Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T15:20:53.370Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Standards in Electron Probe Analysis of Minerals*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Isidore Adler
Isidore Adler*
Affiliation:
U.S. Geological Survey Washington, D.C.
Get access

Abstract

The application of electron probe analysis to complex mineral systems has pointed out the great need for suitable standards. It is often difficult to obtain highly accurate analytical results on these complex systems using pure end members because of the large number of correction factors involved, particularly since some of these factors are not well known.

The requirements for electron probe standards are rather stringent. They must be well analyzed chemically, and be homogeneous on the micron level so that the small volume sampled by the probe is representative of bulk analysis. Unfortunately minerals suitable for standards are difficult to obtain. Minerals may appear to be single phases, but a careful microscopic examination will disclose that there are in fact two or more phases closely intergrown, so that the probe is not actually sampling a single phase. There are instances where the knowledge of homogeneity of the standards can only be obtained by an analytical tool like the electron probe. It is for reasons such as these that caution must be used in the selection of mineral standards. Because of the increasing use of the probe for mineral studies it has become desirable to establish a clearing house for well established standards and a comprehensive exchange program.

Type
Research Article
Information
Advances in X-Ray Analysis , Volume 7: Twelfth Annual Conference on Applications of X-ray Analysis, August 7-9, 1963 , 1963 , pp. 426 - 432
Copyright
Copyright © International Centre for Diffraction Data 1963

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Publication authorized by the Director, U.S. Geological Survey.

References

1. Castaing, K., Thesis, University of Paris, ONERA publ. No. 55, 1951.Google Scholar
2. Wittry, D. E., Thesis, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, 1957.Google Scholar
3. Birks, L. S., “Calculation of X-Ray Intensities from Electron Probe Specimens,” J. Appl. Phys. 32: 387, 1961.Google Scholar
4. Duncumb, P. and Shields, P. K., “Quantitative Aspects of Electron Probe Micro analysis,” Tube Investments Research Laboratories, Tech. Rept. No. 154. November 1962.Google Scholar
5. Green, M. and Cosslett, V. E., “The Efficiency of Production of Characteristic X-Radiation in Thick Targets of Pure Elements,’ Proc, Phys. Sac. 78: 1206, 1961.Google Scholar
6. Philibert, J., Proc. 3rd Int. Symposium on X-Ray Optics and X-Ray Microanalysis, Stanford, Academic Press, New York, 1962.Google Scholar
7. Tong, M., Private communication.Google Scholar
8. Yakowitz, H., Private communication.Google Scholar
9. Theisen, R., “Analysis of an Electronic Microanalyzer Rectification Method,” Centre Commun de Recherche Nucléaire, Etablissment d'Ispra (Italie)—Service Métallurgique et Céramique, November 1961.Google Scholar
10. Ziebold, T. O. and Ogilvie, R. E., “Quantitative Analyses with the Electron Microanalyzer,” Anal. Chem. 35: 627, 1963.Google Scholar
11. Burkop, E. H. S., The Auger Effect and Other Radiationlcss Transitions, University Press, Cambridge, England, 1952.Google Scholar
12. Henoc, M. J., Etude No. 655 PCM, Centre National d'Etudes des Telecommunications, Issyles-Moulinneaus, May 1962.Google Scholar