1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Multilayer approach to the quantitative analysis of x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy results: Applications to ultrathin on Si and to self-assembled monolayers on gold
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1116/1.2008274
/content/avs/journal/jvsta/23/5/10.1116/1.2008274
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/avs/journal/jvsta/23/5/10.1116/1.2008274

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Results of a three-layer model analysis of the apparent concentrations obtained for the samples. The results are plotted as a function of the thickness according to the standard equation, [Eq. (1) in Ref. 12]. (a) Optical thickness , thickness organic contamination , thickness layer according to model calculation , and total thickness according to the model calculation . (b) Concentration ratio /“Si as ” plotted as a function of . In this figure, the theoretical ratios for and also are shown.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Bond-line structure of the thiols tetraoxatridecane-thiol (EG4), mercapto-undecanol (MUO), and biotinylated alkyl thiol (BAT) (see Ref. 6).

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

spectrum for a sample consisting of C18 on gold [Sample 1(F) in Table V]. low denotes the doublet at corresponding to Au–thiolate. high denotes the doublet at corresponding to unbound thiol groups.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

(a) Thickness of the EG4 layers vs concentration in solution. The theoretical thicknesses in the figure below were obtained using a value for the length of the EG4 molecule of (based on a planar configuration (see Ref. 25)) and making use of the experimentally determined values of the coverage ṈS [see Table VIII(B)]. (b) Concentration ratio in the deposited SAM layers vs concentration in solution.

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

(a) Thickness of the SAM layers consisting of a mixture of MUO and BAT according to the model calculations , theoretical thickness , and thickness as determined by ellipsometry. (b) denotes the fraction of BAT in the deposited layers according to Eq. (36) and denotes the fraction BAT in the deposited layers assuming a relative sensitivity factor for the transition that is 10% less than .

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

Coverage with sulphur (in ) of a series of MAOEG layers on gold. Values obtained with RBS are plotted as a function of values obtained with XPS (model analysis). The composition of the SAM layers is the implicit variable.

Tables

Generic image for table
TABLE I.

Investigated samples and thickness layer according to ellipsometry measurements (nine-point Woollam). The variation in the thickness across the nine measurement positions is also given.

Generic image for table
TABLE II.

Raw concentrations (at. %) obtained for the sample series in Table I. Sample D has been measured in duplicate (sample number ). The result for sample L is the average of ten separate measurements at different positions. The contribution of suboxides to the concentration of “ as ” was taken into account by adding a weighed average [similar to Eq. (3) in Ref. 12].

Generic image for table
TABLE III.

Results of a three-layer model analysis of the apparent concentrations in the samples. In the right-hand column, the concentration ratio is given.

Generic image for table
TABLE IV.

Bulk composition (at. %) and surface composition according to XPS analyses of two organic substances (the latter calculated from PHI sensitivity factors). The thick polyimide layer was based on preimidized polyimide type AL3046 (JSR). PEDOT–PSS was spin-coated starting from a solution of poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (PEDOT), poly(styrene sulfonic acid) (PSS), and NaOH.

Generic image for table
TABLE V.

Raw concentrations of the two series of C18 samples on gold, obtained by dividing the peak areas by standard PHI sensitivity factors and normalizing to .

Generic image for table
TABLE VI.

Estimated values for the IMFP in polymers, based on values for of Cumpson (see Table 2 in Ref. 24) and the energy dependence given in Eq. (35). The values in the second row are valid for hydrocarbon polymers. The values in the third row are valid for CHO polymers. In the fourth row, values are given for the practical effective attenuation length (PEAL) according to Petrovykh et al. a

Generic image for table
TABLE VII.

Results of the model calculation for the SAM layers consisting of C18 deposited on gold. The concentrations in the composition column denote the weighted average of the concentrations in the interlayer and in the top layer. The concentration sulphur denotes the total concentration of both S in Au–thiolate bonds and S in unbound thiol groups. The parameter ṈS is based only upon the concentration of sulphur in Au–thiolate bonds.

Generic image for table
TABLE VIII.

(A) Raw concentrations obtained for layers of pure EG4 on gold and (B) Results of the model calculation for the EG4-samples.

Generic image for table
TABLE IX.

“Raw concentrations” of the samples containing a mixture of MUO and BAT, obtained by dividing the peak areas by standard PHI sensitivity factors and normalizing to .

Generic image for table
TABLE X.

Results of the model calculations for the MUO–BAT mixtures. The concentrations in the composition column denote the weighted average of the concentrations in the interlayer and in the top layer. The parameter ṈS is based only upon the concentration of sulphur in Au–thiolate bonds. ṈS denotes the coverage with sulphur in gold–thiolate bonds, the thickness of the SAM layers according to the model calculations, and the theoretical thickness.

Generic image for table
TABLE XI.

Results of model calculations for the MUO–BAT mixtures for a two-layer model (one single organic SAM layer on top of a gold substrate) and for a three-layer model (an aliphatic and an ethylene oxide part on top of the gold substrate). The theoretical concentration ratios and are also given.

Generic image for table
TABLE XII.

Thickness of some of the MUO–BAT mixtures on gold according to the model calculations, , and as determined using the ion-etch method, [Eq. (37)].

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/avs/journal/jvsta/23/5/10.1116/1.2008274
2005-08-18
2014-04-16
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Multilayer approach to the quantitative analysis of x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy results: Applications to ultrathin SiO2 on Si and to self-assembled monolayers on gold
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/avs/journal/jvsta/23/5/10.1116/1.2008274
10.1116/1.2008274
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM