Geology Reports⌕ Search

Geology topics

LeRoy J. Schroder

Publications and source records attributed to LeRoy J. Schroder.

6 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2002

An interpretation of differences between field and laboratory pH values reported by the National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends Network monitoring program

Differences between field and laboratory pH values reported by the National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends Network (NADP/NTN) monitoring program from 1984 through 1986 are investigated. Median differences in hydrogen ion concentration between laboratory and field pH determinations at sites averaged -4.6 μ equiv/L in natural precipitation samples on an annual basis. The median difference found in external quality assurance samples analyzed during the same time period was -11 μ equiv/L. The results suggest a systematic bias in pH values reported by the NADP/NTN network. The bias appears to have a fixed component of approximately -7 μ equiv/L, which can be attributed to the sampling bucket and lid, and a seasonal and regional component that ranges from +4 to -22 μ equiv/L at the 10th and 90th percentiles. Differences were found to be independent of sample pH and sample volume. The magnitude of the bias has implications for the interpretation of previously published pH and hydrogen ion concentration and deposition values in the western United States.

Environmental Science and Technology↗
USGS1988

External quality-assurance results for the National Atmospheric Deposition Program and the National Trends Network during 1986

During 1986, the U.S. Geological Survey operated three programs to provide external quality-assurance monitoring of the National Atmospheric Deposition Program and National Trends Network. An intersite-comparison program was used to assess the accuracy of onsite pH and specific-conductance determinations at quarterly intervals. The blind-audit program was used to assess the effect of routine sample handling on the precision and bias of program and network wet-deposition data. Analytical results from four laboratories, which routinely analyze wet-deposition samples, were examined to determine if differences existed between laboratory analytical results and to provide estimates of the analytical precision of each laboratory. An average of 78 and 89 percent of the site operators participating in the intersite-comparison met the network goals for pH and specific conductance. A comparison of analytical values versus actual values for samples submitted as part of the blind-audit program indicated that analytical values were slightly but significantly (a = 0.01) larger than actual values for pH, magnesium, sodium, and sulfate; analytical values for specific conductance were slightly less than actual values. The decreased precision in the analyses of blind-audit samples when compared to interlaboratory studies indicates that a large amount of uncertainty in network deposition data may be a result of routine field operations. The results of the interlaboratory comparison study indicated that the magnitude of the difference between laboratory analyses was small for all analytes. Analyses of deionized, distilled water blanks by participating laboratories indicated that the laboratories had difficulty measuring analyte concentrations near their reported detection limits. (USGS)

Water-Resources Investigations Report↗
USGS1987

Interlaboratory comparability, bias, and precision for four laboratories measuring analytes in wet deposition, October 1983-December 1984

Four laboratories involved in the routine analysis of wet-deposition samples participated in an interlaboratory comparison program managed by the U.S. Geological Survey. The four participants were: Illinois State Water Survey central analytical laboratory in Champaign, Illinois; U.S. Geological Survey national water-quality laboratories in Atlanta, Georgia, and Denver, Colorado; and Inland Waters Directorate national water-quality laboratory in Burlington, Ontario, Canada. Analyses of interlaboratory samples performed by the four laboratories from October 1983 through December 1984 were compared. Participating laboratories analyzed three types of interlaboratory samples--natural wet deposition, simulated wet deposition, and deionized water--for pH and specific conductance, and for dissolved calcium, magnesium, sodium, sodium, potassium, chloride, sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, and orthophosphate. Natural wet-deposition samples were aliquots of actual wet-deposition samples. Analyses of these samples by the four laboratories were compared using analysis of variance. Test results indicated that pH, calcium, nitrate, and ammonium results were not directly comparable among the four laboratories. Statistically significant differences between laboratory results probably only were meaningful for analyses of dissolved calcium. Simulated wet-deposition samples with known analyte concentrations were used to test each laboratory for analyte bias. Laboratory analyses of calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, chloride, sulfate, and nitrate were not significantly different from the known concentrations of these analytes when tested using analysis of variance. Deionized-water samples were used to test each laboratory for reporting of false positive values. The Illinois State Water Survey Laboratory reported the smallest percentage of false positive values for most analytes. Analyte precision was estimated for each laboratory from results of replicate measurements. In general, the Illinois State Water Survey laboratory achieved the greatest precision, whereas the U.S. Geological Survey laboratories achieved the least precision.

Water-Resources Investigations Report↗
USGS1985

QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM FOR WET DEPOSITION SAMPLING AND CHEMICAL ANALYSES FOR THE NATIONAL TRENDS NETWORK.

The purpose of the National Trends Network is to delineate the major inorganic constituents in the wet deposition in the United States. The approach chosen to monitor the Nation's wet deposition is to install approximately 150 automatic sampling devices with at least one collector in each state. Samples are collected at one week intervals, removed from collectors, and transported to an analytical laboratory for chemical analysis. The quality assurance program has divided wet deposition monitoring into 5 parts: (1) Sampling site selection, (2) sampling device, (3) sample container, (4) sample handling, and (5) laboratory analysis. Each of these five components is being examined using existing designs or new designs. Each existing or proposed sampling site is visited and a criteria audit is performed.

Conference Paper↗