{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03508771929824561, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0046168051708217915, 'mean_word_length': 5.3391812865497075, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Challenges in FIB TEM Sample Preparation: Damage Issues and Solutions

Focused ion beam (FIB) is now a fairly common technique for transmission electron microscope (TEM) sample preparation [1]. However, challenges remain with respect to FIB processing that may result in unreliable TEM analysis [2][3]. These challenges include ion damage, enlargements in pre-existing cracks and/or holes, curtaining issues, and a high failure rate due to internal stress within the sample[4][5]. In particular, it is possible for the FIB preparation process to promote ‘enlargements’ of cracks and holes as well as damage to the original ‘edges’ of such features; such modifications to the original microstructural features can complicate precise TEM analysis. Curtaining issues are commonly regarded as a intrinsic issue related to material morphology and, thus, they have often been overlooked despite their significant effect on uniformity of the uniformity of the TEM specimen thickness. Also, Ga enrichment on the surface of FIB-prepared TEM specimens of Al alloys is another well-known issue.