Erich Müller (Karlsruhe / DE), Heike Störmer (Karlsruhe / DE), Susanne Fritsch-Decker (Karlsruhe / DE), Carsten Weiss (Karlsruhe / DE), Dagmar Gerthsen (Karlsruhe / DE)
Abstract text (incl. figure legends and references)
1. Introduction
Scanning transmission electron microscopy in scanning electron microscopes (STEM-in-SEM) at low primary electron energies (≤ 30 keV) yields a pronounced image contrast for weakly scattering biological materials [1] and provides a complementary technique to transmission electron microscopy (TEM) at high electron energies. SEMs are widely available and can be equipped with a STEM detector. Further advantages compared to TEM are reduced maintenance costs and less demanding alignment procedures. STEM-imaging can be combined with secondary electron imaging, rendering STEM-in-SEM a multimodal technique for imaging both surface and subsurface features [2].
2. Objectives
In this work, the competitiveness of STEM-in-SEM as an alternative to TEM is explored. The two techniques are compared with respect to their resolution and signal-to-noise ratio.
3. Materials and Methods
Thin microtome slices of A549 lung carcinoma cells exposed to silica nanoparticles (NPs) are used for 200 keV TEM imaging in a Philips CM200. Bright-field (BF) STEM-in-SEM images are taken from the same region of interest in a FEI Helios G4 FX at 30 keV. The two techniques are compared by evaluating the spatial resolution and the contrast-to-noise-ratio CNR = (S-B)/σB (S: signal, B: background intensity, σB: standard deviation of B) of the images. As the contrast in TEM depends also on defocus and aperture settings, the beam convergence and detection angles for the images in Figure 2 are chosen such that similar image signals can be expected due to the reciprocity theorem for STEM and TEM [3].
4. Results
Figure 1 shows images of the same region of a cell section with NPs. To improve the contrast, the TEM image (Figure 1a) was taken with a defocus 1.5 μm. A line scan over a small feature reveals a feature size of 2 nm, estimated by the full-width-at-half-maximum (FWHM). The same feature in the BF-STEM image (Fig. 1b) also shows a resolution of 2 nm.
The evaluation of the CNR is shown in Figure 2. A line scan through one of the dark particles reveals a more pronounced noise in the TEM image (Figure 2a) with CNR=3. The 30 keV BF-STEM image in Figure 1b shows a reduced noise with CNR=20.
4. Conclusions
STEM-in-SEM is a powerful technique for analyzing biological specimens, combining good CNR with a high spatial resolution. The resolution is sufficient for many applications making STEM-in-SEM well competitive to TEM.
Figure 1. Spatial resolution of 2 nm estimated by the FWHM of a linescan over a small feature. a) TEM image with a defocus of 1.5 µm. b) BF-STEM image of the same region.
Figure 2. Line scan over a NP. a) CNR=3 for the TEM image. b) CNR=20 for the BF-STEM image
[1] U Kaiser et al., Ultramicroscopy 111 (2011), p. 1239. doi: 10.1016/j.ultramic.2011.03.012
[2] C Sun et al., J Mater Sci 55 (2020), p. 13824. doi: 10.1007/s10853-020-04970-3
[3] CB Carter and DB Williams, "Transmission Electron Microscopy", Plenum Press, New York, 1996
Auf unserem Internetauftritt verwenden wir Cookies. Bei Cookies handelt es sich um kleine (Text-)Dateien, die auf Ihrem Endgerät (z.B. Smartphone, Notebook, Tablet, PC) angelegt und gespeichert werden. Einige dieser Cookies sind technisch notwendig um die Webseite zu betreiben, andere Cookies dienen dazu die Funktionalität der Webseite zu erweitern oder zu Marketingzwecken. Abgesehen von den technisch notwendigen Cookies, steht es Ihnen frei Cookies beim Besuch unserer Webseite zuzulassen oder nicht.