Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T19:46:42.695Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Electron microprobe analysis under conditions of non-normal Electron beam incidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2020

E. Lifshin
Affiliation:
General Electric Company Corporate Research & Development Center, Schenectady, NY12301
R. Gauvin
Affiliation:
University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, CanadaJ1K 2R1
Get access

Extract

From its inception, electron microprobe analysis was almost exclusively done under conditions of normal electron probe incidence. The radial symmetry of this geometry greatly simplified the development of quantitative equations, and these equations where further refined based on large amounts of data also collected at normal incidence. However, as x-ray detection systems where added to scanning electron microscopes (SEMs), samples were often viewed under conditions of non-normal incidence and attempts were made to modify the various correction procedures to give acceptable quantitative results. Little justification for these methods has ever been published and so the current study was undertaken to compare theoretically calculated x-ray emission from a well characterized sample, in this case NiAl (.685 wt. % Ni, .315 wt. %A1) with experimentally measured results collected as a function of tilt angle. The theoretical calculation where done using a Monte Carlo (MC) program developed by Gauvin and Lifshin.

Type
X-Ray Microanalysis of Rough Surfaces
Copyright
Copyright © 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

References:

1.Scott, V.D. and Love, G., Quantitative Electron-Probe Analysis, Ellis Horwood New York (1995)141143, 2nd editionGoogle Scholar
2.Lifshin, E., Peluso, L., and Gauvin, R., Proc. MSA Meeting Vol 4 (1998)232233Google Scholar
3.Lifshin, E., et al., Proc. MSA Meeting Vol 5 (1999)8687Google Scholar