Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T18:53:18.213Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effects of Sampling Error on Detection Limits Determined for Quantitative X-Ray Diffraction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Gregory A. Raab  and
Peggy Dalheim
Gregory A. Raab
Affiliation:
AWC, A Lockheed Company, Las Vegas, NV, USA
Peggy Dalheim
Affiliation:
The Mineral Lab, Denver, CO, USA
Get access

Abstract

This paper investigates the contributions of sample preparation to the analytical lower limits of detection and errors for the quantitative X-ray diffraction analysis of a simple, binary system of quartz and calcite. This study further demonstrates the danger of using only statistical and instrumental contributions to detection limits and analytical errors.

Information

Type
II. Quantitative Phase Analysis by X-Ray Diffraction (XRD)
Information
Advances in X-Ray Analysis , Volume 35 , Issue A: 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. 91 - 103
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

29 CFR 1910,1200, Subpart, Z. Toxic and Hazardous Substances Hazard Communication Standard. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration Hazard Communication Standard. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Chapter XVII, Part 1910, Subpart Z, Section 1910,1200; revised by 52 FR 31877, August 24, 1987.Google Scholar
Benin, E.P. 1975. Principles and Practice of X-ray Spectrometric Analysis. Plenum Press. New York. 1079 pp.Google Scholar
Chung, F.H. 1974. Quantitative Interpretation of X-Ray Diffraction Patterns of Mixtures. I. Matrix-Flushing Method for Quantitative Multlcomponent Analysis. J. Applied Crystallogr. v. 7, pp. 519–525.Google Scholar
Davis, B.L. 1966. Reference intensity Method of Quantitative X-Ray Diffraction Analysis. Institute of Atmospheric Sciences, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology. 205 pp.Google Scholar
Davis, B. L. 1988. The Estimation of Limits of Detection in RIM Quantitative X-Ray Diffraction Analysis. In; Advances in X-Ray Analysis. Plenum Press, New York. Vol. 31: 317.Google Scholar
Keith, L. H. W. Crummett, J. Deegan, Jr., Libby, R. A. Taylor, J.K., and G. Wentler. 1983. Principles of Environmental Analysis. Analytical Chemistry. Vol. 55, pp. 2210–2218. American Chemical Society.Google Scholar
Klug, H.P., and Alexander, L.E.. 1974. X-Ray Diffraction Procedures. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 966 pp.Google Scholar
Mason, B. and Moore, C.B.. 1982. hr Klein, C. and Hurlbut, C.S. Jr. 1985. Manual of Mineralogy. John Wiley & Sons. New York. 596 pp.Google Scholar
Muller, G. 1967. Methods in Sedimentary Petrology. E. Schweizerbart'sche Vertagsbuchhandlung/Hafner, New York. 283 pp.Google Scholar
Pitard, Francis F. 1989. Pierre Gy's Sampling Theory and Sampling Practice. Volume I; Heterogeneity and Sampling. CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton, Florida. 214 pp.Google Scholar
Pitard, Francis F. 1989. Pierre Gy's Sampling Theory and Sampling Practice. Volume II: Sampling Correctness and Sampling Practice. CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 247.Google Scholar