Optimization of portable X-ray fluorescence spectrometry for the assessment of soil total copper concentrations: application at an ancient smelting site
Copper (Cu) is the earliest anthropogenic metal pollutant, but knowledge of Cu soil concentrations at ancient metalworking sites is limited. The objective of this work was to examine the ability of portable X-ray fluorescence to quantify Cu in soils at such sites.
Materials and methods
Using a Bruker Tracer III-SD pXRF, we examine factory “scan” settings versus simple instrument parameter changes (a reduction in energy settings from 40 to 12 kV) to target analysis for Cu. We apply these to a set of uncontaminated samples (n = 18, < 92 mg Cu kg−1) from Central Thailand and compare results to standard wet chemistry analysis (aqua regia digestion and ICP-OES analysis). We then apply the optimized method to a set of highly contaminated samples (n = 86, < 14,200 mg Cu kg−1) from a known ancient smelting site.
Results and discussion
We demonstrate that simple changes to factory recommended “scan” settings can double the sensitivity of Cu determination via pXRF (“optimized limit of determination” of 19.3 mg kg−1 versus an initial value of 39.4 mg kg−1) and dramatically improve the accuracy of analysis. Changes to other results for other elements are variable and depend on concentration ranges, soil matrix effects, and pXRF response for the individual element. We demonstrate that pXRF can accurately determine Cu across a wide concentration range and identify grossly contaminated soil samples.
We conclude that pXRF is a useful tool to rapidly screen and analyse samples at remote sites and can be applied to ancient metalworking sites. Simple optimization of the pXRF settings greatly improves accuracy and is essential in determining comparative background concentrations and “unaffected” areas. Application to other elements requires further element and matrix specific optimization.
KeywordsArchaeometallurgy Pollution pXRF Soil Spectrometry
This work was undertaken as part of a University of New England Research Seed Grant, and within an approved National Research Council of Thailand project (approval number 0002/1211). The authors would like to thank Dr. Fiorella Rispoli and Dr. Roberto Ciarla for site information and background, and Dr. Vince Piggott for discussions and project context.
- Bruker AXS Handheld Inc (2006) Tracer III-V manual. Bruker AXS Handheld Incorporated, KennewickGoogle Scholar
- Ciarla R (2007) A preliminary report on Lo.R.A.P. Archaeological Excavations at Prehistoric Khao Sai On, Lopburi Province, Central Thailand. East West 57:395–401Google Scholar
- Dudal R, Moorman FR (1964) Major soils of Southeast Asia. J Tropic Geograph 18:54–80Google Scholar
- Fanti F, Bell PR, Tighe M, Milan LA, Dinelli E (2018) Geochemical fingerprinting as a tool for repatriating poached dinosaur fossils in Mongolia: a case study for the Nemegt Locality, Gobi Desert. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 494:51–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2017.10.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Homsher RS, Tepper Y, Drake BL, Adams MJ, David J (2016) From the Bronze Age to the “Lead Age”: observations on sediment analysis at two archaeological sites in the Jezreel Valley, Israel. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 16:203–220Google Scholar
- IUSS Working Group WRB (2015) World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014, update 2015 International soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
- Milestone (2009) Application note 031: soil particle digestion. http://www.milestonesci.com/index.php/resources/resources/finish/164/969.html. Accessed 15 Feb. 2016
- Mulvey PJ, Elliott GL (2007) 13.6 toxicities in soils. In: Charman PEV, Murphy BW (eds) Soils: their properties and management. Oxford University Press, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
- NEPC (2013a) National Environmental Protection (assessment of site contamination) measure. In: National Environmental Protection Council. Canberra, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
- NEPC (2013b) Schedule B(1) Guideline on investigation levels for soil and groundwater National Environmental Protection Council, Canberra, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
- Pinheiro J, Bates D, S DebRoy, Sarkar D, R Core Team (2014) nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1–117, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme
- R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/, Vienna, Austria
- Rousseau RM (2001) Detection limit and estimate of uncertainty of analytical XRF results. Rigaku J 18:33–47Google Scholar
- Soil Survey Division Kingdom of Thailand (1974) Detailed Reconnaisance Soil Map of Lop Buri Province. 1:100000. Sheets IV-VII. Soil Survey Division, Bangkok, ThailandGoogle Scholar
- Soil Survey Staff (1999) Soil taxonomy: a basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition Natural Resources Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture HandbookGoogle Scholar
- US Environmental Protection Agency (2007) In: US Environmental Protection Agency (ed) Method 6200: field portable X-ray fluorescence spectrometry for the determination of elemental concentrations in soil and sediment, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Weindorf DC, Chakraborty S (2016) Portable X-ray fluorescence spectrometry analysis of soils. Method Soil Anal 1:1–8Google Scholar
- Weindorf DC, Bakr N, Zhu Y (2014) Advances in portable X-ray fluorescence (PXRF) for environmental, pedologial, and agronomic applications. In: Sparks DL (ed) Advances in agronomy, vol 128. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 1–45Google Scholar