Overview
This source page is a mechanical bulk-ingest record for a PDF in the research-pulls corpus. It preserves source-level identity, routeable product/analyte scope, and exact extracted numeric lines for later human or fresh-context audit. It does not derive HMTc thresholds, percentiles, or brand-by-brand comparisons.
Key numbers
The worker extracted the full PDF text with layout preservation twice and compared extraction hashes before commit. The following lines are copied from numeric/table-bearing regions of the PDF and retain the source units and wording where legible:
- The review by Gałuszka et al. (2015) showed that there has been development in portable
- 2000). Miller et al. (2013) used portable XRF for measuring mercury contamination of soil
- measurements while Sterling et al (2000) found that portable XRF can be used for rapid on-
- belt magnet but before the air classifier. The particle size ranges between 0 and 15 mm. To
- 2.2 Field portable X-ray fluorescence (FPXRF) analysis
- analyzer can be found from the supplementary material presented in Table S1, and the limits
- of detection (LOD) are shown in Table S2. The waste samples were analyzed through the zip-
- sides through the bag, meaning that one waste material was scanned a total of 24 times. The
- analysis time for one scan was 80 seconds, meaning that the total analysis time for one zip-
- the supplementary material (Table S3). Elemental analysis by ICP-MS requires liquid
- ml of concentrated nitric acid (HNO3 at 67%) and 1 ml of concentrated hydrochloric acid
- (HCl at 37%) were added. The digestion was accomplished by using an UltraWAVE Single
- determined. The mean value and the SD were calculated for each sample on the basis of 24
- mean concentration of an element (EPA, 2007). For FPXRF measurement data to be
- generated by FPXRF. Table 1 shows the criteria for characterizing the data quality.
- Table 1. Criteria for characterizing data quality (EPA, 2007; Kilbride et al., 2006).
- Definitive 0.9–1 ≤ 10%
- Qualitative < 0.7 > 20%
- Tables 2 and 3 summarize the element concentration ranges of the SRF waste samples
- characterized as quantitative when the RSD is less than 20%, with the exception of Cr, whose
- since the RSD was less than 20% only for Cd and Cl. The grinding of the fine fraction reject
- the concentrations of Pb, As, Ca, K, and Cl could even be considered definitive (RSD ≤ 10%).
- Table 2. Element concentrations (mg/kg) determined by FPXRF in SRF fine fraction and ash samples.
- Table 3 summarizes the element concentrations of moist and dry compost and biowaste
- samples on a dry matter basis. The moisture content was on average 60% for biowaste and
- moist compost samples had 3–10% lower values for Zn, Fe, and K and 3–10% higher values
- for Ca and Cl. The moist biowaste samples had 13–37% lower values for Zn, Fe, and K and
- 21–33% higher values for Ca and Cl. These results seemed to indicate that the higher
- Table 3. Element concentrations (mg/kg) on a dry matter basis determined by FPXRF in dry and moist compost
- range of these waste materials (ground fine fraction reject, ash, and compost). Table 4
- found in the supplementary data (Tables S7, S8, and S9). The RSD values of element
- of element concentrations in the ash samples were below 10% for almost all elements (Table
- well, and besides As and Ca, the concentrations of all the other elements were below 20%.
- its RSD was below 20% only for As, Ca, Cl, and V.
- ICP-MS measurements (Table 3), which were highest for ground fine fraction reject. The
- being 20% lower than for ICP-MS. The largest difference was for V and Cd, where FPXRF
- was closest to that of the ICP-MS measurement for Ca, which was 11% higher in FPXRF.
- showed 700% higher results. One reason for the differences between the results could be
- et al. (2012). They evaluated compost element concentrations by using portable X-ray
- atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES). Their results showed high RSD values, 70% and
- lower RSD values, ranging from 6% to 23%. The much larger RSD values obtained by
- Table 5, and the Bland-Altman plots are illustrated in the supplementary material (Figures S2
Methods (brief)
- concentration of waste samples
- field portable X-ray fluorescence for analyzing elemental concentration of waste samples. Waste
- concentration of waste samples
- the results compared with those of inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS)
- best suited for waste samples, such as ash and compost, because of their physical properties,
- analysis of the limits of agreement between FPXRF and ICP-MS showed that FPXRF was
- correlation between FPXRF and ICP-MS results for calcium and zinc in the selected
- as inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) and atomic absorption
- spectroscopy (AAS). While these laboratory analyses are accurate, there are some problems
- amounts of samples are needed to obtain representative results. However, the number of
- samples is limited when ICP-MS and AAS methods are used because they are time-
- problem involves sample preparation, which may be prone to sample contamination, resulting
- analysis of any kind of sample material (Hou et al., 2004; Kalnicky and Singhvi, 2001). One
- advantage of FPXRF is that the technique requires no or only little sample preparation, which
- soil samples (Miller et al., 2013) and measuring lead in dust wipe samples (Sterling et al.,
- from industrial complex and found that the sample heterogeneity causes complexity for the
- samples and compared metal concentrations using FPXRF against ICP-optical emission
- concentrations were analyzed by using FPXRF and AAS. FPXRF demonstrated an excellent
Implications
This page makes the source discoverable for category-level evidence routing. Values remain source-native and should be used only with the stated matrix, species, basis, geography, and censoring context from the paper. The page does not convert total mercury to methylmercury or use total arsenic as inorganic arsenic.
Wiki pages this source may touch
Verification notes
- Identity check: DOI, raw handle, candidate cite-key, and SHA-256 were compared against existing
wiki/sources/pages before creation. - Full-PDF read:
pdftotext -layoutwas run on the full PDF twice; extracted text hashes matched before the page was written. - Numeric verification: numeric/table-bearing lines were selected mechanically from the verified extraction and preserved without unit conversion or rounding.
- Brand firewall: the worker skips PDFs when extracted numeric lines appear brand/manufacturer-sensitive; this page contains category-level or species-level evidence only.
- HMTc firewall: no threshold, percentile, pass/fail, clean/dirty, or certification math is stated.
Update history
The five most recent substantive edits to this page, classified major (evidence or structure moved), correction (a published value or statement was wrong and has been fixed), or minor (narrative rewritten without changing the underlying evidence). Each description is derived from what the edit did to this page; the linked commit is the authoritative record, routine regeneration passes are excluded, and the full version history lives in git. When DOI minting comes online (see schema docs), each entry below will also link to a version-pinned DataCite DOI.