[Ifeffit] Ifeffit Digest, Vol 171, Issue 14

[Weizi Yuan]

Got it.
Thanks for the response, Anatoly.
Weizi


On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 4:37 PM, <ifeffit-request at millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov>
wrote:

> Send Ifeffit mailing list submissions to
>         ifeffit at 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 at millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         ifeffit-owner at 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. Self absorption in CeO2 spectrum (Weizi Yuan)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 16:37:54 -0500
> From: Weizi Yuan <weiziyuan2015 at u.northwestern.edu>
> To: ifeffit at millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
> Subject: [Ifeffit] Self absorption in CeO2 spectrum
> Message-ID:
>         <CAKT5DaVktSW=wr4+jQ7+LFwAo9dgvy6LHdA1CtcAQTd+
> iNzEdg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear all,
> I have measured some XANES spectra of CeO2 film(~220nm) in fluorescence
> mode at Ce L3 edge with two incident angles of 0.6 degree and 3 degree. My
> goal is to get relative surface sensitive (penetration depth~ 20 nm above
> edge) information of [Ce3+] from 0.6 o  while bulk sensitive information at
> 3 o (penetration depth~ 160 nm above edge). In the meantime, I also
> collected CeO2 powder reference spectrum under transmission mode. The
> comparison is shown in the graph.
> The film at 3 degree has a sharper white line than the powder while at 0.6
> degree, it is the opposite. I think this might be because at the surface of
> the film,it has more Ce3+ while when we detect the bulk it has more Ce4+.
> My question  is how can I tell if I need self-absorption correction or not
> for the films in this case? Can I say I do not need self absorption
> correction because I have a higher normalized u for the film collected in
> the fluorescence mode than powder collected in the transmission mode?
> Thanks a lot for your comments.
> Weizi
> [image: Inline image 1]
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Weizi Yuan,
> Graduate Student,
> Northwestern University,
> Ph:(+1)312-560-9619
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/pipermail/ifeffit/
> attachments/20170519/329bcb58/attachment.html>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: CeO2.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 28979 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/pipermail/ifeffit/
> attachments/20170519/329bcb58/attachment.png>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ifeffit mailing list
> Ifeffit at millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
> http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit
> Unsubscribe: http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/options/ifeffit
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Ifeffit Digest, Vol 171, Issue 14
> ****************************************
>



-- 
Regards,
Weizi Yuan,
Graduate Student,
Northwestern University,
Ph:(+1)312-560-9619
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/pipermail/ifeffit/attachments/20170519/3b2165e8/attachment.html>