Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T14:03:09.004Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Quantitative X-Ray Microanalysis of Uncoated Ceramics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2020

Charles E. Lyman
Affiliation:
Lehigh University, Materials Science and Engineering Dept., Bethlehem, PA, 18015
Robert A. Carlton
Affiliation:
Elan Pharmaceuticals, King of Prussia, PA, 19406
James E. Roberts
Affiliation:
Lehigh University, Department of Chemistry, Bethlehem, PA, 18015
Get access

Abstract

Uncoated ceramics are difficult to analyze because specimen charging can reduce the energy of the electron beam at the specimen. This effect may decrease the measured k-ratio to a fraction of its expected value. Thin carbon coatings are the usual solution to this problem. However, the coating procedure takes time, and the same coating thickness also must be applied to the standard. in the environmental SEM (ESEM). surface charge can be mitigated at the higher accelerating voltages normally used for x-ray microanalysis. in the ESEM, electrons are accelerated toward an electrically biased electron detector producing a cascade of electrons and ions from the imaging gas (water vapor) as part of the secondary electron imaging process. Positive ions drift toward the specimen and neutralize negative surface charge; however, the degree of neutralization is a function of a number of operating variables.

Type
Novel Microscopy Assisted Ceramic Developments in Materials Scienceand Nanotechnology (Organized by P. Gai and J. Lee)
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America 2001

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.Bastin, G. F. and Heijligers, H. J. M., in Electron Probe Quantitation, eds. K.F.J. Heinrich and D.E. Newbury, Plenum Press, New York, 1991, pp. 163175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Doehne, E., Scanning 19(1997)7578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Gauvin, R., Scanning 21(1999)388393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Marinenko, R. B., Microsc. Microanal. 6(2000)542550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Fiori, C. E. and Swyt, C. R. (1994), U.S. Patent 5,299,138.Google Scholar
6. The authors thank FEI Co. and Dan Phifer for use of the FEI FEG XL30 ESEM, and RAC thanks Aventis Corp. for financial assistance in this work.Google Scholar