Similar to other analytical methods, Automated SEMs have their own restrictions; one of the limitation of SEMs -more specific EDS Spectra analysis- is that light elements such as Rb, Li or Be cannot be detected with the current X-Ray detectors (e.g. Reed 2005). This can effect the reliability of the mineral list or SIP file when dealing with one of these elements, such as Li exploration projects; however an integration with XRD and a supplementary method such as Laser Ablation ICPMS, enables QEMSCAN or MLA to overcome this technical restriction.
In this post, we are going to review a case study on a Li mineralogy, from a prelim exploration project on Pegmatites with the main objective to identify and characterize main carrier of Li. The mineralogical study was done on 97 core samples with Li abundance of 0.07-0.15 % and 0.05-0.1% of W with the host rock being identified as Alkaline Feldspar Granite; here we will review the results for one sample.
The mineralogy test was initiated using QEMSCAN on one size fraction; the samples were stage pulverised to 125 µ for preparing 30 mm round polished sections; two sections per sample was prepared (one transverse and one normal). BMA measurement mode was used for Modal Mineralogy analysis and PMA mode for particle data. In order to validate the reliability of the SIP file, 25 samples with highest amounts of W and Li were selected for Q-XRD analysis.
After QEMSCAN test and comparison with XRD, it was concluded that the Li minerals in this sample are from Mica group, i.e. Zinnwaldite (KLiFeAl2Si3O10(F,OH)2) and Lepidolite KLi2AlSi4O10F(OH), with approximate abundance of 2.8% and 1.13%, respectively. Without the XRD check prior to generate the SIP file, the chances of misclassification of K-Feldspar and Lepidolite could occur caused by overlapping X-Ray counts for Si, Al and K (see the synthesized spectra).
|Modal Mineralogy wt% by QEMSCAN|
|Synthesized EDS spectra by SIP Editor|
Li by chemical assay in this sample had resulted 1385 ppm , while calculated Li by QEMSCAN using empirical formula of Lepidolite and Zinnwaldite is ~ 0.11 %. This deficiency for Li is opposite of what was seen for other elements such as K, Si and Al, where they showed a tight reconciliation. So the possibility of underestimation of minerals’ quantification was ruled out. This can be explained by the presence of Li as a minor element in other minerals; looking back at the mineral list, the best candidates are Muscovite and/or Biotites. In order to confirm this, yet another method should be used. For this purpose Laser Ablation ICP-MS is suitable and we can perform the test directly on the same polished sections that were used for mineralogy test by QEMSCAN.
As a brief summary, the L.A. ICP-MS test confirmed the elevated abundance of Li in muscovite with range of 1000-4300 ppm in the analyzed samples; with the +10 wt% presence of Muscovite, this can definitely be the main reason for the difference of Li between mineralogy test and chemical assay.
Despite the technical restrictions of MLA and QEMSCAN, they still play an important role in mineralogy projects, using the right supplementary methods can help to overcome these restrictions.
Hope it was interesting for you!
Matt (Mahdi) Ghobadi