Influence of different mass absorption coefficient datasets on PIXE yields

Abstract

Tabulated mass absorption coefficient data from the XCOM, Chantler and ion beam analysis (IBA) Handbook are compared, and differences are shown against X‐ray energy and target atomic number. Over the X‐ray energy range 1–40 keV systematic differences of several tens of percent are noted between these datasets, particularly for the earlier IBA Handbook dataset. The influence of these different mass absorption coefficients on the X‐ray yields for thick target proton‐induced X‐ray emission (PIXE) are investigated and compared as a function of X‐ray energy and target atomic number. For contemporary experimental PIXE users trying to work quantitatively over a broad range of elements and X‐ray energies, differences between PIXE results obtained using these three separate mass attenuation coefficient datasets can be larger than the typical accuracy limits of ±3% to ±5%. There are systematic differences in the mass attenuation coefficients of 5–10% between the XCOM and Chantler, while the differences for the IBA Handbook dataset can be larger (up to 40% and greater) at high X‐ray energies. At this time, we recommend the dataset of Chantler as it is more recent, and the synchrotron experimental results seem to favour it over the older XCOM and IBA Handbook data. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

High resolution energy dispersive spectrometry (HiREDS), a new tool for X-ray emission work

“…Mass attenuation coefficients, being a very important set of fundamental parameters for proper matrix effect corrections, have seen important developments to become available in literature recently. 14,15 In this case, experimental data are essentially independent of the type of detector used, even though small indirect effects may be present due to uncertainties on absorption edge and transition energy values.…”

Role of the mass attenuation coefficient database in standardization of a silicon drift X‐ray detector for PIXE analysis

“…The dependence of Y 1 ( Z ) on MACs is nonlinear due to the involvement of MACs in the exponential expression for X‐ray transmission, and there is no possibility of cancelation. Siegele and Cohen have recently drawn attention to differences among three attenuation coefficient databases, for which details are in the next section. They computed PIXE yields for various targets using these three sources and keeping all other quantities constant.…”

“…Some are based on published experimental data, some are composed entirely of theoretical values, and others are a mixture. Those compared by Siegele and Cohen were the very widely used theoretical tabulations XCOM and FFAST, both available on the website of the NIST, together with the 1967 Theissen and Vollath tables published in the now superseded 1971 Handbook of Ion Beam Analysis .…”