1957
DOI: 10.1021/ac60125a008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Monochromatic Diffraction-Absorption Technique for Direct Quantitative X-Ray Analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0
1

Year Published

1981
1981
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
5
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…A Pearson VII deconvolution was used to calculate the area under the diffraction peaks for crystallite size information. To determine the copper content within each sample, the spiking method developed by Lennox et al 37 was utilized to quantitatively analyze the samples through XRD. For each spiking run, approximately 0.1 g of Cu 2 O powders was successively added to 1 g of the powder samples.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A Pearson VII deconvolution was used to calculate the area under the diffraction peaks for crystallite size information. To determine the copper content within each sample, the spiking method developed by Lennox et al 37 was utilized to quantitatively analyze the samples through XRD. For each spiking run, approximately 0.1 g of Cu 2 O powders was successively added to 1 g of the powder samples.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The amount of Cu 2 O precipitated by the HT phase annealed at 450 °C was determined to be 19.8 mass %; that is, the composition of the HT phase was Cu 1.03 ZnGeO 3.515 ( R 2 = 0.9906), by the standard addition method (Figure S3). The composition of the sample annealed at 500 °C, which was calculated using the same method, was Cu 0.81 ZnGeO 3.405 ( R 2 = 0.9931). Figure shows the XRD patterns of the LT phase (initial Cu 2 ZnGeO 4 ) and HT phase (sample annealed in the vacuum-sealed ampule at 450 °C) and the simulated XRD patterns of Cu I 2– x ZnGeO 4– x /2 with copper deficiencies of x = 0, 0.5, and 1 using the lattice parameters of the HT phase.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fortunately, as shown below, density related factors cancel out in the fi nal expression for A(θ) and sample density evaluations are not required. By comparison, quantifi cation methods based on direct measurements of sample absorption coeffi cients are experimentally complicated and prone to systematic errors (e.g., Lennox 1957). Next, in taking mass absorption into account in the actual diffraction experiment, we consider that the radiation is transformed in successive steps as: (1) incident beam intensity, I o , (2) surviving incident intensity at depth d within the sample, after mass absorption removal, (3) scattering (both modifi ed and unmodifi ed) of the latter local incident radiation by the material at depth d, per elementary volume of material at depth d, and (4) surviving outgoing scattered radiation, after an additional mass absorption on exit from depth d within the sample.…”
Section: Mass Absorption Factormentioning
confidence: 99%