Quantitative Specifications to Avoid Degradation during E-Beam and Induced Current Microscopy of Halide Perovskite Devices

Abstract

Degradation due to electron beam exposure has posed a challenge in the use of electron microscopy to probe halide perovskite materials and devices. In this study, the interaction between the electron beam and the perovskite across acceleration voltages and at low probe currents is investigated in a scanning electron microscope (SEM) by monitoring the electron-beaminduced current (EBIC) response in perovskite solar cells in a planview configuration. SEM probe conditions are identified where dozens of repeated scans over a single region of the perovskite solar cell induce minimal electronic degradation. Overall, the induced current response of the perovskite device is found to strongly depend upon the beam condition: rapid decay occurs at high beam powers, the current activates at the lowest beam powers, and a newfound quasi-steady response is revealed at intermediate beam conditions. A quantitative window for the successful conduction of e-beam studies with minimal electronic degradation is revealed by evaluating induced current response over a wide range of perovskite devices, which invites broader use of SEM-based characterization techniques, including EBIC, as powerful techniques for correlative microscopy investigations.

A reliable workflow for improving nanoscale X-ray fluorescence tomographic analysis on nanoparticle-treated HeLa cells

“…Monte Carlo simulation is often helpful for predicting the interaction volume, penetration depth, and beam trajectories with beam incidents on samples at various angles, energy, and beam current. 22 , 23 Simulation together with optimization experimentally is able to provide good control and avoid sample damage during the FIB step.…”

In Situ and Operando Characterizations of Metal Halide Perovskite and Solar Cells: Insights from Lab-Sized Devices to Upscaling Processes

“…The main peaks (( 220) and ( 110)) can be clearly identified. We can see in Figure 21a(ii−iv) that the evolution of the MAPbI 3 (110) and PbI 2 (001) peaks are different, depending on the chamber pressure. For the highpressure case, the MAPbI 3 (110) peak intensity was lower, and there was almost no signal from PbI 2 .…”

“…We can see in Figure 21a(ii−iv) that the evolution of the MAPbI 3 (110) and PbI 2 (001) peaks are different, depending on the chamber pressure. For the highpressure case, the MAPbI 3 (110) peak intensity was lower, and there was almost no signal from PbI 2 . This behavior was evidently seen in Figure 21b, wherein the evolution of peak area during the deposition is shown.…”

“…Consequently, the damage is reduced but still occurs, depending on device architecture and measurement conditions. Luo et al 110 systematically studied the experimental conditions for planview EBIC and identified experimental windows to confidently measure with minimal degradation.…”

“…By comparing XRD data from finished samples, a substantial increase in preferential orientation was observed (Figure 21d). Delaying MAI evaporation onset promoted the deposition of a thicker PbI 2 layer, and it induced MAPbI 3 crystallite growth with (110) facet oriented in parallel to the substrate. The authors showed that the formation of a PbI 2 layer strongly influenced the perovskite crystallization and growth behavior.…”