4.8 Article

Control of Knock-On Damage for 3D Atomic Scale Quantification of Nanostructures: Making Every Electron Count in Scanning Transmission Electron Microscopy

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS
Volume 122, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.066101

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union [770887]
  2. Research Foundation Flanders (FWO, Belgium) [WO.010.16N, G.0934.17N, G.0502.18N, G.0267.18N]
  3. European Union [312483-ESTEEM2]
  4. UK EPSRC [EP/M010708/1]
  5. EPSRC [EP/M010708/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. European Research Council (ERC) [770887] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Understanding nanostructures down to the atomic level is the key to optimizing the design of advanced materials with revolutionary novel properties. This requires characterization methods capable of quantifying the three-dimensional (3D) atomic structure with the highest possible precision. A successful approach to reach this goal is to count the number of atoms in each atomic column from 2D annular dark field scanning transmission electron microscopy images. To count atoms with single atom sensitivity, a minimum electron dose has been shown to be necessary, while on the other hand beam damage, induced by the high energy electrons, puts a limit on the tolerable dose. An important challenge is therefore to develop experimental strategies to optimize the electron dose by balancing atom-counting fidelity vs the risk of knock-on damage. To achieve this goal, a statistical framework combined with physics-based modeling of the dose-dependent processes is here proposed and experimentally verified. This model enables an investigator to theoretically predict, in advance of an experimental measurement, the optimal electron dose resulting in an unambiguous quantification of nanostructures in their native state with the highest attainable precision.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available