Atmospheric aerosols consist of a complex heterogeneous mixture of particles. Single-particle analysis techniques are known to provide unique information on the size-resolved chemical composition of aerosols. A scanning electron microscope (SEM) combined with a thin-window energy-dispersive X-ray (EDX) detector enables the morphological and elemental analysis of single particles down to 0.1 microm with a detection limit of 1-10 wt %, low-Z elements included. To obtain data statistically representative of the air masses sampled, a computer-controlled procedure can be implemented in order to run hundreds of single-particle analyses (typically 1000-2000) automatically in a relatively short period of time (generally 4-8 h, depending on the setup and on the particle loading). However, automated particle analysis by SEM-EDX raises two practical challenges: the accuracy of the particle recognition and the reliability of the quantitative analysis, especially for micrometer-sized particles with low atomic number contents. Since low-Z analysis is hampered by the use of traditional polycarbonate membranes, an alternate choice of substrate is a prerequisite. In this work, boron is being studied as a promising material for particle microanalysis. As EDX is generally said to probe a volume of approximately 1 microm3, geometry effects arise from the finite size of microparticles. These particle geometry effects must be corrected by means of a robust concentration calculation procedure. Conventional quantitative methods developed for bulk samples generate elemental concentrations considerably in error when applied to microparticles. A new methodology for particle microanalysis, combining the use of boron as the substrate material and a reverse Monte Carlo quantitative program, was tested on standard particles ranging from 0.25 to 10 microm. We demonstrate that the quantitative determination of low-Z elements in microparticles is achievable and that highly accurate results can be obtained using the automatic data processing described here compared to conventional methods.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Choël et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: