Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
Dokumenttyp
- Zeitschriftenartikel (66)
- Beitrag zu einem Tagungsband (3)
- Corrigendum (1)
- Forschungsbericht (1)
Schlagworte
- Fluorescence (8)
- CCQM (5)
- Quantum yield (5)
- XPS (5)
- Lifetime (4)
- Metrology (4)
- Sensor (4)
- Concrete (3)
- Key comparison (3)
- Lanthanide (3)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
- 1 Analytische Chemie; Referenzmaterialien (23)
- 1.2 Biophotonik (12)
- 6 Materialchemie (10)
- 1.1 Anorganische Spurenanalytik (7)
- 5 Werkstofftechnik (6)
- 8 Zerstörungsfreie Prüfung (6)
- 8.2 Zerstörungsfreie Prüfmethoden für das Bauwesen (5)
- 6.1 Oberflächen- und Dünnschichtanalyse (4)
- 4 Material und Umwelt (3)
- 1.8 Umweltanalytik (2)
Paper des Monats
- ja (1)
We report the results of a Versailles Project on Advanced Materials and Standards (VAMAS) interlaboratory study on the measurement of the shell thickness and chemistry of nanoparticle coatings. Peptide-coated gold particles were supplied to laboratories in two forms: a colloidal suspension in pure water and particles dried onto a silicon wafer. Participants prepared and analyzed these samples using either X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) or low energy ion scattering (LEIS). Careful data analysis revealed some significant sources of discrepancy, particularly for XPS. Degradation during transportation, storage, or sample preparation resulted in a variability in thickness of 53%. The calculation method chosen by XPS participants contributed a variability of 67%. However, variability of 12% was achieved for the samples deposited using a single method and by choosing photoelectron peaks that were not adversely affected by instrumental transmission effects. The study identified a need for more consistency in instrumental transmission functions and relative sensitivity factors since this contributed a variability of 33%. The results from the LEIS participants were more consistent, with variability of less than 10% in thickness, and this is mostly due to a common method of data analysis. The calculation was performed using a model developed for uniform, flat films, and some participants employed a correction factor to account for the sample geometry, which appears warranted based upon a simulation of LEIS data from one of the participants and comparison to the XPS results.
A pilot study for the thickness measurement of HfO2 films was performed by the Surface Analysis Working Group (SAWG) of the Consultative Committee for Amount of Substance (CCQM). The aim of this pilot study was to ensure the equivalency in the measurement capability of national metrology institutes for the thickness measurement of HfO2 films. In this pilot study, the thicknesses of six HfO2 films with nominal thickness from 1 nm to 4 nm were measured by X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS), X-ray Reflectometry(XRR), X-ray Fluorescence Analysis (XRF), Transmission Electron Spectroscopy (TEM), Spectroscopic Ellipsometry (SE) and Rutherford Backscattering Spectrometry (RBS). The reference thicknesses were determined by mutual calibration of a zero-offset method (Medium Energy Ion Scattering Spectroscopy (MEIS) of KRISS) and a method traceable to the length unit (the average thicknesses of three XRR data except the thinnest film). These reference thicknesses are traceable to the length unit because they are based on the traceability of XRR. For the thickness measurement by XPS, the effective attenuation length of Hf 4f electrons was determined. In the cases of XRR and TEM, the offset values were determined from a linear fitting between the reference thicknesses and the individual data by XRR and TEM. The amount of substance of HfO2, expressed as thickness of HfO2 films (in both linear and areal density units), was found to be a good subject for a CCQM key comparison.
To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report.
The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by the CCQM.
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.
The melting behaviour of metal–organic frameworks (MOFs) has aroused significant research interest in the areas of materials science, condensed matter physics and chemical engineering. This work first introduces a novel method to fabricate a bimetallic MOF glass, through meltquenching of the cobalt-based zeolitic imidazolate Framework (ZIF) [ZIF-62(Co)] with an adsorbed ferric coordination complex. The high-temperature chemically reactive ZIF-62-(Co) liquid facilitates the formation of coordinative bonds between Fe and imidazolate ligands, incorporating Fe nodes into the framework after quenching. The resultant Co–Fe bimetallic MOF glass therefore shows a significantly enhanced oxygen evolution reaction performance. The novel bimetallic MOF glass, when combined with the facile and scalable mechanochemical synthesis technique for both discrete powders and surface coatings on flexible substrates, enables significant opportunities for catalytic device Assembly
A pilot study for the quantitative surface analysis of multi-element alloy films has been performed by the Surface Analysis Working Group (SAWG) of the Consultative Committee for Amount of Substance (CCQM). The aim of this pilot study is to ensure the equivalency in the measurement capability of national metrology institutes for the quantification of multi-element alloy films. A Cu(In,Ga)Se2 (CIGS) film with non-uniform depth distribution was chosen as a representative multi-element alloy film. The atomic fractions of the reference and the test CIGS films were certified by isotope dilution - inductively coupled plasma/mass spectrometry. A total number counting (TNC) method was used as a method to determine the signal intensities of the constituent elements, which are compared with their certified atomic fractions. The atomic fractions of the CIGS films were measured by various methods, such as Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry (SIMS), Auger Electron Spectroscopy (AES), X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS), X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) analysis and Electron Probe Micro Analysis (EPMA) with Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectrometry (EDX). Fifteen laboratories from eight National Metrology Institutes (NMIs), one Designated Institute (DI) and six non-NMIs participated in this pilot study. Although the average atomic fractions of 18 data sets showed rather poor relative standard deviations of about 5.5 % to 6.8 %, they were greatly improved to about 1.5 % to 2.2 % by excluding 5 strongly deviating data sets from the average atomic fractions. In this pilot study, the average expanded uncertainties of SIMS, XPS, AES, XRF and EPMA were 3.84%, 3.68%, 3.81%, 2.88% and 2.90%, respectively. These values are much better than those in the key comparison K-67 for composition of a Fe-Ni alloy film. As a result, the quantification of CIGS films using the TNC method was found to be a good candidate as a subject for a CCQM key comparison.
Due to the extremely high specific surface area of nanoparticles and corresponding potential for adsorption, the results of surface analysis can be highly dependent on the history of the particles, particularly regarding sample preparation and storage. The sample preparation method has, therefore, the potential to have a significant influence on the results. This report describes an interlaboratory comparison (ILC) with the aim of assessing which sample preparation methods for ToF-SIMS analysis of nanoparticles provided the most intra- and interlaboratory consistency and the least amount of sample contamination. The BAM reference material BAM-P110 (TiO2 nanoparticles with a mean Feret diameter of 19 nm) was used as a sample representing typical nanoparticles. A total of 11 participants returned ToF-SIMS data,in positive and (optionally) negative polarity, using sample preparation methods of “stick-and-go” as well as optionally “drop-dry” and “spin-coat.” The results showed that the largest sources of variation within the entire data set were caused by adventitious hydrocarbon contamination or insufficient sample coverage, with the spin-coating protocol applied in this ILC showing a tendency toward insufficient sample coverage; the sample preparation method or the participant had a lesser influence on results.
An assessment of the elastic-plastic buckling limit state for multi-strake wind turbine support towers poses a particular challenge for the modern finite element analyst, who must competently navigate numerous modelling choices related to the tug-of-war between meshing and computational cost, the use of solvers that are robust to highly nonlinear behaviour, the potential for multiple near-simultaneously critical failure locations, the complex issue of imperfection sensitivity and finally the interpretation of the data into a safe and economic design.
This paper reports on an international ‘round-robin’ exercise conducted in 2022 aiming to take stock of the computational shell buckling expertise around the world which attracted 29 submissions. Participants were asked to perform analyses of increasing complexity on a standardised benchmark of an 8-MW multi-strake steel wind turbine support tower segment, from a linear elastic stress analysis to a linear bifurcation analysis to a geometrically and materially nonlinear buckling analysis with imperfections. The results are a showcase of the significant shell buckling expertise now available in both industry and academia.
This paper is the first of a pair. The second paper presents a detailed reference solution to the benchmark, including an illustration of the Eurocode-compliant calibration of two important imperfection forms.
Our ability to produce and transform engineered materials over the past 150 years is responsible for our high standards of living today, especially in the developed economies. Yet, we must carefully think of the effects our addiction to creating and using materials at this fast rate will have on the future generations. The way we currently make and use materials detrimentally affects the planet Earth, creating many severe environmental problems. It affects the next generations by putting in danger the future of economy, energy, and climate. We are at the point where something must drastically change, and it must change NOW. We must create more sustainable materials alternatives using natural raw materials and inspiration from Nature while making sure not to deplete important resources, i.e. in competition with the food chain supply. We must use less materials, eliminate the use of toxic materials and create a circular materials economy where reuse and recycle are priorities. We must develop sustainable methods for materials recycling and encourage design for disassembly. We must look across the whole materials life cycle from raw resources till end of life and apply thorough life cycle assessments based on reliable and relevant data to quantify sustainability.
Following the reviews of atomic-weight determinations and other cognate data in 2015, 2017, 2019 and 2021, the IUPAC (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry) Commission on Isotopic Abundances and Atomic Weights (CIAAW) reports changes of standard atomic weights. The symbol Ar(E) was selected for standard atomic weight of an element to distinguish it from the atomic weight of an element E in a specific substance P, designated Ar(E, P). The CIAAW has changed the values of the standard atomic weights of five elements based on recent determinations of terrestrial isotopic abundances:
Ar (argon): from 39.948 ± 0.001 to [39.792, 39.963]
Hf (hafnium): from 178.49 ± 0.02 to 178.486 ± 0.006
Ir (iridium): from 192.217 ± 0.003 to 192.217 ± 0.002
Pb (lead): from 207.2 ± 0.1 to [206.14, 207.94]
Yb (ytterbium): from 173.054 ± 0.005 to 173.045 ± 0.010
The standard atomic weight of argon and lead have changed to an interval to reflect that the natural variation in isotopic composition exceeds the measurement uncertainty of Ar(Ar) and Ar(Pb) in a specific substance. The standard atomic weights and/or the uncertainties of fourteen elements have been changed based on the Atomic Mass Evaluations 2016 and 2020 accomplished under the auspices of the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP). Ar of Ho, Tb, Tm and Y were changed in 2017 and again updated in 2021:
Al (aluminium), 2017: from 26.981 5385 ± 0.000 0007 to 26.981 5384 ± 0.000 0003
Au (gold), 2017: from 196.966 569 ± 0.000 005 to 196.966 570 ± 0.000 004
Co (cobalt), 2017: from 58.933 194 ± 0.000 004 to 58.933 194 ± 0.000 003
F (fluorine), 2021: from 18.998 403 163 ± 0.000 000 006 to 18.998 403 162 ± 0.000 000 005
(Ho (holmium), 2017: from 164.930 33 ± 0.000 02 to 164.930 328 ± 0.000 007)
Ho (holmium), 2021: from 164.930 328 ± 0.000 007 to 164.930 329 ± 0.000 005
Mn (manganese), 2017: from 54.938 044 ± 0.000 003 to 54.938 043 ± 0.000 002
Nb (niobium), 2017: from 92.906 37 ± 0.000 02 to 92.906 37 ± 0.000 01
Pa (protactinium), 2017: from 231.035 88 ± 0.000 02 to 231.035 88 ± 0.000 01
Pr (praseodymium), 2017: from 140.907 66 ± 0.000 02 to 140.907 66 ± 0.000 01
Rh (rhodium), 2017: from 102.905 50 ± 0.000 02 to 102.905 49 ± 0.000 02
Sc (scandium), 2021: from 44.955 908 ± 0.000 005 to 44.955 907 ± 0.000 004
(Tb (terbium), 2017: from 158.925 35 ± 0.000 02 to 158.925 354 ± 0.000 008)
Tb (terbium), 2021: from 158.925 354 ± 0.000 008 to 158.925 354 ± 0.000 007
(Tm (thulium), 2017: from 168.934 22 ± 0.000 02 to 168.934 218 ± 0.000 006)
Tm (thulium), 2021: from 168.934 218 ± 0.000 006 to 168.934 219 ± 0.000 005
(Y (yttrium), 2017: from 88.905 84 ± 0.000 02 to 88.905 84 ± 0.000 01)
Y (yttrium), 2021: from 88.905 84 ± 0.000 01 to 88.905 838 ± 0.000 002