Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T07:16:00.550Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quantitative Electron-Excited X-ray Microanalysis With Low-Energy L-shell X-ray Peaks Measured With Energy-Dispersive Spectrometry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 September 2021

Dale E. Newbury  and
Nicholas W.M. Ritchie
Dale E. Newbury*
Affiliation:
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD20899-8370, USA
Nicholas W.M. Ritchie
Affiliation:
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD20899-8370, USA
*
*Corresponding author: Dale E. Newbury, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Quantification of electron-exited X-ray spectra following the standards-based “k-ratio” (unknown/standard intensity) protocol with corrections for “matrix effects” (electron energy loss and backscattering, X-ray absorption, and secondary X-ray fluorescence) is a well-established method with a record of rigorous testing and extensive experience. Two recent studies by Gopon et al. working in the Fe–Si system and Llovet et al. working in the Ni–Si system have renewed interest in studying the accuracy of measurements made using L-shell X-ray peaks. Both have reported unexpectedly large deviations in analytical accuracy when analyzing intermetallic compounds when using the low photon energy Fe or Ni L-shell X-ray peaks with pure element standards and wavelength-dispersive X-ray spectrometry. This study confirms those observations on the Ni-based intermetallic compounds using energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry and extends the study of analysis with low photon energy L-shell peaks to a wide range of elements, Ti to Se. Within this range of elements, anomalies in analytical accuracy have been found for Fe, Co, and Ge in addition to Ni. For these elements, the use of compound standards instead of pure elements usually resulted in significantly improved analytical accuracy. However, compound standards do not always provide satisfactory accuracy as is demonstrated for L-shell peak analysis in the Fe–S system: FeS and FeS2 unexpectedly do not provide good accuracy when used as mutual standards.

Keywords

electron-excited X-ray microanalysisenergy-dispersive X-ray spectrometryL-family X-ray analysisquantitative elemental microanalysis
Type
Software and Instrumentation
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 27 , Issue 6 , December 2021 , pp. 1375 - 1408
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Microscopy Society of America

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

Castaing, R (1951). Application of electron probes to local chemical and crystallographic analysis. PhD Thesis. University of Paris.Google Scholar
Goldstein, J, Newbury, D, Michael, J, Ritchie, N, Scott, J & Joy, D (2018). Scanning Electron Microscopy and X-ray Microanalysis, 4th ed. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gopon, P, Fournelle, J, Sobol, PE & Llovet, X (2013). Low-voltage electron-probe microanalysis of Fe-Si compounds using soft X-rays. Micros Microanal 19, 1698–1699.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ISO (2021). International Organization for Standardization, standard I. SO 22029:2003.Google Scholar
Llovet, X, Heikinheimo, E, Nunez, A, Merlet, C, Almagro, J, Richter, S, Fournelle, J & van Hoek, C (2012). An inter-laboratory comparison of EPMA analysis of alloy steel at low voltage. Institute of Physics Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 32, Conf 012014, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Llovet, X, Pinard, P, Heikinheimo, E, Louhenkilpi, S & Richter, S (2016). Electron probe microanalysis of Ni silicides using Ni-L X-ray lines. Micros Microanal 22, 1233–1243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moy, A, Fournelle, J & van der Handt, A (2019 a). Quantitative measurement of iron-silicides by EPMA using the Fe Lα and Lβ X-ray lines: A new twist to an old approach. Micros Microanal 25, 664–674. doi:10.1017/S1431927619000436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moy, A, Fournelle, J & van der Handt, A (2019 b). Solving the iron quantification problem in low kV EPMA: An essential step toward improved analytical spatial resolution in electron probe microanalysis, Olivines. Am Min 104(8), 1131–1142. doi:10.2138/am-2019-6865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newbury, D & Ritchie, N (2015 a). Review: Performing elemental microanalysis with high accuracy and high precision by scanning electron microscopy/silicon drift detector energy dispersive X-ray spectrometry (SEM/SDD-EDS). J Mats Sci 50, 493–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newbury, D & Ritchie, N (2015 b). Quantitative electron-excited X-ray microanalysis of borides, carbides, nitrides, oxides, and fluorides with scanning electron microscopy/silicon drift detector energy-dispersive spectrometry (SEM/SDD-EDS) and NIST DTSA-II. Micros Microanal 21, 1327–1340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newbury, D & Ritchie, N (2016). Electron-excited X-ray microanalysis at low beam energy: Almost always an adventure!. Micros Microanal 22, 735–753.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newbury, D & Ritchie, N (2019). Electron-excited X-ray microanalysis by energy dispersive spectrometry at 50: Analytical accuracy, precision, trace sensitivity, and quantitative compositional mapping. Micros Microanal 25, 1075–1105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newbury, D & Ritchie, N (2020). Quantitative electron-excited X-ray microanalysis with low energy L-peaks. Micros Microanal, 1–7. (published online, Cambridge University Press) doi:10.1017/S1431927620013215.Google Scholar
Pouchou, J (1996. Use of soft X-rays in microanalysis. In Microbeam and Nanobeam Analysis, Benoit, D (Ed.), pp. 39–60. Vienna: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, N (2018). NIST DTSA-II software for quantitative electron excited X-ray microanalysis with energy dispersive spectrometry; available for free, including tutorials, at the NIST. Available at https://www.nist.gov/services-resources/software/nist-dtsa-ii (retrieved February 1, 2018).Google Scholar
Ritchie, N (2021). Embracing uncertainty: Modeling uncertainty in EPMA – Part II. Micros Microanal 27, 74–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ritchie, N & Filip, V (2011). SEMantics for high speed automated particle analysis by SEM/EDX. Micros. Microanal 17, 896–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, N & Newbury, D (2012). Uncertainty estimates for electron probe X-ray microanalysis measurements. Anal Chem 84, 9956–9962.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ritchie, N, Newbury, D, Lowers, H & Mengason, M (2018). Exploring the limits of EDS microanalysis: rare earth element analyses. IOP Conf Series: Mats Sci Eng 304(1), 012013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schamber, F (1977). A modification of the least-squares fitting method which provides continuum suppression. In X-Ray Analysis of Environmental Samples, Dzubay, T (Ed.), pp. 241–257. Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Springer, G (1976). Iterative procedures in electron probe analysis corrections. X-Ray Spectrometry 5, 88–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar