TS-MME-SC
( Surface Analysis )
X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) report
Client: B. Holzer
Tel.:
Job No.: 1009-XPS-TS-MME-SC-2006-05-03
Job opened by: A. Reginelli
Date: 2006-05-03
Number of samples: 16
Sample codification: 1009
Inox samples,
1009-a: Inox without Al protection #1
1009-b: Inox without Al protection #2
1009-c: Inox with Al protection #1
1009-d: Inox with Al protection #2
Aluminium samples,
1009-e: Al without Al protection #1
1009-f: Al without Al protection #2
1009-g: Al with Al protection #1
1009-h: Al with Al protection #2
Copper samples,
1009-i: Cu without Al protection #1
1009-j: Cu without Al protection #2
1009-k: Cu with Al protection #1
1009-l: Cu with Al protection #2
Nature of samples:
Stainless steel, Aluminium and Cu samples; cleaned at IHEP Prodvino. Two types
of samples: packed in plastic bag with and without Al protection.
Sample storage: air
Aim of analysis: Check the surface sample cleanness and find out if the
contamination is due to the packaging.
Results
Page 1 of 10
XPS-report 1009-TS-MME-SC-2006-05-03
TS-MME-SC
( Surface Analysis )
Stainless steel samples:
Figure 1 presents the so-called surface concentrations as obtained by XPS for the
stainless steel samples. The samples without the Al foil protection are quite dirty; the
cleanness of these surfaces does not satisfies the criterion fixed for UHV applications (C
< 40 at. %). Si, Ca contamination are present on all the samples.
For the two samples packaged in Al foil, the situation is different. The first one has low C
atomic concentration (25.9 %), but the second one is highly contaminated. Si and Ca
contamination are again present on all the samples, possibly due to an insufficient
rinsing. The conclusion is that the quality of cleaning is not reproducible.
Aluminium:
Figure 2 presents the so-called surface concentrations as obtained by XPS for the
aluminium samples The two samples without the Al foil do not satisfy the criterion fixed
for UHV, (we recall that acceptance level for UHV insertion being 29 at % C for Al),
while the two with the aluminium foil are acceptable.
Si is present again at especially high amount (more than 10%).
Copper samples:
Figure 3 shows the so-called surface concentrations as obtained by XPS for the copper
samples. All the samples are completely contaminated (C atomic concentration > 90%).
The contamination overtakes the limit for UHV application is fixed at 44 at. %.
Packaging them in aluminium foil does not change anything. By visual inspection it is
also possible to see various halos on the samples.
Conclusion
Packaging the sample in Aluminium foils can help a bit, but the main problem is in the
cleaning procedure, which is insufficient to remove the contamination and in the rinsing.
Page 2 of 10
XPS-report 1009-TS-MME-SC-2006-05-03
TS-MME-SC
( Surface Analysis )
%C
%O
%Cr
%Fe
%N
%Ca
%Mo
%Si
80
Elemental concentration (at.%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Inox without Al
protection #2
Inox without Al
protection #1
Inox with Al protection
#1
Inox with Al protection
#2
Figure 1: So-called relative atomic surface concentrations calculated from the
photoelectron peak intensities in the XPS spectra – Stainless steel sample;
%C
%O
%Al
%N
%Ca
%Si
60
Elemetal concentration (at.%)
50
40
30
20
10
0
Al without Al protection
#1
Al without Al protection
#2
Al with Al protection #1
Page 3 of 10
XPS-report 1009-TS-MME-SC-2006-05-03
Al with Al protection #2
TS-MME-SC
( Surface Analysis )
Figure 2: So-called relative atomic surface concentrations calculated from the
photoelectron peak intensities in the XPS spectra – Aluminum samples;
120
%C
%O
%Cu
%N
%Na
%Si
Elemetal concentration (at.%)
100
80
60
40
20
0
Cu without Al protection Cu without Al protection Cu with Al protection #1 Cu with Al protection #2
#1
#2
Figure 3: So-called relative atomic surface concentrations calculated from the
photoelectron peak intensities in the XPS spectra – Copper sample
Page 4 of 10
XPS-report 1009-TS-MME-SC-2006-05-03