Literature DB >> 21416214

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

André Desaules1.   

Abstract

Concern that human impacts on the environment may be harmful to natural resources such as soils as well as to living conditions is the major motivation for long-term environmental monitoring. However, the evidence that measurement bias is not constant through time affects time series as an artifact; this also holds true for chemical soil monitoring. Measurement instabilities occur along the whole measurement chain, from soil sampling to the expression of results. The first step in controlling measurement instability is to identify its relevant sources, and the second is to control it by stabilizing, minimizing, or quantifying measurement instability. For all five steps in the measurement process, from soil sampling to the expression of the analytical results, sources of measurement instability are identified and measures of control discussed, leading to the main conclusion concerning the requirement to continuously control the relevant environmental and measurement boundary conditions that may affect measurement instability. The innovative aspect of this paper consists in explicitly addressing measurement instability in chemical soil monitoring and tracking it along the whole measurement chain. The paper is also a plea for a change of paradigm in long-term environmental monitoring, namely to consider temporal measurements as unstable unless their degree of stability is traceably demonstrated, adequately quantified, and included in interpretation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21416214     DOI: 10.1007/s10661-011-1982-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Monit Assess        ISSN: 0167-6369            Impact factor:   2.513


  18 in total

1.  Quantitative evaluation of the CEEM soil sampling intercomparison.

Authors:  G Wagner; P Lischer; S Theocharopoulos; H Muntau; A Desaules; P Quevauviller
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2001-01-08       Impact factor: 7.963

2.  Global climate change in the instrumental period.

Authors:  M Hulme; P D Jones
Journal:  Environ Pollut       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 8.071

3.  Comparison of analytical error and sampling error for contaminated soil.

Authors:  Björn Gustavsson; Karin Luthbom; Anders Lagerkvist
Journal:  J Hazard Mater       Date:  2006-08-22       Impact factor: 10.588

Review 4.  Soil monitoring in Europe: a review of existing systems and requirements for harmonisation.

Authors:  X Morvan; N P A Saby; D Arrouays; C Le Bas; R J A Jones; F G A Verheijen; P H Bellamy; M Stephens; M G Kibblewhite
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2007-12-11       Impact factor: 7.963

5.  Empirical versus modelling approaches to the estimation of measurement uncertainty caused by primary sampling.

Authors:  Jennifer A Lyn; Michael H Ramsey; Andrew P Damant; Roger Wood
Journal:  Analyst       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 4.616

6.  Theoretical and practical criteria for the selection of ecosystem monitoring plots in Swiss forests.

Authors:  J L Innes
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 2.513

7.  Climate change: hot questions of temperature bias.

Authors:  Chris E Forest; Richard W Reynolds
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2008-05-29       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  Carbon losses from all soils across England and Wales 1978-2003.

Authors:  Pat H Bellamy; Peter J Loveland; R Ian Bradley; R Murray Lark; Guy J D Kirk
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2005-09-08       Impact factor: 49.962

9.  Temporal aggregation bias and inference of causal regulatory networks.

Authors:  S D Bay; L Chrisman; A Pohorille; J Shrager
Journal:  J Comput Biol       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 1.479

10.  Some local environmental effects on mercury emission and absorption at a soil surface.

Authors:  A A Gillis; D R Miller
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2000-10-09       Impact factor: 7.963

View more
  4 in total

1.  The role of metadata and strategies to detect and control temporal data bias in environmental monitoring of soil contamination.

Authors:  André Desaules
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2011-12-23       Impact factor: 2.513

2.  Long-term environmental monitoring for assessment of change: measurement inconsistencies over time and potential solutions.

Authors:  Kari E Ellingsen; Nigel G Yoccoz; Torkild Tveraa; Judi E Hewitt; Simon F Thrush
Journal:  Environ Monit Assess       Date:  2017-10-30       Impact factor: 2.513

3.  Methods of Soil Resampling to Monitor Changes in the Chemical Concentrations of Forest Soils.

Authors:  Gregory B Lawrence; Ivan J Fernandez; Paul W Hazlett; Scott W Bailey; Donald S Ross; Thomas R Villars; Angelica Quintana; Rock Ouimet; Michael R McHale; Chris E Johnson; Russell D Briggs; Robert A Colter; Jason Siemion; Olivia L Bartlett; Olga Vargas; Michael R Antidormi; Mary M Koppers
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2016-11-25       Impact factor: 1.355

4.  Mercury in the soil of two contrasting watersheds in the eastern United States.

Authors:  Douglas A Burns; Laurel G Woodruff; Paul M Bradley; William F Cannon
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-02-14       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.