Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Scherrer equation

The Scherrer equation is a fundamental relation in X-ray crystallography that estimates the average size of crystallites in polycrystalline materials from the broadening of peaks in X-ray diffraction (XRD) patterns, attributing the broadening primarily to the finite size of coherently diffracting domains rather than defects or strain.^[1] Formulated as D = \frac{K \lambda}{\beta \cos \theta}, where D represents the mean crystallite size, K is a dimensionless shape factor typically around 0.9 (depending on crystallite geometry and peak profile), \lambda is the wavelength of the incident X-ray radiation, \beta is the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the diffraction peak in radians, and \theta is the Bragg diffraction angle, the equation provides a straightforward method for sizing nanoscale particles in powders, thin films, and nanomaterials.^[1]^[2] This approach is particularly valuable for analyzing materials where crystallite dimensions are below 100–200 nm, as larger sizes yield negligible broadening.^[1] Named after Swiss physicist Paul Scherrer, the equation originated from his 1918 work on X-ray scattering by colloidal particles, building on earlier collaborations with Peter Debye in developing powder diffraction techniques around 1916–1917.^[1] In his seminal paper, Scherrer derived the relation under ideal conditions: a monodisperse powder sample exposed to a perfectly parallel, monochromatic, and infinitely narrow X-ray beam, assuming spherical or cubic crystallites with no microstrain or instrumental broadening effects.^[1] The derivation treats the diffraction peak as the Fourier transform of the crystallite's shape function, leading to an inverse proportionality between peak width and domain size.^[2] Over the decades, refinements like those by A.L. Patterson in 1939 provided exact derivations for spherical particles and clarified the shape factor K, enhancing its applicability.^[2] In practice, the Scherrer equation is applied across materials science, nanotechnology, and solid-state physics to characterize semiconductors, catalysts, ceramics, and metal oxides, such as determining ~10–50 nm grains in CeO₂ nanoparticles or ZnO thin films via Cu Kα radiation (λ ≈ 1.54 Å).^[3]^[4] However, its accuracy requires corrections for instrumental resolution (often via subtraction of standard sample broadening) and separation of size-induced effects from lattice strain, which can be addressed using Williamson-Hall analysis.^[1] Limitations include overestimation for sizes exceeding ~100 nm, sensitivity to peak overlap in complex patterns, and assumptions of uniform crystallite shape, prompting modern variants like the modified Scherrer method for better precision in nanomaterials.^[1]^[5] Despite these caveats, it remains a cornerstone tool due to its simplicity and non-destructive nature in XRD experiments.^[6]

Fundamentals

Definition and Basic Formula

The Scherrer equation is a fundamental relation in X-ray crystallography used to estimate the size of crystalline domains from the broadening of diffraction peaks in powder diffraction patterns.^[7] It is expressed as

D = \frac{K \lambda}{\beta \cos \theta},

where D represents the mean size of the ordered (crystalline) domains, typically interpreted as the average crystallite size perpendicular to the reflecting planes; K is a dimensionless shape factor, often taken as approximately 0.9; \lambda is the wavelength of the X-ray radiation; \beta is the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the diffraction peak, measured in radians and serving as a quantitative measure of the peak broadening attributable to finite crystallite size; and \theta is the Bragg diffraction angle.^[7]^[1] Standard units for D and \lambda are typically nanometers or angstroms, with \beta converted to radians for consistency.^[1] The equation was introduced in 1918 by Paul Scherrer in his work on determining the size and internal structure of colloidal particles using X-rays, building on the powder diffraction method developed earlier by Peter Debye and Paul Scherrer.^[7]^[8] The shape factor K accounts for the crystallite geometry and varies slightly with shape; for example, a value of 0.89 is commonly used for spherical crystallites, while 0.94 applies to the FWHM of spherical crystals with cubic symmetry.^[1]

Physical Interpretation

In an ideal infinite perfect crystal, X-ray diffraction peaks would manifest as infinitely sharp delta functions due to the perfect periodicity of the lattice, allowing for precise constructive interference of scattered waves across all scattering planes.^[9] However, real crystals consist of finite-sized crystallites, which limit the extent of this periodicity and restrict the number of coherently scattering lattice planes, resulting in imperfect wave interference and thus broadened diffraction peaks.^[10] This phenomenon is analogous to diffraction from a finite optical grating, where a limited number of slits produces a central maximum with surrounding side lobes and a broader overall pattern, compared to the razor-sharp lines from an infinite grating; similarly, smaller crystallites act as truncated arrays of scattering planes, reducing the sharpness of the interference condition.^[9] Qualitatively, the fewer coherent scattering events in smaller crystallites lead to greater uncertainty in the momentum transfer vector during diffraction, as the finite spatial extent of the lattice introduces variability in the phase relationships among scattered waves, thereby increasing the angular width of the peaks.^[1] A key feature of size-induced broadening is its uniformity across all diffraction peaks, independent of the scattering angle $2\theta, in contrast to broadening from lattice strain, which arises from non-uniform distortions and varies proportionally with $2\theta.^[11] The Scherrer equation provides a quantitative means to estimate crystallite size from this uniform broadening effect.^[1]

Applicability and Assumptions

Suitable Conditions

The Scherrer equation finds primary applicability in X-ray diffraction (XRD) techniques applied to polycrystalline materials containing nanoscale crystallites, generally spanning 3 to 100 nm in size.^[1] This range ensures that finite crystallite size effects dominate the diffraction peak broadening, allowing reliable size estimation without significant interference from other broadening mechanisms.^[12] Similar coherent scattering methods, such as neutron diffraction, can also employ the equation under analogous conditions, though XRD remains the most common implementation.^[13] For accurate results, diffraction peaks must exhibit broadening primarily attributable to crystallite size, excluding substantial contributions from instrumental resolution, lattice strain, or other defects; this necessitates careful calibration of the diffractometer to isolate size-induced effects.^[14] Samples should consist of randomly oriented powders or polycrystalline thin films to avoid preferred orientation, which could distort peak shapes and intensities.^[1] The equation presupposes isotropic crystallite shapes—such as spheres, cubes, or equiaxed polyhedra—and uniform size distribution within the coherence volume, alongside a basic grasp of Bragg's law for interpreting diffraction angles.^[12] Originally derived for colloidal particles, the Scherrer equation has been generalized to diverse crystal symmetries and is particularly suited to nanomaterials like metal nanoparticles, ceramic powders, and pharmaceutical crystals where nanoscale domain sizes influence material properties. Its validity in these contexts relies on the absence of microstrain and the prevalence of coherent scattering from multiple lattice planes within each crystallite.^[12]

Key Limitations

The Scherrer equation relies on several core assumptions that limit its direct applicability. It presumes that crystallites are coherent domains approximated as spheres or cubes, with diffraction broadening arising exclusively from finite size effects rather than strain, defects, or instrumental contributions.^[15] The shape factor K is an approximation that varies with crystallite geometry, typically ranging from 0.89 for integral breadth in spherical particles to values up to 2.08 for other forms, necessitating adjustments for non-ideal shapes. A primary limitation occurs when strain broadening is present, as the equation cannot distinguish it from size-induced broadening, leading to underestimated crystallite sizes D; in such cases, the Williamson-Hall method is required to separate these contributions.^[16] The equation is generally invalid for very small domains below approximately 3 nm, where errors increase nonlinearly due to excessive peak broadening and poor resolution, or for larger domains exceeding 100 nm, beyond which instrumental broadening dominates and size effects become negligible.^[17]^[15] It also ignores microstrain from lattice distortions and stacking faults, which contribute additional broadening not accounted for in the basic model. Common error sources include peak overlap in polycrystalline samples with complex diffraction patterns, which complicates accurate width measurement, and temperature-induced thermal broadening from thermal diffuse scattering, which can affect peak profiles.^[15] For non-spherical or irregularly shaped crystallites, using a fixed K without adjustment renders the method inaccurate. Modern analyses highlight quantitative uncertainties in D, often reaching 10-20% or more due to these factors, with recommendations favoring integral breadth over FWHM for reduced sensitivity to shape and distribution variations. While extensions like disorder of the second kind address some broadening beyond basic assumptions, they fall outside the equation's core framework.^[15]

Derivation for Ideal Case

Structure Factor Calculation

To derive the structure factor for size-induced broadening in X-ray diffraction, consider a simple model of a finite stack of N equally spaced atomic planes, separated by interplanar distance d, perpendicular to the scattering vector \mathbf{q}. Each plane contributes equally to the scattered amplitude, assuming identical scattering from atoms in the planes and neglecting atomic form factors for this geometric consideration. The positions of the planes are \mathbf{r}_j = j \mathbf{\hat{n}} d for j = 0, 1, \dots, N-1, where \mathbf{\hat{n}} is the unit normal to the planes.^[2] The structure factor S(\mathbf{q}), which represents the total scattered amplitude from these planes, is the coherent sum of contributions from each plane:

S(\mathbf{q}) = \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} e^{i \mathbf{q} \cdot \mathbf{r}_j} = \sum_{j=0}^{N-1} e^{i j \gamma},

where \gamma = \mathbf{q} \cdot \mathbf{\hat{n}} d = \frac{4\pi d \sin \theta}{\lambda} is the phase difference between adjacent planes, with \theta the Bragg diffraction angle and \lambda the X-ray wavelength. (For higher-order reflections, a factor of the order m may apply, but the fundamental case is considered here.) This sum is a finite geometric series that evaluates to the closed-form expression:

S(\mathbf{q}) = \frac{\sin(N \gamma / 2)}{\sin(\gamma / 2)} e^{i (N-1) \gamma / 2}.

The exponential phase term e^{i (N-1) \gamma / 2} accounts for the shift in the origin but does not affect the intensity. This form, known as the Laue function in amplitude, arises directly from the summation and highlights the interference effects limited by the finite number of planes.^[2]^[18] The diffracted intensity I is proportional to the squared modulus of the structure factor, I \propto |S(\mathbf{q})|^2, which simplifies to:

|S(\mathbf{q})|^2 = \left( \frac{\sin(N \gamma / 2)}{\sin(\gamma / 2)} \right)^2.

This expression describes the interference pattern from the finite stack, with principal maxima occurring when \gamma = 2\pi m (for integer m), corresponding to the Bragg condition m \lambda = 2 d \sin \theta_B for infinite crystals, but with subsidiary maxima and broadening due to the finite N. Near a Bragg peak at angle \theta_B, define the phase deviation \eta = \gamma - 2\pi m \approx \frac{4\pi d \cos \theta_B}{\lambda} \Delta \theta, where \Delta \theta = \theta - \theta_B. The intensity profile then becomes:

I \propto \left( \frac{\sin(N \eta / 2)}{\sin(\eta / 2)} \right)^2.

This approximation captures the diffraction pattern's shape close to the Bragg position, where the envelope of the Laue function determines the finite-size broadening effects, with the peak intensity scaling as N^2 and the width inversely proportional to N.^[18]

Peak Width Determination

In the ideal case of a finite stack of crystal planes, the structure factor derived from coherent scattering leads to an intensity profile near the Bragg peak that, for small angular deviations \Delta \theta, approximates a sinc-squared function. Specifically, the intensity I(\Delta \theta) is proportional to \left[ \frac{\sin(N \eta / 2)}{\sin(\eta / 2)} \right]^2, where \eta = \frac{4\pi d \cos \theta}{\lambda} \Delta \theta is the phase deviation, N is the number of planes, d is the interplanar spacing, \theta is the Bragg angle, and \lambda is the X-ray wavelength.^[2] For small \eta, this simplifies to I \propto N^2 \mathrm{sinc}^2 \left( \frac{N \eta}{2} \right), assuming a rectangular array of planes perpendicular to the scattering vector.^[19] The full width at half maximum (FWHM), denoted \beta, of this sinc-squared profile is determined by solving for the points where the intensity drops to half its maximum value, yielding \beta \approx \frac{0.89 \lambda}{N d \cos \theta} in radians. This width arises from the first solution to \left| \frac{\sin u}{u} \right| = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}, where u \approx 1.392, scaled by the geometric factors involving N, d, \theta, and \lambda.^[19] The approximation holds well for large N, where the central lobe of the sinc-squared function resembles a Gaussian profile, but deviates for small N due to the oscillatory side lobes. Relating this broadening to crystallite size, the coherence length D along the normal to the planes is D = N d, allowing rearrangement of the FWHM expression to D = \frac{0.89 \lambda}{\beta \cos \theta}. This form directly yields the Scherrer equation with shape factor K = 0.89, applicable under the Gaussian approximation for the peak profile in rectangular (slab-like) crystallites.^[19] The original derivation assumes uniform rectangular crystallites without defects, contrasting with more rounded shapes like spheres, where K \approx 0.94 for FWHM.^[2] Different measures of peak breadth affect the choice of K: the FWHM is commonly used but sensitive to peak asymmetry, while the integral breadth \beta_{\mathrm{int}} = \int I(\theta) \, d\theta / I_{\max} provides a more robust average, yielding K = 1 exactly for the sinc-squared profile of finite plane stacks, as the integrated width is precisely \lambda / (D \cos \theta). This equivalence holds for Lorentzian (Cauchy) profiles, where the tails contribute significantly to the integral, but the sinc-squared shape from finite size is neither purely Gaussian nor Lorentzian; Gaussian fitting approximates the central region well for large N > 10, while Lorentzian fits better capture the broader wings in exact calculations. The distinction is critical, as instrumental broadening often convolves a Gaussian component, necessitating profile deconvolution for accurate K.

Advanced Broadening Effects

Disorder of the Second Kind

Disorder of the second kind refers to static lattice distortions in crystalline materials, arising from defects such as vacancies, dislocations, and stacking faults, which introduce inhomogeneous strain fields that vary with interatomic distance. These distortions cause broadening in X-ray diffraction peaks that is distinct from the dynamic, thermal vibrations associated with disorder of the first kind, where atomic displacements remain constant regardless of distance.^[20] In contrast to first-kind disorder, which produces Gaussian-like broadening, second-kind disorder generates long-range strain effects that decay inversely with distance, leading to more pronounced diffuse scattering components. The primary effect of second-kind disorder on diffraction peaks is the development of asymmetric profiles featuring Lorentzian tails, particularly evident in materials with high defect densities like dislocation networks.^[21] This broadening arises from the perturbation of atomic positions by static defects, which disrupt the coherent scattering and extend the peak width in a manner dependent on the reflection order and defect orientation. When combined with finite crystallite size broadening—typically Gaussian in nature—the overall peak shape results from their convolution, often approximated as a Voigt function for profile fitting.^[20] Such convolution complicates direct application of the Scherrer equation, as the observed broadening includes contributions from both mechanisms, necessitating deconvolution techniques to isolate effects. Mathematically, Warren's approach employs Fourier analysis of diffraction line profiles to quantify second-kind disorder through the Warren-Averbach method, separating the size-related (A_L^S) and distortion-related (A_L^D) coefficients from the total Fourier transform.^[22] For microstrain modeling, the strain broadening component β_s is described by β_s = 4 ε tan θ, where ε represents the root-mean-square microstrain and θ is the Bragg angle; this relation assumes a Gaussian distribution but requires correction for the Lorentzian character of second-kind effects. The apparent crystallite size derived from uncorrected Scherrer analysis is thus reduced by disorder. Separation of these contributions is essential, as failure to account for disorder overestimates strain or underestimates true crystallite size. Examples of second-kind disorder are commonly observed in deformed alloys, such as cold-worked Pb-Bi systems, where dislocation densities lead to measurable asymmetric broadening and microstrains on the order of 0.1–0.5%.^[23] In perovskite materials, like Aurivillius compounds, stacking faults between perovskite layers induce anisotropic disorder, broadening XRD lines in a way that mimics size effects but requires profile analysis to distinguish static distortions along specific axes.^[24] These cases highlight the need for advanced modeling to interpret broadening accurately in defect-prone structures.

Coherence Length Concept

The coherence length L represents the average distance over which scattered waves from atomic planes in a sample maintain phase coherence during diffraction, serving as a measure of the effective size of coherently scattering domains within the material. In the ideal case of perfect crystals without defects, L equals the physical crystallite size D, as the entire domain contributes constructively to the Bragg peaks. However, the presence of defects, such as dislocations or lattice distortions, disrupts phase alignment, resulting in a reduced coherence length where L < D, reflecting the limited extent of ordered scattering regions.^[25]^[26] This length is calculated via Fourier analysis of the diffraction peak profile, which decomposes the broadening into size and strain components; the coherence length emerges as L = \frac{2\pi}{\Delta q}, where \Delta q is the peak width in reciprocal space, often determined using methods like Warren-Averbach analysis to isolate the size-related decay in the Fourier coefficients.^[27]^[26] Disorder contributes to this reduction by introducing strain that limits the phase coherence, as briefly noted in analyses of paracrystalline broadening. The coherence length relates directly to the Scherrer equation through the modified form L = \frac{K \lambda}{\beta \cos \theta}, where K is a shape factor (typically 0.9 for isotropic spheres but varied for other geometries), \lambda is the wavelength, \beta is the integral breadth, and \theta is the Bragg angle; adjustments to K account for disorder or anisotropy, making the approach suitable for materials like thin films or nanowires where coherence differs along directions.^[28]^[14] Advancements in the concept extend its application to neutron scattering and pair distribution function (PDF) analysis, where total scattering patterns yield coherence lengths from the exponential damping of PDF peaks, probing local order in disordered or nanoscale systems beyond traditional Bragg diffraction limits.^[29]^[30] Tools like the Larch software package support these refinements by enabling PDF processing of neutron and X-ray data, facilitating assessments of 2D and 3D coherence in anisotropic structures such as layered semiconductors.^[31] Recent developments incorporate direction-dependent K factors for 3D coherence mapping, enhancing precision in complex morphologies.^[32]

Practical Applications

Usage in Crystallite Sizing

The application of the Scherrer equation for crystallite sizing begins with acquiring an X-ray diffraction (XRD) pattern of the sample, typically using Cu Kα radiation with wavelength λ = 1.54 Å. Relevant diffraction peaks are selected based on their intensity and lack of severe overlap, often guided by reference powder diffraction files. The full width at half maximum (FWHM, denoted β) for each peak is extracted through profile fitting after correcting for instrumental broadening. This correction is essential and involves measuring a standard reference material, such as NIST SRM 640e silicon, under identical experimental conditions to obtain the instrumental profile, followed by deconvolution using the relation β = √(β_observed² - β_instrument²), where widths are in radians.^[15] Profile fitting is performed using functions like the pseudo-Voigt or Pearson VII to model the peak shape accurately, as these account for the convolution of Gaussian (instrumental) and Lorentzian (crystallite size-induced) broadening components. The fitting process refines parameters such as peak position (2θ), intensity, and width while constraining variables like skewness for stability, aiming for a goodness-of-fit metric (e.g., R < 10%). Preferred peaks lie in the 30°–50° 2θ range to balance resolution and error sensitivity. Once β and the Bragg angle θ (half of 2θ) are determined, the mean crystallite size D is computed via the Scherrer equation D = K λ / (β cos θ), with the shape factor K typically set to 0.9 for near-spherical particles; results from multiple peaks are averaged for robustness.^[15] Software tools streamline this workflow, with HighScore Plus enabling intuitive phase identification, Voigt-based profile fitting, and automated Scherrer calculations integrated with database searches. FullProf and GSAS offer advanced capabilities for Le Bail or Rietveld refinement, where crystallite size can be refined as a global parameter alongside structural models, particularly useful for complex multiphase samples; the Voigt function's use in these programs ensures precise separation of broadening sources. These tools emphasize the need for high-quality data collection, such as step sizes of 0.01°–0.02° 2θ, to support reliable fitting.^[33]^[34] A representative numerical example involves silicon nanoparticles analyzed with Cu Kα radiation (λ = 1.54 Å). For the (111) reflection at 2θ = 28.4° (θ = 14.2°, cos θ ≈ 0.969), a corrected β = 0.4° (0.007 rad, after instrumental subtraction via a standard) and K = 0.9 yield D = (0.9 × 1.54) / (0.007 × 0.969) ≈ 20 nm, illustrating the inverse relationship between peak broadening and size for nanoscale materials. This calculation assumes minimal microstrain contribution and demonstrates typical values for ~20 nm particles.^[15] Error propagation in D arises primarily from uncertainties in β, with the relative error approximated as ΔD / D ≈ Δβ / β, often yielding 5–10% for fitting errors alone in routine analyses. Including contributions from K (±0.1), λ (±0.00005 Å), and θ (±0.01°), the combined relative uncertainty can reach ~6.5% (e.g., expanded uncertainty of 3.2 nm for a 24 nm TiO₂ crystallite), underscoring the value of multiple-peak averaging and calibration to enhance precision.

Instrumental and Sample Considerations

In X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis using the Scherrer equation, instrumental broadening arises from the convolution of the diffraction profile with the instrument's resolution function, which must be corrected to isolate size-related broadening. This correction is typically performed by measuring a standard material with negligible intrinsic broadening, such as NIST SRM 660c lanthanum hexaboride (LaB6), under identical experimental conditions to obtain the instrumental profile, followed by deconvolution using the relation

\beta_{\text{size}}^2 = \beta_{\text{tot}}^2 - \beta_{\text{inst}}^2,

where β_size is the broadening due to finite crystallite size, assuming Gaussian profiles for simplicity; this approach ensures accurate input for crystallite size estimation. LaB6 is preferred due to its sharp peaks and stability, allowing reliable subtraction even at high angles where instrumental effects increase. Sample-related factors can significantly distort peak widths and intensities in Scherrer analysis. Preferred orientation, where crystallites align non-randomly (e.g., in thin films or pressed powders), leads to anisotropic broadening and intensity variations, overestimating or underestimating sizes for certain reflections; this is mitigated by employing grazing-incidence XRD (GIXRD) geometries, which enhance surface sensitivity and reduce texture effects by limiting penetration depth. Particle aggregation forms polycrystalline domains that extend coherent scattering lengths beyond individual crystallite sizes, mimicking larger apparent sizes in the Scherrer calculation and requiring complementary techniques like transmission electron microscopy for validation. For organic materials, humidity and temperature fluctuations induce structural changes, such as swelling or dehydration, which broaden peaks or shift positions; for instance, increased moisture content in cellulose reduces estimated crystallite length along the (200) direction by altering interplanar spacings. Best practices emphasize high-resolution setups to resolve broadening from small crystallites. Laboratory diffractometers suffice for sizes above 10 nm, but synchrotron sources provide superior angular resolution and flux, enabling accurate Scherrer analysis for crystallites below 5 nm where peak widths exceed 1.5° (2θ); these facilities minimize instrumental contributions and allow in-situ monitoring during synthesis. Sample mounting should promote random orientation, such as side-loading in zero-background holders, to avoid microstrain from compression that asymmetrically broadens peaks. Modern advancements include portable XRD systems for in-situ crystallite sizing in non-laboratory environments, such as during catalytic reactions, offering rapid feedback without sample transfer. For robust results, average sizes over at least five well-resolved peaks spanning different (hkl) planes to account for anisotropy and reduce statistical error. After these corrections, the refined peak widths serve as direct inputs for crystallite size determination in practical workflows.

References

[1]
The Scherrer equation versus the 'Debye-Scherrer equation' - Nature
Aug 28, 2011 · Scherrer derived his equation for the ideal condition of a perfectly parallel, infinitely narrow and monochromatic X-ray beam incident on a monodisperse powder ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[2]
The Scherrer Formula for X-Ray Particle Size Determination
Abstract. An exact derivation of the Scherrer equation is given for particles of spherical shape, values of the constant for half-value breadth and for integral ...
[3]
Modified Scherrer equation to calculate crystal size by XRD with ...
Paul Scherrer published his work and introduced the Scherrer equation in 1918 [9]. In addition, Uwe Holzwarth and Neil Gibson stated that the Scherrer equation ...
[4]
Modified Scherrer Equation to Estimate More Accurately Nano ...
Scherrer Equation, L=Kλ/β.cosθ, was developed in 1918, to calculate the nano crystallite size (L) by XRD radiation of wavelength λ (nm) from measuring full ...
[5]
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=23195
[6]
Bestimmung der Größe und der inneren Struktur von Kolloidteilchen ...
Bestimmung der Größe und der inneren Struktur von Kolloidteilchen mittels Röntgenstrahlen. P. Scherrer ... 1918 (1918): 98-100. <http://eudml.org/doc/59018> ...
[7]
PETER DEBYE (1884 - 1966) and PAUL SCHERRER (1890
His paper on the effect of crystallite size on the width of X-ray diffraction peaks appeared in 1918. Scherrer derived his equation for the ideal condition of a ...
[8]
Sources of Peak Broadening
We address the question of what causes peak broadening, resulting in the peak shapes we have just discussed. ... crystallite/diffracting domain size; crystal ...
[9]
[PDF] Fundamentals and Applications of X-Ray Diffraction
Crystallite size broadening is due to the limited number of diffracting lattice planes of a real crystal: the smaller the crystal, the fewer the lattice planes, ...
[10]
Factors effecting peak width - XRD - MyScope
From the Scherrer equation we can estimate the peak broadening for different crystal sizes. It can be seen that crystal size broadening is only measurable for ...
[11]
A Survey and Some New Results in the Determination of Crystallite ...
SCHERRER AFTER SIXTY YEARS" A SURVEY AND SOME NEW RESULTS been obtained• A ... J. I. LANGFORD AND A. J. C. WILSON. I 11. Table 5. Derivatives of V(t) ...
[12]
Scherrer Equation - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
The Scherrer equation is defined as a mathematical expression used to calculate the crystallite size from X-ray diffraction peaks, relating the full width ...
[13]
Some considerations related to the use of the Scherrer equation in ...
This short overview summarises some of the basic considerations which should be undertaken when the Scherrer equation is applied to reflection widths in X-ray ...
[14]
None
### Summary of Scherrer Equation Assumptions, Limitations, and Error Sources
[15]
Scherrer formula: estimation of error in determining small ...
For any hkl direction, the absolute error of average particle size determination using formula does not exceed 0.3 nm. Analysis shows that average particle size ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[16]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666978123000132
[17]
https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/scherrer-formula-estimation-of-error-in-determining-small-nanoparticle-size
[18]
The Scherrer Formula Revisited - classe
Thus the shape function Fourier transform defines the shape and width of the reflections. ... The Fourier transform of rect(z) is the sin(x)/x function with x=qz.
[19]
X-Ray Diffraction Line Broadening: Modeling and Applications ... - NIH
Unfortunately, most high-Tc superconductors show weak peak broadening (because of high annealing temperatures) and strong peak overlapping (because of ...
[20]
Impact of crystalline defects and size on X-ray line broadening
May 18, 2015 · Defects of second kind (DSK) cause asymmetrical peak broadening. The second kind includes dislocations, disclinations/disconnections, ...
[21]
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/adv/article/5/5/057137/979292/Impact-of-crystalline-defects-and-size-on-X-ray
[22]
(PDF) Dislocation induced line-broadening in cold-worked Pb-Bi ...
... and from the. intercept of b. ∗. axis the apparent size (D) corre-. sponding to b. ∗. is evaluated. Inserting Eq. (4) into Eq. (3) we get modiﬁed. Warren ...
[23]
[PDF] Stacking Disorder in Aurivillius Compounds Studied by X-Ray ...
Sep 29, 2023 · In the case of polycrystalline samples it is shown that a variation in the number of perovskite layers broadens the XRD lines similarly to ...
[24]
https://unilim.hal.science/hal-03582340/document
[25]
Quantitative analysis of lattice disorder and crystallite size in organic ...
Jul 7, 2011 · This study analyzes lattice disorder and crystallite size in organic semiconductors using the Warren-Averbach technique, which is important for ...
[26]
Microstructural parameters from X-ray diffraction peak broadening
X-ray diffraction peaks broaden when the crystal lattice becomes imperfect. The microstructure means the extent and the quality of lattice imperfectness.
[27]
[PDF] Materials Horizons - RSC Publishing
Nov 30, 2021 · When paracrystalline disorder dominates the diffraction peak broadening, the coherence length from Scherrer equation reflects the length scale ...
[28]
The rise of the X-ray atomic pair distribution function method - Journals
Apr 29, 2019 · The atomic pair distribution function (PDF) technique is a powerful approach to gain quantitative insight into the structure of materials.
[29]
Structural Analysis of Molecular Materials Using the Pair Distribution ...
Nov 17, 2021 · By tracking simultaneously the amorphous/crystalline phase fraction and the coherence length of the crystalline domains, they described ...
[30]
Larch — xraylarch 2025.3.0 documentation
Larch is a open-source library and set of applications for processing and analyzing X-ray absorption and fluorescence spectroscopy data1. Downloading and Installation · 14. XAFS Analysis · Larch Python library · IndexMissing: coherence length
[31]
Anisotropic charge density wave in layered | Phys. Rev. Materials
Oct 4, 2017 · Our results show that the CDW forms three-dimensional cylindrically shaped domains, with different in-plane and out-of-plane coherence lengths.
[32]
HighScore Plus | XRD Analysis Software - Malvern Panalytical
HighScore Plus is the solution and helps you performing your daily analyses. We are proud to showcase tutorial videos made by our customer.
[33]
FullProf Suite
Crystallographic tools for Rietveld, profile matching and integrated intensity refinements. The FullProf Suite is formed by a set of crystallographic programs ...Missing: Scherrer crystallite GSAS HighScore