Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-p5m67 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-30T01:56:29.339Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Limits on the Accuracy of Stoichiometry Determined by Rutherford Backscattering Using Computer Peak Fitting.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2011

L. C. Mcintyre Jr ,
M. D. Ashbaugh  and
J. A. Leavitt
L. C. Mcintyre Jr
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721
M. D. Ashbaugh
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721
J. A. Leavitt
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721
Get access

Abstract

Rutherford Backscattering Spectrometry (RBS) using MeV ions is capable of routinely measuring absolute atomic areal densities to an accuracy of about 3% and relative areal densities to a fraction of 1% if the elastic scattering peaks from different elements do not overlap. The accuracy of areal density measurements can be seriously reduced in cases where the sample thickness is large enough to cause overlapping peaks. We report here an investigation of the use of standard computer fitting techniques to analyze overlapping peaks in elastic scattering spectra and its effect on the accuracy of the final results of an RBS analysis.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 93: Symposium C – Materials Modification and Growth Using Ion Beams , 1987 , 401
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

1. Obtained from Central Bureau for Nuclear Measurements, Steenweg op Retie, 2440 Geel, Belgium.Google Scholar
2. Borgesen, P., Behrisch, R., and Scherzer, B. M. U., Appl. Phys. A27, 183 (1982).Google Scholar
3. Sanders, P. A. and Ziegler, J.F., Nucl. Instrum. Methods 218, 67 (1983).Google Scholar
4. Rauhala, E., J. Appl. Phys. 56, 3324 (1984).Google Scholar
5. Doolittle, L. P., Nucl. Instrum. Methods B15, 227 (1986).Google Scholar
6. Li, W. and AI-Tamimi, A., Nucl. Instrum. Methods B15, 241 (1986).Google Scholar
7. Bevington, P. R., Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1969).Google Scholar
8. Leavitt, J. A., Nucl. Instrum. Methods (to be published).Google Scholar
9. Leavitt, J.A, Stoss, P., Cooper, D. B., Seerveld, J. L., McIntyre, L. C. Jr., Davis, R. E., Gutierrez, S., and Reith, T. M., Nucl. Instrum. Methods B15, 296, (1986).Google Scholar