| Literature DB >> 21685675 |
O Ponomarenko1, A Y Nikulin, H O Moser, P Yang, O Sakata.
Abstract
Coherent X-ray diffraction techniques play an increasingly significant role in the imaging of nanoscale structures, ranging from metallic and semiconductor to biological objects. In material science, X-rays are usually considered to be of a low-destructive nature, but under certain conditions they can cause significant radiation damage and heat loading on the samples. The qualitative literature data concerning the tolerance of nanostructured samples to synchrotron radiation in coherent diffraction imaging experiments are scarce. In this work the experimental evidence of a complete destruction of polymer and gold nanosamples by the synchrotron beam is reported in the case of imaging at 1-10 nm spatial resolution. Numerical simulations based on a heat-transfer model demonstrate the high sensitivity of temperature distribution in samples to macroscopic experimental parameters such as the conduction properties of materials, radiation heat transfer and convection. However, for realistic experimental conditions the calculated rates of temperature rise alone cannot explain the melting transitions observed in the nanosamples. Comparison of these results with the literature data allows a specific scenario of the sample destruction in each particular case to be presented, and a strategy for damage reduction to be proposed.Entities:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21685675 PMCID: PMC3286865 DOI: 10.1107/S0909049511016335
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Synchrotron Radiat ISSN: 0909-0495 Impact factor: 2.616
Figure 1Fraunhofer diffraction profiles recorded from a test nanostructure in PMMA resist at the BL13XU beamline, SPring-8, Japan: the upper and lower curves were recorded under the same experimental conditions with an interval of approximately 20 min. The curves are shifted by an order of magnitude for better visibility.
Figure 2Photograph of the sample with test nanostructures produced in PMMA resist after the experiment.
Figure 3Photograph of the sample with gold 50 nm-diameter nanoparticles dispersed between kapton sheets after the experiment. The ‘solid’ gold area corresponds to the size of the incident beam.
Figure 4(a) Schematics of heat-flow directions in the model of a sample with gold nanospheres dispersed with a 1 µm gap between 5 µm-thick kapton sheets. The blue arrows denote the direction of the X-ray beam. The red line denotes the temperature distribution in the sample. The outer boundary points are labeled with 1 and the points at the interfaces of the material are labeled with 2. (b) Temperature dynamics of the thermal loss coefficient for the surface with emissivity ∊ ≃ 0.2 marked by triangle symbols, the convection coefficient [equation (5) in the text] marked by circles, and the combined (convection + thermal radiation loss) coefficient marked by a solid line. (c) Same as (b), with ∊ ≃ 0.9.
Material-dependent parameters used in numerical simulations of heat transfer
| Material | Density ρ (kg m−3) | Specific heat | Thermal conductivity κ (W m−1 K −1) | Attenuation (λ = 0.1 nm) μ (m−1) | Emissivity ∊ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gold (bulk) | 19290 | 129 | 310 | 317500.60 | 0.0001–0.3 |
| Kapton | 1430 | 1090 | 0.385 | 222.75 | 0.0001–0.95 |
| Si3N4 | 3440 | 700 | 25 | 3772.67 | 0.2 |
| Si | 2329 | 700 | 148 | 3968.30 | 0.7 |
| PMMA | 1190 | 1220–2170 | 0.2 | 197.44 | 0.92 |
| Air (ambient) | 1.177 | 1.006 | 0.026 | – | – |
The simulation parameters are taken from (a) CXRO (2005 ▶) and Henke et al. (1993 ▶); (b) Weast (1974 ▶); (c) McAlees (2002 ▶); (d) ATC (2010 ▶); (e) Völklein (1990 ▶); (f) Sikora (2010 ▶); (g) Ravindra et al. (2003 ▶); (h) Soldera et al. (2010 ▶) and Hempel et al. (1996 ▶); (i) Assael et al. (2008 ▶) and Rudtsch & Hammerschmidt (2004 ▶); (j) Wen et al. (1993 ▶); (k) Baek et al. (1997 ▶); (l) Holman (2002 ▶).
In the simulations a wide range of emissivity values for gold and kapton outer layers were tested to account for the different heat radiation regimes. The values of kapton emissivity depend on the state of its outer surface (rough or smooth), thickness and backing material, so a few micrometers thick metalized films have very small emissivity (∼0.03; SNAP, 2003 ▶). The standard values for thicker kapton varieties are 0.54 (SNAP, 2003 ▶), 0.78–0.84 (McAlees, 2002 ▶). The measured emissivity of thin gold films, ∊ = 0.3 (for 1.0 µm thickness), 0.01–0.1 (for 1.6 µm thickness; Raytek, 2000 ▶).
Figure 5Prolonged simulation of the maximal temperature growth for the 1 µm-thick slab of Si3N4 support for different parameters of heat convection and thermal radiation emissivity ∊. The solid line denotes the ambient conditions with surface emissivity coefficients, ∊SiN = 0.2, ∊PMMA = 0.9, the dot–dashed line denotes conditions with emissivity ∊SiN = 0.02, ∊PMMA = 0.09 and heat conductivity h1 = J m−2 s−1; the dashed line with diamond marks denotes conditions with heat conductivity h2 = J m−2 s−1 and ∊ = 0.002.
Figure 6Results of numerical simulations of 50 nm gold nanospheres dispersed in 1 µm gaps between thick kapton sheets. (a) Maximal temperature growth rate for insulated samples with different thickness of kapton sheets. The dashed line denotes results for 5 µm kapton sheets, the solid line for 50 µm-thick kapton sheets. (b) Maximal temperature growth in the sample with 5 µm kapton sheets for different parameters of heat conduction and emissivity ∊. The solid line denotes the insulated sample, the dashed line denotes conditions with emissivity ∊ = 0.2 and heat conductivity h1 = J m−2 s−1; the dot–dashed line denotes conditions with heat conductivity h2 = J m−2 s−1 and ∊ = 0.2; the dot–dot–dashed line denotes heat conductivity h3 = h2 as above and emissivity ∊ = 0.8 (i.e. ambient conditions).