In a study in the laboratories of the Chicago Board of Health, the results from determination of lead in paint films by X-ray fluorescence were compared with results from determination by atomic absorption. Portable instruments of three suppliers were used for X-ray fluorescence measurements. An improved version of one of these instruments was also tested. The results of X-ray fluorescence readings on painted card stock panels with one of these instruments compared satisfactorily with the results as determined by the atomic absorption method at levels below 10 mg of lead per square centimeter. Readings on multiple layers of these panels were additive and independent of the order of these panels. All four instruments were tested in the laboratory on painted surfaces from the walls of condemned buildings. The most recent version of each instrument gave a correlation coefficient of 0.96 or better for the linear regression of lead values in milligrams per square centimeter by atomic absorption against instrument readings. It was calculated that a reading of 3.2 or greater on any of the instruments would indicate with greater than 95 percent confidence that 1 mg or more of lead per square centimeter would be found when a sample of the paint was analyzed by atomic absorption. When the readings of one of the instruments showed lead to be absent, that result would inidcate with better than 95 percent confidence that less than 1 mg of lead per square centimeter would be found by the atomic absorption method. Portable X-ray fluorescence instruments can be used in situ to determine whether the walls of a building give readings for lead above the range of 0 to 3.2. Walls with readings above this range can be considered to have 1 mg or more of lead per square centimeter and would not be in conformance with the code of the City of Chicago. Samples would need to be taken for analysis in the laboratory by atomic absorption only from those walls with readings within the range of 0 to 3.2.