The Challenge Of Analytical Method Selection

In practice, geochemical analyses can be grouped in two broad categories according to their aim. Those that seek to determine the exact chemical composition of geological materials fall under the heading of assays, whereas applied geochemistry concerns itself with the detection of anomaly contrasts. Recent trends have blurred the distinction between both approaches for many users, as methods that were traditionally used for assays are being adopted in applied geochemistry and assays make increasing use of instrumental techniques. Nevertheless. it is important to keep a clear distinction between the two types of analyses because it has immediate practical consequences, cost is the most obvious, as well as fundamental implications. In the broadest terms, the goal of geochemistry is to strike an optimal balance between throughput and accuracy, at the lowest reasonable cost, while assays strive for accuracy. Traditionally, complete silicate analysis has been the concern of assayers whereas exploration geochemists have been more interested in base metal analyses where acid extractions of the elements, without dissolution of the silicate matrix, has been the norm. This kind of distinction is less realistic now, especially with the growth in lithogeochemical studies, and some overlap in methodology is unavoidable. However, where such overlaps occur the distinction remains in the emphasis of the work. A commonly used example is that although HF acid preparations are used by both, the emphasis in applied geochemistry is on sample throughput and batch analysis, whereas assayers are more concerned with the range of elements to be determined (Thompson and Walsh, 1983).