A comparison of three different methods for analysing small-angle scattering data

A comparison of three different methods for analysing small-angle scattering data

Two methods for performing indirect Fourier transformation of small‐angle scattering data have been introduced by Glatter [J. Appl. Cryst. (1977), 10, 415–421] and Moore [J. Appl. Cryst. (1980), 13, 168–175]. These two methods are here compared to one using maximum entropy. The methods have been app...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of applied crystallography 1991-10, Vol.24 (5), p.541-548
Hauptverfasser: Hansen, S., Pedersen, J. S.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 548
container_issue 5
container_start_page 541
container_title Journal of applied crystallography
container_volume 24
creator Hansen, S.
Pedersen, J. S.
description Two methods for performing indirect Fourier transformation of small‐angle scattering data have been introduced by Glatter [J. Appl. Cryst. (1977), 10, 415–421] and Moore [J. Appl. Cryst. (1980), 13, 168–175]. These two methods are here compared to one using maximum entropy. The methods have been applied to simulated as well as experimental scattering data. The comparison of the three methods for the simulated data shows that the maximum‐entropy method and the method of Glatter give similar results, which agree well with the original distributions. The method of Moore occasionally gives results which have artificial oscillations.
doi_str_mv 10.1107/S0021889890013322
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>wiley_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1107_S0021889890013322</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>JCRGK0508</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2888-3d9d6761c69d9e5baed7b5c767313e909723a57c9e2ed6b943c085104263b5213</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqF0NtKAzEQBuAgCtbqA3iXF1jNoTld1qr1UDxW6l3IJrPt6na3JAvat3dLRQQvvJphmG_4GYSOKTmhlKjTZ0IY1dpoQwjlnLEd1KOSkEwoqXZ_9fvoIKW3bkkqxnrocYh9s1y5WKamxk2B20UEwKEsCohQt3gJ7aIJCRdNxK521TqV9RynpauqzNXzCnDyrm0hbsbBte4Q7RWuSnD0Xfvo5fJiOrrKJvfj69Fwknmmtc54MEEqSb00wYDIHQSVC98l5JSDIUYx7oTyBhgEmZsB90QLSgZM8lwwyvuIbu_62KQUobCrWC5dXFtK7OYn9s9POqO35qOsYP0_sDejp_EtEUR3NNvSMrXw-UNdfLddZCXs7G5sp-czxQcPr_aMfwEykHMJ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comparison of three different methods for analysing small-angle scattering data</title><source>Crystallography Journals Online</source><creator>Hansen, S. ; Pedersen, J. S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Hansen, S. ; Pedersen, J. S.</creatorcontrib><description>Two methods for performing indirect Fourier transformation of small‐angle scattering data have been introduced by Glatter [J. Appl. Cryst. (1977), 10, 415–421] and Moore [J. Appl. Cryst. (1980), 13, 168–175]. These two methods are here compared to one using maximum entropy. The methods have been applied to simulated as well as experimental scattering data. The comparison of the three methods for the simulated data shows that the maximum‐entropy method and the method of Glatter give similar results, which agree well with the original distributions. The method of Moore occasionally gives results which have artificial oscillations.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1600-5767</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 0021-8898</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1600-5767</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1107/S0021889890013322</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>5 Abbey Square, Chester, Cheshire CH1 2HU, England: International Union of Crystallography</publisher><ispartof>Journal of applied crystallography, 1991-10, Vol.24 (5), p.541-548</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2888-3d9d6761c69d9e5baed7b5c767313e909723a57c9e2ed6b943c085104263b5213</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3972,27903,27904</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hansen, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pedersen, J. S.</creatorcontrib><title>A comparison of three different methods for analysing small-angle scattering data</title><title>Journal of applied crystallography</title><addtitle>J. Appl. Cryst</addtitle><description>Two methods for performing indirect Fourier transformation of small‐angle scattering data have been introduced by Glatter [J. Appl. Cryst. (1977), 10, 415–421] and Moore [J. Appl. Cryst. (1980), 13, 168–175]. These two methods are here compared to one using maximum entropy. The methods have been applied to simulated as well as experimental scattering data. The comparison of the three methods for the simulated data shows that the maximum‐entropy method and the method of Glatter give similar results, which agree well with the original distributions. The method of Moore occasionally gives results which have artificial oscillations.</description><issn>1600-5767</issn><issn>0021-8898</issn><issn>1600-5767</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1991</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqF0NtKAzEQBuAgCtbqA3iXF1jNoTld1qr1UDxW6l3IJrPt6na3JAvat3dLRQQvvJphmG_4GYSOKTmhlKjTZ0IY1dpoQwjlnLEd1KOSkEwoqXZ_9fvoIKW3bkkqxnrocYh9s1y5WKamxk2B20UEwKEsCohQt3gJ7aIJCRdNxK521TqV9RynpauqzNXzCnDyrm0hbsbBte4Q7RWuSnD0Xfvo5fJiOrrKJvfj69Fwknmmtc54MEEqSb00wYDIHQSVC98l5JSDIUYx7oTyBhgEmZsB90QLSgZM8lwwyvuIbu_62KQUobCrWC5dXFtK7OYn9s9POqO35qOsYP0_sDejp_EtEUR3NNvSMrXw-UNdfLddZCXs7G5sp-czxQcPr_aMfwEykHMJ</recordid><startdate>19911001</startdate><enddate>19911001</enddate><creator>Hansen, S.</creator><creator>Pedersen, J. S.</creator><general>International Union of Crystallography</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19911001</creationdate><title>A comparison of three different methods for analysing small-angle scattering data</title><author>Hansen, S. ; Pedersen, J. S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2888-3d9d6761c69d9e5baed7b5c767313e909723a57c9e2ed6b943c085104263b5213</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1991</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hansen, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pedersen, J. S.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Journal of applied crystallography</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hansen, S.</au><au>Pedersen, J. S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A comparison of three different methods for analysing small-angle scattering data</atitle><jtitle>Journal of applied crystallography</jtitle><addtitle>J. Appl. Cryst</addtitle><date>1991-10-01</date><risdate>1991</risdate><volume>24</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>541</spage><epage>548</epage><pages>541-548</pages><issn>1600-5767</issn><issn>0021-8898</issn><eissn>1600-5767</eissn><abstract>Two methods for performing indirect Fourier transformation of small‐angle scattering data have been introduced by Glatter [J. Appl. Cryst. (1977), 10, 415–421] and Moore [J. Appl. Cryst. (1980), 13, 168–175]. These two methods are here compared to one using maximum entropy. The methods have been applied to simulated as well as experimental scattering data. The comparison of the three methods for the simulated data shows that the maximum‐entropy method and the method of Glatter give similar results, which agree well with the original distributions. The method of Moore occasionally gives results which have artificial oscillations.</abstract><cop>5 Abbey Square, Chester, Cheshire CH1 2HU, England</cop><pub>International Union of Crystallography</pub><doi>10.1107/S0021889890013322</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1600-5767
ispartof Journal of applied crystallography, 1991-10, Vol.24 (5), p.541-548
issn 1600-5767
0021-8898
1600-5767
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1107_S0021889890013322
source Crystallography Journals Online
title A comparison of three different methods for analysing small-angle scattering data
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-26T04%3A31%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-wiley_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20comparison%20of%20three%20different%20methods%20for%20analysing%20small-angle%20scattering%20data&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20applied%20crystallography&rft.au=Hansen,%20S.&rft.date=1991-10-01&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=541&rft.epage=548&rft.pages=541-548&rft.issn=1600-5767&rft.eissn=1600-5767&rft_id=info:doi/10.1107/S0021889890013322&rft_dat=%3Cwiley_cross%3EJCRGK0508%3C/wiley_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true