Advertisement

Accreditation and Quality Assurance

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 163–170 | Cite as

Assessing soil sampling uncertainty in heterogeneous historic metal ore mining sites

  • Sabina DołęgowskaEmail author
  • Agnieszka Gałuszka
  • Zdzisław M. Migaszewski
General Paper

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.

Keywords

Uncertainty Soil samples Heterogeneity Transformation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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

Supplementary material

769_2015_1109_MOESM1_ESM.docx (147 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 146 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Smith PL (2004) Audit and assessment of sampling system. Chemometr Intell Lab 74:225–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 12:67–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ernst WHO (1995) Sampling of plant material for chemical analysis. Sci Total Environ 176:15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ramsey MH (2002) Appropriate rather than representative sampling, based on acceptable levels of uncertainty. Accred Qual Assur 7:274–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 ednGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 ReportGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Zorzi P, Belli M, Barbizzi S, Menegon S, Delusia A (2002) A practical approach to assessment of sampling uncertainty. Accred Qual Assur 7:182–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 127:131–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thompson M (1998) Uncertainty of sampling in chemical analysis. Accred Qual Assur 3:117–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ramsey MH (1998) Sampling as a source of measurement uncertainty: techniques for quantification and comparison with analytical sources. J Anal At Spectrom 13:97–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gy PM (1995) Introduction to the theory of sampling I. Heterogeneity of a population of uncorrelated units. TRAC-Trend Anal Chem 14:67–74Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Petersen L, Minkkinen P, Esbensen KH (2005) Representative sampling for reliable data analysis: theory of Sampling. Chemometr Intell Lab 22:261–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bodnar M, Namieśnik J, Konieczka P (2013) Validation of a sampling procedure. TRAC-Trend Anal Chem 51:117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 50:88–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 19:372–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 36:1163–1172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 33:25–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 39:1001–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sakia RM (1992) The Box–Cox transformation technique: a review. Statistician 41:169–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 32:1133–1151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gy PM (1995) The future of analysis: to check the sampling errors is the only way to improve the overall analytical reliability. Analysis 23:497–500Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Garrett RG (1969) The determination of sampling and analytical errors in exploration geochemistry. Econ Geol 64:568–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ramsey MH, Thompson M, Halle M (1992) Objective evaluation of precision requirements for geochemical analysis using robust analysis of variance. J Geochem Explor 44:23–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zhang Ch (2007) Fundamentals of environmental sampling and analysis. Wiley, New JerseyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ramsey MH, Argyraki A (1997) Estimation of measurement uncertainty from field sampling: implications for the classification of contaminated land. Sci Total Environ 198:243–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 264:119–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 63:591–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lee J-Ch, Ramsey MH (2001) Modelling measurement uncertainty as a function of concentration: an example from a contaminated land investigation. Analyst 126:1784–1791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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 198:105–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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 94–358Google Scholar
  31. 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 66:1582–1587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Engineering Statistics Handbook (2003) NIST/SEMATECHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rostron P, Ramsey MH (2012) Cost effective, robust estimation of measurement uncertainty from sampling using unbalanced ANOVA. Accred Qual Assur 17:7–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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. 35.
    Hyndman RJ, Athanasopoulos G (2014) Forecasting: principles and practice. OTextsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sabina Dołęgowska
    • 1
    Email author
  • Agnieszka Gałuszka
    • 1
  • Zdzisław M. Migaszewski
    • 1
  1. 1.Geochemistry and the Environment Division, Institute of ChemistryJan Kochanowski UniversityKielcePoland

Personalised recommendations