Note that a new coating correction has been implemented in CalcZAF (and Probe for EPMA) and is described here:
http://smf.probesoftware.com/index.php?topic=23.0
For CalcZAF, the standard coating parameters are also specified from the Standard | Edit Standard Parameters (coating) menu as in Probe for EPMA. However the coating parameters for the unknown are specified from the Calculation Options button as seen here:
(https://smf.probesoftware.com/oldpics/i58.tinypic.com/2nw3km1.jpg)
Also, to turn on the "electron absorption" and x-ray transmission coating corrections in CalcZAF, one must select these two menu items from the CalcZAF Analytical menu as seen here:
(https://smf.probesoftware.com/oldpics/i60.tinypic.com/ojfpmx.jpg)
As some of you already know, I have recently improved the coating correction in CalcZAF (and Probe for EPMA) based on the x-ray absorption of x-rays transmitting through the coating on the way to the detector (which is very straight forward and relatively accurate) and the so called "electron absorption" of incident electrons transmitting through the coating on the way to the sample.
The electron absorption calculation is based on a crude equation from Kerrick, et. al., Amer. Min. 58, 920-925 (1973)
Igen,coated/Igen,uncoated = [100-{(8.3pT)/(E0^2-Ec^2)}]/100 (from JTA)
Written as code we can utilize this:
' Intensity correction from electron energy loss due to coating
ratio! = (100# - ((8.3 * sample(1).CoatingDensity! * sample(1).CoatingThickness! / ANGPERNM&) / (sample(1).KilovoltsArray!(chan%) ^ 2 - (sample(1).LineEdge!(chan%) / EVPERKEV#) ^ 2))) / 100#
This coating correction gives excellent results for most typical coating situations even when the standard and unknown are coated with very different materials. Unfortunately the calculated ratio starts to become inaccurate as the overvoltage falls and finally goes negative with excessively thick coatings (or very low beam energies) as seen in this graph of a Ti metal sample coated with 120 nm of Ag for a range of incident beam energies from 8 to 25 keV:
(https://smf.probesoftware.com/oldpics/i57.tinypic.com/255uzpj.jpg)
I would be interested if anyone has a more sophisticated expression for dealing with the "electron absorption" effect in very thick coatings.
It's worth pointing out that though crude, this coating correction does a pretty darn good job, considering this particular example uses a silver coating that is 120 nm thick! For example here is the data at 25 keV with the coating correction turned on:
Un 67 120 nm Ag on Ti (MVA)
TakeOff = 40.0 KiloVolt = 25.0 Beam Current = 30.0 Beam Size = 0
(Magnification (analytical) = 20000), Beam Mode = Analog Spot
(Magnification (default) = 400, Magnification (imaging) = 400)
Image Shift (X,Y): .00, .00
Pre Acquire String : mag 100000
Post Acquire String : mag 400
Number of Data Lines: 5 Number of 'Good' Data Lines: 5
First/Last Date-Time: 06/05/2014 10:20:11 AM to 06/05/2014 10:46:53 AM
WARNING- Quantitation is Disabled For ag la, Spectro 4
Average Total Oxygen: .000 Average Total Weight%: 97.909
Average Calculated Oxygen: .000 Average Atomic Number: 22.000
Average Excess Oxygen: .000 Average Atomic Weight: 47.900
Average ZAF Iteration: 1.00 Average Quant Iterate: 2.00
Using Conductive Coating Correction For Electron Absorption and X-Ray Transmission:
Sample Coating=Ag, Density=10.5 gm/cm3, Thickness=1200 angstroms, Sin(Thickness)=0 angstroms
Un 67 120 nm Ag on Ti (MVA), Results in Elemental Weight Percents
ELEM: Ti Ag
BGDS: LIN LIN
TIME: 80.00 ---
BEAM: 30.12 ---
ELEM: Ti Ag-D SUM
417 97.768 --- 97.768
418 98.612 --- 98.612
419 97.396 --- 97.396
420 97.978 --- 97.978
421 97.790 --- 97.790
AVER: 97.909 --- 97.909
SDEV: .446 --- .446
SERR: .199 ---
%RSD: .46 ---
STDS: 2522 ---
STKF: 1.0000 ---
STCT: 2730.05 ---
UNKF: .9791 ---
UNCT: 1842.70 ---
UNBG: 5.72 ---
ZCOR: 1.0000 ---
KRAW: .6750 ---
PKBG: 323.28 ---
Not too bad, considering the coating thickness. Without any coating correction we'd get this result for the same data:
Un 67 120 nm Ag on Ti (MVA)
TakeOff = 40.0 KiloVolt = 25.0 Beam Current = 30.0 Beam Size = 0
(Magnification (analytical) = 20000), Beam Mode = Analog Spot
(Magnification (default) = 400, Magnification (imaging) = 400)
Image Shift (X,Y): .00, .00
Pre Acquire String : mag 100000
Post Acquire String : mag 400
Number of Data Lines: 5 Number of 'Good' Data Lines: 5
First/Last Date-Time: 06/05/2014 10:20:11 AM to 06/05/2014 10:46:53 AM
WARNING- Quantitation is Disabled For ag la, Spectro 4
Average Total Oxygen: .000 Average Total Weight%: 67.496
Average Calculated Oxygen: .000 Average Atomic Number: 22.000
Average Excess Oxygen: .000 Average Atomic Weight: 47.900
Average ZAF Iteration: 1.00 Average Quant Iterate: 2.00
Un 67 120 nm Ag on Ti (MVA), Results in Elemental Weight Percents
ELEM: Ti Ag
BGDS: LIN LIN
TIME: 80.00 ---
BEAM: 30.12 ---
ELEM: Ti Ag-D SUM
417 67.399 --- 67.399
418 67.981 --- 67.981
419 67.143 --- 67.143
420 67.544 --- 67.544
421 67.415 --- 67.415
AVER: 67.496 --- 67.496
SDEV: .308 --- .308
SERR: .138 ---
%RSD: .46 ---
STDS: 2522 ---
STKF: 1.0000 ---
STCT: 2730.05 ---
UNKF: .6750 ---
UNCT: 1842.70 ---
UNBG: 5.72 ---
ZCOR: 1.0000 ---
KRAW: .6750 ---
PKBG: 323.28 ---
In fact without *any* coating correction the data shown in the above post would look like this:
(https://smf.probesoftware.com/oldpics/i57.tinypic.com/2mlfyh.jpg)
So yes, for very thick coatings and at low beam energies, the coating correction does over correct, but even in this situation it does a fair job at high beam energies.
A basic question about the conductive coating issue.
My Probewin.ini file specifies the use of a carbon conductive coating (density and thickness). Fine, that's the default.
If I do not turn on the corrections for carbon coat in the Analysis Options, the totals on unknowns are high (even for standards analyzed as unknowns, but not for standards analyzed as standards), indicating no correction is applied. Fine so far.
If I turn on the corrections for carbon coating in the Analysis options, but NOT in the calculation options, the totals are where they should be indicating that the carbon correction has been applied.
If I then check the box in Calculation Options to use the conductive coating, the totals are then high again like they were when no correction was enabled in Analysis options (as if the coating correction is not applied). So does this mean that the enable button in Calculation Options acts simply as a toggle switch to turn the calculation to the condition opposite that specified in the Probewin.ini file? AND that the coating correction in the Calculation options should only be used to add additional thickness of carbon or the presence of a different coating medium? I guess in this way if I get a gold-coated sample that I also put a carbon coat on, the calculations will use both coatings????
Or, would I be better off to set no coating as the default in the INI file?
Quote from: gmorgan@ou.edu on February 11, 2016, 10:05:05 AM
A basic question about the conductive coating issue.
My Probewin.ini file specifies the use of a carbon conductive coating (density and thickness). Fine, that's the default.
If I do not turn on the corrections for carbon coat in the Analysis Options, the totals on unknowns are high (even for standards analyzed as unknowns, but not for standards analyzed as standards), indicating no correction is applied. Fine so far.
If I turn on the corrections for carbon coating in the Analysis options, but NOT in the calculation options, the totals are where they should be indicating that the carbon correction has been applied.
If I then check the box in Calculation Options to use the conductive coating, the totals are then high again like they were when no correction was enabled in Analysis options (as if the coating correction is not applied). So does this mean that the enable button in Calculation Options acts simply as a toggle switch to turn the calculation to the condition opposite that specified in the Probewin.ini file? AND that the coating correction in the Calculation options should only be used to add additional thickness of carbon or the presence of a different coating medium? I guess in this way if I get a gold-coated sample that I also put a carbon coat on, the calculations will use both coatings????
Or, would I be better off to set no coating as the default in the INI file?
The coating parameters for correcting for electron energy loss and x-ray absorption, must be specified for both the standards and unknowns, unless of course they are the same.
The parameters in the INI file are the default that are loaded for a new run, and they can be over ridden in the application if one has samples that are coated differently.
Note that the standard coating parameters can be specified for all standards, or one at a time if each standard has a different coating thickness or composition (ugh!).
john
(https://smf.probesoftware.com/gallery/395_11_02_16_10_44_14.png)
Is there a way to make sample and standard conductive coating selections hold for a batch calculation when using the "Open Input Data File and Calculate/Export All" option?
I have an input data file consisting of the k-raw values for four elements collected from 120 points. Two out of the four standards are uncoated and the other two are carbon coated. The sample is uncoated. I'm trying to correct the high analytical totals that are coming from using the two coated standards with an uncoated sample.
Running the batch option does not seem to maintain the changes I make to the default sample and standard coating parameters. Currently, I have to open the input data file, change the sample and standard coatings from the default settings under "Calculation Options" and "Edit Standard Parameters", press "Calculate" to obtain the concentrations, press "Load Next Dataset From Input File", and modify the sample and standard coatings again before pressing "Calculate".
The correction is working beautifully, but it will be a bit tedious to have to go through those steps 120 times. I also have three other input data files of similar size, so I wanted to check if there was a better option than brute forcing my way through correcting each data point individually.
Quote from: Gian Colombo on December 14, 2016, 01:16:05 PM
Is there a way to make sample and standard conductive coating selections hold for a batch calculation when using the "Open Input Data File and Calculate/Export All" option?
I have an input data file consisting of the k-raw values for four elements collected from 120 points. Two out of the four standards are uncoated and the other two are carbon coated. The sample is uncoated. I'm trying to correct the high analytical totals that are coming from using the two coated standards with an uncoated sample.
Running the batch option does not seem to maintain the changes I make to the default sample and standard coating parameters. Currently, I have to open the input data file, change the sample and standard coatings from the default settings under "Calculation Options" and "Edit Standard Parameters", press "Calculate" to obtain the concentrations, press "Load Next Dataset From Input File", and modify the sample and standard coatings again before pressing "Calculate".
The correction is working beautifully, but it will be a bit tedious to have to go through those steps 120 times. I also have three other input data files of similar size, so I wanted to check if there was a better option than brute forcing my way through correcting each data point individually.
Hi Gian,
I can fix this but I am at AGU this week so I will do it as soon as I get back to Oregon! Sorry for the trouble...
john
Quote from: John Donovan on December 14, 2016, 05:35:12 PM
Quote from: Gian Colombo on December 14, 2016, 01:16:05 PM
Is there a way to make sample and standard conductive coating selections hold for a batch calculation when using the "Open Input Data File and Calculate/Export All" option?
I have an input data file consisting of the k-raw values for four elements collected from 120 points. Two out of the four standards are uncoated and the other two are carbon coated. The sample is uncoated. I'm trying to correct the high analytical totals that are coming from using the two coated standards with an uncoated sample.
Running the batch option does not seem to maintain the changes I make to the default sample and standard coating parameters. Currently, I have to open the input data file, change the sample and standard coatings from the default settings under "Calculation Options" and "Edit Standard Parameters", press "Calculate" to obtain the concentrations, press "Load Next Dataset From Input File", and modify the sample and standard coatings again before pressing "Calculate".
The correction is working beautifully, but it will be a bit tedious to have to go through those steps 120 times. I also have three other input data files of similar size, so I wanted to check if there was a better option than brute forcing my way through correcting each data point individually.
Hi Gian,
I can fix this but I am at AGU this week so I will do it as soon as I get back to Oregon! Sorry for the trouble...
john
Hi Gian,
Back from AGU, but our house has been without power/internet since Wed, so I made the trek into the university to respond.
It seems to me that the coating parameters are saved for the standards, but not for the unknowns. This is now fixed I think.
Please update CalcZAF to v. 11.7.4 and I think this will be taken care of, but do let me know.
john
Hi John,
Thank you so much for the quick response. I had a chance to do the software update and try out my batch calculation again tonight. It looks like the specimen coating selection (no coating in my case) is holding, but I think my standard coating selections are reverting to the default 200nm thick carbon coating.
When I run the data sets individually with two of my four standards uncoated, the log window correctly shows 1.00000 values for the COATTRNS and COATABSR parameters on the standards I have indicated are uncoated and some value less than 1 for the standards that are coated.
When I run the batch calculation, the log window shows all of the standards with COATTRNS and COATABSR values less than 1. The weight percent totals are also slightly lower in the batch calculation than in the data sets calculated individually which would make sense if all the standards have a coating applied.
As a check, I ran an individual calculation with all four standards intentionally set to the default 200nm thick carbon coating. The COATTRNS and COATABSR values, and the final weight percent value match the results of the first data point in my batch calculation.
Let me know if you think I'm missing something in setting up the batch calculation.
Quote from: Gian Colombo on December 20, 2016, 07:20:20 PM
When I run the data sets individually with two of my four standards uncoated, the log window correctly shows 1.00000 values for the COATTRNS and COATABSR parameters on the standards I have indicated are uncoated and some value less than 1 for the standards that are coated.
Hi Gian,
Ok, I see. You want to have some standards coated and some standards not coated.
This is easy in Probe for EPMA because each sample (standard or unknown) has their specific coating parameters automatically saved (and loaded) from the MDB file. So you would be fine if you were using my Probe for EPMA software.
Unfortunately, CalcZAF only has these coating parameters saved to global variables. And since when a new sample is loaded, and because the program can't assume the parameters (e.g., standards) in the current sample are related to the previous sample, it reloads the standard coating parameters using the last saved defaults. CalcZAF also assumes that all standards are coated the same way when these defaults are re-loaded for the next sample (because each sample can be entirely different from the previous sample!).
I could modify the CalcZAF code to store the coating parameters for each standard, but that will take a few hours of work... let me think a bit more and maybe I can come up with an elegant solution. Sorry.
john
Edit by John: so I'm still thinking of how one might deal with your situation of different standards with different coatings in CalcZAF (as I mentioned above, this would not be an issue in Probe for EPMA), but I did think of a "workaround" for you in CalcZAF.
That is, simply calculate your input file twice in CalcZAF, once with all standards declared as coated, and again with all standards declared as uncoated, and output each calculation to Excel with a slightly different file name, e.g., xxx-coated.xlsx, and xxx-uncoated.xlsx.
Then open both Excel files and cut and paste the element columns appropriately depending on which standards (coated or uncoated) are assigned to each element. The inter-element effects will be negligible I suspect and you should be good to go.
Hi John,
Sorry for the gap in communication over the holidays. I had a chance to run the input files twice as you suggested, and then cross-checked the results with a few data points I calculated using my previous manual editing method. The respective results for the "all standards coated" and "no standards coated" batch calculations are very close to the results produced by my manual method of manipulating the standard coatings on each individual data set in the input file. The difference in the weight percent results is very small (out to the third decimal point) which I'm more than happy with.
Thank you so much for your help!
Quote from: Gian Colombo on January 04, 2017, 06:02:49 AM
Hi John,
Sorry for the gap in communication over the holidays. I had a chance to run the input files twice as you suggested, and then cross-checked the results with a few data points I calculated using my previous manual editing method. The respective results for the "all standards coated" and "no standards coated" batch calculations are very close to the results produced by my manual method of manipulating the standard coatings on each individual data set in the input file. The difference in the weight percent results is very small (out to the third decimal point) which I'm more than happy with.
Thank you so much for your help!
Hi Gian,
No worries. Glad the suggestion worked.
Again, in Probe for EPMA one can edit each standard separately and the coating parameters are permanently saved for each sample (standard or unknown), so this is a non-issue.
john
I have the same problem as Gian. My standards do not have all the same coating parameters. So I would vote to do the proper solution you suggested in reply #9. :-)
I can also try the workaround. But it seems the result is not the same in the end. Because of the different matrix correction I guess.
So if this could be optimized, I would be grateful!
Cheers
Ph
Quote from: Philipp Poeml on March 15, 2017, 03:35:58 AM
I have the same problem as Gian. My standards do not have all the same coating parameters. So I would vote to do the proper solution you suggested in reply #9. :-)
I can also try the workaround. But it seems the result is not the same in the end. Because of the different matrix correction I guess.
So if this could be optimized, I would be grateful!
Hi Philipp,
I think you misunderstand Gian's problem. What he is discussing above is only an issue when importing data into CalcZAF, and the problem is not with the standards, it was that his unknowns in the same CalcZAF input file needed to have different coatings specified. In CalcZAF each standard can have different coating parameters, but all unknowns in a single CalcZAF input file have to share the same coating parameters. The next CalcZAF input file can of course have different unknown coating parameters specified by the user.
He doesn't have Probe for EPMA... but you do. In Probe for EPMA, each standard can have different coating parameters *and* each unknown can also have different coating parameters assigned, so it is not a problem.
john
Hi John,
Then I think there might be a bug. How can I explain this?
So, I have an input file with two unknowns. I open that input file. Calczaf loads the first unknown. I set for the standards different coating thicknesses. I calculate. Then I press the load next dataset button. Now all my different thicknesses for the standards are lost.
Can you confirm this?
Cheers
Philipp
Quote from: Philipp Poeml on March 15, 2017, 11:33:27 AM
Then I think there might be a bug. How can I explain this?
So, I have an input file with two unknowns. I open that input file. Calczaf loads the first unknown. I set for the standards different coating thicknesses. I calculate. Then I press the load next dataset button. Now all my different thicknesses for the standards are lost.
Can you confirm this?
Hi Philipp,
There was a bug (Gian reported it a few months ago). Update CalcZAF and all will be well.
Originally I was re-initializing the coating parameters for all standards each time a new unknown sample was loaded from the CalcZAF input file, and I shouldn't have been doing that.
That said, if a subsequent sample in a single CalcZAF input file has one or more new standards (compared to prior samples in the input file), the program assumes the new standard(s) will utilize the last specified standard coating for subsequent unknown analyses. So it's the user's responsibility to make sure the standard coatings (if they change for different standards during the CalcZAF file input process) are specified properly. This is basically because the CalcZAF input format doesn't know anything about coatings...
In Probe for EPMA this is a non-issue because the coating parameters for each standard (and each unknown) are specified separately and retained for all subsequent calculations. And of course all these standard or sample parameters can be modified as desired in subsequent calculations and are automatically saved... just curious why you are utilizing CalcZAF for sample calculations when you have Probe for EPMA? Are you performing secondary fluorescence from boundary phase corrections in CalcZAF?
john
Hi John,
I am updated and I still see this behaviour. Are you sure this is fixed?
Something similar is happening, when I open and export the whole file at once. I cannot have different coating thicknesses for the whole run, because they get reset to the same thickness for all standards.
My unknowns all use the same standards, nothing is changed (removed or added).
I use calczaf, because I have to experiment with the numbers and modifying the MDB is not so simple. Calczaf is nice for that. But it keeps resetting my coating thicknesses.
Cheers
Ph
Quote from: Philipp Poeml on March 15, 2017, 04:10:18 PM
Hi John,
I am updated and I still see this behaviour. Are you sure this is fixed?
Something similar is happening, when I open and export the whole file at once. I cannot have different coating thicknesses for the whole run, because they get reset to the same thickness for all standards.
My unknowns all use the same standards, nothing is changed (removed or added).
I use calczaf, because I have to experiment with the numbers and modifying the MDB is not so simple. Calczaf is nice for that. But it keeps resetting my coating thicknesses.
Cheers
Ph
Hi Philipp,
Don't you ever sleep? Not sure if I like the sound of "I have to experiment with the numbers", but I'll let you be the judge of that! :)
I'm pretty sure this bug was fixed a few months ago. You're on v. 11.8.4? Can you send me your CalcZAF input file (and Standard.mdb) by email?
I'll be around tomorrow if you can skype for a few minutes and we can go over the problem together.
john
Hi John,
You are right it is (too) late here and I am on the way to sleep. But then, if I reply tomorrow, you are sleeping, and so we never come to a solution... Yes, 11.8.4. Sure, I can send you the file by email. And we can go over it. Thanks.
It is a long story why I do this. The short version is, I analyze Al in a sample, but sample and standards are coated with Al. And the thickness of the Al coating on standards and unknown is all different.
Cheers
Philipp
Quote from: Philipp Poeml on March 15, 2017, 04:28:12 PM
You are right it is (too) late here and I am on the way to sleep. But then, if I reply tomorrow, you are sleeping, and so we never come to a solution... Yes, 11.8.4. Sure, I can send you the file by email. And we can go over it. Thanks.
It is a long story why I do this. The short version is, I analyze Al in a sample, but sample and standards are coated with Al. And the thickness of the Al coating on standards and unknown is all different.
Hi Philipp,
Call me at 10 or 11 AM Pacific coast time (in about 18-19 hours). I think we'll both be awake by then!
PFE should be able to handle different Al coating thicknesses for the standards and unknowns (I do it all the time), but send me the files and we can see what we see about CalcZAF.
john
Quote from: Philipp Poeml on March 15, 2017, 04:28:12 PM
It is a long story why I do this. The short version is, I analyze Al in a sample, but sample and standards are coated with Al. And the thickness of the Al coating on standards and unknown is all different.
Philipp and I discussed his situation and we now understand each other better.
Basically he has samples (standards and unknowns) with different thicknesses of Al coating. Unfortunately he needs to analyze for Al in his unknown samples! Ugh! >:(
Probe for EPMA handles this situation of different coating thicknesses for standards and unknowns just fine (it even handles the situation of different standards with different coating materials and thicknesses), but because he is trying to
measure the aluminum concentration in a sample which is coated with aluminum, he also wanted to find a way to "subtract" some of the Al Ka signal (that corresponds to the "excess" Al Ka signal from the Al coating, before the quantification of the Al in the actual sample!
So he thought that he might export the k-ratios from PFE and then edit the CalcZAF input file for this purpose. The problem he ran into is that unlike Probe for EPMA, CalcZAF isn't quite as smart as PFE is about handling standards with different coatings...
The problem that Gian ran into a few months ago was that CalcZAF was re-setting the coating parameters on the standards (back to 20 nm of carbon) when loading in a new unknown sample from the CalcZAF input file. This was fixed, but because each sample in a CalcZAF input file *could* have different standards, I re-load the standard parameters for the new sample which then resets the standard coating parameters back to the last coating specified for the previous standard. This worked fine for Gian because his standards were coated differently than his unknowns, but all the standards were coated with the same thickness.
Not so for Philipp! His standards (for some reason) are coated with different thicknesses of Al. But then I realized that Philiip can simply do his aluminum intensity "tweaking" in Probe for EPMA by utilizing the "specified APF" parameter in the PFE Elements/Cations dialog to account for the "extra" Al signal from his coatings. This way he can utilize the extra power of PFE where one can specify each unknown and/or standard with different coating parameters and all is good.
Whew!
He will still need to be careful about fluorescence of the Al coating from his standard and unknown materials, but at least it is possible in PFE to specify different coating materials and thicknesses for each standard or unknown.
john
Hi John,
Yes that summarises it pretty much I guess. I guess there is only Karen out there who understands my situation. She had the privilege of working together with me on these samples. :)
We can give you more details on this analysis in Konstanz I guess.
Cheers
Philipp
To make things a little more clear I added additional output for CalcZAF which confirms the standard coating parameters (in addition to the already output unknown coating parameters) in the log window. First thing (after opening your input file) is to remember to turn on the coating correction flags in the CalcZAF Analytical menu as seen here:
(https://smf.probesoftware.com/gallery/1_16_03_17_4_40_29.png)
Here is the normal output for an unknown sample (2nd sample in the default input file CalcZAF.dat):
Fe2SiO4 from Intensities
Using Conductive Coating Correction For Electron Absorption and X-Ray Transmission:
Standard 895, Coating=C, Density=2.1 gm/cm3, Thickness=200 angstroms, Sin(Thickness)=311.145 angstroms
Using Conductive Coating Correction For Electron Absorption and X-Ray Transmission:
Standard 14, Coating=C, Density=2.1 gm/cm3, Thickness=200 angstroms, Sin(Thickness)=311.145 angstroms
STANDARD PARAMETERS (TOA= 40):
ELEMENT STDNUM STDCONC STDKFAC Z-BAR ABSCOR FLUCOR ZEDCOR ZAFCOR COATTRNS COATABSR
Fe Ka 895 72.080 .6781 20.9954 .9969 1.0000 1.0662 1.0629 .99994 .98001
Si Ka 14 46.740 .4101 10.8047 1.1059 1.0000 1.0306 1.1397 .99703 .98427
O Ka 895 27.640 .1948 20.9954 1.6505 .9937 .8650 1.4188 .92223 .98449
ELEMENT STP-POW BKS-COR F(x)e F(x)s Eo Ec Eo/Ec
Fe Ka 1.0939 .9747 .9846 .9877 14.99 7.1120 2.1083
Si Ka 1.0565 .9755 .9056 .8189 14.99 1.8390 8.1533
O Ka .7992 1.0823 .7008 .4246 14.99 .5317 28.1999
Using Conductive Coating Correction For Electron Absorption and X-Ray Transmission:
Sample Coating=C, Density=2.1 gm/cm3, Thickness=200 angstroms, Sin(Thickness)=311.145 angstroms
SAMPLE: 2, TOA: 40, ITERATIONS: 4, Z-BAR: 18.68271
ELEMENT ABSCOR FLUCOR ZEDCOR ZAFCOR STP-POW BKS-COR F(x)u Ec Eo/Ec MACs uZAF/sZAF
Fe ka .9979 1.0000 1.0977 1.0954 1.1370 .9655 .9867 7.1120 2.1091 60.8022 1.030541
Si ka 1.4033 .9993 .9549 1.3392 .9279 1.0292 .6453 1.8390 8.1566 1635.92 1.174991
O ka 1.8082 .9955 .8887 1.5998 .8337 1.0660 .3876 .5317 28.2114 3698.75 1.127603
ELEMENT K-RAW K-VALUE ELEMWT% OXIDWT% ATOMIC% FORMULA KILOVOL COATTRN COATU/S KILOVOL COATABS COATU/S
Fe ka .73722 .49993 54.762 ----- 28.516 5.322 15.00 .99994 .99994 14.99 .98001 .98001
Si ka .25234 .10348 13.859 ----- 14.349 2.678 15.00 .99703 .99703 14.99 .98427 .98427
O ka 1.00861 .19649 31.435 ----- 57.135 10.663 15.00 .92223 .92223 14.99 .98449 .98449
TOTAL: 100.056 ----- 100.000 18.663
However, since the coating is specified as the same for both the standards (#14 and #895) and the unknown, the calculation isn't significantly affected (though it might be if these elements were acquired at a very low overvoltage)...
Now we specify the unknown as having a say, 5 nm Al coating using the Calculation Options button in the CalcZAF program:
Fe2SiO4 from Intensities
Using Conductive Coating Correction For Electron Absorption and X-Ray Transmission:
Standard 895, Coating=C, Density=2.1 gm/cm3, Thickness=200 angstroms, Sin(Thickness)=311.145 angstroms
Using Conductive Coating Correction For Electron Absorption and X-Ray Transmission:
Standard 14, Coating=C, Density=2.1 gm/cm3, Thickness=200 angstroms, Sin(Thickness)=311.145 angstroms
STANDARD PARAMETERS (TOA= 40):
ELEMENT STDNUM STDCONC STDKFAC Z-BAR ABSCOR FLUCOR ZEDCOR ZAFCOR COATTRNS COATABSR
Fe Ka 895 72.080 .6781 20.9954 .9969 1.0000 1.0662 1.0629 .99994 .98001
Si Ka 14 46.740 .4101 10.8047 1.1059 1.0000 1.0306 1.1397 .99703 .98427
O Ka 895 27.640 .1948 20.9954 1.6505 .9937 .8650 1.4188 .92223 .98449
ELEMENT STP-POW BKS-COR F(x)e F(x)s Eo Ec Eo/Ec
Fe Ka 1.0939 .9747 .9846 .9877 14.99 7.1120 2.1083
Si Ka 1.0565 .9755 .9056 .8189 14.99 1.8390 8.1533
O Ka .7992 1.0823 .7008 .4246 14.99 .5317 28.1999
Using Conductive Coating Correction For Electron Absorption and X-Ray Transmission:
Sample Coating=Al, Density=2.7 gm/cm3, Thickness=50 angstroms, Sin(Thickness)=311.145 angstroms
SAMPLE: 2, TOA: 40, ITERATIONS: 4, Z-BAR: 18.85708
ELEMENT ABSCOR FLUCOR ZEDCOR ZAFCOR STP-POW BKS-COR F(x)u Ec Eo/Ec MACs uZAF/sZAF
Fe ka .9980 1.0000 1.0953 1.0932 1.1337 .9662 .9865 7.1120 2.1091 59.6358 1.028473
Si ka 1.4062 .9993 .9533 1.3397 .9250 1.0307 .6440 1.8390 8.1566 1594.08 1.175423
O ka 1.8257 .9954 .8869 1.6118 .8310 1.0673 .3838 .5317 28.2114 3631.83 1.136095
ELEMENT K-RAW K-VALUE ELEMWT% OXIDWT% ATOMIC% FORMULA KILOVOL COATTRN COATU/S KILOVOL COATABS COATU/S
Fe ka .72726 .49317 53.913 ----- 29.365 5.306 15.00 .99981 .99981 15.00 .99358 .99358
Si ka .25058 .10276 13.767 ----- 14.910 2.694 15.00 .99327 .99327 15.00 .99494 .99494
O ka .93342 .18185 29.311 ----- 55.725 10.069 15.00 .98597 .98597 15.00 .99501 .99501
TOTAL: 96.991 ----- 100.000 18.069
Note the effect on the composition since Al absorbs these x-rays differently than carbon (note this isn't a real test as the unknown sample *was not* actually measured with a 20 nm Al coating, so the direction of the coating effect is in the wrong direction). If I specify the same Al coating for the standards as well using the Standard | Edit Standard Parameters (coating) menu, we essentially get back our original composition:
Fe2SiO4 from Intensities
Using Conductive Coating Correction For Electron Absorption and X-Ray Transmission:
Standard 895, Coating=Al, Density=2.7 gm/cm3, Thickness=50 angstroms, Sin(Thickness)=77.78624 angstroms
Using Conductive Coating Correction For Electron Absorption and X-Ray Transmission:
Standard 14, Coating=Al, Density=2.7 gm/cm3, Thickness=50 angstroms, Sin(Thickness)=77.78624 angstroms
STANDARD PARAMETERS (TOA= 40):
ELEMENT STDNUM STDCONC STDKFAC Z-BAR ABSCOR FLUCOR ZEDCOR ZAFCOR COATTRNS COATABSR
Fe Ka 895 72.080 .6781 20.9954 .9969 1.0000 1.0662 1.0629 .99981 .99358
Si Ka 14 46.740 .4101 10.8047 1.1059 1.0000 1.0306 1.1397 .99327 .99494
O Ka 895 27.640 .1948 20.9954 1.6505 .9937 .8650 1.4188 .98597 .99501
ELEMENT STP-POW BKS-COR F(x)e F(x)s Eo Ec Eo/Ec
Fe Ka 1.0939 .9747 .9846 .9877 15.00 7.1120 2.1089
Si Ka 1.0565 .9755 .9056 .8189 15.00 1.8390 8.1557
O Ka .7992 1.0823 .7008 .4246 15.00 .5317 28.2081
Using Conductive Coating Correction For Electron Absorption and X-Ray Transmission:
Sample Coating=Al, Density=2.7 gm/cm3, Thickness=50 angstroms, Sin(Thickness)=311.145 angstroms
SAMPLE: 2, TOA: 40, ITERATIONS: 4, Z-BAR: 18.68271
ELEMENT ABSCOR FLUCOR ZEDCOR ZAFCOR STP-POW BKS-COR F(x)u Ec Eo/Ec MACs uZAF/sZAF
Fe ka .9979 1.0000 1.0977 1.0954 1.1370 .9655 .9867 7.1120 2.1091 60.8022 1.030541
Si ka 1.4033 .9993 .9549 1.3392 .9279 1.0292 .6453 1.8390 8.1566 1635.92 1.174991
O ka 1.8082 .9955 .8887 1.5998 .8337 1.0660 .3876 .5317 28.2114 3698.75 1.127603
ELEMENT K-RAW K-VALUE ELEMWT% OXIDWT% ATOMIC% FORMULA KILOVOL COATTRN COATU/S KILOVOL COATABS COATU/S
Fe ka .73722 .49993 54.762 ----- 28.516 5.322 15.00 .99981 .99981 15.00 .99358 .99358
Si ka .25234 .10348 13.859 ----- 14.349 2.678 15.00 .99327 .99327 15.00 .99494 .99494
O ka 1.00861 .19649 31.435 ----- 57.135 10.663 15.00 .98597 .98597 15.00 .99501 .99501
TOTAL: 100.056 ----- 100.000 18.663
john