The next step in quantification requires extracting edge intensities from the spectrum while disregarding the underlying background intensity.
To separate the edge intensity, you must fit, extrapolate, and subtract a background model. It is essential to consider the following items when you perform this critical extraction step:
Which background model should I use?
Where should I fit the background model to the data?
What are the optimal width and position for the signal integration window?
To extract the edge intensity, you must determine a model for the background of your spectrum. First, identify a pre-edge fitting region that allows you to determine the parameters of the fit. Then, extrapolate this fit to estimate the background intensity below the edge signal. However, an accurate background subtraction may become difficult below 100 eV due to a large number of scattering processes in this region (e.g., plasmons tails, plural scattering).
Typically, the model is determined using linear least-squares methods using a single pre-edge region. \(\Gamma\).
where
\(\Gamma\) = Background fit window
\(\Delta\) = Signal integration window
\(I_{b}\) = Background intensity
\(I_{k}\) = Signal intensity
A power law is the most common background model.
\(J\left ( E \right )=AE^{-r}\)
where
\(A\) = Scaling constant
\(r\) = Slope exponent (usually 2 – 6)
When interpreted as the long energy tails of the preceding energy loss events, this model has a physical basis.
When you choose the optimal background placement, it is important to consider these parameters:
The high-energy side \(E_{be}\) should be as close to but still preceding the edge (e.g., 5 eV) to avoid chemical shifts and broadening detector tails
To limit statistical error, the fit region \(\Gamma\) should be as wide as possible
To limit systematic error, you need to limit the fit region to 10 – 30% \(E_{k}\)
Background window end should be 5 eV from edge onset
Background window width should be at most 30% edge energy
May need to limit window size to avoid preceding edges where necessary
Once background placement is made, it is important to review common errors.
Unphysical
Symptom – Obvious error where the background model crosses the spectrum and may cause the signal to become negative
Systematic errors
Symptom – Small changes in the background window width or position have significant effects on the background model
Overlapping edges
Symptom – Background extrapolation is ineffective for instances where the pre-edge region is obscured by the preceding edge
Solution – Reduce the window size or placement as well as limit the signal window size and offset; a multiple linear least-squares (MLLS) fitting or model-based approach may be necessary
When you choose the optimal signal integration window placement, it is important to consider the following:
Statistical error – The region \(\Delta\) should be as wide as possible and start at the steepest intensity increase of the spectrum
Hydrogenic edges (e.g., K-, some L-edges) – Place the window at the threshold
Delayed edges (e.g., L-, M-, N-, O-edges) – Offset by a few tens of eV
White lines – Best to avoid inclusion for quantitative evaluation as their intensity can vary with chemical state and are not well modeled in cross-section calculations
With DigitalMicrograph® 3 software, the signal extraction process is highly automated. However, the guidelines and concepts above still must be considered. DigitalMicrograph 3 quantification utilizes a model-based approach where the spectral background and the edge intensity are treated as a single model. If overlapping edges are present, they are also added to the model to allow separation of the overlap. Follow the below steps for EELS signal extraction in DigitalMicrograph 3 software.
Joy, D.C.; Maher, D. M. The quantization of electron energy-loss spectra. J. Microsc. 124:37 – 48; 1981.
Egerton, R. F. A revised expression for signal/noise ratio in EELS. Ultramicroscopy. 9:387 – 390; 1982.
Leapman, R. D.; Swyt, C. R. Separation of overlapping core edges in electron energy loss spectra by multiple-least-squares fitting. Ultramicroscopy. 26:393 – 404; 1988.
Kothleitner, G.; Hofer F. Optimisation of the signal to noise ratio in EFTEM elemental maps with regard to different ionisation edge types. Micron. 29349 – 357; 1998.
Verbeeck, J., Van Aert, S. Model based quantification of EELS spectra. Ultramicroscopy. 101(2 – 4):207 – 24; 2004.
Riegler, K.; Kothleitner, G. EELS detection limits revisited: Ruby – a case study. Ultramicroscopy. 110(8); 2010.
Thomas, P.; Twesten, R. A Simple, Model Based Approach for Robust Quantification of EELS Spectra and Spectrum-Images. Microscopy and Microanalysis. 18(S2):968 – 969; 2012.