X‐ray fluorescence (XRF) scanning of marine sediment has the potential to yield near‐continuous and high‐resolution records of elemental abundances, which are often interpreted as proxies for paleoceanographic processes over different time scales. However, many other variables also affect scanning XRF measurements and convolute the quantitative calibrations of element abundances and comparisons of data from different labs. Extensive interlab comparisons of XRF scanning results and calibrations are essential to resolve ambiguities and to understand the best way to interpret the data produced. For this study, we sent a set of seven marine sediment sections (1.5 m each) to be scanned by seven XRF facilities around the world to compare the outcomes amidst a myriad of factors influencing the results. Results of raw element counts per second (cps) were different between labs, but element ratios were more comparable. Four of the labs also scanned a set of homogenized sediment pellets with compositions determined by inductively coupled plasma‐optical emission spectrometry (ICP‐OES) and ICP‐mass spectrometry (MS) to convert the raw XRF element cps to concentrations in two ways: a linear calibration and a log‐ratio calibration. Although both calibration curves are well fit, the results show that the log‐ratio calibrated data are significantly more comparable between labs than the linearly calibrated data. Smaller‐scale (higher‐resolution) features are often not reproducible between the different scans and should be interpreted with caution. Along with guidance on practical calibrations, our study recommends best practices to increase the quality of information that can be derived from scanning XRF to benefit the field of paleoceanography.

中文翻译：

---

七个实验室XRF核心扫描结果的比对和实用校准方法

海洋沉积物的X射线荧光（XRF）扫描有可能产生近连续且高分辨率的元素丰度记录，这些记录通常被解释为不同时间尺度上古海洋学过程的代理。但是，许多其他变量也会影响XRF扫描测量结果，并使元素丰度的定量校准和来自不同实验室的数据比较变得复杂。XRF扫描结果和校准的实验室间广泛比较对于解决歧义和理解解释产生的数据的最佳方法至关重要。在这项研究中，我们发送了一组七个海洋沉积物断面（每个1.5 m）供世界各地的七个XRF设施进行扫描，以比较影响结果的众多因素中的结果。实验室之间的每秒原始元素计数结果（cps）不同，但是元素比率具有更高的可比性。四个实验室还扫描了一组均质的沉淀物沉淀物，其成分由电感耦合等离子体发射光谱（ICP-OES）和ICP-质谱（MS）确定，以两种方式将原始XRF元素的cps转换为浓度：线性校准和对数比校准。尽管两个校准曲线都拟合得很好，但结果表明，实验室之间的对数比校准数据比线性校准数据更具可比性。小规模（高分辨率）功能通常在不同扫描之间无法重现，因此应谨慎解释。连同有关实际校准的指南，