Many different types of microscopes and applications are used in today's research laboratories, as shown by an R&D Magazine survey.
Microscopes are one of the researcher’s most indispensable tools. More research labs contain microscopes than any other single research instrument. As pervasive as these instruments have become, the technology surrounding them continues to accelerate as the resolution of these devices reaches into the atomic level. And while visualization of the microscopic details of samples was the primary goal in the past, determination of the chemical identity of those details is now an essential component as well.
The readers of
R&D Magazine were recently surveyed by
R&D’s editors to determine the requirements of researchers using microscopy equipment. The results of that study are summarized in the attached charts. More than 300 scientists and engineers responded to this survey, which was performed electronically in early June 2008.
Research areas
More than any other application for researchers, microscopes are used for basic analytical, materials, and biological research according to the
R&D survey. These were the areas to which most researchers responded (41%, 32%, and 24%, respectively) when asked for the applications in which they used their microscopes.
The other applications selected by
R&D’s readers mirrored the specific makeup of
R&D’s distribution—in other words, a very broad range of applications from a very broad range of researchers and their specific vocations.
The 15% to 10% range of applications included chemical process development, deposition/etching of thin films, energy research, environmental research, forensics, medical, polymer development, process monitoring, and semiconductor device development.
The 10% to 5% range of applications included aerospace, agricultural, automotive development, deposition/etching of thick films, packaging, pharmaceutical research, photonics development, photovoltaic development, and sensor design/development.
Existing equipmentIn terms of the specific types of microscopy equipment that exists in today’s research labs, the respondents noted that optical or light microscopes are in 76% of the labs, with microscopy cameras a close second, with exposures in 71% of the labs.
Running down the list of other major microscopy systems—electron microscopes are in 32% of the labs, confocal in 26%, fluorescence in 24%, scanning probe in 10%, and x-ray microscopes in just 6% of the labs (due likely to their high cost and narrow application field). Specialized microscopes included a representation for environmental microscopes in 10% of the labs, focused ion beam add-ons to electron microscopes in 7% of the labs, and ion microscopes in 4% of the labs.
Microscopy supplies and accessories were noted by the survey respondents with the following representations:
• Automation systems in 14% of the labs
• Field emission sources 9%
• High-resolution detectors 27%
• Image acquisition systems 40%
• Immersion media 14%
• Microindenters 7%
• Micromanipulators 14%
• Polarizing systems 28%
• Projection systems 13%
• Sectioning equipment 16%
• Software, image processing 37%
• Telepresence systems 4%
• Vibration isolation systems 16%
The average annual microscopy equipment budget for the scientist and engineering respondents to the
R&D survey is $93,400, with about 48% of the respondents having budgets less than $10,000 and 16% having annual budgets that are greater than $100,000.
Costs, costs, and costsThe overall cost of microscopy systems is at the forefront of users' concerns when considering purchases, changes, and desires. The purchase and maintenance costs of microscopy systems topped the list in survey questions concerning the technical challenges in microscopy (32% of the respondents listed equipment cost as the top choice), deciding factors in the purchase of a microscope (82% chose cost), and in the wish list of technology changes (51% picked this as their top choice). The number two choice in these questions was distant from the top cost choice.
The technology wish list for microscopy systems by researchers is notable by both which items are desired most and by those systems that are not so highly desired.
Among the items most requested by users are benchtop systems (30% of the respondents put this item on their technology wish list), characterization systems (24%), 3-D microtomography (20%), non-destructive imaging (17%), hybrid imaging systems (15%), and spectroscopic analyses (12%).
On the other side, though, microscopy users had relatively less interest in the following high-profile microscopy technologies:
• Atomic scale imaging 10%
• Automated FIB 6%
• Environmental isolation 9%
• Immersion systems 4%
• Live-cell imaging 9%
• Phase contrast 10%
• Physical interactions 6%
• Precision sectioning 7%
• Telepresence/remote access 6%
• Variable pressure microscopy 5%
In the technology challenge area, survey respondents indicated that after equipment cost, data collection and analysis was the most significant challenge in the microscopy arena (30% of the respondents). The list narrowed slowly with resolution (28%), sample preparation (28%), accuracy (27%), characterization (17%), aberration correction (13%), and contamination (7%) listed in descending order of importance.
Again those areas that were not considered to be technologically challenging to overcome included atomic scale imaging (only chosen by 6% of the respondents), environmental imaging (4%), environmental isolation (6%), and throughput (8%).
Traditional growth areas
Biotech, nanotech, and materials research are the biggest application beneficiaries of microscopy equipment growth with 51%, 43%, and 36% corresponding response levels in R&D’s survey. Those areas that are not expected to be growth areas for microscopy include aerospace (only chosen by 6% of the respondents), automotive (4%), crystallography (11%), and telepresence (5%).
Growth areas in microscopy equipment technologies have followed the market leaders with scanning electron microscopy systems seeing the most technological growth over the past five years—97% of the survey respondents indicated seeing slight, moderate, or significant improvements from 2004 to 2008.
Scanning probe, confocal, and transmission electron systems were close behind with 94% to 95% of the respondents replying similarly. The largest market, optical or light microscopes, was viewed as having the smallest improvements over the past five years with 87% of the respondents seeing slight, moderate, or significant improvements.
Looking at this data in a slightly different perspective, confocal microscopy systems stand out as having the most significant improvements in that five year period according to 31% of the respondents. transmission electron microscopy, fluorescence, and scanning electron microscopy systems were in the 22% to 24% range, while light, hybrid, scanning probe, and x-ray were seen as having fewer significant changes.
The improvements seen in microscopy systems cover the gamut from those technological areas not seen as particularly interesting such as live-cell and atomic-scale imaging to narrow, highly focused applications such as the heretofore unavailable nuclear fuel imaging, and intracellular process imaging.
While a number of evolutionary improvements continue to be made to drive these technology improvements, the only major step-wise change in microscopy development over the past 20 years (since development of atomic force systems) has been the design and development of hybrid microscopy systems which is likely to continue as the need for materials characterization increases as strictly visualization capabilities improve.
Published in R & D magazine: Vol. 50, No. 4, August, 2008, p.12-16.