Analyze This!
Limestone and Concrete with
Benchtop and Handheld XRF
Presented by: Alexander Seyfarth, Michelle Cameron and Dan Pecard
Welcome
Analyze This!
Limestone and Concrete with
Benchtop and Handheld XRF
Alexander Seyfarth
Global Product Manager,
HH-XRF
Daniel Pecard
Sr. Applications Scientist,
XRF
August 15, 2012
•
Overview of XRF in the
Cement Industry
•
•
•
•
Handheld XRF Calibration
Benchtop EDX Calibration
Summary
Q&A
Michelle Cameron
Applications Scientist,
HH-XRF
2
XRF in the Cement Industry
•
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
August 15, 2012
3
Cement Production Locations
Audience Poll
How would you use a handheld and/or benchtop EDXRF
analyzer at your plant?
a.
In the field to save
time in raw materials
1. Quarry
5. Raw-mill
9. Cooler extraction
b.
At-line to better6. control
and
clinkerization
2. Crusher
Filter blending 10.
Clinker
3. Conveyor
Pre-heater
11.ensure
Silo
c.
During grinding7.and
distribution to
composition
4. Mixing
bed
8. Kilnproduction as
12.a Cement
mill
d.
Throughout
cement
complement
to a
13. Logistics
centralized WDXRF analyzer
Cement Production Locations
Handheld XRF & Benchtop EDX
1. Quarry
2. Crusher
3. Conveyor
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Mixing bed
Raw-mill
Filter
Pre-heater
Kiln
Cooler
10.
11.
12.
13.
Clinker
Silo
Cement mill
Logistics
Cement Production Materials
XRF Application Areas
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
15 August 2012
6
Cement Production
Handheld XRF Applications
1. Quarry
2. Crusher
3. Conveyor
4. Mixing bed
5. Raw-mill
6. Filter
7. Pre-heater
8. Kiln
9. Cooler
10. Clinker
11. Silo
12. Cement mill
13. Logistics
Using XRF in the Field
Handheld XRF Applications
•
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-andshoot operation with the factory
calibrations
•
When used by production people
and plant geologists, some
issues were raised
August 15, 2012
8
Calibration of the
Handheld XRF Analyzer
Michelle Cameron
August 15, 2012
9
Standard Geological or Mining
Calibrations
•
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
August 15, 2012
10
Handheld and Benchtop Have Different
Uses in Cement Applications
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)
August 15, 2012
11
Typical Limestone Spectrum
1% MgO, 1.6% Al2O3, 12.5% SiO2
August 15, 2012
12
Path Lengths (90% Attenuation) of
Selected Elements in Air and Silica
August 15, 2012
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
13
Measurement of a Rough Surface
• X-rays from surface
attenuated by air
• predictable behavior
15.08.2012
• X-rays from surface
attenuated by air and by
interfering surfaces
• unpredictable behavior
14
Normalization
•
•
•
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
August 15, 2012
15
Effect of Normalization
A. Not normalized
CaO reported with matrix balance of CO2. Relies solely on peak intensity.
File
CoarsePowder
FinePowder
LargeRocks
SmallRocks
SiO2
SO3
CaO
0 0.0147
0 0.0231
0.495 0.0202
0.873 0.0252
TiO2
Mn2O3 Fe2O3
92.7 0.0038 0.0476
0.326
92.7 0.0329 0.0421
0.332
79.3 0.0357 0.0344
0.288
65.3 0.0245 0.0285
0.21
B. Normalized
CaCO3 reported. Relies on relative peak intensities and known stoichiometry.
File
CoarsePowder
FinePowder
LargeRocks
SmallRocks
August 15, 2012
SiO2
SO3
CaCO3 TiO2
Mn2O3 Fe2O3
0 0.0153
99.6 0.0043 0.0521
0.361
0
0.024
99.5 0.0368 0.0461
0.368
0.674 0.0228
98.8
0.05 0.0452
0.396
1.47 0.0318
98 0.0435
0.046
0.382
16
Building a Calibration
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?
August 15, 2012
17
S1 TURBO
Limestone Calibration
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.
August 15, 2012
18
Results for Certified Powders
GeoMajors Geological Standards
Limestone_04
known
measured
Limestone_14
Bauxite_14
known
measured
Dolomite_05
known
measured
MgO
Al2O3
0.15
0.257
0.12
0.453
1.94
1.92
0.405
0.521
21.4
22.2
0.054
0
SiO2
SO3
K2O
CaCO3
TiO2 Mn2O3 Fe2O3
0.02
0.048
98.8
99
0.009 0.010 0.045
0.0056 0.0187 0.0711
3.04
4.38
0.118 0.030
0.075 0.0375
87.7
89.1
0.049 0.178
0.0228 0.153
0.376
0
0.010
0.041
54.3
77.6
0
0.004 0.030
0.003 0.0104 0.069
0.70
0.02
0.0444 0.079
0.020
0.105
2.715
2.3
Dolomite Modification:
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
August 15, 2012
19
Results for Samples from
a Cement Plant
Raw Material Samples
limestone
known
measured
precrusher stockpile
known
measured
stockpile
known
measured
feed limestone
known
measured
cement fringes
known
measured
weekly clay
known
measured
clay-birdwood
known
measured
August 15, 2012
MgO
Al2O3
SiO2
SO3
K2O
CaCO3
TiO2
Fe2O3
0.63
1.4
0.3
0.73
1.28
0
0.02
0.080
0.08
0.056
96.8
97.4
0.02
0.0063
0.28
0.316
0.12
0
18.2
17.2
67.8
72.6
0.06
0.002
0.15
0.22
0.125
0.147
1.1
1.1
7.36
8.6
1.09
0.48
1.61
1.18
12.5
13.1
0.04
0.083
0.34
0.29
81.8
83.5
0.09
0.033
1.09
1.26
0.67
0
0.76
0.51
4.72
5.69
0.42
0.52
0.18
0.18
91.1
91.8
0.05
0.027
0.99
1.19
0.28
4.15
1.22
1.16
5.27
6.58
41.0
37.6
0.22
0.26
53.2
49.5
0.04
0.042
0.59
0.69
0.2
0
28.0
28.6
57.2
65.2
0.23
0.029
0.39
0.44
0.77
0.94
1.36
1.57
2.91
3.25
0.29
0
23.7
27.6
66.8
69.2
0.04
0.0022
1.03
1.09
0.09
0
1.08
1.22
0.7
0.90
20
Results for Samples from
Unprepared Rock
Sample #
1
pellet
raw ave
raw range
2
pellet
raw ave
raw range
3
pellet
raw ave
raw range
4
pellet
raw ave
raw range
5
pellet
raw ave
raw range
August 15, 2012
Known
CaCO3
96.3
89.48
74.2
88.14
81.43
Measured
Known
(CaCO3) Sample #
CaCO3
95.8
6
pellet
79.8
94.6
raw ave
93.1 - 96.3
raw range
89.2
7
pellet
97.25
86.9
raw ave
74.3 - 93.7
raw range
79
8
pellet
85.43
78.1
raw ave
77.2 - 79.4
raw range
83.8
9
pellet
75.78
86.6
raw ave
84.2 - 89.9
raw range
80.5
84.1
74.7 - 88.9
Measured
(CaCO3)
82.4
79.1
75.8 - 82.3
95.2
94.3
92.3 - 97.2
81.1
64.9
25.0 - 86.3
76.8
79.1
78.3 - 79.8
21
Graphical Representation of Rock Data
CaCO3 in Unprepared Rocks
100
95
Measured Values
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
70
December 14, 2010
75
80
85
Known Values
90
95
100
22
Field Measurement Considerations
•
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
December 14, 2010
23
Availability and Applicability of
Limestone Calibration
•
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
24
Benchtop EDX
It’s as Easy as 1-2-3
(Raw Mill, Clinker, Cement)
Dan Pecard
August 15, 2012
25
Cement Production
Benchtop EDX
1. Quarry
2. Crusher
3. Conveyor
August 15, 2012
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Mixing bed
Raw-mill
Filter
Pre-heater
Kiln
Cooler
10.
11.
12.
13.
Clinker
Silo
Cement mill
Logistics
26
S2 RANGER Light Elements (LE)
Benchtop EDXRF Analyzer
August 15, 2012
•
Manual System
o Single Sample Position
•
Automation System
o 28 Sample Position
27
S2 RANGER
A Truly All-In-One Instrument
• Standalone unit
o No external
computer needed
after calibration is
set up
• Remote Diagnostics
and Application
Assistance available
through WebEx and
PCAnywhere
• XFlash Detector /
XFlash LE Detector
• Results can be
transferred to a LIMS
System
• 50 W Power
• TouchControlTM
• Analysis
o Quantitative
o Qualitative
o Standardless
August 15, 2012
• Measurement Mode
o Air, Vacuum,
Helium, or
Helium-Assisted
• Direct Loading
• All-in-one system
28
Sample Preparation
Pressed Pellet or Fused Bead
Sample
S2 LE Result
SiO2
(Weight
%)
20.03
August 15, 2012
Al2O3
(Weight
%)
5.29
Fe2O3
(Weight
%)
2.71
CaO
(Weight
%)
64.40
MgO
(Weight
%)
1.07
SO3
(Weight
%)
2.98
Na2O
(Weight
%)
0.15
K2O
(Weight
%)
0.26
LOI
(Weight
%)
2.71
Total
(Weight
%)
99.60
29
Pressed Pellets
Mikron Grinder
Mikron Press
http://mikrondigitalinstruments.com/
August 15, 2012
•
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
30
Fused Bead


Claisse – M4
http://claisse.com/
August 15, 2012

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
31
Instrumentation and Methods
• 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
15 August 2012
32
S2 RANGER LE
What Elements Can Be Measured?
XFlash LE: Fluorine – Uranium
Accurate measurements of Na & Mg!
August 15, 2012
33
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
34
Na KA1
SRM 1885A Prep 1 8 KV None
10
20
30
50
100
200
Cps
300
400
500
Mg KA1
Al KA1
600
700
800
900
Cement Spectra
8 kV, No Filter
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
35
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
160
150
•
Detector parameter 1: 600, parameter 2: 400
140
•
Intensity evaluation: peak height
130
•
Calibration data for compound Na2O in original
sample
•
120
110
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)
August 15, 2012
100
90
80
70
Corrected Intensity (Cps)
•
60
50
40
30
24
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Concentration (%)
Int. corrected
36
Calibration Data for Na2O in Cement
LLD < 150 ppm!
Standard Name
SRM 1880A Prep 1
SRM 1880A Prep 2
SRM 1881A Prep 1
SRM 1881A Prep 2
SRM 1884A Prep 1
SRM 1884A Prep 2
SRM 1885A Prep 1
SRM 1885A Prep 2
SRM 1886A Prep 1
SRM 1886A Prep 2
SRM 1887A Prep 1
SRM 1887A Prep 2
SRM 1888B Prep 1
SRM 1888B Prep 2
SRM 1889A Prep 1
SRM 1889A Prep 2
August 15, 2012
Chem Conc XRF Conc
(Weight %) (Weight %)
0.190
0.190
0.199
0.199
0.216
0.216
1.068
1.068
0.021
0.021
0.478
0.478
0.136
0.136
0.195
0.195
0.166
0.154
0.222
0.214
0.222
0.213
1.066
1.061
0.031
0.058
0.495
0.495
0.142
0.150
0.164
0.156
Absolute
Deviation
Gross Int
(kcps)
Bkgd Int
(kcps)
-0.024
-0.036
0.023
0.015
0.006
-0.003
-0.002
-0.008
0.010
0.037
0.017
0.017
0.005
0.013
-0.031
-0.039
21.91
21.40
23.26
22.85
23.88
23.64
55.93
55.84
19.30
20.60
34.71
34.69
20.68
20.92
22.74
22.41
8.03
7.92
8.48
8.34
7.99
8.06
7.99
8.11
7.64
7.77
8.59
8.57
7.96
7.92
7.82
7.75
Net Int (kcps) LLD (PPM)
13.88
13.48
14.78
14.50
15.89
15.58
47.94
47.73
11.66
12.84
26.12
26.12
12.73
13.00
14.93
14.66
119.2
118.6
127.5
126.8
118.2
119.0
113.3
113.8
99.0
99.1
118.7
118.6
121.0
120.8
112.0
111.7
37
S2 RANGER LE
Na Repeatability
Na repeatability
2.4
2.35
Concentration %
2.3
3σ according to ISO 29581
2.25
2.2
Average
2.15
2.1
measured 3σ
2.05
2
1.95
Date
August 15, 2012
38
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
150
140
•
Detector parameter 1: 600, parameter 2: 400
130
•
Peak Channels [trapeze]: 1.158 - 1.364 keV
120
•
Calibration data for compound MgO in original
sample
•
110
100
Absorption correction: Fixed alphas (empirically
adjusted values)
90
•
Intensity model: net intensity
80
•
Minimization target: absolute error, 16 standards
from 0.81% to 4.48%
70
60
•
Standard deviation: 0.0529%
50
•
Squared correlation coefficient: 0.998056
40
•
Slope: 0.0315 %/Cps, Sensitivity: 31.75 Cps/%
(Adjustable by regression)
•
•
Corrected intensity offset: -5.759 Cps (Adjustable
by regression) or 0.1814%
Corrected Intensity (Cps)
•
30
23
0.6
1
2
3
4
Concentration (%)
Int. corrected
Alpha (Fe): 3.3278 (Adjustable by regression)
August 15, 2012
39
Calibration Data for MgO in Cement
Standard Name
SRM 1880A Prep 1
SRM 1880A Prep 2
SRM 1881A Prep 1
SRM 1881A Prep 2
SRM 1884A Prep 1
SRM 1884A Prep 2
SRM 1885A Prep 1
SRM 1885A Prep 2
SRM 1886A Prep 1
SRM 1886A Prep 2
SRM 1887A Prep 1
SRM 1887A Prep 2
SRM 1888B Prep 1
SRM 1888B Prep 2
SRM 1889A Prep 1
SRM 1889A Prep 2
August 15, 2012
Chem Conc XRF Conc
(Weight %) (Weight %)
1.720
1.720
2.981
2.981
4.475
4.475
4.033
4.033
1.932
1.932
2.835
2.835
3.562
3.562
0.814
0.814
1.795
1.784
2.876
2.901
4.547
4.538
4.027
4.016
1.909
1.923
2.791
2.793
3.574
3.559
0.833
0.838
Absolute
Deviation
Gross Int
(kcps)
Bkgd Int
(kcps)
Net Int
(kcps)
LLD (PPM)
0.075
0.064
-0.105
-0.080
0.072
0.063
-0.006
-0.017
-0.023
-0.009
-0.045
-0.042
0.012
-0.004
0.019
0.024
67.33
66.87
99.53
100.13
149.82
149.60
136.34
136.12
73.99
74.57
97.60
97.68
119.76
119.26
38.94
39.04
8.31
8.20
8.77
8.64
8.29
8.35
8.30
8.41
7.85
7.97
8.96
8.95
8.22
8.18
8.08
8.01
59.02
58.67
90.76
91.50
141.53
141.25
128.04
127.71
66.14
66.60
88.64
88.73
111.54
111.08
30.87
31.02
104.4
103.8
107.2
106.6
103.6
104.4
102.7
103.3
95.3
95.5
107.7
107.7
104.4
104.2
101.7
101.3
40
Stability Data
(n=10 of an Unknown Sample)
Stability Test
Rep 01
Rep 02
Rep 03
Rep 04
Rep 05
Rep 06
Rep 07
Rep 08
Rep 09
Rep 10
Na2O
MgO
Al2O3
SiO2
SO3
K2O
CaO
Fe2O3
Total
(Weight %) (Weight %) (Weight %) (Weight %) (Weight %) (Weight %) (Weight %) (Weight %) (Weight %)
0.034
0.040
0.043
0.032
0.035
0.036
0.036
0.029
0.047
0.043
1.941
1.922
1.905
1.947
1.924
1.916
1.911
1.906
1.916
1.927
3.897
3.892
3.899
3.899
3.913
3.921
3.899
3.903
3.907
3.898
22.368
22.382
22.430
22.395
22.472
22.447
22.406
22.431
22.425
22.389
2.103
2.106
2.119
2.108
2.114
2.105
2.111
2.110
2.107
2.121
0.133
0.129
0.130
0.131
0.128
0.133
0.128
0.131
0.132
0.133
68.372
68.453
68.339
68.473
68.384
68.314
68.362
68.298
68.490
68.240
0.161
0.159
0.155
0.156
0.159
0.158
0.158
0.157
0.156
0.157
99.10
99.13
99.12
99.23
99.22
99.12
99.1
99.05
99.27
99.01
Na2O
MgO
Al2O3
SiO2
SO3
K2O
CaO
Fe2O3
Total
(Weight %) (Weight %) (Weight %) (Weight %) (Weight %) (Weight %) (Weight %) (Weight %) (Weight %)
Min
Max
Average
Std Dev
Rel Std Dev
0.029
0.047
0.038
0.006
14.940
August 15, 2012
1.905
1.947
1.922
0.014
0.726
3.892
3.921
3.903
0.009
0.221
22.368
22.472
22.415
0.032
0.143
2.103
2.121
2.110
0.006
0.283
0.128
0.133
0.131
0.002
1.521
68.240
68.490
68.373
0.080
0.118
0.155
0.161
0.158
0.002
1.127
99.01
99.27
99.135
0.082
0.083
41
S2 RANGER LE
Cement Quant
August 15, 2012
•
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
42
S2 RANGER LE
Cement Quant
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
1.3
0.38
5.12
10.7
29.3
0.4
3.2
0.62
66.3
0.73
0.6
4.2

0.02
Max. Concentration %

0.07

Predefined and installed measurement methods

Best results at minimum measurement time: 200 seconds

12 elements:
0.07
o 9 major oxides (CaO, SiO2, Al2O3, SO3, Fe2O3, K2O, MgO,
Na2O and P2O5)
o 3 minor elements (TiO2, Mn2O3, and SrO)
15 August 2012
43
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
44
S2 RANGER LE for Cement
Great and Reliable Complement to WDX
S2 RANGER
S8 TIGER
August 15, 2012
45
What do you get when you cross
a RANGER with a TIGER?
August 15, 2012
46
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
47
Summary and Q&A
Alexander Seyfarth
August 15, 2012
48
Summary: Limestone and Concrete with
Benchtop and Handheld XRF



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
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?
Alexander Seyfarth
Global Product Manager,
HH-XRF
When you exit the webinar,
please fill out our evaluation
survey to let us know. We
appreciate your feedback.
Thank you!
15.08.2012
August 15, 2012
Daniel Pecard
Sr. Applications Scientist,
XRF
Michelle Cameron
Applications Scientist,
HH-XRF
50
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
15.08.2012
August 15, 2012
51
Related On-Demand Webinars
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
August 15,
15, 2012
2012
52
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
15.08.2012
August 15, 2012
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
53
Upcoming Events – US and Canada
Visit Us!
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
August 15, 2012
54
Innovation with Integrity
©Copyright
Copyright
Corporation.
All
rightswww.bruker.com
reserved.
© 2012Bruker
Bruker Corporation.
All rights
reserved.