Abstract
Atom probe tomography (APT) is often introduced as providing “atomic-scale” mapping of the composition of materials and as such is often exploited to analyze atomic neighborhoods within a material. Yet quantifying the actual spatial performance of the technique in a general case remains challenging, as it depends on the material system being investigated as well as on the specimen's geometry. Here, by using comparisons with field-ion microscopy experiments, field-ion imaging and field evaporation simulations, we provide the basis for a critical reflection on the spatial performance of APT in the analysis of pure metals, low alloyed systems and concentrated solid solutions (i.e., akin to high-entropy alloys). The spatial resolution imposes strong limitations on the possible interpretation of measured atomic neighborhoods, and directional neighborhood analyses restricted to the depth are expected to be more robust. We hope this work gets the community to reflect on its practices, in the same way, it got us to reflect on our work.
Highlights
Atom probe tomography (APT) stems from the field-ion microscopy (FIM) that allowed Erwin Müller and his collaborators to image individual atoms already in the 1950s (Müller & Bahadur, 1956)
The ion trajectories in FIM are expected to be determined, for a given specimen geometry and microscope, only by the distribution of the electrostatic field (Smith & Walls, 1978), assuming that dynamic effects associated with the pulsed voltage can be neglected
The pattern formed is close to the typical desorption pattern observed in APT for higher charges states and multiple hits detected in the analysis of pure W
Summary
Atom probe tomography (APT) stems from the field-ion microscopy (FIM) that allowed Erwin Müller and his collaborators to image individual atoms already in the 1950s (Müller & Bahadur, 1956). In FIM, the image of each of the surface atoms is formed by the successive impact of thousands of gas ions per second on the screen. The projection of these ions can be well reproduced by an equidistant projection (Wilkes et al, 1974), or, to a certain extent, by a pseudostereographic projection (Blavette et al, 1982; Cerezo et al, 1999; De Geuser & Gault, 2017). The first design of atom probes involved using FIM to target regions of interest at the specimen’s surface and allow certain imaged atoms to pass through a probe hole in the FIM screen to reveal their elemental identity by time-of-flight mass spectrometry. It became evident that there were so-called aiming errors (Krishnaswamy et al, 1975) that
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
