Quantitative Analysis of Energy-Loss Data

Author(s):  
R.F. Egerton
Author(s):  
Nestor J. Zaluzec

The application of electron energy loss spectroscopy (EELS) to light element analysis is rapidly becoming an important aspect of the microcharacterization of solids in materials science, however relatively stringent requirements exist on the specimen thickness under which one can obtain EELS data due to the adverse effects of multiple inelastic scattering.1,2 This study was initiated to determine the limitations on quantitative analysis of EELS data due to specimen thickness.


Author(s):  
M. Isaacson

In an earlier paper1 it was found that to a good approximation, the efficiency of collection of electrons that had lost energy due to an inner shell excitation could be written as where σE was the total excitation cross-section and σE(θ, Δ) was the integral cross-section for scattering within an angle θ and with an energy loss up to an energy Δ from the excitation edge, EE. We then obtained: where , with P being the momentum of the incident electron of velocity v. The parameter r was due to the assumption that d2σ/dEdΩ∞E−r for energy loss E. In reference 1 it was assumed that r was a constant.


2001 ◽  
Vol 7 (S2) ◽  
pp. 340-341
Author(s):  
Peter Miller

Quantitative analysis in the TEM by EELS or EDXS depends on the K-factor method in which uniform ionization, independent of specimen orientation and thickness, is assumed. This assumption is of limited validity for crystals, where channeling of the electron wave ψ affects the ionization rate as observed in both energy loss and X-ray signals. Both EELS and EDXS are sensitive to changes in ψψ*near the atomic sites, and this variation as a function of crystal orientation forms the basis for ALCHEMI. Simultaneously recorded EELS and EDXS spectra were used to monitor changes in Cu/Ba ratio from YBaCu-oxides using L2,3/M4,5 ionization edges or K/L X-rays respectively. Although the acceptance aperture for EELS (11 mrad at 300 keV) may not be sufficiently large to mask double-channeling effects, it is small enough that momentum transfer is sufficiently limited to enhance derealization. Thus it is expected that the EELS signal should be less sensitive to crystal orientation than EDXS (an estimate of impact parameters yields 0.73 and 0.61 Å for the Ba and Cu energy loss signals, reducing to 0.06 and 0.04 Å respectively for X-ray emissions).


1971 ◽  
Vol 3 (9) ◽  
pp. 2847-2851 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroshi Nakata
Keyword(s):  

1991 ◽  
Vol 162 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. W. J. Sorber ◽  
G. A. M. Ketelaars ◽  
E. S. Gelsema ◽  
J. F. Jongkind ◽  
W. C. Bruijn

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document