ABSTRACT
A new experimental technique for measuring the mobilities of positive ions in their parent gases is presented. The technique was applied to the rare gases, Ar, Kr, and Xe, and, for pressures typically below 10 Torr, two different types of positive ions were observed. The reduced mobilities of these ions in their parent gases were measured as a function of , the ratio of the electric field strength to the gas number density, at a temperature of . The results were compared with others available in the literature and the two ions were identified as being the atomic and the dimer rare gas ions. The results are in good agreement with those from other authors. Space charge and impurities effects are discussed.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by Fundação para a Ciencia e Tecnologia (FCT) through project PTDC/FIS/65569/2006. P.N.B.N. was also supported by the FCT Grant No. SFRH/BD/18926/2004.
- 1. G. A. Eiceman and Z. Karpas, Ion Mobility Spectrometry (CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2005). https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420038972, Google ScholarCrossref
- 2. P. N. B. Neves, C. A. N. Conde, and L. M. N. Távora, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 619, 75 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2010.02.118, Google ScholarCrossref
- 3. M. J. Hogan, J. Chem. Phys. 125, 164325 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2363197, Google ScholarScitation
- 4. G. F. Knoll, Radiation Detection and Measurement (Wiley, New York, 1989). Google Scholar
- 5. T. M. Liss, AIP Conf. Proc. 870, 532 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2402694, Google ScholarScitation
- 6. F. Sauli, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 438, 376 (1997). Google Scholar
- 7. J. A. Hornbeck, Phys. Rev. 84, 615 (1951). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.84.615, Google ScholarCrossref
- 8. M. A. Biondi and L. M. Chanin, Phys. Rev. 94, 910 (1954). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.94.910, Google ScholarCrossref
- 9. E. C. Beaty, Phys. Rev. 104, 17 (1956). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.104.17, Google ScholarCrossref
- 10. K. B. McAfee, D. Sipler, and D. Edelson, Phys. Rev. 160, 130 (1967). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.160.130, Google ScholarCrossref
- 11. R. Johnsen, M. T. Leu, and M. A. Biondi, Phys. Rev. A 8, 2557 (1973). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.8.2557, Google ScholarCrossref
- 12. H. W. Ellis, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 17, 177 (1976). https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-640X(76)90001-2, Google ScholarCrossref
- 13. H. Helm and M. T. Elford, J. Phys. B 10, 3849 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3700/10/18/036, Google ScholarCrossref
- 14. M. Yousfi, A. Hennad, O. Eichwald, and O. Lamrous, J. Phys. III 77, 1877 (1997). Google Scholar
- 15. E. Basurto, J. Urquijo, I. Alvarez, and C. Cisneros, Phys. Rev. E 61, 3053 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.61.3053, Google ScholarCrossref
- 16. J. A. S. Barata, Ph.D. thesis, Departamento de Física, Universidade da Beira Interior, 2006. Google Scholar
- 17. R. N. Varney, Phys. Rev. 88, 362 (1952). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.88.362, Google ScholarCrossref
- 18. H. Helm, J. Phys. B 9, 2931 (1976). https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3700/9/16/026, Google ScholarCrossref
- 19. H. Helm and M. T. Elford, J. Phys. B 11, 3939 (1978). https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3700/11/22/021, Google ScholarCrossref
- 20. L. A. Viehland and E. A. Mason, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 60, 37 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1006/adnd.1995.1004, Google ScholarCrossref
- 21. J. A. S. Barata and C. A. N. Conde, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 52, 2889 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2005.860197, Google ScholarCrossref
- 22. J. A. Hornbeck and J. P. Molnar, Phys. Rev. 84, 621 (1951). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.84.621, Google ScholarCrossref
- 23. H. Helm, Phys. Rev. A 14, 680 (1976). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.14.680, Google ScholarCrossref
Please Note: The number of views represents the full text views from December 2016 to date. Article views prior to December 2016 are not included.
