Post #2357444

2026-04-26 15:35 UTC

@Methylzero@mast.hpc.social Ah, that makes sense! One thing I'd been wondering is how you would get a concentration without knowing the denominator. Soil is largely going to be light elements that the detector can't even see. :-/ So the addition method would allow per-sample mass calibration. That's pretty cool, but slow, and produces lead-contaminated waste. Though I wonder if I could use a less toxic addition? It wouldn't calibrate on lead specifically, but might help with concentration overall.

Replies (3)

@timmc@better.boston 2026-04-26 15:37

@Methylzero@mast.hpc.social Obviously the entire technique would itself have to be validated against a large range of samples that are split and submitted for lab testing. But I'd be up for footing that bill if it could unlock a more immediate and lower (amortized) cost soil test method.

Open ##2357445
@Methylzero@mast.hpc.social 2026-04-26 16:00

@timmc@better.boston Hmm, maybe? Some highly soluble salt (nitrate usually) of a less toxic, element that has an emission peak close to the lead peak you are measuring could perhaps be used as a proxy.

Open ##2357446
@Methylzero@mast.hpc.social 2026-04-26 16:08

@timmc@better.boston This is probably the point where you should consult someone who actually works in #analyticalChemistry and environmental sample analysis. Maybe XRF is not the best route here? If building a small lab and taking the samples to said lab would be an option, a whole list of other instruments and techniques are available. IDK how much an atomic absorption spectrometer goes for these days, maybe that's an option. 1/2

Open ##2357447