I am looking for the analytical experts suggestion for suitable PXRD model and brand selection for our mineral processing research lab. The major purpose is to identify the mineralogy of the different exploration sites.
Hello Krishnan,
Some major brands to consider are Bruker, Malvern Panalytical, and Rigaku. I'd also throw Anton Paar into that list, however, their offering is relatively new. All have their strengths and weaknesses depending on application. I'd suggest to contact the local sales representative from each company and ask to trial software and for their lab to run some samples for you to directly compare which instrument will best fit your needs.
Good luck!
I concur with Alec Ladonis' answer. Those are the big players. We've been running a Siemens (now Bruker) D500 for 40 years and are now looking at a replacement. So, the systems can last for a long time if well made.
I don't know how much it matters for XRD, but I know its an issue for EDS and SEM. Be sure to check out the user interface whether through a virtual demo or a visit. The interface will definitely be the most of your experience with the instrument. You may have a wonderful system, but if it takes a Ph.D. to run it, that won't be nice. Also make sure it affords the flexibility to do what you want. Some systems are designed so much for basic users that you are locked down from making refinements or going off-script.
Warren Straszheim, thanks for the comments; you are correct to check the software. With XRD, it is more of a data analysis choice for what you are most comfortable with. I am an EVA and Topas (Bruker) user, although I've tried others (GSAS-II, Fullprof, HighScore Plus, MDI-JADE etc.). Also, I've run multiple instruments from a D500 all the way up to a D8 Discover. Running the instruments is fairly straightforward from my experiences, it just takes some time to learn where all the settings are located.
EDS and SEM are inherently more difficult to operate due to the preferences of the user, however, analysis is a little more straightforward. Good luck all!
No disagreement with the other answers, those are indeed the major brands and their instrument quality is fine. You should also be aware that Proto Manufacturing - long a producer of diffractometers specialized for residual stress measurement - now has a full line of powder diffractometers. See www.protoxrd.com. Proto is also a relative newcomer in the powder diffraction space, but I think longer than Anton Paar.
Proto's strengths are responsive service and willingness to customize. Their benchtop distinctives are fully independent axes motor control and relatively high power with no external requirement beyond electrical power. They also off mid and full-size lab instruments.
A caution - really a marketing issue - some of the brands emphasize how great their detectors are by showing Fe fluorescence suppression when using a Cu anode. Although lower background is always better, do not rely on that. Reduce fluorescence by appropriate choice of anode; do not just hide it. Microabsorption and poor particle statistics may severely compromise your data when fluorescence is significant. Both phase ID and quantitative analysis may be just wrong and uncorrectable due to those two effects. (See Poster Beware if you are Using Cobalt! Effect of Fluorescence and M...
)Disclaimer: Proto is my current employer, but I claim what I say here is true to the best of my knowledge.