Atom Probe Tomography
Atom Probe Tomography
Atom Probe Tomography
Tomography
Essential
Knowledge
Briefings First Edition, 2017
2 Atom Probe Tomography
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate,
Chichester, West Sussex PO19 8SQ, UK
Microscopy EKB Series Editor: Dr Julian Heath
Spectroscopy and Separations EKB Series Editor: Nick Taylor
Atom Probe Tomography 3
CONTENTS
4 INTRODUCTION
6 HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
12 IN PRACTICE
25 PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS
30 WHAT’S NEXT?
INTRODUCTION
Atom probe tomography (APT) has always offered the
enticing prospect of being able to determine the identity and
position of nearly every atom in a material, providing the ulti-
mate in elemental analysis. Actually realizing that prospect has
taken much time and effort. But with the latest APT systems able
to generate three-dimensional (3D) information at near atomic
resolution and possessing a chemical sensitivity that can reach
parts per million, the technique is now being used to analyze
everything from the oldest minerals known to man to the latest
nanomaterials.
APT involves applying either ultra-fast voltage pulses or laser
pulses to a needle-shaped specimen, stripping away atoms located at
the tip of the needle and converting them into charged ions in a
process known as field evaporation. These ions are then accelerated
by an electric field towards a position-sensitive detector that
registers the time it takes each ion to travel from the sample to the
detection system, as well as its impact position.
Because the energy applied to the atoms at the surface is
known, each ion’s mass-to-charge ratio can be calculated from its
travel time, and this mass-to-charge ratio is usually sufficient to
determine the identity of the original atom. APT is a destructive
technique that removes successive layers of atoms from a sample.
The impact position and order of detection can reveal the original
location of each atom in the sample. Combining these sources of
information produces a 3D image showing the atomic structure
and chemical composition of the sample, making APT particularly
effective at analyzing buried features and interfaces between
different regions.
Atom Probe Tomography 5
Local
Detector electrode
Load lock Laser objective
Laser source
Horizontal
transfer
Laser conditioning
Buffer/storage
Ion
Specimen Ion pump flight
TSP
Vertical
transfer Cryo
cooling Flight path details
Unphysical
region
Figure 2. Analytical resolution versus detection limit for APT and various other analytical
techniques
Figure 3. A single windows-based program calibrates, reconstructs and analyses the raw
APT data
IN PRACTICE
Before the advent of modern commercial instruments, data
collection was the main bottleneck in atom probe analyses, taking
days to obtain sufficient data. However, with all the improvements
to APT introduced over the past few years, this step can now take
less than an hour. One part of the process that remains less automated,
and therefore needs more operator input, is sample preparation,
which can be a delicate and time-consuming operation.
To ensure effective field evaporation, the targeted region of
interest (usually around 100 x 100 x 100 nm3 in volume) needs to
be needle shaped. One commonly used method for producing this
shape is known as electropolishing, which can be applied to
metals and metal alloys. An example electropolishing method
uses a sample with a thin, wire-like geometry that is dipped into a
thin layer of electrolyte floating on top of a dense inert liquid,
such that only the mid-section of the sample is immersed in the
electrolyte. Applying an electrical current then causes material
to be removed, or polished, from this immersed mid-section. A
number of other geometries and chemistries can also be used for
electropolishing depending upon the material being analyzed.
As more and more material is removed from the mid-section
(necking), the sample eventually breaks to leave one end with the
required needle shape and sharpness (Figure 4f). By using gradually
less concentrated solutions of the electrolyte to ensure a con-
trolled break, this method can also produce a needle shape at both
ends. Although the electropolishing process is often monitored
using an optical microscope, the sample can also be checked with
a transmission electron microscope (TEM) or a scanning electron
microscope (SEM).
Atom Probe Tomography 13
Figure 4. Specimen preparation: (a–c) standard FIB lift-out and mounting of a specimen;
(d–e) sharpening the sample with the region of interest left at the very apex; (f) electropolishing
of a wire geometry sample
60
50
Concentration (%)
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (nm)
Figure 5. Example APT data showing the ability to observe microscale and nanoscale
features with the same resolution and compositional accuracy
a b c
Capping layer
AlGaN 7%
6 nm
AlGaN 5%
12 nm
X 20
GaN
3 nm
AlGaN 12%
3 nm
Substrate
5 nm 20 nm
(a) Schematic of the AlGaN superlattice showing its chemical composition. (b) Scanning
transmission electron microscopy image of one period of the superlattice. (c) APT 3D
reconstruction of four periods of the superlattice
20 Atom Probe Tomography
Example of the FIB lift-out of a single geological crystal for analysis by APT
22 Atom Probe Tomography
a Carbon atoms
7.2 nm
Platinum atoms
160 nm
Carbon-13 Carbon-12
b
75 nm
Table 1. General experimental parameter considerations, data quality trends and trade-offs
(parameter increases , trends improves +, or worsens – the metrics)
WHAT’S NEXT?
The company CAMECA, headquartered in France with
facilities in the UK and USA, and a business unit of the global
instrument company AMETEK, is now the sole producer of
commercial APT systems, and is still actively working to improve
the technique by increasing throughput, efficiency, acquisition
times and resolution.
One of the last areas to resist automation is sample prepara-
tion. This is because, with APT being applied to an ever greater
variety of materials, more demands are being placed on the
methods for producing a needle shape. At the moment, all these
methods require multiple instruments to achieve this shape, with
heavy involvement from the operator. The future for sample
preparation includes developing methods that can produce such
microtips rapidly, accurately and automatically. This would allow
for the preparation of identical and uniform samples in large
volumes, generating comparable results for each analysis.
Another area where researchers would like to see improve-
ments is in the efficiency of ion detection. At the moment, ion
detection efficiencies of 50–80% are the best that can be expected
with modern instruments. The problem starts at the microchannel
plate before amplification. As this plate is composed of thousands
of channels arranged close together, there is always a chance that an
ion will hit the space in between two channels and get lost. New
designs for microchannel plates are envisioned, using thinner and
stronger materials covered by a secondary electron-emitting layer
made from a metal oxide such as aluminium(III) oxide, silicon
dioxide, zirconium dioxide or magnesium oxide. Researchers are
also testing new superconducting materials for this application.
Atom Probe Tomography 31
Conclusion
Since the turn of the century, the user base of APT has
expanded from just a handful of researchers to thousands who
now use APT on a regular basis, and is predicted to grow rapidly
in the coming years. The rapid increase in the number of publica-
tions featuring atom probe work is a testament to its increasing
popularity.
This is not surprising since, despite still struggling with
certain limitations, the ability of APT to determine the elemental
composition of samples in three dimensions at the nanoscale level
is too appealing to ignore. And this appeal should only grow, as
APT systems become more automated, and their resolution and
sensitivity gradually increase, until scientists really can determine
the identity and position of every atom in any material they desire.
Atom Probe Tomography 33
FURTHER READING
Atom Probe Tomography user’s website, run by CAMECA.
(http://www.atomprobe.com)
Gault B, Moody MP, Cairney JM, Ringer SP. Atom probe
microscopy. New York: Springer, 2012. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
978-1-4614-3436-8)
Hono K. Nanoscale microstructural analysis of metallic
materials by atom probe field ion microscopy. Prog Mater Sci 2002;
47:621–729. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6425(01)00007-X)
Kelly TF, Larson DJ. Atom probe tomography 2012. Ann
Rev Mater Res 2012;42:1–31. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
matsci-070511-155007)
Kelly TF, Miller MK. Atom probe tomography. Rev Sci
Instrum 2007;78:031101. (http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2709758)
Larson DJ, Prosa TJ, Ulfig RM, et al. Local electrode atom probe
tomography: a user’s guide. New York: Springer, 2013. (http://dx.
doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8721-0)
Lefebvre-Ulrikson W, Vurpillot F, Sauvage X (eds). Atom probe
tomography: put theory into practice. London: Academic Press, 2016.
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804647-0.01001-9)
Miller MK, Forbes RG. Atom-probe tomography: the local
electrode atom probe. New York: Springer, 2014. (http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7430-3)
Miller MK, Kelly TF, Rajan K, et al. The future of atom probe
tomography. Materials Today 2012;15:158–65. (http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S1369-7021(12)70069-X)
Essential
Knowledge
Briefings