| Literature DB >> 28706258 |
M Zürch1,2,3, R Jung4, C Späth5,6, J Tümmler4, A Guggenmos5,6, D Attwood7, U Kleineberg5,6, H Stiel4, C Spielmann8,9.
Abstract
Coherent diffraction imaging (CDI) in the extreme ultraviolet has become an important tool for nanoscale investigations. Laser-driven high harmonic generation (HHG) sources allow for lab scale applications such as cancer cell classification and phase-resolved surface studies. HHG sources exhibit excellent coherence but limited photon flux due poor conversion efficiency. In contrast, table-top soft X-ray lasers (SXRL) feature excellent temporal coherence and extraordinary high flux at limited transverse coherence. Here, the performance of a SXRL pumped at moderate pump energies is evaluated for CDI and compared to a HHG source. For CDI, a lower bound for the required mutual coherence factor of |μ 12| ≥ 0.75 is found by comparing a reconstruction with fixed support to a conventional characterization using double slits. A comparison of the captured diffraction signals suggests that SXRLs have the potential for imaging micron scale objects with sub-20 nm resolution in orders of magnitude shorter integration time compared to a conventional HHG source. Here, the low transverse coherence diameter limits the resolution to approximately 180 nm. The extraordinary high photon flux per laser shot, scalability towards higher repetition rate and capability of seeding with a high harmonic source opens a route for higher performance nanoscale imaging systems based on SXRLs.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28706258 PMCID: PMC5509821 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-05789-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Experimental layout and SXRL properties. (a) The SXRL radiation is generated using a molybdenum target. The plasma is created by a long pre-pulse (70 mJ, 150 ps). The main pulse (270 mJ, 2 ps) prepares the population inversion in the highly excited nickel-like ions. Aluminium filters (500 nm thickness in total) suppress infrared stray light. Two curved mirrors (M2 & M3) reimage the light onto the sample and demagnify it by a factor of two. A soft X-ray sensitive CCD (CAM, ANDOR model iKon L) captures the far-field diffraction pattern of the sample. (b) Typical far-field modes comprising of single SXRL shots measured with the sample removed. (c) Typical Mo SXRL spectrum peaked at 18.9 nm (blue line) and combined reflectivity of the multilayer mirrors (M1, M2 and M3, red dotted line).
Figure 2Recorded fringe patterns after a double slit in the refocused beam. Panels (a–d) show characteristic fringe patterns measured for different slit distances d as indicated in the panels. The inset in panel (a) shows an example of the raw data captured on the CCD featuring well resolved fringes. (e) Modulus of the complex coherence factor |µ 12 | for different slit distances along the horizontal axis of the laser. The dotted line shows a Gaussian fit with a width at full width half maximum of 3.13 µm.
Figure 3Modulus of the complex coherence factor depending on k. The fringes (black solid line) obtained using a slit spacing of d = 0.92 µm show excellent contrast up to high momentum transfers. The slight degradation in the mutual coherence factor or fringe visibility (red dots) can be attributed to a limited dynamic range of the detector (~103).
Figure 4Coherent diffraction imaging using a solid-state SXRL. (a) Measured diffraction pattern captured from 300 laser shots featuring fringes extending well to the edge of the detector. (b) Comparing the modulus in Fourier space around the central speckle calculated from the STEM image of the sample (c) and comparing it to the measured data (d) one finds that it is best represented by convoluting the simulated pattern with a Gaussian having a width of 1.7 pixels (f) to account for the degree of decoherence. (g) The resulting simulation of the object space from the filtered Fourier space compares well to the reconstruction of the experimental data using established phase retrieval algorithms (e). The additional amplitude modulation in the retrieved object (Panel (e)) compared to the simulation (g) can be explained by the non-uniform wavefront of the SXRL focus (cf. far-field intensity distribution in Fig. 1b). See text for further discussion. Note that panel (a) is plotted using a logarithmic scale, while panels (b,d and f) are plotted on a linear scale. The scale bar in (a) is 10 µm−1 and those in (c), (e) and (g) are one micron.
Figure 5Comparison of CDI using a HHG and SXRL source. The reconstruction of the object from the diffraction pattern captured using a HHG source (a) shows the object (Fig. 4c) in detail, while the reconstruction from the SXRL (b) is incomplete and features unstable phases. Comparing the raw data measured ((c) and (d)) the effect of limited transverse coherence of the SXRL becomes obvious. In Panels (a) and (b) the complex-valued object space is depicted where the brightness and hue encode the amplitude and phase respectively (see inset in Panel (b)). The scale bars are one micron. In Panels (c) and (d) the measured intensity of the diffraction pattern around the central speckle is depicted. The image area shown was cropped for easy comparison of the two.
Figure 6Comparison of imaging resolution. Panels (a) and (b) show the modulus of the reconstructed object space for the SXRL and HHG measurement, respectively. The scale bar in Panel (a) is one micron for both panels. (c) The achieved resolution for HHG-CDI is 48 nm (blue line) and approximately 180 nm for the SXRL-CDI measurement (red line). The line profiles were taken at the position of the dotted white line in Panels (a) and (b), respectively.