Premium
Evaluating the Utility of Principal Component Analysis on EDS X‐Ray Maps to Determine Bulk Mineralogy
Author(s) -
Spaleta Karen J.,
Hayes Sarah M.,
Newberry Rainer J.,
Piatak Nadine M.
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
geostandards and geoanalytical research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.037
H-Index - 73
eISSN - 1751-908X
pISSN - 1639-4488
DOI - 10.1111/ggr.12349
Subject(s) - principal component analysis , mineralogy , analytical chemistry (journal) , phase (matter) , mineral , powder diffraction , materials science , geology , chemistry , crystallography , mathematics , environmental chemistry , metallurgy , statistics , organic chemistry
Due to advances in EDS technology, electron microscopy techniques have become an important tool to determine the relative abundance of mineral phases. However, few studies have directly compared EDS X‐ray mineralogy with traditional techniques for assessing bulk mineralogy and elemental composition. We show that analysing a limited area (~ 0.5–3.2 mm 2 ) of fine‐grained metal extraction samples using EDS X‐ray principal component analysis phase mapping yields results that agree within 10% with more traditional techniques for mineral phases present at greater than 5% m / m . Electron beam sensitive minerals, such as the carbonates, have poor correlations between EDS and X‐ray Diffraction (XRD) and/or WD‐XRF. Likewise, poor correlations between methods can be expected for particles that are smaller than the interaction volume of the electron beam (~ 1.5 µm); this strongly affected the phyllosilicates. One strength of EDS phase mapping is that it can identify phases present below the detection limit of powder XRD (< 1%). Our results demonstrate that EDS phase mapping is sufficient to estimate bulk sample mineralogy. If polished thin sections have been prepared, this approach may save time and/or money relative to the more traditional approaches of preparing separate subsamples for XRD and/or WD‐XRF.