Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Auger effect

The Auger effect, also known as the Meitner-Auger effect, is a non-radiative physical process in atomic physics in which an atom relaxes from an excited state by ejecting a low-energy electron, called an Auger electron, after an inner-shell vacancy is filled by an electron from a higher energy level.^[1] This phenomenon occurs as an alternative to radiative decay, such as X-ray emission, and results in the atom being left in a doubly ionized state.^[2] The process was first theoretically described by Lise Meitner in 1922 and independently observed experimentally by Pierre Auger in 1923 through cloud-chamber studies of photoelectron interactions in gases.^[3] The mechanism begins with the creation of a core-hole vacancy, typically in the K-shell or L-shell, due to ionization by incident radiation, such as X-rays, electrons, or photons.^[4] An electron from an outer shell (e.g., L or M shell) then transitions to fill this vacancy, releasing energy equal to the difference in binding energies between the initial and final states.^[1] Instead of emitting a photon, this excess energy is transferred to another valence electron in an outer shell, which is ejected with kinetic energy given by E_k = E_v - E_a - E_b, where E_v is the vacancy energy, and E_a and E_b are the binding energies of the participating electrons.^[2] The probability of the Auger effect versus radiative decay increases for lighter elements and shallower core levels, as the energy differences are smaller, favoring non-radiative transitions.^[4] The Auger effect plays a fundamental role in probing atomic and molecular structure, providing insights into electronic energy levels through the characteristic energies of emitted electrons.^[1] It is essential in fields like surface science, where Auger electron spectroscopy (AES) enables high-resolution analysis of elemental composition and chemical states at the nanoscale, with applications in materials characterization and thin-film technology.^[2] In nuclear physics and medicine, Auger electrons' short range (typically nanometers) and high linear energy transfer make them valuable for targeted radionuclide therapy, particularly in treating cancer by damaging DNA in proximity to decay sites.^[3]

Introduction

Definition and Overview

The Auger effect is a physical phenomenon in atomic physics where an atom or ion relaxes from an excited state by ejecting a low-energy secondary electron, known as an Auger electron, rather than emitting a photon. This non-radiative process occurs following the creation of a vacancy in an inner electron shell; an electron from a higher-energy shell fills the vacancy, and the excess energy ionizes another electron from the same or a different shell, propelling it out of the atom with characteristic kinetic energy.^[5]^[6] The process presupposes the existence of discrete atomic electron shells, denoted as K (n=1), L (n=2), and M (n=3) shells based on their principal quantum numbers, which organize electrons by increasing binding energies from the nucleus outward. Initial vacancies in these inner shells are typically generated through ionization events, such as the absorption of a high-energy photon (photoionization) or collision with a charged particle like an electron or ion, which ejects a core electron and leaves the atom in an unstable configuration.^[7]^[8] In terms of energy balance, the kinetic energy of the emitted Auger electron is approximately the difference between the binding energy of the initial inner-shell vacancy and the binding energies of the two electrons involved in the transition (the one filling the vacancy and the one ejected), minus the binding energy of any resulting final-state vacancy. This process is particularly probable for light elements with low atomic numbers (Z < 30), where the fluorescence yield—the likelihood of radiative decay via X-ray emission—is low (often <10% for K-shell vacancies), making the competing Auger pathway dominant.^[1]^[9]^[10]

Historical Background

The Auger effect was first theoretically described by Austrian physicist Lise Meitner in 1922 during her investigations into the nature of beta radiation and non-radiative electronic transitions in atoms.^[11] Meitner identified the process as an internal conversion where energy from an inner-shell vacancy is transferred to another electron, leading to its ejection without photon emission, though her work initially focused on its connection to nuclear processes. Independently, French physicist Pierre Victor Auger discovered the same phenomenon in 1923 while examining the photoelectric effect in gases using a Wilson cloud chamber; he noted pairs of secondary electron tracks originating from the same atomic event following X-ray absorption, attributing them to a non-radiative atomic de-excitation.^[5] In the late 1920s, further experimental validation came from British physicists H. Robinson and W. Cassie, who conducted the first spectroscopic studies of the emitted electrons in 1926, confirming their discrete energies and linking the process explicitly to internal conversion of X-ray excitation energy within the atom. These efforts clarified the atomic origin of the electrons, distinguishing the effect from simple scattering or external ionization, and provided early quantitative insights into transition probabilities through magnetic spectrometry. Theoretical interpretations during this period, building on Meitner's framework, emphasized the competition between radiative (X-ray) and non-radiative (Auger) decay channels in excited atoms.^[11] The phenomenon became known as the Auger effect in honor of Pierre Auger, whose cloud chamber observations offered a clear visual demonstration, though Meitner's earlier contributions have prompted calls for recognition as the Meitner-Auger effect. Early reports faced confusion with other electron emissions, such as secondary electrons from Compton scattering or the photoelectric effect, due to overlapping energy ranges and limited resolution in detectors; this ambiguity was resolved in the 1930s through advancements in electron spectroscopy, which revealed the characteristic, element-specific kinetic energies of Auger electrons.^[12] A key milestone occurred in the 1950s with the first quantitative measurements of Auger electron yields using electron beam excitation of solid targets, pioneered by J.J. Lander in 1953, enabling precise determination of transition rates and clear separation from Compton and photoelectric contributions based on energy selectivity and surface sensitivity.

Physical Mechanism

Atomic Processes Involved

The Auger effect originates with the creation of a core-hole vacancy in an atom, often in the K-shell (1s orbital), induced by external excitation mechanisms such as photoabsorption of X-rays or impact from high-energy electrons. This ionization removes a tightly bound inner-shell electron, leaving the atom in an excited state with a significant energy deficit corresponding to the binding energy of the removed electron.^[13]^[14] During relaxation, an electron from a higher-energy outer shell, such as the L-shell (2s or 2p orbitals), transitions to fill the core vacancy, releasing potential energy equivalent to the difference in binding energies between the initial and final orbitals of this transitioning electron. Instead of emitting a photon, as in radiative decay, this energy is transferred locally through electron-electron interactions to ionize a third electron, typically from an even outer shell like the M-shell (3s, 3p, or 3d) or a valence orbital. The ejected electron, known as the Auger electron, carries kinetic energy approximately equal to the binding energy difference minus the binding energy of the third electron, resulting in the atom being left in a doubly ionized state with two vacancies in its outer shells.^[15]^[16] This sequence can be illustrated sequentially through atomic shell diagrams: first, the K-shell vacancy forms; second, an L-shell electron drops into the K vacancy; third, the released energy ejects an M-shell electron, denoted as the K-LM Auger process. The kinetic energy of the Auger electron is characteristic of the element involved and independent of the initial excitation method, providing a fingerprint for elemental identification.^[13]^[14] The likelihood of the Auger process, or its yield, depends strongly on the atomic number Z, with higher probabilities observed for low-Z elements (typically Z < 30) where it dominates over competing radiative pathways. This Z dependence arises from the increased spatial overlap of the wavefunctions of the core, transitioning, and Auger electrons in lighter atoms, enhancing the efficiency of the local energy transfer. In contrast, for higher Z, the more compact inner orbitals reduce this overlap, favoring photon emission instead.^[17]^[18]

Comparison to Radiative Transitions

In atomic relaxation processes following inner-shell ionization, the Auger effect competes with radiative transitions, such as fluorescence, where an electron from a higher shell fills the vacancy, and the released energy is emitted as an X-ray photon. The probability of this radiative decay is quantified by the fluorescence yield ω, which represents the fraction of vacancies filled radiatively rather than non-radiatively.^[19] For the K-shell, ω_K increases strongly with atomic number Z, approximately following ω_K ≈ Z^4 / (Z^4 + constant) at low Z due to the Z^4 scaling of radiative transition rates compared to the roughly Z-independent Auger rates. The branching ratio between these processes is given by the Auger yield a_K = 1 - ω_K, meaning the Auger effect dominates when ω_K is small.^[19] This occurs for elements with Z < 30, where ω_K < 0.5; for example, in carbon (Z = 6), ω_K ≈ 0.0026, resulting in nearly 100% Auger decay.^[19] In contrast, for higher Z like zinc (Z = 30), ω_K ≈ 0.49, making radiative and non-radiative paths more comparable.^[19] Both the Auger effect and radiative transitions serve as relaxation mechanisms to fill inner-shell vacancies created by ionization, sharing the goal of restoring atomic stability. However, they differ fundamentally in energy dissipation: fluorescence releases the energy as a detectable photon, while the Auger process ejects a low-energy electron, localizing the energy transfer within the atom or nearby matter. Another non-radiative process, internal conversion, involves the direct transfer of nuclear excitation energy to an atomic electron but is distinct from the atomic Auger effect, as it originates from nuclear rather than electronic shell transitions. The preference for Auger decay over radiative transitions in low-Z atoms leaves the ion in a higher charge state, as both the initial vacancy and the ejected Auger electron result in multiple ionizations, influencing subsequent chemical interactions and ionization cascades.

Theoretical Description

Auger Transition Rates

The Auger transition rate quantifies the probability per unit time for an Auger decay process, providing the theoretical foundation for understanding the competition between non-radiative and radiative relaxation pathways in core-excited atoms. According to time-dependent perturbation theory, the rate A is derived from Fermi's golden rule applied to the electron-electron interaction:

A = \frac{2\pi}{\hbar} \left| \langle f | \hat{H}_\text{int} | i \rangle \right|^2 \rho(E),

where |i\rangle represents the initial core-hole state (e.g., a single vacancy in the K-shell with filled valence shells), |f\rangle is the final state consisting of a continuum Auger electron and a two-hole dicationic ion, \hat{H}_\text{int} = \sum_{j<k} \frac{e^2}{r_{jk}} is the Coulomb repulsion Hamiltonian between electrons, and \rho(E) is the density of final states at the excess energy E = E_i - E_f. This expression captures the second-order process where a valence electron fills the core vacancy, transferring energy to eject another valence electron. The matrix element \langle f | \hat{H}_\text{int} | i \rangle involves integrals over the overlapping radial wave functions of the core, valence, and continuum electrons, which determine the transition strength.^[20] For a specific K-LM Auger transition, the kinetic energy of the ejected electron is given by the energy balance:

E_\text{kin} = E_K - E_L - E_M - U,

where E_K, E_L, and E_M are the binding energies of the K-, L-, and M-shell electrons, respectively, and U accounts for the binding energy of the final dicationic state (including electron-electron repulsion and relaxation effects). This formula highlights how the available excess energy dictates the continuum state's momentum and influences the density of states \rho(E) in the rate expression, with higher energies typically leading to broader spectral features. In atomic systems, U is often small compared to shell bindings but becomes significant in solids due to extra-atomic relaxation.^[21] The dependence of the Auger rate on atomic number Z arises primarily from the scaling of wave function overlaps and continuum normalization in the matrix element. For high Z, the rate scales approximately as Z^4 due to the increased localization of inner-shell orbitals, enhancing the Coulomb interaction strength; however, for low Z, screening by outer electrons weakens this scaling, resulting in lower effective rates. The lifetime of the core-hole excited state is inversely related to the total rate via \tau = 1/A, typically yielding ultrafast decays. Computational evaluation of these rates employs self-consistent field methods, such as Hartree-Fock (including relativistic Dirac-Hartree-Fock variants) or density functional theory, to generate accurate single-particle orbitals for the matrix elements and density of states; these approaches account for configuration interaction to improve precision for multi-electron systems. Typical rates for core-hole decays fall in the range $10^{14} to $10^{16} s^{-1}, corresponding to lifetimes of 10 to 100 femtoseconds.^[22] As a representative example, the total K-shell Auger rate for neutral neon (Z = 10) is approximately $1.9 \times 10^{15} s^{-1} , dominated by transitions to \text{Ne}^{2+} final states like $1s^2 2s^2 2p^4 and $1s^2 2s 2p^5; this yields a core-hole lifetime of about 500 attoseconds, underscoring the femtosecond-scale dynamics of the process. Such rates have been benchmarked against experimental linewidths in photoelectron spectroscopy, validating the theoretical framework for light elements.^[23]

Selection Rules and Parameters

The selection rules governing Auger transitions arise from the quantum mechanical nature of the process, which involves a two-electron Coulomb interaction operator. This operator is a scalar under rotations and has even parity, leading to conservation of total angular momentum and parity in the transition. Specifically, the total orbital angular momentum is conserved (ΔL = 0), and for spin, in the non-relativistic LS coupling scheme, the total spin is conserved, requiring ΔS = 0, which favors singlet-to-singlet transitions and suppresses triplet involvement unless spin-orbit coupling intervenes. Parity conservation dictates that allowed transitions occur between states of the same parity, such as even-to-even or odd-to-odd configurations, as the two-electron operator does not alter the overall parity of the atomic wavefunction. These rules filter the possible final states in Auger decay, determining which transitions contribute significantly to observed spectra. Auger transitions are conventionally labeled using a notation that identifies the shells involved, following IUPAC conventions adapted from X-ray spectroscopy. An XYZ designation specifies the initial core-hole shell (X), the shell from which an electron fills the vacancy (Y), and the shell from which the Auger electron is ejected (Z). Subscripts often denote specific subshells; for example, L_{23}-M_{45} indicates an initial vacancy in the L_2 or L_3 subshell, filled by an M_4 or M_5 electron, with ejection from another M_4 or M_5 orbital. This notation facilitates systematic cataloging of transitions across elements and is essential for interpreting spectra in atomic and molecular contexts. A key empirical parameter in Auger spectroscopy is the Auger parameter, defined as α = E_{kin} + E_{binding}(initial) - E_{binding}(final), where E_{kin} is the kinetic energy of the ejected Auger electron, E_{binding}(initial) is the binding energy of the initial core level, and E_{binding}(final) is the binding energy of the final dicationic state. In practice, since the final-state binding energy is challenging to measure directly, a modified form α' ≈ E_{kin} + E_{binding}(initial) is commonly used, which isolates extra-atomic relaxation effects and provides a measure of chemical shifts independent of reference-state variations. This parameter is particularly valuable for analyzing valence-band involvement and local chemical environments, as shifts in α' reflect changes in screening and polarizability around the core-ionized atom, enabling differentiation of oxidation states or bonding configurations in solids. For high atomic number (high-Z) elements, relativistic effects significantly modify the non-relativistic selection rules, necessitating advanced computational approaches like the Dirac-Fock method to account for spin-orbit coupling and jj-coupling schemes. In these cases, the breakdown of LS coupling leads to finer splitting of levels and altered transition intensities, with angular momentum rules adapted to include total angular momentum J conservation (ΔJ = 0, ±1). Additionally, shake-up and satellite transitions emerge due to electron correlation during the core-hole creation and decay, producing extra spectral lines where an outer electron is excited to a higher orbital, broadening the observed Auger peaks and complicating intensity assignments. These effects are prominent in heavy elements like Xe or Hg, where Dirac-Fock calculations reproduce experimental spectra by incorporating relativistic kinematics and configuration interactions.

Experimental Observation

Detection Methods

The detection of Auger electrons requires specialized instrumentation to generate, collect, and analyze these low-energy particles, which typically have kinetic energies ranging from 20 to 1000 eV. Primary excitation is achieved using electron beams with energies of 1-5 keV, often from sources such as lanthanum hexaboride (LaB₆) filaments or field emission guns, to create core-level vacancies in the sample atoms. Alternatively, X-ray sources, including laboratory-based systems or synchrotron radiation, can induce the initial ionization, enabling non-destructive probing in certain setups. These excitation methods ensure the Auger process is triggered efficiently while minimizing sample damage. Electron energy analyzers are central to measuring the kinetic energies of emitted Auger electrons. Hemispherical sector analyzers (also known as concentric hemispherical analyzers, CHA) provide high energy resolution (down to 0.1-0.2 eV) by applying a potential difference between two hemispheres to select electrons of specific energies. Cylindrical mirror analyzers (CMA) are commonly used for their high transmission efficiency and 360-degree collection angle, making them suitable for routine surface analysis despite slightly lower resolution. These analyzers operate by deflecting electrons based on their energy-to-charge ratio, allowing differentiation of Auger peaks from other signals. Experiments must be conducted in ultra-high vacuum (UHV) environments, typically at pressures of 10^{-10} Torr or lower, to prevent adsorption of residual gases that could contaminate the surface and attenuate the low-energy Auger electrons. The short inelastic mean free path of Auger electrons, approximately 1-10 nm depending on material and energy, confines detection to the topmost atomic layers, enhancing surface sensitivity but requiring pristine conditions.^[13] Auger electrons are collected and amplified using electron multipliers, such as channeltrons or microchannel plates (MCP), which provide gains up to 10^8 and enable pulse counting for low-signal detection. Spectra are often recorded in derivative mode (dN/dE vs. E) to enhance peak visibility. Key challenges include the high background from secondary electrons and inelastically scattered primaries, which can obscure weak Auger signals; these are mitigated through energy loss spectroscopy to differentiate true Auger transitions from loss features. Additionally, the limited escape depth necessitates careful sample preparation to avoid artifacts from deeper origins.

Spectroscopy Techniques

Auger spectra are acquired by measuring the kinetic energy distribution of electrons emitted from a sample surface following excitation by a primary electron beam, typically in the range of 1-5 keV. These spectra exhibit distinct peaks at characteristic kinetic energies specific to each element, enabling unambiguous identification of atomic species present in the top few monolayers. For instance, the carbon KLL Auger peak appears around 272 eV, while the oxygen KLL peak is near 510 eV. Additionally, fine structure observed in Auger peaks, particularly those involving valence electrons such as core-valence-valence (CVV) transitions, arises from the density of states in the valence band, providing insights into the local electronic environment and chemical bonding. This structure manifests as modulations or shoulders on the main peak, reflecting the band structure of the material.^[24]^[25] To enhance peak resolution and reduce background noise in complex spectra, Auger data are often recorded and displayed in derivative mode, denoted as dN(E)/dE, where N(E) is the electron energy distribution. This mode is achieved by applying a small sinusoidal modulation voltage (typically 1-5 V) to the electron energy analyzer, which differentiates the signal electronically and highlights subtle features that may be obscured in the direct N(E) spectrum. The derivative format accentuates the sharp transitions at Auger peak energies, making it easier to distinguish overlapping peaks from different elements or chemical states. While direct N(E) spectra preserve intensity information for quantitative work, the derivative mode remains the standard for qualitative analysis due to its superior visibility of spectral details.^[13]^[26] Quantitative analysis of Auger spectra relies on measuring the peak-to-peak heights or integrated areas of derivative peaks, which are proportional to the elemental concentration in the probed surface layer (approximately 1-5 nm depth). These intensities are normalized using element-specific sensitivity factors, derived from theoretical calculations or empirical standards, to yield semi-quantitative atomic percentages with accuracies typically within 10-20% relative error for major constituents. For example, sensitivity factors account for variations in Auger transition probabilities, electron backscattering, and escape depths, allowing compositional determination without absolute standards in many cases. This approach is particularly effective for multi-element surfaces, though corrections may be needed for matrix effects or peak overlaps.^[21]^[10] Auger spectroscopy variants extend its capabilities for spatial and depth-resolved analysis. Scanning Auger microscopy (SAM) raster-scans a finely focused electron beam (spot size ~10-50 nm) across the surface while collecting Auger signals, generating elemental maps that reveal lateral distributions of composition with sub-micrometer resolution. For depth profiling, the technique is combined with low-energy ion sputtering (e.g., Ar+ ions at 0.5-2 keV), sequentially removing atomic layers to monitor changes in Auger intensities as a function of depth, achieving profiles up to several hundred nanometers with nanometer-scale resolution under optimized conditions. Energy resolution in standard AES instruments ranges from ~0.1 eV in high-resolution modes to ~1 eV in routine operation, limited primarily by the analyzer's pass energy and beam broadening. Furthermore, angular-resolved AES varies the emission angle of collected electrons to probe surface structure, as the angular distribution of Auger electrons is sensitive to atomic geometry and adsorbate orientations near the surface.^[27]^[28]^[29]

Applications

Surface and Material Analysis

Auger electron spectroscopy (AES) serves as a primary analytical technique for elemental mapping and composition analysis on material surfaces at the nanoscale, leveraging the emission of Auger electrons to probe the top few nanometers of a sample. By directing a focused electron beam onto the surface, AES excites core electrons, leading to the detection of characteristic Auger electrons from all elements except hydrogen and helium, enabling identification of surface contaminants, alloys, and layered structures. This surface sensitivity arises from the short inelastic mean free path of Auger electrons, typically 3-10 nm, which confines analysis to the outermost atomic layers without significant interference from deeper material.^[28] In materials science, AES finds extensive applications in characterizing thin films, where it determines composition, thickness, and uniformity, such as in multilayer coatings for electronics or protective barriers. For instance, in semiconductor quality control, AES measures oxide layer thicknesses on silicon wafers, often down to monolayers, to assess passivation quality and prevent device failures. Corrosion studies also benefit from AES, as it profiles the elemental distribution in corrosion products on metals like aluminum alloys, revealing how additives such as zinc influence protective film formation and degradation mechanisms. These capabilities make AES invaluable for failure analysis in industries like aerospace and automotive, where surface integrity directly impacts performance.^[30]^[28] A key advantage of AES is its high spatial resolution, achieving ~10 nm in scanning Auger microscopy (SAM) mode, which allows elemental mapping of sub-micrometer features like defects or particles on surfaces. This is complemented by rapid acquisition times, enabling analysis of large areas such as 300 mm wafers in semiconductor production, and high sensitivity with detection limits of 0.1-1% atomic concentration. The technique's non-destructive nature for conductive samples further supports its use in iterative quality assurance workflows.^[28]^[31]^[30] However, AES has notable limitations, including its reliance on conductive or semi-conductive samples, as insulators suffer from charging effects that distort spectra unless mitigated by coating or low-energy flooding. Depth profiling via ion sputtering is destructive, potentially altering the surface chemistry, and quantitative accuracy typically ranges from 10-20% relative error due to matrix effects and scattering. Additionally, the technique provides limited information on chemical bonding states, often requiring complementary methods for full characterization.^[28]^[31]^[30] Recent advances have enhanced AES for dynamic surface processes, with time-resolved AES enabling the observation of ultrafast electronic and nuclear dynamics, such as sub-10 fs Auger decays in materials like graphene using femtosecond optical lasers. Integration with X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) has improved chemical state analysis, as demonstrated in studies of core-shell nanoparticles and surface reactions, combining AES's high resolution with XPS's bonding insights for more comprehensive material profiling. These developments, reported in high-impact works from 2015 onward, expand AES's role in real-time monitoring of thin film growth and corrosion initiation.^[32]

Medical and Biological Uses

The Auger effect plays a pivotal role in targeted radionuclide therapy, particularly through Auger-emitting radionuclides incorporated into radiopharmaceuticals for cancer treatment. These low-energy electrons, with ranges on the order of nanometers to micrometers in biological tissue, enable highly localized energy deposition, minimizing damage to surrounding healthy cells when the emitter is bound to tumor-specific biomolecules. For instance, iodine-125 (¹²⁵I) has been extensively studied as an Auger emitter in agents like ¹²⁵I-iododeoxyuridine (IUdR), which incorporates into DNA, leading to irreparable double-strand breaks upon decay. Similarly, iodine-131 (¹³¹I), while primarily a beta emitter, also produces Auger electrons that contribute to cytotoxicity when targeted to thyroid cancers or other iodine-avid tumors. This short-range ionization is particularly effective for micrometastases and single-cell targeting, offering a therapeutic advantage over longer-range beta or alpha emitters. In terms of dosimetry, Auger electrons induce clustered DNA damage due to their high linear energy transfer (LET), often exceeding 10-25 keV/μm, which results in complex lesions resistant to cellular repair mechanisms. When internalized near the nucleus, a single decay event can deliver absorbed doses up to several hundred grays to DNA, far surpassing the effects of low-LET radiation at equivalent exposures. This locality enhances the therapeutic index compared to beta emitters, as the energy is confined to the targeted cell, reducing off-target toxicity; studies show relative biological effectiveness (RBE) values of 2-10 for nuclear-targeted Auger emitters versus beta particles. Biological effects further include indirect damage via water radiolysis producing reactive oxygen species, as well as membrane disruption leading to oxidative stress and bystander effects in nearby non-targeted cells. Cellular uptake studies emphasize the importance of vector design, such as peptides or antibodies, to achieve nuclear localization, with preclinical models demonstrating enhanced cytotoxicity in prostate and breast cancer cells upon internalization. Auger electrons also support imaging applications in positron emission tomography (PET) and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), where theranostic pairs like ⁵⁵Co/⁵⁸mCo-DOTA-PSMA-617 enable tumor visualization while delivering therapeutic doses. These agents allow dosimetry-guided therapy, with PET/SPECT confirming biodistribution before Auger therapy administration, as seen in prostate cancer models where high tumor uptake correlates with effective imaging and subsequent cell killing. Combined approaches integrate diagnostic imaging with Auger therapy to monitor treatment response and optimize dosing. Auger electron therapy (AET) has advanced to clinical trials since the 2010s, focusing on safety and efficacy in solid tumors. Notable examples include phase I trials evaluating ¹¹¹In-DOTATOC for neuroendocrine tumors and ¹²⁵I-labeled agents for glioblastoma, with ongoing studies like NCT05359146 (recruiting as of November 2025, estimated completion December 2025; first-in-human results from 2024 indicate promising therapeutic index in neuroendocrine tumors) combining beta and Auger emitters for enhanced precision, and NCT04807257 (ongoing as of November 2025, estimated completion December 2026) assessing Auger molecular therapy for cutaneous lesions. Preliminary results indicate tolerable toxicity profiles and promising tumor control rates, particularly in recurrent cancers resistant to conventional radiotherapy.^[33]^[34]^[35] Despite these advances, challenges persist in AET, primarily the need for precise molecular targeting to ensure emitters reach the tumor cell nucleus, as suboptimal localization reduces efficacy. Radiation protection concerns arise with low-Z emitters like ¹²⁵I, which require stringent handling due to high specific activity and potential for personnel exposure during preparation, though their low photon yields mitigate some shielding issues compared to higher-energy emitters.

References

[1]
Auger Effect - HyperPhysics
The Auger effect is a process by which electrons with characteristic energies are ejected from atoms in response to a downward transition by another electron ...Missing: history | Show results with:history
[2]
The Auger Effect
The Auger effect has now proved to be. particularly fruitful in many fields like fundamental physics (with the study of atoms, molecules, collision processes...) ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[3]
Auger electrons for cancer therapy – a review
Oct 11, 2019 · These high LET electrons were first described in independent work by Lise Meitner in 1922 (Meitner 1922) and Pierre Auger in 1923 (Auger 1923).Missing: paper | Show results with:paper
[4]
Auger effect | Radiology Reference Article | Radiopaedia.org
Feb 28, 2023 · The 'Auger effect' describes the emission of an electron from an atom accompanying the filling of a inner electron shell vacancy produced by any means.
[5]
Auger electrons for cancer therapy – a review - PMC - PubMed Central
Oct 11, 2019 · The Auger effect describes the process in which a vacancy in an inner electron orbital (i.e. K-shell) is filled by the decay of an electron from ...
[6]
[PDF] Fundamentals of XAFS - Lehigh University
The second process for de-excitation of the core hole is the Auger Effect, in which an electron drops from a higher electron level and a second electron is ...
[7]
Scientific Principle of Auger Electron Spectroscopy
The designation of levels to the K,L,M, shells is based on their having principal quantum numbers of 1,2,3, respectively. It is convenient to expand the part ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[8]
[PDF] i. inner - OSTI
Inner-shell vacancies are produced both by electron and by photon collisions with the target.
[9]
[PDF] feasibility study of auger and photoelectron spectroscopy as an ...
the kinetic energy of the ejected photoelectrons are measured with the p- spectrometer. The binding energy is then obtained directly as the difference.
[10]
[PDF] CHAPTER 10 AUGER ELECTRON SPECTROSCOPY
Auger electron spectroscopy (AES) is a nondestructive core-level electron spectroscopy for semi-quantitative determination of the elemental composition of ...
[11]
Lise Meitner, β-decay and non-radiative electromagnetic transitions
Sep 9, 2020 · In a later publication (1923), she actually interpreted the electrons that she had detected as resulting from transitions within the electronic ...Abstract · Introduction · Electron spectrometry... · The decay ofTh
[12]
Auger processes in the 21st century - PMC - PubMed Central
... Auger electrons. This phenomenon was first observed by Pierre Auger when he exposed a cloud chamber to X-rays (Auger 1925). Inner atomic shell vacancies are ...Missing: original | Show results with:original
[13]
Lise Meitner: Comparative contributions to the Auger effect
Aug 7, 2025 · We examine again L. Meitner's and P. Auger's contributions to the description of the 'Auger' effect. Meitner's concern was the exact nature of the (nuclear) ...
[14]
Auger Electron Spectroscopy (AES) Tutorial | EAG Laboratories
The idea of using electron-stimulated Auger signals for surface analysis was first suggested in 1953 by J. J. Lander. However, it wasn't until 1967 that Larry ...
[15]
5.2: Auger Electron Spectroscopy - Chemistry LibreTexts
Jan 10, 2023 · The Auger process is initiated by creation of a core hole ... The KE of the Auger electron is independent of the mechanism of initial core hole ...
[16]
[PDF] Auger Electron Spectroscopy (AES)
The idea of using electron-stimulated Auger signals for surface analysis was first suggested in 1953 by J. J. Lander.Missing: 1950s | Show results with:1950s
[17]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168583X02004895
[18]
[PDF] Calculations of Auger Electron Spectrum - IAEA Nuclear Data Services
state as functions of atomic number. •In low Z region (Z<30), Auger decay is a dominant decay channel, also Auger rate is nearly a constant along all the.
[19]
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.555955
[20]
https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0036976
[21]
Auger Electron Spectroscopy - SERC (Carleton)
May 10, 2021 · Auger Electron Spectroscopy (AES) is a surface-sensitive analytical method the provides compositional information in the near-surface environment of materials.
[22]
Nonrelativistic Auger Rates, X-Ray Rates, and Fluorescence Yields ...
Numerical calculations have been performed using the Hartree-Fock-Slater ... Auger and x-ray total transition rates and the fluorescence yields are reported.
[23]
Auger rates calculated for | Phys. Rev. A
Feb 1, 1975 · Starting with a 1 ⁢ s vacancy in the neon atom, Auger rates are calculated for transitions to the final L S -coupled states of N e + + .
[24]
Auger Spectrum - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
Auger spectra refer to the energy distributions of Auger electrons emitted from a surface after core holes are created and subsequently filled by higher ...
[25]
Fine structures of valence-band, x-ray-excited Auger electron, and ...
The XAES N(E) spectra from DLC films contain four carbon KLL transition peaks. The features of the XAES spectra of DLC films are similar to diamond and do not ...Missing: characteristic | Show results with:characteristic<|separator|>
[26]
auger electron spectroscopy reference manual
electron spectra are normally taken in the derivative mode. The derivative dN(E)/ dE is obtained by superimposing a small sinus- oidal potential modulation ...
[27]
Auger Electron Spectroscopy (AES) - Surface Science Western
SAM/AES uses a primary electron beam to emit Auger electrons, which are analyzed to determine the composition of the outer 0.5 to 5 nm of the surface.
[28]
Auger Electron Spectroscopy (AES) - EAG Laboratories
AES sputter profiles provide compositional information as a function of depth. With a small electron beam diameter, AES is very useful when investing particles ...
[29]
Auger Electron Angular Distributions from Surfaces - Science
... Auger process produces a complicated source wave whose nature must be explored before Auger angular distributions can be used for surface structure analysis.
[30]
Auger Electron Spectroscopy in the Semiconductor Industry - AZoM
Aug 2, 2022 · AES can only analyze conducting materials and semiconductors because they can rapidly transmit electrons across the material.Limitations Of Auger... · Latest Research · References And Further...
[31]
Advantages and Disadvantages of Auger Electron Spectroscopy
Nov 18, 2019 · AES is a reliable quality assurance tool for in-depth surface analysis of conductive and semi-conductive materials.
[32]
Advancements in the use of Auger electrons in science and ...
The resulting Auger electron yields that were determined from their experimental measurements differ by 20% from theoretical values published in the Evaluated ...
[33]
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05359146
[34]
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04807257