1 / 20

Synergies between powder diffraction and electron microscopy

Synergies between powder diffraction and electron microscopy. L. D. Marks Northwestern University Acknowledgements Ken Poeppelmeier , Northwestern University Maryvonne Hervieu , Laboratoire CRISMAT. Mission Possible. Find an unknown crystal structure without growing a single crystal

vilina
Download Presentation

Synergies between powder diffraction and electron microscopy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Synergies between powder diffraction and electron microscopy L. D. Marks Northwestern University Acknowledgements Ken Poeppelmeier, Northwestern University Maryvonne Hervieu, Laboratoire CRISMAT

  2. Mission Possible • Find an unknown crystal structure without growing a single crystal • Check if the material is what one thinks it is • Try and ensure that the answer is correct

  3. But, the classic phase problem • We measure |F(k)|, the modulus • r(r)=òexp(2pik.r)|F(k)|exp(if(k))dk • Phase information, f(k) is lost • Does this matter?

  4. Phase: Apples & Oranges FT Aa exp(-i a) FT Ao exp(-i o) + { Oranle ? Appge? Ao exp(-i a)IFT Phase of Apple + Amplitude of Orange = ?

  5. FT-1 {Ao exp(-i a) } Apple Phase of Apple = Apple Phase is more important than amplitude

  6. Consequence • There may exist more than one arrangement of atoms/defects which fits diffraction data (or images) – what is called “a non-convex problem” • Good scientists check to ensure that they have the best (most correct) answer, not just a possible solution

  7. Classic Methodology • Offshoot of high-Tc superconductor research • Take power diffraction pattern (x-ray, neutron) • Analyze, based upon initial model (guess?) • Check with TED/HREM • Correct Spacegroup (CBED, precession) • Any superstructures (TED, HREM) • Twinning, defects (TED, HREM) • Chemistry (EDX, EELS)

  8. Powder X-ray Statistical average Quick, high precision Light elements can be difficult (use neutrons) Texture can cause problems Often requires initial guess TEM/TED Local probe Often takes time Measurement precision often low (~1% for spacings) Good for light elements, weak superstructures Thicker samples more complicated (can be better) Brief Comparison

  9. Pitfalls: I Systematic Absences • F(hkl) which are forbidden due to screw axes, glide planes allowed due to dynamical diffraction • F(hkl) which are accidentally forbidden due to positions of atoms are allowed due to dynamical diffraction • Checks: • CBED • Precession • Simulation (HREM/TED/CBED)

  10. Textbook case: Andalusite <110> Conventional Precessed Non-precessed Precessed • Forbidden spots extinct in precession pattern • Better intensity ordering Kinematically Forbidden, Dynamically Allowed Spots

  11. Pitfalls: 2 Symmetry • Symmetry in HREM images is in general lower than real symmetry • Incorrect orientation and lens aberrations reduce the symmetry • Astigmatism (2 & 3 fold) • Beam Tilt • Non isoplanaric illumination (FEG) • Crystal Tilt (thicker samples) • Checks • Simulation • CBED

  12. Pitfalls: 3 Incorrect model • Refinement always improves the fit between experimental data and a model • If the model is incorrect, it is rarely possible to know • No statistical method (e.g. Hamilton tests) can tell the difference between two different models • Checks: • Brainpower only…

  13. Pitfalls: 4 Incorrect material • Almost no material is phase pure when examined by TEM • Is: • The material not what expected (often true) • The TEM data from an anomalous region which is not statistically representative • Checks • Boring… look at many different regions

  14. Data Calculated Difference A Simple Example: Sr3CaRu2O9(Courtesy of Ken Poeppelmeier) Neutron Diffraction: suggests large cell – is this right? 1.5 1.0 Counts/sec (x 103) 0.5 0.0 High-resolution backscatter bank (144°) -0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 d-spacing Collected on the SEPD at IPNS at Argonne National Laboratory

  15. Ca1 Ru1 Ru2 Ca2 Ru2 c Ru1 Ca1 a Yes -- Electron Diffraction [010] zone axis From ED: P21/c a = 17.1 Å b = 5.7 Å c = 9.8 Å ß = 125° V = 786 Å3 [001] zone axis Monoclinic unit cell is four times larger than the trigonal subcell Space group P21/c (#14) Larger cell allows all peaks in the PXD to be indexed EDS & TGA confirm Sr3CaRu2O9 ratios 010 300

  16. A complicated example A New Manganite With An Original Composite Tunnel Structure Ba6Mn24O48 Journal of Solid State Chem.132, 239 (1997). Ph. BOULLAY, M. HERVIEU and B. RAVEAU • Ba0.25MnO2 • Chemical composition • cationic ratio by EDS analyses • oxygen content by chemical analyses • X-ray powder diffraction •  tetragonal lattice - I centring •  a≈1.8 nm and c≈0.28nm

  17. But…. Wrong Cell 1) Basic cell: I-4/m or 4/mmm a≈1.8 nm, c≈0.28nm + 2) Extra reflections : an incommensurate structure + 3) Diffuse scattering a disordered structure

  18. + Diffuse Scattering (Disorder) A composite structure with a disordered subsystem = Basic cell seen by x-rays Modulated Structure s*=ha*+kb*+lc*+mq*, q=0.36c

  19. Verified by HREM Intergrowth of rutile and hollandite tunnels

  20. Summary • Combining x-ray (neutron) diffraction and TEM (Diffraction + Imaging) is a classic combination primarily in solid state chemistry • Normally nothing new is found, but without the check GIGO is possible

More Related