proficiency testing program in nickel ore ......cgcre’s accredited abnt nbr iso/iec 17043:2011...

TECHNICAL REPORT ITAK - RT 090/2020

PROFICIENCY TESTING PROGRAM IN

NICKEL ORE ANALYZES

31st ROUND – JUNE 2020

PT Report for Nickel Ore Analyzes – 31st Round

Cgcre’s Accredited ABNT NBR ISO/IEC 17043:2011 Proficiency Testing Provider. Accreditation nº. PEP 0021

Contacts: e-mail: [email protected]; Telephone number: +55 31 3851-3166

Pág. 2 / 43

1) Introduction

This Technical Report presents the obtained results, its evaluation and interpretation for the

participant laboratory.

The description of the statistical criteria and techniques used in the evaluation and general

information about this proficiency testing is in a separate module and available to each participant

in ITAK PTP Management System.

ITAK does not issue preliminary report. This current report is characterized as Final Technical

Report.

2) Preliminary Information

Tab. 1: Round information and participant laboratory identification

Round Identification: 31st Round – PT in Nickel Ore Analysis

Period of execution: April and May 2020

Laboratory Identification: PT Vale Indonesia Tbk

Unit/Site: Sorowako – Indonesia

Laboratory Code: 05

Test Item Codes for this round: Ni55 and Ni56

Issue Data of this Report: June 15 of 2020

3) Participants of the Proficiency Testing

The participating laboratories of this proficiency testing are listed below:

Participating Laboratory Name Unit/Site

Anglo American Brasil Ltda – Barro Alto Barro Alto/GO - Brazil

Anglo American Brasil Ltda – Niquelândia Niquelândia/GO - Brazil

Nilab Pouembout - New Caledonia

PT Carsurin Kendari Sulawesi Tenggara - Indonesia

PT Vale Indonesia Tbk Sorowako - Indonesia

Vale – Unidade Operacional Onça Puma Ourilândia do Norte/PA - Brazil

4) Appeal

It is afforded to the participant of Proficiency Testing Programs - ITAK the right of appeal as to

the evaluation of its performance given in this Technical Report. For that, the participating

laboratory who have doubts or does not agree with the performance evaluation should register

an appeal on the ITAK PTP Management System. According to a requirement of ISO/IEC 17043 –

Conformity assessment - General requirements for Proficiency Testing, ITAK maintains a

documented procedure governing all the systematic including deadlines for appeal, analysis and

response to participating client.

mailto:[email protected]




Pág. 3 / 43

5) Performance Commentary

Tab. 2: Performance evaluation of the participating laboratory – consolidated information.

Test

Item

Analyzed

Parameter

Assigned

Value

obtained by

Standard

Deviation

obtained by

Reference

Tables

Z Score

Performance

Related

Picture

Youden

Performance

Related

Picture

Ni55 Al2O3 Mean of data set

means; Outliers

according to

ISO 5725-2

Reproducibity

Standard

Deviation

ISO 5725-2

4 Satisfactory 5

Insufficient

results -

Ni56 Al2O3 5 Satisfactory

Ni55 CaO Mean of data set

means; Outliers

according to

ISO 5725-2

Reproducibity

Standard

Deviation

ISO 5725-2

7 Satisfactory 8

Insufficient

results -

Ni56 CaO 8 Satisfactory

Ni55 Co Mean of data set

means; Outliers

according to

ISO 5725-2

Reproducibity

Standard

Deviation

ISO 5725-2

10 Satisfactory 11

Insufficient

results -

Ni56 Co 11 Satisfactory

Ni55 Cr2O3 Mean of data set

means; Outliers

according to

ISO 5725-2

Reproducibity

Standard

Deviation

ISO 5725-2

13 Satisfactory 14

Insufficient

results -

Ni56 Cr2O3 14 Satisfactory

Ni55 Cu Mean of data set

means; Outliers

according to

ISO 5725-2

Reproducibity

Standard

Deviation

ISO 5725-2

16 Lab has not

participated 17

Insufficient

results -

Ni56 Cu 17

Ni55 Fe Mean of data set

means; Outliers

according to

ISO 5725-2

Reproducibity

Standard

Deviation

ISO 5725-2

19 Satisfactory 20

Insufficient

results -

Ni56 Fe 20 Satisfactory

Ni55 LOI Mean of data set

means; Outliers

according to

ISO 5725-2

Reproducibity

Standard

Deviation

ISO 5725-2

22 Satisfactory 23

Insufficient

results -

Ni56 LOI 23 Satisfactory

Ni55 MgO Mean of data set

means; Outliers

according to

ISO 5725-2

Reproducibity

Standard

Deviation

ISO 5725-2

25 Satisfactory 26

Insufficient

results -

Ni56 MgO 26 Satisfactory

Ni55 MnO Mean of data set

means; Outliers

according to

ISO 5725-2

Reproducibity

Standard

Deviation

ISO 5725-2

28 Satisfactory 29

Insufficient

results -

Ni56 MnO 29 Satisfactory

Ni55 Ni Mean of data set

means; Outliers

according to

ISO 5725-2

Reproducibity

Standard

Deviation

ISO 5725-2

31 Satisfactory 32

Insufficient

results -

Ni56 Ni 32 Satisfactory

Ni55 SiO2 Mean of data set

means; Outliers

according to

ISO 5725-2

Reproducibity

Standard

Deviation

ISO 5725-2

34 Satisfactory 35

Insufficient

results -

Ni56 SiO2 35 Satisfactory

Ni55 TiO2 Mean of data set

means; Outliers

according to

ISO 5725-2

Reproducibity

Standard

Deviation

ISO 5725-2

37 Lab has not

participated -

Insufficient

results -

Ni56 TiO2 38

Ni55 Zn Mean of data set

means; Outliers

according to

ISO 5725-2

Reproducibity

Standard

Deviation

ISO 5725-2

40 Lab has not

participated 38

Insufficient

results -

Ni56 Zn 41





Pág. 4 / 43

6) Mandel’s Graphs

Pic. 1: Graph with Mandel’s h statistics for sample Ni55 for all the involved parameters.

Pic. 2: Graph with Mandel’s h statistics for sample Ni56 for all involved parameters.





Pág. 5 / 43

Pic. 3: Graph with Mandel’s k statistics for sample Ni55 for all involved parameters.

Pic. 4: Graph with Mandel’s k statistics for sample Ni56 for all involved parameters.





Pág. 6 / 43

7) Results, Methods, Graphs and Interpretation.

Tab. 3 – Assigned Value, Standard Deviations and Standard Uncertainties for Al2O3.

Assigned Value

𝑿𝑫 (%)

Standard Deviation

𝒔 (%)

Standard Uncertainty

𝒖 (%) Sample

Ni55 11.03 0.51 0.26

Ni56 3.556 0.12 0.059

Tab. 4 – Results reported, average and Z Scores of laboratories participating in the PT Program for Al2O3

analysis in the sample Ni55.

Results for Al2O3 – Sample Ni55

Code Parameter 1 2 3 4 5 Unit Average Z Score Method

Lab 01 Al2O3 10.140 10.250 10.230 10.230 10.110 % 10.192 -1.660 FUS-XRF

Lab 02 Al2O3 10.420 10.420 10.310 9.570 10.130 % 10.170 -1.703 FUS-XRF

Lab 03 Al2O3 11.050 11.140 11.000 11.070 11.000 % 11.052 0.035 FUS-XRF

Lab 04 Al2O3 11.385 11.277 11.235 11.453 11.280 % 11.326 0.576 FUS-XRF

Lab 05 Al2O3 11.130 11.110 11.120 11.050 11.080 % 11.098 0.126 FUS-XRF

Lab 06 Al2O3 11.480 11.550 11.460 11.480 11.540 % 11.502 0.923 FUS-XRF

Tab. 5 – Results reported, average and Z Scores of laboratories participating in the PT Program for Al2O3


Results for Al2O3 – Sample Ni56


Lab 01 Al2O3 3.450 3.440 3.430 3.470 3.490 % 3.456 -0.862 FUS-XRF

Lab 02 Al2O3 3.580 3.590 3.560 3.580 3.610 % 3.584 0.243 FUS-XRF

Lab 03 Al2O3 3.500 3.530 3.500 3.490 3.450 % 3.494 -0.534 FUS-XRF

Lab 04 Al2O3 3.524 3.545 3.572 3.542 3.553 % 3.547 -0.075 FUS-XRF

Lab 05 Al2O3 3.490 3.480 3.480 3.490 3.480 % 3.484 -0.620 FUS-XRF

Lab 06 Al2O3 3.790 3.760 3.760 3.770 3.770 % 3.770 1.848 FUS-XRF

Legend:

FUS-XRF Fusion / X-Ray Fluorescence

X,XX Satisfactory Result

X,XX Questionable Result

X,XX Unsatisfactory Result





Pág. 7 / 43

Pic. 5: Graph with Z Scores for samples Ni55 and Ni56 for Al2O3 Analysis.

Laboratory 05 - PT Vale Indonesia Tbk presented SATISFACTORY performance for Al2O3 analysis in the

samples Ni55 and Ni56, according to the criterion for Z Score evaluating.

Performance Commentary – Confidence Ellipse:

The valid results are not sufficient to build the Confidence Ellipse for the parameter Al2O3.





Pág. 8 / 43

Pic. 6: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni55 for Al2O3 Analysis.

Pic. 7: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni56 for Al2O3 Analysis.





Pág. 9 / 43

Tab. 6 – Assigned Value, Standard Deviations and Standard Uncertainties for CaO.

Assigned Value

𝑿𝑫 (%)

Standard Deviation

𝒔 (%)


𝒖 (%) Sample

Ni55 0.0110 0.0029 0.0015

Ni56 0.1349 0.015 0.0075

Tab. 7 – Results reported, average and Z Scores of laboratories participating in the PT Program for CaO


Results for CaO – Sample Ni55


Lab 01 CaO 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 % 0.010 -0.326 FUS-XRF

Lab 02 CaO 0.010 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.010 % 0.006 -1.687 FUS-XRF

Lab 03 CaO 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.010 0.010 % 0.016 1.716 FUS-XRF

Lab 04 CaO 0.009 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.009 % 0.008 -0.870 FUS-XRF

Lab 05 CaO 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 % 0.014 1.035 FUS-XRF

Lab 06 CaO 0.020 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 % 0.012 0.355 FUS-XRF

Tab. 8 – Results reported, average and Z Scores of laboratories participating in the PT Program for CaO


Results for CaO – Sample Ni56


Lab 01 CaO 0.110 0.110 0.120 0.110 0.110 % 0.112 -1.570 FUS-XRF

Lab 02 CaO 0.140 0.130 0.130 0.130 0.130 % 0.132 -0.201 FUS-XRF

Lab 03 CaO 0.140 0.150 0.140 0.140 0.140 % 0.142 0.484 FUS-XRF

Lab 04 CaO 0.137 0.137 0.139 0.136 0.136 % 0.137 0.142 FUS-XRF

Lab 05 CaO 0.133 0.133 0.133 0.126 0.133 % 0.132 -0.228 FUS-XRF

Lab 06 CaO 0.160 0.150 0.150 0.160 0.155 % 0.155 1.374 FUS-XRF

Legend:









Pág. 10 / 43

Pic. 8: Graph with Z Scores for samples Ni55 and Ni56 for CaO Analysis.

Laboratory 05 - PT Vale Indonesia Tbk presented SATISFACTORY performance for CaO analysis in the



The valid results are not sufficient to build the Confidence Ellipse for the parameter CaO.





Pág. 11 / 43

Pic. 9: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni55 for CaO Analysis.

Pic. 10: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni56 for CaO Analysis.





Pág. 12 / 43

Tab. 9 – Assigned Value, Standard Deviations and Standard Uncertainties for Co.

Assigned Value

𝑿𝑫 (%)

Standard Deviation

𝒔 (%)


𝒖 (%) Sample

Ni55 0.1028 0.018 0.0092

Ni56 0.1095 0.018 0.0093

Tab. 10 – Results reported, average and Z Scores of laboratories participating in the PT Program for Co


Results for Co – Sample Ni55


Lab 01 Co 0.086 0.086 0.085 0.086 0.086 % 0.086 -0.944 FUS-XRF

Lab 02 Co 0.081 0.081 0.081 0.081 0.081 % 0.081 -1.211 FUS-XRF

Lab 03 Co 0.116 0.117 0.117 0.116 0.117 % 0.117 0.770 FUS-XRF

Lab 04 Co 0.112 0.111 0.111 0.112 0.111 % 0.111 0.481 FUS-XRF

Lab 05 Co 0.120 0.119 0.120 0.118 0.118 % 0.119 0.904 FUS-XRF

Lab 06 Co 0.110 0.112 0.108 0.108 0.104 % 0.108 0.314 FUS-XRF

Tab. 11 – Results reported, average and Z Scores of laboratories participating in the PT Program for Co


Results for Co – Sample Ni56


Lab 01 Co 0.085 0.085 0.086 0.085 0.085 % 0.085 -1.335 FUS-XRF

Lab 02 Co 0.088 0.087 0.087 0.089 0.089 % 0.088 -1.181 FUS-XRF

Lab 03 Co 0.123 0.125 0.125 0.122 0.121 % 0.123 0.755 FUS-XRF

Lab 04 Co 0.115 0.115 0.117 0.116 0.117 % 0.116 0.359 FUS-XRF

Lab 05 Co 0.118 0.117 0.117 0.118 0.118 % 0.118 0.447 FUS-XRF

Lab 06 Co 0.125 0.127 0.127 0.128 0.127 % 0.127 0.954 FUS-XRF

Legend:









Pág. 13 / 43

Pic. 11: Graph with Z Scores for samples Ni55 and Ni56 for Co Analysis.

Laboratory 05 - PT Vale Indonesia Tbk presented SATISFACTORY performance for Co analysis in the



The valid results are not sufficient to build the Confidence Ellipse for the parameter Co.





Pág. 14 / 43

Pic. 12: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni55 for Co Analysis.

Pic. 13: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni56 for Co Analysis.





Pág. 15 / 43

Tab. 12 – Assigned Value, Standard Deviations and Standard Uncertainties for Cr2O3.

Assigned Value

𝑿𝑫 (%)

Standard Deviation

𝒔 (%)


𝒖 (%) Sample

Ni55 5.444 0.18 0.094

Ni56 4.25 0.22 0.11

Tab. 13 – Results reported, average and Z Scores of laboratories participating in the PT Program for Cr2O3


Results for Cr2O3 – Sample Ni55


Lab 01 Cr2O3 5.180 5.190 5.080 5.080 5.170 % 5.140 -1.647 FUS-XRF

Lab 02 Cr2O3 5.520 5.550 5.520 5.600 5.600 % 5.558 0.615 FUS-XRF

Lab 03 Cr2O3 5.610 5.660 5.590 5.610 5.590 % 5.612 0.907 FUS-XRF

Lab 04 Cr2O3 5.497 5.459 5.450 5.486 5.418 % 5.462 0.096 FUS-XRF

Lab 05 Cr2O3 5.330 5.320 5.330 5.310 5.310 % 5.320 -0.673 FUS-XRF

Lab 06 Cr2O3 5.585 5.590 5.557 5.559 5.579 % 5.574 0.702 FUS-XRF

Tab. 14 – Results reported, average and Z Scores of laboratories participating in the PT Program for Cr2O3


Results for Cr2O3 – Sample Ni56


Lab 01 Cr2O3 3.870 3.870 3.930 3.850 3.880 % 3.880 -1.648 FUS-XRF

Lab 02 Cr2O3 4.470 4.450 4.410 4.510 4.550 % 4.478 1.046 FUS-XRF

Lab 03 Cr2O3 4.280 4.280 4.330 4.270 4.260 % 4.284 0.172 FUS-XRF

Lab 04 Cr2O3 4.274 4.275 4.346 4.311 4.311 % 4.303 0.259 FUS-XRF

Lab 05 Cr2O3 4.120 4.120 4.080 4.110 4.110 % 4.108 -0.621 FUS-XRF

Lab 06 Cr2O3 4.417 4.425 4.415 4.430 4.422 % 4.422 0.793 FUS-XRF

Legend:









Pág. 16 / 43

Pic. 14: Graph with Z Scores for samples Ni55 and Ni56 for Cr2O3 Analysis.

Laboratory 05 - PT Vale Indonesia Tbk presented SATISFACTORY performance for Cr2O3 analysis in the



The valid results are not sufficient to build the Confidence Ellipse for the parameter Cr2O3.





Pág. 17 / 43

Pic. 15: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni55 for Cr2O3 Analysis.

Pic. 16: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni56 for Cr2O3 Analysis.





Pág. 18 / 43

Tab. 15 – Assigned Value, Standard Deviations and Standard Uncertainties for Cu.

Assigned Value

𝑿𝑫 (%)

Standard Deviation

𝒔 (%)


𝒖 (%) Sample

Ni55 0.086 0.024 0.014

Ni56 0.62 0.19 0.11

Tab. 16 – Results reported, average and Z Scores of laboratories participating in the PT Program for Cu


Results for Cu – Sample Ni55


Lab 01 Cu 0.082 0.082 0.080 0.080 0.082 % 0.081 -0.196 FUS-XRF

Lab 02 Cu 0.108 0.111 0.108 0.110 0.110 % 0.109 0.973 FUS-XRF

Lab 03 Cu 0.100 0.102 0.098 0.100 0.101 % 0.100 0.593 FUS-XRF

Lab 04 Cu 0.092 0.092 0.090 0.092 0.092 % 0.091 0.229 FUS-XRF

Lab 05 Cu --- --- --- --- --- % --- --- --- Lab 06 Cu 0.046 0.048 0.046 0.046 0.048 % 0.047 -1.612 FUS-XRF

Tab. 17 – Results reported, average and Z Scores of laboratories participating in the PT Program for Cu


Results for Cu – Sample Ni56


Lab 01 Cu 0.558 0.559 0.557 0.552 0.554 % 0.556 -0.329 FUS-XRF

Lab 02 Cu 0.838 0.835 0.824 0.836 0.829 % 0.833 1.095 FUS-XRF

Lab 03 Cu 0.714 0.721 0.703 0.710 0.708 % 0.711 0.470 FUS-XRF

Lab 04 Cu 0.676 0.677 0.684 0.676 0.683 % 0.679 0.306 FUS-XRF

Lab 05 Cu --- --- --- --- --- % --- --- --- Lab 06 Cu 0.317 0.318 0.322 0.324 0.320 % 0.320 -1.542 FUS-XRF

Legend:









Pág. 19 / 43

Pic. 17: Graph with Z Scores for samples Ni55 and Ni56 for Cu Analysis.

Laboratory 05 - PT Vale Indonesia Tbk has not participated of the PT for the parameter Cu.


The valid results are not sufficient to build the Confidence Ellipse for the parameter Cu.





Pág. 20 / 43

Pic. 18: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni55 for Cu Analysis.

Pic. 19: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni56 for Cu Analysis.





Pág. 21 / 43

Tab. 18 – Assigned Value, Standard Deviations and Standard Uncertainties for Fe.

Assigned Value

𝑿𝑫 (%)

Standard Deviation

𝒔 (%)


𝒖 (%) Sample

Ni55 43.49 0.28 0.15

Ni56 40.51 0.57 0.29

Tab. 19 – Results reported, average and Z Scores of laboratories participating in the PT Program for Fe


Results for Fe – Sample Ni55


Lab 01 Fe 39.550 39.600 38.810 39.740 39.700 % 39.480 -14.106 FUS-XRF

Lab 02 Fe 40.070 40.210 39.930 40.230 40.300 % 40.148 -11.759 FUS-XRF

Lab 03 Fe 43.610 43.810 43.790 43.770 43.550 % 43.706 0.742 FUS-XRF

Lab 04 Fe 43.353 43.179 42.954 43.289 43.038 % 43.163 -1.167 FUS-XRF

Lab 05 Fe 43.950 43.600 43.840 43.320 43.350 % 43.612 0.412 FUS-XRF

Lab 06 Fe 43.484 43.555 43.463 43.458 43.531 % 43.498 0.012 FUS-XRF

Tab. 20 – Results reported, average and Z Scores of laboratories participating in the PT Program for Fe


Results for Fe – Sample Ni56


Lab 01 Fe 36.480 36.500 36.820 36.130 36.240 % 36.434 -7.144 FUS-XRF

Lab 02 Fe 39.770 39.690 39.430 39.890 39.750 % 39.706 -1.409 FUS-XRF

Lab 03 Fe 41.240 41.290 41.400 41.050 41.100 % 41.216 1.238 FUS-XRF

Lab 04 Fe 40.442 40.393 40.888 40.527 40.878 % 40.626 0.203 FUS-XRF

Lab 05 Fe 40.550 40.330 40.140 40.200 40.440 % 40.332 -0.311 FUS-XRF

Lab 06 Fe 40.659 40.668 40.679 40.669 40.669 % 40.669 0.279 FUS-XRF

Legend:









Pág. 22 / 43

Pic. 20: Graph with Z Scores for samples Ni55 and Ni56 for Fe Analysis.

Laboratory 05 - PT Vale Indonesia Tbk presented SATISFACTORY performance for Fe analysis in the



The valid results are not sufficient to build the Confidence Ellipse for the parameter Fe.





Pág. 23 / 43

Pic. 21: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni55 for Fe Analysis.

Pic. 22: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni56 for Fe Analysis.





Pág. 24 / 43

Tab. 21 – Assigned Value, Standard Deviations and Standard Uncertainties for LOI (Loss On Ignition).

Assigned Value

𝑿𝑫 (%)

Standard Deviation

𝒔 (%)


𝒖 (%) Sample

Ni55 7.43 0.38 0.19

Ni56 8.43 0.66 0.34

Tab. 22 – Results reported, average and Z Scores of laboratories participating in the PT Program for LOI


Results for LOI – Sample Ni55


Lab 01 LOI 7.460 7.840 7.520 7.600 7.310 % 7.546 0.311 GRAV

Lab 02 LOI 7.470 7.430 7.260 7.520 7.370 % 7.410 -0.050 GRAV

Lab 03 LOI 8.240 7.960 8.100 7.850 7.860 % 8.002 1.520 GRAV

Lab 04 LOI 7.087 7.058 6.984 7.021 7.017 % 7.033 -1.049 TGA

Lab 05 LOI 7.030 7.020 7.080 7.060 7.040 % 7.046 -1.016 GRAV

Lab 06 LOI 7.570 7.501 7.480 7.577 7.551 % 7.536 0.284 GRAV

Tab. 23 – Results reported, average and Z Scores of laboratories participating in the PT Program for LOI


Results for LOI – Sample Ni56


Lab 01 LOI 8.870 8.270 8.720 8.710 9.010 % 8.716 0.440 GRAV

Lab 02 LOI 8.280 8.640 8.560 8.580 8.320 % 8.476 0.076 GRAV

Lab 03 LOI 9.470 9.330 9.410 9.520 9.640 % 9.474 1.589 GRAV

Lab 04 LOI 7.869 7.852 7.944 7.908 7.968 % 7.908 -0.784 TGA

Lab 05 LOI 7.820 7.810 7.880 7.870 7.830 % 7.842 -0.885 GRAV

Lab 06 LOI 8.435 8.336 8.502 8.439 8.428 % 8.428 0.004 GRAV

Legend:

GRAV Gravimetric Method

TGA ThermoGravimetric Analyzer








Pág. 25 / 43

Pic. 23: Graph with Z Scores for samples Ni55 and Ni56 for LOI Analysis.

Laboratory 05 - PT Vale Indonesia Tbk presented SATISFACTORY performance for LOI analysis in the



The valid results are not sufficient to build the Confidence Ellipse for the parameter LOI.





Pág. 26 / 43

Pic. 24: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni55 for LOI Analysis.

Pic. 25: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni56 for LOI Analysis.





Pág. 27 / 43

Tab. 24 – Assigned Value, Standard Deviations and Standard Uncertainties for MgO.

Assigned Value

𝑿𝑫 (%)

Standard Deviation

𝒔 (%)


𝒖 (%) Sample

Ni55 1.058 0.11 0.058

Ni56 3.06 0.20 0.10

Tab. 25 – Results reported, average and Z Scores of laboratories participating in the PT Program for MgO


Results for MgO – Sample Ni55


Lab 01 MgO 1.010 1.030 1.030 1.050 1.030 % 1.030 -0.242 FUS-XRF

Lab 02 MgO 0.910 0.900 0.900 0.830 0.900 % 0.888 -1.488 FUS-XRF

Lab 03 MgO 1.130 1.210 1.150 1.160 1.140 % 1.158 0.880 FUS-XRF

Lab 04 MgO 1.159 1.137 1.161 1.157 1.147 % 1.152 0.830 FUS-XRF

Lab 05 MgO 1.000 1.000 1.100 1.100 1.100 % 1.060 0.021 FUS-XRF

Lab 06 MgO 1.560 1.560 1.528 1.542 1.542 % 1.546 4.288 FUS-XRF

Tab. 26 – Results reported, average and Z Scores of laboratories participating in the PT Program for MgO


Results for MgO – Sample Ni56


Lab 01 MgO 2.740 2.950 2.910 2.740 2.820 % 2.832 -1.098 FUS-XRF

Lab 02 MgO 3.210 3.220 3.190 3.290 3.240 % 3.230 0.856 FUS-XRF

Lab 03 MgO 2.860 2.900 2.900 2.900 2.850 % 2.882 -0.853 FUS-XRF

Lab 04 MgO 2.864 2.880 2.897 2.864 2.877 % 2.876 -0.880 FUS-XRF

Lab 05 MgO 2.900 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 % 2.980 -0.372 FUS-XRF

Lab 06 MgO 3.310 3.302 3.294 3.334 3.310 % 3.310 1.249 FUS-XRF

Legend:









Pág. 28 / 43

Pic. 26: Graph with Z Scores for samples Ni55 and Ni56 for MgO Analysis.

Laboratory 05 - PT Vale Indonesia Tbk presented SATISFACTORY performance for MgO analysis in the



The valid results are not sufficient to build the Confidence Ellipse for the parameter MgO.





Pág. 29 / 43

Pic. 27: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni55 for MgO Analysis.

Pic. 28: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni56 for MgO Analysis.





Pág. 30 / 43

Tab. 27 – Assigned Value, Standard Deviations and Standard Uncertainties for MnO.

Assigned Value

𝑿𝑫 (%)

Standard Deviation

𝒔 (%)


𝒖 (%) Sample

Ni55 0.891 0.039 0.020

Ni56 0.962 0.042 0.021

Tab. 28 – Results reported, average and Z Scores of laboratories participating in the PT Program for MnO


Results for MnO – Sample Ni55


Lab 01 MnO 0.850 0.850 0.830 0.870 0.830 % 0.846 -1.136 FUS-XRF

Lab 02 MnO 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 0.880 % 0.880 -0.274 FUS-XRF

Lab 03 MnO 0.920 0.920 0.920 0.920 0.920 % 0.920 0.740 FUS-XRF

Lab 04 MnO 0.883 0.879 0.874 0.881 0.876 % 0.879 -0.309 FUS-XRF

Lab 05 MnO 0.880 0.870 0.870 0.850 0.870 % 0.868 -0.578 FUS-XRF

Lab 06 MnO 0.946 0.967 0.940 0.946 0.962 % 0.952 1.556 FUS-XRF

Tab. 29 – Results reported, average and Z Scores of laboratories participating in the PT Program for MnO


Results for MnO – Sample Ni56


Lab 01 MnO 0.900 0.900 0.910 0.890 0.900 % 0.900 -1.480 FUS-XRF

Lab 02 MnO 0.980 0.980 0.970 0.990 0.980 % 0.980 0.424 FUS-XRF

Lab 03 MnO 1.000 1.000 1.010 1.000 0.990 % 1.000 0.899 FUS-XRF

Lab 04 MnO 0.959 0.958 0.968 0.961 0.969 % 0.963 0.019 FUS-XRF

Lab 05 MnO 0.930 0.930 0.920 0.930 0.920 % 0.926 -0.861 FUS-XRF

Lab 06 MnO 1.001 1.007 1.007 1.002 1.004 % 1.004 0.999 FUS-XRF

Legend:









Pág. 31 / 43

Pic. 29: Graph with Z Scores for samples Ni55 and Ni56 for MnO Analysis.

Laboratory 05 - PT Vale Indonesia Tbk presented SATISFACTORY performance for MnO analysis in the



The valid results are not sufficient to build the Confidence Ellipse for the parameter MnO.





Pág. 32 / 43

Pic. 30: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni55 for MnO Analysis.

Pic. 31: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni56 for MnO Analysis.





Pág. 33 / 43

Tab. 30 – Assigned Value, Standard Deviations and Standard Uncertainties for Ni.

Assigned Value

𝑿𝑫 (%)

Standard Deviation

𝒔 (%)


𝒖 (%) Sample

Ni55 0.5498 0.0164 0.0083

Ni56 1.1538 0.016 0.0080

Tab. 31 – Results reported, average and Z Scores of laboratories participating in the PT Program for Ni analysis in the sample Ni55.

Results for Ni – Sample Ni55


Lab 01 Ni 0.540 0.550 0.530 0.530 0.530 % 0.536 -0.844 FUS-XRF

Lab 02 Ni 0.530 0.530 0.530 0.540 0.540 % 0.534 -0.966 FUS-XRF

Lab 03 Ni 0.550 0.550 0.550 0.550 0.540 % 0.548 -0.110 FUS-XRF

Lab 04 Ni 0.552 0.548 0.544 0.550 0.547 % 0.548 -0.098 FUS-XRF

Lab 05 Ni 0.560 0.550 0.560 0.560 0.550 % 0.556 0.379 FUS-XRF

Lab 06 Ni 0.574 0.576 0.571 0.576 0.586 % 0.577 1.639 FUS-XRF

Tab. 32 – Results reported, average and Z Scores of laboratories participating in the PT Program for Ni analysis in the sample Ni56.

Results for Ni – Sample Ni56


Lab 01 Ni 1.010 1.020 1.030 1.010 1.010 % 1.016 -8.788 FUS-XRF

Lab 02 Ni 1.150 1.150 1.140 1.150 1.150 % 1.148 -0.370 FUS-XRF

Lab 03 Ni 1.150 1.150 1.160 1.140 1.130 % 1.146 -0.497 FUS-XRF

Lab 04 Ni 1.153 1.155 1.167 1.155 1.168 % 1.160 0.370 FUS-XRF

Lab 05 Ni 1.150 1.140 1.130 1.130 1.150 % 1.140 -0.880 FUS-XRF

Lab 06 Ni 1.172 1.179 1.174 1.177 1.175 % 1.175 1.378 FUS-XRF

Legend:









Pág. 34 / 43

Pic. 32: Graph with Z Scores for samples Ni55 and Ni56 for Ni Analysis.

Laboratory 05 - PT Vale Indonesia Tbk presented SATISFACTORY performance for Ni analysis in the



The valid results are not sufficient to build the Confidence Ellipse for the parameter Ni.





Pág. 35 / 43

Pic. 33: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni55 for Ni Analysis.

Pic. 34: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni56 for Ni Analysis.





Pág. 36 / 43

Tab. 33 – Assigned Value, Standard Deviations and Standard Uncertainties for SiO2.

Assigned Value

𝑿𝑫 (%)

Standard Deviation

𝒔 (%)


𝒖 (%) Sample

Ni55 9.99 0.48 0.24

Ni56 18.22 0.41 0.21

Tab. 34 – Results reported, average and Z Scores of laboratories participating in the PT Program for SiO2


Results for SiO2 – Sample Ni55


Lab 01 SiO2 9.400 9.350 9.420 9.460 9.390 % 9.404 -1.230 FUS-XRF

Lab 02 SiO2 9.510 9.840 9.340 8.930 9.210 % 9.366 -1.309 FUS-XRF

Lab 03 SiO2 10.180 10.370 10.210 10.260 10.220 % 10.248 0.531 FUS-XRF

Lab 04 SiO2 10.029 10.076 10.050 10.108 10.099 % 10.072 0.164 FUS-XRF

Lab 05 SiO2 10.700 10.600 10.600 10.500 10.600 % 10.600 1.265 FUS-XRF

Lab 06 SiO2 9.680 9.548 9.657 9.693 9.639 % 9.643 -0.730 FUS-XRF

Tab. 35 – Results reported, average and Z Scores of laboratories participating in the PT Program for SiO2


Results for SiO2 – Sample Ni56


Lab 01 SiO2 17.740 17.790 17.620 17.830 17.830 % 17.762 -1.101 FUS-XRF

Lab 02 SiO2 17.800 17.840 17.810 17.710 17.630 % 17.758 -1.110 FUS-XRF

Lab 03 SiO2 18.440 18.580 18.570 18.410 18.210 % 18.442 0.540 FUS-XRF

Lab 04 SiO2 18.248 18.254 18.449 18.202 18.341 % 18.299 0.195 FUS-XRF

Lab 05 SiO2 18.300 18.200 18.200 18.200 18.300 % 18.240 0.053 FUS-XRF

Lab 06 SiO2 18.833 18.782 18.769 18.847 18.808 % 18.808 1.423 FUS-XRF

Legend:









Pág. 37 / 43

Pic. 35: Graph with Z Scores for samples Ni55 and Ni56 for SiO2 Analysis.

Laboratory 05 - PT Vale Indonesia Tbk presented SATISFACTORY performance for SiO2 analysis in the



The valid results are not sufficient to build the Confidence Ellipse for the parameter SiO2.





Pág. 38 / 43

Pic. 36: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni55 for SiO2 Analysis.

Pic. 37: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni56 for SiO2 Analysis.





Pág. 39 / 43

Tab. 36 – Assigned Value, Standard Deviations and Standard Uncertainties for TiO2.

Assigned Value

𝑿𝑫 (%)

Standard Deviation

𝒔 (%)


𝒖 (%) Sample

Ni55 --- --- ---

Ni56 --- --- ---

Tab. 37 – Results reported, average and Z Scores of laboratories participating in the PT Program for TiO2


Results for TiO2 – Sample Ni55


Lab 01 TiO2 --- --- --- --- --- % --- --- ---

Lab 02 TiO2 --- --- --- --- --- % --- --- ---

Lab 03 TiO2 0.230 0.230 0.230 0.230 0.230 % 0.230 --- FUS-XRF

Lab 04 TiO2 --- --- --- --- --- % --- --- --- Lab 05 TiO2 --- --- --- --- --- % --- --- --- Lab 06 TiO2 0.224 0.222 0.223 0.225 0.213 % 0.221 --- FUS-XRF

Tab. 38 – Results reported, average and Z Scores of laboratories participating in the PT Program for TiO2


Results for TiO2 – Sample Ni56


Lab 01 TiO2 --- --- --- --- --- % --- --- ---

Lab 02 TiO2 --- --- --- --- --- % --- --- ---

Lab 03 TiO2 0.110 0.120 0.110 0.110 0.110 % 0.112 --- FUS-XRF

Lab 04 TiO2 --- --- --- --- --- % --- --- --- Lab 05 TiO2 --- --- --- --- --- % --- --- --- Lab 06 TiO2 0.114 0.113 0.110 0.113 0.112 % 0.112 --- FUS-XRF

Legend:









Pág. 40 / 43

Assigned Value, EP Standard Deviation and Standard Uncertainty Calculations:

The valid results are not sufficient to calculate these parameters.

Mandel’s Graphics:

The valid results are not sufficient to build the Mandel’s Graphics for the parameter TiO2.

Z Scores:

The valid results are not sufficient to calculate the Z Scores for the parameter TiO2.

Confidence Ellipse:

The valid results are not sufficient to build the Confidence Ellipse for the parameter TiO2.

Ranking Graphics:

The valid results are not sufficient to build the Ranking Graphics for the parameter TiO2.

.





Pág. 41 / 43

Tab. 39 – Assigned Value, Standard Deviations and Standard Uncertainties for Zn.

Assigned Value

𝑿𝑫 (%)

Standard Deviation

𝒔 (%)


𝒖 (%) Sample

Ni55 0.0289 0.0018 0.0013

Ni56 0.046 0.014 0.010

Tab. 40 – Results reported, average and Z Scores of laboratories participating in the PT Program for Zn


Results for Zn – Sample Ni55


Lab 01 Zn --- --- --- --- --- % --- --- ---

Lab 02 Zn --- --- --- --- --- % --- --- ---

Lab 03 Zn 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 % 0.030 0.603 FUS-XRF

Lab 04 Zn 0.027 0.027 0.026 0.028 0.027 % 0.027 -1.115 FUS-XRF

Lab 05 Zn --- --- --- --- --- % --- --- --- Lab 06 Zn 0.030 0.031 0.029 0.029 0.030 % 0.030 0.490 FUS-XRF

Tab. 41 – Results reported, average and Z Scores of laboratories participating in the PT Program for Zn


Results for Zn – Sample Ni56


Lab 01 Zn --- --- --- --- --- % --- --- ---

Lab 02 Zn --- --- --- --- --- % --- --- ---

Lab 03 Zn 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 % 0.030 -1.154 FUS-XRF

Lab 04 Zn 0.054 0.053 0.055 0.054 0.055 % 0.054 0.546 FUS-XRF

Lab 05 Zn --- --- --- --- --- % --- --- --- Lab 06 Zn 0.054 0.055 0.054 0.055 0.055 % 0.055 0.591 FUS-XRF

Legend:









Pág. 42 / 43

Pic. 38: Graph with Z Scores for samples Ni55 and Ni56 for Zn Analysis.

Laboratory 05 - PT Vale Indonesia Tbk has not participated of the PT for the parameter Zn.


The valid results are not sufficient to build the Confidence Ellipse for the parameter Zn.





Pág. 43 / 43

Pic. 39: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni55 for Zn Analysis.

Pic. 40: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni56 for Zn Analysis.


proficiency testing program in nickel ore ......cgcre’s accredited abnt nbr iso/iec 17043:2011...

Documents