Comparison of XRF and ICP for Battery Element Analysis

XRF vs ICP: What’s the Best Choice for Battery Element Analysis?

Batteries are essential for energy transition, but this means there is immense pressure to increase production rates. To ensure consistent quality, manufacturers use elemental analysis to monitor for substances such as nickel, manganese, and cobalt (NMC) in raw material inputs or during the production process.

But how can these analyses keep up with the increased throughput needed for industry growth?

In many industries, there are two main choices when it comes to elemental analysis: Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) spectroscopy or X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) elemental analysis. Continue reading to learn about the limitations of ICP in high-throughput environments and why XRF is a powerful alternative.

XRF vs ICP

• XRF (X-ray Fluorescence):
  • XRF is a non-destructive technique that measures the elemental composition of solid, liquid, or powder samples.
  • Requires infrequent calibration and is easy to operate and maintain.
  • Particularly effective for inline quality control in battery production due to its speed, simplicity, and the ability to analyze a wide range of elements and concentrations with minimal sample preparation.

• ICP (Inductively Coupled Plasma Spectroscopy):
  • ICP is a destructive elemental analysis technique that requires samples to be dissolved in acid for analysis.
  • Requires very frequent calibration and gas flows, such as Ar.
  • Known for its high sensitivity and precision, ICP excels at trace elements. However, due to the lengthy sample dissolution time and the need for careful handling of aggressive acids by skilled operators, it is not suitable for inline quality control.

The Strengths of XRF Instrument Calibration

XRF is fundamentally a comparative technique.

Calibration standards are needed because the instrument measures samples against these standards to trace elements and accurately interpret unknown samples. Extensive calibration allows for accurate analysis across different sample types, which is crucial for battery anode manufacturing.

The benefit of XRF is that once the instrument is calibrated using standards, the calibration remains stable with minimal drift correction for months or even years!

In contrast, ICP often requires narrow calibration ranges to improve accuracy at specific concentration levels. It also recommends regular and often weekly recalibration and drift correction, making it more labor-intensive, especially in high-throughput environments.

Speed and Automation of XRF

ICP requires extensive and careful sample preparation due to the use of hazardous chemicals like sulfuric and hydrofluoric acids. Consequently, ICP instruments are generally limited to offline laboratory analysis. Therefore, despite its excellent precision, ICP is not suited for on-site analysis in production environments like XRF is.

Indeed, XRF instruments excel in on-site analysis for both battery production and recycling. For instance, its benchtop format and robust design of the Epsilon 4 can be easily installed near the process line, allowing operators to quickly and simply analyze samples with minimal preparation.

XRF: A Cost-Effective Solution

The simplicity and stability of XRF calibration can make it a cost-effective choice. It requires less frequent maintenance, and the instrument has longer weekly operation time than ICP.

However, one of the biggest cost advantages of XRF is its risk-free ease of use. Investing in an ICP instrument often also means hiring ICP experts to perform sample preparation, whereas investing in an XRF instrument does not. Thus, XRF instruments are much cheaper to operate.

Therefore, XRF emerges as a more versatile, economical, and productive technology for the rapidly changing battery manufacturing industry.

Want to see how XRF works in practice? Then watch this webinar on XRF analysis in battery cathode manufacturing process control!