Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T04:08:58.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

XRD Instrument Sensitivity Results from a Round Robin Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

W.N. Schreiner ,
R. Jenkins  and
P.F. Dismore
W.N. Schreiner
Affiliation:
IC Laboratories, Katonah, NY, USA
R. Jenkins
Affiliation:
ICDD, Swarthmore, PA, USA
P.F. Dismore
Affiliation:
Wilmington, DE, USA
Get access

Extract

During the course of the past ten years the International Centre for Diffraction Data has sponsored a number of “Round Robin” tests to evaluate the quality of experimental X-ray diffraction data [1-5]. The latest of this series, called the Instrument Parameter Round Robin, was designed to evaluate, among other things, relative angularly-dependent sensitivity differences between diffractometers. Previous experiments have indicated that even perfectly aligned diffractometers of the same generic type, do not necessarily give the same set of relative intensities. One objective of the round robin was to quantify the magnitude of the experimental differences between data sets, and to demonstrate a means for external calibration of diffractometers, so that digitized diffraction intensity data obtained from different instruments could be directly compared.

Type
VI. XRD Instrumentation, Techniques and Reference Materials
Information
Advances in X-Ray Analysis , Volume 35 , Issue A: First Pacific-International Congress on X-ray Analytical Methods (PICXAM). Fortieth Annual Conference on Applications of X-ray Analysis, August 7-16, 1991 , 1991 , pp. 333 - 340
Copyright
Copyright © International Centre for Diffraction Data 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1] Jenkins, R., “A Round Robin to Evaluate Computer Search/Match Methods for Qualitative Powder Diffractometry”, Adv. X-ray Anal., 20,125–137 (1976).Google Scholar
[2] Jenkins, R. and Hubbard, C.R., “A preliminary Report on the Design and Results of the Second Round Robin to Evaluate Search. Match Methods in Qualitative Powder Diffractometry”, Adv. X-ray Anal., 22,133–142 (1979).Google Scholar
[3] Edmonds, et al, “Cell Parameter Refinement”, Powder Diff., vol.1, no.l, 66–76 (1986).Google Scholar
[4] Fawcett, , et al, “Establishing an Instrument Peak Profile Calibration Standard for Powder Diffraction Analysis, Powder Diff., 3,205–208 (1988).Google Scholar
[5] Jenkins, R. and Schreiner, W.N., “Intensity Round Robin Report”, Powder Diff., 4,74–100 (1989).Google Scholar
[6] Cline, J.P., Schiller, S.B. and Jenkins, R., “The Introduction of a NIST Instrument Sensitivity Standard Reference Material”, in this volume.Google Scholar