TABLE 1. 1 Comparison of micro-computed tomography method and epoxy vacuum cast-embedding followed by SEM method in terms of material, cost and fees, destructiveness, image resolution, and possibility of three-dimensional animation.
| Item of comparison | Micro-computed tomography | Epoxy vacuum-embedding followed by SEM |
| Material of hard substrate | Material contrast between hard substrate and borings is necessary. | Material must be soluble in hydrochloric acid. |
| Infilled borings | Boring should be filled with a contrasting (different) material from the hard substrate or empty. | Boring should be empty or filled with permeable sediment. |
| Destructiveness | Non-destructive. The sample will remain unaffected. | Destructive. The sample will be dissolved in acid. |
| Image resolution | Usually low. | Usually high. |
| Three-dimensional animation | Possible. | Not possible. |
| Equipment/hardware used | Micro-CT equipment (high purchase price, legal restrictions on use of X-ray technology). | Vacuum chamber for cast-embedding (low purchase price).
Scanning electron microscope (high purchase price). |
| Software used | Expensive software with demanding requirements on both hardware and data storage space. | Inexpensive software, minimal demands on hardware. |
