Quantitative ion microprobe analysis, because of its sensitivity and low minimum detection limits, is uniquely suited for the determination of precious metals in common sulfide and sulfosalt mineral particles. Since the early work of Biirg (1930, 1935), the presence of trace amounts of precious metals in common ore minerals like pyrite, arsenopyrite, sphalerite, etc., has been debated by many mineralogists in s{udies of synthetic gold-bearing sulfides (Kurauti, 1941; Clark, 1960), bulk analyses of ore sulfides and sulfarsenides (Boyle, 1965; Badalov and Badalova, 1967; Korobushkin, 1970), and in radioisotopic studies of synthetic sulfides (Mironov and Geletiy, 1979; Mironov et al., 1986). The term gold was used by Boyle (1979) to denote differences between colloidal and solid solution gold in ore minerals. Of course, one of the major problems in determining the role of invisible gold in sulfides is ascertaining the absence of gold mineral inclusions. Gold, silver, and palladium have been determined irectly in sulfides in only a few cases, where concentrations exceeded the minimum detection limits of the electron microprobe (Aubert et al., 1964) or proton microprobe (Cabri et al., 1984, 1985). Data on the invisible precious metal content of common sulfides and sulfosalts are essential for precious metal geochemistry and exploration, and for determining the mineralogical distribution of precious metals in samples from processing circuits. Silver and gold in major sulfide minerals can account for substantial fractions of the total silver (Cabri, 1988; Chryssoulis and Surges, 1988) and gold (Chryssoulis, 1989) in some ores, thus affecting the precious metal distribution between flotation products or causing refractoriness in some metallurgical processes. The ion microprobe has been used for qualitative determinations oftrace elements in geologic materials (Andersen, 1973; Lovering, 1975; Shimizu et al., 1978). However, because of difficulties inherent in the technique (Slodzian, 1975; Leta and Morrison, 1980; Zinner, 1980; Metson et al., 1983), quantitative determination was hampered for several years. McIntyre et al. (1984) first attempted to calibrate the ion microprobe on ore minerals in order to quantify the silver and indium content of sphalerite. Synthetic standards of sphalerite doped with variable amounts of silver and indium were used for calibration. Because of factors not well understood at the time (e.g., the effect of Fe substitution for Zn on the ion yields, charging effects), reprodueibility was not as good as expected; nevertheless, the results confirmed the proportionality between the secondary ion signal and concentration. Chryssoulis et al. (1986) used quantitative ion implantation to determine the silver concentration in sphalerite, pyrite, and ehaleopyrite from the Brunswick massive sulfide base metal ore (Luff, 1986). Quantitative gold ion implantation was developed to determine the gold concentration in common sulfide and sulfarsenide minerals from refractory ores (Chryssoulis et al., 1987). The gold concentration in copper anodes was determined with the ion microprobe using synthetic standards of gold in copper. In the current study, synthetic sulfides were employed to calibrate the ion microprobe for the platinumgroup elements. This study discusses comparatively the methods available to calibrate the ion microprobe for quantitative in situ analysis of precious metals in ore minerals and metallurgieal products.
Read full abstract