4.6 Article

A robust and cost-effective protocol to fabricate calibration standards for the thickness determination of metal coatings by XRF

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.sab.2021.106255

关键词

-

资金

  1. Regione Toscana POR CreO FESR 2014-2020 - azione 1.1.5 sub-azione a1 - Bando 1 Progetti Strategici di ricerca e sviluppo [CUP 3553.04032020.158000105_1242, CIPE D64E20003740009, CUP 3647.04032020.157000060, CIPE D44E20003540009]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The proposed method for measuring metallic coating thickness relies on self-produced standards made through an electroplating process and ensures sufficiently homogeneous thickness distribution consistent with certified standard specifications.
The XRF analysis is the most widespread in the industry setting to determine the thickness of metallic coatings, thanks to its ease of use, robustness, and nondestructive nature. However, accurate measurement requires primary standards that are expensive, not always available, and must be periodically replaced due to a limited shelf-life. In this context, we propose a versatile and cost-effective way for measuring the thickness of metallic coatings. Our method relies on a calibration curve based upon self-produced standards made through electroplating process and measured by a cross-sectional microscopy observation, either by SEM or light microscope. Thickness distribution was sufficiently homogeneous to be consistent with certified standard specifications: 5% of thickness variation in the central portion of the coatings (1 cm(2)) could be achieved for cathode length starting from 5 cm. Moreover, thickness distribution can be quantitatively predicted, relying only on primary current simulations, almost on simple shaped objects. The self-produced standard fit the calibration curve with a R-2 > 0.999. Comparing different XRF quantitative methods with Student's t-test, we demonstrated that the proposed protocol is as effective as certified standards-based methods in terms of accuracy but at significantly lower costs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据