Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T19:17:12.314Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New Mold Design for Casting Fused Samples

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Joseph E. Taggart Jr. and
James S. Wahlherg
Joseph E. Taggart Jr.
Affiliation:
U.S. Geological Survey, Box 25046, MS 928, Denver, Colorado 80225
James S. Wahlherg
Affiliation:
U.S. Geological Survey, Box 25046, MS 928, Denver, Colorado 80225
Get access

Extract

Geological samples prepared for analysis by X-ray fluorescence (XRF) are particularly prone to intrasample and intersample phase variations creating significant inhomogeneity and variations in matrix effects. These features may “best be eliminated or diminished by fusion of the sample with, a suitable flux (1,2). Presentation to the X-ray spectrometer may be as a briquet of the comminuted fusion head (1,3,4,5) or as a molded glass disc or wafer (l,2,5,6). Because of the stability of glass discs and the necessity to eliminate possible contamination during grinding and making briquets, molded glass discs appear to be the best and easiest means of presentation.

Information

Type
XRF: Techniques and Instrumentation
Information
Advances in X-Ray Analysis , Volume 23: Twenty-Eighth Annual Conference on Applications of X-ray Analysis, July 30 - August 3, 1979 , 1979, pp. 257 - 261
Copyright
Copyright © International Centre for Diffraction Data 1979

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

1. Bertin, E. P., Principles and Practice of X-ray-Spectrometric Analysis, Plenum Press, New York, 2nd ed., p. 109 (1975).Google Scholar
2. Norrish, K. and Hutton, J. T., “An Accurate: X-ray Spectrographic Method for the Analysis of a Wide Range of Geological Samples” Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta. 33, 431–453 (1969).Google Scholar
3. Fabbi, B. P., “A Refined Fusion X-ray Fluorescence Technique and Determination of Major and Minor Elements in Silicate Standards,” Am. Min., 57, 237–245 (1972).Google Scholar
4. Fabbi, B. P., “X-ray Fluorescence Determination of Sodium in Silica.te Standards Using Direct Dilution and Dilution Fusion Preparation Techniques,” X-ray Spectrometry, 2, 15-17 (1973).Google Scholar
5. Parker, R. J., “Factors Affecting the Quality of Major Element Rock Analysis toy X-ray Fluorescence Combined with Flux-Fusion Sample Preparation,” London University, Imperial College, Tech Rept. XRF-2B, p. 35 (1977).Google Scholar
6. Fabbi, B. P. and Elsheimer, H. N., “Evaluation and Application of an Automatic Fusion Technique to Major-Element XRF Analysis of Silicate Rocks.” Paper #267, Abstracts 3rd Annual Federation of Anal. Chemistry and Spectroscopy Socs. Meeting Nov. 15-19, 1976.Google Scholar
7. Carpenter, D., “Sample Positioning Effects in X-ray Spectrometry,” Unpublished Data, Rockwell International, Golden, Colo. (1977).Google Scholar
8. Pella, P. A., Oral Communication, U.S. National Bureau Of Standards, Washington, D.C., (1978).Google Scholar