XRF at the WSU GeoAnalytical Lab: decades of service with graphite crucibles and a smile Richard M Conrey Laureen C Wagoner* Diane J Cornelius* John A Wolff Rick and Laureen GeoAnalytical Lab http://www.sees.wsu.edu/geolab/index.html School of Earth and Environmental Sciences P.O. Box 642812 Pullman, WA 99164 USA * graduates of Univ. of Western Ontario XRF course
Mission of the XRF portion of our lab Since our founding circa 1973 by Peter Hooper we have served thousands of researchers with X-Ray Fluorescence data Our client base is chiefly other universities around the USA and the world, our own students and faculty, and government agencies both local and federal We strive to provide research quality data at an affordable price and to educate both our students and visitors in the methods of sample preparation and X-Ray Fluorescence analysis A graduate level X-Ray Analysis course has been taught at WSU by Nick Foit for three decades, with a focus on XRD, XRF and electron microprobe analysis Diane John at the JEOL console Our lab also houses a JEOL 85F field emission electron microprobe, Siemens D-5 powder X-ray diffractometer, Agilent 77 ICP-MS, Thermo-Finnegan Neptune multi-collector ICP-MS, Thermo-Finnegan Element2 high precision ICP-MS, Finnegan Delta S gas source mass spectrometer, and a Perkin-Elmer Spectrum GX FTIR Nick
XRF at WSU - a brief history ~1973: XRF lab started by Peter Hooper and his graduate students working on the Columbia River basalts Peter adopted the low dilution fusion in graphite method to measure both major and trace elements based upon his prior experience in Wales ~1976: first XRF: a biologically automated Philips PW141 198s: radioactive waste project at Hanford provides steady work 1986: automated Rigaku 337 XRF 1984-29: the XRF lab blossoms under Diane Johnson Cornelius 1997: Peter retires, John Wolff assumes directorship of the GAL 24: Thermo-ARL Advant XP+ XRF spectrometer installed 21: XRF lab now run by Rick Conrey and Laureen Wagoner, both former students of Peter Hooper 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Steve Reidel XRF, ICP-MS samples/year through 29 XRF ICP-MS 1988 199 1992 1994 1996 1998 2 22 24 26 28 Peter Hooper Vic Camp Marty Ross
Graphite has many advantages Ease of maintenance, fabrication, and cleaning, inert, inexpensive, efficient, rare to make unusable pellet, no releasing agent required Allows single recipe with Litetraborate for nearly all samples - we analyze nearly all rock types, minerals and soils with the exception of ores - little need* to know beforehand what you are analyzing Allows low dilution strategy - traces measured on same pellet as majors; full matrix correction for all elements Life of a graphite crucible XRF custom boring tool ICP ~ 6 fusions/crucible Graphite crucible cost - $US 8 machined in-house from ultra-pure rod nearly all WSU ICP-MS analyses begin with a graphite fusion 24 fusions possible every 45 minutes * Mg-, Fe-, Ca-, P, or Mn-rich samples can be diluted with pure fused silica to ensure good glass formation upon cooling
Graphite doubly fused beads - glass with some carbon on top Graphite fusions homogeneity requires re-grind (3 sec/bead) and re-fusion of graphite static fused beads loss of powder is immaterial at re-grind stage buffing reduces carbon load before re-grind graphite crucible loading powders are weighed into plastic jars, mixed with a Vortex mixer, and passed over an anti-static bar prior to loading Kimwipe + compressed air cleaning re-grinding
Sizing/lapping of graphite fused beads diamond grinding in water is fast (total 2-3 min/bead) final cleaning in sonicator with ethanol lapping removes diffusion profile at contact of glass and crucible - final surface finish is 15 microns machined template assures accurate sizing 29 mm 15 mm 8 mm Small sample analyses Mask Sample wt Minimum wt 29 mm 3.5 gm 1.5 gm 15 mm 1.1 gm.5(?) gm 8 mm.4 gm.2(?) gm We calibrate with smaller masks for beads down to 8 mm diameter Not simply a reduction in counts across the spectrum - varies with 2- theta because of crystal geometry so many parameters change Precision varies as square root of counts so degraded by factor ~2 each step down in size - we count twice as long at 15 mm and 4x at 8 mm 16 14 12 1 8 6 4 2 Concentration (ppm) vs. matrix corrected intensity (kcps) Zr calibration at 8 mm SEE = 4.2 ppm; n =14 r 2 =.9999.2.4.6.8 1
5 ton anvil press It s important not to contaminate during chipping - need a very hard surface Our custom-made (WSU Tech Services) chipmunks use hardened tool steel plates - we re still using the original 35+ yr old plates mini -chipper (sub-2 mm) Breaking and chipping, splitting and grinding Rocklabs ring mill Coarse chipmunk Retsch planetary ball mill the Cadillac of splitters Random sub-sampling of rocks is critical: we mini-chip coarse samples and reduce splitting error to the level of analytical error with a Rocklabs rotary splitter We normally grind in Ta-free Rocklabs WC (< 12 g) for both XRF and ICP-MS or in agate (< 2 g) on request or for soils; small ball mills are used for < 3 g samples WC and agate ball mills
The nitty gritty of a WSU GeoAnalytical Lab XRF analysis collect intensities at 36 peak and 25 background positions (~ 66 min/sample) for all samples calculate net peak minus background intensity for each element (often require linear and even parabolic* matrix-dependent background slope correction) correct the net intensities for 135 spectral interferences (pk on pk, pk on bgd, Compton tails) calculate raw concentrations from corrected intensities using the calibration curves (set with 75 to 15 highly diverse CRMs) calculate matrix corrected concentrations from the raw concentrations by iteration using the fundamental parameters method (with the absorbance values of the NIST-GSC using Al, Ba, Ca, Cl, Cr, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, Na, P, S, Si, Sr, Ti, Zr and estimated LOF as matrix elements) recalculate the corrected concentrations by iteration using an estimated loss on fusion (LOF; simply 1 minus the analytical sum) to correct for raw powder** analysis and volatile loss of weighed rock powder upon fusion (correction for not truly 2:1 flux:rock mixture) ** raw powder is much preferred due to potential sample damage and partial analyte losses (chiefly of Pb, K, and Rb) during ignition loss measurements, especially for halide-rich samples 1.9.8.7.6.5.4.3.2.1 * parabolic background correction for Zr Zr peak minus background vs. RhKb Compton intensity y =.3424x 2 +.485338x +.7247217 R 2 =.99536438 mixtures of silica and puratronic compounds 2 4 6 8 1 estimated loss on fusion is a robust approximation of loss on ignition - we have employed this correction for several years now on diverse lithologies. Very Ferich samples (gray squares) have high estimated LOF due to reduction of Fe +3 Estimated LOF (wt%) 55 (A) 45 35 25 15 y =.9972x +.9522 5 R 2 =.9891; n = 2552-5 -5 5 15 25 35 45 55 Measured LOI (wt%)
Major and trace element calibration with graphite double fusions Matrix corrected intensity (kcps) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 K 2 O SEE =.44 wt% R 2 =.9998 n = 12 4 8 12 16 Matrix corrected intensity (kcps).25.2.15.1.5 Sc SEE =.8 ppm R 2 =.9995 n = 85 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Concentration (wt %) Concentration (ppm) Matrix corrected intensity (kcps) 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 Al 2 O 3 SEE =.155 wt% R 2 =.9998 n = 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Concentration (wt %) Matrix corrected intensity (kcps) 2.25 2 1.75 1.5 1.25 1.75.5.25 V SEE = 4.9 ppm R 2 =.9987 n = 84 1 2 3 4 5 6 Concentration (ppm) Calibration requires 5 days at ~66 min/crm but calibrations hold for 3-1 months
Reproducibility of major and trace elements using graphite double fusions (n = 85) Difference from average (wt%).15.1.5. -.5 -.1 -.15 P 2 O 5..2.4.6.8 1. 1.2 1.4 1.6 Concentration (wt %) Difference from average (ppm) 8 6 4 2-2 -4-6 -8 Nb 2 4 6 8 1 Concentration (ppm) Difference from average (wt%).15.1.5. -.5 -.1 -.15 CaO Difference from average (ppm) 1 8 6 4 2-2 -4-6 -8-1 Rb 4 8 12 16 2 1 2 3 4 5 Concentration (wt %) Concentration (ppm) Duplicate analyses of 85 diverse same sample powders performed over a 5 year period, 24-29
1 2 8 16 Ba WSU XRF (ppm) WSU XRF (ppm) Graphite fused XRF versus graphite fused- acid digested ICP-MS trace elements (n = 1224) 6 4 y =.9827x + 5.763 2 Y 12 8 y =.9715x +.6721 R2 =.9988 2 R =.9995 4 2 4 6 8 1 4 8 16 2 WSU ICP-MS (ppm) WSU ICP-MS (ppm) 8 2 Ce Th 6 WSU XRF (ppm) 16 WSU XRF (ppm) 12 12 8 y =.998x -.6172 y =.9885x +.5574 R2 =.996 2 R2 =.9985 4 4 4 8 12 WSU ICP-MS (ppm) 16 2 2 4 WSU ICP-MS (ppm) All 1224 analyses performed over an eight month period in 29 on a single XRF calibration 6 8
Summary Our lab has served a broad Earth science research clientele over the past 35 years using low dilution graphite fusions for XRF analysis Graphite provides more than sufficient reproducibility for the vast majority of bulk rock analyses (our lab is often chosen for certification studies due to our consistent performance on GeoPT samples) Graphite allows employment of a robust low dilution fusion strategy for nearly all geologic materials save ores We thank Charles Wu and the instructors of the University of Western Ontario XRF course for their excellence in instruction and in preparation of course materials. The UWO courses have deepened the knowledge base of our technical staff and helped us further our goals of providing education and good data at a reasonable cost.