Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T18:23:11.412Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Impact of EDS In Materials Science Microanalysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2020

D. B. Williams
D. B. Williams*
Affiliation:
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, 18015
Get access

Extract

Since its invention in 1968, the EDS has played an essential role in X-ray analysis of materials, at the micrometer level, in the electron probe microanalyzer (EPMA). In the EPMA, the characteristic X-ray intensity from bulk specimens is sufficient that, despite its very small collection angle, the wavelength dispersive spectrometer (WDS) can also be used. Given the excellent energy resolution of the WDS it has often been the spectrometer of choice for bulk quantitative X-ray microanalysis. Therefore, the most important role of the EDS has been in X-ray microanalysis of thin specimens in the analytical electron microscope (AEM) because, in an AEM, the limited confines of the stage mean that EDS is the only viable spectrometer. Since the pioneering work of Cliff and Lorimer in the 1970s, EDS has been the method by which all high spatial resolution X-ray microanalysis of thin foils has been performed.

Type
30 Years of Energy Dispersive Spectrometry in Microanalysis
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 4 , Issue S2: Proceedings: Microscopy & Microanalysis '98, Microscopy Society of America 56th Annual Meeting, Microbeam Analysis Society 32nd Annual Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia July 12-16, 1998 , July 1998 , pp. 168 - 169
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.Cliff, G. and Lorimer, G. W., J. Microsc. 103 (1975) 203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Doig, P. and Flewitt, P. E. J., J. Microsc. 112 (1978) 257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Baumann, S. F. and Williams, D. B., J. Microsc. 123 (1981) 299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Pande, C. S. et al., Scripta Met. 11 (1977) 681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Raghavan, M., Met. Trans. 11A (1980) 993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Merchant, S. M. et al., Met. Trans. 14A (1983) 1825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Romig, A. D. Jr. and Goldstein, J. I., Met. Trans. 11A (1980) 1151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Narayan, C. and Goldstein, J. I., Met. Trans. 14A (1983) 2437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Watanabe, M. et al., Microscopy and Microanalysis 965 (1997)Google Scholar
10.Williams, D. B. et al., Microchimica Acta (1997) in pressGoogle Scholar
11. The author wishes to thank Joe Goldstein and his many students and post-docs. The NASA Geochemistry Program funded much of the basic work at Lehigh on thin-foil EDS analysis.Google Scholar