Electron beam broadening in electron‐transparent samples at low electron energies
Authors: HUGENSCHMIDT M. , MÜLLER E. , GERTHSEN D. 
Published: April 2019

SummaryScanning transmission electron microscopy (STEM) at low primary electron energies has received increasing attention in recent years because knock‐on damage can be avoided and high contrast for weakly scattering materials is obtained. However, the broadening of the electron beam in the sample is pronounced at low electron energies, which degrades resolution and limits the maximum specimen thickness. In this work, we have studied electron beam broadening in materials with atomic numbers Z between 10 and 32 (MgO, Si, SrTiO3, Ge) and thicknesses up to 900 nm. Beam broadening is directly measured using a multisegmented STEM detector installed in a scanning electron microscope at electron energies between 15 and 30 keV. For experimental reasons, the electron beam diameter is defined to contain only 68% of the total intensity instead of the commonly used 90% of the total beam intensity.The measured beam diameters can be well described with calculated ones based on a recently published model by Gauvin and Rudinsky. Using the concept of anomalous diffusion the Hurst exponent H is introduced that varies between 0.5 and 1 for different scattering regimes depending on t/Λel with the specimen thickness t and the elastic mean free path length Λel. The calculations also depend on the fraction of the beam intensity that defines the electron beam diameter. A Hurst exponent H of 1 is characteristic for the ballistic scattering regime with t/Λel → 0 and can be excluded for the experimental conditions of our study with 6 ≦ t/Λel ≦ 30. We deduced H = 0.75 from measured beam diameters which is larger than H = 0.5 that is expected under diffusion conditions. The deviation towards larger H values can be rationalised by our definition of electron diameter that contains only 68% of the total beam intensity and requires therefore larger sample thicknesses before the diffusion regime is reached. Our results clearly deviate from previous analytical approaches to describe beam broadening (Goldstein et al., Reed, Williams et al., Kohl and Reimer). Measured beam diameters are compared with simulated ones, which are obtained by solving the electron transport equation. This approach is advantageous compared to the commonly used Monte Carlo simulations because it is an exact solution of the electron transport equation and requires less computer time. Simulated beam diameter agree well with the experimental data and yield H = 0.80.Lay DescriptionIn scanning transmission electron microscopy (STEM), a focused electron beam is scanned over an electron‐transparent sample and an image is formed by detecting the intensity of the transmitted electrons by a STEM detector. STEM resolution is ultimately limited by the electron beam diameter and can be better than 0.1 nm for the best microscopes. However, the electron‐beam diameter increases with increasing specimen thickness because electrons are scattered by the interaction of the specimen material and electrons. Electron scattering leads to a change of the electron propagation direction and reduces focusing of the electron beam. The associated electron‐beam broadening degrades the lateral resolution of STEM and generally limits the maximum specimen thickness that can be imaged with good resolution. STEM is up to now mainly performed at high electron energies of 80 keV and above. Lower electron energies are beneficial for the study of weakly scattering and radiation‐sensitive materials but electron beam broadening becomes more pronounced with decreasing electron energies. Knowledge of beam broadening is therefore particularly important for the interpretation of STEM images that are taken with low‐energy electrons. In this work we have studied electron‐beam broadening in different materials with thicknesses up to 900 nm at low electron energies between 15 and 30 keV. Beam broadening is directly measured with a newly developed technique. We compare measured beam diameters with different models on beam broadening from literature and find that only a recently published model is well suited to describe the experimental results under our experimental conditions. In addition, beam broadening is simulated by modelling electron propagation in the specimen. The simulation results agree well with the measured beam diameters.