[Ifeffit] XAFS detection limit
Robert Gordon
ragordon at alumni.sfu.ca
Sun Feb 9 16:43:10 CST 2020
You might also take a look at Steve Heald's article in JSR:
https://dx.doi.org/10.1107%2FS1600577515001320
"Strategies and limitations for fluorescence detection of XAFS at high
flux beamlines"
-R.
On 2020-02-09 8:00 a.m., Christian Wittee Lopes wrote:
> Hi Chris and Matt,
>
> Thank you for the complete information, this will help a lot. It is
> always good to have such experienced people contributing to someone
> else's growth.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Christian
>
> Em dom., 9 de fev. de 2020 às 11:50, Matt Newville
> <newville at cars.uchicago.edu <mailto:newville at cars.uchicago.edu>> escreveu:
>
> Hi Christian,
>
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020, 8:40 PM Christian Wittee Lopes
> <chriswittee at gmail.com <mailto:chriswittee at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> Recently I was questioned about the EXAFS detection limit when
> describing different metal species in a bimetallic sample.
>
> By checking Pd and Cu K-edges, for example, I found Pd metal
> nanoparticles and CuO clusters, respectively. But additional
> techniques tell me I can have copper atoms in intimate contact
> with the Pd nanoparticles. What would be the minimum amount of
> these "single atoms" needed to be detected by EXAFS? is there
> a detection limit or it depends on several parameters?
>
>
> As Chris Chantler says, there are a lot of things that can
> influence this, so there really isn't one simple answer. Also, as
> Chris says, advances in analytic methods have been (mostly) been
> improving the situation.
>
> At my beamline, we often get asked questions about detection
> limits. We're typically working in a different context than
> nanoparticles/catalysts, but I think the basic ideas are about the
> same.
>
> A good starting rule-of-thumb for absolute detection limits is 1
> ppm by atomic weight. You might be able to do better sometimes,
> but there are situations where XANES at 10 ppm is very hard. For
> sure, a matrix of light elements is much better than a matrix of
> heavy elements.
>
> For very dilute samples, one will be using fluorescence XAFS
> measurements with a solid-state detector or know very well why you
> are doing something different. These solid-state detectors and
> electronics are fundamentally limited to have energy resolutions
> of ~120 eV (often 250 eV) and maximum total count rates of 5 MHz
> (often 0.5 MHz). Many beamlines use "a handful" (2 to 16)
> parallel detectors, and some have up to 100 (but often with each
> having a lower individual maximum count rate, and perhaps
> less-than-ideal energy resolution).
> With a count rate of a few MHz total and a sample with 1ppm of
> "element of interest", the elastic and Compton scattering and/or
> fluorescence from other elements will dominate that total count
> rate and the energy resolution will give non-zero background in
> the fluorescence spectrum. That means that even seeing a peak
> from 1 ppm of an element in an X-ray fluorescence spectrum with a
> solid-state detector is challenging. Not impossible, but
> definitely not routine.
>
> For sure, adding more detectors or counting for a long time can
> help. But those are linear in time and the number of detectors
> (and no beamline has 1000 parallel detectors). Low Z matrices
> like water, biological material, carbon-rich materials are
> easier. Samples with nearby or overlapping fluorescence lines are
> much harder. That is 10 ppm Zn in water: yes, 1 ppm Zn in water:
> maybe, 10 ppm Zn in CaCO3: maybe, 100 ppm Zn in Cu metal: no. For
> sure, XANES at 1ppm is sometimes possible. Getting interpretable
> XAFS would take a lot longer, perhaps days of counting.
>
> Using filters and/or Bent Laue Analyzers in front of a solid-state
> (or integrating) detector can sometimes help to eliminate the
> unwanted scatter signals before they get to the solid-state
> detector. Using crystal analyzers ("wavelength" vs "energy"
> dispersive fluorescence) can help - they have lower backgrounds
> and are not limited by the total scatter - but the solid angle for
> these tend to be small. Using crystal analyzer arrays are
> probably really needed to get the best detection limits. A few
> beamlines do regularly do HERFD analysis with arrays of crystal
> analyzers, and many of the rest of us are trying to catch up.
> Still, I believe that "1 ppm" is around the state of the art, if
> not "heroic".
>
> All of that is for the detection limit of an atomic species. If
> you are asking about detecting Cu in/on/with Pd nanoparticles with
> CuO also present, the answer is far worse. Cu XAS measurements
> will be an average of all Cu atoms in the illuminated volume --
> you cannot avoid the CuO. Seeing that 1% of the Cu atoms are
> bound to Pd and not to oxygen would be very challenging.
>
> Hope that helps,
> --Matt
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ifeffit mailing list
> Ifeffit at millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
> <mailto: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
>
>
>
> --
> *Christian Wittee Lopes*
>
> /Postdoctoral Researcher/
> Institute of Physics, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)
> Phone: +55 54 992430264
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/pipermail/ifeffit/attachments/20200209/405bf2d3/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ifeffit
mailing list