X-Ray fluorescence analysis of feldspars and silicate glass: effects of melting time on fused bead consistency and volatilisation

Reproducible preparation of lithium tetraborate fused beads for XRF analysis of glass and mineral samples is of paramount importance for analytical repeatability. However, as with all glass melting processes, losses due to volatilization must be taken into account and their effects are not negligible. Here the effects of fused bead melting time have been studied for four Certified Reference Materials (CRM’s-three feldspars, one silicate glass), in terms of their effects on analytical variability and volatilization losses arising from fused bead preparation. At melting temperatures of 1065 °C, and for feldspar samples, fused bead melting times shorter than approximately 25 minutes generally gave rise to greater deviation of XRF-analyzed composition from certified composition. This variation might be due to incomplete fusion and / or fused bead inhomogeneity but further research is needed. In contrast, the shortest fused bead melting time for the silicate glass CRM gave an XRF-analyzed composition closer to the certified values than longer melting times. This may suggest a faster rate of glass-in-glass dissolution and homogenization during fused bead preparation. For all samples, longer melting times gave rise to greater volatilization losses (including sulphates and halides) during fusion. This was demonstrated by a linear relationship between SO3 mass loss and time1/2, as predicted by a simple diffusion-based model. Iodine volatilization displays a more complex relationship, suggestive of diffusion plus additional mechanisms. This conclusion may have implications for vitrification of iodine-bearing radioactive wastes. Our research demonstrates that the nature of the sample material impacts on the most appropriate fusion times. For feldspars no less than ~25 min and no more than ~60 min of fusion at 1065 °C, using Li2B4O7 as the fusion medium and in the context of feldspar samples and the automatic fusion equipment used here, strikes an acceptable (albeit non-ideal) balance between the competing factors of fused bead quality, analytical consistency and mitigating volatilization losses. Conversely, for the silicate glass sample, shorter fusion times of less than ~30 minutes under the same conditions provided more accurate analyses whilst limiting volatile losses

X-ray Fluorescence Analysis of Feldspars and Silicate Glass: Effects of Melting Time on Fused Bead Consistency and Volatilisation

Reproducible preparation of lithium tetraborate fused beads for XRF analysis of glass and mineral samples is of paramount importance for analytical repeatability. However, as with all glass melting processes, losses due to volatilisation must be taken into account and their effects are not negligible. Here the effects of fused bead melting time have been studied for four Certified Reference Materials (CRM’s: three feldspars, one silicate glass), in terms of their effects on analytical variability and volatilisation losses arising from fused bead preparation. At melting temperatures of 1065 °C, and for feldspar samples, fused bead melting times shorter than approximately 25 min generally gave rise to a greater deviation of the XRF-analysed composition from the certified composition. This variation might be due to incomplete fusion and/or fused bead inhomogeneity but further research is needed. In contrast, the shortest fused bead melting time for the silicate glass CRM gave an XRF-analysed composition closer to the certified values than longer melting times. This may suggest a faster rate of glass-in-glass dissolution and homogenization during fused bead preparation. For all samples, longer melting times gave rise to greater volatilisation losses (including sulphates and halides) during fusion. This was demonstrated by a linear relationship between SO3 mass loss and time1/2, as predicted by a simple diffusion-based model. Iodine volatilisation displays a more complex relationship, suggestive of diffusion plus additional mechanisms. This conclusion may have implications for vitrification of iodine-bearing radioactive wastes. Our research demonstrates that the nature of the sample material impacts on the most appropriate fusion times. For feldspars no less than ~25 min and no more than ~60 min of fusion at 1065 °C, using Li2B4O7 as the fusion medium and in the context of feldspar samples and the automatic fusion equipment used here, strikes an acceptable (albeit non-ideal) balance between the competing factors of fused bead quality, analytical consistency and mitigating volatilisation losses. Conversely, for the silicate glass sample, shorter fusion times of less than ~30 min under the same conditions provided more accurate analyses whilst limiting volatile losses

Crop Updates 2009 - Genetically Modified Crops, Nutrition, Soils, & Others

This session covers fifteen papers from different authors: 1. Performance of Canola Breeders Roundup Ready® canola hybrid CHYB-166 in 2008, Wallace Cowling, Canola Breeders Western Australia Pty Ltd 2. The implications of GM glyphosate resistant lupin, Art Diggle, Caroline Peek, Frank D’Emden, Fiona Evans, Bob French, Rob Grima, Sam Harburg, Abul Hashem,, John Holmes, Jeremy Lemon, Peter Newman, Janet Paterson, Steve Penny,Department of Agriculture and Food, Peter Portmann, Agriconnect 3. Nufarm Roundup Ready® Canola Systems Trials— 2008 Mark Slatter, Research and Development Officer, Victoria, Nufarm (0438 064 845) Angus MacLennan, Business Development Manager, New South Wales, Nufarm (0408 358 024) Cooperators: Monsanto, Nuseed, Pacific Seeds, Pioneer Seeds 4. Roundup Ready® canola—2008 Limited Commercial Release. Getting the system right, Andrew Wells and Mark Slatter, Nufarm Australia Limited (Reprint from 2008 GRDC Cropping Updates with Introductory note) NUTRITION 5. Fertilising in a changing price environment, Bill Bowden1, Wayne Pluske2 and Jeremy Lemon1, 1Department of Agriculture and Food, 2Back Paddock Company 6. Making better fertiliser for Western Australian cropping systems, Wen Chen1 2, Geoff Anderson1, Ross Brennan1and Richard Bell2 1Department of Agriculture and Food, 2School of Environmental Science, Murdoch University 7. The nitrogen fertiliser replacement value of biosolids from wastewater treatment, Hannah Rigby1, Deborah Pritchard1, David Collins1, Katrina Walton2, David Allen2 and Nancy Penney31School of Agriculture and Environment,Curtin University of Technology, Muresk Campus, 2Chemistry Centre of Western Australia 3Water Corporation of Western Australia 8. Fertilising to soil type (usually) pays, Michael Robertson, Bill Bowden and Roger Lawes, CSIRO, Floreat and Department of Agriculture and Food SOILS 9. Management of subsoil acidity and compaction using a combination of lime, deep ripping and controlled traffic, Stephen Davies, Chris Gazey, Breanne Best and David Gartner, Department of Agriculture and Food 10. Optimising gypsum applications through remote sensing and Variable Rate Technology, Frank D’Emden, Department of Agriculture and Food and Quenten Knight,Precision Agronomics Australia 11. Case study of a 17 year agricultural lime trial, Chris Gazey1, Joel Andrew2and Ryan Pearce3 1Department of Agriculture and Food; 2Precision SoilTech; 3ConsultAg 12. Soil organic carbon in WA agricultural soils, FC Hoyle and A Bennett, Department of Agriculture and Food OTHER 13. Is the no-till revolution complete in WA? Frank D’Emden1, Rick Llewellyn2 and Ken Flower3 1Department of Agriculture and Food, 2CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, 3University of Western Australia 14. Progression Planning (The Concept), Julian Krieg and Owen Catto, Wheatbelt Men’s Health 15. Is the Department of Agriculture and Food still a primary source of cropping information? Cindy Parsons, Department of Agriculture and Foo

Involving Fathers in maternity care: Best practice

Unpublished conference presentation given at NMC Annual Midwifery Conference, 19 November 2008This presentation described and discussed a structured review of the evidence to support best practice when involving fathers during pregnancy, birth and following birth

Spectroscopic investigation of historical uranium glasses

We present spectroscopic investigations of uranium in two historical glasses. A 1920’s-1930’s Art Deco (Bagley Carnival) green soda-lime-silica uranium glass bowl and a 1930’s-1940’s (Thomas Webb) yellow full lead crystal uranium glass vase were studied using optical absorption spectroscopy, XRF and SEM-EDX, X-band EPR and Uranium speciation may be different in the two glasses. Uranium occurs as uranyl groups (UO22+) with minority reduced uranium species, mostly as U(V), more important in the Webb glass than in the Bagley glass. The differences between the two glasses arise from the fining procedure and result from the presence of other multivalent elements and differences in base glass composition. Electron Paramagnetic Resonance (EPR) spectra show the presence of an incipient signal close to g~2, partially annealed by heating to 550°C, which we assign to a small concentration of radiation-induced defects caused by uranium decay. The presence of multivalent glass components in addition to U (As + Cu + Fe in the Bagley glass and Sb + Fe in the Webb glass) can trap the electron–hole pairs generated by the presence of uranium. This may explain the weakness of this signal in these glasses that anyway received a limited radiation dose since their fabrication. The low activity of these glasses, close to the background radiation, confirms that there is no danger to exhibiting them in museums

The use of alum sludge to improve cereal production on a nutrient-deficient soil

Alum sludge from wastewater treatment was applied at five rates on a phosphorus-deficient sand, and the effects on cereal growth and nutrition were investigated over 2 years. An inorganic fertilizer treatment, reapplied in the second year, was also included. The grain yield for inorganic fertilizer was 44% higher than the control in year 1 and 58% higher in year 2. Alum sludge was an adequate source of nitrogen for crop growth, and supplied sufficient residual nitrogen to meet crop requirements in year 2. However, grain yield in the alum sludge treatment applied at an equivalent available nitrogen rate to the inorganic fertilizer was 62% (year 1) and 69% (year 2) of the yield achieved by the inorganic fertilizer, though greater than the control. No toxic forms of aluminium were detected in the soil at any rate of alum sludge application. Plant shoot tissue analysis indicated that wheat sown in alum sludge-amended soil and the control were phosphorus deficient, whereas phosphorus was adequate in the inorganic fertilizer treatment. There was no evidence of any other nutrient deficiency. Alum sludge amendment resulted in an increase in soil phosphorus; however, further soil analysis indicated that forms of phosphorus present in alum sludge-amended soil may not be available for crop uptake; this is consistent with phosphorus deficiency observed in plant tissue in alum sludge-treated soil. It is suggested that on this nutrient-poor sand, the ability of alum sludge to provide sufficient phosphorus for plant production was limited in the 2 years after application

Crop Updates 2009 - Genetically Modified Crops, Nutrition, Soils, & Others

This session covers fifteen papers from different authors: 1. Performance of Canola Breeders Roundup Ready® canola hybrid CHYB-166 in 2008, Wallace Cowling, Canola Breeders Western Australia Pty Ltd 2. The implications of GM glyphosate resistant lupin, Art Diggle, Caroline Peek, Frank D’Emden, Fiona Evans, Bob French, Rob Grima, Sam Harburg, Abul Hashem,, John Holmes, Jeremy Lemon, Peter Newman, Janet Paterson, Steve Penny,Department of Agriculture and Food, Peter Portmann, Agriconnect 3. Nufarm Roundup Ready® Canola Systems Trials— 2008 Mark Slatter, Research and Development Officer, Victoria, Nufarm (0438 064 845) Angus MacLennan, Business Development Manager, New South Wales, Nufarm (0408 358 024) Cooperators: Monsanto, Nuseed, Pacific Seeds, Pioneer Seeds 4. Roundup Ready® canola—2008 Limited Commercial Release. Getting the system right, Andrew Wells and Mark Slatter, Nufarm Australia Limited (Reprint from 2008 GRDC Cropping Updates with Introductory note) NUTRITION 5. Fertilising in a changing price environment, Bill Bowden1, Wayne Pluske2 and Jeremy Lemon1, 1Department of Agriculture and Food, 2Back Paddock Company 6. Making better fertiliser for Western Australian cropping systems, Wen Chen1 2, Geoff Anderson1, Ross Brennan1and Richard Bell2 1Department of Agriculture and Food, 2School of Environmental Science, Murdoch University 7. The nitrogen fertiliser replacement value of biosolids from wastewater treatment, Hannah Rigby1, Deborah Pritchard1, David Collins1, Katrina Walton2, David Allen2 and Nancy Penney31School of Agriculture and Environment,Curtin University of Technology, Muresk Campus, 2Chemistry Centre of Western Australia 3Water Corporation of Western Australia 8. Fertilising to soil type (usually) pays, Michael Robertson, Bill Bowden and Roger Lawes, CSIRO, Floreat and Department of Agriculture and Food SOILS 9. Management of subsoil acidity and compaction using a combination of lime, deep ripping and controlled traffic, Stephen Davies, Chris Gazey, Breanne Best and David Gartner, Department of Agriculture and Food 10. Optimising gypsum applications through remote sensing and Variable Rate Technology, Frank D’Emden, Department of Agriculture and Food and Quenten Knight,Precision Agronomics Australia 11. Case study of a 17 year agricultural lime trial, Chris Gazey1, Joel Andrew2and Ryan Pearce3 1Department of Agriculture and Food; 2Precision SoilTech; 3ConsultAg 12. Soil organic carbon in WA agricultural soils, FC Hoyle and A Bennett, Department of Agriculture and Food OTHER 13. Is the no-till revolution complete in WA? Frank D’Emden1, Rick Llewellyn2 and Ken Flower3 1Department of Agriculture and Food, 2CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, 3University of Western Australia 14. Progression Planning (The Concept), Julian Krieg and Owen Catto, Wheatbelt Men’s Health 15. Is the Department of Agriculture and Food still a primary source of cropping information? Cindy Parsons, Department of Agriculture and Foo