Fast versus conventional HAADF-STEM tomography: advantages and challenges

Vanrompay, Hans; Skorikov, Alexander; Bladt, Eva; Béché, Armand; Freitag, Bert; Verbeeck, Jo; Bals, Sara

Fast versus conventional HAADF-STEM tomography: advantages and challenges

Sep 30, 2020

e-Print:

2009.14512 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci]

View in:

ADS Abstract Service

pdf

reference search0 citations

Citations per year

0 Citations

Abstract: (arXiv)

Electron tomography is a widely used experimental technique for analyzing nanometer-scale structures of a large variety of materials in three dimensions. Unfortunately, the acquisition of conventional electron tomography tilt series can easily take up one hour or more, depending on the complexity of the experiment. Using electron tomography, it is therefore far from straightforward to obtain statistically meaningful 3D data, to investigate samples that do not withstand long acquisition, or to perform in situ 3D characterization using this technique. Various acquisition strategies have been proposed to accelerate the tomographic acquisition, and reduce the required electron dose. These methods include tilting the holder continuously while acquiring a projection movie and a hybrid, incremental, methodology which combines the benefits of the conventional and continuous technique. In this paper, the different acquisition strategies will be experimentally compared in terms of speed, resolution and electron dose, based on experimental tilt series acquired for various metallic nanoparticles.

References(38)

Figures(0)

[1]

S. Van Aert
,
K.J. Batenburg
,
M.D. Rossell
,
R. Erni
,
G. Van Tendeloo

- Nature 470 (2011) 374

[2]

S. Bals
,
B. Goris
,
G. Van Tendeloo

- Microscopy Microanal. 18 (2012) 524

[3]

B. Goris
,
S. Bals
,
W. Van Den Broek
,
E. Carbó-Argibay
,
S. Gómez-Graña

et al.

- Nature Materials 11 (2012) 930

[4]

S. Bals
,
B. Goris
,
A. De Backer
,
S. Van Aert
,
G. Van Tendeloo

- MRS Bull. 41 (2016) 525

[5]

P.A. Midgley
,
M. Weyland

- Ultramicroscopy 96 (2003) 413

[6]

P.A. Midgley
,
E.P.W. Ward
,
A.B. Hungría
,
J.M. Thomas

- Chem.Soc.Rev. 36 (2007) 1477

[7]

Angew. Chemie - Int. Ed., 53, 10600

S. Bals
,
B. Goris
,
L.M. Liz-Marzán
,
G. Van Tendeloo

[8]

P.A. Midgley
,
R.E. Dunin-Borkowski

- Nature Materials 8 (2009) 271

[9]

C. Kübel
,
A. Voigt
,
R. Schoenmakers
,
M. Otten
,
D. Su

et al.

- Microscopy Microanal. 11 (2005) 378

[10]

Mater. Today, 10, 18

G. Möbus
,
B.J. Inkson

[11]

G. Van Tendeloo
,
S. Bals
,
S. Van Aert
,
J. Verbeeck
,
D. Van Dyck

- Adv.Mater. 24 (2012) 5655

[12]

A.J. Koster
,
H. Chen
,
J.W. Sedat
,
D.A. Agard

- Ultramicroscopy 46 (1992) 207

[13]

D.N. Mastronarde

- Microscopy Microanal. 9 (2003) 1182

[14]

D.N. Mastronarde

- J.Struct.Biol. 152 (2005) 36

[15]

S. Nickell
,
F. Förster
,
A. Linaroudis
,
W. Del Net
,
F. Beck

et al.

- J.Struct.Biol. 149 (2005) 227

[16]

S.Q. Zheng
,
B. Keszthelyi
,
E. Branlund
,
J.M. Lyle
,
M.B. Braunfeld

et al.

- J.Struct.Biol. 157 (2007) 138

[17]

C. Suloway
,
J. Shi
,
A. Cheng
,
J. Pulokas
,
B. Carragher

et al.

- J.Struct.Biol. 2009 167

[18]

in

S.Q. Zheng
,
J.W. Sedat
,
D.A. Agard

- Methods Enzymol. 2010 283-315

[19]

A. Korinek
,
F. Beck
,
W. Baumeister
,
S. Nickell
,
J.M. Plitzko

- J.Struct.Biol. 175 (2011) 394

[20]

M.E. Rudnaya
,
W. Van den Broek
,
R.M.P. Doornbos
,
R.M.M. Mattheij
,
J.M.L. Maubach

- Ultramicroscopy 111 (2011) 1043

[21]

V. Migunov
,
H. Ryll
,
X. Zhuge
,
M. Simson
,
L. Strüder

et al.

- Sci.Rep. 5 (2015) 14516

[22]

269, 117

L. Roiban
,
S. Li
,
M. Aouine
,
A. Tuel
,
D. Farrusseng

et al.

[23]

Mater. Charact., 151, 480

S. Koneti
,
L. Roiban
,
F. Dalmas
,
C. Langlois
,
A.S. Gay

et al.

[24]

G. Chreifi
,
S. Chen
,
L.A. Metskas
,
M. Kaplan
,
G.J. Jensen

- J.Struct.Biol. 205 (2019) 163

[25]

Nanoscale, 10, 22792

H. Vanrompay
,
E. Bladt
,
W. Albrecht
,
A. Béch
,
M. Zakhozheva

et al.

1-25 of 38
1
2
25 / page