Abstract:
A PGM is identified by subjecting a sample mineral to a scanning electron microscope to produce an energy dispersive spectrum for the sample and comprising the amplitude of the spectrum in a single channel to data from a reference table of normalised spectra of different PGM species.

Description:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
       [0001]    This invention relates to identifying platinum group minerals (PGMs) present in a sample. 
         [0002]    Commercially available systems use scanning electron microscope (SEM) energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (EDS) to identify minerals present in a sample. 
         [0003]    At rest, atoms within the sample contain ground state (or unexcited) electrons in discrete energy levels or electron shells bound to the nucleus. An incident electron beam from the SEM will excite an electron in an inner shell, ejecting it from the shell while creating an electron hole where the electron was. An electron from an outer, higher-energy shell then fills the hole, and the difference in energy between the higher-energy shell and the lower energy shell is released in the form of an x-ray which is then detected and analyzed by the energy dispersive spectrometer. This x-ray is characteristic of the difference in energy between the two shells, and of the atomic structure of the element from which they were emitted. In this way, elements present in a sample can be identified, and from the elements present (and their proportions), a mineral identification can be made based on a known mineral chemical composition at each analysis point. 
         [0004]    One system makes use of a “windowing” system wherein the EDS spectrum is divided into 32 windows, each 200-240 electron volts (eV) wide, and each assigned to an element. The total x-ray counts in the elemental windows are used to determine the presence of a particular element. A set of rules that a specific mineral must satisfy to be identified correctly (according to the total number of counts in the elemental windows) is established for all minerals in the sample. Using a “first match” approach, each analysis point is then compared to mineral identification rules until a match is found. If no match is found, the mineral is classified as unidentified. 
         [0005]    In a second system the entire EDS spectrum from each sample is compared against a set of previously manually identified standard EDS spectra collected from minerals in the sample. Using a “best match” approach, each analysis point is matched to a mineral identification. If no match is found, the mineral is classified as unidentified. 
         [0006]    Each system adequately identifies minerals in most mineral samples. However, in the case of PGM ores, misidentification of the PGMs often occurs. This is most often due to:
   (1) the size of PGM grains. PGMs frequently occur in sizes of less than 5 micrometers (this value is given in terms of an equivalent circle diameter). When an EDS system analyses such a small grain, elements from the surrounding mineral are also detected, leading to a mixed EDS spectrum which is prone to non-identification;   (2) the chemical composition of PGMs is highly variable;   (3) the entire EDS spectrum is used for identification purposes. This makes it extremely difficult to define a set of standard rules or collect suitable standard spectra for mineral identification, given the effects of small grain size and of variable composition; and   (4) some partial elemental overlaps occur in EDS spectra (e.g. platinum and zirconium, lead and sulphur, calcium and tellurium). This presents a problem to the former system, in particular, as these overlaps often fall within the same 200-240 eV preset window, leading to uncertainty in elemental identification.   
 
         [0011]    The automated acquisition of results is, however, compromised if each result has to be reviewed for correction. For example, in a PGM feed sample run, configured to find 100 PGM grains, acquisition and processing times are typically as follows: 
         [0000]    
       
         
               
               
               
             
               
               
               
               
             
               
               
               
             
               
               
               
               
             
               
               
               
             
           
               
                   
                 TABLE 1 
               
               
                   
                   
               
               
                   
                   
                 Average time 
               
               
                   
                 Step 
                 in hours 
               
               
                   
                   
               
             
             
               
                   
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                 Machine time taken to run 2 polished 
                 8  
                 hours 
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                 sections at a resolution of 1 μm 
                   
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                 Time taken to process results for reporting 
                 1  
                 hour 
               
               
                   
                 Time taken to manually review 50% of 
                 3.5  
                 hours 
               
               
                   
                 PGM grains and correct identification 
                   
                   
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                 accuracies 
                   
               
               
                   
                 Proportion of total job time lost to manual 
                 28% 
               
               
                   
                 review 
                   
               
               
                   
                   
               
             
          
         
       
     
         [0012]    It is an object of the present invention to provide a method of identifying platinum group minerals which, at least partly, addresses the aforementioned drawbacks and decreases the time required for verification. 
       SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
       [0013]    The invention provides a method for identifying platinum group minerals (PGMs) which includes the steps of demarcating a plurality of spaced, successive, energy channels, each of a predetermined energy width, which span an energy spectrum of an energy dispersive x-ray spectrometer, establishing a reference table of normalised spectra of different PGM species, extracting from the reference table spectra count values, for each energy channel, only for elements found in, or associated with, PGMs, subjecting a sample mineral to a scanning electron microscope to produce an energy dispersive spectrum for the sample, and comparing the amplitude of the spectrum in a single channel against data extracted from the reference table to detect the presence of a particular element which is a known constituent of, or associated with, a PGM. 
         [0014]    Preferably the width of each energy channel is about 20 eV. As a standard EDS spectrum consists of 1024 energy channels the energy range is (1024)×(20 eV)=20,480 keV. 
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
       [0015]    The invention is further described by way of example with reference to the accompanying drawings in which: 
         [0016]    FIG. 1 depicts a typical EDS spectrum of a platinum group mineral, 
         [0017]    FIG. 2 is a view of an EDS spectrum showing individual 20 eV channel data, and 
         [0018]    FIG. 3 is a block diagram of steps carried out in the method of identifying PGMs in accordance with the invention. 
     
    
     DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENT 
       [0019]    In the method of the invention the identification of PGMs is conducted in an automated manner using a protocol which is conveniently referred to as narrow band selective elemental windowing, and which is schematically shown in FIG. 3. 
         [0020]    A reference table of normalised spectra of different PGM species is established. EDS spectra are collected (step 10 in FIG. 3) using standard SEM conditions to ensure that the spectra from different occurrences of the same mineral are always substantially the same. A total input spectrum x-ray count of 50,000 counts is selected and the total count is then normalised (step 12 in FIGS. 3) to 10,000 total counts using the formula: 
         [0000]    
       
         
           
             
               normalised 
                
               
                   
               
                
               count 
             
             = 
             
               
                 
                   channel 
                    
                   
                       
                   
                    
                   x 
                    
                   
                     - 
                   
                    
                   ray 
                    
                   
                       
                   
                    
                   count 
                 
                 
                   total 
                    
                   
                       
                   
                    
                   spectrum 
                    
                   
                       
                   
                    
                   x 
                    
                   
                     - 
                   
                    
                   ray 
                    
                   
                       
                   
                    
                   count 
                 
               
               × 
               10000. 
             
           
         
       
     
         [0021]    Normalisation ensures that elemental proportions of a particular PGM type remain relatively constant in terms of x-ray counts in an elemental channel from analysis to analysis irrespective of the number of total counts in the input spectrum. 
         [0022]    Only certain elements that are known constituents of or associated with PGMs are considered and all other elements are ignored (step 14 in FIG. 3). This approach overcomes a major problem, associated with the second system referred to hereinbefore, namely the misidentification of minerals when mixed spectra are encountered. Mixed spectra are PGM spectra that include elements from host minerals. In such spectra misidentification is attributable, at least, to the small size of the PGM grains. 
         [0023]    FIG. 1 is a typical EDS spectrum of a platinum group mineral, which extends over 1024 energy channels, each of which is 20 eV wide i.e. across an energy range of 20,480 keV. X-ray counts in each 20 eV channel are plotted as a histogram to produce the spectrum. 
         [0024]    It can be seen from FIG. 2 that an EDS x-ray peak is several 20 eV channels wide. However in the calibrated EDS system the apex of the peak always occurs at a particular energy for a particular element. For example, platinum occurs at 2,052 keV and zirconium at 2,042 keV. 
         [0025]    The narrow band elemental window counts in the acquired EDS spectrum are then compared to a set of conditions for identification of the different PGM species, using a first match approach (step 16 in FIG. 3). The setup of these conditions is based on the prior analysis of numerous PGM spectra which are used to establish a reference table of normalised spectra. 10,000 total counts has been selected as the normalised value to avoid having to use decimal places for count ranges in the mineral identification module. When using a first match approach, the order of minerals in the set of identification conditions is carefully considered, and complex minerals are placed at the top of the list, with simpler ones lower down. 
         [0026]    In the method of the invention a single 20 eV channel is located at the apex of the elemental x-ray peak which is the strongest channel for a particular element and only the counts within that channel are used to confirm the presence of the element. 
         [0027]    Selective windowing means that only EDS energy peaks of elements found in PGMs, base metal sulphides and gangue respectively, which are present in PGM ores, are considered when identification is being performed. Other elements and, particularly, elements not found in PGMs, are ignored. As the entire spectrum is not looked at identification problems which arise when mixed spectra are analysed are avoided. 
         [0028]    The channel which is chosen is at the centre of the elemental EDS peak which gives the highest count value. This helps to distinguish between common EDS overlaps of elements such as lead, which has a peak centre at 2,346 keV and sulphur, which has a peak centre at 2,308 keV. These peaks are only 38 eV apart and this can be partially resolved by a 20 eV window but not by a 140 eV window. 
         [0029]    The method of the invention has been tested and shows better than 95% accuracy in PGM identification to a spatial resolution of 1 micron. 
         [0000]    
       
         
               
               
               
             
               
               
               
               
             
               
               
               
             
               
               
               
               
             
               
               
               
             
           
               
                   
                 TABLE 2 
               
               
                   
                   
               
               
                   
                   
                 Average time 
               
               
                   
                 Step 
                 in hours 
               
               
                   
                   
               
             
             
               
                   
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                 Machine time taken to run 2 polished 
                 8  
                 hours 
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                 sections at a resolution of 1 μm 
                   
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                 Time taken to process results for reporting 
                 1  
                 hour 
               
               
                   
                 Time taken to manually review 5% of  
                 20 
                 min 
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                 PGM grains and correct identification  
                   
               
               
                   
                 accuracies 
                   
               
               
                   
                 Proportion of total job time lost to manual 
                 3.7% 
               
               
                   
                 review 
                   
               
               
                   
                   
               
             
          
         
       
     
         [0030]    Table 2 reflects the benefit of using the method of the invention and should be compared to Table 1. With the prior art approach the time taken for manual review of 50% of PGM grains is about three and a half hours for one system. In the method of the invention this is reduced to about twenty minutes where only about 5% of the PGM grains are reviewed. 
         [0031]    The results produced by the method of the invention can be used in conjunction with other types of results produced by systems that measure a degree of liberation and grain sizes. 
         [0032]    A comparison between the automated PGM identification system of the invention and documentation by means of manual identification was conducted, and a selection of the results thereof is presented in Table 3. The test was conducted as follows: 
         [0000]    1. Four polished sections (labeled PRC 1, 2, 3 and 4) of a PGM flotation concentrate sample from a PGM producer were prepared. Three copper pins were also mounted in each section to act as reference points.
 
2. 165 PGM occurrences in total were located in the four polished sections. The location of each PGM in each section, and its position relative to the copper reference points, were recorded. A digital image of each PGM occurrence was acquired.
 
3. An EDS spectrum of each PGM was acquired and saved.
 
4. Each EDS spectrum obtained was then evaluated by using the method of the invention, providing an automated mineral identification for each PGM occurrence.
 
5. The four polished sections were then submitted for independent electron microprobe analyses. The location in the polished section and the digital image of each PGM were provided for easy re-location of the PGM grains.
 
6. An electron microprobe analysis of each PGM was performed, using wavelength dispersive spectroscopy (WDS) which provided a chemical composition at each analysis point.
 
7. The microprobe analyses were then manually evaluated by an experienced PGM mineralogist, who provided mineral names for each PGM grain, based on the chemical composition obtained.
 
8. The manual mineral identifications were then compared to the automated mineral identifications obtained in the preceding step 4.
 
         [0033]    The results showed that the method of the invention successfully identified 162 of the 165 PGM grains, representing a success rate of better than 98%. 
         [0034]    The reasons for the three mis-identifications are as follows:
       In a first case a mixed spectrum of the PGM and its associated base metal sulphide (BMS) was acquired due to the small size of the PGM. The method of the invention did produce a result (PtFe, ferroplatinum) but this could not be manually confirmed by the microprobe result, due to the mixed spectrum.   In a second case the method produced a PGM identification of PdTe (mineral equivalent: telluropalladinite) whilst the microprobe results returned a result of temagamite (PdHgTe). This represents a partial match. Temagamite is not a common PGM, and had not been added to the database at the time of the test, which is the reason for the mis-identification. Temagamite was subsequently added to the database, and the method now successfully identifies this PGM type.   The third mis-identification was in respect of a grain with a chemical composition for which there is no known PGM match. Thus the method of the invention returned a result of “unknown”, whilst the microprobe result could also not be manually associated with any known PGM mineral.       
 
         [0000]    
       
         
               
             
               
               
               
               
               
               
             
           
               
                 TABLE 3 
               
             
             
               
                   
               
               
                 Comparison of Results-Method of Invention and Manual PGM Identification 
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                   
                   
                 Manual PGM ID 
                   
                   
               
               
                 Sample/PGM 
                 Identiplat PGM 
                 Identiplat PGM 
                 From Probe 
                 Chemical Formula 
                   
               
               
                 Number 
                 Identification 
                 Name 
                 Results 
                 (Calculated From Probe Results) 
                 Result 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 PRC1 PGM1 
                 PtPbCuNiFeS 
                 Kharaelakite 
                 Kharaelakite 
                 (Pt 2.5 Fe 1.7 Ni 1.6 Cu 1.6 Pb 0.8 ) Σ=8.2 S 8.8   
                 Match 
               
               
                 PRC1 PGM2 
                 PtPdS 
                 Braggite 
                 Braggite 
                 Pt 0.6 Pd 0.3 Ni 0.2 S 0.9   
                 Match 
               
               
                 PRC1 PGM3 
                 PtS 
                 Cooperite 
                 Cooperite 
                 PtFe 0.1 S 0.9   
                 Match 
               
               
                 PRC1 PGM4 
                 PdS 
                 Vysotskite 
                 Vysotskite 
                 Pd 0.6 Ni 0.2 Fe 0.2 S 
                 Match 
               
               
                 PRC1 PGM5 
                 PtRhCuS 
                 Malanite 
                 Rh-Malanite 
                 (Pt 1.1 Rh 0.5 Co 0.2 Pd 0.1 ) Σ=1.9 (Cu 0.9 Ni 0.1 Fe 0.1 ) Σ=1.1 S 4   
                 Match 
               
               
                 PRC1 PGM6 
                 PtS 
                 Cooperite 
                 Cooperite 
                 PtFe 0.1 S 0.9   
                 Match 
               
               
                 PRC1 PGM7 
                 PtRhCuS 
                 Malanite 
                 Rh-Malanite 
                 (Pt 1.0 Rh 0.7 Co 0.3 Ir 0.1 Pd 0.1 ) Σ=2.2 (Cu 0.9 Ni 0.3 Fe 0.2 ) Σ=1.4 S 3.4   
                 Match 
               
               
                 PRC2 PGM1a 
                 PtS 
                 Cooperite 
                 Cooperite 
                 Pt 0.8 Ni 0.1 S 1.1   
                 Match 
               
               
                 PRC2 PGM1b 
                 PtS 
                 Cooperite 
                 Cooperite 
                 Pt 0.8 Rh 0.1 Fe 0.2 S 0.9   
                 Match 
               
               
                 PRC2 PGM2 
                 PtAs 
                 Sperrylite 
                 Sperrylite 
                 Pt 0.9 Rh 0.1 As 1.8 S 0.2   
                 Match 
               
               
                 PRC3 PGM1 
                 PtPdFe 
                 Ferroplatinum (Pd) 
                 PtPdFe 
                 Pt 0.5 Pd 0.3 Fe 0.2   
                 Match 
               
               
                 PRC3 PGM3 
                 Ru(Os,Ir)S 
                 Laurite 
                 Laurite 
                 Ru 0.7 Os 0.2 Fe 0.1 S 2   
                 Match 
               
               
                 PRC3 PGM6 
                 PtRhCuS 
                 Malanite 
                 Rh-Malanite 
                 (Pt 1.0 Rh 0.4 Co 0.3 Ir 0.2 ) Σ=1.9 (Cu 0.9 Ni 0.1 Fe 0.1 ) Σ=1.1 S 4   
                 Match 
               
               
                 PRC3 PGM7a 
                 Ru(Os,Ir)S 
                 Laurite 
                 Laurite 
                 Ru 0.7 Os 0.1 Fe 0.2 S 2   
                 Match 
               
               
                 PRC3 PGM7b 
                 Ru(Os,Ir)S 
                 Laurite 
                 Laurite 
                 Ru 0.1 Rh 0.1 Fe 0.2 S 2   
                 Match 
               
               
                 PRC4 PGM2 
                 PtS 
                 Cooperite 
                 Cooperite 
                 Pt 0.4 Ni 0.4 Fe 0.2 S 
                 Match 
               
               
                 PRC4 PGM3 
                 PtPdS 
                 Braggite 
                 Braggite 
                 Pd 0.7 Pt 0.1 Ni 0.2 S 
                 Match 
               
               
                 PRC4 PGM4 
                 PtS 
                 Cooperite 
                 Cooperite 
                 Pt 0.9 (Ni,Fe) 0.1 S 
                 Match 
               
               
                 PRC4 PGM5 
                 Ru(Os,Ir)S 
                 Laurite 
                 Laurite 
                 Ru 0.9 S 2.1   
                 Match 
               
               
                 PRC4 PGM6 
                 PtPdFe 
                 Ferroplatinum (Pd) 
                 Pd? 
                 Pd 0.6 Pt 0.3 Fe 0.1   
                 Match 
               
               
                 PRC4 PGM7 
                 PtS 
                 Cooperite 
                 Cooperite 
                 Pt 0.6 Pd 0.1 Ni 0.1 Fe 0.1 S 1.1   
                 Match 
               
               
                 PRC4 PGM8 
                 Unidentified 
                 ? ? ?  
                 Rh 
                 Rh 0.7 (Pt,Pd,Ir,Pb) 0.3   
                 Unknown 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                   
                   
                 PGM