Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:28:35.844Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stastitical Comparison of Analytical Results Obtained by Pressed Powder and Borate Fusion XRF Spectrometry for Process Control Samples of a Lead Smelter

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Jorg G.H. Metz  and
David S. Davey
Jorg G.H. Metz
Affiliation:
School of Chemical Technology University of South Australia The Levels, S.A. 5095, Australia
David S. Davey
Affiliation:
School of Chemical Technology University of South Australia The Levels, S.A. 5095, Australia
Get access

Abstract

Two sample preparation procedures for XRF determination of critical elements in process control samples of a lead smelter have been compared. The two methods, pressed powder(PP) and borate fusion(BF) were used in the analysis of (in order of importance) lead, zinc, copper, sulphur, arsenic and the flux elements (FeO, MnO, Al2O3, CaO, MgO and SiO2). The techniques were applied to three points in the overall lead-zinc-copper production process.

The three sample types have been selected to allow comparison between the BF and PP methods, where the PP method suffers from difficulties with particle size, moisture absorption or composition variation.

The BF technique was found to give better precision (typically 0.2 to 1% RSD) than the PP approach (typically 0.8 to 9% RSD), and to give better accuracy as found using reference materials. The stability of the BF bead over time is also of advantage in quality control. The flexibility and reliability of the BF technique has lead to its acceptance, and in part, to changes in the overall smelter analysis structure.

Type
XIV. XRS Applications
Information
Advances in X-Ray Analysis , Volume 35 , Issue B: First Pacific-International Congress on X-ray Analytical Methods (PICXAM). Fortieth Annual Conference on Applications of X-ray Analysis, August 7-16, 1991 , 1991 , pp. 1189 - 1196
Copyright
Copyright © International Centre for Diffraction Data 1991

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.)

References

1. Norrish, K. and Thompson, G. M., XRS Analysis of Sulphides by Fusion Methods, X-Ray Spectrometry, 19(1990) 67–71.10.1002/xrs.1300190208Google Scholar
2. Mauri, A. R., Domenech, M. T., de la Guardia, M., Mongay, C. and Guillem, M. C., Neodymium Determination in Ceramic Pigments: A Comparative Study of Flame Emission and XRF Methods, Atomic Spectroscopy, 11(1990) 90–95.Google Scholar
3. Mahan, K. I. and Leyden, D. E., Simultaneous Determination of Sixteen Major and Minor Elements in River Sediments by Energy-Dispersive XRF Spectrometry after Fusion in Lithium Tetraborate Glass. Analytica Chimica Acta, 147(1983)123–131.10.1016/0003-2670(83)80078-6Google Scholar
4. Couture, R. A., An Improved Fusion Technique for Major-Element Rock Analysis by XRF. Advances in X-ray Analysis, 32(1989) 233–238.10.1154/S0376030800020528Google Scholar
5. Dow, R. H., A Statistical Comparison of Data Obtained from Pressed Disk and Fused Bead Preparation Techniques for Geological Samples. Advances in X-ray Analysis, 25 (1982) 117–120.10.1154/S0376030800009629Google Scholar
6. Barger, G. S., A Fusion Method for the XRF Analysis of Portland Cements, Clinker and Raw Materials Utilizing Cerium(IV) Oxide in Lithium Borate Fluxes. Advances in X-ray Analysis, 29(1986) 581–587.10.1154/S0376030800010740Google Scholar
7. Metz, J. G. H., Initial Borate Fusion (Philips PW1404) XRF Calibrations. Pasminco Metals/BHAS, 1991.Google Scholar