Sorry to say this but the only way to obtain meaningful results from any method is to understand the method and correctly apply it. There is a huge literature on X-ray fluorescence spectrometry in which instrument operating parameters are worked out for specific analysis needs. There is nothing about a handheld unit that precludes you from building on that same base of experience unless, of course, the manufacturer is withholding the critical details about the instrument's operation, or construction. In that case I'm afraid that you have been sold a toy and they never intended for you to be able to do serious work with it. No matter what the effective emission depth is for this particular surface, the outermost materials will always contribute to the spectrum and in your case these will never be representative of the metal. As for titanium, it is quite common to see a percent or two in clays and even small amounts of ferrotitanate minerals as sand grains will contribute!
this.
John Twilley
-----Original Message-----
>From: Giovanna Fregni <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Oct 7, 2007 7:23 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Bronze Axe Data
>
>The data was taken using a NITON XRF anaylizer. I have a more complete paper
>that I still need to upload to the site that gives more details about the
>analysis. There is one reading for a high amount of aluminium, which
>happened when the gun slipped. There is a second reading from the haft of
>that same axe that is similar to the rest of the axe.
>The small amount of titanium is from axe 5-83-10.I wondered if the metal was
>part of the alloy by accident or if there was some other source. The
>deterioration on the surface is different than the other axes in the
>collection and I wonder how much influence smaller quantities of metal might
>have on that. Unfortunately, the university would not allow the metals to be
>cleaned or to do any analysis that would be destructive. Also I do not have
>permission to remove any corrosion. From what I was told the NITON analyzer
>does take readings from fairly far into the surface. One palstave has a
>layer of accretion in the slots which might be adhesive (and I would very
>much like to learn what that substance is), and another appears to have been
>cleaned, patinaed and lacquered, but as far as we could tell neither of
>those substances from the surface showed up in the readings.
>All of the other readings are fairly straightforward except for the one odd
>one. I suppose that there is the possibility that someone slipped a forgery
>into the collection eighty years ago, but it seems unlikely.
>
>Giovanna
|