Protocols, pitfalls, and publishing for pXRF analyses: From “know how” to “best practices”

Abstract

Portable X-ray fluorescence (pXRF) exists in a somewhat liminal state as a technique in the archaeological sciences. On one hand, pXRF is essentially energy-dispersive XRF (EDXRF) condensed to fit into a handheld instrument. On the other hand, it is still often defined by a few strident critiques more than a decade ago, the focus of which were pXRF users, not the instruments. There were three themes in those critiques: perceived weaknesses in (1) research design, (2) element quantification, and (3) publishing, especially as it relates to data evaluation. Recently, Johnson et al. (2024) sought to address the third critique, by both surveying the literature and proposing a checklist of 18 variables that, they argue, should be published to “result in better science” from pXRF users. While this is an important topic, the study and list are flawed and, thus, will not achieve their goal. We do, though, share the aim of aiding archaeologists in becoming effective pXRF users. Here I adopt a different tack. Drawing on 24 years of X-ray spectrometry experience, my intent is to share knowledge that can help the expanding community of pXRF practitioners. Ranging in topic from safety to research design and common pitfalls, I aim to share my experience in a way that can, I hope, be useful to those beyond my own students. Much of what I teach about pXRF – both inside and outside the classroom – is here for anyone to read and implement themselves.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 12 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.