Abstract
Several of the fourteen rare-earth element (plus Sc and Y) orthophosphate standards grown at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the 1980s and widely distributed by the Smithsonian Institution’s Department of Mineral Sciences, are significantly contaminated by Pb. The origin of this impurity is the Pb2P2O7 flux that is derived from the thermal decomposition of PbHPO4. The lead pyrophosphate flux is used to dissolve the oxide starting materials at elevated temperatures (≈1360 °C) prior to the crystal synthesis. Because these rare-earth element standards are extremely stable under the electron beam and considered homogenous, they have been of enormous value to electron probe micro-analysis (EPMA). The monoclinic, monazite structure, orthophosphates show a higher degree of Pb incorporation than the tetragonal xenotime structure, orthophosphates. This paper will attempt to describe and rationalize the extent of the Pb contamination in these otherwise excellent materials.
Keywords: EPMA, microanalysis, orthophosphates, quantitative analysis, rare earth elements, rare earth phosphates, REE, standards
1. Introduction
Highly accurate analyses from the electron microprobe analyzer (EMPA) are only (but not solely) obtainable through the use of well-characterized and stable standards containing a major and/or known concentration of the element in question. For the rare earth elements (REE) this goal has, until recently, been elusive due to the lack of specimens exhibiting these vital properties.
The lanthanide orthophosphates, consisting of compounds with the stoichiometry LnPO4 where Ln represents any of the REE in the series extending from La to Lu (plus the related compounds YPO4 and ScPO4), are chemically durable and radiation resistant refractory materials. During the early 1980s a variety of single crystal rare earth orthophosphate samples were synthesized at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the structures determined from x-ray refinements [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6]. The primary purposes of these studies were varied, but they included nuclear and actinide waste disposal and scintillator material research as well as fundamental materials characterization investigations. The crystals were synthesized using a high-temperature solvent (flux-growth) technique, the details of which are available from the original papers, and a good overview of the development of these orthophosphates is discussed in Boatner and Sales [7], and references therein.
One interesting fact is that although the starting materials were carefully selected to be free from REE impurities, they were grown in a lead pyrophosphate (PbHPO4) flux. Pb contamination was not a concern for the original purposes of those experiments, however its presence was detected early on, and the solid state chemistry (but not the concentration) of Pb in the orthophosphate was characterized by means of electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy (EPR) [8]. Subsequently, these materials were investigated for possible use as standards for EPMA by the Smithsonian Institution [9], and put through a series of tests. These included homogeneity testing and a comparison to the commonly used REE doped aluminum silicate glass standards of Drake and Weill [10] using the EPMA, and a check of 10 selected REE contaminants on 7 of the compounds using instrumental neutron activation analysis. The materials appeared to be robust under electron bombardment, did not oxidize or seem hygroscopic, and no serious contamination or inhomogeneities were noted at the time and these efforts were followed by a general distribution of the material to interested parties.
In the late 1990s it was reported to one of us (JJD) that at least one investigator (E. J. Essene, University of Michigan, personal communication) had raised the issue of the role of the Pb impurity in some of the REE phosphate standards. The Pb impurity is especially significant in the CePO4 crystals whose black coloration is consistent with possible mixed valence (Ce3+ – Ce4+) effects—the presence of which could alter the high-temperature solid-state chemical properties and lead to an enhanced incorporation of Pb during the crystal-growth process. Subsequent investigations of the materials revealed Pb ranging in concentration from less than 0.01 mass fraction to more than 0.04 mass fraction in the CePO4, depending on the specific grains analyzed. It is the intent of this paper to characterize the extent of the Pb contamination in these otherwise extremely useful standards for EPMA.
2. Experimental Methods
Quantitative wavelength dispersive spectrometry (WDS) analyses for the REEs Sc, Y, and Pb in each of the 16 orthophosphate samples were done using a Cameca SX-511 electron microprobe at 20 keV, 20 nA (2.0 × 10−8 A), using a 10 µm beam diameter at UC Berkeley. In addition, one of the Drake and Weill REE glasses [10], and two other REE doped calcium aluminum silicate discussed in Roeder [11] and Roeder et al. [12] were analyzed. For quantitative analyses, the Kα x-ray line was used for Sc, Lα lines for Y and the other REE elements, and the Mα line was used for Pb. Count times were 20 s on peak and 10 s on each off-peak position except for Pb where the count times were doubled, respectively.
A complete description of the analytical setup and secondary standard accuracy for the analyzed elements (the composition of the REE phosphate primary standards in these cases had been previously adjusted for average Pb concentrations) is presented in Table 1. Secondary standards included synthetic yttrium-aluminum garnet (YAG) and alamosite (PbSiO3) from Tsumeb, Namibia and were assumed to be stoichiometric for Y and Pb, respectively. The Roeder REE glass S-254 [12] was assumed to have a nominal concentration (1.04 × 10−2 mass fraction) for La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Dy, Ho, Er, Yb, and Lu, and the Drake and Weill REE-1 glass was used based on published concentrations for Eu, Gd, Tb, and Tm [10]. For all rare-earth elements, the relative differences obtained when comparing the secondary standards to the primary standard is better than 10 % at the 0.01 mass fraction to 0.04 mass fraction concentration levels and better than 6 % in all but three cases (Pr, Sm and Lu).
Table 1.
Analytical setup and measured differences between the secondary standards and the primary standard for REE quantitative analysisa
| Element Sc Kα | Spect. setup LiF (FPC-2) | Primary standard ScPO4 (syn.) | Secondary standard Conc in mass fraction × 102 | Relative diff. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YLα | PET (FPC-1) | YPO4 (syn.) | YAG (stoic.) | +0.368, +0.82 % |
| LaLα | LiF (FPC-2) | LaPO4 (syn.) | S-254 (1.04 nom.) | −0.020, −1.92 % |
| CeLα | LiF (FPC-2) | CePO4 (syn.) | S-254 (1.04 nom.) | −0.010, −0.95 % |
| PrLα | LiF (FPC-2) | PrPO4 (syn.) | S-254 (1.04 nom.) | −0.103, −9.95 % |
| NdLα | LiF (FPC-2) | NdPO4 (syn.) | S-254 (1.04 nom.) | −0.007, −0.70 % |
| SmLα | LiF (FPC-2) | SmPO4 (syn.) | S-254 (1.04 nom.) | −0.055, −5.27 % |
| EuLα | LiF (FPC-2) | EuPO4 (syn.) | REE-1 (3.63 pub.) | +0.069, +1.90 % |
| GdLα | LiF (FPC-2) | GdPO4 (syn.) | REE-1 (3.87 pub.) | −0.012, −0.31 % |
| TbLα | LiF (FPC-2) | TbPO4 (syn.) | REE-1 (3.78 pub.) | −0.116, −3.08 % |
| DyLα | LiF (FPC-2) | DyPO4 (syn.) | S-254 (1.04 nom.) | −0.035, −3.35 % |
| HoLα | LiF (FPC-2) | HoPO4 (syn.) | S-254 (1.04 nom.) | −0.041, −3.92 % |
| ErLα | LiF (FPC-2) | ErPO4 (syn.) | S-254 (1.04 nom.) | −0.047, −4.51 % |
| TmLα | LiF (FPC-2) | TmPO4 (syn.) | REE-1 (3.81 pub.) | −0.127, −3.33 % |
| YbLα | LiF (FPC-2) | YbPO4 (syn.) | S-254 (1.04 nom.) | −0.047, −4.53 % |
| LuLα | LiF (FPC-2) | LuPO4 (syn.) | S-254 (1.04 nom.) | −0.103, −9.94 % |
| PbMα | PET (FPC-1) | PbCO3 (Tsumeb) | PbSiO3 (stoic.) | +0.550, +0.75 % |
Analytical spectrometer setup (flow proportional detectors: FPC-1 indicates 1 atm P-10 and FPC-2 indicates 2 atm P-10) for REE elements (plus Sc, Y, and Pb) and results of secondary standard measurements (algebraic difference and relative difference) performed at UC Berkeley. All elements were measured at 20 keV, 20 nA (150 nA for the four grain map), 10 µm beam diameter, 20 s on-peak integration time and 10 s on each off-peak except for Pb which was counted for 40 s on-peak and 20 s on each off-peak position (240 s on-peak and 120 s on each off-peak position for the four grain map in Fig. 5). Each result shown is the average of 10 measurements.
The difficulty of dealing with interfering elements for REE analyses using the Lα x-ray lines is painfully evident in even cursory WDS spectral scans on these samples and can only be overcome by careful and consistent application of an automatic correction scheme. Table 2 shows the REEs that interfere with the analyzed elements. These were interferences quantitatively corrected for using the iteration method of Donovan et al. [13], that is especially well suited for using large magnitude interferences for trace element determinations. For the Pb analyses, the Mα line was used with a quantitative interference correction for Y (possible high order interferences from La and Tb were not observed). Standard and background intensities along with the calculated P/B (peak to background) for each line in its associated primary standard are shown in Table 3.
Table 2.
Quantitative interferences.a Also listed are the wavelengths (in Å) of the x-ray lines
| Element Å |
On peak interferences Å |
|---|---|
| ScKα at 3.0320 | ErLβ2 (II) at 3.0284 |
| YLα at 2.6657 | LaLγ1 (III)at 6.4260 (not observed) |
| LaLα at 2.6657 | NdLl (I) at 2.6766 |
| CeLα at 2.5615 | |
| PrLα at 2.4630 | LaLβ1,4 (I) at 2.4595, 2.4595 |
| SmLl (I) at 2.4826 | |
| NdLα at 2.3704 | CeLβ1,4 (I) at 2.3566, 2.3499 |
| PbLα1,2 (II) at 2.3504, 2.3732 | |
| SmLα at 2.1998 | CeLβ2 (I) at 2.2092 |
| PrLβ3 (I) at 2.2175 (not observed) | |
| EuLα at 2.1209 | NdLβ3 (I) at 2.1273 |
| PrLβ2 (I) at 2.1197 | |
| GdLα at 2.0468 | CeLγ1 (I) at 2.0489 |
| LaLγ2,3 (I) at 2.0462, 2.0415 | |
| NdLβ2 (I) at 2.0365 | |
| TbLα at 1.9765 | LaLγ4 (I) at 1.9834 |
| PrLγ1 (I) at 1.9614 (not observed) | |
| SmLβ3 (I) at 1.9627 (not observed) | |
| PbLβ1,2 (II) at 1.9660, 1.9650 (not observed) | |
| DyLα at 1.9088 | EuLβ1,4 (I) at 1.9207, 1.9258 |
| YbLl (I) at 1.8946 (possibly observed) | |
| HoLα at 1.8450 | GdLβ1,4 (I) at 1.8472, 1.8543 |
| LuLl (I) at 1.8362 (not observed) | |
| ErLα at 1.7842 | TbLβ1,4 (I) at 1.7770, 1.7867 |
| NdLγ2,3 (I) at 1.8015, 1.7968 | |
| TmLα at 1.7268 | DyLβ1,4 (I) at 1.7110, 1.7212 |
| GdLβ2 (I) at 1.7457 | |
| SmLγ1 (I) at 1.7275 | |
| YbLα at 1.6718 | EuLγ1 (I) at 1.6577 |
| SmLγ2 (I) at 1.6608 | |
| TbLβ2 (I) at 1.6834 | |
| YKα1 (II) at 1.6580 (possibly observed) | |
| HoLβ4 (I) at 1.6597 (not observed) | |
| LuLα at 1.6195 | HoLβ3 (I) at 1.6207 |
| DyLβ2 (I) at 1.6241 | |
| GdLγ1 (I) at 1.5928 (possibly observed) | |
| PbMα at 5.2860 | YLγ3 (I) at 5.2848 |
| LaLα1 (II) at 5.3326 (not observed) | |
| TbLβ1 (III) at 5.3310 (not observed) |
Analyzed elements and interfering elements were quantitatively corrected by using the iteration method of Donovan et al. [12]. Many of these interferences are 1st order interferences and therefore are the same energy as the interfering line, and hence, cannot be reduced by the use of pulse height analysis (PHA). Selection of alternative (beta) lines is sometimes possible, but the resulting reduction in intensity will also reduce sensitivity.
Table 3.
Standard peak and background intensities (linear interpolation method)a
| Element | Peak intensity (cps/nA) | Background intensity (cps/nA) | Peak/Background |
|---|---|---|---|
| ScKα | 49.3 (ScPO4) | 0.2 | 246.5 |
| YLα | 68.3 (YPO4) | 0.5 | 136.6 |
| LaLα | 38.5 (LaPO4) | 0.3 | 128.3 |
| CeLα | 45.4 (CePO4) | 0.5 | 90.8 |
| PrLα | 55.1 (PrPO4) | 0.6 | 91.8 |
| NdLα | 64.9 (NdPO4) | 0.6 | 108.1 |
| SmLα | 80.8 (SmPO4) | 1.3 | 62.2 |
| EuLα | 89.6 (EuPO4) | 1.1 | 81.5 |
| GdLα | 95.2 (GdPO4) | 1.2 | 79.3 |
| TbLα | 101.9 (TbPO4) | 1.3 | 78.4 |
| DyLα | 107.8 (DyPO4) | 1.5 | 71.9 |
| HoLα | 113.6 (HoPO4) | 2.2 | 51.6 |
| ErLα | 119.5 (ErPO4) | 2.1 | 56.9 |
| TmLα | 122.9 (TmPO4) | 2.5 | 49.2 |
| YbLα | 128.0 (YbPO4) | 2.6 | 49.2 |
| LuLα | 131.3 (LuPO4) | 3.4 | 38.6 |
| PbMα | 72.0 (PbCO3) | 0.6 | 120.0 |
Average peak and background intensities measured on the primary standards for the analyzed elements along with calculated peak to background ratios. Off-peak positions were based on high-resolution spectral scans of the low to high off-peak regions of each REE element and Pb in each of the REE phosphates. The purpose was to avoid off-peak interferences as much as possible.
Under the analytical conditions which were utilized at Berkeley, the minimum detection limits for both single analyses calculated from Love and Scott [14], and for the average of 10 replicate analyses based on Goldstein et al. [15], are shown in Table 4. Minimum detection limits for 10 replicate analyses based on the actual measured standard deviation are about 3.0 × 10−4 mass fraction to 6.0 × 10−4 mass fraction for all elements in all matrices although only values for CePO4 or GdPO4 are shown in Table 4. A measured detection limit of 3 × 10−4 mass fraction to 6 × 10−4 mass fraction for the average of 10 replicates at 99 % a confidence level was typical for the REE analyses under these conditions. The Pb detection limit at a 99 % confidence level was about 4.5 × 10−4 mass fraction.
Table 4.
Typical single analysis and average (replicate) detection limitsa
| Element | Detection limit (single point) (.99 CL) (mass fraction × 102 in CePO4) | Detection limit (avg. of 10) (.99 CL) (mass fraction × 102 in CePO4) |
|---|---|---|
| ScKα | 0.058 | 0.018 |
| YLα | 0.103 | 0.024 |
| LaLα | 0.187 | 0.045 |
| CeLα | 0.147 (in GdPO4) | 0.050 (in GdPO4) |
| PrLα | 0.104 | 0.058 |
| NdLα | 0.111 | 0.068 |
| SmLα | 0.103 | 0.042 |
| EuLα | 0.137 | 0.052 |
| GdLα | 0.097 | 0.125b |
| TbLα | 0.139 | 0.046 |
| DyLα | 0.100 | 0.033 |
| HoLα | 0.140 | 0.042 |
| ErLα | 0.097 | 0.042 |
| TmLα | 0.139 | 0.033 |
| YbLα | 0.139 | 0.038 |
| LuLα | 0.142 | 0.043 |
| PbMα | 0.077 (in GdPO4) | 0.045 (in GdPO4) |
Single point analysis detection limits in a matrix of CePO4 at a 99 % confidence level (CL). A GdPO4 matrix for Ce and Pb was used since Ce is a major element in CePO4 and Pb was determined to be inhomogeneous in the CePO4. CL and averaged detection limits for the same matrices at 99 % confidence interval based on the actual measured standard deviation of 10 measurements on each standard are reported.
Gd is possibly present as very small, widely dispersed concentrations in the CePO4 which could explain this unusually high calculated detection limit (for example the calculated average detection limit for GdLα in DyPO4 is 0.07 mass fraction × 102).
Another set of measurements, for the analysis of Pb homogeneity only, were also done on the same grains, but in a different area from the REE and Pb measurements done at UC Berkeley. These measurements were made for each REE orthophosphate using a JEOL 8900 Superprobe at the University of Maryland-College Park. X-ray intensities of Pb were obtained using an accelerating voltage of 20 keV, and a beam current of 150 nA. Count times were 60 s on peak, and 30 s for backgrounds on each side of the peak. Pb was analyzed using a PETH (which utilizes a smaller diameter Rowland Circle allowing for higher count rates, but has poorer wavelength resolution) crystal, and background positions of +4 mm (L = 173.307 mm or 5.4013 Å) and −3 mm (L = 166.307 mm or 5.1828 Å). Natural cerussite (PbCO3) from Tsumeb, Namibia, was used as a standard for Pb (0.8393 mass fraction PbO). It should be noted that although cerussite is a carbonate mineral it did not appear to degrade under the electron beam during the analyses. The Pb Mα x-ray line was used for all analyses, with the exception of YPO4, where Mβ was used due to an interference from Ylγ3 on Pb Mα. For these Pb homogeneity measurements, the REE and phosphate concentrations were not measured but were incorporated as stoichiometric proportions into the ZAF algorithm in order to approximately account for matrix effects. The single analysis detection limit at a 99 % confidence level for Pb under these analytical conditions was about 1.4 × 10−4 mass fraction Pb based on a standard count rate of 263.9 cps/nA and a background of 0.8 cps/nA measured on CePO4.
Measurements were done on two different sets of REE orthophosphate samples. The first set consists of material for 16 orthophosphates, including Sc and Y obtained from one of us (JMH) and mounted along with primary and secondary standards for analysis and interference corrections. These materials were mounted in a 25 mm diameter acrylic mount approximately 1.5 cm deep using a cold set epoxy and circulated to both laboratories. This sample will be referred to as the “Round Robin” mount in the discussion that follows.
The “Round Robin” mount was carefully analyzed for Pb at both Berkeley and College Park to check for inter-laboratory differences since the analytical results of trace element measurements are extremely sensitive to differences in spectrometer resolution and placement of off-peak intensity measurement positions. Homogeneity measurements were also done on this mount at College Park to check for possible Pb variations within this material itself.
Additional Pb measurements were performed at UC Berkeley on other material that was originally resident in the laboratory standard collection to check for possible inter-batch differences in Pb contamination some of the material had been produced in several runs at Oak Ridge under possibly different growth conditions. Analyses on this material will be referred to as the “Berkeley” REE mount.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1 REE Impurities in the Orthophosphate Standards
Table 5 shows the trace REE elements measured in each of the orthophosphates at UC Berkeley on the “Round Robin” mount. One can see that as stated in the original paper by Jarosewich and Boatner [9], the material is generally very pure based on quantitative results from instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA). The only statistically significant REE contamination anomalies we observed were the presence of approximately 9 × 10−4 mass fraction Eu in GdPO4 (Jarosewich and Boatner reported 1.9 × 10−5 mass fraction Eu in GdPO4 using INAA), 1.1 × 10−3 mass fraction Ho and 7 × 10−4 mass fraction Y in the DyPO4 (Jarosewich and Boatner reported 2.47 × 10−3 Ho in DyPO4 using INAA, Y was not analyzed by INAA), and approximately 1.1 × 10−3 mass fraction Er in the TmPO4 (Er was not analyzed by Jarosewich and Boatner with INAA). It is difficult to obtain commercially available REE oxide materials that are completely free of other REE impurities due to the nature of the starting materials (REE-rich phosphate and carbonate minerals) that must be processed to extract individual REEs. The apparent concentration of 0.0009 ± 0.0007 mass fraction Lu in GdPO4 is possibly due to an interference of Gd Lγ1 at 1.5928 Å and the 0.0006 ± 0.0005 mass fraction Dy in YbPO4 is possibly due to an interference of Yb Ll at 1.8946 Å and finally the 0.0004 ± 0.0003 mass fraction Yb in YPO4 is possibly due to an interference of Y Kα1 (II) at 1.658 Å. No other interferences could be invoked to explain the other apparent REE concentrations shown in bold in the table.
Table 5.
Trace Pb and REE concentrations in the REEPO4 standardsa (concentrations and uncertainties in mass fraction × 102)
| USNM # | ScPO4 168495 | YPO4 168499 | LaPO4 168490 | CePO4 168484 | PrPO4 168493 | NdPO4 168492 | SmPO4 168494 | EuPO4 168487 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ScKα | .01 ± .01 | .01 ± .02 | .01 ± .01 | .01 ± .01 | .01 ± .01 | .01 ± .01 | .00 ± .00 | |
| YLα | .01 ± .02 | .01 ± .01 | .01 ± .01 | .00 ± .01 | .02 ± .03 | .01 ± .02 | .00 ± .00 | |
| LaLα | .01 ± .01 | .02 ± .03 | .00 ± .00 | .03 ± .05 | .02 ± .04 | .03 ± .03 | .01 ± .01 | |
| CeLα | .00 ± .01 | .05 ± .06 | .01 ± .01 | .03 ± .04 | .03 ± .04 | .03 ± .04 | .02 ± .02 | |
| PrLα | .03 ± .03 | .01 ± .02 | .07 ± .13b | .02 ± .03 | .00 ± .01 | .01 ± .01 | .02 ± .03 | |
| NdLα | .00 ± .00 | .01 ± .02 | .00 ± .01 | .01 ± .02 | .01 ± .03 | .00 ± .01 | .04 ± .04 | |
| SmLα | .02 ± .03 | .01 ± .02 | .01 ± .02 | .02 ± .04 | .01 ± .02 | .00 ± .00 | .01 ± .02 | |
| EuLα | .02 ± .03 | .01 ± .02 | .03 ± .03 | .00 ± .01 | .08 ± .11b | .03 ± .05 | .03 ± .02 | |
| GdLα | .02 ± .03 | .02 ± .03 | .03 ± .06 | .04 ± .05 | .01 ± .03 | .02 ± .03 | .00 ± .00 | .02 ± .05 |
| TbLα | .01 ± .01 | .02 ± .03 | .02 ± .03 | .00 ± .01 | .03 ± .04 | .00 ± .00 | .03 ± .05 | .00 ± .01 |
| DyLα | .03 ± .02 | .02 ± .02 | .03 ± .04 | .02 ± .03 | .00 ± .00 | .00 ± .00 | .00 ± .00 | .02 ± .03 |
| HoLα | .01 ± .02 | .01 ± .02 | .02 ± .03 | .02 ± .03 | .00 ± .00 | .00 ± .01 | .00 ± .00 | .00 ± .00 |
| ErLα | .03 ± .03 | .02 ± .02 | .02 ± .03 | .03 ± .04 | .00 ± .00 | .02 ± .03 | .07 ± .04 | .00 ± .00 |
| TmLα | .02 ± .02 | .01 ± .02 | .02 ± .02 | .01 ± .02 | .02 ± .03 | .02 ± .02 | .06 ± .07 | .06 ± .06 |
| YbLα | .00 ± .00 | .03 ± .04 | .02 ± .03 | .04 ± .05 | .04 ± .04 | .03 ± .03 | .02 ± .03 | .02 ± .03 |
| LuLα | .02 ± .03 | .01 ± .03 | .01 ± .02 | .03 ± .04 | .02 ± .03 | .04 ± .03 | .00 ± .00 | .00 ± .01 |
| PbMα | .00 ± .00 | .01 ± .01 | 1.05 ± .17 | 1.68 ± .07 | .77 ± .04 | .60 ± .03 | .99 ± .07 | .52 ± .06 |
| GdPO4 168488 | TbPO4 168496 | DyPO4 168485 | HoPO4 168489 | ErPO4 168486 | TmPO4 168497 | YbPO4 168498 | LuPO4 168491 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ScKα | .01 ± .01 | .00 ± .00 | .01 ± .01 | .01 ± .02 | .01 ± .02 | .00 ± .00 | .00 ± .01 | .01 ± .02 |
| YLα | .01 ± .02 | .01 ± .02 | .07 ± .05 | .02 ± .03 | .02 ± .03 | .01 ± .01 | .04 ± .03 | .03 ± .03 |
| LaLα | .02 ± .04 | .01 ± .02 | .02 ± .04 | .03 ± .04 | .01 ± .02 | .01 ± .01 | .03 ± .05 | .02 ± .03 |
| CeLα | .03 ± .04 | .01 ± .02 | .02 ± .02 | .01 ± .03 | .03 ± .04 | .01 ± .01 | .01 ± .02 | .01 ± .02 |
| PrLα | .01 ± .02 | .01 ± .03 | .01 ± .02 | .02 ± .03 | .02 ± .04 | .01 ± .03 | .02 ± .05 | .01 ± .02 |
| NdLα | .01 ± .02 | .02 ± .03 | .01 ± .02 | .01 ± .03 | .02 ± .04 | .03 ± .04 | .00 ± .00 | .03 ± .04 |
| SmLα | .02 ± .03 | .00 ± .01 | .03 ± .04 | .00 ± .01 | .02 ± .02 | .03 ± .03 | .03 ± .03 | .02 ± .03 |
| EuLα | .09 ± .06 | .03 ± .03 | .00 ± .01 | .00 ± .01 | .01 ± .03 | .01 ± .01 | .01 ± .02 | .01 ± .01 |
| GdLα | .01 ± .02 | .01 ± .02 | .00 ± .01 | .00 ± .00 | .02 ± .02 | .02 ± .03 | .01 ± .01 | |
| TbLα | .01 ± .02 | .02 ± .03 | .01 ± .01 | .00 ± .00 | .02 ± .03 | .02 ± .03 | .01 ± .03 | |
| DyLα | .00 ± .00 | .00 ± .00 | .00 ± .00 | .02 ± .04 | .00 ± .00 | .06 ± .05 | .01 ± .03 | |
| HoLα | .14 ± .21b | .01 ± .02 | .11 ± .06 | .01 ± .01 | .01 ± .03 | .02 ± .04 | .03 ± .03 | |
| ErLα | .00 ± .00 | .05 ± .09 | .01 ± .02 | .00 ± .00 | .11 ± .07 | .02 ± .02 | .00 ± .01 | |
| TmLα | .01 ± .02 | .00 ± .00 | .03 ± .05 | .03 ± .03 | .00 ± .00 | .00 ± .01 | .04 ± .04 | |
| YbLα | .01 ± .01 | .02 ± .03 | .00 ± .01 | .00 ± .00 | .03 ± .04 | .00 ± .00 | .00 ± .00 | |
| LuLα | .09 ± .07 | .02 ± .03 | .02 ± .05 | .05 ± .07 | .00 ± .00 | .01 ± .04 | .00 ± .00 | |
| PbMα | .49 ± .07 | .02 ± .02 | .02 ± .03 | .02 ± .03 | .02 ± .02 | .01 ± .02 | .02 ± .03 | .04 ± .04 |
Average trace analyses of REE elements plus Sc, Y, and Pb for the USNM REE phosphates in the “Round Robin” mount measured at Berkeley. The quoted uncertainty is the measured one standard deviation value for 10 measurements.
Large magnitude interference corrections resulting in increasing uncertainty at trace levels. The apparent concentrations and large standard deviations for these three cases could be greatly reduced by using longer acquisition times on the unknown and the standard used for the interference correction.
3.2 Pb Impurities in the Orthophosphate Standards
The results for Pb in the last row of Table 5 reveal that Pb is present from almost 0.02 mass fraction down to about 0.005 mass fraction element in seven of the REE orthophosphates in the “Round Robin” mount (in order of decreasing concentration: CePO4, LaPO4, SmPO4, PrPO4, NdPO4, EuPO4, and GdPO4). The remaining REE orthophosphates did not contain Pb concentrations above the UC Berkeley detection limit of 4.5 × 10−4 mass fraction. These measurements consisted of a 10-point traverse on a single grain of each REE orthophosphate. Table 6 shows the Pb homogeneity measurements on the same “Round Robin” mount but performed in College Park with increased sensitivity (longer count times and higher beam currents). The two data sets agree well considering the apparent inhomogeneity of the Pb contaminated materials.
Table 6.
Pb (mass fraction × 102) in the “round robin” mount measured in College Parka
| ScPO4 | YPO4b | LaPO4 | CePO4 | PrPO4 | NdPO4 | SmPO4 | EuPO4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PbMα | .00 ± .00 | .00 ± .00 | .90 ± .32 | 1.90 ± .07 | .92 ± .04 | .86 ± .17 | .86 ± .13 | .64 ± .16 |
| GdPO4 | TbPO4 | DyPO4 | HoPO4 | ErPO4 | TmPO4 | YbPO4 | LuPO4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PbMα | .39 ± .16 | .00 ± .00 | .00 ± .00 | .00 ± .00 | .00 ± .00 | .00 ± .00 | .00 ± .00 | .00 ± .00 |
Averaged mass fraction × 102 results of Pb contamination measurements performed in College Park on the “round robin” mount. The mass fraction detection limit (99 % confidence level) was approximately 140 × 10−6. Note that the measured Pb standard deviations for the uncontaminated materials are significantly smaller than the measurements performed at Berkeley. These results are due to the increased beam current and counting time used at College Park.
PbMβ was used to avoid the Ylγ3 line.
What is striking is that the Pb content varies considerably not only within each grain, but even more so from grain to grain, as seen in Table 7 where a number of Pb measurements (13–16) over the face of the four CePO4 grains in the “Berkeley” mount show tremendous variation between grains from about 0.015 mass fraction to 0.045 mass fraction element.
Table 7.
Pb grain to grain variation within the CePO4 material in the “Berkeley” mounta
| Average (concentrations in mass fraction × 102) | Standard deviation | Minimum | Maximum | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grain #1 | 2.68 | 0.45 | 2.04 | 3.47 |
| Grain #2 | 2.55 | 0.16 | 2.33 | 2.83 |
| Grain #3 | 1.54 | 0.04 | 1.48 | 1.59 |
| Grain #4 | 3.64 | 0.46 | 3.08 | 4.50 |
Average and standard deviations (13-16 points over the face of each grain) of four grains from the “Berkeley” mount mapped in Fig. 1 in elemental mass fraction × 102. Analytical conditions were 20 keV, 150 nA, and a 10 µm diameter beam. Each analysis is the average of 13 to 16 measurements distributed over the face of each grain. Only grain #3 was relatively homogeneous in Pb.
3.3 Crystal Structure and Pb Contamination
Lead is present in significant amounts only in the monoclinic, high-temperature, monazite-structure orthophosphates (LaPO4 through GdPO4), and is absent, or nearly so, in the tetragonal, xenotime-structure, compounds (TbPO4 through LuPO4 and ScPO4 and YPO4) as can be seen in Fig. 1, where Pb concentration is plotted as a function of REE atomic number. Boatner and Sales [7] showed that there is a distinct structural change (monoclinic to tetragonal) between GdPO4 and TbPO4 which suggests that the incorporation of Pb in the monazite structure, and the lack of Pb incorporation in the xenotime structure orthophosphates, is related to this change in structure. The so-called lanthanide contraction is a continuous decrease in size across the REEs, and may also play a role in this, however, there are no abrupt decreases in the trivalent ionic radii across the REE series (including from Gd to Tb). Our data suggest that the exclusion of the large (e.g., 1.29 Å in eight coordination, [16] divalent lead cation is limited by the space available in the heavy REEO8 (HREEO8) polyhedra and that the divalent Pb ion, or the trivalent HREEs, will not fit easily into the xenotime structure. For the monoclinic orthophosphates, the light REEO9 (LREEO9) polyhedra is much larger and can accommodate the divalent Pb2+ ion into the xenotime structure [16].
Fig. 1.
Plot of Pb atoms (based on four oxygens) versus atomic number of the REE cation. Element 61 (Pm) is unstable and the orthophosphate is not available, therefore no measurement is possible for that cation. For all others, only the monoclinic forms for the orthophosphates were observably contaminated by the Pb flux used to dissolve the starting material prior to crystal growth.
In examining the REEPO4 structures, it is evident that when the REE cation radius contracts beyond a certain point (empirically 1.05 Å), the REE cation becomes too small to maintain the monoclinic structure type, and the structure distorts to a lower density, lower energy, tetragonal structure type. Once this change from monoclinic to tetragonal symmetry has occurred, the divalent lead cation can no longer fit into this confined HREEO8 polyhedra. The tetragonal orthophosphates are all of the same structure type, with a slight contraction of unit cell volume with increasing atomic number. The same holds true for the monoclinic orthophosphates. There is a dramatic jump in the cell volumes between Gd (276 Å3) and Tb (292 Å3) with the phase change.
The tetravalent lead cation with an ionic radius of 0.94 Å [16], would appear to fit better into the tetragonal xenotime structure orthophosphates with the smaller HREE cations (1.04 Å to 0.87 Å, [16]), but significant Pb was not observed in those samples. Abraham et al. [8], did find some trivalent Pb in their EPR experiments, but other valence states of Pb such as tetravalent lead could have been present since they are not observable by means of EPR spectroscopy [8]. The flux used for crystal growth, Pb2P2O7, derived from the decomposition of PbHPO4, contains divalent lead thus, it seems more likely that the Pb was in the divalent state under the conditions of synthesis.
Characterizing the exact Pb contamination within a given orthophosphate is problematic because of the degree to which the Pb concentrations vary, not only within a single grain but also from grain to grain. For this reason it is recommended that each laboratory perform systematic x-ray mapping for Pb of their “in house” REE orthophosphates grains to determine the actual extent and variation of Pb contamination in their own mounts. As can be seen in Table 7 (e.g., grain #3), it may be that the Pb contamination is homogeneous enough that some portion or another of the material may be suitable for use as a quantitative standard for major element concentrations of the REE in question. Once the Pb concentration for a homogeneous grain is known and the position noted, the measured Pb can be proportionally subtracted from the ideal REEPO4 composition and entered into the laboratory’s standard compositional database for general use.
Regarding which REEPO4 material should be used for P as an EMPA standard, we suggest that one of the tetragonal orthophosphates should be used to minimize any nonstoichiometry introduced by Pb impurities.
4. Conclusions
Due to their qualities of robustness under the electron beam, resistance to oxidation, and REE purity, the REE orthophosphate standards remain a valuable set of standards for EPMA despite significant Pb contamination in at least 7 of the 16 samples examined. Of those with measurable Pb contamination, only the monoclinic CePO4 and possibly the LaPO4 and SmPO4 contain enough Pb to noticeably affect the stoichiometry for use as a primary standard for major element quantitative analysis (approximately 2 % to 4 % relative differences from their theoretical compositions). None of the tetragonal, xenotime structure orthophosphates (Gd-LuPO4 and ScPO4 and YPO4) contain appreciable Pb.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Tim Teague at the UC Berkeley Petrographic Laboratory for meticulous sample preparation and to all other researchers who pointed out the presence of Pb in these materials.
Biography
About the authors: John J. Donovan is a research assistant with the University of Oregon, John M. Hanchar is a assistant professor of geochemistry at The George Washington University, Phillip M. Picolli is a research scientist at the University of Maryland, Department of Geology, Marc D. Schrier is as staff scientist at Quantum Dot Corporation, Lynn A. Boatner is a corporate fellow in the Solid State Division at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Eugene Jarosewich is a research chemist (emeritus) at the Department of Mineral Sciences, the Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution.
Footnotes
NIST disclaimer: Certain commercial equipment, instruments, or materials are identified in this paper to foster understanding. Such identification does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor does it imply that the materials or equipment identified are necessarily the best available for the purpose.
5. References
- 1.Milligan WO, Mullica DF, Beall GW, Boatner LA. Structural Investigations of YPO4, ScPO4, and LuPO4. Inorg Chim Acta. 1982;60:39–43. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Milligan WO, Mullica DF, Beall GW, Boatner LA. Structural Investigations of ErPO4, TmPO4, and YbPO4. Acta Crystallog. 1983;C39:23–24. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Milligan WO, Mullica DF, Beall GW, Boatner LA. Structural Investigations of Three Lanthanide Orthophosphates. Inorg Chim Acta. 1983;70:133–136. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Milligan WO, Mullica DF, Beall GW, Boatner LA. Crystal data for lanthanide orthophosphates with zircon-type structure. Inorg Chim Acta. 1983;77:L23–25. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Mullica DF, Grossie DA, Boatner LA. Coordination geometry and structural determinations of SmPO4, EuPO4, and GdPO4. Inorg Chim Acta. 1985;109:105–110. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Mullica DF, Grossie DA, Boatner LA. Structural refinements of praseodymium and neodymium orthophosphate. J Solid State Chem. 1985;58:71–77. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Boatner LA, Sales BC. In: Monazite in Radioactive Waste Forms for the Future. Lutze W, Ewing RC, editors. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.; 1988. pp. 495–564. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Abraham MM, Boatner LA, Rappaz M. Novel Measurement of Hyperfine Interactions in Solids: 207Pb3+ in YPO4 and LuPO4. Phys Rev Lett. 1980;45(10):839–842. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Jarosewich E, Boatner LA. Rare-Earth Element Reference Samples for Electron Microprobe Analysis. Geostand Newslett. 1991;XV(2) [Google Scholar]
- 10.Drake MJ, Weill DF. New rare earth element standards for electron microprobe analysis. Chem Geolog. 1972;10:179–181. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Roeder PL. Electron-Microprobe Analysis of Minerals for Rare-Earth Elements: Use of Calculated Peak Overlap Corrections. Can Mineralog. 1985;23:263–271. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Roeder PL, MacArthur D, Ma XP, Palmer GR, Mariano AN. Cathodoluminescence and microprobe study of rare-earth elements in apatite. Am Mineralog. 1987;72:801–811. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Donovan JJ, Snyder DA, Rivers ML. An improved interference correction for trace element analysis. Microbeam Anal. 1993;2:23–28. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Scott VD, Love G. Quantitative Electron-Probe Microanalysis. 2nd Ed. Wiley & Sons; New York: 1983. p. 105. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Goldstein JI, Newbury DE, Echlin P, Joy DC, Fiori C, Lifshin E. Scanning Electron Microscopy and X-Ray Micro-analysis. Plenum; New York: 1981. p. 436. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Shannon RD. Revised effective ionic radii and systematic studies of interatomic distances in halides and chalcogenides. Acta Crystalog. 1976;A32:751–767. [Google Scholar]