wavelength dispersive spectrometer
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

39
(FIVE YEARS 6)

H-INDEX

7
(FIVE YEARS 1)

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (12) ◽  
pp. 2935-2947
Author(s):  
Harpreet Singh Kainth ◽  
Deeksha Khandelwal

The measurements of X-ray emission lines in atomic decay to the L-shell of thallium compounds were performed using a laboratory source-based conventional wavelength dispersive spectrometer.


2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (10) ◽  
pp. 2105-2111 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dzulija Kuzmenko ◽  
Urs Vogelsang ◽  
Stephan Hitz ◽  
David Müller ◽  
Adam H. Clark ◽  
...  

A von Hamos geometry based wavelength dispersive spectrometer combined with an in situ reactor cell has been developed to measure non-resonant sulfur Kα emission for the in situ speciation of low concentrations of sulfur.


2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 604-611 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben Buse ◽  
Jon Wade ◽  
Xavier Llovet ◽  
Stuart Kearns ◽  
John J. Donovan

AbstractSecondary fluorescence (SF), typically a minor error in routine electron probe microanalysis (EPMA), may not be negligible when performing high precision trace element analyses in multiphase samples. Other factors, notably wavelength dispersive spectrometer defocusing, may introduce analytical artifacts. To explore these issues, we measured EPMA transects across two material couples chosen for their high fluorescence yield. We measured transects away from the fluorescent phase, and at various orientations with respect to the spectrometer focal line. Compared to calculations using both the Monte Carlo simulation code PENEPMA and the semi-analytical model FANAL, both codes estimate the magnitude of SF, but accurate correction requires knowledge of the position of the spectrometer with respect to the couple interface. Positioned over the fluorescent phase or otherwise results in a factor of 1.2–1.8 of apparent change in SF yield. SF and spectrometer defocusing may introduce systematic errors into trace element analyses, both may be adequately accounted for by modeling. Of the two, however, SF is the dominant error, resulting in 0.1 wt% Zn apparently present in Al at 100 μm away from the Zn boundary in an Al/Zn couple. Of this, around 200 ppm Zn can be attributed to spectrometer defocusing.


Author(s):  
R. Herrera-Basurto ◽  
F. Mercader-Trejo ◽  
N. Muñoz-Madrigal ◽  
J.M. Juárez- García ◽  
A. Rodriguez-López ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document