Outcomes of the International Union of Crystallography Commission on Powder Diffraction Round Robin on Quantitative Phase Analysis: samples 1ato 1h

Abstract

The International Union of Crystallography (IUCr) Commission on Powder Diffraction (CPD) has sponsored a round robin on the determination of quantitative phase abundance from diffraction data. Specifically, the aims of the round robin were (i) to document the methods and strategies commonly employed in quantitative phase analysis (QPA), especially those involving powder diffraction, (ii) to assess levels of accuracy, precision and lower limits of detection, (iii) to identify specific problem areas and develop practical solutions, (iv) to formulate recommended procedures for QPA using diffraction data, and (v) to create a standard set of samples for future reference. Some of the analytical issues which have been addressed include (a) the type of analysis (integrated intensities or full‐profile, Rietveld or full‐profile, database of observed patterns) and (b) the type of instrument used, including geometry and radiation (X‐ray, neutron or synchrotron). While the samples used in the round robin covered a wide range of analytical complexity, this paper reports the results for only the sample 1 mixtures. Sample 1 is a simple three‐phase system prepared with eight different compositions covering a wide range of abundance for each phase. The component phases were chosen to minimize sample‐related problems, such as the degree of crystallinity, preferred orientation and microabsorption. However, these were still issues that needed to be addressed by the analysts. The results returned indicate a great deal of variation in the ability of the participating laboratories to perform QPA of this simple three‐component system. These differences result from such problems as (i) use of unsuitable reference intensity ratios, (ii) errors in whole‐pattern refinement software operation and in interpretation of results, (iii) operator errors in the use of the Rietveld method, often arising from a lack of crystallographic understanding, and (iv) application of excessive microabsorption correction. Another major area for concern is the calculation of errors in phase abundance determination, with wide variations in reported values between participants. Few details of methodology used to derive these errors were supplied and many participants provided no measure of error at all.

The HighScore suite

“…The issues that may arise while trying to quantify complex mixtures are out of the scope of the present contribution. We refer the reader to the appropriate literature for further reading (see Madsen et al, 2001).…”

A Reitveld quantitative XRD phase-analysis of selected composition of the Sr(0.5+x)Sb(1−x)Fe(1+x)(PO4)3(0 < x < 0.50) system

“…[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]. In fact, even if the Rietveld method offers superior performance over other methods such the RIR (Reference Intensity Ratio) method [14], recent report on the IUCR Round Robin study on quantitative-phase analysis indicates that accurate results may not always be obtained [19,20]. As a conclusion of this latest studies it is obvious that it is of the utmost importance that the preparation of sample and specimen be appropriate for the task at hand.…”

Suspension high velocity oxy-fuel spraying of TiO 2 : A quantitative approach to phase composition

“…In this paper, we have used three of the most common approaches [39] for evaluation of quantitative phase composition from PXRD data.…”

“…Eventually, since the two most widely used methods of quantitative phase analysis [39] are quantitative Rietveld refinement (QRR) and rather semi-quantitative Reference Intensity Ratios (RIR) method, we also computed phase quantities following a normalized RIR method [40] using star quality PDF entries for both phases, namely entries with reference code 21-1272 for anatase (RIR = 3.30) and 21-1276 for rutile (RIR = 3.40).…”