Atomic scale chemical and structural characterization of internal interfaces with atom probe tomography

Author(s):  
B.P. Gorman
2008 ◽  
Vol 92 (23) ◽  
pp. 233115 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Müller ◽  
A. Cerezo ◽  
G. D. W. Smith ◽  
L. Chang ◽  
S. S. A. Gerstl

2013 ◽  
Vol 61 (12) ◽  
pp. 4696-4706 ◽  
Author(s):  
K.G. Pradeep ◽  
N. Wanderka ◽  
P. Choi ◽  
J. Banhart ◽  
B.S. Murty ◽  
...  

2006 ◽  
Vol 12 (S02) ◽  
pp. 534-535 ◽  
Author(s):  
M Watanabe ◽  
D Saxey ◽  
R Zheng ◽  
D Williams ◽  
S Ringer

Extended abstract of a paper presented at Microscopy and Microanalysis 2006 in Chicago, Illinois, USA, July 30 – August 3, 2006


2019 ◽  
Vol 116 (8) ◽  
pp. 2866-2874 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra D. Taylor ◽  
Jia Liu ◽  
Xin Zhang ◽  
Bruce W. Arey ◽  
Libor Kovarik ◽  
...  

The autocatalytic redox interaction between aqueous Fe(II) and Fe(III)-(oxyhydr)oxide minerals such as goethite and hematite leads to rapid recrystallization marked, in principle, by an atom exchange (AE) front, according to bulk iron isotopic tracer studies. However, direct evidence for this AE front has been elusive given the analytical challenges of mass-resolved imaging at the nanoscale on individual crystallites. We report successful isolation and characterization of the AE front in goethite microrods by 3D atom probe tomography (APT). The microrods were reacted with Fe(II) enriched in tracer 57Fe at conditions consistent with prior bulk studies. APT analyses and 3D reconstructions on cross-sections of the microrods reveal an AE front that is spatially heterogeneous, at times penetrating several nanometers into the lattice, in a manner consistent with defect-accelerated exchange. Evidence for exchange along microstructural domain boundaries was also found, suggesting another important link between exchange extent and initial defect content. The findings provide an unprecedented view into the spatial and temporal characteristics of Fe(II)-catalyzed recrystallization at the atomic scale, and substantiate speculation regarding the role of defects controlling the dynamics of electron transfer and AE interaction at this important redox interface.


2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 247-257 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin M. Jenkins ◽  
Frédéric Danoix ◽  
Mohamed Gouné ◽  
Paul A.J. Bagot ◽  
Zirong Peng ◽  
...  

AbstractInterfaces play critical roles in materials and are usually both structurally and compositionally complex microstructural features. The precise characterization of their nature in three-dimensions at the atomic scale is one of the grand challenges for microscopy and microanalysis, as this information is crucial to establish structure–property relationships. Atom probe tomography is well suited to analyzing the chemistry of interfaces at the nanoscale. However, optimizing such microanalysis of interfaces requires great care in the implementation across all aspects of the technique from specimen preparation to data analysis and ultimately the interpretation of this information. This article provides critical perspectives on key aspects pertaining to spatial resolution limits and the issues with the compositional analysis that can limit the quantification of interface measurements. Here, we use the example of grain boundaries in steels; however, the results are applicable for the characterization of grain boundaries and transformation interfaces in a very wide range of industrially relevant engineering materials.


2012 ◽  
Vol 463-464 ◽  
pp. 20-24
Author(s):  
Kai Zhao

More attention has been paid to the interfaces since mechanical properties of nickel-base superalloys are determined to some degree by them. The compositional transition across γ/γ′ interfaces and atomic structure of the interfaces was investigated using three-dimensional atom probe tomography and scanning transmission electron microscope equipped with high-resolution Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectrometry. Results show that no obvious segregation to the interfaces or ledges of the precipitates in the present experimental alloys has been observed. Also, adsorption of a solute to the interface was not observed. The interfaces are not flat as usually thought at an atomic scale. The interfacial thickness is about two atomic layers, i.e. 0.7 nm.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document