Study of the Peak to Background (P/B) Method Behavior as a Function of Take-Off Angle, Tilt Angle, Particle Size, and Beam Energy.

Seyed Mahmoud Bayazid,Yu Yuan,Raynald Gauvin,Jason L. Pitters

doi:10.1155/2021/8070721

Abstract

Monte Carlo simulations were performed to investigate the behavior of the peak to background ratio (P/B) of particles on a substrate as a function of different variables such as take-off angle, tilt angle, particle size, and beam energy. The results showed that the P/B highly depends on the beam energy, the size of particles, and the composition of the substrates. Results showed that the rate of intensity reduction of the peak is less than the background for a high tilt angle (60 degrees), and thereby, the P/B increases at a high tilt angle. It was shown that by increasing the take-off angle, the P/B initially reduces and then reaches a plateau. Results showed that the P/B highly depends on the size of particles. Analyses showed that by moving the electron beam from the center to the side of the particle, the P/B increases. Finally, the spherical particles have higher sensitivity of the P/B to the beam position than the cubical particles.

Highlights

Converting the X-ray intensity into concentration for nonflat samples has been challenging for decades
The peak to background (P/B) was analyzed while beam energy, tilt angle, take-off angle, and particle size were changing
It was shown that the P/B highly depends on beam energy and the size of particles, but it relies on substrates

Summary

Introduction

Converting the X-ray intensity into concentration for nonflat samples has been challenging for decades Conventional methods such as ZAF or φ(ρz) methods are valid for specimens with homogeneous composition and flat surfaces [1]. In the case of rough surfaces, the P/B method [6,7,8] was proposed as a quantitative model, which is an extension of the MarshallHall model [9, 10] for the correction of mass loss in beamsensitive materials Declared by this method, the P/B is constant at any location on the rough surface, and that this ratio is the same as that of bulk material of the same composition having a flat surface.

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion