Spatial Resolutions of On-Axis and Off-Axis Transmission Kikuchi Diffraction Methods
, Jingchao Xu 3, Yongsheng Zhang 1,2, Yongzhe Wang 1, Jimei Zhang 1, Baojun Yu 4, Yi Zeng 1,2,* and Hong Miao 3,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, dear editor,
in the presented manuscript a study of the spatial resolution of on-axis and off-axis transmission Kikuchi diffraction orientation mapping is presented.
It is shown that the spatial resolution of both techniques is better with the improved DIC technique and average filtering on an example of a grain boundary.
The thinner the samples and the higher the voltage the better is the spatial resolution of both techniques.
However, it is also found that the on-axis technique is better due to better signal to noise ratio.
In general, I think the manuscript was prepared very carefully and the scientific conclusions drawn from the resultsare correct. So I can only recommend to publish the paper after some minor correction and/or additions
- page 2 line 72: "grit" -> "grid
- page 2 line 79: the specimen thickness is given very precisely. How was the thickness measured and is the precision really correct?
- page 3 line 96: "accelerating current" -> "accelerating voltage"
- page 3 Fig.1: figure part (A) is a little bit small, could be a bit larger, at least the three measurement points a, b, c.
- page 4 Fig. 2.: Please explain in the manuscript or by a legend, what the difference between the red and the blue line is. Also here the plots/axis labels could be a bit larger
- page 4 line 128: It is written "correlation coefficients are summed and normalized"
-> The Gaussian function is the derivate not the sum of the errorfunction like curve of the correlation coefficient. Could you please make this a bit clearer in the manuscript.
- page 6: It is said that the TKD pattern is cut-off to exclude regions with a bad signal to noise ratio. How is the cut-off radius chosen (which criterion)?
Author Response
Thank you very much for reviewing this manuscript. Our modifications and
clarifications in response to the reviewers’ comments/advices/questions are listed in the PDF file. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors show a study of the spatial resolutions of the on-axis and off-axis TKD methods in a ferritic Steel. They have used a digital image correlation technique and filters during the process. They have shown the results of two specimens with diferents thickness and three accelerating voltages (20, 25 and 30 kV). They found the best spatial resolution for 30 kV.
They don’t study the influence of working distance, beam current, only three acceleration voltages or others parameters.
It would be useful for the reader to show the effects of the filters.
More details in the sample preparation are needed. For example, which voltage is used during de ion milling, the detailled methodology to mil the specimen in the FIB instrument, the FIB instrument used, is during the FIB procedure the sample damaged? How the amorphous layer for the interaction of the matter with the ion beam influence in the determination of the resolution in these techniques?
The thickness of the sample is critical. They show the specimen thickness with a Angstroms of precision but without any error or standard deviation. How the thicknesses of the samples were measured? How many percentage of the thickness is crystal?
Niessen et al. [5] published an in-depth study on the same techniques analyzed by the authors. In the introduction they write about there are no studies on the same SEM device on on-axis and off-axis TKD method but Niessen uses the same device (FEI Nova NanoLab 600 SEM) to perform the measurements. Authors should detail and value the main differences with this article in addition to using a different sample and equipment.
Author Response
Thank you very much for reviewing this manuscript. Our modifications and
clarifications in response to the reviewers’ comments/advices/questions are listed in the PDF file. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The questions I asked have been satisfactorily answered.
