Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing soil sampling uncertainty in heterogeneous historic metal ore mining sites

  • General Paper
  • Published:
Accreditation and Quality Assurance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Eighteen duplicate, composite soil samples from heterogeneous remote historic metal ore mining sites (Miedzianka Mt. and Karczówka Mt., south-central Poland) were analyzed twice for As, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Mn, Ni, Pb and Zn by the ICP-MS method after aqua regia extraction. Subsequently, the results were tested for normality. The sampling uncertainty [expressed as the relative standard deviation s rsamp (%)] was computed using three different methods: ANOVA, RANOVA and range statistics. However, it was possible to use all three methods only for Cr and Pb (Miedzianka) and for Co (Karczówka). The obtained values were in the ranges of: 15.6–16.0 % for Cr, 17.0–20.2 % for Co and 24.6–38.7 % for Pb. The sampling uncertainty for these elements that revealed non-normally distributed data was calculated using the robust ANOVA. The results varied from 12.1 % (As) to 31.9 % (Ni) in soils from Karczówka, and from 9.2 % (Co) to 35.9 % (Cu) in soils from Miedzianka. The highest s rsamp values exceeding 20 % were noted for Cd (31.9 %) and Ni (26.0 %) in soils from Karczówka, and for Cu (20.5 %) and Mn (35.9 %) in soils from Miedzianka. Because traditional methods of transformation were insufficient to reduce non-normality, the Box–Cox model was applied to these four elements. The sampling uncertainty, computed for transformed data with a one-way ANOVA method, was as follows: 20.1 % (Cd), 7.3 % (Ni), 4.6 % (Cu) and 4.6 % (Mn) and for back-transformed data: 39.7 % (Cd), 12.8 % (Ni), 7.4 % (Cu) and 12.4 % (Mn). The sampling uncertainty was lower compared to the values calculated with raw data, but the interpretation of results obtained was problematic.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Smith PL (2004) Audit and assessment of sampling system. Chemometr Intell Lab 74:225–230

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Lyn JA, Palestra IM, Ramsey MH, Damant AP, Wood R (2007) Modifying uncertainty from sampling to achieve fitness for purpose: a case study on nitrate in lettuce. Accred Qual Assur 12:67–74

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Ernst WHO (1995) Sampling of plant material for chemical analysis. Sci Total Environ 176:15–24

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ramsey MH (2002) Appropriate rather than representative sampling, based on acceptable levels of uncertainty. Accred Qual Assur 7:274–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ramsey MH, Ellison SLR (2007) Eurachem/EUROLAB/CITAC/Nordest/AMC Guide: measurement uncertainty arising from sampling, A guide to methods and approaches Eurachem, 1st edn

  6. Grøn C, Hansen JB, Magnusson B, Nordbotten A, Krysell M, Andersen KJ, Lund U (2007) Uncertainty from sampling. A nordtest handbook for sampling planners on sampling quality assurance and uncertainty estimation. NT Technical Report

  7. de Zorzi P, Belli M, Barbizzi S, Menegon S, Delusia A (2002) A practical approach to assessment of sampling uncertainty. Accred Qual Assur 7:182–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Barbizzi S, de Zorzi P, Belli M, Pati A, Sansone U, Stellato L, Barbina M, Deluisa A, Menegon S, Coletti V (2004) Characterisation of a reference site for quantifying uncertainties related to soil sampling. Environ Pollut 127:131–135

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Thompson M (1998) Uncertainty of sampling in chemical analysis. Accred Qual Assur 3:117–121

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Ramsey MH (1998) Sampling as a source of measurement uncertainty: techniques for quantification and comparison with analytical sources. J Anal At Spectrom 13:97–104

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Gy PM (1995) Introduction to the theory of sampling I. Heterogeneity of a population of uncorrelated units. TRAC-Trend Anal Chem 14:67–74

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Petersen L, Minkkinen P, Esbensen KH (2005) Representative sampling for reliable data analysis: theory of Sampling. Chemometr Intell Lab 22:261–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bodnar M, Namieśnik J, Konieczka P (2013) Validation of a sampling procedure. TRAC-Trend Anal Chem 51:117–126

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Aboal JR, Couto JA, Fernández JA, Carballeira A (2006) Definition of number of subsamples for using mosses as biomonitors of airborne trace elements. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 50:88–96

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Hildebrandt T, Pick D, Einax JW (2012) Improvement of sampling strategies for randomly distributed hotspots in soil applying a computerized simulation considering the concept of uncertainty. Environ Sci Pollut Res 19:372–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fernández JA, Aboal JR, Couto JA, Carballeira A (2002) Sampling optimization at the sampling-site scale for monitoring atmospheric deposition using moss chemistry. Atmos Environ 36:1163–1172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hudson TL, Borden JC, Russ M, Bergstrom PD (1997) Controls on As, Pb, and Mn distribution in community soils of an historic mining district, southwestern Colorado. Environ Geol 33:25–42

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Reimann C, Filzmoser P (2000) Normal and log-normal data distribution in geochemistry: death of a myth. Consequences for the statistical treatment of geochemical and environmental data. Environ Geol 39:1001–1014

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Sakia RM (1992) The Box–Cox transformation technique: a review. Statistician 41:169–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Clark MJR, Laidlaw MCA, Ryneveld SC, Ward MI (1996) Estimating sampling variance and local environmental heterogeneity for both known and estimated analytical variance. Chemosphere 32:1133–1151

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Gy PM (1995) The future of analysis: to check the sampling errors is the only way to improve the overall analytical reliability. Analysis 23:497–500

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Garrett RG (1969) The determination of sampling and analytical errors in exploration geochemistry. Econ Geol 64:568–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ramsey MH, Thompson M, Halle M (1992) Objective evaluation of precision requirements for geochemical analysis using robust analysis of variance. J Geochem Explor 44:23–36

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Zhang Ch (2007) Fundamentals of environmental sampling and analysis. Wiley, New Jersey

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. Ramsey MH, Argyraki A (1997) Estimation of measurement uncertainty from field sampling: implications for the classification of contaminated land. Sci Total Environ 198:243–257

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Lischer P, Dahinden UR, Desaules A (2001) Quantifying uncertainty of the reference sampling procedure used at Dornach under different soil conditions. Sci Total Environ 264:119–126

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Erceg-Hurn DM, Mirosevich VM (2008) Modern robust statistical methods an easy way to maximize the accuracy and power of your research. Amer Psychol 63:591–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lee J-Ch, Ramsey MH (2001) Modelling measurement uncertainty as a function of concentration: an example from a contaminated land investigation. Analyst 126:1784–1791

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Jung MC, Thornton I (1997) Environmental contamination and seasonal variation of metals in soils, plants and waters in the paddy fields around a Pb-Zn mine in Korea. Sci Total Environ 198:105–121

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Garbarino T (1996) Inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometric method for the determination of dissolved trace elements in natural water. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 94–358

  31. Van der Perk M, de Zorzi P, Barbizzi S, Belli M, Fajgelj A, Sansone U, Jeran Z, Jaćimović R (2008) The effect of short-range spatial variability on soil sampling uncertainty. Appl Radiat Isot 66:1582–1587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Engineering Statistics Handbook (2003) NIST/SEMATECH

  33. Rostron P, Ramsey MH (2012) Cost effective, robust estimation of measurement uncertainty from sampling using unbalanced ANOVA. Accred Qual Assur 17:7–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Boon K (2007) Uncertainty from sampling contaminated soil. Uncertainty in Sampling Nordtest Workshop, 12th-13th April, Denmark (www.samplersguide.com/Tools/Workshop/uncertainty%20from%20sampling%20-%20contaminated%20soil.pdf)

  35. Hyndman RJ, Athanasopoulos G (2014) Forecasting: principles and practice. OTexts

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the National Science Center, a research grant (decision # DEC-2011/03/B/ST10/06328).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Geochemistry and the Environment Division, Institute of Chemistry, Jan Kochanowski University, 15G Świętokrzyska St., 25-406, Kielce, Poland

    Sabina Dołęgowska, Agnieszka Gałuszka & Zdzisław M. Migaszewski

Authors
  1. Sabina Dołęgowska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Agnieszka Gałuszka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zdzisław M. Migaszewski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sabina Dołęgowska.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 146 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dołęgowska, S., Gałuszka, A. & Migaszewski, Z.M. Assessing soil sampling uncertainty in heterogeneous historic metal ore mining sites. Accred Qual Assur 20, 163–170 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00769-015-1109-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00769-015-1109-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation