AVS 50th International Symposium
    Applied Surface Science Friday Sessions
       Session AS-FrM

Paper AS-FrM1
Static ToF-SIMS - A VAMAS Interlaboratory Study, 2002

Friday, November 7, 2003, 8:20 am, Room 324/325

Session: SIMS
Presenter: I.S. Gilmore, National Physical Laboratory, UK
Authors: I.S. Gilmore, National Physical Laboratory, UK
M.P. Seah, National Physical Laboratory, UK
Correspondent: Click to Email
The first VAMAS static SIMS inter-laboratory study was conducted by NPL in 1996.@footnote 1@ That study included 21 static SIMS instruments with a wide variety of spectrometer types. Results indicated that, whilst repeatabilities could be as good as 1%, they were on average only 10%. Additionally, the equivalence of data between all the different instruments was improved by a factor of 4 by use of a relative instrument transmission function RISR.@footnote 1@ In 2002, the second VAMAS static SIMS inter-laboratory study was conducted, this time restricted to time-of-flight instruments which now dominate static SIMS analysis. The principal objectives are (i) to determine the repeatability of instruments, (ii) to determine the reproducibility of between laboratories, (iii) to evaluate variations in spectral response between different types of SIMS instruments and, optionally, (iv) instrument compatibility with G-SIMS@footnote 2@ may also be tested. Data have now been received from 31 laboratories (10 with G-SIMS data) from 16 countries. Three reference materials were used in this study, a thin spin cast polycarbonate film, a thin layer of polystyrene oligomers on silver and PTFE. A protocol for analysis was supplied to each laboratory. Relevant details of the protocol will be discussed. Excellent repeatabilities have been demonstrated with over 90% of participants achieving average repeatabilities of better than 5% and 30% of participants with better than 1.5%. The reference materials give an average repeatability of 2% over 27 laboratories. This shows a considerable improvement from the average repeatability of 10% in the former study. An analysis of the results and the issues of conducting both SSIMS and G-SIMS using different instruments will be presented. @FootnoteText@ @footnote 1@ I S Gilmore and M P Seah, Surf. Interface Anal., 29 (2000) 624.@footnote 2@ I S Gilmore and M P Seah, Appl. Surf. Sci., 161 (2000) 465.