Optimising Sample Preparation and Calibrations in EDXRF for Quantitative Soil Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Energy-dispersive X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (EDXRF) is a rapid and inexpensive method for soil analysis; however, analytical results are influenced by particle size effects and spectral interferences. The objective of this study was to optimise sample preparation and calibrations to improve the accuracy of EDXRF for soil tests. Methods of sample preparation were compared by calculating the recoveries of 13 elements in four International Soil-Analytical Exchange (ISE) standards prepared as loose powder (LP), pressed pellet (PP), and pressed pellet with wax binder (PPB). A matching library (ML) was created and evaluated against the fundamental parameters (FP) calibration using 20 ISE standards. Additionally, EDXRF results of 41 tillage soils were compared with Inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES) results. The PPB had most recoveries within the acceptable range of 80–120%; conversely, PP yielded the poorest element recoveries. For the calibration, the ML provided better recoveries of Ni, Pb, Cu, Mg, S, P, and Cr; however, for Zn, and Mn, it had the opposite effect. Furthermore, EDXRF results compared with ICP-OES separated by soil texture class for Al, K, Mn, and Fe. In conclusion, the EDXRF is suitable for quantifying both trace elements and macronutrients in contaminated soils and has the potential to provide screening or prediction of soil texture in agriculture.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it