[Ifeffit] Cadmium K-edge

[Bhoopesh Mishra]

Hi Alan,
     Looking at the real part of FT, I am convinced that O atom will justify
for peaks at 1.8 and 2.3 A in sample 1. One of the possibilities for sample
2 to be different is, it has higher ss2 for Cd-O (as can be seen from lower
amplitude of first peak). If Cd loading in sample 1 is lower than sample 2,
then it makes sense to me that Cd is bound to higher affinity (and less
disordered) sites on Sodium Titanate nanotube in the sample1. As the Cd
loading increases, Cd starts going to lower affinity albeit more disordered
sites, making Cd-O bonding more disordered than sample 1.

    Other possibilities include coexistence of O and Na in the first shell
of sample 2, which might be interfering destructively and dampening the peak
at 2.3 A). Have you tried that scenario? It might not be trivial to
distinguish O bonding with high ss2 from O and Na in the first shell. But
you can try that out by splitting the first shell at two different
distances with smaller ss2 values.
  It is not obvious to me that your data supports 2nd shell Cd-Ti
interaction. In the fit you described, your E_not2 and ss_2 are very
high. The amp_2 is highly correlated with ss_2, and amp_2 value is close to
its error bar. Put together, these two parameters makes me suspicious of
your 2nd shell fit. Your Chi data does not necessarily show clear Cd-Ti
interaction either. In my opinion Cd-Ti interaction would result in high
amplitude of oscillation in chi (and correspondingly strong peak in FT).
However, things can behave differently in case of nanomaterials and you
might have some contribution of Ti in your spectra. If this is a significant
part of your manuscript, you will have to convince the reviewers.


Good Luck,
Bhoopesh

On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 11:43 PM, Alan Du <duji0003 at ntu.edu.sg> wrote:

> Hi Bhoopesh and Scott,
>
> I should have given a description of my project. Yes Scott, the work is to
> investigate the binding mechanisms of aqueous cadmium onto sodium titanate
> nanotubes. Spectrum of Sample 1 and 2 obtained from merging 9 scans and 4
> scans, respectively.
>
> A quick check in Athena and, indeed, the white line of Samples are higher
> than CdO. I'm not sure the reason behind it though. It is likely that
> cadmium binds to the surface of substrate rather than inside the bulk. The
> lack of distinct peaks after 1.8 Å means that there are not many scatters
> around the absorber?
>
> Bhoopesh, as requested, I have attached the real part of FT (
> http://img585.imageshack.us/i/ftreal.jpg/). I haven't got a chance to
> interpret them.
>
> From preliminary fitting of Sample 1, the major and minor peaks at 1.8 and
> 2.3 Å could be described by a Cd-O path (CdO). This interests me because
> Sample 2 does not have a peak at 2.3 Å, meaning there is another single
> scattering path for Sample 2?.
>
> The peaks at 3 Å were fitted with Cd-Ti path (CdTiO3). No multiple
> scattering paths used. The best fit goes something like this:
>
>
> ****************************************************************************
> Independent points          =      13.166992187
> Number of variables         =       8.000000000
> Chi-square                  =    1534.709946959
> Reduced Chi-square          =     297.021921317
> R-factor                    =       0.000128095
> Measurement uncertainty (k) =       0.000060423
> Measurement uncertainty (R) =       0.004455442
> Number of data sets         =       1.000000000
>
> Guess parameters +/- uncertainties  (initial guess):
>   amp             =     0.9242390   +/-      0.0509920    (1.0000)
>   enot            =     1.3950420   +/-      0.5425380    (0.0000)
>   delr            =    -0.0872060   +/-      0.0051060    (0.0000)
>   ss              =     0.0113250   +/-      0.0008480    (0.0030)
>   amp_2           =     0.2441320   +/-      0.1905250    (1.0000)
>   enot_2          =    22.5261260   +/-      4.5990590    (0.0000)
>   delr_2          =     0.2510860   +/-      0.0719080    (0.0000)
>   ss_2            =     0.0274690   +/-      0.0128040    (0.0030)
>
> Correlations between variables:
>        amp_2 and ss_2       -->  0.9342
>       enot_2 and delr_2     -->  0.9133
>          amp and ss         -->  0.8865
>         enot and delr       -->  0.8632
>        amp_2 and delr_2     -->  0.3040
>       delr_2 and ss_2       -->  0.2888
> All other correlations are below 0.25
>
>   k-range             = 2.000 - 9.000
>   dk                  = 1.000
>   k-window            = hanning
>   k-weight            = 3
>   R-range             = 1.000 - 4.000
>   dR                  = 0.000
>   R-window            = hanning
>   fitting space       = R
>   background function = none
>   phase correction    = none
>
>
>   R-factor for this data set   = 0.00270
>
>
> ***********************************************************************************
>
> The above enot_2 is on the high side. I am not entirely familiar with the
> parameters yet. Are there other parameters I should worry about?
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Alan J. DU
> Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/pipermail/ifeffit/attachments/20110110/ee084764/attachment.html>