Re: [Ifeffit] Theoretical value of S02 for different absorber
Dear Dr. Ravel,
Thank you very much for your prompt reply. I followed the instruction on (http://leonardo.phys.washington.edu/feff/wiki/index.php?title=EXAFS_calculat...) and activated S02 card by making S02 0.0 in feff.inp file. As a result, FEFF calculated S02.
However, I get confused when I compare FEFF calculated S02 with reported value in literature and the one obtained from my own fit.
For example,
S02 for Mn absorber
FEFF calculated 0.94
Fitted value for my sample ~0.75
Fitted value for various Mn-oxides ~0.75
Other reported value from Mn fit ~0.70-0.80 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020169397057496)
S02 for Fe absorber
FEFF calculated ~0.94
Fitted value for Fe-foil ~0.70
Fitted value for various Fe-oxides ~0.70
Reported value by calculation 0.69 (http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v169/i1/p27_1)
It is well known that S02 is a property of central absorbing atom and is considered to be constant between 0.7 - 1.0. However, in real world, S02 is affected by various systematic errors like thicker samples (in transmission), absorption by other elements in sample at given energy range and many more. These factors can suppress the amplitudes of EXAFS oscillations resulting in lower value of fitted S02 than it should be for a given absorber.
The reason I am so much curious about S02 is, if I know what should be (or should be considered) the value of S02 for a given absorber than I can possibly understand the reasons of fitted S02 being too low or too high. For instance, S02 and Sigma2 are highly correlated for first shell. So from fitted value of S02 and Sigma2 of first shell, I could possibly understand changes in local structure.
So I would like to put forward very simple but still confusing question that which value of S02 should be considered, FEFF calculated or the one obtained by fitting standards (either reference foils or reference compounds measured on same beamline) and why.
Many thanks in advance !!!
With best regards,
Jatin
-----Original Message-----
From: ifeffit-bounces@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov [mailto:ifeffit-bounces@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov] On Behalf Of ifeffit-request@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
Sent: Mittwoch, 4. April 2012 19:00
To: ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
Subject: Ifeffit Digest, Vol 110, Issue 5
Send Ifeffit mailing list submissions to
ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
ifeffit-request@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
You can reach the person managing the list at
ifeffit-owner@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Ifeffit digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Theoretical value of S02 for different absorber (Jatin Rana)
2. Re: Theoretical value of S02 for different absorber (Bruce Ravel)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 17:45:13 +0800 (SGT)
From: Jatin Rana
Hi Jatin,
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 5:44 AM, Rana, Jatinkumar Kantilal
Dear Dr. Ravel,
Thank you very much for your prompt reply. I followed the instruction on (http://leonardo.phys.washington.edu/feff/wiki/index.php?title=EXAFS_calculat...) and activated S02 card by making S02 0.0 in feff.inp file. As a result, FEFF calculated S02.
However, I get confused when I compare FEFF calculated S02 with reported value in literature and the one obtained from my own fit.
For example,
S02 for Mn absorber
FEFF calculated 0.94 Fitted value for my sample ~0.75 Fitted value for various Mn-oxides ~0.75 Other reported value from Mn fit ~0.70-0.80 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020169397057496)
S02 for Fe absorber
FEFF calculated ~0.94 Fitted value for Fe-foil ~0.70 Fitted value for various Fe-oxides ~0.70 Reported value by calculation 0.69 (http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v169/i1/p27_1)
It is well known that S02 is a property of central absorbing atom and is considered to be constant between 0.7 - 1.0. However, in real world, S02 is affected by various systematic errors like thicker samples (in transmission), absorption by other elements in sample at given energy range and many more. These factors can suppress the amplitudes of EXAFS oscillations resulting in lower value of fitted S02 than it should be for a given absorber.
Yes, that is all correct. You don't mention it explicitly, so I'll also remind you that energy resolution also couples closely with S02 (especially if you're not carefully investigating energy resolution) and poorer-than-ideal resolution would also tend to make S02 lower than the "theoretical" value, which takes into account only the passive electron effect. Taken together, these could easily explain why you see values closer to 0.7 than 0.9.
The reason I am so much curious about S02 is, if I know what should be (or should be considered) the value of S02 for a given absorber than I can possibly understand the reasons of fitted S02 being too low or too high. For instance, S02 and Sigma2 are highly correlated for first shell. So from fitted value of S02 and Sigma2 of first shell, I could possibly understand changes in local structure.
Yes, this is why it is often recommended to measure a "standard" (a sample with well-constrained first shell coordination) so that an S02 that includes many of the above effects (notably, energy resolution) can be determined.
So I would like to put forward very simple but still confusing question that which value of S02 should be considered, FEFF calculated or the one obtained by fitting standards (either reference foils or reference compounds measured on same beamline) and why.
The latter. It still might miss some effects that are sample-specific (pinholes, over-absorption), but it does include beamline-related effects that the calculation does not account for. Cheers, --Matt
participants (2)
-
Matt Newville -
Rana, Jatinkumar Kantilal