Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elseviers archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
Commentary
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 1 August 2012
Received in revised form
20 September 2012
Accepted 22 September 2012
A recent study by Frahm (2013) on the application of portable XRF (PXRF) for chemical characterization
of obsidian ignores fundamental issues of reliability and validity in the measurements, and justies
internally consistent measurements as acceptable. We argue this form of science is unacceptable, point
out several aws in Frahms paper, and provide some examples of PXRF measurements that are valid and
reliable and conform to international standards as published.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
PXRF
Obsidian
Reliability
Validity
Silo science
1436
1
In fact, the manufacturer has taken the internal components of this small
portable benchtop system and repackaged them into a handheld conguration
referred to as the ProSpector. The internal electronics (tube, detector, multichannel
analyser) and software for the two systems are virtually identicaldthe only
difference is packaging.
1437
Fig. 1. Direct comparison of values (expressed as ppm) obtained for 12 samples using a portable XRF (x-axis) and laboratory-based EDXRF (y-axis).
2
In Appendix A, data for all papers that include Glascock or Speakman as
coauthors are based on custom empirical calibrations. Furthermore, all publications
in Appendix A that are generated using Bruker instruments also are based on
custom empirical calibrations. Likewise, most PXRF measurements reported in
Heginbotham et al. (2011)da round robin of copper-based metalsdare based on
custom empirical calibrations.
1438
Fig. 2. Results in ppm (y-axis) versus time (x-axis) for 307 consecutive 200-s counts of
Bruker obsidian standard XRF08. Note that the overall trend for each element is at
indicating that instrumental drift is not an issue. Likewise note that the relative
deviation between analyses is minimal and that no outliers are present. Refer to
Table 1 for summary statistics for this experiment.
Table 1
17-h stability test (307 consecutive analyses at 200 s each).
Average
St dev
%RSD
Mn
Fe
Zn
Ga
Th
Rb
Sra
Zr
Nb
438.7
23.7
5.4
7446.2
72.6
1.0
134.1
4.6
3.4
27.0
1.7
6.2
41.7
1.5
3.5
364.4
3.4
0.9
1.1
0.5
41.1
83.9
1.6
2.0
163.7
1.7
1.0
237.5
2.4
1.0
a
High %RSD (% relative standard deviation) a consequence of low Sr concentration in this sample which results in low counting statistics. In no way is this a reection of the
instrument used for the analysis (all EDXRF instruments would exhibit similar errors at this concentration and matrix). For samples containing more than 15 ppm Sr, 2e3%RSD
is the norm.
Fig. 3. Results in ppm (y-axis) versus time (x-axis) for 307 consecutive 200-s counts of
Bruker obsidian standard XRF08. Note that the overall trend for each element is at
indicating that instrumental drift is not an issue. Likewise note that the relative
deviation between analyses is minimal and that no outliers are present. Refer to
Table 1 for summary statistics for this experiment.
(and for that matter, any other digital format XRF spectra) can be
exported and manipulated using 3rd party software. Several of the
participants of a recent inter-laboratory study based on analysis of
copper-based metals employed such an approach with Bruker XRF
instruments (Heginbotham et al., 2011). Likewise, Speakman et al.
(2011) used a 3rd party software program to calculate numbers
for lower atomic mass elements in a recent study of pottery. Hence
it is not impossible, it just requires a little more expertisedthe kind
of expertise that comes from years of XRF experience and training.
It is very convenient to blame the instrument or manufacturer for
data that lack accuracy and reproducibility, but in reality it is the
user who is ultimately responsible for accuracy and reproducibility.
To reiterate here, if a user cannot develop a good calibration with
Fig. 4. Horwitz curve for the 40 obsidian calibration standards used to calibrate Bruker
PXRF instrument. Sr concentration (x-axis) is based on the average value of ve
measurements. Curve is t to all data points, but the plot is constrained to samples
with less than 100 ppm Sr to facilitate the evaluation of the low end of the curve. This
plot shows that as concentration decreases (i.e., lower counting statistics), that %RSD
increases thereby illustrating the point that measurement error is correlated with
concentration. The lower one gets to instrument detection limits, the greater the
analytical error. Again, this is not a reection of instrument performance; similar
results would be obtained with any properly calibrated EDXRF spectrometer.
1439
1440
Table 2
Replicate analyses of USGS RGM-1 and comparison to published values.
Mn
Bruker tracer (n 5)
USGS recommended
Shackley (2012)
Skinner and Davis (1996)
Hughes (2007)
321
279
302
291
278
Fe
28
50
14
47
10
13,075
13,010
13,116
13,480
13,079
69
210
308
745
140
Zn
Th
Rb
40 2
32
n.r.
37 7
n.r.
16 1
15 1.3
16 3
n.r.
n.r.
157
150
151
152
143
Sr
3
8
3
3
4
104
110
106
107
105
Y
1
10
3
9
3
Zr
26
25
25
24
23
1
2
3
3
Nb
223
220
219
217
214
3
20
5
8
4
10
8.9
9
11
8
1
0.6
2
1
3
n.r.dnot reported.
Table 3
Replicate analyses of NIST SRM-278 and comparison to published values.
Mn
Bruker tracer (n 5)
NIST recommended
Glascock (2006)
Shackley (2012)
432
403
397
383
Fe
27
2
23
7
14,521
14,269
14,500
14,329
100
140
900
37
Zn
Th
55 4
n.r.
53 5
n.r.
13
12.4
12.6
15
Rb
2
0.3
0.6
5
133
127.5
133
130
Sr
2
0.3
6
2
62
63.5
64
67
1
0.1
5
1
Zr
Nb
41 1
n.r.
39 5
40 2
281 2
n.r.
290 30
276 2
18 1
n.r.
n.r.
15 2
n.r.dnot reported.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
10.
11.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
1441
1442
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
References
Barberena, R., Hajduk, A., Gil, A.F., Neme, G.A., Duran, V., Glascock, M.D., Giesso, M.,
Borrazzo, K., de La Paz Pompei, M., Salgan, M.L., Cortegoso, V., Villarosa, G.,
Rughini, A.A., 2011. Obsidian in the south-central Andes: geological,
geochemical, and archaeological assessment of north Patagonian sources
(Argentina). Quaternary International 245 (1), 25e36.
Dybowski, D.J., 2012. PXRF/WDXRF inter-unit data comparison of Arizona obsidian
samples. Journal of Arizona Archaeology 2 (1), 15e21.
Frahm, E., 2007. An evaluation of portable X-ray uorescence for artifact sourcing in
the eld: can handheld devices differentiate Anatolian obsidian sources? Paper
Presented at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Geological Society of America.
Presentation. Available on-line: https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/viewHandout.cgi?
uploadid250.
Frahm, E., 2010. The Bronze-age Obsidian Industry at Tell Mozan (Ancient Urkesh),
Syria. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Minnesota.
Available online at University of Minnesotas Digital Conservancy: http://purl.
umn.edu/99753.
Frahm, E., 2012. Evaluation of archaeological sourcing techniques: reconsidering and
re-deriving Hughes four-fold assessment scheme. Geoarchaeology 27, 166e174.
Frahm, E., 2013. Validity of Off-the-Shelf handheld portable XRF for sourcing near
eastern Obsidian chip debris. Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2), 1080e1092.
Giesso, M., Duran, V., Neme, G., Glascock, M.D., Cortegoso, V., Gil, A., Sanhueza, L.,
2011. A study of obsidian source usage in the central Andes of Argentina and
Chile. Archaeometry 53, 1e21.
1443
Glascock, M.D., 2006. Tables for Neutron Activation Analysis, sixth ed. Research
Reactor Center, University of Missouri, Columbia.
Glascock, M.D., Ferguson, J.R., 2012. Report on the Analysis of Obsidian Source
Samples by Multiple Analytical Methods. University of Missouri Research
Reactor, Columbia.
Grave, P., Attenbrow, V., Sutherland, L., Pogson, R., Forster, N., 2012. Nondestructive pXRF of mac stone tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 39,
1674e1686.
Heginbotham, A., Bezur, A., Bouchard, M., Davis, J., Eremin, K., Frantz, J.H., Glinsman, L., Hayek, L., Hook, D., Kantarelou, V., Karydas, A., Lee, L., Mass, J., Matsen,
J., McCarthy, B., McGath, M., Shugar, A., Sirois, J., Smith, D., Speakman, R.J.,
2011. A round-robin study to evaluate the inter-laboratory reproducibility of
quantitative X-ray uorescence spectroscopy on Historic copper alloys. In:
Mardikian, P., Chemello, C., Watters, C., Hull, P. (Eds.), Metal 2010, Proceedings
of the Interim Meeting of the ICOM-CC Metal Working Group, Charleston,
South Carolina 11e15 October 2010. Clemson University, South Carolina, pp.
244e255.
Hughes, R., 2007. The geologic sources of obsidian artifacts from Minnesota
archaeological sites. The Minnesota Archaeologist 66, 53e68.
Horwitz, W., Kamps, L.R., Boyer, K.W., 1980. Quality assurance in the analysis of
foods and trace constituents. Journal of the Association of Ofcial Analytical
Chemists 63, 1344e1354.
Knight, C.L.F., Cuellar, A.M., Glascock, M.D., Hall, M.L., Mothes, P.A., 2011. Obsidian
source characterization in the Cordillera Real and eastern piedmont of the north
Ecuadorian Andes. Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (5), 1069e1079.
McAlister, A.J., 2011, Methodological Issues in the Geochemical Characterisation and
Morphological Analysis of Stone Tools: a Case Study from Nuku Hiva, Marquesas
Islands, East Polynesia. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Shackley, M.S., 2012. ThermoFisher Scientic QuantX Analysis and Instrumentation. http://www.swxrab.net/anlysis.htm (accessed 18.07.12.).
Shackley, M.S., Nov. 2010. Is There Reliability and Validity in Portable X-ray
Fluorescence Spectrometry (PXRF)? The SAA Archaeological Record.
pp. 17e18&20.
Skinner, C.E., Davis, M.K., 1996. X-ray Fluorescence Analysis of an Obsidian Biface
from the Fort Hill Site, Highland County, Ohio. Report 1996-48 prepared for the
Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio, by Northwest Research Obsidian
Studies Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon.
Speakman, R.J., 2012. Evaluation of Brukers Tracer Family Factory Obsidian Calibration for Handheld Portable XRF Studies of Obsidian. Report prepared for
Bruker AXS, Kennewick, WA. Available on-line: http://www.bruker-axs.com/
leadmin/user_upload/PDFse/handhelds/Bruker_Obsidian_Report.pdf.
Speakman, R.J., Little, N.C., Creel, D., Miller, M.R., Iaez, J.G., 2011. Sourcing
ceramics with portable XRF spectrometers? A comparison with INAA using
Mimbres pottery from the American Southwest. Journal of Archaeological
Science 38 (12), 3483e3496.
Speakman, R.J., Phillips, S.C., Florey, V., Little, N.C., Iaez, J.G., 2010. Approaches to
Micro-XRF analysis of obsidian. Paper Presented at the 38th International
Symposium on Archaeometry, Tampa Bay, Florida.