PIXE and XRF analysis of particulate matter samples: an inter-laboratory comparison

Abstract

PIXE and XRF are very effective techniques in atmospheric aerosol investigation, therefore they are extensively used by the authors. In this work an inter-laboratory comparison of the results obtained analysing several samples (collected on different substrata) with both techniques is presented: the samples were analysed by PIXE (in Florence, at the 3 MV Tandetron accelerator of LABEC laboratory) and by XRF (in Genoa and Milan, where two Oxford XRF instruments are operational). The results of the three sets of measurements are in good agreement for all the analysed samples.The aim of this work was also to compare PIXE and XRF performance in atmospheric aerosol analysis with the routine set-up currently in use at the three laboratories, to determine the best technique to be applied depending on the substratum used for aerosol sampling and the main elements of interest for each specific research project. Results of the comparison between the minimum detection limits of both techniques will be shown for all the measured elements, for different substrata (Teflon, polycarbonate and cellulose mixed esters).

Assessment of PM2.5 sources and their corresponding level of uncertainty in a coastal urban area using EPA PMF 5.0 enhanced diagnostics

“…to have ±5% uncertainty on areal mass concentrations (Calzolai et al 2008). One multielemental 162 standard (Vienna Dust Standard V98, Air particulate matter on filter media) has also been measured.…”

Rapid and Simple Determination of Multi-Elements in Aerosol Samples Collected on Quartz Fiber Filters by Using EDXRF Coupled with Fundamental Parameter Quantification Technique

“…In general, fluoropolymer or cellulose membrane filters have been used for multi-elemental analysis because these kinds of filters usually contain very little amount of inorganic impurities (Calzolai et al, 2008;Niu et al, 2010;López et al, 2011;Öztürk et al, 2011). On the other hand, quartz fiber filters (QFFs) have not often been used because they are considered to contain silicon and many other metal impurities (Baron and Willeke, 2001).…”

Study of the uniformity of aerosol filters by scanning MA‐XRF

“…As the detection limits improve with longer measuring times, it implies that PIXE measurements can be performed about a factor of 5 to 10 times faster. [1,3] Because a collimated scanning beam can be used, samples with high-temporal resolution (streak samples) of high-size resolution (impactor samples) can be analysed. The literature on PIXE applications is therefore abundant, e.g.…”

“…Concentrations determined by XRF and PIXE agree typically within 10%. [3] Agreement between PIXE and XRF on one hand and ICP-AES or ICP-MS on the other hand is strongly influenced by the sample preparation for the latter methods. If strong conditions (microwave digestion using HNO 3 and H 2 O 2 ) are used, amounts of heavy metals found on the aerosol filter by PIXE and ICP-AES agree within 20% or better.…”

“…[3] Agreement between PIXE and XRF on one hand and ICP-AES or ICP-MS on the other hand is strongly influenced by the sample preparation for the latter methods. If strong conditions (microwave digestion using HNO 3 and H 2 O 2 ) are used, amounts of heavy metals found on the aerosol filter by PIXE and ICP-AES agree within 20% or better. [7] To validate their results, the Flanders Environment Agency [Vlaamse Milieumaatschappij (VMM)] compares on a systematic basis results obtained by their XRF procedure with these obtained by ICP-MS and obtains in general an agreement within 10% for elements such as Pb, Zn, Cu and Mn.…”