Sample preparation for X-ray fluorescence analysis VI.

Metal samples

Takao Moriyama and Eiichi Furusawa

Summer 2016 Volume 32, No. 2 , 19-22

Sample preparation methods for X-ray fluorescence analysis (XRF) featuring powder samples were discussed in the previous issues. Preparation of metal samples is introduced in this issue. XRF is superior to ICP and optical emission spectroscopy in reproducibility. However most of analysis errors in XRF can be caused by nature of sample itself and sample preparation, as in the case of powder samples discussed before. Analysis errors of metal samples come from (1) internal segregation, (2) defective surface, (3) surface roughness and uneven surface, (4) surface transformation, (5) metallurgical history, etc. Consideration of these points will provide more accurate analysis results.

Highlights

  • Accurate XRF analysis of metals depends strongly on sample preparation because segregation, metallurgical structure, surface roughness, contamination, and oxidation can all alter measured X-ray intensities.
  • Consistent metallurgical history and surface preparation between unknowns and standards are critical. Cooling rate during casting can significantly affect results, particularly for light elements and high-silicon aluminum alloys.
  • The smoothest surface is not always the best surface: aluminum alloys containing more than about 4% silicon may require a deliberately rougher finish to prevent silicon-rich particles from being preferentially removed during machining.

Summary

XRF provides highly reproducible elemental analysis of metals, but the accuracy of the measurement can be limited by the physical and metallurgical characteristics of the sample. Important sources of error include internal segregation, cavities and other surface defects, differences in surface roughness, surface contamination or oxidation, and differences in metallurgical history between calibration standards and unknown samples. Consequently, preparing a metal specimen for XRF involves more than simply producing a flat measurement surface.

For cast metals, cooling conditions are particularly important because cooling rate influences microstructure and elemental distribution. Cast iron and pig iron, for example, can produce different silicon calibration relationships depending on whether they are chilled or sand molded. These effects are especially significant for relatively light elements such as carbon, magnesium, silicon, phosphorus, and sulfur. When samples have substantial internal segregation, drilling or milling followed by remelting and molding can produce a more representative specimen. The metallurgical history and chilling conditions of unknown and calibration samples should be matched as closely as practical.

Surface preparation also directly affects X-ray intensity. A flat surface with reproducible roughness is generally required, and finer grinding typically produces higher measured intensities. Light-element measurements are particularly sensitive because their shallow analysis depths make them more responsive to surface topography. More important than achieving the finest possible finish, however, is maintaining a consistent finish between standards and unknowns.

The appropriate preparation technique depends on the alloy. Belt sanding is commonly used for iron and steel, while lathes are useful for copper, aluminum, zinc, lead, and other relatively soft alloys. High-silicon aluminum alloys are an important exception to the usual preference for smooth surfaces. Silicon can occur as discrete grains or islands, and lathe finishing can pull these particles from the surface, degrading reproducibility. A somewhat rougher file or grinder finish can therefore provide better analytical performance.

Grinding materials themselves can introduce contamination. Silicon carbide abrasives can contaminate samples with silicon, alumina abrasives can introduce aluminum, and some abrasive binders can interfere with trace sulfur measurements. Finally, freshly prepared metal surfaces begin changing immediately through oxidation and adsorption of airborne contaminants. Controlled storage can slow these changes, but surfaces showing visible changes should generally be prepared again before analysis.

Frequently asked questions

Important sources include internal elemental segregation, cavities or defects in the measurement surface, inconsistent surface roughness, contamination, oxidation, and differences in metallurgical structure or history. Because XRF measures the specimen directly, these physical characteristics can affect measured intensities even when the bulk elemental compositions are nominally identical. Matching the preparation and metallurgical condition of unknown samples and calibration standards is therefore essential for accurate quantitative analysis.

Cooling rate affects metallurgical structure and the distribution or precipitation of elements within the alloy. Cast iron, for example, can give different calibration behavior depending on whether it is rapidly chilled or cooled more slowly in a sand mold. The effect can be especially important for lighter elements such as carbon, magnesium, silicon, phosphorus, and sulfur. Standardizing casting and cooling conditions helps ensure that calibration standards and unknown samples have comparable structures.

When segregation makes a polished section unrepresentative of the bulk composition, the sample can be drilled or milled to collect metal chips. These chips can then be remelted and molded to produce a more homogeneous analytical specimen. Another option is dissolution followed by liquid analysis. When remolding is used, the cooling conditions and resulting metallurgical structure should be made as consistent as possible with those of the calibration standards.

A rough surface generally produces lower X-ray intensities than a finely finished surface, and the effect is particularly important for light elements because their characteristic X-rays originate from relatively shallow depths. Experimental measurements on steel showed increasing Ni, Cr, and Si intensities as belt-sander grit changed from 80 to 120 to 240. For reliable quantitative analysis, however, consistency is more important than simply producing the smoothest possible surface: standards and unknowns should have comparable surface finishes.

Aluminum alloys containing more than about 4% silicon can contain silicon as discrete grains or island-like deposits. A lathe can pull these silicon-rich particles from the measurement surface, causing the measured composition to vary each time the surface is refinished. Preparing the surface somewhat more roughly with a file or grinder can reduce this preferential removal and improve calibration accuracy and measurement reproducibility. Rapid chilling during casting is also important because cooling rate affects silicon precipitation and distribution.

The composition and structure immediately beneath the cast surface can differ significantly from the representative chilled material. In cast iron, approximately the first 0.5 mm can form a surface region known as black scale and is unsuitable for analysis. This layer should be removed by grinding. At greater depths, another limitation appears because the material eventually becomes non-chilled; for the example discussed, the useful analytical region extends only about 2–3 mm into the cast specimen.

Yes. Silicon carbide abrasive belts can introduce silicon, while alumina abrasives can introduce aluminum. Abrasive binders can also be problematic; for example, a sulfone-type hardener can interfere with ultra-trace sulfur determination. The abrasive should therefore be selected according to the elements being measured. Grinder or file preparation can be preferable for ultra-trace sulfur analysis when contamination from conventional abrasive belts is a concern.

A freshly ground metal surface begins changing almost immediately through oxidation and adsorption of contaminants from the atmosphere. Airborne dust can contribute elements such as silicon, gaseous contaminants can affect sulfur measurements, and steel can rust under humid conditions. Storage in a desiccator can help maintain stable X-ray intensities for a period of time. If the surface visibly changes color, regrinding before measurement is recommended.

Subscribe to the Bridge newsletter

Stay up to date with materials analysis news and upcoming conferences, webinars and podcasts, as well as learning new analytical techniques and applications.

Contact Us

Whether you're interested in getting a quote, want a demo, need technical support, or simply have a question, we're here to help.