Materials

Being more precise

Dr. Stuart Wright, Senior Scientist, Gatan/EDAX

The precision and accuracy of orientation measurements by electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) have been of interest since the advent of EBSD [1, 2]. In contrast, reliability (in terms of correctly identifying the orientation at least within 5°) was of greater concern when indexing was first automated (there is a section of my thesis [3] devoted to precision, as well as Krieger Lassen’s thesis [4]). I’ve written a few papers on the subject [5 – 7], and there have been several more by other authors [8 – 11]. High-resolution EBSD (HREBSD) has shown success in markedly improving precision [12]. Now that dictionary indexing (DI) has become more common; there has been a resurgence in papers on the precision that can be achieved using DI [13 – 15]. I know that is a lot of references for a blog post, but I wanted to give you an idea of how many different research groups have studied angular precision in EBSD measurements – the references given are only a sampling; there are certainly more.

Will Lenthe and I have been working hard to improve the dictionary indexing capabilities in the EDAX OIM Matrix™ add-on module to EDAX OIM Analysis™. In addition, Will has added the ability to perform spherical indexing within OIM Matrix [16 – 17] (see Will’s “New Tools for EBSD Data Collection and Analysis” webinar for more information). These new capabilities will be available soon in OIM Analysis 9. I’m excited about the progress we’ve made. You will find OIM Matrix much easier to use and more robust. In addition, we’ve sped up many aspects of OIM Analysis, which will help with the big datasets routinely obtained with the EDAX Velocity™ cameras.

The precision of indexing via spherical indexing has recently been explored [18]. Using OIM Analysis 9, we’ve been exploring what we can achieve in terms of orientation precision with orientation refinement [19 – 21] applied to initial indexing results obtained by Hough transform-based indexing, dictionary indexing, and spherical indexing. We haven’t quantified our results yet. Still, the KAM maps (which indicate the orientation precision) we’ve obtained are so promising that I want to show our preliminary results. Our refinement method is essentially a hybrid of that proposed by Singh, Ram, and De Graef [19] and Pang, Larsen, and Schuh [21]. But for the spherical indexing, we also have implemented an additional refinement in the harmonic frequency space. Figure 1 shows some results I am excited to share.

Figure 1. KAM maps from nickel [22]. (Top row) As-indexed, (middle row) with NPAR for Hough-based indexing and refinement in the spherical harmonics for spherical indexing, and (bottom row) after real-space refinement. The first column is for Hough-based indexing, columns 2 – 4 are for dictionary indexing with different dictionary target disorientations, and columns 5 – 6 are for SI with different harmonic bandwidths.

It is pretty interesting that the KAM maps after refinement are all nearly the same, no matter which type of indexing was used to obtain the initial orientation measurements. We do not expect much plastic strain or permanent deformation in these samples, so the reduced KAM values are more of what we expect for the sample.

Here is another set of results for a silicon single crystal. The scan is approximately 1 x 1 mm with a 30 m step size. You can see the dramatic improvement in these results. Unfortunately, the two points with the largest KAM values are due to some dust particles on the sample’s surface.

Figure 2. KAM maps were constructed using Hough-based indexing, SI, and SI followed by refinement.

We are very excited to get these advancements into your hands and are putting in extra hours to get the software ready for release. We hope you are as precisely excited as we are to apply it to your samples!

[1] Harland CJ, Akhter P, Venables JA (1981) Accurate microcrystallography at high spatial resolution using electron backscattering patterns in a field emission gun scanning electron microscope. Journal of Physics E 14:175-182
[2] Dingley DJ (1981) A Comparison of Diffraction Techniques for the SEM. Scanning Electron Microscopy IV: 273-286
[3] Wright SI (1992) Individual Lattice Orientation Measurements Development and Applications of a Fully Automatic Technique. Ph.D. Thesis., Yale University.
[4] Krieger Lassen NC (1994) Automated Determination of Crystal Orientations from Electron Backscattering Patterns. Ph.D. Thesis, Danmarks Tekniske Universitet.
[5] Wright S, Nowell M (2008) High-Speed EBSD. Advanced Materials and Processes 66: 29-31
[6] Wright SI, Basinger JA, Nowell MM (2012) Angular precision of automated electron backscatter diffraction measurements. Materials Science Forum 702: 548-553
[7] Wright SI, Nowell MM, de Kloe R, Chan L (2014) Orientation Precision of Electron Backscatter Diffraction Measurements Near Grain Boundaries. Microscopy and Microanalysis 20:852-863
[8] Humphreys FJ, Huang Y, Brough I, Harris C (1999) Electron backscatter diffraction of grain and subgrain structures – resolution considerations. Journal of Microscopy – Oxford 195:212-216.
[9] Demirel MC, El-Dasher BS, Adams BL, Rollett AD (2000) Studies on the Accuracy of Electron Backscatter Diffraction Measurements. In: Schwartz AJ, Kumar M, Adams BL (eds) Electron Backscatter Diffraction in Materials Science. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp 65-74.
[10] Godfrey A, Wu GL, Liu Q (2002) Characterisation of Orientation Noise during EBSP Investigation of Deformed Samples. In: Lee DN (ed) ICOTOM 13, Seoul, Korea, Textures of Materials. Trans Tech Publications Inc., pp 221-226.
[11] Ram F, Zaefferer S, Jäpel T, Raabe D (2015) Error analysis of the crystal orientations and disorientations obtained by the classical electron backscatter diffraction technique. Journal of Applied Crystallography 48: 797-813
[12] Wilkinson AJ, Britton TB (2012) Strains, planes, and EBSD in materials science. Materials Today 15: 366-376
[13] Ram F, Singh S, Wright SI, De Graef M (2017) Error Analysis of Crystal Orientations Obtained by the Dictionary Approach to EBSD Indexing. Ultramicroscopy 181:17-26.
[14] Nolze G, Jürgens M, Olbricht J, Winkelmann A (2018) Improving the precision of orientation measurements from technical materials via EBSD pattern matching. Acta Materialia 159:408-415
[15] Shi Q, Loisnard D, Dan C, Zhang F, Zhong H, Li H, Li Y, Chen Z, Wang H, Roux S (2021) Calibration of crystal orientation and pattern center of EBSD using integrated digital image correlation. Materials Characterization 178:111206
[16] Lenthe W, Singh S, De Graef M (2019) A spherical harmonic transform approach to the indexing of electron backscattered diffraction patterns. Ultramicroscopy 207:112841
[17] Hielscher R, Bartel F, Britton TB (2019) Gazing at crystal balls: Electron backscatter diffraction pattern analysis and cross-correlation on the sphere. Ultramicroscopy 207:112836
[18] Sparks G, Shade PA, Uchic MD, Niezgoda SR, Mills MJ, Obstalecki M (2021) High-precision orientation mapping from spherical harmonic transform indexing of electron backscatter diffraction patterns. Ultramicroscopy 222:113187
[19] Singh S, Ram F, De Graef M (2017) Application of forward models to crystal orientation refinement. Journal of Applied Crystallography 50:1664-1676.
[20] Winkelmann A, Jablon BM, Tong V, Trager‐Cowan C, Mingard K (2020) Improving EBSD precision by orientation refinement with full pattern matching. Journal of Microscopy 277:79-92
[21] Pang EL, Larsen PM, Schuh CA (2020) Global optimization for accurate determination of EBSD pattern centers. Ultramicroscopy 209:112876
[22] Wright SI, Nowell MM, Lindeman SP, Camus PP, De Graef M, Jackson MA (2015) Introduction and comparison of new EBSD post-processing methodologies. Ultramicroscopy 159:81-94

Reaching Out

Dr. René de Kloe, Applications Scientist, EDAX

2022 was a year of changes. In the beginning, I set up a desk in the scanning electron microscope (SEM) lab where, without truly reaching out, I only needed to turn in my chair to switch from emails and virtual customers on my laptop to the live energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) and electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD) system and real data on the microscope. As travel restrictions gradually eased worldwide, we were all able to start meeting “real” people again. After almost two years of being grounded, I finally met people face to face again, discussing their analysis needs, and answering questions do not compare to online meetings. We restarted in-person training courses, and I participated in many external courses, exhibitions, and conferences, reaching out to microscopists all over Europe.

And as always, I try to correlate real life with some nice application examples. And what is similar to reaching out to people in the microanalysis world? Reaching out to things! So, what came to mind are remote thermal sensors, which most of us will have at home in the kitchen: a thermostat in an oven and a wired thermometer that you can use to measure food temperatures. And I just happened to have a broken one that was ready to be cut up and analyzed.

Figure 1. a) A food thermometer and b) an oven thermostat sensor.

On the outside, these two sensors looked very similar; both were thin metal tubes connected to a control unit. Because of this similarity, I was also expecting more or less the same measuring method, like using a thermocouple in both thermometers. But to my surprise, that was not quite the case.

The long tube of the food thermometer was mostly empty. Right at the tip, I found this little sensor about 1 mm across connected to copper wires that led to the control unit. After mounting and careful sectioning, I could collect EDS maps showing that the sensor consisted of a central block of Mn-Co-Fe-oxide material sandwiched between silver electrodes soldered to the copper-plated Ni wires.

Note that in the image, you only see one of the wires, the other is still below the surface, and I did not want to polish it any deeper.

Figure 2. The temperature sensor taken out of the tube of the food thermometer.

Figure 3. A forward scatter SEM image of the polished cross-section showing the central MnCoFe-oxide material and one of the connecting wires.

This was no thermocouple.

Figure 4. The element distribution in the sensor.

Figure 5. The EDS spectrum of the central CoMnFe-oxide area.

Instead, the principle of this sensor is based on measuring the changing resistivity with temperature. The EBSD map of the central Co-Mn-De oxide area shows a coarse-grained structure without any preferred orientation to make the resistivity uniform in all directions.

Figure 6. An EBSD IPF on Image Quality map of the sensor in the food thermometer.

Figure 7. (001) pole figure of the MnCoFe oxide phase, showing a random orientation distribution.

And where the tube of the food thermometer was mostly empty, the tube of the oven thermostat sensor was completely empty. There were not even electrical connections. The sensor was simply a thin hollow metal tube that contained a gas that expands when heated. This expansion would move a small disk with a measurement gauge that was then correlated with a temperature readout. Although this sounded very simple, some clever engineering was needed to prevent the tube from pinching shut when bending and moving it during installation.

I cut and polished the tube, and an EBSD map of the entire cross-section is shown below.

Figure 8. a) EBSD IQ and b) IPF maps of a cross-section through the entire tube of the oven thermostat sensor.

The tube is constructed out of three layers of a Fe-Cr-Ni alloy with fine-grained multiphase chromium phosphide layers in between. This microstructure is what provides corrosion protection, and it also adds flexibility to the tube. And this, in turn, is crucial to prevent cracks from forming that would cause the leaking of the contained gas, which is critical in getting a good temperature reading.

The detailed map below shows a section of the phosphide layer. There are two chromium phosphide phases, and in between, there are dendritic Ni grains that link everything together.

Figure 9. EDS maps showing the composition of one of the phosphide layers.

Figure 10. EBSD IPF maps of the different phases. a) All phases on a PRIAS center image, b) CrP, c) Fe matrix, and d) Ni dendrites, Cr3P.

When you look at the microstructure of both sensors in detail, it is possible to determine how they work, and you can appreciate why they have been designed as they are. The two devices are efficient and tailored to their intended use. The oven thermostat is designed to be mounted in a fixed position to be secure so that it can be used for a very long time. The food thermometer is very flexible and can easily be moved around.

In that respect, I feel there is another similarity between these sensors and the different kinds of meetings between people we have experienced over the past year. It does not matter how you do it; you can always reach out and feel some warmth.

I wish everybody a very happy and peaceful 2023.

Simulate them!

Dr. Chang Lu, Application Specialist, Gatan & EDAX

In early 2022, Gatan and EDAX completed the integration, and our new division was named Electron Microscope Technology (EMT). As an EMT application scientist on the China applications team, I am responsible for almost all the Gatan and EDAX products for Northern China, on both Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) platforms. Therefore, I work with diversified products and diversified user groups that focus on different subject matters. In the first half of this year, I found that the data analysis software from EMT Gatan’s DigitalMicrograph® (DM) and EDAX’s OIM Analysis™ are not completely isolated, but in many cases, they can cooperate with each other to help our customers.

For instance, DM can do a series of electron microscopy-related data processing. For some energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) mapping data from the minor content, there are various methods to achieve smoothing and enhance the contrast. While in the MSA panel, the principal component analysis (PCA) function can be helpful in terms of high-resolution EDS mapping. However, in today’s EDAX blog, I will talk a little bit more about one feature in OIM Analysis that could potentially benefit a lot of Gatan camera users.

In northern China, there are a group of Gatan users who are focused on nanoscale phases and grains in the TEM. In most scenarios, they heavily employ electron diffraction or bright field imaging to make judgments. However, it is really difficult to determine the unknown (unidentified but has a known x-ray diffraction (XRD) pattern and chemical composition, so there is a potential for it) phase by simply relying on the minor changes of grayscale bright field images. You may say diffraction could help. Yes, a clean, beautiful diffractogram of a particular crystal direction can be helpful. But, no, you need to find the zone axis carefully. If this unknown phase has a crystal structure of low symmetry, most of the time, the effort will be in vain. Generally speaking, the Difpack tool in the DM software could help in determining d-spacing and angles, however, it is not intuitive enough to know the sample at first sight.

The solution is pattern simulation with OIM Matrix™. At first, I noticed this feature because it helped an EDAX user who was studying strains. It can easily export a theoretical Kikuchi pattern for a specific sample orientation with zero stress. Then one day, I had a sudden thought during my morning shower. Maybe I can change the acceleration voltage to 200 kV (typical for TEM), and the sample tilt angle to 0° (make it flat). After entering a specific orientation, we can get a Kikuchi pattern under TEM conditions! For example, take the simulated pattern from NdCeB. With Kinematic Color Overlay, we can also find out what crystal plane corresponds to a specific Kikuchi line. Now, when we start changing the zone axis in an unidentified sample, we can first simulate several orientations and compare them with what we see under TEM. In this way, the process of finding the Kikuchi pole turns out to be very convenient.

Figure 1. A simulated pattern from NdCeB using OIM Matrix.

Now, when some Gatan users bring in some “weird” unidentified samples and say they want to find various zone axis for doing diffractions. I don’t worry about it. I think from a problem-solving point of view, the powerful software from both Gatan and EDAX, like the integration of two companies, can also be combined to solve complex and difficult problems for our customers in the future.

模拟他们！

Dr. Chang Lu, Application Scientist, Gatan & EDAX

2022年初，Gatan和EDAX这两家公司完成了整合，我们的部门更名为Electron Microscope Technology (EMT)。作为EMT中国团队的应用技术支持，我负责中国北方区扫描电镜（SEM）还有透射电镜（TEM）上Gatan还有EDAX的几乎全部产品。产品多样，服务的用户群体也多样。慢慢地在工作过程中，我就发现两边的数据分析软件（Gatan的Digital Micrograph以及EDAX的Orientation Imaging Microscopy）其实并不是完全分开的，很多时候它们可以在不同程度上相互支持，互通互联。

比如说，Gatan公司在TEM平台上知名的DigitalMicrograph（DM）软件。DM可以处理一系列的电镜相关的表征数据。对于部分信号较弱的EDAX能谱结果，我们也可以把数据载入，通过DM内置的图像平滑，互相关算法以及主成分分析（PCA）进行数据的优化处理。但是我今天更想要分享的是EDAX Orientation Imaging Microscopy（OIM）软件在TEM平台上的一些应用。

在我服务的客户群体中，有一些用户尤其关注一些纳米级的物相和晶粒。这时候在TEM平台，我们往往需要使用到电子衍射的手段来对样品进行判断。然而，很多时候单单依靠透射电镜下灰度值衬度的变化，一些微弱的物相的改变很难被发觉。同时，一张干净，漂亮的来自特定晶向的电子衍射，往往需要我们对样品旋转晶带轴。虽然我们可以沿着特定的菊池线去找菊池极，但是这条菊池线对应什么晶面？菊池极对应哪个晶带轴？我们往往需要在Difpack工具里面标定晶格间距和角度，再比对样品材料不同晶面和夹角才有可能清楚，这很麻烦。

我第一次注意到OIM中的Pattern Simulation功能是因为帮助某个研究应力应变的老师输出无应力的特定取向的标准菊池花样图。然后我注意到，其实我是可以对应更改电镜的加速电压，样品倾斜角度还有取向来得到一系列的菊池花样，比如下图这个200 kV加速电压下得到的NdCeB 样品的模拟花样。我们可以对左下角的orientation参数进行修改，得到一系列模拟出来的菊池花样。通过Kinematic Color Overlay，我们还可以知道对应的菊池线对应的是什么晶面。现在，当我们处于未知状态开始转晶带轴的时候我都会首先模拟几个相似的取向，进行对比。这样一来，我沿着那个晶面（菊池线）在找哪个晶带轴（菊池极）都变得异常清楚，这非常方便。

图 1. NdCeB 使用 OIM Matrix。

现在，当Gatan的用户再拿来一个“奇奇怪怪”的样品说要找到特定晶带轴做衍射，我也不像以前担心怎么搞了。需要什么，我们就在EDAX OIM中先模拟出来一个，对着这个模拟的图，旋转，调整晶面，然后在TEM电子衍射过程中去找。我想从解决问题的角度来讲，Gatan和EDAX丰富的软件资源，就像我们这两家公司的合并一样，未来也可以合并解决客户复杂和困难的问题。

Is lack of invention a side effect of COVID?

Dr. David Stowe, Senior Product Manager – EDS and SEM Products, EDAX/Gatan

My friends and family have always thought that, as a microscopist, I spend my working days in a darkened room staring at dimly lit screens or developing negatives. Yet, the reality of working for a commercial company in the electron microscopy business could hardly be more different—scientific meetings, workshops, and spending time with users have allowed me to travel the world and make friends with some of the most interesting people. It’s always been a source of wonder and amazement for my family that the microscopic world could provide so many opportunities to see our world at large!

Sadly, over the last two years, our daily routines have been aligned much more closely to those visions of darkened rooms and computer screens than we care to remember. However, for many of us, there does appear to be (sun)light at the end of the tunnel. In recent weeks, I attended my first in-person workshop in almost two years. Together with colleagues and more than 60 researchers, I traveled to Munich to attend the Gatan-EDAX Leading Edge Workshop held at the Allianz Arena (home to Fußball-Club Bayern München e. V.—known to many as Bayern Munich). As lovely as it was to visit such a famous sporting stadium, the enjoyment of attending scientific talks and engaging in exciting technical discussions with leading researchers far outweighed the attraction of the venue. The feedback from everyone who participated in the day was incredibly positive. Many of us walked away from the event with new ideas inspired by discussions that day.

One of my fears regarding the impact of COVID-19 on the scientific community is the impact that the lack of these in-person interactions has had on innovation, both in terms of new scientific ideas and technological advancements. While working from home, many of us have missed those stimulating ‘coffee break conversations’ with colleagues outside of our teams. To add, there has been a noticeable drop in interactions on virtual platforms at scientific conferences and commercial webinars, with many preferring to review material offline at a time of their choosing.

Fortunately for EDAX, the opportunity for engagement with others during the pandemic had rarely been as high. Since 2019, we have been joined in the Materials Analysis Division of AMETEK by Gatan; the exchange of ideas between the R&D and Applications teams of the two companies has been significant. Within the last year, we have already seen the first innovations arising from the interactions between the two companies with the announcement of EDAX EDS Powered by Gatan for elemental analysis in the transmission electron microscope, simultaneous EDS and cathodoluminescence spectroscopy, and the development of a workflow solution for lithium analysis in the scanning electron microscope.

Within the last month, our applications teams were able to quantify the lithium content in lithium-ion battery cathode materials for the first time using the lithium-composition by difference method (Li-CDM).

Figure 1. First quantitative analysis of lithium content in cathode materials using the Li-CDM technique.

Their analysis used a range of tools from EDAX and Gatan to prepare, transfer, and analyze the specimen in the scanning electron microscope, highlighting the potential for innovation by Gatan and EDAX working together.

Figure 2. The tools from EDAX and Gatan used for the quantitative analysis of lithium in metal oxide cathode materials.

With the imminent arrival of the latest Microscopy and Microanalysis conference in Portland, OR, I am sure we will learn far more about how the changes to working practices have impacted innovation in our world. I am excited to leave my darkened room and discover your latest works in electron microscopy. I am sure that all participants will enjoy and value the personal interactions that are so important for innovation.

Inflation Got You Down?  

Matt Chipman, Sales Manager – Western U.S., EDAX and Gatan

I recently watched a local news story about inflation in consumer goods. The reporter wanted to know if the dollar store could save you money on groceries. The general answer was perhaps on some items, but it wasn’t significant. However, it was interesting to see how some stores focus on a perceived value instead of a real value to its consumer. First, the dollar store raised its starting price from $1.00 to $1.25. Then they used odd-sized packages that were not equivalent to regular grocery store items, making a direct comparison difficult and offering minimal to no real savings. Finally, the dollar store’s selection was very limited so you may end up back at the regular grocery store for anything other than packaged goods.

So, what does this have to do with the microanalysis business? Well, I believe it’s important to look at the big picture with real, tangible benefits that can impact your research. By offering both EDAX and Gatan products, there are more opportunities to combine different technologies to enable unique analyses that can provide a tremendous value to your material studies.

One great example is the quantification of lithium on a scanning electron microscope. By uniting Gatan’s low-kV OnPoint™ Backscattered Electron Detector with EDAX’s Octane Elite Super EDS Detector, this one-of-a-kind analysis is now possible, surpassing what can be done by either technique alone.

Figure 1. The lithium mapping from joint characterization of the EDAX Octane Elite EDS Detector and Gatan OnPoint BSE Detector.

Not to forget, we’ve also been combining the strengths of the Gatan DigitalMicrograph® Software with the EDAX EDS detector technology for TEMs. I believe we are just beginning to scratch the surface of creative things we can do by joining microanalysis systems and techniques. I love discussing creative ways my customers can coalesce microanalysis techniques to do something new.

Figure 2. Multimodal data acquisition of EELS and EDS data combines the chemical sensitivity of EELS with the broad compositional mapping of EDS. Pictured – STEM EELS/EDS mapping of vertical channel 3D NAND acquired with DigitalMicrograph software.

I hope we can all figure out ways to get a real, noticeable value from the equipment we purchase during this time of inflation. I hope to hear ideas from some of you as you tell me about the needs of your laboratories.

EDAX and Gatan Bring You Lithium

Dave Durham, Sales Manager – U.S. Western, EDAX

It has been interesting to recently witness EDAX and Gatan working together to combine the technologies in our portfolios. Although technically, Gatan was acquired by AMETEK back in late 2019, it seems like 2021 has been a year where the integration of our two companies has really begun to hit its stride.

For example, I’ve seen how Gatan’s ion polishing instruments can dramatically improve indexing success for EDAX’s Electron Backscatter Diffraction (EBSD) users compared to the conventional methods for sample preparation. And I’ve seen EDAX’s Elite T Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) System undergo a tremendous workflow improvement and ease-of-use overhaul with the implementation of Gatan’s Microscopy Suite user interface. It has been great stuff!

However, the most recent integration between our two companies is truly groundbreaking, and I’m thrilled to see what it will do to enhance the research being done in its field.

Hopefully, you’ve already seen the news mentioned on our website. For the first time, we’ve been able to perform quantitative mapping of lithium in the Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) by combining the power of EDAX and Gatan detectors and software! These breakthrough results will enable a new level of lithium research that was previously never possible with the SEM.

Figure 1. EDAX and Gatan bring you lithium.

So who cares about lithium? Everyone should. Lithium compounds and alloys are very important materials with significant commercial value. The compounds are being implemented into lightweight structural alloys in the aerospace and automotive industries. They’re also utilized in lithium-ion batteries for small electronic devices and vehicles. Many governments worldwide have proposed plans to reduce dependence on legacy energy sources, which makes further development of lithium-based technologies critical to the adoption of these plans. This means significant investments are currently being made in R&D, failure analysis, and quality control of these materials.

Figure 2. (left) Lithium-ion battery cross-section prepared by Ilion II broad beam argon milling system. (right) EBSD IQ + orientation map revealing the microstructure of the heat-affected zone in a lightweight structural alloy.

So what are the issues with lithium? While electron microscopy and EDS are already essential characterization tools in this industry, there is a distinct inability to map lithium distribution in the SEM. This has presented a significant obstacle, holding back research on these tools. EDS is typically a valuable technique for material characterization, with high sensitivity and spatial resolution to allow for quantitative analysis on a wide range of sample types. But it is not possible to identify lithium in commercially important materials by EDS because:

  1. There is no guarantee that lithium X-rays will be produced from the sample. The X-ray energy and the number of photons produced from the specimen depend on the lithium bonding state. So, even if you have lithium in your sample, it does not mean that lithium X-rays will be generated.
  2. Even if a sample does generate lithium X-rays, they are easily absorbed back into the sample itself, contamination or oxidation, or by the EDS detector window before they can even reach the EDS detector.

Indeed, specialized windowless EDS detectors can detect lithium, but these have drawbacks that impede their practicality and largescale adoption. Even on samples that have a high lithium fluorescence, these special detectors have a limit of detection of about 20 wt %. This is equivalent to about half of the atoms in the sample being lithium, which restricts analysis to only metallic lithium or simple lithium compounds that may not be relevant to advanced lithium research or applications.

And having a specialized windowless EDS system potentially introduces a slew of operational issues/limitations with the detector that aren’t present with a “standard” windowed EDS system. It also restricts the detector’s utility on non- lithium -research-based applications in the lab.

So what have EDAX and Gatan done? We have solved these issues by using a patent-pending technique called the Composition by Difference Method. In this method, we quantify the backscattered electron signal to determine the mean atomic mass for all elements in a particular area of a sample. And from the same region, we collect the EDS signal to quantify the non-lithium elements. From that information, we have two data points that tell us the actual mean atomic mass from the region and a calculated value based on the EDS results — when they don’t agree with one another, it tells us we are missing something in the EDS data. That something we’re missing is lithium.

Figure 3. Data from the OnPoint and the Octane Elite Super are combined and analyzed to quantify lithium.

By using this method, and specifically by combining the EDAX Octane Elite Super EDS Detector and the Gatan OnPoint Backscattered Electron Detector to collect these two signals, we can now generate lithium maps quantitatively with single-digit mass percentages of lithium with sub-micron spatial resolution. This accuracy has been verified to ~1 wt. % lithium by an external accredited laboratory using Glow-discharge Optical Emission Spectroscopy (GDOES).

Figure 4. Secondary electron image and elemental metal fraction maps (by wt. %) of the same region of the MgLiAl alloy; white pixels are regions excluded from the analysis due to the influence of topography (identified by arrows in the secondary electron image) shown here for clarity.

This is a cutting-edge capability in the SEM, and it is a huge opportunity for anyone wanting to discover where lithium exists in their specimens. Just to reiterate, this method does not use a specially designed EDS system for lithium detection! It uses EDAX’s standard (windowed) Octane Elite Super and Gatan’s OnPoint BSE detector, along with EDAX and Gatan software. Simply amazing!

Now that EDAX and Gatan have introduced the ability to provide quantitative lithium analysis, that is:

  • A substantial improvement in limits of lithium detection
  • Insensitive to the lithium bonding state
  • More tolerant to contamination and oxidation
  • Not limited to metallic materials or simple lithium compounds
  • Free from windowless detector-related limitations on the SEM

It seems that we have helped open an avenue for our customers to expand their lithium research beyond anything previously possible. We are truly beginning a very exciting new stage in lithium analysis, and I can’t wait to see how this new capability is used and what comes next!

You can find more information on this new development in our experiment brief.

Learning From Customers

Matt Nowell, EBSD Product Manager, EDAX

As EBSD Product Manager, one of the things I have missed the most in the last 18 months during the COVID pandemic is visiting customers. Generally, in a year, I will attend a few meetings. Some are reoccurring: M&M for microscopy topics, TMS for materials science, and an annual EBSD meeting (either the RMS or MAS version, depending on the year) to keep up with the latest and greatest in these fields. Additionally, I will attend a new show to learn about potential markets and applications. It’s always enjoyable to meet both users and prospects to learn more about their applications and how EDAX tools can help their characterization needs.

In place of these shows, I’ve been turning towards social media to keep track of trends for EBSD. Twitter is one tool I use, where there is a strong scientific group that shares their thoughts on a range of subjects and offers support to each other in this networked community. Recently, my Twitter feed showed a beautiful EBSD map on the cover of Science. Professor Andrew Minor’s group out of UC Berkeley had used EDAX EBSD to analyze twinning in cryoforged titanium. I feel connected to this work, as I’ve looked at twinning in titanium on other samples (Bringing OIM Analysis Closer to Home blog). Seeing different posts about various applications helps me understand where EBSD is used is very exciting and rewarding.

Figure 1. September 17, 2021 issue of Science magazine featuring an EBSD orientation map of cryoforged titanium.

LinkedIn is another social media tool I use. One of my favorite things about this platform is seeing how the careers of different people I know have developed over the years. I turn 50 in a couple of weeks, and I’ve been involved in EBSD for over half of these years. With that experience, I’ve seen the generational development of scientists and engineers in my field. The post-docs who first adopted EBSD when I started are now department chairs and running their own research groups. The students who came to a training course now advise the new users at their companies on EBSD. Recent students are graduating and now asking about EBSD for their new positions. It’s easy to get a sense of how the EBSD knowledge I’ve shared with people has percolated out into the greater world.

While I expect to see some EBSD on Twitter and LinkedIn, this year, I also had a pleasant surprise finding some wonderful EBSD in Gizmodo (https://gizmodo.com/these-microscopic-maps-of-3d-printed-metals-look-like-a-1846669930). I’ve had a strong interest in additive manufacturing since visiting NASA 15 years ago. Seeing this technology develop and how EBSD can help understand the microstructures produced is very satisfying to me. I reached out to Jake Benzing, who was the driver behind this post. This led to his group at NIST being featured in our latest EDAX Insight newsletter. It also helped me connect with a user and be better positioned to get feedback on using our products to drive development and improvement.

Figure 2. Ti-6Al-4V created by a form of AM called electron-beam melting powder-bed fusion. This map of grain orientations reveals an anisotropic microstructure, with respect to the build direction (Z). In this case, the internal porosity was sealed by a standard hot isostatic pressing treatment.

Minimum Detection Limit and Silicon Nitride Window

Dr. Shangshang Mu, Applications Engineer, EDAX

A couple of weeks ago, a question regarding the minimum detection limits (MDL) of our Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) quantitative analysis was forwarded to me from a potential customer. This is a frequently asked question I get from customers during EDS training. We understand researchers are looking for a simple answer; however, they don’t get a straightforward answer from us most of the time. This is not because we don’t want to tell the customer the configurations of our systems, but detection limits depend on various factors, including detector window, geometry, detector resolution, collection time, count rate, and sample composition. The detection limit for a given amount of an element in different sample matrixes is not the same. For example, calcium in indium has a much higher detection limit than it has in carbon because calcium energy lines are heavily absorbed by indium, but not by carbon. The limit also changes if you have a bit more of a given compound in the sample. The limits are lower if the data collection time is doubled. So, it is impossible to provide a general MDL for an EDS system or even a given element, but we can calculate the MDL for a given spectrum.

This function is available in APEX™ Software for EDS version 2.0 or later. For each element identified in the spectrum, the MDL is given in the quantification table and flagged if it is below the detection limit (Figure 1). To determine the MDL for a given spectrum, one must look at the statistical significance of the signal above the background. We generally use the single-channel definition for peak and background counts.

Figure 1. Quantification table with MDL.

Figure 2. Illustration of background and peak counts.

For a given element to be above the significance level, it requires that the total number of counts on the peak NP be above background counts NB by a predetermined confidence, see Figure 2. For significance, we use 1.7 standard deviations (SD) in a one-tail test since we are only concerned about having counts above the threshold (Figure 3). A SD of 1.7 corresponds to about 95% confidence for a single-tail.

Figure 3. Single-tail normal distribution. NB is the background mean level.

The significance level can be calculated as:

NS=NB+1.7σB= NB+1.7√(NB)

This means that the requirement for an element to be considered significant is:

NP≥ NB+1.7√(NB)

For the MDL calculation, we are considering the net counts on the peak (NP-NB). Analog to the significance level, it is required that the counts are above the background plus a significance level, but we are now considering net counts instead of gross counts.

NDL=NB+∆(NP-NB)

To calculate the error, we consider the error of the peak and the background. If an element is close to the detection limit, the number of counts are comparable to the background counts, and we can approximate the total error:

∆(NP-NB)=√(NP+NB)≈√(2NB)

Using a 2s/95% confidence level, we can write the count detection limit as:

NDL=NB+2√(2NB)~2.8√(NB)

With the count-based detection limit and assuming the counts are linear with concentration, the concentration MDL can be calculated from the concentration C of a given element in a spectrum:

MDL=2.8√(NB)*C/NP

As I mentioned earlier, the detector window is one of the most important factors determining the MDL. With the introduction of Silicon Drift Detectors (SDD) and the development of fast and low-noise pulse processors, EDS analysis has seen remarkable increases in throughput and reliability in the last decade. But one often overlooked aspect of the detection technology is the detector window. A variety of window technologies are available, including beryllium, polymer films, and the most recent addition by EDAX, silicon nitride. Due to the polymer window’s composition and thickness, a significant part of the low-energy X-rays is absorbed before reaching the X-ray detector. This absorption effect is vastly reduced in the range below 2 keV for the silicon nitride windows, as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Transmission curves for silicon nitride and polymer windows measured using synchrotron radiation.

The MDL for spectra acquired from the same samples with different window configurations can be calculated by employing the derived equation above. This study was led by Dr. Jens Rafaelsen at EDAX using five different standards. To eliminate the detector resolution and response as a variable in the experiment, the window was removed from a standard detector, and exchangeable caps with silicon nitride and polymer windows were mounted in front of the electron trap. Figures 5 and 6 show the relative improvement in MDL for the window-less and silicon nitride window configurations compared to the polymer window. Figure 6 documents the silicon nitride’s superiority over the polymer window in the low energy range with improvements of over 10% for the MDL of oxygen. While Figure 5 shows that further improvements can be gained in the window-less configurations, the silicon nitride window still allows for the use of variable pressure mode and spectrum collection from samples exhibiting cathodoluminescence (CL).

On a side note, our friends at Gatan recently captured fantastic EDS and CL data simultaneously from a meteorite thin-section using an EDAX Octane Elite EDS Detector and a Gatan Monarc CL Detector mounted on the same SEM. Check out the blog post written by Dr. Jonathan Lee to see how combined EDS and CL analysis can provide a glimpse into the history of our solar system’s evolution.

Figure 5. Relative gain in MDL for window-less configuration compared to polymer window.


Figure 6. Relative gain in MDL for silicon nitride configuration compared to polymer window.

Want a Free Set of Microanalysis Standards?

Dr. Shangshang Mu, Applications Engineer, EDAX

Modern EDS systems are capable of quantitative analysis with or without standards. Unlike standard-less analysis, the k-ratio is either calculated in the software or based on internal standards. For analysis with standards, it is measured from a reference sample with known composition under the same conditions as the unknown sample. As an applications engineer, sometimes users ask me where to order these standards. Usually, I point them to the vendors that manufacture and distribute reference standards where you can order either off-the-shelf or customized standard blocks. In addition to these commercial mounts, I always tell them that they can request a set of mineral, glass, and rare earth element phosphate standards from the National Museum of Natural History free of charge! These are very useful standards that I’ve seen widely used in not only the geoscience world but also in various manufacturing industries. These free standards are also great for those graduate students with limited budgets and ideal for practicing sample preparation (yes, I was one of them).

This set of standards is officially called the Smithsonian Microbeam Standards and includes 29 minerals, 12 types of glass, and 16 REE phosphates. You can find out more information about these standards and submit a request form by clicking on the link below:
https://naturalhistory.si.edu/research/mineral-sciences/collections-overview/reference-materials/smithsonian-microbeam-standards

I mentioned sample preparation earlier. Yes, you read that right. These standards come in pill capsules containing from many tiny grains to a few larger ones and you need to mount them on your own (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Grains in a pill capsule.

Since you can get the information such as the composition, locality, and references for each standard from the website, what I want to discuss in this blog post is how to prepare them properly for X-ray analysis. The first tricky thing is to get them out of the capsules. The grains in Figure 1 are almost the largest in this set and you won’t get too many of this size. Some of the grains are even too tiny to be seen at first glance. For the majority that are really tiny, you need to tap the capsule a couple of times to release the grains that get stick to the capsule wall, then you can open the capsule very carefully and let the grains slide out with a little tapping.

For mounting, the easiest way is to mount the standards in epoxy using a mounting cup and let it cure. I did this in a fancy way to make it look like a commercial mount (Figure 2). I ordered a 30 mm diameter circular retainer with 37 holes used by commercial mount manufacturers (Figure 3) and filled the holes with standards on my own. I must admit that the retainer is not cheap, but you can machine the mount by yourself or have a machine shop do it for you. In addition to looking pretty, the retainer ensures a good layout so you can quickly locate the standards you need during microanalysis, and you can mount the same type of standards on one block and get rid of the hassle of frequently venting and pumping the SEM chamber to switch standard blocks.

Figure 2. Examples of commercial mounts.

 

Figure 3. 30 mm diameter circular retainer with 37 holes.

To prevent the tiny grains from moving and floating up when pouring the epoxy mix, I placed the retainer upside down and pressed it onto a piece of sticky tape (Figure 4a) and positioned the grains on the sticky surface of the tape within the holes. When tapping the capsule to let the grains slide out and fall into the hole, the other holes were covered to prevent contamination (Figure 4b). These holes are small in diameter and pouring the epoxy mix directly will trap air bubbles in the hole to separate the grains from the epoxy mix. To overcome this problem, I filled up the hole by letting the epoxy mix drip down very slowly along the inner surface of the hole.

Figure 4. Positioning grains within the holes of the retainer.

For general grinding, I start with wet 240 grit SiC sandpaper with subsequent use of 320, 400, 600, 800, and 1,200 grit wet SiC sandpapers. But coarser grits can grind off tiny grains in this case, so I would recommend starting with a relatively fine grit based on the sizes of the grains you receive and always use a light microscope or magnifier to check the grinding. For polishing abrasive, I used 1 micron and 0.3 micron alumina suspensions on a polishing cloth. For the grains used as standards or quantification in general, the surface needs to be perfectly flat. However, the napped polishing cloth tends to abrade epoxy and the grains at different rates, creating surface relief and edge rounding, especially on tiny grains. To mitigate this effect, the polishing should be checked under a light microscope constantly and stopped as soon as the scratches are removed. A vibratory final polishing with colloidal silica is optional. Followed by ultrasonic cleaning and carbon coating, the standard mount is ready to use.

Note that commercial mount manufacturers may prepare standards individually (especially for metal standards) and insert them into the holes from the back of the retainer and fasten them with retaining rings (Figure 5a). A benefit of this approach is that the standards on the mount are changeable, so you can load all the standards you need on one mount before microanalysis. I used to make several individual mounted standards that can fit into the retainer (Figure 5b) but this process is very time consuming and much trickier to keep the small surface flat during grinding and polishing.

Figure 5. a) The back of a commercial metal standard mount. b) A tiny cylindrical mount that can fit into the retainer holes.

This is definitely a good set of standards to keep in your lab. With EDAX EDS software, in addition to quantification with these standards, you can also use them to create a library and explore the Spectrum Matching feature. The next time you want to quickly determine the specific type of a mineral, you can simply collect a quick spectrum and click the “Match” button, and the software will compare the unknowns to the library you just created.