• Treffer 4 von 208
Zurück zur Trefferliste

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

  • 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 theIn 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.zeige mehrzeige weniger

Volltext Dateien herunterladen

  • Avishai_Hodoroaba_MM2016_TalkEDSSolidAngle.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:Vortrag
Veröffentlichungsform:Präsentation
Sprache:Englisch
Jahr der Erstveröffentlichung:2016
DDC-Klassifikation:Naturwissenschaften und Mathematik / Chemie / Analytische Chemie
Freie Schlagwörter:EDS; Net effective sensor area; Solid angle; X-ray yields
Veranstaltung:Microscopy & Microanalysis 2016 Meeting
Veranstaltungsort:Columbus, Ohio, USA
Beginndatum der Veranstaltung:24.07.2016
Enddatum der Veranstaltung:28.07.2016
Verfügbarkeit des Dokuments:Datei im Netzwerk der BAM verfügbar ("Closed Access")
Datum der Freischaltung:28.07.2016
Referierte Publikation:Nein
Eingeladener Vortrag:Nein
Einverstanden
Diese Webseite verwendet technisch erforderliche Session-Cookies. Durch die weitere Nutzung der Webseite stimmen Sie diesem zu. Unsere Datenschutzerklärung finden Sie hier.