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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |