4.6 Article

Removal of core hole distortion from ionization edges in electron energy loss spectroscopy

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW B
Volume 103, Issue 20, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.103.205102

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The method proposed in the article effectively removes core hole distortion from electron energy loss spectra by calculating the electrodynamic work separating the incident electron from the core hole. The dynamic screening of the core hole is modeled using material dielectric properties and the resulting energy gain spectrum is deconvolved to obtain a fully screened spectrum. Although based on classical electrodynamics, the energy gain correction principle is consistent with quantum mechanics, but some assumptions made on the nature of the core hole are identified as flawed.
The near-edge fine structure in electron energy loss spectra is used to probe the electronic bonding environment of materials at high spatial resolution. Often, however, deviations from the ground state electronic properties are observed, due to the core hole created within the ionized atom. A method is proposed to remove core hole distortion from experimental electron energy loss spectra by calculating the electrodynamic work done in separating the moving, incident electron from the oppositely charged core hole. Dynamic screening of the core hole is modeled using the material dielectric properties. The resulting energy gain spectrum is deconvolved from the experimental measurement to give a fully screened spectrum that is free of core hole distortion. The method is tested on core loss edges in elemental Si, SiC, and SiOx. Despite assuming classical electrodynamics, the fundamental principle of an energy gain correction can be shown to be consistent with quantum mechanics, although shortcomings in some of the assumptions made on the nature of the core hole are also identified.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available