Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T02:29:40.335Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Gas-Phase Reaction Cell for Modern Atom Probe Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 February 2019

Daniel Haley ,
Ingrid McCarroll Open the ORCID record for Ingrid McCarroll [Opens in a new window] ,
Paul A. J. Bagot ,
Julie M. Cairney  and
Michael P. Moody
Daniel Haley*
Affiliation:
Department of Materials, Oxford University, 16 Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3PH, UK
Ingrid McCarroll
Affiliation:
School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia Australian Centre for Microscopy and Microanalysis, University of Sydney, Madsen Building F09, NSW 2006, Australia
Paul A. J. Bagot
Affiliation:
Department of Materials, Oxford University, 16 Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3PH, UK
Julie M. Cairney
Affiliation:
School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia Australian Centre for Microscopy and Microanalysis, University of Sydney, Madsen Building F09, NSW 2006, Australia
Michael P. Moody
Affiliation:
Department of Materials, Oxford University, 16 Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3PH, UK
*
*Author for correspondence: Daniel Haley, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

In this work, we demonstrate a new system for the examination of gas interactions with surfaces via atom probe tomography. This system provides capability of examining the surface and subsurface interactions of gases with a wide range of specimens, as well as a selection of input gas types. This system has been primarily developed to aid the investigation of hydrogen interactions with metallurgical samples, to better understand the phenomenon of hydrogen embrittlement. In its current form, it is able to operate at pressures from 10−6 to 1000 mbar (abs), can use a variety of gasses, and is equipped with heating and cryogenic quenching capabilities. We use this system to examine the interaction of hydrogen with Pd, as well as the interaction of water vapor and oxygen in Mg samples.

Keywords

atom probe tomographydeuteriumhydrogeninstrumentation
Type
Instrumentation and Experimental Methodology
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 25 , Special Issue 2: Atom Probe Tomography and Microscopy APT&M 2018 , April 2019 , pp. 410 - 417
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

Archakov, YI & Grebeshkova, ID (1985). Nature of hydrogen embrittlement of steel. Met Sci Heat Treat 27(8), 555–562.Google Scholar
Bagot, PAJ, Visart De Bocarmé, T, Cerezo, A & Smith, GDW (2006). 3d atom probe study of gas adsorption and reaction on alloy catalyst surfaces I: Instrumentation. Surf Sci 600(15), 3028–3035.Google Scholar
Banerjee, K & ChatterJee, UK (1999). Hydrogen embrittlement of a HSLA-100 steel in seawater. ISIJ Int 39, 47–55.Google Scholar
Bocarmé, TV, Moors, M, Kruse, N, Atanasov, IS, Hou, M, Cerezo, A & Smith, GDW (2009). Surface segregation of Au–Pd alloys in UHV and reactive environments: Quantification by a catalytic atom probe. Ultramicroscopy 109, 619–624.Google Scholar
Brenner, SS & McKinney, JT (1970). Construction and performance of an FIM-atom probe. Surf Sci 23(1), 88–111.Google Scholar
Evans, MH (2016). An updated review: White etching cracks (WECs) and axial cracks in wind turbine gearbox bearings. Mater Sci Technol 32, 1133–1169.Google Scholar
Karnesky, RA Jr., Bartel, NC, Huang, D, Teslich, N & Kumar, M (2012). Imaging and Quantification of Hydrogen Isotope Trapping, Technical Report SAND2012-8539. Albuquerque, New Mexico and Livermore, California: Sandia National Laboratories.Google Scholar
Kruse, N (2001). Dynamics of surface reactions studied by field emission microscopy and atom-probe mass spectrometry. Ultramicroscopy 89(1–3), 51–61.Google Scholar
Larson, DJ, Prosa, T, Ulfig, RM, Geiser, BP & Kelly, TF (2013). Local Electrode Atom Probe Tomography. New York, USA: Springer Science.Google Scholar
London, AJ, Haley, D & Moody, MP (2017). Single-ion deconvolution of mass peak overlaps for atom probe microscopy. Microsc Microanal 23(2), 300–306.Google Scholar
Manchester, F (ed.) (2000). Binary Phase Diagrams of Hydrogen Alloys. Materials Park, OH: ASM International.Google Scholar
Miller, MK, Cerezo, A, Hetherington, MG & Smith, GDW (1996). Atom Probe Field Ion Microscopy. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford Science Publications.Google Scholar
Oriani, RA (1987). Hydrogen: The versatile embrittler. Corrosion 43, 390–397.Google Scholar
Rolander, U & Andrén, H-O (1994). Study of proper conditions for quantitative atom-probe analysis. Appl Surf Sci 76–77, 392–402.Google Scholar
Sundell, G, Thuvander, M & Andrén, HO (2013). Hydrogen analysis in APT: Methods to control adsorption and dissociation of H2. Ultramicroscopy.Google Scholar
Takahashi, J, Kawakami, K, Kobayashi, Y & Tarui, T (2010). The first direct observation of hydrogen trapping sites in tic precipitation-hardening steel through atom probe tomography. Scr Mater 63(3):261–264.Google Scholar
Thomas, S, Medhekar, NV, Frankel, GS & Birbilis, N (2015). Corrosion mechanism and hydrogen evolution on mg. Curr Opin Solid State Mater Sci 19(2), 85–94.Google Scholar
U.S. DRIVE Partnership (2013). Hydrogen Delivery Technical Team Roadmap. Technical report, Joint venture.Google Scholar