Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Zeitschriftenartikel (5)
- Vortrag (2)
- Beitrag zu einem Sammelband (1)
Sprache
- Englisch (8)
Schlagworte
- Key comparison (8) (entfernen)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
Eingeladener Vortrag
- nein (2)
CCQM key comparison K-129 for the quantitative analysis of Cu(In,Ga)Se2 (CIGS) films has been performed by the Surface Analysis Working Group (SAWG) of the Consultative Committee for Amount of Substance (CCQM). The objective of this key comparison is to compare the equivalency of the National Metrology Institutes (NMIs) and Designated Institutes (DIs) for the measurement of mole fractions of Cu, In, Ga and Se in a thin CIGS film. The measurand of this key comparison is the average mole fractions of Cu, In, Ga and Se of a test CIGS alloy film in the unit of mole fraction (mol/mol). Mole fraction with the metrological unit of mol/mol can be practically converted to atomic fraction with the unit of at%.
In this key comparison, a CIGS film with certified mole fractions was supplied as a reference specimen to determine the relative sensitivity factors (RSFs) of Cu, In, Ga and Se. The mole fractions of the reference specimen were certified by isotope dilution - inductively coupled plasma/mass spectrometry (ID-ICP/MS) and are traceable to the SI. A total number counting (TNC) method was recommended as a method to determine the signal intensities of the constituent elements acquired in the depth profiles by Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry (SIMS), X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) and Auger Electron Spectroscopy (AES). Seven NMIs and one DI participated in this key comparison. The mole fractions of the CIGS films were measured by depth profiling based-SIMS, AES and XPS. The mole fractions were also measured by non-destructive X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) Analysis and Electron Probe Micro Analysis (EPMA) with Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectrometry (EDX).
In this key comparison, the average degrees of equivalence uncertainties for Cu, In, Ga and Se are 0.0093 mol/mol, 0.0123 mol/mol, 0.0047 mol/mol and 0.0228 mol/mol, respectively. These values are much smaller than that of Fe in a Fe-Ni alloy film in CCQM K-67 (0.0330 mol/mol). This means that the quantification of multi-element alloy films is possible by depth profiling analysis using the TNC method.
Much has been published over the last years on finding the best (consensus) reference value (RV) for a given set of laboratory data attained in inter- or key comparisons (the latter with a specific view to the CIPM MRA). However, the discussion is ongoing. Except cases where real reference values are available from other sources, the quality of the (consensus value is of major importance in proficiency testing, method Validation, or reference material certification.
A distribution-free, self-consistent RV estimation approach has been developed which is based on the single criterion of participant's compatibility, at the cost of adjusted uncertainties. The final result is a fully compatible data set with minimum Overall variance, and adjusted uncertainties for those values reported which had to be made compatible with the (key comparison) reference value.
Any outlier discussion becomes obsolete, including considerations concerning different degrees of robustness of the various location and .dispersion estimators available. The penalty for "badly" performing laboratories is a large attributed uncertainty which forces them to either improve the measurement or adjust (i.e. reduce) their performance Claims. The evaluation algorithm is described. An example from a CCQM comparison is given, and consequences for the performance Claims of the participants discussed.
An international interlaboratory comparison of the measurement capabilities of four National Metrology Institutes (NMIs) and one Designated Institute (DI) in the determination of the chemical composition of thin Fe-Ni alloy films was conducted via a key comparison (K-67) of the Surface Analysis Working Group of the Consultative Committee for Amount of Substance. This comparison was made using XPS (four laboratories) and AES (one laboratory) measurements. The uncertainty budget of the measured chemical composition of a thin alloy film was dominated by the uncertainty of the certified composition of a reference specimen which had been determined by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry using the isotope dilution method. Pilot study P-98 showed that the quantification using relative sensitivity factors (RSFs) of Fe and Ni derived from an alloy reference sample results in much more accurate result in comparison to an approach using RSFs derived from pure Fe and Ni films. The individual expanded uncertainties of the participants in the K-67 comparison were found to be between 2.88 and 3.40 atomic %. The uncertainty of the key comparison reference value (KCRV) calculated from individual standard deviations and a coverage factor (k) of 2 was 1.23 atomic %.
The degree of equivalence within the participating national metrology institutes for the measurement results of the mass fractions of the analytes Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn and Zn in an aluminium alloy was assessed. This interlaboratory comité consultatif pour la quantité de matière key comparison (CCQM-K42) was organised as an activity of the Inorganic Analytical Working Group of CCQM. In total seven laboratories participated, six of them for all analytes. Measurands were the mass fractions of the analytes in a range of 0.05 and 0.2%. As an outcome the consistency of the results for all elements investigated was acceptable, hence satisfactory comparability was established. An aluminium based certified reference material—undisclosed to the analysts which one it was—was used as test sample. For the purpose of this study homogeneity was tested at BAM. Each laboratory was free to choose any analytical method they wanted to use for the analysis. Consequently various methods of measurement were employed: instrumental neutron activation analysis, X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (XRF) using fused cast-bead method combined with reconstitution technique, inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP OES) and inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Metrological traceability of the measurement results to the SI unit had to be demonstrated. Therefore, methods such as spark OES or XRF (without fused cast-bead technique)—both of them being most important methods for the analysis of metals and alloys in industrial laboratories—could not be used in the frame of the key comparison.
The Key Comparison K67 and the parallel Pilot Study P108 on quantitative analysis of thin alloy films have been completed in the Surface Analysis Working Group (SAWG) of the Consultative Committee for Amount of Substance (CCQM). The aim of these inter-laboratory comparisons is to determine the degree of equivalence in the measurement capability of national metrology institutes (NMIs) and designated institutes (DIs) for the determination of the composition of thin alloy films. The measurand is expressed in atomic percent. A Fe-Ni alloy film with a certified composition was available for the participants of the inter-laboratory comparison. It has been used as a reference specimen to determine the relative sensitivity factors (RSF) of Fe and Ni for the different analytical methods used by the participants to determine the composition of the test sample. As was shown in the preceding Pilot Study P98, the degrees of equivalence in the measurement capabilities of the participants can be improved in that way. The composition of the reference specimen was certified by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) using the isotope dilution method. The in-depth and lateral homogeneity, determined in terms of elemental composition, of the certified reference sample and the unknown test sample were confirmed by secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS) using C60 primary ions by the leading laboratory. Five laboratories participated in the key comparison. Four of them used x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and one Auger electron spectroscopy (AES). One laboratory participated in the parallel P108 pilot study using electron probe micro analysis with an energy-dispersive spectrometer (ED EPMA) and XPS.
Considerations with regard to the calculation of key comparison reference values and uncertainties
(2009)
Much has been published over the last years on finding the best (consensus) reference value for a given set of key comparison data, and a suite of approaches proposed. In this paper, several aspects are highlighted which should be taken into account when deciding on key comparison strategies, protocols, and the best approach to reliable key comparison reference value and uncertainty. Some of these aspects are briefly discussed. The paper is intended to intensify discussions, and any comments and opinions are welcome.