Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 524

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An assessment of the resolution limitation due to radiation-damage in X-ray diffraction microscopy

Open access
Howells, M.R., Beetz, T., Chapman, H.N., Cui, C., Holton, J.M., Jacobsen, C.J., Kirz, J., Lima, E., Marchesini, S., Miao, H., Sayre, D., Shapiro, D.A., Spence, J.C.H., Starodub, D.·2009·Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and Related Phenomena

Abstract

X-ray diffraction microscopy (XDM) is a new form of x-ray imaging that is being practiced at several third-generation synchrotron-radiation x-ray facilities. Nine years have elapsed since the technique was first introduced and it has made rapid progress in demonstrating high-resolution three-dimensional imaging and promises few-nm resolution with much larger samples than can be imaged in the transmission electron microscope. Both life- and materials-science applications of XDM are intended, and it is expected that the principal limitation to resolution will be radiation damage for life science and the coherent power of available x-ray sources for material science. In this paper we address the question of the role of radiation damage. We use a statistical analysis based on the so-called “dose fractionation theorem” of Hegerl and Hoppe to calculate the dose needed to make an image of a single life-science sample by XDM with a given resolution. We find that for simply-shaped objects the needed dose scales with the inverse fourth power of the resolution and present experimental evidence to support this finding. To determine the maximum tolerable dose we have assembled a number of data taken from the literature plus some measurements of our own which cover ranges of resolution that are not well covered otherwise. The conclusion of this study is that, based on the natural contrast between protein and water and “Rose-criterion” image quality, one should be able to image a frozen-hydrated biological sample using XDM at a resolution of about 10 nm.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.elspec.2008.10.008

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 524

Metadata

Authors
Howells, M. R., Beetz, T., Chapman, H. N., Cui, C., Holton, J. M., Jacobsen, C. J., Kirz, J., Lima, E., Marchesini, S., Miao, H., Sayre, D., Shapiro, D. A., Spence, J. C. H., & Starodub, D.
Venue
Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and Related Phenomena
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-03
Volume
170
Issue
1-3
Pages
4-12
ISSN
0368-2048 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2137089455
Cited by
524
References
1
FWCI
20.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An assessment of the resolution limitation due to radiation-damage in X-ray diffraction microscopy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.elspec.2008.10.008
The paper
Howells, M. R., Beetz, T., Chapman, H. N., Cui, C., Holton, J. M., Jacobsen, C. J., Kirz, J., Lima, E., Marchesini, S., Miao, H., Sayre, D., Shapiro, D. A., Spence, J. C. H., & Starodub, D. (2009). An assessment of the resolution limitation due to radiation-damage in X-ray diffraction microscopy. Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and Related Phenomena. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elspec.2008.10.008

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.