Geology Reports⌕ Search

USGS · ofr20201038

Evaluation of the analytical methods used to determine the elemental concentrations found in the stream geochemical dataset compiled for Alaska

Abstract

A recent U.S. Geological Survey data compilation of stream-sediment geochemistry for Alaska contains decades of analyses collected under numerous Federal and State programs. The compiled data were determined by various analytical methods. Some samples were reanalyzed by a different analytical method than the original, resulting in some elements having concentrations reported by multiple analytical methods. Consideration of the analytical methods used to determine the elemental concentrations is an important step in a mineral prospectivity analysis. We used the compiled data to compare concentrations of barium (Ba), cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), chromium (Cr), nickel (Ni), lead (Pb), and zinc (Zn) determined by different analytical methods to show how simple data comparisons can identify bias and provide a general sense of the comparability of different analytical methods. The elements were selected because they have a range of geochemical properties that may affect the performance of different analytical procedures. Generally, agreement between Ba, Co, Cu, Cr, Ni, Pb, and Zn concentrations is good for most quantitative methods that use a total decomposition of the sample. However, Cr concentrations typically were lower for methods using quantitative-instrumental analysis following a multi-acid dissolution technique that included hydrofluoric acid compared to those using sinter decomposition. Additionally, low- to middle-range concentrations for Co, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, and Zn by instrumental neutron activation (NA) and energy-dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (EDX) analyzed by the National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE) program have high uncertainty. Concentrations determined by methods that use partial decomposition of the sample generally correspond well to concentrations determined by methods that use a total decomposition technique, except for Ba and Cr. For Ba and Cr, partial decomposition techniques yield lower concentrations than those determined by methods that use a total decomposition technique. Comparison of Ba, Co, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, and Zn concentrations determined by semiquantitative visual six-step direct-current arc emission spectrography (ES_SQ) to those determined by quantitative methods using either a total or partial decomposition technique consistently show scatter that exceeds the values expected based on the range represented by the semiquantitative concentration. The data compilation includes a best-value determination that was selected based on the analytical method from the all concentration data for that sample. Ba, Cr, Co, and Zn concentrations determined by NA usually are selected as the best-value determination. However, the NURE-NA method was designed for high throughput and the uncertainty associated with low- and mid-range concentrations is greater than that of the multi-acid method used to reanalyze many samples. Selection of the multi-acid method over the NURE-NA method for Ba, Co, and Zn could be warranted. Additionally, concentrations determined by ES_SQ usually are selected as the best-value determination over all methods that use a partial decomposition of the sample. Substitution of concentrations determined by methods that use a partial decomposition for those of ES_SQ may be warranted for Co, Cu, Ni, Pb, and Zn. Regardless of the selection of the best-value determination, the dataset remains a mixed method dataset and the uncertainty due to differences in analytical methodology must be considered when using the dataset.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Bronwen Wang, Karl J. Ellefsen, Matthew Granitto, Karen D. Kelley, Susan M. Karl, George N.D. Case, Douglas C. Kreiner, Courtney L. Amundson. 2020-05-26. Evaluation of the analytical methods used to determine the elemental concentrations found in the stream geochemical dataset compiled for Alaska. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20201038

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

ECCOE Landsat quarterly calibration and validation report—Quarter 2, 2026

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey Earth Resources Observation and Science Calibration and Validation (Cal/Val) Center of Excellence (ECCOE) focuses on improving the accuracy, precision, calibration, and product quality of remote-sensing data, leveraging years of multiscale optical system geometric and radiometric calibration and characterization experience. The ECCOE Landsat Cal/Val Team continually monitors the geometric and radiometric performance of active Landsat missions and makes calibration adjustments, as needed, to maintain data quality at the highest level. This report provides observed geometric and radiometric analysis results for Landsats 8 and 9 for quarter 2 (April–June), 2026. All data used to compile the Cal/Val analysis results presented in this report are freely available from the U.S. Geological Survey EarthExplorer website: https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov.

Open-File Report↗

ECCOE Landsat quarterly calibration and validation report—Quarter 1, 2026

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey Earth Resources Observation and Science Calibration and Validation (Cal/Val) Center of Excellence (ECCOE) focuses on improving the accuracy, precision, calibration, and product quality of remote-sensing data, leveraging years of multiscale optical system geometric and radiometric calibration and characterization experience. The ECCOE Landsat Cal/Val Team continually monitors the geometric and radiometric performance of active Landsat missions and makes calibration adjustments, as needed, to maintain data quality at the highest level. This report provides observed geometric and radiometric analysis results for Landsats 8 and 9 for quarter 1 (January–March) of 2026. All data used to compile the Cal/Val analysis results presented in this report are freely available from the U.S. Geological Survey EarthExplorer website: https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov . One specific activity that the ECCOE Landsat Cal/Val Team closely monitored was a Landsat 8 Thermal Infrared Sensor encoder alerts anomaly. On March 18, 2026, the Thermal Infrared Sensor instrument’s mechanism control electronics board reset, driving several parameters to default power-on values. Subsequent telemetry and analysis determined that no persistent hardware misconfiguration was present and no radiometric or geometric degradation was observed.

Open-File Report↗

Floods of June 20–July 6, 2024, in the Big Sioux River, Rock River, Little Sioux River, Ocheyedan River, and Floyd River Basins, northwestern Iowa

Major flooding occurred on June 20–July 6, 2024, in northwestern Iowa affecting the Big Sioux, Rock, Little Sioux, Ocheyedan, and Floyd River Basins. Heavy rain fell in northwestern Iowa, southwestern Minnesota, and southeastern South Dakota on June 20–22, 2024. Parts of northwestern Iowa recorded 2–6 inches of rainfall and localized amounts exceeding 12 inches. A maximum peak-of-record streamflow of 175,000 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Big Sioux River at Akron, Iowa (06485500), was recorded on June 22, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability range of 0.2–0.49 percent. High-water marks were measured at four locations along the Big Sioux River between U.S. Interstate 29 at Sioux City, Iowa, upstream to Iowa Highway 10 north of Hawarden, Iowa, a distance of 75.7 river miles. A maximum peak-of-record streamflow of 157,000 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Rock River near Rock Valley, Iowa (06483500), was recorded on June 22, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability of less than 0.2 percent. High-water marks were measured at eight locations along the Rock River between County Road B30 east of Hudson, South Dakota, upstream to Iowa Highway 9 at Rock Rapids, Iowa, a distance of 39.3 river miles. A maximum peak-of-record streamflow of 63,000 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Little Sioux River at Correctionville, Iowa (06606600), was recorded on June 24, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability range of 0.2–0.49 percent. High-water marks were measured at 11 locations along the Little Sioux River between Iowa Highway 31 west of Correctionville, Iowa, upstream to U.S. Highway 18 north of Spencer, Iowa, a distance of 134.8 river miles. A maximum streamflow of 24,500 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Ocheyedan River near Spencer, Iowa (06605000), was recorded on June 22, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability range of 0.2–0.49 percent. High-water marks were measured at three locations along the Ocheyedan River between County Road M38 west of Spencer, Iowa, upstream to U.S. Highway 18 west of Everly, Iowa, a distance of 12.8 river miles. A maximum streamflow of 41,000 cubic feet per second at the U.S. Geological Survey streamgage Floyd River at Alton, Iowa (06600100), was recorded on June 22, 2024, and had an annual exceedance probability range of 1–1.99 percent. High-water marks were measured at six locations along the Floyd River between Iowa Highway 3 at Le Mars, Iowa, upstream to Iowa Highway 10 at Alton, Iowa, a distance of 27.5 river miles. The high-water marks were used to develop flood profiles for the Big Sioux, Rock, Little Sioux, Ocheyedan, and Floyd Rivers.

Iowa, Minnesota, South Dakota↗