Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 45 references

Experimental determination of the sodium K-shell atomic fundamental parameters for X-ray spectroscopy

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper reports an experimental sodium K-shell fluorescence yield of 0.0234 ± 0.0015, obtained from a self-consistent transmission and fluorescence analysis of a sodium chloride film, along with updated photoionization and fluorescence…

desk verdict Credible new sodium K-shell fluorescence yield, but the stated uncertainty is model-dependent until the decomposition is fixed; worth peer review with a request for sensitivity analysis and an uncertainty budget. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14352 v1 pith:YWIU6SCA submitted 2025-06-17 physics.atom-ph physics.app-ph

Marie-Louis Venzke , Katja Frenzel , Philipp Hönicke This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-phphysics.app-ph
keywords sodiumK-shellX-rayfluorescenceyieldAugerphotoionizationcrosssectionfundamentalparametersholisticanalysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper sets out to give experimental values, with carefully evaluated uncertainties, for the sodium K-shell parameters that X-ray fluorescence analysis needs most: the fluorescence yield, the Auger yield, the K-shell photoionization cross sections, and the K-shell fluorescence production cross sections. The central result is a K-shell fluorescence yield of $\omega_\mathrm{K}=0.0234\pm0.0015$ for sodium, which implies an Auger yield of $0.9766\pm0.0015$. The result comes from one consistent measurement campaign on a thin sodium chloride film, combining transmission and fluorescence data, rather than from interpolation between neighboring elements or theory alone. If the value holds, sodium quantification by X-ray fluorescence can be corrected away from the commonly used database value, which the authors find is slightly low, and the relative uncertainty on the yield improves from about 10% to about 6.4%.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a holistic analysis in which the sample-specific total photoionization cross section of the NaCl layer, obtained from transmission data after removing scattering contributions with database values, is decomposed into subshell contributions by scaling polynomial parameterizations of the partial photoionization cross sections through a Markov-chain Monte Carlo fit. The same fit uses the standard fluorescence-intensity relation to convert the measured Na-K fluorescence photon flux into a fluorescence yield at each excitation energy. Because the K-shell fluorescence yield is energy-independent above the edge, consistency between the transmission-derived and fluorescence-derived subshell cross sections is used as a constraint, so the yield emerges from the whole dataset rather than from any single spectrum.

What would settle it

Repeating the measurement on sodium in a different chemical environment, such as sodium fluoride, with the same analysis would be a decisive check: the extracted fluorescence yield should agree with $0.0234\pm0.0015$ if the atomic yield is what is being measured, whereas a shift beyond combined uncertainties would show that the sodium-chloride-based subshell decomposition, not the atomic yield, controls the result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a K-shell fluorescence yield for sodium can be pinned down experimentally to $0.0234\pm0.0015$, with the corresponding Auger yield $0.9766\pm0.0015$, by analyzing transmission and fluorescence data from the same sample in one self-consistent scheme. The paper shows that the total measured photoionization cross section of NaCl can be decomposed into subshell contributions using scaled polynomial parameterizations, and that the same dataset also yields the K-shell fluorescence production cross sections and K-shell photoionization cross sections as functions of excitation energy. The extracted energy dependence matches relativistic calculations better than the widely used database, whose Na-K fluorescence yield is found to be slightly underestimated.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the energy shapes of the non-sodium parts of the absorption are known well enough from the standard fits, so only their overall sizes need to be adjusted in the analysis; if those shapes are wrong, the sodium part, and therefore the fluorescence yield, could move by more than the stated uncertainty.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Sodium X-ray fluorescence quantification can adopt $\omega_\mathrm{K}=0.0234\pm0.0015$, reducing the fluorescence-yield contribution to quantification uncertainty below its previous level.
  • The widely used X-raylib Na-K fluorescence yield should be revised upward; the measured value is about 0.0234 rather than the database's slightly lower number.
  • The Auger yield of $0.9766\pm0.0015$ gives a direct input for Auger-electron spectroscopy and for Auger-based dose estimates in soft X-ray work.
  • The measured K-shell photoionization cross-section energy dependence provides a benchmark for relativistic calculations in the low-energy region just above the sodium K edge.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Not pursued in the paper: applying the same protocol to other low-Z elements such as potassium or magnesium would show whether X-raylib's K-shell fluorescence yields are systematically low for light elements.
  • A testable extension: repeating the measurement with a different sodium compound (for example NaF) would check whether the recovered yield stays at $0.0234$ within uncertainty; a shift would expose chemical-state sensitivity in the method.
  • Implication left implicit: the measured energy dependence of the K-shell photoionization cross section offers a benchmark for new relativistic calculations in the low-energy regime, where database values are least constrained.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experimental determination of the sodium K-shell fluorescence yield and related fundamental parameters using transmission and X-ray fluorescence measurements on a thin NaCl layer on a SiN membrane at the PTB plane-grating monochromator beamline. The analysis combines the measured total photoionization cross section with an Ebel-polynomial decomposition and an MCMC optimization to isolate the Na-K contribution, then derives the fluorescence yield ω_F = 0.0234 ± 0.0015 from the ratio of measured Na-K fluorescence to the inferred Na-K photoionization cross section (Eq. 2). The Auger yield is reported as 0.9766 ± 0.0015. Absolute K-shell fluorescence production cross sections and photoionization cross sections are also presented and compared with X-raylib and theoretical calculations, although their absolute scale is tied to a reference-free quantification using X-raylib data. The authors claim an improvement over the Krause 10% uncertainty estimate and make the data available via Zenodo.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the sodium K-shell fluorescence yield would be established with a relative uncertainty of about 6.4%, a meaningful improvement over the commonly used Krause estimate of 10%, and would provide a benchmark for updating X-raylib and other databases. A notable strength is that the fluorescence yield determination does not require knowledge of the absolute areal mass of sodium, because only sample-specific products such as τ·ρd and μ·ρd from transmission measurements enter Eq. (2). The paper also benefits from calibrated instrumentation at PTB, an explicit comparison with several experimental, compiled, and theoretical values, and a public data repository. However, the reliability of the quoted uncertainty and the independence of the absolute cross-section comparisons are constrained by the model-dependent decomposition and the X-raylib normalization, as discussed below.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (2) and MCMC description] The manuscript leaves unspecified the actual number of varied Ebel coefficients for the Na-K contribution (stated only as 'can range from one to six'), gives no information on the MCMC priors, and reports no convergence diagnostics or sensitivity analysis. The quoted uncertainty of ±0.0015 appears to reflect only MCMC scatter rather than a full uncertainty budget that includes the model choice. Since Eq. (2) defines ω_F as inversely proportional to τ_Na-K·ρd, a systematic shift of about 6% in the inferred Na-K photoionization contribution would shift ω_F by roughly the full stated uncertainty. Please report the number of varied coefficients actually used, the priors, the chain length and convergence checks, and a systematic study of how ω_F changes when the number of Na-K polynomial coefficients and the treatment of the lower-bound shell scaling factors are varied.
  2. [Section 3.2 and 3.3, Figures 5 and 6] The absolute FPCS and photoionization cross sections are derived from an areal mass determined by reference-free quantification that itself uses tabulated fundamental parameters from X-raylib [29]. The paper correctly acknowledges that this 'matching absolute values with respect to X-raylib by definition' makes the absolute agreement in Figures 5 and 6 enforced by construction, but it does not quantify how much of the observed agreement is fixed in this way. The energy-dependence comparison remains meaningful, but the absolute cross-section values are not an independent validation. Please separate the shape comparison from the scale comparison and provide a quantitative estimate of the fraction of agreement that is constrained by the normalization procedure.
  3. [Section 2, Eq. (1) and decomposition of τ_Tot] The total photoionization cross section is obtained by subtracting X-raylib-based scattering contributions (Eq. 1), and the Na-K subshell contribution is isolated by scaling Ebel polynomials into the total dataset, with fixed literature values for the lower-bound shells of NaCl except for two scale factors. No uncertainty is assigned to the scattering subtraction or to the Ebel polynomial shape in the 1.1–2 keV region, even though an error in the smooth lower-shell background near the K-edge directly shifts τ_Na-K·ρd and therefore ω_F. These systematic components need to be quantified or explicitly argued to be negligible, otherwise the reported 0.0015 uncertainty is not a complete uncertainty budget.
  4. [Section 3.1 and Section 4] The conclusion states that a 'reliable uncertainty budget' of 0.0234 ± 0.0015 was achieved, but the paper does not provide a component-by-component uncertainty table (detector efficiency, solid angle, incident flux, transmission statistics, spectrum deconvolution, MCMC scatter, model decomposition). Without such a breakdown it is not possible to verify that the total uncertainty is dominated by the listed contributions or that no significant component was omitted. In addition, the statement that this uncertainty is 'significantly lower compared to the Krause estimate of 10%' mixes an absolute uncertainty with a relative one; the comparison should be made in relative terms (here about 6.4%).
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 2, text] There is a typo: 'calibrated apperture' should be 'calibrated aperture'.
  2. [Section 2, Eq. (2) and Eq. (3)] The notation ρd in Eq. (2) and Eq. (3) is ambiguous: in Eq. (2) it refers to the NaCl layer, while in Eq. (3) the sample-specific attenuation μ_S·ρd implicitly includes both the NaCl layer and the SiN membrane. Please clarify the subscripts or define a separate symbol for the full sample attenuation.
  3. [Section 2, Ebel polynomial] The exact form of the Ebel polynomial [24] used for the decomposition is not given; please include the equation or a precise reference to the polynomial definition so that the fit is reproducible.
  4. [Figure 2] The figure would benefit from a legend that explicitly labels the Na-K contribution, the lower-bound shell contributions, and the total photoionization cross section, and from a statement of the energy range and polynomial order used for the fit.
  5. [Section 3.1] The sentence 'Most of the other values are slightly lower' is vague; please list which specific literature values are compared and give their numerical values or deviations so the reader can assess the agreement.
  6. [Section 4] The phrase 'significantly lower compared to the Krause estimate of 10 %' is ambiguous because 10% is a relative uncertainty; rephrase to compare the relative uncertainties (e.g., 6.4% vs. 10%).
  7. [References] Reference [20] is listed as a Zenodo dataset but lacks a DOI or accession identifier; please provide the permanent link or DOI.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The central Na-K fluorescence yield is derived without areal mass and is not circular, but the absolute FPCS and photoionization cross-section comparisons are normalized to X-raylib and explicitly acknowledged to match 'by definition'.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2, 'Determination of the K-shell fluorescence production cross sections', discussion of Figure 5; propagated in Section 3.3]
    "By determining the sample’s areal mass of sodium, employing a reference-free quantification at an incident photon energy far above any fine structure oscillations and tabulated FP data [29], the absolute FPCS for Na-K fluorescence can be derived. The results are shown in comparison to X-raylib data in Figure 5. This quantification of the samples areal mass of sodium results in a relatively large overall uncertainty of the derived FPCSs as well as matching absolute values with respect to X-raylib by definition."

    The absolute FPCS is obtained by first quantifying the areal mass of sodium using X-raylib tabulated fundamental parameters, then comparing the resulting FPCS with X-raylib. Any agreement in absolute scale is enforced by this normalization, so the Figure 5 comparison is not an independent validation of X-raylib absolute FPCS values. The same normalization propagates to the K-shell photoionization cross sections in Section 3.3, where the paper notes 'the same consequences of the areal mass determination affect the photoionization cross sections'. However, the central fluorescence yield in Eq. 2 uses only the product tau_K*rho*d extracted from transmission data and the measured fluorescence flux, so it does not inherit this particular circularity.

full rationale

The paper's main claim, omega_F = 0.0234 +/- 0.0015, is derived from Eq. 2 using measured Na-K fluorescence flux, calibrated solid angle and flux, a transmission-derived attenuation correction M, and the sample-specific Na-K photoionization contribution tau_K*rho*d. The latter is obtained by scaling external Ebel polynomials into the measured total photoionization cross section; this introduces model dependence but is not equivalent to the fluorescence yield itself or to the claimed result. The paper's self-citations to earlier holistic-approach works describe the method but the equations and data are presented in this paper, so they are not load-bearing solely through citation. The one clear reduction is the absolute FPCS determination in Section 3.2: the areal mass is quantified using X-raylib tabulated FP data, and the paper itself acknowledges that the resulting FPCS values match X-raylib 'by definition'. This circularity also affects the K-shell photoionization cross sections in Section 3.3, since they are derived from the same FPCSs. Because the central fluorescence yield does not require areal mass or X-raylib absolute normalization, the overall circularity is partial rather than total. The unquantified sensitivity to the number of variable Ebel coefficients (one to six) is a robustness concern, not a circularity under the strict definition used here.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central fluorescence yield result rests on six implicit assumptions: standard physics (Beer-Lambert, Sherman), the accuracy of X-raylib scattering corrections, the validity of Ebel polynomial decomposition, identical blank/coated membranes, energy-independent K-shell fluorescence yield, and reliable spectral deconvolution. The absolute cross-section claims additionally consume X-raylib as calibration anchor, which is a circular input.

free parameters (3)
  • Na-K Ebel polynomial scale coefficients A0-A5 (variable count 1 to 6) = not stated in paper
    The holistic optimization varies these coefficients to represent the energy dependence of the Na-K photoionization cross section; the choice of how many are varied is not fixed or justified.
  • lower-bound shell scaling parameters for NaCl = not stated
    Two scaling parameters for the L/M shell contributions are fitted; values not reported.
  • sodium areal mass (rho*d) used for absolute FPCS = derived from X-raylib reference-free quantification (not stated)
    Used to convert sample-specific FPCS to absolute FPCS; determined using X-raylib FP data, making absolute values dependent on that database.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Beer-Lambert law and Sherman equation relate measured intensities to cross sections and fluorescence yield.
    Used in Section 2 to derive sample-specific attenuation and solve for w_F.
  • domain assumption X-raylib coherent and incoherent scattering cross sections for NaCl are accurate enough to subtract scattering from total attenuation to obtain photoionization cross sections.
    Equation 1 in Section 2 removes scattering using X-raylib values; errors propagate into tau_total and the Na-K contribution.
  • domain assumption Ebel polynomials describe the photon-energy dependence of subshell photoionization cross sections, with fixed literature values for lower-bound shells.
    Section 2: the Na-K contribution is isolated by scaling Ebel polynomials into tau_total; the shape of lower-bound shell terms is assumed.
  • domain assumption The blank and coated SiN membranes have identical thickness and the NaCl layer is homogeneous and pure.
    Section 2: NaCl attenuation is isolated by subtracting blank SiN transmission data; any thickness mismatch biases tau_NaCl.
  • domain assumption The sodium K-shell fluorescence yield is energy-independent over the measured range.
    Section 2: the optimization uses this invariance to average w_F across energies; standard for K-shell but an assumption.
  • domain assumption The spectral deconvolution accurately isolates the Na-K fluorescence line from background and other lines.
    Section 2: the fluorescence flux Phi_d_Na-K comes from deconvoluted spectra; residuals shown in Figure 1 but no quantitative validation given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Experimental determination of the sodium K-shell atomic fundamental parameters for X-ray spectroscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YWIU6SCA

@misc{pith2026250614352,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Experimental determination of the sodium K-shell atomic fundamental parameters for X-ray spectroscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YWIU6SCA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14352}
}
read the original abstract

Reliable fundamental parameters are essential for accurate X-ray fluorescence analysis of sodium. This work presents updated experimental values with reliable uncertainties for sodium K-shell fundamental parameters such as: fluorescence yield, photoionization cross sections, and Auger yields. Using a physically calibrated setup and a thin NaCl layer on a silicon nitride membrane, a holistic determination approach was applied to reduce uncertainties. The new values represent a significant improvement on the ones widely used in databases. All data are available via Zenodo to support precise sodium quantification in scientific and industrial applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14352 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example X-ray fluorescence spectrum of the NaCl coated 1000 nm thick SiN membrane recorded at an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The total sample specific photoionization cross section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of the experimentally determined Na-K shell fluorescence yield with available data in the literature. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the experimentally determined Na-K shell Auger yield with available data in literature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the experimentally determined Na-K shell FPCSs as a function of the photon energy in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the experimentally determined Na-K shell photoionization cross section in comparison to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [29]

    Schoonjans, A

    T. Schoonjans, A. Brunetti, B. Golosio, M. Sanchez del Rio, V.A. Sol´e, C. Ferrero, and L. Vincze. The xraylib library for x-ray–matter interactions. recent developments.Spectrochim. Acta B, 66:776 – 784, 2011

    work page 2011

  2. [1]

    A. A. Yaroshevsky. Abundances of chemical elements in the earth’s crust.Geochemistry International, 44(1):48–55, January 2006

    work page 2006

  3. [2]

    Jaques and Belen Ponte

    David A. Jaques and Belen Ponte. Dietary sodium and human health.Nutrients, 15(17):3696, August 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [3]

    Yu-Fu Shen, S. A. Alexeeva, Gang Zhao, Shuai Liu, Zeming Zhou, Hongliang Yan, Haining Li, Tianyi Chen, Xiaodong Xu, Huiling Chen, Huawei Zhang, and Jianrong Shi. Sodium abundances in very metal-poor stars. Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23(7):075019, June 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [4]

    M¨ uller

    Margit S. M¨ uller. A pinch of sodium.Nature Chemistry, 3(12):974–974, November 2011. 7 Experimental determination of the sodium K-shell atomic fundamental parameters for X-ray spectroscopyA Preprint

    work page 2011

  6. [5]

    Fundamentals, status and promise of sodium-based batteries.Nature Reviews Materials, 6(11):1020–1035, June 2021

    Robert Usiskin, Yaxiang Lu, Jelena Popovic, Markas Law, Palani Balaya, Yong-Sheng Hu, and Joachim Maier. Fundamentals, status and promise of sodium-based batteries.Nature Reviews Materials, 6(11):1020–1035, June 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [6]

    Toward high performance anodes for sodium-ion batteries: From hard carbons to anode-free systems.ACS Central Science, 9(6):1076–1087, 2023

    Zhaoguo Liu, Ziyang Lu, Shaohua Guo, Quan-Hong Yang, and Haoshen Zhou. Toward high performance anodes for sodium-ion batteries: From hard carbons to anode-free systems.ACS Central Science, 9(6):1076–1087, 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [7]

    Recent progress in sodium-ion batteries: Advanced materials, reaction mechanisms and energy applications.Electrochemical Energy Reviews, 7(17):2520–8136, 2024

    Yujun Wu, Wei Shuang, Ya Wang, Fuyou Chen, Shaobing Tang, Xing-Long Wu, Zhengyu Bai, Lin Yang, and Jiujun Zhang. Recent progress in sodium-ion batteries: Advanced materials, reaction mechanisms and energy applications.Electrochemical Energy Reviews, 7(17):2520–8136, 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 45 references
  1. [8]

    M.O. Krause. Atomic radiative and radiationless yields for k and l shells.J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data, 8(2):307–327, 1979

    1979

  2. [9]

    https://www.exsa.hu/fpi.php, 2021

    International initiative on x-ray fundamental parameters. https://www.exsa.hu/fpi.php, 2021. Accessed: 2022-06-03

    2021

  3. [10]

    M´enesguen, M.C

    Y. M´enesguen, M.C. L ´epy, P. H¨onicke, R. Unterumsberger M. M¨ uller, B. Beckhoff, J. Hoszowska, and J.-Cl. Dousse. Experimental determination of x-ray atomic fundamental parameters of nickel.Metrologia, 2017

    2017

  4. [11]

    Guerra, J

    M. Guerra, J. M. Sampaio, F. Parente, P. Indelicato, P. H¨onicke, M. M¨ uller, B. Beckhoff, J.P. Marques, and J.P. Santos. Theoretical and experimental determination of k- and l-shell x-ray relaxation parameters in ni.Phys. Rev. A, 97:042501, 2018

    2018

  5. [12]

    Lisbon atomic database (lisa): a compilation of calculated fundamental atomic parameters.The European Physical Journal D, 78(2), February 2024

    Gonc ¸alo Baptista, Daniel Pinheiro, Jorge Machado, Mauro Guerra, Pedro Amaro, and Jos´e Paulo Santos. Lisbon atomic database (lisa): a compilation of calculated fundamental atomic parameters.The European Physical Journal D, 78(2), February 2024

    2024

  6. [13]

    Beckhoff

    B. Beckhoff. Traceable characterization of nanomaterials by x-ray spectrometry using calibrated instrumentation. Nanomaterials, 12(13):2255, jun 2022

    2022

  7. [14]

    H¨onicke, M

    P. H¨onicke, M. Kolbe, and B. Beckhoff. What are the correct l-subshell photoionization cross sections for quantitative x-ray spectroscopy?X-Ray Spectrom., 45(4):207–211, 2016

    2016

  8. [15]

    H¨onicke, M

    P. H¨onicke, M. Kolbe, M. Krumrey, R. Unterumsberger, and B. Beckhoff. Experimental determination of the oxygen k-shell fluorescence yield using thin sio2 and al2o3 foils.Spectrochim. Acta B, 124:94–98, 2016

    2016

  9. [16]

    Kayser, P

    Y. Kayser, P. H¨onicke, M. Wansleben, A. W¨ahlisch, and B. Beckhoff. Experimental determination of the gadolinium l subshells fluorescence yields and coster-kronig transition probabilities.X-Ray Spectrom., nov 2022

    2022

  10. [17]

    A novel and holistic approach for experimental x-ray fundamental parameter determination - the ru l-shell.New Journal of Physics, 25(7):073012, jul 2023

    Philipp H¨onicke. A novel and holistic approach for experimental x-ray fundamental parameter determination - the ru l-shell.New Journal of Physics, 25(7):073012, jul 2023

    2023

  11. [18]

    Experimental determination of the sulfur k-shell fundamental parameters employing the holistic approach.New J

    Philipp H¨onicke. Experimental determination of the sulfur k-shell fundamental parameters employing the holistic approach.New J. Phys., 26(10):103011, September 2024

    2024

  12. [19]

    Experimental determination of the hafnium l-subshell fundamental parameters using the holistic approach.New J

    Nils Wauschkuhn, Heiko Gundlach, and Philipp H¨onicke. Experimental determination of the hafnium l-subshell fundamental parameters using the holistic approach.New J. Phys., 26(3):033017, March 2024

    2024

  13. [20]

    Experimental determination of the sodium k-shell atomic fundamental parameters for x-ray spectroscopy, 2025

    Philipp H¨onicke. Experimental determination of the sodium k-shell atomic fundamental parameters for x-ray spectroscopy, 2025

    2025

  14. [21]

    Lubeck, B

    J. Lubeck, B. Beckhoff, R. Fliegauf, I. Holfelder, P. H ¨onicke, M. M¨ uller, B. Pollakowski, F. Reinhardt, and J. Weser. A novel instrument for quantitative nanoanalytics involving complementary x-ray methodologies.Rev. Sci. Instrum., 84:045106, 2013

    2013

  15. [22]

    F. Senf, U. Flechsig, F. Eggenstein, W. Gudat, R. Klein, H. Rabus, and G. Ulm. A plane-grating monochromator beamline for the ptb undulators at BESSY II.J. Synchrotron Rad., 5:780–782, 1998

    1998

  16. [23]

    Scholze and M

    F. Scholze and M. Procop. Modelling the response function of energy dispersive x-ray spectrometers with silicon detectors.X-Ray Spectrom., 38(4):312–321, 2009

    2009

  17. [24]

    H. Ebel, R. Svagera, M.F. Ebel, A. Shaltout, and J.H. Hubbell. Numerical description of photoelectric absorption coefficients for fundamental parameter programs.X-Ray Spectrom., 32:442–451, 2003

    2003

  18. [25]

    J. Sherman. The theoretical derivation of fluorescent x-ray intensities from mixtures.Spectrochim. Acta, 7:283–306, 1955

    1955

  19. [26]

    Beckhoff

    B. Beckhoff. Reference-free x-ray spectrometry based on metrology using synchrotron radiation.J. Anal. At. Spectrom., 23:845 – 853, 2008

    2008

  20. [27]

    Experimental determination of the hafnium l-subshell fundamental parameters using the holistic approach.New J

    Nils Wauschkuhn, Heiko Gundlach, and Philipp H¨onicke. Experimental determination of the hafnium l-subshell fundamental parameters using the holistic approach.New J. Phys., 26(3):033017, March 2024. 8 Experimental determination of the sodium K-shell atomic fundamental paramete...

    2024

  21. [28]

    Foreman-Mackey, D.W

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D.W. Hogg, D. Lang, and J. Goodman. emcee: The MCMC hammer.Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125(925):306–312, mar 2013

    2013

  22. [30]

    Bambynek

    W. Bambynek. New evaluation of k-fluorescence yields.X-Ray and Inner-Shell Processes in Atoms, Molecules and Solids,Post-Deadline Abstracts, page 1, 1984

    1984

  23. [31]

    Elam, B.D

    W.T. Elam, B.D. Ravel, and J.R. Sieber. A new atomic database for x-ray spectroscopic calculations.Rad. Phys. Chem., 63:121–128, 2002

    2002

  24. [32]

    Rani, R.K

    A. Rani, R.K. Koshal, S.N. Chaturvedi, and N. Nath. Photon-excited k x-ray fluorescence cross-section measurements for some low-z-elements.X-Ray Spectrom., 17(2):53–54, 1988

    1988

  25. [33]

    Daoudi, A

    S. Daoudi, A. Kahoul, Y. Sahnoune, B. Deghfel, Y Kasri, F. Khalfallah, V. Aylikci, N.K. Aylikci, D.E. Medjadi, and M. Nekkab. New k-shell fluorescence yields curve for elements with 3≤z≤99.Journal of the Korean Physical Society, 67(9):1537–1543, 2015

    2015

  26. [34]

    Hubbell, P.N

    J.H. Hubbell, P.N. Trehan, N. Singh, B. Chand, D. Mehta, M.L. Garg, R.R. Garg, S. Singh, and S. Puri. A review, bibliography and tabulation of k, l and higher atomic shell x-ray fluorescence yields.J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data, 23(2):339–364, 1994

    1994

  27. [35]

    Perkins, D.E

    S.T. Perkins, D.E. Cullen, M.H. Chen, J. Rathkopf, J. Scofield, and J.H. Hubbell. Tables and graphs of atomic subshell and relaxation data derived from the llnl evaluated atomic data library (eadl), z = 1-100.UCRL 50400, 30, 1991

    1991

  28. [36]

    Kostroun, M.H

    V.O. Kostroun, M.H. Chen, and B. Crasemann. Atomic radiation transition probabilities to the 1s state and theoretical k-shell fluorescence yields.Phys. Rev. A, 3(2):533–545, 1971

    1971

  29. [37]

    D. L. Walters and C. P. Bhalla. Nonrelativistic auger rates, x-ray rates, and fluorescence yields for the k-shell. Physical Review A, 3(6):1919–1927, jun 1971

    1919

  30. [38]

    Eugene J. McGuire. K-shell auger transition rates and fluorescence yields for elements be-ar.Physical Review, 185(1):1–6, sep 1969

    1969

  31. [39]

    Zschornack, editor.Handbook of X-ray Data

    G.H. Zschornack, editor.Handbook of X-ray Data. Springer, New York, 2007

    2007

  32. [40]

    Zschornack.Handbook of X-ray data

    G. Zschornack.Handbook of X-ray data. Springer-Verlag, 2007

    2007

  33. [41]

    Scofield

    J.H. Scofield. Theoretical photoionisation cross sections from 1 to 1500 kev.UCRL-51326, 1973

    1973

  34. [42]

    Trzhaskovskaya, V.I

    M.B. Trzhaskovskaya, V.I. Nefedov, and V.G. Yarzhemsky. Photoelectron angular distribution parameters for elements z=1 to z=54 in the photo electron energy range 100 ev to 5000 ev.Atom. Data Nucl. Data, 77:97–159, 2001

    2001

  35. [43]

    Trzhaskovskaya and V.G

    M.B. Trzhaskovskaya and V.G. Yarzhemsky. Dirac-fock photoionization parameters for HAXPES applications, part II: Inner atomic shells.Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 129-130:101280, sep 2019

    2019

  36. [44]

    Sabbatucci and F

    L. Sabbatucci and F. Salvat. Theory and calculation of the atomic photoeffect.Radiat. Phys. Chem., 121:122–140, 2015

    2015

  37. [45]

    H¨onicke, M

    P. H¨onicke, M. Kolbe, M. M¨ uller, M. Mantler, M. Kr¨amer, and B. Beckhoff. Experimental verification of the individual energy dependencies of the partial l-shell photoionization cross sections of pd and mo.Phys. Rev. Lett., 113(16):163001, 2014. 9

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.