International
Tables for Crystallography Volume C Mathematical, physical and chemical tables Edited by E. Prince © International Union of Crystallography 2006 |
International Tables for Crystallography (2006). Vol. C. ch. 5.2, pp. 498-499
|
The use of properly characterized materials is an important step in determining the performance characteristics of instruments and methods. The best documented and most widely used standards for powder diffraction are those from the [US] National Institute of Standards and Technology2 (Dragoo, 1986).
Such standards are used as specimens in diffractometers and cameras for angular calibration to determine systematic errors in the observed 2θ's for profile shapes and in intensities for quantitative analysis and for determining instrumental line profiles. The standard may be used separately as an independent specimen (`external standard'), or mixed with the powder to be investigated (`internal standard'). Some examples of the use of standards are given by Hubbard (1983) and Wong-Ng & Hubbard (1987).
The current silicon-powder standard for 2θ calibration is Standard Reference Material (hereinafter abbreviated SRM) 640c; SRM 640, SRM 640a and SRM 640b are no longer available, but data for all four are listed in Table 5.2.10.1 for the use of workers who may still have stocks of the earlier standards. The median particle size (mass-weighted distribution) is about 5 µm, and 95% of the particles are < 10 µm. There is a wide range of particle sizes in SRM 640, and sieving is necessary to remove the larger particles. The agreement between SRM's 640 and 640a and between 640 and 640b is one part in 10−5, and between 640a and 640b is two parts in 10−5. The accuracy is given as for each. All were calculated by the use of the Deslattes & Henins (1973) Cu wavelength of 1.5405981 Å, without refraction correction, and corrected to 298 K. Because this wavelength was later found to have a systematic error (see Section 4.2.2 ), and a more accurate value, 1.5405929 (5) Å (see Table 4.2.2.1 ), is now available, this wavelength was used for SRM 640c, with the temperature adjusted to 295.6 K. The data for the earlier SRMs have also been adjusted to reflect this more accurate wavelength.
|
Table 5.2.10.2 lists the reflection angles for silicon 640c, silver and tungsten calculated from the adjusted NIST lattice parameters and the Table 4.2.2.1 value for the Cu wavelength. Table 5.2.10.3 lists the reflection angles of silicon 640c calculated from the Table 4.2.2.1 wavelengths for Mo , Cr and other wavelengths selected for synchrotron radiation users. The high-angle reflections of silicon for Mo are listed in Table 5.2.10.4. NIST does not provide a tungsten standard, but reflection angles calculated from a = 3.16523 (4) Å at 298 K for Cu Kα1 = 1.5405929 Å are given in Table 5.2.10.2 and in Table 5.2.10.5 for a number of other wavelengths.
|
|
|
|
For calibration at small diffraction angles, NIST provides fluorophlogopite, a synthetic mica, as SRM 675. The (001) lattice spacing, adjusted for the revised wavelength of Cu , is 9.98101 (7) Å at 298 K. Table 5.2.10.6 lists the diffraction angles for Cu . NIST advises mixing it with silicon because the higher-angle reflections may be in error because of specimen transparency. SRM 675 was purposely prepared as large particles (up to 75 µm) to encourage preferred orientation of the mica flakes; only the 00l reflections are then observed. The first reflection with Cu radiation for SRM 675 occurs at 8.853° (2θ) (Table 5.2.10.6) and a material that extends the coverage of NIST SRMs down to very low angles is silver behenate (Huang, Toraya, Blanton & Wu, 1993). The long spacing for this material, obtained with synchrotron radiation and by using SRM 640a as an internal standard, is d001= 58.380 (3) Å and, for Cu radiation, there are 13 well defined and evenly spaced 00l reflections in the range 1.5 to 20°(2θ) (Table 5.2.10.7). This material is suitable for use as an external or an internal low-angle calibration standard for the analysis of materials with large unit-cell dimensions and modulated multilayers with large layer periodicity.
|
|
Although the reflection angles are given to three decimal places in the tables in this section, the accuracy is lower by an amount that is not known with certainty. The lower accuracy arises from three factors: uncertainties in the lattice parameters of the W and Ag internal standards, the experimental precision, and the methods used. The wavelength given in Table 4.2.2.1 is far more accurate than these factors. The tables can probably be used to two places of decimals, the 2θ errors increasing with increasing 2θ.
In using an external standard for calibrating an instrument (without a wide receiving slit), it is essential to minimize specimen-surface displacement, which shifts the measured position of the reflection (Subsection 5.2.3.1). The amount of the shift and even its direction may vary when the specimen is remounted, and it is advisable to make several measurements after removal and replacement, in order to determine the degree of reproducibility. Specimen transparency is equivalent to a variable specimen-surface displacement, since the effective depth of penetration varies with the angle of incidence of the beam. The maximum shift occurs at 2θ equal to 90°, and it vanishes at 0 and 180°. For example, for silicon, the linear absorption coefficient is 133 cm−1 for λ = 1.54 Å and 15 cm−1 for 0.7 Å, shifting the 422 reflection by −0.01° at 88° and −0.05° at 37°, respectively. It should be noted that SRM silicon 640b, as supplied by NIST, exhibits measurable sample broadening (van Berkum, Sprong, de Keijser, Delhez & Sonneveld, 1995) and is thus not suitable for determining instrumental line profiles.
References
Berkum, J. van, Sprong, G. J. M., de Keijser, Th. H., Delhez, R. & Sonneveld, E. J. (1995). The optimum standard specimen for X-ray diffraction line-profile analysis. Powder Diffr. 10, 129–139.Google ScholarDeslattes, R. D. & Henins, A. (1973). X-ray to visible wavelength ratios. Phys. Rev. Let. 31, 972–975.Google Scholar
Dragoo, A. L. (1986). Standard reference materials for X-ray diffraction. Part I. Overview of current and future standard reference materials. Powder Diffr. 1, 294–304.Google Scholar
Huang, T. C., Toraya, H., Blanton, T. N. & Wu, Y. (1993). X-ray powder diffraction analysis of silver behenate, a possible low-angle diffraction standard. J. Appl. Cryst. 26, 180–184.Google Scholar
Hubbard, C. R. (1983). New standard reference materials for X-ray powder diffraction. Adv. X-ray Anal. 26, 45–51.Google Scholar
Hubbard, C. R., Swanson, H. É. & Mauer, F. A. (1975). A silicon powder diffraction standard reference material. J. Appl. Cryst. 8, 45–48.Google Scholar
Wong-Ng, W. & Hubbard, C. R. (1987). Standard reference materials for X-ray diffraction. Part II. Calibration using d-spacing standards. Powder Diffr. 2, 242–248.Google Scholar