Re: [Ifeffit] Calculating Ce oxidation state at the L3 edge

2017-05-16 Thread Stephanie Laga
Thanks for the response Bruce

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Bruce Ravel  wrote:

> On 05/16/2017 01:31 PM, Stephanie Laga wrote:
>
>>
>> I have a (hopefully) quick question about calculating oxidation state of
>> CeO2 at the L3 edge.
>>
>> When calculating ox state by taking the ratio of peak areas, is the
>> pre-edge feature for Ce included in this calculation? This point isn't
>> clear to me from looking at various papers.
>>
>> I've attached an image from Bernardi 2015, which shows that the %Ce III
>> calculation doesn't include the fitted pre-edge feature A. I'm not sure
>> why this would not be included? Is this because we only consider 2p > 5d
>> transitions and the pre-edge is 2p > 4f (forbidden) transition?
>>
>>
>
> I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about CeO2 specifically to answer your
> question specifically.  However, there are some general principles that
> apply.
>
> The concept here is to come up with a set of peak shapes that describe the
> shapes of the end member spectra.  Those two sets of peaks, taken together,
> represent the contribution to the spectra from each end member.  Sum the
> areas of each set of peaks, that represents the contribution.
>
> You then fit all of both sets of peaks to an unknown spectrum and sum up
> each set.  You now have enough information to quantify the amount of each
> end member.
>
> So, in general, yes, you would include the fitted peak A because that is
> part of your quantification metric.  So, I disagree with the formula in the
> figure you attached.  But peak A is small, so neglecting it has scant
> impact on the result.
>
> Some caveats:
>
> 1. You must be very careful about normalization.  If you do not normalize
> consistently, then you will introduce systematic error in the phase
> quantification.
>
> 2. You must use the same step-like function for both end members and for
> the unknowns.  If the step function changes, then the areas under the peaks
> will change, introducing systematic error.
>
> It would be interesting to compare this to linear combination analysis to
> see if you get the same answers
>
> HTH,
> B
>
> --
>  Bruce Ravel   bra...@bnl.gov
>
>  National Institute of Standards and Technology
>  Synchrotron Science Group at NSLS-II
>  Building 743, Room 114
>  Upton NY, 11973
>
>  Homepage:http://bruceravel.github.io/home/
>  Software:https://github.com/bruceravel
>  Demeter: http://bruceravel.github.io/demeter/
> ___
> Ifeffit mailing list
> Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
> http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit
> Unsubscribe: http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/options/ifeffit
>
___
Ifeffit mailing list
Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit
Unsubscribe: http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/options/ifeffit


Re: [Ifeffit] Calculating Ce oxidation state at the L3 edge

2017-05-16 Thread Bruce Ravel

On 05/16/2017 01:31 PM, Stephanie Laga wrote:


I have a (hopefully) quick question about calculating oxidation state of
CeO2 at the L3 edge.

When calculating ox state by taking the ratio of peak areas, is the
pre-edge feature for Ce included in this calculation? This point isn't
clear to me from looking at various papers.

I've attached an image from Bernardi 2015, which shows that the %Ce III
calculation doesn't include the fitted pre-edge feature A. I'm not sure
why this would not be included? Is this because we only consider 2p > 5d
transitions and the pre-edge is 2p > 4f (forbidden) transition?




I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about CeO2 specifically to answer 
your question specifically.  However, there are some general principles 
that apply.


The concept here is to come up with a set of peak shapes that describe 
the shapes of the end member spectra.  Those two sets of peaks, taken 
together, represent the contribution to the spectra from each end 
member.  Sum the areas of each set of peaks, that represents the 
contribution.


You then fit all of both sets of peaks to an unknown spectrum and sum up 
each set.  You now have enough information to quantify the amount of 
each end member.


So, in general, yes, you would include the fitted peak A because that is 
part of your quantification metric.  So, I disagree with the formula in 
the figure you attached.  But peak A is small, so neglecting it has 
scant impact on the result.


Some caveats:

1. You must be very careful about normalization.  If you do not 
normalize consistently, then you will introduce systematic error in the 
phase quantification.


2. You must use the same step-like function for both end members and for 
the unknowns.  If the step function changes, then the areas under the 
peaks will change, introducing systematic error.


It would be interesting to compare this to linear combination analysis 
to see if you get the same answers


HTH,
B

--
 Bruce Ravel   bra...@bnl.gov

 National Institute of Standards and Technology
 Synchrotron Science Group at NSLS-II
 Building 743, Room 114
 Upton NY, 11973

 Homepage:http://bruceravel.github.io/home/
 Software:https://github.com/bruceravel
 Demeter: http://bruceravel.github.io/demeter/
___
Ifeffit mailing list
Ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit
Unsubscribe: http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/options/ifeffit