Next Article in Journal
RETRACTED: Insight into the Potential Antioxidant and Antidiabetic Activities of Scrolled Kaolinite Single Sheet (KNs) and Its Composite with ZnO Nanoparticles: Synergetic Studies
Next Article in Special Issue
Developing Characteristics of Shale Lamination and Their Impact on Reservoir Properties in the Deep Wufeng–Longmaxi Formation Shale of the Southern Sichuan Basin
Previous Article in Journal
Late Devonian A-Type Granites from the Beishan, Southern Central Asia Orogenic Belt: Implications for Closure of the Paleo-Asia Ocean
Previous Article in Special Issue
Geological Characteristics and Paleoenvironmental Evolution of Fine-Grained Sediments in the Third Member of the Xujiahe Formation in the Western Sichuan Depression, SW China
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparison of Quantitative X-ray Diffraction Mineral Analysis Methods

1
State Key Laboratory of Loess and Quaternary Geology, Institute of Earth Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xi’an 710061, China
2
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Minerals 2023, 13(4), 566; https://doi.org/10.3390/min13040566
Submission received: 10 March 2023 / Revised: 11 April 2023 / Accepted: 12 April 2023 / Published: 18 April 2023

Abstract

X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis, as one of the most powerful methods, has been widely used to identify and quantify minerals in earth science. How to improve the precision of mineral quantitative analysis is still a hot topic. To date, several quantitative methods have been proposed for different purposes and accompanied by diverse software. In this study, three quantitative mineral analysis methods, including the reference intensity ratio (RIR), Rietveld, and full pattern summation (FPS) methods, are compared and evaluated to systematically investigate their accuracy and applicability. The results show that the analytical accuracy of these methods is basically consistent for mixtures free from clay minerals. However, there are significant differences in accuracy for clay-mineral-containing samples. In comparison, it seems that the FPS method has wide applicability, which is more appropriate for sediments. The Rietveld method has been shown to be capable of quantifying complicated non-clay samples with a high analytical accuracy; nevertheless, most conventional Rietveld software fails to accurately quantify phases with a disordered or unknown structure. The RIR method represents a handy approach but with lower analytical accuracy. Overall, the present results are expected to provide a potentially important reference for the quantitative analysis of minerals in sediments.
Keywords: limit of detection; Rietveld; reference intensity ratio; full pattern summation methods limit of detection; Rietveld; reference intensity ratio; full pattern summation methods

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Xiao, J.; Song, Y.; Li, Y. Comparison of Quantitative X-ray Diffraction Mineral Analysis Methods. Minerals 2023, 13, 566. https://doi.org/10.3390/min13040566

AMA Style

Xiao J, Song Y, Li Y. Comparison of Quantitative X-ray Diffraction Mineral Analysis Methods. Minerals. 2023; 13(4):566. https://doi.org/10.3390/min13040566

Chicago/Turabian Style

Xiao, Jingyun, Yougui Song, and Yue Li. 2023. "Comparison of Quantitative X-ray Diffraction Mineral Analysis Methods" Minerals 13, no. 4: 566. https://doi.org/10.3390/min13040566

APA Style

Xiao, J., Song, Y., & Li, Y. (2023). Comparison of Quantitative X-ray Diffraction Mineral Analysis Methods. Minerals, 13(4), 566. https://doi.org/10.3390/min13040566

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop