Welcome to Our Blog!

(From Left to Right: Asaph Ko, Tristen Protzmann, Chamidu Warnakulasuriya, Dr. Michele McColgan, Brendan Waffle)

WELCOME TO OUR BLOG!

In this blog you will see the contents of our Summer 2016 Research. Tristen Protzmann, Asaph Ko, Chamidu Warnakulasuriya, and Brendan Waffle are the four students responsible for the creation of this blog. Our research was funded by The Friars of Siena College, and provided to us by The Center for Undergraduate Research and Creative Activity (CURCA). All experiments took place at Siena College. Our primary mentor and supervisor was Dr. Michele McColgan, a physics professor at Siena College. We also received additional aid from Dr. Kolonko, Dr. Hassel, Ann Klotz, Hilary Hofstein, and Dr. Moriarty. Our research primarily consisted of learning and operating the instruments located in The Stewart's Advanced Instrumentation & Technology Center (SAInT Center). Our research topics consisted of Dust Analysis, Dirt Analysis, Fabric Analysis, and much more. More details of each analysis is found in the blogs below. Enjoy!

Special Recognition!

We would like to give Special Thanks and Recognition to the following Siena College Faculty:

Dr. Michele W. McColgan

For helping us with EVERYTHING regarding our Summer Research! Thank you for accepting our research applications, guiding us, supporting us, and educating us. We are forever grateful. Thank you.

Dr. Daniel F. Moriarty

For his help with our AFM Research. Thank you.

Dr. Kristopher J. Kolonko

For helping us conduct our research in the SAInT Center. Specifically with training, educating, and supervising us on the SEM, XRF, TGA, and DSC. Thank you.

Dr. George Hassel

For helping us when needed, and supplying us with the Graphite for our Graphene experiments. Thank you.

Hilary A. Hofstein

For providing us with Radiation Training. Thank you.

Ann M. Klotz

For providing us with Safety Training. Thank you.

The Friars of Siena College

For funding all of the Summer Research being offered to the Summar Scholars. Thank you.

Dr. Rajj Devasagayam

For accepting our research proposals, and guiding our research experiences. We are so grateful to have CURCA at Siena College. Thank you.

GO SAINTS!!

Graphene Samples with AFM

Our last few days of research with Dr. McColgan consisted of starting a Graphene Project using the Atomic-Force Microscope (AFM). An AFM is a very high resolution type of scanning probe microscopy (SPM), with demonstrated resolution on the order of fractions of a nanometer, more than 1,000 times better than the optical diffraction limit. The Graphene is taken by ripping off layers of Graphite using Double Sided Adhesive Tape. Carbon atoms make up the structure of Graphene. It is important not to use locations on the sample that are too adhesive when looking at the samples. The tip will then stick to it when collecting data, and then not analyze it as well. The importance of analyzing Graphene is that it is conductive, manipulative, strong, an atom thick, and overall very cool to look at. It is important to note that Dr. Daniel Moriarty was extremely helpful and informative in our experiments with the AFM. We thank him very much. Below are some videos and pictures we took during our experiments with the Graphene.

Below is what the inside of the AFM looks like. This is where the majority of the experiment takes place. Bruker supplies the hardware and software for the AFM.

The AFM is very well insulated. Below we can see how well the AFM is insulated internally. This is because when collecting data the operator wants to reduce as much vibrations in the machine as much as possible so it does not skew the data. Examples of how this may affect the data are if there is a bunch of people walking around or near the AFM, the vibrations in the floor affect data collection. Speaking too loud or too close to the AFM produces sound waves and that vibrates the tip and affects data. Bumping into the machine shakes the AFM and skews data because it shakes the tip. To prevent any of these problems from occurring the AFM is insulated on the inside. 

 

To obtain our Graphene samples we needed to use a block of Graphite and rip off Graphene samples using Double Sided Adhesive Tape. The block of Graphite we used is shown below. The Graphite was supplied to us by Dr. McColgan and Dr. Hassel.

To collect our Graphene samples we needed to use Double Sided Adhesive Tape. A picture of the tape we used is shown below. 

Below is a picture of our Graphene sample we collected with the help of Dr. Moriarty. We used the Double Sided Tape to rip layers of Graphene off the block of Graphite. We placed the sample on a transparent glass slide and placed it in the AFM. We used a small vacuum feature inside the AFM to keep the glass slide in place while analyzing. Disregard the writing on the glass slide because it is writing from a previous experiment that the glass slide was probably used for before our experiments with it.

Below is a poster hanging in Roger Bacon on the first floor near the Key Auditorium. It is a research project by Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov regarding Graphene similar to the experiments we ran. It helped us better understand the research we were conducting.

We ran one sample of Graphene during our research, but have not received the software yet that is compatible to help us put it into this blog. We will be sure to update it once we do.

Below is a picture of Dr. Moriarty.

Future Research

For future research we plan on trying the following experiments:

1. We plan on trying to leave a piece of Double Sided Adhesive Tape on the block of Graphite overnight (or a longer period of time). This will let the tape sit on the Graphite and collect as much of a sample as possible without being disrupted. This may increase the accuracy of our sample and may help to collect more of the Graphene on the tape. 
2. Try taking layers of Graphene by applying the Double Sided Tape numerous times to the same section of the Graphite and then riping them off. This will make our sample thinker and better to use.
3. Try to find ways to burn the samples and increase the accuracy on collection of samples.
4. Collect more samples to increase accuracy, and to get us more familiar with the AFM.
5. Overall find better ways to take a Graphene sample.

New Dust Sampling in Roger Bacon 136 Bookshelf

A project of Summer Research 2016 was to compare data analyzed between new dust obtained from a location where we already obtained dust and analyzed it. After collecting the dust we cleaned the location. We did this for two locations and the one we will be analyzing in this post is Roger Bacon 136. A period of 20 days were allowed for dust to be accumulated in the cleaned location.

Similar to the procedure shown in the first post of the blog is conducted on this sample.

The data that was obtained is shown below, including the raw data of the elemental composition.

Element	AN	series	[wt.%]	[norm. wt.%]	[norm. at.%]	Error in wt.% (1 Sigma)
Magnesium	12	K-series	0.126009454	1.851589585	2.488742942	0.033900691
Aluminium	13	K-series	1.768736178	25.98990291	31.46797964	0.115097583
Silicon	14	K-series	1.385979959	20.36566279	23.68903262	0.088461615
Sulfur	16	K-series	0.799261829	11.74439556	11.9651134	0.056091193
Chlorine	17	K-series	0.63889081	9.387895342	8.650672307	0.048585004
Calcium	20	K-series	1.04393797	15.33967972	12.5037761	0.057230467
Titanium	22	K-series	0.307056741	4.511907983	3.078484912	0.035176369
Iron	26	K-series	0.6027232	8.856446558	5.180725658	0.042383505
Zinc	30	K-series	0.132878217	1.952519546	0.975472409	0.030730399
		Sum:	6.805474357	100	100

The results that was obtained for the dust sample 20 days ago was;

Element	AN	series	[wt.%]	[norm. wt.%]	[norm. at.%]	Error in wt.% (1 Sigma)
Sodium	11	K-series	0.462124365	6.490968876	9.15554883	0.060391958
Magnesium	12	K-series	0.276086655	3.877895256	5.173803521	0.043458414
Aluminium	13	K-series	0.654099667	9.187441519	11.04173542	0.059937915
Silicon	14	K-series	1.660582071	23.32442813	26.93012241	0.100833669
Sulfur	16	K-series	0.626715149	8.802800357	8.901958126	0.050017739
Chlorine	17	K-series	0.859096484	12.06681353	11.03704386	0.056475889
Potassium	19	K-series	0.5277701	7.413024611	6.148186745	0.043002157
Calcium	20	K-series	1.516960073	21.30712286	17.23964236	0.071686671
Iron	26	K-series	0.536062908	7.529504864	4.37195872	0.041334532
		Sum:	7.119497471	100	100

As usual Oxygen and Carbon are neglected from analyzing and quantifying data.

The New elements that were analyzed were Titanium and Zinc. Titanium was recognized before as non-toxic and harmless because it could be found in lot of objects including house paint, artists’ paint, plastics, enamels and paper therefore the presence of it in the new dust sample could be explained. 

Zinc could be found in materials such as car bodies, street lamp posts, safety barriers and suspension bridges. Oxides of Zinc is also used in electrical and hardware industries and can be found in many products such as paints, rubber, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, plastics, inks, soaps, batteries, textiles and electrical equipment. So the presence of Zinc in Roger Bacon 136 with a lot of electric components (electronics) and students doing summer research can be explained.



Above is a picture of Tristen Protzmann analyzing the new dust sample we collected.

References;

http://www.rsc.org/periodic-table/element/22/titanium

http://www.rsc.org/periodic-table/element/30/zinc

How to Clean Stages

Put on gloves before this process! First we take the stages into the chemistry room and use a scraper to get as much carbon tape off as possible. Then we put the stages in a beaker filled with acetone and let it sit for 10-15 minutes, during this process keep the acetone under a fume hood. The fume hood is used to prevent inhalation of the acetone fumes by slowly vacuuming out the air in the chamber. After the stages soak we rub the stages with a paper towel to make sure they are completely cleaned off. Next the stages are washed under water and dried off again, ready to use again.


Scraper is in between the scalpel and tweezers (bottom right). Acetone is to the top right and the glove can clearly be seen (it is blue).


Here is Asaph Ko cleaning the stages.

Here is a video of Asaph Ko cleaning the stages.

New Dust from Roger Bacon Room 136 Closet

New Dust has been found! After 20 days dust has finally appeared on top of the shelf in the closet in Roger Bacon Room 136.  Unlike before, only 1 sample was taken off the shelf. Reasoning for this is that there were simply not enough dust there and not enough time to analyze it. The same procedure has has been used in taking the sample as in every other time. 

This is the mapping of the new dust collected. The elements that appeared after analyzing the dust were Na, Mg, Al, Si, P, S, Cl, Ca, Ti, Fe,Zn, In, C, O. Oxygen and Carbon had to be removed due to the fact that the tape was made out of Carbon and the adhesive parts are Oxygen. The other elements that we had to remover were Zinc, Phosphorus, and Titanium. Compared to the old dust, there has been elements added as well elements that are no longer there. The elements in the old dust Sample 1 comprised of Si, Ca, Na, Al, S, Cl, K, Mg. The elements in the old dust Sample 2 comprised of Mg, Al, Si, S, Cl, K, Ca, Fe, Ti, Na. There was clearly some difference from Sample 1 and Sample 2 of the old dust. When comparing these to the new dust, the new dust had Indium and did not have any Potassium. 

Iron may appear to not have a peak, however, when zoomed in on the area a peak is clearly visible.

This is the results after quantifying. As mentioned before, Oxygen and Carbon were taken away from the results because of the tape. This shows that the indium amount found in this sample as greater than most of the other elements. This is surprising because of the fact that there were no indium found in the previous two samples taken in the past.  

Element	AN	series	[wt.%]	[norm. wt.%]	[norm. at.%]	Error in wt.% (1 Sigma)
Sodium	11	K-series	0.599309452	4.048669362	5.84123213	0.06914773
Magnesium	12	K-series	0.494239524	3.338863444	4.556483609	0.055676487
Aluminium	13	K-series	2.677707767	18.08940835	22.23742054	0.160817549
Silicon	14	K-series	4.221714835	28.52003663	33.681754	0.214442335
Sulfur	16	K-series	1.096525304	7.407639562	7.662347343	0.067247144
Chlorine	17	K-series	1.274477056	8.609802826	8.055095078	0.070540067
Calcium	20	K-series	2.086551644	14.09581927	11.66570694	0.087911173
Iron	26	K-series	0.829707312	5.605135316	3.328994162	0.048326136
Indium	49	L-series	1.522394783	10.28462525	2.970966191	0.073482072
		Sum:	14.80262768	100	100

Future Physics Projects in SAInT Center

A list of possible Physics related experiments that could be conducted in the SAInT Center

1. Find different types of conductors and insulators, and find the behaviour of these materials in the SEM. Since the SEM shoots high energy electrons at the sample, there is a potential difference which makes the sample light up differently when we observe it under the microscope. Goal is to calculate the conductivity of these elements, if possible, using the SEM.

2. Find a correlation between data of XRF HD Prime and SEM. SEM uses weight composition while the HD Prime uses counts (ppm). HD Prime discovers a lot more trace elements than the SEM, and SEM takes longer to analyze/quantify. Do research about the data correlation or contact Bruker/XOS.

Contacted Bruker and XOS to find out the correlation between the data. Very little or no data comparison was found online.

Comparing XRF and SEM can be found in the XOS website;

https://xos.com/technologies/sem/

Question that was asked:

Can we find a correlation between data of XRF HD Prime and SEM? SEM uses weight composition while the HD Prime uses counts (ppm). We do research for various samples using both the instruments the HD Prime and the SEM in the Saint Center in Siena College. Why would we choose the HD Prime over SEM for data analysis? How can we correlate the data between the instruments if we do use both instruments?

Awaiting a response.

3. AFM Spring Constants - The AFM uses a cantilever with a point on it that moves up and down. There is a spring attached to this cantilever and the different springs that are used in the AFM have different spring constants. This might be possible to analyze.

4. AFM Force - Look at the force correspondence between the cantilever and the sample pushing back on the cantilever. We can examine the graph on the screen to help with this analysis. The graph goes up and down in depending on the movement of the cantilever.

5. AFM Laser Diffraction - Find how the change in the angle of the cantilever affects the laser beam that is to be detected by the detector and how the AFM recognizes this change.

6. Maldie Instrument - Use the Maldie and calculate a particle's mass by accelerating it through a magnetic field and examining the radius of the circular path that the particle makes before it hits the detector. Therefore, determining the particle that was accelerated into the magnetic field.

7. Maldie test with hair sample to see if we are made with corn. (Dr. Finn)

8. Determine other Physics Projects that could be done in the SAInT Center using other instruments. (Brainstorm)

9. Get more Physics Students interested in SAInT Center Projects

Roger Bacon Physics Lounge

Dust was also collected in the Physics Lounge because the bookshelf was riddled with dust. There was so much dust that we believed that it would be possible to view the dust under the XRF. Below is the video of us collecting our first sample.As you can see we continue to use gloves while we collect our samples so that there is no chance of us contaminating it. A second sample was taken from the same place. 

Below is the image of the Sample 1 of the dust we had collected. We felt as a group that this would be a good location to begin analyzing the dust.

As you can see, most of the image was not filled by an element when it was analyzed. This means that they were most likely part of the Carbon tape, since we decided to exclude Carbon from our mapping. Sodium (Na), Aluminum (Al), Silicon (Si), Sulfur (S), Chlorine (Cl), Potassium (K), Calcium (Ca), Magnesium (Mg), Titanium (Ti), Iron (Fe), these were the elements found in the this dust sample. We believe that the Chlorine came from the cleaning materials used to clean the room. However, we are unsure of how it was able to get on top of the books.

This is the image along with the scanned elements that we found. This helps show that some of the part of the image were not comprised of the found elements. These elements do not include Oxygen and Carbon. The reason for this is that the tape is made of Carbon and the adhesive parts are Oxygen.

The spectrum was created so that we could analyze it to determine which elements were actually discovered. If an element was discovered, there would be a peak where the label is. However, if there is a label but no peak is visible then the element is not there.

We then quantified the elements to see how much of each element was there. This does not include Oxygen and Carbon as mentioned above. As you can see there is an abundant of Chlorine, Aluminium, and Calcium compared to the other elements.

Element	AN	series	[wt.%]	[norm. wt.%]	[norm. at.%]	Error in wt.% (1 Sigma)
Sodium	11	K-series	0.607596871	5.332369872	7.324763432	0.069220997
Magnesium	12	K-series	0.086324654	0.757599333	0.984355385	0.03144771
Aluminium	13	K-series	3.006961504	26.38958772	30.88686535	0.176977152
Silicon	14	K-series	1.799933455	15.79651144	17.76180058	0.106813871
Sulfur	16	K-series	0.812507693	7.130700878	7.022558956	0.056485865
Chlorine	17	K-series	1.910974947	16.7710298	14.93889168	0.092178816
Potassium	19	K-series	0.543853814	4.772950341	3.855112042	0.043151567
Calcium	20	K-series	1.986300483	17.43209907	13.73572564	0.084954204
Titanium	22	K-series	0.379779984	3.333011472	2.198318578	0.037302193
Iron	26	K-series	0.260266334	2.28414007	1.291608359	0.033623212
		Sum:	11.39449974	100	100

This is the area that we have decided to examine on Sample 2 under the SEM. 

After analyzing Sample 2, this is what was produced. The elements that were found in Sample 2 are identical to the ones found in Sample 1. This is good for us because this means that the data is consistent and there is no error in analyzing it. Of course Carbon and Oxygen were removed from the mapping. Even though the elements were consistent, the amount of them has clearly changed.

This is the elements with the image included so that you can see which part of the dust is composed of which element.

Just to make sure, we always examine the spectrum to check and make sure that each element is actually there, regardless of whether or not it was also found in the previous sample.

This is the data that we received after quantifying our spectrum. As you can see the composition of the dust is fairly similar to Sample 1. As mentioned above, Oxygen and Carbon have been removed.

Element	AN	series	[wt.%]	[norm. wt.%]	[norm. at.%]	Error in wt.% (1 Sigma)
Sodium	11	K-series	0.517404959	4.981322117	6.98322161	0.063236732
Magnesium	12	K-series	0.062626548	0.602937798	0.799507808	0.030033728
Aluminium	13	K-series	2.130154776	20.50808929	24.49651424	0.133178361
Silicon	14	K-series	1.443314914	13.89553072	15.94552428	0.090874711
Sulfur	16	K-series	1.187609971	11.43372848	11.49182254	0.070279841
Chlorine	17	K-series	1.960704124	18.87670121	17.16021048	0.09392205
Potassium	19	K-series	0.642771159	6.188286632	5.101035797	0.046257543
Calcium	20	K-series	1.911645311	18.40438693	14.79998035	0.082858875
Titanium	22	K-series	0.296168543	2.85136601	1.919307901	0.035047571
Iron	26	K-series	0.234499938	2.257650811	1.302874988	0.033009373
		Sum:	10.38690024	100	100

An issue that occurred while attempting to use the XRF on the dust is that the layer was too thin to get accurate data from it. This was the first place that there was an abundance of dust that a clump of it was collected.  Unfortunately the abundance of dust turned out to be useless.


Tristen Protzmann Prepping to place the Carbon tape onto the plate so that it can be examined under the SEM.

Dirt Samples in Wet Willy's [Car Wash]

Another location that we obtained dirt from is the Wet Willy's cash wash which is located at 701 New Loudon Rd, Latham, NY 12110. Our intention was to find something interesting compared to the set of elements we generally analyzed. The dirt sample was wet and so to remove all the moisture trapped in the dirt, it needed to be dried up in the oven. 

As usual, the dirt sample was analyzed in both the SEM and the HD Prime.

The raw image of the section of the dirt sample that was analyzed in the SEM is shown bellow;

The lighter shade particles that can be seen in the sample above represents the large particles of dirt.

The sample was analyzed for 9 minutes in the EDS to get better results of the element composition. The following results was obtained for the elemental mapping of the sample. The following picture also contains a outline of the raw image shown above. As usual, each element is represented in different colors.

The result that was obtained was more clear than the raw image itself and the small dirt particles can be seen as well. Note that Carbon and Oxygen are neglected in analyzing the sample for elemental compositon.

The new elements that were traced were Cadmium and Manganese.

The map of elemental composition itself is shown;

The spreadsheet data that was obtained after quantifying for weight composition of the dirt sample is shown below;

Element	AN	series	[wt.%]	[norm. wt.%]	[norm. at.%]	Error in wt.% (1 Sigma)
Sodium	11	K-series	0.517452789	1.307357089	1.79880694	0.062543746
Magnesium	12	K-series	0.685729394	1.732512035	2.254787351	0.065966061
Aluminium	13	K-series	5.332921697	13.47375672	15.79599263	0.292948185
Silicon	14	K-series	22.5837991	57.05851916	64.26333962	1.02922487
Phosphorus	15	K-series	0.174544453	0.440990816	0.450360788	0.033684536
Sulfur	16	K-series	0.054706279	0.138216748	0.136345508	0.02809259
Calcium	20	K-series	2.620305254	6.620265123	5.225096264	0.103002426
Titanium	22	K-series	0.515898718	1.303430691	0.861110244	0.040437744
Manganese	25	K-series	0.048569741	0.122712636	0.070654755	0.027262929
Iron	26	K-series	5.741094516	14.5050153	8.215675883	0.171269138
Cadmium	48	L-series	1.305043287	3.29722369	0.927830017	0.06695208
		Sum:	39.58006523	100	100

The most amount of weight composition that was found in the dirt sample was Silicon with a weight percentage of 57.1%. This is expected to be there because of the sand. A significant amount of Aluminium, Calcium and Iron can be seen with a weight percentage of 13.5%, 6.62% and 14.5% respectively.

The spectrum of the elements that were found in the same sample is shown below;

The amount of elements in the dirt sample can be seen in the spectrum using the peaks.

The results for the data that was obtained from analyzing the sample in the HD Prime is shown below.

Recall from the previous blog post...

...The cam view (wide view, Side view) of the sample is included in the data. The row of elements after the view shows the common elements that are expected to be seen in the sample. However to get a accurate results, we should look into the full results table shown in the second image. We will be looking into the counts column in this part to identify the elements with the most amount of counts that were detected...

Using the HD Prime, a excessive amount of Chromium was seen to be found using the list of elements shown after the side/wide view. This is seen using the red outline in the general list of elements that is found. To confirm this first look, we can look into the full results that can be seen in the second image.

 611.9 counts were measured for Chromium which is not a lot but still a consistent amount for a heavy metal.

Chromium is a lustrous, brittle, hard metal. Its color is silver-gray and it can be highly polished. It is mainly used in stainless steel, chrome plating and metal ceramics. It is also used to impart corrosion resistance and a shiny finish; as dyes and paints, its salts color glass an emerald green and it is used to produce synthetic rubies; as a catalyst in dyeing and in the tanning of leather.

Hence finding it in a Car wash can be completely understood but still a frequent level of exposure is advised to be avoided.

Other elements such as strontium, Iron, Copper, Titanium and Zinc was analyzed to be in the sample with counts exceeding 1500 counts. However these elements are not known to be hazardous.

References;

http://www.lenntech.com/periodic/elements/cr.htm