No passwords, No popups, No cost, No AI:
we earn from 'affiliate link' purchases, making the site possible

Home /
T.O.C.
Fun
FAQs
Good
Books
Ref.
Libr.
Adver-
tise
Help
Wanted
Current
Q&A's
Site 🔍
Search
ted_yosem
Sound technical content, curated with aloha by
Ted Mooney, P.E. RET
Pine Beach, NJ
finishing.com -- The Home Page of the Finishing Industry

  The authoritative public forum
  for Metal Finishing 1989-2024
  mfhotline


  -----

Cyanide Gold Solution Analysis By XRF




Q. I am currently working for a company that performs Au analysis of their cyanide-based baths (type 1 and 3) by XRF. Although this instrument is over ten years old, it appears to furnish results that are well within the degree of accuracy required for Au add determination, etc... The problem arises from a new XRF that was recently purchased in order to take advantage of the advances in software, multiple layer thickness determination and real-time emission analysis of unknown metallic samples. I have not been able to obtain usable results whatsoever when analyzing said cyanide gold solutions. My cyanide gold salts in DI water standards are not effective on this new instrument. If I didn't know better, I would suspect matrix interference/ signal supression, but why? And why not on the older XRF? Different X-ray lamp energies? Any input would be of help. I can easily say more, but I'll throw this out there for the time being!

Robert Belter
- San Diego, California, USA
2003


A. I have used this instrument. It operates on radio active isotopes. The older unit may have been losing its energy. The newer unit is full. If your standards do not work, contact the company and ask them for a set of new standards. This may be the problem. If their standards are still out, the instrument is faulty.

Good luck. It is a nice instrument and should work for you. First impression is it is out of spec.

Bob Forrest
- Maine
2003


Q. I don't think you quite understand. I make my own standards and it's the NEW instrument that's giving me grief. The same calibration run on the two XRF's give me two totally different results. Outside gravimetric analysis shows that our old XRF is close to the mark whereas the new instrument will give me 60% of actual value, at best.

Robert Belter [returning]
- El Cajon, California, USA
2003


A. I think you should go back to the supplier or manufacturer of the new XRF. They may be able to give you specific recommendation on its use or applicability to the specific type of sample at hand. Just like most analytical instruments, absolute accuracy is not possible, if they are dependent on synthetic calibrations standards. Based on what you said you are getting, 40% less than the actual value is quite significant and could indicate errors in standard preparation.

PANCHO MACALINCAG
- Auckland, New Zealand
February 23, 2011




(No "dead threads" here! If this page isn't currently on the Hotline your Q, A, or Comment will restore it)

Q, A, or Comment on THIS thread -or- Start a NEW Thread

Disclaimer: It's not possible to fully diagnose a finishing problem or the hazards of an operation via these pages. All information presented is for general reference and does not represent a professional opinion nor the policy of an author's employer. The internet is largely anonymous & unvetted; some names may be fictitious and some recommendations might be harmful.

If you are seeking a product or service related to metal finishing, please check these Directories:

Finishing
Jobshops
Capital
Equipment
Chemicals &
Consumables
Consult'g,
& Software


About/Contact  -  Privacy Policy  -  ©1995-2024 finishing.com, Pine Beach, New Jersey, USA  -  about "affil links"