Literature DB >> 17030410

Comparison of analytical error and sampling error for contaminated soil.

Björn Gustavsson1, Karin Luthbom, Anders Lagerkvist.   

Abstract

Investigation of soil from contaminated sites requires several sample handling steps that, most likely, will induce uncertainties in the sample. The theory of sampling describes seven sampling errors that can be calculated, estimated or discussed in order to get an idea of the size of the sampling uncertainties. With the aim of comparing the size of the analytical error to the total sampling error, these seven errors were applied, estimated and discussed, to a case study of a contaminated site. The manageable errors were summarized, showing a range of three orders of magnitudes between the examples. The comparisons show that the quotient between the total sampling error and the analytical error is larger than 20 in most calculation examples. Exceptions were samples taken in hot spots, where some components of the total sampling error get small and the analytical error gets large in comparison. Low concentration of contaminant, small extracted sample size and large particles in the sample contribute to the extent of uncertainty.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17030410     DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.01.082

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Hazard Mater        ISSN: 0304-3894            Impact factor:   10.588


  5 in total

1.  Measurement instability and temporal bias in chemical soil monitoring: sources and control measures.

Authors:  André Desaules
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2011-03-18       Impact factor: 2.513

2.  Representativeness of laboratory sampling procedures for the analysis of trace metals in soil.

Authors:  Jean-Sébastien Dubé; Jean-Philippe Boudreault; Régis Bost; Mirela Sona; François Duhaime; Yannic Éthier
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2015-04-14       Impact factor: 4.223

3.  Soil sampling strategies for site assessments in petroleum-contaminated areas.

Authors:  Geonha Kim; Saikat Chowdhury; Yen-Min Lin; Chih-Jen Lu
Journal:  Environ Geochem Health       Date:  2016-12-19       Impact factor: 4.609

4.  Validation of Bayesian kriging of arsenic, chromium, lead, and mercury surface soil concentrations based on internode sampling.

Authors:  C M Aelion; H T Davis; Y Liu; A B Lawson; S McDermott
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2009-06-15       Impact factor: 9.028

5.  Soil Sample Assay Uncertainty and the Geographic Distribution of Contaminants: Error Impacts on Syracuse Trace Metal Soil Loading Analysis Results.

Authors:  Daniel A Griffith; Yongwan Chun
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-05-13       Impact factor: 3.390

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.