Premium
Evaluation of a Quality Control Monitor Material for the Routine Electron Probe Microanalysis of Kimberlite Exploration Garnets
Author(s) -
De Bruin Deon
Publication year - 2010
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/j.1751-908x.2010.00095.x
Subject(s) - kimberlite , mineralogy , geology , microanalysis , data quality , consistency (knowledge bases) , calibration , geochemistry , mantle (geology) , statistics , computer science , mathematics , chemistry , engineering , metric (unit) , operations management , organic chemistry , artificial intelligence
Election probe microanalysis of indicator minerals is extensively used in the exploration for kimberlite deposits, the evaluation of specific kimberlite occurrences for their diamond bearing potential and to classify grains into different chemical and lithological mantle associations. Kimberlite exploration programmes can involve several tens of thousands of indicator mineral analyses. Procedures for monitoring data quality and consistency of analyses across large data sets are commonly absent. Suitable monitor minerals should be used to verify the data quality of kimberlite exploration and evaluation data sets. This material should have a suitable composition, be homogenous, be available in sufficient quantities and have a similar appearance to the unknown samples. Garnet P1, a megacryst garnet from the Premier kimberlite, was found to have a suitable composition as a monitor for kimberlite garnet analyses. Data were collected on the monitor material at regular intervals during routine analyses, over an extended period, both as a fixed grain mounted on the sample holder and as separate grains set within batches of routine samples. The data were evaluated to assess the quality and consistency in the analyses of large data sets over time. The monitor material was also analysed at independent laboratories using their routine analytical set‐up and calibration procedures for comparative purposes. Values are given for the mean ± 2 s range, which can serve as guide values for acceptable analyses for all elements.