Balancing measurement uncertainty against financial benefits: Comparison of in situ and ex situ analysis of contaminated land

Environmental Science and Technology

Volumn 38, Issue 24, 2004, Pages 6824-6831

  Taylor, Paul D ^a   Ramsey, Michael H ^a   Potts, Philip J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

^b OPEN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHEMICAL ANALYSIS; FLUORESCENCE; SOILS; X RAYS;

BALANCING MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY; OPTIMIZED CONTAMINATED LAND INVESTIGATION (OCLI); STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE (SOP);

CONTAMINATION;

LEAD;

CONTAMINATED LAND; ERROR ANALYSIS; LAND EVALUATION; SOIL POLLUTION; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; ATOMIC ABSORPTION SPECTROMETRY; CHEMICAL ANALYSIS; COST; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; ERROR; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; MEASUREMENT; NONHUMAN; SAMPLING; SOIL ANALYSIS; SOIL POLLUTION; UNCERTAINTY; X RAY FLUORESCENCE;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; LEAD; QUALITY CONTROL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SOIL POLLUTANTS; SPECTROMETRY, X-RAY EMISSION;

EID: 10644223667     PISSN: 0013936X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/es049739p     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Crumbling, D.; Groenjes, C.; Lesnik, B.; Lynch, K.; Shockley, J.; Van, E. E. J.; Howe, R.; Keith, L.; McKenna, J. Managing uncertainty in environmental decisions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2001, 35 (19), 404-409.
2. International Standards Organization. Implementation of ISO 3534-1: Statistics - Vocabulary and symbols - Part 1: Probability and general statistical terms; ISO: Geneva, 1993.
3. Ramsey, M. H.; Argyraki, A. Estimation of measurement uncertainty from field sampling: the implications for the classification of contaminated land. Sci. Total Environ. 1997, 198, 243-257.
4. De Zorzi, P.; Belli, M.; Barbizzi, S.; Menegon, S.; Deluisa, A. A practical approach for assessment of sampling uncertainty. Acc. Qual. Assur. 2001 7, 182-188.
5. Gy, P. Sampling of particulate materials - theory and practice; Elsevier: Amsterdam, 1979.
6. Crumbling, D. Applying the concept of effective data to environmental analyses for contaminated sites. Current perspectives in site remediation and monitoring, United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA); Washington, DC, 2001; Report EPA/ 542-R-01-013.
7. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Guidance for the data quality objectives process; Washington, DC, 2000; Report EPA/600/R-96/055.
8. Crumbling, D.; Griffith, J.; Powell, D. Improving decision quality: making the case for adopting next generation site characterization practices. J. Environ. Cleanup Costs, Technol., Techniques 2003, 13 (2), 91-111.
9. Ramsey, M, H.; Thompson, M.; Hale, M. Objective evaluation of precision requirements for geochemical analysis using robust analysis of variance. J. Geochem. Exp. 1992, 44, 23-26.
10. British Standards Institution (BSI). Investigation of potentially contaminated sites - code of practice; British Standard 10175, 2001.
11. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Field analytical and site characterization technologies summary of applications; Washington, DC, 1997; pp 1-40; Report EPA-542-R-97-011.
12. Potts, P. J.; Ramsey, M. H. Use of portable X-ray fluorescence in the characterization of arsenic contamination associated with industrial buildings at a heritage arsenic works site near Redruth, Cornwall. J. Environ. Mon. 2002, 4, 1-9.
13. Mosier-Boss, P. A.; Lieberman, S. H.; Theriault, G. A. Field demonstrations of a direct push FO-LIBS metal sensor. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002, 36 (18), 3968-3976.
14. Ramsey, M. H.; Taylor, P. D.; Lee, J. Optimized contaminated land investigation at minimum overall cost to achieve fitness-for-purpose. J. Environ. Monit. 2002, 4, 5, 809-814.
15. Landsberger, S.; Iskander, F.; Basunia, S.; Barnes, D.; Kaminski, M. Lead and copper contamination of soil from industrial activities and firing ranges. Biol Trace Element Res. 1999, 71-72, 387-396.
16. Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the United Kingdom Environment Agency. Swindon, 2002; SGV Series 1-10.
17. Department of the Environment: Interdepartmental Committee on the Redevelopment of Contaminated Land (ICRCL); London, 1987.
18. Miesch, A. T. Effects of sampling and analytical error in geochemical prospecting. In Computers in the Mineral Industry (Part 1); Parks, G. A., Ed.; Stanford University, Geological Science: Stanford, 1964.
19. Garrett, R. G. The determination of sampling and analytical errors in exploration goechemistry. Econ. Geol. 1969, 64, 568-569.
20. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). A rationale for the assessment of errors in the sampling of soils (ASSESS); Las Vegas, 1990; Report 1-65, EPA/600/4-90/013.
21. Taylor, P. D. Uncertainty of geochemical measurements of contaminated land: causes, estimation, and cost-based optimization. Ph.D. Thesis (unpublished); The University of Sussex, 2003.
22. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF). The analysis of agricultural materials; London, 1986; ISBN 0112427626.
23. Thompson, M.; Walsh, J. N. A handbook of inductively coupled plasma spectroscopy, Blackie and Son limited: Glasgow, 1983.
24. Argyraki, A.; Ramsey, M. H.; Potts, P. J. Evaluation of portable X-ray fluorescence instrumentation for in situ measurements of lead on contaminated land. Analyst 1997, 122, 743-749.
25. Potts, P. J. A handbook of silicate rock analysis; Blackie Academic and Professional: London, 1987.
26. International Standards Organization (ISO). Statistics, vocabulary and symbols. Part 1. Probability and general statistical terms; Geneva, 1993.
27. Finnamore, J.; Denton, B.; Nathanail, C. Construction Industry Research and Information Association. Land contamination - management of financial risk; London, 2000.
28. Egerton, A. J. Achieving reliable and cost-effective water treatment. Water Sci. Technol. 1996, 33 (2), 143-149.
29. Lee, S. I.; Kitanidis, P. K. Optimal estimation and scheduling in aquifer remediation with incomplete information. Water Resour. Res. 1991, 27 (9), 2203-2217.
30. James, B. R.; Freeze, R. A. The worth of data in predicting aquitard continuity in hydrological design. Water Resour. Res. 1993, 29 (7), 2049-2065.
31. Thompson, M.; Fearn, T. What exactly is fitness-for-purpose in analytical measurement? Analyst 1996, 121, 275-278.
32. Ramsey, M. H.; Lyn, J.; Wood, R. Optimized uncertainty at minimal overall cost to achieve fitness-for-purpose in food analysis. Analyst 2001, 126, 1777-1783.
33. Fearn, T.; Fisher, S.; Thompson, M.; Ellison, S. A decision theory approach to fitness for purpose in analytical measurement. Analyst 2002, 127 (6), 818-824.