THE COMPARATIVE METHODS POWDER AND GLASS DONE BY XRF DETERMINE OF MAIN OXIDE COMPONENTS IN CEMENT CLINKER

Abstract

The aim of this study is to compare the results of chemical analysis done by XRF method with the result of chemical analyses done by traditional method for the samples of cement clinker. Initially, the sample of clinker were being chemically analyzed in accordance with traditional methot. Socondly, the same samples were being prepared both powder and glass specimen and analyzed by XRF method. Later on the each resuls of the latter are being comparedto the results of former one separately. İt is concluded that the results of both analysis done by XRF method are about the same as the results of the analyses done by the traditional method.

Keywords

• Traditional chemical analysis,Clinker,Powder and glass specimen,XRF

ÇİMENTO KLİNKERİNİN ANA OKSİT BİLEŞENLERİNİN XRF İLE SAPTANMASINDA TOZ ve CAM YÖNTEMLERİNİN KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI

Abstract

Bu çalışma çimento klinkerinin ana oksit bileşenlerinin analizinde klasik kimyasal yöntemlerle, toz ve cam örnek hazırlama metotlarına göre hazırlanmış örneklerin XRF analizlerinin karşılaştırılması amacıyla yapılmıştır. Klinker örnekleri önce klasik kimyasal yöntemlerle analiz edilmiş ve daha sonra aynı örnekler toz ve cam tablet (flux) metotlarıyla hazırlanarak XRF’de analiz edilmiş ve bulunan sonuçlar karşılaştırılmıştır. Klasik kimyasal yöntemle bulunan sonuçlarla örnek hazırlamada oluşan hataların kabul edilebilir sınırlar içinde olması nedeniyle XRF teknikleriyle bulunan sonuçların tekrarlanabilirlik açısından benzer değerler verdiği görülmüştür.

Keywords

• Klasik kimyasal analiz,Klinker,Toz ve cam tablet,XRF

References

1. [1] Hannaker P., Haukka M., Sen S.K, 1984, Comparative study of ICP-AES and XRF analysis of major and minor constituents on geological materials. Chemical Geology Volume 42, Issues 1-4, pp. 319-324,
2. [2] Somogyi A., Braun M., Posta J., 1997, Comparison between X-ray fluorescence and inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry in the analysis of sediment samples. Spectrochimica Acta Part B Vol. 52 pp. 2011-2017,
3. [3] VanCott R.J., McDonald B.J., Seelos A.G., 1999. Standard soil sample preparation error and comparison of portable XRF to laboratory AA analytical results. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A vol. 422, pp. 801–804,
4. [4] Marina M.A., Blanco Lopez M.C., 2001, Determination of phosphorus in raw materials for ceramics: comparison between X-ray fluorescence spectrometry and inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry. Analytica Chimica Acta Vol. 432 pp. 157–163,
5. [5] Pereıra A.M.T., Brandao P.R., 2001, Statıstıcal valıdatıon of standardless and standardbased Analysıs by x-ray fluorescence spectrometry in iron ores characterisation. Minerals Engineering, Vol. 14, No. 12, pp. 1659-1670,
6. [6] Necemer M., Kump P., Rajcevic M., Jacimovic R.,. Ponikvara B.M., 2003, Determination of sulfur and chlorine in fodder by X-ray fluorescence spectral analysis and comparison with other analytical methods. Spectrochimica Acta Part B No 58 pp. 1367–1373,
7. [7] Papadopouloua D.N., Zachariadisa G.A., Anthemidisa A.N., Tsirliganisb N.C., Stratisa J.A., 2004, Comparison of a portable micro-X-ray fluorescence spectrometry with inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry for the ancient ceramics analysis Spectrochimica Acta Part B, No 59 pp. 1877–1884,