Influence of Defective Formations on Photoconductivity of Layered Crystals with Cationic Substitution

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 06025-1-06025-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Kashuba ◽  
◽  
B. Andriyevskyy ◽  
I. Semkiv ◽  
L. Andriyevska ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
J.D. Geller ◽  
C.R. Herrington

The minimum magnification for which an image can be acquired is determined by the design and implementation of the electron optical column and the scanning and display electronics. It is also a function of the working distance and, possibly, the accelerating voltage. For secondary and backscattered electron images there are usually no other limiting factors. However, for x-ray maps there are further considerations. The energy-dispersive x-ray spectrometers (EDS) have a much larger solid angle of detection that for WDS. They also do not suffer from Bragg’s Law focusing effects which limit the angular range and focusing distance from the diffracting crystal. In practical terms EDS maps can be acquired at the lowest magnification of the SEM, assuming the collimator does not cutoff the x-ray signal. For WDS the focusing properties of the crystal limits the angular range of acceptance of the incident x-radiation. The range is dependent upon the 2d spacing of the crystal, with the acceptance angle increasing with 2d spacing. The natural line width of the x-ray also plays a role. For the metal layered crystals used to diffract soft x-rays, such as Be - O, the minimum magnification is approximately 100X. In the worst case, for the LEF crystal which diffracts Ti - Zn, ˜1000X is the minimum.


2014 ◽  
Vol 59 (6) ◽  
pp. 612-621 ◽  
Author(s):  
P.V. Galiy ◽  
◽  
Ya.B. Losovyj ◽  
T.M. Nenchuk ◽  
I.R. Yarovets’ ◽  
...  

1994 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Benedek ◽  
F. Hofmann ◽  
P. Ruggerone ◽  
G. Onida ◽  
L. Miglio

2004 ◽  
Vol 344 (1-4) ◽  
pp. 249-254 ◽  
Author(s):  
N.S. Yuksek ◽  
H. Kavas ◽  
N.M. Gasanly ◽  
H. Ozkan

Author(s):  
Christopher H. Ingles ◽  
John A. Mavrogenes

ABSTRACT Laser ablation-inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry was used to traverse hydrothermal vein sphalerite from different ore-forming stages of the Porgera Au-Ag mine, Papua New Guinea. Elements were measured in situ over the growth of crystals to investigate the greatly varying concentrations of cations in sphalerite and their positions in the lattice. Traverse profiles for 16 elements were obtained and aligned to transmitted light images where possible. Each sample contained an array of elements, with many displaying orders of magnitude concentration differences. Results show the simultaneous incorporation of Cu and Sn in sphalerite, as well as Cu and Ag, In and Sn, As and Sb, Fe and Mn, and Cu and Ga. The relation [4Zn2+ ↔ 2Cu+ + Sn2+ + Sn4+] is proposed to explain the 1:1 Cu–Sn correlation. Further relations can be seen, including a Ga “ceiling” or Cu “floor”, where Ga incorporation becomes dependent on Cu concentrations. Furthermore, silver was also observed to correlate with Au, Mn, Ni, Pb, and Bi. Meta-stable solid solutions between pairs such as Cu, Ag; Fe, Mn; As, Sb; and In, Sn are also suggested. Each of these pairs are neighbors on the periodic table of elements, which suggests that simple solid solution can occur, and positive correlations for all four solid solutions were found in one sample alone. While the concept of charge-specific solid solutions in sphalerite has been discussed in the literature with reference to monovalent cations, the results presented herein also indicate solid solutions of higher oxidation states, containing many cations. Furthermore, while cations in charge-specific solid solutions have been proposed to compete for lattice sites in sphalerite, simultaneous in situ coupled concentrations at Porgera suggest otherwise. Cationic substitution equations displaying decimal ratios of each element in solid solution can then provide a novel method to distinguish between solid solution concentrations in different samples. For example, displaying 1:1 ratios of Cu–Ag and Sb–As: [2Zn2+ ↔ (Cu+0.5, Ag+0.5) + (As3+0.5, Sb3+0.5)], or for a 100:1 Fe–Mn ratio: [Zn2+ ↔ (Fe2+0.99, Mn2+0.01)].


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document