Session

03.09.2019     12:45–13:45

Title:
Mini Lunchtime lecture
Bruker Nano GmbH
Type:
Industry session
Room:
Point analysis quantification is possible by a range of different techniques, incorporating different physical properties and theoretical calculations to determine the composition of a given material.  Each of the different analytical techniques has advantages and disadvantages depending on the sample to be analysed, the elements of interest and their possible concentration, and the analytical volume, amongst other factors.  Two of the more common techniques are electron probe micro-analysis (EPMA) using wavelength dispersive spectrometers (WDS) and scanning electron microscopes with energy dispersive spectrometers (SEM-EDS).  In addition, two relatively newer techniques, namely SEM-WDS and SEM-XRF are compared due to their similarity and overlap of analytical capabilities with the former.  A range of Smithsonian minerals (Jarosewich et al., 1980; Jarosewich and MacIntyre, 1983; Jarosewich and Boatner, 1991) were analysed, as well as a case study of various mantle minerals from Newlands kimberlite.  The Smithsonian minerals are commonly used as micro-analytical standards as they are well calibrated and incorporate a range of common minerals and elements of interest, including silicates, oxides, carbonates and REE-phosphates.  In addition, the benefits and limitations of each technique will be discussed, including accuracy, precision and reproducibility, as well as the influence of changing analytical parameters, such as analytical time.  Jarosewich, E., Nelen, J. A., and Norberg, J.A., 1980. Reference samples for electron microprobe analyses, Geostandards Newsletter, Vol. 4, p.43-47. Jarosewich, E., and MacIntyre, I. G., 1983. Carbonate reference samples for electron microprobe and scanning electron microscope analyses, J. of Sedimentary Petrology, Vol. 53, Vol. 2, p.677-678. Jarosewich, E., and Boatner, L.A, 1991. Rare-Earth element reference samples for electron microprobe analysis, Geostandards Newsletter, Vol. 15, No. 2, p.397-399.

03.09.2019
12:45–13:45

Title:
Mini Lunchtime lecture
Bruker Nano GmbH
Type:
Industry session
Room:
Point analysis quantification is possible by a range of different techniques, incorporating different physical properties and theoretical calculations to determine the composition of a given material.  Each of the different analytical techniques has advantages and disadvantages depending on the sample to be analysed, the elements of interest and their possible concentration, and the analytical volume, amongst other factors.  Two of the more common techniques are electron probe micro-analysis (EPMA) using wavelength dispersive spectrometers (WDS) and scanning electron microscopes with energy dispersive spectrometers (SEM-EDS).  In addition, two relatively newer techniques, namely SEM-WDS and SEM-XRF are compared due to their similarity and overlap of analytical capabilities with the former.  A range of Smithsonian minerals (Jarosewich et al., 1980; Jarosewich and MacIntyre, 1983; Jarosewich and Boatner, 1991) were analysed, as well as a case study of various mantle minerals from Newlands kimberlite.  The Smithsonian minerals are commonly used as micro-analytical standards as they are well calibrated and incorporate a range of common minerals and elements of interest, including silicates, oxides, carbonates and REE-phosphates.  In addition, the benefits and limitations of each technique will be discussed, including accuracy, precision and reproducibility, as well as the influence of changing analytical parameters, such as analytical time.  Jarosewich, E., Nelen, J. A., and Norberg, J.A., 1980. Reference samples for electron microprobe analyses, Geostandards Newsletter, Vol. 4, p.43-47. Jarosewich, E., and MacIntyre, I. G., 1983. Carbonate reference samples for electron microprobe and scanning electron microscope analyses, J. of Sedimentary Petrology, Vol. 53, Vol. 2, p.677-678. Jarosewich, E., and Boatner, L.A, 1991. Rare-Earth element reference samples for electron microprobe analysis, Geostandards Newsletter, Vol. 15, No. 2, p.397-399.



Point analysis quantification: Comparison of EPMA, SEM-EDS, SEM-WDS, Micro-XRF for SEM
Andrew Menzies (Berlin/DE), Max Patzschke (Berlin/DE), Michael Abratis (Berlin/DE), Stephan Böhm (Berlin/DE)