↓ Skip to main content

Making EBSD on water ice routine

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Microscopy, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Making EBSD on water ice routine
Published in
Journal of Microscopy, April 2015
DOI 10.1111/jmi.12258
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) on ice is a decade old. We have built upon previous work to select and develop methods of sample preparation and analysis that give >90% success rate in obtaining high-quality EBSD maps, for the whole surface area (potentially) of low porosity (<15%) water ice samples, including very fine-grained (<10 μm) and very large (up to 70 mm by 30 mm) samples. We present and explain two new methods of removing frost and providing a damage-free surface for EBSD: pressure cycle sublimation and 'ironing'. In general, the pressure cycle sublimation method is preferred as it is easier, faster and does not generate significant artefacts. We measure the thermal effects of sample preparation, transfer and storage procedures and model the likelihood of these modifying sample microstructures. We show results from laboratory ice samples, with a wide range of microstructures, to illustrate effectiveness and limitations of EBSD on ice and its potential applications. The methods we present can be implemented, with a modest investment, on any scanning electron microscope system with EBSD, a cryostage and a variable pressure capability.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 52 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 33%
Researcher 9 17%
Professor 4 7%
Other 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 10 19%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Earth and Planetary Sciences 25 46%
Materials Science 9 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 10 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 April 2015.
All research outputs
#16,002,460
of 24,549,201 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Microscopy
#1,217
of 1,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,489
of 269,213 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Microscopy
#9
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,549,201 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,868 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 269,213 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.