I recently discussed the new TDI scanning method on the NIST SRM K-1718 beam sensitive material here:
http://probesoftware.com/smf/index.php?topic=912.msg5904#msg5904However, the point analyses of this material are also worth looking at. This material has the following composition as specified by NIST:
ELEM: Na Fe Ca Si O SUM
ELWT: 14.837 10.491 3.574 28.048 43.050 100.000
OXWT: 20.000 13.497 5.000 60.005 1.498 100.000
ATWT: 13.994 4.073 1.933 21.655 58.344 100.000
Here are TDI plots of log intensities for Na and Si, first with a 20 nA focused beam:
I had to utilize the double exponential fit to get even a halfway decent composition as seen here:
15 keV, 20 nA, 0 um, 1 sec intervals:
ELEM: Na Fe Ca Si O SUM
172 14.331 11.200 4.035 29.551 43.476 102.593
173 12.957 11.087 4.337 29.952 43.542 101.874
174 12.794 11.243 3.993 29.676 43.079 100.785
175 16.627 11.606 4.224 30.640 45.706 108.802
AVER: 14.177 11.284 4.147 29.955 43.951 103.513
SDEV: 1.773 .224 .161 .486 1.188 3.603
TDI%: 928.684 -6.004 .202 -13.391 ---
DEV%: 3.6 .6 1.0 .2 ---
The averages aren't all that bad considering the Na extrapolation is over 900% (!), and the Si extrapolation is over 13 % (negative).
And here again, but with a 20 nA, 20 um defocused beam:
Again, all plotted in log intensity space. I find it interesting that with a 20 um beam, the Na trend, instead of the normal exponential, hyper-exponential or double exponential trends, we instead see a "hypo-exponential" trend. That is, a little less than a normal exponential... and here are the quant results:
15 keV, 20 nA, 20 um, 1 sec intervals:
ELEM: Na Fe Ca Si O SUM
208 14.643 10.321 3.802 28.711 42.282 99.758
209 14.711 10.788 3.838 29.091 42.887 101.315
210 15.123 10.710 3.728 28.991 42.851 101.404
211 13.979 10.394 3.872 28.746 42.140 99.130
AVER: 14.614 10.553 3.810 28.885 42.540 100.402
SDEV: .474 .230 .061 .186 .385 1.136
TDI%: 53.503 -3.738 -2.765 -4.833 ---
DEV%: .4 .7 1.3 .2 ---
The defocused beam analyses are, not surprisingly, quite a bit better and the TDI corrections much more reasonable for this very *unreasonable* material!.
john