I performed a chemical composition analysis of a ruthenium thin film via both XPS and RBS. XPS shows the amount of oxygen as ~5% whereas RBS indicates ~1% oxygen present in the film. Thus, I am wondering which one is more accurate out of these two different results.
RBS is more accurate than XPS. But RBS has poor depth resolution when compared with XPS.
You have to take care also, that in XPS you have a different probed depth compared to RBS. This might be part of the explanantion for your difference. What is the thickness of your thin film?
You could also try to do X-ray fluorescence analysis on your samples.
Not knowing the calibration of the toolsets in question, and knowing that not all toolsets are equal, it is often difficult to say which is "more" accurate. Instead, I tend to gravitate to the technique which is more predictive towards the answers I seek, which as a process engineer is all I can hope for and is essentially all I really need to keep processes in control. This works well in a manufacturing or sustaining environments where $$ is the key driver. However, in R&D, I tend to review multiple analysis techniques to uncover the things that are specific to each technique...because you never know what surprises you will find. To assume you know is the least accurate method.
The thickness of the film is ~ 20 nm according to the ellipsometer's measurement.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Engineering
- Chemical Engineering