Probe Measurements of Electron Energy Distributions in Gas Discharge Plasmas
1 / 26

Probe Measurements of Electron Energy Distributions in Gas Discharge Plasmas V. A. Godyak1 and V. I. Demidov2 1 RF - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Probe Measurements of Electron Energy Distributions in Gas Discharge Plasmas V. A. Godyak 1 and V. I. Demidov 2 1 RF Plasma Consulting, Brookline, MA 02446, USA 2 West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA . Electron Distribution Function f. , .

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Probe Measurements of Electron Energy Distributions in Gas Discharge Plasmas V. A. Godyak1 and V. I. Demidov2 1 RF ' - gary

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

Probe Measurements of Electron Energy Distributions in Gas Discharge Plasmas

V. A. Godyak1 and V. I. Demidov2

1 RF Plasma Consulting, Brookline, MA 02446, USA

2West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA

Electron Distribution Function Discharge Plasmas



Two-term approximation (small anisotropy, f1 << f0)

Electron Energy Distribution (EEDF) and Discharge PlasmasElectron Energy Probability (EEPF) Functions

F(t,r ε) =



Langmuir formula and Druyvesteyn method Discharge Plasmas

Similarly, all plasma parameters (Tesk, λD, JB) and rates of plasma-chemical processes (νea, νee, ν*, νi, ….) can be found as appropriate integrals of the measured EEPF.

  • What makes a good EEDF measurement? Discharge Plasmas

  • We want to have more than Langmuir method gives us

  • EEDF has to resolve tail electrons (ε>ε*) responsible for excitation, ionization and electron escape, as well as low energy electrons (ε< Te) accounting the majority of electrons

  • Due to error augmentation inherent to differentiation procedure, small (invisible) inaccuracy in Ip(V) can bring enormous distortion in the measured EEDF

  • It is important to realize the source of the possible errors and to be able to mitigate them.

  • The sources of the errors are well elucidated in the literature, but are insistently ignored in the majority of published papers.

  • Problems in probe measurements and their mitigations. Discharge Plasmas

  • Probe size: a[ln(πl/4a)], b, λD << le and Ip << Id, Ir, Iz

  • Ir = IB = ScheNsvB, vB = (Te/M)1/2,,,,,..Iz = eΓe is the current corresponding to generation rate of electrons with energy ε in the volume defined by the chamber characteristic size Λ, or by the electron relaxation length λε,

  • To neglect the voltage drop across the wall sheath, the following requirement has to be satisfied:

  • (SpN0/SchNs)(M/2πm)1/2 << 1

a = 38 μm

b = 175 μm

Probe constructions Discharge Plasmas

P1 P2

a = 0.05 mm, b = 1 mm, c = 2-3 mm

Probe circuit resistance Discharge Plasmas(the most frequent problem)

EEPF Druyvesteynization due to R Discharge Plasmasc

δ = Rc/Rpmin Rpmin= Te/eIesat

Error in EEPF less than 3% requires Rc/Rpmin < 0.01 !

Example of EEPF measurement in argon ICP with a low disturbance probe having Rc and noise compensation

Maximal argon pressure, where measurement was possible, was limited by the chamber surface


Argon, 20 mTorr disturbance probe having R

VGPS: emax = 15-22 eV

νee ∞ NTe-3/2


Argon, 20 mTorr

Espion: emax = 7-11eV


Distorted @ low energy and lost information @ high energy

Comparison of EEPF measured with different commercial probe stations

At maximal discharge power of 2 kW, N ≈ 1·1012 cm-3,thus EEPF has to be Maxwellian

RF plasma potential Maxwellian

Criterion for undistorted by rf sheath voltage EEPF measurement is known for over 30 years (1979)

Zpr/Zf ≤ (0.3-0.5)Te/eVplrf

A presence of a filter in the probe circuit does not guarantee undistorted EEPF measurement. To do the job, the filter has to satisfy the following condition for all relevant harmonics:

Zf ≥ (2-3)ZpreVplrf /Te

For filter design we need to know (measure!)Vplrf and minimize Zpr

Filter design procedure Maxwellian

Zpr is defined by its sheath capacitance at floating potential

Probe measurement circuit incorporating, dc voltage and low frequency noise suppression, rf compensation and rf filter dc resistance compensation with I/V converter having a negative input resistance

Example of EEPF measurement demonstrating a paradoxical Te distribution in argon 13.56 MHz CCP

30 mTorr, Teo < Tes 300 mTorr, Teo > Tes

Time resolved EEPF measurements to the

EEPF measured in afterglow stage of ICP with internal ferrite core inductor

EEPF and T to the e measured along rf period in an induction lamp operated at 300 mTorr Ar and 7 mTorr Hg

Time resolution δt = 0.5 μS. Note asymmetry in Te(ωt)

Probe sheath capacitance to plasma is the main limiting factor in EEPF measurement speed. The minimal time resolution, δt > (10-30)ωpi

Ion current effect to the

Ip = Ie + Ii and I”p = Ie”+ Ii”

Ion current effect occurs in light gases, low density plasmas and small probes, and is maximal at orbital ion motion (a/λD < 1), according to:

Ie”/Ii” = (4πM/m)1/2η3/2exp(-η)η = eV/Te

independently ona/λD

In practice, Ii” effect is essentially smaller and can be neglected

Ratio Ie”/Ii” depends on EEPF and a/λD

Relative I to the i” effect for orbital and radial ion motion for Maxwellian and Druyvesteyn distributions

Ie”, Ii”, Ip”

Orbital motion

Radial motion







Accounting for I to the i” contribution

In many works and commercial probe instruments, the extrapolated from large negative probe potential Ii(V) is subtracted from Ip(V) with following differentiation. Due to uncertainty of the extrapolation and error augmentation caused by differentiation this way of accounting for Ii” brings more error than correction.

  • Ion probe theories used in probe diagnostics do not account for:

  • Non-Maxwellian EEDF

  • Rear collisions that destroy OM

  • Two-dimentionality of the probe sheath

  • Ambipolar ion drift (Va >> VTe)

  • Plasma parameters found from Ii(V) may be up to an order of magnitude differ from those found from Ie(V)!

Probe surface effects to the


Φwf (Volt)

Ne + 5% benzyl

Mo Ta W


  • Probe surface effects: to the

  • Probe surface work function (changes during probe scan)

  • Non conductive layer of reaction product → (Rc)

  • Sputtering of electrode and probe and deposition conductive layer on the probe holder → Sp

  • Strong temperature dependence of all above


  • Continuous probe cleaning with fast probe scan (mS)

  • Ion bombardment, electron heating and rf biasing

  • Probe cleaning before or after probe scan is ineffective

EEPF measurements with VGPS in Plasma reactors to the

(Wide specter and large amplitude of rf plasma potential and

high rate of probe contamination are the major problems)

Microcrystalline silicon deposition H2/CF4 30 mTorr ICP with Ar/SiF4 10 mTorr ECR. polymer deposition. Ecole Polytechnique University of Maryland

A remark to the

Today, plasma simulation codes are practically main tool for study plasma electrodynamics, plasma transport and plasma kinetics in commercial plasma reactors. These codes applied to complicated processing gas mixture are missing many cross sections for variety of (accounted and not) plasma-chemical reactions.

They also are missing effects of nonlocal and nonlinear plasma electrodynamics that has been proved can be important and even dominant in rf plasmas at low gas pressure.

In such situation, a feasibility of EEDF measurement in plasma chemical reactors would give a valuable experimental data for understanding variety of kinetic process in such plasmas and validation of existing numerical codes.