NASA NTRS2006
Instrument purchase requirements and dialogue with manufacturers have established hardware parameters for alignment, stability, and reproducibility, which have helped improve the precision and accuracy of electron microprobe analysis (EPMA). The development of correction algorithms and the accurate solution to quantitative analysis problems requires the minimization of systematic errors and relies on internally consistent data sets. Improved hardware and computer systems have resulted in better automation of vacuum systems, stage and wavelength-dispersive spectrometer (WDS) mechanisms, and x-ray detector systems which have improved instrument stability and precision. Improved software now allows extended automated runs involving diverse setups and better integrates digital imaging and quantitative analysis. However, instrumental performance is not regularly maintained, as WDS are aligned and calibrated during installation but few laboratories appear to check and maintain this calibration. In particular, detector deadtime (DT) data is typically assumed rather than measured, due primarily to the difficulty and inconvenience of the measurement process. This is a source of fundamental systematic error in many microprobe laboratories and is unknown to the analyst, as the magnitude of DT correction is not listed in output by microprobe operating systems. The analyst must remain vigilant to deviations in instrumental alignment and calibration, and microprobe system software must conveniently verify the necessary parameters. Microanalysis of mission critical materials requires an ongoing demonstration of instrumental calibration. Possible approaches to improvements in instrument calibration, quality control, and accuracy will be discussed. Development of a set of core requirements based on discussions with users, researchers, and manufacturers can yield documents that improve and unify the methods by which instruments can be calibrated. These results can be used to continue improvements of EPMA.