No KCAL9, that's not what the results mean. Part 1

Argggggg.

CBS2/KCAL9 rented a device certified by the EPA to provide instant readings of the amount of lead in soil or dust.

If you read any of my posts, you know I get all long-winded about methodology and technique.  I don't want to go that route with this post.  So I will ignore this screenshot from the video:

Now I don't know much about XRF analyzers, but I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express once, so that taught me how to Google.

Google brought me to the Thermo Fisher Scientific Niton Analyzer website - the guys who make the instrument shown in the screenshot.

That looks to be a Niton™ XL2 XRF Analyzer, which, when I click on the link "Which XRF analyzer is right from me?" I am shown this:

Source

The reason I need to ignore that table that shows which instrument is used for what matrix, is because of this statement:

We found levels more than 10 times that amount with so much lead in the soil, it was defined as hazardous waste.

I don't want to split hairs on if the XL2's results are accurate and they should have used an XL2 GOLD for sampling soil.  I don't want to discuss if this reporter - the guy shown using the instrument - was trained to use it.  I will ignore the requirement from Thermo - as detailed by USA Today in a report they did on lead in the soil near smelters - that "to be considered a valid test result...a full 80-second scan had to be completed" because the results shown were under 80 seconds.

I am going to ignore all of that and accept the values the reporter tells us the instrument determined are accurate.

Instead I want to focus on these statements:

...it was defined as hazardous waste.

and this statement:

... contained hazardous-waste levels of lead...

and this:

...we found levels of hazardous waste...

and this:

...was exposed to this hazardous waste.

and this:

...it, too, is defined as hazardous waste.

and this too:

...such high levels of hazardous waste...

What makes soil containing lead a hazardous waste is dependent on the amount of lead that leaches from the soil.  The reporter is using the XL2 for an in situ soil sample that is qualitative, not quantitative.

The instrument reports ppm that is based on this:

The FPXRF instrument measures the metal content of the sample over a surface area of approximately one square centimeter (1 cm2) to a depth of approximately 2 millimeters (2 mm), displaying lead concentration in parts per million (ppm). (US EPA)

To be defined as a hazardous waste, soil containing lead must be tested using a procedure called the "Toxicity Concentration Leaching Procedure (TCLP) which reports the concentration of lead as mg/L.

The reading you get from the XL2 - reported in ppm - does not equate to the concentration you would get running a TCLP on that same soil sample.

You can state we found levels of lead in the soil measured at 1,000 ppm but you cannot state "we found levels of hazardous waste measured at 1,000 ppm."

A determination of hazardous waste is a different animal than reporting a screening level.

And here is where it gets wacky...

Next post: No KCAL9, that's not what the results mean.  Part 2