A practical approach to assessment of sampling uncertainty

Zorzi, Paolo de; Belli, M.; Barbizzi, Sabrina; Menegon, S.; Deluisa, A.

doi:10.1007/s00769-002-0447-1

Cited by 42 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is equivalent to a sampling proficiency test (Argyraki et al, 1995), then any sampling bias introduced by either the sampling protocol, or the sampler, can be detected and included in the estimate of uncertainty. (5) Geostatistical variography can be used to estimate the uncertainty of measurement from the combined sources of sampling and analysis (De Zorzi et al, 2002). It is particularly useful in cases where there is large-scale spatial and/or temporal variation in contaminant concentration that can be quantified and modelled.…”

Section: Estimation Of Uncertainty Due To Sampling and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of measurement uncertainty in a probabilistic scheme to assess compliance of bottled water with drinking water standards

Demetriades

2010

Journal of Geochemical Exploration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Estimation Of Uncertainty Due To Sampling and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of measurement uncertainty in a probabilistic scheme to assess compliance of bottled water with drinking water standards

Demetriades

2010

Journal of Geochemical Exploration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Eight soil samples were collected at an agricultural site, located in the North East of Italy (Pozzuolo del Friuli, Udine), within the framework of an APAT project [16]. Sampling was performed in June 2001, using strictly controlled protocols.…”

Section: Sample Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the present study, the three digestion methods reported above were compared for the analysis of eight agricultural soil samples collected at an Italian reference site, previously characterized within the framework of an APAT project focused on soil sampling uncertainty evaluation [16,17]. The measurand elements (As, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, Sb and Zn) were measured in the solutions of digested samples using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer (ICP-MS).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of different soil sample digestion methods on trace elements analysis: a comparison of ICP-MS and INAA measurement results

et al. 2007

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The measurement of trace-element concentration in soil, sediment and waste, is generally a combination of a digestion procedure for dissolution of elements and a subsequent measurement of the dissolved elements. "Partial" and "total" digestion methods can be used in environmental monitoring activities. To compare measurement results obtained by different methods, it is crucial to determine and to maintain control of the bias of the results obtained by these methods. In this paper, ICP-MS results obtained after matrix digestion with modified aqua regia (HCl + HNO 3 + H 2 O 2 ) method and two "total" digestion methods (microwave aqua regia + HF and HNO 3 + HF) are compared with those obtained by instrumental neutron activation analysis, a nondestructive analytical method for the determination of the total mass concentrations of inorganic components in environmental matrices. The comparison was carried out on eight agricultural soil samples collected in one test area and measured by k 0 -INAA and ICP-MS to determine As, Co, Cr, Sb and Zn mass concentration. The bias of results for As, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, Sb and Zn of the three digestion methods were assessed using selected measurement standards. This

show abstract

“…This variation is difficult to explain and seems to be erratic. In this context, it is important that u ak comprises not only uncertainty due to chemical analysis per se but to a large degree also uncertainty arising from sample preparation (drying, sieving, grinding), mixing including segregation effects (Lamé and Defize 1993) and splitting (De Zorzi et al 2002;Lyn et al 2003;Kurfürst et al 2004).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of sampling and analytical uncertainty of trace element contents in arable field soils

Buczko

Kuchenbuch

Übelhör

et al. 2011

Environ Monit Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessment of trace element contents in soils is required in Germany (and other countries) before sewage sludge application on arable soils. The reliability of measured element contents is affected by measurement uncertainty, which consists of components due to (1) sampling, (2) laboratory repeatability (intra-lab) and (3) reproducibility (between-lab). A complete characterization of average trace element contents in field soils should encompass the uncertainty of all these components. The objectives of this study were to elucidate the magnitude and relative proportions of uncertainty components for the metals As, B, Cd, Co, Cr, Mo, Ni, Pb, Tl and Zn in three arable fields of different field-scale heterogeneity, based on a collaborative trial (CT) (standardized procedure) and two sampling proficiency tests (PT) (individual sampling procedure). To obtain reference values and estimates of field-scale heterogeneity, a detailed reference sampling was conducted. Components of uncertainty (sampling person, sampling repetition, laboratory) were estimated by variance component analysis, whereas reproducibility uncertainty was estimated using results from numerous laboratory proficiency tests. Sampling uncertainty in general increased with field-scale heterogeneity; however, total uncertainty was mostly dominated by (total) laboratory uncertainty. Reproducibility analytical uncertainty was on average by a factor of about 3 higher than repeatability uncertainty. Therefore, analysis within one single laboratory and, for heterogeneous fields, a reduction of sampling uncertainty (for instance by larger numbers of sample increments and/or a denser coverage of the field area) would be most effective to reduce total uncertainty. On the other hand, when only intra-laboratory analytical uncertainty was considered, total sampling uncertainty on average prevailed over analytical uncertainty by a factor of 2. Both sampling and laboratory repeatability uncertainty were highly variable depending not only on the analyte but also on the field and the sampling trial. Comparison of PT with CT sampling suggests that standardization of sampling protocols reduces sampling uncertainty, especially for fields of low heterogeneity.

show abstract

A practical approach to assessment of sampling uncertainty

Cited by 42 publications

References 15 publications

Use of measurement uncertainty in a probabilistic scheme to assess compliance of bottled water with drinking water standards

Use of measurement uncertainty in a probabilistic scheme to assess compliance of bottled water with drinking water standards

The role of different soil sample digestion methods on trace elements analysis: a comparison of ICP-MS and INAA measurement results

Assessment of sampling and analytical uncertainty of trace element contents in arable field soils

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About