| Literature DB >> 27626076 |
Brian Abbey1, Ruben A Dilanian2, Connie Darmanin1, Rebecca A Ryan2, Corey T Putkunz2, Andrew V Martin2, David Wood3, Victor Streltsov4, Michael W M Jones5, Naylyn Gaffney6, Felix Hofmann7, Garth J Williams8, Sébastien Boutet9, Marc Messerschmidt10, M Marvin Seibert11, Sophie Williams2, Evan Curwood12, Eugeniu Balaur1, Andrew G Peele5, Keith A Nugent1, Harry M Quiney2.
Abstract
X-ray free-electron lasers (XFELs) deliver x-ray pulses with a coherent flux that is approximately eight orders of magnitude greater than that available from a modern third-generation synchrotron source. The power density of an XFEL pulse may be so high that it can modify the electronic properties of a sample on a femtosecond time scale. Exploration of the interaction of intense coherent x-ray pulses and matter is both of intrinsic scientific interest and of critical importance to the interpretation of experiments that probe the structures of materials using high-brightness femtosecond XFEL pulses. We report observations of the diffraction of extremely intense 32-fs nanofocused x-ray pulses by a powder sample of crystalline C60. We find that the diffraction pattern at the highest available incident power significantly differs from the one obtained using either third-generation synchrotron sources or XFEL sources operating at low output power and does not correspond to the diffraction pattern expected from any known phase of crystalline C60. We interpret these data as evidence of a long-range, coherent dynamic electronic distortion that is driven by the interaction of the periodic array of C60 molecular targets with intense x-ray pulses of femtosecond duration.Entities:
Keywords: Femtosecond electron dynamics; coherent radiation damage; femtosecond nanocrystallography; long-range electronic correlations; x-ray free electron lasers
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27626076 PMCID: PMC5017826 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1601186
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Adv ISSN: 2375-2548 Impact factor: 14.136
Fig. 1Schematic of the experimental geometry used to collect the diffraction data.
XFEL pulses (10 keV, 32 fs) acted as a simultaneous pump and probe when passing through the C60 nanocrystal powder sample, which was supported on a thin kapton film. A removable silicon attenuator upstream of the sample controlled the incident intensity and could be inserted for 10% or removed for 100% incident beam power. An aluminum attenuator (not shown) was placed directly in front of the CSPAD detector downstream of the sample to prevent the pixels from saturating. The direct beam passed through a small aperture in the CSPAD detector modules.
Fig. 2C60 diffraction data.
(A) Summed diffraction data from 2500 single shots recorded at 100% power. The semitransparent red circle indicates the location of one of the reflections only observed in the 100% XFEL data. (B) Enlarged region from (A) showing Bragg peaks at 10% power, consistent with the room temperature FCC structure. (C) The same region as in (B) collected at 100% power. To enhance contrast, has been displayed. (D) Azimuthally averaged experimental XFEL data for 10 and 100% incident power and synchrotron data collected from the same C60 sample. Vertical lines indicate positions of FCC Bragg reflections. Between 20° and 28°, significant differences are observed between the synchrotron and the 10 and 100% XFEL data.
Fig. 3Comparing experimental and simulated data.
(A) Schematic representation of the alignment of polarized C60 molecules. (B) Comparison of the 100% XFEL data and the model prediction based on the newly predicted, lower symmetry, structure. Directly below the plot are tick marks indicating the predicted model peak positions; because of the finite experimental resolution, not all of these peaks are resolved in the data. The black line shows the difference between the model and experimental data.