Author Topic: Proper Citation of PFE  (Read 7345 times)

Sheri Singerling

  • Post Doc
  • ***
  • Posts: 20
Proper Citation of PFE
« on: August 15, 2014, 08:40:40 AM »
Hi,

I'm working on a manuscript and was wondering if we need to cite any specific literature for the use of PFE? I am particularly asking because I used PENEPMA for secondary fluorescence corrections. Thanks!

John Donovan

  • Administrator
  • Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3223
  • Other duties as assigned...
    • Probe Software
Re: Proper Citation of PFE
« Reply #1 on: August 15, 2014, 09:43:40 AM »
I'm working on a manuscript and was wondering if we need to cite any specific literature for the use of PFE? I am particularly asking because I used PENEPMA for secondary fluorescence corrections. Thanks!

Hi Sheri,
Good question.

To make it easy for all, I implemented the Report button in the Analyze! window which prints out a summary and also some references ready to paste and edit. For example:

Probe for EPMA Xtreme Edition for Electron Probe Micro Analysis
Database File: C:\UserData\Donovan\Monazite\Montel-1.MDB
Database File Type: PROBE
DataFile Version Number: 6.1.4
Program Version Number: 10.4.4
Database File User Name: John Donovan
Database File Description: Brazil and Madagascar

Database Created: 9/9/2003 9:51:07 AM
Last Updated: 9/9/2003 9:51:07 AM
Last Modified: 7/21/2014 10:02:41 PM
Current Date and Time: 8/15/2014 9:35:47 AM
Nominal Beam: 1 (nA)
Faraday/Absorbed Averages: 1


Correction Method and Mass Absorption Coefficient File:
ZAF or Phi-Rho-Z Calculations
LINEMU   Henke (LBL, 1985) < 10KeV / CITZMU > 10KeV

Current ZAF or Phi-Rho-Z Selection:
Armstrong/Love Scott (default)

Correction Selections:
Phi(pz) Absorption of Armstrong/Packwood-Brown 1981 MAS
Stopping Power of Love-Scott
Backscatter Coefficient of Love-Scott
Backscatter of Love-Scott
Mean Ionization of Berger-Seltzer
Phi(pz) Equation of Love-Scott
Reed/JTA w/ M-Line Correction and JTA Intensity Mod.
Fluorescence by Beta Lines NOT Included

Un   13 Montel Madagascar 6-1
TakeOff = 40.0  KiloVolt = 20.0  Beam Current = 150.  Beam Size =    5
(Magnification (analytical) =  40000),        Beam Mode = Analog  Spot
(Magnification (default) =        0, Magnification (imaging) =    800)
Image Shift (X,Y):                                          .00,   .00

Compositional analyses were acquired on an electron microprobe equipped with 4 tunable wavelength dispersive spectrometers.

Operating conditions were 40 degrees takeoff angle, and a beam energy of 20 keV.
The beam current was 150 nA, and the beam diameter was 5 microns.

Elements were acquired using analyzing crystals LIF for Pr la, Nd la, Sm la, Gd la, Ce la, La la, Dy la, Er la, PET for P ka, U ma, Pb ma, Th ma, Ca ka, Y la, and TAP for Al ka, Si ka.

The standards were UO2 for U ma, ThSiO4 (Thorite) for Th ma, PbCO3 for Pb ma, Labradorite (Lake Co.) for Ca ka, Si ka, Al ka, CePO4 (USNM 168484) for P ka, Ce la, DyPO4 (USNM 168485) for Dy la, ErPO4 (USNM 168486) for Er la, GdPO4 (USNM 168488) for Gd la, LaPO4 (USNM 168490) for La la, NdPO4 (USNM 168492) for Nd la, PrPO4 (USNM 168493) for Pr la, SmPO4 (USNM 168494) for Sm la, and YPO4 (USNM 168499) for Y la.

The counting time was 20 seconds for Ce la, La la, P ka, 40 seconds for Y la, Pr la, Nd la, Sm la, Gd la, Ca ka, Si ka, Al ka, 80 seconds for Dy la, Er la, and 240 seconds for Th ma, U ma, Pb ma.

The off peak counting time was 10 seconds for Ce la, La la, P ka, 40 seconds for Y la, Pr la, Nd la, Sm la, Gd la, Ca ka, Si ka, Al ka, 80 seconds for Dy la, Er la, and 240 seconds for Th ma, U ma, Pb ma.

Off Peak correction method was Linear for Ca ka, Al ka, Pr la, Nd la, Sm la, Gd la, Ce la, La la, P ka, U ma, Pb ma, Th ma, Dy la, Er la, Average for Y la, and Slope (Hi) for Si ka.

Unknown and standard intensities were corrected for deadtime.

Interference corrections were applied to Ca for interference by Dy, and to Si for interference by Nd, La, and to Al for interference by Dy, and to Pr for interference by La, Y, and to Nd for interference by Ce, Pb, and to Sm for interference by Ce, and to Gd for interference by Ce, La, Nd, and to La for interference by Nd, and to U for interference by Th, Ce, Pr, and to Pb for interference by Y, and to Dy for interference by Th, and to Er for interference by Nd.

See J.J. Donovan, D.A. Snyder and M.L. Rivers, An Improved Interference Correction for Trace Element Analysis in Microbeam Analyis, 2: 23-28, 1993

Results are the average of 3 points and detection limits ranged from .004 weight percent for Ca ka to .007 weight percent for Pb ma to .017 weight percent for Er la to .028 weight percent for Nd la to .073 weight percent for La la.

Analytical sensitivity (at the 99% confidence level) ranged from .120 percent relative for Th ma to .433 percent relative for Ce la to 1.011 percent relative for Pr la to 4.511 percent relative for U ma to 75.809 percent relative for Er la.

Oxygen was calculated by cation stoichiometry and included in the matrix correction.

The matrix correction method was ZAF or Phi-Rho-Z Calculations and the mass absorption coefficients dataset was LINEMU   Henke (LBL, 1985) < 10KeV / CITZMU > 10KeV.

The ZAF or Phi-Rho-Z algorithm utilized was Armstrong/Love Scott (default).

See J. T. Armstrong, Quantitative analysis of silicates and oxide minerals: Comparison of Monte-Carlo, ZAF and Phi-Rho-Z procedures, Microbeam Analysis--1988, p 239-246

This instrument was generously funded by NSF EAR-0345908 and the Murdoch Foundation.


Also see the Excel "report" PFE also outputs attached below (this is currently being improved based on Anette's von der Handt's recent suggestions):



Some people simply cite our web site (ProbeSoftware.com), but really only for methods we haven't yet published fully, e.g., TDI corrections.

Also I attached some pdfs below and some additional abstract and presentation links here:

http://epmalab.uoregon.edu/published.htm
http://epmalab.uoregon.edu/invited.htm
http://epmalab.uoregon.edu/posters.htm

john
« Last Edit: August 15, 2014, 09:55:15 AM by John Donovan »
John J. Donovan, Pres. 
(541) 343-3400

"Not Absolutely Certain, Yet Reliable"

Sheri Singerling

  • Post Doc
  • ***
  • Posts: 20
Re: Proper Citation of PFE
« Reply #2 on: August 15, 2014, 11:24:47 AM »
Great and thanks! That's a very handy feature!

Gareth D Hatton

  • Professor
  • ****
  • Posts: 51
Re: Proper Citation of PFE
« Reply #3 on: August 19, 2014, 02:38:28 AM »
In my reports I tend to also put in a citation for the user guide:

J. Donovan, D. Kremser, and J. Fournelle, “Probe for windows user’s guide and reference, enterprise
edition,” Probe Software, Inc., Eugene, OR, 2007.

@article{donovan2007probe,
  title={Probe for Windows User's Guide and Reference, Enterprise Edition},
  author={Donovan, JJ and Kremser, D and Fournelle, JH},
  journal={Probe Software, Inc., Eugene, OR},
  year={2007}
}

I see from google scholar that other people have also done this.  It may be time for an update though...

John Donovan

  • Administrator
  • Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3223
  • Other duties as assigned...
    • Probe Software
Re: Proper Citation of PFE
« Reply #4 on: August 19, 2014, 10:07:11 AM »
I see from google scholar that other people have also done this.  It may be time for an update though...

I didn't know about this. Does google scholar need to be updated?  The latest Probe for EPMA reference manual is always available here:

http://probesoftware.com/download/PROBEWIN.pdf
John J. Donovan, Pres. 
(541) 343-3400

"Not Absolutely Certain, Yet Reliable"

John Donovan

  • Administrator
  • Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3223
  • Other duties as assigned...
    • Probe Software
Re: Proper Citation of PFE
« Reply #5 on: September 25, 2014, 09:12:19 PM »
I received another question on citing PFE. My latest response is as follows:

Some people just cite the web site, but if you use the Report button in PFE Analyze! window, it will automatically cite for you the relevant papers that have been published as shown here highlighted in red:

Compositional analyses were acquired on an electron microprobe equipped with 5 tunable wavelength dispersive spectrometers. Operating conditions were 40 degrees takeoff angle, and a beam energy of 15 keV. The beam current was 20 nA, and the beam diameter was 10 microns.

Elements were acquired using analyzing crystals LIF for Ca ka, Fe ka, LLIF for Ti ka, Mn ka, Cr ka, LIF for Ca ka, Fe ka, LLIF for Ti ka, Mn ka, Cr ka, LPET for K ka, Si ka, and TAP for Mg ka, Na ka, P ka, Al ka.

The standards were TiO2 synthetic for Ti ka, MnO synthetic for Mn ka, NBS K-411 mineral glass for Ca ka, Si ka, Mg ka, Fe ka, Ca10(PO4)6Cl2 (halogen corrected) for P ka, Nepheline (partial anal.) for Na ka, Al ka, Orthoclase MAD-10 for K ka, and Chromite (UC # 523-9) for Cr ka.

The counting time was 20 seconds for Ti ka, Mn ka, 30 seconds for Si ka, Cr ka, 40 seconds for Al ka, K ka, 60 seconds for Fe ka, P ka, Mg ka, and 80 seconds for Ca ka, Na ka.

The intensity data was corrected for Time Dependent Intensity (TDI) loss (or gain) using a self calibrated correction for Na ka, Si ka, Al ka, Ca ka, Ti ka.

The off peak counting time was 20 seconds for Ti ka, Mn ka, K ka, Cr ka, and 30 seconds for P ka. Off Peak correction method was Linear for Ti ka, Mn ka, K ka, Cr ka, and Exponential for P ka.

The MAN background intensity data was calibrated and continuum absorption corrected for Na ka, Si ka, Al ka, Mg ka, Ca ka, Fe ka.

See J.J. Donovan and T.N. Tingle, An Improved Mean Atomic Number Correction for  Quantitative Microanalysis in Journal of Microscopy, v. 2, 1, p. 1-7, 1996

Unknown and standard intensities were corrected for deadtime. Standard intensities were corrected for standard drift over time.

Interference corrections were applied to Mg for interference by Ca, and to Fe for interference by Mn.

See J.J. Donovan, D.A. Snyder and M.L. Rivers, An Improved Interference Correction for Trace Element Analysis in Microbeam Analyis, 2: 23-28, 1993

Results are the average of 6 points and detection limits ranged from .006 weight percent for Si ka to .007 weight percent for Al ka to .010 weight percent for P ka to .020 weight percent for Cr ka to .025 weight percent for Fe ka.

Analytical sensitivity (at the 99% confidence level) ranged from .226 percent relative for Si ka to .423 percent relative for Mg ka to .920 percent relative for Na ka to 2.444 percent relative for Ti ka to 28.171 percent relative for Cr ka.

Oxygen was calculated by cation stoichiometry and included in the matrix correction.


The exponential or polynomial background fit was utilized.

See John J. Donovan, Heather A. Lowers and Brian G. Rusk, Improved electron probe microanalysis of trace elements in quartz, American Mineralogist, 96, 274­282, 2011

The matrix correction method was ZAF or Phi-Rho-Z Calculations and the mass absorption coefficients dataset was LINEMU   Henke (LBL, 1985) < 10KeV / CITZMU > 10KeV.

The ZAF or Phi-Rho-Z algorithm utilized was Armstrong/Love Scott (default).

See J. T. Armstrong, Quantitative analysis of silicates and oxide minerals: Comparison of Monte-Carlo, ZAF and Phi-Rho-Z procedures, Microbeam Analysis--1988, p 239-246

This instrument was generously funded by NSF EAR-0345908 and the Murdoch Foundation.

« Last Edit: September 25, 2014, 09:14:46 PM by John Donovan »
John J. Donovan, Pres. 
(541) 343-3400

"Not Absolutely Certain, Yet Reliable"