• Treffer 7 von 0
Zurück zur Trefferliste

What is the effective geometrical collection efficiency of your XEDS detector? A routine procedure applied in a SEM laboratory.

  • 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/orIn 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.zeige mehrzeige weniger

Volltext Dateien herunterladen

  • Avishai_et_al, MaM, 2016, OmegaEDS.pdf
    eng

Metadaten exportieren

Weitere Dienste

Teilen auf Twitter Suche bei Google Scholar Anzahl der Zugriffe auf dieses Dokument
Metadaten
Autor*innen:N. Avishai, A. Avishai, Vasile-Dan HodoroabaORCiD
Dokumenttyp:Zeitschriftenartikel
Veröffentlichungsform:Verlagsliteratur
Sprache:Englisch
Titel des übergeordneten Werkes (Englisch):Microscopy and Microanalysis
Jahr der Erstveröffentlichung:2016
Verlag:Cambridge
Jahrgang/Band:22
Ausgabe/Heft:Suppl. 3
Erste Seite:412
Letzte Seite:413
DDC-Klassifikation:Naturwissenschaften und Mathematik / Chemie / Analytische Chemie
Freie Schlagwörter:EDS Geometrical Detection Efficiency; EDS Solid Angle; EDS detector; EDS net active sensor area
DOI:10.1017/S1431927616002919
URL: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
ISSN:1431-9276
ISSN:1435-8115
Verfügbarkeit des Dokuments:Datei im Netzwerk der BAM verfügbar ("Closed Access")
Datum der Freischaltung:25.11.2016
Referierte Publikation:Nein
Einverstanden
Diese Webseite verwendet technisch erforderliche Session-Cookies. Durch die weitere Nutzung der Webseite stimmen Sie diesem zu. Unsere Datenschutzerklärung finden Sie hier.