journal menu
research papers
Seventeen sets of measurements of structure factors of D(+)-tartaric acid, within the range (sin θ)/λ < 0.5 Å−1, were provided by the participants in the International Union of Crystallography Single Crystal Intensity Measurement Project. Each participant used a different crystal, all being derived from a single crystallization batch. The results in the Project are representative of those from a wide variety of currently used diffractometers and techniques. The instruments included four-circle, normal-beam and equi-inclination diffractometers. Cu and Mo radiations were used – unfiltered, with single and balanced filters, and with crystal monochromators. The aims of the project were twofold: (a) to provide an estimate of the spread of F values associated with the range of variables involved in the project and (b) to locate, if possible, the sources of error. A number of agreement indices were used to measure the spread of F values both for equivalent reflections within any one experiment and for comparisons between experiments. In an attempt to allocate errors to certain plausible sources, an analysis-of-variance was applied to the weighted deviations of individual values of F from the set of mean values. The variables specified were intensity I, a θ angle factor d* and the Miller indices h,k,1. From the values of the agreement indices and the interaction curves from the analysis-of-variance, it was possible to recognize outlier sets that differ considerably from the mean and to isolate these, where necessary, before arriving at an estimate of the error spread of the main group. In this project, there is no one simple figure of merit which provides a ready assessment of the accuracy of measurement of structure factors. Rather, there are several ways of indicating the probable accuracy. One way is to present the spread of values of Rij(Σ(|Fi| − |Fj|)/Σ ½(|Fi| + |Fj|). This shows that two scaled experimental sets of structure factors, measured under circumstances similar to those of the project, will most probably differ by 6%, agree no better than 3%, and usually no worse than 10% except in cases of extreme systematic error where it may rise to 50% or more. From the analysis-of-variance, inferences are drawn concerning the concordance of results derived from the different types of diffractometer, on features of technique associated with the diffractometers and on other aspects, including 2 dependence, monochromaticity, count rates and extinction in the crystals. It is concluded that other sources of error may be present and that future projects should be designed to reveal these.
