XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3 1583
Feasibility of the µLIBS Method: Comparison of µLIBS
Data with “in situ” Quantitative LA-ICP-MS Assays
The map obtained for the 670.7 nm emission line of lith-
ium from µLIBS analysis is displayed on Figure 6. From this
figure, it appears that lithium can efficiently be detected on
the sample. However, no great variations of intensity are
identified on the sample. Thus, in order to attest if semi-
quantification of lithium is accessible through this method,
in situ LA-ICP-MS assays were carried out inside lepidolite
crystals.
From LA-ICP-MS assays, it appears that lithium dis-
tribution in lepidolite crystals and thus in the sample is
homogeneous. Hence, the low variability of lithium inten-
sity detected through µLIBS is consistent. Therefore, we
suggest that µLIBS imaging can be used to semi-quantify/
quantify lithium and lepidolite content in the sample.
Mineralogical Classification of the Sample
This classified map using all characterization methods
(SEM, µXRF and µLIBS) is displayed in Figure 7. This
map shows that the sample is mainly composed of micas.
Micas grains can be completely liberated or present in
mixed particles and can present various sizes (Figure 7). The
gangue minerals are mainly albite and potassium feldspar
(Figure 7). Quartz is rarely present, indicating selective flo-
tation behavior towards this mineral. µLIBS mapping offers
the opportunity to selectively identify lepidolite from all
micas by measuring the lithium distribution in the sample.
Figure 4. Falsed coloured mineralogical classified map of the
studied thin section. Blue, green, pink, orange and green
masks represent quartz, muscovite, lepidolite, K-feldspar and
albite, respectively
Table 2. Modal mineralogy calculated using the automated mineralogy method (MARCIA) and through the EMC method
based on ICP-MS assays
Mineral Quartz Lepidolite Muscovite K-feldspar Phosphate Albite
%-MARCIA 30.8 10.4 6.6 14.2 1.0 37.0
%-EMC 40.4 17.8 14.3 2.6 25.0
Table 3. Chemistry, obtained by ED-XRF, of the studied flotation concentrate
Li2O (%)SiO2 (%)Al2O3 (%)K2O (%)Sn (ppm)
2.97 59.08 24.70 7.60 1197
Figure 5. Polished section used for the study
Feasibility of the µLIBS Method: Comparison of µLIBS
Data with “in situ” Quantitative LA-ICP-MS Assays
The map obtained for the 670.7 nm emission line of lith-
ium from µLIBS analysis is displayed on Figure 6. From this
figure, it appears that lithium can efficiently be detected on
the sample. However, no great variations of intensity are
identified on the sample. Thus, in order to attest if semi-
quantification of lithium is accessible through this method,
in situ LA-ICP-MS assays were carried out inside lepidolite
crystals.
From LA-ICP-MS assays, it appears that lithium dis-
tribution in lepidolite crystals and thus in the sample is
homogeneous. Hence, the low variability of lithium inten-
sity detected through µLIBS is consistent. Therefore, we
suggest that µLIBS imaging can be used to semi-quantify/
quantify lithium and lepidolite content in the sample.
Mineralogical Classification of the Sample
This classified map using all characterization methods
(SEM, µXRF and µLIBS) is displayed in Figure 7. This
map shows that the sample is mainly composed of micas.
Micas grains can be completely liberated or present in
mixed particles and can present various sizes (Figure 7). The
gangue minerals are mainly albite and potassium feldspar
(Figure 7). Quartz is rarely present, indicating selective flo-
tation behavior towards this mineral. µLIBS mapping offers
the opportunity to selectively identify lepidolite from all
micas by measuring the lithium distribution in the sample.
Figure 4. Falsed coloured mineralogical classified map of the
studied thin section. Blue, green, pink, orange and green
masks represent quartz, muscovite, lepidolite, K-feldspar and
albite, respectively
Table 2. Modal mineralogy calculated using the automated mineralogy method (MARCIA) and through the EMC method
based on ICP-MS assays
Mineral Quartz Lepidolite Muscovite K-feldspar Phosphate Albite
%-MARCIA 30.8 10.4 6.6 14.2 1.0 37.0
%-EMC 40.4 17.8 14.3 2.6 25.0
Table 3. Chemistry, obtained by ED-XRF, of the studied flotation concentrate
Li2O (%)SiO2 (%)Al2O3 (%)K2O (%)Sn (ppm)
2.97 59.08 24.70 7.60 1197
Figure 5. Polished section used for the study