Accuracy in quantitative phase analysis of mixtures with large amorphous contents. The case of stoneware ceramics and bricks

2014 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 835-846 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro F. Gualtieri ◽  
Vincenzo Riva ◽  
Andrea Bresciani ◽  
Stefano Maretti ◽  
Marco Tamburini ◽  
...  

For the first time, this work inspects the accuracy of quantitative phase analysis of both crystalline and amorphous components of stoneware tiles and bricks. A number of variables were considered: the nature of the internal standard, experimental conditions and counting statistics. The so-calledG-factor method has also been applied. The results of the X-ray powder diffraction analysis have been compared with the results obtained with optical microscopy and image analysis. Only the mixtures spiked with corundum and silicon yielded accurate weight estimates of the amorphous fraction, whereas the use of highly X-ray absorbing internal standards (such as fluorite, rutile and zincite) resulted in gross underestimations. In fact, microabsorption effects are found to drastically reduce the accuracy of the results when standards with linear X-ray absorption coefficients higher than 100 cm−1are employed. It was found that very low counting statistics reduced the calculated amorphous fractions in both bricks and stoneware tiles owing to partial masking of the major peak of the internal standard, namely corundum. The application of theG-factor method to the systems investigated was also evaluated. The results are poorer than those obtained using the internal standard.

2007 ◽  
Vol 62 (5) ◽  
pp. 461-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edyta Piskorska ◽  
Krystyna Lawniczak-Jablonska ◽  
Roman Minikayev ◽  
Anna Wolska ◽  
Wojciech Paszkowicz ◽  
...  

1966 ◽  
Vol 38 (12) ◽  
pp. 1741-1745 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. F. Karlak ◽  
D. S. Burnett

1957 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 39-58
Author(s):  
Ralph H. Hiltz ◽  
Stanley L. Lopata

AbstractIn view of present difficulties encountered in met alio graphic methods of phase analysis of titanium and its alloys, the possibility of utilizing integrated X-ray intensities for phase analysis was investigated. Power Formula variables were calculated for titanium, and relative areas of three alpha and one beta peak were determined. Recorded X-ray intensities were obtained from a large number of titanium specimens. The recorded intensities were analyzed and the results compared with those from metallographic analysis. The errors in the method arising from the nature of titanium, texture and peak overlapping, were studied and where possible, compensated for by adjusting the method of measurement and calculation.


1999 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 704-715 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Toraya

Errors in the quantitative phase analysis (QPA) of α- and β-silicon nitrides (Si3N4) using the mean normalized intensity (MNI) method and the Rietveld method have been estimated by theory and experiments. A total error for a weight fraction (w) in a binary system can be expressed in the formE(w) =w(1 −w)S, whereSis the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors. Random errors associated with counting statistics for integrated intensities in the MNI method are below 0.1∼0.2 wt% if the studied reflections have average peak heights of more than ∼1000 counts. Such errors will become approximately twice as large if peak-height intensities are used. The error associated with particle statistics in the studied samples was smaller than the counting-statistics error. Among various sources of systematic errors examined, incorrect choice of constrained/unconstrained full width at half-maximum (FWHM) parameters gave the largest error. The choice of the background function had little influence on the QPA, whereas the choice of the profile function had a large influence. Truncation errors in profile function calculations and the 2θ range of the observed data are below ±0.1 wt% when appropriate criteria are applied. Systematic errors in the measurement of peak-height intensity arise primarily from the overestimation of intensities of weak peaks that overlap the tails of strong peaks, as well as from line broadening of β-phase reflections in the studied samples. Errors caused by ignoring the difference in density between the two phases were negligibly small. Estimated errors of the methods followed the order: the MNI method using peak-height intensities < the MNI method using integrated intensities ≃ the Rietveld method.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document