Inter‐laboratory comparison: Quantitative surface analysis of thin Fe‐Ni alloy films

Abstract

An international interlaboratory comparison of the measurement capabilities of four National Metrology Institutes (NMIs) and one Designated Institute (DI) in the determination of the chemical composition of thin Fe-Ni alloy films was conducted via a key comparison (K-67) of the Surface Analysis Working Group of the Consultative Committee for Amount of Substance. This comparison was made using XPS (four laboratories) and AES (one laboratory) measurements. The uncertainty budget of the measured chemical composition of a thin alloy film was dominated by the uncertainty of the certified composition of a reference specimen which had been determined by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry using the isotope dilution method. Pilot study P-98 showed that the quantification using relative sensitivity factors (RSFs) of Fe and Ni derived from an alloy reference sample results in much more accurate result in comparison to an approach using RSFs derived from pure Fe and Ni films. The individual expanded uncertainties of the participants in the K-67 comparison were found to be between 2.88 and 3.40 atomic %. The uncertainty of the key comparison reference value (KCRV) calculated from individual standard deviations and a coverage factor (k) of 2 was 1.23 atomic %.

Regular Dimpled Nickel Surfaces for Improved Efficiency of the Oxygen Evolution Reaction

“…and 654 eV are not present in the spectrum. 54,55 The lack of distinct Fe Auger transitions that do not overlap with the Ni LMM peaks suggests that Fe impurities are either not present in the surfaces of the Ni after the aging process, or are below the detection limits of this surface spectroscopy technique. The results were similar for the L3M2,3M2,3, L3M2,3M4,5, and L3M4,5M4,5…”

Fluorinated Boron‐Dipyrromethene (BODIPY) Dyes: Bright and Versatile Probes for Surface Analysis

“…Nonspecific adsorption and binding can result in enhanced background fluorescence and quenching phenomena. In addition, whereas XPS measurements can provide quantitative results that are traceable to a primary standard, [30,31] absolute fluorescence measurements are an intrinsically difficult task already for ideally dilute solutions, [32] and most fluorescence techniques only provide relative results. On the other hand, fluorescence scanning techniques are much faster, non-destructive and technically as well as methodologically much simpler than XPS.…”

Atomic spectrometry update: review of advances in the analysis of metals, chemicals and materials

“…There have been many reports during the period under review of the use of multiple techniques in the characterisation of thin lm materials. For example, the outcome of an interlaboratory comparison of surface analysis techniques for the characterisation of Fe-Ni alloy thin lms has been published by Kim et al 262 This work was carried out under the auspices of Surface Analysis Working Group of the Consultative Committee for Amount of Substance by four National Metrology Institutes and one Designated Institute. Four laboratories used XPS and one used Auger Electron Spectroscopy for the analysis.…”