the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Portable X-Ray Fluorescence as a Tool for Urban Soil Contamination Analysis: Accuracy, Precision, and Practicality
Abstract. Urban agriculture has become an essential component of urban sustainability, but it often faces the challenge of soil contamination with heavy metal(loid)s like lead (Pb), arsenic (As), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), manganese (Mn), nickel (Ni), and zinc (Zn). Traditional laboratory methods for detecting these contaminants, such as atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS) and inductively coupled plasma techniques (ICP-MS, ICP-OES, ICP-AES), are accurate but can be costly, time-consuming, and require extensive sample preparation. Portable X-ray fluorescence (PXRF) presents a promising alternative, offering rapid, in situ analysis with minimal sample preparation. The study reviews literature on PXRF analyzers to determine their accuracy and precision in analyzing heavy metal(loid)s in urban soils, with the goal of optimizing sampling, reducing laboratory costs and time, and identifying priority metal contamination hotspots. A literature review was conducted using Web of Science and Google Scholar, focusing on studies that validated PXRF measurements with alternate laboratory methods or certified reference materials (CRMs). This study reviews 67 publications to evaluate the accuracy and precision of PXRF in analyzing heavy metal(loid)s in urban soils. The review covers instrument types, calibration methods, testing conditions, and sample preparation techniques. Results show that, when properly calibrated, particularly with CRMs, PXRF achieves reliable accuracy. Ex situ measurements tend to be more precise due to controlled conditions, although in situ measurements offer practical advantages in urban settings. Portable XRF emerges as a viable method for assessing urban soil contamination, balancing accuracy and practicality. Future research should focus on optimizing sample preparation and calibration to further enhance PXRF reliability in urban environments. This review highlights PXRF’s potential to streamline soil testing, reduce costs, and identify contamination hotspots, contributing to safer urban agriculture and more precise soil survey and conservation efforts.
- Preprint
(910 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3101', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Nov 2024
The manuscript addresses the review of an interesting topic, however, it lacks the necessary depth to warrant publication.
While the title and objectives clearly indicate a focus on urban soils, the manuscript does not provide a sufficient justification for limiting the review exclusively to urban soils. Why is the method under review only applicable to urban soils, and would it also be suitable for agricultural soils? The rationale for restricting the review to XRF studies conducted in urban soils is not clearly explained.
The introduction sets up expectations for the reader, but the conclusion essentially restates what can already be found in the individual studies reviewed.
Therefore, as it is currently presented, the manuscript does not offer significant new insights into the limitations and advantages of the method.
The information in Section 2 could be better organized and presented in a more reader-friendly format, such as tables or graphs, to enhance the clarity and accessibility of the bibliographic review results.
To make the review more engaging and to strengthen its case for publication, I suggest the inclusion of the following:
- A list of the chemical elements analyzed in the reviewed studies, along with their frequency of occurrence.
- A systematic presentation of R² values, along with estimates of the accuracy for each element.
- The detection limits for each element, as reported in the reviewed studies.
Including these details would make the review more informative and comprehensive, offering additional value to the scientific community.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3101-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Anna Paltseva, 10 Mar 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-3101/egusphere-2024-3101-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3101', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Feb 2025
This study is relevant and necessary as it provides insight into the performance of portable X-ray devices. However, the article would benefit from a clearer structure and a well-defined research question to better guide the reader. Currently, the inclusion of numerous individual studies makes it difficult to follow, especially since they are not always synthetized or compared to one another—which should be a key objective of a review. Additionally, the study lacks detail on the choice of the urban setting, which could have a significant impact on the findings. Besides, the authors tends to wrote several times some informations for instance about the soil moisture/OM or mode choice importance. This make the paper hard to read and without any clear onlusion while such study could have been helpful for choice in measurement technic. Finally, I'm not conviced about the "performance status" the authors accepted. In some cases there is a factor 2 to 3 between ICP and PXRF measurement which seems quiet high.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Anna Paltseva, 10 Mar 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-3101/egusphere-2024-3101-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Anna Paltseva, 10 Mar 2025
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
222 | 107 | 12 | 341 | 6 | 8 |
- HTML: 222
- PDF: 107
- XML: 12
- Total: 341
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1