DOCSLIB.ORG

Gas Cluster Ion Beams for Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Annual Review of Analytical Chemistry

Gas Cluster Ion Beams for Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry

Nicholas Winograd

Department of Chemistry, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA; email: [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Anal. Chem. 2018. 11:29–48

Keywords

First published as a Review in Advance on February 28, 2018

bioimaging, cluster ion beams, phospholipids, instrumentation, molecular depth profiling, molecular dynamics computer simulations

The Annual Review of Analytical Chemistry is online

at anchem.annualreviews.org

Abstract

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anchem- 061516-045249

Gas cluster ion beams (GCIBs) provide new opportunities for bioimaging and molecular depth profiling with secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS). These beams, consisting of clusters containing thousands of particles, initiate desorption of target molecules with high yield and minimal fragmentation. This review emphasizes the unique opportunities for implementing these sources, especially for bioimaging applications. Theoretical aspects of the cluster ion/solid interaction are developed to maximize conditions for successful mass spectrometry. In addition, the history of how GCIBs have become practical laboratory tools is reviewed. Special emphasis is placed on the versatility of these sources, as size, kinetic energy, and chemical composition can be varied easily to maximize lateral resolution, hopefully to less than 1 micron, and to maximize ionization efficiency. Recent examples of bioimaging applications are also presented.

  • c
  • Copyright ꢀ 2018 by Annual Reviews.

All rights reserved

ANNUAL REVIEWS

Further

Click here to view this article's online features:

• Download figures as PPT slides • Navigate linked references • Download citations • Explore related articles • Search keywords

29

INTRODUCTION

Since the discovery by J.J. Thompson over 100 years ago that charged particles could be emitted from surfaces (1), secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS) has become a mainstay for materials characterization. Currently, the technique is unique in its ability to provide surface-specific molecular information, to acquire spatially resolved mass spectra with submicron resolution, and to acquire in-depth composition of molecular solids with nanometer resolution. The imaging modality is particularly interesting. Originally developed in the SIMS community using focused atomic ion beams to define position (2), the method provides unprecedented chemically specific information at each pixel. Moreover, by stacking images acquired at different sample depths, three-dimensional (3D) information is forthcoming. The SIMS community has retained an unusual buoyancy through the decades, and the recent emergence of cluster ion beams to initiate desorption has had a remarkable effect. With multiple atoms comprising the primary ion, chemical damage to the sample is reduced because each atom carries a smaller share of the incident kinetic energy. Molecular fragmentation is reduced during the desorption process, resulting in nearly fragment-free mass spectra. Molecular depth profiling of complex materials has allowed subsurface information to be acquired for the first time. When combined with imaging, 3D information on the nanoscale is possible to achieve. Cluster projectiles have placed molecular SIMS spectral capabilities, when the m/z < 3,000, nearly on par with other stimulated desorption techniques that do not have these unique aspects (3–5). An excellent comprehensive treatise on this topic has recently been published (6).

SIMS: secondary ion

mass spectrometry, in which secondary ions are generated from primary ion bombardment

Although countless cluster projectile varieties have been proposed, evaluated, and espoused, the implementation of gas cluster ion beams (GCIBs) has a special allure. These clusters, created during supersonic expansion, generate clusters that consist of ∼1,000 to >10,000 component atoms or molecules. To allow for beam focusing and to provide sufficient kinetic energy to initiate molecular desorption, these beams are typically accelerated to >10 keV of kinetic energy. Because kinetic energy divides equally among constituents (7), the kinetic energy of each particle is reduced to a value comparable to chemical bond strengths. Hence, molecular fragmentation, subsurface damage, and interlayer mixing are reduced. There is a fundamental difference between GCIBs

+

and smaller cluster projectiles such as Bi3 or C60+, where the kinetic energy per atom ranges from a few hundred to a few thousand electron volts.
There are practical challenges associated with GCIBs that prevent them from dominating
SIMS laboratories. These beams are characterized by a distribution of cluster sizes that renders pulsing for time-of-flight (TOF)-SIMS problematic. Focusing to a submicron spot has not yet been routinely demonstrated, compromising the ability to acquire high spatial resolution chemical images. Moreover, ionization efficiency is often poor even though molecular desorption is highly efficient. Because of these issues, most SIMS researchers utilize the GCIB as an effective erosion source for molecular depth profiling but employ the smaller cluster sizes for spectral characterization and imaging. As it turns out, however, none of the aforementioned challenges is without solution. Instrumental developments now allow high-quality mass spectra to be acquired easily with GCIBs, and sources focused to at least one micron are becoming available. The great flexibility of tuning the chemistry of the GCIB also has implications for enhancing ionization. In this review, prospects for the exclusive use of GCIBs as the ion source of choice for molecular SIMS experiments are considered by examining each of these factors in detail.

THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The emergence of GCIB technology has enormously expanded the space available for projectile choice. Variables include size, composition, energy, and incidence angle. How can we optimize

  • 30
  • Winograd

the experiment? Several important properties need to be considered. First, the sample needs to receive sufficient kinetic energy to initiate molecular desorption. Second, the kinetic energy must be low enough so as not to initiate collision-induced fragmentation. Third, there must be sufficient energy provided to the system to allow ionization during desorption when precharged species are not present. If there are no ions, there is no signal. Finally, because 3D imaging is an important goal, the depth resolution during erosion needs to be optimized by tuning either the kinetic energy or the angle of incidence. The basic challenge is, then, how to find the sweet spot that maximizes all of these demands. Is there enough parameter space to find some set of optimized conditions? Can there be a theory that leads us in the right direction?
To begin, a basic picture of the cluster-solid interaction is needed. This type of picture is most vividly provided by molecular dynamics computer simulations, which for several decades have provided molecular-level information about the energy dissipation process (8–12). An example that illustrates the unique aspect of the GCIB when compared to other atomic or cluster ion projectiles is shown in Figure 1. In this case, the substrate is an Ag(111) crystal, and the projectile is accelerated to a kinetic energy of 15 keV (13) (Ar872 at 15 keV moves at 104 m/s). Hence, the energy per atom varies from 15,000 eV for Ga to 17.2 eV for Arn, where n is the number of atoms in the cluster; in this case, it is 872. Note that both Ga and Au3 penetrate deeply into the Ag crystal, leaving considerable damage and atomic mixing. The displacements are characterized by binary collisions producing a collision cascade of atoms. For C60, the impact results in the formation of a well-defined crater, much like that of a meteor striking the earth. This mesoscale phenomenon is not well described by a collision cascade because the diameter of the C60 molecule (0.7 nm) is larger than the interatomic spacing of the Ag crystal (0.23 nm). This observation has led to the development of analytical theories of particle emission based upon mesoscale fluid flow that are successful for predicting a range of parameters (14, 15). For the GCIB bombardment, the crater is of similar diameter to C60, although the depth is much lower. In addition, Ar872 is large enough to block emission of substrate atoms. Hence, most of the particles are emitted from the crater edge at off-normal angles. The yield of substrate atoms is approximately one-third that of C60, presumably due to this blocking effect and to the lower kinetic energy per particle in the cluster, E/n. It is this parameter that may also affect ionization probability, which is generally lower for GCIBs than for C60. Many other graphical pictures and videos, acquired using molecular dynamics, have been published over the last several years (9–12, 16–20).
With all of the variables associated with GCIBs, and with the possibility of generating clusters with different chemistry (e.g., C60), there has been an effort to find universal relationships that allow for a predictive model using a single equation. A successful approach involves plotting experimentally measured Y/n versus E/n for Ar–GCIBs. Here, Y is the yield of neutral material from a molecular solid in volume units (nm3), and E is the kinetic energy of the cluster (21–25). Such a plot is shown for a variety of materials in Figure 2. Note that the value of Y/n can vary over four orders of magnitude for organic solids and polymers, and even more for atomic solids such as Si, SiO2, and Au. The plot shows that different classes of materials tend to cluster around specific regions. In general, the yield from atomic solids can be an order of magnitude lower than the yield from molecular solids, primarily due to cohesive energy differences. This effect makes the characterization of hybrid materials consisting of metal and organic components challenging due to differential sputtering effects. After classifying the experimental data, the information can be fitted with an empirical equation, which then has some predictive value. From this log–log plot, the Y/n value has a higher slope below 10 eV/atom than above this value. This effect is due to the fact that at higher E/n, the energy cannot efficiently flow away from the cluster impact site fast enough, so the yield of material begins to level off with increasing E. Finally, it has recently been shown that by plotting Y(E/U0), where U0 is the binding energy of the solid, versus E/n, the

•

0 ps

Au3

  • C60
  • Ar872

Ga

3 ps 29 ps

  • 21
  • 78
  • 317
  • 106

1 nm

Figure 1

Molecular dynamics computer simulations for primary ions of varying sizes bombarding an Ag(111) crystal at normal incidence and at a kinetic energy of 15 keV. The layers are color coded to aid visual clarity (13). The first three rows show a cross section of the crystal, whereas the bottom row shows a top-down view to gain insight into the size of the damaged area. The gray particles begin at a depth of 4.6 nm. The numbers in the bottom left corner of the third row are approximate values for the number of Ag atoms ejected for each primary particle impact. The first row shows the initial state of the crystal, and the second and third rows illustrate the time evolution of the damage after 3 ps and 29 ps. Figure adapted with permission from Reference 13. Copyright 2013, SurfaceSpectra Ltd.

behavior of different materials classes can be made to converge (25). The goal of attaining some sort of universally applicable result has nearly been achieved.
The previous discussion applies when the mass of the atom in the cluster does not change. The situation is less clear when trying to compare the behavior of C60 to Ar1000, for example (26, 27). These comparisons can be made by plotting the yield per nucleon of sample versus the energy per nucleon of the projectile (27). This result illustrates that the mass of the projectile is a key parameter. It is interesting that as the energy per nucleon is increased from 0.5 to 200, the ejected mass per nucleon increases by a factor of 200.
Collision-induced fragmentation of target molecules must also be considered when seeking to optimize the size and energy of the GCIB. Using molecular dynamics computer simulations for Ar clusters, Garrison and coworkers (28) have shown that fragmentation begins at ∼50 eV/atom for

  • 32
  • Winograd

100
10

Irganox 1010

SiO2

HTM-1

1.0

PMMA

Polycarbonate

Polystyrene

0.1

Au

0.01
0.001
0.0001
0.00001

Si

  • 1
  • 10
  • 100

E/n, eV/atom

Figure 2

A log–log plot of Y/n versus E/n (n is the number of atoms in the cluster) for a wide variety of materials bombarded by Ar clusters of various sizes at a 45◦ angle of incidence. Solid lines are the predictions for the universal curve, proposed by Seah (24), whereas the other lines show the behavior of other materials as indicated. Note that the sputtering rate for organic material is 2–4 orders of magnitude greater than for elements or inorganic compounds. Moreover, the sputtering rate for a specific species can vary by more than two orders of magnitude, depending upon the E/n value. Figure adapted with permission from Reference 24.

small molecules such as benzene and octane, and it begins at ∼10 eV/atom with longer entwined molecules such as β-carotene.
In the laboratory, GCIB clusters varying in size from several atoms to 10,000 atoms or more have been synthesized. The yield of emitted secondary ions is found to be a function of both the cluster size and the kinetic energy. How can we best organize all these variables to find the best conditions for SIMS? The heart of the problem is illustrated in Figure 3, where the SIMS spectrum is examined as a function of cluster size. The results show that as the size is increased, the magnitude of the signal decreases in an exponential fashion. However, the number of fragments relative to the number of molecular ions also decreases. A clear example of this effect has been reported using a thin amino acid film as a model compound (29). An interesting dichotomy is then apparent from Figure 3, where the ionization yield drops exponentially with decreasing E/n beginning at ∼20 eV/atom. Maximization of sensitivity also introduces the risk of opening the molecule fragmentation channel. However, in the figure, there appears to be a sweet spot in the 5–10 eV/atom range, where fragmentation is not too severe, and the ion yield drop-off is not too significant.

MOLECULAR DEPTH PROFILING

As noted in the Introduction, an important and unique aspect of cluster SIMS is the ability to interrogate molecular thin films in depth by eroding the sample with the primary ion beam (30). This property is remarkable because this beam creates damage to the surface and subsurface of the molecular film via collision-induced processes, altering the chemical composition. In fact, during the early years of SIMS research using atomic ion beams, so much damage was created that the ion

Static SIMS: method

in which the dose is

dose had to be kept below 1% of the number of surface molecules to acquire enough data to even kept below damage

threshold

produce a mass spectrum, a modality referred to as static SIMS (31). For many years, however, it has been recognized that the degree of damage is much less when employing cluster ion beams,

•

104

  • a
  • b

103 102
10
1.0 0.1
1

  • 500
  • 1,000
  • 1,500
  • 2,000
  • 5
  • 10
  • 15
  • 20

  • Cluster size, n
  • E/n, eV

Figure 3

+

Response of a generic organic molecule to 5-keV Arn bombardment. These graphs illustrate the conundrum associated with molecular ion yield and molecular fragmentation. Panel a shows the typical variation of the molecular ion yield as the cluster size is increased from Ar200 to Ar2000. Panel b shows how the fragments for a variety of molecules change with cluster size. Note that both ordinates are plotted on a log scale and that values of E/n (n is the number of atoms in the cluster) between 5 eV and 10 eV tend to maximize sensitivity and minimize fragmentation. The kinetic energy of the cluster is held constant at 5 keV in all cases. Figure adapted from Reference 29.

similar to what has been observed when diluting the molecule into a matrix. There are at least two factors at play. There is a nonlinear increase in the sputtering yield when the sample is hit by many particles simultaneously, and the lower E/n value associated with clusters inherently yields less damage. The result is attainment of a steady-state composition where the damage created by the primary cluster ion beam is efficiently removed and does not accumulate as the dose is increased.
Many different types of cluster beams, consisting of various sizes and composition, have been espoused over the last several decades. Early experiments using giant glycerol clusters (32), carbon clusters (33), and SF5+ (7) were particularly influential in demonstrating the advantages of cluster SIMS over the use of atomic projectiles. For the first time, it was shown that molecular ion signals persisted as the sample was eroded, and the mass spectra exhibited much less fragmentation than with atomic ion beams. Acceptance was slow, however, due to technical challenges and the fact that these beams could not be focused very well. Without the focusing, the imaging modality so crucial to the SIMS technique is severely compromised.
Molecular depth profiling achieved a quantitative status with the emergence of the C60 source
(34). With this probe, detailed studies aimed at elucidating the factors that lead to a successful depth profile were initiated. Trehalose thin films of several hundred nanometers were employed as a model (35). This species is attractive because smooth, uniform, and stable thin films are easily prepared in the laboratory via spin coating onto an Si substrate. Atomic force microscopy (AFM) is also a valuable tool, as it confirms film uniformity, detects the formation of topography that distorts thickness measurements, and reveals the physical shape of the erosion crater. Typical depth profiles are shown in Figure 4. Cheng and coworkers (36) utilized these data to create an erosion dynamics model that allowed the molecular sputtering yield, damage cross section, depth resolution, and altered layer thickness to be computed. They found that by using a 20-keV beam,

+

245 trehalose molecule equivalents per incident C60 molecules were removed, and interface widths of <10 nm could be measured. The model has been extended and made more sophisticated in the ensuing years (37).

  • 34
  • Winograd

319.11 56.94

[nm]

0.75 0.50 0.25
0.0

  • 0
  • 522.2089

[µm]

  • 0
  • 100
  • 200
  • 300
  • 400
  • 500
  • 600

Depth, nm

Figure 4

Prototypical molecular depth profile of a 300-nm-thin film of trehalose spin coated onto an Si wafer using C60 for erosion. The red points are the quasimolecular ions of trehalose at m/z 325, [M−OH]+, whereas

Recommended publications
  • Devices for Mass Spectrometry on a Chip

    Devices for Mass Spectrometry on a Chip

    DEVICES FOR MASS SPECTROMETRY ON A CHIP Title: Professor Name: Richard R.A.Syms Affiliation/Address: EEE Dept., Imperial College London Phone: +44-207-594-6203 E-mail: [email protected] Devices for mass spectrometry on a chip Synonyms Mass spectrometer, mass analyser Definition A mass spectrometer is a vacuum analytical instrument that uses electric or magnetic fields or a mixture of the two to separate ions based on the ratio of their mass m to their charge q. A distinction is made between mass spectrometers, which produce a serially scanned output, and mass spectrographs, which produce a parallel (and sometimes graphical) output. The mass-to charge ratio is often written as m/z, where q = ze, e = 1.6 x 10-19 C is the electronic charge and z is the charge number. The ions are created from analyte molecules by processes that give rise to a characteristic pattern of fragments, in addition to the molecular ion itself, allowing a mass spectrometer to be used for chemical identification, compositional quantification and structural analysis. Performance is characterized in terms of the mass range (defined by the maximum mass mmax that can be measured), the mass resolution (defined as m/∆m, where ∆m is the uncertainty in the mass being measured) and the PAGE 1/25 DEVICES FOR MASS SPECTROMETRY ON A CHIP sensitivity. Applications include analytical chemistry, process and pollution monitoring, forensic science, the detection of drugs, chemical and biochemical weapons, and space exploration. In some cases, high performance is essential, while in others, low cost, small size, and portability are more desirable.
  • Stability of Metal Nanoclusters - Shells of Atoms and Electrons

    Stability of Metal Nanoclusters - Shells of Atoms and Electrons

    2145-1 Spring College on Computational Nanoscience 17 - 28 May 2010 Stability of metal nanoclusters - shells of atoms and electrons Hannu HAKKINEN Nanoscience Center, Dept. of Physics and Chemistry University of Jyvaskyla Finland Stability of metal nanoclusters – shells of atoms and electrons Hannu Häkkinen Lecture 1 Trieste 5/2010 Hannu Häkkinen, Nanoscience Center, University of Jyväskylä Cluster science – at the heart of ”Nano” ! nanocatalysts Thermodynamics Supported of small systems nanoparticles Understanding the size- dependent properties of clusters in vacuum Reaction centers Cluster in enzymes materials Passivated nanoparticles Hannu Häkkinen, Nanoscience Center, University of Jyväskylä 1 Some literature !! R. L. Johnston, Atomic and Molecular Clusters, Taylor & Francis (2002). !! W. A. de Heer, The physics of simple metal clusters: Experimental aspects and simple models, Rev. Mod. Phys 65, 611 (1993). !! M. Brack, The physics of simple metal clusters: Self-consistent jellium model and semiclassical approaches, Rev. Mod. Phys. 65, 677 (1993). !! F. Baletto, R. Ferrando, Structural properties of nanoclusters: Energetic, thermodynamic, and kinetic effects, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 371 (2005). !! T. P. Martin, Shells of atoms, Phys. Rep. 273, 199 (1996). !! L. D. Marks, Experimental studies of small particle structures, Rep. Prog. Phys. 57, 603 (1994). Hannu Häkkinen, Nanoscience Center, University of Jyväskylä Manufacturing & analysis Hannu Häkkinen, Nanoscience Center, University of Jyväskylä 2 Cluster sources !! Seeded supersonic
  • Chip-Scale Quadrupole Mass Filters for a Micro-Gas Analyzer

    Chip-Scale Quadrupole Mass Filters for a Micro-Gas Analyzer

    Chip-Scale Quadrupole Mass Filters for a Micro-Gas Analyzer by Kerry Cheung B.S., Applied and Engineering Physics Cornell University, 2003 S.M., Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2005 Submitted to the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY June 2009 © 2009 Massachusetts Institute of Technology All rights reserved Author__________________________________________________________________ Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science May 22, 2009 Certified by______________________________________________________________ Akintunde I. Akinwande Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Thesis Supervisor Accepted by_____________________________________________________________ Terry P. Orlando Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Chairman, Department Committee on Graduate Students 2 Chip-Scale Quadrupole Mass Filters for a Micro-Gas Analyzer by Kerry Cheung Submitted to the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science on May 22, 2009 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Abstract Mass spectrometers are powerful analytical instruments that serve as the gold standard for chemical analysis. This tool has numerous applications ranging from national security, industrial
  • 1 History of Mass Spectrometric Techniques

    1 History of Mass Spectrometric Techniques

    1 History of Mass Spectrometric Techniques In its history, mass spectrometry has passed through fascinating scientific epochs of development and supplied important contributions to the world view in quite different fields of science (espe- cially in the life sciences, environmental science and technology, material and nuclear sciences, geosciences, cosmochemistry,1 planetary and forensic sciences) and in basic studies in chemistry and physics. Mass spectrometry is more than 100 years old and has yielded basic results and profound insights for the development of atomic physics. The rapid development of nuclear physics, in particular, would be unthinkable without the application of mass spectrometric methods. Mass spectrometry has contributed to conclusive evidence for the hypothesis of the atomic structure of matter. So far mass spectrometry has supplied specific results on the structure of the nucleus of atoms. Nobel prizes have been awarded to a number of scientists (Thomson, Wien, Aston, Paul, Fenn and Tanaka) associated with the birth and development of mass spectrometry, or in which mass spectrometry has aided an important discovery (e.g., for the discovery of fullerenes by Curl, Kroto and Smalley). Relevant preliminary work for the development of mass spectrography started with Goldstein’s discovery of anode rays, which are positive charged gas-phase ions, in gas discharge in the mid- 1980s. The experimental arrangement of Goldstein’s glow discharge tube as the simplest possible ion source is shown in Figure 1.3 and was firstly published in the ‘Sitzungsbericht der Königlich- Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften’ in 1886.2 Goldstein’s method for generating positively charged ions in a gas discharge was used in the early mass analysis measurements of Wien,3 Thomson4 and Aston.5 In 1898 Wien analyzed the anode rays by magnetic deflection and found that these rays carried a positive charge.
  • (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 8,507,849 B2 Brown (45) Date of Patent: Aug

    (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 8,507,849 B2 Brown (45) Date of Patent: Aug

    US008507849B2 (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 8,507,849 B2 BrOWn (45) Date of Patent: Aug. 13, 2013 (54) MASS SPECTROMETER (56) References Cited (75) Inventor: Jeffery Mark Brown, Cheshire (GB) U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS 6,300,627 B1 10/2001 Koster et al. (73) Assignee: Micromass UK Limited, Manchester 6,512,226 B1 1/2003 Loboda et al. (GB) 6,534,764 B1 3/2003 Verentchikov et al. 6,627,877 B1 9, 2003 Davis et al. 6,900,430 B2 5/2005 Okumura et al. (*) Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this 2002/0027194 A1 3/2002 Holle et al. ................... 250,287 patent is extended or adjusted under 35 2004/0232327 A1 11/2004 Bateman et al. U.S.C. 154(b) by 804 days. 2005/0242279 A1* 11/2005 Verentchikov ................ 250,287 2007/0034794 A1 2/2007 Cotter et al. .................. 250,287 (21) Appl. No.: 11/721,755 * cited by examiner PCT Fled: Dec. 19, 2005 (22) FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS (86) PCT NO.: PCT/GB2OOS/OO4911 EP 1306881 5, 2003 WO 2004O21386 8, 2003 S371 (c)(1), WO 20040O8481 1, 2004 (2), (4) Date: Jul. 3, 2009 OTHER PUBLICATIONS (87) PCT Pub. No.: WO2006/064280 Bateman, R. H. et al; A Combined Magnetic Sector-Time-of-flight Mass Spectrometer for Structural Determination Studies by Tandem PCT Pub. Date: Jun. 22, 2006 Mass Spectrometry; Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry, (65) Prior Publication Data vol. 9, 1227-1233 (1995). US 2009/O29.4642 A1 Dec. 3, 2009 Primary Examiner — Nicole Ippolito (74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm — Diederiks & Whitelaw, PLC Related U.S.
  • Example: Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS)

    Example: Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS)

    Example: Accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) Today’s schedule: • What is AMS used for? • How does it work? • Assignments: dead-line 21 December Example: Accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) • Archeology • Geology • Medicine • Food chemistry 3H 14C 36 • Radiation protection Cl • Ecology 10 Be 59Ni • Radioecology • Aerosol science 26Al • Pharmaceutical development • Bomb-pulse dating How is 14C created? Cosmic rays 14 14 + C (carbon-14) Modern carbon O2 CO2 14 99% 12C N (nitrogen-14) 1% 13C 14CO 10-10% 14C 14CO O2 2 14 14 2 C + O2 CO2 O2 14 CO2 O2 14C 14N + -radiation T1/2=5730 years 14 How to measure C? (T1/2=5730 years) ”Modern”carbon: 99% 12C Decay measurement: • several days of measuring time 13 1% C • 1 g carbon 10-10 % 14C 14 decays/minute 1 gram of modern carbon 14C 14N + -radiation 60 000 million atoms AMS measurement: • < 1 hour of measuring time • 10 µg - 1 mg carbon Why not conventional mass spectrometry? BR=mv/q=(2mE)1/2/q The 14C signal will drown in a background of interfering isobars (ions with M=14, e.g. 13CH)! Two types of AMS systems • Tandem AMS (usually called just AMS): developed in the late 1970ies • Single Stage AMS (SSAMS): first commercial system installed in 2004 in Lund The exercise is on SSAMS! Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) Tandem AMS Ion source Detector Counting atoms with tandem-AMS: refined mass spectrometry Example: a large 3 MV system 3 MV Ion source tandem accelerator with carbon Velocity samples filter Particle Dipolmagnets detector Mass separator • Measures 14C/13C/12C: gives activity ( age) • Measuring
  • Magnetically Enhanced Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer

    Magnetically Enhanced Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer

    Magnetically Enhanced Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer Thesis submitted in accordance with the requirements of the University of Liverpool for the degree of Doctor in Philosophy by Simon Maher Department of Electrical Engineering and Electronics University of Liverpool September 2013 Synopsis The Quadrupole Mass Filter (QMF) is the key component of a Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer (QMS) first described by Nobel laureate Wolfgang Paul and co- worker Helmut Steinwedel in 1953. The QMS remains a widely used analytical tool for separating charged species in space according to their mass-to-charge ratio, with an extensive range of applications in both industry and research. In the original work of Paul and Steinwedel much emphasis was placed on the fact that the QMF separates ions due to the quadrupolar electric field (comprising dc and ac components) and without the use of magnetic fields. In the present thesis both experimental and theoretical work is presented, to demonstrate that the application of a magnetic field to a QMS enhances device performance. Theoretical work has focussed on the analytical investigation of the Mathieu equation for this particular case. This has led to an extensive simulation study of a QMS under the application of static and dynamic magnetic fields. A method is described that enables the three-dimensional (3D) fields of a simple QMF to be determined to a high accuracy. The technique produces accurate field values and was used to investigate fringe field effects particularly at the entrance to the QMF where they can often be detrimental to performance. Moreover, a two- dimensional (2D) software model was used to study the behaviour of the QMF and modified to incorporate the effect of applying a magnetic field.
  • Development of a Primary Ion Column for Mass Spectrometry-Based Surface Analysis Raul A

    Development of a Primary Ion Column for Mass Spectrometry-Based Surface Analysis Raul A

    Florida International University FIU Digital Commons FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations University Graduate School 7-1-2016 Development of a Primary Ion Column for Mass Spectrometry-Based Surface Analysis Raul A. Villacob [email protected] DOI: 10.25148/etd.FIDC000761 Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd Part of the Analytical Chemistry Commons Recommended Citation Villacob, Raul A., "Development of a Primary Ion Column for Mass Spectrometry-Based Surface Analysis" (2016). FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 2561. https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd/2561 This work is brought to you for free and open access by the University Graduate School at FIU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of FIU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY Miami, Florida DEVELOPMENT OF A PRIMARY ION COLUMN FOR MASS SPECTROMETRY- BASED SURFACE ANALYSIS A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in CHEMISTRY by Raul A. Villacob 2016 To: Dean Michael R. Heithaus choose the name of dean of your college/school College of Arts, Sciences and Education choose the name of your college/school This thesis, written by Raul A. Villacob, and entitled Development of a Primary Ion Column for Mass Spectrometry-based Surface Analysis, having been approved in respect to style and intellectual content, is referred to you for judgment. We have read this thesis and recommend that it be approved. _______________________________________ Piero R. Gardinali _______________________________________ Jeffrey Joens _______________________________________ Francisco A.
  • Mass Spectrometry: Forming Ions, to Identifying Proteins and Their Modifications

    Mass Spectrometry: Forming Ions, to Identifying Proteins and Their Modifications

    Mass spectrometry: forming ions, to identifying proteins and their modifications Stephen Barnes, PhD 4-7117 [email protected] S Barnes-UAB 1/20/06 Introduction to mass spectrometry • Class 1 - Biology and mass spectrometry – Why is mass spectrometry so important? – Short history of mass spectrometry – Ionization and measurement of ions • Class 2 - The mass spectrum – What is a mass spectrum? – Interpreting ESI and MALDI-TOF spectra – Combining peptide separation with mass spectrometry – MALDI mass fingerprinting – Tandem mass spectrometry and peptide sequencing S Barnes-UAB 1/20/06 1 Goals of research on proteins • To know which proteins are expressed in each cell, preferably one cell at a time • Major analytical challenges – Sensitivity - no PCR reaction for proteins – Larger number of protein forms than open reading frames – Huge dynamic range (109) – Spatial and time-dependent issues S Barnes-UAB 1/20/06 Changes at the protein level • To know how proteins are modified, information that cannot necessarily be deduced from the nucleotide sequence of individual genes. • Modification may take the form of – specific deletions (leader sequences), – enzymatically induced additions and subsequent deletions (e.g., phosphorylation and glycosylation), – intended chemical changes (e.g., alkylation of sulfhydryl groups), – and unwanted chemical changes (e.g., oxidation of sulfhydryl groups, nitration, etc.). S Barnes-UAB 1/20/06 2 Proteins once you have them Protein structure and protein-protein interaction – to determine how proteins assemble in solution – how they interact with each other – Transient structural and chemical changes that are part of enzyme catalysis, receptor activation and transporters S Barnes-UAB 1/20/06 So, what you need to know about mass spec • Substances have to be ionized to be detected.
  • Beams of Atomic Clusters: Effects on Impact with Solids

    Beams of Atomic Clusters: Effects on Impact with Solids

    Rev.Adv.Mater.Sci.Beams of atomic clusters: 11 (2006) effects 19-45 on impact with solids 19 BEAMS OF ATOMIC CLUSTERS: EFFECTS ON IMPACT WITH SOLIDS V.N. Popok and E.E.B. Campbell Department of Physics, Göteborg University, 41296 Göteborg, Sweden Received: May 12, 2005 Abstract. A state-of-the-art review in the field of cluster beams and energetic cluster-surface interaction is presented. Ionised cluster beams are considered to be a controllable and versatile tool for modification and processing of surfaces and near-surface layers on an atomic scale as an alternative to ion implantation, ion assisted deposition and some other methods. A brief introduction to the history of cluster beams is given as well as a discussion of the capabilities of cluster beams for a variety of applications in material science, electronics and optics. Techniques for producing atomic and molecular clusters are described. Energetic cluster deposition and cluster implantation as well as related physical effects are the main emphasis of the review. In the final part of the paper the attention is focused on the study of surface erosion (crater formation) under energetic cluster ion impact. 1. INTRODUCTION tronic, optical, magnetic and other properties that are quite different from those of molecules or con- Atomic (or molecular) clusters are aggregates of a densed matter and that can be of great interest for few up to tens of thousands of atoms (or molecules) practical applications in nanotechnology [4-9]. With that show properties intermediate between those clusters consisting of up to thousands of atoms it is of individual atoms (or molecules), with discrete possible to transport and locally deposit a large energy states, and bulk matter characterised by amount of material, providing an advanced method continua or bands of states.
  • Development of Mass Spectrometers from Thomson and Aston to Present

    Development of Mass Spectrometers from Thomson and Aston to Present

    International Journal of Mass Spectrometry 349–350 (2013) 9–18 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect International Journal of Mass Spectrometry j ournal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijms Development of mass spectrometers from Thomson and Aston to present a,b,∗ G. Münzenberg a GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung, Planckstrasse 1, 64291 Darmstadt, Germany b Manipal University, Manipal 576106, Karnataka, India a r a t i b s c t l e i n f o r a c t Article history: Mass spectrometry contributed to the understanding of the structure of elementary matter including Received 6 February 2013 the isotopic nature of the chemical elements, isotopic abundances, nuclear binding, and the investiga- Received in revised form 7 March 2013 tion of nuclides far-off stability. In this paper the continuous development of mass spectrometers from Accepted 11 March 2013 W. Wien’s first mass analysis to J.J. Thomson’s discovery of isotopes, F.W. Aston’s mass spectrometers, Available online 19 March 2013 and the Mattauch–Herzog double focusing spectrometer to the present rare isotope facilities will be dis- cussed. Separators with magnetic sector fields e.g. from A.O. Nier and the Oak Ridge separator batteries Keywords: for large-scale isotope production are included. The first applications to chemistry and geochemistry will Mass measurements be mentioned briefly. The key role of the development of ion optics from the first geometrical calcula- Sector mass spectrometers tions towards modern matrix method is addressed. Finally recent developments of mass spectrometers Historical developments for basic nuclear research including ISOL and in-flight separators for rare-isotope facilities and mass JEL classification: spectrometry with cooled and stored ions will be presented.

  • An Introduction to Ion Optics for the Mass Spectrograph

    AN INTRODUCTION TO ION OPTICS FOR THE MASS SPECTROGRAPH Thomas W. Burgoyne and Gary M. Hieftje* Department of Chemistry, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405 Abstract .................................................................................................................... 24 1 I. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 24 1 11. Mass Spectrograph Ion Optics.. ........................................................................................ 243 A. Overview, Symbols, and Coordinates.. .............................................................................. 243 B. Transfer Matrix Method.. ........................................................................................... 243 C. Matrix Definitions for Mass Spectrograph Components. ............................................................. 244 D. Double Focusing for a Single Reference Mass (Focal Point). ........................................................ 247 E. Double Focusing for Several Masses (Focal Line). .................................................................. 247 111. Mass Spectrograph Geometries ......................................................................................... 248 A. Bainbridge-Jordan. .................................................................................................. 249 B. Mattauch-Herzog ................................................................................................... 249 C. Nier-Johnson.