Diffusion rates of numerous trace elements in bone at 20°C were determined using laser-ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry analysis of experimentally induced diffusion profiles. Diffusivities are about 1 order of magnitude slower than current semiquantitative geochemical views and about 1.5 orders of magnitude faster than indirect radiotracer estimates. Intrabone volume diffusion is too slow and too similar among many elements to explain trace element profiles in young fossils and archeological materials. Diffusivity differences among elements do, however, explain disparate biokinetic washout of Sr vs. Ba and of light vs. heavy rare earth elements (REEs). These results improve the understanding of the physical principles underlying biokinetic models and rates and mechanisms of trace element alteration of phosphatic tissues in paleontological, archeological, and crystal-chemical contexts. Recrystallization and transport limitations in soils explain trace element profiles in young fossils better than intrabone volume diffusion alone and imply that diffusion of REE and other trivalent cations is likely controlled by a common charge-compensating species rather than ionic radii or partition coefficients.T race elements can pose major health risks, especially radioactive products of nuclear processes. Many of these elements concentrate in bone (bone-seeking elements), including P, Ca, Zn, Sr, Ba, lanthanides, Pb, and actinides, where they can reside for decades before being gradually eliminated from the body (1). Bone's tenacious affinity for certain trace elements persists postmortem, as evidenced by orders of magnitude higher concentrations of trace elements in archeological bones and fossils compared with modern tissues (2). The question of how the bone mineral bioapatite-a calcium phosphate-takes up and releases these elements has launched a lively debate among numerous research groups. Health physicists have long debated in vivo remodeling (biologically controlled resorption and reprecipitation of bioapatite) vs. volume diffusion for explaining the slowest rates of uptake and release (3-8); such research is commonly termed biokinetics. Geochemists debate in vitro recrystallization and surface adsorption vs. diffusion for explaining trace element profiles in fossils, although diffusive processes are normally assumed (9, 10). Diffusion underpins both types of research because it provides a strict lower limit for rates of trace element uptake and release both in vivo and in vitro. Understanding diffusion rates therefore improves predictions of long-term clearance of trace elements from the body, as well as geological or archeological interpretations of trace elements or their isotopes, such as U-series geochronology, conditions of deposition and fossilization, and forensic discrimination among fossils (2).Surprisingly, virtually no experiments constrain trace element diffusion rates in bone, and we can find no studies that measured diffusion profiles directly. Consequently, we conducted 18-mo exper...