Results in Physics 19 (2020) 103456

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Results in Physics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rinp

Energy spectra of secondary electrons in dielectric materials by

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Measurement of electron energy spectra of dielectrics is a challenge due to charging issues. This article presents
Electron energy spectra experimental results of electron energy spectra of dielectric materials under electron irradiation obtained by
Charging effects transforming the charging process into a spectroscopic tool. The technique was verified on conductive materials
Electron irradiation
in a previous paper. This method is based on capturing the charging transient of the secondary electron emission
Secondary emission
Dielectrics
current. Dielectric materials are irradiated with a single train of pulses of monoenergetic electrons. The evolution
Polymers of the number of emitted electrons as a function of time is measured. The rate of this evolution coupled to the
arising potential on the surface of the material conveys the energy at which the secondary electrons are emitted.
The total incident dose used in this method is about 10 pC/mm2, in contrast to the high doses required when
other common methods are utilized. The use of low doses ensures a minimal distortion of the pristine state of the
dielectric material by avoiding radiation damage, deep charging, defects, aging and other electron induced
phenomena in the insulator. This method was applied to obtain the secondary electron energy spectra of the
Kapton, Teflon, and Ultem polymers.

Introduction electron beam, the composition and the roughness of the sample. A high
SEY can be undesirable since it is the main cause of unwanted phe­
Secondary electron emission occurs when materials are irradiated nomena, such as Multipactor [4–9] and the “electron cloud” [10–13]. A
with electrons, ions or photons of sufficient energy. In the case of elec­ low SEY is also necessary for pursuing the miniaturization and high
tron irradiation, the incident electrons are usually called primary elec­ performance of Hall Thrusters, which are becoming the dominant
trons, PE, and the emitted electrons secondary electrons, SE. SEs are technology of electrical propulsion in space [14–19]. By increasing the
both electrons emitted from the solid through the interaction with the roughness of a surface under certain conditions, the quantity of emitted
primary electrons (true secondary electrons) and electrons that are SE diminishes as some of them are recaptured after emission due to the
elastically and inelastically backscattered from the PE. The generation of interaction of secondary electrons with the surface protrusions,
the SE and the interactions that produce them inside the solids are still decreasing the SEY [20–35]. Rough metal-dielectric composite materials
currently under study [1]. The electron energy spectrum or energy can also achieve a strong SEY reduction as local electric fields between
distribution curve (EDC) of silver irradiated with an electron beam of metal and dielectric domains on the surface inhibit the SE emission [36].
300 eV can be seen in Fig. 1a. Three distinct regions of secondary However, there are other relevant applications where high SEY mate­
electrons can be distinguished in every EDC [2,3]. Elastically back­ rials are needed, such as in photomultipliers, detectors, industrial pro­
scattered electrons (green), inelastically backscattered electrons (blue) cessing, radar systems and equipment for radiation therapy [37–40].
and true secondary electrons (red). True secondary electrons have low To measure the SEY of insulator and semiconductor materials as a
energies and appear as an intense broad peak. By convention, true sec­ function of the primary energy, it is necessary to avoid charging, mainly
ondary electrons are considered those emitted with energies <50 eV [2]. by decreasing the dose of PE. For this purpose, a single low-dose electron
The ratio between the number of SE and PE is called Secondary pulse for each primary energy can be used [36,41–43]. Fig. 1b shows the
Emission Yield, SEY or σ. SEY mainly depends on the energy of the SEY curve of a Teflon sample obtained under negligible charging con­
incident electrons but it also depends on the incident angle of the ditions and exposed to the environment. SEY curves can be

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: l.olano@icmm.csic.es (L. Olano), imontero@icmm.csic.es (I. Montero).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2020.103456
Received 4 May 2020; Received in revised form 18 September 2020; Accepted 27 September 2020
Available online 1 October 2020
2211-3797/© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
L. Olano and I. Montero Results in Physics 19 (2020) 103456

parameterized by σmax, which is the maximum value of the SEY, Emax, energetic measurements. Some ways of dissipating accumulated charge
the energy at σmax, and E1 and E2, the first and second crossover en­ are flood electron guns, UV radiation, low-energy ions or heating the
ergies, at which SEY = 1. Three different regions can be defined samples to increase their conductivity. Most of these dissipation tech­
attending to the SEY = 1 value. Region (i) EP < E1 where SEY is less than niques achieve a zero net charge but may not dissipate all locally
1, therefore the number of SEs is lower than the number of PEs. Region implanted charges. Decreasing the total incident charge facilitates its
(ii) E1 < EP < E2 where SEY > 1. In this region the maximum value of dissipation. In addition, it is important to diminish deep charging and
SEY, σmax, is attained. Region (iii) EP > E2 where SEY is less than 1 again. radiation damage on the sample, which could modify its electron energy
It should be noticed that it exists some materials where SEY < 1 spectra. The study of the EDC of dielectric materials is needed, for
throughout the primary electron energy range and consequently E1 and example, in simulations for the Multipactor effect [4–9].
E2 cannot be defined [22,32,44]. In the present paper, the charging curves of the irradiated dielectric
Under intense electron irradiation of dielectric materials, charge samples are used to obtain their corresponding energy spectra by
builds up on them due to their low electrical conductivity and a applying a recently published low-dose method [51]. This method is
distortion of the SEY curves and energy spectra of dielectrics can be based on the measurement of the decrease of the emission of SEs as the
observed, see Fig. 1b. The sign of the charging will be positive or SEs are trapped by the positive potential barrier that arises in the posi­
negative attending to EP. tive charging regime E1 < EP < E2′ . These charging curves can be also
Region (i): negative charge will be accumulated until the incident used to study the charge transport and the trapping phenomena in in­
electron radiation is repelled before reaching the surface. sulators [52]. The energy spectra of Kapton, Teflon and Ultem polymers
Region (ii): positive charging is expected as SEY > 1. A potential were obtained in the present work.
barrier, VS, arises due to the net positive deposited charge. Those SEs
that do not have sufficient energy to overcome this barrier will return to Materials and methods
the dielectric, decreasing the SEY. Accordingly, the energy of the
emitted SE will be decreased. The surface potential will increase due to SEE measurement system
charging until an equilibrium is obtained where SEY = 1.
The experimental measurements were performed in the facility of
• If EP < E2′ where E2′ is the energy at which R ≅ r, being R the secondary electron emission measurements for space applications at
penetration range of incident electrons and r the maximum escape Instituto de Ciencia de Materiales de Madrid - CSIC. The experiment was
depth of secondary electrons, a unique superficial charge layer, carried out in an ultra-high vacuum system composed of interconnected
where SE are extracted, will be developed [45–47]. UHV chambers at a pressure lower than 10− 7 Pa, where several spec­
• If EP > E2′ (or R > r), alongside the positive top layer a deep negative troscopic techniques, such as secondary electron emission measure­
charge layer will develop where PE are implanted [47,48]. There­ ments (EDC, SEY), X-ray Photoemission Spectroscopy (XPS) or Auger
fore, a dipolar-like electric field arises inside and outside the Electron Spectroscopy (AES), are available, see Fig. 2a [53]. Kimball
dielectric material that contributes to the evolution of charging and Physics electron guns (EGL-2022 and ELG-2) were used in this experi­
secondary electron emission. It is remarkable that, when R > r, the ment, which are able to produce electrons with energies from 0 to 5000
sign of charging can reverse as the negative charge increases to slow eV. In this work, the electron gun was used in its pulsed mode.
down incident electrons up to the energy E2′ [45–47]. To study the charging process and to obtain the energy spectra of the
dielectrics, the samples were homogeneously irradiated by a train of
Region (iii): negative charge will be accumulated under sustained 1000 squared pulses of 180 ns in length, a period of ~10 μs, at an
irradiation as SEY < 1. A negative surface potential arises that is able to incident energy EP = 300 eV with a radius of the spot beam Rbeam ≅ 5
slow down the PE to E2′ and SEY = 1 is attained. mm. The incident charge (Qegun) and the primary energy were constant
Studies on the EDC of dielectric materials are very scarce and deal throughout the measurement. The total incident charge density of the
with high SEY dielectric materials or use DC methods [41,49,50]. This is train of pulses on the samples was ~10 pC/mm2 and the incident charge
due to the difficult issue of dealing with charging while acquiring density per pulse ~10 fC/mm2. An example of the recorded incident

Fig. 1. Secondary electron emission properties of materials. Panel a) secondary electron spectra of silver. Three distinctive regions are shown. The peaks of true
secondary electrons, backscattered electrons and inelastically backscattered electrons are drawn in red, green and blue respectively. Inset, all secondary electrons
emitted with less energy than the sample surface potential, VS, fall back to the surface (red shadowed region). Electrons emitted with more energy than VS overcome
the potential barrier but have their energy reduced consequently. Panel b) SEY curve of Teflon. The parameters of the SEY curve (E1, 1) red dot and (Emax, σmax) blue
dot are shown. A SEY curve measured under high incident doses is shown in green. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article.)

2
L. Olano and I. Montero Results in Physics 19 (2020) 103456

Fig. 2. Sketches of the experimental system and measurement method. Panel a) Sketch of the experimental system showing the characterization capabilities at the
Instituto de Ciencia de Materiales de Madrid - CSIC. Panel b) Detail of the secondary electron emission measurement system. A pulse generator is used to pulse an
electron gun and reduce the delivered charge, Qegun. The incident charge induces a secondary electron emission charge (Qemit) from the sample. The charge deposited
(Qdep) obeys the charge conservation laws and induces an image charge on the sample holder that is amplified by a current amplifier and registered by an oscil­
loscope. Arrows in the figure represent electron flows. Inset, a real signal of the deposited charge by one single pulse registered by the oscilloscope.

pulses is shown in the inset of Fig. 2b where the low noise of these [7,57–59]. The most relevant electrical properties of these materials for
signals can be observed. this study can be seen in Table 1. For instance, the smallest discharging
The experimental set up measures the image charge induced by the time at room temperature belongs to the Ultem, which is <5 min and the
charge deposited by each pulse (Qdep) in the dielectric sample. This longest to Teflon ~2 days. Since the total acquisition time of the mea­
signal is amplified by a fast FEMTO amplifier and acquired in a Keysight surement takes less than 10 ms, the discharge of the samples will be
oscilloscope as shown in Fig. 2b. The accumulated charge (Qacc) is negligible during this time.
calculated as the sum of all the Qdep previously deposited, Qacc = Samples were prepared with dimensions ~20 × 20 mm and mounted
∑
pulses Q
dep
. The total Qacc ranges from ~30 pC to 300 pC, depending on the sample carrier of a XYZθ micrometric manipulator using UHV
mainly on the thickness and the electron emission properties of the conductive double-sided adhesive carbon tape. To select the constant
samples. Therefore, the maximum accumulated charge density on the primary energy to irradiate the samples, the SEY curves of the samples
solid was in the range of ~0.4 to 4 pC/mm2. were measured. The SEY curves indicate that the Emax of Kapton, Teflon
After each measurement, the samples were allowed to discharge for and Ultem are ~250 eV, ~300 eV and ~300 eV, respectively. Then, the
at least 6 times the time constant of the samples, τ (Table 1), until the primary energy EP = 300 eV is used in all experiments to fulfill the
initial uncharged state was again achieved. Therefore, the vacuum level condition SEY > 1 and E1 < EP ≅ Emax < E2′ . In this way, a unique
is the energy reference for all the energy measurements. To evaluate the positive top layer of deposited charge can be considered [45–47]. Also,
repeatability of the measurements and improve the accuracy of the final under this condition the signal to noise ratio is optimal because SEY is
results each sample was measured at least 5 times. maximum. The larger the signal-to-noise ratio, the smaller the mea­
surement error. This will decrease the statistical error associated to the
Sample preparation measurement results. The signal-to-noise ratio at the selected primary
energy is >100, see inset of Fig. 2b.
Kapton HN (Polyimide, PI) [54], Teflon (Polytetrafluoroethylene,
PTFE) [55] and Ultem 1000F (Polyetherimide, PEI) [56] commercial Results and discussion
polymers were selected to obtain their electron energy spectra. These
polymers have broad chemical resistance, heat resistance and high Calculations
strength, which enables them to be widely used in applications as
diverse as electrical, electronics, automotive, transportation, food ser­ Several mathematical functions have been proposed to describe the
vice, healthcare, telecommunication, aerospace and affiliated in­ energy spectra or energetic distribution of the true secondary electrons,
dustries. In particular, they are often used in thermal and electrical [60,61]. Eq. (1) was derived by a phenomenological approach [60]:
insulation, structural support and anti-static control on spacecraft

Table 1
Dielectric properties of the Kapton, Teflon and Ultem samples [54–56,69].
Thickness Resistivity Relative permittivity Discharging time d/ε0 εr A(V/pC) Dielectric breakdown Maximum attained surface voltages
d (mm) ρ (Ω⋅cm) εr R⋅C (s) (MV/m) (V)

Kapton 0.07 1.4⋅1017 3.5 43⋅103 0.03 389–430 9

3
L. Olano and I. Montero Results in Physics 19 (2020) 103456

dN E of SE.
= ρ0 (1)
dE (E + ϕ)4 ∫ eVs ⋅f (α,θ)
dN(E, θ)
Qemit (VS , θ) = Qemit
0 − dE (3)
where ϕ is the work function of the material, E the energy of the emitted 0 dE
electrons and ρ0 a normalization factor. The work function might be
where Qemit
0 is the emitted charge at VS = 0 V, α is the angle between the
replaced straightforwardly by the electron affinity, as in insulator ma­
SE direction and the electric field generated by charging, f(α,θ) a func­
terials, the electron affinity is the parameter that gives the energy sep­
tion relating α to θ , E the energy of the secondary electrons and e the
aration between the lowest possible state for any excited electron in the
electron charge. It can be seen elsewhere [62] that the condition of SE
solid and the vacuum level. Other approach is to empirically decouple
emission is:
the position of the maximum and the width of the distribution using a
Gaussian function with a logarithmic argument [61], Eq. (2): ESE ∙cos2 α ≥ e∙VS (4)
⎛ ( )2 ⎞
E
The potential produced by a homogeneously charged dielectric
Ln E0 ⎟
dN ⎜
⎜ ⎟ sample was studied using COMSOL Multiphysics [63], Fig. 3a. The AC/
= ρ0 ∙exp⎜ − ⎟ (2)
dE ⎝ 2τ 2 ⎠ DC module of COMSOL uses the finite element method to solve the
Maxwell equations and obtain the 3D potential for given boundary
conditions. Fig. 3b shows the normalized surface potential profiles (VS/
where E is the energy of the true secondary electrons, ρ0 a normalization VCS ) along the normalized radial coordinate (r/Rbeam) being VCS the value
factor, E0 the position of the peak, and τ a fitting parameter. In this work, of the surface potential at the center of the irradiated area, r the radial
Eqs. (1) and (2) are used to fit the experimentally obtained energy coordinate and Rbeam the radius of the irradiated area. The results
spectra. indicate that the surface potential profile is independent on the size of
The method used in this work to obtain the electron energy spectra of the sample and only depends on the Rbeam/d ratio, where d is the
dielectric materials under electron irradiation is based on the fact that a thickness of the sample. It can be seen that the surface potential always
positively charged surface will emit less electrons than the same un­ reaches its maximum at the center of the sample, VCS , and falls to half that
charged surface, i.e. the surface potential acts as a retarding potential, value at the boundary of the irradiated area. For the same irradiated
inset Fig. 1a. As the surface potential (VS) grows during electron irra­ area, the rate at which the surface potential decays depend on the
diation, less electrons will be emitted attending to their energy (ESE) and thickness of the sample. For the thinner samples, the potential is almost
angle of emission respect to the surface normal (θ). Eq. (3) shows constant along the surface. As the charge is homogeneously distributed
Qemit (VS , θ) as a function of the energetic and angular distribution dN(E,θ) on the surface of the thin sample, the potential is approximately constant
dE
along the surface; there is a broad plateau centered at the maximum

Fig. 3. Description of the charging of a dielectric sample. The thicknesses of the samples are 70 µm (Ultem, Kapton) and 900 µm (Teflon). Panel a) simulation in
COMSOL of the 3D potential of a dielectric sample of thickness 300 µm, radius 1 cm and a homogenous irradiation area of radius Rbeam = 5 mm. The potential is
normalized to the maximum surface potential (potential at the center of the sample, VCS ). Panel b) normalized surface potential profile of samples with different
thickness in the range 70 – 900 µm. Panel c) Secondary electron trajectories with 1% more energy than the potential barrier. Dielectric sample is depicted in yellow
with the irradiated area drawn brighter. The gray plane is the plane where the dielectric sample rests. Trajectories are colored attending to their initial distance
respect to the center of the sample. Panel d) Secondary electron trajectories with 1% less energy than the potential barrier.

4
L. Olano and I. Montero Results in Physics 19 (2020) 103456

value which only falls at the edge of the irradiated area. The equipo­ relationship between the surface potential and the accumulated charge,
tential surfaces out of the sample are shaped as a flattened semi-sphere VS(Qacc). When a metallic sample is not electrically grounded, the
or lentil-shaped as can also be seen in Fig. 3a. accumulated charge is redistributed throughout its entire surface, pro­
Secondary electrons leaving the surface from the center of the irra­ ducing an equipotential surface, see [51]. However, in the case of
diated area will always ascend the potential barrier with an angle α ≈ dielectric materials, the charge will not redistribute. Since the irradiated
0 as the potential is approximately semispherical. Therefore, following area is finite, the surface will not be equipotential as the charge is
Eq. (4), all SE that are emitted from the center, or close to the center, localized. As the surface of a thin sample is almost equipotential, see
overcome the potential barrier, independently of their angle of emission Fig. 3b, it can be considered that in the limit d/Rbeam → 0, then VS ≅ VCS
if their energy is over the potential barrier. On the other hand, α is = cte and is described by the parallel plate capacitor equation, Eq. (7).
maximized for secondary electrons emitted from the edge of the irra­
Qacc d
diated area with a trajectory towards the center of the sample. To VSC = = Qacc (7)
C ε0 εr A
evaluate the influence of θ on the electron trapping, secondary electron
trajectories have been computed in Comsol with 1% energy over and where Qacc is the charge accumulated on the irradiated surface, C the
below the energy barrier. The result is that ~90% of the electrons with capacitance, d the thickness of the dielectric in the capacitor, A the plate
1% more energy than the potential barrier are emitted and 100% of the area, εr the relative permittivity of the dielectric and ε0 the vacuum
SE with 1% less energy are trapped. An example of these simulations is permittivity, see Table 1. Eq. (7) was used to calculate the surface po­
shown in Fig. 3c-d, where SE trajectories are displayed. As the relation tential values at the center of the sample (VCS ) where A is the irradiated
between α and θ is not straightforward due to the complex geometry of area and d the thickness of the sample. Fig. 4a shows a comparison of VCS
this potential, the approximation α ≈ 0 for all SE is done. Therefore, an obtained by the Eq. (7) and by the COMSOL simulation (Vsim). The de­
error of 10% is assumed in these calculations because, accordingly to the viation between these two values is less than ~4% for the sample di­
COMSOL simulations, 10% of electrons are trapped when we consider mensions used in this study. Thus, Eq. (7) was used as a simple method
them as emitted with the α ≈ 0 approximation. Furthermore, the sim­ to estimate the maximum value of the surface potential, VCS , under the
ulations were performed assuming a cosine distribution for the SE assumption of a unique charge layer and a flat sample.
angular distribution. However, for low incident energies the distribution As seen in Fig. 3b, the surface of the irradiated insulator is not
of SE can be sharper [64] and therefore more SE can overcome the po­ equipotential. In this situation, secondary electrons emitted from
tential barrier and the committed error when considering α ≈ 0 would different positions of the irradiated area will have to overcome different
decrease. Eq. (5) shows the expression of Qemit (VS ) after the α ≈ potential barriers. Such potential barrier will be closer to VCS the closer
0 approximation. the position of emission is to the center of the irradiated area. Since the
∫ eVs
dN
∫∞
dN
∫ eVs
dN profile of the surface potential is known, Fig. 3b, the radial distribution
Qemit (VS ) = Qemit
0 − dE = dE − dE (5) of electrons that cease being emitted at any VCS can be computed. Fig. 4b
dE 0 dE dE
shows this radial distribution as a function of ESE/eVCS , being ESE the
0 0

Deriving Eq. (5) the EDC can be obtained, Equation (6). energy of the SEs. The radial distributions in Fig. 4b are normalized to
their area. As we can observe, the shape of the curves is similar, all
dN 1 dQemit (VS )
EDC = = − (6) distributions exhibit a peak at ESE/eVCS = 1. As the thickness of the
dE e dVS
sample increases, the intensity of the peak decreases and the full width
As the emitted charge is Qemit(Vs) = Qegun − Qdep(Vs) and Qegun re­ at half maximum increases. It was confirmed that considering the po­
mains constant in the experiment, the derivative in Eq. (6) will only tential profile was necessary to calculate the energy spectrum in the case
depend on Qdep, which is the variable that is measured, Fig. 2b. There­ of the Ultem (with a ratio d/Rbeam = 0.18). However, in the case of
fore, obtaining Qdep as a function of VS is all that is needed to obtain the Kapton and Teflon (with a ratio d/Rbeam = 0.014) the spectra can be
energy spectra (EDC) of the sample. obtained using just Eq. (7).

Relationship between Qacc and VS Obtaining the energy spectra

In our previous publication [51], the energy spectra were obtained Fig. 5a shows the evolution of both Qdep (the deposited charge by
on conductive samples. There, a method was developed to obtain the each pulse) and Qacc (the accumulated charge in the surface) as a

Fig. 4. Charging of a dielectric sample. The thicknesses of the samples are 70 µm (Ultem, Kapton) and 900 µm (Teflon). Panel a) divergence on the surface potential
on the center of the sample given by the parallel plate Eq. (7) (VCS ) respect to the COMSOL simulations (Vsim) as a function of the thickness of the sample (d). Panel b)
energy of the electrons (ESE) that cease being emitted at VCS . The curves shown are normalized to the area.

5
L. Olano and I. Montero Results in Physics 19 (2020) 103456

Fig. 5. Measurements performed on the Kapton, Teflon and Ultem samples. Panel a) deposited charge (Qdep) by each pulse (blue) and total accumulated charge on
the sample (Qacc, red), as a function of time. Panel b) charging curves Qdep(Qacc) for Kapton, Teflon and Ultem obtained from combining the corresponding data of
each sample, as shown in panel a). Qdep(VCS ) is shown for Kapton, Teflon and Ultem calculated by Eq. (7). For visual purposes a unique VCS axis is shown at the top of
the figure with the proportionality constant γ, being γ equal to 1, 1.67 and 15.5, for Kapton, Teflon and Ultem, respectively. (For interpretation of the references to
colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

function of time for Kapton. In Fig. 5b the charging curves Qdep(Qacc) of energy of emission at 1.9 eV. See Table 3.
Kapton, Teflon and Ultem are shown. The charging curves were ob­ A major strength of this experimental method to measure electron
tained from combining Qdep(t) and Qacc(t) data shown in Fig. 5a. Then, energy spectra resides in the low dose of incident radiation that is
VCS can be calculated with the Qacc values using Eq. (7), also shown in needed for its measurement. The thicker the sample, the less charge is
Fig. 5b. Finally, the energy spectra of the dielectrics are computed using needed to obtain the spectra, see Eq. (7) where VCS is directly propor­
Eq. (6), that is, dQdep(VCS )/dVCS and taking into account the radial dis­ tional to the thickness of the sample. In contrast, under the same inci­
tribution of the energies of the electrons captured at a specific VCS , shown dent radiation the best resolution in energy is obtained for thin samples.
in Fig. 4b. The small dose coupled with the fact that a complete measurement is
The energy spectra of true secondary electrons of Kapton, Teflon and obtained without intermediate charge dissipation steps makes it a robust
Ultem along with the best fit curves to Eq. (1) (left panels) and Eq. (2) method. The average electric field inside the dielectric will depend on
(right panels) are displayed in Fig. 6. The value of the affinity given by the total accumulated charge and the thickness of the sample. Since the
Eq. (1) for Kapton, Teflon and Ultem are shown in Table 2. These results SE energy spectra of Kapton, Teflon and Ultem samples are obtained
can be compared to the affinity values available in the literature ob­ with a total deposited charge of 300 pC, 140 pC and 34 pC, the corre­
tained by first-principles calculations using Density Functional Theory. sponding VS are 9 V, 7 V and 16 V, then the average electric field inside
The reported affinity for Teflon is 3.75 eV and for Kapton is in the range the dielectrics are 0.1 MV/m, 0.1 MV/m and 0.02 MV/m, respectively.
of 1.4 to 4.1 eV [65–68]. This electric field is extremely low to produce the dielectric breakdown
The values of the peak position, Epeak, or the most likely energy at as the dielectric strength for these materials is ~400 MV/m (Kapton),
which SEs are emitted, given by the fit to Eqs. (1) and (2) for Kapton, ~100 MV/m (Teflon) and ~500 MV/m (Ultem) [69], see Table 1.
Teflon and Ultem are shown in Table 2. Both models, Eqs. (1) and (2),
gave a very similar goodness of fit for the data of Kapton. In the case of Conclusions
the energy spectra of Teflon and Ultem, the low-energy region of the
spectra is also satisfactorily fitted by the two Eqs. (1) and (2). For higher The electron energy spectra of Kapton, Teflon and Ultem polymers
energies than Epeak, Eq. (2) fits better than Eq. (1) as happened also in under electron irradiation were obtained by making use of the surface
our previous measurements on conductive samples [51]. It can be seen potential arising in the sample as a retarding field. The measurement of
that Epeak of the Teflon spectra is also best estimated by Eq. (2). The error the charging curve Qdep(VS) of an initially uncharged dielectric material
estimation accounts for the standard deviation of the fits as well as the conveys the energy spectra of true secondary electrons. It was found that
error committed by the approximation α ≈ 0. the peak position of the distributions is 1.9 ± 0.1 eV for Kapton, 2.3 ±
The proportionality constant in Eq. (7), i.e. 1/C = d/ε0 εr A, controls 0.1 eV for Teflon and 4.3 ± 0.2 eV for Ultem. In general, the empirical
the sparseness of the experimental data. In Table 1 we can observe that it Eq. (2) fits the energy spectrum better than the phenomenological Eq.
ranges from 0.03 to 0.45 V/pC, meaning that for each picocoulomb that (1), but the difference was mostly seen at energies well above the peak of
is deposited on the surface of the sample, the potential barrier increases the distribution. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that Eq. (1) with only 1
that many volts. Therefore, the ideal situation is maintaining this parameter and physical meaning for it was able to fit the data remark­
parameter as low as possible to facilitate the measurement of the energy ably well. This method also avoids problems that can arise due to the
spectra in small step increments of VS. This can be done by reducing the required higher electron doses in other spectroscopic techniques, such as
total incident dose, decreasing the thickness of the sample or increasing radiation damage, deep charging, defects, aging and other electron
the irradiated area. induced phenomena. The low dose used in this work, 10 pC/mm2,
In Fig. 6, we can also observe that the most energetic true SEs are produces a minimal distortion of the original state of the material
emitted from Ultem. According to the results of the best fit of Eq. (2) to leading to a clean measurement of the energy spectra of secondary
the energy spectra, 50% of them have less than 8.7 eV, 90% less than electrons.
25.4 eV and the most probable emission energy at 4.3 eV. Teflon have
50% of SEs with less than 3.2 eV, 90% with less than 6.9 eV and the most CRediT authorship contribution statement
probable energy at 2.3 eV. Finally, Kapton has 50% of SEs with less
energy than 5.4 eV, 90% with less than 18.9 eV and the most probable L. Olano: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal

6
L. Olano and I. Montero Results in Physics 19 (2020) 103456

Fig. 6. EDCs of Kapton (top panels), Teflon (center panels) and Ultem (bottom panels) measured by the charging method. Red dots are the smoothed data obtained
from the derivative of the charging curves Qdep(VCS ), Eq. (6), and the distribution of electrons captured at a specific VCS . The data is shown alongside its error bands,
calculated from the dispersion of the data. The best fit to the data (black line) of Eq. (1) (left panels) and Eq. (2) (right panels) is shown. The best fit parameters are
shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Table 3
Best fit parameters of the energy spectra of true secondary electrons to Equations Secondary electron energy (ESE). Energy at which 50% and 90% of the total
(1) and (2) for Kapton, Teflon and Ultem irradiated at 300 eV PE. The estimated population of emitted electrons fulfills ESE < E (where ESE is the secondary
error represents the standard errors obtained from the fits to the data and the electron energy) according to Equation (2).
approximation α ≈ 0.
E @ 50% (eV) E @ 90% (eV)
Equation (1) Equation (2)
Kapton 5.4 18.9
Electron Affinity (eV) Epeak (eV) Epeak (eV) τ Teflon 3.2 6.9
Ultem 8.7 25.4
Kapton 5.8 ± 0.6 1.9 ± 0.2 1.9 ± 0.2 0.95 ± 0. 10
Teflon 4.1 ± 0.4 1.4 ± 0.2 2.3 ± 0.3 0.49 ± 0.05
Ultem 9.2 ± 0.9 3.1 ± 0.3 4.3 ± 0.5 0.84 ± 0.08

7
L. Olano and I. Montero Results in Physics 19 (2020) 103456

analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. I. Montero: graphene nanoplatelets. Appl Surf Sci 2014;291:74–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apsusc.2013.10.045.
Supervision, Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Investigation,
[22] Montero I, et al. Low-secondary electron emission yield under electron
Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Funding acquisition. bombardment of microstructured surfaces, looking for multipactor effect
suppression. J Electron Spectrosc Relat Phenom 2020;241:146822. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.elspec.2019.02.001.
Declaration of Competing Interest [23] Nistor V, et al. Multipactor suppression by micro-structured gold/silver coatings
for space applications. Appl Surf Sci 2014;315:445–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apsusc.2014.05.049.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial [24] Lu Qi, et al. Surface roughness evolution induced low secondary electron yield in
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence carbon coated Ag/Al substrates for space microwave devices. Appl Surf Sci 2020;
the work reported in this paper. 501:144236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2019.144236.
[25] Pivi M, King FK, Kirby RE, Raubenheimer TO, Stupakov G, Le Pimpec F. Sharp
reduction of the secondary electron emission yield from grooved surfaces. J Appl
Acknowledgments Phys 2008;104(10):104904. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3021149.
[26] Jin C, Ottaviano A, Raitses Y. Secondary electron emission yield from high aspect
ratio carbon velvet surfaces. J Appl Phys 2017;122(17):5. https://doi.org/
This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and 10.1063/1.4993979. 173301.
Innovation under Proyectos de I + D + I Excelencia y Retos de la Inves­ [27] Swanson C, Kaganovich ID. Modeling of reduced secondary electron emission yield
from a foam or fuzz surface. Art no. 023302 J Appl Phys 2018;123(2):6. https://
tigación, Projects No ESP2015-67842-P and RTI2018-095903-B-I00.
doi.org/10.1063/1.5008261.
[28] Wood B, Lee J, Wilson G, Shen T-C, Dennison JR. Secondary electron yield
References measurements of carbon nanotube forests: dependence on morphology and
substrate. IEEE Trans Plasma Sci 2019;47(8):3801–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/
TPS.2019.2921505.
[1] Bellissimo A, Pierantozzi GM, Ruocco A, Stefani G, Ridzel OY, Astašauskas V,
[29] Huerta CE, Patino MI, Wirz RE. Secondary electron emission from textured
Werner WSM, Taborelli M. Secondary electron generation mechanisms in carbon
surfaces. J Phys D: Appl Phys 2018;51(14):8. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/
allotropes at low impact electron energies. J Electron Spectrosc Relat Phenom
aab1ac. Art no. 145202.
2019;241:146883.
[30] Ye Ming, Feng Peng, Li Yun, Wang Dan, He Yongning, Cui Wanzhao. The total
[2] Goldstein JI, Newbury DE, Michael JR, Ritchie NWM, Scott JHJ, Joy DC. Scanning
secondary electron yield of a conductive random rough surface. J Appl Phys 2019;
electron microscopy and X-ray microanalysis. New York: Springer; 2017.
125(4):043301. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5023769.
[3] Kirby R, “Artifacts in Secondary Electron Emission Yield Measurements,” 07/06
[31] Bajek D, et al. Role of surface microgeometries on electron escape probability and
2004, DOI:10.2172/827328.
secondary electron yield of metal surfaces. Sci Rep 2020;10(1):250. https://doi.
[4] Gonzalez-Iglesias D, et al. Analysis of Multipactor RF breakdown in a waveguide
org/10.1038/s41598-019-57160-w.
containing a transversely magnetized ferrite. IEEE Trans Electron Devices 2016;63
[32] Wang Dan, He Yongning, Ye Ming, Peng Wenbo, Cui Wanzhao. Secondary electron
(12):4939–47. https://doi.org/10.1109/ted.2016.2614370.
emission characteristics of nanostructured silver surfaces. J Appl Phys 2017;122
[5] de Lara J, et al. Multipactor prediction for on-board spacecraft RF equipment with
(15):153302. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4989965.
the MEST software tool. IEEE Trans Plasma Sci 2006;34(2):476–84. https://doi.
[33] Swanson C, Kaganovich ID. “Feathered” fractal surfaces to minimize secondary
org/10.1109/tps.2006.872450.
electron emission for a wide range of incident angles. J Appl Phys 2017;122(4):
[6] Tulu ET, van Rienen U, Arnold A. Systematic study of multipactor suppression
043301. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4995535.
techniques for a superconducting rf gun. Phys Rev Accel Beams 2018;21(11).
[34] He YN, et al. Thermal evaporated hyperbranched Ag nanostructure as an effective
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevAccelBeams.21.113402.
secondary-electron trapping surface coating. AIP Adv 2016;6(2):025122. https://
[7] Vague J, et al. Multipactor effect characterization of dielectric materials for space
doi.org/10.1063/1.4943050.
applications. IEEE Trans Microwave Theory Techn 2018;66(8):3644–55. https://
[35] Wu D, Ma J, Bao Y, Cui W, Hu T, Yang J, Bai Y. Fabrication of porous Ag/TiO2/Au
doi.org/10.1109/TMTT.2018.2845869.
coatings with excellent multipactor suppression. Sci Rep 2017;7(1):43749. https://
[8] Li Y, Cui W-Z, Wang H-G. Simulation investigation of multipactor in metal
doi.org/10.1038/srep43749.
components for space application with an improved secondary emission model.
[36] Olano L, Dávila ME, Dennison JR, Martín-Iglesias P, Montero I. Dynamic secondary
Phys Plasmas 2015;22(5):053108. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4919858.
electron emission in rough composite materials. Sci Rep 2019;9(1):13967. https://
[9] Bronchalo E, et al. Secondary electron emission of Pt: experimental study and
doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-50353-3.
comparison with models in the multipactor energy range. IEEE Trans Electron
[37] Tao SX, Chan HW, Van der Graaf H. Secondary electron emission materials for
Devices 2016;63(8):3270–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/TED.2016.2580199.
transmission dynodes in novel photomultipliers: a review. Materials 2016;9(12):
[10] Cimino R, et al. Can low-energy electrons affect high-energy physics accelerators?
1017.
Phys Rev Lett 2004;93(1):014801.
[38] Yang F, Wang J, Liu W, Liu X, Zhou M. Y2O3–Lu2O3 co-doped molybdenum
[11] Domínguez O, et al. First electron-cloud studies at the Large Hadron Collider. Phys
secondary emission material. Appl Surf Sci 2013;270:746–50. https://doi.org/
Rev ST Accel Beams 2013;16(1):18. https://doi.org/10.1103/
10.1016/j.apsusc.2013.01.147.
PhysRevSTAB.16.011003. 011003.
[39] Photomultiplier tubes: Basics and applications. Hamamatsu photonics, 2017.
[12] Cimino R, Gonzalez LA, Larciprete R, Di Gaspare A, Iadarola G, Rumolo G. Detailed
[40] Gilmour AS. Klystrons, traveling wave tubes, crossed-field amplifiers, and
investigation of the low energy secondary electron yield of technical Cu and its
gyrotrons. Magnetrons: Artech House; 2011.
relevance for the LHC. Phys Rev ST Accel Beams 2015;18(5):051002. https://doi.
[41] Dennison JR, Sim A, Thomson CD. Evolution of the electron yield curves of
org/10.1103/PhysRevSTAB.18.051002.
insulators as a function of impinging electron fluence and energy. IEEE Trans
[13] Valizadeh R, Malyshev OB, Wang S, Sian T, Cropper MD, Sykes N. Reduction of
Plasma Sci 2006;34(5):2204–18. https://doi.org/10.1109/tps.2006.883398.
secondary electron yield for E-cloud mitigation by laser ablation surface
[42] Belhaj M, Tondu T, Inguimbert V, Elsafi B, Fakhfakh S, Jbara O. Electron emission
engineering. Appl Surf Sci 2017;404:370.
yield and charging process of alkali-silicate glass submitted to an electron beam
[14] Olano A, Ren J, Zhang G, Tang H, Zhang T, Li J. Improvements in miniaturized Hall
under the varying temperature condition. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res, Sect B
Thrusters by use of high-temperature SmCo magnets and additive manufacturing
2012;270:120–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2011.09.010.
techniques. IOP Conf Series: Mater Sci Eng 2019;576:012002. https://doi.org/
[43] Chen Yu, Wu J, Kunimitsu R, Gray A, Toyoda K, Cho M. Total electron emission
10.1088/1757-899x/576/1/012002.
yield of solar cell coverglass and optical solar reflector. IEEE Trans Plasma Sci
[15] Garcia AO, Tang H, Ren J. Scaling model for SPT and TAL thrusters. IEEE Trans
2013;41(12):3558–64. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPS.2013.2288575.
Plasma Sci 2020;48(1):86–98. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPS.2019.2958187.
[44] I. Montero, L. Aguilera, D. Raboso, and U. Wochner, “Anti-multipactor device,”
[16] Levchenko I, Xu S, Teel G, Mariotti D, Walker MLR, Keidar M. Recent progress and
Patent WO2016042192 A1, 2016-03-24, 2016. [Online]. Available: http://hdl.
perspectives of space electric propulsion systems based on smart nanomaterials.
handle.net/10261/135730.
Nature Commun 2018;9(1):879. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02269-7.
[45] Cazaux J. Secondary electron emission and charging mechanisms in Auger Electron
[17] Langendorf S, Walker M. Effect of secondary electron emission on the plasma
Spectroscopy and related e-beam techniques. J Electron Spectrosc Relat Phenom
sheath. Phys Plasmas 2015;22(3):033515. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4914854.
2010;176(1-3):58–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elspec.2009.06.004.
[18] Pigeon V, Claire N, Arnas C, Terasaka K, Inagaki S. Plasma sheath material induced
[46] Cazaux J. About the secondary electron yield and the sign of charging of electron
dependence due to secondary electron emission. Phys Plasmas 2020;27(4):043505.
irradiated insulators. Eur Phys J AP 2001;15(3):167–72. https://doi.org/10.1051/
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5141348.
epjap:2001178.
[19] Tavant A, Croes V, Lucken R, Lafleur T, Bourdon A, Chabert P. The effects of
[47] Cazaux J. e-Induced secondary electron emission yield of insulators and charging
secondary electron emission on plasma sheath characteristics and electron
effects. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res, Sect B 2006;244(2):307–22. https://doi.
transport in an ${\bf{E}}\times {\bf{B}}$ discharge via kinetic simulations.
org/10.1016/j.nimb.2005.10.006 (in English).
Plasma Sources Sci Technol 2018;27(12):124001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-
[48] Melchinger A, Hofmann S, and W. W., “Dynamic double layer model: Description
6595/aaeccd.
of time dependent charging phenomena in insulators under electron beam
[20] Aguilera L, et al. CuO nanowires for inhibiting secondary electron emission. J Phys
irradiation,” Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 78, no. 10, pp. 6224-6232, 1995, DOI:
D-Appl Phys 2013;46(16):6. https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3727/46/16/165104
10.1063/1.360569.
(in English) Art no. 165104.
[21] Montero I, Aguilera L, Dávila ME, Nistor VC, González LA, Galán L, Raboso D,
Ferritto R. Secondary electron emission under electron bombardment from

8
L. Olano and I. Montero Results in Physics 19 (2020) 103456

[49] Whetten N Rey, Laponsky AB. Energy distribution of secondary electrons from [59] Plis E, Engelhart D, Cooper R, Johnston W, Ferguson D, Hoffmann R. Review of
MgO single crystals. Phys Rev 1957;107(6):1521–4. https://doi.org/10.1103/ radiation-induced effects in polyimide. Appl Sci 2019;9:1999. https://doi.org/
PhysRev.107.1521. 10.3390/app9101999.
[50] R. Hoffmann, “Electron-Induced Electron Yields of Uncharged Insulating [60] Chung MS, Everhart TE. Simple calculation of energy distribution of low-energy
Materials,” All Graduate Theses and Dissertations, 01/01 2010. secondary electrons emitted from metals under electron bombardment. J Appl Phys
[51] Olano L, Montero I. Electron emission spectra by charging analysis. Results Phys 1974;45(2):707–9. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1663306.
2020;17:103050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2020.103050. [61] Scholtz JJ, Dijkkamp D, Schmitz RWA. Secondary electron emission properties.
[52] Ghorbel N, Kallel A, Damamme G. Analytical model of secondary electron emission Philips J Res 1996;50(3):375–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-5817(97)84681-
yield in electron beam irradiated insulators. Micron 2018;112:35–41. https://doi. 5.
org/10.1016/j.micron.2018.06.002. [62] Nickles N, Davies R, and Dennison J, “Applications of Secondary Electron Energy-
[53] J. Dennison et al., ABSOLUTE ELECTRON EMISSION CALIBRATION: ROUND and-Angular-Distributions to Spacecraft Charging,” 01/01 2000.
ROBIN TESTS OF Au AND GRAPHITE. 2016. [63] “Comsol 5.3a.” https://www.comsol.com/release/5.3a (accessed 31 March 2020.
[54] “Kapton HN.” https://www.dupont.com/products/kapton-hn.html (accessed 8 [64] Reimer L. Image formation in low-voltage scanning electron microscopy. SPIE
July, 2020). Optical Engineering Press; 1993.
[55] “Teflon.” http://www.tetrachim.com/pdf/Teflon_industrialcoatingsbrochure_GB. [65] W. Wang, T. Takada, Y. Tanaka, and S. Li, “Space charge mechanism of
pdf (accessed 8 July, 2020). polyethylene and polytetrafluoroethylene by electrode/dielectrics interface study
[56] “Ultem 1000F.” https://www.sabic.com/en/products/specialties/ultem-resins/ul using quantum chemical method,” IEEE Transactions on Dielectrics and Electrical
tem-resin (accessed 8 July, 2020). Insulation, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 2599-2606, 2017, doi: 10.1109/TDEI.2017.006417.
[57] Perrin C et al., “Space charge detection in Kapton (R) and PTFE polymer films by [66] Kafafi SA. The ionization potential, electron affinity and energy gap of polyimide.
the open Pulsed Electro-Acoustic method,” (in English), High Perform. Polym., Chem Phys Lett 1990;169(6):561–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-2614(90)
Article; Proceedings Paper vol. 20, no. 4-5, pp. 535-548, Aug-Oct 2008, DOI: 85647-U.
10.1177/0954008308089714. [67] Kleiman J. Protection of materials and structures from the space environment:
[58] Bungay CL, Tiwald TE, Devries MJ, Dworak BJ, Woollam JA. Characterization of ICPMSE-11. Springer International Publishing; 2017.
UV irradiated space application polymers by spectroscopic ellipsometry. Polym. [68] Stellman JM and I L. Office, Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and Safety (no.
Eng. Sci. 2000;40(2):300–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/pen.11163. v. 2). International Labour Office, 1998.
[69] Haynes WM. CRC handbook of chemistry and physics. CRC Press; 2016.