Nearly two-thirds of respondents to a recent survey said they would contemplate buying a new handheld X-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectroscopy system if detection limits were improved. Handheld XRF currently makes up a quarter of the XRF market and is expected to post moderate growth compared with laboratory XRF, increasing in the mid-single digits in 2011.

In November and December 2010, Strategic Directions International conducted a survey of 223 laboratory XRF, handheld XRF and X-ray diffraction (XRD) users. All participants had an existing system or planned to purchase one soon from a leading manufacturer. All data are taken from the survey.

Analytical service and applied R&D labs accounted for approximately half of survey responses. Nearly a third of responses were from basic research labs. The remaining responses were divided fairly evenly between methods development, QA/QC and other types of labs.

Among the respondents, academia accounted for almost a third of distribution, followed by government research and independent testing labs, each with about an eighth. Other major respondent industries involved with handheld XRF included metals, polymers/plastics, instrument manufacturers, mining, pharmaceutical, cement and electronics. Laboratory functions included analytical services, applied R&D, basic research, QA/QC and methods development. Among the applications were materials analysis, environmental, life science, general applications and forensics.

Nearly two-thirds of the handheld XRF users said they used the technology in the lab. Results from respondents from North America, which accounted for half of the respondent base, reflected this figure, while about three-quarters of respondents from Latin America and the rest of the world said they used the technology in the field. For the largest end-market, academia, about two-thirds of respondents said their device was used in the lab, compared with 80% of government-research respondents. Two-thirds of respondents from the metals and polymers/plastics industries said their device was used in the field.

Respondents indicated a variety of applications for which they used their handheld XRF instruments. For laboratory use, these applications included archaeometric applications, particle identification, elemental analysis, materials identification and characterization, soil screening, Restriction of Use of Hazardous Substances legislation product testing, alloy identification, coatings-components identification, surface analysis of chemical reactors and pain analysis. For field use, applications included sorting stock, sampling and surveying, product identification and metal detection, screening of incoming raw materials, alloy identification and environmental applications such as testing contaminated land.

Nearly two-thirds of handheld XRF users surveyed reported that they used their devices primarily as screening tools, subject to verification, with analysis carried out by another technique. For respondents in North America, 42% said their handheld XRFs were primary screening tools. For the largest end-market, academia, half of respondents indicated that their handheld XRFs were primary screening tools. About three-fifths of government-research respondents said that their handheld XRFs were primary screening tools.

By laboratory function, handheld XRFs were primary screening tools for three-quarters of analytical services and half of applied R&D ventures. Among the two-thirds of survey participants who indicated their device was mainly a screening tool, there were several verification methods that follow the initial screening. XRF and ICP-MS are the two most common methods, comprising over three-quarters of responses combined.

When asked to list the benefits and disadvantages of their handheld XRF instruments, respondents noted both instrument and user issues. Instrument benefits mentioned included accuracy, fast analysis and use with multiple matrices. User benefits included ease of use, in situ elemental analysis, convenience and compact size. When asked to name disadvantages, respondents indicated instrument aspects like insufficient power, difficulty in identifying compounds, lack of precision and sensitivity, light-element limitations, high dependence on software for interpretation of elemental concentration, inability to analyze liquids directly and detection level limitations. They also cited user aspects such as high cost, safety, risk of operator damage and tedious sample preparation.

Respondents mentioned cheaper cost, a small attachable vacuum chamber, improved training, user-defined software, improvements in light-element detectability, improved safety performance and the ability to analyze all types of materials as suggestions for improving their handheld XRF instruments.

When asked to name some changes that would encourage them to purchase a new handheld XRF system, nearly two-thirds of respondents indicated that they would consider the purchase if detection limits were improved. Almost half said improved functionality, and about two-fifths noted improved software as changes that would make them more likely to purchase a system. Only about a fifth of respondents noted the age of their current handheld systems as a reason to purchase a new system.

More than a third of participants said they planned to purchase new handheld XRF systems within the next year. About 40% of independent testing labs plan to purchase new systems, while only 11% of academic participants plan to do the same. Nearly two-thirds of analytical services respondents plan to purchase new systems within the next year, but the majority of R&D respondents do not plan to do so.

Respondents who plan to purchase a new handheld XRF system within the next year gave both instrument and user reasons to do so. Instrument reasons included new technical developments and functionality. User reasons were increased testing volume, the need to analyze light elements or to screen incoming raw material, for lead testing and for the direct generation of results in the field.

Respondents were provided with a list of manufacturer qualities, such as service quality, service response time, consumable availability and application support. They were then asked to rate their primary manufacturers on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) on each of these qualities and on overall quality. Thermo Fisher Scientific’s Niton received the highest overall vendor satisfaction score. Innov-X, now part of Olympus (see IBO 8/15/10) and Bruker AXS tied for second.

Similarly, respondents were given a list of handheld XRF features and asked to rate their respective systems on a 1–5 scale. The systems with the highest overall ratings were, in order, the Thermo Scientific Niton XL3t, the Thermo Scientific Niton XL2 and Oxford Instruments’ X-Met 3000.

Column Graph: Handheld XRF Initial Systems Sales (millions)

2009 2010 2011

$164 $173 $174