Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Grab versus composite sampling: A primer for the manager and engineer

  • Research
  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Effluent subsamples are usually aggregated into flow or time proportional samples before analysis. Although this provides information on average process conditions, that on process variability is lost by compositing. Fisher's information is defined and used to estimate the loss due to compositing. The results of simulations based on parameters derived from actual waste streams support the fact that random grabs serve as well as composite samples for monitoring purposes. These findings favor changes in regulatory practice to allow compliance to be demonstrated by grab sample averages. Reporting requirements based on moving averages are shown to be inferior to those based on averages taken over nonoverlapping time periods.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature cited

  • Fulk, R. J., K. R. Huibregtse, N. Kobriger, R. Wullschleger, and J. E. Kane, 1979.Proposed System for Determining NPDES and NIPDWR Method Equivalency. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, G. J., and S. S. Shapiro, 1967.Statistical Models in Engineering. Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janardan, K. G., and D. J. Schaeffer, 1977. Sampling frequency and comparison of grab and composite sampling programs for effluents.Proceedings of the Second International Ecological Congress Satellite Program in Statistical Ecology. University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, August 10, 1977. In press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohde, C. A., 1976. Composite sampling.Biometrics 32: 278–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaeffer, D. J., and K. G. Janardan, 1978. Theoretical comparison of grab and composite sampling programs.Biometrical Journal 20: 215–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974.Comparison of Manual (Grab) and Vacuum type Automatic Sampling Techniques on an Individual and Composite Sample Basis. Denver, Colorado; National Field Investigations Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallin, T. R., and D. J. Schaeffer, 1979. Illinois redesigns its ambient Water quality Monitoring network.Environmental Management 3: 313–319.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 62706, Springfield, Illinois

    David J. Schaeffer

  2. Environmental Studies Center, California State University, 95819, Sacramento, California

    Harold W. Kerster

  3. Math Systems, Sangamon State University, 62708, Springfield, Illinois

    Konanur G. Janardan

Authors
  1. David J. Schaeffer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Harold W. Kerster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Konanur G. Janardan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schaeffer, D.J., Kerster, H.W. & Janardan, K.G. Grab versus composite sampling: A primer for the manager and engineer. Environmental Management 4, 157–163 (1980). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01866512

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01866512

Key words

Search

Navigation