 388-393.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sca.4950210605
[8]
L. Khouchaf and J. Verstraete, “X-Ray Microanalysis in the Environmental Scanning Electron Microscope (ESEM): Small Size Particles Analysis Limits,” Journal de Physique IV, Vol. 12, No. 6, 2002, pp. 341-346.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/jp4:20020242
[9]
L. Khouchaf and J. Verstraete, “Electron Scattering by Gas in the Environmental Scanning Electron Microscope (ESEM): Effects on the Image Quality and on the X-Ray Microanalysis,” Journal de Physique IV, Vol. 118, 2004, pp. 237-243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/jp4:2004118028
[10]
L. Khouchaf and F. Boinski, “Environmental Scanning Electron Microscope study of SiO2 Heterogeneous Material with Helium and Water Vapor,” Vacuum, Vol. 81, No. 5, 2007, pp. 599-603.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vacuum.2006.08.001
[11]
O. Mansour, K. Aidaoui, A. Kadoun, L. Khouchaf and C. Mathieu, “Monte Carlo Simulation of the Electron Beam Scattering under Gas Mixtures Environment in an HPSEM at Low Energy,” Vacuum, Vol. 84, No. 4, 2010, pp. 458-463.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vacuum.2009.09.004
[12]
L. Khouchaf, C. Mathieu and K. Abd-Ed-Da?m, “Micro-analysis Results with Low Z Gas Inside Environmental SEM,” Vacuum, Vol. 86, No. 1, 2011, pp. 62-65.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vacuum.2011.04.014
[13]
C. Arnoult, J. Di Martino, L. Khouchaf, V. Toniazzo and D. Ruch, “Pressure and Scattering Regime Influence on the EDS Profile Resolution at a Composite Interface in Environmental SEM,” Micron, Vol. 42, No. 8, 2011, pp. 877-883. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.micron.2011.06.004
[14]
A. Zoukel, L. Khouchaf, J. D. Martino and D. Ruch, “Skirting Effects in the Variable Pressure Scanning Electron Microscope: Limitations and Improvements,” Micron, Vol. 44, 2013, pp. 107-114.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.micron.2012.05.004
[15]
A. Zoukel, L. Khouchaf, C. Arnoult, J. D. Martino and D. Ruch, “A New Approach to Reach the Best Resolution of X-Ray Microanalysis in the Variable Pressure SEM,” Micron, Vol. 46, 2013, pp. 12-21.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.micron.2012.11.003
[16]
O. Mansour, A. Kadoun, L. Khouchaf and C. Mathieu, “Monte Carlo Simulation of the Electron Beam Scattering under Water Vapor Environment at Low Energy,” Vacuum, Vol. 87, 2013, pp. 11-15.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vacuum.2012.06.006
[17]
J. Rattenberger, J. Wagner, H. Schrottner, S. Mitsche and A. Zankel, “A Method to Measure the Total Scattering Cross Section and Effective Beam Gas Path Length in a Low-Vacuum SEM,” Scanning, Vol. 31, No. 3, 2009, pp. 107-113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sca.20148
[18]
S. A. Wight and A. R. Konicek, “Electron Scattering Cross Section Measurements in a Variable Pressure Scanning Electron Microscope,” Micron, Vol. 43, No. 9, 2012, pp. 985-991.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.micron.2012.04.003
[19]
G. D. Danilatos, “Electron Scattering Cross-Section Measurements in ESEM,” Micron, Vol. 45, 2013, pp. 1-16.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.micron.2012.10.002
