Skip to main content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Comparison of Electron Elastic-Scattering Cross Sections Calculated from Two Commonly Used Atomic Potentials

Published

Author(s)

Aleksander Jablonski, Francesc Salvat, Cedric J. Powell

Abstract

We have analyzed differential cross sections (DCSs) for the elastic scattering of electrons by neutral atoms that have been derived from two commonly used atomic potentials: the Thomas-Fermi-Dirac (TFD) potential and the Dirac-Hartree-Fock (DHF) potential. DCSs from the latter potential are believed to be more accurate. We compared DCSs for six atoms (H, Al, Ni, Ag, Au, and Cm) at four energies (100 eV, 500 eV, 1000 eV, and 10 000 eV) from two databases issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in which DCSs had been obtained from the TFD and DHF potentials. While the DCSs from the two potentials had similar shapes and magnitudes, there could be pronounced deviations (up to 70%) for small scattering angles for Al, Ag, Au, and Cm. In addition, there were differences of up to 400% at scattering angles for which there were deep minima in the DCSs; at other angles, the differences were typically less than 20%. The DCS differences decreased with increasing electron energy. DCSs calculated from the two potentials were compared with measured DCSs for six atoms (He, Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe, and Hg) at energies between 50 eV and 3 keV. For Ar, the atom for which the largest energy range is available, there is satisfactory agreement between the measured DCSs and those calculated from the TFD and DHF potentials at 2 keV and 3 keV but the experimental DCSs agree better with the DCSs from the DHF potential at lower energies. A similar trend was found for the other atoms. At energies less than about 1 keV, there were increasing differences between the measured DCSs and the DCSs from the DHF potential. These differences were attributed to the neglect of absorption and polarizability effects in the calculations. We compared transport cross sections for H, Al, Ni, Ag, Au, and Cm obtained from the DCSs for each potential. For energies between 200 eV and 1 keV, the largest differences were about 20% (for H, Au, and Cm); at higher energies, the differences were smaller. We also examined the extent to which three quantities derived from DCSs varied depending on whether the DCSs were obtained from the TFD or DHF potential. First, we compared calculated and measured elastic-backscattered intensities for thin films of Au on a Ni substrate with different measurement conditions, but it was not clear whether DCSs from the TFD or DHF potential should be preferred. Second, we compared electron inelastic mean free paths (IMFPs) derived from relative and absolute measurements by elastic-peak electron spectroscopy and from analyses with DCSs obtained from the TFD and DHF potentials. In four examples, for a variety of materials and measurement conditions, we found differences between the IMFPs from the TFD and DHF potentials ranging from 1.3% to 17.1%. Third, we compared mean escape depths for two photoelectron lines and two Auger-electron lines in solid Au obtained using DCSs from the TFD and DHF potentials. These mean escape depths varied between 4.3% at 70 eV to 0.5% at 2016 eV at normal electron emission, and became smaller with increasing emission angle. Although measured DCSs for atoms can differ from DCSs calculated from the DHF potential by up to a factor of two, we found that the atomic DCSs were empirically useful for simulations of electron transport in solids for electron energies above about 300 eV. The atomic DCSs can also be useful for energies down to at least 200 eV if relative measurements are made.
Citation
J. Phys. & Chem. Ref. Data (JPCRD) -
Volume
33
Issue
No. 2

Keywords

Auger electron spectroscopy, differential cross section, Dirac-Hartree-Fock potential, elastic electron scattering, elastic-peak electron spectroscopy, electron transport, surface analysis, Thomas-Fermi-Dirac potential, x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy

Citation

Jablonski, A. , Salvat, F. and Powell, C. (2004), Comparison of Electron Elastic-Scattering Cross Sections Calculated from Two Commonly Used Atomic Potentials, J. Phys. & Chem. Ref. Data (JPCRD), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD (Accessed April 20, 2024)
Created May 31, 2004, Updated October 12, 2021