4.7 Review

Electron beam damage in oxides: a review

Journal

REPORTS ON PROGRESS IN PHYSICS
Volume 79, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0034-4885/79/1/016501

Keywords

beam damage; oxide; electron microscopy; damage by induced electric field

Funding

  1. NSF
  2. DOE

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This review summarizes a variety of beam damage phenomena relating to oxides in (scanning) transmission electron microscopes, and underlines the shortcomings of currently popular mechanisms. These phenomena include mass loss, valence state reduction, phase decomposition, precipitation, gas bubble formation, phase transformation, amorphization and crystallization. Moreover, beam damage is also dependent on specimen thickness, specimen orientation, beam voltage, beam current density and beam size. This article incorporates all of these damage phenomena and experimental dependences into a general description, interpreted by a unified mechanism of damage by induced electric field. The induced electric field is produced by positive charges, which are generated from excitation and ionization. The distribution of the induced electric fields inside a specimen is beam-illumination- and specimen-shape-dependent, and associated with the experimental dependence of beam damage. Broadly speaking, the mechanism operates differently in two types of material. In type I, damage increases the resistivity of the irradiated materials, and is thus divergent, resulting in phase separation. In type II, damage reduces the resistivity of the irradiated materials, and is thus convergent, resulting in phase transformation. Damage by this mechanism is dependent on electron-beam current density. The two experimental thresholds are current density and irradiation time. The mechanism comes into effect when these thresholds are exceeded, below which the conventional mechanisms of knock-on and radiolysis still dominate.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available