analyze this! limestone and concrete with benchtop and ... · august 15, 2012 2 welcome analyze...

Analyze This! Limestone and Concrete with Benchtop and Handheld XRF

Presented by: Alexander Seyfarth, Michelle Cameron and Dan Pecard

August 15, 2012 2

Welcome

Analyze This! Limestone and Concrete with Benchtop and Handheld XRF • Overview of XRF in the

Cement Industry

• Handheld XRF Calibration

• Benchtop EDX Calibration

• Summary

• Q&A

Daniel Pecard

Sr. Applications Scientist,

XRF

Michelle Cameron

Applications Scientist,

HH-XRF

Alexander Seyfarth

Global Product Manager,

HH-XRF

XRF in the Cement Industry

August 15, 2012 3

• Trend is to analyze more samples in the field or “at line”

• The cement industry was an early adopter of XRF and now relies heavily on XRF for production control

• The main units used so far are WDXRF analyzers; floor-standing units are located in a centralized lab and can be automated for highest productivity

• Innovation in EDXRF hardware resulted in smaller, compact instruments with an increasing ability to measure light elements, such as Na2O and MgO

Cement Production Locations Audience Poll

1. Quarry 5. Raw-mill 9. Cooler 2. Crusher 6. Filter 10. Clinker 3. Conveyor 7. Pre-heater 11. Silo 4. Mixing bed 8. Kiln 12. Cement mill 13. Logistics

How would you use a handheld and/or benchtop EDXRF analyzer at your plant? a. In the field to save time in raw materials extraction b. At-line to better control blending and clinkerization c. During grinding and distribution to ensure composition d. Throughout cement production as a complement to a

centralized WDXRF analyzer

Cement Production Locations Handheld XRF & Benchtop EDX

1. Quarry 4. Mixing bed 10. Clinker 2. Crusher 5. Raw-mill 11. Silo 3. Conveyor 6. Filter 12. Cement mill

7. Pre-heater 13. Logistics 8. Kiln 9. Cooler

Cement Production Materials XRF Application Areas

15 August 2012 6

Saving time by being in the FIELD or AT LINE

• Raw materials from quarry, elemental analysis of samples from exploration or blast hole drilling

• Feed stream: limestone, clay, quartz sand, fuel, gypsum, pozzolana and fly ash

• Raw material and fuel receiving

• Raw mix control

Laboratory-based analysis

• Kiln feed: clinker analysis and material balances, hot meal

• Coal, coke powder and alternate fuels

• Kiln operation and clinker quality

• Final cement analysis and issuing of customer certification

poll results

Cement Production Handheld XRF Applications



Using XRF in the Field Handheld XRF Applications

August 15, 2012 8

• HH-XRF used in a plant can also be used outside the traditional environment

• For traditional geochemical applications, such as quarry drill campaigns to establish new sources as well as to map deposits, HH-XRF has been used already by geochemists or contractors

• The unit is purchased as an analyzer enabling point-and-shoot operation with the factory calibrations

• When used by production people and plant geologists, some issues were raised

August 15, 2012 9

Calibration of the Handheld XRF Analyzer

Michelle Cameron

Standard Geological or Mining Calibrations

August 15, 2012 10

• Standard geochemical calibrations can be used for a variety of matrices, but perform best on silicate and aluminosilicate type matrices

• Many mining (ore) applications are focused on either oxide or sulfide ore with high metal content

• As matrices or chemical bonding diverge from the assumed configurations, the measurements will have more error and will eventually become semi-quantitative

• For raw material cement applications, the major component is carbonate (instead of oxide), so a separate application needs to be developed to get good results on limestone matrices

Handheld and Benchtop Have Different Uses in Cement Applications

August 15, 2012 11

Advantages of Handheld:

• Little or no sample preparation - can be used on rocks and on coarse or fine powders

• Can be easily taken to the field and brought to the samples

• Quick screening tool

Limitations of Handheld:

• Large uncertainty – mainly used for estimating raw material content

• Light element analysis is difficult due to no vacuum and poor sample quality (cannot see Na)

Typical Limestone Spectrum 1% MgO, 1.6% Al2O3, 12.5% SiO2

August 15, 2012 12

August 15, 2012 13

Path Lengths (90% Attenuation) of Selected Elements in Air and Silica

Element Air (cm) Silica (microns)

C 0.428 0.5

O 0.147 2.1

Na 0.595 3.1

Mg 0.986 5.1

Si 2.46 12.4

Ca 22 27.3

Ti 40.1 47.3

Fe 115.6 128

As 517 544

Zr 1601 1765

Sn 4552 6577

15.08.2012 14

Measurement of a Rough Surface

• X-rays from surface

attenuated by air

• predictable behavior

• X-rays from surface

attenuated by air and by

interfering surfaces

• unpredictable behavior

Normalization

August 15, 2012 15

• Takes the sum of all measured elements and uses multipliers to normalize the concentrations to 100%

• All elements present in a sample must be either measured or associated by stoichiometry with a measured element

• Biggest effect on the largest concentrations

Effect of Normalization

August 15, 2012 16

File SiO2 SO3 CaO TiO2 Mn2O3 Fe2O3 CoarsePowder 0 0.0147 92.7 0.0038 0.0476 0.326 FinePowder 0 0.0231 92.7 0.0329 0.0421 0.332 LargeRocks 0.495 0.0202 79.3 0.0357 0.0344 0.288 SmallRocks 0.873 0.0252 65.3 0.0245 0.0285 0.21

File SiO2 SO3 CaCO3 TiO2 Mn2O3 Fe2O3

CoarsePowder 0 0.0153 99.6 0.0043 0.0521 0.361

FinePowder 0 0.024 99.5 0.0368 0.0461 0.368

LargeRocks 0.674 0.0228 98.8 0.05 0.0452 0.396

SmallRocks 1.47 0.0318 98 0.0435 0.046 0.382

A. Not normalized

B. Normalized

CaO reported with matrix balance of CO2. Relies solely on peak intensity.

CaCO3 reported. Relies on relative peak intensities and known stoichiometry.

Building a Calibration

August 15, 2012 17

Considerations:

• Calibration Base: powders or solids?

• Unmeasurable Elements: can they be associated with a measured element by stoichiometry (allowing normalization)?

• How much variation will there be in the measured matrices?

• What ranges of element concentrations are covered?

• Fundamental parameters or empirical-based calibration?

S1 TURBO Limestone Calibration

August 15, 2012 18

Considerations:

• Calibration is based on a set of powders

• Unmeasurable elements are associated with measured elements – as oxides for all elements except Ca. The loss on ignition is all associated with Ca in the form of CaCO3.

• Calibration covers limestones and slightly dolomitic limestones. Farther divergence from limestone matrix leads to larger errors.

• Ranges for typical limestone rock are covered.

• Empirical type calibration is necessary because of mineralogical effects.

Results for Certified Powders

August 15, 2012 19

GeoMajors Geological Standards MgO Al2O3 SiO2 SO3 K2O CaCO3 TiO2 Mn2O3 Fe2O3

Limestone_04

known 0.15 0.12 0.70 0.02 0.02 98.8 0.009 0.010 0.045

measured 0.257 0.453 0.0444 0.079 0.048 99 0.0056 0.0187 0.0711

Bauxite_14

known 1.94 0.405 3.04 0.118 0.030 87.7 0.049 0.178 2.715

measured 1.92 0.521 4.38 0.075 0.0375 89.1 0.0228 0.153 2.3

Dolomite_05

known 21.4 0.054 0.376 0.010 0.020 54.3 0 0.004 0.030

measured 22.2 0 0 0.041 0.105 77.6 0.003 0.0104 0.069

GeoMajors Geological Standards MgCO3 Al2O3 SiO2 SO3 K2O CaCO3 TiO2 Mn2O3 Fe2O3

Dolomite_05

known 44.8 0.054 0.376 0.010 0.020 54.3 0 0.004 0.030

measured 40.5 0 0 0.037 0.0834 59.3 0.0026 0.0091 0.0487

Dolomite Modification:

Limestone_14

Results for Samples from a Cement Plant

August 15, 2012 20

Raw Material Samples MgO Al2O3 SiO2 SO3 K2O CaCO3 TiO2 Fe2O3

limestone

known 0.63 0.3 1.28 0.02 0.08 96.8 0.02 0.28

measured 1.4 0.73 0 0.080 0.056 97.4 0.0063 0.316

precrusher stockpile

known 0.12 18.2 67.8 0.06 0.15 0.125 1.1 7.36

measured 0 17.2 72.6 0.002 0.22 0.147 1.1 8.6

stockpile

known 1.09 1.61 12.5 0.04 0.34 81.8 0.09 1.09

measured 0.48 1.18 13.1 0.083 0.29 83.5 0.033 1.26

feed limestone

known 0.67 0.76 4.72 0.42 0.18 91.1 0.05 0.99

measured 0 0.51 5.69 0.52 0.18 91.8 0.027 1.19

cement fringes

known 0.28 1.22 5.27 41.0 0.22 53.2 0.04 0.59

measured 4.15 1.16 6.58 37.6 0.26 49.5 0.042 0.69

weekly clay

known 0.2 28.0 57.2 0.23 0.39 0.77 1.36 2.91

measured 0 28.6 65.2 0.029 0.44 0.94 1.57 3.25

clay-birdwood

known 0.29 23.7 66.8 0.04 1.03 0.09 1.08 0.7

measured 0 27.6 69.2 0.0022 1.09 0 1.22 0.90

Results for Samples from Unprepared Rock

August 15, 2012 21

Sample #

Known

CaCO3

Measured

(CaCO3) Sample #

Known

CaCO3

Measured

(CaCO3)

1 pellet 96.3 95.8 6 pellet 79.8 82.4

raw ave 94.6 raw ave 79.1

raw range 93.1 - 96.3 raw range 75.8 - 82.3

2 pellet 89.48 89.2 7 pellet 97.25 95.2



3 pellet 74.2 79 8 pellet 85.43 81.1



4 pellet 88.14 83.8 9 pellet 75.78 76.8



5 pellet 81.43 80.5

raw ave 84.1

raw range 74.7 - 88.9

Graphical Representation of Rock Data

December 14, 2010 22

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

70 75 80 85 90 95 100

Measu

red

Valu

es

Known Values

CaCO3 in Unprepared Rocks

Field Measurement Considerations

December 14, 2010 23

• Keep the instrument window clean, especially in dusty areas

• When measuring rock faces, try to choose a flat section with no color variation

• Be careful that no sharp edges puncture the window and damage the detector

Availability and Applicability of Limestone Calibration

August 15, 2012 24

• The Limestone calibration discussed here is available as an optional calibration on the Bruker handheld XRF unit.

• It is applicable as-is to high-quality limestone material.

• Divergence from a CaCO3 matrix with other elements as oxides will lead to significant errors.

• Assumptions for MgCO3 in dolomitic limestone provides better results for that matrix.

• Limestone calibration should not be used for clinker or other parts of the cement process where the carbonate has been burned off.

August 15, 2012 25

Benchtop EDX It’s as Easy as 1-2-3

(Raw Mill, Clinker, Cement)

Dan Pecard

Cement Production Benchtop EDX



26 August 15, 2012

August 15, 2012 27

S2 RANGER Light Elements (LE) Benchtop EDXRF Analyzer

• Manual System o Single Sample Position

• Automation System o 28 Sample Position

August 15, 2012 28

S2 RANGER A Truly All-In-One Instrument

• Standalone unit

o No external

computer needed

after calibration is

set up

• XFlash Detector /

XFlash LE Detector

• 50 W Power

• TouchControlTM

• Analysis

o Quantitative

o Qualitative

o Standardless

• Remote Diagnostics

and Application

Assistance available

through WebEx and

PCAnywhere

• Results can be

transferred to a LIMS

System

• Measurement Mode

o Air, Vacuum,

Helium, or

Helium-Assisted

• Direct Loading

• All-in-one system

August 15, 2012 29

Sample Preparation Pressed Pellet or Fused Bead

Sample

SiO2

(Weight

%)

Al2O3

(Weight

%)

Fe2O3

(Weight

%)

CaO

(Weight

%)

MgO

(Weight

%)

SO3

(Weight

%)

Na2O

(Weight

%)

K2O

(Weight

%)

LOI

(Weight

%)

Total

(Weight

%)

S2 LE Result 20.03 5.29 2.71 64.40 1.07 2.98 0.15 0.26 2.71 99.60

August 15, 2012 30

Pressed Pellets

• Grinder

o Stainless steel

o Binder (i.e. cellulose)

o 10:1 ratio (sample to

binder)

• Press

o 40- or 32-mm diameter die

• Advantages

o Quicker

o More cost effective

o Easy to use

• Disadvantages

o Mineralogical effects

o Matrix effects

o Particle size

Mikron Press

http://mikrondigitalinstruments.com/

Mikron Grinder



August 15, 2012 31

Fused Bead

Fusion Machine

o Gas or electric

o Flux (LiT / LiM)

o Wetting agent (LiBr)

o Pt crucibles and molds

Advantages

o Removes mineralogical effects

o Reduces matrix effects

o No particle size

Disadvantages

o Cost and consumables

o Preparation time and fusion time

Claisse – M4

http://claisse.com/

http://claisse.com/

http://claisse.com/

Instrumentation and Methods

15 August 2012 32

• Easiest operation: due to intuitive touch screen interface, three steps to accurate results

o Select sample position and application

o Enter sample ID

o Press “Measure”

• Start measurement: routine analysis, stability check, drift correction

• Standalone operation: in tough environments (no PC)

• Unmatched data safety: Routine analysis is separated from advanced tasks like calibration, evaluation, and extended reporting

• Online language switch: with huge selection

August 15, 2012 33

S2 RANGER LE What Elements Can Be Measured?

XFlash LE: Fluorine – Uranium

Accurate measurements of Na & Mg!

August 15, 2012 34

S2 RANGER – Detector Comparison XFlash versus XFlash LE

Feldspar Sample

• XFlash (black) vs XFlash LE (red)

• Compared to standard XFlash,

XFlash LE has o 8 times the sensitivity for Na

o 4 times the sensitivity for Mg

August 15, 2012 35

Cement Spectra 8 kV, No Filter

10

20

30

50

10

02

00

30

04

00

50

06

00

70

08

00

90

0

Cp

s

Mg K

A1

Al K

A1

Na K

A1

SRM 1885A Prep 1 8 KV None

SRM 1886A Prep 1 8 KV None

0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8

KeV

August 15, 2012 36

Calibration Data for Na2O in Cement

• Abridged calibration data for line Na KA1, Cement

• S/N 5899, Mask: 30 mm, Mode: Vacuum, 8 kV, 1.15 mA, Filter: None

• Detector parameter 1: 600, parameter 2: 400

• Intensity evaluation: peak height

• Calibration data for compound Na2O in original sample

• Absorption correction: Fixed alphas (empirically adjusted values)

• Intensity model: net intensity

• Minimization target: absolute error, 16 standards from 0.02% to 1.07%

• Standard deviation: 0.0224%

• Squared correlation coefficient: 0.995102

• Slope: 0.008153 %/Cps, Sensitivity: 122.7 Cps/% (Adjustable by regression)

• Corrected intensity offset: -29.6 Cps (Adjustable by regression) or 0.2413%

• Alpha (Si): 17.8707 (Adjustable by regression)

• Alpha (Fe): 50.1373 (Adjustable by regression)

Int. corrected

Corr

ecte

d I

nte

nsity (

Cps)

Concentration (%)

24

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

August 15, 2012 37

Calibration Data for Na2O in Cement LLD < 150 ppm!

Standard Name Chem Conc

(Weight %)

XRF Conc

(Weight %)

Absolute

Deviation

Gross Int

(kcps)

Bkgd Int

(kcps) Net Int (kcps) LLD (PPM)

SRM 1880A Prep 1 0.190 0.166 -0.024 21.91 8.03 13.88 119.2

SRM 1880A Prep 2 0.190 0.154 -0.036 21.40 7.92 13.48 118.6

SRM 1881A Prep 1 0.199 0.222 0.023 23.26 8.48 14.78 127.5

SRM 1881A Prep 2 0.199 0.214 0.015 22.85 8.34 14.50 126.8

SRM 1884A Prep 1 0.216 0.222 0.006 23.88 7.99 15.89 118.2

SRM 1884A Prep 2 0.216 0.213 -0.003 23.64 8.06 15.58 119.0

SRM 1885A Prep 1 1.068 1.066 -0.002 55.93 7.99 47.94 113.3

SRM 1885A Prep 2 1.068 1.061 -0.008 55.84 8.11 47.73 113.8

SRM 1886A Prep 1 0.021 0.031 0.010 19.30 7.64 11.66 99.0

SRM 1886A Prep 2 0.021 0.058 0.037 20.60 7.77 12.84 99.1

SRM 1887A Prep 1 0.478 0.495 0.017 34.71 8.59 26.12 118.7

SRM 1887A Prep 2 0.478 0.495 0.017 34.69 8.57 26.12 118.6

SRM 1888B Prep 1 0.136 0.142 0.005 20.68 7.96 12.73 121.0

SRM 1888B Prep 2 0.136 0.150 0.013 20.92 7.92 13.00 120.8

SRM 1889A Prep 1 0.195 0.164 -0.031 22.74 7.82 14.93 112.0

SRM 1889A Prep 2 0.195 0.156 -0.039 22.41 7.75 14.66 111.7

S2 RANGER LE Na Repeatability

38

1.95

2

2.05

2.1

2.15

2.2

2.25

2.3

2.35

2.4

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n %

Date

Na repeatability

3σ according to ISO 29581

measured 3σ

Average

August 15, 2012

August 15, 2012 39

Calibration Data for MgO in Cement

• Abridged calibration data for line Mg KA1, Cement

• S/N 5899, Mask: 30 mm, Mode: Vacuum, 8 kV, 1.15 mA, Filter: None

• Detector parameter 1: 600, parameter 2: 400

• Peak Channels [trapeze]: 1.158 - 1.364 keV

• Calibration data for compound MgO in original sample

• Absorption correction: Fixed alphas (empirically adjusted values)

• Intensity model: net intensity

• Minimization target: absolute error, 16 standards from 0.81% to 4.48%

• Standard deviation: 0.0529%

• Squared correlation coefficient: 0.998056

• Slope: 0.0315 %/Cps, Sensitivity: 31.75 Cps/% (Adjustable by regression)

• Corrected intensity offset: -5.759 Cps (Adjustable by regression) or 0.1814%

• Alpha (Fe): 3.3278 (Adjustable by regression)

Int. corrected

Corr

ecte

d I

nte

nsity (

Cps)

Concentration (%)

23

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

0.6 1 2 3 4

August 15, 2012 40

Calibration Data for MgO in Cement

Standard Name Chem Conc

(Weight %)

XRF Conc

(Weight %)

Absolute

Deviation

Gross Int

(kcps)

Bkgd Int

(kcps)

Net Int

(kcps) LLD (PPM)

SRM 1880A Prep 1 1.720 1.795 0.075 67.33 8.31 59.02 104.4

SRM 1880A Prep 2 1.720 1.784 0.064 66.87 8.20 58.67 103.8

SRM 1881A Prep 1 2.981 2.876 -0.105 99.53 8.77 90.76 107.2

SRM 1881A Prep 2 2.981 2.901 -0.080 100.13 8.64 91.50 106.6

SRM 1884A Prep 1 4.475 4.547 0.072 149.82 8.29 141.53 103.6

SRM 1884A Prep 2 4.475 4.538 0.063 149.60 8.35 141.25 104.4

SRM 1885A Prep 1 4.033 4.027 -0.006 136.34 8.30 128.04 102.7

SRM 1885A Prep 2 4.033 4.016 -0.017 136.12 8.41 127.71 103.3

SRM 1886A Prep 1 1.932 1.909 -0.023 73.99 7.85 66.14 95.3

SRM 1886A Prep 2 1.932 1.923 -0.009 74.57 7.97 66.60 95.5

SRM 1887A Prep 1 2.835 2.791 -0.045 97.60 8.96 88.64 107.7

SRM 1887A Prep 2 2.835 2.793 -0.042 97.68 8.95 88.73 107.7

SRM 1888B Prep 1 3.562 3.574 0.012 119.76 8.22 111.54 104.4

SRM 1888B Prep 2 3.562 3.559 -0.004 119.26 8.18 111.08 104.2

SRM 1889A Prep 1 0.814 0.833 0.019 38.94 8.08 30.87 101.7

SRM 1889A Prep 2 0.814 0.838 0.024 39.04 8.01 31.02 101.3

August 15, 2012 41

Stability Data (n=10 of an Unknown Sample)

Stability Test Na2O

(Weight %)

MgO

(Weight %)

Al2O3

(Weight %)

SiO2

(Weight %)

SO3

(Weight %)

K2O

(Weight %)

CaO

(Weight %)

Fe2O3

(Weight %)

Total

(Weight %)

Rep 01 0.034 1.941 3.897 22.368 2.103 0.133 68.372 0.161 99.10

Rep 02 0.040 1.922 3.892 22.382 2.106 0.129 68.453 0.159 99.13

Rep 03 0.043 1.905 3.899 22.430 2.119 0.130 68.339 0.155 99.12

Rep 04 0.032 1.947 3.899 22.395 2.108 0.131 68.473 0.156 99.23

Rep 05 0.035 1.924 3.913 22.472 2.114 0.128 68.384 0.159 99.22

Rep 06 0.036 1.916 3.921 22.447 2.105 0.133 68.314 0.158 99.12

Rep 07 0.036 1.911 3.899 22.406 2.111 0.128 68.362 0.158 99.1

Rep 08 0.029 1.906 3.903 22.431 2.110 0.131 68.298 0.157 99.05

Rep 09 0.047 1.916 3.907 22.425 2.107 0.132 68.490 0.156 99.27

Rep 10 0.043 1.927 3.898 22.389 2.121 0.133 68.240 0.157 99.01

Na2O

(Weight %)

MgO

(Weight %)

Al2O3

(Weight %)

SiO2

(Weight %)

SO3

(Weight %)

K2O

(Weight %)

CaO

(Weight %)

Fe2O3

(Weight %)

Total

(Weight %)

Min 0.029 1.905 3.892 22.368 2.103 0.128 68.240 0.155 99.01

Max 0.047 1.947 3.921 22.472 2.121 0.133 68.490 0.161 99.27

Average 0.038 1.922 3.903 22.415 2.110 0.131 68.373 0.158 99.135

Std Dev 0.006 0.014 0.009 0.032 0.006 0.002 0.080 0.002 0.082

Rel Std Dev 14.940 0.726 0.221 0.143 0.283 1.521 0.118 1.127 0.083

August 15, 2012 42

S2 RANGER LE Cement Quant

• 15 Calibration Standards: Japanese CRMs 20 g each in original package

• 1 Drift Correction Sample: FLX-C3

• 1 Stability Check Sample: BCEM

• Sample Preparation Instructions

• User Manual and Installation CD

S2 RANGER LE Cement Quant

15 August 2012 43

Oxide Na2O MgO Al2O3 SiO2 P2O5 SO3 K2O CaO TiO2 Cr2O3 MnO Fe2O3 ZnO SrO

Min. Concentration % 0.1 0.78 3.4 20.5 0.04 1.9 0.23 49.3 0.16 0.07 1.3 0.02

Max. Concentration % 0.38 5.12 10.7 29.3 0.4 3.2 0.62 66.3 0.73 0.6 4.2 0.07

Predefined and installed measurement methods

Best results at minimum measurement time: 200 seconds

12 elements:

o 9 major oxides (CaO, SiO2, Al2O3, SO3, Fe2O3, K2O, MgO, Na2O and P2O5)

o 3 minor elements (TiO2, Mn2O3, and SrO)

August 15, 2012 44

S2 RANGER LE Additional Benefits

Transfer results to LIMS, Level 2

Standardless Analysis o Material that needs to be

investigated, but there’s no calibration for, such as: − gunk in a pipe − oil − unknown substance

Calculations

o Bogue calculation o C3S, C2S, C4AF, ALM, SIM,

LSF, Alkalis, LIQ, etc.

August 15, 2012 45

S2 RANGER LE for Cement Great and Reliable Complement to WDX

S8 TIGER

S2 RANGER

August 15, 2012 46

What do you get when you cross a RANGER with a TIGER?

August 15, 2012 47

S8 DRAGON - Simultaneous WDX with MEC (Multielement ChannelTM / XFlash Detector)

• Simultaneous

measurements of all elements

• Highest sample throughput

• Flexibility with MEC (Multielement Channel™)

August 15, 2012 48

Summary and Q&A

Alexander Seyfarth

Handheld XRF yields best results when used with a “customized” calibration reflecting the carbonate matrix

o For example: the Limestone calibration shown by Michelle (S1 TURBO SD LE and soon also on the S1 TITAN LE)

Physics make the analysis of Na2O and MgO very challenging

o Sensitivity, especially on beads, is 1/5 of the original concentration

o Analyzed layer is very small, affected by homogeneity and mineralogical effects

o Highly sensitive, “luggable” S2 RANGER EDX can now act more than before as a complement to traditional WDX

Limestone analysis by fusion bead (including Na2O) is now a reality for EDX!

August 15, 2012 49

Summary: Limestone and Concrete with Benchtop and Handheld XRF

15.08.2012 50

Q&A

Any Questions?

Please type any questions you may have for our speakers in the Q&A panel and click Send.

How did we do?

When you exit the webinar, please fill out our evaluation survey to let us know. We appreciate your feedback.

Thank you!

Daniel Pecard

Sr. Applications Scientist,

XRF

Michelle Cameron

Applications Scientist,

HH-XRF

Alexander Seyfarth

Global Product Manager,

HH-XRF

August 15, 2012

15.08.2012 51

Like what you learned in this webinar?

Subscribe to Bruker’s FIRST Newsletter to get webinar announcements, fascinating articles, and analytical

X-ray news delivered right to your inbox!

Subscribe at:

www.bruker-axs.com/bruker_axs_newsletter.html

August 15, 2012

http://www.bruker-axs.com/bruker_axs_newsletter.html



Available at www.bruker-axs.com/webinars_xrf.html

or www.bruker-axs.com/xrf_webinars_archives.html

• S2 RANGER LE: Analysis of Light Elements in Cement, Slag and Feldspar

• Rare Earth Element Prospecting and Production

• Industrial Minerals: EDXRF for Direct Analysis Without Digestion

• XRF Sample Preparation – Fused vs Pressed: the Final Face-Off!

• Industrial Minerals: How Onsite X-ray Analysis Saves Money

• Cement I: Cost Savings Through Quantitative X-ray Diffraction

• Cement II: Improved C-114 Qualification with WDXRF

August 15, 2012 52 August 15, 2012

Related On-Demand Webinars

http://www.bruker-axs.com/webinars_xrf.html



http://www.bruker-axs.com/xrf_webinars_archives.html



15.08.2012 53

April 30 - Vancouver, BC May 2 - Seattle, WA May 4 - Portland, OR May 7 - Toronto, ON May 9 - Ottawa, ON May 11 - Montreal, QC May 14 - Fremont, CA May 16 - Salt Lake City, UT May 18 - Denver, CO August 6 - Minneapolis, MN August 8 - St. Louis, MO August 10 - Memphis, TN November 5 - Bethesda, MD November 7 - New Brunswick, NJ November 9 - New Haven, CT

One-day seminars celebrating 100 years of analytical X-ray in a city near you 9AM - 12PM: X-ray Fluorescence 1PM - 4PM: X-ray Diffraction Seminars are complimentary Breakfast and lunch are included Proceedings bag available for purchase

Sign up at www.bruker-axs.com/xteamtour2012

August 15, 2012

http://www.bruker-axs.com/xteamtour2012



ACS Fall – Philadelphia, PA – Aug 19-21

Canadian Mineral Analysts – Quebec City, QC – Sep 9-13

IMTS – Chicago, IL – Sep 10-15

ICCBM 14 – Huntsville, AL – Sep 23-28

MINExpo– Las Vegas, NV – Sep 24-26

AOAC – Las Vegas, NV – Sep 30 - Oct 3

FACSS – Kansas City, MO – Sep 30 - Oct 4

Gulf Coast Conference – Galveston, TX – Oct 9-10

AAPS – Chicago, IL – Oct 15-17

AVS – Tampa, FL – Oct 28 - Nov 2

GSA Annual Meeting – Charlotte, NC – Nov 4-7

15.08.2012 54

Upcoming Events – US and Canada Visit Us!

August 15, 2012

analyze this! limestone and concrete with benchtop and ... · august 15, 2012 2 welcome analyze...

Documents