2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.ultramic.2020.113052
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Accurate EELS background subtraction – an adaptable method in MATLAB

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
11
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
1
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Hence similar conclusions can be obtained albeit that typically for EDX the SBR is significantly higher than for EELS explaining why it is commonly accepted that EDX is preferable when it comes to trace element detection even though the detection efficiency is considerably lower than for EELS [33]. Please note that this derivation takes only Poisson noise statistics into account and assumes an ideal detector and perfect background subtraction with no extrapolation and fitting error [34][35][36][37]. From Figure 6c one can conclude that also with conventional EELS we can detect low-concentration species in a surrounding matrix (low SBR situation) by choosing the current high enough.…”
Section: Low Concentration Detectionsupporting
confidence: 70%
“…Hence similar conclusions can be obtained albeit that typically for EDX the SBR is significantly higher than for EELS explaining why it is commonly accepted that EDX is preferable when it comes to trace element detection even though the detection efficiency is considerably lower than for EELS [33]. Please note that this derivation takes only Poisson noise statistics into account and assumes an ideal detector and perfect background subtraction with no extrapolation and fitting error [34][35][36][37]. From Figure 6c one can conclude that also with conventional EELS we can detect low-concentration species in a surrounding matrix (low SBR situation) by choosing the current high enough.…”
Section: Low Concentration Detectionsupporting
confidence: 70%
“…The ZLPs were removed from experimental spectra using two-term exponential functions on a window below 0.12 eV, preceding the first observable spectral feature of interest, using scripts written in MATLAB. 48 STEM images shown in Fig 3a,c were processed using a "difference of Gaussians" filter, 49 see Supporting Information S11 for original unprocessed images. Finally, fingerprinting of the single F atoms using EELS spectrum imaging was carried out on a non-monochromated Nion UltraSTEM100 microscope, operated at 60 kV.…”
Section: Materials Preparationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The ZLP is the peak in the EEL spectrum containing all elastic scattering and non‐interacting (no energy loss) electrons and for thin samples it is by far the dominant feature in the EEL spectrum (typically 3–5 orders of magnitude larger than the low‐loss signal); thus, small variations in the ZLP are dominant mathematically with respect to the real plasmonic peaks. This can be done in a number of ways, [ 30 ] either by simply cutting the spectral axis off at a channel above the ZLP or by performing a power law fit to the tail of the ZLP and subtracting it from each pixel in the SI. Furthermore, datasets must be cleaned to remove the small clusters of spectrometer channels with signal orders of magnitude higher than the surrounding channels that are caused by stray X‐rays hitting the scintillator in the spectrometer.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%