DIY adapting SEM for low-voltage TEM imaging.
SEM vs. TEM
electron microscopy
image quality
low‐voltage imaging
noise analysis
sample sensitivity
Journal
Microscopy research and technique
ISSN: 1097-0029
Titre abrégé: Microsc Res Tech
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9203012
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 Aug 2024
17 Aug 2024
Historique:
revised:
19
07
2024
received:
13
02
2024
accepted:
06
08
2024
medline:
17
8
2024
pubmed:
17
8
2024
entrez:
17
8
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Electron microscopy is essential for examining materials and biological samples at microscopic levels, providing detailed insights. Achieving high-quality imaging is often challenged by the potential damage high-energy beams can cause to sensitive samples. This study compares scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) to evaluate image quality, noise levels, and the ability to preserve delicate specimens. We used a modified SEM system with a transmitted electrons conversion accessory, allowing it to operate like a TEM but at lower voltages, thereby reducing sample damage. Our analysis included quantitative assessments of noise levels and texture characteristics such as entropy, contrast, dissimilarity, homogeneity, energy, and correlation. This comprehensive evaluation directly compared traditional TEM and the adapted SEM system across various images. The results showed that TEM provided images with higher clarity and significantly lower noise levels, reinforcing its status as the preferred method for detailed studies. However, the modified SEM system also produced high-quality images at very low acceleration voltages, which is crucial for imaging samples sensitive to high-energy exposure. The texture metrics analysis highlighted the strengths and limitations of each method, with TEM images exhibiting lower entropy and higher homogeneity, indicating smoother and more uniform textures. This study emphasizes the importance of selecting the appropriate electron microscopy method based on research needs, such as sample sensitivity and required detail level. With its conversion accessory, the modified SEM system is a versatile and valuable tool, offering a practical alternative to TEM for various applications. This research enhances our understanding of the capabilities and limitations of SEM and TEM. It paves the way for further innovations in electron microscopy techniques, improving their applicability for studying sensitive materials. RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS: Our study introduces a modified SEM adapter enabling TEM-like imaging at reduced voltages, effectively minimizing sample damage without compromising image resolution. Through comparative analysis, we found that images from the modified SEM closely match the quality of traditional TEM, showcasing significantly lower noise levels. This advancement underscores the SEM's enhanced capability for detailed structural analysis of sensitive materials, broadening its utility across materials science and biology.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Author(s). Microscopy Research and Technique published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Brostrom, A., & Molhave, K. (2022). Spatial image resolution assessment by Fourier analysis (SIRAF). Microscopy and Microanalysis, 3, 1–9.
de Chaumont, F., Dallongeville, S., Chenouard, N., Herve, N., Pop, S., Provoost, T., Meas‐Yedid, V., Pankajakshan, P., Lecomte, T., Le Montagner, Y., Lagache, T., Dufour, A., & Olivo‐Marin, J. C. (2012). Icy: An open bioimage informatics platform for extended reproducible research. Nature Methods, 9(7), 690–696.
Eisaku Oho, T. S., Adachi, K., Muranaka, Y., & Kanaya, K. (1987). An inexpensive and highly efficient device for observing a transmitted electron image in SEM. Journal of Electron Microscopytechnique, 5, 8.
Haoran Wang, S. L., Ding, J., Li, S., Dong, L., & Zhaolin, L. (2022). SEM image quality assessment based on intuitive morphology and deep semantic features. IEEE Access, 10, 11.
Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., Gommers, R., Virtanen, P., Cournapeau, D., Wieser, E., Taylor, J., Berg, S., Smith, N. J., Kern, R., Picus, M., Hoyer, S., van Kerkwijk, M. H., Brett, M., Haldane, A., Del Rio, J. F., Wiebe, M., Peterson, P., … Oliphant, T. E. (2020). Array programming with NumPy. Nature, 585(7825), 357–362.
Lowe, D. G. (2004). Distinctive image features from scale‐invariant keypoints. International Journal of Computer Vision, 60(2), 19.
Matthew, Y. H., Zotta, D., Bergkoetter, M. D., & Lifshin, E. (2016). An evaluation of image quality metrics for scanning electron microscopy. Microscopy and Microanalysis, 22, 572–573.
Pauli Virtanen, R. G., Oliphant, T. E., Haberland, M., Reddy, T., Cournapeau, D., Burovski, E., Peterson, P., Weckesser, W., Bright, J., van der Walt, S. J., Brett, M., Joshua Wilson, K., Millman, J., Mayorov, N., Nelson, A. R. J., Jones, E., Kern, R., Eric Larson, C. J., Carey, İ. P., … Ribeiro, F. P. (2020). Paul van Mulbregt, and SciPy 1.0 contributors., SciPy 1.0: Fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in python. Nature Methods, 17(3), 11.
Raspanti, M., Reguzzoni, M., Rita Basso, P., Protasoni, M., & Martini, D. (2019). Visualizing the supramolecular assembly of collagen. Methods in Molecular Biology, 1952, 33–44.
Schindelin, J., Arganda‐Carreras, I., Frise, E., Kaynig, V., Longair, M., Pietzsch, T., Preibisch, S., Rueden, C., Saalfeld, S., Schmid, B., Tinevez, J. Y., White, D. J., Hartenstein, V., Eliceiri, K., Tomancak, P., & Cardona, A. (2012). Fiji: An open‐source platform for biological‐image analysis. Nature Methods, 9(7), 676–682.
van der Walt, S. J., Schonberger, J. L., Nunez‐Iglesias, J., Boulogne, F., Warner, J. D., Yager, N., Gouillart, E., Yu, T., & The Scikit‐Image Contributors. (2014). Scikit‐image: Image processing in python. PeerJ, 2, e453.