Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Pressed
Pressed
Sample Preparation
The general rules for XRF analysis apply to situations where the highest accuracy is desired;
these rules include
• Standards and unknowns must be very similar (density, particle size, particle
homogeneity, mass attenuation coefficient)
• Infinite thickness
• Particle size effects (loose and pressed powders) such as grain size effect, inter-
mineral effect, and mineralogical effect
Table I: Effective layer thickness for limestone pressed pellet (with permission from Bruker).
As an ideal starting point, the specimen should have an analytical depth for each
wavelength (energy) analyzed that provides infinite thickness. That is, the thickness of the
sample will not affect the analysis. On a more practical note, the specimen should have an
effective layer thickness that will provide at least 99% of the analysis. Figure 3 shows the
concepts of infinite thickness and effective layer thickness. The wavelengths of interest are
not excited in the white layer. They are excited in the light blue layer, but most of them are
absorbed by the sample matrix. Wavelengths in the dark-blue layer are excited and escape
from the specimen to take place further in the analytical process. Modern software has the
capability to calculate the effective layer thickness, and such a calculation is shown in
Table I. It is worthwhile to take note of the narrow depth (thickness) from which most of the
analysis is taking place for each element. For instance, sodium is coming from a depth of
only 4 µm, aluminum and silicon from around 10 µm, and all of it from only 200 µm.
Figure 3: Concepts of infinite thickness and
effective layer thickness (adapted with
permission from Bruker).
The average thickness of a human hair is about 100 µm, so it is evident that the surface of
the prepared specimen cannot be touched, breathed on, or exposed to any conditions that
could alter it. Moreover, the effective layer thickness for any given wavelength changes with
the matrix. As an example, the effective layer thickness for iron K-alpha wavelength
changes from 3000 µm (3 mm) in carbon to 11 µm in lead. Togel (4) gives the equation
for calculating the effective layer thickness; the equation of calculation and geometry of the
situation are shown in Figure 4. The problem of particle size effect is shown in Figure 5,
where the specimen analyzed is neither homogenous nor representative in the effective
layer analyzed for the wavelength of interest. This sample must be crushed and ground to
obtain a representative, homogenous, effective layer thickness to be analyzed for the
wavelength of interest shown (and for any longer wavelengths). Even then, the
mineralogical effect may cause problems, which cannot be solved by any means other than
fusion. We have seen first-hand the problems caused by the mineralogical effect when
analyzing kyanite, sillimanite, and andalusite (three polymorphs of Al2O3·SiO2). In their pure
form, each has the same weight percent of silica and alumina; however, using one as a
standard to analyze the other can result in analysis totals ranging from 75% to 125%!
Figure 6 illustrates the mineralogical effect on iron intensities from minerals prepared as
pressed briquettes having the same particle size and concentration of iron. Because the
compositions of mineral deposits vary from one location to the next, in addition to
substituting various elements as contaminants in the crystal structures, it is virtually
impossible to closely match the matrix of standards to unknowns using the pressed powder
technique; therefore, highly accurate analyses at high concentration levels are difficult if not
impossible for many natural materials.
The analysis of gases is not practical with an XRF spectrometer, although it is possible. To
be sure, there are many other analytical techniques better suited to this task. The specimen
preparation for liquids and loose powders is a matter of choosing the appropriate
equipment and accessories, and it is better demonstrated in a workshop environment such
as at the annual XRF course at ICDD in Newtown Square, Pennsylvania (5), or at the Denver
X-ray Conference Workshop on XRF Sample Preparation (6). Metals are also a matter of
trial and error, with the properties of hardness and smearing weighing heavily on the choice
of cutting tool, sanding device, or sanding material (7). In any case, the surface should be
renewed whenever it has changed, and that depends on the element and the material it is in.
Selecting the sample spinner on the spectrometer will remove the problem of groove
orientation affecting intensities. And in any case, the same fundamental concepts of infinite
thickness and effective layer thickness (described above) apply no matter the physical state
of the material.
Now that the question of "How long should I grind?" has been answered, we can take a
closer look at the grinding and pressing (also known as briquetting or pelletizing) process.
There are many different types of grinding equipment, and the size of the specimen and
briquette have to be taken into consideration when choosing one, as well as the standard
sizes and characteristics of the manufacturer of the XRF instrument being used. The typical
size of a briquette made for a typical XRF spectrometer range from 30 to 40 mm in
diameter, and involves about 5 g of sample and 1 g of binder. Figure 7 shows a briquette
(pressed pellet) of cement. The powder was poured into an aluminum cap to provide
stability to the pellet. Also shown are the ring, puck, and container in which the specimen
was ground. The weight and motion of the ring and puck mill are quite efficient for reducing
most oxide materials down to about 30–40 µm particle size in about 3–4 min. Grinding
further will lead to agglomeration of the particles, thus defeating the purpose of the grinding
exercise. Adding a binder is necessary for the stability of the briquette, depending on the
friability of the material.
Figure 7: Pressed powder briquette and ring and puck
grinding equipment.
Anzelmo and colleagues (8) describe adding a grinding aid that greatly facilitates the
uniformity of the particle size reduction, eliminates contamination from the grinding media
and from the sample sticking to the grinding media, speeds up the cleaning process, and
reduces dust during the cleaning process. Manual or automatic presses operating between
20,000 lb and 40,000 lb have been found adequate as long as the time of the pressing
procedure remains constant. After the grinding equipment, additives, and backing
equipment are decided on, the final step is to determine the optimum grinding time, given
the goal of achieving the correct effective layer thickness for all wavelengths of interest.
Figure 8 shows plots of grinding time versus intensity for various briquettes. The intensities
are changing with different grinding times, so in addition to finding the time to achieve the
appropriate effective layer thickness for each wavelength of interest, it is desirable to find a
time when intensities are not changing drastically with time.
When should one use the pressed powder technique? When parameters such as high speed
of analysis, low skill level for preparation, small concentration range of calibration, and
lowest limit of detection are involved, the pressed powder technique may serve the purpose
adequately. The technique can be especially useful when working with man-made products,
because the material being analyzed is well known and characterized when the process is
working correctly; secondary standards can be collected and analyzed by wet and
alternative methods to provide "matrix matched" standards, allowing the prospect of a
highly accurate analysis. A problem arises with the technique when the process is not
working correctly, and the unknowns are then not matrix matched. This presents a
challenging if not unacceptable situation to a process control situation requiring accurate
analyses.
Fusion Bead (Glass Disk) Technique
The borate fusion technique shown in Figure 9 consists of mixing a ground sample with a
borate flux (lithium or sodium) inside a 95% platinum, 5% gold crucible, heating to about
1000 °C with agitation until the flux melts, and then dissolving the sample homogeneously
in the flux (10). The choice of lithium borate or sodium borate depends on the application,
but lithium borates are more commonly used because of the greater retention of moisture
on the surface of the glass disks with sodium borate flux, and the desire to analyze for
sodium. Lithium borates exist as lithium tetraborate (Li2B4O7), and lithium meta-borate
(LiBO2). It is not necessary to melt the sample, so temperatures above 1100 °C are not
necessary and can adversely affect the retention of volatiles and flux. A nonwetting agent
(bromide or iodide) can be added when integrated into the flux, or independently, depending
on the application. All oxides dissolve in borate flux, so it is essential to make sure the
sample is oxidized. Metals alloy with the platinum forming a eutectic, which lowers the
melting point of the platinum and results in its destruction. If the sample is not oxidized
fully, it may be necessary to add an oxidizer to the sample–flux mixture, and heat at a
lower temperature to start, and then raise the temperature after the oxidation process has
taken place. Careful observation of the oxidation process will allow commonly analyzed
volatiles such as sulfur (9,10) and even chlorine to be analyzed. After the sample is
completely dissolved in the flux, the casting process can be performed by pouring the melt
into a heated 95% platinum, 5% gold mold. This particular alloy of platinum is chosen to
prevent wetting (sticking) of the bead to the mold. The cast glass disk is cooled quickly at
first to freeze the bead in the amorphous (glass) state, and then it is cooled faster over a
period of time with forced air to relieve the stresses in the glass disk from the initial drop in
temperature when first cast and to allow the bead to be retrieved by hand for analysis. The
entire process is shown in Figure 10. Glass disks made from different materials and cast
into molds of different sizes are shown in Figure 11 along with their crucibles.
The process can be performed manually with a Meker burner and a ring stand or with a
good muffle furnace. Automatic fusion machines, electric or gas (propane or natural gas),
can produce multiple glass disks automatically depending on how many positions they
have (typically one to six). For the highest sample throughput, it is possible to use a robot to
automate the entire process, including the weighing and flux dispensing step.
• Should be used whenever it is not known if the standards and unknowns are not
matrix matched. This is often the case when working with materials from nature
(minerals mining, clays, ores, geological, and soils). It is also used in the case where
man-made products are mixed with other man-made products and also products
from nature such as blended cements, catalysts, electronic materials, and high-tech
composite materials.
Fusion should be used whenever it is not known if the standards and unknowns are matrix
matched. This is often the case when working with materials from nature, such as mining
samples, minerals, clays, ores, geological, soils, wastes, and environmental samples. It is
also used in the case where man-made products are mixed with other man-made products
and also with products from nature such as blended cements, polymers with additives,
catalysts, electronic materials, and high-tech composite materials.
These samples are difficult if not impossible to matrix-match with standards. An everyday
example of this problem is the analysis of SiO2 in raw mix used in the manufacturing of
cement (9,10). The plot on the left in Figure 12 shows the calibration curve made for SiO2 in
raw mix from three cement plants (denoted by the triangle, circle, and x symbols). The
scatter around the line is unacceptable and cannot even be made into straight lines by
separating out each plant. Mathematical interelement corrections will not improve this
situation because the problem is not from absorption-enhancement effects; it is from the
mineralogical effect and can only be solved by fusion. The middle plot shows that the
points have now moved very close to the line after fusion, giving acceptable accuracy
expectations when analyzing unknowns. The plot on the right shows even more
improvement after mathematical corrections is applied. Mathematical corrections are now
possible because the larger, dominating error from the mineralogical effect has been
removed, allowing the smaller error from absorption enhancement to be reduced (and to be
able to see the improvement).
Figure 12: SiO2 calibration of raw materials from three cement plants before (pressed
powder preparation) and after fusion bead preparation (adapted with permission from
Thermo/ARL).
Conclusion
The choice of specimen preparation for XRF analysis is critical to achieving the accuracy
desirable. The choice between pressed powder briquettes and fused glass disks is actually
easy to make when one knows whether the samples are matrix-matched or not. If the
standards and unknowns are not known with certainty to be matrix-matched, then fusion is
the safe choice to ensure that a ridiculous analysis is not reported. For more detail about
the concepts and practices of these techniques, we recommend attending the training
course and workshop noted in references 5 and 6.