Cargando…

A Comparison of Different Counting Methods for a Holographic Particle Counter: Designs, Validations and Results

Digital Inline Holography (DIH) is used in many fields of Three-Dimensional (3D) imaging to locate micro or nano-particles in a volume and determine their size, shape or trajectories. A variety of different wavefront reconstruction approaches have been developed for 3D profiling and tracking to stud...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Brunnhofer, Georg, Hinterleitner, Isabella, Bergmann, Alexander, Kraft, Martin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7287607/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32466331
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s20103006
_version_ 1783545087035179008
author Brunnhofer, Georg
Hinterleitner, Isabella
Bergmann, Alexander
Kraft, Martin
author_facet Brunnhofer, Georg
Hinterleitner, Isabella
Bergmann, Alexander
Kraft, Martin
author_sort Brunnhofer, Georg
collection PubMed
description Digital Inline Holography (DIH) is used in many fields of Three-Dimensional (3D) imaging to locate micro or nano-particles in a volume and determine their size, shape or trajectories. A variety of different wavefront reconstruction approaches have been developed for 3D profiling and tracking to study particles’ morphology or visualize flow fields. The novel application of Holographic Particle Counters (HPCs) requires observing particle densities in a given sampling volume which does not strictly necessitate the reconstruction of particles. Such typically spherical objects yield circular intereference patterns—also referred to as fringe patterns—at the hologram plane which can be detected by simpler Two-Dimensional (2D) image processing means. The determination of particle number concentrations (number of particles/unit volume [#/cm [Formula: see text]]) may therefore be based on the counting of fringe patterns at the hologram plane. In this work, we explain the nature of fringe patterns and extract the most relevant features provided at the hologram plane. The features aid the identification and selection of suitable pattern recognition techniques and its parameterization. We then present three different techniques which are customized for the detection and counting of fringe patterns and compare them in terms of detection performance and computational speed.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7287607
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72876072020-06-15 A Comparison of Different Counting Methods for a Holographic Particle Counter: Designs, Validations and Results Brunnhofer, Georg Hinterleitner, Isabella Bergmann, Alexander Kraft, Martin Sensors (Basel) Article Digital Inline Holography (DIH) is used in many fields of Three-Dimensional (3D) imaging to locate micro or nano-particles in a volume and determine their size, shape or trajectories. A variety of different wavefront reconstruction approaches have been developed for 3D profiling and tracking to study particles’ morphology or visualize flow fields. The novel application of Holographic Particle Counters (HPCs) requires observing particle densities in a given sampling volume which does not strictly necessitate the reconstruction of particles. Such typically spherical objects yield circular intereference patterns—also referred to as fringe patterns—at the hologram plane which can be detected by simpler Two-Dimensional (2D) image processing means. The determination of particle number concentrations (number of particles/unit volume [#/cm [Formula: see text]]) may therefore be based on the counting of fringe patterns at the hologram plane. In this work, we explain the nature of fringe patterns and extract the most relevant features provided at the hologram plane. The features aid the identification and selection of suitable pattern recognition techniques and its parameterization. We then present three different techniques which are customized for the detection and counting of fringe patterns and compare them in terms of detection performance and computational speed. MDPI 2020-05-25 /pmc/articles/PMC7287607/ /pubmed/32466331 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s20103006 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Brunnhofer, Georg
Hinterleitner, Isabella
Bergmann, Alexander
Kraft, Martin
A Comparison of Different Counting Methods for a Holographic Particle Counter: Designs, Validations and Results
title A Comparison of Different Counting Methods for a Holographic Particle Counter: Designs, Validations and Results
title_full A Comparison of Different Counting Methods for a Holographic Particle Counter: Designs, Validations and Results
title_fullStr A Comparison of Different Counting Methods for a Holographic Particle Counter: Designs, Validations and Results
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison of Different Counting Methods for a Holographic Particle Counter: Designs, Validations and Results
title_short A Comparison of Different Counting Methods for a Holographic Particle Counter: Designs, Validations and Results
title_sort comparison of different counting methods for a holographic particle counter: designs, validations and results
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7287607/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32466331
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s20103006
work_keys_str_mv AT brunnhofergeorg acomparisonofdifferentcountingmethodsforaholographicparticlecounterdesignsvalidationsandresults
AT hinterleitnerisabella acomparisonofdifferentcountingmethodsforaholographicparticlecounterdesignsvalidationsandresults
AT bergmannalexander acomparisonofdifferentcountingmethodsforaholographicparticlecounterdesignsvalidationsandresults
AT kraftmartin acomparisonofdifferentcountingmethodsforaholographicparticlecounterdesignsvalidationsandresults
AT brunnhofergeorg comparisonofdifferentcountingmethodsforaholographicparticlecounterdesignsvalidationsandresults
AT hinterleitnerisabella comparisonofdifferentcountingmethodsforaholographicparticlecounterdesignsvalidationsandresults
AT bergmannalexander comparisonofdifferentcountingmethodsforaholographicparticlecounterdesignsvalidationsandresults
AT kraftmartin comparisonofdifferentcountingmethodsforaholographicparticlecounterdesignsvalidationsandresults