technical report itak rt-138-2020 pep

TECHNICAL REPORT ITAK

RT-138-2020 PEP

PROFICIENCY TEST FOR NICKEL ORE ANALYSIS

32nd ROUND – AUGUST 2020

RT-138-2020 Cgcre’s accredited ABNT NBR ISO/IEC 17043:2011 Proficiency Testing Provider. Accreditation

nº PEP 0021. Contacts: email: [email protected]; Phone nº: +55 31 3851-3166 / +55 31 3851-6952 2 / 45

PROFICIENCY TEST PROGRAM IN NICKEL ORE ANALYZES – 32nd ROUND

Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

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 as well as

general information about this proficiency test is in a separate module and available to

each participant in the 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: 32nd Round – PT in Nickel Ore Analysis

Period of execution: June and July 2020

Laboratory Identification: PT Vale Indonesia Tbk

Unit/Site: Sorowako – Indonesia

Laboratory Code: 06

Test Item Codes for this round: Ni57 and Ni58

Issue Data of this Report: August 07th of 2020

3) Participants of the Proficiency Testing

The participating laboratories of this inter-comparison PT 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

ITAK – Instituto de Tecnologia August Kekulé Ltda João Monlevade/MG – Brazil

Nilab Pouembout – New Caledonia

PT Carsurin Kendari Sulawesi Tenggara – Indonesia

PT Geoservices Geoassay Laboratory Bekasi City – 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.




Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

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

Youden

Performance

Ni57 Al2O3 Mean of data set

means; Outliers

according to

ISO 5725-2

Reproducibity

Standard Deviation

ISO 5725-2

5 Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory

Ni58 Al2O3 6 Satisfactory

Ni57 CaO Mean of data set

means; Outliers

according to

ISO 5725-2

Reproducibity

Standard Deviation

ISO 5725-2

8 Unsatisfactory Insufficient

results Ni58 CaO 9 Satisfactory

Ni57 Co Mean of data set

means; Outliers

according to

ISO 5725-2

Reproducibity

Standard Deviation

ISO 5725-2

11 Satisfactory Satisfactory

Ni58 Co 12 Satisfactory

Ni57 Cr2O3 Mean of data set

means; Outliers

according to

ISO 5725-2

Reproducibity

Standard Deviation

ISO 5725-2


Ni58 Cr2O3 15 Unsatisfactory

Ni57 Cu Mean of data set

means; Outliers

according to

ISO 5725-2

Reproducibity

Standard Deviation

ISO 5725-2

17 Lab has not

participated

Lab has not

participated Ni58 Cu 18

Ni57 Fe Mean of data set

means; Outliers

according to

ISO 5725-2

Reproducibity

Standard Deviation

ISO 5725-2


Ni58 Fe 21 Satisfactory

Ni57 LOI Mean of data set

means; Outliers

according to

ISO 5725-2

Reproducibity

Standard Deviation

ISO 5725-2

23 Lab has not

participated

Lab has not

participated Ni58 LOI 24

Ni57 MgO Mean of data set

means; Outliers

according to

ISO 5725-2

Reproducibity

Standard Deviation

ISO 5725-2


Ni58 MgO 27 Unsatisfactory

Ni57 MnO Mean of data set

means; Outliers

according to

ISO 5725-2

Reproducibity

Standard Deviation

ISO 5725-2


Ni58 MnO 30 Satisfactory

Ni57 Ni Mean of data set

means; Outliers

according to

ISO 5725-2

Reproducibity

Standard Deviation

ISO 5725-2


Ni58 Ni 33 Satisfactory

Ni57 SiO2 Mean of data set

means; Outliers

according to

ISO 5725-2

Reproducibity

Standard Deviation

ISO 5725-2


Ni58 SiO2 36 Satisfactory

Ni57 TiO2 Mean of data set

means; Outliers

according to

ISO 5725-2

Reproducibity

Standard Deviation

ISO 5725-2

38 Lab has not

participated

Insufficient

results Ni58 TiO2 39

Ni57 Zn Mean of data set

means; Outliers

according to

ISO 5725-2

Reproducibity

Standard Deviation

ISO 5725-2

41 Lab has not

participated

Insufficient

results Ni58 Zn 42




Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

6) Summary of Assigned Values, EP Standard Deviations and Uncertainties

Tab. 3: Assigned Values, EP Standard Deviations and Standard Uncertainties – Summarized

Information.

Parameter Test Item Unit Assigned Value

(XD)

Standard

Deviation

(S)

Standard

Uncertainty

(U)

Al2O3 Ni57 % 5.218 0.037 0.016

Ni58 % 3.711 0.068 0.030

CaO Ni57 % 0.4825 0.010 0.0046

Ni58 % 0.0094 0.0077 0.0043

Co Ni57 % 0.0567 0.0055 0.0024

Ni58 % 0.0292 0.014 0.0060

Cr2O3 Ni57 % 1.672 0.028 0.012

Ni58 % 4.384 0.079 0.035

Cu Ni57 % 0.163 0.021 0.010

Ni58 % 0.0184 0.0095 0.0045

Fe Ni57 % 15.154 0.10 0.046

Ni58 % 39.57 0.84 0.37

LOI Ni57 % 9.44 0.90 0.43

Ni58 % 9.27 0.75 0.36

MgO Ni57 % 8.007 0.14 0.060

Ni58 % 0.979 0.024 0.010

MnO Ni57 % 0.4924 0.0085 0.0038

Ni58 % 0.4389 0.013 0.0058

Ni Ni57 % 1.943 0.045 0.020

Ni58 % 0.9458 0.016 0.0069

SiO2 Ni57 % 50.06 0.26 0.12

Ni58 % 22.29 0.35 0.16

TiO2 Ni57 % 0.1416 0.0023 0.0015

Ni58 % 0.1239 0.013 0.0083

Zn Ni57 % 0.0401 0.0083 0.0052

Ni58 % 0.0267 0.0048 0.0030




Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

7) Mandel’s Graphs

Pic. 1: Graph with Mandel’s h statistics for sample Ni57 for all the involved parameters.

Pic. 2: Graph with Mandel’s h statistics for sample Ni58 for all involved parameters.




Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

Pic. 3: Graph with Mandel’s k statistics for sample Ni57 for all involved parameters.

Pic. 4: Graph with Mandel’s k statistics for sample Ni58 for all involved parameters.




Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

8) Results, Methods, Graphs and Interpretation.

Tab. 4 – Assigned Value, Standard Deviations and Standard Uncertainties for Al2O3.

Assigned Value

𝑿𝑫 (%)

Standard Deviation

𝒔 (%)

Standard

Uncertainty

𝒖 (%) Sample

Ni57 5.218 0.037 0.016

Ni58 3.711 0.068 0.030

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

for Al2O3 analysis in the sample Ni57.

Results for Al2O3 – Sample Ni57 Code Parameter 1 2 3 4 5 Unit Average Z Score Method

Lab 01 Al2O3 5.170 5.180 5.170 5.180 5.170 % 5.174 -1.178 FUS-XRF Lab 02 Al2O3 5.230 5.210 5.260 5.240 5.240 % 5.236 0.497 FUS-XRF Lab 03 Al2O3 5.020 5.090 5.140 5.250 5.140 % 5.128 -2.422 FUS-XRF Lab 04 Al2O3 5.265 5.259 5.267 5.238 5.274 % 5.260 1.157 FUS-XRF Lab 05 Al2O3 5.236 5.224 5.236 5.205 5.232 % 5.227 0.243 FUS-XRF Lab 06 Al2O3 4.415 4.432 4.421 4.390 4.430 % 4.418 -21.622 FUS-XRF Lab 07 Al2O3 5.180 5.185 5.205 5.207 5.177 % 5.191 -0.724 FUS-XRF Lab 08 Al2O3 5.570 5.557 5.580 5.541 5.550 % 5.560 9.243 FUS-XRF


for Al2O3 analysis in the sample Ni58.

Results for Al2O3 – Sample Ni58 Code Parameter 1 2 3 4 5 Unit Average Z Score Method

Lab 01 Al2O3 3.650 3.660 3.660 3.650 3.650 % 3.654 -0.846 FUS-XRF Lab 02 Al2O3 3.800 3.800 3.810 3.820 3.800 % 3.806 1.394 FUS-XRF Lab 03 Al2O3 3.700 3.690 3.670 3.710 3.640 % 3.682 -0.433 FUS-XRF Lab 04 Al2O3 3.729 3.763 3.740 3.757 3.721 % 3.742 0.448 FUS-XRF Lab 05 Al2O3 3.699 3.716 3.694 3.696 3.698 % 3.701 -0.159 FUS-XRF Lab 06 Al2O3 3.603 3.626 3.647 3.597 3.630 % 3.621 -1.338 FUS-XRF Lab 07 Al2O3 3.790 3.768 3.767 3.779 3.769 % 3.775 0.931 FUS-XRF Lab 08 Al2O3 3.993 3.988 3.993 3.994 3.995 % 3.993 4.144 FUS-XRF

Legend:

FUS-XRF Fusion / X-Ray Fluorescence

X,XX Satisfactory Result

X,XX Questionable Result

X,XX Unsatisfactory Result




Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

Pic. 5: Graph with Z Scores for samples Ni57 and Ni58 for Al2O3 Analysis.

Laboratory 06 - PT Vale Indonesia Tbk presented UNSATISFACTORY performance for Al2O3

analysis in the sample Ni57 and SATISFACTORY performance for Al2O3 analysis in the sample

Ni58, according to the criterion for Z Score evaluating.

Pic. 6: Youden Plot for Al2O3 Analysis.

Performance Commentary – Confidence Ellipse:

The Confidence Ellipse obtained for Al2O3 analysis showed normal dispersion among the

participating laboratories. The laboratories 03, 06, 07 and 08 were excluded from the Confidence

Ellipse.

Laboratory 06 - PT Vale Indonesia Tbk showed an UNSATISFACTORY performance for Al2O3

analysis according to the criterion for Youden evaluation, because indicated possibility of

systematic negative errors being excluded from the Ellipse. It is recommended to check the




Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

standards and calibration curves, the Certified Reference Materials used, the number of digits

used in cases of conversion / calculation and / or balance / weighing, and others factors that may

affect systematically the Al2O3 analysis.

Pic. 7: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni57 for Al2O3 Analysis.

Pic. 8: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni58 for Al2O3 Analysis.




Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

Tab. 7 – Assigned Value, Standard Deviations and Standard Uncertainties for CaO.

Assigned Value

𝑿𝑫 (%)

Standard Deviation

𝒔 (%)

Standard

Uncertainty

𝒖 (%) Sample

Ni57 0.4825 0.010 0.0046

Ni58 0.0094 0.0077 0.0043


for CaO analysis in the sample Ni57.

Results for CaO – Sample Ni57

Code Parameter 1 2 3 4 5 Unit Average Z Score Method Lab 01 CaO 0.500 0.480 0.500 0.500 0.490 % 0.494 1.099 FUS-XRF Lab 02 CaO 0.480 0.480 0.490 0.490 0.490 % 0.486 0.333 FUS-XRF Lab 03 CaO 0.470 0.480 0.490 0.480 0.490 % 0.482 -0.051 FUS-XRF Lab 04 CaO 0.490 0.544 0.488 0.485 0.487 % 0.498 1.521 FUS-XRF Lab 05 CaO 0.479 0.478 0.475 0.473 0.480 % 0.477 -0.530 FUS-XRF Lab 06 CaO 0.405 0.413 0.408 0.406 0.406 % 0.408 -7.179 FUS-XRF Lab 07 CaO 0.482 0.489 0.491 0.486 0.483 % 0.486 0.352 FUS-XRF Lab 08 CaO 0.470 0.460 0.470 0.465 0.465 % 0.466 -1.584 FUS-XRF


for CaO analysis in the sample Ni58.

Results for CaO – Sample Ni58

Code Parameter 1 2 3 4 5 Unit Average Z Score Method Lab 01 CaO 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 % 0.020 1.376 FUS-XRF Lab 02 CaO --- --- --- --- --- % --- --- FUS-XRF Lab 03 CaO 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 % 0.010 0.084 FUS-XRF Lab 04 CaO 0.007 0.004 0.009 0.007 0.007 % 0.006 -0.381 FUS-XRF Lab 05 CaO 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.005 % 0.005 -0.614 FUS-XRF Lab 06 CaO 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.003 0.003 % 0.003 -0.846 FUS-XRF Lab 07 CaO <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 % <0.01 --- FUS-XRF Lab 08 CaO --- --- --- --- --- % --- --- FUS-XRF

Legend:








Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

Pic. 9: Graph with Z Scores for samples Ni57 and Ni58 for CaO Analysis.

Laboratory 06 - PT Vale Indonesia Tbk presented UNSATISFACTORY performance for CaO

analysis in the sample Ni57 and SATISFACTORY performance for CaO analysis in the sample



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




Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

Pic. 10: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni57 for CaO Analysis.

Pic. 11: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni58 for CaO Analysis.




Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

Tab. 10 – Assigned Value, Standard Deviations and Standard Uncertainties for Co.

Assigned Value

𝑿𝑫 (%)

Standard Deviation

𝒔 (%)

Standard

Uncertainty

𝒖 (%) Sample

Ni57 0.0567 0.0055 0.0024

Ni58 0.0292 0.014 0.0060


for Co analysis in the sample Ni57.

Results for Co – Sample Ni57

Code Parameter 1 2 3 4 5 Unit Average Z Score Method Lab 01 Co 0.059 0.058 0.059 0.059 0.058 % 0.059 0.351 FUS-XRF Lab 02 Co 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.056 0.055 % 0.055 -0.269 FUS-XRF Lab 03 Co 0.066 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 % 0.067 1.844 FUS-XRF Lab 04 Co 0.058 0.059 0.060 0.059 0.059 % 0.059 0.405 FUS-XRF Lab 05 Co 0.058 0.058 0.058 0.058 0.058 % 0.058 0.241 FUS-XRF Lab 06 Co 0.048 0.050 0.047 0.047 0.048 % 0.048 -1.580 FUS-XRF Lab 07 Co 0.055 0.056 0.055 0.055 0.054 % 0.055 -0.305 FUS-XRF Lab 08 Co 0.053 0.052 0.053 0.053 0.053 % 0.053 -0.706 FUS-XRF


for Co analysis in the sample Ni58.

Results for Co – Sample Ni58

Code Parameter 1 2 3 4 5 Unit Average Z Score Method Lab 01 Co 0.029 0.029 0.029 0.028 0.029 % 0.029 -0.030 FUS-XRF Lab 02 Co 0.030 0.030 0.029 0.030 0.029 % 0.030 0.030 FUS-XRF Lab 03 Co 0.030 0.028 0.029 0.028 0.029 % 0.029 -0.030 FUS-XRF Lab 04 Co 0.019 0.019 0.020 0.020 0.019 % 0.019 -0.748 FUS-XRF Lab 05 Co 0.014 0.015 0.014 0.014 0.014 % 0.014 -1.111 FUS-XRF Lab 06 Co 0.016 0.016 0.018 0.016 0.018 % 0.017 -0.918 FUS-XRF Lab 07 Co 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.042 % 0.041 0.888 FUS-XRF Lab 08 Co 0.054 0.055 0.055 0.055 0.055 % 0.055 1.895 FUS-XRF

Legend:








Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

Pic. 12: Graph with Z Scores for samples Ni57 and Ni58 for Co Analysis.

Laboratory 06 - PT Vale Indonesia Tbk presented SATISFACTORY performance for Co analysis in

the samples Ni57 and Ni58, according to the criterion for Z Score evaluating.

Pic. 13: Youden Plot for Co Analysis.


The Confidence Ellipse obtained for Co analysis showed high dispersion among the participating

laboratories. None laboratory was excluded from the Confidence Ellipse.

Laboratory 06 - PT Vale Indonesia Tbk showed a SATISFACTORY performance for Co analysis

according to the criterion for Youden evaluation.




Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

Pic. 14: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni57 for Co Analysis.

Pic. 15: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni58 for Co Analysis.




Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

Tab. 13 – Assigned Value, Standard Deviations and Standard Uncertainties for Cr2O3.

Assigned Value

𝑿𝑫 (%)

Standard Deviation

𝒔 (%)

Standard

Uncertainty

𝒖 (%) Sample

Ni57 1.672 0.028 0.012

Ni58 4.384 0.079 0.035


for Cr2O3 analysis in the sample Ni57.

Results for Cr2O3 – Sample Ni57

Code Parameter 1 2 3 4 5 Unit Average Z Score Method Lab 01 Cr2O3 1.660 1.660 1.660 1.690 1.680 % 1.670 -0.055 FUS-XRF Lab 02 Cr2O3 1.660 1.660 1.660 1.650 1.660 % 1.658 -0.483 FUS-XRF Lab 03 Cr2O3 1.620 1.670 1.670 1.670 1.680 % 1.662 -0.340 FUS-XRF Lab 04 Cr2O3 1.676 1.687 1.685 1.677 1.689 % 1.682 0.384 FUS-XRF Lab 05 Cr2O3 1.678 1.681 1.678 1.670 1.683 % 1.678 0.230 FUS-XRF Lab 06 Cr2O3 1.529 1.574 1.517 1.517 1.543 % 1.536 -4.834 FUS-XRF Lab 07 Cr2O3 1.619 1.642 1.627 1.638 1.639 % 1.633 -1.375 FUS-XRF Lab 08 Cr2O3 1.710 1.705 1.725 1.715 1.730 % 1.717 1.621 FUS-XRF


for Cr2O3 analysis in the sample Ni58.

Results for Cr2O3 – Sample Ni58

Code Parameter 1 2 3 4 5 Unit Average Z Score Method Lab 01 Cr2O3 4.310 4.320 4.320 4.320 4.330 % 4.320 -0.809 FUS-XRF Lab 02 Cr2O3 4.520 4.460 4.480 4.480 4.480 % 4.484 1.257 FUS-XRF Lab 03 Cr2O3 4.380 4.390 4.370 4.380 4.360 % 4.376 -0.103 FUS-XRF Lab 04 Cr2O3 4.402 4.420 4.462 4.413 4.361 % 4.411 0.343 FUS-XRF Lab 05 Cr2O3 4.272 4.342 4.315 4.338 4.293 % 4.312 -0.910 FUS-XRF Lab 06 Cr2O3 3.942 3.943 3.965 3.931 3.955 % 3.947 -5.506 FUS-XRF Lab 07 Cr2O3 4.290 4.314 4.309 4.296 4.318 % 4.305 -0.993 FUS-XRF Lab 08 Cr2O3 4.469 4.495 4.497 4.479 4.462 % 4.480 1.212 FUS-XRF

Legend:








Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

Pic. 16: Graph with Z Scores for samples Ni57 and Ni58 for Cr2O3 Analysis.

Laboratory 06 - PT Vale Indonesia Tbk presented UNSATISFACTORY performance for Cr2O3

analysis in the samples Ni57 and Ni58, according to the criterion for Z Score evaluating.

Pic. 17: Youden Plot for Cr2O3 Analysis.


The Confidence Ellipse obtained for Cr2O3 analysis showed normal dispersion among the

participating laboratories. The laboratories 02 and 06 were excluded from the Confidence

Ellipse.

Laboratory 06 - PT Vale Indonesia Tbk showed an UNSATISFACTORY performance for Cr2O3







Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

used in cases of conversion / calculation and / or balance / weighing, and other factors that may

affect systematically the Cr2O3 analysis.

Pic. 18: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni57 for Cr2O3 Analysis.

Pic. 19: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni58 for Cr2O3 Analysis.




Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

Tab. 16 – Assigned Value, Standard Deviations and Standard Uncertainties for Cu.

Assigned Value

𝑿𝑫 (%)

Standard Deviation

𝒔 (%)

Standard

Uncertainty

𝒖 (%) Sample

Ni57 0.163 0.021 0.010

Ni58 0.0184 0.0095 0.0045


for Cu analysis in the sample Ni57.

Results for Cu – Sample Ni57

Code Parameter 1 2 3 4 5 Unit Average Z Score Method Lab 01 Cu 0.175 0.174 0.176 0.176 0.173 % 0.175 0.598 FUS-XRF Lab 02 Cu 0.177 0.176 0.177 0.176 0.177 % 0.177 0.683 FUS-XRF Lab 03 Cu 0.167 0.169 0.168 0.169 0.169 % 0.168 0.284 FUS-XRF Lab 04 Cu 0.163 0.163 0.180 0.159 0.166 % 0.166 0.167 FUS-XRF Lab 05 Cu 0.167 0.166 0.166 0.166 0.167 % 0.166 0.187 FUS-XRF Lab 06 Cu --- --- --- --- --- % --- --- --- Lab 07 Cu 0.125 0.128 0.127 0.128 0.125 % 0.127 -1.748 FUS-XRF Lab 08 Cu 0.075 0.074 0.075 0.075 0.075 % 0.075 -4.267 FUS-XRF


for Cu analysis in the sample Ni58.

Results for Cu – Sample Ni58

Code Parameter 1 2 3 4 5 Unit Average Z Score Method Lab 01 Cu 0.022 0.022 0.021 0.022 0.022 % 0.022 0.352 FUS-XRF Lab 02 Cu 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 % 0.032 1.429 FUS-XRF Lab 03 Cu 0.030 0.031 0.031 0.029 0.029 % 0.030 1.219 FUS-XRF Lab 04 Cu 0.034 0.043 0.040 0.039 0.033 % 0.038 2.017 FUS-XRF Lab 05 Cu 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.019 % 0.019 0.087 FUS-XRF Lab 06 Cu --- --- --- --- --- % --- --- --- Lab 07 Cu 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.008 % 0.007 -1.174 FUS-XRF Lab 08 Cu 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.012 % 0.012 -0.671 FUS-XRF

Legend:








Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

Pic. 20: Graph with Z Scores for samples Ni57 and Ni58 for Cu Analysis.

Laboratory 06 - PT Vale Indonesia Tbk has not participated of the PT for the parameter Cu.

Pic. 21: Youden Plot for Cu Analysis.


Laboratory 06 - PT Vale Indonesia Tbk has not participated of the PT for the parameter Cu.




Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

Pic. 22: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni57 for Cu Analysis.

Pic. 23: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni58 for Cu Analysis.




Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

Tab. 19 – Assigned Value, Standard Deviations and Standard Uncertainties for Fe.

Assigned Value

𝑿𝑫 (%)

Standard Deviation

𝒔 (%)

Standard

Uncertainty

𝒖 (%) Sample

Ni57 15.154 0.10 0.046

Ni58 39.57 0.84 0.37


for Fe analysis in the sample Ni57.

Results for Fe – Sample Ni57

Code Parameter 1 2 3 4 5 Unit Average Z Score Method Lab 01 Fe 15.170 15.190 15.320 15.380 15.180 % 15.248 0.909 FUS-XRF Lab 02 Fe 15.140 15.140 15.070 15.160 15.160 % 15.134 -0.191 FUS-XRF Lab 03 Fe 14.820 15.220 15.320 15.290 15.380 % 15.206 0.504 FUS-XRF Lab 04 Fe 15.083 15.147 15.248 15.033 15.132 % 15.128 -0.246 FUS-XRF Lab 05 Fe 15.274 15.222 15.225 15.211 15.332 % 15.253 0.955 FUS-XRF Lab 06 Fe 13.110 13.430 13.040 13.030 13.170 % 13.156 -19.265 FUS-XRF Lab 07 Fe 15.138 15.150 15.154 15.146 15.118 % 15.141 -0.121 FUS-XRF Lab 08 Fe 15.056 15.021 15.045 14.916 15.052 % 15.018 -1.307 FUS-XRF


for Fe analysis in the sample Ni58.

Results for Fe – Sample Ni58

Code Parameter 1 2 3 4 5 Unit Average Z Score Method Lab 01 Fe 38.330 38.370 38.380 38.340 38.330 % 38.350 -1.449 FUS-XRF Lab 02 Fe 38.710 38.650 38.340 38.360 38.400 % 38.492 -1.280 FUS-XRF Lab 03 Fe 40.360 40.350 40.440 40.560 40.680 % 40.478 1.079 FUS-XRF Lab 04 Fe 40.080 40.251 40.192 40.154 40.102 % 40.155 0.695 FUS-XRF Lab 05 Fe 39.471 39.771 39.545 39.637 39.448 % 39.574 0.005 FUS-XRF Lab 06 Fe 38.660 38.800 39.530 39.700 39.810 % 39.300 -0.320 FUS-XRF Lab 07 Fe 40.118 40.074 40.121 40.011 40.167 % 40.098 0.628 FUS-XRF Lab 08 Fe 39.636 39.748 39.836 40.199 39.783 % 39.841 0.322 FUS-XRF

Legend:








Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

Pic. 24: Graph with Z Scores for samples Ni57 and Ni58 for Fe Analysis.

Laboratory 06 - PT Vale Indonesia Tbk presented UNSATISFACTORY performance for Fe analysis

in the sample Ni57 and SATISFACTORY performance for Fe analysis in the sample Ni58,

according to the criterion for Z Score evaluating.

Pic. 25: Youden Plot for Fe Analysis.


The Confidence Ellipse obtained for Fe analysis showed high dispersion among the participating

laboratories. The laboratory 06 was excluded from the Confidence Ellipse.

Laboratory 06 - PT Vale Indonesia Tbk showed an UNSATISFACTORY performance for Fe analysis

according to the criterion for Youden evaluation, because indicated possibility of systematic

negative errors being excluded from the Ellipse. It is recommended to check the standards and




Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

calibration curves, the Certified Reference Materials used, the number of digits used in cases of

conversion / calculation and / or balance / weighing, and others factors that may affect

systematically the Fe analysis.

Pic. 26: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni57 for Fe Analysis.

Pic. 27: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni58 for Fe Analysis.




Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

Tab. 22 – Assigned Value, Standard Deviations and Standard Uncertainties for LOI (Loss On

Ignition).

Assigned Value

𝑿𝑫 (%)

Standard Deviation

𝒔 (%)

Standard

Uncertainty

𝒖 (%) Sample

Ni57 9.44 0.90 0.43

Ni58 9.27 0.75 0.36


for LOI analysis in the sample Ni57.

Results for LOI – Sample Ni57

Code Parameter 1 2 3 4 5 Unit Average Z Score Method Lab 01 LOI 10.680 10.620 10.650 10.550 10.600 % 10.620 1.313 GRAV Lab 02 LOI 9.760 9.750 9.740 9.840 9.840 % 9.786 0.388 GRAV Lab 03 LOI 8.420 8.500 8.340 8.460 8.320 % 8.408 -1.140 TGA Lab 04 LOI 21.253 21.235 21.167 21.253 21.179 % 21.217 13.064 GRAV Lab 05 LOI 8.251 8.311 8.318 8.325 8.349 % 8.311 -1.248 TGA Lab 06 LOI --- --- --- --- --- % --- --- --- Lab 07 LOI 9.642 9.730 9.565 9.657 9.735 % 9.666 0.255 GRAV Lab 08 LOI 9.768 9.842 9.849 9.784 9.892 % 9.827 0.433 GRAV


for LOI analysis in the sample Ni58.

Results for LOI – Sample Ni58

Code Parameter 1 2 3 4 5 Unit Average Z Score Method Lab 01 LOI 9.000 9.000 9.110 9.060 9.080 % 9.050 -0.297 GRAV Lab 02 LOI 9.810 9.740 9.760 9.850 9.860 % 9.804 0.704 GRAV Lab 03 LOI 8.890 9.000 8.900 8.880 8.910 % 8.916 -0.475 TGA Lab 04 LOI 10.618 10.789 10.736 10.672 10.740 % 10.711 1.907 GRAV Lab 05 LOI 8.664 8.686 8.669 8.657 8.654 % 8.666 -0.806 TGA Lab 06 LOI --- --- --- --- --- % --- --- --- Lab 07 LOI 8.548 8.563 8.586 8.570 8.566 % 8.567 -0.938 GRAV Lab 08 LOI 9.211 9.193 9.192 9.216 9.200 % 9.202 -0.095 GRAV

Legend:

GRAV Gravimetric Method

TGA ThermoGravimetric Analyzer







Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

Pic. 28: Graph with Z Scores for samples Ni57 and Ni58 for LOI Analysis.

Laboratory 06 - PT Vale Indonesia Tbk has not participated of the PT for the parameter LOI.

Pic. 29: Youden Plot for LOI Analysis.


Laboratory 06 - PT Vale Indonesia Tbk has not participated of the PT for the parameter LOI.




Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

Pic. 30: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni57 for LOI Analysis.

Pic. 31: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni58 for LOI Analysis.




Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

Tab. 25 – Assigned Value, Standard Deviations and Standard Uncertainties for MgO.

Assigned Value

𝑿𝑫 (%)

Standard Deviation

𝒔 (%)

Standard

Uncertainty

𝒖 (%) Sample

Ni57 8.007 0.14 0.060

Ni58 0.979 0.024 0.010


for MgO analysis in the sample Ni57.

Results for MgO – Sample Ni57

Code Parameter 1 2 3 4 5 Unit Average Z Score Method Lab 01 MgO 7.890 7.850 7.880 7.870 7.880 % 7.874 -0.985 FUS-XRF Lab 02 MgO 8.030 8.040 8.050 8.030 8.060 % 8.042 0.255 FUS-XRF Lab 03 MgO 7.740 --- 7.990 7.970 8.010 % 7.928 -0.590 FUS-XRF Lab 04 MgO 8.016 8.052 8.049 8.050 8.026 % 8.039 0.229 FUS-XRF Lab 05 MgO 8.234 8.197 8.223 8.180 8.191 % 8.205 1.457 FUS-XRF Lab 06 MgO 6.590 6.730 6.530 6.540 6.610 % 6.600 -10.383 FUS-XRF Lab 07 MgO 8.010 8.030 8.053 8.077 8.060 % 8.046 0.284 FUS-XRF Lab 08 MgO 7.830 7.800 7.846 7.795 7.925 % 7.839 -1.241 FUS-XRF


for MgO analysis in the sample Ni58.

Results for MgO – Sample Ni58

Code Parameter 1 2 3 4 5 Unit Average Z Score Method Lab 01 MgO 0.980 0.980 0.960 0.960 0.960 % 0.968 -0.459 FUS-XRF Lab 02 MgO 0.990 0.990 0.970 0.970 0.990 % 0.982 0.132 FUS-XRF Lab 03 MgO 1.060 1.000 0.990 0.970 0.970 % 0.998 0.807 FUS-XRF Lab 04 MgO 0.997 0.991 1.010 1.016 1.005 % 1.004 1.039 FUS-XRF Lab 05 MgO 0.972 0.997 0.991 0.996 1.008 % 0.993 0.587 FUS-XRF Lab 06 MgO 0.840 0.870 0.860 0.870 0.880 % 0.864 -4.847 FUS-XRF Lab 07 MgO 0.953 0.950 0.943 0.946 0.947 % 0.948 -1.311 FUS-XRF Lab 08 MgO 1.226 1.229 1.215 1.210 1.222 % 1.220 10.191 FUS-XRF

Legend:








Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

Pic. 32: Graph with Z Scores for samples Ni57 and Ni58 for MgO Analysis.

Laboratory 06 - PT Vale Indonesia Tbk presented UNSATISFACTORY performance for MgO

analysis in the samples Ni57 and Ni58, according to the criterion for Z Score evaluating.

Pic. 33: Youden Plot for MgO Analysis.


The Confidence Ellipse obtained for MgO analysis showed normal dispersion among the


Ellipse.

Laboratory 06 - PT Vale Indonesia Tbk showed an UNSATISFACTORY performance for MgO







Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.


affect systematically the MgO analysis.

Pic. 34: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni57 for MgO Analysis.

Pic. 35: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni58 for MgO Analysis.




Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

Tab. 28 – Assigned Value, Standard Deviations and Standard Uncertainties for MnO.

Assigned Value

𝑿𝑫 (%)

Standard Deviation

𝒔 (%)

Standard

Uncertainty

𝒖 (%) Sample

Ni57 0.4924 0.0085 0.0038

Ni58 0.4389 0.013 0.0058

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

for MnO analysis in the sample Ni57.

Results for MnO – Sample Ni57

Code Parameter 1 2 3 4 5 Unit Average Z Score Method Lab 01 MnO 0.530 0.550 0.530 0.540 0.540 % 0.538 5.346 FUS-XRF Lab 02 MnO 0.500 0.510 0.510 0.500 0.510 % 0.506 1.592 FUS-XRF Lab 03 MnO 0.490 0.490 0.500 0.500 0.500 % 0.496 0.419 FUS-XRF Lab 04 MnO 0.490 0.490 0.494 0.488 0.489 % 0.490 -0.297 FUS-XRF Lab 05 MnO 0.488 0.486 0.486 0.485 0.488 % 0.487 -0.684 FUS-XRF Lab 06 MnO 0.412 0.420 0.408 0.410 0.412 % 0.412 -9.390 FUS-XRF Lab 07 MnO 0.492 0.490 0.495 0.491 0.493 % 0.492 -0.027 FUS-XRF Lab 08 MnO 0.483 0.481 0.484 0.484 0.486 % 0.484 -1.036 FUS-XRF


for MnO analysis in the sample Ni58.

Results for MnO – Sample Ni58

Code Parameter 1 2 3 4 5 Unit Average Z Score Method Lab 01 MnO 0.420 0.420 0.440 0.420 0.420 % 0.424 -1.132 FUS-XRF Lab 02 MnO 0.450 0.440 0.440 0.450 0.440 % 0.444 0.385 FUS-XRF Lab 03 MnO 0.460 0.460 0.460 0.450 0.460 % 0.458 1.447 FUS-XRF Lab 04 MnO 0.449 0.449 0.452 0.451 0.439 % 0.448 0.666 FUS-XRF Lab 05 MnO 0.428 0.432 0.428 0.430 0.428 % 0.429 -0.738 FUS-XRF Lab 06 MnO 0.418 0.420 0.429 0.421 0.425 % 0.423 -1.238 FUS-XRF Lab 07 MnO 0.442 0.439 0.443 0.441 0.443 % 0.442 0.203 FUS-XRF Lab 08 MnO 0.444 0.443 0.444 0.444 0.445 % 0.444 0.385 FUS-XRF

Legend:








Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

Pic. 36: Graph with Z Scores for samples Ni57 and Ni58 for MnO Analysis.

Laboratory 06 - PT Vale Indonesia Tbk presented UNSATISFACTORY performance for MnO

analysis in the sample Ni57 and SATISFACTORY performance for MnO analysis in the sample


Pic. 37: Youden Plot for MnO Analysis.


The Confidence Ellipse obtained for MnO analysis showed high dispersion among the


Ellipse.

Laboratory 06 - PT Vale Indonesia Tbk showed an UNSATISFACTORY performance for MnO






Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.



affect systematically the MnO analysis.

Pic. 38: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni57 for MnO Analysis.

Pic. 39: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni58 for MnO Analysis.




Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

Tab. 31 – Assigned Value, Standard Deviations and Standard Uncertainties for Ni.

Assigned Value

𝑿𝑫 (%)

Standard Deviation

𝒔 (%)

Standard

Uncertainty

𝒖 (%) Sample

Ni57 1.943 0.045 0.020

Ni58 0.9458 0.016 0.0069


for Ni analysis in the sample Ni57.

Results for Ni – Sample Ni57

Code Parameter 1 2 3 4 5 Unit Average Z Score Method Lab 01 Ni 2.000 2.000 1.970 1.990 1.990 % 1.990 1.034 FUS-XRF Lab 02 Ni 1.960 1.960 1.950 1.950 1.960 % 1.956 0.282 FUS-XRF Lab 03 Ni 1.890 1.930 1.940 1.940 1.970 % 1.934 -0.204 FUS-XRF Lab 04 Ni 1.985 1.984 2.016 1.965 1.984 % 1.987 0.959 FUS-XRF Lab 05 Ni 1.947 1.938 1.939 1.938 1.954 % 1.943 -0.001 FUS-XRF Lab 06 Ni 1.656 1.670 1.643 1.641 1.670 % 1.656 -6.353 FUS-XRF Lab 07 Ni 1.877 1.873 1.882 1.887 1.883 % 1.880 -1.390 FUS-XRF Lab 08 Ni 1.900 1.905 1.900 1.905 1.905 % 1.903 -0.890 FUS-XRF


for Ni analysis in the sample Ni58.

Results for Ni – Sample Ni58

Code Parameter 1 2 3 4 5 Unit Average Z Score Method Lab 01 Ni 1.010 1.020 1.000 1.010 1.000 % 1.008 4.004 FUS-XRF Lab 02 Ni --- 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.940 % 0.948 0.108 FUS-XRF Lab 03 Ni 0.960 0.960 0.960 0.970 0.960 % 0.962 1.041 FUS-XRF Lab 04 Ni 0.931 0.946 0.945 0.939 0.916 % 0.935 -0.684 FUS-XRF Lab 05 Ni 0.958 0.967 0.961 0.963 0.959 % 0.962 1.016 FUS-XRF Lab 06 Ni 0.940 0.948 0.972 0.944 0.978 % 0.956 0.681 FUS-XRF Lab 07 Ni 0.937 0.947 0.943 0.937 0.945 % 0.942 -0.259 FUS-XRF Lab 08 Ni 0.925 0.920 0.925 0.935 0.930 % 0.927 -1.213 FUS-XRF

Legend:








Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

Pic. 40: Graph with Z Scores for samples Ni57 and Ni58 for Ni Analysis.

Laboratory 06 - PT Vale Indonesia Tbk presented UNSATISFACTORY performance for Ni analysis

in the sample Ni57 and SATISFACTORY performance for Ni analysis in the sample Ni58,

according to the criterion for Z Score evaluating.

Pic. 41: Youden Plot for Ni Analysis.


The Confidence Ellipse obtained for Ni analysis showed normal dispersion among the


Ellipse.

Laboratory 06 - PT Vale Indonesia Tbk showed an UNSATISFACTORY performance for Ni analysis

according to the criterion for Youden evaluation, because indicated possibility of random errors

being excluded from the Ellipse. It is recommended to check the possible factors that may cause




Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

random errors for Analysis of Ni, such as operator, instruments, calculation and results

transcription.

Pic. 42: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni57 for Ni Analysis.

Pic. 43: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni58 for Ni Analysis.




Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

Tab. 34 – Assigned Value, Standard Deviations and Standard Uncertainties for SiO2.

Assigned Value

𝑿𝑫 (%)

Standard Deviation

𝒔 (%)

Standard

Uncertainty

𝒖 (%) Sample

Ni57 50.06 0.26 0.12

Ni58 22.29 0.35 0.16


for SiO2 analysis in the sample Ni57.

Results for SiO2 – Sample Ni57

Code Parameter 1 2 3 4 5 Unit Average Z Score Method Lab 01 SiO2 50.210 50.220 50.250 50.210 50.190 % 50.216 0.598 FUS-XRF Lab 02 SiO2 50.010 49.890 49.890 49.910 49.970 % 49.934 -0.483 FUS-XRF Lab 03 SiO2 49.670 50.060 50.420 50.290 50.540 % 50.196 0.521 FUS-XRF Lab 04 SiO2 50.000 50.407 50.338 50.159 49.966 % 50.174 0.436 FUS-XRF Lab 05 SiO2 49.853 49.812 49.800 49.664 49.967 % 49.819 -0.923 FUS-XRF Lab 06 SiO2 42.200 42.540 42.040 42.050 42.350 % 42.236 -29.977 FUS-XRF Lab 07 SiO2 49.735 49.606 49.923 49.849 49.817 % 49.786 -1.050 FUS-XRF Lab 08 SiO2 50.380 50.530 50.209 50.285 50.070 % 50.295 0.900 FUS-XRF


for SiO2 analysis in the sample Ni58.

Results for SiO2 – Sample Ni58

Code Parameter 1 2 3 4 5 Unit Average Z Score Method Lab 01 SiO2 22.450 22.430 22.470 22.430 22.450 % 22.446 0.435 FUS-XRF Lab 02 SiO2 21.980 22.050 21.980 22.040 22.020 % 22.014 -0.795 FUS-XRF Lab 03 SiO2 23.020 22.800 22.860 22.870 22.980 % 22.906 1.745 FUS-XRF Lab 04 SiO2 22.418 22.487 22.566 22.499 22.166 % 22.427 0.381 FUS-XRF Lab 05 SiO2 22.386 22.573 22.366 22.407 22.410 % 22.428 0.385 FUS-XRF Lab 06 SiO2 21.610 21.710 21.970 21.710 21.850 % 21.770 -1.490 FUS-XRF Lab 07 SiO2 22.250 22.187 22.210 22.195 22.207 % 22.210 -0.238 FUS-XRF Lab 08 SiO2 22.258 22.140 22.055 22.100 22.169 % 22.144 -0.424 FUS-XRF

Legend:








Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

Pic. 44: Graph with Z Scores for samples Ni57 and Ni58 for SiO2 Analysis.

Laboratory 06 - PT Vale Indonesia Tbk presented UNSATISFACTORY performance for SiO2

analysis in the sample Ni57 and SATISFACTORY performance for SiO2 analysis in the sample


Pic. 45: Youden Plot for SiO2 Analysis.


The Confidence Ellipse obtained for SiO2 analysis showed normal dispersion among the

participating laboratories. The laboratory 06 was excluded from the Confidence Ellipse.

Laboratory 06 - PT Vale Indonesia Tbk showed an UNSATISFACTORY performance for SiO2







Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

used in cases of conversion / calculation and / or balance / weighing, and other factors that may

affect systematically the SiO2 analysis.

Pic. 46: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni57 for SiO2 Analysis.

Pic. 47: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni58 for SiO2 Analysis.




Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

Tab. 37 – Assigned Value, Standard Deviations and Standard Uncertainties for TiO2.

Assigned Value

𝑿𝑫 (%)

Standard Deviation

𝒔 (%)

Standard

Uncertainty

𝒖 (%) Sample

Ni57 0.1416 0.0023 0.0015

Ni58 0.1239 0.013 0.0083


for TiO2 analysis in the sample Ni57.

Results for TiO2 – Sample Ni57

Code Parameter 1 2 3 4 5 Unit Average Z Score Method Lab 01 TiO2 --- --- --- --- --- % --- --- --- Lab 02 TiO2 --- --- --- --- --- % --- --- --- Lab 03 TiO2 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.140 % 0.140 -0.688 FUS-XRF Lab 04 TiO2 0.233 0.233 0.220 0.239 0.230 % 0.231 38.339 FUS-XRF Lab 05 TiO2 --- --- --- --- --- % --- --- --- Lab 06 TiO2 --- --- --- --- --- % --- --- --- Lab 07 TiO2 0.150 0.142 0.146 0.148 0.143 % 0.146 1.807 FUS-XRF Lab 08 TiO2 0.143 0.142 0.144 0.143 0.144 % 0.143 0.688 FUS-XRF


for TiO2 analysis in the sample Ni58.

Results for TiO2 – Sample Ni58

Code Parameter 1 2 3 4 5 Unit Average Z Score Method Lab 01 TiO2 --- --- --- --- --- % --- --- --- Lab 02 TiO2 --- --- --- --- --- % --- --- --- Lab 03 TiO2 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.110 0.110 % 0.116 -0.597 FUS-XRF Lab 04 TiO2 0.195 0.193 0.192 0.188 0.225 % 0.198 5.591 FUS-XRF Lab 05 TiO2 --- --- --- --- --- % --- --- --- Lab 06 TiO2 --- --- --- --- --- % --- --- --- Lab 07 TiO2 0.141 0.137 0.135 0.142 0.139 % 0.139 1.119 FUS-XRF Lab 08 TiO2 0.116 0.117 0.118 0.118 0.116 % 0.117 -0.522 FUS-XRF

Legend:








Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

Pic. 48: Graph with Z Scores for samples Ni57 and Ni58 for TiO2 Analysis.

Laboratory 06 - PT Vale Indonesia Tbk has not participated of the PT for the parameter TiO2.


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




Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

Pic. 49: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to the sample Ni57 for TiO2 Analysis.

Pic. 50: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to the sample Ni58 for TiO2 Analysis.




Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

Tab. 40 – Assigned Value, Standard Deviations and Standard Uncertainties for Zn.

Assigned Value

𝑿𝑫 (%)

Standard Deviation

𝒔 (%)

Standard

Uncertainty

𝒖 (%) Sample

Ni57 0.0401 0.0083 0.0052

Ni58 0.0267 0.0048 0.0030


for Zn analysis in the sample Ni57.

Results for Zn – Sample Ni57

Code Parameter 1 2 3 4 5 Unit Average Z Score Method Lab 01 Zn --- --- --- --- --- % --- --- --- Lab 02 Zn --- --- --- --- --- % --- --- --- Lab 03 Zn 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 % 0.030 -1.220 FUS-XRF Lab 04 Zn --- --- --- --- --- % --- --- --- Lab 05 Zn 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.041 0.042 % 0.042 0.205 FUS-XRF Lab 06 Zn --- --- --- --- --- % --- --- --- Lab 07 Zn 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 % 0.050 1.196 FUS-XRF Lab 08 Zn 0.038 0.038 0.039 0.039 0.039 % 0.039 -0.181 FUS-XRF


for Zn analysis in the sample Ni58.

Results for Zn – Sample Ni58

Code Parameter 1 2 3 4 5 Unit Average Z Score Method Lab 01 Zn --- --- --- --- --- % --- --- --- Lab 02 Zn --- --- --- --- --- % --- --- --- Lab 03 Zn 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 % 0.030 0.687 FUS-XRF Lab 04 Zn --- --- --- --- --- % --- --- --- Lab 05 Zn 0.023 0.022 0.022 0.022 0.022 % 0.022 -0.937 FUS-XRF Lab 06 Zn --- --- --- --- --- % --- --- --- Lab 07 Zn 0.032 0.032 0.031 0.032 0.031 % 0.032 1.021 FUS-XRF Lab 08 Zn 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 % 0.023 -0.771 FUS-XRF

Legend:








Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

Pic. 51: Graph with Z Scores for samples Ni57 and Ni58 for Zn Analysis.

Laboratory 06 - 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.




Excl

usi

ve u

se i

n d

igit

al m

edia

. Rep

rodu

ctio

n p

roh

ibit

ed.

Pic. 52: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni57 for Zn Analysis.

Pic. 53: Ranking Graph according to the Mandel’s k statistic to sample Ni58 for Zn Analysis.

technical report itak rt-138-2020 pep

Documents