Is the damage worth it? Testing handheld XRF as a non-destructive analytical tool for determining biogenic bone and tooth chemistry prior to destructive analyses

Simpson, Emily M. B.; Crowley, Brooke E.; Sturmer, Daniel M.

doi:10.3389/fearc.2022.1098403

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 53 publications

(95 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We confirmed the biogenicity of hydroxyapatite using Ca/P (following Alonzi et al, 2019;Simpson et al, 2023). We scanned the surface of each tooth using a Bruker Tracer 5i handheld x-ray fluorescence spectrometer and determined that all three specimens yielded Ca/P within the range expected for biogenic hydroxyapatite (1.3-2.3).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 90%

Comparison of powdered enamel sample pretreatment methods for strontium isotope analysis

Crowley

Simpson²,

Hammer³

et al. 2023

Front. Environ. Chem.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most researchers assume minimal impact of pretreatment on strontium isotope ratios (87Sr/86Sr) for bones and teeth, and methods vary tremendously. We compared 14 pretreatment methods, including no prep other than powdering enamel, ashing, soaking in water, an oxidizing agent (bleach or hydrogen peroxide) or acetic acid (0.1 M, 1.0 M, and 1.0 M buffered with calcium acetate), and a combination of these steps. We prepared and analyzed aliquots of powdered molar enamel from three proboscideans (one modern captive Indian elephant, Elephas maximus indicus; one Pleistocene mastodon, Mammut americanum; and one Miocene gomphothere, Afrochoerodon kisumuensis). Each pretreatment was performed in triplicate and we measured 87Sr/86Sr, Sr concentration, and uranium (U) concentration, using the same lab space and instrumentation for all samples. Variability in 87Sr/86Sr and Sr and U concentrations was considerable across pretreatments. Mean 87Sr/86Sr across methods ranged from 0.70999 to 0.71029 for the modern tooth, 0.71458 to 0.71502 for the Pleistocene tooth, and 0.70804 to 0.70817 for the Miocene tooth. The modern tooth contained the least Sr and negligible U. The Pleistocene tooth contained slightly more Sr and measurable amounts of U, and the Miocene tooth had approximately 5x more Sr and U than the Pleistocene tooth. For all three teeth, variance in 87Sr/86Sr, Sr concentrations, and U concentrations among replicates was statistically indistinguishable across pretreatments, but there were apparent differences among pretreatments for the modern and Pleistocene teeth. Both contained relatively little Sr, and it is possible that small amounts of exogenous Sr from reagents, building materials or dust affected some replicates for some pretreatments. For the modern tooth, median 87Sr/86Sr varied considerably (but statistically insignificantly) across pretreatments. For the Pleistocene tooth, variability in median 87Sr/86Sr was also considerable; some pretreatments were statistically distinct but there were no obvious patterns among methods. For the Miocene tooth, variability in median 87Sr/86Sr was much smaller, but there were significant differences among pretreatments. Most pretreatments yielded 87Sr/86Sr and Sr concentrations comparable to, or lower than, untreated powder, suggesting selective removal of exogenous material with high 87Sr/86Sr. Further evaluation of the mechanisms driving isotopic variability both within and among pretreatment methods is warranted. Researchers should clearly report their methods and avoid combining data obtained using different methods. Small differences in 87Sr/86Sr could impact data interpretations, especially in areas where isotopic variability is low.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 90%