coatings

Article
Modelling the Impact of Graphene Coating of Different
Thicknesses on Polyimide Substrate on the Secondary
Electron Yield
Xin Qi 1 , Yanzhao Ma 1, *, Sisheng Liu 1 , Xiangyu Nie 2 , Tao Zhang 1 , Yong Wu 3 , Weiping Peng 1
and Guoming Hu 1, *

1 School of Power and Mechanical Engineering, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China;
[email protected] (X.Q.); [email protected] (S.L.); [email protected] (T.Z.);
[email protected] (W.P.)
2 Beijing Institute of Spacecraft Environment Engineering, Beijing 100086, China; [email protected]
3 Wuhan Second Ship Design and Research Institute, Wuhan 430025, China; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected] (Y.M.); [email protected] (G.H.)

Abstract: Polyimide material is widely used in the aerospace field, but its secondary electron emission
yield is high. In this study, a graphene coating was used to suppress its secondary electron emission,
and the secondary electron emission yield of graphene-coated materials with different thicknesses
was calculated using the GEANT4 numerical simulation method. The suppression effect of different
thicknesses of graphene coatings on the secondary electron emission was analyzed. The simulation
results showed that the optimal graphene coating thicknesses for the lowest secondary electron
yield of polyimide materials were 1 nm and 5 nm, which reduced the secondary electron emission
yield by 13% in terms of simulation. The 5 nm graphene coating reduced the secondary electron
emission yield by 6% compared to the polyimide material from an experimental perspective. The
5 nm coating showed better results at higher energies and was experimentally verified by preparing
five layers of graphene coating, which showed good agreement between the simulation and experi-
ment. Meanwhile, with the increase in graphene coating thickness, the surface secondary electron
emission displacement range decreased, and the secondary electrons produced at the surface were
Citation: Qi, X.; Ma, Y.; Liu, S.; Nie, X.; of low energy. The results of this study can provide technical reference for polyimide in aerospace
Zhang, T.; Wu, Y.; Peng, W.; Hu, G. applications and secondary electron emission simulation.
Modelling the Impact of Graphene
Coating of Different Thicknesses on Keywords: graphene coating; Monte Carlo simulation; GEANT4; secondary electron emission; polyimide
Polyimide Substrate on the Secondary
Electron Yield. Coatings 2024, 14, 13.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
coatings14010013
1. Introduction
Academic Editor: Barbara Vercelli When primary electrons are incident on the surface of the material, they cause the
Received: 17 November 2023
surface to charge and discharge phenomena and produce secondary electrons [1–3]. The
Revised: 15 December 2023
ratio of the number of secondary electrons to the number of primary electrons is known as
Accepted: 18 December 2023 the secondary electron emission yield (SEY) [4]. The SEY is important in many material
Published: 21 December 2023 applications. In some applications, materials with particularly low secondary electron fields
are often desirable [5]. Low-SEY materials are required for high-power radio frequency
devices to suppress multicapacitance, and low-SEY materials are needed in aerospace. In
some cases, when the secondary emission yield on the surface of the material is large, and
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. more secondary electrons are generated, it can interfere with the stability of the operation
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
of sensitive devices, which is potentially harmful. Polyimide materials are widely used in
This article is an open access article
aerospace, but their surface in the electronic radiation will produce a secondary electron
distributed under the terms and
emission phenomenon in the space environment [6]. The secondary electron emission
conditions of the Creative Commons
phenomenon may lead to the complete failure of the equipment, seriously jeopardizing
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
the reliability and stability of the space test device. Therefore, it is crucial to reduce the
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
secondary electron emission of polyimide materials.
4.0/).

Coatings 2024, 14, 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings14010013 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/coatings

Coatings 2024, 14, 13 2 of 12

In order to prevent the undesirable effects of secondary electron emission, domestic

and foreign researchers have conducted extensive studies on suppressing the phenomenon
of secondary electron emission [7–9]. The suppression method is usually adopted with
surface treatment to reduce the SEY. For example, the surface of the material was treated
with irradiation to reduce the SEY [10,11], and the roughness of the material surface was
enhanced with etching [12,13]. The larger roughness can bind the incident electrons to
reduce the SEY of the material. Meanwhile, many scholars prepared diamond-like thin
films on the surface of the material to reduce the secondary electron emission [14], and
many researchers prepared TiN thin films to reduce the secondary electron emission [15].
In addition, low-SEY coatings can be deposited on the material surface. Graphene coatings
are considered to be very promising coatings and have low secondary electron emission
yields [16–18]. Therefore, it is necessary to reduce the secondary electron yield of polyimide
materials by depositing graphene coatings.
With the development of science and technology, simulation and modelling techniques
are becoming more and more mature and stable. The Monte Carlo simulation method is
a powerful tool to study the phenomenon of secondary electron emission [19–22]. This
method is characterized by higher efficiency, faster time, and lower cost than experimental
measurements. Detailed information, such as internal electron trajectories, scattering, and
energy, can be analyzed by simulation, which gives us a deeper understanding of the
scattering process. Relatively fast and accurate predictions of SEY for many materials can
be made using these methods [23].
Therefore, in this study, different thicknesses of graphene coatings were deposited on
a polyimide substrate to reduce the secondary electron emission, and the effects of different
thicknesses of graphene coatings on polyimide materials were analyzed from experimental
and numerical simulation perspectives. At the present time, there are few numerical
simulations of this behavior. The secondary electron yields of polyimide and graphene
materials were simulated separately using numerical simulation methods, and the optimal
graphene coating thickness for the lowest secondary electron yield of polyimide materials
was investigated in depth. The displacement change and range of secondary electron
emission at the surface was analyzed, and the effect of different graphene thicknesses on
the magnitude of energy of the generated secondary electrons was also investigated. The
results of this study can provide technical references for polyimide thin-film materials in
aerospace applications and secondary electron emission simulation.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Electron Scattering Principle
For polyimide materials, which have a low number of conduction electrons, the
internal secondary electrons lose energy mainly through valence electron excitation into
the conduction band. This prevents secondary electrons with kinetic energies below
the bandgap energy from participating in such electron–electron collisions, where their
average escape depth increases significantly. When the energy of the primary electron
beam is much higher than the bandgap energy in insulator materials, the basic scattering
process is essentially that encountered by the metal. However, under the conditions
of low-energy electron beam incidence on the material surface, the electron–material
interactions are inelastic scattering properties, elastic scattering properties, and electron–
phonon interactions during secondary electron emission.

2.1.1. Inelastic Scattering Properties

In addition to the exchange of kinetic energy, the internal state of the particles changed
during the collision or transformed into other particles is called inelastic scattering. Inelastic
scattering can be divided into single-electron excitation and plasma excitation [24–27].
Inelastic scattering is characterized by the energy loss function (ELF), in which the dielectric
function reflects the response of the solid to external electromagnetic perturbations. Because
of the difficulty of determining the ELF experimentally at all momentum transfers, Ritchie
Coatings 2024, 14, 13 3 of 12

and Howie fitted the measured optical data to the optical limit. In this way, the formulation
can be extended to that desired for finite values. The cross-section calculations were based
on the complex dielectric function theory of Lindhard and Ritchie as well as on the modeling
of the ELF, a method widely used to simulate radiative transfer at low energies [28]. The
Ashley model is a dielectric function model that describes the process of inelastic scattering
of electrons in solids [29–31]. We used the Ashley model to obtain the ELF by which the
electron differential inelastic scattering cross-section can be defined as follows:

dσ ( E, ∆E) me2 ∆E
   
1
= Im − S (1)
d∆E 2πh2 NE ε(0, ∆E) E

where m is the electron mass, e is the electron charge, N is the number of molecules per
unit volume in the target, E is the electron energy, h is the approximate Planck’s constant,
ε(0, ∆E) is the electronic dielectric function of materials, S is the surface state density
function, and ∆E is the energy transfer.

2.1.2. Elastic Scattering Properties

During the interaction of electrons in the solid, collisions occur in which only the
direction of motion is changed, without loss of energy. This collision process can be
described by the elastic scattering cross-section [32–35]. The most used model in practice is
the Mott scattering cross-section model, which takes into account the particle spin effect
and the spin polarization effect of the scattering particles. It is more accurate for calculating
the elastic scattering cross-section for low-energy electrons and heavy elements [36,37].
In this paper, we adopt the Mott theory with high accuracy, which gives the differential
cross-section of the elastic scattering of electrons in the bare-nucleus Coulomb field, and its
analytical expression is as follows:
" #
2(1 − cos θ ) 2 2P2 (1 − cos θ ) 2
σ= |H| + | J | σR (2)
(1 + k )2 (αZ )2 (1 + k)2 (1 + cos θ )

where θ is the angle of incidence, P is the initial electron momentum in units of meC, k
is the initial kinetic energy of the electron in units of the rest energy of the electron, Z is
the atomic number of the target element, α is the fine structure constant, σ is the Mott
differential elasticity scattering cross-section, σR is the Rutherford differential elasticity
scattering cross-section, and H and J are two complex functions.

2.1.3. Electron–Phonon Interactions

At low energies, electrons are likely to interact with lattice vibrations when the energy
does not exceed two or three times the bandgap value [38,39]. Phonon absorption or
emission is the energy gain or loss of the primary electrons, respectively. The interaction of
quasi-free electrons with longitudinal optical phonons in polar media can be studied using
Fröhlich’s perturbation theory. The Fröhlich perturbation theory is used to describe the
effects of electron–phonon interactions in matter [40]. In the Fröhlich perturbation theory,
the phonon field is introduced into the Hamiltonian of the system and interacts with the
electron field. The presence of the phonon field creates an additional interaction between
the electrons called the electron–phonon interaction. The Froehlich perturbation theory
is of great importance in the study of the electron–phonon interaction problem in matter.
The interaction with the lattice is accompanied by phonon production or absorption. For
the optical branch, it is reasonable to neglect the dispersion relation of the longitudinal
phonon and characterize it by a unique frequency. Then, an electron with energy E has a
probability of producing a frequency phonon per unit path length (losing energy ∆E = hω).
The formula is calculated as follows:
1 n( T ) + 1 ε(0) − ε(∞) hω
  
λ −1 = ln (3)
a 2 ε (0) ε ( ∞ ) E
Coatings 2024, 14, 13 4 of 12

where a is the Bohr radius, which is the Boltzmann constant, hω is the electron energy loss
(about 0.1 eV), ε(0) is the static permittivity, ε(∞) is the high-frequency permittivity, and
n(T) is the occupancy number of the phonon level at a temperature T; it is taken as equal to
300 K.

2.2. Monte Carlo Simulation

GEANT4 (GEANT4 10.0) is an open-source software toolkit for particle physics experi-
mental simulation and is a simulation tool widely used in high-energy physics, nuclear
physics, ray protection, and other fields [41]. A wide variety of particle transport models are
provided with a wide range of incident energies. We are interested in modeling secondary
electron emission phenomena with electron energies ranging from a few eV to a few keV.
GEANT4 offers the possibility to perform this type of calculations. The MICROELEC
module is used for the modeling and transport of secondary electron emission. In the
MICROELEC module, the energy of each atomic shell layer as well as the potential energy
of the weakly bound electrons filling the valence and conduction bands are taken into
account. The interactions occurring at a given step are selected in different shell layers using
a random sampling method. The GEANT4-MICROELEC module has electron trajectories
at low energies driven by elastic scattering with the inelastic interactions of the nucleus and
the inelastic interaction of dielectric electrons. At these energies, the main source of energy
loss is inelastic interactions with weakly bound electrons and plasma electrons. Dielectric
forms are used to evaluate these typical energy losses. The interaction cross-sections are
derived from the experimental optical energy loss function (OELF) [42,43]. The elastic
Coulomb interaction cross-section was calculated by using the partial wave method. At
the surface of a solid material, an electron may encounter a potential barrier. When the
electron energy is high enough to overcome this potential barrier, it can escape from the
surface. This process is often referred to as electron escape. In Monte Carlo simulations, the
incident electrons interact with the solid material and transfer part of the energy to the solid.
The deposited energy is converted into electronic excitation by considering the interaction
between the solid material and the electrons. When the energy reaches a certain level, a
fraction of the electrons may gain enough energy to overcome the binding force of the
solid and escape the surface. This is usually simulated by random number generation and
probability distributions. The above process is iterated. Finally, the number of secondary
electrons produced, the energy distribution, and other relevant properties can be counted
and analyzed under given conditions.
Inelastic interactions of incident electrons, protons, and heavy ions are handled in
MicroElec by G4MicroElecInelastic and G4MicroElecInelasticModel. Elastic processes of elec-
trons are handled in MicroElec by the classes G4MicroElecElastic and G4MicroElecElasticModel.
The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of different thicknesses of graphene
coatings on the polyimide film substrate material’s SEY using the GEANT4-MICROELEC
module.
In this study, the Monte Carlo simulation toolkit based on the MICROELEC module
in the GEANT4 was used to calculate the SEY of the material. The simulation modeled the
material size length, width, and thickness to be 1 cm × 1 cm × 0.1 mm, and the position of
the electron gun was located on the upper part of the material, which allowed us to set the
electron gun with different energies. The collection method was theorized to be as follows:
when the incident electron entered the surface of the material, the electron energy was less
than or equal to 50 eV when ejected through the surface layer, the number of secondary
electrons, energy, and other information was collected, the secondary electron emission
yield was calculated, and the corresponding experimental materials were prepared for
the verification of secondary electron experiments. The thickness of the graphene layer
was set to the following 10 values: 1 nm, 2 nm, 3 nm, 4 nm, 5 nm, 6 nm, 7 nm, 8 nm,
9 nm, and 10 nm. The energy of the electron gun ranged from 100 eV to the normal
perpendicular incidence of 2 keV (100 eV, 200 eV, 300 eV, 400 eV, 500 eV, 600 eV, 700 eV,
800 eV, 900 eV, 1000 eV, 1500 eV, 2000 eV). All electrons generated during the simulation as
Coatings 2024, 14, 13 5 of 12

well as those re-emitted from the surface can be counted to calculate the secondary emission
yield of the material and to estimate the secondary emission evolution for each simulated
graphene thickness.

2.3. Experimental Data

2.3.1. Material Preparation
Polyimide samples with graphene coating were prepared. A polyimide film material
with a length, width, and thickness of 1 cm, ×1 cm, and ×0.1 mm (Shenzhen Rui Huatai
Film Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, China) was used. Then, the samples were placed in a
pre-prepared pretreatment solution (a mixture of phosphoric acid and deionized water at a
concentration of 6%) and immersed for 10 min. The graphene coating was grown using
the chemical vapor deposition (CVD) method to prepare several different thicknesses of
graphene-coated polyimide materials.

2.3.2. Experimental Equipment

The experimental data were obtained from the Institute of Satellite Environmental
Research in Beijing, China. The experimental equipment was a homemade secondary
electron measurement device, as shown in Figure 1. The energy range of the electrons
emitted by the electron gun was 50–5000 eV. The principle of the test is that the electrons
emitted by the electron gun are incident on the surface of the material to be measured,
and the secondary electrons and backscattered electrons excited by the incident electrons
will escape from the surface of the material and then pass through the three-layer grids in
turn and finally be collected by the collection pole. The total electrons and backscattered
electrons are collected by adjusting the voltages of the three-layer grids. The backscattered
electrons are collected when the grid voltage is −50 V. The total electrons are collected
when the grid voltage is 0 V. The number of secondary electrons is calculated from the total
Coatings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW
electrons and backscattered electrons. Finally, the emission of the secondary electrons6yield
of 12

is calculated [44].

Figure1.
Figure 1. Secondary
Secondary electronic
electronic measuring
measuringdevice.
device.

3.
3. Results
Results
3.1.
3.1. Graphene
Graphene and
and Polyimide
Polyimide SEY
SEY Simulation
Simulation and
and Experimental
ExperimentalAnalysis
Analysis
For
For individual
individualgraphene
grapheneand
and polyimide
polyimidematerials,
materials,each
eachmaterial’s
material’sSEY
SEY was
was compared
compared
by
by simulation and experiment. As can be seen from Figure 2, the Monte Carlo simulation
simulation and experiment. As can be seen from Figure 2, the Monte Carlo simulation
results were similar to the experimental results. This method can reproduce the maximum
SEY position well and make accurate predictions and can also can prove the accuracy of
the simulation. This good consistency enabled us to analyze the SEY effect of different
graphene thicknesses on polyimide substrates and provided a basis for subsequent anal-
ysis.
 Figure 1. Secondary electronic measuring device.

3. Results
3.1. Graphene and Polyimide SEY Simulation and Experimental Analysis
Coatings 2024, 14, 13 For individual graphene and polyimide materials, each material’s SEY was compared 6 of 12
by simulation and experiment. As can be seen from Figure 2, the Monte Carlo simulation
results were similar to the experimental results. This method can reproduce the maximum
SEY position
results well and
were similar make
to the accurate predictions
experimental and
results. This can also
method cancan prove the
reproduce theaccuracy
maximum of
the simulation.
SEY This
position well andgood
makeconsistency enabled usand
accurate predictions to analyze
can alsothe
canSEY effect
prove of different
the accuracy of
graphene
the thicknesses
simulation. on polyimide
This good substrates
consistency enabledandus provided
to analyzea the
basis foreffect
SEY subsequent anal-
of different
ysis.
graphene thicknesses on polyimide substrates and provided a basis for subsequent analysis.

(a) (b)
Figure 2.
Figure 2. Simulation
Simulation and
and experimental
experimentalcomparison
comparisonofofSEY
SEYofofpolyimide
polyimideand
andgraphene,
graphene,(a)
(a)isissimu-
sim-
lation and experimental comparison of SEY of polyimide and (b) is simulation and experimental
ulation and experimental comparison of SEY of polyimide and (b) is simulation and experimental
comparison of SEY of graphene.
comparison of SEY of graphene.

First of
First of all,
all, it
it can
can be
be seen
seen from
from Figure
Figure 22 that
that the
the simulation
simulation method
methodand andthe
theexperi-
exper-
mental measurement
imental measurement results
results have
have aa good
good simulation
simulation effect within aa certain
effect within certain range.
range. The
The
error may be due to the fact that polyimide is a polymer material, which will produce
errors in the sample production. There will be tiny protrusions on its surface, but it is
uniformly distributed in the simulation. Compared with the simulation, the error will
be generated under the actual test conditions. The error is within an acceptable range,
indicating that the numerical simulation method can better simulate the secondary electron
emission phenomenon. The SEY of polyimide materials is an increasing function from 50
to 200 eV, while the SEY peak of graphene is smaller than that of polyimide materials in
this energy range. It is consistent with the law in the literature and experiments [45–47].
The low SEY of graphene coating is the main reason that the graphene coating reduces the
secondary electron emission of polyimide. The effects of different graphene thicknesses on
the SEY will be analyzed in the next section.

3.2. Effects of Different Thickness Graphene Coatings on SEY

The effect of different graphene coating thickness on polyimide substrate on the SEY
was simulated with GEANT4. As shown in Figure 3, it can be found that the graphene
coating had a direct effect on the SEY and had a good suppression effect. From 1 to 10 nm
of graphene coating, it can be seen that the SEY peak and shape of the sample materials
were significantly changed, and the SEY curve was a combination of emission contributions
from the polyimide and the graphene coating in this coating thickness range. It can be
seen that the graphene coating has a good suppression effect on polyimide materials, and
the suppression effect was best when the thickness of graphene coating was 1 nm and
5 nm. The maximum SEY was reduced by 13%. At a higher energy incidence, the coating at
5 nm shows a better effect. With the increase in thickness, the secondary electron emissivity
decreases, but with a continuous increase, the secondary electron emissivity does not
decrease, which is consistent with the law in the literature [48,49].
 be seen that the graphene coating has a good suppression effect on polyimide materials,
and the suppression effect was best when the thickness of graphene coating was 1 nm and
5 nm. The maximum SEY was reduced by 13%. At a higher energy incidence, the coating
at 5 nm shows a better effect. With the increase in thickness, the secondary electron emis-
Coatings 2024, 14, 13 sivity decreases, but with a continuous increase, the secondary electron emissivity7does
of 12
not decrease, which is consistent with the law in the literature [48,49].

Figure 3.
Figure Simulation
3. Simulation of secondary
of secondary electron
electron yieldsyields of polyimide
of polyimide graphene
graphene coatingscoatings with
with different
thicknesses.
different thicknesses.

At
At very
verylow
lowenergies,
energies,thetheelectron path
electron length
path in carbon
length doesdoes
in carbon not exceed a fewananome-
not exceed few na-
ters. Thus, this behavior can be explained in terms of the penetration distance of
nometers. Thus, this behavior can be explained in terms of the penetration distance of the the incident
electron. The incident
incident electron. electron electron
The incident penetration depth isdepth
penetration the average distance
is the average traveled
distance by an
traveled
incident electron
by an incident projected
electron in the in
projected direction of incidence
the direction in thein
of incidence irradiated material.
the irradiated The
material.
projected rangerange
The projected of 300ofeV
300incident electrons
eV incident was about
electrons 1 nm in
was about graphene,
1 nm which which
in graphene, was much
was
smaller than the
much smaller thickness
than of the covering
the thickness layer. Not
of the covering surprisingly,
layer. the secondary
Not surprisingly, electron
the secondary
emission process was driven by the graphite coating. However, the actual range of the
electrons was about 5 nm at 1 keV [50]. As the energy of the incident electrons increased,
the electrons began to penetrate the polyimide substrate, and the effects of the polyimide
began to be felt. Therefore, the very-low-energy electrons could only leave when they were
produced to very close surfaces. This suggested that the graphene coating was a major
contributor to the lowest-energy electron group. Most low-energy secondary electrons were
produced on very close surfaces of irradiated materials. Depositing just a few nanometers
of the graphene coating was enough to significantly alter the material’s SEY.
The 1, 3, 5, and 7 nm thicknesses of the graphene coating were selected to analyze
the position of secondary electron emission. As shown in Figure 4, when the electron
energy was 200 eV and the SEY reached the maximum, it can be clearly found that the
secondary electron reaction range was larger when the graphene coating thickness was
low. The secondary electron emission range decreased with the increase in the graphene
coating thickness. This may be because the resistance and the binding of the secondary
electrons in the material increased with the increase in the graphene coating. However,
as the thickness of the graphene coating continued to increase, the secondary electron
emission range approached constant. Therefore, the 5 nm thickness of the graphene coating
can better reduce the secondary electron emission range.
 ondary electron emission range decreased with the increase in the graphene coating thick-
ness. This may be because the resistance and the binding of the secondary electrons in the
material increased with the increase in the graphene coating. However, as the thickness
of the graphene coating continued to increase, the secondary electron emission range ap-
Coatings 2024, 14, 13 8 ofre-
12
proached constant. Therefore, the 5 nm thickness of the graphene coating can better
duce the secondary electron emission range.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 4. Location of secondary electron emission, (a) is 1 nm secondary electron emission location,
Figure 4. Location of secondary electron emission, (a) is 1 nm secondary electron emission location,
(b) is 3 nm secondary electron emission location, (c) is 5 nm secondary electron emission location,
(b) is 3 nm secondary electron emission location, (c) is 5 nm secondary electron emission location,
and (d) is 7 nm secondary electron emission location.
and (d) is 7 nm secondary electron emission location.
For the experimental verification of the 5 nm thickness, the CVD method was used to
For the experimental verification of the 5 nm thickness, the CVD method was used to
prepare
prepare five
five layers
layers of
of graphene-coated
graphene-coated polyimide
polyimide material.
material. The
The thickness
thickness of
of the
the graphene
graphene
coating was about 5 nm. The verification results and simulation results are shown in
Figure 5. The error may be due to the influence of thickness during the preparation process
and environmental conditions during the experiment, and they have a good consistency
within the allowed range of error. The 5 nm graphene coating reduced the secondary
electron emission yield by 6% compared to the polyimide material from an experimental
perspective. Therefore, the suppression of polyimide by the graphene coating was verified
with the numerical simulation method, and it was concluded that 5 nm is one of the
good thicknesses.
 effect on the secondary electron emission were selected for analysis. As shown in Figure
6, it can be found that the secondary electron emission energy was high when the thick-
ness of the graphene coating was low. When the thickness of the graphene coating in-
creased, the secondary electron emission energy decreased. This may be due to the higher
Coatings 2024, 14, 13
energy consumption required to break through the higher surface barrier during the9 sec-
of 12
ondary electron emission as the thickness increased.

Figure 5. Simulation and experimental SEY comparison of 5 nm of graphene coating.

In order to analyze the influence of different thicknesses of graphene coating on the

secondary electron emission energy, the 1 nm and 5 nm coatings with a better suppression
effect on the secondary electron emission were selected for analysis. As shown in Figure 6,
it can be found that the secondary electron emission energy was high when the thickness
of the graphene coating was low. When the thickness of the graphene coating increased,
the secondary electron emission energy decreased. This may be due to the higher energy
Coatings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 12
consumption required to break through the higher surface barrier during the secondary
electron emission as the thickness increased.

Figure 6.
Figure 6. Secondary
Secondary electron
electron emission
emission energy
energy of
of different
different thicknesses.
thicknesses.

4. Conclusions
In this study, the secondary electron emission yields of polyimide and graphene ma-
terials were simulated using the GEANT4 numerical simulation method. For polyimide
substrate materials, the secondary electron emission yields of graphene-coated materials
Coatings 2024, 14, 13 10 of 12

4. Conclusions
In this study, the secondary electron emission yields of polyimide and graphene
materials were simulated using the GEANT4 numerical simulation method. For polyimide
substrate materials, the secondary electron emission yields of graphene-coated materials
with different thickness were studied using this method, and the suppression effect of
graphene coatings with different thicknesses on the secondary electron emission was
analyzed. The optimal graphene coating thicknesses of the lowest secondary electron
yield of polyimide material were 1 nm and 5 nm, which can reduce the secondary electron
emission yield by 13% from a simulation point of view. The 5 nm graphene coating
reduced the secondary electron emission by 6% compared to the polyimide material from
an experimental perspective. The 5 nm coating showed a better effect at a higher energy
and was verified by the preparation of five layers of graphene coating. The results showed
that the simulation was in good agreement with the experiment. At the same time, the
displacement change of secondary electron emission on the surface was analyzed. With the
increase in coating thickness, the emission displacement range decreased. The influence of
different graphene thickness on the energy of secondary electron generation was studied.
The research results can provide technical reference for the application of polyimide film
materials in space and the simulation of secondary electron emission.

Author Contributions: X.Q.: conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, and writing—original

draft. Y.M.: conceptualization, methodology, project administration, and funding acquisition. S.L.:
investigation and validation. T.Z.: resources and supervision. X.N.: resources and supervision.
Y.W.: investigation and data curation. W.P.: resources and supervision. G.H.: conceptualization,
supervision, and project administration. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Aerospace Science and Technology Group Applied
Innovation Program, grant number 6230114001, and Reliability and Environmental Engineering
Technology Key Laboratory Fund Program, grant number 6142004210201.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Aguilera, L.; Montero, I.; Davila, M.E.; Ruiz, A.; Galan, L.; Nistor, V.; Raboso, D.; Palomares, J.; Soria, F. CuO nanowires for
inhibiting secondary electron emission. J. Phys. D-Appl. Phys. 2013, 46, 165104. [CrossRef]
2. Xie, A.; Guo, S.; Li, C.; Pei, Y. The measurement of secondary electron emission coefficient of MgO. J. Anhui University. Nat. Sci.
2006, 30, 61–64.
3. Patino, M.; Raitses, Y.; Wirz, R. Secondary electron emission from plasma-generated nanostructured tungsten fuzz. Appl. Phys.
2016, 109, 201602. [CrossRef]
4. Cao, W.; Wang, B.; Yang, Y.; Zhu, B.; Guo, J.; Xu, P.; Bai, X.; Qin, J.; Wang, C.; Zhu, J.; et al. Secondary electron emission
characteristics of the Al2 O3 /MgO double-layer structure prepared by atomic layer deposition. Ceram. Int. 2021, 47, 9866–9872.
[CrossRef]
5. Cimino, R.; Commisso, M.; Grosso, D.; Demma, T.; Baglin, V.; Flammini, R.; Larciprete, R. Nature of the Decrease of the
Secondary-Electron Yield by Electron Bombardment and its Energy Dependence. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2012, 109, 064801. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
6. Cui, Y.; Song, B.; Yang, Y.; Huang, Y.; Zhou, R.; Cao, C.; Zhang, G.; Meng, N.; Zhao, S.; Ma, H. Study on Characteristics of
Secondary Electron Emission for Spacecraft Surface Materials. Chin. J. Vac. Sci. Technol. 2021, 41, 770–774.
7. Garcia-Valenzuela, A.; Muñoz-Piña, S.; Alcala, G.; Alvarez, R.; Lacroix, B.; Santos, A.; Cuevas-Maraver, J.; Rico, V.; Gago,
R.; Vazquez, L.; et al. Growth of nanocolumnar thin films on patterned substrates at oblique angles. Plasma Process. Polym.
2019, 16, 1800135. [CrossRef]
8. Li, Y.; Cui, W.-Z.; Wang, H.-G. Simulation investigation of multipactor in metal components for space application with an
improved secondary emission model. Phys. Plasmas 2015, 22, 053108.
Coatings 2024, 14, 13 11 of 12

9. Zhang, N.; Cao, M.; Cui, W.; Hu, T. Effect of rough surface morphology on secondary electron emission from metal surface. Jpn. J.
Appl. Phys. 2017, 56, 075802. [CrossRef]
10. Pivi, M.T.F.; Collet, G.; King, F.; Kirby, R.E.; Markiewicz, T.; Raubenheimer, T.O.; Seeman, J.; Le Pimpec, F. Experimental
observations of in situ secondary electron yield reduction in the PEP-II particle accelerator beam line. Nucl. Inst. Methods Phys.
Res. A 2010, 621, 47–56. [CrossRef]
11. Krasnov, A.A. Molecular pumping properties of the LHC arc beam pipe and effective secondary electron emission from Cu
surface with artificial roughness. Vacuum 2004, 73, 195–199. [CrossRef]
12. Zhang, W.; Wang, Y.; Wang, S.; Fan, L.; Wei, W.; Fang, J.; Li, W.; Wang, Y. Study on the anisotropy of the secondary electron yield
and resistance of the laser-etched copper. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2021, 564, 150419. [CrossRef]
13. Valizadeh, R.; Malyshev, O.B.; Wang, S.; Zolotovskaya, S.; Gillespie, W.; Abdolvand, A. Low secondary electron yield engineered
surface for electron cloud mitigation. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2014, 105, 231605. [CrossRef]
14. Yamamoto, K.; Shibata, T.; Ogiwara, N.; Kinsho, M. Secondary electron emission yields from the J-PARC RCS vacuum components.
Vacuum 2007, 81, 788–792. [CrossRef]
15. Le Pimpec, F.; Kirby, R.; King, F.; Pivi, M. Properties of TiN and TiZrV thin film as a remedy against electron cloud. Nucl. Instrum.
Methods Phys. Research. Sect. A Accel. Spectrometers Detect. Assoc. Equip. 2005, 551, 187–199. [CrossRef]
16. Luo, J.; Tian, P.; Pan, C.; Robertson, A.; Warner, J.; Hill, E.; Briggs, G. Ultralow Secondary Electron Emission of Graphene. ACS
Nano 2011, 5, 1047–1055. [CrossRef]
17. Pisarra, M.; Riccardi, P.; Cupolillo, A.; Sindona, A.; Caputi, L. Studies of Electron Emission in the Interaction of Electrons with
Graphene on Ni(111) Surface. Nanosci. Nanotechnol. Lett. 2012, 4, 1100–1103. [CrossRef]
18. Zhang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Wang, S.; Wei, W.; Ge, X.; Zhu, B.; Shao, J.; Wang, Y. Comparison of Carbon Thin Films with Low Secondary
Electron Yield Deposited in Neon and Argon. Coatings 2020, 10, 884. [CrossRef]
19. Alvarado, A.; Chang, H.; Nadvornick, W.; Ghoniem, N.; Marian, J. Monte Carlo raytracing method for calculating secondary
electron emission from micro-architected surfaces. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2019, 478, 142–149. [CrossRef]
20. Chang, T.; Zheng, J. Monte-Carlo simulation of secondary electron emission from solid metal. Acta Phys. Sin. 2012, 61, 241401.
[CrossRef]
21. Polak, M.P.; Morgan, D. MAST-SEY: MAterial Simulation Toolkit for Secondary Electron Yield. A monte carlo approach to
secondary electron emission based on complex dielectric functions. Comput. Mater. Sci. 2021, 193, 110281. [CrossRef]
22. Yasuda, M.; Nobuo, T.; Kawata, H. A Monte Carlo calculation of secondary electron emission from organic compounds. Jpn. J.
Appl. Phys. Part 1-Regul. Pap. Brief Commun. Rev. Pap. 2004, 43, 4004–4008. [CrossRef]
23. Pierron, J.; Inguimbert, C.; Belhaj, M.; Gineste, T.; Puech, J.; Raine, M. Electron emission yield for low energy electrons: Monte
Carlo simulation and experimental comparison for Al, Ag, and Si. J. Appl. Phys. 2017, 121, 215107. [CrossRef]
24. Brieda, L.; Pai, S.; Keidar, M. Kinetic Analysis of Electron Transport in a Cylindrical Hall Thruster. IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci.
2011, 39, 2946–2947. [CrossRef]
25. Hollmann, E.; Doerner, R.; Nishijima, D.; Pigarov, A. Observation of reduction of secondary electron emission from helium ion
impact due to plasma-generated nanostructured tungsten fuzz. J. Phys. D-Appl. Phys. 2017, 50, 445203. [CrossRef]
26. Li, Y.; Yan, Y.; Lin, S.; Wang, H.; Liu, C. A fast single particle Monte-Carlo method of computing the breakdown threshold of
multipactor in microwave device. Acta Phys. Sin. 2014, 63, 78–84.
27. Liu, L.; Liu, D.; Wang, X.; Peng, K.; Yang, C. Implementation of secondary emission in three dimensional PIC numerical simulation.
High Power Laser Part. Beams 2012, 24, 1980–1984.
28. Balcon, N.; Payan, D.; Belhaj, M.; Tondu, T.; Inguimbert, V. Secondary Electron Emission on Space Materials: Evaluation of the
Total Secondary Electron Yield From Surface Potential Measurements. IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 2012, 40, 282–290. [CrossRef]
29. Ashley, J.C.; Anderson, V.E. Interaction of low-energy electrons with silicon dioxide. J. Electron Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom.
1981, 24, 127–148. [CrossRef]
30. Ashley, J.C. Interaction of low-energy electrons with condensed matter: Stopping powers and inelastic mean free paths from
optical data. J. Electron Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom. 1988, 46, 199–214. [CrossRef]
31. Ashley, J.C. Energy-loss probabilities for electrons, positrons, and protons in condensed matter. J. Appl. Phys. 1991, 69, 674–678.
[CrossRef]
32. Nguyen, H.; Mankowski, J.; Dickens, J.; Neuber, A.; Joshi, R. Calculations of secondary electron yield of graphene coated copper
for vacuum electronic applications. Aip Adv. 2018, 8, 015325. [CrossRef]
33. Pivi, M.; King, F.; Kirby, R.; Raubenheimer, T.; Stupakov, G.; Le Pimpec, F. Sharp reduction of the secondary electron emission
yield from grooved surfaces. J. Appl. Phys. 2008, 104, 104904. [CrossRef]
34. Ran, M.; Jia, L.; Cheng, C.; Wu, Q. Temperature-variable raman scattering study on micromechanical properties of the carbon
fiber reinforced polyimide composite film. Carbon 2019, 150, 555. [CrossRef]
35. Ruzic, D.; Moore, R.; Mans, D.; Cohen, S. Secondary-electron yields of carbon-coated and polished stainless-steel. J. Vac. Sci.
Technol. 1982, 20, 1313–1316. [CrossRef]
36. Allison, J.; Amako, K.; Apostolakis, J.; Arce, P.; Asai, M.; Aso, T.; Baglih, E.; Bagulyai, A.; Banerjee, S.; Barrand, G.; et al. Recent
developments in Geant4. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. A 2016, 835, 186–225. [CrossRef]
37. Röpke, G.; Selchow, A.; Wierling, A.; Reinholz, H. Lindhard dielectric function in the relaxation-time approximation and
generalized linear response theory. Phys. Lett. A 1999, 260, 365–369. [CrossRef]
Coatings 2024, 14, 13 12 of 12

38. Xie, A.; Pei, Y.; Wang, R.; Sun, H. Discussion of the improving secondary electron emission coefficient. High Power Laser Part.
Beams 2005, 17, 279–282.
39. Ye, M.; He, Y.; Hu, S.; Wang, R.; Hu, T.; Yang, J.; Cui, W. Suppression of secondary electron yield by micro-porous array structure.
J. Appl. Phys. 2013, 113, 074904. [CrossRef]
40. Llacer, J.; Garwin, E.L. Electron-Phonon Interaction in Alkali Halides. I. The Transport of Secondary Electrons with Energies
between 0.25 and 7.5 eV. J. Appl. Phys. 1969, 40, 2766–2775. [CrossRef]
41. Gibaru, Q.; Inguimbert, C.; Caron, P.; Raine, M.; Lambert, D.; Puech, J. Geant4 physics processes for microdosimetry and
secondary electron emission simulation: Extension of MicroElec to very low energies and 11 materials (C, Al, Si, Ti, Ni, Cu, Ge,
Ag, W, Kapton and SiO2 ). Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. B-Beam Interact. Mater. At. 2021, 487, 66–77. [CrossRef]
42. Sun, Y.; Xu, H.; Da, B.; Mao, S.; Ding, Z. Calculations of Energy-Loss Function for 26 Materials. Chin. J. Chem. Phys. 2016, 29,
663–667. [CrossRef]
43. Da, B.; Shinotsuka, H.; Yoshikawa, H.; Ding, Z.; Tanuma, S. Extended Mermin Method for Calculating the Electron Inelastic Mean
Free Path. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2014, 113, 063201. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44. Qi, X.; Ma, Y.; Liu, S.; Nie, X.; Zhang, T.; Wu, Y.; Peng, W.; Hu, G. Suppression of Secondary Electron Emissions on the
Graphene-Coated Polyimide Materials Prepared by Chemical Vapor Deposition. Coatings 2023, 13, 1805. [CrossRef]
45. Pinto, P.; Calatroni, S.; Neupert, H.; Letant-Delrieux, D.; Lucas, S. Carbon coatings with low secondary electron yield. Vacuum
2013, 98, 29–36. [CrossRef]
46. Wang, J.; Wang, Y.; Xu, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, B.; Wei, W. Secondary electron emission characteristics of graphene films with copper
substrate. Chin. Phys. C 2016, 40, 117003. [CrossRef]
47. Zhang, N.; Cao, M.; Cui, W.; Hu, T.; Wang, R.; Li, Y. Analytical model of secondary electron yield from metal surface with regular
structures. Acta Phys. Sin. 2015, 64, 207901. [CrossRef]
48. Inguimbert, C.; Gibaru, Q.; Caron, P.; Angelucci, M.; Spallino, L.; Cimino, R. Modelling the impact on the secondary electron
yield of carbon layers of various thicknesses on copper substrate. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. B-Beam Interact. Mater.
At. 2022, 526, 1–8. [CrossRef]
49. Zhang, H.; Ge, Y.; Pan, P.; Du, Y.; Fu, H.; Yan, M.; Li, P.; Long, H.; Zhang, C.; Cai, J.; et al. Suppression of secondary electron
emission on oxygen-free copper surface of reduced graphene oxide coatings prepared by electrophoretic deposition. Appl. Surf.
Sci. 2022, 603, 154490. [CrossRef]
50. Gibaru, Q.; Inguimbert, C.; Caron, P.; Belhaj, M.; Raine, M.; Lambert, D. Surface ionizing dose deposited by low energy
electrons (10 eV–10 keV) in eleven monoatomic materials: Monte Carlo calculations and analytical expressions. Appl. Surf. Sci.
2022, 576, 151813. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.