Re: [Ifeffit] Ifeffit Digest, Vol 172, Issue 15
on in this case? >> (ii) >> The Ce4+ peak in the spectrum collected under condition (ii) has a much >> lower intensity. I think it is due to the reduction of Ce 4+ under vacuum, >> however, the Ce3+ peak does not show an increased signal here. Which makes >> ma doubt whether this is simply reduction of Ce *or might be from over >> absorption? * >> >> Thanks for any response. >> >> [image: Inline image 1] >> -- >> Regards, >> Weizi Yuan, >> Graduate Student, >> Northwestern University, >> Ph:(+1)312-560-9619 <(312)%20560-9619> >> -- next part -- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: <http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/pipermail/ifeffit/attachme >> nts/20170622/8538b4ae/attachment.html> >> -- next part -- >> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... >> Name: spectra.jpg >> Type: image/jpeg >> Size: 48213 bytes >> Desc: not available >> URL: <http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/pipermail/ifeffit/attachme >> nts/20170622/8538b4ae/attachment.jpg> >> >> -- >> >> Subject: Digest Footer >> >> ___ >> 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 >> >> >> -- >> >> End of Ifeffit Digest, Vol 172, Issue 15 >> >> > > > > -- > Regards, > Weizi Yuan, > Graduate Student, > Northwestern University, > Ph:(+1)312-560-9619 <(312)%20560-9619> > > ___ > 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] Ifeffit Digest, Vol 172, Issue 15
Hi Anatoly, Thanks for your quick response. Yes, I actually asked the self absorption question about CeO2 a few weeks ago. And your answer that it is due to self absorption leads me to study more about it and I appreciate it. In that last question, the strong attenuation of signal occurs in the incident angle = 0.6 o . However, when the incident angle is 3 o under room temperature ,air, the peak intensity is stronger than the CeO2 measured in transmission mode, which leads me to think that no over absorption correction needed here. And I try to conduct the correction which gives me crazily high (~9 after normalization) peak intensity. This makes me further confirm that no strong self absorption effect here. And if no strong self absorption in RT, air ,then why strong attenuation in RT, vacuum condition(case ii in my question)? For your answer,I am a little confused. Are you saying self absorption occurred in only case ii or in both cases, even though the result of case i spectrum has a higher signal than the transmission mode data? Thank you, Weizi On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:16 AM, wrote: > Send Ifeffit mailing list submissions to > ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > ifeffit-requ...@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov > > You can reach the person managing the list at > ifeffit-ow...@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Ifeffit digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > >1. Self absorption or Ce4+ reduction in the CeO2 film? (Weizi Yuan) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 10:11:05 -0500 > From: Weizi Yuan > To: ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov > Subject: [Ifeffit] Self absorption or Ce4+ reduction in the CeO2 film? > Message-ID: > gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Dear all, > I have measured some spectra of a CeO2 film(~200nm) grown on Yittria > stablized Zirconia(YSZ) substrate under 2 conditions. > (i) room temperature, ambient atmosphere > (ii) room temperature, vacuum (pO2~1E-6 atm) inside a graphite dome of the > DHS 1100 anton paar, > The spectra are collected in fluorescence mode. The incident angle is 3 o > and the fluorescence collection angle is 90 o. > > My questions are: > (i) From the theory behind the FLUO program developed Dr. Daniel Haskel, > CeO2 spectra collected with a 3 o incident angle *would have a strong self > absorption effect and need* > > correction , however, *the signal *is not attenuated compared with the > CeO2 powder taken in a transmission mode, shown in attached plot. > I've gone through many literature and people sometimes tell that whether > they have a successful self absorption correction by comparing the > spectrum with a spectrum taken under a transmission mode. > So I'm wondering if I can say that I don't need a self absorption > correction in this case? > (ii) > The Ce4+ peak in the spectrum collected under condition (ii) has a much > lower intensity. I think it is due to the reduction of Ce 4+ under vacuum, > however, the Ce3+ peak does not show an increased signal here. Which makes > ma doubt whether this is simply reduction of Ce *or might be from over > absorption? * > > Thanks for any response. > > [image: Inline image 1] > -- > Regards, > Weizi Yuan, > Graduate Student, > Northwestern University, > Ph:(+1)312-560-9619 > -- next part -- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: <http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/pipermail/ifeffit/ > attachments/20170622/8538b4ae/attachment.html> > -- next part -- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: spectra.jpg > Type: image/jpeg > Size: 48213 bytes > Desc: not available > URL: <http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/pipermail/ifeffit/ > attachments/20170622/8538b4ae/attachment.jpg> > > -- > > Subject: Digest Footer > > ___ > 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 > > > -- > > End of Ifeffit Digest, Vol 172, Issue 15 > > -- Regards, Weizi Yuan, Graduate Student, Northwestern University, Ph:(+1)312-560-9619 ___ 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] Self absorption or Ce4+ reduction in the CeO2 film?
Self absorption. There was a similar question a few weeks ago. Anatoly Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 22, 2017, at 11:11 AM, Weizi Yuan > wrote: > > Dear all, > I have measured some spectra of a CeO2 film(~200nm) grown on Yittria > stablized Zirconia(YSZ) substrate under 2 conditions. > (i) room temperature, ambient atmosphere > (ii) room temperature, vacuum (pO2~1E-6 atm) inside a graphite dome of the > DHS 1100 anton paar, > The spectra are collected in fluorescence mode. The incident angle is 3 o > and the fluorescence collection angle is 90 o. > > My questions are: > (i) From the theory behind the FLUO program developed Dr. Daniel Haskel, CeO2 > spectra collected with a 3 o incident angle would have a strong self > absorption effect and need > > correction , however, the signal is not attenuated compared with the CeO2 > powder taken in a transmission mode, shown in attached plot. > I've gone through many literature and people sometimes tell that whether > they have a successful self absorption correction by comparing the spectrum > with a spectrum taken under a transmission mode. > So I'm wondering if I can say that I don't need a self absorption correction > in this case? > (ii) > The Ce4+ peak in the spectrum collected under condition (ii) has a much lower > intensity. I think it is due to the reduction of Ce 4+ under vacuum, however, > the Ce3+ peak does not show an increased signal here. Which makes ma doubt > whether this is simply reduction of Ce or might be from over absorption? > > Thanks for any response. > > > -- > Regards, > Weizi Yuan, > Graduate Student, > Northwestern University, > Ph:(+1)312-560-9619 > ___ > 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
[Ifeffit] Self absorption or Ce4+ reduction in the CeO2 film?
Dear all, I have measured some spectra of a CeO2 film(~200nm) grown on Yittria stablized Zirconia(YSZ) substrate under 2 conditions. (i) room temperature, ambient atmosphere (ii) room temperature, vacuum (pO2~1E-6 atm) inside a graphite dome of the DHS 1100 anton paar, The spectra are collected in fluorescence mode. The incident angle is 3 o and the fluorescence collection angle is 90 o. My questions are: (i) From the theory behind the FLUO program developed Dr. Daniel Haskel, CeO2 spectra collected with a 3 o incident angle *would have a strong self absorption effect and need* correction , however, *the signal *is not attenuated compared with the CeO2 powder taken in a transmission mode, shown in attached plot. I've gone through many literature and people sometimes tell that whether they have a successful self absorption correction by comparing the spectrum with a spectrum taken under a transmission mode. So I'm wondering if I can say that I don't need a self absorption correction in this case? (ii) The Ce4+ peak in the spectrum collected under condition (ii) has a much lower intensity. I think it is due to the reduction of Ce 4+ under vacuum, however, the Ce3+ peak does not show an increased signal here. Which makes ma doubt whether this is simply reduction of Ce *or might be from over absorption? * Thanks for any response. [image: Inline image 1] -- Regards, Weizi Yuan, Graduate Student, Northwestern University, Ph:(+1)312-560-9619 ___ 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
