Advertisement

Inference on Mean and Variance

  • Ganapati P. PatilEmail author
  • Sharad D. Gore
  • Charles Taillie*
Chapter
  • 904 Downloads
Part of the Environmental and Ecological Statistics book series (ENES, volume 4)

Abstract

A common purpose of compositing sampling is to draw statistical inference on the population mean, and possibly on the population variance. As noted earlier (see Chapter 1), sampling units may be selected from a finite population or from a bulk population. In the former case, the sampling units are defined and exist before sampling while in the latter case, the sampling units are created by the sampling process.

Keywords

Individual Sample Sampling Unit Unbiased Estimator Finite Population Primary Sampling Unit 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Bibliography

  1. Baker, A. S., Kuo, S., and Chae, Y. M. (1981). Comparisons of arithmetic average soil pH values with the pH values of composite samples. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 45:828–830.Google Scholar
  2. Cameron, J. M. (1951). The use of components of variance in preparing schedules for sampling of baled wool. Biometrics 7:83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Connolly, J. and O’Connor, F. (1981). Comparison of random and composite sampling methods for the estimation of fat content of bulk milk supplies. Irish J. Agric. Res. 20:35–51.Google Scholar
  4. Edland, S. D. and van Belle, G. (1994). Decreased sampling costs and improved accuracy with composite sampling In Environmental Statistics, Assessment, and Forecasting, C. R. Cothern and N. P. Ross, eds. Lewis, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
  5. Mack, G. A. and Robinson, P. E. (1985). Use of composited samples to increase the precision and probability of detection of toxic chemicals. In Environmental Applications of Chemometrics, J. J. Breen, and P. E. Robinson, eds. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC. pp. 174–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Messner, M. J., Clayton, C. A., Michael, D. I., Neptune, M. D., and Brantley, E. P. (1990). Retrospective design solutions for a remedial investigation. (Supplement to: Quantitative decision making in superfund: A data quality objectives case study. Hazard. Mater. Control 3(3).Google Scholar
  7. Neptune, D., Brantly, E. P., Messner, M. J., and Michael, D. I. (1990). Quantitative decision making in Superfund: A data quality objectives case study. Hazard. Mater. Control 3:19–27.Google Scholar
  8. Peech, M. (1965). Hydrogen-ion activity. In Methods of Soil Analysis, C. A. Black, D. D. Evans, L. E. Ensminger, J. L. White, F. E. Clark, and R. C. Dinauer, eds. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin. Agronomy 9:914–926.Google Scholar
  9. USEPA (1983). Quality assurance program plan for the Office of Toxic Substances. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  10. Williams, L. R., Leggett, R. W., Espegren, M. L., and Little, C. A. (1989). Optimization of sampling for the determination of mean radium-226 concentration in surface soil. Environ. Monit. Assess. 12:83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ganapati P. Patil
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sharad D. Gore
    • 2
  • Charles Taillie*
    • 3
  1. 1.Center for Statistical Ecology and Environmental StatisticsPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  2. 2.Department of StatisticsUniversity of PunePuneIndia
  3. 3.Center for Statistical Ecology and Environmental StatisticsPenn State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations