Advertisement

Uncertainties in the Analysis of M X-Ray Lines of the Rare-Earth Elements

  • J. L. Lábár
  • C. J. Salter

Abstract

Electron probe x-ray microanalysis by M lines poses some inherent problems similar in a certain respect to those arising during the analysis of light elements. The energy of the radiation is rather low, so that the measurement is more sensitive to absorption and contamination effects and the closeness of other lines is more of a problem. The requirements for the quality of the surface are therefore stricter than usual. Because of the important role of the outer shells in the x-ray generation process, chemical effects can also be pronounced. To make matters worse, the lack of reliable atomic constants (mass absorption coefficients (macs), fluorescence and Coster-Kronig yields, relative line intensities etc.) for the M lines is often conspicuous.

Keywords

Beam Energy Anomalous Absorption Mass Absorption Coefficient Wavelength Dispersive Spectrometer Relative Line Intensity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Fischer, D. W. and Baun, W. L. (1967), J. Appl. Phys. 38, 4830–4836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Bearden, J. A. (1967), Rev. Mod. Phys. 39, 78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Bearden, J. A. and Burr, A. F. (1967), Rev. Mod. Phys. 39, 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Saloman, E. B. and Hubbell, J. H. (1988), At. Data Nucl. Data Tables.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Heinrich, K. F. J. (1986), 11th Int. Cong. on X-Ray Optics and Microanalysis, London (Canada), 67–119.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Wendt, M. and Christ, B. (1985), Cryst. Res. Technol. 20, 1443–1449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    White, E. W. and Johnson, G. G. (1970), ASTM Data Series DS 37AGoogle Scholar
  8. Johnson, G. G. and White, E. W. (1970), ASTM Data Series DS 46.Google Scholar
  9. [8]
    Wendt, M. (1987), personal communication.Google Scholar
  10. [9]
    Small, J. A., et al. (1987), J. Appl. Phys. 61, 459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [10]
    Bastin, G. F., et al. (1986), Scanning 8, 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [11]
    McGuire, E. J. (1972), Phys. Rev. A5, 1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [12]
    Chen, M. H., et al. (1980), Phys. Rev. A21, 449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [13]
    Chen, M. H., et al. (1983), Phys. Rev. A27, 2889.Google Scholar
  15. [14]
    Pouchou, J. L. and Pichoir, F. (1986), 11th Int. Cong. on X-Ray Optics and Microanalysis, London (Canada), 249–253. Errata was presented in: 1st European Workshop on Modern Developments and Applications in Microbeam Analysis, 1989, Antwerp, p. 146. Concerning the mass absorption determinations, see Appendix 5, p. 59 of Pouchou and Pichoir’s paper in this publication.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. L. Lábár
    • 1
    • 2
  • C. J. Salter
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Research Institute for Technical Physics of the Hungarian Academy of SciencesBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Department of Metallurgy and Science of MaterialsOxford UniversityOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations