You are on page 1of 5

X-ray Fluorescence Analyzer

DELTA

Gold and silver Application


Statistical Analysis results of Hand held XRF
Frequently Asked Questions/Some light
of Solutions Provided
Advantages of measuring concentration
with HH-XRF
Behavior according to range concentration
by HH-XRF.
Quality of data is generated by an HH-XRF.
Factors can compromise the quality of HH-
XRF gold data mainly.
Recommendation to use data by HH-XRF

The method of choice for gold analysis through time has been Fire Assay that is chosen the industry standard
procedure for most mineral deposit evaluation. Fire Assay is an analytical method produces high-quality of
reproducible results, but the successful Gold Analysis-Fire assaying is the sample preparation because is the
essential process to producing genuine Gold results.

In spite of Fire Assay is the bestseller gold chemistry procedure, in recent years there has been risen for introduce
HH-XRF as methodology for Gold Analysis even thought their data are imprecise because is the easiest, fastest and
cheapest chemistries technical offer at moment.

The goal of this paper is give some lights about real expectation using this technology. The data set are 540 assays
on pulverized samples by Delta (HH-XRF) and Fire Assay for Gold and Silver Analysis, the conclusions are based of
comparison results by both methodologies for Au and Ag using some statistical parameters.

Gold data of Delta hand held XRF should be considered like an indication for Gold presence on the sample only
because Golds behavior in the solid like pulverized sample is the same a point because it is very difficult to get a
perfect uniformity in a sample, the gold has a natural property of agglomerate so it is called as nugget effect gold
analysis. This effect is more critical when Gold is lowest concentration because is difficult to know where the Gold
place is exactly, so the concentration would be considered as semi-quantitative result by hand held XRF.

Silver data of Delta hand held XRF like other elements, which is a good accuracy and repeatability.

..................................................................................................................
Comparison technical chemistries that were applied

The method of choice for gold analysis through time has been Fire Assay that is chosen the
industry standard procedure for most mineral deposit evaluation. Fire Assay is an analytical
method produces high-quality of reproducible results, but the successful Gold Analysis-Fire
assaying is the sample preparation because is the essential process to producing genuine Gold
results. This paper described Gold data produced by Delta Premium (DP4000) which is a hand
held XRF with Au/Ta tube and Silicon Drift Detector, the highest technology in the market.
Pulverized samples were used for get a data beside these samples were analyzed by Fire
Assay, too.

Technical
Advantages Disadvantages
Chemistry
Long history of success of the method. Even with its multiple analytical finishes, is
Easy adaptation to a mine setting. not fool-proof for recovering 100% of the
*Fire Assay Moderate cost. gold present. As with all analytical
Rapidity with which results can be techniques, the skills of the assayer or
obtained. analyst are very important.
Non Destructive No digestion acids Limits of Detection (not sub ppm)
required. Results affected by variations in matrix
Fast Little sample preparation required. (geological Chemistry).
** Hand Held
Portable - Get results at sample location. Sample homogeneity/sample preparation.
XRF
Quantitative from Mg to U with New XRF Measurement window is 1cm2
Large Area SDD Systems. XRF Spectrum e.g. overlaps like Fe on Co,
$$M savings genuinely possible. Zn on Au
* Taken by Hoffman E., et all. Fire Assaying and Alternative Methods. 1998.
** Taken by Todd Houlahan. Portable XRF the Good, the Bad and the Ugly. 2014.

Analysis of Results
Although parts per million (ppm) is given HH-XRF is the same that gram per ton is given Fire
Assay numerically speaking, the meaning is very different. The Statistical Analysis of data for
gold and silver consisted on:

1) Identify assays equal to ND (No Determine) for Gold and Silver, 126 and 16 respectively.
The range of Fire Assay for Gold since 0.021 to 7.730 g/Tn and Silver since 1 to g/Tn.

2) Create the correlation bivariate figure then identify cut off points. These figures are shown
two groups; the first has the most of data. The correlation factor are good for Au (R2 =0.9)
and Ag (R2 =0.98). The ranges of Fire Assay are: Gold since 0.048 to 292.5 and Silver since
1 to 7,958 g/Tn.
3) Split data into two groups for each element, which were chosen like was describe before
point. For Gold data that are more than 83 ppm and at least of 67 ppm and silver more than
1712 ppm and at least of 1589.

4) Group more than 83 ppm for gold and 1712 ppm for silver. The number values for gold are
13 and for silver are 12. The better factor of correlation is silver (R2 =0.67) than gold (R2
=0.94). The ranges of Fire Assay are: Gold since 56.1 to 292.5 and Silver since 2121 to
7958 g/Tn. Figure of GROUP 1.

5) Group at least than 67 ppm for gold and 1589 ppm silver. The number data for Gold are 398
values and silver are 513 assays; the Fire Assay range for Gold since 4 to 67 and silver
since 5 to 1589. The better factor of correlation is silver (R2 =0.78) than gold (R2 =0.96)
again. The ranges of Fire Assay are: Gold since 0.048 to 123 and Silver since 1 to 7,958
g/Tn. Figure of GROUP 2. The next split is about average for these groups: Gold is 18 ppm
and Ag is 200 ppm.

6) Group at least concentration of average. In this case the number values to gold are 149 and
silver 334, the range since minimum to average for gold since 4 to 18 and silver since 4 to
200, the better coefficient of correlation is for silver again (R2 =0.87) than gold (R2 =0.45).
The range of Fire Assay for gold since 0.048 to 123 g/Tn silver since 1 to 236 g/Tn. Figure
of GROUP 3.
7) So far, the conclusion is the behavior for gold and silver results for lower concentration is not
better than higher concentration. However the sequence each point Delta HHXRF Vs Fire
Assay is similar, so it is clear that Gold and Silver result of Delta HH-XRF is very useful.

Conclusions
In spite of difference for results of Delta HH-XRF than Fire Assay, the tendencies between
both results are similar. So the use of Delta HH-XRF is useful in whatever mining activity of
gold mainly because is easy get an approximate result without strict Fire Assay
requirements as chemistry digestion, fusion and cupel.
Silver results of Delta HH-XRF are better than Gold. It is recognizable and good knowledge
Gold Analytical troubles; the proof is a great option of laboratory to get homogenous sample.
About HH-XRF due to the sample is pulverized which it has lower concentration gold is a
point behavior in sample and higher concentration of gold samples would be often suffered
nugget effect. These difficulties are not generates for silver, so it is easy get silver is
distributed homogeneously.
In this paper dont analyze other factors that would be produce differences again laboratory
as: Matrix effects need to be examined by Lithology - Different Lithologies MAY require
different/multiple Calibrations, Spectral interferences as Spectral Overlap, Pile Up & Escape
Peaks can cause issues.
The main recommendation to use data by HH-XRF is: Development of Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs) is highly recommended To ensure safe and responsible use as well
as standardized results and quality control measures

Brief GENERIC paragraph summarising the key reasons to buy an Olympus Minerals Analyser
Your Partner
International Mining Group Capability
Return on Investment
Customer Support

*All specifications are subject to change without notice.


All brands are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners and third party entities.
Copyright 2013 by Olympus.

Iron_Ore_Mi nerali z ati on Pri nted i n the U SA P/ N: 920 -XXX-EN Rev. A