- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review E

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Impact of ultrafast electronic damage in single-particle x-ray imaging experiments

U. Lorenz1, N. M. Kabachnik2,3, E. Weckert1, and I. A. Vartanyants1,4,*

  • 1Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, Notkestraße 85, D-22607 Hamburg, Germany
  • 2Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, 119991 Moscow, Russia
  • 3European XFEL GmbH, Albert-Einstein-Ring 19, D-22761 Hamburg, Germany
  • 4National Research Nuclear University, “MEPhI,” 115409 Moscow, Russia

  • *Corresponding author: ivan.vartaniants@desy.de
PDF

Phys. Rev. E 86, 051911 – Published 21 November, 2012

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.86.051911

Abstract

In single-particle coherent x-ray diffraction imaging experiments, performed at x-ray free-electron lasers (XFELs), samples are exposed to intense x-ray pulses to obtain single-shot diffraction patterns. The high intensity induces electronic dynamics on the femtosecond time scale in the system, which can reduce the contrast of the obtained diffraction patterns and adds an isotropic background. We quantify the degradation of the diffraction pattern from ultrafast electronic damage by performing simulations on a biological sample exposed to x-ray pulses with different parameters. We find that the contrast is substantially reduced and the background is considerably strong only if almost all electrons are removed from their parent atoms. This happens at fluences of at least one order of magnitude larger than provided at currently available XFEL sources.

View figure in article

Corrections

29 November, 2012

Erratum

Publisher's Note: Impact of ultrafast electronic damage in single-particle x-ray imaging experiments [Phys. Rev. E 86, 051911 (2012)]

U. Lorenz, N. M. Kabachnik, E. Weckert, and I. A. Vartanyants
Phys. Rev. E 86, 059906 (2012)

Article Text

References (43)

  1. C. Giacovazzo (ed.), Fundamentals of Crystallography (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2011).
  2. M. M. Woolfson and F. Hai-Fu, Physical and Non-Physical Methods of Solving Crystal Structures (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1995).
  3. M. R. Howells, T. Beetz, H. N. Chapman, C. Cui, J. M. Holton, C. J. Jacobsen, J. Kirz, E. Lima, S. Marchesini, H. Miao et al., J. Electron Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom. 170, 4 (2009).
  4. R. Neutze, R. Wouts, D. van der Spoel, E. Weckert, and J. Hajdu, Nature 406, 752 (2000).
  5. P. Emma, R. Akre, J. Arthur, R. Bionta, C. Bostedt, J. Bozek, A. Brachmann, P. Bucksbaum, R. Coffee, F. J. Decker et al., Nat. Photon. 4, 641 (2010).
  6. T. Ishikawa, H. Aoyagi, T. Asaka, Y. Asano, N. Azumi, T. Bizen, H. Ego, K. Fukami, T. Fukui, Y. Furukawa et al., Nat. Photon. 6, 540 (2012).
  7. M. Altarelli, R. Brinkmann, M. Chergui, W. Decking, B. Dobson, S. Düsterer, G. Grübel, W. Graeff, H. Graafsma, J. Hajdu (eds.), The European X-Ray Free-Electron Laser Technical Design Report, DESY 2006-097, 2006, http://xfel.desy.de/technical_information/tdr/tdr/.
  8. K. J. Gaffney and H. N. Chapman, Science 316, 1444 (2007).
  9. A. P. Mancuso, O. M. Yefanov, and I. A. Vartanyants, J. Biotechnology 149, 229 (2010).
  10. R. Fung, V. Shneerson, D. K. Saldin, and A. Ourmazd, Nat. Phys. 5, 64 (2009).
  11. Ne-Te Duane Loh and V. Elser, Phys. Rev. E 80, 026705 (2009).
  12. G. Bortel and M. Tegze, Acta Crystallogr. Sect. A 67, 533 (2011).
  13. J. R. Fienup, Appl. Opt. 21, 2758 (1982).
  14. V. Elser, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 20, 40 (2003).
  15. H. N. Chapman, P. Fromme, A. Barty, T. A. White, R. A. Kirian, A. Aquila, M. S. Hunter, J. Schulz, D. P. DePonte, U. Weierstall et al., Nature 470, 73 (2011).
  16. M. M. Seibert, T. Ekeberg, F. R. N. C. Maia, M. Svenda, J. Andreasson, O. Jonsson, D. Odic, B. Iwan, A. Rocker, D. Westphal et al., Nature 470, 78 (2011).
  17. N. Rohringer and R. Santra, Phys. Rev. A 76, 033416 (2007).
  18. L. Young, E. P. Kanter, B. Krässig, Y. Li, A. M. March, S. T. Pratt, R. Santra, S. H. Southworth, N. Rohringer, L. F. DiMauro et al., Nature 466, 56 (2010).
  19. S. P. Hau-Riege, R. A. London, and A. Szoke, Phys. Rev. E 69, 051906 (2004).
  20. S. P. Hau-Riege, R. A. London, G. Huldt, and H. N. Chapman, Phys. Rev. E 71, 061919 (2005).
  21. S. P. Hau-Riege, R. A. London, H. N. Chapman, A. Szoke, and N. Timneanu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 198302 (2007).
  22. H. M. Quiney and K. A. Nugent, Nat. Phys. 7, 142 (2011).
  23. S. P. Hau-Riege, Opt. Express 16, 2840 (2008).
  24. S.-K. Son, L. Young, and R. Santra, Phys. Rev. A 83, 033402 (2011).
  25. G. Doumy, C. Roedig, S. K. Son, C. I. Blaga, A. D. DiChiara, R. Santra, N. Berrah, C. Bostedt, J. D. Bozek, P. H. Bucksbaum et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 083002 (2011).
  26. M. Hoener, L. Fang, O. Kornilov, O. Gessner, S. T. Pratt, M. Gühr, E. P. Kanter, C. Blaga, C. Bostedt, G. D. Bozek et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 253002 (2010).
  27. S. P. Hau-Riege, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 238101 (2012).
  28. M. Bergh, G. Huldt, N. Tîmneanu, F. R. Maia, and J. Hajdu, Q. Rev. Biophys. 41, 181 (2008).
  29. A. Barty, C. Caleman, A. Aquila, N. Timneanu, L. Lomb, T. A. White, J. Andreasson, D. Arnlund, S. Bajt, T. R. M. Barends et al., Nat. Photon. 6, 35 (2012).
  30. Present self-amplified spontaneous emission (SASE) XFELs have typically few-percentage variations in pulse-to-pulse intensity, spectrum, and microbunch structure. However, as shown in Refs. [17,18], this does not affect the ionization dynamics substantially. Self-seeded XFELs [31] are expected to produce high-power stable pulses.
  31. G. Geloni, V. Kocharyan, and E. Saldin, Technical Report DESY 10-108, 2010.
  32. The symbol Wij in Eq. (5) is formally identical to the symbol AZ,Z′ used in Ref. [22]. However, in our analysis, the summation in Eqs. (2)–(6) is performed over all atom positions instead of atom types. This automatically leads to the additional background term in Eq. (7) which cannot be recovered otherwise.
  33. A formalism similar to Eqs. (1)–(7) was introduced in Ref. [21], where it was assumed that the atomic form factor is proportional to the number of bound electrons. We go beyond this assumption in our analysis of radiation damage.
  34. Note that this decomposition is formally equivalent to the coherent-mode decomposition of partially coherent fields [35,36]. This can be seen directly by evaluating the mutual coherence function on a grid, Wij≡W(ri,rj), and replacing integrals by corresponding summations. Similarly to this case, Eq. (8) follows directly from the fact that Ŵ is Hermitian and positive semidefinite, which also implies that the eigenvalues cα are real-valued, non-negative numbers.
  35. L. Mandel and E. Wolf, Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1995).
  36. A. Singer and I. A. Vartanyants, New J. Phys. 12, 035004 (2010).
  37. This quantity is identical to the normalized degree of coherence to quantify the global coherence of a partially coherent source [36].
  38. All diffraction patterns were calculated using the computer code moltrans.
  39. C. Zubieta, L. Blanchoin, and S. Cusack, FEBS J. 273, 4336 (2006).
  40. As it was shown in recent publication [29] it is expected root-mean-square displacement of only 1 Å by the end of a 30-fs pulse with the fluence 1014 photons/μm2 at 8 keV photon energy.
  41. J. Als-Nielsen and D. McMorrow, Elements of Modern X-ray Physics, 2nd ed. (Wiley, New York, 2011).
  42. F. Herman and S. Skillman, Atomic Structure Calculations (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1963).
  43. Y.-K. Kim, K. K. Irikura, M. E. Rudd, M. A. Ali, P. M. Stone, J. Chang, J. S. Coursey, R. A. Dragoset, A. R. Kishore, K. J. Olsen et al., NIST electron-impact cross section database http://www.nist.gov/pml/data/ionization/index.cfm.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. E 86, 051911– Published 21 November, 2012
  • Received 28 June 2012
  • Corrected 29 November 2012

©2012 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation