Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T01:17:09.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Spatial Resolution in Scanning Electron Microscopy and Scanning Transmission Electron Microscopy Without a Specimen Vacuum Chamber

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 July 2016

Kayla X. Nguyen Open the ORCID record for Kayla X. Nguyen [Opens in a new window] ,
Megan E. Holtz ,
Justin Richmond-Decker  and
David A. Muller
Kayla X. Nguyen*
Affiliation:
School of Applied and Engineering Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
Megan E. Holtz
Affiliation:
School of Applied and Engineering Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
Justin Richmond-Decker
Affiliation:
School of Applied and Engineering Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
David A. Muller
Affiliation:
School of Applied and Engineering Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA Kavli Institute at Cornell for Nanoscale Science, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
*
*Corresponding author.kn324@cornell.edu
Get access

Abstract

A long-standing goal of electron microscopy has been the high-resolution characterization of specimens in their native environment. However, electron optics require high vacuum to maintain an unscattered and focused probe, a challenge for specimens requiring atmospheric or liquid environments. Here, we use an electron-transparent window at the base of a scanning electron microscope’s objective lens to separate column vacuum from the specimen, enabling imaging under ambient conditions, without a specimen vacuum chamber. We demonstrate in-air imaging of specimens at nanoscale resolution using backscattered scanning electron microscopy (airSEM) and scanning transmission electron microscopy. We explore resolution and contrast using Monte Carlo simulations and analytical models. We find that nanometer-scale resolution can be obtained at gas path lengths up to 400 μm, although contrast drops with increasing gas path length. As the electron-transparent window scatters considerably more than gas at our operating conditions, we observe that the densities and thicknesses of the electron-transparent window are the dominant limiting factors for image contrast at lower operating voltages. By enabling a variety of detector configurations, the airSEM is applicable to a wide range of environmental experiments including the imaging of hydrated biological specimens and in situ chemical and electrochemical processes.

Keywords

airSEMairSTEMSEMin situESEM
Type
Technique and Instrumentation Development
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , August 2016 , pp. 754 - 767
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

Abrams, I.M. & McBain, J.W. (1944). A closed cell for electron microscopy. Science 100, 273–274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bothe, W. (1921 a). Theory of the diffusion of alpha-rays on small angles. Z Phys 4, 300–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bothe, W. (1921 b). The validity limits of Gauss’ laws for independent elementary error sources. Z Phys 4, 161–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bozzola, J.J., Johnson, M.C. & Shechmei, I.L. (1973). In-situ multiple sampling of attached bacteria for scanning and transmission electron-microscopy. Stain Technol 48(6), 317–325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Danilatos, G.D. & Postle, R. (1982). Advances in environmental and atmospheric scanning electron-microscopy. Micron 13(3), 253–254.Google Scholar
de Jonge, N. & Ross, F.M. (2011). Electron microscopy of specimens in liquid. Nat Nanotechnol 6(11), 695–704.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Demers, H., Ramachandra, R., Drouin, D. & de Jonge, N. (2012). The probe profile and lateral resolution of scanning transmission electron microscopy of thick specimens. Microsc Microanal 18(3), 582–590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gentsch, P., Gilde, H. & Reimer, L. (1974). Measurement of top bottom effect in scanning-transmission electron-microscopy of thick amorphous specimens. J Microsc 100, 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, J. (2003). Scanning Electron Microscopy and X-Ray Microanalysis. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, E.D. & Kino, G.S. (1991). Atmospheric scanning electron-microscopy using silicon-nitride thin-film windows. J Vac Sci Technol B 9(3), 1557–1558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayat, M.A. (1970). Principles and Techniques of Electron Microscopy; Biological Applications. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.Google Scholar
Holtz, M.E., Yu, Y.C., Gao, J., Abruna, H.D. & Muller, D.A. (2013). In situ electron energy-loss spectroscopy in liquids. Microsc Microanal 19(4), 1027–1035.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hyun, J.K., Ercius, P. & Muller, D.A. (2008). Beam spreading and spatial resolution in thick organic specimens. Ultramicroscopy 109(1), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackson, J.D. (1998) [1962]. Classical Electrodynamics (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Joy, D.C. (1995). Monte Carlo Modeling for Electron Microscopy and Microanalysis. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathieu, C. (1998). Effects of electron-beam/gas interactions on x-ray microanalysis in the variable pressure SEM. Mikrochim Acta 15, 295–300.Google Scholar
Moncrieff, D.A., Robinson, V.N.E. & Harris, L.B. (1978). Charge neutralization of insulating surfaces in the SEM by gas ionization. J Phys D Appl Phys 11(17), 2315–2325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reimer, L. (1968). Monte-Carlo calculations for electron diffusion. Optik 27(2), 86.Google Scholar
Reimer, L. (1985). Scanning Electron Microscopy : Physics of Image Formation and Microanalysis. Berlin and New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reimer, L. (1998). Scanning Electron Microscopy: Physics of Image Formation and Microanalysis. Berlin and New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, J.S. & Beckett, A. (1979). Preliminary evaluation of moist environment ambient-temperature scanning electron-microscopy. Micron 10(1), 13–23.Google Scholar
Solomonov, I., Talmi-Frank, D., Milstein, Y., Addadi, S., Aloshin, A. & Sagi, I. (2014). Introduction of correlative light and airSEM (TM) microscopy imaging for tissue research under ambient conditions. Sci Rep 4, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stokes, D., Royal Microscopical Society (Great Britain) (2008). Principles and Practice of Variable Pressure/Environmental Scanning Electron Microscopy (VP-ESEM). Chichester, UK: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suga, M., Nishiyama, H., Konyuba, Y., Iwamatsu, S., Watanabe, Y., Yoshiura, C., Ueda, T. & Sato, C. (2011). The atmospheric scanning electron microscope with open sample space observes dynamic phenomena in liquid or gas. Ultramicroscopy 111(12), 1650–1658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swift, J.A. & Brown, A.C. (1970). Environmental cell for examination of wet biological specimens at atmospheric pressure by transmission scanning electron microscopy. J Phys E Sci Instrum 3(11), 924–992.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed