Hi Scott,
thanks for the suggestion.
I've looked through your recent publications and also read your post
from Fri, 04 Feb 2011, concerning the R dependence of s02. Comparing the
CNs of the 1st and 2nd shell (that are the only ones that are properly
resolved in my spectra) makes a lot of sense.
I also read the following publication:
Jentys, A. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 1999, 1, 4059-4063.
Basically, I could use their formula to calculate the theoretical ratio
of 1st and 2nd shell CN at a given cluster size and compare that to my
data. Their calculations are based on a fcc structure but it should be a
good enough approximation for my hcp Ru clusters.
Does that sound reasonable?
Regards,
Marian.
Marian Dreher, Dipl. Chem.
PhD Student, Catalytic Process Engineering Group
Paul Scherrer Institut
General Energy Research (ENE)
Laboratory for Bioenergy and Catalysis
Office: OVGA/115
CH-5232 Villigen PSI
Switzerland
Phone: +41 (0)56 310 2937
email: marian.dreher@psi.ch
-----Original Message-----
From: ifeffit-bounces@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
[mailto:ifeffit-bounces@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov] On Behalf Of Scott
Calvin
Sent: Dienstag, 11. Oktober 2011 15:04
To: XAFS Analysis using Ifeffit
Subject: Re: [Ifeffit] particle size and coordination numberin
Runanoparticles on carbon
Hi Marian,
Have you tried what I suggested in the sections you quote below? With a
ruthenium metal catalyst, you can probably see some second and perhaps
third shell neighbors. The ratio between the coordination numbers for
the shells is a measure of particle size that is independent of S02, and
thus might (depending on data quality) provide a more reliable estimate
of particle size.
--Scott Calvin
Sarah Lawrence College
On Oct 11, 2011, at 8:54 AM, Dreher Marian wrote:
Dear Ifeffit Community,
I have a question regarding the signal damping I mentioned in my last
post (I searched the archive but didn't find an answer. If this topic
has been discussed before, please just send me the link).
As I mentioned before, I'm trying to determine the particle size of a Ru
catalyst. I have 3 different reference spectra from Ru that I can use to
determine the s0^2 for bulk Ru. From that I can calculate the Ru-Ru CN
in my catalyst.
Now, two of my references give a very similar EXAFS signal in terms of
amplitude. When fitting the first Ru-Ru shell I get a s0^2 of 0.6 to
0.8, depending on k-weight. One of the reference spectra was obtained
from a pellet containing Ru powder ("Ru pellet Sigma Aldrich"), the
other from a thick Ru filter ("Ru filter foil").
I also have a reference spectrum from an unknown Ru sample. The
amplitude of the EXAFS is much higher compared to the other two spectra.
However, the edge step is considerably smaller. Here, a Ru-Ru first
shell fit gives me a s0^2 of 0.9 to 1.1, depending on k-weight. Even
before fitting, the experimental data is very close to the theoretical
spectrum.
Obviously, the CN I calculate for my Ru catalyst depends on these
reference values for s0^2.
I can see how poor sample preparation leads to signal damping and thus
to a low amplitude in the EXAFS, but I can't imagine how it could cause
an amplitude which is too high. Should I therefore take the unknown
reference since it has a higher amplitude?
I attached an Athena project file with all 3 spectra.
Many thanks,
Marian.
________________________________
From:
ifeffit-bounces@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov