When a portable reading in the field doesn’t match what the lab reports later, the instinct is to question the instrument. A peer-reviewed review of handheld XRF use in field geology, including work informing planetary surface exploration, found that how a sample was prepared and presented before scanning was consistently what limited data quality and interpretation, more so than the instrument’s own performance (ScienceDirect). 

The same pattern shows up in reflectance spectroscopy. The analyser itself is usually fine. What varies from one reading to the next is everything around it: how the sample was positioned, how far it sat from the sensor, what the light was doing at the time, and whether today’s scan was taken the same way as last week’s.

For exploration and mine-site teams using field NIR and SWIR reflectance spectroscopy to vector alteration mineralogy, that distinction is not academic. It is the difference between data you can use to place the next hole and data you end up quietly discounting once you notice it does not agree with itself.

Sample Presentation Does More Damage Than People Expect

Researchers examining portable XRF performance on minerals and loose geological materials found that particle size, porosity and moisture shift a reading away from a laboratory result, even when the instrument’s own settings are correct and nothing about the analytical method has gone wrong (Minerals, MDPI). 

The sample itself, not the sensor, is where most of the disagreement comes from. A rock chip measured against the fibre optic at one angle and distance will not necessarily reproduce a reading taken from the same chip five minutes later at a slightly different angle, and a hand sample scanned wet will not spectrally resemble the same sample scanned dry.

For teams already running a portable XRF programme alongside NIR, this is a useful reminder that the two techniques answer different questions and carry different presentation sensitivities. A Guide to Portable XRF Geochemistry in Mining covers how elemental data fits into a broader exploration geochemistry programme, which is a useful companion to the mineralogical picture NIR provides.

The Same Discipline Applies to Reflectance Measurements

Reflectance spectroscopy has its own version of this problem, and field practitioners have documented it directly. One widely used field protocol for canopy and target reflectance calls for a white reference measurement immediately before a set of readings, followed by a second reference measurement afterwards as a check. If the two reference readings differ by more than a small margin, the intervening measurements are treated as unreliable, because it means the illumination changed partway through (2Excel Geo). 

The same logic applies to a drill core tray scanned under a fixed light source or an outcrop scanned in variable daylight. Without a consistent, checkable reference, there is no way to know afterwards whether a spectral shift reflects a change in the rock or a change in the light.

This is also where the distinction between contact and non-contact measurement geometry starts to matter in practice. A contact measurement removes ambient light from the equation entirely, at the cost of needing consistent physical contact with the sample. A non-contact measurement is faster across a chip tray but reintroduces distance and angle as variables. Neither approach is wrong. 

What matters is knowing which one you are running and controlling for its particular failure mode. For readers who want the fundamentals of how NIR compares to laboratory analysis in the first place, Is There an Alternative to Mineral Analysis Laboratories? Introducing Portable NIR is a good starting point.

Why the Margin for Error Is Shrinking

None of this is new to experienced field geologists, but the tolerance for inconsistent data is narrowing. JORC’s most recent update on its Code review, presented at a webinar on 20 August 2026, confirms the legal review of the first full revision to the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves since 2012 is now in its final stages, with the Code, Table 1 and Guidance Notes targeted for finalisation in the second half of 2026 ahead of CRIRSCO, ASX and ASIC review (JORC). 

Among the changes flagged is a sharper definition of a Competent Person’s responsibility for the documentation supporting a Public Report, alongside a new Record of Relevant Experience requirement for Competent Persons, itself still under legal review.

That raises the practical bar for field programmes. 

Data that supported a resource estimate five years ago on the strength of a geologist’s experience now needs to stand up to closer questioning about method, not just outcome. A measurement taken with a fixed, repeatable geometry and a documented calibration check is far easier to defend than one that relied on whoever was holding the probe that day.

Built for the Problem: The Spectral Evolution Range

Portable Analytical Solutions is the Australian distributor for Spectral Evolution, and the manufacturer’s geology and mining spectrometer range covers the field-portable and laboratory spectroradiometers that sit behind a lot of this workflow. What often gets less attention is that the accessory chosen for a given task usually decides whether the presentation problem above is solved or reintroduced.

For readers who want the broader case for why field NIR mineralogy matters to an exploration programme in the first place, Australia Is Drilling More Than Ever, So Why Aren’t We Finding More? The Case for Mineralogy at the Drill Site covers that ground. This piece is about what happens once you have decided to run field spectroscopy and need the data to actually be trustworthy.

A few examples of how specific accessories map onto specific failure modes:

• Contact Probe (Standard and Miniprobe): fixes the spot size (10mm or 3mm) and geometry against the sample, with the standard probe’s sapphire window keeping ambient light out entirely. This addresses the angle-and-distance variability that comes with holding a probe freehand.
• Benchtop Reflectance Probe: gives loose or particulate material, drill chips, pulps, soils, a standardised chamber and a reusable quartz window rather than an open bench surface, which is exactly the particle-size and presentation sensitivity the MDPI research points to.
• Pistol Grip Fiber Holder: standardises how a non-contact reading is held and triggered, reducing the operator-to-operator variability that shows up when several people are running the same instrument across a shift.
• Field of View Lenses: fix the target framing at a given distance, so a non-contact scan of a rock face or chip tray is measuring a consistent area rather than whatever falls within an uncontrolled cone.
• Reflectance Panels and the ILM series light sources: provide the white reference and consistent illumination that the field spectroscopy protocol above depends on, with an Easy-Mount Tripod to hold the panel and pistol grip in a fixed position rather than propped against whatever is nearby.
• Fiber Optic Cables: field-replaceable and ruggedised in stainless steel, so a damaged cable can be swapped on site rather than the whole instrument being sent away mid-programme.

None of this replaces sound technique. It removes some of the ways technique can quietly drift over a long field season.

Built for the Conditions, Not Just the Bench

The ABS’s June quarter 2026 release, published 31 August 2026, shows mineral exploration expenditure reaching $1,189.8 million for the quarter, the highest quarterly figure in the ABS series back to at least 2018, up 24.8% on the March quarter. Metres drilled rose 29.1% over the same period, to 3,461.6km (Australian Bureau of Statistics). 

More metres drilled means more instrument-days in the field, and more instrument-days means more exposure to dust, heat, transport and general handling.

This is where the less glamorous accessories earn their place. A Pelican case protects the instrument and its accessories in transit between sites. A custom-fit backpack keeps the same kit organised and carryable across a full day’s traverse. A rugged, IP65-rated tablet with GPS keeps data collection functional in conditions that would put a standard laptop out of action within a season. 

None of these change what the spectrometer measures. They change how many field days the whole setup survives before something needs replacing, which has its own bearing on how consistent a season’s data ends up being.

The Accessory Is Part of the Method

The research on field spectroscopy keeps landing in the same place: the instrument is rarely the weak point, and the way a sample is presented, lit and handled usually is. As reporting standards tighten and exploration budgets push more teams into genuinely new ground, that distinction matters more than it used to. 

Choosing the right contact probe, reflectance panel or field case is not an afterthought once the spectrometer is bought. It is part of how the measurement is actually made.

If you would like to talk through which accessories suit your program, or which instrument in the Spectral Evolution geology and mining range fits your fieldwork, get in touch with the PAS team. We also offer manufacturer-accredited training on the full accessory range.

Sources:

• ABS

• Science Direct

• MDPI

• 2EXCELGEO

• JORC

In response to recent contamination scares, Australian regulators are redefining what counts as “high risk” for asbestos. Products once considered low risk are now under scrutiny. Testing requirements are tightening. And the assumption that asbestos is a “legacy problem” is being challenged once again.

At the centre of this shift is a series of contamination incidents that exposed a critical gap. Not in legislation, but in detection.

This article explores how those incidents reshaped risk classifications, why existing testing frameworks failed to catch the problem early, and what this means for regulators, importers, and safety professionals moving forward. 

It also looks at the growing need for faster, more accessible detection methods, and how emerging technologies are helping bridge the gap between compliance and real-world risk.

When “Low Risk” Isn’t Low Risk

In late 2025, authorities moved to reclassify certain imported materials, including children’s play sand, as “high risk” (1). This followed widespread recalls and school closures after asbestos was detected in products previously allowed to enter the country without mandatory testing (2).

For regulators, the issue was not a lack of rules. Australia has some of the strictest asbestos bans in the world, in place since 2003. The problem was how risk was defined.

Materials like coloured sand had historically been treated as low risk. That classification meant less scrutiny at the border and fewer testing requirements before distribution. But the contamination events revealed a flaw. Risk assessments were based on assumptions about manufacturing processes and supply chains, not direct verification.

When those assumptions failed, asbestos slipped through.

A System Built on Detection—But Not Always Designed for It

Australia’s regulatory framework relies heavily on identifying asbestos before exposure occurs. This typically involves laboratory testing, carried out after samples are collected and sent away for analysis.

While accurate, this approach has limitations.

• Testing is often reactive rather than proactive
• Results can take days to return
• Sampling is selective, not comprehensive
• Suspect materials may already be handled or distributed before confirmation

In the case of the contaminated sand, detection did not occur at the border. It happened later, through testing processes that were never designed to catch every instance.

This is not an isolated issue. The Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency continues to report detections in a wide range of imported goods, from construction materials to automotive components (3).

The reality is clear. Regulation can set the rules, but detection determines whether those rules are effective.

Tightening Rules Means Increasing Pressure on Testing

The reclassification of materials as “high risk” is a logical response. It increases accountability at the import stage and reduces reliance on assumptions.

However, it also introduces new challenges.

More products requiring testing means:

• Higher volumes of material needing verification
• Greater pressure on laboratories and compliance teams
• Increased delays in supply chains
• Rising costs for importers and regulators

In short, the system becomes more robust—but also more strained. This is where the conversation begins to shift. Not just toward stricter rules, but toward better tools.

The Case for Faster, On-Site Screening

To close the gap between regulation and reality, detection needs to move closer to the point of risk.

That means identifying asbestos:

• At the border, before products are cleared
• On-site, before materials are handled or installed
• In real time, without waiting for lab results

This is the space where new technologies are making a meaningful impact.

One example is the ASBpro handheld asbestos analyser, developed by PAS Scientific and distributed by Portable Analytical Solutions.

Unlike traditional methods, ASBpro is designed for rapid, on-site identification of asbestos-containing materials.

How ASBpro Addresses the Detection Gap

ASBpro introduces a fundamentally different approach to asbestos testing. Rather than relying on off-site analysis, it allows users to assess materials immediately, at the point of inspection.

Key benefits include:

• Real-time results
  Identify asbestos in minutes, not days, reducing delays and uncertainty
• On-site testing capability
  Perform analysis directly at ports, warehouses, construction sites, or manufacturing facilities
• Reduced reliance on lab workflows
  Minimise bottlenecks and free up laboratory resources for confirmatory testing where needed
• Improved risk management
  Make faster decisions before materials are disturbed, distributed, or installed
• Portability and ease of use
  A handheld format enables use by inspectors and safety officers in the field.

This is not about replacing laboratory testing altogether. It is about strengthening the system by adding a first line of defence. With rapid screening, high-risk materials can be identified earlier, and only confirmed cases need to move through more time-intensive lab processes.

From Reactive to Preventative

Australia’s move to tighten asbestos testing rules reflects a broader shift in thinking. The goal is no longer just to respond to contamination. It is to prevent it from reaching people in the first place.

That requires more than policy. It requires capability.

As the definition of “high risk” expands, so too must the tools used to manage that risk. Technologies like ASBpro support this transition by enabling faster, more accessible detection. They reduce reliance on assumptions and create opportunities for earlier intervention.

In a regulatory environment where the stakes are high and the margin for error is small, that shift matters. Because when it comes to asbestos, the difference between assumption and certainty is everything.

Sources:

• Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency

• The Guardian

• BBC News

More than 30 toys were recently recalled across the UK after asbestos was found in something as ordinary as children’s play sand (1).

The concerning part was not just the contamination itself. It was that these products had already undergone testing and were cleared for sale before reaching consumers.

The discovery did not come from routine compliance checks. It was triggered after concerns were raised by a customer, prompting further investigation. By that point, the products had already entered homes, schools, and retail environments.

This raises a critical question. If testing exists, how is asbestos still being missed?

When Testing Isn’t Enough

The UK recall highlights a broader issue that extends well beyond a single product category or region.

In theory, strict regulations and established testing protocols should prevent asbestos from entering the market. Many countries, particularly Australia, have long-standing bans supported by robust compliance frameworks (2).

Yet incidents like this continue to occur. The issue is not the absence of testing. It is the effectiveness, timing, and accessibility of that testing. In this case, initial assessments failed to detect asbestos fibres present in the sand. Only after additional scrutiny was the contamination identified, leading to widespread recalls and concern among regulators.

This suggests a gap between what testing is designed to do and what it is able to achieve in practice, in real-time situations.

The Limits of Traditional Detection Methods

Most asbestos identification relies on laboratory-based analysis. Samples are collected, sent to a lab, and examined using specialised techniques. This approach is highly accurate under controlled conditions. However, it comes with practical limitations that become more pronounced in complex, fast-moving supply chains.

• Testing is often sample-based, not comprehensive
• Results can take days to process and return
• Materials may already be distributed or used before confirmation
• Detection depends on where and when samples are taken

In global supply chains, where materials may pass through multiple suppliers, manufacturers, and distributors, these limitations create risk. If contamination is inconsistent or present at low levels, it can be missed during initial testing. If samples are not representative, results may not reflect the true condition of the product.

The result is a system that can confirm asbestos when it is found. But it cannot always guarantee it will be found in time.

Bonus Resource: Understanding the Technology Behind Modern Asbestos Detection

Technologies like ASBpro are powered by near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy—a method that identifies materials based on how they interact with light, enabling rapid, non-destructive analysis in real-world environments.

While its applications today are highly advanced, NIR has a long and fascinating history that underpins its reliability and growing role in field-based testing.

Read more: The Fascinating History of NIR: From Discovery to Modern Applications

A Problem of Timing and Proximity

One of the most important factors in asbestos detection is timing.

In many cases, testing occurs at specific checkpoints. During manufacturing, at import, or during compliance audits. These are important controls, but they are also limited in scope. Between those checkpoints, materials move. They are processed, packaged, transported, and sold.

If contamination is introduced at any stage, or if it was missed during earlier testing, it may not be identified until much later.

By then, exposure risk increases.

This is what makes incidents like the UK toy recall particularly concerning. The system worked in the sense that contamination was eventually identified. But it worked too late.

Moving Closer to the Point of Risk

To reduce the likelihood of missed asbestos, detection needs to evolve. Not just in accuracy, but in accessibility.

Testing needs to happen closer to where decisions are made. At the point of import, during handling, and before materials are used or distributed. It needs to be fast enough to support real-time decisions, not delayed responses.

This shift from centralised, lab-based testing to more flexible, field-based detection is already underway. Technologies are emerging that allow asbestos identification to move beyond the lab and into the environments where risk actually exists.

A More Immediate Approach to Asbestos Detection

The ASBpro handheld asbestos analyser, developed by PAS Scientific, reflects this shift.

Rather than relying solely on off-site analysis, ASBpro enables rapid, on-site identification of asbestos-containing materials. This changes how and when detection occurs.

Instead of waiting for lab results, users can assess materials in real time, at the point of inspection.

Key advantages include:

• Immediate results
  Detects asbestos in seconds, enabling faster decision-making in real-time.
• On-site capability
  Test materials at ports, warehouses, retail environments, or worksites
• Reduced reliance on sampling assumptions
  Assess materials directly, rather than depending on limited samples
• Improved supply chain visibility
  Identify potential issues before products move further downstream
• Practical, portable design
  Suitable for inspectors and safety professionals in the field

This approach does not replace laboratory testing entirely. Instead, it strengthens the overall system by introducing an earlier layer of detection. Materials that raise concern can still undergo confirmatory lab analysis, but only after being flagged through rapid screening.

From Detection to Prevention

The UK toy recall serves as a reminder that asbestos is not just a historical issue. It remains a present-day risk, particularly in global supply chains where variability is difficult to control. More importantly, it highlights that the challenge is not simply whether we test for asbestos, but how effectively we detect it before exposure occurs.

As regulatory expectations increase and supply chains become more complex, the need for faster, more accessible detection will continue to grow. Technologies like ASBpro support this shift by enabling earlier intervention and more informed decision-making.

Because when it comes to asbestos, finding it eventually is not enough. It needs to be found before it becomes a risk.

If you have any questions about the ASBpro, or anything related to this article, please get in touch with our team.

Sources:

• Australian Border Force

• The Guardian