Comparison of intensity distributions in tomograms from BF TEM, ADF STEM, HAADF STEM, and calculated tilt series

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

58 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The three-dimensional (3D) morphology of a nanometer-sized object can be obtained using electron tomography. Variations in composition or density of the object cause variations in the reconstructed intensity. When imaging homogeneous objects, variations in reconstructed intensity are caused by the imaging technique, imaging conditions, and reconstruction. In this paper, we describe data acquisition, image processing, and 3D reconstruction to obtain and compare tomograms of magnetite crystals from bright field (BF) transmission electron microscopy (TEM), annular dark-field (ADF) scanning transmission electron microscopy (STEM), and high-angle annular dark field (HAADF) STEM tilt series. We use histograms, which plot the number of volume elements (voxels) at a given intensity vs. the intensity, to measure and quantitatively compare intensity distributions among different tomograms. In combination with numerical simulations, we determine the influence of maximum tilt angle, tilt increment, contrast changes with tilt (diffraction contrast), and the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) as well as the choice of the reconstruction approach (weighted backprojection (WB) and sequential iterative reconstruction technique (SIRT)) on the histogram. We conclude that because ADF and HAADF STEM techniques are less affected by diffraction, and because they have a higher SNR than BF TEM, they are better suited for tomography of nanometer-sized crystals.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)18-27
Number of pages10
JournalUltramicroscopy
Volume106
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2005

Fingerprint

Transmission electron microscopy
transmission electron microscopy
Scanning electron microscopy
scanning electron microscopy
Imaging techniques
histograms
Tomography
Signal to noise ratio
signal to noise ratios
tomography
Diffraction
Ferrosoferric Oxide
Crystals
Magnetite
diffraction
imaging techniques
magnetite
crystals
data acquisition
image processing

Keywords

  • Bright-field TEM imaging
  • Electron tomography
  • HAADF STEM imaging
  • Histogram analysis
  • Magnetite crystals

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Materials Science(all)
  • Instrumentation

Cite this

Comparison of intensity distributions in tomograms from BF TEM, ADF STEM, HAADF STEM, and calculated tilt series. / Friedrich, H.; McCartney, Martha; Buseck, P R.

In: Ultramicroscopy, Vol. 106, No. 1, 12.2005, p. 18-27.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{febd6704ec6d433392bf7d069d45b39c,
title = "Comparison of intensity distributions in tomograms from BF TEM, ADF STEM, HAADF STEM, and calculated tilt series",
abstract = "The three-dimensional (3D) morphology of a nanometer-sized object can be obtained using electron tomography. Variations in composition or density of the object cause variations in the reconstructed intensity. When imaging homogeneous objects, variations in reconstructed intensity are caused by the imaging technique, imaging conditions, and reconstruction. In this paper, we describe data acquisition, image processing, and 3D reconstruction to obtain and compare tomograms of magnetite crystals from bright field (BF) transmission electron microscopy (TEM), annular dark-field (ADF) scanning transmission electron microscopy (STEM), and high-angle annular dark field (HAADF) STEM tilt series. We use histograms, which plot the number of volume elements (voxels) at a given intensity vs. the intensity, to measure and quantitatively compare intensity distributions among different tomograms. In combination with numerical simulations, we determine the influence of maximum tilt angle, tilt increment, contrast changes with tilt (diffraction contrast), and the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) as well as the choice of the reconstruction approach (weighted backprojection (WB) and sequential iterative reconstruction technique (SIRT)) on the histogram. We conclude that because ADF and HAADF STEM techniques are less affected by diffraction, and because they have a higher SNR than BF TEM, they are better suited for tomography of nanometer-sized crystals.",
keywords = "Bright-field TEM imaging, Electron tomography, HAADF STEM imaging, Histogram analysis, Magnetite crystals",
author = "H. Friedrich and Martha McCartney and Buseck, {P R}",
year = "2005",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1016/j.ultramic.2005.06.005",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "106",
pages = "18--27",
journal = "Ultramicroscopy",
issn = "0304-3991",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of intensity distributions in tomograms from BF TEM, ADF STEM, HAADF STEM, and calculated tilt series

AU - Friedrich, H.

AU - McCartney, Martha

AU - Buseck, P R

PY - 2005/12

Y1 - 2005/12

N2 - The three-dimensional (3D) morphology of a nanometer-sized object can be obtained using electron tomography. Variations in composition or density of the object cause variations in the reconstructed intensity. When imaging homogeneous objects, variations in reconstructed intensity are caused by the imaging technique, imaging conditions, and reconstruction. In this paper, we describe data acquisition, image processing, and 3D reconstruction to obtain and compare tomograms of magnetite crystals from bright field (BF) transmission electron microscopy (TEM), annular dark-field (ADF) scanning transmission electron microscopy (STEM), and high-angle annular dark field (HAADF) STEM tilt series. We use histograms, which plot the number of volume elements (voxels) at a given intensity vs. the intensity, to measure and quantitatively compare intensity distributions among different tomograms. In combination with numerical simulations, we determine the influence of maximum tilt angle, tilt increment, contrast changes with tilt (diffraction contrast), and the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) as well as the choice of the reconstruction approach (weighted backprojection (WB) and sequential iterative reconstruction technique (SIRT)) on the histogram. We conclude that because ADF and HAADF STEM techniques are less affected by diffraction, and because they have a higher SNR than BF TEM, they are better suited for tomography of nanometer-sized crystals.

AB - The three-dimensional (3D) morphology of a nanometer-sized object can be obtained using electron tomography. Variations in composition or density of the object cause variations in the reconstructed intensity. When imaging homogeneous objects, variations in reconstructed intensity are caused by the imaging technique, imaging conditions, and reconstruction. In this paper, we describe data acquisition, image processing, and 3D reconstruction to obtain and compare tomograms of magnetite crystals from bright field (BF) transmission electron microscopy (TEM), annular dark-field (ADF) scanning transmission electron microscopy (STEM), and high-angle annular dark field (HAADF) STEM tilt series. We use histograms, which plot the number of volume elements (voxels) at a given intensity vs. the intensity, to measure and quantitatively compare intensity distributions among different tomograms. In combination with numerical simulations, we determine the influence of maximum tilt angle, tilt increment, contrast changes with tilt (diffraction contrast), and the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) as well as the choice of the reconstruction approach (weighted backprojection (WB) and sequential iterative reconstruction technique (SIRT)) on the histogram. We conclude that because ADF and HAADF STEM techniques are less affected by diffraction, and because they have a higher SNR than BF TEM, they are better suited for tomography of nanometer-sized crystals.

KW - Bright-field TEM imaging

KW - Electron tomography

KW - HAADF STEM imaging

KW - Histogram analysis

KW - Magnetite crystals

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=27744500365&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=27744500365&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ultramic.2005.06.005

DO - 10.1016/j.ultramic.2005.06.005

M3 - Article

C2 - 16081215

AN - SCOPUS:27744500365

VL - 106

SP - 18

EP - 27

JO - Ultramicroscopy

JF - Ultramicroscopy

SN - 0304-3991

IS - 1

ER -