The manuscript addresses the review of an interesting topic, however, it lacks the necessary depth to warrant publication.

While the title and objectives clearly indicate a focus on urban soils, the manuscript does not provide a sufficient justification for limiting the review exclusively to urban soils. Why is the method under review only applicable to urban soils, and would it also be suitable for agricultural soils? The rationale for restricting the review to XRF studies conducted in urban soils is not clearly explained.

The introduction sets up expectations for the reader, but the conclusion essentially restates what can already be found in the individual studies reviewed.

Therefore, as it is currently presented, the manuscript does not offer significant new insights into the limitations and advantages of the method.

The information in Section 2 could be better organized and presented in a more reader-friendly format, such as tables or graphs, to enhance the clarity and accessibility of the bibliographic review results.

To make the review more engaging and to strengthen its case for publication, I suggest the inclusion of the following:

1. A list of the chemical elements analyzed in the reviewed studies, along with their frequency of occurrence.
2. A systematic presentation of R² values, along with estimates of the accuracy for each element.
3. The detection limits for each element, as reported in the reviewed studies.

Including these details would make the review more informative and comprehensive, offering additional value to the scientific community.

This study is relevant and necessary as it provides insight into the performance of portable X-ray devices. However, the article would benefit from a clearer structure and a well-defined research question to better guide the reader. Currently, the inclusion of numerous individual studies makes it difficult to follow, especially since they are not always synthetized or compared to one another—which should be a key objective of a review. Additionally, the study lacks detail on the choice of the urban setting, which could have a significant impact on the findings. Besides, the authors tends to wrote several times some informations for instance about the soil moisture/OM  or mode choice importance. This make the paper hard to read and without any clear onlusion while such study could have been helpful for choice in measurement technic. Finally, I'm not conviced about the "performance status" the authors accepted. In some cases there is a factor 2 to 3 between ICP and PXRF measurement which seems quiet high.