When I examined the GIXRD data obtained recently, I observed that the sample treated with O2 plasma on the Cu surface deposited on Si chips showed increased intensity compared to the sample without plasma treatment. In this case, what does it mean that only the intensity of Cu increased without additional peaks from other substances? I want to understand why this happened, as there were no broad peaks from amorphous materials at the baseline to suggest that the increase in intensity was due to increased crystallinity.
As per theory of XRD....intensity of peak suggest amount of crystalline state of material...but as you have mentioned....you have deposited Cu on Si and the bottom. Graph shows peaks of the same....in case of second ..increase in crystalline state of that Cu is possible when plasma treatment has significant heating of film and very less addition of oxygen...that may not be possible as oxygen is very quick to react with metal...and here no phase is visible...increase in peak intensity may be due to change in xrd study configuration .
Is it possible that the deposited amount is higher for specimen 5 with respect to that named non plasma? However, if the plasma treatment can heat your sample an increase in crystallinity is possible
Dear Sangwoo Park ,
comparing peak heights (or peak integrals) between two XRD pattern is often a very critical task, especially when you have 'arbitrary' intensity scales, as in your case.
You have to compare the pattern on a single common scale such as for example the photon counts. You may normalize these pattern, but that normalization has to be performed relative to a single value, which has to be applied to both pattern.
So please replot your pattern with respect to an absolute scale ...
and then we may discuss the peak issue.
By the way; as in the case of the background*), the peak heights may also be affected by the sample height position, especially in the GI condition.
So please check that issue by performing a series of GIXRD scans with the sample height position as the parameter and see what is happening with the peaks...
But, please, compare them in the absolute intensity scale...
*) see your recent question
Good luck and best regards
G.M.
Dear Gerhard Martens ,
Thank you very much once again for responding to my question. I greatly appreciate it.
For my GIXRD data, the y-axis was measured uniformly in photon counts (I labeled the y-axis as intensity on the diffractogram, but I didn't realize this could be an issue). Additionally, I asked the measurement technician about the measurement conditions, including sample height, and they confirmed that the measurements were conducted under completely identical conditions. Furthermore, I did not modify the y-data scale during plotting. Is there any difficulty in viewing the data in the absolute intensity scale as you mentioned?
Thanks Sangwoo Park
for feedback...
So, as conclusion, with respect to the y-scale: it is the same for both pattern, ok.
With respect to the sample height, you are also right with respect to the height position of the sample support being the same. But what is about the surface position of the sample(s). But there might be an issue with the sample thickness, as Marcella Bini mentioned above. That might affect the peak height(s) due to different amout of material in the beam (Marchella's statement), but also the background under GI condition due to different surface position relative to the primary x-ray beam.
You should encourage the technician to do that height scan, as I have proposed above. We will then see whether the height adjustment is the crux here...
Good luck and
best regards
G.M.
- Badges
- Science method