ICP, PQ Index and Ferrography: Which Wear-Debris Test Is Required?

Choose the right wear-debris evidence by understanding what ICP, PQ Index and analytical ferrography detect, miss and contribute to an oil-analysis diagnosis.

All technical articlesDiscuss a testing requirement
Technical illustration for ICP, PQ Index and Ferrography: Which Wear-Debris Test Is Required?Chem-Tech Laboratories

Article overview

What this technical guide covers

Use the section guide to move directly to the operating problem, evidence or testing decision most relevant to your requirement.

  1. 02Understand the measurement gap before interpreting a low result
  2. 03Use each technique for the question it can answer
  3. 04Indicative wear-debris packages
  4. 05Keep wear particles suspended and the point repeatable

Technical perspective

No single wear-debris test sees every particle. ICP elemental analysis is strong for dissolved and fine material introduced into the instrument; PQ Index responds to ferrous material across a broader size range but does not identify individual particle morphology; analytical ferrography separates and examines particles to describe wear type. Asking which test is 'best' misses the diagnostic value of combining them.

Chem-Tech selects these tools according to the equipment, lubricant, alarm pattern and failure question. The objective may be routine trending, confirmation of abnormal ferrous debris, identification of cutting or fatigue wear, or investigation of a filter and component event. Sample history and a stable sampling point remain essential.

02

Article section

Understand the measurement gap before interpreting a low result

Large wear particles can settle quickly and may be under-represented in a sample. Some may contribute strongly to PQ Index while producing a modest ICP result. Conversely, elevated non-ferrous or additive elements can appear in ICP without affecting PQ. A low value in one technique therefore does not cancel abnormal evidence from another.

Start with the machine and likely failure modes. A gearbox, diesel engine, hydraulic pump and turbine bearing create different particle populations. Filtration, magnetic plugs and recent oil changes can also remove or redistribute evidence before the bottle is collected.

  • ICP iron increases while PQ remains stable, suggesting predominantly fine ferrous material.
  • PQ rises sharply with only a modest ICP change, indicating possible larger ferrous particles.
  • Vibration or magnetic-plug debris increases despite routine elemental trends remaining modest.
  • A component failure requires particle morphology and likely wear-mode evidence.
03

Article section

Use each technique for the question it can answer

ASTM D5185 covers multielement determination in used lubricating oils and base oils by ICP atomic emission spectrometry. ASTM D8184 addresses ferrous debris quantification using a particle quantifier instrument. ASTM D7690 covers microscopic characterisation of particles from in-service lubricants by analytical ferrography.

These methods produce different evidence and units. Do not combine their numbers into an invented conversion. Instead, interpret direction, agreement and disagreement with previous results, equipment metallurgy, particle count, filters, magnetic plugs and operating symptoms.

01

ICP

Trends multiple wear, contaminant and additive elements, with strongest response to dissolved and fine material.

02

PQ Index

Provides a bulk ferrous-debris response useful for detecting larger iron-bearing particles that ICP may under-represent.

03

Ferrography

Examines particle size, shape, colour and deposition behaviour to support wear-mode interpretation.

04

Context

Particle count, filters, magnetic plugs and machine condition determine what the laboratory evidence means.

04

Article section

Indicative wear-debris packages

Select the least complex package that can answer the maintenance question, then escalate when trend disagreement or equipment symptoms justify it.

PackageUse whenIndicative tests and methodsDecision supported
Routine wear trendStable programme with historical baselineElemental analysis by ICP — ASTM D5185; kinematic viscosity — ASTM D445/D7042; water — ASTM D6304Detect directional wear and contamination change
Ferrous debris confirmationIron, vibration or magnetic-plug concernICP — ASTM D5185; PQ Index — ASTM D8184; particle count — ISO 4406 where applicableDetermine whether larger ferrous debris is emerging
Wear-mode diagnosisCritical alarm or component failureAnalytical ferrography — ASTM D7690; ICP; PQ Index; retained filter or debris examination by agreementCharacterise particles and support inspection priorities

Alarm limits must be asset- and trend-specific. Results from different methods, instruments or sample preparation should not be treated as directly interchangeable without review.

Request a scope and package discussion
05

Article section

Keep wear particles suspended and the point repeatable

Wear debris is not uniformly distributed. A bottle from a stagnant drain can over- or under-state active wear depending on settling and flushing.

  • Sample from a live, turbulent zone before filtration where the programme requires wear evidence.
  • Collect at comparable operating temperature and load.
  • Flush sampling valves and avoid scraping settled debris into routine trend samples.
  • Agitate the sealed bottle as instructed before laboratory subsampling; do not transfer between containers.
  • Send filter, magnetic-plug or component debris separately with exact source identification.
06

Article section

Escalate on patterns, not isolated numbers

A consistent increase across ICP iron, PQ and vibration warrants prompt inspection planning. A high PQ-to-ICP pattern justifies looking for larger ferrous particles and reviewing magnetic or filter evidence. Morphology suggesting cutting, fatigue or severe sliding should be reconciled with the specific contact surfaces in the machine.

Repeat sampling may be appropriate when the result conflicts with all operating evidence, but do not repeatedly sample away an abnormal condition. Preserve the first sample and investigate changes in load, filtration, maintenance and oil additions.

  • Set an asset baseline using the same methods and sampling point.
  • Escalate when methods disagree in a pattern consistent with particle-size effects.
  • Match particle evidence with the metallurgy and inspection of candidate components.
  • Verify post-repair recovery through both machine condition and oil-debris trends.
Explore Oil Condition Monitoring

Apply this guidance

Related services and practical resources

Laboratory testing support

Turn the operating symptom into a focused test plan.

Request a QuoteContact Chem-Tech