Does your SEM really tell the truth?

The scanning electron microscope (SEM) has gone through a tremendous evolution to become a critical tool for many, diverse scientifi c and industrial applications. The high resolution of the SEM is especially useful for qualitative and quantitative applications for both nanotechnology and nanomanufacturing. It is likely that one of the fi rst questions asked when the fi rst scanning electron micrograph was ever taken was: "...how big is that?" The quality of that answer has improved a great deal over the past few years, especially since SEMs are being used as a primary tool on semiconductor processing lines to monitor the manufacturing processes. The needs of semiconductor production prompted a rapid evolution of the instrument and its capabilities. Over the past 20 years or so, instrument manufacturers, through this substantial semiconductor industry investment of research and development (R&D) money, have vastly improved the performance of these instruments. All users have benefi tted from this investment, especially where metrology with an SEM is concerned. But, how good are these data? This presentation will discuss a sub-set of the most important aspects and larger issues associated with imaging and metrology with the SEM. Every user should know, and understand these issues before any critical quantitative work is attempted.

[1]  Michael T. Postek,et al.  Reference material (RM) 8820: a versatile new NIST standard for nanometrology , 2010, Advanced Lithography.

[2]  Dale E. Newbury,et al.  Faults and foibles of quantitative scanning electron microscopy/energy dispersive x-ray spectrometry (SEM/EDS) , 2012, Defense + Commercial Sensing.

[3]  Peters Kr,et al.  Working at higher magnifications in scanning electron microscopy with secondary and backscattered electrons on metal coated biological specimens and imaging macromolecular cell membrane structures. , 1985 .

[4]  Samuel N. Jones,et al.  Interlaboratory Study on the Lithographically Produced Scanning Electron Microscope Magnification Standard Prototype , 1993, Journal of research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

[5]  M. Postek,et al.  The relationship between accelerating voltage and electron detection modes to linewidth measurement in an SEM , 1988 .

[6]  András E Vladár,et al.  Modeling for accurate dimensional scanning electron microscope metrology: then and now. , 2011, Scanning.

[7]  Michael T. Postek,et al.  Parameters characterizing the measurement of a critical dimension , 1994, Advanced Lithography.

[8]  M. Postek CRITICAL ISSUES IN SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPE METROLOGY , 1994 .

[9]  Michael T. Postek,et al.  Report of Investigation: Reference Material 8090 - SEM Magnification Calibration Reference Material | NIST , 1995 .

[10]  Petersen Kr Conditions required for high quality high magnification images in secondary electron-I scanning electron microscopy. , 1982 .

[11]  T. Everhart,et al.  SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPE , 2014 .

[12]  Ndubuisi G. Orji,et al.  Strategies for nanoscale contour metrology using critical dimension atomic force microscopy , 2011, NanoScience + Engineering.