Different Analytical Approaches to the Soil Analyses by <scp>TXRF</scp>

ABSTRACT Taking advantage of the proficiency test proposed by the IAEA PTNATIAEA21, a siliceous soil sample was analysed using four different analytical approaches using TXRF spectrometry. First, through acid digestion in a high‐pressure and high‐temperature microwave oven (MW); second, open vessel digestion (OV); and third and fourth, through suspension‐assisted direct solid analysis by using quartz (SA/DSA‐Q) and methacrylate (SA/DSA‐M) as sample reflectors. The analytical parameters obtained for each method have been compared, particularly the recovery, the detection limits and the expanded uncertainties at three levels, i.e., methodological reproducibility, instrumental repeatability, and roughness reproducibility for 22 analysed elements. In addition, a correlation study was carried out for each method versus the consensus values obtained in the proficiency test. The benefits and disadvantages of the fourth TXRF analytical approach are discussed and presented in this work.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
X-Ray Spectrometry
Published
2025-05-07
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/xrs.3492
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Geophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
5.60

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Different Analytical Approaches to the Soil Analyses by TXRF

Ramón Fernández‐Ruiz
3 citations
X-Ray Spectrometry
Geophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
5.60
article

Different Analytical Approaches to the Soil Analyses by TXRF

Ramón Fernández‐Ruiz
article en
3 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT Taking advantage of the proficiency test proposed by the IAEA PTNATIAEA21, a siliceous soil sample was analysed using four different analytical approaches using TXRF spectrometry. First, through acid digestion in a high‐pressure and high‐temperature microwave oven (MW); second, open vessel digestion (OV); and third and fourth, through suspension‐assisted direct solid analysis by using quartz (SA/DSA‐Q) and methacrylate (SA/DSA‐M) as sample reflectors. The analytical parameters obtained for each method have been compared, particularly the recovery, the detection limits and the expanded uncertainties at three levels, i.e., methodological reproducibility, instrumental repeatability, and roughness reproducibility for 22 analysed elements. In addition, a correlation study was carried out for each method versus the consensus values obtained in the proficiency test. The benefits and disadvantages of the fourth TXRF analytical approach are discussed and presented in this work.

X-Ray SpectrometryVol. 54(5)
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (ES)
Comunidad de Madrid, Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Geophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
5.60
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Different Analytical Approaches to the Soil Analyses by <scp>TXRF</scp> — Ramón Fernández‐Ruiz · X-Ray Spectrometry (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS