Comparison of three geometries for a cesium primary beam liquid secondary ion mass spectrometry source.
Comparison of three geometries for a cesium primary beam liquid secondary ion mass spectrometry source.
复制标题
铯主束液体二次离子质谱源的三种几何结构的比较。
DOI:
10.1021/ac00278a066
复制
发表时间:
1984
影响因子:
7.4
通讯作者:
Burlingame,AL
中科院分区:
文献类型:
--
作者:
Aberth,W;Burlingame,AL
The liquid secondary Ion mass spectrometry (LSIMS) characteristics of a new type of In-lineand an Immersion lens source are compared with a standard 90 geometry source where the primary beam Is normal to the extracted secondary Ion beam. All sources used a cesium Ion primary beam. Results using vitamin B12 and Met-Lys-bradyklnln as samples Indicated that both the In-line and immersion lens sources yielded a more Intense parent Ion signal at a reduced primary beam Intensity. A comparison of the In-line and 90 source spectra Indicates that the primary Ion momentum may be an important factor In ejecting secondary Ions close to the primary Ion direction.The introduction of a liquid target in secondary ion mass spectrometry by Barber, Surman, and co-workers (1, 2) has enabled the practical analysis of high-mass molecules (500-5000 daltons) of a wide variety of biologically important samples. The technique was initially termed fast atom bom-bardment (FAB) because an energetic primary neutral beam was used to sputter the secondary ions for mass analysis. It has since been demonstrated that the use of a primary ionic beam is equally effective (3-6). It appears that the liquid nature of the target rather than the charge state of the primary beam is the important feature of the technique. We therefore use the term liquid secondary ion mass spectrometry (LSIMS) to describe the technique of sputter ionization from a target containing sample material dissolved in a liquid matrix. In the typical source geometry of LSIMS, the primary beam has a fixed direction of 90 to that of the secondary ion beam, and the secondary signal is optimized by varying the angle of the target plane relative to the primary beam direction. Best results are often obtained at an incident angle of 60 (7). It can be argued that this large angle improves secondary ion efficiency because a greater portion of the incident ion energy is deposited close to the target surface where it can be more effectively utilized for secondary ion ejection (8). However, the complementary extraction angle for thesecondary ions must be small, and ambiguity exists as to what is the most effective independent combination of incident and secondary ion beamangles.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子:
1.6
作者:
R. Gibbs;N. Winograd
通讯作者:
N. Winograd
影响因子:
3.2
作者:
S. Schwarz;C. R. Helms
通讯作者:
C. R. Helms
影响因子:
7.4
作者:
D. Barofsky;U. Giessmann;A. Bell;L. Swanson
通讯作者:
L. Swanson
影响因子:
2.1
作者:
W. Aberth;A. Burlingame
通讯作者:
A. Burlingame
DOI:
10.1016/0020-7381(83)85043-8
发表时间:
1983
期刊:
International Journal of Mass Spectrometry and Ion Physics
影响因子:
--
作者:
D. Moon;N. Winograd
通讯作者:
N. Winograd