Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T16:50:44.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Identifying and Correcting Scan Noise and Drift in the Scanning Transmission Electron Microscope

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 May 2013

Lewys Jones  and
Peter D. Nellist
Lewys Jones*
Affiliation:
Department of Materials, University of Oxford, 13 Parks Road, Oxford OX13PH, UK
Peter D. Nellist
Affiliation:
Department of Materials, University of Oxford, 13 Parks Road, Oxford OX13PH, UK
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The aberration-corrected scanning transmission electron microscope has great sensitivity to environmental or instrumental disturbances such as acoustic, mechanical, or electromagnetic interference. This interference can introduce distortions to the images recorded and degrade both signal noise and resolution performance. In addition, sample or stage drift can cause the images to appear warped and leads to unreliable lattice parameters being exhibited. Here a detailed study of the sources, natures, and effects of imaging distortions is presented, and from this analysis a piece of image reconstruction code has been developed that can restore the majority of the effects of these detrimental image distortions for atomic-resolution data. Example data are presented, and the performance of the restored images is compared quantitatively against the as-recorded data. An improvement in apparent resolution of 16% and an improvement in signal-to-noise ratio of 30% were achieved, as well as correction of the drift up to the precision to which it can be measured.

Keywords

scanning transmission electron microscopy (STEM)scan noiseimage distortionsample driftimage resolutionsignal-to-noise ratio
Type
Materials Applications
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , August 2013 , pp. 1050 - 1060
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America 2013 

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

Braidy, N., Le Bouar, Y., Lazar, S. & Ricolleau, C. (2012). Correcting scanning instabilities from images of periodic structures. Ultramicroscopy 118, 67–76.Google Scholar
Buban, J.P., Ramasse, Q., Gipson, B., Browning, N.D. & Stahlberg, H. (2010). High-resolution low-dose scanning transmission electron microscopy. J Electron Microsc 59(2), 103–112.Google Scholar
Haider, M. (2000). Upper limits for the residual aberrations of a high-resolution aberration-corrected STEM. Ultramicroscopy 81(3-4), 163–175.Google Scholar
Klie, R.F., Johnson, C. & Zhu, Y. (2008). Atomic-resolution STEM in the aberration-corrected JEOL JEM2200FS. Microsc Microanal 14(1), 104–112.Google Scholar
Krivanek, O.L. (1999). Towards sub-Å electron beams. Ultramicroscopy 78(1-4), 1–11.Google Scholar
Muller, D.A. & Grazul, J. (2001). Optimizing the environment for sub-0.2 nm scanning transmission electron microscopy. J Electron Microsc 50(3), 219–226.Google Scholar
Muller, D.A., Kirkland, E.J., Thomas, M.G., Grazul, J.L., Fitting, L. & Weyland, M. (2006). Room design for high-performance electron microscopy. Ultramicroscopy 106(11-12), 1033–1040.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nakanishi, N. (2002). Retrieval process of high-resolution HAADF-STEM images. J Electron Microsc 51(6), 383–390.Google Scholar
Pennycook, S.J., Chisholm, M.F., Lupini, A.R., Varela, M., Borisevich, A.Y., Oxley, M.P., Luo, W.D., van Benthem, K., Oh, S.-H., Sales, D.L., Molina, S.I., García-Barriocanal, J., Leon, C., Santamaría, J., Rashkeev, S.N. & Pantelides, S.T. (2009). Aberration-corrected scanning transmission electron microscopy: From atomic imaging and analysis to solving energy problems. Philos Trans R Soc London, Ser A 367(1903), 3709–3733.Google Scholar
Recnik, A., Möbus, G. & Sturm, S. (2005). IMAGE-WARP: A real-space restoration method for high-resolution STEM images using quantitative HRTEM analysis. Ultramicroscopy 103(4), 285–301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, A. (1948). The sensitivity performance of the human eye on an absolute scale. J Opt Soc Am B: Opt Phys 38(2), 196–208.Google Scholar
Takeguchi, M., Hashimoto, A., Shimojo, M., Mitsuishi, K. & Furuya, K. (2008). Development of a stage-scanning system for high-resolution confocal STEM. J Electron Microsc 57(4), 123–127.Google Scholar
Urban, K., Kabius, B., Haider, M. & Rose, H. (1999). A way to higher resolution: Spherical-aberration correction in a 200 kV transmission electron microscope. J Electron Microsc 48(6), 821–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Alfthan, S., Benedek, N., Chen, L., Chua, A., Cockayne, D., Dudeck, K., Elsässer, C., Finnis, M.W., Koch, C.T., Rahmati, B., Rühle, M., Shih, S. & Sutton, A.P. (2010). The structure of grain boundaries in strontium titanate: Theory, simulation, and electron microscopy. Annu Rev Mater Res 40(1), 557–599.Google Scholar
von Harrach, H. (1995). Instrumental factors in high-resolution FEG STEM. Ultramicroscopy 58(1), 1–5.Google Scholar
Voyles, P.M. & Muller, D.A. (2002). Fluctuation microscopy in the STEM. Ultramicroscopy 93(2), 147–159.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Jones Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Jones Supplementary Material(PDF)
PDF 172.1 KB