Quantitative Electron Probe Microanalysis of Nonconducting Specimens: Science or Art?
Source abstract
Abstract
The influence of a lack of sufficient electrical conductivity on the results of quantitative electron probe microanalysis has been investigated on a number of oxides. The effect of surface charging and the way it alters the emitted X-ray signals has been studied. It is shown that the presence of conducting coatings, such as carbon or copper, will affect the interelement X-ray intensity ratios, whatever the thickness of the coating may be. Although the effects for heavier elements may be acceptable, they cannot be ignored for a light element such as oxygen, where strong variations with coating thickness were observed. Quantitative analyses of oxygen, on uncoated well-conducting oxide specimens, using uncoated well-conducting hematite (Fe2O3) as a standard yielded excellent results in the range between 4 and 40 kV with the φ(ρz) software used. As soon as coated nonconducting specimens were examined, using the same hematite standard, coated under exactly the same conditions, widely scattering and noncoherent results were obtained. These discrepancies can only be attributed to a lack of conductivity.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Electron and X-Ray Spectroscopy Techniques · X-ray Spectroscopy and Fluorescence Analysis · Advanced Materials Characterization Techniques
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (11)
Show source-provided references
1. Duane, W. & Hunt, F.L. (1915).On X-ray wavelengths.Phys Rev 6,166.
2. Henke, B.L. , Gullikson, E.M. , & Davies, J.C. (1993).X-ray interactions: Photoabsorption, scattering, transmission, andreflection at E = 50–30,000 eV, Z =1–92.Atomic Data Nucl Data Tables 54,181–342.10.1006/adnd.1993.1013 ↗
3. Bastin, G.F. , Dijkstra, J.M. , & Heijligers, H.J.M. (1998).PROZA96: An improved matrix correction program for electron probemicroanalysis, based on a double Gaussian φ(ρz)approach.X-ray Spectrom 27,3–10.10.1002/(SICI)1097-4539(199801/02)27:1<3::AID-XRS227>3.0.CO;2-L ↗
4. Weisweiler, W. (1974).Elektronenstrahl-Mikroanalytik elektrisch nichtleitender Probenleichter Elemente am Beispel von Oxiden.Arch Eisenhüttenwes 45,287–295.10.1002/srin.197404560 ↗
5. Cazaux, J. (1986).Some considerations on the electric field induced in insulators byelectron bombardment.J Appl Phys 59,1418–1430.10.1063/1.336493 ↗
6. Weisweiler, W. (1978).Quantitative Analyse von Oxiden mit der Elektonenstrahl-Mikrosonde.Arch Eisenhüttenwes 49,555–562.10.1002/srin.197804680 ↗
7. Henke, B.L. , Lee, P. , Tanaka, J. , Shimabukuro, R.L. , & Fujikawa, B.K. (1982).Low-energy X-ray interaction coefficients: Photo-absorption,scattering, and reflection.Atomic Data Nucl Data Tables 27,1–144.
8. Henke, B.L. & Ebisu, E. (1974).Low energy X-ray and electron absorption within solids.Advance in X-ray Anal 17,150–213.
9. Bastin, G.F. & Heijligers, H.J.M. (1991).Non-conductive specimens in the electron probemicroanalyzer—A hitherto poorly discussed problem. InElectron Probe Quantitation, Workshop at the National Bureau ofStandards, Gaithersburg, Maryland 1988, Heinrich, K.F.J. , & Newbury, D.E (Eds.), pp.163–175.New York:Plenum Press.
10. Bastin, G.F. , Dijkstra, J.M. , Heijligers, H.J.M. , & Klepper, D. (1993).In-depth profiling with the electron probe microanalyzer.Microbeam Anal 2,29–43.
11. Love, G. , Cox, M.G.C. , & Scott, V.D. (1974).Electron probe microanalysis using oxygen X-rays: I. Massabsorption coefficients.J Phys D Appl Phys 7,2131–2141.10.1088/0022-3727/7/15/318 ↗