Abstract
Laboratory studies and a literature search indicate that there is no definitive procedure for combustion analysis of low levels of carbon in Cu, Ag, and Au. Literature data disagree by one to two orders of magnitude for solubility of carbon in Cu, near the melting point. Data for Ag and Au are very limited. This study develops a procedure for combustion analysis of ppm levels of carbon in high-purity Ni, Cu, Ag, and Au samples. For comparison, each sample is measured with glow discharge mass spectrometry. The study begins with Ni, as the procedure for this material is fairly well established. For the other metals, an optimum accelerator and sample-to-accelerate weight ratio is developed. Fine particle copper is a suitable accelerator for Cu and Ag samples, and also shows potential for Au samples
Similar content being viewed by others
References
H.C. McEvoy, G. Machin, R. Friedrich, J. Hartmann, J. Hollandt: in Temperature: Its Measurement and Control in Science and Industry, vol. 7, D. Ripple, ed., AIP Conference Proceedings, Chicago, 2003, pp 909–14.
G. Bongiovanni, L. Crovini, and P. Marcarino: Metrologia, 1975, 11, 125-132.
M. Fahr and S. Rudtsch: Metrologia, 2009, 46(5), 423-438.
D. Takagi, Y. Homma, H. Hibino, S. Suzuki, and Y. Kobayashi: Nano Lett., 2006, 6, 2642–2645.
Y. Homma: Catalysts, 2014, 4, 38-48.
E. Ricci and R. Novakovic: Gold Bulletin, 2001, 34(2), 41-49.
Netzsch, Simultaneous Thermal Analysis Instrument STA 409 C, DTA 409 Instruction Manual, Netzsch-Gerätebau GmbH, Selb.
H. Okamoto and T. B. Massalski: Bull. Alloy Phase Diagr. 1984, 5, 378-379.
ASTM Standard Test Method, E1019-11. ASTM International, Philadelphia.
L. L. Oden and N. A. Gokcen: Metall. Mat. Trans. A, 1997. 28A(12), 2453-2458.
W. W. Dunn, R. B. McLellan, and W. A. Oates: Trans. Met. Soc. AIME, 1968, 242(10), 2129-2132.
E. T. Turkdogan and R. A. Hancock, S. I. Herlitz: JISI, 1956, 182, 274-274.
J. J. Lander, H. E. Kern, and A. L. Beach: J. Appl. Phys., 1952, 23(12), 1305-1309.
M. E. Nicholson: Trans. Met. Soc. AIME, 1962, 224, 533-535.
K. K. Rao and M. E. Nicholson: Trans. Met. Soc. AIME, 1963, 227, 1029-30.
M. Hasebe, H. Ohtani, and T. Nishizawa: Metall. Trans. A, 1985,16A(5), 913-921.
O. Ruff and B. Bergdahl: Z. Anorg. Allgem. Chem., 1919, 106, 76-94.
M. B. Bever and C. Floe: Trans. AIME, 1946, 166, 128-141.
J.R. Anderson: Solubility of Carbon in Molten Copper-Manganese and Copper-Nickel Alloys, MS Thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1946.
J. R. Anderson and M. B. Bever: Trans. AIME, 1947, 171, 119.
L.L. Oden, and N.A. Gokcen: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 1992, 23(4), 453–458.
L.S. Darken, R.W. Gurry, and M.B. Bever: Physical Chemistry of Metals, vol. 1. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1953.
K. Ono, E. Ichise, R. O. Suzuki, and T. Hidani: Steel Research, 1995, 66(9), 372-376.
B. Chicco and W. R. Thorpe: Metall. Mater. Trans. A, 1982 13A, 1293-1297.
V.Y. Dashevskii, V.L. Kashin, and N.P. Lyakishev: in Proceedings of the INFACON 8, Beijing, 1998, pp. 294–96.
J. Fenstad and J. K. Tuset: Z. Metallkunde, 2007, 98, 970-975.
J. Fenstad: Liquidus Relations and Thermochemistry Within the System Fe-Mn-C-O, Thesis, Dept. of Mater., NTNU, Norway, 2000.
R. B. McLellan, Scripta Metall., 1969, 3(6), 389-391.
G. Lopez and E. Mittemeijer: Scripta Mater., 2004, 51(1), 1-5.
G. Mathieu, S. Guiot, and J. Cabane: Scripta Metall., 1973, 7, 421-426.
I. Karakaya and W. T. Thompson: Bull. Alloy Phase Diagr., 1988, 9, 226.
W. Hempel: Z. Angew. Chem., 1904, 17. 321-325.
W. L. Harrington, R. K. Skogerboe, and G. H. Morrison, Anal. Chem., 1966. 38(7), 821-826.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Manuscript submitted January 4, 2016.
Appendices
Appendix A
A trend analysis was proposed by Turkdogan[12] for carbon solubility in liquid metals. A carbon solubility (N c) is fitted to the equation:
Here A and B are constants and T is the absolute temperature. Since carbon is known to be lose electrons in austenite, Turkdogan et al. assume the solubility should be related to the ionization tendency of the metals. They found the first ionization potential of each metal did not provide a good correlation, but the second ionization potential did. Figure A1 shows a sequence of first row metals—Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, and Cu with the A and B constants correlated with the second ionization potentials. The “A” term was fitted with a third-order polynomial and the “B” term is fitted with a second-order polynomial.
Turkdogan used his own solubility data for Mn-C and Fe-C, and his trend seems to confirm Anderson and Bever’s[20] solubility data for pure Cu-C (Figures 3 and 4).
However, using Turkdogan’s method, but plotting more recent data for Mn-C, Fe-C and Ni-C, leads to a lower temperature coefficient for C-solubility in Cu, but a higher absolute C-solubility (shown in Figure A2).
Appendix B: Raw Combustion Analysis Data
Sample Name | Batch Number | Sample Mass (g) | ppmw C | CTsec | Date Time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cu Shot | |||||
Cu Shot + Cu Acc | K29J30 | 0.5517 | 5.68 | 61 | 12/10/2014 10:45 |
Cu Shot + Cu Acc | K29J30 | 0.5801 | 5.43 | 61 | 12/10/2014 10:54 |
Cu Shot + Cu Acc | K29J30 | 0.4194 | 6.54 | 61 | 12/10/2014 10:56 |
Cu Acc | 0.5 | 0.75 | 61 | 12/10/2014 11:11 | |
Cu Acc | 0.5 | 0.62 | 61 | 12/10/2014 11:25 | |
Cu Acc | 0.5 | −0.9 | 61 | 12/10/2014 11:27 | |
Cu Acc | 0.5 | −0.18 | 61 | 12/10/2014 11:29 | |
Cu Shot + Cu Acc | K29J30 | 0.4609 | 6.45 | 66 | 2/3/2015 14:47 |
Cu Shot + Cu Acc | K29J30 | 0.5024 | 6.5 | 66 | 2/3/2015 15:32 |
Cu Acc | 0.5 | 2.06 | 66 | 2/6/2015 11:21 | |
Cu Acc | 0.5 | 3.57 | 66 | 2/6/2015 11:24 | |
Cu Shot + Cu Acc | K29J30 | 0.9041 | 6.86 | 66 | 2/3/2015 14:51 |
Cu Shot + Cu Acc | K29J30 | 1.0286 | 5.77 | 66 | 2/3/2015 15:24 |
Cu Electrical Wire | |||||
Cu Elect Wire+Cu Acc | 0.4821 | 6.12 | 61 | 1/7/2015 11:18 | |
Cu Elect Wire+Cu Acc | 0.4688 | 7.92 | 61 | 1/7/2015 11:25 | |
Cu Elect Wire+Cu Acc | 0.4243 | 8.12 | 61 | 1/7/2015 11:30 | |
Cu Acc | 0.5 | −0.43 | 61 | 1/7/2015 11:49 | |
Cu Acc | 0.5 | 0.02 | 61 | 1/7/2015 11:51 | |
Cu Acc | 0.5 | −0.62 | 61 | 1/7/2015 11:54 | |
Ni Small Slug | |||||
WSn | 0.5 | −0.12 | 61 | 1/22/2015 9:03 | |
WSn | 0.5 | −0.23 | 61 | 1/22/2015 9:08 | |
WSn | 0.5 | −0.5 | 61 | 1/22/2015 9:12 | |
WSn | 0.5 | −0.4 | 61 | 1/22/2015 9:03 | |
WSn | 0.5 | 0.09 | 61 | 1/22/2015 9:06 | |
WSn | 0.5 | −0.51 | 61 | 1/22/2015 9:08 | |
Ni + WSn | D23L33 | 0.4283 | 30.05 | 81 | 1/28/2015 15:11 |
Ni + WSn | D23L33 | 0.4297 | 29.48 | 81 | 1/28/2015 15:19 |
Ni + WSn | D23L33 | 0.4287 | 30.04 | 81 | 1/28/2015 15:22 |
WSn | 0.5 | 0.72 | 81 | 1/28/2015 15:01 | |
WSn | 0.5 | −0.81 | 81 | 1/28/2015 15:03 | |
WSn | 0.5 | −0.98 | 81 | 1/28/2015 15:06 | |
Ni + WSn | D23L33 | 1.0724 | 29.89 | 81 | 2/3/2015 13:17 |
Ni + WSn | D23L33 | 1.0724 | 31.59 | 81 | 2/3/2015 14:18 |
Ni + WSn | D23L33 | 0.6449 | 30.23 | 81 | 2/3/2015 12:36 |
WSn | 1 | 0.39 | 66 | 2/6/2015 11:12 | |
WSn | 1 | 0.56 | 66 | 2/6/2015 11:14 | |
Ni + WSn | 19A007 | 0.4276 | 10.47 | 81 | 2/16/2015 15:55 |
Ni + WSn | 19A007 | 0.4262 | 8.45 | 81 | 2/16/2015 16:00 |
Ni + WSn | 19A007 | 0.6406 | 10.92 | 81 | 2/16/2015 16:03 |
Ni + WSn | 19A007 | 0.6384 | 10.87 | 81 | 2/16/2015 16:05 |
Ni + WSn | 19A007 | 1.0689 | 12.54 | 81 | 2/16/2015 16:10 |
Ni + WSn | 19A007 | 1.0651 | 11.02 | 81 | 2/16/2015 16:18 |
Ni Large Slug | |||||
Ni + WSn | I06X023 | 0.4519 | 8.19 | 81 | 2/17/2015 14:08 |
Ni + WSn | I06X023 | 0.9019 | 10.13 | 81 | 2/16/2015 16:24 |
Ni + WSn | I06X023 | 0.9009 | 11.03 | 81 | 2/16/2015 16:27 |
Ni + WSn | I06X023 | 0.9034 | 10.3 | 81 | 2/17/2015 14:34 |
Ni + WSn | I06X023 | 1.3498 | 10.22 | 81 | 2/16/2015 16:33 |
Ni + WSn | I06X023 | 1.357 | 9.89 | 81 | 2/16/2015 16:38 |
Sample Name | Batch Number | Mass(g) | ppm C | CTsec | Date Time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ag Slug | |||||
Ag + Cu Acc | K29J30 | 0.2286 | 2.37 | 66 | 2/26/2015 10:46 |
Ag + Cu Acc | K29J30 | 0.2272 | 27.67 | 66 | 2/26/2015 10:49 |
Ag + Cu Acc | K29J30 | 0.2286 | 2.82 | 66 | 2/26/2015 10:51 |
Ag + Cu Acc | K29J30 | 0.4665 | 5.81 | 66 | 2/26/2015 10:56 |
Ag + Cu Acc | K29J30 | 0.4557 | 5.15 | 66 | 2/26/2015 10:58 |
Ag + Cu Acc | K29J30 | 0.4563 | 5.52 | 66 | 2/26/2015 11:10 |
Ag + Cu Acc | K29J30 | 0.6876 | 4.21 | 66 | 2/26/2015 11:03 |
Ag + Cu Acc | K29J30 | 0.6881 | 5.09 | 66 | 2/26/2015 11:05 |
Ag + Cu Acc | K29J30 | 0.6904 | 5.04 | 66 | 2/26/2015 11:07 |
Au Drops | Cu Mass (g) | Sample Mass | ppmw C | CTsec | Au/Cu Weight Ratio |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Au + Cu | 1 | 0.2114 | 31.66 | 81 | 0.2114 |
Au + Cu | 1 | 0.1967 | 29.81 | 81 | 0.1967 |
Au + Cu | 1 | 0.3117 | 16.7 | 81 | 0.3117 |
Au + Cu | 1 | 0.6029 | 7.79 | 81 | 0.6029 |
Au + 2Cu | 2 | 0.6798 | 10.67 | 81 | 0.3399 |
Au + 5Cu | 5 | 0.7179 | 27.92 | 81 | 0.14358 |
Au Wire Alfa S09A020 | Cu Mass (g) | Sample Mass (g) | ppmw C | CTsec | Au/Cu Weight Ratio |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Au + 2Cu | 2 | 0.1804 | −1.02 | 81 | 0.0902 |
Au + Cu | 1 | 0.1909 | 3.63 | 81 | 0.1909 |
Au + Cu | 1 | 0.309 | 5.36 | 81 | 0.309 |
Au + Cu | 1 | 0.444 | 7.89 | 81 | 0.444 |
Au + Cu | 1 | 0.4979 | 6.19 | 81 | 0.4979 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jacobson, N.S., Savadkouei, K., Morin, C. et al. Combustion Methods for Measuring Low Levels of Carbon in Nickel, Copper, Silver, and Gold. Metall Mater Trans B 47, 3533–3543 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11663-016-0803-x
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11663-016-0803-x