Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Zeitschriftenartikel (4)
- Vortrag (2)
- Posterpräsentation (1)
Sprache
- Englisch (7)
Schlagworte
- Comparison (7) (entfernen)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
Eingeladener Vortrag
- nein (2)
Optical measurements of scattering luminescent materials dispersed in liquid and solid matrices and luminescent powders play an important role in fundamental research and industry. Typical examples are luminescent nano- and microparticles and phosphors of different composition in different matrices or incorporated into ceramics with applications in energy conversion, solid-state lighting, medical diagnostics, and security barcoding. The key parameter for the performance of these materials is the photoluminescence quantum yield QY, i.e., the number of emitted photons per number of absorbed photons. QY of transparent luminophore solutions can be determined relatively to a fluorescence quantum yield standard of known QY. Such standards are meanwhile available as certified reference materials.[1] The determination of QY of scattering liquid and solid samples like dispersions of luminescent nanoparticles, solid phosphors, and optoceramics requires, however, absolute measurements with an integrating sphere setup. Although the importance of reliable absolute QY measurements has been recognized, no interlaboratory comparisons (ILCs) on measurement uncertainties and the identification of typical sources of uncertainty have been yet reported. Also, no scattering reference materials with known QY are available.
We present here the results of a first ILC of 3 laboratories from academia and industry performed to identify and quantify sources of uncertainty of absolute QY measurements of scattering samples. Thereby, two types of commercial stand-alone integrating sphere setups with different illumination and detection geometries were utilized for measuring QY of transparent and scattering dye solutions and solid phosphors. As representative and industrially relevant solid and scattering samples, YAG:Ce optoceramics of varying surface roughness were chosen, applied, e.g., as converter materials for blue light emitting diodes. Special emphasis was dedicated to the influence of the measurement geometry, the optical properties of the blank, utilized to determine the number of photons of the incident excitation light absorbed by the sample, and the sample-specific surface roughness. While matching QY values could be obtained for transparent dye solutions and scattering dispersions, here using a blank with scattering properties closely matching those of the sample, QY measurements of optoceramic samples with different blanks revealed substantial differences, with the blank's optical
properties accounting for measurement uncertainties of more than 20 %. Based upon the ILC results, we recommend non-absorbing blank materials with a high reflectivity (>95 %) such as a 2 mm-thick PTFE target placed on the sample holder which reveals a near-Lambertian light scattering behavior, yielding a homogeneous light distribution within the integrating sphere.
Risk assessment of nanomaterials requires not only standardized toxicity studies but also validated methods for nanomaterial surface characterization with known uncertainties. In this context, a first bilateral interlaboratory comparison on Surface group quantification of nanomaterials is presented that assesses different reporter-free and labeling methods for the quantification of the total and accessible number of amine functionalities on commercially available silica nanoparticles that are widely used in the life sciences. The overall goal of this comparison is the identification of optimum methods as well as achievable measurement uncertainties and the comparability of the results across laboratories. We also examined the robustness and ease of implementation of the applied analytical methods and discussed method-inherent limitations. In summary, this comparison presents a first step toward the eventually required standardization of methods for surface group quantification.
The ISO 16000 standard series provide guidelines for emission measurements of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from building materials. However, polymer-based consumer products such as toys may also release harmful substances into indoor air. In such cases, the existing standard procedures are unsuitable for official control laboratories due to high costs for large emission testing chambers. This paper aims at developing and comparing alternative and more competitive methods for the emission testing of consumer products. The influence of the emission chamber size was investigated as smaller chambers are more suited to the common size of consumer products and may help to reduce the costs of testing. Comparison of the performance of a 203 l emission test chamber with two smaller chambers with the capacity of 24 l and 44 ml, respectively, was carried out by using a polyurethane reference material spiked with 14 VOCs during the course of 28 days. The area-specific emission rates obtained in the small chambers were always similar to those of the 203 l reference chamber after a few hours. This implies that smaller chambers can provide at least useful numbers on the extent of polymer-based consumer product emissions into indoor air, thereby supporting meaningful exposure assessments.
Spatially resolved analysis of complex multi-phase systems can be validated through different analytical methods. This study compares investigations by scanning electron microscopy coupled with energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence analysis and high resolution X-ray diffraction. The studied sulfate attacked cement paste containing fly ashes consists of different interacting crystalline and amorphous phases. The complementary methods revealed in detail changes in phase composition due to the chemical attack. The advantages and disadvantages of both methods are discussed and suggestions are given for combining them with additional methods to maximize the information content.
The present work shows results on elemental distribution analyses in Cu(In,Ga)Se2 thin films for solar cells performed by use of wavelength-dispersive and energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry (EDX) in a scanning electron microscope, EDX in a transmission electron microscope, X-ray photoelectron, angle-dependent soft X-ray emission, secondary ion-mass (SIMS), time-of-flight SIMS, sputtered neutral mass, glow-discharge optical emission and glow-discharge mass, Auger electron, and Rutherford backscattering spectrometry, by use of scanning Auger electron microscopy, Raman depth profiling, and Raman mapping, as well as by use of elastic recoil detection analysis, grazing-incidence X-ray and electron backscatter diffraction, and grazing-incidence X-ray fluorescence analysis. The Cu(In,Ga)Se2 thin films used for the present comparison were produced during the same identical deposition run and exhibit thicknesses of about 2 µm. The analysis techniques were compared with respect to their spatial and depth resolutions, measuring speeds, availabilities, and detection limits.