Table 3.

Semi-quantitative evaluation of pore-size parameters comparison to each other: 2—very advantageous, 1—advantageous, 0—no advantage

Quality	Pore size parameters
	SEM	3D	MT	MD	BICD	AECD
Non-destructivity	0	2	2	2	2	2
Time-efficacy	0	1	2	2	2	2
Direct 3D analysis	0	2	0	0	0	0
Whole specimen evaluation	0	2	1	1	1	1
High resolution	2	0	0	0	0	0
Irregular pore assessment	0	2	1	0	0	0
Image processing bias	2	0	0	0	0	0
Widespread use	2	0	0	0	0	0
Total score	6	9	6	5	5	5