Premium
Anatomical analysis of turgescent and semi‐dry resurrection plants: The effect of sample preparation on the sample, resolution, and image quality of X‐ray micro‐computed tomography (μCT)
Author(s) -
Korte Nikola,
Porembski Stefan
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
microscopy research and technique
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.536
H-Index - 118
eISSN - 1097-0029
pISSN - 1059-910X
DOI - 10.1002/jemt.20917
Subject(s) - sample (material) , image resolution , resolution (logic) , sample preparation , materials science , image quality , vaseline , x ray , environmental science , optics , chemistry , artificial intelligence , chromatography , physics , computer science , medicine , image (mathematics) , wound healing , immunology
Computer tomography has been used frequently for the 3‐D visualization of plant anatomical traits but sample preparation has been widely neglected. Without any preparation smaller (i.e., up to 1 × 1 cm 2 ) turgescent or semi‐dry plant samples (especially leaf samples) diminish the image quality of a scan due to gradual water loss and therefore constant movement. A suitable preparation for scans of turgescent and semi‐dry plant samples with a high resolution μCT (<1–5 μm) has to be very thin, heat‐resistant (up to 35°C), have a low attenuation coefficient, and should not alter the water content and structure of the sample. Several agents have been tested, but only a coating with vaseline conserved the water content of a plant sample efficiently. However, water molecules and vaseline both attenuate the X‐ray beam, which decreases the image quality of scans of turgescent or semi‐dry plant samples. Therefore, trade‐offs between the spatial resolution, sample water content, sample size, and image quality have to be considered: larger samples have to be placed further away from the X‐ray tube, which leads to a lower spatial resolution; water and preparation agents attenuate the X‐ray beam, causing low‐quality images which may be accompanied by motion artifacts compared to a scan of a dry sample, where no preparation is necessary. Microsc. Res. Tech., 2011. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.