Quantitative or semi‐quantitative?–laboratory‐based WD‐XRF versus portable ED‐XRF spectrometer: results obtained from measurements on nickel‐base alloys

Abstract ‘Semi‐quantitative’ analytical procedures are becoming more and more popular. Using such procedures, the question of the accuracy of results arises. The accuracy of an analytical procedure depends to a great extent on spectral resolution, counting statistics and matrix correction. Two ‘semi‐quantitative’ procedures are compared with a quantitative analytical program. Using a laboratory‐based wavelength‐dispersive x‐ray fluorescence (WD‐XRF) spectrometer and a portable energy‐dispersive x‐ray fluorescence (ED‐XRF) spectrometer, 28 different nickel‐base alloy Certified Reference Materials (CRMs) were analyzed. Line interferences and inaccurate matrix correction are reasons for deviations from the reference value. As the comparison shows, ‘semi‐quantitative’ analyses on the WD‐XRF spectrometer can be accepted as quantitative determinations. The investigations show that the results obtained with the portable ED‐XRF spectrometer do not meet the quality requirements of laboratory analysis, but they are good enough for field investigations.