Understanding Biases in Sample Preparation Techniques for Coupled Scanning Electron Microscopy and MAMA PuO 2 Morphological Analysis
In this project, the scanning electron microscopy (SEM) sampling method used during the statistical design study (SDS) was investigated to determine if any sampling biases were present in the analyzed data. Using standard particle size distribution powders from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST 1984 standard reference material) with the origin wet dispersion method, it was determined that a bias to smaller particles was present. This was supported by theoretical calculations using Stokes’ law to determine the settling rate of spherical particles of roughly the same size and mass as those found in the SDS. Based on the theoretical calculations, it was determined that the settling rate for each of the 76 powder sets in the SDS could be unique based on specific particle shape and mass distributions, making a universal correction factor/formula not applicable. Therefore, priority shifted to developing an improved wet dispersion method that significantly reduced the particle settling rate for all particle size and shapes. This was achieved by replacing the original solvent (isopropyl alcohol) with a heavy liquid (lithium heteropolytungstates), which dramatically slowed the settling rate and allowed for the capture of a suitable homogeneous aliquot. SEM imaging and Morphological Analysis for Material Attribution (MAMA) software analysis were conducted on the NIST standard, and the SEM/MAMA data were compared to data captured by a dynamic image analysis particle size analyzer. The resulting data confirmed that the new wet dispersion method does indeed deliver an improved representative aliquot to the SEM stub. For instance, in the NIST certificate, the average particle size is ~17.1 µm ± 2.2 µm with a normal distribution. The initial wet dispersion method resulted in a drastically reduced average particle size of 6.1 µm in addition to a non-representative heavy bi-modal distribution whereas the improved LST wet dispersion method resulting in an average particle size that was much closer to the NIST certificate (12.7 µm) with a similar normal distribution. Although the improved method was still short of the NIST certificate average, atomic force microscopy analysis determined that the resulting ~20-25% reduction in size was due to particles sinking into the carbon sticky tape used for SEM imaging. It is believed that that this bias can be calibrated in a much more predicable manner than the original settling rate bias. In addition, the matching normal distribution curves between the NIST certificate and the heavy liquid method indicate a much-improved representative aliquot has been sampled and imaged. A surrogate CeO 2 powder was used to reflect PuO 2 more accurately and to aid in implementing radiological controls and shielding. The resulting data sets from the SEM/MAMA method and the particle size analyzer give almost identical average particle sizes and particle distribution statistics. Future work will re-analyze several select runs from the SDS to determine if morphological signatures can be found with the improved sampling method.