How to Increase Your Materials Characterization Knowledge with EDAX

Sue Arnell, Marketing Communications Manager, EDAX

The EDAX Applications and Product Management teams have been very busy offering free ‘continuing education’ workshops in September and October – with a great global response from our partners and customers.

At the end of September, Applications Specialist Shawn Wallace and Electron Backscatter Diffraction (EBSD) Product Manager Matt Nowell joined 6 additional speakers at a ‘Short Lecture Workshop for EBSD’, sponsored by EDAX at the Center for Electron Microscopy and Analysis (CEMAS) at The Ohio State University. The participants attended sessions ranging from ‘EBSD Introduction and Optimization of Collection Parameters for Advanced Application’ to ‘The Dictionary Approach to EBSD: Advances in Highly-Deformed and Fine-Grained Materials’.

Feedback on this workshop included the following comments, “This was a great learning opportunity after working with my lab’s EDAX systems for a couple of months”; “I like the diversity in the public and the talks.  I was very pleased with the overall structure and outcome”; and “Great! Very helpful.”

Matt Nowell presents at the ‘Short Lecture Workshop for EBSD’ at CEMAS, OSU.

In mid-October, EBSD Applications Specialist, Dr. Rene de Kloe traveled to India for a series of workshops on EBSD at the Indian Institute of Science (Bangalore), the International Advanced Research Center (Hyderabad), and the Indian Institute of Technology (Mumbai). Topics discussed at the sessions included:

• Effects of measurement and processing parameters on EBSD
• The application of EBSD to routine material characterization
• Defining resolution in EBSD analysis
• Three Dimensional EBSD analysis – temporal and spatial
• Advanced data averaging tools for improved EDS and EBSD mapping – NPAR™
• Microstructural Imaging using an Electron Backscatter Diffraction Detector – PRIAS™
• Transmission EBSD from low to high resolution

Dr. René de Kloe presents at one of three recent workshops in India.

According to our National Sales Manager in India, Arjun Dalvi, “We conducted this seminar at different sites and I would like to share that the response from all our attendees was very good. They were all eager to get the training from Dr. René and to take part in very interactive Q and A sessions, in which many analysis issues were solved.”

Global Applications Manager Tara Nylese was at the Robert A. Pritzker Science Center in Chicago, IL last week to give a presentation on “Materials Characterization with Microscopy and Microanalysis” for the Illinois Institute of Technology. “In this lecture, we started with a basic introduction to electron microscopy, and then dived deeper into the fundamentals of X-ray microanalysis. We explored both the basics of X-ray excitation, and how to evaluate peaks in an X-ray spectrum. From there, we looked at applied examples such as composition variation in alloys, chemical mapping of components of pharmaceutical tablets, and some fascinating underlying elemental surprises in biological materials.”

Finally, today we have 50 participants at the Geological Museum in Cambridge, MA for a training workshop given by Dr. Jens Rafaelsen and sponsored by Harvard University on “Taking TEAM™ EDS Software to the Next Level” * Presentation topics include:

• Basic operation of the TEAM™ EDS Analysis package
• How to get the most out of TEAM™ EDS Analysis
• Advanced training
• Tips and Tricks using TEAM™ EDS Analysis

Dr. Jens Rafaelsen presents at the Harvard workshop.

Here at EDAX, we are keen to provide our customers, potential customers, and partners with opportunities to improve their knowledge and polish their skills using the techniques, which are central to the EDAX product portfolio.  Our EDS, EBSD, WDS and XRF experts are keen to help with regular training sessions, webinars, and workshops. If you would like to be included, please check for upcoming webinarsworkshops, and training sessions at www.edax.com.

*A video of these workshop sessions will be available from EDAX in the coming weeks.

A Bit of Background Information

Dr. Jens Rafaelsen, Applications Engineer, EDAX

Any EDS spectrum will have two distinct components; the characteristic peaks that originate from transitions between the states of the atoms in the sample and the background (Bremsstrahlung) which comes from continuum radiation emitted from electrons being slowed down as they move through the sample. The figure below shows a carbon coated galena sample (PbS) where the background is below the dark blue line while the characteristic peaks are above.

Carbon coated galena sample (PbS) where the bacground is below the dark blue line while the characteristic peaks are above.

Some people consider the background an artefact and something to be removed from the spectrum (either through electronics filtering or by subtracting it) but in the TEAM™ software we apply a model based on Kramer’s law that looks as follows:Formulawhere E is the photon energy, N(E) the number of photons, ε(E) the detector efficiency, A(E) the sample self-absorption, E0 the incident beam energy, and a, b, c are fit parameters¹.

This means that the background is tied to the sample composition and detector characteristic and that you can actually use the background shape and fit/misfit as a troubleshooting tool. Often if you have a bad background, it’s because the sample doesn’t meet the model requirements or the data fed to the model is incorrect. The example below shows the galena spectrum where the model has been fed two different tilt conditions and an overshoot of the background can easily be seen with the incorrect 45 degrees tilt. So, if the background is off in the low energy range, it could be an indication that the surface the spectrum came from was tilted, in which case the quant model will lose accuracy (unless it’s fed the correct tilt value).

This of course means that if your background is off, you can easily spend a long time figuring out what went wrong and why, although it often doesn’t matter too much. To get rid of this complexity we have included a different approach in our APEX™ software that is meant for the entry level user. Instead of doing a full model calculation we apply a Statistics-sensitive Non-linear Iterative Peak-clipping (SNIP) routine². This means that you will always get a good background fit though you lose some of the additional information you get from the Bremsstrahlung model. The images below show part of the difference where the full model includes the steps in the background caused by sample self-absorption while the SNIP filter returns a flat background.

So, which one is better? Well, it depends on where the question is coming from. As a scientist, I would always choose a model where the individual components can be addressed individually and if something looks strange, there will be a physical reason for it. But I also understand that a lot of people are not interested in the details and “just want something that works”. Both the Bremsstrahlung model and the SNIP filter will produce good results as shown in the table below that compares the quantification numbers from the galena sample.


While there’s a slight difference between the two models, the variation is well within what is expected based on statistics and especially considering that the sample is a bit oxidized (as can be seen from the oxygen peak in the spectrum). But the complexity of the SNIP background is significantly reduced relative to the full model and there’s no user input, making it the better choice for the novice analyst of infrequent user.

¹ F. Eggert, Microchim Acta 155, 129–136 (2006), DOI 10.1007/s00604-006-0530-0
² C.G. RYAN et al, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research 934 (1988) 396-402

Thoughts from a Summer Intern

Kylie Simpson, Summer Intern 2017, EDAX

This summer at EDAX, I have had the opportunity not only to build upon the skills that I acquired here last summer and throughout my academic year, but also to acquire new skills enabling me to better understand energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS), materials science, and applied physics. Having access to state-of-the-art microscopes, detectors, and literature has certainly played a large role in my take-away from this summer, but the most valuable aspect of my time at EDAX is the expertise of those around me. Working with the applications team provided me with the opportunity to work alongside the different groups, including the engineering, sales and marketing, and technical support groups, as well as with customers via demos, training courses, and webinars. Not to mention the plethora of knowledge within the applications team itself. The willingness of other EDAX employees not only to help me, but also to explain and teach me how to solve the problems I encountered was extremely helpful.

The major projects I worked on this summer were compiling a user manual for the EDAX APEX™ software, collecting data for a steel library, and tuning a PID system for the thermoelectric cooler used in EDAX detectors. Creating a user manual for APEX™ enabled me to fully understand the software and describe it in a clear and useful way for our customers. I used LaTeX™ software to compile the manual, which exposed me to a very powerful typesetting tool while optimizing the layout and accessibility of the manual. Because I was not involved in the design of APEX™, I was able to write the user manual from the perspective of a new user. As a student and a newer user of EDAX software, I have recognized how useful APEX™ is for beginners and hope that the user manual will help to complement its value.

The EDAX APEX™ User Manual.

Figure 1: The EDAX APEX™ User Manual.

The steel library project that I worked on was very interesting because I compiled data that will simplify and aid customers working with steel samples. I collected spectra for nearly 100 steel standards and compared the quant results to the known values to confirm the accuracy of the data. This data will soon be available for purchase by customers who would like to compare the spectra from unknown samples to those of known standards using the spectrum match feature.

Me using one of our scopes to collect data.

Figure 2: Me using one of our scopes to collect data.

Additionally, I was able to work with the engineering team to tune a PID system for the thermoelectric cooler inside all EDAX detectors. The module of each detector must reach a set point temperature in a set period of time and remain stable. By making small changes to the parameters and determining their impact, I ran tests over several weeks to optimize the cooling of the detector. These parameters will be used in future development of EDAX detectors, enabling them to work even more accurately.

Figure 3: The PID system I worked with and me.

Overall, my experience at EDAX has been very positive, providing me with the skills and knowledge to succeed and excel in both academics and my career.

What an Eclipse can teach us about our EDS Detectors

Shawn Wallace, Applications Engineer, EDAX

A large portion of the US today saw a real-world teaching moment about something microanalysts think about every day.

Figure 1. Total solar eclipse - image from nasa.gov

Figure 1. Total solar eclipse.                                  Image credit-nasa.gov

With today’s Solar Eclipse, you could see two objects that have the same solid angle in the sky, assuming you are in the path of totality. Which is bigger, the Sun or the Moon? We all know that the Sun is bigger, its radius is nearly 400x that of the moon.

Figure 2. How it works.                                             Image credit – nasa.gov

Luckily for us nerds, it is also 400x further away from the Earth than the moon is. This is what makes the solid angle of both objects the same, so that from the perspective of viewers from the Earth, they take up the same area in the sphere of the sky.

The EDAX team observes the solar eclipse in NJ, without looking at the sun!

Why does all this matter for a microanalyst? We always want to get the most out of our detectors and that means maximizing the solid angle. To maximize it, you really have two parameters to play with: how big the detector is and how close the detector is to the sample. ‘How big is the detector’ is easy to play with. Bigger is better, right? Not always, as the bigger it gets, the more you start running in to challenges with pushing charge around that can lead to issues like incomplete charge collection, ballistic deficits, and other problems that many people never think about.

All these factors tend to lead to lower resolution spectra and worse performance at fast pulse processing times.
What about getting closer? Often, we aim for a take-off angle of 350 and want to ensure that the detector does not protrude below the pole piece to avoid hitting the sample. On different microscopes, this can put severe restrictions on how and where the detector can be mounted and we can end up with the situation where we need to move a large detector further back to make it fit within the constraining parameters. So, getting closer isn’t always an option and sometimes going bigger means moving further back.

Figure 3. Schematic showing different detector sizes with the same solid angle. The detector size can govern the distance from the sample.

In the end, bigger is not always better. When looking at EDS systems, you have to compare the geometry just as much as anything else. The events happening today remind of us that. Sure the Sun is bigger than Moon, but the latter does just as good a job of making a part of the sky dark as the Sun does making it bright.

For more information on optimizing your analysis with EDS and EBSD, see our webinar, ‘Why Microanalysis Performance Matters’.

Celebrating the 50th Birthday of Microanalysis

Sia Afshari, Global Marketing Manager, EDAX

The Microscopy & Microanalysis (M&M) Conference is celebrating 50 years of microanalysis at this year’s meeting in St. Louis next week. There is an entire session (A18.3) dedicated to the 50-year anniversary and the historical background of microanalysis from several different perspectives.

My colleague, Dr. Patrick Camus will be presenting the history of EDAX in his presentation, “More than 50 Years of Influence on Microanalysis” at this session and this is a must see for everyone who is at all interested in the historical development and advances in microanalysis!

Looking back at some of the images in the field of microscopy and seeing how far we have come from static spectrum collection to the standardless quantification of complex materials makes me wonder (in a good way!), about the future and especially about the technical possibilities in microanalysis.

Figure 1. Nuclear Diodes EDAX System Interfaced to Cambridge Stereoscan Scanning Electron Microscope – circa 1968

Pat will be describing the evolution of the company from Nuclear Diodes (1962) through EDAX International (1972) and purchase by Philips (1974) to acquisition by Ametek in 2001. Many accomplished microanalysts have been part of the EDAX team along the journey and have contributed enormously to the technical development of microanalysis. The advancements which have been made to date and those which will continue in the future would have not been possible without the dedication and hard work of all these pioneers in this field.

Figure 2. EDAX Element Silicon Drift Detector on a Scanning Electron Microscope – 2017.

At EDAX, which happens to be older than 50 years, I have been honored to meet some of the pioneers of microanalysis. I extend my gratitude to all those whose work has made it possible for us to enjoy the level of sophistication achieved today and we hope to continue their innovative tradition!

Please click here for more information on EDAX at M&M 2017.

Caveat Emptor – Especially with Microanalysis Samples

Matt Nowell – EBSD Product Manager, EDAX

My wife tells me I’m a bit of a hoarder. As we have done our spring cleaning, I’ve found coasters of places I’ve dined around the world, shirts a size (or more) smaller that I haven’t worn in years, and 2 Lego minifigures I bought and forgot to give to the kids. I’ve been forced to admit I didn’t need to keep all this any longer. Of course, as someone who develops and demonstrates EDS and EBSD microanalysis tools, the one thing you can never have too much of is interesting samples. I have drawers full of samples I’ve analyzed, or hope to analyze, and they come in handy when someone wants an interesting example for a customer or presentation.

With that in mind, I’d like to describe my adventures with a new sample I obtained this year. I found a bracelet online that claimed to have 62 elements. To me, that seemed wonderful, and potentially a great sample for EDS and EBSD analysis. I ordered one, and anxiously awaited its delivery.

When it arrived, and I opened it, I immediately became a bit suspicious. For the size and volume of material, it felt very light. I have a set of metal coupons that are all the same size but different alloys and materials, and there is a significant different in feel between different alloys. I guessed it was aluminum, but would use EDS and EBSD to determine the composition.

It was an interesting characterization problem though – potentially it contained 62 elements, but I didn’t know the concentration or spatial distribution of these elements. I started with EDS, and used my Octane Elite EDS detector. Initially I set up the SEM for 20kV analysis, with ≈15kcps output through the detector with ≈ 30% deadtime. Under these conditions, the resolution of the EDS detector was 122.8eV. I imaged a 600µm x 800µm area of the bracelet, and collected EDS spectra for 1, 10, 100, 1000, and 10,000 seconds. The signal to background increases as the square of the time collected, so for each 10X increase, I expected to improve the detection by about a factor of 3.

Figure 1. EDS Spectra collected for 10,000 Live Seconds

Figure 1 shows the EDS spectra collected for 10,000 live seconds. With careful review and analysis, I was able to identify 22 of the possible 62 claimed elements. Aluminum had the largest peak, and had the highest concentration. Of course, I knew I was only sampling the surface, and made no attempt to section into the sample. There was also a strong oxygen peak, which I would attribute to an oxidation layer. Most other detectable elements were present in smaller concentrations. Figures 2 and 3 show an energy range between 7.75eV – 9.00 eV, where the k-line peaks for nickel, zinc, and copper are present, for 10 and 10,000 live seconds of collection. These elements were selected because they were present in low concentrations. At 10 live seconds, these peaks are very noisy but present, and additional collection time significantly improves their distribution shape and counting statistics.

Figure 2. EDS Spectra collected for 10 Live seconds with 15kcsp output

Figure 3. EDS Spectra collected for 10,000 Live Seconds with 15kcsp output

Knowing that better counting improves lower limits of detection, I increased the beam current on the SEM to obtain ≈215kcps output counts, and then collected spectra over the same time intervals.* Figure 4 shows the collection under these conditions after 10,000 live seconds. I should note that while I analyzed the same size area, I did not analyze the exact same area, so it is possible any variations could be due to this approach.

Figure 4. EDS Spectra collected for 10,000 Live Seconds with 215kcps output

At this point, I had a lot of data, but increasing the count rate did not reveal any more elements than were initially detected. To evaluate performance, I quantified each spectra, and focused my analysis on the nickel, zinc, and copper elements. The weight percentage of each of these elements is shown in Figure 5 for each collection time and count rate. Each element has the same color (blue for Nickel, red for Zinc, and black for Copper), the lower count rate lines have a marker, while the higher count rate lines do not.

Figure 5. Weight percentage of selected elements as a function of acquisition time and output count rate

To me, this data was very impressive. Except for the 1 and 10 live second collections at the lower output count rate, the consistency of the data was good, even with concentrations of less than 1 weight percentage. The quantification output does give an error percentage value, and rule-of-thumb acceptance criteria was met after 100 live seconds collection at the lower count rate and 10 live seconds collection at the higher count rate. The fact that I continued to collect data for significantly longer times past this point would suggest that the remaining elements are either not-present, not at the surface where I am analyzing, or are present at concentrations lower than my detection limits.

I also wanted to look at this sample structurally, hoping for an interesting multiphase sample with pretty microstructures I could hang in the hall. I sectioned the sample, and polished a portion for EBSD analysis. The PRIAS + IPF Orientation map is shown in figure 6. I was able to index 99.7% of the collected points with high confidence using the aluminum FCC material file. It has a very large grain structure. I did see a number of smaller Fe precipitates, but I have not examined at higher magnification yet.

Figure 6. PRIAS + IPF Orientation map .

All in all, it didn’t turn out to be the sample I had hoped for, but was good to help think about collecting EDS data for both accuracy and sensitivity. I’ll have to share the sample with other colleagues for WDS and µXRF analysis to see if we can find more of these missing elements.

For more information on quantative analysis with EDS, join our upcoming webinar, ‘Practical Quantitative Analysis – How to optimize the accuracy of your data’. Please click here to register.

My New Lab Partner Part 2 (East Coast Edition)

Jens Rafaelsen, Applications Engineer, EDAX

During a recent trip to our Draper lab in Utah for a training class, I got a first-hand look at Matt’s new lab partner (https://edaxblog.com/2017/02/14/my-new-lab-partner/). I must admit that I am a little envious of his new microscope and how easily you get great looking images (even at low acceleration voltage or high beam current) compared to the systems we have in our Mahwah lab. However, I must also admit that he needed an upgrade a lot more than we did. While his old XL has been very reliable (and still seems to be, even after moving it to another room), it was always a bit of a worry conducting a training class with only one microscope available and one that was at end of service life at that.

Around the time when Matt got his new microscope we also had an addition to our Mahwah lab as seen in the picture below:

OK, it’s definitely not an ARM or a TITAN, it only goes to 120kV, it’s not quite as new and fancy as Matt’s microscope, and the firmware might read 1994 when you hit the ON button, but it’s still good to have a TEM in the building once again. One of the things that’s great about older scientific instruments is that they often include full vacuum and wiring diagrams, schematics, and troubleshooting directions. Not so great: pressure readings in arbitrary numbers… I did some creative plumbing and mounted extra gauges on the line of the microscope gauges so now I know that a pressure reading in the buffer tank of 26 corresponds to roughly 10-1 mbar and that the camera chamber goes down to the mid 10-5 mbar. As an added bonus, several people in the building have been around long enough to have experience with the CM12 both as users and service and have had their memories jogged for how to run and align it. This also spurred the comment: “That’s right, this is why I decided to get out of field service…”.

Having had very limited TEM experience it’s been a bit of a learning curve for me but I think it’s getting there. There’s still a lot to learn when it comes to fine tuning of the instrument, diffraction, and aligning for dark field imaging, but at least I am able to get bright field images at over 500k magnification without spending too much time. And some of the images actually have somewhat decent resolution and recognizable features at that:

Holey carbon at 660.000x magnification

Of course, a lot of what we do at EDAX doesn’t really require great resolution or the newest instruments. While it’s always nice to have pretty pictures to go along with things, the X-rays don’t really care much about your astigmatism or spot size (unless you are trying to map of course). But there’s a significant difference in what you see in your spectra whether your electrons are hitting the sample with 15 kV or 120 kV. There are also very different considerations and limitations between a SEM and a TEM when it comes to actually mounting the detector, designing collimators, and even what materials can be used. With that being said, I hope that with my “new” lab partner we will move things along so that we can show you new applications, software, and hardware specifically for the TEM in the near future.