Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T23:22:19.937Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why Do We Need to Use Three-Dimensional (3D) Fourier Transform (FT) Analysis to Evaluate a High-Performance Transmission Electron Microscope (TEM)?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2016

Kazuo Ishizuka  and
Koji Kimoto
Kazuo Ishizuka*
Affiliation:
National Institute for Materials Science, 1-1 Namiki, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0044, Japan HREM Research Inc., 14-48 Matsukazedai, Higashimatsuyama, Saitama 355-0055, Japan
Koji Kimoto
Affiliation:
National Institute for Materials Science, 1-1 Namiki, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0044, Japan
*
*Corresponding author. [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The resolution of high-resolution transmission electron microscopes (TEM) has been improved down to subangstrom levels by correcting the spherical aberration (Cs) of the objective lens, and the information limit is thus determined mainly by partial temporal coherence. As a traditional Young’s fringe test does not reveal the true information limit for an ultra-high-resolution electron microscope, new methods to evaluate temporal coherence have been proposed based on a tilted-beam diffractogram. However, the diffractogram analysis cannot be applied when the nonlinear contribution becomes significant. Therefore, we have proposed a method based on the three-dimensional (3D) Fourier transform (FT) of through-focus TEM images, and evaluated the performance of some Cs-corrected TEMs at lower voltages. In this report, we generalize the 3D FT analysis and derive the 3D transmission cross-coefficient. The profound difference of the 3D FT analysis from the diffractogram analysis is its capability to extract linear image information from the image intensity, and further to evaluate two linear image contributions separately on the Ewald sphere envelopes. Therefore, contrary to the diffractogram analysis the 3D FT analysis can work with a strong scattering object. This is the necessary condition if we want to directly observe the linear image transfer down to a few tens of picometer.

Keywords

HRTEMinformation limit3D FT analysistransmission cross-coefficientdiffractogram analysisaberration correction
Type
Instrumentation and Techniques Development
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 22 , Issue 5 , October 2016 , pp. 971 - 980
Copyright
© Microscopy Society of America 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barthel, J. & Thust, A. (2008). Quantification of the information limit of transmission electron microscope. Phys Rev Lett 101, 200801.Google Scholar
Cowley, J.M. (1981). Diffraction Physics, 2nd ed. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Ewald, P.P. (1969). Introduction to the dynamical theory of X-ray diffraction. Acta Cryst A25, 103–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider, M., Hartel, P., Muller, H., Uhlemann, S. & Zach, J. (2010). Information transfer in a TEM corrected for spherical and chromatic aberration. Microsc Microanal 16, 393–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider, M., Löbau, U., Höschen, R., Müller, H., Uhlemann, S. & Zach, J. (2007). State of the development of a Cc/Cs-corrector for TEAM. Microsc Microanal 13(S2), 1156CD–1157CD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider, M., Muller, H., Uhlemann, S., Zach, J., Lobau, U. & Hoschen, R. (2008). Prerequisites for a Cc/Cs-corrected ultrahigh-resolution TEM. Ultramicroscopy 108, 167–218.Google Scholar
Haider, M., Uhlemann, S., Schwan, E., Rose, H., Kabius, B. & Urban, K. (1998). Electron microscopy image enhanced. Nature 392, 768–769.Google Scholar
Ishizuka, K. (1980). Contrast transfer of crystal images in TEM. Ultramicroscopy 5, 55–65.Google Scholar
Kimoto, K., Kurashima, K., Nagai, T., Megumi, O. & Ishizuka, K. (2012). Assessment of lower-voltage TEM performance using 3D Fourier transform of through-focus series. Ultramicroscopy 121, 31–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kimoto, K., Sawada, H., Sasaki, T., Sato, Y., Nagai, T., Ohwada, M., Suenaga, K. & Ishizuka, K. (2013). Quantitative evaluation of temporal partial coherence using 3D Fourier transforms of through-focus TEM images. Ultramicroscopy 134, 86–93.Google Scholar
Krivanek, O., Dellby, N. & Lupini, A. (1999). Towards sub-angstrom electron beams. Ultramicroscopy 78, 1–11.Google Scholar
O’Keefe, M.A., Allard, L. & Blom, D.A. (2008). Young’s fringes are not evidence of HRTEM resolution. Microsc Microanal 14(S2), 834–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Op de Beeck, M., Van Dyck, D. & Coene, W. (1996). Wave function reconstruction in HRTEM: The parabola method. Ultramicroscopy 64, 167–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taniguchi, Y., Ikuta, T. & Shimizu, R. (1991). Assessment of image formation by three-dimensional power spectrum in transmission electron microscopy. J Electron Micros 40, 5–10.Google Scholar
Thon, F. (1966). Zur Defokussierungsabhangigkeit des Phasenkontrastes bei der elektronenmikroskopischen Abbildung. Z Naturforschg 21a, 476–478.Google Scholar