Enclosed are x-ray fluorescence (XRF) and x-ray diffraction (XRD) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) with energy-dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (EDS) results for samples labeled, “Brick, Cement, Glass and Copper” received May 24. This report will be mailed and emailed to you as requested.

A representative portion of the glass sample was ground to approximately -400 mesh in a tungsten carbide swing mill and then analyzed by our standard XRF procedure for 31 major, minor and trace elements. The relative precision/accuracy for this procedure is ~5–10% for major–minor elements and ~10–15% for trace elements (those elements listed in ppm) at levels greater than twice the detection limit in samples of average geologic composition. A replicate sample and a standard reference material (“SY3”, a CANMET standard rock) were analyzed with the sample to demonstrate analytical reproducibility for your sample and analytical accuracy for a geologic standard, respectively. The accepted (“known”) values for the quality control standard are listed with the XRF results. W and Co are omitted due to contamination by the tungsten carbide mill.

A representative portion of the brick and concrete samples were packed into a well-type plastic holder and then scanned with the diffractometer over the range, 3-61° 2(theta) using Cu-K(alpha) radiation. The results of the scans are summarized as approximate mineral weight percents on the enclosed table. Estimates of mineral concentrations were made using our XRF-determined elemental compositions, the relative peak heights/areas on the XRD scans and comparison to XRD data for mineral standards. These samples appear to contain “amorphous” (noncrystalline) material. Amorphous material appears only as a broad elevation in the background of the XRD scan so its composition cannot be determined and the estimate of its concentration must be considered an educated guess based on the difference between the total mineral concentration and 100%. The detection limit for an average mineral in these samples is ~1-5% and the analytical reproducibility is approximately equal to the square root of the amount. “Unidentified” accounts for that portion of the XRD scan which could not be resolved and a “?” indicates doubt in both mineral identification and amount.

The samples were mounted in vise-type holder for SEM imaging and elemental analysis by EDS . The surface areas of the brick, cement and glass samples were examined in LV (low vacuum) mode to prevent charging. Images of the samples are shown in Figures 1 - 12. EDS spectra for the analyzed areas are shown in Figures 3a, 6a, 9a and 12a. Approximate elemental compositions determined from the spectra are given in Tables 1 - 4. Elemental map data is given in Maps 1 and 2.