Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T03:50:07.133Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Selecting Standards to Optimize Electron Microprobe Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2020

E.J. Essene  and
C.E. Henderson
E.J. Essene
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI48109-1063
C.E. Henderson
Affiliation:
Department of Geological Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI48109-1063
Get access

Extract

Quantitative analysis with the electron microprobe analyzer (EMPA) has yielded more accurate results over time as a result of improvements in ZAF and other correction routines, mass absorption coefficients, synthetic pseudocrystals for ultralight elements, computers, software programs, backscattered electron (BSE) and energy dispersive (EDS) X-ray detectors. Consequently, many geoscientists view EMPA as routine, and details of procedures, standards, and operating conditions are seldom provided in current publications. However, in overseeing a facility with many users, we have learned that acceptable analytical data are sometimes difficult to obtain even with established analytical procedures and a choice of several hundred standards. After novice users have mastered the routines of sample polishing, cleaning, coating, handling and machine focus, their choice of nonoptimal standards often prevents them from obtaining the most accurate results possible. Optimal analysis for geological problems requires choosing appropriate standards, selection of optimal operating conditions, as well as consideration of the possibility of omitted elements, peak and background overlaps, matrix absorption effects, beam damage and elemental migration, reintegration of heterogeneous materials, fluorescence effects, and variations in the oxidation state of iron.

Type
Mas Celebrates: Fifty Years of Electron Probe Microanalysis
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 5 , Issue S2: Proceedings: Microscopy & Microanalysis '99, Microscopy Society of America 57th Annual Meeting, Microbeam Analysis Society 33rd Annual Meeting, Portland, Oregon August 1-5, 1999 , August 1999 , pp. 566 - 567
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America

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.)

References

1.Lane, S.J. and Dalton., J.A.Amer. Mineral. 79(1994)745.Google Scholar
2.Bastin, G.F. and Heijligers, H.J.M.. Electron Probe Quantitation, New YorkPlenum(1991)145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Potts., P J.A Handbook of Silicate Rock Analysis, New York Blackie (1987)365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Autefage, F. and Couderc., J.J.Bull. Minéral. 103(1980)623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Nielson, C.H. and Sigurdsson., S.Amer. Mineral. 66(1981)547.Google Scholar
6.Snow., M.G.Geol. Soc. Amer. Abstr. Prog. 26(1994)A355.Google Scholar
7.Stormer, J.C. Jr.et.alAmer. Mineral. 78(1993)641.Google Scholar
8.Craw., D.Lithos 14(1981)49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Hayob, J.L.et.alNature 342(1989)265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Bohlen, S.R. and Essene., E.J.Contr. Mineral. Petrol. 62(1977)153, 65(1978)433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Zhao, D.et.alEarth Planet. Sci. Lett. 166(1999)in press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Contribution #512 from the Mineralogical Laboratory, Univ. Michigan. Supported by NSF grants 82-12764, 91-17772, and 95-26596, the Mitchell Bequest, R. B. and funds generated in the Electron Microbeam Analytical Laboratory, Univ. Michigan. D. R. Peacor and McGee J.J. are thanked for comments, and Ahn, J.-H., Tropper, P.and Zhao, D. for EMPA measurements.Google Scholar