Electron tomography on micrometer-thick specimens with nanometer resolution

Nano Letters

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 1704-1708

  Loos, J ^a,b   Sourty, E ^a,c   Lu, K ^a,b   Freitag, B ^c   Tang, D ^c   Wall, D ^c  

^a Laboratory of Materials and Interface Chemistry   (Netherlands)

^b EINDHOVEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

^c Thermo Fisher Scientific   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCELERATING VOLTAGES; ATOMIC SCALE; COMPLEX MIXTURES; CONVENTIONAL TEM; ELECTRON TOMOGRAPHIES; MATERIALS RESEARCHES; MESOSCOPIC; NANOMETER RESOLUTIONS; NANOMETER THICKNESS; SCANNING TEM; TEM; TEM TOMOGRAPHIES; THREE DIMENSIONS; WELL-ESTABLISHED TECHNIQUES;

DIAGNOSTIC RADIOGRAPHY; ELECTRIC IMPEDANCE TOMOGRAPHY; MICROMETERS; THICKNESS MEASUREMENT;

TRANSMISSION ELECTRON MICROSCOPY;

EID: 65249120978     PISSN: 15306984     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/nl900395g     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Bonetta, L. Nat. Methods 2005, 2, 139-145.
2. Koster, A. J.; Chen, H.; Sedat. J. W.; Agard. D. A. Ultramicroscopy 1992, 46, 207-227.
3. Koster, A. J.; Ziese, U.; Verkleij, A. J.; Janssen, A. H.; De Jong, K. P. J. Phys. Chem. B 2000, 104, 9368-9370.
4. Midgley, P. A.; Weyland, M. Ultramicroscopy 2003, 96, 413-431.
5. Kübel, C.; Voigt, A.; Sehoenmakers, R.; Otten, M.; Su, D.; Lee, T.- C.; Carlsson, A.; Bradley, J. Microsc. Microanal. 2005, 11, 378-400.
6. Möbus, G.; Inkson, B. J. Mater. Today 2007, 10, 18-25.
7. Frank, J. Electron Tomography: Three-dimensional Imaging with the Transmission Electron Microscope; Plenum Press: New York, 1992.
8. Jinnai, H.; Spontak, R. J. Polymer 2009, 50, 1067-1087.
9. Midgley, P. A.; Ward, E. P. W.; Hungnya, A. B.; Thomas, J. M. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2007, 36, 1477-1494.
10. Midgley, P. A.; Weyland, M.; Thomas, J. M.; Johnson, B. F. G. Chem. Commun. 2001, 18, 907-908.
11. Kübel, C.; Kübel, J.; Kujawa, S.; Luo, J.-S.; Lo, H.-M.; Rüssel, J. D. AIP Conf. Proc. 2006, 817, 223-228.
12. Crewe, A. V.; Wall, J. J. Mol. Biol. 1970, 48, 375-393.
13. Howie, A.; Marks, L. D.; Pennycook, S. J. Ultramicroscopy 1982, 8, 163-174.
14. Crewe, A. V. J. Ultrastruct. Res. 1984, 88, 94-104.
15. Freitag, B.; Erni, R.; Inoke, K.; Stekelenburg, M.; Hubert, D. Microscopy 2006, 41, 21-25.
16. Reimer, L.; Kohl, H. Transmission Electron Microscopy: Physics of Image Formation, 5th ed.; Springer-Verlag: New York, 2008.
17. Kleinjan, W. E.; Brokken-Zijp, J. C. M.; van de Belt, R.; Chen, Z.; de With, G. J. Mater. Res. 2008, 23, 869-880.
18. Aoyama, K.; Takagi, T.; Hirase, A.; Miyazawa, A. Ultramicroscopy 2008, 109, 70-80.
19. Giannuzzi, L. A.; Drown, J. L.; Brown, S. R.; Irwin, R. B.; Stevie, F. A. Mater. Res. Symp. Proc. 1997, 480, 19-27.
20. Crowther, R. A.; de Rosier, D. J.; Klug, A. Proc. R. Soc. London 1970, A 317, 319-340.
21. Mandelbrot, B. B. The Fractal Geometry of Nature; Freeman: New York, 1982.
22. Note: indeed the volume resolution of our reconstructions is better than 5 nm (1 μm thick specimen) and 50 nm (4 μm thick specimen), respectively, and distances between gold beads smaller than their diameter can be identified, however it is difficult to prove the actual resolution in the thickness direction of a volume reconstruction. The bottom beads show less contrast compared with the top beads; however, sharpness and size still are similar.