TY - CONF A1 - Avishai, N. A1 - Avishai, A. A1 - Hodoroaba, Vasile-Dan T1 - What is the effective geometrical collection efficiency of your XEDS detector? Routine procedure applied in a SEM laboratory N2 - In this contribution, two large-area EDS detectors were tested according to the procedure proposed by Procop et al. (2015). In a first step, the optimal working distance (WD) in the two different SEM chambers was determined by moving the sample stage in the Z direction and monitoring the count rates at a magnification of 10,000 and a field of view of 25.6 µm. The WD at which the highest intensity was measured was selected as the optimal position, corresponding to the crossover between the EDS detector optical axis and electron beam optical axis. Next the Cu Kα peak was measured at different relative EDS positions while it was partially removed from the fully inserted position. The spectrum at each location was collected for 10 sec using the highest pulse rate and intermediate current to minimize pile up effects. The ‘inverse squared normalized intensities vs. relative EDS position’ used to extract the true detector – specimen distance shows a non-linear relationship even at the minimal relative positions, which indicates shadowing due to obstruction or use of an unsuitable and/or off-centered collimator. The normalized count rates measured as a function of the EDS distances, results in a too low GCE (too low true solid angles) for both tested detectors. The source of losses of signal was shadowing caused by collimators. T2 - Microscopy & Microanalysis 2016 Meeting CY - Columbus, Ohio, USA DA - 24.07.2016 KW - EDS KW - Solid angle KW - Net effective sensor area KW - X-ray yields PY - 2016 AN - OPUS4-36982 LA - eng AD - Bundesanstalt fuer Materialforschung und -pruefung (BAM), Berlin, Germany ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Avishai, N. A1 - Avishai, A. A1 - Hodoroaba, Vasile-Dan T1 - What is the effective geometrical collection efficiency of your XEDS detector? A routine procedure applied in a SEM laboratory. N2 - In this contribution, two large-area EDS detectors were tested according to the procedure proposed recently by Procop et al. In a first step, the optimal working distance (WD) in the two different SEM chambers was determined by moving the sample stage in the Z direction and monitoring the count rates from a field of view of 25.6 μm. The WD at which the highest intensity was measured was selected as the optimal position. Next the Cu Kα peak was measured at different relative EDS positions while it was partially removed from the fully inserted position. The spectrum at each location was collected for 10 sec using the highest pulse rate and intermediate current (2.3 nA) to minimize pile up effects (13% dead time). The ‘inverse squared normalized intensities vs. relative EDS position’ used to extract the true detector – specimen distance shows a non-linear relationship even at the minimal relative positions, which indicates shadowing due to obstruction or use of an unsuitable and/or off-centered collimator. The normalized count rates measured as a function of the EDS distances, results in a too low GCE (too low true solid angles) for both tested detectors. The search for sources of losses of signal due to possible shadowing effects is in progress. KW - EDS Geometrical Detection Efficiency KW - EDS Solid Angle KW - EDS net active sensor area KW - EDS detector PY - 2016 UR - https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/microscopy-and-microanalysis/article/what-is-the-effective-geometrical-collection-efficiency-of-your-xeds-detector-a-routine-procedure-applied-in-a-sem-laboratory/40A1A25C97916CA4D9FA365249CFC36C DO - https://doi.org/10.1017/S1431927616002919 SN - 1431-9276 SN - 1435-8115 VL - 22 IS - Suppl. 3 SP - 412 EP - 413 PB - Cambridge AN - OPUS4-38446 LA - eng AD - Bundesanstalt fuer Materialforschung und -pruefung (BAM), Berlin, Germany ER -