Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-cx56b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-12T09:02:02.269Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quantitative Eels Profiling of Planar Faults in CaTiO3 Perovskite Approaching Atomic Resolution: A Comparison With Z-Contrast Imaging

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2011

Hui Gu  and
Miran Čeh
Hui Gu
Affiliation:
Japan Science and Technology Corporation, “Ceramics Superplasticity” project, JFCC 2F, 2–4–1 Mutsuno, Atsuta, Nagoya 456, Japan
Miran Čeh
Affiliation:
“J. Stefan” Institute, University of Ljubljana, Jamova 39, 61111 Ljubljana, Slovenia
Get access

Abstract

Using EELS profiling, CaO planar faults of 1.36 nm spacing in CaTiO3 are resolved. Effective probe size was measured as 1.3 nm by quantitative analysis of EELS profiles, which is remarkably larger than 0.5 nm resolution for Z-contrast in similar conditions. Delocalization in EELS is the origin for this discrepancy, and strong elastic scattering near zone axis plays an important role in the quantification of profiles. Suitable spectrum subtraction successfully separates ELNES signal from the fault in one atomic distance with rock-salt structure. ELNES profiles for different local structures are also achieved. These examples demonstrate that EELS analysis can be performed reliably approaching atomic level, beyond the limit of probe size.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 466: Symposium G – Atomic Resolution Microscopy of Surfaces and Interfaces , 1996 , 253
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1997

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

REFERENCES

1. Pennycook, S. J. and Jesson, D. E., Phys. Rev. Lett. 64(8), 938 (1990);Google Scholar
Jesson, D. E., Pennycook, S. J. and Baribeau, J. -M., Phys. Rev. Lett. 66(6), 750 (1991).Google Scholar
2. Xu, P. -R., Kirkland, E. J., Silcox, J. and Keyse, R., Ultramicroscopy 32, 93 (1990).Google Scholar
3. Browning, N. D., Chishold, M. F. and Pennycook, S. J., Nature 366, 143 (1993);Google Scholar
Batson, P. E., Nature 366, 727(1993).Google Scholar
4. Colliex, C., Tencé, M., Lefèvre, E., Mory, C., Gu, H., Bouchet, D. and Jeanguillaume, C., Mikrochim. Acta 114/115, 71 (1993).Google Scholar
5. Tencé, M., Quartuccio, M. and Colliex, C., Ultramicroscopy 58, 42 (1995).Google Scholar
6. Mory, C., Doctoral Thesis (Université Paris-Sud, Orsay), chap. 2 (1985).Google Scholar
7. Ringwood, A., Kesson, S., Ware, N., Hibbertson, W. and Major, A., Nature 278, 219 (1979).Google Scholar
8. Čeh, M., Gu, H., Müllejans, H. and Recnik, A., J. Mater. Res., submitted (1996).Google Scholar
9. Gu, H., Čeh, M., Stemmer, S., Müllejans, H., Rühle, M., Ultramicroscopy 59, 215 (1994).Google Scholar
10. Batsion, P. E., Ultramicroscopy 47, 133 (1992).Google Scholar