SEGH Articles

How useful are on-site measurements in environmental geochemistry?

12 August 2012
How reliable are on-site measurements? Can sound decisions be made using them, or should we stick to measurements made in the remote lab?

 

There are an increasing number of portable instruments (and test kits) that environmental geochemists can take into the field to get rapid measurements of contaminant concentration. They can measure a range of different inorganic and organic contaminants in many different media, such as soils, wastes, waters and gases – and give results in a few minutes. This seems a very attractive way to enable rapid decisions on whether contaminants might pose a threat to human health, or just whether and where more measurements need to be taken. It seems to be a much better option than waiting weeks to get samples analysed in a remote lab. The key issue is how reliable are these on-site measurements? Can sound decisions be made using them, or should we stick to measurements made in the remote lab?

 

Recent research at University of Sussex has been investigating this issue, by focusing particularly
on the uncertainty in both the on-site and lab-based measurements. The key concept here is that all measurements are wrong to some extent, but the value of the uncertainty tells us the range of concentration within which the true value lies. We applied a range of different on-site techniques to a several different contaminated sites, and compared the results with those from remote labs. There are two main ways of applying on-site analytical techniques in the field. The ‘in situ’ approach leaves the sample material in its original position; for example a portable x-ray fluorescence spectrometer (PXRF – Fig.1) can be placed directly onto an area of bare soil, or a pH electrode placed in a river. The second more common ‘on-site’ approach, is to remove a sample from its position (e.g. in the top soil), prepare it in some way (e.g. mix a soil as far as possible within a polythene bag), and analyse this prepared sample near the original location, or in a local field-lab.

 

 

The results for the in situ approach, in an example for As determined by PXRF, showed that the areas of land identified as being contaminated by As above a threshold concentration value, were very similar to those found using the lab measurement. Somewhat unexpectedly, the uncertainty of both the in situ and lab measurements were also similar[1]. The was because the main source of uncertainty was shown to be the sampling, rather than the analytical process, and therefore caused by the small-scale heterogeneity of the As distribution in the soil. The optimal level of uncertainty was calculated, at a level that minimizes the overall potential financial loss. This cost arises from both the taking of the measurements, and from decision errors in the land classification caused by the uncertainty. Neither  the lab or the in situ measurements had this optimal level of uncertainty, which is required to achieve full fitness-for-purpose. Both type of measurement would therefore benefit from the taking of composite samples or measurements. This is achieved by taking several sub-samples across each small area, rather than just one sample, to reduce the effect of the small-scale heterogeneity to an acceptable level. The bias the in situ measurements was estimated as -43%, by comparison against the lab measurements across all locations. This was partially due to the moisture and pore spaces included in the soils measured in situ. Once quantified, this bias can be corrected for, to improve the agreement. Using this approach, it was argued that in situ measurements can be not only sufficiently reliable, but they can also be more fit than lab measurements for some purposes, such as hot spot delineation.

For another case study of on-site measurements, with local removal of the samples from two sites, the sampling process again dominated the uncertainty values[2]. For the organic contaminant total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), the uncertainty of the lab analysis (U = 54%) was too high to make an effective comparison of the on-site results from the test kit (U = 30%) against them. This study also indentified that the different definitions of terms, like TPH including aromatic but not aliphatic compounds, is another factor limiting the interpretation using such comparisons.

 

Overall the conclusion was that on-site (including in situ) measurements can have distinct advantages over lab-based measurements, especially in terms of their rapidity and lower overall cost. The consideration of the uncertainty of both types of measurements revealed that both can be very high (e.g. ~50 - 100%), but the reliable interpretation of both types of measurements requires the value of the uncertainty to be estimated for that application. Knowing this information, on-site measurements can be as useful to environmental geochemists as those made in the lab.



Professor Mike Ramsey, University of Sussex. 

 

 

 

 

[1] Ramsey M.H. and Boon K.A. (2012) Can in situ geochemical measurements be more fit-for-purpose than those made ex situ? Applied Geochemistry 27, 969-976 . http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2011.05.022

 

[2] Boon K.A. and Ramsey M.H. (2012) Judging the fitness of on-site measurements by their uncertainty, including the contribution from sampling. Science of the Total Environment  419, 196–207 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.12.001

 

Keep up to date

SEGH Events

Submit Content

Members can keep in touch with their colleagues through short news and events articles of interest to the SEGH community.

Science in the News

Latest on-line papers from the SEGH journal: Environmental Geochemistry and Health

  • Status, source identification, and health risks of potentially toxic element concentrations in road dust in a medium-sized city in a developing country 2017-09-19

    Abstract

    This study aims to determine the status of potentially toxic element concentrations of road dust in a medium-sized city (Rawang, Malaysia). This study adopts source identification via enrichment factor, Pearson correlation analysis, and Fourier spectral analysis to identify sources of potentially toxic element concentrations in road dust in Rawang City, Malaysia. Health risk assessment was conducted to determine potential health risks (carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks) among adults and children via multiple pathways (i.e., ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation). Mean of potentially toxic element concentrations were found in the order of Pb > Zn > Cr(IV) > Cu > Ni > Cd > As > Co. Source identification revealed that Cu, Cd, Pb, Zn, Ni, and Cr(IV) are associated with anthropogenic sources in industrial and highly populated areas in northern and southern Rawang, cement factories in southern Rawang, as well as the rapid development and population growth in northwestern Rawang, which have resulted in high traffic congestion. Cobalt, Fe, and As are related to geological background and lithologies in Rawang. Pathway orders for both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks are ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation, involving adults and children. Non-carcinogenic health risks in adults were attributed to Cr(IV), Pb, and Cd, whereas Cu, Cd, Cr(IV), Pb, and Zn were found to have non-carcinogenic health risks for children. Cd, Cr(IV), Pb, and As may induce carcinogenic risks in adults and children, and the total lifetime cancer risk values exceeded incremental lifetime.

  • Erratum to: Preliminary assessment of surface soil lead concentrations in Melbourne, Australia 2017-09-11
  • In vivo uptake of iodine from a Fucus serratus Linnaeus seaweed bath: does volatile iodine contribute? 2017-09-02

    Abstract

    Seaweed baths containing Fucus serratus Linnaeus are a rich source of iodine which has the potential to increase the urinary iodide concentration (UIC) of the bather. In this study, the range of total iodine concentration in seawater (22–105 µg L−1) and seaweed baths (808–13,734 µg L−1) was measured over 1 year. The seasonal trend shows minimum levels in summer (May–July) and maximum in winter (November–January). The bathwater pH was found to be acidic, average pH 5.9 ± 0.3. An in vivo study with 30 volunteers was undertaken to measure the UIC of 15 bathers immersed in the bath and 15 non-bathers sitting adjacent to the bath. Their UIC was analysed pre- and post-seaweed bath and corrected for creatinine concentration. The corrected UIC of the population shows an increase following the seaweed bath from a pre-treatment median of 76 µg L−1 to a post-treatment median of 95 µg L−1. The pre-treatment UIC for both groups did not indicate significant difference (p = 0.479); however, the post-treatment UIC for both did (p = 0.015) where the median bather test UIC was 86 µg L−1 and the non-bather UIC test was 105 µg L−1. Results indicate the bath has the potential to increase the UIC by a significant amount and that inhalation of volatile iodine is a more significant contributor to UIC than previously documented.