I have tested a 3D-printed sample, in two directions. The results showed the intensity differences in the peaks. But after I normalized the data, the peaks looked very similar. So in the research paper, is it common to normalize XRD data or not?
Depends on what you want to do and it dependes whether the reader will know. The absolute intensities carry the counting statistics, therefore, the reader might want to know these. And, moreover, data evaluation software usually assume that the absulte number of counts, if the data are evaluated. This makes a difference (see recent discussion https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_is_the_Rexp_value_of_my_Rietveld_refinement_so_high). And please do not simply subtract background for the same reason.
Dear K Dang,
Both are ok for research paper the main thing is that your XRD showed the exact peaks which is desired for the compound and no impurity peaks be there.
Dear Kaiyue Deng
Thanks for such a technical question. As already mentioned by other researchers that it mainly depend on your data and interests or requirements. In this regard you can read the following very useful article IIT via the following link:
https://www.iitk.ac.in/che/pdf/resources/XRD-reading-material.pdf
But Kaiyue Deng ,
pay attention, if you have actually got impurity peaks of your sample, please do not 'manipulate' the XRD pattern by removing them for 'better' presentation...
There is nowhere a demand on having no impurity peaks. It is a dream to have none.....
You should present the pattern as they were measured, but as Andreas Leineweber pointed out above, normalization is allowed for presentation & comparison purposes, if necessary.
Dear Kaiyue Deng ,
From a statistical point of view, the relative intensities are retained, so they should have no difference in dealing with a pre-defined maximum intensity. Any error evaluation did not directly represent the actual value if calculated over the normalized diffractogram. It would be necessary to reconvert it to counts or counts/s.
The most important is not using the so common "a.u." (arbitrary unit) on X-axis, not showing the experiment's absolute values; unfortunately widespread used.
It is not conclusive to analyze an X-ray where you have no idea if it deals with counts or counts per second. Besides, it is always essential to control the experiment's background; to have an idea of the overall sample's scattering helps to identify if some amorphous in reasonable amount play some rule in the interpretation.
WNM
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physics
- Condensed Matter Physics
- Solid State Physics
- PEAKS