Upload
hailey-magnus
View
214
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Fast and Easy Background ModelingFor
Practical Quantitative Analysis
By John J. Donovan
University of Oregon, Department of Chemistry
MAN versus Off-peak Background Measurements
• What Is It Good For?
Saving TIME!
t = $
How Much Time?
186 seconds w/ Off-Peaks
94 seconds w/ MAN
What Else is it Good For?
• Avoiding Off-Peak Interferences
• Spectrometer Reproducibility Issues
• Beam Sensitive Samples
• Quantitative Imaging
• Avoiding Wear and Tear on Spectrometers
Avoiding Off-Peak Interferences
By not measuring off-peak intensities in samples of unknown composition, one can eliminate even unforseen off-peak interferences.
check off-peaks
PC
1 c
ps
O (1) Spectrometer
4.9
311.7
32519.0 44744.6 P KA1 III P KA2 III W MB III W MA1 III W MA2 III Si KA1 III Si KA2 III
O KA2
O KA1
Ti LB3 Ti LB4
Cu LB4 II P KA1 IV P KA2 IV Cu LB1 II Ni LB4 II Cu LA2 II
Cu LA1 II
W MB IV Ti LG5
Ti LB1
Spectrometer Reproducibility Issues
• Handle spectrometer re-positioning problems for worn instruments
• Ultra High Precision Measurements
By reserving a spectrometer for a
single MAN corrected element
x-ray line (monochromator),
one can obtain:
Sensitive Samples
• Everyone knows about sodium loss (and silica “gain”) over time in some glasses and especially, hydrous phases- but did you know that sodium can also “grow-in”?
Un 6 test on std 308 ryholiteglass (w/ self volatile)
Line 78
Line 79
Line 80
Line 81
na L
og (
natu
ral)
Inte
nsity
Elapsed Time
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
0 5 10 15
Na/K Loss in glass (or Si/Al “grow-in”)
Un 3 Mortar (steel fiber)gr1-12b
Line 288
Line 289
Line 290
Line 293
Line 294
Line 295
na L
og (
natu
ral)
Inte
nsity
Elapsed Time
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
0 10 20 30 40
Sodium “grow-in” of Calcium Silicate (cement “gel”)
Quantitative Imaging
• Eliminate acquisition time for off-peak intensity images and still obtain background corrected quantitative images
(512 x 2048 pixels @ .5 sec equals 6 days!)
Ic (~ iZmean[( / min) - 1] Kramers (1923)
Ic (= (/4) f P k iZmean [( / min) - 1] Fiori et al. (1976)
where :i is the absorbed electron current
Zmean is the average atomic number (Z-bar) is the detector solid angle
fis the absorption factor for the continuumP is the detector efficiency at wavelength k is Kramers’ constant
Equations for Calculation of Continuum Intensity
But What Exactly Is The Average Atomic Number?
Mass fraction weighting for continuum intensities in a compound, (Z-bar), is given by (Goldstein et. al., 1992) :
n
iiiZc ZcZ
ii1
)(
No difference in continuum intensity due to mass
6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0atom ic w eight (A)
- 4
- 2
0
2
4%
dev
iatio
n fr
om a
vera
ge
N atura lEnriched
C ontinuum M easured at 12.1676 A
Ni Cu
M o
6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0
atom ic w eight (A)
- 4
- 2
0
2
4
% d
evia
tion
from
ave
rage
N atura lEnriched
C ontinuum M easured a t 8 .5976 A
Ni Cu
M o
6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0atom ic w eight (A)
- 4
- 2
0
2
4
% d
evia
tion
from
ave
rage
N atura lEnriched
C ontinuum M easured at 3 .8289 A
Ni Cu
M o
6 0 7 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0
atom ic w eight (A)
- 4
- 2
0
2
4
% d
evia
tion
from
ave
rage
N atura lEnriched
C ontinuum M easured at 1 .9776 A
N i C u
M o
It should be something like this:
n
ii
xiZzZzZ
ixi
1
)(
)( )(
Where,
n
i
xii
xiix
i
Za
Zaz
1
)(
But the difference is generally small compared to the uncertainty for continuum intensity
measurements
0 20 40 60 80z-ba r (m ass)
0
50
100
150
200
250
X-r
ay
Inte
nsi
ty (
cps
pe
r 1
00
nA
)
M gOAl2O 3SiO 2
TiO 2V2O 3Cr2O 3C oO
N iOZnO
SrT iO 3
SnO 2
S i
T iVC o
C u
Ag
Au
Au80-C u20
Au60-C u40
Au40-C u60
Au20-C u80
Au80-Ag20
Au60-Ag40
Au40-Ag60Au20-Ag80
R esidual sum of squares = 808.356C oef o f determ ination, R -squared = 0.991718
M ass Fraction
0 20 40 60 80z-ba r ("m od ified " e lectron , x=0 .7 )
0
50
100
150
200
250
X-r
ay
Inte
nsi
ty (
cps
pe
r 1
00
nA
)
M gOAl2O 3S iO 2
TiO 2V2O 3Cr2O 3CoO
N iOZnO
SrT iO 3
SnO 2
S i
T iVC o
C u
Ag
Au
Au80-C u20
Au60-C u40
Au40-C u60
Au20-C u80
Au80-Ag20
Au60-Ag40
Au40-Ag60Au20-Ag80
R esidual sum of squares = 277.34C oef o f determ ination, R -squared = 0.997159
M odified E lectron Fraction
Therefore, let’s simply assume (for now), that :
n
iiiZc ZcZ
ii1
)(
FLOW DIAGRAM OF THE MEAN ATOMIC NUMBER CORRECTION
Correct the X-ray Countsfor deadtime, beam and
standard drift.
Calculate the concentrationof all elements in the unknown
and procede when ZAFconvergence is achieved.
correct the peak intensitiesusing the MAN correction.
Calculate the average atomicnumber of the sample and
Test for MANconvergence.
No
Yes
Output results.
So how does it actually work in action?
Acquire on-peak intensity data as a function of the approximate average atomic number range of the unknown samples.
8 12 16 20 24Z-bar (average atom ic num ber)
5
6
7
8
9
10C
ount
s pe
r se
cond
per
30n
A
M gO synthetic
S iO 2 synthetic
T iO 2 synthetic
C r2O 3 (synthetic)
M nO synthetic
N iO synthetic
M agnetite U .C . #3380
N a KX-ray In tensity(U ncorrected for continuum absorption)
Correct the x-ray continuum (on-peak) intensities for absorption.
8 12 16 20 24Z-bar (average atom ic num ber)
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0C
ount
s pe
r se
cond
per
30n
A
M gO syntheticS iO 2 synthetic
T iO 2 synthetic
C r2O 3 (synthetic)
M nO synthetic
N iO synthetic
M agnetite U .C . #3380
N a KX-ray Intensity(F it to 2nd order po lynom ial)
Now fit the data to a 2nd order polynomial (or whatever).
8 12 16 20 24Z-bar (average atom ic num ber)
1 0
2 0
3 0
4 0C
ount
s pe
r se
cond
per
30n
A
M gO synthetic
S iO 2 synthetic
T iO 2 synthetic
C r2O 3 (synthetic)
M nO synthetic
N iO synthetic
M agnetite U .C . #3380
N a KX-ray In tensity(O bta in in terpolated background)
From Unknown Com positionZ-bar = 18.2
Calculate Background Intensity21 cps
1. Next, DE-CORRECT the interpolated continuum for absorption!
21 cps divided by 1.8778* = 11.2 cps
*Na Ka at 15 keV in unknown Na-Al silicate
2. Now, subtract the “raw” intensity from the “emitted” intensity!
313.5 cps minus 11.2 = 302.3 cps
3. Use this background corrected intensity in the matrix correction.
4. Iterate as necessary!
to
Moderate Energy Region
8 12 16 20 24Z-bar (average atom ic num ber)
8
12
16
20
24
28
Cou
nts
per
seco
nd p
er 3
0nA
SiO 2 synthetic
T iO 2 synthetic
C r2O 3 (synthetic)
M nO syntheticN iO syntheticNepheline (partia l anal.)
O rthoclase M AD -10
C a KX-ray In tensity
“Moderate” energy region
8 12 16 20 24Z-bar (average atom ic num ber)
8
12
16
20
24
28
Cou
nts
per
seco
nd p
er 3
0nA
SiO 2 synthetic
T iO 2 synthetic
C r2O 3 (synthetic)
M nO syntheticN iO synthetic
O rthoclase M AD -10
C a KX-ray In tensity(w ithout N epheline)
Rule of Thumb:
Background is (generally) the lowest thing one can measure!
Delete the rest!
“High” Energy Region
8 12 16 20 24Z-bar (average atom ic num ber)
4
8
12
16
Cou
nts
per
seco
nd p
er 3
0nA
SiO 2 synthetic
T iO 2 syntheticC r2O 3 (synthetic)
M nO synthetic
N iO synthetic
Fe KX-ray In tensity
8 12 16 20 24Z-bar (average atom ic num ber)
4
6
8
10
12
Cou
nts
per
seco
nd p
er 3
0nA
SiO 2 synthetic
T iO 2 syntheticC r2O 3 (synthetic)
N iO synthetic
Fe KX-ray In tensity
“Typical” SilicateElement MAN
Background Curves
Typical “Sulfide”
Element MAN Background
Curves
How Good Is It?
• Major Elements
• Minor Elements
• Trace Elements
• Comparison to Off-Peak Measurements
• Matrix Issues (Low Z-bar vs High Z-bar)
• Accuracy (reproducibility, drift, etc)
Comparison with Off-peak
St 305 Set 2 Labradorite (Lake Co.) ELEM: Ca K Fe Ti Na Al Mn Ni O H Si SUM AVER: 9.625 .102 .326 .023 2.841 16.529 .008 .003 46.823 .000 23.957 100.239SDEV: .036 .008 .018 .014 .039 .032 .008 .005 .000 .000 .000%RSD: .4 7.7 5.5 61.8 1.4 .2 89.4 165.7 .0 .0 .0
Off-Peak
MANSt 305 Set 2 Labradorite (Lake Co.)ELEM: Ca K Fe Ti Na Al Mn Ni O H Si SUM AVER: 9.640 .100 .321 .023 2.864 16.543 .002 .004 46.823 .000 23.957 100.277SDEV: .034 .007 .017 .012 .037 .033 .003 .005 .000 .000 .000%RSD: .3 7.1 5.4 51.9 1.3 .2 140.3 126.3 .0 .0 .0
20 kev, 20 nA, 5 um, 20 sec on, 20 sec off
PUBL: 9.577 .100 .319 n.a. 2.841 16.359 .000 n.a. 46.823 n.a. 23.957 99.976
High Z-bar Off Peak Comparison
St 396 Set 2 Chromite (UC # 523-9)ELEM: Ca K Fe Ti Na Al Mn Ni O H Cr SUM AVER: .002 .004 20.392 .333 .006 8.004 .162 .087 33.042 .000 31.905 100.349SDEV: .003 .005 .109 .021 .009 .036 .013 .014 .000 .000 .000 .000%RSD: 114.0 129.1 .5 6.5 156.9 .5 8.0 15.9 .0 .0 .0 .0
Off-Peak
MANSt 396 Set 2 Chromite (UC # 523-9)ELEM: Ca K Fe Ti Na Al Mn Ni O H Cr SUM AVER: .001 .001 20.441 .346 .007 7.976 .155 .087 33.042 .000 31.905 100.372SDEV: .002 .002 .109 .016 .009 .036 .014 .008 .000 .000 .000 .000%RSD: 316.2 223.9 .5 4.5 118.4 .5 9.1 9.0 .0 .0 .0 .0
20 kev, 20 nA, 5 um, 20 sec on, 20 sec off
PUBL: n.a. n.a. 20.692 .300 n.a. 7.690 .225 n.a. 33.042 n.a. 31.905 100.266
Drift Issues in MAN
Drift array background intensities for standards:ELMXRY: ca ka k ka fe ka ti ka na ka al ka mn ka ni kaMOTCRS: 2 PET 2 PET 4 LIF 3 LIF 1 TAP 1 TAP 3 LIF 4 LIFSTDASS: 358 374 395 22 305 374 25 28
19.3 15.7 33.0 20.3 9.3 28.5 25.1 46.8 20.0 15.6 33.0 21.2 9.9 28.9 25.8 47.5
Drift array standard intensities (background corrected):ELMXRY: ca ka k ka fe ka ti ka na ka al ka mn ka ni kaMOTCRS: 2 PET 2 PET 4 LIF 3 LIF 1 TAP 1 TAP 3 LIF 4 LIFSTDASS: 358 374 395 22 305 374 25 28
4564.9 2741.4 6926.4 2341.0 325.7 3296.5 6976.5 8176.6 4583.7 2745.9 6884.5 2305.0 327.5 3272.7 6960.2 8192.3
Note Fe drift in standard, but not background!
Typical Sequence of MAN Fit
Cr K- interference removed
Trace Ni “contamination” removed (natural chromite, 0.087 wt. % Ni)
Conclusions
1. Absorption correction critical for low/moderate energies
2. Save time and money (especially quant imaging)
3. Improves accuracy
4. You gotta’ try it to believe it!