Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
Add "Statement of need" to paper.md
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history
The first two paragraphs were reversed and headings were added.
  • Loading branch information
tsipkens committed Oct 31, 2023
1 parent 87c8a7b commit 777001a
Showing 1 changed file with 5 additions and 4 deletions.
9 changes: 5 additions & 4 deletions docs/paper/paper.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -37,14 +37,15 @@ bibliography: paper.bib
---


# Introduction
# Summary

Soot, carbon black, and other carbonaceous particles have important climate, health, and technological impacts that depend on their morphology. These particles have complex shapes composed of a collection of small, primary particles in fractal arrangements, as shown in \autoref{fig:soot}a. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images of these particles allow for detailed information about particle morphology that is unavailable in other characterization techniques. However, extracting this information requires image analysis across a statistically-significant number of particles, with the quality of conclusions improving as the number of characterized particles increases. For instance, @kelesidis2020 suggested quantifying at least 400 primary particles per experimental condition in a premixed flame to get an accurate average primary particle diameter from manually drawing elipses (that study counted 800 primary particles). In the broader literature, a few hundred particles per condition seems to be standard, with other authors having employed between 150 and 400 particles per condition [@liati2014; @marhaba2019; @trivanovic2019; @trivanovic2020], depending on the type of analysis. For multiple conditions, this can quickly expand to over 1000 particles. This characterization is often done manually, which at a minimum of several minutes per aggregate, is incredibly labour intensive. Unfortunately, the low contrast (carbonaceous particles on carbon films) and complex particle morphology of common carbonaceous particles makes automated analysis challenging, requiring unique analysis methods over those developed for traditional TEM image analysis of many engineered nanomaterials [@schneider2012imagej]. At the same time, existing automated methods across the literature are typically only applied to data from a single laboratory, with few exceptions [@anderson2017repeatability; @sipkensfrei2021cnn]. This limits comparability between laboratories [@sipkens2023].

The objective of `atems` is to provide a suite of open source analysis tools (largely in Matlab) for TEM image analysis that are specifically designed for soot and related carbonaceous particles (e.g., tarballs). This codebase started as a manual analysis code by @dastanpour2014, with the first automated methods added by @dastanpour2016. The current, open source version has been streamlined and expanded to include a larger suite of automated analysis methods from the literature, as detailed in the following section. In this regard, a key contribution of this codebase is to provide open source implementations of multiple analysis methods spanning a range of laboratories. This codebase places these methods in the same framework, with the goal of enabling intercomparisons of analysis routines across a range of data.
The objective of `atems` is to provide a suite of open source analysis tools (largely in Matlab) for transmission electron microscopy (TEM) image analysis that are specifically designed for soot and related carbonaceous particles (e.g., tarballs). This codebase started as a manual analysis code by @dastanpour2014, with the first automated methods added by @dastanpour2016. The current, open source version has been streamlined and expanded to include a larger suite of automated analysis methods from the literature, as detailed in the following section. In this regard, a key contribution of this codebase is to provide open source implementations of multiple analysis methods spanning a range of laboratories. This codebase places these methods in the same framework, with the goal of enabling intercomparisons of analysis routines across a range of data.

![Sample TEM image of soot demonstrating the aggregate structure, where **a** is an unlabeled image containing soot aggregates and **b** is that same image with the aggregates labeled.\label{fig:soot}](01-sample-image.png){ width=90% }

# Statement of need

Soot, carbon black, and other carbonaceous particles have important climate, health, and technological impacts that depend on their morphology. These particles have complex shapes composed of a collection of small, primary particles in fractal arrangements, as shown in \autoref{fig:soot}a. TEM images of these particles allow for detailed information about particle morphology that is unavailable in other characterization techniques. However, extracting this information requires image analysis across a statistically-significant number of particles, with the quality of conclusions improving as the number of characterized particles increases. For instance, @kelesidis2020 suggested quantifying at least 400 primary particles per experimental condition in a premixed flame to get an accurate average primary particle diameter from manually drawing elipses (that study counted 800 primary particles). In the broader literature, a few hundred particles per condition seems to be standard, with other authors having employed between 150 and 400 particles per condition [@liati2014; @marhaba2019; @trivanovic2019; @trivanovic2020], depending on the type of analysis. For multiple conditions, this can quickly expand to over 1000 particles. This characterization is often done manually, which at a minimum of several minutes per aggregate, is incredibly labour intensive. Unfortunately, the low contrast (carbonaceous particles on carbon films) and complex particle morphology of common carbonaceous particles makes automated analysis challenging, requiring unique analysis methods over those developed for traditional TEM image analysis of many engineered nanomaterials [@schneider2012imagej]. At the same time, existing automated methods across the literature are typically only applied to data from a single laboratory, with few exceptions [@anderson2017repeatability; @sipkensfrei2021cnn]. This limits comparability between laboratories [@sipkens2023].

# Methods

Expand Down

0 comments on commit 777001a

Please sign in to comment.