|
International
Tables for Crystallography Volume I X-ray absorption spectroscopy and related techniques Edited by C. T. Chantler, F. Boscherini and B. Bunker © International Union of Crystallography 2024 |
International Tables for Crystallography (2024). Vol. I. ch. 3.6, pp. 315-320
https://doi.org/10.1107/S1574870722003160 Chapter 3.6. Energy-scanning and energy-dispersive spectrometers for XAFSaEuropean Synchrotron Radiation Facility, 71 Avenue des Martyrs, 38000 Grenoble, France The main types of spectrometers currently used for XAFS measurements are described: energy-scanning and energy-dispersive spectrometers. The main characteristics and operation modes of each are provided. A critical assessment of their performance is also made with the aim of providing guidelines for the non-expert user, so that for a given scientific application, and depending on the specific technical requirements (energy resolution, time resolution etc.), an informed choice of the most appropriate spectrometer can be made. Keywords: energy-scanning XAS; energy-dispersive XAS; micro-XAS; continuous scan; quick-XAS. |
X-ray absorption spectroscopy (XAS) deals with measurement of the linear absorption coefficient μ(E) as a function of the X-ray photon energy E,where I and I0 are the incoming and transmitted X-ray flux (number of photons), respectively, and t is the thickness of the sample. Measurement of an absorption spectrum therefore implies access to an intense source of X-rays in a broad and continuous energy range and the ability to measure the incoming and transmitted photon flux as a function of energy in a wide energy range (∼500–2000 eV) at and beyond an absorption edge.
Today, spectrometers for XAS can be classified into two families: energy-scanning (ES) and energy-dispersive (ED) spectrometers (Fig. 1
).
The first synchrotron X-ray absorption fine-structure (XAFS) spectra were recorded in the 1970s at SPEAR in Stanford (Lytle, 2015
; Kincaid & Eisenberger, 1975
; Doniach et al., 1997
) using an ES spectrometer. This is the most common and versatile type of spectrometer for XAFS and is used in all fields of application for studies of bulk samples, surfaces and dilute systems. The development of synchrotron ED spectrometers followed (Matsushita & Phizackerley, 1981
), initially motivated by the need to track rapid changes in the local and electronic structure of absorbers in disordered systems (Tourillon et al., 1986
; Dent, 2002
). Energy-dispersive XAS (EDXAS) was later further developed for high-pressure applications (Itié et al., 1989
), studies of magnetism by X-ray magnetic circular dichroism (XMCD; Baudelet et al., 1991
), micro-XAS (Pascarelli et al., 2006
) and studies of matter under extreme conditions by coupling time resolution and a micrometre-sized spot (Mathon, Kantor et al., 2015
). Thanks to technological advances in mechanics, acquisition electronics and detection over the past 40 years, the time resolution achievable with ES and ED spectrometers has seen a major leap from minutes to milliseconds and from subseconds to nanoseconds, respectively (Frahm, 1988
; Dent, 2002
; Mathon, Kantor et al., 2015
). In parallel, advances in focusing optics, mechanical stability, control and feedback have favoured the development of micro-XAS applications in energy-scanning XAS (Newville et al., 1999
; Marcus et al., 2004
; Flank et al., 2006
; Mathon, Beteva et al., 2015
). Nowadays, the ES spectrometer is the main technology used on XAS beamlines at synchrotrons, whereas the ED spectrometer is mainly restricted to ultrafast applications at synchrotrons, XFELs and high-power laser facilities.
A description of early spectrometers for XAS can be found in the review paper by Caciuffo et al. (1987
). Today, the most commonly used ES spectrometers at synchrotron sources are based on the double-crystal monochromator (Beaumont & Hart, 1974
; Kohra et al., 1978
; Golovchenko et al., 1981
), as illustrated in Fig. 1
(top). The energy of the X-rays is selected by Bragg diffraction from the first crystal. The second crystal (parallel to the first) restores the initial direction of propagation. During XAFS scans, the two crystals must remain parallel to within a small fraction of the width of total reflection. At high energies (E > 50 keV) this can be a fraction of a microradian. Fig. 2
illustrates the two main types of double-crystal monochromator. A channel-cut crystal (Fig. 2
, top) is the simplest way of achieving a `double-crystal' monochromator setup. Fabricating the `first' and `second' crystals from a single piece of silicon ensures parallelism between the refracting planes without the necessity for mechanisms to maintain their alignment. Today, channel-cut monochromators are mainly used for fast XAS acquisitions (see Sections 2.2
and 2.3
). The exit position of the diffracted beam is a function of the Bragg angle and therefore changes during the energy scan, partially compensated with fixed-exit slits or feedback on the sample position. Fixed-exit double-crystal monchromators (Fig. 2
, bottom) use two independent crystals mounted on a common Bragg rotation axis. By rotating the Bragg angle, the energy of the diffracted beam can be tuned while maintaining a fixed exit position and direction with additional degrees of freedom, such as the translation of one crystal in one or two directions.
The energy resolution of a double-crystal monochromator is obtained directly from the derivative of Bragg's law,where Δθ is given by the beam divergence ψi, the width of the reflectivity profile ωD of the crystals and a term ψerr that accounts for Bragg plane deformation due to slope error, heat bump, crystal-clamping strain etc. added in quadrature:
The use of collimating mirrors helps to keep ψi low, and in modern ES spectrometers the energy resolution can approach intrinsic resolution values,
An energy-scanning spectrometer can operate in three different modes depending on the required time resolution (i.e. the total time required to measure a full XAS spectrum): step-by-step mode, continuous scan mode and oscillatory scan mode.
In this mode the Bragg angle is changed in a step-by-step manner through the full angular range. At each step, the values of the incident and transmitted intensity I and I0 are recorded. To cover an extended X-ray absorption fine-structure (EXAFS) spectrum, the Bragg angle is scanned over several degrees in angular steps, the amplitude of which generally varies as a function of energy. An efficient scan uses steps of several electronvolts to cover the pre-edge region (roughly ∼100 to ∼10 eV before the onset of absorption) and the smallest angular step (a function of the required energy resolution and typically a fraction of an electronvolt) to cover the energy interval close to the absorption edge. The EXAFS region is generally scanned using constant δk steps, where k is the photoelectron wavevector. A typical Cu K-edge EXAFS spectrum up to k = 20 Å−1 covers an energy range of the order of 1600 eV, with a minimum step at the edge of ∼0.5 eV and a total number of 700 steps. In step-by-step mode, the dwell time Δt per step includes the acquisition time δt and the sum of all other deadtimes (motor movement, vibration settling and detector deadtime). Synchrotron EXAFS spectra were recorded in the 1970s at SPEAR, Stanford, USA using a Si(220) channel-cut monochromator operated in step-by step mode (Kincaid & Eisenberger, 1975
). The flux on the sample was ∼108 photons eV−1 s−1, leading to a signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) of ∼104 with an integration time of 1 s per point. These presently remain typical acquisition times for concentrated samples measured in transmission mode in step-by-step mode, leading to a total duration of an EXAFS spectrum of ∼10–20 min.
Today, flux on a sample varies from 109 to 1013 photons s−1 and the S/N on bulk and moderately concentrated samples is almost never limited by the photon flux, but rather by mechanical instabilities of the monochromator as it is rotated from one position to another in the step-by-step scan. In the continuous-scan mode, the motors of the monochromator are moved in a continuous way while acquisition is performed on-the-fly. The first EXAFS spectrum ever measured at a synchrotron was recorded in continuous-scan mode at SPEAR in 1974. Using a Si(220) monochromator crystal rotating at 1.2 deg s−1 and a strip-chart recorder, a back-and-forth scan through the Cr K edge was recorded on a sample of stainless steel (Lytle, 2015
). A similar approach was adopted and further developed in the 1980s (Frahm, 1988
). Today, the angular speed of monochromators in continuous mode can be varied, typically from 0.001 to a few deg s−1, depending on the working energy and the required time resolution. The values of I, I0 and motor positions are read out simultaneously at a high frequency. Assuming an incoming flux of 109 photons s−1 (typical of bending-magnet XAS beamlines) and a transmitted flux of 108 photons s−1 (i.e. 106 photons over 10 ms), a total acquisition time of ∼10 s is required for a full XAS spectrum of 1000 points with an effective S/N of about 103. The continuous-scan mode was initially developed for time-resolved applications and was rapidly implemented at many synchrotrons (Lagarde et al., 1989
; Murphy et al., 1995
; Frahm et al., 1995
; Als-Nielsen et al., 1995
; Solé et al., 1999
; Prestipino et al., 2011
; Nonaka et al., 2012
). In recent years, it has become more and more popular at synchrotron XAS beamlines as a default operation mode as it leads to more efficient use of beamtime.
To match the timescale of kinetics of many chemical reactions, and to allow X-ray absorption near-edge structure (XANES) tomography, which requires the collection of several thousand scans, the time resolution can be pushed to below 1 s per spectrum by adapting both monochromator mechanics and data collection. Oscillating monochromators are based on a cam-driven tilt table in combination with a small-gap channel-cut crystal (Frahm et al., 2004
). In the oscillatory scan mode, the monochromator is oscillated continuously without any interruption around a central Bragg angle in a sinusoidal movement. Fast angular encoders are used to track the energy calibration. Typical oscillation speeds used are ∼10 Hz, leading to the recording of about 20 full XAS spectra in 1 s. With full ∼1000 eV spectra in 50 ms, a time response in the microsecond range is required for a spectral resolution of the order of 1 eV. This requires high-speed, low-noise current amplifiers (Müller et al., 2013
). Assuming an incoming flux of 1013 photons s−1 (typical of undulator XAS beamlines) and a transmitted flux of 1012 photons s−1, each point of the spectrum records ∼5 × 107 photons over ∼50 µs with an effective S/N of about 7 × 103. Oscillating monochromators have now been implemented on several synchrotron beamlines (Stötzel et al., 2010
; Fonda et al., 2012
; Müller et al., 2016
).
The ED spectrometer (Fig. 1
, bottom; Fig. 3
) employs a curved crystal to disperse and focus a polychromatic X-ray beam onto the sample (Matsushita & Phizackerley, 1981
). This crystal is named a polychromator by analogy with the monochromators used in ES spectrometers. In Bragg geometry, the crystal is curved into an elliptical shape. The ellipse can be approximated by a circle of radius R given by the well known relationship of cylindrical optics,where p, q and θ0 are the source–crystal and crystal–sample distances and the central Bragg angle, respectively. The source–crystal distance p is always much larger than the crystal–sample distance q (∼0.5–1 m), so the sample position falls within the so-called Rowland circle, the diameter of which is equal to the radius of curvature R of the crystal.
The Bragg angle of incidence varies continuously from one side of the crystal to the other. Consequently, the X-ray beam energy diffracted by the crystal also varies continuously from one side of the crystal to the other, introducing a correlation between the X-ray beam-propagation direction and its energy. The beam transmitted by the sample is then detected by a position-sensitive detector, where the energy–direction correlation introduced by the polychromator is transformed into an energy–position correlation.
In Fig. 3
, L is the horizontal dimension of the beam intercepted by the polychromator and L/sinθ0 is the footprint of the beam on the crystal surface. The full spectral range diffracted by the crystal, ΔE, is proportional to the variation of the Bragg angle θ along the beam footprint on the crystal, Δθ, where E0 is the central energy. Equation (4)
highlights an important limitation of EDXAS: at low energies, the full spectral range diffracted by the polychromator ΔE is strongly reduced due to the cotθ factor.
Δθ can be calculated from p, R, L and θ0 by
Equation (5)
is valid as long as L/sinθ0 is smaller than the useful length of the polychromator crystal. In general, EDXAS spectrometers are installed on synchrotron sources with a large horizontal divergence, which easily provides a large beam footprint on the surface of the crystal to provide a sufficiently large energy bandwidth to cover a full EXAFS spectrum in a single shot.
The energy resolution of an energy-dispersive spectrometer depends on the central energy E0, the crystal diffracting planes (h, k, l), the focusing distance q and the detector position d. Equation (4)
can be used, but Δθ is now the effective angular acceptance δθ, which includes three contributions δθ1, δθ2 and δθ3 that derive from the spatial resolution of the detector, the size of the X-ray source and the width of the reflectivity profile of the curved polychromator crystal, respectively:
Generally, the source-size contribution δθ2 can be neglected at third-generation synchrotron sources. The term δθ3 is very often the limiting factor in ED spectrometers. This contribution increases with the crystal curvature (i.e. for small q) and with energy due to penetration-depth effects (Hagelstein et al., 1995
). It is small at 7 keV and becomes dominant at 18 keV for a Si(111) crystal. Further details can be found in Pascarelli et al. (2006
) and Pascarelli et al. (2016
).
The ED spectrometer can be operated in different modes, depending on the application.
In `movie' mode, the ED spectrometer acts as a fast camera that records the time evolution of the XAS signal throughout the dynamic process. The time resolution is given by the maximum repetition rate of the detector, which accounts for the minimum exposure time and the deadtime between exposures. Phenomena on timescales of a few milliseconds have been investigated with repetition rates as fast as a few tens of microseconds. This mode has been applied to study reaction mechanisms and intermediates (Bal et al., 2006
; Kong et al., 2012
), structural and chemical phase transitions induced by rapid heating (Marini et al., 2014
; Kantor et al., 2014
) and, more recently, the kinetics of pressure-induced phase transitions (Dewaele et al., 2016
). For a more detailed review, see Mathon, Kantor et al. (2015
).
Below the ∼10 µs regime, the time structure of the synchrotron cannot be neglected and it becomes necessary to perform the experiment in pump-and-probe mode using single X-ray bunches. In this mode, the time resolution is defined by the delay between the pump (start) and the probe (stop). The time resolution is then limited either by the duration of the pump or by the duration of the probe. In practice, at synchrotrons, the time resolution is very often limited by the duration of the X-ray bunch, i.e. around 100 ps. The time evolution of a reversible phenomenon can be studied by varying the delay between the pump and the probe over many pump-and-probe cycles (Tromp et al., 2013
). However, the real added value of using an ED spectrometer in pump-and-probe mode is when the experiment is nonreversible; for example, when the pump itself is not perfectly reproducible (i.e. the energy delivered by the laser is not constant shot to shot) or when the sample is damaged or destroyed at the end of each pump-and-probe cycle. An example of the latter application is the study of dynamically compressed matter induced by pulsed laser sources, which allows the exploration of extreme states of matter that mimic conditions in the interior of the Earth and other planets. Recent work aimed at probing the electronic and local structure in iron under conditions of pressure and temperature that go well beyond those in the Earth's core, where iron is highly compressed but no longer solid, has shown that third-generation synchrotrons provide sufficient flux to record analyzable XANES and EXAFS using a single 100 ps X-ray pulse (Torchio et al., 2016
).
With ES spectrometers the sample is illuminated by monochromatic radiation with a defined energy and propagation direction at each step in the scan. This allows photon-in photon-out spectroscopic techniques, such as X-ray emission spectroscopy (XES), to be applied. There are important advantages for XAFS. One of these is the possibility of increasing the sensitivity to dilute species by detecting photons emitted from element-specific de-excitation processes (i.e. total fluorescence yield). On the other hand, the parallel detection of the full XAS spectrum in ED spectrometers relies on the sample being illuminated by a polychromatic divergent X-ray beam: photon-in photon-out spectroscopic techniques are not applicable. In other words, EDXAS only works in transmission geometry. This has the important drawback of low sensitivity to dilute species. By giving up parallel detection over the full energy range and using a sequential acquisition mode (Pascarelli et al., 1999
), energy-dispersive spectrometers have demonstrated the capacity for fast time-resolved XAS studies in fluorescence mode (Nagai et al., 2008
).
For high-resolution spectroscopic applications, ES spectrometers have several advantages. By using perfect, flat crystals and an appropriate optical scheme, the energy resolution of the incoming beam can approach the intrinsic resolution (equation 2
). On the other hand, ED spectrometers rely on the use of curved crystals, and in the more commonly used Bragg geometry the energy resolution is affected by broadening of the reflectivity curve, especially at high X-ray energies where the penetration depth into the crystal is important.
Another important advantage of photon-in photon-out spectroscopies is the possibility of recording XAS spectra with an energy resolution beyond the core-hole lifetime of the absorbing atom by using high-resolution crystal analysers to analyse the energy of the emitted photons (Hämäläinen et al., 1991
). With ED spectrometers, the energy resolution is always limited by core-hole lifetime broadening.
ES spectrometers have to provide a very good repeatability for successive scans. The requirements for precision and repeatability are close to ΔE/E = 1 × 10−5 and ΔE/E = 1 × 10−6, respectively. This is not an issue for ED spectrometers as the spectrum is acquired with no moving components. Thermal stability issues may affect both spectrometers.
A critical requirement for XAFS spectrometers is the ability to provide a highly stable X-ray beam on the sample in both energy scale and position. From this point of view, the ED spectrometer has superior properties since the full absorption spectrum is acquired with no moving components, as opposed to one or more motorized movements in the ES spectrometer, leading to an efficient reduction in nonstatistical noise. This feature has been exploited for the measurement of femtometre atomic displacements in magnetostrictive FeCo films (Pettifer et al., 2005
), as well as for 3d metal K-edge XMCD studies in the multi-megabar regime (Torchio et al., 2014
).
The speed of acquisition of a full EXAFS spectrum is an important parameter. Both kinds of spectrometers are used for time-resolved studies, but the ED spectrometer provides an intrinsically high acquisition speed thanks to the parallel detection scheme, which makes it particularly useful in the investigation of very fast processes. The time required to measure a full spectrum is limited by the detector-readout speed in `movie mode' or by the X-ray pulse length (∼100 ps) in `pump–probe' mode (Torchio et al., 2016
). ES spectrometers have seen much development in this field in recent years, and the acquisition time for a full EXAFS spectrum is now approaching the 10 ms timescale (Müller et al., 2015
).
Whereas the energy range of application of ES spectrometers is very wide, covering the full X-ray range available at synchrotrons (from roughly 2 to 80 keV), the ED spectrometer has a limitation at low energies because the energy bandwidth of the diffracted polychromatic fan range scales with the cotangent of the Bragg angle (see equation 4
): below ∼5 keV the EXAFS k-range is severely limited and only XANES is available.
Both kinds of spectrometer can be used to follow the time evolution of reversible phenomena in pump–probe mode. ES spectrometers are operated in step-by-step mode: at each energy step the pump–probe cycle is repeated N times until a sufficient signal-to-noise ratio is achieved in the measurement of the absorption coefficient at a given energy. Once the full spectrum has been recorded, the time delay δt is changed and the full procedure is repeated (Chen et al., 1999
; Oyanagi et al., 2001
; Bressler & Chergui, 2004
). ED spectrometers have been utilized to follow the time evolution of reversible phenomena (Tromp et al., 2013
). However, as mentioned in Section 3.2
, the real added value of using an ED spectrometer in pump-and-probe mode is when the experiment is nonreversible (Torchio et al., 2016
).
With the development of diffraction-limited storage rings, the XAFS community will see major developments aimed at optimizing the performance of both ES and ED spectrometers to match the enhanced brilliance. For the ES spectrometer, continuous scanning is expected to become the default operation mode. This will require the development of new control solutions to allow the monochromator to trigger other beamline elements, such as detectors, the source (undulator gaps and phases), position-feedback loops or other sample-environment controls. The link between all of these elements may be more complex than a linear relationship. ES spectrometers will develop faster scanning coupled to higher stability to cater for increasing application in 2D and 3D hyperspectral mapping and submicrometre EXAFS.
For ED spectrometers, major advances can be expected in detector developments. New microstrip-based detectors have specifically been developed by the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) UK for ultrafast ED X-ray spectroscopy studies (Headspith et al., 2003
, 2007
; Borri et al., 2020
, 2021
). Recent upgrades of the electronics now allow a gating time below 100 ns, high repetition-rate performance up to 355 kHz and an excellent system linearity (better than 0.1%). In `movie mode', a complete image (exposure plus readout time) can be recorded in less than 3 µs, with an almost infinite number of frames. The coupling of higher brilliance synchrotron beamlines with this and future versions of microstrip detectors will open the way to kinetic studies of nonreversible processes on the microsecond timescale.
References
Als-Nielsen, J., Grübel, G. & Clausen, B. S. (1995). Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B, 97, 522–525.Google Scholar
Bal, R., Tada, M., Sasaki, T. & Iwasawa, Y. (2006). Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 45, 448–452.Google Scholar
Baudelet, F., Dartyge, E., Fontaine, A., Brouder, C., Krill, G., Kappler, J. P. & Piecuch, M. (1991). Phys. Rev. B, 43, 5857–5866.Google Scholar
Beaumont, J. H. & Hart, M. (1974). J. Phys. E Sci. Instrum. 7, 823–829.Google Scholar
Borri, M., Cohen, C., Fox, O., Groves, J., Helsby, W., Mathon, O., McNicholl, L., Pascarelli, S., Sawhney, K., Torchio, R. & Zuvic, M. (2020). Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 988, 164932.Google Scholar
Borri, M., Cohen, C., Groves, J., Helsby, W., Mathon, O., McNicholl, L., Pascarelli, S., Sévelin-Radiguet, N., Torchio, R. & Zuvic, M. (2021). Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 1017, 165800.Google Scholar
Bressler, C. & Chergui, M. (2004). Chem. Rev. 104, 1781–1812.Google Scholar
Caciuffo, R., Melone, S., Rustichelli, F. & Boeuf, A. (1987). Phys. Rep. 152, 1–71.Google Scholar
Chen, L. X., Lee, P. L., Gosztola, D., Svec, W. A., Montano, P. A. & Wasielewski, M. R. J. (1999). J. Phys. Chem. B, 103, 3270–3274.Google Scholar
Dent, A. (2002). Top. Catal. 18, 27–35.Google Scholar
Dewaele, A., André, R., Occelli, F., Mathon, O., Pascarelli, S., Irifune, T. & Loubeyre, P. (2016). High Press. Res. 36, 237–249.Google Scholar
Doniach, S., Hodgson, K., Lindau, I., Pianetta, P. & Winick, H. (1997). J. Synchrotron Rad. 4, 380–395.Google Scholar
Flank, A. M., Cauchon, G., Lagarde, P., Bac, S., Janousch, M., Wetter, R., Dubuisson, J. M., Idir, M., Langlois, F., Moreno, T. & Vantelon, D. (2006). Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B, 246, 269–274.Google Scholar
Fonda, E., Rochet, A., Ribbens, M., Barthe, L., Belin, S. & Briois, V. (2012). J. Synchrotron Rad. 19, 417–424.Google Scholar
Frahm, R. (1988). Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 270, 578–581.Google Scholar
Frahm, R. Griesebock, B., Richwin, M. & Lützenkirchen-Hecht, B. (2004). AIP Conf. Proc. 705, 1411–1414.Google Scholar
Frahm, R., Weigelt, J., Meyer, G. & Materlik, G. (1995). Rev. Sci. Instrum. 66, 1677–1680.Google Scholar
Golovchenko, J. A., Levesque, R. A. & Cowan, P. L. (1981). Rev. Sci. Instrum. 52, 509–516.Google Scholar
Hagelstein, M., Ferrero, C., Hatje, U., Ressler, T. & Metz, W. (1995). J. Synchrotron Rad. 2, 174–180.Google Scholar
Hämäläinen, K., Siddons, D. P., Hastings, J. B. & Berman, L. E. (1991). Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 2850–2853.Google Scholar
Headspith, J., Groves, J., Luke, P. N., Kogirntzis, M., Salvini, G., Thomas, S. L., Farrow, R. C., Evans, J., Rayment, T., Lee, J. S., Goward, W. D., Amman, A., Mathon, O. & Diaz-Moreno, S. (2007). 2007 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium Conference Record, pp. 2421–2428. Piscataway: IEEE.Google Scholar
Headspith, J., Salvini, G., Thomas, S. L., Derbyshire, G., Dent, A., Rayment, T., Evans, J., Farrow, R., Anderson, C., Cliche, J. & Dobson, B. R. (2003). Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A, 512, 239–244.Google Scholar
Itié, J.-P., Polian, A., Calas, G., Petiau, J., Fontaine, A. & Tolentino, H. (1989). Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 398–401.Google Scholar
Kantor, I., Labiche, J.-C., Collet, E., Siron, L., Thevenin, J.-J., Ponchut, C., Borrel, J., Mairs, T., Marini, C., Strohm, C., Mathon, O. & Pascarelli, P. (2014). J. Synchrotron Rad. 21, 1240–1246.Google Scholar
Kincaid, B. M. & Eisenberger, P. (1975). Phys. Rev. Lett. 34, 1361–1364.Google Scholar
Kohra, K., Ando, M., Matsushita, T. & Hashizume, H. (1978). Nucl. Instrum. Methods, 152, 161–166.Google Scholar
Kong, Q., Baudelet, F., Han, J., Chagnot, S., Barthe, L., Headspith, J., Goldsbrough, R., Picca, F. E. & Spalla, O. (2012). Sci. Rep. 2, 1018.Google Scholar
Lagarde, P., Lemonnier, M. & Dexpert, H. (1989). Physica B, 158, 337–338.Google Scholar
Lytle, F. (2015). Synchrotron Radiat. News, 28(4), 30.Google Scholar
Marcus, M. A., MacDowell, A. A., Celestre, R., Manceau, A., Miller, T., Padmore, H. A. & Sublett, R. E. (2004). J. Synchrotron Rad. 11, 239–247.Google Scholar
Marini, C., Occelli, F., Mathon, O., Torchio, R., Recoules, V., Pascarelli, S. & Loubeyre, P. (2014). J. Appl. Phys. 115, 093513.Google Scholar
Mathon, O., Beteva, A., Borrel, J., Bugnazet, D., Gatla, S., Hino, R., Kantor, I., Mairs, T., Munoz, M., Pasternak, S., Perrin, F. & Pascarelli, S. (2015). J. Synchrotron Rad. 22, 1548–1554.Google Scholar
Mathon, O., Kantor, I. & Pascarelli, S. (2015). X-ray Absorption and X-ray Emission Spectroscopy: Theory and Applications, edited by J. van Bokhoven & C. Lamberti, pp. 185–212. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Matsushita, T. & Phizackerley, R. P. (1981). Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 20, 2223–2228.Google Scholar
Müller, O., Nachtegaal, M., Just, J., Lützenkirchen-Hecht, D. & Frahm, R. (2016). J. Synchrotron Rad. 23, 260–266.Google Scholar
Müller, O., Lützenkirchen-Hecht, D. & Frahm, R. (2015). Rev. Sci. Instrum. 86, 093905.Google Scholar
Müller, O., Stötzel, J., Lützenkirchen-Hecht, D. & Frahm, R. (2013). J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 425, 092010.Google Scholar
Murphy, L. M., Dobson, B. R., Neu, M., Ramsdale, C. A., Strange, R. W. & Hasnain, S. S. (1995). J. Synchrotron Rad. 2, 64–69.Google Scholar
Nagai, S., Dohmae, K., Ikeda, Y., Takagi, N., Tanabe, T., Hara, N., Guilera, G., Pascarelli, S., Newton, M. A., Kuno, O., Jiang, H., Shinjoh, H. & Matsumoto, S. (2008). Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 47, 9303–9306.Google Scholar
Newville, M., Sutton, S. R., Rivers, M. L. & Eng, P. (1999). J. Synchrotron Rad. 6, 353–355.Google Scholar
Nonaka, T., Dohmae, K., Araki, T., Hayashi, Y., Hirose, Y., Uruga, T., Yamazaki, H., Mochizuki, T., Tanida, H. & Goto, S. (2012). Rev. Sci. Instrum. 83, 083112.Google Scholar
Oyanagi, H., Kolobov, A. & Tanaka, K. (2001). Phase Transit. 74, 235–254.Google Scholar
Pascarelli, S., Mathon, O., Mairs, T., Kantor, I., Agostini, G., Strohm, C., Pasternak, S., Perrin, F., Berruyer, G., Chappelet, P., Clavel, C. & Dominguez, M. C. (2016). J. Synchrotron Rad. 23, 353–368.Google Scholar
Pascarelli, S., Mathon, O., Muñoz, M., Mairs, T. & Susini, J. (2006). J. Synchrotron Rad. 13, 351–358.Google Scholar
Pascarelli, S., Neisius, T. & De Panfilis, S. (1999). J. Synchrotron Rad. 6, 1044–1050.Google Scholar
Pettifer, R. F., Mathon, O., Pascarelli, S., Cooke, M. D. & Gibbs, M. R. J. (2005). Nature, 435, 78–81.Google Scholar
Prestipino, C., Mathon, O., Hino, R., Beteva, A. & Pascarelli, S. (2011). J. Synchrotron Rad. 18, 176–182.Google Scholar
Solé, V. A., Gauthier, C., Goulon, J. & Natali, F. (1999). J. Synchrotron Rad. 6, 174–175.Google Scholar
Stötzel, J., Lützenkirchen-Hecht, D. & Frahm, R. (2010). Rev. Sci. Instrum. 81, 073109.Google Scholar
Torchio, R., Mathon, O. & Pascarelli, S. (2014). Coord. Chem. Rev. 277–278, 80–94.Google Scholar
Torchio, R., Occelli, F., Mathon, O., Sollier, A., Lescoute, E., Videau, L., Vinci, T., Benuzzi-Mounaix, A., Headspith, J., Helsby, W., Bland, S., Eakins, D., Chapman, D., Pascarelli, S. & Loubeyre, P. (2016). Sci. Rep. 6, 26402.Google Scholar
Tourillon, G., Dartyge, E., Fontaine, A. & Jucha, A. (1986). Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 603–606.Google Scholar
Tromp, M., Dent, A. J., Headspith, J., Easun, T. L., Sun, X. Z., George, M. W., Mathon, O., Smolentsev, G., Hamilton, M. L. & Evans, J. (2013). J. Phys. Chem. B, 117, 7381–7387.Google Scholar