Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-7jgsp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T03:27:18.422Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of optical microscope- and scanning electron microscope-based cathodoluminescence (CL) imaging and spectroscopy applied to geosciences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2018

J. Götze  and
U. Kempe
J. Götze*
Affiliation:
TU Bergakademie Freiberg, Institute of Mineralogy, Brennhausgasse 14, D-09596 Freiberg, Germany
U. Kempe
Affiliation:
TU Bergakademie Freiberg, Institute of Mineralogy, Brennhausgasse 14, D-09596 Freiberg, Germany
*
*E-mail: goetze@mineral.tu-freiberg.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cathodoluminescence (CL) imaging and spectroscopy are outstanding methods in several fields of geosciences. Cathodoluminescence can be examined using a wide variety of electron-beam equipment. Of special interest to geologists are optical microscopes (OMs) equipped with an electron gun. scanning electron microscopes (SEMs) and electron microprobes. Despite the similar kind of excitation, the results obtained may show marked differences. These are related to the use of focused or defocused as well as a scanned or stationary electron beam and the kind of signal acquisition. Images obtained by OM-CL (hot or cold acceleration) and SEM-CL differ due to different spatial resolution, true colour, grey-scale, or monochromatic detection, contrast inversion, phosphorescence effects, etc.

Instrumentation used for spectroscopic studies may differ in sequential or parallel signal acquisition, wavelength range, spectral resolution, and the kind of analytical spot limitation. This is particularly important when investigating transient CL, rare earth element (REE) emissions, or luminescence in the near UV and IR regions as well as samples with small grain sizes and contrasting CL behaviour of adjacent mineral phases.

In the present study, the influence of analytical parameters is demonstrated for certain mineral examples including zircon, fluorite, apatite, feldspar, quartz, corundum, kaolinite, and dickite.

Keywords

cathodoluminescencemicroscopyspectroscopySEM

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Mineralogical Magazine , Volume 72 , Issue 4 , August 2008 , pp. 909 - 924
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Brooks, R.J., Finch, A.A., Hole, D.E., Townsend, P.D. and Wu, Z. (2002) The red to near-infrared luminescence in alkali feldspar. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 143, 484–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demars, C. Pagel, M., de Louie, E. and Blanc, P. (1996) Cathodoluminescence of quartz from sandstones: Interpretation of the UV range by determination of trace element distributions and fluid-inclusion P-T-X properties in authigenic quartz. American Mineralogist, 81, 891–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Götze, J. (2000) Cathodoluminescence microscopy and spectroscopy in applied mineralogy. Freiberger Forschungsheft, C 485, 128 pp.Google Scholar
Götze, J., Plötze, M., Fuchs, H. and Habermann, D. (1999) Defect structure and luminescence behaviour of agate — results of electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) and cathodoluminescence (CL) studies. Mineralogical Magazine, 63, 149–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Götze, J., Plötze, M. and Habermann, D. (2001) Origin, spectral characteristics and practical applications of the cathodoluminescence (CL) of quartz: a review. Mineralogy and Petrology, 71, 225–250.Google Scholar
Götze, I. Plötze, M., Gotte, Th., Neuser, R.D. and Richter, D.K. (2002) Cathodoluminescence (CL) and Electron Paramagnetic Resonance (EPR) studies of clay minerals. Mineralogy and Petrology, 76, 195–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Götze, I. Plötze, M. and Trautmann, T. (2005) Structure and luminescence characteristics of quartz from pegmatites. American Mineralogist, 90, 13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graupner, T., Götze, J., Kempe, U. and Wolf, D. (2000) Cathodoluminescence imaging as a tool for characterization of quartz and trapped fluid inclusions in multistage deformed mesothermal Au-quartz vein deposits: A case study from the giant Muruntau Au-ore deposit (Uzbekistan). Mineralogical Magazine, 64, 1007–1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempe, U. and Götze, J. (2002) Cathodoluminescence (CL) behaviour and crystal chemistry of apatite from rare-metal deposits. Mineralogical Magazine, 66, 135–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempe, U., Gruner, T., Nasdala, L. and Wolf, D. (2000) Relevance of cathodoluminescence for the inter pretation of U-Pb zircon ages, with an example of an application to a study of zircons from the Saxonian Granulite Complex, Germany. Pp. 425–456 in: Cathodoluminescence in Geosciences (Pagel, M., Barbin, V., Blanc, P. and Ohnenstetter, D., editors). Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.Google Scholar
Marfunin, A.S. (1979) Spectroscopy, Luminescence and Radiation Centers in Minerals. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, DJ. (1988) Cathodoluminescence of Geological Materials. Unwin Hyman, Boston, USA.Google Scholar
Neuser, R.D., Bruhn, F., Götze, J., Habermann, D. and Richter, D.K. (1995) Kathodolumineszenz: Methodik und Anwendung. Zentralblatt für Geologie und Palaontologie Teil, I H. 1/2, 287–306.Google Scholar
Pagel, M., Barbin, V., Blanc, P. and Ohnenstetter, D. (editors) (2000) Cathodoluminescence in Geosciences. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perny, B., Eberhardt, P., Ramseyer, K., Mullis, I and Pankrath, R. (1992) Microdistribution of Al, Li, and Na in a-quartz: Possible causes and correlation with short-lived cathodoluminescence. American Mineralogist, 77, 534–544.Google Scholar
Ramseyer, K. and Mullis, J. (1990) Factors influencing short-lived blue cathodoluminescence of alpha-quartz. American Mineralogist, 75, 791–800.Google Scholar
Reed, S.J. (2005) Electron Microprobe Analysis and Scanning Electron Microscopy in Geology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 189 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Remond, G., Cesbron, F., Chapoulie, R., Ohnenstetter, D., Roques-Carmes, C. and Schvoerer, M. (1992) Cathodoluminescence applied to the microcharacterization of mineral materials: A present status in experimentation and interpretation. Scanning Microscopy, 6, 23–68.Google Scholar
Remond, G., Phillips, M.R. and Roques-Carmes, C. (2000) Importance of instrumental and experimental factors on the interpretation of cathodoluminescence data from wide band gap materials. Pp. 59–126 in: Cathodoluminescence in Geosciences (Pagel, M., Barbin, V., Blanc, P., and Ohnenstetter, D., editors.). Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sippel, R.F. (1965) Simple device for luminescence petrography. Review of Scientific Instruments, 36, 1556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, J.V. and Stenstrom, R.C. (1965) Electron-excited luminescence as a petrological tool. Journal of Geology, 73, 627–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar