| Literature DB >> 30401877 |
A Hult Roos1, J H D Eland1,2, J Andersson1, R J Squibb1, D Koulentianos1,3, O Talaee1,4, R Feifel5.
Abstract
Systematic measurements of electron emission following formation ofEntities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30401877 PMCID: PMC6219609 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-34807-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Percentage of double to single Auger decay in comparatively simple molecules, their respective correction factor (fcorr), and the number of available valence electrons (Nve).
| Molecule | fcorr | DA [%] | Nve |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ne 1s | 1.617 | 5.7 ± 1.7 | |
| Ar 2p | 1.792 | 9.0 ± 1.2 | |
|
| |||
| CH4 | 6.3a ± 0.6 | 8 | |
| C2H2 | 8.2a ± 0.8 | 10 | |
| C2H4 | 8.5a ± 0.8 | 12 | |
| C2H6 | 8.8a ± 0.8 | 14 | |
| CO | 9.2a ± 0.8 | 10 | |
| CO2 | 14.3a ± 1.3 | 16 | |
| CH3Cl | 1.74 | 16.5 ± 2.1 | 20 |
| CF4 | 1.764 | 15.8 ± 2.0 | 32 |
| CS2 | 1.748 | 22.8 ± 3.0 | 32 |
| CCl4 | 1.786 | 29.1 ± 3.7 | 56 |
|
| |||
| NH3 | 8.2a ± 0.8 | 8 | |
| N2 | 9.4a ± 0.9 | 10 | |
|
| |||
| H2O | 6.6a ± 0.7 | 8 | |
| O2 | 7.1a ± 0.7 | 12 | |
| CO | 9.2a ± 0.9 | 10 | |
| CO2 | 9.7a ± 0.9 | 16 | |
| SO2 | 1.629 | 13.7 ± 2.0 | 26 |
|
| |||
| CF4 | 1.55 | 9.6 ± 1.7 | 32 |
| SF6 | 1.573 | 11.9 ± 2.1 | 56 |
|
| |||
| D2S | 1.80 | 8.8 ± 1.1 | 8 |
| CS2 | 1.80 | 12.7 ± 1.6 | 16 |
| C4H4S | 1.80 | 13.2 ± 1.7 | 26 |
| SO2 | 1.807 | 16.6 ± 2.1 | 18 |
| SF6 | 1.807 | 23.1 ± 2.9 | 48 |
|
| |||
| HCl | 1.80 | 9.0 ± 1.1 | 8 |
| CH3Cl | 1.794 | 10.2 ± 1.3 | 14 |
| CCl4 | 1.794 | 13.5 ± 1.7 | 32 |
| SiCl4 | 1.794 | 14.6 ± 1.9 | 40 |
|
| |||
| SiCl4 | 1.814 | 18.1 ± 2.3 | 32 |
aObtained in our previous study in ref.[3].
Figure 1Percentage of double Auger as a function of the number of available valence electrons. A robust regression (solid line) show the trend among the molecules in Table 1, with a 95% confidence interval (dotted line) for the fit. The standard error in each data point is displayed as an error bar.
Figure 2Percentage of double Auger as a function of the closest neighbouring valence electrons. The linear fit (solid line) show the trend among the molecules in Table 1, with a 95% confidence interval (dotted line) for the fit. The standard error in each data point is displayed as an error bar.
Figure 3Combined collection-detection efficiency of the magnetic bottle electron spectrometer used in the present study as a function of electron kinetic energy. Error bars display the standard deviation for the efficiency in each data point.