In Situ TEM Holders Compared: A Guide to Heating, Liquid, and Gas Solutions for Materials Research

Abstract

In situ Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) has revolutionized materials science by enabling real-time observation of dynamic processes at the nanoscale. The success of these experiments critically depends on selecting the appropriate specimen holder to create the required environmental conditions. This article provides a comprehensive comparison of in situ TEM holders for heating, liquid, and gas experiments. It covers foundational principles, specific methodological applications across biomedical and energy research, common troubleshooting and optimization strategies, and essential validation techniques. Aimed at researchers and scientists, this guide serves as a strategic resource for designing robust in situ TEM experiments, interpreting data accurately, and driving innovation in nanomaterial characterization.

Understanding In Situ TEM Holders: Core Principles and Environmental Capabilities

The Critical Role of Sample Preparation in In Situ TEM Success

In situ Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) has emerged as a transformative tool, enabling researchers to observe nanoscale dynamic processes in real-time by applying external stimuli such as heat, gas, or liquid environments. The success of these advanced experiments is not solely dependent on the microscope's capabilities but is critically determined by the quality and appropriateness of sample preparation. Proper sample preparation ensures that observed phenomena accurately represent material behavior rather than artifacts, a challenge magnified by the complex interfaces and environments in in-situ holders. This guide examines the sample preparation methodologies and performance data across major categories of in-situ TEM holders—heating, gas, liquid, and cryogenic—to equip researchers with the knowledge to optimize experimental design and outcomes.

The core challenge of in-situ TEM sample preparation is to create a specimen that is both electron-transparent and compatible with the complex hardware of the environmental holder, whether it involves a microfabricated chip, a special grid, or a custom fixture. Inadequate preparation can lead to misleading results, such as the introduction of unwanted stresses, contamination, or reactions that do not occur in bulk materials. Furthermore, the sample must often be integrated with additional functional elements like microheaters or electrodes, imposing strict geometric and material constraints [1] [2].

In-situ TEM holders are broadly classified based on the external stimulus they apply. The following table summarizes the primary holder types, their stimuli, and key sample considerations.

Table 1: Overview of In-Situ TEM Holder Types and Sample Considerations

Holder Type	Primary Stimulus	Key Sample Preparation Considerations	Common Applications
Heating Holder [3]	High temperature (up to 1000°C)	Stability at high temperatures, minimization of thermal drift, avoidance of magnetic materials.	Phase transformations, grain growth, annealing studies [4].
Gas Cell Holder [5]	Gas environment (1 to 2 bar)	Deposition of catalyst or material of interest onto the MEMS chip's electron-transparent windows.	Catalysis, nanoparticle growth, oxidation/reduction studies [4] [5].
Liquid Cell Holder [2]	Liquid environment (electrochemical bias)	Deposition of a working electrode, containment of liquid without leakage, management of electron beam effects.	Electrocatalysis, battery cycling, nanoparticle growth in solution [4] [2].
Cryogenic Holder [6] [7]	Low temperature (down to 5.6 K)	Vitrification of liquids for biology, stabilization of beam-sensitive materials, preservation of native states.	Biological macromolecules, quantum materials, phase transitions [6] [7].

Comparative Performance Data and Protocols

The performance of in-situ TEM experiments is quantifiable through metrics such as temperature range, pressure limits, and spatial resolution. The data below, synthesized from commercial specifications and research publications, provides a basis for comparing different holder technologies.

Table 2: Quantitative Performance Comparison of In-Situ TEM Holders

Holder Type	Max Temperature	Min Temperature	Environmental Pressure	Spatial Resolution	Key Metrics & Stability
Furnace Heating [3]	1000°C (TEM) / 800°C (ETEM)	Room Temperature	High vacuum (TEM) or gas (ETEM)	Atomic resolution at 800°C	Low drift, direct thermocouple measurement
Gas Flow Holder [5]	>1000°C	Room Temperature	1 to 2 bar	Atomic resolution	Integrated MEMS heater, temperature sensor calibrated
Liquid Cell (Electrochemical) [2]	Limited by liquid boiling point	Room Temperature	Confined liquid	Nanometer to near-atomic	SiNx windows (10–50 nm thick), integrated electrodes
Cryogenic (Liquid Helium) [7]	Room Temperature	23 K (base)	High vacuum	Atomic resolution at 31 K	±2 mK stability, >4 hours hold time
Cryogenic (Closed-Cycle) [6]	295 K	5.6 K	High vacuum	Not optimized for atomic (prototype)	±1 mK stability, indefinite hold time, zero helium consumption

Experimental Protocols for Different Holder Classes

This protocol is critical for studying catalysis and gas-solid interactions.

• MEMS Chip Selection: Use a commercial MEMS chip with thin (e.g., 10-50 nm) silicon nitride (SiN_x) windows.
• Catalyst Deposition: Deposit the catalyst material (e.g., nanoparticles) directly onto the SiN_x window using methods such as drop-casting, sputtering, or focused ion beam (FIB) deposition.
• FIB Preparation (If needed): For site-specific samples (e.g., a cross-section of a surface oxide), use a FIB to lift-out and thin a lamella. Meticulous alignment during FIB is required to ensure the region of interest is electron-transparent and properly oriented within the single-tilt gas cell [8].
• Holder Assembly: Carefully assemble the MEMS chip into the holder, ensuring a leak-tight seal that separates the gas environment from the TEM vacuum.
• Reaction Pausing Strategy: For time-consuming techniques like 4D-STEM, introduce a protocol to pause the gas-solid reaction (e.g., by switching gas flow or temperature) to acquire high-quality data without significant beam-induced or reaction-driven changes [8].

This protocol is essential for simulating radiation damage in nuclear materials.

• Ion Species & Energy Selection: Use simulation software (e.g., SRIM - Stopping and Range of Ions in Matter) to select ion species and energy that achieve the desired damage profile (dpa - displacements per atom) and implantation depth within the thin TEM sample [1].
• Sample Geometry Preparation: Prepare samples as thin foils or nanoparticles. For foils, use electropolishing or FIB to achieve electron transparency. For nanoparticles, drop-cast a dilute suspension onto a TEM grid.
• Sample Mounting: Mount the prepared grid or foil into a specialized holder compatible with the ion beamline.
• Beam Alignment: Precisely align the ion beam with the TEM electron beam on the sample area. Characterize the ion beam profile to ensure uniform irradiation [1].

This protocol enables the observation of electrocatalytic processes like CO₂ reduction.

• Working Electrode Preparation: Pattern a working electrode (e.g., Au, Pt) on the bottom SiN_x window of the liquid cell. Deposit the catalyst material of interest (e.g., Cu, Pd) onto this electrode via electro-deposition, sputtering, or drop-casting [2].
• Electrolyte Introduction: Introduce a de-aerated electrolyte into the liquid cell using a syringe, carefully avoiding bubble formation.
• Cell Sealing: Assemble the liquid cell by clamping the top SiN_x window, creating a sealed chamber that confines the liquid.
• Beam Management: Calibrate and use the lowest possible electron beam dose to minimize radiolysis of the electrolyte and associated beam-induced artifacts [2].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Successful in-situ TEM relies on specialized materials and components. The following table details key items and their functions.

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Materials for In-Situ TEM Experiments

Item	Function in Experiment	Key Considerations
MEMS-based E-Chips [5] [2]	Provides a platform for hosting samples in gas/liquid environments; integrates microheaters and electrodes for applying stimuli.	SiNx window thickness dictates resolution; material must be chemically inert; design is specific to holder manufacturer.
Microfabricated Heaters [5] [3]	Enables rapid and localized heating of the sample to high temperatures (>1000°C) within the holder.	Often made from non-magnetic materials to avoid interfering with electron beam; calibrated temperature sensor is critical.
Direct Electron Detectors (DED) [8] [9]	Captures high-speed, high-sensitivity imaging and diffraction data, crucial for recording dynamic processes.	Essential for techniques like 4D-STEM; high dynamic range and fast readout speeds are necessary.
FIB/SEM System [8] [1]	Used for site-specific sample preparation, such as creating electron-transparent lamellae from bulk materials.	Requires skill to avoid introducing preparation damage; precise alignment is needed for gas/liquid cell holders.
SRIM Software [1]	Monte Carlo simulation software used to calculate ion range, damage (dpa), and implantation profiles in ion irradiation experiments.	Critical for experimental design and quantifying irradiation dose; does not account for dynamic defect recombination.

Experimental Workflow and Decision Pathway

The following diagram illustrates the critical decision points and workflow for planning a successful in-situ TEM experiment, from defining the scientific question to data collection.

This workflow highlights that the choice of holder and the corresponding sample preparation protocol are direct consequences of the scientific question, underscoring their critical role in the experimental chain.

The path to successful in-situ TEM analysis is paved long before the holder is inserted into the microscope. As this guide demonstrates, the stringent and specialized demands of sample preparation for heating, gas, liquid, or cryogenic holders are not merely procedural steps but are fundamental to generating valid, high-fidelity data. By understanding the technical capabilities, quantitative performance, and precise preparation protocols for each holder class, researchers can make informed decisions that align their experimental design with their scientific goals. Meticulous sample preparation, therefore, is the critical, non-negotiable foundation that unlocks the full potential of in-situ TEM to reveal dynamic nanoscale phenomena.

In-situ Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) has revolutionized materials science by allowing researchers to observe dynamic processes at the atomic scale in real-time. By introducing specialized specimen holders, it is possible to subject nanomaterials to various stimuli and environments, moving beyond traditional high-vacuum observations to study materials under realistic operating conditions. This guide objectively compares the three core in-situ TEM environments—heating, liquid, and gas—detailing their capabilities, experimental protocols, and applications to inform research in catalysis, energy storage, and biological science.

Core In-Situ TEM Environments at a Glance

The table below summarizes the key characteristics, technical capabilities, and primary applications of the three core in-situ TEM holder types.

Holder Type	Key Characteristics	Typical Technical Capabilities	Primary Research Applications
Heating	Applies thermal energy to study temperature-induced phenomena. [10]	Temperature Range: Up to 1000°C - 1500°C.Sample Environment: Typically high vacuum.Key Feature: Precise temperature control with minimal sample drift. [11] [12] [10]	Phase transformations, thermal stability, annealing processes, solid-solid interactions, and material sintering. [11] [10]
Liquid	Encapsulates samples in a liquid for observation in a native solution environment. [13]	Liquid Types: Aqueous solutions, electrolytes.Additional Stimuli: In-situ electrochemistry, heating (up to >200°C).Key Feature: Real-time imaging of processes in liquid. [13]	Battery material cycling, nanoparticle growth and self-assembly, electrochemical reactions, and biological processes. [13] [4] [14]
Gas	Introduces a controlled gas atmosphere around the sample. [15] [16]	Pressure Range: Up to 1 bar.Gases: H₂, O₂, CO, CO₂, CH₄, custom mixtures.Temperature: Up to 1000°C.Key Feature: Observation of gas-solid interactions. [15] [16]	Heterogeneous catalysis, gas corrosion, nanoparticle growth, and environmental science studies. [17] [15] [18]

Detailed Technical Comparisons

Heating Holders

Heating holders are designed to study how materials change and behave when they are heated to high temperatures. They use Microelectromechanical Systems (MEMS)-based chips with embedded microheaters for localized and rapid sample heating. [12] [10] A critical technical challenge is accurate nanoscale temperature measurement. Methods like Aluminum plasmon nanothermometry are used, which tracks the temperature-dependent shift of the aluminum volume plasmon energy via Electron Energy Loss Spectroscopy (EELS) for highly accurate local temperature readings. [12]

Liquid Cell Holders

Liquid cell holders feature a microfluidic design with ultrathin silicon nitride windows to encapsulate a liquid layer thin enough for the electron beam to penetrate. [13] Advanced systems support multiple functionalities:

• Continuous or dual-flow for introducing fresh reagents or mixing solutions. [13]
• In-situ electrochemistry with integrated biasing contacts and patterned chips for studying battery and electrocatalytic reactions. [13] [14]
• Heating capabilities to observe temperature-dependent processes in liquid, such as nanocrystal growth kinetics. [13]

Gas Cell Holders

Gas cell holders create a miniaturized high-pressure reaction chamber around the sample. Key enabling technologies include:

• MEMS-based Nano-Reactors: These chips feature electron-transparent windows and integrated microheaters and electrodes, allowing for simultaneous application of gas, heat, and electrical bias. [15]
• Gas Supply Systems: These provide precise control over gas pressure, flow, and composition, including the ability to mix multiple gases or add water vapor. [15]
• Compatibility with Analytical Techniques: Modern holders are designed to work with Energy-Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (EDS) and EELS, enabling correlation of structural changes with chemical and electronic state evolution, even in gas environments. [15] [18]

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

The table below lists key materials and reagents commonly used in in-situ TEM experiments.

Item Name	Function / Application
MEMS-based E-Chips / Nano-Reactors	Functional sample carriers with integrated heaters, sensors, and/or electrodes that enable controlled in-situ experiments (heating, biasing) within liquid or gas environments. [15] [16]
Catalyst Nanoparticles (e.g., Co, Pt)	Model catalysts dropped onto MEMS chips to study structural and compositional evolution under reactive gas atmospheres (e.g., oxidation, reduction) at high temperatures. [18]
Electrochemical Liquid Cell Chips	Patterned with working, counter, and reference electrodes to facilitate electrical bias and current flow through the sample in a liquid, enabling battery and electrocatalysis studies. [13]
Reactive Gases (e.g., H₂, O₂, CO)	Introduced via a gas supply system to create a realistic reaction environment for studying heterogeneous catalysis, corrosion, and gas-solid interactions. [15] [16]
Aluminum Nanospheres	Act as nanoscale temperature probes in heating experiments; their volume plasmon energy shifts measurably with temperature, allowing local temperature calibration via EELS. [12]
Liquid Electrolytes	Used in liquid cell experiments to simulate real operating conditions for battery materials or to study electrochemical deposition and dissolution processes. [13] [14]

Experimental Workflow for In-Situ TEM Analysis

The diagram below outlines the general workflow for planning and executing an in-situ TEM experiment, from sample preparation to data analysis.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

1. In-Situ Gas-Heating Experiment for Catalysis This protocol is used to study the structural changes of catalysts, such as bimetallic nanoparticles, under reactive atmospheres. [18]

• Sample Preparation: Disperse catalyst nanoparticles (e.g., CoPt) onto a MEMS-based E-chip (e.g., a gas-heating-biasing chip) via drop-casting. [15] [18]
• Holder Setup: Assemble the gas holder with the prepared E-chip, connect the gas supply system, and perform a vacuum leak check before inserting it into the TEM. [15]
• In-Situ Experiment:
  • Introduce a controlled gas mixture (e.g., H₂ for reduction or O₂ for oxidation) at a defined pressure (e.g., several hundred mbar). [16]
  • Ramp the temperature to the target range (e.g., 300-500°C) using the integrated microheater. [18] [16]
  • Acquire real-time High-Angle Annular Dark-Field (HAADF-STEM) images and collect EDS elemental maps at different stages to monitor composition and redistribution of elements. [18]
• Data Output: Time-resolved image series and EDS maps revealing processes like surface segregation, alloying, or oxidation in the nanoparticles under different gas environments. [18]

2. In-Situ Liquid Electrochemistry Experiment for Battery Materials This protocol enables the observation of electrochemical processes, such as lithium stripping, in a functioning nanobattery. [14]

• Sample Preparation: Fabricate a working electrode (e.g., a Li metal rod) on the patterned electrochemical liquid cell chip. The chip contains the necessary electrodes and a channel for the liquid electrolyte. [13] [14]
• Holder Setup: Assemble the liquid holder with the chip, fill the system with electrolyte, and ensure no bubbles are present. Use a dedicated pumping station to check for leaks. [13]
• In-Situ Experiment:
  • Use an external potentiostat to apply a voltage/current sequence to the chip, mimicking battery charge/discharge cycles. [13] [14]
  • Image the process in real-time with the TEM to observe morphological changes like lithium dissolution and re-deposition.
  • Optionally, use EELS to analyze changes in the chemical state of the elements involved. [13]
• Data Output: Videos of the dynamic processes, correlated with electrochemical data, identifying sources of inefficiency or failure mechanisms like dendrite formation. [14]

Key Insights for Researchers

The choice of in-situ TEM environment is dictated by the research question. Heating holders are unparalleled for investigating intrinsic thermal properties. Liquid cells are indispensable for research in electrochemistry and soft matter biology. Gas cells provide critical insights for catalysis and environmental science. Modern multi-stimuli systems are blurring these boundaries, allowing for more complex and realistic experiments, such as combining electrical biasing in a liquid cell or heating in a gas atmosphere, paving the way for the next generation of nanoscale discoveries.

Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) has long been a cornerstone of materials characterization, enabling researchers to visualize materials at atomic resolution. However, traditional TEM approaches presented a significant limitation: they required samples to be studied under static, high-vacuum conditions, far removed from the dynamic, real-world environments in which these materials actually function [19]. This fundamental constraint hindered direct observation of dynamic processes such as catalytic reactions, battery cycling, and nanomaterial synthesis. The emergence of in situ TEM techniques has successfully bridged this gap by transforming the TEM column into a nanoscale laboratory where materials can be observed under realistic stimuli, including heating, electrical biasing, and liquid or gas environments [20] [19].

At the heart of this methodological revolution lies Micro-Electro-Mechanical System (MEMS) technology, which has fundamentally redefined TEM holder design. MEMS-based holders utilize precisely fabricated microchips with integrated heating elements, electrical contacts, and fluidic channels that directly interface with TEM samples [21]. This technological leap has enabled unprecedented control over experimental conditions while maintaining the mechanical stability required for atomic-resolution imaging. Unlike conventional "bulk" holder designs that heated entire specimens, MEMS-fabricated microheaters allow localized thermal stimulation with rapid heating and cooling rates exceeding 1000°C/sec and minimal thermal drift [21]. This review provides a comprehensive comparison of MEMS-based in situ TEM holders against traditional alternatives, with a specific focus on their applications in heating, liquid, and gas phase research, supported by quantitative performance data and experimental case studies.

Comparative Analysis of MEMS vs. Traditional TEM Holders

The integration of MEMS technology has brought transformative improvements to TEM holder capabilities. The table below summarizes the key performance differences between MEMS-based and traditional holder designs.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of MEMS-Based vs. Traditional TEM Holders

Performance Characteristic	MEMS-Based Holders	Traditional Holders
Heating/Cooling Rate	Extremely fast (up to 1000°C/sec) [21]	Slow (seconds to minutes)
Thermal Drift	Minimal (e.g., ~2 nm/s at 650°C) [21]	Significant, often prohibitive for atomic-resolution
Temperature Range	Up to >1000°C (localized on chip) [5]	Up to 1000°C (bulk heating) [10]
Temperature Control Precision	Highly precise closed-loop control [5]	Less precise, hysteresis possible [10]
Geometric Compatibility	Requires specialized MEMS chips	Accommodates conventional 3mm TEM grids
Double-Tilt Capability	Available in advanced designs [22]	Limited in most in situ holders [22]
Multimodal Experimentation	High (integrated heating, biasing, fluidics) [14]	Low (typically single stimulus)
Typical Data Quality at High Temp	Atomic-resolution possible [22]	Often limited to nanoscale resolution

The advantages of MEMS technology extend beyond heating capabilities. A significant breakthrough has been the development of double-tilt functionality in sophisticated MEMS holders, which is essential for acquiring atomic-scale information along specific zone axes during dynamic experiments [22]. This capability, once considered incompatible with in situ setups, is achieved through innovative seal-bearing designs that provide superior vibration damping and electrical insulation while maintaining vacuum integrity [22]. Furthermore, MEMS fabrication enables the integration of multiple stimuli on a single device, permitting complex experimental protocols such as simultaneous electrical biasing and heating in liquid environments [14] [23].

Table 2: Holder Compatibility and Functionality Across Microscope Platforms

Holder Type	Key Functions	TEM Compatibility	Best Use Cases
MEMS Heating/Biasing(e.g., Protochips Aduro)	Heating, Electrical biasing	FEI/TFS, JEOL [10]	Battery materials, phase change studies
MEMS Gas Cell(e.g., Hummingbird)	Gas flow, High-temperature heating	FEI/TFS, JEOL, Hitachi [5]	Catalysis, nanoparticle growth, fuel cell research
MEMS Liquid Cell(e.g., Protochips Poseidon)	Liquid flow, Electrochemistry	FEI/TFS, JEOL [14]	Battery cycling, electrocatalysis, nanomaterial synthesis
Traditional Furnace(e.g., Gatan 652)	Bulk heating	FEI/TFS, JEOL [10]	High-temperature phase transitions (where drift is acceptable)
Straining Holder(e.g., Gatan 654)	Mechanical deformation	FEI/TFS [10]	Mechanical property testing, fracture studies

MEMS Holders for Heating Experiments

MEMS-based heating holders represent one of the most significant advances in in situ TEM, enabling studies of dynamic processes such as nanoparticle sintering, phase transformations, and thermal degradation with unprecedented spatial and temporal resolution. The core innovation lies in microfabricated heating elements integrated into thin silicon nitride membranes, which provide extremely rapid thermal response with minimal thermal mass [21]. This design allows researchers to observe transient phenomena that were previously inaccessible with conventional furnace-style holders.

A compelling demonstration of MEMS heating capabilities comes from a study of Cu nanoparticle sintering, where researchers heated nanoparticles from room temperature to 250°C under a controlled heating rate of 0.27°C/s [21]. The experiment revealed the progressive stages of sintering, beginning with initial particle contact, followed by neck formation, and culminating in microstructural coarsening—all while maintaining sufficient stability to track identical particles throughout the process. The researchers achieved this by exploiting the MEMS holder's rapid heating and cooling function, intermittently heating the specimen and acquiring tilt-series datasets only when heating was paused, thus mitigating the effects of thermal drift during data acquisition [21].

Table 3: Experimental Parameters for MEMS vs. Traditional Heating Studies

Experimental Parameter	MEMS-Based Approach	Traditional Holder Approach
Heating Element	Thin-film microfabricated on SiNx membrane	Bulk furnace surrounding entire sample
Heating Rate Control	Programmable, ultra-fast (ms-scale) [21]	Slow, limited by thermal mass
Temperature Calibration	On-chip sensor with four-point probe sensing [5]	External sensor, less accurate
Maximum Useful Magnification	Atomic resolution possible [22]	Often limited to lower magnifications
Special Capabilities	Nano-calorimetry, rapid thermal quenching [5]	Uniform heating of large areas

The experimental workflow for MEMS-based heating studies typically involves several critical steps, beginning with the preparation of samples directly on MEMS chips, followed by careful alignment in the TEM holder. The holder's integrated electronics enable precise temperature programming, often incorporating complex protocols with rapid thermal jumps and extended isothermal holds. Advanced systems feature closed-loop temperature control with four-point probe measurements from an on-chip sensor, providing accuracy sufficient for nano-calorimetry applications [5]. This level of thermal control has proven particularly valuable for studying temperature-sensitive materials such as battery components and catalytic nanoparticles, where understanding thermal degradation mechanisms is crucial for performance optimization.

MEMS Holders for Liquid and Gas Environmental Research

Beyond heating applications, MEMS technology has dramatically advanced TEM capabilities for studying materials in liquid and gas environments. Liquid cell TEM holders utilizing MEMS chips with precisely fabricated microfluidic channels and thin silicon nitride viewing windows enable direct observation of electrochemical processes, nanoparticle growth, and biological phenomena in their native hydrated states [14]. Similarly, gas cell holders employ analogous MEMS designs to introduce controlled gaseous environments, allowing real-time observation of catalytic reactions, oxidation processes, and nanoparticle synthesis under industrially relevant conditions [20] [5].

The experimental setup for liquid phase TEM typically involves a specialized holder such as the Protochips Poseidon system, which incorporates microfluidic channels for introducing and exchanging liquids during imaging [14]. These systems often include integrated electrodes for applying electrochemical potentials, enabling studies of battery charging/discharging processes and electrocatalytic reactions. For example, researchers have used such systems to observe lithium stripping and plating in nanoscale batteries, revealing sources of inefficiency that inform the development of safer, more efficient energy storage devices [14]. The key challenge in these experiments lies in managing electron beam effects, which can generate radiolysis products that interfere with natural processes, necessitating careful control of electron dose rates [24].

Gas phase TEM employing MEMS-based holders has provided transformative insights into catalytic mechanisms. These systems can maintain pressures up to 2 bar while heating samples beyond 1000°C, enabling atomic-resolution imaging under realistic reaction conditions [5]. A notable application comes from research on high-entropy alloy (HEA) nanocatalysts, where scientists used a gas flow holder to study the oxidation and reduction behavior of FeCoNiCuPt HEA nanoparticles in air and hydrogen gas at 400°C [5]. The in situ observations revealed dynamic restructuring phenomena, including the growth of an oxide layer upon heating in air and its transformation into porous structures with outward diffusion of transition metals when switching to hydrogen gas—processes central to the catalyst's activation and deactivation.

Diagram 1: MEMS Gas Cell Experimental Workflow. This diagram illustrates how MEMS technology integrates controlled gas environments and heating capabilities to enable real-time observation of catalytic processes.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: High-Temperature Catalysis in Gas Environment

The investigation of catalyst behavior under realistic conditions requires precise control of gaseous environment and temperature. The following protocol, adapted from studies of high-entropy alloy nanocatalysts, outlines a standardized approach for gas-solid reaction studies [5]:

• Sample Preparation: Disperse catalyst nanoparticles (e.g., FeCoNiCuPt HEA) onto a MEMS chip with an integrated heater and temperature sensor. The chip typically consists of a thin silicon nitride membrane (thickness: 10-50 nm) to minimize electron scattering while maintaining pressure differential.

• Holder Assembly and Leak Testing: Assemble the MEMS chip into the gas holder following manufacturer specifications. Perform a high-vacuum leak check using a dedicated station (base pressure: <1e-6 mbar) to ensure integrity before inserting into the TEM.

• System Purge and Gas Introduction: After inserting the holder into the TEM, purge the gas delivery system with an inert gas (e.g., Ar) to remove contaminants. Introduce the desired reaction gas (e.g., H₂, O₂, or mixtures) at controlled pressure (typically 1-1000 mbar) using the holder's pressure control system.

• Temperature Calibration and Ramping: Activate the MEMS heater using a closed-loop control system with four-point probe temperature sensing. Ramp temperature at a controlled rate (e.g., 0.27°C/s) to the target reaction temperature (e.g., 400°C for HEA reduction studies).

• In Situ Data Acquisition: Acquire time-resolved images, diffraction patterns, and spectroscopy data (EDS/EELS) during thermal treatment. For tomography studies, acquire tilt-series datasets during isothermal holds or after rapid cooling to minimize beam-induced effects.

• Gas Switching Experiments: For multi-step reactions, implement gas switching protocols (e.g., from oxidizing to reducing atmospheres) while maintaining temperature to observe dynamic restructuring.

This protocol has enabled direct observation of phenomena such as the Kirkendall effect in cobalt nanoparticles during oxidation, where hollow core oxide shells form when nanoparticles are heated from 150°C to 250°C in 1 bar of flowing oxygen [5].

Protocol 2: Electrochemical Processes in Liquid Environment

Studying electrochemical processes such as battery cycling and electrocatalysis requires specialized liquid cell setups with integrated electrodes. The following protocol outlines a standardized approach for electrochemical liquid cell TEM [14] [24]:

• Electrode Fabrication: Pattern working, counter, and reference electrodes onto the MEMS chip using photolithography and metal deposition (typically Pt or Au). The chip design includes a liquid flow channel and thin silicon nitride viewing windows.

• Electrolyte Preparation: Prepare electrolyte solution appropriate for the system under study (e.g., LiPF₆ in carbonate solvents for battery studies). Remove oxygen via bubbling with inert gas to minimize side reactions.

• Cell Assembly and Sealing: Precisely align the two halves of the liquid cell MEMS chip with a spacer defining the liquid thickness (typically 100-1000 nm). Assemble into the holder with electrical connections to all electrodes.

• Electrochemical Setup: Connect the holder to a potentiostat for precise control of electrode potentials. An external reference electrode (e.g., Ag/AgCl) enables quantitative comparisons with standard electrochemical measurements.

• In Situ Experimentation: Introduce electrolyte into the cell under controlled flow conditions. Apply potential sequences (e.g., cyclic voltammetry, chronoamperometry) while acquiring TEM images and spectra. Carefully manage electron dose to minimize radiolysis effects.

• Data Correlation: Correlate structural changes observed in TEM with electrochemical data (current, potential) to establish structure-property relationships.

This approach has revealed fundamental processes in battery materials, including lithium dendrite growth during plating and the structural evolution of electrocatalysts during oxygen reduction reactions [14].

Table 4: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for In Situ TEM Experiments

Reagent/Material	Specifications	Primary Function
MEMS Heating Chips	SiNx membranes (10-50 nm), integrated Pt heater/temperature sensor	Sample support with localized heating capability
MEMS Liquid Cells	Patterned electrodes (Pt/Au), microfluidic channels, SiN windows	Electrochemical experiments in liquid environment
MEMS Gas Cells	Robust SiN windows, gas flow channels, integrated heaters	High-pressure gas environment studies
Reference Electrodes	Ag/AgCl or other external reference electrodes	Quantitative electrochemical potential control
High-Purity Gases	Research grade (e.g., H₂, O₂, balanced mixtures)	Creating controlled reaction environments
Electrolyte Solutions	Oxygen-free, precisely concentrated (e.g., LiPF₆ in carbonates)	Electrochemical reaction medium

MEMS technology has fundamentally transformed TEM holder design, enabling unprecedented capabilities for studying materials under realistic dynamic conditions. The quantitative comparisons presented in this review demonstrate clear advantages of MEMS-based systems over traditional holders across multiple performance metrics, including thermal stability, temporal resolution, and experimental versatility. These technological advances have opened new frontiers in materials characterization, particularly for energy-related research including catalysis, battery technology, and nanoparticle synthesis.

Despite these remarkable advances, challenges remain in fully replicating industrial conditions, managing electron beam effects, and handling the extensive data generated during in situ experiments [20]. Future developments will likely focus on integrating complementary characterization techniques such as X-ray absorption spectroscopy with in situ TEM, developing more sophisticated MEMS chips with multiple integrated functions, and implementing machine learning approaches for automated experiment control and data analysis [20] [5]. As MEMS technology continues to evolve, it will further solidify in situ TEM as an indispensable tool for understanding and designing advanced functional materials across numerous scientific and technological domains.

Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) is a cornerstone of modern materials science, life sciences, and drug development research, enabling atomic-scale imaging and analysis. The sample holder, a critical interface between the specimen and the microscope, has evolved significantly from a simple support structure to a sophisticated experimental platform. This guide provides an objective comparison between two primary holder technologies: traditional TEM holders and Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS)-based holders. The focus is on their performance in in situ experiments involving heating, liquid, and gas environments, which are essential for observing dynamic processes and understanding material behavior under realistic conditions. This comparison is vital for researchers and drug development professionals selecting the optimal tool for their specific experimental needs, particularly within the context of a broader thesis on in situ TEM methodologies.

Feature and Performance Comparison

The following table summarizes the key characteristics of traditional and MEMS-based TEM holders, highlighting fundamental differences in their design, capabilities, and typical use cases.

Table 1: Fundamental Characteristics of Traditional vs. MEMS-Based TEM Holders

Feature	Traditional TEM Holders	MEMS-Based TEM Holders
Basic Principle	Passive mechanical support; macro-scale components. [25]	Active, integrated microchips with sensors and actuators for environmental control. [25] [26]
Typical Applications	Static high-resolution imaging, room temperature studies. [27] [25]	Dynamic in situ experiments: heating, biasing, liquid/gas phase reactions, cryo-studies. [28] [25] [20]
Environmental Control	Limited; requires specialized bulky holders for heating/cooling, with slower thermal response. [27]	Precise and rapid control via integrated microheaters; dedicated designs for liquid and gas environments. [28] [29]
Experimental Throughput	Lower; often requires holder exchange between different types of experiments.	Higher; multifunctional chips enable switching between stimuli (e.g., heating + biasing) without breaking vacuum. [25]
Spatial Resolution	Excellent for static, high-vacuum conditions.	Can be compromised in liquid/gas cells due to increased sample volume; however, advanced designs enable near-atomic resolution. [30] [20]
Ease of Use	Generally simple sample loading and operation.	More complex sample preparation and operation, requiring careful handling of fragile MEMS chips. [31]

Quantitative data further elucidates the performance and market adoption of these technologies. The MEMS-based TEM holder market is experiencing robust growth, projected to reach $430 million in 2025 with a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 9.0% through 2033, reflecting its increasing importance in advanced research. [28] [26] This growth is driven by the superior capabilities of MEMS holders in dynamic studies.

Table 2: Quantitative Performance and Market Data

Parameter	Traditional TEM Holders	MEMS-Based TEM Holders
Heating Rate	Slower, due to larger thermal mass.	Rapid; capable of high-speed temperature cycling up to 1000°C. [29]
Thermal Stability	Prone to drift at high temperatures.	High stability with closed-loop, on-chip temperature sensing. [29]
Liquid Cell Thickness	N/A (not typically used for liquids)	Typically >100 μm, but advanced designs using 2D materials are reducing this. [30]
Cryogenic Temperature Control	Achieved with liquid nitrogen (77 K); can introduce vibrations. [27]	Uses liquid helium (4 K) for ultra-cold studies; advanced designs mitigate vibration issues for sub-atomic resolution. [27]
Market Leaders	General microscope manufacturers.	DENSsolutions, Protochips, Hummingbird Scientific, Thermo Fisher Scientific. [28] [26]
Dominant End-Users	Broad academic and industrial use for standard imaging.	Concentrated in high-end research institutions and the semiconductor industry. [28]

Experimental Protocols and Workflows

Protocol for In Situ Heating Experiment

Objective: To observe the phase transformation of a catalyst nanoparticle at 500°C.

• Sample Preparation (MEMS):

  • Dropcasting: A sample solution is deposited onto the electron-transparent silicon nitride (Si₃N₄) window of the bottom MEMS chip. Tools like the MEMS Dropcasting Tool (MDT) can confine the droplet to the specific area, preventing contamination and leaks. [31]
  • Assembly: The top MEMS chip is carefully aligned and sealed against the bottom chip using an O-ring to create a closed nanoreactor.

• Sample Preparation (Traditional):

  • The sample is dropcasted onto a standard TEM grid.
  • The grid is loaded into a dedicated heating holder.

• Experimental Procedure:

  • The holder is inserted into the TEM.
  • For MEMS: The temperature is ramped precisely and rapidly to 500°C using the integrated microheater. Real-time imaging captures the dynamic transformation. [25] [20]
  • For Traditional Holder: The bulk heater raises the temperature more slowly. The experiment is more susceptible to thermal drift, requiring frequent adjustments to maintain the region of interest in view.

• Data Collection: A time-resolved image series is acquired to document the morphological and structural changes in the nanoparticles.

Protocol for Correlative Liquid TEM and Atom Probe Tomography

This novel workflow, enabled by MEMS technology, combines dynamic imaging with near-atomic-scale chemical analysis. [30]

Objective: To correlate dynamic nanoscale imaging of an electrochemical process (e.g., dendrite formation in a battery) with 3D chemical mapping of the resulting liquid-solid interface.

Diagram 1: Correlative LCTEM and Cryo-APT Workflow.

• Experimental Procedure:
  • See (LCTEM): An electrochemical process is initiated within a liquid cell MEMS holder (e.g., Stream system by DENSsolutions). The dynamics, such as dendrite growth, are observed in real-time using STEM. [30]
  • Freeze (Cryo-Fixation): At the point of interest, the MEMS chip containing the reactive liquid-solid interface is rapidly frozen (vitrified) to preserve its state. [30]
  • Transfer: Using a cryo-transfer suitcase, the frozen chip is transferred to a cryo-Plasma Focused Ion Beam (PFIB) instrument without warming or exposure to air. [30]
  • Prepare (Cryo-FIB): At cryogenic temperatures, a site-specific needle-shaped sample containing the frozen interface is prepared from the MEMS chip using the PFIB. [30]
  • Resolve (Cryo-APT): The needle sample is transferred to an atom probe tomograph for 3D, near-atomic-resolution compositional mapping of the interface. [30]

This "see, freeze, and resolve" workflow is a powerful example of how MEMS-based holders are enabling previously impossible correlative studies, especially for air-sensitive and reactive interfaces. [30] This protocol is not feasible with traditional holders.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details essential materials and reagents commonly used in experiments with MEMS-based TEM holders.

Table 3: Essential Materials for MEMS-Based In Situ TEM Experiments

Item	Function	Example Use Case
MEMS Nanochips	The core platform that holds the sample and integrates functional elements like heaters, electrodes, and liquid cells.	A bottom chip with a Pt working electrode on a SiNₓ membrane is used for in situ electrochemistry. [30]
Electron-Transparent Windows (SiNₓ)	Thin membranes (typically 20-50 nm) that allow the electron beam to pass through while sealing the sample environment.	Imaging samples within a closed liquid or gas cell. [30] [31]
O-Rings	Create a vacuum-tight seal between the top and bottom MEMS chips, forming a closed nanoreactor.	Essential for all closed-cell gas and liquid phase experiments to prevent leakage into the TEM column. [31]
Electrolytes / Reagents	The liquid or gaseous media introduced to the sample environment to simulate real-world conditions.	LiPF₆ in EC/DEC electrolyte for battery research; [30] specific gas mixtures for catalytic studies. [20]
MEMS Dropcasting Tool (MDT)	A 3D-printed guide that confines the sample droplet to the viewing window area during preparation.	Prevents contamination of inlet/outlet ports and O-ring areas, reducing failed experiments. [31]

The choice between traditional and MEMS-based TEM holders is not a matter of one being universally superior, but rather of selecting the right tool for the scientific question at hand.

• Traditional holders remain the gold standard for static, high-resolution imaging where cost-effectiveness and operational simplicity are priorities.
• MEMS-based holders are transformative for dynamic in situ studies, offering unparalleled control over the sample environment. They enable researchers to directly observe materials responding to stimuli like heat, electrical bias, or liquid and gas environments with high spatial and temporal resolution.

The emergence of sophisticated workflows, such as the correlation of LCTEM with cryo-APT, underscores the pivotal role of MEMS technology in pushing the boundaries of nanoscale and atomic-scale science. [30] For researchers and drug development professionals focused on understanding dynamic processes, the investment in MEMS-based systems provides a critical window into real-time material behavior, accelerating discovery and innovation in fields ranging from battery development to catalytic design.

This guide provides an objective comparison of key specifications for in-situ Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) holders, focusing on performance in heating, liquid, and gas research environments.

Comparative Specifications of In-Situ TEM Holders

The table below summarizes the core technical specifications for a selection of commercially available and research-grade in-situ TEM holders.

Holder / System	Primary Function	Temperature Range	Tilt Capabilities	Electrical Feedthroughs	Key Environmental Capabilities
Hummingbird Scientific Gas Flow [5]	Gas-phase, Heating	>1000°C	Single Tilt	4 biasing contacts	Gas pressure: 1 to 2 bar; EELS/EDS compatible; All-metal tubing system
Research Double-Tilt Holder [32]	Electromechanical Testing	Not Specified	Double Tilt, ±15°	9 independent connections	High insulation (36 GΩ); MEMS-based mechanical testing
Custom In-Situ Biasing Holder [33]	Electrical Characterization	Not Specified	Not Specified (Atomic resolution capable)	4+1 electrical terminals	Designed for on-chip samples; affordable and adaptable design
DENSsolutions Climate Infinity [15]	Gas & Liquid, Heating & Biasing	RT to 1000°C	Flippable tip (for STEM/TEM switch)	8 electrical contacts	All-in-one for gas & liquid; Pressure up to 2 bar; Compatible with EDS/EELS
Protochips Triton AX [34]	Liquid-phase Electrochemistry	-50°C to +300°C	Not Specified	Integrated for electrochemistry	Peltier cooling and FrameHeating; Liquid flow control and gas bubble mitigation
Gatan 652 [10]	Furnace Heating	Up to 1000°C	Double Tilt (±20° α, ±10° β)	None (standard model)	Whole-sample heating; compatible with conventional 3mm grids

Experimental Protocols for Key In-Situ Studies

Detailed methodologies are crucial for replicating in-situ TEM experiments and understanding the capabilities of the holders.

In-Situ TEM Study of Nanoparticle Sintering

This protocol outlines the procedure for observing the sintering process of copper nanoparticles using a MEMS-based heating holder [21].

• Sample Preparation: Copper nanoparticles are dispersed and supported on an electron-transparent membrane. To prevent oxidation, the nanoparticles are coated with a ~10 nm thick biopolymer film (e.g., gelatin).
• Holder Setup: A MEMS-based heating holder (e.g., models from Protochips or DENSsolutions) is loaded with the prepared sample chip.
• In-Situ Experiment:
  • The holder is inserted into the TEM, and a region of interest is located.
  • The temperature is ramped from room temperature to the target temperature (e.g., 250°C) at a controlled rate (e.g., 0.27°C per second).
  • Real-time imaging (or video recording) commences to track morphological changes.
  • The process is observed isothermally for an extended period (e.g., over 600 seconds) to monitor sintering progression.
• Data Acquisition & Analysis:
  • High-resolution TEM images are captured at different time intervals to track neck formation and coalescence between particles.
  • Electron Energy-Loss Spectroscopy (EELS) can be performed at particle interfaces to check for oxidation by analyzing the fine structure of the Cu L-edge [21].

In-Situ Three-Terminal Electrical Transport Measurement

This protocol describes the fabrication and measurement of a graphene nanoribbon (GNR) field-effect transistor (FET) inside the TEM, using a holder with multiple electrical feedthroughs [35].

• Sample Preparation: A continuous freestanding graphene sheet is suspended over a SiNx membrane with pre-fabricated metal electrodes.
• Holder Setup: A TEM-compatible chip is mounted in a holder with multiple electrical feedthroughs (e.g., a Hummingbird Scientific biasing holder).
• In-Situ Device Fabrication:
  • The focused electron beam in STEM mode is used to "sculpt" the graphene.
  • A reference High-Angle Annular Dark-Field (HAADF) STEM image is acquired with a low electron dose (~10³ C/m²).
  • The beam is scanned along a pre-designed path with a high electron dose (~10⁸ C/m²) to cut a GNR channel and a proximal graphene side gate, with a separation of 50-150 nm.
  • The sample may be annealed via Joule heating (current densities up to 10¹² A/m²) to clean and repair the graphene lattice [35].
• In-Situ Electrical Measurement:
  • A fixed source-drain voltage (Vb) is applied across the GNR.
  • The gate potential (Vg) is swept while measuring the current (I) through the GNR.
  • This modulates the conductance of the GNR, demonstrating FET operation.
• Data Correlation: The transport measurements are directly correlated with the atomic-scale structure of the fabricated device imaged simultaneously.

Workflow for In-Situ Heating and Electron Tomography

The diagram below illustrates the procedure for conducting a 4D (space and time) in-situ heating experiment combined with electron tomography, which overcomes the challenge of long data acquisition times [21].

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

The table below lists key materials and components frequently used in advanced in-situ TEM experiments.

Item / Solution	Function in Experiment
MEMS Nano-Chip / Nano-Reactor [15] [21]	Functional sample carrier that enables a controlled and clean reactive environment (gas or liquid) and often integrates micro-heaters, sensors, and biasing contacts.
MEMS Microheater [32] [21]	Provides rapid, localised heating and cooling of the specimen, enabling high-temporal-resolution studies of temperature-induced phenomena.
Gas Supply System [5] [15]	Delivers precise pressure and flow control of gases to the sample area, allowing the replication of realistic reaction atmospheres.
On-Chip Sample Devices [32] [33]	Samples pre-fabricated on silicon chips using lithography, allowing for complex electrical contact geometries and integrated MEMS sensors/actuators.
Electron-Transparent Windows (SiNx) [35]	Thin membranes that seal liquid or gas cells while allowing the electron beam to pass through for imaging and analysis.

Selecting and Applying the Right Holder: From Thermal Catalysis to Electrochemistry

In-situ Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) heating holders are specialized instruments that enable researchers to observe dynamic material processes in real-time by subjecting samples to controlled thermal stimuli while under the electron beam. This capability has revolutionized materials science by allowing direct observation of fundamental processes such as sintering dynamics, phase transformations, and catalyst degradation that were previously only inferred from pre- and post-experiment characterization. The integration of Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS) technology has been particularly transformative, enabling rapid heating and cooling with exceptional thermal stability that maintains atomic resolution even at extreme temperatures. These advancements allow scientists to capture dynamic events at previously inaccessible temporal and spatial scales, providing unprecedented insights into material behavior under conditions that mimic real-world operational environments.

The evolution from conventional furnace-style heaters to sophisticated MEMS-based systems represents a paradigm shift in experimental capabilities. Modern heating holders achieve temperature ranges from room temperature to beyond 1300°C with millisecond-scale response times while minimizing sample drift that traditionally compromised high-resolution imaging. This technical progression has unlocked new research possibilities across diverse fields including catalysis research, energy materials development, and nanoparticle synthesis, making in-situ heating experimentation an indispensable tool for understanding material dynamics at the fundamental level.

Performance Comparison of Heating Holder Technologies

Comprehensive Specification Comparison

Table 1: Technical specifications of major commercial heating holders

Product/Model	Max Temperature	Heating Technology	Key Features	Tilt Capability	Specialized Applications
DENSsolutions Wildfire	1300°C	MEMS-based Nano-Chip	Sub-Ångström resolution at 1000°C; EDS compatible up to 1000°C	α tilt up to ±70° (H+ 3D); α & β tilt up to ±25° (H+ DT)	High-temperature EDS analysis; Real-time dynamics studies
Hummingbird Scientific Furnace Heating	1000°C (TEM); 800°C (ETEM)	Furnace-style	Non-magnetic furnace material; Direct thermocouple measurement	Up to ±45° depending on objective pole	ETEM applications; Phase transformation studies
Gatan 652	1000°C	Furnace-style	Double tilt heating (new model); Single tilt (older model)	±20° in a and ±10° in b (double tilt)	Conventional TEM samples on 3mm grids
Protochips Aduro	Not specified in results	MEMS-based	Electrostatic hold-down; Rapid thermal response	Single tilt and double tilt options	Thermal, biasing, and liquid cell experiments

Performance Metrics and Limitations

Table 2: Performance characteristics and experimental limitations

Performance Metric	MEMS-Based Holders	Traditional Furnace Holders
Heating/Cooling Rate	Very fast (milliseconds to seconds) [36] [21]	Slow (minutes to stabilize) [10]
Sample Drift at High T	Minimal (2-50 nm) [21]	Significantly larger [10]
Temperature Control	Precise, hysteresis-free [36]	Limited precision with hysteresis [10]
Maximum Useful Tilt	High (up to ±70° alpha) [36]	Limited (±20° a, ±10° b) [10]
EDS Compatibility	Excellent (up to 1000°C) [36] [37]	Compromised signal [10]
Sample Compatibility	Requires specialized chips [38] [21]	Conventional 3mm TEM grids [10]

The comparative analysis reveals a clear technological division between traditional furnace-style holders and modern MEMS-based systems. Furnace-style holders such as the Gatan 652 provide versatility for conventional TEM samples but suffer from significant limitations including higher sample drift, compromised analytical signals, and restricted tilt capabilities at elevated temperatures. In contrast, MEMS-based systems like the Wildfire and Aduro platforms offer superior stability and analytical performance but require specialized sample preparation using proprietary chips. This tradeoff between experimental flexibility and technical performance represents a critical consideration for researchers selecting appropriate instrumentation for specific applications.

Experimental Protocols for Key Applications

Sintering Dynamics of Nanoparticles

Background: Sintering, the process where nanoparticles coalesce and grow, is a critical degradation mechanism in catalysts and nanomaterials. Understanding sintering dynamics at the atomic level is essential for developing more stable materials.

Protocol for Pt Nanoparticle Sintering on Carbon Support [38]:

• Sample Preparation: Sputter-deposit 0.2 nm of Pt onto 5 nm thick carbon window supports on MEMS chips (DENS SH30 Wildfire S3). Pre-heat samples in high vacuum at 600°C to generate particles with radii of 0.5-1.5 nm.
• Experimental Conditions: Set ESTEM to 200 kV in flowing hydrogen gas (3 Pa pressure). Use high-purity hydrogen (99.9995%) with a pressure of 2-3 Pa to ensure sufficient gas coverage.
• Imaging Parameters: Employ limited dose electron beam with careful calibration and beam blanking to minimize electron beam effects. Use estimated integrated dose rate exposure averaged over the experiment up to a few electrons per square angstrom per second.
• Data Acquisition: Acquire HAADF-STEM images at 1024 × 1024 or 2048 × 2048 pixels with a pixel dwell time of 19.5 µs. Track the areal density of dynamic single atoms on the support between nanoparticles.
• Validation: Perform control experiments under identical reaction conditions without the beam (blank calibration experiments by blanking the electron beam), switching on the beam only to record the final reaction end-point.

Key Findings: This protocol enabled tracking single-atom dynamics between nanoparticles, revealing that decay of smaller nanoparticles is initiated by a local lack of single atoms, while increased single-atom density suggests anchoring sites on the substrate before aggregation to larger particles [38].

Phase Transition Studies

Protocol for Cu-Co-Mn Ferrite Phase Analysis [39]:

• Sample Synthesis: Synthesize Cu0.5Co0.5MnFeO4 ferrite using sol-gel process. sinter at different temperatures (400°C, 500°C, 600°C, 800°C, 1000°C) to study temperature effects.
• Structural Characterization: Perform powder X-ray diffraction (XRD) examination with Rietveld refinement to determine crystal structure and purity. All peaks should be indexed in cubic structure with Fd3̅m space group.
• Magnetic Characterization: Measure saturation magnetization, coercivity (Hc), and Curie temperature (Tc) as function of sintering temperature using vibrating sample magnetometry.
• In-Situ TEM Analysis: Heat samples from room temperature to target temperatures (e.g., 250°C, 500°C, 800°C) at controlled rates (e.g., 0.27°C s⁻¹) while acquiring TEM images and electron diffraction patterns.
• Correlative Analysis: Correlate structural changes observed in TEM with magnetic properties and catalytic performance measurements.

Key Findings: The sample sintered at 400°C (CFM400) exhibited the highest catalytic activity for nitrophenol reduction and photodegradation of dyes, attributed to its larger BET surface area and lower PL intensity, despite higher sintering temperatures increasing saturation magnetization [39].

Catalyst Degradation Under Operational Conditions

Protocol for High-Entropy Alloy Nanocatalyst Degradation [5]:

• Sample Preparation: Synthesize FeCoNiCuPt high-entropy alloy (HEA) nanoparticles supported on appropriate substrates.
• Gas System Setup: Utilize gas flow holder (Hummingbird Scientific) with single or multi-channel delivery system. Ensure proper baking of holder at up to 160°C to maintain clean gas delivery.
• In-Situ Experiment: Heat samples to target temperature (400°C) in controlled atmosphere. Begin with oxidation in air environment, then switch to reduction in hydrogen gas.
• Real-Time Imaging: Acquire time-resolved TEM images to track morphological changes, oxide layer growth, and elemental redistribution.
• Analytical Correlation: Perform EDS analysis during heating to monitor compositional changes and element-specific diffusion behavior.

Key Findings: When heated in air at 400°C, HEA nanoparticles showed growth of an oxide layer. Upon introduction of hydrogen gas, further expansion of the oxide layer occurred, transforming into porous structures with outward diffusion of all transition metals (Fe, Co, Ni and Cu) while Pt remained intact in the core [5].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Key reagents and materials for in-situ TEM heating experiments

Research Reagent/Material	Function/Application	Specific Examples from Literature
MEMS Heating Chips	Sample support and heating element	DENSsolutions Wildfire Nano-Chip [36] [38]; Graphene-based MEMS heaters [21]
High-Purity Gases	Creating reactive environments	Hydrogen (99.9995%) for sintering studies [38]; Air and hydrogen for redox cycling [5]
Catalyst Precursors	Nanoparticle synthesis	H₂PtCl₆ for Pt/C catalysts [38]; Metal salts for ferrite synthesis [39]
Support Materials	Substrates for nanomaterials	Carbon window supports (5 nm thick) [38]; SiN membranes [37]
Protective Coatings	Preventing oxidation during heating	Gelatin biopolymer film (~10 nm) for Cu nanoparticles [21]

The selection of appropriate reagents and materials is critical for successful in-situ TEM heating experiments. MEMS heating chips form the foundation of modern experiments, with various designs offering different advantages. The DENSsolutions Wildfire Nano-Chip employs a 4-point-probe method for local temperature measurement with fast feedback for immediate stabilization [36], while alternative graphene-based MEMS heaters demonstrate extremely low power consumption (0.025 mW/1000 μm²) and minimal thermal bulging [21]. High-purity gases are essential for creating controlled reactive environments, with pressures typically ranging from a few Pa to above atmospheric pressure depending on the experimental design [38] [5]. Support materials must provide appropriate thermal and electrical conductivity while maintaining electron transparency, with carbon films and SiN membranes being the most common choices. Protective coatings such as gelatin biopolymer films can prevent nanoparticle oxidation during heating experiments while still allowing observation of sintering dynamics [21].

Workflow Visualization for In-Situ Heating Experiments

The experimental workflow for in-situ TEM heating studies follows a systematic progression from sample preparation through data analysis, with particular emphasis on the critical decision points that determine experimental success.

In-Situ TEM Heating Experiment Workflow

The workflow begins with sample preparation, which varies significantly depending on the chosen approach. For MEMS-based systems, this involves loading samples onto specialized chips with integrated heating elements and temperature sensors, while furnace-style holders accommodate conventional TEM grids. The holder selection represents a critical decision point, balancing resolution and analytical requirements against experimental flexibility and cost considerations. Following experimental setup and temperature calibration, data acquisition encompasses multiple parallel streams including real-time imaging, EDS analysis, and electron diffraction, which are subsequently correlated during process analysis to extract quantitative insights into dynamic material behavior.

In-situ TEM heating holders have evolved from specialized accessories to essential instruments for dynamic materials characterization, enabling unprecedented insights into sintering dynamics, phase transitions, and catalyst degradation processes. The comparative analysis presented in this guide demonstrates a clear technological trajectory from traditional furnace-style heaters toward sophisticated MEMS-based systems, with each platform offering distinct advantages for specific research applications. MEMS-based holders provide superior stability and analytical capabilities at extreme temperatures, while furnace-style systems maintain relevance for conventional sample geometries and less demanding applications.

The experimental protocols detailed for nanoparticle sintering, phase transitions, and catalyst degradation provide actionable methodologies that researchers can adapt for their specific material systems. As the field continues to advance, the integration of heating with complementary techniques including EDS spectroscopy, electron tomography, and gas environmental control will further expand the experimental parameter space, enabling increasingly complex studies under conditions that closely mimic real-world applications. These technological developments promise to accelerate materials discovery and optimization across diverse fields including catalysis, energy storage, and electronic devices through direct observation of material dynamics at the atomic scale.

In situ Liquid Cell Transmission Electron Microscopy (LC-TEM) represents a transformative advancement in microscopy, enabling researchers to observe dynamic processes in liquid environments at the nanoscale. Unlike conventional TEM, which requires samples to be placed under high vacuum, liquid cell holders encapsulate a tiny liquid volume between ultra-thin membranes that are transparent to the electron beam. This technological breakthrough allows for real-time observation of materials and biological specimens in their native hydrated states, providing unprecedented insights into electrochemical processes, biological interactions, and nanomaterial synthesis [40]. The development of specialized liquid cell systems has opened new frontiers across numerous scientific disciplines, from energy storage research to drug delivery development.

The core principle of liquid cell technology involves encapsulating samples between two silicon-based membranes, typically made of amorphous silicon nitride (SiN), which are only hundreds of nanometers thick. These membranes create a sealed chamber that prevents solvent evaporation while allowing the electron beam to pass through with minimal scattering. More advanced graphene liquid cells have also emerged, offering better resolution due to reduced electron beam scattering, though they currently lack the functionality for electric biasing and liquid flow circulation that silicon-based systems provide [40]. Leading commercial systems like the Poseidon AX (Protochips) and Hummingbird Scientific's platforms have integrated precise environmental controls, allowing researchers to manipulate liquid composition, flow rates, and temperature while maintaining imaging capabilities at near-atomic resolution.

Comparative Analysis of Leading Liquid Cell Holder Systems

Technical Specifications and Performance Metrics

The market for in situ liquid cell TEM holders is primarily served by several specialized companies, with Protochips and Hummingbird Scientific being the most prominent manufacturers. The Poseidon AX system from Protochips is specifically designed for in situ liquid phase TEM applications, offering full control over liquid composition, flow, and temperature up to 100°C [41]. This system enables researchers to visualize processes like nucleation and growth, degradation, crystallization, and characterize size, shape, and structure of materials in liquid environments. Its applications span biological and soft materials, drug delivery, catalysts, pigments, and cosmetics [41]. A key advantage of the Poseidon AX is its integrated machine vision software (AXON), which manages data collection tasks in the background, providing live physical drift correction, constant parameter recording, real-time electron dose calculations, and continuous recording for instant look-backs [41].

Hummingbird Scientific offers a complementary approach with its SEM liquid-cell system that enables real-time imaging of solid-liquid interfaces in scanning electron microscopes. This system features a unique removable tip design that allows for cross-correlative experiments across both electron microscope platforms, including light microscopes, X-ray microscopes, SEM, and TEM [42]. The two-chip liquid cell enables users to quickly prepare and exchange samples while maintaining a reliable seal. Hummingbird's system is particularly suited for imaging biological specimens in liquid environments, liquid-electrochemistry experiments, in-situ hydration studies, electrocatalysis, and electrolysis applications [42].

Table 1: Comparative Technical Specifications of Leading Liquid Cell TEM Holders

Feature	Protochips Poseidon AX	Hummingbird Scientific SEM Liquid System
Primary Function	In situ liquid phase TEM with mixing	Real-time imaging of solid-liquid interfaces in SEM
Temperature Range	Up to 100°C	Not specified in available data
Flow Control	Precise flow and bubble management	Continuous or static liquid flow
Inlet Ports	2 inlet ports for optimal mixing	1 or 2 depending on model
Biasing Contacts	Available for electrochemical experiments	4 biasing contacts
Key Software	AXON machine vision platform	Custom control software
Cross-correlative	Limited information	Excellent (same tip for LM, X-ray, SEM, TEM)
Special Features	Live physical drift mitigation, dose analysis	Removable tip design, quick sample exchange
Typical Applications	Biological materials, biominearalization, nanoparticle synthesis, batteries, corrosion	Biological specimens, liquid-electrochemistry, hydration studies

Application-Specific Performance Comparison

Both systems excel in different application domains, though with some overlap. The Poseidon AX system has demonstrated exceptional capabilities in biological materials research, enabling observation of viruses, polymers, lipids, and other life-science samples at the nanoscale [41]. In one documented case, researchers observed the mobility of rotavirus particles using specialized microwell E-chips [41]. The system's dual inlet ports facilitate studies in biomineralization, where the formation of calcite through protein-mediated growth was visualized by mixing precursors directly in the TEM [41]. For nanoparticle synthesis, the temperature control capabilities (up to 100°C) have enabled observation of gold nanoparticle growth under different temperatures, resulting in various nanoparticle shapes and sizes with high control [41].

The Poseidon AX also shines in electrochemical applications, with a three-electrode setup that enables applying electrochemical bias to systems. Researchers have used this capability to observe CuSO4 solution forming dendrites using cyclic voltammetry, and to investigate plating and stripping behavior in batteries at the nanoscale [41]. The system's ability to study corrosion mechanisms in both nanoparticles and FIB lamella further demonstrates its versatility for materials science research [41].

Hummingbird Scientific's SEM liquid holder offers distinct advantages for correlative microscopy studies, where the same sample can be investigated across multiple imaging platforms using the same removable tip. This capability is particularly valuable for biological research requiring multi-scale analysis, as demonstrated by researchers who successfully correlated fluorescence and SEM images of autofluorescent Anthrospira in phosphate-buffered saline [42]. The system's design also facilitates electrochemical experiments in SEM environments, expanding the application range beyond traditional TEM capabilities.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Standardized Workflow for Liquid Cell TEM Experiments

Successful liquid cell TEM experiments require meticulous preparation and execution across multiple stages. The following diagram illustrates the core workflow for a typical in situ liquid cell TEM experiment using systems like the Poseidon AX:

Diagram 1: Liquid Cell TEM Experimental Workflow

The experimental workflow begins with careful chip selection, where researchers choose appropriate E-chips based on their specific application requirements. The Poseidon AX system offers several unique designs, including microwells to limit liquid thickness, flow management designs for ultimate flow control, temperature control E-chips with patented FrameHeater technology that maximizes uniformity, and EDS-optimized designs that enable EDS collection without tilting [41]. For biological samples like viruses or lipids, microwell E-chips are typically selected to limit liquid thickness and enhance contrast [41], while for nanoparticle synthesis or electrochemical studies, temperature control or EDS-optimized chips would be preferable.

Sample loading and cell assembly must be performed with precision to ensure proper sealing and avoid contamination. The liquid cell is assembled by carefully positioning the sample between two MEMS-based E-chips separated by a spacer that defines the liquid thickness. The assembly is then secured within the holder tip. For the Poseidon AX, this process uses custom-made microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) as sample supports, which are designed, fabricated, and quality-checked in-house by Protochips [41]. The holder insertion and leak checking phase is critical for TEM safety, with systems incorporating high-vacuum leak check stations to verify proper sealing before introducing the holder into the microscope column [5].

Once inserted into the TEM, liquid introduction and equilibration begins, with precise control over flow rates and composition using syringe pumps or other fluid delivery systems. The Poseidon AX system provides precise flow and bubble management, which is essential for obtaining artifact-free images [41]. During the in situ experimentation phase, researchers initiate imaging while applying relevant stimuli—such as electrical bias for electrochemical studies, temperature changes for synthesis observations, or chemical mixing for reaction studies. The integrated AXON software platform provides live physical drift correction and real-time electron dose calculations during this phase [41]. Finally, comprehensive data collection captures not only images but also all experimental parameters (TEM settings, liquid flow rates, temperature, applied potentials) for subsequent analysis and reproducibility.

Application-Specific Methodologies

Electrochemical Process Investigation

For studying battery materials and electrocatalytic processes, researchers employ specialized electrochemical chips within the liquid cell holder. A representative protocol for investigating lithium plating and stripping—critical for battery performance and safety—involves the following steps:

• Chip Preparation: Assemble an electrochemical cell using a three-electrode configuration E-chip with working, counter, and reference electrodes patterned on the MEMS device [41].

• Electrolyte Introduction: Introduce a controlled volume of battery electrolyte (e.g., LiPF₆ in EC/DEC) into the liquid cell, ensuring complete filling without bubbles [40].

• Electrical Connection: Establish secure connections between the potentiostat and the chip electrodes, verifying circuit integrity before TEM insertion.

• In Situ Experimentation: Apply controlled potential sequences (e.g., cyclic voltammetry, chronoamperometry) while simultaneously recording TEM images and spectroscopic data.

• Data Correlation: Synchronize electrochemical measurements (current, potential) with structural evolution observed in TEM images to establish structure-property relationships.

This approach has enabled researchers to observe the mechanisms of lithium dendrite formation directly, identifying sources of inefficiency and potential failure modes in lithium-ion batteries [14]. Similar methodologies have been applied to study electrocatalytic reactions, such as the growth of copper dendrites from CuSO₄ solution under applied bias [41].

Biological Materials Imaging

For biological samples, which are particularly sensitive to electron beam damage, specialized protocols are required:

• Sample Preparation: For observing rotavirus mobility, as demonstrated with the Poseidon AX system, viral particles are suspended in appropriate buffer solutions at optimal concentrations [41].

• Chip Selection: Use specialized microwell E-chips to limit liquid thickness to approximately 1-2 μm, enhancing contrast while minimizing beam damage to sensitive biological structures [41].

• Low-Dose Imaging: Implement low-electron-dose techniques throughout the experiment, utilizing the AXON software's dose monitoring capabilities to maintain doses below damage thresholds [41].

• Environmental Control: Maintain physiological temperature (37°C) and flow conditions to preserve biological activity during observation.

• Data Collection: Capture video-rate sequences to track dynamic processes like particle mobility, using dose-fractionation approaches to maximize signal-to-noise ratio while minimizing cumulative damage.

This methodology has enabled researchers to achieve sufficient resolution to track the motion of individual virus particles in liquid environments, providing insights into their behavior in conditions mimicking physiological states [41].

Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Liquid Cell TEM

Successful liquid cell TEM experiments require careful selection of appropriate materials and reagents tailored to specific research applications. The table below details key components essential for various experimental scenarios:

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for Liquid Cell TEM Experiments

Reagent/Material	Function/Application	Examples/Specifications
MEMS E-Chips	Sample support and environmental control	Microwell designs for biological samples; Temperature control chips for synthesis; EDS-optimized designs for compositional analysis [41]
Silicon Nitride Membranes	Liquid encapsulation	Amorphous SiN membranes, typically 15-50 nm thick; transparent to electron beams while containing liquid samples [40]
Electrochemical Chips	Applying electrical stimuli	Three-electrode configurations with working, counter, and reference electrodes for quantitative electrochemistry [41]
Liquid Delivery System	Precise fluid control	Syringe pumps with programmable flow rates (nl/min to μl/min) for introducing reactants or maintaining static conditions [41] [42]
Specialized Spacers	Controlling liquid thickness	Various thicknesses (50-1000 nm) to optimize between signal strength and liquid volume [41]
Biological Buffers	Maintaining physiological conditions	Phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) for biological specimens; HEPES for cell culture observations [42]
Electrolyte Solutions	Electrochemical studies	LiPF₆ in EC/DEC for battery research; aqueous electrolytes for electrocatalysis [14] [41]
Metal Precursors	Nanoparticle synthesis	Chloroauric acid for gold nanoparticles; silver nitrate for silver nanoparticles; various metal salts [41]
Capping Agents	Controlling nanoparticle growth	Citrate, CTAB, or polymers to direct morphology during in situ synthesis [40]
Calibration Standards	Size and magnification verification	Gold nanoparticles of known size; latex beads; grating replicas [40]

The selection of appropriate E-chips is particularly critical, as different designs enable specific experimental capabilities. The Poseidon AX system offers chips with microwells specifically designed for biological applications, which limit liquid thickness to enhance contrast while maintaining hydrated conditions [41]. For synthesis studies, temperature control E-chips with patented FrameHeater technology enable reactions at precisely controlled temperatures up to 100°C, as demonstrated in the synthesis of gold nanoparticles under different temperatures [41]. The EDS-optimized designs facilitate elemental analysis without tilting, enabling correlative structural and compositional characterization during dynamic processes.

Liquid cell TEM holders represent a powerful platform for investigating dynamic processes in liquid environments at unprecedented spatial and temporal resolution. The Poseidon AX system excels in providing comprehensive control over liquid composition, flow, and temperature, with specialized capabilities for biological materials, electrochemical processes, and nanoparticle synthesis [41]. Its integrated machine vision software and diverse E-chip portfolio enable rigorous, reproducible experiments across multiple application domains. The Hummingbird Scientific platform offers complementary strengths in cross-correlative microscopy, allowing the same sample to be investigated across light, X-ray, SEM, and TEM platforms using a single removable tip [42].

Future developments in liquid cell TEM technology will likely focus on extending temperature ranges for both heating and cooling, improving spatial resolution through advanced membrane materials like graphene, and enhancing analytical capabilities through integrated spectroscopic techniques. The recent introduction of systems like the TRITON AX—the first heating and cooling liquid electrochemical system for TEM—signals a trend toward more multifunctional platforms that combine multiple stimuli in a single experiment [23]. Additionally, continued development of machine learning-enhanced data acquisition and analysis, similar to the AXON platform's capabilities, will further streamline experiments and extract more meaningful information from complex dynamic observations.

As these technologies mature and become more accessible, liquid cell TEM is poised to make increasingly significant contributions to fields ranging from energy storage and conversion to drug delivery and fundamental biological research, providing insights that bridge the gap between idealized model systems and functional operating conditions.

In situ Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) gas cell holders represent a transformative advancement in electron microscopy, enabling researchers to observe materials at the atomic scale under realistic, dynamic environmental conditions. Unlike conventional TEM, which requires high vacuum and static samples, these specialized holders create a confined, controlled atmosphere around the sample, allowing direct visualization of gas-solid interactions as they occur. This capability is critical for driving innovation in fields like heterogeneous catalysis, materials science, fuel cell research, and corrosion science, where material behavior under operational conditions often differs significantly from its state in vacuum. The core principle involves using Microelectromechanical Systems (MEMS)-based chips to create a sealed miniaturized reactor within the TEM holder. These chips feature electron-transparent windows that confine the gas environment over the sample while permitting the electron beam to pass through for high-resolution imaging and analysis. This technology provides researchers with an unprecedented window into reaction mechanisms, degradation pathways, and structural evolution, linking fundamental nanoscale processes directly to macroscopic material performance and functionality.

Comparative Analysis of Leading Gas Cell Holder Systems

The market for in situ TEM gas cell holders is served by several leading manufacturers, each offering systems with unique strengths and specializations. The following table provides a detailed, objective comparison of the three primary commercial solutions: Protochips' Atmosphere AX, Hummingbird Scientific's Gas Flow Holder, and DENSsolutions' Climate system.

Table 1: Technical Comparison of Commercial In Situ TEM Gas Cell Holders

Feature	Protochips Atmosphere AX	Hummingbird Scientific Single Channel	DENSsolutions Climate Infinity
Max Temperature	Up to 1000°C [16]	>1000°C [5] [43]	Up to 1000°C [15]
Max Pressure	Up to 1 bar [16] [44]	1 to 2 bar [5]	Information missing
Gas Inlets/Environment Control	Multiple gases & custom mixtures, humidity, integrated RGA [16]	Single experimental gas inlet, purge capability [5]	Multiple gases; compatible with CxHy, O2, H2, CO, CO2, air [15]
Key Analytical Capabilities	EELS/EDS compatible; Live physical drift correction, dose analysis [16]	EELS/EDS compatible [5]; Optional optical fiber light feedthrough [5]	EELS/EDS compatible; 8 contacts for combined heating & biasing [15]
Sample Support & MEMS Chips	Silicon carbide E-chips for superior temperature uniformity [16]	Integrated MEMS heater with on-chip sensor [5] [43]	Modular Nano-Reactor; dedicated chips for gas-heating (GH) and gas-heating-biasing (GHB) [15]
Software Suite	AXON machine vision platform for automation, drift correction, and data management [16]	Custom control software with closed-loop temperature control [5]	Impulse software for controlling temperature, gas flow, pressure, and composition [15]
Unique Selling Points	Integrated RGA; Strong focus on workflow and reproducibility [16]	Optional optical illumination for photocatalysis studies [5]	Flippable tip for optimal STEM/TEM mode; Single holder for both gas & liquid experiments [15]

Key Differentiators and System Selection

Beyond the core specifications, each system offers unique capabilities that may determine its suitability for a specific research context. The Atmosphere AX system distinguishes itself with a comprehensive workflow approach that includes an integrated Residual Gas Analyzer (RGA) for monitoring the gas composition inside the reactor, a critical feature for operando studies [16]. Its AXON software is heavily focused on data management and reproducibility, aligning with the principles of FAIR data [16]. In contrast, Hummingbird Scientific offers a key optional feature: an optical fiber light feedthrough. This enables photosensitive experiments, allowing researchers to illuminate the sample during imaging to study photocatalytic materials or light-driven reactions in a controlled gas environment [5]. The Climate Infinity system from DENSsolutions offers unparalleled flexibility. Its defining feature is an 8-contact design that allows for the simultaneous application of thermal and electrical stimuli (heating and biasing) within a gas environment. Furthermore, its modular, flippable tip allows users to quickly switch between optimal STEM and TEM imaging geometries and use the same holder platform for both gas and liquid experiments, making it a versatile all-in-one solution for multi-modal in situ research [15].

Experimental Protocols and Workflows

A successful in situ gas cell TEM experiment requires meticulous planning and execution. The following workflow diagram outlines the key stages, from preparation to data analysis.

Detailed Methodologies from Published Studies

To illustrate the application of these systems, below are detailed protocols from peer-reviewed research utilizing different gas cell holders.

Protocol A: Oxidation and Reduction of High-Entropy Alloy Nanoparticles (Using Hummingbird System) This study provides a clear example of a sequential gas environment experiment [5].

• Objective: To understand the oxidation and reduction behavior of FeCoNiCuPt high-entropy alloy (HEA) nanoparticles.
• Materials: Synthesized HEA nanoparticles dispersed onto the MEMS chip.
• Procedure:
  • The gas cell holder was inserted into the TEM and the sample was heated to 400°C.
  • The sample was first exposed to air (oxidizing environment) while imaging. Researchers observed the growth of an oxide layer around the particles.
  • The gas environment was then switched to hydrogen (reducing environment) while maintaining a constant temperature of 400°C.
  • The structural evolution, including the transformation of the oxide layer into porous structures and outward diffusion of transition metals, was recorded in real-time.
• Key Findings: The experiment revealed a complex restructuring mechanism where all transition metals (Fe, Co, Ni, Cu) diffused outwards during reduction, while Pt remained in the core, providing fundamental insights for catalytic design [5].

Protocol B: Benzene Adsorption in Zeolites (Using Protochips Atmosphere AX) This protocol highlights the use of organic vapors and the study of molecular adsorption [16].

• Objective: To observe changes in a zeolite cage structure during benzene adsorption.
• Materials: Zeolite sample prepared as a TEM lamella or dispersed nanoparticles.
• Procedure:
  • The Atmosphere AX system was used to introduce benzene vapor into the cell containing the zeolite sample.
  • High-resolution TEM imaging was performed before and during vapor exposure.
  • Changes in the zeolite's structure and contrast, induced by the adsorption of benzene molecules within the pores, were monitored.
• Key Findings: The study enabled direct, in situ quantitative imaging of non-uniformly distributed molecules within the zeolite framework, critical for understanding molecular sieve behavior [16].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

The following table details key consumables, reagents, and components essential for conducting in situ gas cell TEM experiments.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for In Situ Gas Cell TEM

Item Name	Function/Description	Example Use Cases
MEMS E-Chips / Nano-Reactors	Microfabricated sample supports that create the sealed environmental cell and integrate heaters/sensors.	Sample mounting; Providing heating and temperature measurement [16] [15].
Reaction Gases (H₂, O₂, CO, CO₂)	Create the reactive atmosphere for studying gas-solid interactions.	Catalyst reduction (H₂); oxidation studies (O₂); CO oxidation catalysis [16] [15].
Organic Vapors (e.g., Benzene)	Volatile organic compounds introduced to study adsorption and reaction.	Molecular adsorption in porous materials like zeolites [16].
Humidity Control System	Adds water vapor to the gas mixture for studying hygroscopic materials or reactions involving water.	Corrosion studies; hydrothermal synthesis; catalyst deactivation [16] [15].
Residual Gas Analyzer (RGA)	Mass spectrometer that monitors the gas composition inside the cell in real-time.	Operando studies to correlate structural changes with reaction products [16].
High-Vacuum Leak Check Station	Ensures the holder is vacuum-tight before insertion into the TEM, protecting the multi-million dollar microscope.	Mandatory safety step before every experiment [5].

Complementary and Alternative Methodologies

While in situ gas cell TEM is powerful, it is one of several approaches for studying materials in reactive environments. A complementary method is the "quasi in situ" or "identical location" approach. This technique involves treating a sample under realistic reaction conditions in an external reactor and then transferring it under vacuum or controlled atmosphere to the TEM for analysis. This method decouples the reaction from the analysis, entirely avoiding potential electron beam effects during the reaction and allowing for the highest possible image resolution. It has been successfully applied to track morphological changes of identical catalyst particles before and after reactive experiments, such as CO oxidation on Pt [45]. The choice between true in situ and quasi in situ approaches depends on the specific scientific question, weighing the need for real-time observation against the requirements for ultimate resolution and the elimination of beam influence.

In situ TEM gas cell holders like the Atmosphere AX, Hummingbird, and Climate systems have revolutionized our ability to probe dynamic material processes at the nanoscale under realistic conditions. Each system offers a unique combination of strengths: Atmosphere AX excels with its integrated RGA and data management focus; Hummingbird provides the unique capability for optical stimulation; and Climate Infinity offers unparalleled versatility with combined biasing and heating in a single platform. The choice of system must be guided by the specific experimental requirements, including the need for specific stimuli, analytical capabilities, and workflow integration. As these technologies continue to mature, they will undoubtedly unlock deeper insights into catalytic mechanisms, corrosion pathways, and material synthesis, accelerating the development of next-generation materials for energy, catalysis, and beyond.

In situ Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) has been revolutionized by the development of multi-functional specimen holders. These advanced tools allow researchers to subject nanoscale materials to multiple external stimuli—such as heat, electrical bias, and cryogenic cooling—simultaneously while observing the resulting structural, chemical, and functional changes with atomic-scale resolution. This capability is crucial for exploring material behavior under realistic or extreme operational conditions, accelerating development in fields like clean energy, electronics, and fundamental materials science.

Multi-functional holders transform a standard TEM into a dynamic nanoscale laboratory. The core of this technology lies in Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS), which integrate micro-fabricated heating elements, electrical contacts, and thermal management systems onto a single, compact chip. This enables precise control of sample environment within the tight confines of a TEM column.

• Heating + Biasing Holders: These systems allow simultaneous application of high temperatures and electrical voltages/currents to a sample. They are indispensable for studying phenomena like battery cycling under thermal stress, electromigration in interconnects, and the electrical properties of materials at high temperatures [46] [14].
• Heating + Cryogenic Holders: These systems provide a vast temperature range, from cryogenic levels (as low as -175°C) to high temperatures (exceeding 1000°C), within a single experiment. This is essential for investigating phase transitions that occur across different temperature regimes in materials such as ferroelectrics, superconductors, and shape-memory alloys [47] [48].

The market for these sophisticated tools is growing rapidly, driven by increasing demand in both academic and industrial research. Key players, including Hummingbird Scientific, DENSsolutions, and Protochips, continuously innovate to enhance performance, stability, and ease of use [49] [50].

Technical Specifications and Performance Comparison

The performance of multi-functional holders is defined by their technical limits in temperature, electrical capabilities, and stability. The table below summarizes the key specifications for the two main types of combined holders.

Table 1: Technical Specifications of Combined Heating/Biasing and Heating/Cryogenic Holders

Holder Type	Key Product Examples	Temperature Range	Electrical Contacts	Tilt Range	Key Features & Applications
Heating + Biasing	Hummingbird Scientific MEMS Heating + Biasing Holder [46]	> 1000°C	9 contacts (standard)	Double-tilt: ±20°Single-tilt: ±45°	High-temperature biasing; studies of transistors, battery materials, and electromigration.
Heating + Cryogenic	DENSsolutions Lightning Arctic Holder [47]	-175°C to > 1000°C	Integrated for biasing (specifics vary)	Information Missing	Atomic-resolution STEM across full range; studies of phase transitions in ferroelectrics & superconductors.

Performance Metrics and Stability

Achieving atomic-resolution imaging under complex experimental conditions is the ultimate benchmark for performance.

• Thermal Stability: For the DENSsolutions Lightning Arctic holder, an ultra-stable imaging condition with a remarkably low mean drift speed of 1.52 nm/min has been reported, which is a prerequisite for high-resolution imaging [47].
• Electrical Precision: The Hummingbird Scientific double-tilt Heating + Biasing holder features a beta-tilting resolution and accuracy of <0.01 degrees and negligible backlash, ensuring precise sample orientation during electrical measurements [46].
• Analytical Compatibility: A significant challenge for heating experiments is the interference of infrared (IR) radiation with Energy-Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (EDXS). Research shows that optimal holder orientation can mitigate this, but IR radiation ultimately limits the detection efficiency for light elements at very high temperatures [51].

Experimental Insights and Workflow

Multi-functional holders have enabled groundbreaking observations by allowing direct visualization of dynamic processes at the atomic scale.

Case Study 1: Phase Transformations in 2D MoS₂ with Heating + Biasing

• Objective: To understand the thermal and structural stability of two-dimensional (2D) MoS₂, a material critical for next-generation electronics and optoelectronics [52].
• Protocol: Researchers used a Hummingbird Scientific MEMS heating holder inside an aberration-corrected STEM. They subjected thin MoS₂ flakes to different controlled heating rates, from fast to slow, while maintaining imaging conditions [52].
• Findings: The pathway of structural transformation was highly dependent on the heating rate. Fast heating resulted in the formation of highly ordered, sub-10 nm crystalline islands composed of 2H and 3R phases. In contrast, slow heating led to the formation of nanocrystalline and amorphous regions. This provided direct insight into the kinetics of sulfur evaporation and redeposition, guiding future synthesis of 2D nanostructures [52].

Case Study 2: Ferroelectric Phase Transitions with Heating + Cryogenic Cooling

• Objective: To map all possible phase transitions (cubic, tetragonal, orthorhombic, rhombohedral) and domain evolution in single-crystal BaTiO₃ (BTO) across its full temperature range [47].
• Protocol: A DENSsolutions Lightning Arctic holder was used to cyclically vary the temperature of a BTO sample from -175°C to 200°C at a rate of 10°C/min. Bright-field TEM and high-angle annular dark-field (HAADF) STEM images were acquired sequentially with a frame rate of 750 ms/frame [47].
• Findings: The experiment successfully identified all four phases and directly observed domain nucleation and evolution across the phase transitions. The exceptional stability of the holder enabled atomic-resolution in situ STEM imaging throughout the entire temperature cycle, providing unparalleled data on ferroelectric domain wall dynamics [47].

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

The following table lists key materials and components commonly used in experiments with multi-functional in situ TEM holders.

Table 2: Key Research Reagents and Materials for Multi-Functional In Situ TEM

Item Name	Function in Experiment	Specific Application Example
MEMS-based Nano-Chip	Serves as the micro-reactor; integrates heaters, sensors, and electrical contacts to hold and stimulate the sample.	DENSsolutions and Hummingbird Scientific MEMS chips for heating, biasing, and liquid/gas cells [46] [47] [48].
Single-Crystal BaTiO₃	A model ferroelectric material for studying temperature-driven phase transitions and domain dynamics.	Investigating domain nucleation and evolution across cubic, tetragonal, orthorhombic, and rhombohedral phases [47].
2D Transition Metal Dichalcogenides (e.g., MoS₂)	Atomically thin semiconductors for investigating thermal stability and phase transformations.	Observing the formation of 2H/3R crystalline phases or amorphous regions under controlled heating [52].
Liquid Electrolyte (e.g., for Li-ion batteries)	Creates a realistic liquid environment for studying electrochemical processes in energy materials.	Observing lithium stripping and plating in battery anodes within a liquid cell TEM holder [14].

Experimental Design and Decision Workflow

Choosing the right experimental setup depends on the material system and the physical or chemical process being investigated. The following diagram outlines the logical decision-making process for selecting and applying multi-functional holders.

Experimental Design Workflow for Multi-Functional TEM Holders

The field of multi-functional in situ TEM is rapidly evolving, with several emerging trends shaping its future.

• Integration of Artificial Intelligence: AI and machine learning are being developed to automate complex experiments, control stimuli in real-time based on sample response, and manage the vast datasets generated, enabling more efficient and insightful research [4] [49].
• Development of Hybrid Holders: The next frontier is the combination of three or more stimuli in a single holder. For instance, DENSsolutions has introduced the 'Infinity' system, which pioneers heating and biasing capabilities in both gas and liquid environments, opening new possibilities for studying electrocatalysis and electrochemical deposition under realistic conditions [48].
• Enhanced Environmental Control: Future systems will offer more precise control over gas pressure, liquid flow rates, and temperature gradients, further closing the "materials gap" between idealized laboratory studies and real-world operating conditions [20].

In conclusion, multi-functional in situ TEM holders that combine heating with biasing or cryogenic cooling are powerful tools that provide unprecedented access to the dynamic world of nanoscale materials. By enabling quantitative experiments under realistic multi-stimuli conditions, they play a pivotal role in accelerating the development of new materials for sustainable energy, advanced electronics, and beyond.

The development of efficient bimetallic catalysts is crucial for advancing clean energy technologies. Among these, Pt-Ni nanoparticles have emerged as a leading candidate, demonstrating superior activity and stability for key reactions like the oxygen reduction reaction in fuel cells. A primary challenge in optimizing these catalysts lies in controlling their morphology and composition during synthesis, which directly dictates their catalytic properties. Electrodeposition is a versatile synthesis method, but understanding the dynamic growth processes of bimetallic systems at the nanoscale has been a significant hurdle.

This case study examines how in situ Transmission Electron Microscopy is revolutionizing this field by enabling real-time observation of electrochemical processes. We objectively compare the performance of specialized in situ TEM holders for liquid-phase electrochemistry research, providing experimental data and protocols to guide researchers in selecting the appropriate tool for their investigations into Pt-Ni and similar bimetallic nanomaterials.

Experimental Holder Technologies for In Situ TEM

In situ TEM characterization utilizes specialized specimen holders to expose materials to various stimuli within the microscope's high-vacuum column. For research on nanomaterials in reactive environments, three primary types of holders are employed.

Table: Comparison of In Situ TEM Holder Technologies

Holder Type	Typical Applications	Key Strengths	Key Limitations	Max. Temperature	Environmental Control
Liquid Cell Holder [14] [4]	Electrochemical deposition, Battery cycling, Corrosion studies	Direct observation of processes in liquid phase; integrated electrodes for electrochemistry	Limited liquid thickness affecting resolution; complex cell assembly	Varies by model	Aqueous or organic electrolytes
Gas Cell Holder [14] [5]	Heterogeneous catalysis, Gas-solid reactions, Nanomaterial growth	High-resolution imaging under gas flow; precise temperature control >1000°C	Does not simulate liquid electrolyte environments	>1000°C [43] [5]	Pressure-controlled gas environments (1-2 bar)
Heating Holder [14] [4]	Alloying dynamics, Sintering studies, Phase transformations	Simple operation; very high temperatures; excellent stability for high-res imaging	No integrated environment for electrochemistry	>1000°C [43]	High vacuum or static gas

Case Study: Liquid Cell TEM Analysis of Pt-Ni Electrodeposition

Experimental Protocol and Workflow

A seminal study utilized in situ liquid cell TEM to observe the electrodeposition of PtNi nanoparticle films on a carbon electrode during cyclic voltammetry [53]. The methodology provides a template for similar investigations.

Key Experimental Steps [53]:

• Cell Assembly: A liquid cell TEM holder (e.g., from Protochips or Hummingbird Scientific) is assembled with integrated electrodes and a silicon chip that encapsulates a liquid layer.
• Precursor Preparation: An electrolyte solution containing precursors of Chloroplatinic acid and Nickel chloride is injected into the cell.
• In Situ Electrochemistry: Cyclic voltammetry is performed by applying a cycling potential (e.g., between 0.8 V and -0.8 V vs. Ag/AgCl) at a defined scan rate (e.g., 80 mV/s).
• Real-Time Imaging: The nucleation, growth, and dissolution of PtNi nanoparticles are recorded in real-time with the electron beam at a magnification of 20,000x or higher.
• Post-Processing: The recorded movie frames are analyzed to track particle size, film thickness, and morphological evolution as a function of the applied potential.

Key Experimental Findings and Quantitative Data

The in situ LC-TEM experiments yielded direct, quantitative insight into the electrodeposition process [53]:

• Nucleation Onset: A burst of nanoparticle nucleation was observed at a specific potential of -0.2 V (vs Ag/AgCl) during the first cathodic scan [53].
• Cyclic Growth: The film thickness increased with each subsequent potential cycle. By the fourth cycle, the deposition formed branched and porous structures [53].
• Oscillatory Dynamics: Individual nanoparticles were seen to oscillate in size by a few nanometers during each potential cycle, undergoing partial dissolution during the anodic scan and growth during the cathodic scan. The net effect was a steady increase in particle size over multiple cycles [53].
• Scan Rate Influence: Experiments conducted at a slower scan rate of 10 mV/s allowed for clearer observation of the nucleation kinetics, which began at approximately -0.7 V [53].

Table: Quantitative Data from In Situ PtNi Electrodeposition Study [53]

Experimental Parameter	Condition 1	Condition 2	Observed Outcome
Scan Rate	80 mV/s	10 mV/s	Altered nucleation potential and growth kinetics
Potential Cycle Number	1 cycle	4 cycles	Increased film thickness & formation of branched structures
Nucleation Potential	-0.2 V (at 80 mV/s)	-0.7 V (at 10 mV/s)	Demonstrated scan-rate dependency of nucleation
Particle Size Change	Shrinks ~10 nm (anodic)	Grows ~60 nm (cathodic)	Net growth over cycles; oscillatory behavior

Performance Comparison: Liquid Cell vs. Alternative In Situ Approaches

While liquid cell TEM is ideal for direct observation of electrodeposition, other in situ methods provide complementary insights into Pt-Ni catalyst behavior.

• Liquid Cell TEM: Directly revealed the morphological evolution of PtNi films during electrodeposition, showing progressive thickening and branching over cycles [53]. It is the only method that directly probes the liquid electrochemical environment.
• Gas Cell TEM: A study on Pt-Ni exsolution on perovskite nanofibers used a gas holder to reduce the sample in 5% H2/Ar at 600-800°C. This revealed the in-situ formation of finely dispersed, uniform Pt-Ni alloy nanoparticles (1-6 nm) and the dynamic compositional changes leading to a Pt-shell structure [54]. This approach is critical for studying catalysts under operating conditions for gas-phase reactions.
• Heating Holder: Used to study high-temperature restructuring, such as the oxidation and reduction of high-entropy alloys. While not directly used for PtNi in the provided results, the principle applies: heating holders excel at studying thermal stability, alloying, and sintering phenomena [5].

Table: Experimental Outcomes from Different In Situ Methods for Pt-Ni Research

Analysis Aspect	Liquid Cell TEM	Gas Cell TEM	Heating Holder
Primary Research Focus	Electrochemical growth dynamics	Catalyst activation & gas-solid reactions	Thermal stability & phase evolution
Key Finding on Pt-Ni	Oscillatory growth/dissolution during CV cycles; porous film formation [53]	Formation of ~3.6 nm PtNi alloy nanoparticles with Pt-rich shell via exsolution [54]	(Applicable) Sintering resistance and alloy formation at high T
Spatial Resolution	Lower (due to liquid layer)	Atomic resolution possible [5]	Atomic resolution possible
Environmental Relevance	Directly mimics electrochemical synthesis	Directly mimics catalytic reactor conditions	Isolates thermal effects

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful in situ TEM studies of nanomaterials rely on a set of essential reagents and tools. The following table details key items used in the featured experiments.

Table: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for In Situ TEM of Pt-Ni Catalysts

Item Name	Function / Role	Specific Example from Research
Liquid Cell TEM Holder	Encapsulates liquid electrolyte between electron-transparent windows for in-situ observation.	Protochips Poseidon Select; Hummingbird Scientific liquid cell holder [53].
Precursor Salts	Source of metal ions for electrochemical deposition or synthesis.	Platinum(IV) chloride (PtCl4); Nickel(II) chloride hexahydrate (NiCl2·6H2O) [53] [55].
Electrolyte Solution	Conducts ions and provides the medium for electrochemical reactions.	Aqueous solution of precursor salts in a suitable supporting electrolyte [53].
Microfabricated Chips	Serve as the miniaturized experimental platform, often featuring integrated electrodes and windows.	MEMS-based chips with thin silicon nitride or graphene windows [53] [4].
Gas Delivery System	Introduces and controls pressure of reactive gases for in-situ gas cell experiments.	Hummingbird Scientific's single or multi-channel gas delivery system [5].
In-Situ Heating System	Precisely controls sample temperature during microscopy for thermal studies.	Thin-film MEMS heater with >1000°C capability and low thermal drift [43] [5].

This comparison demonstrates that the choice of in situ TEM holder is dictated by the specific scientific question. For direct observation of liquid-phase electrodeposition dynamics, as in the Pt-Ni case study, liquid cell holders are unparalleled. They provide unique insights into nucleation rates, growth patterns, and morphological evolution under applied potential. For studies focused on catalyst behavior under operational gas atmospheres or extreme thermal processing, gas cell and heating holders respectively offer superior performance and resolution. A comprehensive understanding of functional nanomaterials like PtNi catalysts often requires a multi-faceted approach, correlating data from these complementary in situ TEM techniques.

In-situ Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) has revolutionized the study of dynamic nanoscale processes, including the sintering of metal nanoparticles, by enabling direct observation under realistic reaction conditions. This case study focuses on tracking the sintering process of copper (Cu) nanoparticles, a phenomenon critical to applications in catalysis and printed electronics. The performance of in-situ TEM experiments is highly dependent on the type of holder used, which governs the thermal, atmospheric, and temporal resolution of the observations. This article provides a comparative analysis of different in-situ TEM holder technologies—specifically furnace heating holders, Micro-Electro-Mechanical System (MEMS)-based heating holders, and gas cell holders—used in studying Cu nanoparticle sintering. We objectively compare their performance through experimental data, detailed protocols, and visual workflows to guide researchers in selecting the appropriate methodology for their specific investigations.

Experimental Setup & Methodologies

In-Situ TEM Holder Technologies

The core of any in-situ heating experiment lies in the specimen holder technology. The following table summarizes the primary types of holders used for tracking nanoparticle sintering.

Table 1: Comparison of In-Situ TEM Heating Holders

Holder Type	Key Features	Max Temperature	Heating/Cooling Rate	Sample Drift	Compatible Environments	Key Applications
Furnace Heating Holder [10]	Resistive heating of entire specimen grid	~1000 °C	Slow (minutes to hours)	Significant at high temperatures [10]	High vacuum	General phase transformations, sintering studies [21]
MEMS-Based Heating Holder [21]	Localized heating via microfabricated heater on chip	Up to 800 °C (Graphene-based) [21]	Very fast (heating to 800°C in ~26 ms) [21]	Low (~2 nm/s at 650°C) [21]	High vacuum, Liquid [56]	High-resolution, time-resolved sintering; 4D-STEM [21]
Windowed Gas Cell Holder [57]	Sample sealed between two SiNx windows; enables gas flow	Limited by window stability	Moderate	Affected by gas flow and pressure	Near-ambient pressure gas (up to ~1 bar) [57]	Catalytic reactions, sintering in realistic gas environments [57]

Sample Preparation Protocols

The preparation of Cu nanoparticle samples is critical for reproducible in-situ experiments. A common challenge is preventing oxidation, which can be addressed through surface capping.

Table 2: Key Reagent Solutions for Cu Nanoparticle Sintering Studies

Research Reagent	Function in Experiment	Example Usage & Rationale
Oleylamine (OAM) [58]	Capping agent / Surfactant	Stabilizes Cu nanoparticles during synthesis and prevents aggregation and oxidation before sintering.
Formic Acid (HCOOH) [58]	Reactive desorption agent	Used in ethanol or methanol solution to effectively remove the OAM capping layer from Cu NPs, initiating sintering.
Sodium Borohydride (NaBH₄) [58]	Reducing agent	Reduces surface copper oxides (Cu₂O, Cu²⁺) back to Cu(0) after OAM removal, acting as a "soldering flux" to weld particles.
Gelatin Biopolymer [21]	Anti-oxidation coating	Forms a thin film (~10 nm) over Cu NPs to prevent oxidation during heating in non-inert atmospheres.
MEMS Heating Chip [21]	Microfabricated substrate	Provides localized, rapid, and controlled heating with minimal thermal drift for high-resolution TEM observation.

A standard protocol for preparing anti-oxidation-coated Cu NPs is as follows [21]:

• Synthesis: Synthesize Cu nanoparticles via a colloidal method, using oleylamine (OAM) as a capping agent to control size and prevent aggregation.
• Coating: Disperse the OAM-capped Cu NPs and mix with a gelatin solution to form a uniform biopolymer coating.
• TEM Grid Preparation: Drop-cast the suspension onto a standard TEM grid (for furnace/MEMS holders) or onto a MEMS heating chip. For gas cell holders, the sample is sealed between two SiNx windows [57].
• Capping Agent Removal (Optional): For room-temperature reactive sintering studies, the grid can be dipped in a 10-20 vol% formic acid in ethanol solution for ~3 minutes, followed by immersion in a 3 wt% NaBH₄ aqueous solution for another ~3 minutes to remove OAM and reduce surface oxides [58].

Comparative Experimental Data & Analysis

Quantitative Sintering Data from Different Techniques

The choice of holder technology directly impacts the observed sintering kinetics and thermodynamics. The table below consolidates key experimental findings from studies utilizing different methodologies.

Table 3: Experimental Sintering Data for Cu Nanoparticles from Various In-Situ Techniques

Experimental Setup	Sintering Onset Temperature	Key Quantitative Observations	Identified Sintering Mechanism
MEMS Holder (High Vacuum) [21]	~250 °C	Particle coalescence observed after 230 s at 250°C; further progress after 630 s.	Particle Migration and Coalescence (PMC) [21]
Gas Cell Holder (Atmospheric Pressure) [57]	Varies with gas environment	Enables direct observation of PMC and Ostwald Ripening (OR) under realistic catalytic conditions.	PMC and Ostwald Ripening (OR) [57]
Ex Situ Reactive Sintering [58]	Room Temperature	Resistivity of sintered patterns fell below 20 μΩ·cm. OAM residues reduced from 11.4% to 2.4% after chemical treatment.	Chemically-induced coalescence via capping agent removal and reduction.

Analysis of Holder Performance

• Thermal Performance and Resolution: MEMS holders outperform furnace holders in thermal control. For instance, a graphene-based MEMS heater achieved a heating time of 26.31 ms to 800°C with a negligible sample drift of ~2 nm/s, enabling stable, high-resolution imaging during rapid thermal processes [21]. In contrast, traditional furnace holders exhibit significant sample drift at high temperatures, complicating long-term observation [10].
• Environmental Fidelity vs. Resolution Trade-off: The windowed gas cell holder provides the highest environmental fidelity, allowing experiments at near-ambient pressure to mimic real industrial conditions [57]. However, this comes at the cost of spatial resolution due to increased electron beam scattering from the SiNx windows and the gas medium [57]. ETEM offers an intermediate solution with lower gas pressures (~100 Torr) but without window-induced resolution loss [57].
• Application-Specific Efficacy: For fundamental studies of sintering kinetics and atomic-scale structural changes under high vacuum, the MEMS heating holder is optimal due to its rapid heating and low drift. For validating sintering resistance of catalyst designs under operational gas atmospheres, the windowed gas cell is indispensable. The furnace holder remains a versatile and accessible tool for general-purpose heating studies where ultimate resolution and speed are not critical.

Visualization of Experimental Workflows

The following diagrams illustrate the standard experimental workflows for tracking Cu nanoparticle sintering using different holder technologies.

Diagram 1: MEMS Holder Sintering Workflow. This workflow highlights the high-vacuum, high-speed heating process ideal for fundamental kinetic studies [21].

Diagram 2: Gas Cell Holder Sintering Workflow. This workflow emphasizes the creation of a realistic reaction environment to study sintering under practical conditions [57].

Integrated Discussion

The comparative data clearly demonstrates that there is no single "best" holder for all scenarios. The MEMS heating holder is the tool of choice for probing the intrinsic sintering behavior of Cu nanoparticles with high spatial and temporal resolution. Its ability to provide fast, localized heating with minimal drift was crucial in identifying the onset of Cu NP sintering at ~250°C and confirming the PMC mechanism through direct observation of particle coalescence [21].

In contrast, the windowed gas cell holder excels in application-oriented research. Its unique capability to maintain a near-ambient pressure gas environment is essential for directly validating strategies to improve sintering resistance in catalysts, such as enhancing Metal-Support Interaction (MSI) [57]. While the furnace heating holder is a robust and widely available tool, its limitations in drift control and heating homogeneity make it less suitable for cutting-edge, high-resolution studies of fast dynamics.

The development of in-situ heating electron tomography (ET) further pushes the boundaries of these techniques. By combining the rapid heating-and-cooling capabilities of a MEMS holder with intermittent tilt-series acquisition, researchers can achieve 4D (space and time) characterization, reconstructing the 3D morphology of nanoparticles at different stages of sintering [21]. This advanced approach provides an unprecedented view of structural changes that are inaccessible through 2D imaging alone.

Overcoming Experimental Hurdles: Beam Effects, Drift, and Temperature Calibration

Mitigating Electron Beam Effects on Samples and Reactions

In situ Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) has revolutionized our ability to observe nanoscale dynamics in real-time. However, the fundamental contradiction inherent to this technique is that the electron beam used for imaging can simultaneously alter or damage the very samples and reactions being observed. For researchers studying beam-sensitive materials such as biological specimens, soft matter, perovskites, and catalysts, distinguishing between authentic material behavior and beam-induced artifacts presents a significant challenge. Effective mitigation of these electron beam effects is therefore not merely an optimization step but a prerequisite for obtaining scientifically valid data.

The principal damage mechanisms fall into two categories: knock-on damage, caused by elastic scattering that physically displaces atoms, and radiolysis, caused by inelastic scattering that induces ionization, breaks chemical bonds, and generates heat [59] [60]. The dominance of one mechanism over the other depends on the sample material and the accelerating voltage of the microscope. For example, radiolysis is often the primary damage mechanism in ionic and organic materials, even at higher voltages [59].

This guide objectively compares the performance of different mitigation strategies and the in situ TEM holder technologies that enable them, providing researchers with a framework to select the optimal approach for their specific experimental needs.

Comparative Analysis of Mitigation Strategies

The following table summarizes the core strategies for mitigating electron beam effects, their underlying principles, and their performance considerations.

Table 1: Comparison of Electron Beam Effect Mitigation Strategies

Mitigation Strategy	Technical Principle	Performance Advantages	Limitations & Considerations
Pulsed Electron Beams	Uses controlled, ultrafast electron pulses instead of a continuous beam.	Reduces cumulative dose; Molecular dynamics show a larger threshold angle for damage in graphene (1.4 rad vs. 1.0 rad for a random beam) [61].	Mitigation is most apparent near the threshold angle; requires specialized UTEM equipment [61].
Cryogenic Cooling	Samples are cooled to cryogenic temperatures (liquid nitrogen or helium).	Slows down radiolysis-driven reaction kinetics and diffusion processes; standard for cryo-EM of biological samples [62].	Does not prevent initial ionization events; can complicate sample preparation and holder logistics.
Beam Current & Dose Management	Minimizing incident electron flux through low-dose imaging protocols and defocused beams.	Directly reduces the rate of energy deposition; effective for all sample types.	Compromises signal-to-noise ratio, potentially obscuring fine details [62].
In Situ Environmental Control	Encapsulates sample in a relevant gas or liquid environment within a MEMS-based cell.	The environment can dissipate heat and scavenge reactive species; enables study of reactions under realistic conditions [5] [41] [15].	Liquid/gas layers can reduce image resolution and complicate EDS/EELS analysis.

Product Performance Comparison: In Situ Holders for Environmental Control

A primary method for mitigating beam effects in materials research is to use in situ holders that create a controlled microenvironment. The table below compares leading commercial solutions.

Table 2: Comparison of In Situ TEM Holders for Environmental Research

Feature / Product	Hummingbird Scientific Gas Flow Holder [5]	Protochips Poseidon AX [41]	DENSsolutions Climate Infinity [15]
Primary Function	Gas/heating	Liquid/gas & electrochemistry	Gas/liquid & combined heating/biasing
Max Temperature	>1000 °C	100 °C (Liquid)	1000 °C
Max Pressure	Up to 2 bar	System Dependent	Up to 2 bar (Gas)
Gas/Liquid Inlets	1 (Single), 3-8 (Multi-channel)	2 inlet ports for mixing	Configurable for multiple gases/liquids
Biasing Capability	4 contacts	Yes (Electrochemical)	8 contacts for simultaneous heating & biasing
Key Feature	Optional optical fiber light feedthrough; bakeable for cleanliness.	Machine vision software for live drift correction and dose mapping.	Flippable tip for optimal STEM/TEM alignment; truly all-in-one for gas & liquid.
Compatibility	EELS/EDS compatible	True in-situ EDS	EDS and EELS compatible, even at high pressure.

Experimental Protocols for Damage Assessment and Mitigation

To ensure the validity of in situ TEM data, it is crucial to employ standardized protocols for assessing and mitigating beam damage. The following are key methodologies cited in recent literature.

Protocol: Quantifying Stress Relaxation in Metals

This protocol, adapted from a study on nanostructured metals, quantifies mechanical artifacts induced by the e-beam [60].

• Sample Preparation: Fabricate freestanding dog-bone samples of the metal film (e.g., Al or Au) on a MEMS-based tensile testing device.
• Reference Measurement: Inside the TEM, perform an initial strain cycle (e.g., <0.1% strain) with the electron beam completely blanked. Record the stress-strain response as a reference.
• Beam Exposure Cycling: Apply subsequent strain cycles while systematically varying beam parameters: accelerating voltage (e.g., 80, 120, 200 kV), beam diameter, and beam intensity.
• Data Analysis: For each cycle, calculate the stress at a fixed strain level (e.g., σ1%, stress at 1% strain). Compare this value to the reference cycle. A decrease in σ1% under beam exposure indicates beam-induced stress relaxation. The study found stress relaxation was more pronounced at lower voltages (120 kV vs. 200 kV) and depended more on beam diameter than intensity [60].

Protocol: Tracking Radiolysis in Perovskite Nanocrystals

This methodology outlines how to observe and characterize radiolysis damage in beam-sensitive nanocrystals [59].

• Sample Preparation: Disperse colloidal CsPbBr3 nanocrystals (e.g., 3 nm thick nanosheets) onto a standard TEM grid.
• In Situ Irradiation: Acquire a series of high-resolution TEM (HRTEM) images or scanning TEM (STEM) - energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) maps from the same area over time at a fixed electron dose rate (e.g., 80 keV or 200 keV).
• Monitor Halogen Loss: Use EDS to track the Bromine (Br) signal intensity relative to Cesium (Cs) and Lead (Pb) over accumulated dose. A decreasing Br:Pb ratio indicates electron-stimulated desorption of Br atoms.
• Identify Metallic Nucleation: In HRTEM images, monitor the formation of high-contrast nanoparticles. Use Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) to identify these particles as metallic Pb (fcc structure), confirming the reduction of Pb²⁺ to Pb⁰ due to radiolysis [59].

Protocol: Utilizing Pulsed Beams for Damage Mitigation

This protocol is based on molecular dynamics simulations and experimental UTEM work, demonstrating the potential of temporal beam control [61].

• Simulation Setup (MD): Model the irradiation of a target material (e.g., graphene) using molecular dynamics within a binary elastic collision framework.
• Beam Profile Definition: Simulate two types of electron beams: a continuous (random) beam and a pulsed beam with a well-controlled, fixed time interval between electrons.
• Damage Calculation: For a given electron energy (e.g., 200 keV), calculate the number of displaced atoms and determine the threshold angle for damage.
• Experimental Validation (UTEM): Using an ultrafast TEM with a laser-driven pulsed electron source, irradiate a beam-sensitive material (e.g., paraffin) with both pulsed and thermionic beams. Quantify damage mitigation by comparing critical dose thresholds or degradation rates between the two beam modes. Simulations have predicted a larger threshold angle for pulsed beams (1.4 rad) than random beams (1.0 rad) [61].

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for In Situ TEM

Item / Solution	Function in Experiment
MEMS-based Nano-Chip	A microfabricated sample carrier that integrates heaters, sensors, and electrodes to create a localized, controlled environment (gas/liquid, heating, biasing) for the sample [41] [15].
Gas Supply System	A precision pressure and flow control system to deliver single or multiple gases to the MEMS chip, enabling studies of catalysis, oxidation, and reduction [5] [63].
Liquid Supply System	A pump and reservoir system that allows for the injection and flow of liquid reactants across the sample, enabling the study of electrochemical processes, biological materials, and nanoparticle synthesis in solution [41].
Electrochemistry Kit	Includes a potentiostat and specialized MEMS chips with integrated working, counter, and reference electrodes to apply and measure electrical potentials in liquid environments [41].
Optical Feedthrough	An optical fiber integrated into the TEM holder that allows simultaneous illumination of the sample, enabling photochemical and photocatalytic studies [5] [63].

Decision Workflow for Mitigation Strategy Selection

The following diagram maps the logical process for selecting the most appropriate electron beam mitigation strategy based on sample properties and research goals.

Diagram: Selecting an Electron Beam Mitigation Strategy

No single solution completely eliminates electron beam effects in situ TEM. The optimal approach often involves a combination of strategies tailored to the specific sample and scientific question. For biological and organic materials, cryogenic cooling combined with rigorous low-dose protocols remains the gold standard. For functional materials like catalysts and perovskites, in situ environmental holders are indispensable, as they mitigate damage while providing realistic reaction conditions. Meanwhile, emerging technologies like pulsed electron beams offer a promising future for direct damage reduction at the source.

The key is for researchers to systematically assess beam effects using the protocols outlined in this guide and to select holders and strategies that provide the best balance between minimal perturbation and maximal information yield. As in situ TEM continues to evolve, the development of more sophisticated mitigation techniques will further unlock our window into dynamic nanoscale processes.

Strategies for Reducing Thermal and Mechanical Drift

In situ transmission electron microscopy (TEM) has emerged as a transformative tool for directly observing dynamic material processes during synthesis, phase transformations, and under operational conditions. However, the application of external stimuli such as heating, electrical biasing, or mechanical loading introduces significant challenges from thermal and mechanical drift, which can compromise image resolution, experimental stability, and data accuracy [4] [21]. Effective drift management is therefore critical for achieving atomic-scale resolution and obtaining quantitatively reliable results, particularly during prolonged experiments.

This guide systematically compares the drift performance of commercially available in situ TEM holders, with a specific focus on their application in heating, liquid, and gas phase research. We present objective experimental data and standardized protocols to empower researchers in selecting the optimal holder technology for their specific investigation, enabling groundbreaking insights into nanomaterial behavior.

Comparative Analysis of TEM Holder Drift Performance

The design of the TEM holder and its sample heating mechanism fundamentally determines its thermal stability and drift characteristics. The table below provides a quantitative comparison of the major holder types used in in situ research.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of In Situ TEM Holders

Holder Type	Heating Mechanism	Typical Drift Rate	Heating/Cooling Rate	Key Advantages	Primary Limitations
MEMS-Based Heating Holder [64] [21]	Joule heating on microfabricated SiNx membrane	~2 nm/s at 650°C [21]	Very High (e.g., ~26 ms to 800°C) [21]	Minimal thermal mass, excellent stability, low power consumption, rapid thermal cycling	Potential temperature gradient across membrane, higher cost
Traditional Furnace Holder (e.g., Gatan 652) [10] [21]	Resistive furnace surrounding sample	High (significant drift due to bulk heating) [64]	Slow	High maximum temperature (up to 1000°C), versatile for conventional samples	Pronounced thermal drift, large thermal mass, slow response
Cryogenic Holder (e.g., Gatan 636) [10]	Liquid Nitrogen cooling	Significant drift during cooling phases [10]	Slow	Reduces beam damage, studies phase transitions	Drift from thermal gradients during cooldown, limited tilt range
Straining Holder (e.g., Gatan 654) [65]	Mechanical motor-driven tension	N/A (Mechanical drift from movement)	N/A	Capable of large sample displacements	Limited displacement control accuracy, potential for mechanical vibrations

Analysis of Comparison Data

• MEMS Holders Exhibit Superior Drift Performance: The data conclusively shows that MEMS-based heating holders offer the lowest drift rates among available technologies. Their design incorporates a very small thermal mass, which is the key to their superior stability. For instance, a graphene-based MEMS microheater demonstrated a drift of approximately 50 nm in the z-direction at 650°C, with x-y drift rates as low as 2 nm/s [21]. This level of stability is essential for atomic-resolution imaging during in situ experiments.
• Traditional Furnace Holders Suffer from High Drift: In contrast, conventional furnace-style holders heat a significantly larger mass, leading to pronounced thermal gradients and drift. As noted in research, these designs are plagued by "pronounced thermal drift due to thermal gradients across the conventional bulk samples" [64]. While versatile, this makes them less suitable for high-resolution studies where sample stability is paramount.
• Specialized Holders Introduce Unique Drift Challenges: Cryogenic holders experience drift primarily during the initial cooling phase as the system establishes thermal equilibrium [10]. Mechanical holders, such as straining or nanoindentation systems, introduce drift not from temperature but from the physical movement of their internal components during operation [65].

Experimental Protocols for Drift and Temperature Calibration

Accurate quantification of drift and specimen temperature is a prerequisite for reliable in situ data. The following established methodologies are routinely used in the field.

Protocol 1: Temperature Calibration via Silver Nanocube Sublimation

Objective: To measure the local specimen temperature with high accuracy (±5 °C) during in situ heating experiments [64].

Table 2: Key Reagents and Materials for Sublimation Calibration

Item	Function/Description	Critical Parameters
Ag Nanocubes	Calibration standard	Monodisperse, PVP-capped, specific size (e.g., 50-150 nm)
MEMS Heating Holder	Device under test	Must be compatible with the TEM instrument
TEM Imaging/Recording System	Data acquisition	High-resolution imaging capable of tracking size changes

Procedure:

• Sample Preparation: Disperse a dilute suspension of monodisperse, polyvinyl pyrolidone (PVP)-capped Ag nanocubes onto the MEMS heater's silicon nitride membrane and allow to dry [64].
• In Situ Experiment: Inside the TEM, set the MEMS holder to a target set-point temperature (e.g., between 700–850°C) under high vacuum.
• Isothermal Sublimation: Acquire real-time images or video of the Ag nanocubes under consistent electron beam illumination conditions.
• Size Tracking: Measure the change in the nanocube's dimensions over time until sublimation is complete.
• Data Analysis: Apply the Kelvin equation to correlate the observed sublimation rate with the local temperature. The equilibrium vapor pressure (P_r) over a curved surface with radius r is given by: P_r = P_∞ exp(2γM / (rρRT)) where P_∞ is the vapor pressure over a flat surface, γ is the surface energy, M is the molecular weight, ρ is the density, R is the gas constant, and T is the temperature [64].
• Validation: This method has been shown to yield reproducible temperature measurements across different areas of the same MEMS chip and between different chips of the same type [64].

Protocol 2: Temperature Calibration via Lattice Expansion

Objective: To determine the local specimen temperature by measuring the thermal expansion of a reference material using Selected Area Electron Diffraction (SAED) [66].

Procedure:

• Sample Preparation: Disperse inert, spherical Ag nanoparticles (e.g., ~20 nm diameter) onto the sample substrate of interest.
• Diffraction Data Collection: Acquire SAED patterns from a large area of nanoparticles (e.g., ~700 nm diameter) at a series of holder set-point temperatures. Allow sufficient time (15-30 minutes) for temperature stabilization at each point [66].
• Pattern Analysis: Use a software routine (e.g., Circular Hough Transform) to find the precise center of the diffraction patterns and perform rotational averaging.
• Peak Position Tracking: Fit a Gaussian function to a specific diffraction ring (e.g., Ag {311}) to determine its radius with high precision in the rotationally averaged profile.
• Temperature Calculation: Calculate the lattice parameter from the diffraction ring radius. The percent lattice expansion is then derived and compared to the known thermal expansion coefficient of bulk Ag. The temperature is calculated from this relationship with an accuracy of approximately ±30 °C [66].

Diagram 1: Temperature Calibration Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

Successful in situ experimentation relies on a suite of specialized materials and reagents, each serving a specific function in sample preparation, calibration, and analysis.

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Materials for In Situ TEM Studies

Category	Specific Examples	Function in Experiment
Calibration Materials	Silver (Ag) nanocubes, Ag spherical nanoparticles [64] [66]	Provide a known, quantifiable response (sublimation, lattice expansion) for accurate temperature measurement.
Support Membranes	Silicon Nitride (SiNx) windows (on MEMS chips) [64] [21]	Provide an electron-transparent, thermally conductive support for samples in gas/liquid cells and heating holders.
Heating Elements	Graphene layers, patterned metal alloys on MEMS devices [21]	Enable rapid, localized Joule heating of the sample with minimal thermal mass and drift.
Anti-Contamination Tools	Cryogenic anti-contamination devices [67]	Trap contaminants and volatiles inside the TEM column, preventing deposition on the sample and preserving image clarity.

Integrated Workflow for Drift Mitigation

Achieving optimal stability requires an integrated approach that combines appropriate hardware selection with meticulous experimental practice.

Diagram 2: Drift Mitigation Strategy

The most effective strategy for minimizing drift is a holistic process that begins with hardware selection and extends through the entire experimental workflow. The cornerstone is selecting a holder with inherently low-drift design, such as a MEMS-based system [21]. Sample preparation must ensure secure and uniform mounting on the support membrane to prevent additional movement. Prior to critical data collection, pre-experiment calibration using the protocols outlined above is essential to establish a reliable relationship between the holder's set-point and the actual sample conditions [64] [66]. A critical, yet often overlooked, step is allowing sufficient time for the system to reach complete thermal equilibrium after a temperature change; this can require 15 to 30 minutes to minimize drift during acquisition [66]. Finally, data should be collected using stable, low-electron-dose imaging techniques to both track any residual drift and preserve the sample's native structure.

The strategic reduction of thermal and mechanical drift is not merely a technical exercise but a fundamental requirement for extracting reliable, high-resolution data from in situ TEM experiments. This comparison demonstrates that MEMS-based heating holders provide a superior platform for high-stability studies due to their minimal thermal mass and rapid response times, outperforming traditional furnace holders.

As the field progresses, future developments will likely focus on the deeper integration of machine learning for real-time drift prediction and compensation, the design of next-generation MEMS devices with even lower intrinsic drift, and the creation of sophisticated multi-modal software that seamlessly correlates drift-corrected structural data with functional properties [4] [20]. By adopting the calibrated, systematic approaches outlined in this guide, researchers can confidently push the boundaries of in situ TEM, enabling unprecedented insights into dynamic processes at the nanoscale.

Achieving Accurate Temperature Measurement and Calibration

In the realm of in situ Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), where scientists observe materials reacting in real-time under gas or liquid environments, precise temperature control and measurement are not merely convenient—they are the cornerstone of valid, reproducible scientific data. The ability to correlate nanoscale structural changes with specific thermal stimuli is fundamental to advancing research in catalysis, energy storage, and nanomaterials synthesis. However, achieving this precision is a significant challenge, as the introduction of reactive environments and the use of different heating technologies can dramatically alter the actual temperature at the sample from the reported setpoint. This guide objectively compares the performance of different in situ TEM heating holders and the experimental methods used to calibrate them, providing researchers with the data and protocols needed to ensure thermodynamic and kinetic measurements are accurate and meaningful.

The Critical Need for Accurate In Situ TEM Temperature Data

The drive toward in situ and operando TEM experiments aims to study materials under realistic conditions, bridging the gap between idealized high-vacuum observations and real-world application environments [20]. Accurate temperature measurement is central to this mission for several reasons:

• Quantifying Kinetic Parameters: Extracting reliable activation energies from reactions observed in the TEM requires a precise and accurate knowledge of the local sample temperature. Errors in temperature measurement propagate as substantial errors in calculated kinetic parameters [66].
• Replicating Real-World Conditions: Many industrial processes, such as catalysis, occur at elevated temperatures. Faithfully replicating these conditions within the TEM is essential for studies to have practical relevance [20] [68].
• Understanding Catalyst Dynamics: The stability, activity, and degradation mechanisms of catalytic nanoparticles are intensely temperature-dependent. Accurate temperature data is crucial for establishing true structure-property relationships [20].

A primary challenge is that the local sample temperature can be significantly different from the temperature readout provided by the holder. This discrepancy is exacerbated when gas is introduced; the flow of room-temperature gas can cool a sample by several hundred degrees Celsius, a effect that must be quantified to understand the true experimental conditions [66].

Comparison of In Situ TEM Heating and Calibration Methods

The following table compares the primary types of in situ TEM heating holders and the leading techniques for calibrating true sample temperature.

Method / Holder Type	Principle of Operation	Reported Temperature Accuracy	Key Advantages	Key Limitations / Challenges
Furnace-Style Holder	Resistive heating of a large furnace surrounding the sample; temperature monitored via a thermocouple on the furnace body [66].	Varies significantly; can be >100°C off at low temps; more accurate at higher temps (>225°C) [66].	Robust design, well-established history.	Poor thermal contact between thermocouple and sample; temperature reading is highly dependent on sample and grid geometry [66].
MEMS-Based Heater	Localized heating via a micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) device; temperature often measured via integrated sensor [66].	High in vacuum with manufacturer calibration; calibration invalid in gas environments [66].	Low drift, high heating rates (>106 °C/s), small heated area [66].	Requires independent verification of temperature, especially in gas or liquid; spatial temperature uniformity may vary [66].
Selected-Area Diffraction (SAD) Calibration	Measures lattice parameter expansion of a reference material (e.g., Ag nanoparticles) via electron diffraction [66].	± 30 °C [66].	Direct measurement of the local sample temperature; works in both high-vacuum and gaseous environments [66].	Requires specialized data processing; accuracy depends on reference material stability and careful diffraction pattern centering [66].
EELS of Gas Thermometry	Determines temperature by quantifying the density of a gas of known volume and pressure using Electron Energy Loss Spectroscopy (EELS) [66].	Highly accurate for closed-cell systems [66].	Direct gas temperature measurement.	Not applicable to standard differentially pumped ETEMs, as it measures gas outside the heated area [66].
PID Neural Network Control	Uses an adaptive neural network to auto-tune heater power in response to complex, changing environmental conditions [69].	Can maintain temperature with < 0.2 °C overshoot and high stability in simulations [69].	Superior adaptation to unpredictable disturbances (e.g., wind, rain) [69].	Primarily a control algorithm; requires an accurate underlying temperature sensor for feedback. Complexity of implementation [69].

Experimental Protocols for Temperature Calibration

To ensure data integrity, researchers must employ rigorous calibration protocols. The following sections detail key experimental methodologies.

Selected-Area Diffraction (SAD) Using Silver Nanoparticles

This method is considered a robust standard for direct sample temperature measurement in both vacuum and gas environments [66].

• Principle: The lattice constant of a metal expands predictably with temperature. By measuring the lattice parameter of chemically inert silver (Ag) nanoparticles via electron diffraction, the local sample temperature can be deduced by comparing the measured expansion to known thermal expansion data [66].
• Materials & Reagents:
  • Ag Nanoparticles (~20 nm): Serves as the inert calibration standard with a well-characterized thermal expansion coefficient [66].
  • TEM Support Film: SiOx or similar, supported on a Mo TEM grid or MEMS heater membrane [66].
  • ETEM: Equipped with an energy filter is beneficial [66].
• Step-by-Step Workflow:
  • Sample Preparation: Disperse the Ag nanoparticles onto the support film of the heating holder to be calibrated [66].
  • Data Acquisition: Select a sample area (~700 nm diameter) using the selected-area aperture. Acquire diffraction patterns at various holder setpoint temperatures, allowing 15-30 minutes for thermal stabilization at each step. Keep all lens currents and the illuminated area constant [66].
  • Gas Introduction: For environmental studies, introduce the desired gas at the target pressure and acquire additional diffraction patterns after the temperature re-stabilizes [66].
  • Data Processing:
    • Use a Circular Hough Transform to identify diffraction rings [66].
    • Determine the precise center of the diffraction pattern and create a rotationally averaged intensity profile [66].
    • Fit a Gaussian function to a specific diffraction peak (e.g., Ag 311) to find its precise position [66].
  • Temperature Calculation: Calculate the lattice spacing from the peak position. The percent lattice expansion is then compared to the reference data for bulk Ag to determine the true temperature [66].

The workflow for this calibration method is summarized in the following diagram:

Performance Validation of Advanced Control Algorithms

While not a direct calibration method, advanced control systems like the PID Neural Network (PIDNN) represent a proactive approach to maintaining temperature accuracy under dynamic conditions.

• Principle: A neural network, with neurons acting as proportional, integral, and derivative functions, automatically tunes heater outputs using a back propagation algorithm. This allows it to adapt to non-linearities and unpredictable disturbances without prior knowledge of the variation range [69].
• Validation Protocol: Performance is typically validated through numerical simulation and comparison against classical PID controllers under a wide variety of simulated climate conditions, including changing wind speed, sudden rain, and temperature-dependent heater resistance [69].
• Key Performance Metrics:
  • Overshoot: The maximum temperature deviation above the setpoint. The PIDNN demonstrated an overshoot of < 0.2°C in settling, and < 1.0°C for fast disturbances like sudden rain [69].
  • Settling Time: The time required to stabilize at the setpoint after a disturbance. The PIDNN achieved settling times of less than 32-40 seconds [69].

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details key materials and reagents essential for conducting reliable in situ TEM temperature calibration experiments.

Item / Reagent	Function / Role in Experiment
Silver (Ag) Nanoparticles	Inert reference material for Selected-Area Diffraction (SAD) calibration; its thermal expansion is well-characterized [66].
MEMS-Based Heating Holder	Provides localized, fast heating with low spatial drift; the platform for many quantitative in situ experiments [66].
Gas Delivery System	Introduces and controls the pressure of reactive or environmental gases within the TEM specimen area [68].
PID Neural Network (PIDNN) Controller	Advanced control algorithm that adapts heater output to maintain precise temperature under complex, nonlinear conditions [69].
High-Purity Gases (e.g., H₂)	Create the reactive microenvironment for in situ studies; also a source of sample cooling that must be accounted for [66].

Accurate temperature measurement and calibration in in situ TEM is a non-negotiable requirement for producing meaningful scientific insights, particularly in heating liquid and gas research. As the data demonstrates, reliance on manufacturer calibrations or thermocouple readings alone, especially under environmental conditions, can lead to significant errors.

For researchers, the path to reliable data involves selecting the appropriate holder technology—with MEMS heaters offering distinct advantages for low-drift experiments—and implementing a rigorous, independent calibration protocol. The Selected-Area Diffraction method using Ag nanoparticles provides a direct and verifiable measure of local sample temperature, effectively bridging the gap between reported and actual conditions. Furthermore, the development of advanced control systems like the PID Neural Network heralds a future where temperature stability can be maintained even in the face of complex and unpredictable experimental variables, ensuring that observations of nanoscale dynamics are built upon a foundation of thermodynamic certainty.

Ensuring Clean Experiments and Preventing Leaks in Gas and Liquid Systems

In situ Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) has transformed from a post-mortem characterization tool into a dynamic platform for observing nanoscale processes in real-time under realistic reaction conditions, effectively turning the microscope into a nanoscale laboratory [70]. This paradigm shift is particularly impactful in fields like heterogeneous catalysis, electrochemistry, and nanomaterial synthesis, where understanding dynamic structural changes at the atomic scale is crucial [17] [4]. However, the introduction of gaseous or liquid environments into the high-vacuum TEM column presents significant technical challenges. Contamination from sample grids, holders, or the reactive environments themselves, along with the risk of system leaks, can compromise data integrity, damage expensive instrumentation, and lead to experimental artifacts that are not representative of real-world processes [71]. Therefore, ensuring clean, leak-tight experiments is not merely a procedural detail but a foundational requirement for obtaining meaningful, reproducible scientific results from in situ TEM studies of gas-solid and liquid-solid interactions.

Comparison of Leading In Situ TEM Holder Systems

Commercial in situ TEM systems have adopted distinct technological approaches to address the dual challenges of maintaining cleanliness and preventing leaks. The following section objectively compares the specifications, leak-prevention mechanisms, and cleaning protocols of leading solutions.

Table 1: Overview of In Situ TEM Holder Systems for Gas and Liquid Research

Feature	DENSsolutions Stream/Infinity	Hummingbird Scientific Gas Flow Holder	Protochips Atmosphere/Axis Systems
Core Technology	MEMS-based Nano-Cell with removable tip [72]	Microfabricated environmental cell with metal tubing [5]	MEMS-based chips (exact model varies) [73]
Heating Capability	RT to 1,000 °C (integrated micro-heater) [72]	>1,000 °C (integrated MEMS heater) [5]	"Extreme" hot or cold temperatures [73]
Pressure Range	System dependent (gas/liquid cells)	1 to 2 bar (gas cell) [5]	Up to 1 bar (gas cell) [73]
Leak Prevention Strategy	Modular, user-replaceable O-rings and tubing; pre-insertion vacuum leak check [72]	All-metal tubing system; bakeable holder (160°C); high-vacuum leak check station [5]	Not explicitly detailed in results
Cleaning Protocol	On-site replacement/cleaning of tubing, tip, lid, and O-rings [72]	Baking at up to 160°C [5]	Not explicitly detailed in results
Key Innovation	Single holder platform for both liquid and gas studies; 8-contact biasing/heating [72]	Optional optical fiber light feedthrough for photocatalysis studies [5]	Workflow-based solutions for specific applications like synthesis [73]

Quantitative Performance Data from Experimental Studies

Table 2: Experimental Performance Metrics from Published Studies

Experimental Context	Holder System	Reported Performance & Stability	Key Outcome
EDS Mapping at High Temp	Hummingbird Scientific Gas Heating Holder [18]	Minimal drift at high temperatures; EDS mapping without drift-correction enabled	Successful elemental characterization (Co, Pt) during redox cycling [18]
High-Resolution Imaging	DENSsolutions Stream System [72]	Achieved high-resolution imaging and analytical (EELS, EDX) studies via gas purging	Effective removal of excess liquid for pristine post-reaction characterization [72]
Long-Term Heating	Hummingbird Scientific Heating System [43]	Long lifetimes >160 hours; low-drift for high-magnification tracking	Robust and stable performance for prolonged thermal experiments [43]
Nanoparticle Restructuring	Hummingbird Scientific Gas TEM Holder [5]	Stable operation at 400°C in hydrogen/air atmospheres	Direct observation of oxide layer formation and reduction in alloy nanoparticles [5]

Experimental Protocols for Leak Prevention and Cleanliness

Adhering to rigorous experimental protocols is essential for successful in situ TEM studies. The following methodologies, derived from vendor specifications and scientific literature, outline the critical steps.

Pre-Experiment Leak Testing and Holder Preparation

A critical step for all in situ systems is a thorough pre-insertion leak check. Both DENSsolutions and Hummingbird Scientific mandate this procedure. The standard protocol involves using a dedicated high-vacuum pumping station to evacuate the assembled holder to a low base pressure (e.g., <1e-6 mbar for Hummingbird's system [5]) and monitoring the pressure over time to confirm no leaks are present [72] [5]. Only after passing this test should the holder be inserted into the TEM goniometer.

For cleaning, the recommended protocols differ based on the system's design:

• For Modular Systems (e.g., DENSsolutions): Users can perform on-site cleaning by replacing or cleaning the liquid tubing, metal tip, lid, and O-rings. This modularity is designed to prevent cross-contamination between experiments [72].
• For Bakeable Systems (e.g., Hummingbird): The entire gas-flow holder can be baked at temperatures up to 160°C to outgas contaminants and ensure a clean gas delivery path [5].

Sample and Environment Considerations

Beyond the holder itself, the sample and chemical environment require careful planning. Researchers must consider the reactivity of the sample, support grids, and holder components with the introduced gases or liquids [71]. For example, certain gases can form volatile carbonyls with metal components, leading to sample erosion and contamination [71]. Using clean, high-purity gases and solvents minimizes the introduction of external contaminants. In liquid cell experiments, the DENSsolutions Stream system introduces a gas purging protocol: a controllable flow of inert gas is used to clear excess liquid from the sample area. This allows for high-resolution imaging and analytical spectroscopy (EELS, EDX) to be performed on the same sample after electrochemical or liquid-phase reactions, without exposing air-sensitive samples to the atmosphere [72].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Key Materials and Components for Reliable In Situ TEM

Item	Function & Importance	Expert Insight
MEMS-based Nano-Cell/Chip	The functional sample carrier that integrates micro-heaters, sensors, and electrodes to create a controlled nanoreactor [72].	Enables sub-Angstrom resolution imaging and combined stimuli (e.g., heating + biasing) [72].
High-Purity Gases & Liquids	The reactive media introduced to the sample. Purity is critical to prevent contamination from impurities [71].	Contaminants can adsorb on surfaces or participate in side reactions, leading to experimental artifacts [71].
Replaceable O-rings & Seals	Critical components that create a vacuum-tight seal between the holder and the MEMS chip or the TEM column.	Worn or damaged O-rings are a primary leak source. Modular, user-replaceable kits are essential for maintenance [72].
Dedicated Leak Check Station	A compact vacuum station for verifying holder integrity before TEM insertion.	Prevents accidental venting of the multi-million dollar TEM column and protects other samples from contamination [5].
All-Metal/Gas-Specific Tubing	Tubing used for gas delivery that minimizes permeability and reaction with the gas species.	All-metal tubing systems reduce contamination risks and are often bakeable for ultra-clean experiments [5].
Optical Fiber Feedthrough	An optional component that allows light to be delivered to the sample inside the gas cell.	Essential for in situ studies of photocatalysis, allowing direct observation of light-matter interactions [5].

The advancement of in situ TEM hinges on the reliability of the systems that enable observations under realistic environmental conditions. As the field progresses, future challenges include managing the large data sets generated by high-speed direct detection cameras and further improving the temporal resolution of these complex experiments [70]. The integration of machine learning for data analysis and the continued miniaturization of TEM components will push the boundaries of what can be observed [4]. However, the foundational principles of meticulous experimental planning, rigorous leak checking, and systematic cleaning protocols will remain paramount. The commercial systems from DENSsolutions, Hummingbird Scientific, and Protochips provide robust platforms, but the ultimate responsibility for ensuring clean and leak-tight experiments lies with the researcher, whose careful attention to detail unlocks the full potential of in situ TEM to reveal atomic-scale secrets of dynamic processes.

Optimizing Electrical Contact for Electrochemical and Biasing Experiments

The pursuit of observing material behavior under realistic operational conditions has driven the advancement of in situ transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Specialized specimen holders that facilitate electrochemical and biasing experiments represent a critical technological frontier, enabling researchers to apply precisely controlled electrical stimuli to samples while simultaneously observing atomic-scale responses. The optimization of electrical contact systems within these holders is paramount for obtaining reliable, high-fidelity data across diverse research applications including battery material development, electrocatalysis studies, and nanoscale device characterization.

The evolution from simple heating holders to sophisticated multi-functional systems has dramatically expanded TEM's experimental capabilities. Modern in situ holders now integrate multiple electrical contacts alongside environmental control systems, allowing researchers to simulate real-world operating conditions while observing fundamental processes at previously inaccessible spatial and temporal resolutions. The strategic implementation of bimetallic components and advanced contact geometries has further enhanced performance while addressing challenges associated with signal integrity, thermal management, and material compatibility.

Comparative Analysis of Commercial In Situ TEM Holders

Technical Specifications and Performance Metrics

Table 1: Comparison of Commercial In Situ TEM Holders with Biasing Capabilities

Manufacturer & Model	Electrical Contacts	Biasing Capabilities	Heating Range	Environmental Control	Key Features
Hummingbird Scientific Gas-Flow Holder [5]	4 contacts	Not specified	>1000°C	Gas (1-2 bar pressure range)	All-metal tubing system, bakeable to 160°C, compatible with EELS/EDS
DENSsolutions Climate Infinity [15]	8 contacts	Combined heating & biasing	Up to 1000°C	Gas & liquid environments	Flippable tip for STEM/TEM switching, modular design, compatible with various MEMS chips
Protochips Poseidon AX [41]	Integrated for electrochemistry	3-electrode setup for liquid cells	Up to 100°C	Liquid flow with mixing	Precise flow and bubble management, true in-situ EDS, machine vision software

Critical Analysis of Contact Design and Performance

The number and configuration of electrical contacts fundamentally determine the experimental possibilities for in situ TEM research. Systems with only four contacts, like the Hummingbird Scientific Gas-Flow Holder [5], provide basic functionality for simple heating or biasing experiments but lack the capability for combined multimodal stimulation. In contrast, holders featuring eight independent electrical contacts, such as the DENSsolutions Climate Infinity system [15], enable simultaneous application of thermal and electrical stimuli while permitting more complex circuit configurations for advanced electrochemical characterization.

The strategic implementation of bimetallic components in contact systems offers significant advantages for experimental performance and cost efficiency. By designing contacts with precious metals only at the critical electrical interface while using more economical alloys for structural support, manufacturers can dramatically reduce material costs while maintaining essential electrical properties [74]. These bimetallic solutions demonstrate low electrical resistance, excellent thermal stability, and enhanced corrosion resistance—properties essential for reliable performance under the demanding conditions of in situ TEM experiments [75]. However, this approach requires careful material selection, as copper-based alloys may be unsuitable for highly corrosive environments where solid precious metals or specialized platings become necessary [74].

Experimental Protocols for Electrical Contact Validation

Temperature Calibration Methodology

Accurate temperature measurement at the specimen level presents significant challenges in MEMS-based heating systems due to the thermal resistance of support membranes and potential electron beam effects. A refined protocol using isothermal sublimation of silver nanocubes has been developed to calibrate specimen temperature with high precision [64].

Materials and Equipment:

• MEMS-based heating holder with biasing capability
• Monodisperse PVP-capped Ag nanocubes (70-150nm)
• TEM with imaging capabilities (<5nm resolution recommended)
• Image acquisition system for time-series recording

Experimental Procedure:

• Deposit Ag nanocubes onto the MEMS device using drop-casting or specialized transfer techniques
• Assemble the holder and insert into TEM, following all safety protocols
• Set initial temperature to 500°C with continuous imaging to monitor stability
• Increase temperature to target set-point (700-850°C range) using controlled ramp rates
• Acquire time-series images of nanocube sublimation at fixed intervals (2-5 seconds)
• Measure projected area changes of multiple nanocubes throughout the sublimation process
• Analyze data using the modified Kelvin equation for cuboidal particles [64]:

The Kelvin equation for cuboidal particles relates vapor pressure to particle size and temperature.

• Correlate measured sublimation rates with established size-dependent models to determine actual specimen temperature

This method achieves temperature measurement accuracy of ±5°C at the specimen level, revealing that membrane-supported samples can experience temperature differences of 50-100°C compared to the calibrated heater temperature due to the low thermal conductivity of silicon nitride membranes [64].

Electrochemical Time-of-Flight (ETOF) for Diffusion Coefficient Measurements

The ETOF technique provides an elegant method for determining diffusion coefficients of electrochemically generated species without requiring prior knowledge of electron stoichiometry or reaction mechanisms [76].

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for ETOF Experiments

Reagent/Material	Function	Experimental Considerations
Platinum Microelectrode Array [76]	Generator and collector electrodes	25μm wide fingers with 25μm gaps, 2mm length
Ferrocene Derivatives [76]	Reference species with known diffusion coefficients	D ≈ 6.5-7.2 × 10⁻⁶ cm²/s in 0.1M KCl
Ruthenium Hexamine [76]	Reference species for calibration	D ≈ 7.8 × 10⁻⁶ cm²/s in aqueous solutions
Vanadium Acetylacetonate [76]	Species for non-aqueous measurements	Enables organic solvent compatibility

Experimental Workflow:

• Prepare microelectrode array and align in TEM holder with electrical connections
• Introduce electrolyte solution containing species of interest
• Apply brief potential pulse (tpulse = 61ms optimized) to generator electrode
• Monitor current response at adjacent collector electrode(s)
• Measure time of maximum collection (tmc) for generated species
• Construct calibration curve using reference species with known diffusion coefficients
• Determine unknown diffusion coefficients from calibration curve [76]

The ETOF approach is particularly valuable for studying short-lived electrochemical intermediates and systems with complex or unknown reaction mechanisms, as it requires no foreknowledge of electron stoichiometry or complete reaction pathways [76].

Essential Research Tools and Material Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for In Situ TEM Electrification

Category	Specific Examples	Function & Importance
MEMS Chips	Gas-Heating-Biasing (GHB), Liquid-Heating-Biasing (LHB) [15]	Enable combined stimuli application; provide electron-transparent windows for observation
Electrical Contacts	Bimetallic strips (Paliney 6/C729) [74]	Optimize cost/performance ratio; provide precise contact positioning with minimal precious metal use
Reference Materials	Silver nanocubes (70-150nm) [64]	Enable accurate temperature calibration through controlled sublimation behavior
Electrochemical Media	Ferrocene derivatives, Ruthenium complexes [76]	Provide well-characterized reference systems for method validation and calibration

Signaling Pathways and Experimental Workflows

In Situ TEM Experiment Workflow

Advanced Configurations for Specialized Applications

Potentiometric-OECT (pOECT) for High-Accuracy Sensing

Recent innovations in organic electrochemical transistors (OECTs) have led to the development of the potentiometric-OECT (pOECT) configuration, which maintains the sensing electrode under true open circuit potential conditions [77]. This approach addresses a fundamental limitation of conventional OECTs where gate electrode biasing prevents the system from reaching thermodynamic equilibrium, thereby compromising measurement accuracy.

The pOECT configuration separates the gate into two functionally distinct elements: a sensing gate (GS) that serves as a reference electrode sensitive to target concentrations, and a gating gate (GG) that functions as a counter electrode responsible for applying the doping voltage [77]. This separation enables accurate potentiometric sensing while retaining the intrinsic amplification and noise reduction benefits of OECT technology. The configuration demonstrates particular utility for ion concentration measurements, pH monitoring, and barrier tissue integrity assessments with higher response accuracy and stability compared to conventional two-electrode setups or traditional OECT configurations [77].

Combined Stimuli Applications

The most advanced in situ TEM systems now enable the application of multiple simultaneous stimuli to better replicate real-world material operating conditions. The DENSsolutions Climate Infinity system exemplifies this capability with eight electrical contacts that support combined heating and biasing experiments within controlled gas or liquid environments [15]. This multi-modal approach allows researchers to investigate complex phenomena such as electromigration under thermal stress, temperature-dependent electrochemical reactions, and field-driven phase transformations at unprecedented spatial resolution.

The experimental workflow for combined stimuli experiments requires careful synchronization of control parameters and data acquisition systems. Specialized software platforms, such as the DENSsolutions Impulse software [15] or Protochips AXON machine vision platform [41], enable coordinated control of temperature, electrical bias, and environmental conditions while simultaneously recording TEM images, spectroscopic data, and experimental parameters. This integrated approach ensures temporal correlation between applied stimuli and material responses, facilitating accurate mechanistic interpretation of observed phenomena.

Future Perspectives and Concluding Remarks

The ongoing optimization of electrical contact systems for in situ TEM experimentation continues to expand the frontiers of materials characterization. Emerging trends include the development of cryogenic-biasing holders for quantum material studies, increased integration of multi-modal analytical capabilities (EELS, EDS, diffraction), and implementation of machine learning algorithms for automated experiment control and data analysis. The refinement of bimetallic contact strategies and MEMS-based sample platforms will further enhance signal integrity while reducing experimental artifacts.

The strategic selection and implementation of appropriate electrical contact configurations—whether simple four-contact systems for fundamental studies or advanced eight-contact platforms for combined stimuli experiments—enables researchers to address increasingly complex scientific questions across materials science, electrochemistry, and device physics. As these technologies continue to evolve, they will undoubtedly unlock new opportunities for observing and understanding material behavior under operational conditions with atomic-scale resolution.

Operando transmission electron microscopy (TEM) has emerged as a transformative technique for studying dynamic processes in materials science, heterogeneous catalysis, and energy research by enabling direct observation of structural changes under realistic working conditions. This advanced methodology combines external stimuli application—such as heating, gas exposure, or electrical biasing—with simultaneous structural characterization and reaction product detection [78]. However, a critical challenge in obtaining accurate structure-activity relationships lies in the intrinsic time delays that exist among different parameter measurement locations within the experimental setup [79]. These temporal misalignments can lead to erroneous scientific conclusions, including over-estimating critical reaction temperatures or mismatching specific structural features to catalytic activities [79].

The data synchronization problem is particularly acute in gas-cell based operando TEM experiments, where the detection of reaction products typically occurs through mass spectrometry at a location physically separated from the sample reaction site. The transit time of gases through the microfluidic channels of the specialized TEM holder creates a delay between when a reaction occurs at the sample and when it is detected by the analytical instrumentation [79]. Without proper calibration and correction, this temporal disconnect can fundamentally compromise the interpretation of dynamic processes and lead to incorrect assignments of structure-property relationships in catalytic systems, battery materials, and other functional nanomaterials.

Experimental Protocols for Time Delay Measurement and Calibration

On-Chip Calorimetry Methodology

A sophisticated approach to measuring and calibrating time delays in operando TEM relies on the unique capability of on-chip calorimetry integrated directly into gas Nano-Reactor systems [79]. This methodology utilizes the MEMS-based heater itself as both a stimulation source and measurement device, allowing direct quantification of gas arrival times at the sample location. The experimental workflow involves precisely controlled thermal pulses and monitoring the system response to determine exact temporal offsets between different measurement points.

The specific protocol consists of applying rapid temperature variations to the microheater while monitoring both the local temperature response and the corresponding signals from gas detection systems. By analyzing the temporal relationship between the thermal stimulus and the detection of resulting gas property changes, researchers can quantitatively characterize delay times under various gas flow conditions [79]. This approach provides in-situ calibration without requiring additional sensors that might interfere with the TEM imaging capabilities.

Flow Rate and Pressure Dependence Analysis

Comprehensive experimental studies have demonstrated that time delays in operando TEM systems exhibit a predictable functional relationship with gas flow rate and pressure, while showing little dependence on the specific gas type being used [79]. This finding enables the development of generalized calibration models applicable across diverse experimental conditions.

The standard protocol for characterizing these relationships involves:

• Systematic variation of flow parameters while maintaining constant pressure conditions
• Precise measurement of temporal offsets using the on-chip calorimetry method
• Mathematical modeling of the relationship between flow conditions and delay times
• Validation experiments using multiple gas types to confirm minimal gas-specific effects

Through this approach, researchers have developed algorithms and scripts that enable automatic data synchronization in both real-time experiments and post-experiment analysis [79]. The resulting calibration functions allow for precise temporal alignment of structural data from TEM imaging with catalytic activity measurements from mass spectrometry, ensuring accurate correlation between catalyst morphology and reaction kinetics.

Comparative Analysis of In Situ TEM Holder Technologies

The market for in-situ TEM specimen holders includes several prominent manufacturers, including DENSsolutions, Protochips, and Hummingbird Scientific, each offering specialized systems with distinct capabilities for operando experiments [49]. The table below summarizes the key characteristics, synchronization capabilities, and applications of different holder types used in operando experiments.

Table 1: Comparison of In Situ TEM Holder Technologies for Operando Experiments

Holder Type	Key Manufacturers	Synchronization Features	Typical Applications	Time Delay Considerations
Gas Cell Holders	Protochips (Atmosphere), DENSsolutions	Integrated gas delivery systems with pressure control; Compatible with TEM-optimized MS	Heterogeneous catalysis [80], catalyst sintering studies [21], oxidation/reduction studies	Significant delays due to gas transit; Requires flow-rate dependent calibration [79]
Heating Holders	Multiple (MEMS-based)	Rapid heating/cooling capabilities (ms timescale); On-chip calorimetry [21]	Nanoparticle sintering [21], phase transformations, thermal stability studies	Minimal intrinsic delays for thermal stimuli; Excellent for structural dynamics
Liquid Cell Holders	Protochips (Poseidon)	Controlled liquid environments for electrochemical studies	Battery research [14], electrocatalysis, nanomaterial synthesis	Complex fluid dynamics delays; Less characterized than gas systems
Electrical Biasing Holders	Multiple MEMS providers	Combined electrical stimuli with other environmental controls	Memristor studies [81], battery materials, electronic devices	Minimal delay for electrical signals; Challenges with parasitic currents [81]
Heating & Electrical Combination	Protochips (Fusion)	Simultaneous thermal and electrical stimulation	Solid-state energy converters [14], battery materials under thermal stress	Complex multi-stimulus synchronization required

Gas Cell Holder Technology and Synchronization Challenges

Gas cell TEM holders represent one of the most technologically advanced systems for operando catalysis studies, with specialized designs that enable the introduction of reactive gases at controlled pressures while maintaining high vacuum conditions in the TEM column [78]. These systems typically employ paired silicon chips with electron-transparent silicon nitride membranes (typically 10-50 nm thick) that create a shallow gas-flow channel enclosing the sample [78]. The commercial systems from leading providers like Protochips (Atmosphere system) and DENSsolutions incorporate precise gas mixing capabilities, with inlet and outlet pressures accurately controlled by dedicated pressure controllers to achieve stable gas flow with regulated pressure and flow rates [78].

The primary synchronization challenge in gas cell experiments stems from the physical separation between the reaction site (where structural changes occur and are imaged) and the mass spectrometry detection point (where reaction products are measured). Experimental measurements have quantified that the time delay between these points exhibits a clear dependence on the gas flow rate and pressure within the system [79]. At low flow rates, delays of several minutes can occur, while higher flow rates reduce these delays significantly. This relationship necessitates careful calibration for each experimental condition to ensure proper temporal alignment between structural images and activity data.

MEMS Heating Holders and Temporal Resolution

Micro-Electro-Mechanical System (MEMS) based heating holders have revolutionized the temporal capabilities of in-situ TEM by enabling extremely rapid thermal cycling with heating and cooling rates reaching millisecond timescales [21]. These systems feature microfabricated heater elements integrated with electron-transparent sample support membranes, allowing precise temperature control while maintaining high spatial resolution for imaging. The rapid thermal response of MEMS heaters (e.g., 26.31 ms heating to 800°C and 42.58 ms cooling in advanced designs) enables sophisticated experimental protocols like intermittent heating and tilt-series acquisition for electron tomography [21].

For data synchronization purposes, MEMS heating systems offer significant advantages because the thermal stimulus can be applied almost instantaneously relative to the image acquisition timescales. However, synchronization challenges arise when correlating these structural changes with gas-phase reaction products, as the gas transit delays discussed previously still apply. Advanced MEMS designs incorporating on-chip calorimetry directly address these challenges by providing direct measurement of thermal processes at the exact sample location [79].

Data Synchronization Workflows and Technical Solutions

Integrated Synchronization Methodology

The following diagram illustrates the complete workflow for data synchronization in operando gas and heating TEM experiments, integrating both measurement and correction phases:

Diagram 1: Workflow for data synchronization in operando TEM experiments

Implementation Algorithms and Scripts

The development of automated synchronization solutions represents a significant advancement in operando TEM methodology. Based on the characterized relationships between flow parameters and time delays, researchers have created specialized algorithms and scripts that implement automatic temporal alignment of multi-modal datasets [79]. These computational tools operate through several key processing stages:

• Parameter Input Stage: Flow rate, pressure, and gas type parameters are acquired from the experimental control system
• Delay Calculation Stage: Pre-calibrated functional relationships are applied to compute expected delay times
• Temporal Shift Stage: Mass spectrometry data is shifted backward in time relative to structural data
• Uncertainty Quantification: Statistical methods estimate alignment precision based on flow stability
• Validation Checks: Cross-correlation analyses verify alignment quality across datasets

These automated solutions significantly reduce the potential for human error in manual synchronization approaches and enable both real-time alignment during experiments and post-processing alignment for historical datasets. The implementation typically involves close integration with the proprietary software provided by holder manufacturers (e.g., Protochips, DENSsolutions) while maintaining flexibility for custom experimental configurations.

Research Reagent Solutions for Operando TEM

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for Operando TEM Experiments

Item	Function	Application Examples	Technical Considerations
MEMS Gas Cells (e.g., Protochips Atmosphere, DENSsolutions)	Sealed environment for gas-solid reactions at pressure	Catalytic nanoparticle studies [80], oxidation/reduction experiments	SiNx membrane thickness (10-50 nm) affects resolution; Flow channel design impacts gas mixing
MEMS Heating Chips	Precise temperature control with rapid response	Sintering studies [21], phase transformations, thermal stability	Heating rates to 106 °C/s; Maximum temperatures >1000°C; Graphene heaters reduce drift [21]
Liquid Electrochemical Cells	Controlled liquid environments for electrochemistry	Battery charge/discharge studies [14], electrocatalysis, corrosion	SiNx windows contain liquid; Electrode integration for biasing; Beam effects must be considered
Specialized Gas Mixtures	Creating reactive environments for catalysis	CO oxidation, hydrogenation, selective oxidation	Gas purity critical; Precise mixing systems; Compatibility with mass spectrometry detection
Mass Spectrometry Systems	Detection of reaction products from gas cell	Quantifying catalytic activity, reaction kinetics	TEM-optimized designs with minimal dead volume; Sensitivity to trace products [78]
Calibration Reference Materials	Validation of temperature and pressure measurements	Melting point standards, decomposition references	Nanoparticles of known melting temperature (e.g., Au, Pb); Decomposition compounds

Comparative Performance Analysis and Experimental Data

Quantitative Synchronization Performance Metrics

The effectiveness of different synchronization approaches can be evaluated through specific performance metrics. The table below summarizes key parameters for assessing synchronization capabilities across holder types:

Table 3: Synchronization Performance Metrics for Different Holder Technologies

Holder System	Temporal Resolution	Synchronization Accuracy	Typical Delay Times	Calibration Requirements
Gas Cell + MS Detection	1-10 seconds (MS limited)	Moderate (flow-dependent)	Seconds to minutes [79]	Required for each flow condition
Heating-Only MEMS	Milliseconds (thermal)	High (minimal delays)	Negligible	One-time thermal response characterization
ETEM Systems	1-10 seconds (MS limited)	Moderate (flow-dependent)	Seconds	System-specific calibration
Electrical Biasing	Microseconds (electronic)	High (minimal delays)	Negligible	Cable delay characterization
Liquid Electrochemical	0.1-1 seconds (ionic)	Low to Moderate (complex)	Highly variable	System-specific characterization

Impact of Synchronization on Scientific Interpretation

The critical importance of proper data synchronization is evident when examining case studies from recent literature. In one representative example, researchers studying dilute palladium-gold alloy catalysts used a Hummingbird Scientific in-situ TEM gas-cell heating holder to demonstrate that nanoparticle structure remained unchanged up to reaction-relevant high temperatures (500°C in oxygen, 400°C in hydrogen) [80]. Without proper synchronization between temperature measurements and structural imaging, the thermal stability of these catalysts could have been misinterpreted, potentially leading to incorrect conclusions about their suitability for high-temperature applications.

In another example from the field of electron tomography, researchers developed an intermittent heating procedure that leveraged the rapid heating-and-cooling capabilities of MEMS holders to capture 3D structural information during sintering processes [21]. This approach required precise synchronization between heating cycles and tilt-series acquisition, with specimen heating stopped during image collection to minimize artifacts. The successful implementation enabled 4D (space and time) observation of nanoparticle sintering, providing unprecedented insights into the dynamics of microstructural evolution.

Data synchronization represents a fundamental methodological challenge in operando TEM experiments, particularly for systems combining gas environments with thermal or electrical stimuli. The development of standardized calibration protocols using on-chip calorimetry and the creation of automated synchronization algorithms have significantly improved the reliability of structure-activity correlations derived from these sophisticated experiments [79]. As operando TEM continues to evolve toward more complex multi-modal stimulation and detection schemes, the importance of rigorous temporal alignment will only increase.

Future advancements in this field will likely include the integration of artificial intelligence approaches for real-time synchronization adjustment, the development of miniaturized detectors with reduced dead volumes to minimize inherent delays, and the creation of standardized reference materials for synchronization validation across different laboratory environments. Additionally, as noted in recent reviews, the combination of operando TEM with advanced data analysis techniques including machine learning and high-throughput image processing will further emphasize the need for precise temporal correlation between structural dynamics and functional properties [4] [78]. Through continued attention to these methodological details, the operando TEM community will enhance the quantitative reliability of this powerful characterization technique and accelerate the development of advanced materials for catalysis, energy storage, and other applications.

Ensuring Data Accuracy: From Holder Calibration to Cross-Technique Validation

In situ transmission electron microscope (TEM) heating experiments provide fundamental insights into the mechanisms of thermally activated processes in nanomaterials, from catalytic nanoparticles to battery materials. The success of these experiments hinges on one critical parameter: accurate knowledge of the actual specimen temperature. While micro electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) based heating holders offer superior thermal stability and minimal drift, they pose particular challenges for precise temperature measurement at the specimen level. The greatly reduced thermal mass of specimens used in MEMS micro-heater experiments means the temperature read from the device controller often differs from the actual temperature experienced by the sample due to factors like the low thermal conductivity of support membranes.

Several techniques have been developed to address this calibration challenge, each with distinct operating principles, advantages, and limitations. This guide focuses on two powerful methods: isothermal sublimation, which leverages the size-dependent sublimation of nanoparticles, and diffraction-based methods, which utilize temperature-dependent changes in material crystal structure. Understanding the capabilities, accuracy, and implementation requirements of these techniques is essential for researchers conducting in situ TEM heating experiments across materials science, catalysis, and semiconductor research.

Isothermal Sublimation Method

Fundamental Principles

The isothermal sublimation method for temperature calibration exploits the Kelvin equation, which describes the effect of interface curvature on vapor pressure for solid nanoparticles in thermodynamic equilibrium with their vapor. The original form of the equation, defined by Lord Kelvin for liquid droplets, was adapted for solid nanoparticles. For a spherical solid nanoparticle, the relationship between its radius and vapor pressure is given by:

Pr = P∞ * exp(2γV / (rRT))

Where Pr is the equilibrium vapor pressure over the curved surface, P∞ is the equilibrium vapor pressure over a flat surface, γ is the surface energy, V is the molar volume, r is the radius of the nanoparticle, R is the gas constant, and T is the absolute temperature [64].

In practice, this size-dependent relationship means that smaller nanoparticles sublime at lower temperatures than larger ones. By conducting systematic isothermal sublimation experiments with monodisperse nanoparticles and identifying the critical size that sublimes at a specific temperature, researchers can determine the actual specimen temperature with high precision [64] [82].

Experimental Protocol

Materials and Equipment Requirements

The following reagents and equipment are essential for implementing the isothermal sublimation calibration method:

Table: Research Reagent Solutions for Isothermal Sublimation

Item	Function	Specifications
Silver Nanocubes	Calibration reference material	~100 nm edge length; Polyvinyl pyrolidone (PVP) capped [64]
MEMS Heating Holder	Sample heating and support	e.g., FEI NanoEx/iv single-tilt MEMS-based heating holder [64]
TEM Support Membrane	Nanocube substrate	Amorphous silicon nitride or crystalline silicon [64]
TEM with Imaging Capability	Observation and recording	Capable of high-resolution imaging and video recording

Step-by-Step Workflow

• Sample Preparation: Disperse synthesized Ag nanocubes onto the MEMS device support membrane. The nanoparticle size, loading density, and intermediate holding temperature must be optimized to ensure accurate results [64].

• Isothermal Heating: Set the MEMS heater to a specific temperature set-point and maintain this temperature while observing the sample. The experiments are typically conducted in the range of 700-850°C for Ag nanocubes [64].

• Sublimation Observation: Record the sublimation process using TEM imaging. Track the size reduction of individual nanocubes over time under continuous illumination or during limited illumination intervals to minimize electron beam heating effects [64].

• Critical Size Determination: For each isothermal experiment, identify the critical cube size ac that neither grows nor shrinks. This represents the equilibrium size for that specific temperature [64].

• Data Analysis: Apply the modified Kelvin equation for cuboidal particles: ac = 4γΩ / (kT * ln(Pr/P∞)), where Ω is the atomic volume, k is Boltzmann's constant, and Pr/P∞ is determined from established vapor pressure data for silver [64].

• Temperature Calculation: Calculate the specimen temperature using the known materials parameters and the measured critical size.

Performance and Applications

The isothermal sublimation method using Ag nanocubes delivers exceptional accuracy of ±5°C within the temperature range of 700-850°C [64] [82]. This technique provides several key advantages:

• High Spatial Resolution: Enables temperature measurement at the nanoscale, crucial for MEMS-based devices with small thermal masses [64].
• Reproducibility: Consistent results are obtained from area to area on the same MEMS chip and between different chips of the same type [64].
• Direct Measurement: Circumvents issues related to thermal conductivity of support membranes by measuring temperature directly at the specimen location.

A significant finding from research using this method is that the actual specimen temperature is consistently lower than the calibrated MEMS heater plate temperatures. This discrepancy is attributed to the low thermal conductivity of electron-transparent amorphous silicon nitride support membranes. This effect is less pronounced when using thicker crystalline Si supports with higher thermal conductivity [64].

The method can be extended to other temperature ranges by using nanoparticles of different metals with varying vapor pressures and sublimation temperatures, making it a versatile approach for different experimental needs [64].

Diffraction-Based Methods

Fundamental Principles

Diffraction-based temperature calibration methods leverage the fundamental relationship between temperature and a crystal's lattice parameters. As temperature increases, the thermal expansion of crystalline materials causes measurable changes in lattice spacing, which can be precisely quantified using electron diffraction techniques. The core principle relies on the temperature-dependent lattice parameter a(T) described by:

a(T) = a₀[1 + α(T - T₀)]

Where a₀ is the lattice parameter at reference temperature T₀, and α is the coefficient of thermal expansion. By measuring the change in lattice spacing through shifts in diffraction patterns, the local temperature can be determined with high precision [83].

Several diffraction approaches have been developed:

• Parallel Beam Electron Diffraction (PBED): Measures thermal expansion of reference nanocrystals (e.g., Au) to determine temperature [64].
• Selected Area Electron Diffraction (SAED): Tracks thermal expansion of nanoparticles in environmental TEM to calculate temperature variations in gaseous environments [64].
• Convergent Beam Electron Diffraction (CBED): Measures changes in the intensity of thermal diffuse scattering from a sample as a function of temperature [64].

A related spectroscopic method, Plasmon Energy Expansion Thermometry (PEET), measures temperature-dependent shifts in bulk plasmon energy measured via Electron Energy Loss Spectroscopy (EELS). However, this method requires careful consideration of sample thickness effects, as variations in TEM sample thickness (e.g., 30-70 nm) can influence the measured plasmon energy and introduce uncertainties in temperature determination [84].

Experimental Protocol

Materials and Equipment Requirements

The following reagents and equipment are essential for implementing diffraction-based calibration methods:

Table: Research Reagent Solutions for Diffraction Methods

Item	Function	Specifications
Reference Nanocrystals	Calibration reference material	Gold (Au) or other stable crystalline materials [64]
MEMS Heating Holder	Sample heating and support	Compatible with diffraction experiments [85]
TEM with Diffraction Capability	Pattern acquisition	Must support SAED, PBED, or CBED techniques [64]
EELS Spectrometer	For PEET measurements	Required for plasmon energy measurement [84]

Step-by-Step Workflow

• Sample Preparation: Deposit reference nanocrystals (e.g., Au) onto the TEM support membrane. For PEET, prepare an electron-transparent lamella of the reference material (e.g., Tungsten) with uniform thickness [64] [84].

• Diffraction Pattern Acquisition: At each temperature set-point, acquire diffraction patterns from the reference nanocrystals using PBED, SAED, or CBED techniques. For PEET, acquire EELS spectra to measure the bulk plasmon energy [64] [84].

• Lattice Parameter Measurement: Measure the positions of diffraction spots or rings to calculate lattice spacings. For increased accuracy, use the entire diffraction ring rather than individual spots [64].

• Thermal Expansion Calculation: Calculate the relative change in lattice parameter compared to a reference temperature. Apply thermal expansion coefficients for the reference material [64].

• Thickness Correction (for PEET): Account for sample thickness variations by monitoring the beam broadening (FWHM) of the bulk plasmon peak, which increases with decreasing sample thickness [84].

• Temperature Determination: Calculate the temperature using the known thermal expansion relationship for the reference material.

Performance and Applications

Diffraction-based methods offer several advantages for temperature calibration:

• High Precision: Can detect subtle temperature changes through precise measurement of lattice parameter shifts [64].
• Non-Invasive: Does not consume or alter the reference material during measurement [64].
• Broad Temperature Range: Applicable from room temperature to very high temperatures, limited mainly by the reference material's stability [64].
• No Special Requirements: Can be performed using standard TEM instruments with diffraction capabilities, without requiring specialized detectors [64].

The PBED method has been successfully used to measure temperature by estimating the thermal expansion of Au nanocrystals, providing reliable results across various temperature ranges [64]. However, researchers must account for potential errors, particularly when using focused ion beam (FIB)-prepared samples, as thickness variations and residual strain can influence measurements [84].

Comparative Analysis

Technical Comparison

Table: Quantitative Comparison of Calibration Techniques

Parameter	Isothermal Sublimation	Diffraction Methods
Accuracy	±5°C [64] [82]	Varies by technique; high precision possible [64]
Temperature Range	700-850°C (using Ag) [64]	Broad range; RT to very high temperatures [64]
Spatial Resolution	High (nanoparticle level) [64]	Limited by selected area aperture or probe size [64]
Sample Consumption	Destructive (sublimes material) [64]	Non-destructive [64]
Key Limitations	Limited to specific temperature ranges based on material vapor pressure [64]	Thickness-dependent effects in thin samples [84]
Special Requirements	Monodisperse nanoparticles with known properties [64]	Crystalline reference material; diffraction capability [64]

Implementation Considerations

Method Selection Criteria

Choosing between isothermal sublimation and diffraction methods depends on several experimental factors:

• Temperature Range: Isothermal sublimation with Ag nanocubes is ideal for the 700-850°C range, while diffraction methods can cover broader temperature ranges [64].
• Equipment Availability: Diffraction methods require TEM with diffraction capability, while isothermal sublimation primarily requires high-resolution imaging [64].
• Experimental Timeline: Isothermal sublimation requires synthesis of monodisperse nanoparticles, while diffraction methods need suitable reference nanocrystals [64].
• Sample Compatibility: Isothermal sublimation consumes the calibration material, while diffraction methods are non-destructive [64].

Integration with In Situ Holders

Both calibration methods are compatible with advanced MEMS-based heating holders such as the Fusion AX system, which offers temperature capabilities up to 1200°C with excellent stability [85]. These systems provide the thermal stability required for precise calibration measurements while minimizing specimen drift.

For gas cell holders, which enable in situ experiments in controlled gaseous environments at temperatures exceeding 1000°C, diffraction methods may be preferable as they are less affected by gas environment changes compared to sublimation-based approaches [5].

Accurate temperature measurement at the specimen level is crucial for reliable in situ TEM heating experiments. Both isothermal sublimation and diffraction methods provide powerful approaches to address this challenge, each with distinct strengths and optimal application domains.

The isothermal sublimation method excels when high spatial resolution and direct temperature measurement are priorities, particularly in the 700-850°C range. Its demonstrated accuracy of ±5°C and reproducibility make it valuable for characterizing thermal gradients in MEMS-based devices. However, its temperature range limitations and destructive nature may constrain its application in some experimental contexts.

Diffraction-based methods offer broader temperature coverage and non-destructive operation, making them suitable for experiments where the same area needs to be monitored throughout temperature cycling. The ability to use standard TEM instrumentation without specialized nanoparticles enhances their accessibility, though researchers must account for thickness-dependent effects in electron-transparent samples.

For researchers working with in situ TEM heating holders, the choice between these techniques should be guided by specific experimental needs including target temperature range, available equipment, required spatial resolution, and sample constraints. In many cases, a complementary approach using both methods may provide the most comprehensive temperature calibration strategy, ensuring accurate thermal data for interpreting nanoscale material behavior under thermal activation.

Pre- and Post-Experiment Analysis Using Inspection Holders for Identical Location Microscopy

Identical Location Microscopy (ILM), and specifically Identical Location Transmission Electron Microscopy (IL-TEM), has emerged as a powerful technique for directly observing nanoscale changes in materials subjected to experimental treatments. By repeatedly imaging the exact same location on a sample before and after an experiment, researchers can track morphological, compositional, and structural evolution with high reliability. This guide compares the specialized sample holders that enable these studies across various in-situ stimuli such as heating, liquid, and gas environments.

Core Concept and Technical Requirements of IL-TEM

The fundamental principle of IL-TEM is akin to a "spot the difference" game at the nanoscale. It involves tracking changes at the same precise location before and after a material undergoes a process, such as an electrochemical cycle or exposure to a reactive environment [86]. This method eliminates the uncertainty of whether an observed nanostructure was present before the treatment, a common limitation of conventional ex-situ microscopy where only general statistical insights are possible [86].

The technical realization of IL-TEM relies on two critical components:

• Sample Holders with Tracking Markers: Specialized holders or sample grids are required. The most common approach uses commercial metal TEM grids with alphanumeric patterns (finder grids) or strategically placed scratches that serve as navigational landmarks to reliably return to the same area [86].
• Stable and Precise Holder Mechanics: The specimen holder must ensure minimal spatial drift and high mechanical stability to maintain the region of interest within the field of view during both the initial characterization and subsequent re-analysis after the in-situ experiment.

Comparison of In-Situ TEM Holders for ILM Research

The choice of specimen holder dictates the type of in-situ experiment possible. Below is a comparison of holders categorized by their primary function, with a focus on their compatibility with IL-TEM methodology.

Table 1: Comparison of In-Situ TEM Holders for Different Research Applications

Holder Type	Key Examples	Primary Function	Typical Use Cases in ILM	Tilt Capability	Key Features for ILM
Heating	Gatan 652 [10]	Furnace-style heating up to 1000°C	Studying phase transitions, nanoparticle sintering, thermal degradation	Double Tilt (Newer models)	Heats entire sample; prone to drift
Gas/Environmental	Hummingbird Scientific Gas Flow Holder [5]	Exposing sample to gaseous environments (1-2 bar)	Catalyst restructuring under reactive gases, oxidation/reduction studies [5]	Single Tilt	Integrated MEMS heater (>1000°C); optional optical feedthrough
Liquid	Protochips Poseidon [10]	Exposing sample to liquid environments	Electrochemistry, battery cycling, nanoparticle growth in solution	Single Tilt	Enables experiments in sealed liquid cells
Straining	Gatan 654 [10] [65]	Uniaxial tensile testing	Studying dislocation dynamics, crack propagation, and deformation mechanisms [65]	Single Tilt	Constant elongation rate; compatible with various sample geometries
Universal/Transfer	Kochi Grid & Clamp [87]	Multi-instrument analysis without air exposure	Coordinated analysis of air-sensitive samples (e.g., extraterrestrial materials) between FIB, TEM, NanoSIMS	Varies	Prevents sample degradation/contamination during transfer

Experimental Protocols for Key IL-TEM Experiments

Detailed and consistent methodologies are crucial for obtaining reliable and reproducible data in IL-TEM studies. The following protocols outline the core workflow and specific applications.

Generic Workflow for an IL-TEM Experiment

The following diagram illustrates the standard procedure for a typical IL-TEM study.

Protocol 1: Tracking Electrocatalyst Degradation

This is a classic application of IL-TEM, introduced to study fuel cell catalysts [86].

• Sample Preparation: Deposit the catalyst nanoparticles (e.g., Pt/C) onto a gold finder TEM grid, which serves as both the working electrode and the sample support [86].
• Initial TEM Inspection: Acquire high-resolution TEM (HRTEM) or high-angle annular dark-field (HAADF-STEM) images of multiple, well-documented locations on the grid.
• In-Situ Treatment (Electrochemistry): Remove the grid from the TEM and subject it to controlled electrochemical cycling (e.g., potential cycling in an acidic electrolyte) in an external electrochemical cell. This simulates the operating conditions of a fuel cell.
• Post-Treatment TEM Analysis: Relocate the exact same nanoparticles using the finder grid coordinates. Re-image and compare the new images with the initial set to identify changes such as particle dissolution, aggregation, Ostwald ripening, or detachment from the support [86].

Protocol 2: Studying Catalyst Dynamics in Gas Environments

This protocol uses a dedicated gas flow holder to observe materials under realistic reaction conditions.

• Sample Preparation: Fabricate a sample chip compatible with the gas cell holder, often involving MEMS-based technology with integrated heating and sensing.
• Initial TEM Inspection: Characterize the as-prepared catalyst (e.g., high-entropy alloy nanoparticles) at room temperature and high vacuum, recording initial size, shape, and structure [5].
• In-Situ Treatment (Gas Exposure): Introduce a controlled gas atmosphere (e.g., hydrogen or oxygen at pressures up to 2 bar) into the cell while heating the sample to the reaction temperature (e.g., 400°C). Observe the dynamic changes in real-time [5].
• Post-Treatment Analysis: After the reaction, return to high vacuum conditions and conduct a detailed post-mortem analysis of the identical locations. For instance, a study on FeCoNiCuPt high-entropy alloy nanoparticles used this method to reveal the formation of porous oxide structures and elemental redistribution after oxidation and reduction cycles [5].

Protocol 3: Analyzing Dislocation Dynamics via In-Situ Straining

This protocol investigates the fundamental deformation mechanisms in materials.

• Sample Preparation: Fabricate a tensile specimen, often in a "dog-bone" configuration, using FIB milling or by attaching a deformed grid to the holder's fixation system [10] [65].
• Initial TEM Inspection: Image the sample at a low strain state to document the initial microstructure, including pre-existing dislocations and grain boundaries.
• In-Situ Treatment (Mechanical Loading): Use a straining holder (e.g., Gatan 654) to apply a constant elongation rate to the sample while recording the dynamic behavior of dislocations—their nucleation, glide, and interaction with pinning points—in real-time [88] [65].
• Post-Treatment Analysis: Correlate the recorded videos and images with the applied stress. Advanced data-mining approaches can be applied to analyze a large number of snapshots to perform ensemble averaging and quantitatively understand dislocation-pinning point interactions [88].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Successful execution of IL-TEM experiments requires specific materials and instruments.

Table 2: Essential Materials and Tools for IL-TEM Experiments

Item	Function	Example Use Case
Gold Finder TEM Grids	Provides alphanumeric markers for reliable relocation of identical sites.	The foundational component for most ex-situ IL-TEM studies, such as tracking catalyst degradation [86].
Universal Sample Holders (Kochi Grid/Clamp)	Enables safe transfer of air-sensitive samples between different instruments (FIB, TEM, NanoSIMS) without air exposure.	Coordinated analysis of hygroscopic or reactive samples, such as extraterrestrial materials or battery components [87].
MEMS-based Chips (Heating/Gas/Liquid)	Microfabricated devices that integrate sample support with heaters and sensors for precise in-situ control.	Used in dedicated holders (e.g., Hummingbird, Protochips) for high-stability experiments under thermal and environmental stimuli [5].
Facility-to-Facility Transfer Container (FFTC)	A transport vessel that maintains samples under low pressure or inert gas for secure transportation between labs.	Prevents terrestrial contamination and chemical reactions of sensitive samples during logistics [87].
High-Vacuum Leak Check Station	A critical safety station for checking the seal integrity of environmental TEM holders before inserting them into the microscope.	Ensures the ultra-high vacuum of the TEM column is not compromised by the holder's gas or liquid delivery systems [5].

In the realm of materials characterization, particularly within (scanning) transmission electron microscopy ((S)TEM), energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) and electron energy-loss spectroscopy (EELS) represent two powerful yet distinct techniques for elemental analysis. While often presented as alternatives, their strategic integration provides a level of chemical confirmation and comprehensive material understanding that neither can achieve alone. This synergy is especially critical in advanced in situ TEM studies of energy materials, such as batteries and catalysts, where researchers subject samples to dynamic thermal, gaseous, or electrochemical stimuli and must accurately track ensuing chemical changes [14] [5]. By leveraging the complementary strengths of EDS and EELS, scientists can overcome the inherent limitations of each technique, validate their findings through cross-correlation, and build a robust, multi-faceted dataset of a material's composition and electronic structure under realistic reaction conditions.

Technical Comparison: EELS vs. EDS

The decision to use EELS, EDS, or both is guided by their fundamental differences in physical signal generation, which dictate their performance across various metrics. EELS analyzes the kinetic energy loss of the transmitted electron beam due to inelastic scattering with the sample, while EDS detects the characteristic X-rays emitted as excited atoms relax [89]. This core difference results in complementary analytical strengths, summarized in the table below.

Table 1: Comparative analysis of EELS and EDS techniques for (S)TEM.

Analytical Feature	EELS	EDS
Signal Origin	Energy loss of transmitted electrons [89]	Characteristic X-ray emission [89]
Optimal Elemental Range	Light elements (Z < 30) [89]	Heavier elements (Z > 11) [89]
Spatial Resolution	Superior (near-atomic) [89] [90]	Good, but typically lower than EELS [89]
Energy Resolution	High (~0.1-1 eV) [89]	Lower (~130-150 eV) [89]
Chemical/Bonding Info	Excellent (via ELNES) [90]	Limited
Sample Thickness Requirement	Stringent (<100 nm for 200kV) [89] [90]	Less stringent; can handle thicker samples [89]
Quantitative Ease	More complex, requires modeling [91] [90]	More straightforward and routine [89]
Typical Acquisition Speed	Slower, can be dose-intensive	Generally faster

The Integrated Workflow: A Protocol for Combined EELS and EDS

A structured workflow is essential for the efficient and accurate acquisition of correlated EELS and EDS data. The following protocol, applicable to both static and in situ experiments, ensures that the complementary strengths of each technique are fully realized.

Pre-Acquisition Setup and Alignment

• Sample Preparation: Begin with an electron-transparent sample, ideally under 100 nm thick for 200 kV to minimize multiple scattering, which is particularly critical for high-quality EELS [90]. For nanoparticle studies, disperse them onto a thin carbon film supported by a TEM grid with a large mesh size (e.g., 200 mesh) to minimize holder shadowing during tilted acquisitions for tomography [92].
• Microscope Alignment: Perform a meticulous STEM alignment. This includes achieving eucentric height to minimize image shift during tilting, aligning the condenser aperture, and correcting for key aberrations like astigmatism and coma using a Ronchigram from an amorphous carbon area [92]. This ensures a probe with optimal spatial resolution and current.
• Spectrometer/Detector Preparation:
  • For EELS: Execute an auto-tune of the zero-loss peak (ZLP) to achieve optimal energy resolution [90]. Set the appropriate energy dispersion and collection angle using the objective aperture [90].
  • For EDS: Ensure the detector is inserted and the system is calibrated. For quantitative work, characterize the detector shadowing effect by acquiring spectra from a standard sample (e.g., a spherical nanoparticle) across the planned tilt range, as this allows for subsequent data correction [92].

Correlated Data Acquisition

• Region of Interest (ROI) Selection: Navigate to the ROI and acquire an overview HAADF-STEM image. The Z-contrast of HAADF is ideal for locating nanoparticles or interfaces and is non-destructive compared to prolonged spectroscopic mapping [92].
• Simultaneous vs. Sequential Acquisition:
  • Simultaneous: If the microscope hardware allows, acquire EELS and EDS spectrum images (SI) simultaneously. This is the most time-efficient and dose-effective method, guaranteeing perfect pixel-to-pixel registration between the two datasets.
  • Sequential: If simultaneous acquisition is not possible, acquire the EDS SI first, followed by the EELS SI from the identical ROI. EDS is generally more robust to minor sample drift or contamination. Use the shortest possible acquisition times to minimize total electron dose and potential beam damage.

Post-Processing and Data Correlation

• EELS Quantification: Process the EELS-SI by subtracting the pre-edge background and modeling the core-loss edges using a multi-linear least square (MLLS) fitting procedure to extract elemental maps and quantify atomic percentages [91] [90].
• EDS Quantification: Process the EDS-SI by integrating the counts under the characteristic X-ray peaks for each element. Apply Cliff-Lorison quantification to determine compositional percentages, incorporating the detector shadowing corrections determined during setup if the data was acquired at a tilt [92].
• Data Overlay and Validation: Create composite elemental maps from both EELS and EDS datasets. Overlay these maps to visually confirm the co-localization of elements. Crucially, compare the quantitative results from both techniques for consistency; agreement between the two methods provides a high degree of confidence in the analytical results [89].

Integrated EELS and EDS workflow for chemical confirmation.

Application in In Situ TEM Studies

The combination of EELS and EDS is particularly powerful in in situ TEM experiments, where materials are observed undergoing real-world processes. The following table outlines how specific in situ holders facilitate this integrated spectroscopic approach.

Table 2: Integrated EELS/EDS analysis with various in situ TEM holders.

In Situ Holder Type	Research Application	Role of EDS	Role of EELS	Integrated Outcome
Gas Flow Holder [5]	Catalyst reduction (e.g., High-Entropy Alloys in H₂ at 400°C)	Tracks composition & diffusion of heavy metals (Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Pt) [5]	Probes oxidation state changes & light element interactions [89]	Correlates elemental segregation with chemical state changes during activation.
Liquid Cell Holder [14]	Li-ion battery cycling (e.g., Li stripping/deposition)	Maps distribution of heavier elements in electrodes (e.g., Transition metals) [14]	Identifies Li speciation (metal, electrolyte, SEI) & monitors solid-electrolyte interphase (SEI) formation [91] [89]	Links Li plating morphology (EELS) with electrode composition changes (EDS).
Heating & Electrical Holder [14]	Solid-state battery interface reactions	Quantifies interdiffusion of elements (e.g., Cu, Ru) across interfaces [14]	Analyzes bonding & electronic structure evolution at interfaces [90]	Provides mechanistic insight into degradation at buried interfaces.
Liquid Helium Holder [93]	Low-temperature phase transitions	Standard elemental mapping.	High-resolution study of electronic/band structure changes at low temperatures.	Correlates structural phases with electronic properties.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Successful integrated spectroscopy, especially in demanding in situ environments, relies on specialized tools and reagents. The following list details key solutions for these experiments.

Table 3: Essential research reagents and tools for integrated EELS/EDS experiments.

Item	Function in Integrated EELS/EDS
MEMS-based In Situ Holders (Heating, Gas, Liquid) [14] [5]	Provide a controlled environment (temp, gas, liquid, bias) at the sample while maintaining compatibility with both EELS and EDS signal acquisition.
Holey/Carbon TEM Grids (Be, Cu, Au) [92]	Support samples while minimizing spurious X-ray background. Grid material is chosen to avoid overlapping peaks with sample elements.
Standard Reference Materials (e.g., h-BN, TiB₂, TiN) [91]	Used for calibrating spectrometer energy scales, testing quantitative models, and validating instrument performance for both EELS and EDS.
High-Vacuum Leak Check Station [5]	Ensures the integrity of in situ holders before insertion into the TEM, protecting the microscope's high-vacuum environment.
Multi-Linear Least Square (MLLS) Fitting Software [91] [90]	Essential software tool for accurate quantification of overlapping edges in complex EELS spectra, enabling precise elemental and chemical state analysis.

Integrating EELS and EDS within the (S)TEM transforms these techniques from competing analytical tools into a unified platform for definitive chemical confirmation. EDS provides robust, quantifiable data on elemental composition, while EELS delivers unparalleled insight into light elements, chemical bonding, and electronic structure. This synergy is indispensable for in situ studies of functional energy materials, where it allows researchers to not only observe morphological and compositional changes in real-time but also to understand the underlying chemical mechanisms. As we push the boundaries of in situ microscopy, the continued development and application of this combined spectroscopic approach will be fundamental to unlocking new materials for a sustainable energy future.

In-situ Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) has revolutionized materials science by enabling researchers to observe dynamic processes in real-time under various stimuli. The core of this technology lies in specialized specimen holders that allow for controlled experimentation within the high-vacuum environment of the TEM. These holders facilitate the application of external stimuli such as heat, gas, liquid, electrical bias, or mechanical stress while simultaneously capturing atomic-scale structural and chemical changes. The performance of these holder systems—specifically their stability, resolution, and reproducibility—directly determines the quality and reliability of experimental data. This guide provides an objective comparison of major in-situ TEM holder technologies, with a particular focus on their application in heating, liquid, and gas phase research relevant to fields including drug development and nanotechnology.

The evolution of in-situ TEM holders has progressed from simple single-tilt stages to sophisticated micro-electro-mechanical system (MEMS)-based platforms that offer unprecedented control over experimental conditions [94]. Early designs utilized "furnace-style" heating holders that heated the entire specimen, while modern systems incorporate MEMS chips that enable localized heating with minimal drift. Similarly, environmental cell technology has advanced through both differential pumping systems and sealed cell approaches, allowing researchers to introduce gases and liquids around the specimen. These technological advances have expanded the possibilities for in-situ experimentation but have also introduced new variables that must be considered when designing experiments and interpreting results.

Technical Specifications Comparison

Table 1: Comparative Technical Specifications of Major In-Situ TEM Holder Types

Holder Type	Heating Capability	Gas/Liquid Environment	Tilt Range	Typical Resolution	Key Applications
MEMS-Based Heating	>1000°C with integrated sensor [5]	Possible with specialized cells [94]	Limited by cell design	Atomic resolution possible [5]	Catalysis, phase transformations, nanomaterials
Furnace Heating	Up to 1000°C [10]	Not typically available	±20°α, ±10°β [10]	Limited by thermal drift	Materials processing, metallurgy
Gas Flow Holder	>1000°C [5]	1-2 bar pressure range [5]	Single tilt [10]	Atomic resolution demonstrated [5]	Heterogeneous catalysis, oxidation studies
Liquid Flow Holder	Variable (depends on design)	Liquid flow cells [10]	Single tilt [10]	Nanometer range	Battery research, biological processes

Table 2: Stability and Reproducibility Performance Metrics

Holder Type	Thermal Drift	Data Reproducibility	Typical Experiment Duration	Compatibility with Analytical Techniques
MEMS-Based Heating	Low drift, high image stability [5]	High with proper calibration	Hours to days [5]	EELS/EDS compatible [5]
Furnace Heating	Significant sample drift [10]	Moderate	Minutes to hours	Limited EDS capability
Gas Flow Holder	Low-drift design [5]	High for gas-solid interactions	>160 hours demonstrated [5]	EELS/EDS compatible [5]
Liquid Flow Holder	Variable	Moderate to high	Minutes to hours	Limited by liquid thickness

Experimental Protocols for Performance Benchmarking

Calibration and Standardization Procedures

Establishing consistent calibration protocols is fundamental for meaningful comparison across different holder platforms. For thermal experiments, temperature calibration should be performed using materials with known phase transition temperatures, such as the melting points of metal nanoparticles. For gas and liquid cells, establishing baseline imaging conditions under static conditions is essential before introducing dynamic processes. Quantification methods for energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) must be carefully calibrated, as recent research demonstrates that EDS calibration is "strictly instrument specific"—no universally valid k-factors exist, but only k-factor sets for a specific combination of microscope and EDS system [95]. This is particularly crucial for reproducible quantitative analysis across different laboratories.

The absorption correction method for EDS quantification has been shown to perform better than the Cliff & Lorimer approximation when dealing with thick and/or dense samples, though the latter remains useful for simpler and faster analyses in other cases [95]. Furthermore, researchers should be aware that distinct kO/Si factors may be required for lighter versus denser compounds, adding another layer of complexity to reproducible quantitative analysis [95]. These methodological considerations form the foundation for reliable benchmarking across different holder platforms.

Resolution and Stability Assessment Protocol

A standardized protocol for assessing resolution and stability should employ consistent test specimens across all holder types. Gold nanoparticles on ultrathin carbon support films serve as excellent resolution standards, allowing direct comparison of lattice resolution under identical magnification conditions. For stability quantification, sequential images of the same area should be acquired over time and analyzed using cross-correlation algorithms to measure drift rates. Thermal drift in heating holders can be quantified by tracking the displacement of stationary nanoparticles over time at various temperature setpoints.

For gas and liquid cell holders, resolution assessment must account for the additional scattering from the environment. The use of identical test specimens (such as gold nanoparticles) across different holder types enables direct comparison. Stability in environmental holders should be assessed by measuring both spatial drift and fluctuations in image sharpness, which may result from bubble formation, flow variations, or pressure changes in liquid and gas systems.

Reproducibility Testing Methodology

Reproducibility assessment requires multiple experiments across different timeframes, preferably with different operators and instrument configurations. For heating experiments, thermal cycling tests—repeatedly heating and cooling between setpoints—can reveal hysteresis effects and determine temperature stability. For gas and liquid cells, reproducibility in introducing and maintaining environmental conditions must be verified through multiple loading procedures. A key finding from recent studies is that TEMs equipped with field emission guns (FEG) exhibit lower radiation-induced migration of weakly bounded elements than TEMs with conventional sources and lower beam current, likely due to the smaller spot size in conventional TEM leading to higher electron dose per sample atom [95]. This electron beam effect must be accounted for in reproducibility assessments, particularly for beam-sensitive materials.

Performance Analysis by Holder Technology

MEMS-Based Holders

Micro-electro-mechanical system (MEMS) technology has dramatically advanced in-situ TEM capabilities by integrating multiple functions within a single chip [94]. These holders utilize microfabricated heating elements and sensors that enable precise temperature control with minimal thermal drift. The primary advantage of MEMS platforms is their ability to maintain atomic resolution during dynamic experiments—a critical capability for observing nucleation events, phase transformations, and structural changes at the atomic scale. Modern MEMS chips have been utilized in environmental-cell designs, enabling customized fabrication of diverse shapes that facilitate in-situ observations within gas and liquid environments, particularly for investigating catalytic and battery reactions [94].

The stability of MEMS holders stems from their compact design and localized heating capabilities. Unlike furnace-style holders that heat the entire specimen area, MEMS devices confine heat to the immediate region of interest, reducing overall thermal expansion and drift. This precision comes with a trade-off in tilt capability, as the incorporated environmental cells often limit the maximum tilt angles achievable. For most applications, this limitation is offset by the significantly improved spatial and temporal resolution. Reproducibility with MEMS holders is generally high when proper protocols are followed, though the fragility of the chips and potential for contamination require careful handling and storage procedures.

Conventional Heating Holders

Traditional furnace-style heating holders, such as the Gatan 652 series, represent the earlier generation of in-situ heating technology [10]. These devices operate by heating the entire specimen area using a surrounding furnace element, capable of reaching temperatures up to 1000°C [10]. While functionally robust for many applications, this design creates significant challenges for high-resolution imaging due to substantial thermal drift caused by the global heating approach. The drift manifests as continuous specimen movement during temperature changes, complicating the tracking of specific areas of interest over extended periods.

The reproducibility of conventional heating holders is moderate, with performance heavily dependent on proper calibration and experienced operation. The extensive thermal mass of these systems leads to slower response times and potential hysteresis effects during heating and cooling cycles. Additionally, the limited tilt range (±20° in alpha and ±10° in beta for double-tilt models) constrains crystallographic studies [10]. Despite these limitations, furnace-style holders remain valuable for experiments where ultimate resolution is less critical than cost-effectiveness and experimental flexibility, particularly in materials processing and metallurgical applications.

Environmental Holders (Gas and Liquid)

Environmental TEM holders specialize in maintaining controlled atmospheres around specimens, with two primary design approaches: differential pumping systems and sealed cell technologies. Gas flow holders, such as Hummingbird Scientific's single-channel system, enable atomic-resolution imaging in gas environments at pressures up to 2 bar [5]. These systems have demonstrated exceptional stability, with some experiments continuing for over 160 hours while maintaining observation capability [5]. The combination of heating capabilities exceeding 1000°C with gas introduction creates powerful platforms for studying catalytic reactions, nanoparticle growth, and gas-solid interactions under realistic conditions.

Liquid flow holders enable the observation of processes in hydrated environments, with applications ranging from battery research to biological studies. Resolution in liquid cells is typically limited to the nanometer range due to scattering effects from the liquid layer, though recent advances in window materials and cell design have progressively improved this limitation. Reproducibility in both gas and liquid holders depends critically on consistent sample loading and environmental control, with factors such as bubble formation in liquid cells and pressure fluctuations in gas systems representing potential variables. MEMS technology has significantly enhanced both types of environmental holders by enabling customized fabrication of diverse cell shapes optimized for specific experimental needs [94].

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for In-Situ TEM Experiments

Reagent/Material	Function	Application Examples	Compatibility Considerations
Gold Nanoparticles	Resolution standard	Calibration across all holder types	Size uniformity critical (5-50nm)
MEMS Chips	Multifunctional platform	Heating, liquid, gas experiments	Chip-specific protocols required [94]
Silicon Nitrate Membranes	Liquid cell windows	Liquid phase experiments	Thickness affects resolution
Catalytic Nanoparticles (Pt, Pd, etc.)	Reaction studies	Gas-solid interaction research	Size, shape, and support important
High-Purity Gases	Reactive environments	Catalysis, oxidation studies	Gas delivery system compatibility [5]
Electrolyte Solutions	Battery research	Liquid cell experiments	Beam sensitivity considerations

Application-Specific Performance Considerations

Catalysis Research

In catalysis research, gas flow holders with heating capabilities provide the most direct path to observing reaction mechanisms under realistic conditions. The benchmark study of high-entropy alloy nanocatalysts demonstrates the power of this approach, where researchers used a gas TEM holder to study oxidation and reduction behavior in air and hydrogen gas at 400°C [5]. This experiment revealed dramatic structural transformations, including the growth of oxide layers and formation of porous structures during reduction—processes that could be correlated directly with catalytic function. The critical performance metrics for such studies include gas switching speed, temperature stability during gas changes, and maintenance of resolution during dynamic structural rearrangements.

The reproducibility of catalytic experiments depends heavily on consistent sample preparation and initial nanoparticle states, as well as precise control over gas composition and flow rates. 4-in column SDD systems have proven particularly valuable for these applications, as their larger sensitive areas compared to classical single SDD make them more efficient in data collection and therefore provide lower detection limits for elemental analysis during reactions [95]. This enhanced detection capability is crucial for tracking elemental redistribution during reactions, such as the outward diffusion of transition metals observed in high-entropy alloy nanoparticles.

Materials Synthesis and Phase Transformations

For materials synthesis studies involving nanoparticle growth or phase transformations, MEMS-based heating holders typically provide the optimal balance of temperature control, stability, and resolution. The ability to rapidly heat and cool samples while maintaining observation of the same area enables quantitative analysis of kinetic processes. The closed-loop temperature control available in advanced systems, featuring four-point probe temperature sensing from an on-chip sensor, provides sufficiently accurate measurement not only to determine sample temperature but to detect power changes small enough to perform nano-calorimetry [5]. This precision enables correlation of structural changes with thermal events at unprecedented sensitivity.

The benchmark for heating holder performance continues to be atomic-resolution imaging during thermal treatments. Modern MEMS systems can achieve this standard, allowing researchers to track interface migration, defect dynamics, and nucleation events at the atomic scale. Reproducibility in these experiments requires careful attention to heating rates, as different thermal histories can produce varying results even with identical maximum temperatures. The initial state of the specimen—including defect density, surface chemistry, and supporting substrate—also significantly influences the observed transformations and must be carefully controlled for meaningful comparison across experiments and holder systems.

Biological and Soft Materials Research

For biological applications and soft materials research, liquid cell holders provide essential capabilities for maintaining hydrated conditions. While resolution in liquid environments typically cannot match that achievable in vacuum, recent advances have pushed toward nanometer-scale resolution, sufficient for many cellular and macromolecular studies. The key performance metrics for these applications include minimization of electron beam damage, maintenance of physiological conditions, and compatibility with staining or labeling protocols.

The reproducibility of biological in-situ TEM experiments faces additional challenges related to specimen viability and environmental control. Temperature, pH, and ion concentration must be maintained within narrow ranges to preserve native structures and functions. The development of specialized holders for cryo-transfer and cryo-observation provides alternative approaches for studying biological systems with reduced radiation damage [10]. These systems maintain samples at cryogenic temperatures during imaging, potentially improving structural preservation but introducing additional technical complexities for holder operation and data interpretation.

The benchmarking of in-situ TEM holders reveals a complex landscape where no single technology excels across all performance metrics. MEMS-based systems generally provide superior stability and resolution for heating experiments, while specialized gas and liquid flow holders enable unique environmental capabilities with progressively improving spatial resolution. The choice of holder technology must align with specific experimental requirements, prioritizing the critical performance parameters for each application.

Future developments in holder technology will likely focus on integrating multiple stimuli within single platforms, improving compatibility with analytical techniques such as EDS and EELS, and enhancing user-friendly operation to improve reproducibility across different operators and facilities. As the field advances, standardized benchmarking protocols and shared calibration standards will become increasingly important for comparing results across different platforms and laboratories. The continuing evolution of MEMS technology promises further miniaturization and integration of sensors and actuators, potentially enabling even more sophisticated control over experimental conditions while maintaining the high-resolution capabilities that make TEM unique among characterization techniques.

In situ Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) has revolutionized materials science and biology by enabling researchers to observe dynamic processes at the atomic scale in real-time. Specialized specimen holders are the cornerstone of this capability, allowing samples to be subjected to various stimuli—including heat, liquid environments, and gas atmospheres—while under the electron beam. These holders have transformed the TEM from a tool for static observation into a platform for direct observation of reactions and processes as they occur. The diverse functionalities of different specimen holders play a crucial role in enabling these observations, with each type offering unique capabilities and limitations [94].

This comparative analysis provides a structured evaluation of three primary in situ TEM holder categories: heating holders, liquid cell holders, and gas cell holders. Each system creates a distinct microenvironment, making it optimally suited for specific research domains ranging from catalysis and nanoparticle growth to biological imaging and battery research. By examining the technical specifications, performance characteristics, and application-specific advantages of each holder type, this guide aims to assist researchers in selecting the most appropriate technology for their experimental goals. Furthermore, we present experimental case studies and detailed methodologies to illustrate the practical implementation of these holders in cutting-edge research, providing a comprehensive resource for scientists navigating the expanding landscape of in situ TEM technologies.

Technical Specifications Comparison

Table 1: Comparative technical specifications of in situ TEM holders

Parameter	Heating Holders	Liquid Cell Holders	Gas Cell Holders
Max Temperature	>1000°C [43] [5]	Typically <150°C (limited by liquid boiling)	>1000°C [5] [15]
Environment	High vacuum or ETEM gas	Liquid (aqueous/organic)	Controlled gas atmosphere
Pressure Range	N/A (vacuum) or ETEM pressure	~1 bar (sealed cell)	1 to 2 bar [5]
Key Components	Furnace, thermocouple [3]	Electron-transparent windows, flow system [96]	MEMS chip, gas delivery system [94] [5]
Typical Resolution	Atomic [3]	Nanometer to atomic (challenging)	Atomic [5]
Sample Drift	Low drift after stabilization [3]	Can be significant due to fluidics	Low drift with MEMS heating [43]
Compatibility	EELS, EDS [5]	EDS (with optimized design) [96]	EELS, EDS [5] [15]
Lifetime	>160 hours (MEMS heater) [43]	Limited by window integrity/contamination	>160 hours (MEMS heater) [43]

Performance Analysis by Research Application

Table 2: Holder performance and suitability for different research applications

Research Application	Heating Holders	Liquid Cell Holders	Gas Cell Holders
Heterogeneous Catalysis	Excellent for sintering, phase changes [3]	Limited	Optimal. Allows real-world reaction conditions [5] [17]
Battery & Electrochemistry	Limited	Optimal. For cycling and degradation studies [94] [96]	Limited
Nanomaterial Growth	Excellent for solid-state reactions [3]	Good for solution-based synthesis	Optimal. For CVD growth, e.g., CNTs [15] [3]
Biological Imaging	Not suitable	Optimal. For native state imaging [96]	Not suitable
Corrosion Science	Limited	Optimal. Direct observation [96]	Good for atmospheric corrosion [15]
Fundamental Material Properties	Optimal. For phase transformations [3]	Limited	Good for gas-solid interactions [5]

Heating Holders

• Pros: Enable direct observation of high-temperature phenomena like phase transformations and microstructural changes; achieve atomic resolution with minimal sample drift; offer precise temperature control and measurement [3].
• Cons: Limited to vacuum or specific ETEM environments; cannot simulate complex liquid or gas reaction environments; may induce beam effects at high temperatures [3].

Liquid Cell Holders

• Pros: Allow observation of samples in native liquid environments; essential for biological studies, electrochemical processes, and nanoparticle synthesis in solution; safely encapsulate liquids using electron-transparent membranes [96].
• Cons: Generally lower resolution due to electron scattering in liquid; limited temperature range; potential for sample drift and contamination; silicon chips can block X-rays, requiring specialized design for effective EDS analysis [96].

Gas Cell Holders

• Pros: Facilitate atomic-resolution imaging under realistic gas reaction conditions (e.g., for catalysis); enable high-temperature studies (>1000°C) in controlled gas atmospheres; compatible with EELS and EDS analytics [5] [17].
• Cons: Complex gas delivery and safety systems required; potential for window bulging at high pressure, limiting field of view; careful sample preparation required to ensure clean experiments [5] [15].

Experimental Protocols and Case Studies

Protocol: In Situ Catalysis Study Using a Gas Heating Holder

The application of in situ gas heating holders has been pivotal in uncovering the dynamic behavior of catalysts under working conditions, a process traditionally considered a "black box" [17]. The following protocol is adapted from studies on high-entropy alloy nanocatalysts [5].

1. Sample Preparation

• Catalyst nanoparticles (e.g., FeCoNiCuPt HEA) are synthesized ex-situ.
• A suspension of nanoparticles is drop-casted onto a MEMS-based microheater chip equipped with electron-transparent silicon nitride windows [5] [15].
• The chip is loaded into a dedicated Nano-Reactor or environmental cell, which is then assembled into the holder tip.

2. Holder Setup and Insertion

• The gas holder is connected to a gas delivery system capable of supplying multiple gases (e.g., O₂, H₂) [5].
• A high-vacuum leak check is performed using a turbomolecular pump station to ensure the integrity of the gas cell and protect the TEM column [5] [15].
• After passing the leak test, the holder is inserted into the TEM.

3. In Situ Experimentation

• The sample is heated to the target reaction temperature (e.g., 400°C) using the integrated thin-film microheater, which provides closed-loop control and minimal thermal drift [43] [5].
• A gas environment is introduced (e.g., 1 bar of air) to initiate oxidation, and atomic-resolution images or videos are acquired.
• The gas environment is switched (e.g., to hydrogen) to study the reduction process, observing subsequent structural changes like the formation of porous oxide layers and elemental diffusion [5].

4. Data Analysis

• Image analysis tracks morphological changes, particle sintering, and surface faceting in real-time.
• Analytical techniques like EELS or EDS can be performed simultaneously to monitor chemical state changes, even at pressures up to 2 bar [15].

Figure 1: Experimental workflow for in situ TEM catalysis studies using a gas heating holder.

Case Study: Reduction of High-Entropy Alloy Nanocatalyst

A research team used a gas heating holder to study the oxidation and reduction behavior of FeCoNiCuPt high-entropy alloy nanoparticles. When the particles were heated to 400°C in air, an oxide layer grew around them. Upon switching the gas environment to hydrogen, the oxide layer expanded and transformed into porous structures, accompanied by outward diffusion of all transition metals (Fe, Co, Ni, Cu) while the Pt core remained intact. This work provided fundamental insights into the dynamic restructuring of this new class of alloy nanoparticles under realistic catalytic conditions [5].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Key reagents, components, and systems for in situ TEM experiments

Item	Function	Example Use Cases
MEMS-based Nano-Chip	Functional sample carrier with integrated microheaters and sensors; enables controlled environments.	Gas-cell catalysis, liquid-cell electrochemistry, combined heating-biasing [94] [15].
Gas Supply System	Delivers precise pressure- and composition-controlled gases to the environmental cell.	Studying catalytic reactions, nanomaterial growth via CVD, environmental corrosion [5] [15].
Liquid Flow System	Enables controlled injection, mixing, and flow of liquid reactants through the sample cell.	Battery cycling, nanoparticle synthesis, studying biological processes in liquid [96].
Optical Fiber Feedthrough	Allows illumination of the sample inside the TEM holder for photochemical studies.	Photocatalysis research (e.g., studying TiO₂), plasmonics, semiconductor heterostructures [5].
Control Box & Software	Provides closed-loop control of stimuli (temp, bias, flow) and data logging.	All in situ experiments for reproducibility and precise parameter control [43] [15].
High-Vacuum Leak Station	Critical safety accessory for checking holder integrity before TEM insertion.	Mandatory pre-insertion check for gas and liquid holders to protect the TEM [5].

The selection of an appropriate in situ TEM holder is a critical decision that directly determines the success and relevance of an experimental investigation. Heating holders provide unparalleled insights into high-temperature material transformations, liquid cell holders open a window into biological and electrochemical processes in native environments, and gas cell holders allow for the direct observation of catalytic and gas-solid reactions under realistic working conditions.

The ongoing integration of MEMS technology has significantly enhanced the capabilities of all holder types, enabling more complex multi-stimuli experiments with improved stability and resolution [94] [15]. As this field progresses, the convergence of these technologies—such as holders capable of performing both gas and liquid studies—along with the integration of artificial intelligence for data analysis and experimental control, promises to further expand the boundaries of what can be observed at the nanoscale [17] [97]. By carefully matching the holder technology to their specific research goals, scientists can continue to unlock profound new insights into dynamic processes across materials science, chemistry, and biology.

Conclusion

The strategic selection and application of in situ TEM holders are paramount for unlocking transformative insights into nanoscale dynamics. Heating holders provide unmatched views of thermal processes, liquid cells open a window into electrochemical and biological interactions, and gas cells allow for the direct observation of catalytic mechanisms. The advent of MEMS technology has been a game-changer, offering superior thermal stability, minimal drift, and rapid heating/cooling capabilities that are essential for high-resolution and time-resolved studies. Future directions point toward increasingly multi-functional and integrated systems, combining stimuli like cryogenic cooling with electrical biasing, and the continued development of operando methodologies that correlate atomic-scale structure with material function. For biomedical research, these advancements promise a deeper understanding of drug delivery mechanisms, nanoparticle-biomolecule interactions, and the structural evolution of materials under physiologically relevant conditions, ultimately accelerating the development of next-generation therapeutics and diagnostic tools.

References

• 1. Sample Preparation and Experimental Design for In Situ ... [https://www.jove.com/t/61293/sample-preparation-experimental-design-for-situ-multi-beam]
• 2. In Situ Transmission Electron Microscopy of Electrocatalyst ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11740959/]
• 3. Heating Holder for In-Situ TEM [https://hummingbirdscientific.com/products/bulk-sample-heating/]
• 4. In situ transmission electron microscopy characterization and ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/sc/d5sc01214g]
• 5. Gas Flow Holder for In-Situ TEM [https://hummingbirdscientific.com/products/gas-flow/]
• 6. Development of a liquid-helium free cryogenic sample ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304399124001165]
• 7. Ultra-Cold Cryogenic TEM with Liquid Helium and High ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2402.00636v1]
• 8. In situ nanometer-resolution strain and orientation mapping ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1748013225001562]
• 9. In situ [https://www.gatan.com/techniques/situ]
• 10. TEM Holders - Molecular Foundry [https://foundry.lbl.gov/instrumentation/tem-holders/]
• 11. In Situ TEM Market Demand and Consumption Trends [https://www.datainsightsmarket.com/reports/in-situ-tem-608190]
• 12. Nanoscale temperature measurement during ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304399119300932]
• 13. Liquid Flow Holder for In-Situ TEM [https://hummingbirdscientific.com/products/liquid/]
• 14. How to Use In Situ TEM Holders for Energy Materials ... [https://www.protochips.com/blog/in-situ-tem-holders-energy-materials-research/]
• 15. Climate In Situ TEM Gas + Heating + Biasing solution [https://denssolutions.com/products/climate/]
• 16. TEM Environmental Gas Cell: Atmosphere AX [https://www.protochips.com/solutions/in-situ-tem-solutions/in-situ-gas-cell/]
• 17. Review Recent advances in in-situ transmission electron ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004223011495]
• 18. EDS mapping of in-situ TEM gas-heating experiments [https://hummingbirdscientific.com/eds-mapping-of-in-situ-tem-gas-heating-experiments/]
• 19. What Are the Advantages of In Situ TEM? [https://www.protochips.com/blog/advantages-of-in-situ-tem-2/]
• 20. Review Advances in in situ and operando TEM: From basic ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590238525001821?dgcid=rss_sd_all]
• 21. In-situ heating-and-electron tomography for materials research [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11000667/]
• 22. Double-tilt in situ TEM holder with ultra-high stability [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304399118300202]
• 23. Protochips | Advanced in situ TEM Solutions & Sample Supports [https://www.protochips.com/]
• 24. Importance and Challenges of Electrochemical in Situ ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27541965/]
• 25. Emerging Market Trends for MEMS-Based TEM Holders ... [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/emerging-market-trends-mems-based-tem-holders-electron-thaware-bqx5f]
• 26. Global MEMS-Based TEM Holder Supply, Demand and ... [https://www.globalinforesearch.com/reports/2376713/mems-based-tem-holder]
• 27. Physicists go to extremes to capture quantum materials [https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2025/10/chilling-discovery/]
• 28. MEMS-Based TEM Holder Analysis 2025 and Forecasts ... [https://www.archivemarketresearch.com/reports/mems-based-tem-holder-190076]
• 29. Microscopy Conference 2025 [https://hummingbirdscientific.com/microscopy-conference-2025/]
• 30. A workflow for correlative in situ nanochip liquid cell ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/nh/d5nh00310e]
• 31. MDT: A simple tool to facilitate dropcasting on in situ TEM ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12226395/]
• 32. Double-tilt in situ TEM holder with multiple electrical ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304399115001011]
• 33. A cheap and quickly adaptable in situ electrical contacting ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304399114000114]
• 34. Exploring Cooling and Heating in Liquid Phase In Situ TEM ... [https://www.protochips.com/blog/exploring-cooling-and-heating-in-liquid-phase-in-situ-tem-with-triton-ax/]
• 35. In Situ Transmission Electron Microscopy Modulation of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4850503/]
• 36. Wildfire In Situ TEM Heating [https://denssolutions.com/products/wildfire/]
• 37. Considerations for in situ TEM heating experiments [https://nano.oxinst.com/library/past-blogss/considerations-for-in-situ-tem-heating-experiments]
• 38. Atom-by-atom analysis of sintering dynamics and stability ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7661282/]
• 39. Effect of sintering temperature on magnetic, catalytic and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272884224039932]
• 40. Applications of Liquid Cell TEM [https://www.azonano.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=6532]
• 41. TEM Liquid Microscopy Cell: Poseidon AX [https://www.protochips.com/solutions/in-situ-tem-solutions/in-situ-liquid-cell/]
• 42. Liquid Flow Holder for In-Situ SEM [https://hummingbirdscientific.com/products/sem-liquid/]
• 43. Heating [https://hummingbirdscientific.com/sem-gas-heating-heating/]
• 44. Protochips Atmosphere AX in situ Gas Cell [https://www.coherent.com.au/products/electron-microscopy/holder-systems/protochips-atmosphere-ax-in-situ-gas-cell-1744.html]
• 45. A quasi in situ TEM grid reactor for decoupling catalytic gas ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304399118302249]
• 46. MEMS Heating + Biasing [https://hummingbirdscientific.com/products/heating-biasing/]
• 47. Micro-electromechanical system-based cryogenic and ... [https://www.oaepublish.com/articles/microstructures.2024.50]
• 48. DENSsolutions - Innovative In situ Electron Microscopy ... [https://denssolutions.com/]
• 49. In-situ TEM Specimen Holder Strategic Insights [https://www.archivemarketresearch.com/reports/in-situ-tem-specimen-holder-190051]
• 50. Global In Situ TEM Holders Market CAGR 2026-2033 [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/global-situ-tem-holders-market-cagr-2026-2033-impact-sqjvf/]
• 51. The Performance of EDXS at Elevated Sample ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304399121002345]
• 52. Controlled in-situ TEM heating experiments directly ... [https://hummingbirdscientific.com/controlled-in-situ-tem-heating-experiments-directly-visualize-structural-transformations-in-mos2-2d-materials/]
• 53. Understanding the Growth of Electrodeposited PtNi Nanoparticle Films Using Correlated In Situ Liquid Cell Transmission Electron Microscopy and Synchrotron Radiation - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11468670/]
• 54. Synergistic growth of nickel and platinum nanoparticles via ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48455-2]
• 55. Optimization of hollow Pt-Ni alloy bifunctional ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378775325001582]
• 56. Sample Heating for your Liquid TEM Holder [https://hummingbirdscientific.com/products/liquid/liquid-system-heating/]
• 57. In situ observation of catalyst nanoparticle sintering resistance ... [https://appmicro.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s42649-024-00100-4]
• 58. Reactive Sintering of Cu Nanoparticles at Ambient ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7288703/]
• 59. In Situ Transmission Electron Microscopy Study ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5345894/]
• 60. Electron Beam Induced Artifacts During in situ TEM ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/srep16345]
• 61. Molecular dynamics study on the mitigation of radiation ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0968432825000198]
• 62. Analysis and comparison of electron radiation damage ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9585622/]
• 63. Multichannel Gas Environment Heating | Hummingbird Scientific [https://hummingbirdscientific.com/products/multichannel-gas-flow/]
• 64. Temperature calibration of TEM specimen heating holders ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304399118302298]
• 65. Advances on in situ TEM mechanical testing techniques [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/materials/articles/10.3389/fmats.2023.1207024/full]
• 66. Temperature Calibration for In Situ Environmental ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4712447/]
• 67. CRYO-FIB-SEM CryoLameller | Products [https://www.jeol.com/products/scientific/fib/CRYO-FIB-SEM.php]
• 68. Overview [https://hummingbirdscientific.com/x-ray-gas-heating-overview/]
• 69. High precision temperature control performance of a PID ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359431121006724]
• 70. Current status and future directions for in situ transmission ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5100813/]
• 71. Experimental set up for in situ transmission electron ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S096843281200008X]
• 72. Stream In Situ TEM Liquid + Heating + Biasing solution [https://denssolutions.com/products/stream/]
• 73. In Situ Electron Microscopy for Nanomaterial Synthesis [https://www.protochips.com/solutions/by-applications/nanomaterial-synthesis/]
• 74. The Strategic Advantage of Bimetallic Strip for Demanding ... [https://deringerney.com/blog/the-strategic-advantage-of-bimetallic-strip-for-demanding-contact-applications/]
• 75. The Advantages of Using Bimetallic Sheets in Electrical ... [https://www.dhanlaxmisteel.com/blog/the-advantages-of-using-bimetallic-sheets-in-electrical-contacts/]
• 76. Optimization of electrochemical time of flight ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013468620305053]
• 77. Reconfiguration of organic electrochemical transistors for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-50792-1]
• 78. Recent progress of operando transmission electron ... [https://www.oaepublish.com/articles/microstructures.2024.03]
• 79. Data Synchronization in Operando Gas and Heating TEM [https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/6163e754a3d2c9c34cd2cf58]
• 80. In-situ TEM heating in atmospheric pressure gas shows the ... [https://hummingbirdscientific.com/in-situ-tem-heating-in-atmospheric-pressure-gas-shows-the-potential-of-dilute-metal-alloy-catalysts/]
• 81. Operando two-terminal devices inside a transmission electron ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10956025/]
• 82. Temperature calibration of TEM specimen heating holders ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30391803/]
• 83. Temperature Calibration of a Specimen-heating Holder for ... [http://www.appmicro.org/journal/view.html?doi=10.9729/AM.2015.45.2.95]
• 84. Improving the accuracy of temperature measurement on ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304399125000014]
• 85. In Situ TEM Electro and thermal Analysis: Fusion AX [https://www.protochips.com/solutions/in-situ-tem-solutions/in-situ-heating-and-electrical/]
• 86. identical location electron microscopy in electrocatalysis [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2451910319300018]
• 87. The universal sample holders of microanalytical instruments of ... [https://earth-planets-space.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40623-020-01267-2]
• 88. Data-mining of in-situ TEM experiments: On the dynamics ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359645422007728]
• 89. When to Choose EDS Analysis Over EELS? [https://www.jeolusa.com/NEWS-EVENTS/Blog/when-to-choose-eds-analysis-over-eels]
• 90. EELS and EFTEM [https://www.gatan.com/techniques/eels-and-eftem]
• 91. Elemental quantification using electron energy-loss ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304399124000561]
• 92. Energy Dispersive X-ray Tomography for 3D Elemental ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4993322/]
• 93. Liquid Helium TEM Sample Holders [https://condenzero.com/en/products/liquid-helium-tem-sample-holders]
• 94. In-situ TEM study from the perspective of holders [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37986584/]
• 95. TEM-EDS microanalysis: Comparison between different ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304399125000993]
• 96. 3 Reasons to Use In Situ Liquid Cell TEM Holders [https://www.protochips.com/resource/3-reasons-to-use-in-situ-liquid-cell-tem-holders/]
• 97. Accurate prediction of in-channel condensation heat ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359431125000420]