scholarly journals Measurement of the Electron Beam Point Spread Function (PSF) in a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM)

2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (S3) ◽  
pp. 699-700 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yudhishthir P. Kandel ◽  
Matthew D. Zotta ◽  
Andrew N. Caferra ◽  
Richard Moore ◽  
Eric Lifshin
Keyword(s):  
Electron Beam ◽  
Electron Microscope ◽  
Scanning Electron Microscope ◽  
Point Spread Function ◽  
Point Spread ◽  
Spread Function ◽  
Scanning Electron

Exploring the Parameter Space of Point Spread Function Determination for the Scanning Electron Microscope—Part II: Effect on Image Restoration Quality

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (05) ◽  
pp. 1183-1194
Author(s):  
Mandy C. Nevins ◽  
Richard K. Hailstone ◽  
Eric Lifshin
Keyword(s):  
Particle Size ◽  
Electron Microscope ◽  
Image Quality ◽  
Scanning Electron Microscope ◽  
Image Restoration ◽  
Point Spread Function ◽  
Background Correction ◽  
Point Spread ◽  
Spread Function ◽  
Scanning Electron

AbstractPoint spread function (PSF) deconvolution is an attractive software-based technique for resolution improvement in the scanning electron microscope (SEM) because it can restore information which has been blurred by challenging operating conditions. In Part 1, we studied a modern PSF determination method for SEM and explored how various parameters affected the method's ability to accurately estimate the PSF. In Part 2, we extend this exploration to PSF deconvolution for image restoration. The parameters include reference particle size, PSF smoothing (K), background correction, and restoration denoising (λ). Image quality was assessed by visual inspection and Fourier analysis. Overall, PSF deconvolution improved image quality. Low λ enhanced image sharpness at the cost of noise, while high λ created smoother restorations with less detail. λ should be chosen to balance feature preservation and denoising based on the application. Reference particle size within ±0.9 nm and K within a reasonable range had little effect on restoration quality. Restorations using background-corrected PSFs had superior quality compared with using no background correction, but if the correction was too high, the PSF was cut off causing blurrier restorations. Future efforts to automatically determine parameters would remove user guesswork, improve this method's consistency, and maximize interpretability of outputs.

Exploring the Parameter Space of Point Spread Function Determination for the Scanning Electron Microscope—Part I: Effect on the Point Spread Function

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (05) ◽  
pp. 1167-1182
Author(s):  
Mandy C. Nevins ◽  
Kathryn Quoi ◽  
Richard K. Hailstone ◽  
Eric Lifshin
Keyword(s):  
Particle Size ◽  
Electron Microscope ◽  
Scanning Electron Microscope ◽  
Point Spread Function ◽  
Background Correction ◽  
Support Material ◽  
Material Thickness ◽  
Point Spread ◽  
Spread Function ◽  
Scanning Electron

AbstractThe point spread function (PSF) of the scanning electron microscope (SEM) can be determined using a recently developed nanoparticle calibration method. Many parameters are involved in PSF determination and introduce a previously unstudied amount of uncertainty into the PSF size and shape. Signal type, support material thickness, reference particle size, PSF smoothing (K), and background correction were investigated regarding their effect on the PSF. Experimental data were complemented by CASINO simulations. Differences in detector position between the observed particles and the method's simulated reference particles caused shifting between secondary electron PSFs and backscattered electron PSFs. Support material thickness did not have a practical effect on the PSF at the tested voltages. Uncertainty in reference particle size varied the PSF full width at half maximum (FWHM) within ±0.7 nm at 2σ, with virtually no uncertainty in some cases. K and background correction within a reasonable range of values resulted in PSF FWHM differences within ±0.9 nm, except at 2 kV for K with an upper bound of ±1.9 nm due to increased noise. Tailoring K and background correction case-by-case would result in smaller differences. The interconnection of these parameters may help in future efforts to calculate their best selection.

X-ray micro tomography in the scanning electron microscope

1978 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 106-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Brünger
Keyword(s):  
Electron Beam ◽  
Electron Microscope ◽  
Scanning Electron Microscope ◽  
Target Surface ◽  
The Body ◽  
X Rays ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Micro Tomography ◽  
Scanning Electron

Reconstructive tomography is a new technique in diagnostic radiology for imaging cross-sectional planes of the human body /1/. A collimated beam of X-rays is scanned through a thin slice of the body and the transmitted intensity is recorded by a detector giving a linear shadow graph or projection (see fig. 1). Many of these projections at different angles are used to reconstruct the body-layer, usually with the aid of a computer. The picture element size of present tomographic scanners is approximately 1.1 mm2.Micro tomography can be realized using the very fine X-ray source generated by the focused electron beam of a scanning electron microscope (see fig. 2). The translation of the X-ray source is done by a line scan of the electron beam on a polished target surface /2/. Projections at different angles are produced by rotating the object.During the registration of a single scan the electron beam is deflected in one direction only, while both deflections are operating in the display tube.

High Resolution Scanning Electron Microscopy

1991 ◽  
Vol 49 ◽  
pp. 478-479
Author(s):  
David Joy ◽  
James Pawley
Keyword(s):  
Electron Microscopy ◽  
Scanning Electron Microscopy ◽  
Electron Beam ◽  
Electron Microscope ◽  
High Resolution ◽  
Scanning Electron Microscope ◽  
Electron Probe ◽  
Impact Point ◽  
Interaction Volume ◽  
Scanning Electron

The scanning electron microscope (SEM) builds up an image by sampling contiguous sub-volumes near the surface of the specimen. A fine electron beam selectively excites each sub-volume and then the intensity of some resulting signal is measured. The spatial resolution of images made using such a process is limited by at least three factors. Two of these determine the size of the interaction volume: the size of the electron probe and the extent to which detectable signal is excited from locations remote from the beam impact point. A third limitation emerges from the fact that the probing beam is composed of a finite number of discrete particles and therefore that the accuracy with which any detectable signal can be measured is limited by Poisson statistics applied to this number (or to the number of events actually detected if this is smaller).

Slow-Scan CCD Observation of Backscattering Patterns in SEM

1992 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 1308-1309
Author(s):  
F. Ouyang ◽  
D. A. Ray ◽  
O. L. Krivanek
Keyword(s):  
Electron Beam ◽  
Electron Microscope ◽  
Scanning Electron Microscope ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Lens System ◽  
Wide Dynamic Range ◽  
Peltier Cooler ◽  
Diffraction Patterns ◽  
Scanning Electron

Electron backscattering Kikuchi diffraction patterns (BKDP) reveal useful information about the structure and orientation of crystals under study. With the well focused electron beam in a scanning electron microscope (SEM), one can use BKDP as a microanalysis tool. BKDPs have been recorded in SEMs using a phosphor screen coupled to an intensified TV camera through a lens system, and by photographic negatives. With the development of fiber-optically coupled slow scan CCD (SSC) cameras for electron beam imaging, one can take advantage of their high sensitivity and wide dynamic range for observing BKDP in SEM.We have used the Gatan 690 SSC camera to observe backscattering patterns in a JEOL JSM-840A SEM. The CCD sensor has an active area of 13.25 mm × 8.83 mm and 576 × 384 pixels. The camera head, which consists of a single crystal YAG scintillator fiber optically coupled to the CCD chip, is located inside the SEM specimen chamber. The whole camera head is cooled to about -30°C by a Peltier cooler, which permits long integration times (up to 100 seconds).

Advancement in fabrication of carbon nanotube tip for atomic force microscope using multi-axis nanomanipulator in scanning electron microscope

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanjeev Kumar Kanth ◽  
Anjli Sharma ◽  
Byong Chon Park ◽  
Woon Song ◽  
Hyun Rhu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Electron Beam ◽  
Electron Microscope ◽  
Carbon Nanotube ◽  
Scanning Electron Microscope ◽  
Atomic Force Microscope ◽  
Structural Integrity ◽  
Ion Beam ◽  
Rectilinear Motion ◽  
Atomic Force ◽  
Scanning Electron

Abstract We have constructed a new nanomanipulator (NM) in a field emission scanning electron microscope (FE-SEM) to fabricate carbon nanotube (CNT) tip to precisely adjust the length and attachment angle of CNT onto the mother atomic force microscope (AFM) tip. The new NM is composed of 2 modules, each of which has the degree of freedom of three-dimensional rectilinear motion x, y and z and one-dimensional rotational motion θ. The NM is mounted on the stage of a FE-SEM. With the system of 14 axes in total which includes 5 axes of FE-SEM and 9 axes of nano-actuators, it was possible to see CNT tip from both rear and side view about the mother tip. With the help of new NM, the attachment angle error could be reduced down to 0º as seen from both the side and the rear view, as well as, the length of the CNT could be adjusted with the precision using electron beam induced etching. For the proper attachment of CNT on the mother tip surface, the side of the mother tip was milled with focused ion beam. In addition, electron beam induced deposition was used to strengthen the adhesion between CNT and the mother tip. In order to check the structural integrity of fabricated CNT, transmission electron microscope image was taken which showed the fine cutting of CNT and the clean surface as well. Finally, the performance of the fabricated CNT tip was demonstrated by imaging 1-D grating and DNA samples with atomic force microscope in tapping mode.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document