Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T07:58:44.863Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The f-Ratio Quantification Method for X-ray Microanalysis Applied to Mg–Al–Zn Alloys

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 February 2019

Chaoyi Teng ,
Hendrix Demers ,
Xin Chu  and
Raynald Gauvin
Chaoyi Teng*
Affiliation:
Department of Mining and Materials Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 0C5
Hendrix Demers
Affiliation:
Centre d'excellence en électrification des transports et stockage d’énergie, Hydro-Québec, Varennes, Québec, Canada J3X 1S1
Xin Chu
Affiliation:
Department of Mining and Materials Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 0C5
Raynald Gauvin
Affiliation:
Department of Mining and Materials Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 0C5
*
*Author for correspondence: Chaoyi Teng, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The f-ratio quantitative X-ray microanalysis method has been recently developed for binary systems based on a scanning electron microscope/energy dispersive spectroscopy (SEM/EDS) system. This method incorporates traditional EDS experiments and Monte Carlo simulations, and calibration factors are calculated with standard samples to evaluate the differences between them. In this work, the f-ratio method was extended to Mg–Al–Zn multi-element systems using a cold field emission SEM and a tungsten emission SEM. Results show that the stability of the beam current does not influence the f-ratio quantification accuracy. Thus, the f-ratio method is suitable for quantitative X-ray mapping with a long-time acquisition or even an unstable beam current. Comparing with other quantitative techniques including the routine standardless analysis and the standard-based k-ratio method, the f-ratio method is a simple and accurate quantification method.

Keywords

cold field emission scanning electron microscope (CFE-SEM)energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS)quantitative X-ray microanalysisthe f-ratio method
Type
Materials Science Applications
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , February 2019 , pp. 58 - 69
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America 2019 

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

Armstrong, J & Crispin, K (2012). Current limitations in the use of L-lines of first-row transition elements for quantitative EDS and WDS analysis of complex materials. Microsc Microanal 18(S2), 1726–1727.10.1017/S1431927612010483Google Scholar
Bergman, G, Waugh, JL & Pauling, L (1957). The crystal structure of the metallic phase Mg32(Al, Zn)49. Acta Crystallogr 10(4), 254–259.Google Scholar
Bethe, H, Rose, M & Smith, L (1938). The multiple scattering of electrons. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 78(4), 573–585.Google Scholar
Bourgeois, L, Muddle, BC & Nie, JF (2001). The crystal structure of the equilibrium Φ phase in Mg–Zn–Al casting alloys. Acta Mater 49(14), 2701–2711.10.1016/S1359-6454(01)00162-8Google Scholar
Browning, R, Li, T, Chui, B, Ye, J, Pease, R, Czyżewski, Z & Joy, DC (1994). Empirical forms for the electron/atom elastic scattering cross sections from 0.1 to 30 keV. J Appl Phys 76(4), 2016–2022.Google Scholar
Casnati, E, Tartari, A & Baraldi, C (1982). An empirical approach to K-shell ionisation cross section by electrons. J Phys B At Mol Phys 15(1), 155.Google Scholar
Castaing, R (1951). Application of electron probes to local chemical and crystallographic analysis. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Paris. California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA.Google Scholar
Chantler, CT (1995). Theoretical form factor, attenuation, and scattering tabulation for Z = 1–92 from E = 1–10 eV to E = 0.4–1.0 MeV. J Phys Chem Ref Data 24(1), 71–643.Google Scholar
Chantler, CT (2000). Detailed tabulation of atomic form factors, photoelectric absorption and scattering cross section, and mass attenuation coefficients in the vicinity of absorption edges in the soft X-ray (Z = 30–36, Z = 60–89, E = 0.1 keV–10 keV), addressing convergence issues of earlier work. J Phys Chem Ref Data 29(4), 597–1056.Google Scholar
Cliff, G & Lorimer, GW (1975). The quantitative analysis of thin specimens. J Microsc 103(2), 203–207.Google Scholar
Çubukçu, HE, Ersoy, O, Aydar, E & Cakir, U (2008). WDS versus silicon drift detector EDS: A case report for the comparison of quantitative chemical analyses of natural silicate minerals. Micron 39(2), 88–94.10.1016/j.micron.2006.11.004Google Scholar
Czyżewski, Z, MacCallum, DON, Romig, A & Joy, DC (1990). Calculations of Mott scattering cross section. J Appl Phys 68(7), 3066–3072.Google Scholar
Drouin, D, Couture, AR, Joly, D, Tastet, X, Aimez, V & Gauvin, R (2007). CASINO v2. 42—A fast and easy-to-use modeling tool for scanning electron microscopy and microanalysis users. Scanning 29(3), 92–101. The software is available at http://www.gel.usherbrooke.ca/casino/download.html.Google Scholar
Feng, A & Ma, Z (2007). Enhanced mechanical properties of Mg–Al–Zn cast alloy via friction stir processing. Scr Mater 56(5), 397–400.Google Scholar
Gauvin, R & Michaud, P (2009). MC X-Ray, a new Monte Carlo program for quantitative X-ray microanalysis of real materials. Microsc Microanal 15(S2), 488–489. The software is available at http://montecarlomodeling.mcgill.ca/software/mcxray/download.html.Google Scholar
Goldstein, JI, Newbury, DE, Echlin, P, Joy, DC, Fiori, C & Lifshin, E (1981). Scanning Electron Microscopy and X-Ray Microanalysis. A Text for Biologists, Materials Scientists, and Geologists. New York, NY, USA: Plenum Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Henoc, J & Maurice, F (1976). Characteristics of a Monte Carlo program for microanalysis study of energy loss. In Use of Monte Carlo Calculations in Electron Probe Microanalysis and Scanning Electron Microscopy, Heinrich, KF, Newbury, DE & Yakowitz, H (Eds.), pp. 61–95. US Dept. of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards: for sale by the Supt. of Docs., US Govt. Print. Off. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Horny, P (2006). Development of a quantification method for X-ray microanalysis with an electron microscope. Ph.D. Thesis. McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.Google Scholar
Horny, P, Lifshin, E, Campbell, H & Gauvin, R (2010). Development of a new quantitative X-ray microanalysis method for electron microscopy. Microsc Microanal 16(6), 821–830.Google Scholar
Joy, DC & Luo, S (1989). An empirical stopping power relationship for low-energy electrons. Scanning 11(4), 176–180.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, P & Wiedmann, L (1945). Theoretical continuous X-ray energy and polarization. Phys Rev 67(11–12), 321–339.Google Scholar
Montagné, P & Tillard, M (2016). On the adaptability of 1/1 cubic approximant structure in the Mg–Al–Zn system with the particular example of Mg32Al12Zn37. J Alloys Compd 656, 159–165.Google Scholar
Newbury, DE (2002). Barriers to quantitative electron probe X-ray microanalysis for low voltage scanning electron microscopy. J Res Natl Inst Stand Technol 107(6), 605–619.Google Scholar
Newbury, DE & Ritchie, NW (2013). Is scanning electron microscopy/energy dispersive X-ray spectrometry (SEM/EDS) quantitative? Scanning 35(3), 141–168.Google Scholar
Newbury, DE & Ritchie, NW (2015). 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 Mater Sci 50(2), 493–518.10.1007/s10853-014-8685-2Google Scholar
Newbury, DE, Swyt, CR & Myklebust, RL (1995). “Standardless” quantitative electron probe microanalysis with energy-dispersive x-ray spectrometry: Is it worth the risk? Anal Chem 67(11), 1866–1871.Google Scholar
Ritchie, NW (2011 a). Getting started with NIST DTSA-II. Micros Today 19(01), 26–31. The software is available at https://cstl.nist.gov/div837/837.02/epq/dtsa2/index.html.Google Scholar
Ritchie, NW (2011 b). Standards-based quantification in DTSA-II—Part I. Micros Today 19(5), 30–36.10.1017/S155192951100085XGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, NW, Newbury, DE & Davis, JM (2012). EDS measurements of X-ray intensity at WDS precision and accuracy using a silicon drift detector. Microsc Microanal 18(4), 892–904.Google Scholar
Statham, P & Holland, J (2014). Prospects for higher spatial resolution quantitative X-ray analysis using transition element L-lines. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 55(1), 12–17.Google Scholar
Teng, C, Demers, H, Brodusch, N, Waters, K & Gauvin, R (2018). Use of an annular silicon drift detector (SDD) versus a conventional SDD makes phase mapping a practical solution for rare earth mineral characterization. Microsc Microanal 24(3), 238–248.10.1017/S1431927618000417Google Scholar