ArticleUltramicroscopy2016
Dark-field image contrast in transmission scanning electron microscopy: Effects of substrate thickness and detector collection angle.
Article in Ultramicroscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A streaming multi-GPU implementation of image simulation algorithms for scanning transmission electron microscopy.Advanced structural and chemical imaging · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
An annular dark field (ADF) detector was placed beneath a specimen in a field emission scanning electron microscope operated at 30kV to calibrate detector response to incident beam current, and to create transmission images of gold nanoparticles on silicon nitride (SiN) substrates of various thicknesses. Based on the linear response of the ADF detector diodes to beam current, we developed a method that allowed for direct determination of the percentage of that beam current forward scattered to the ADF detector from the sample, i.e. the transmitted electron (TE) yield. Collection angles for the ADF detector region were defined using a masking aperture above the detector and were systematically varied by changing the sample to detector distance. We found the contrast of the nanoparticles, relative to the SiN substrate, decreased monotonically with decreasing inner exclusion angle and increasing substrate thickness. We also performed Monte Carlo electron scattering simulations, which showed quantitative agreement with experimental contrast associated with the nanoparticles. Together, the experiments and Monte Carlo simulations revealed that the decrease in contrast with decreasing inner exclusion angle was due to a rapid increase in the TE yield of the low atomic number substrate. Nanoparticles imaged at low inner exclusion angles (<150mrad) and on thick substrates (>50nm) showed low image contrast in their centers surrounded by a bright high-contrast halo on their edges. This complex image contrast was predicted by Monte Carlo simulations, which we interpreted in terms of mixing of the nominally bright field (BF) and ADF electron signals. Our systematic investigation of inner exclusion angle and substrate thickness effects on ADF t-SEM imaging provides fundamental understanding of the contrast mechanisms for image formation, which in turn suggest practical limitations and optimal imaging conditions for different substrate thicknesses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.