Premium
A comparison of two equations used as calibration curves for ternary samples in x‐ray fluorescence spectrometry
Author(s) -
Mainardi R. T.,
Rubio M.,
Meda J.
Publication year - 1982
Publication title -
x‐ray spectrometry
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.447
H-Index - 45
eISSN - 1097-4539
pISSN - 0049-8246
DOI - 10.1002/xrs.1300110208
Subject(s) - ternary operation , calibration , calibration curve , binary number , mass spectrometry , x ray fluorescence , analytical chemistry (journal) , fluorescence , chemistry , mathematics , physics , statistics , chromatography , detection limit , computer science , optics , arithmetic , programming language
It is well known that calibration curves in x‐ray fluorescence spectrometry offer to the analyst different alternatives to fit measured data. We have set out to compare two well‐known algorithms, those of Rasberry and Heinrich (R–H) and Lachance and Traill modified by Claisse and Quintin (LTCQ), with computer generated data using the fundamental parameter method. It is seen that both work reasonable well for binary samples, but in ternary samples deviations from reference points are larger for R–H than for LTCQ. We conclude from this study that ternary effects in R–H are not accounted for adequately, since only binary coefficients are needed to determine a calibration curve for any ternary as well as any multicomponent sample. In LTCQ, inclusion of an additional coefficient determined from a ternary standard suffices to improve considerably the degree of fitting to reference.