Reducing electron beam damage through alternative STEM scanning strategies, Part II: Attempt towards an empirical model describing the damage process
Ultramicroscopy, ISSN: 0304-3991, Vol: 240, Page: 113568
2022
- 9Citations
- 33Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
In this second part of a series we attempt to construct an empirical model that can mimick all experimental observations made regarding the role of an alternative interleaved scan pattern in STEM imaging on the beam damage in a specific zeolite sample. We make use of a 2D diffusion model that describes the dissipation of the deposited beam energy in the sequence of probe positions that are visited during the scan pattern. The diffusion process allows for the concept of trying to ‘outrun’ the beam damage by carefully tuning the dwell time and distance between consecutively visited probe positions. We add a non linear function to include a threshold effect and evaluate the accumulated damage in each part of the image as a function of scan pattern details. Together, these ingredients are able to describe qualitatively all aspects of the experimental data and provide us with a model that could guide a further optimisation towards even lower beam damage without lowering the applied electron dose. We deliberately remain vague on what is diffusing here which avoids introducing too many sample specific details. This provides hope that the model can be applied also in sample classes that were not yet studied in such great detail by adjusting higher level parameters: a sample dependent diffusion constant and damage threshold.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304399122000973; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2022.113568; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85132321142&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35716488; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0304399122000973; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2022.113568
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know