Record Display for the EPA National Library Catalog

RECORD NUMBER: 14 OF 14

OLS Field Name OLS Field Data
Main Title Water chemistry methods in acid deposition research : a comparative study of analyses from Canada, Norway and the United States /
Author Stapanian, Martin A. ; Lewis, T. E. ; Hillman, D. C.
Other Authors
Author Title of a Work
Lewis, Timothy E.
Hillman, Daniel C.
CORP Author Lockheed-ESCO Environmental Programs, Las Vegas, NV.;Environmental Monitoring Systems Lab., Las Vegas, NV.
Publisher U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory,
Year Published 1988
Report Number EPA/600/J-88/320
Stock Number PB89-207336
Additional Subjects Water pollution ; Chemical analysis ; Aluminum ; United States ; Tables(Data) ; Lakes ; Acid deposition ; Analytical methods ; International laboratory
Holdings
Library Call Number Additional Info Location Last
Modified
Checkout
Status
NTIS  PB89-207336 Most EPA libraries have a fiche copy filed under the call number shown. Check with individual libraries about paper copy. 01/01/1988
Collation 18 pages ; 28 cm
Abstract
Identical aliquots (split samples) from lakes in the southeastern United States were analyzed in laboratories in the U.S. and Norway. A second set of split samples from lakes in the northeastern U.S. was analyzed in laboratories in the U.S. and Canada. Methods used by the laboratories were identical for most analytes. For 8 of 11 analytes, there was a statistically significant difference between the results from Norway and the U.S. For 15 of 17 analytes, there was a statistically significant difference between the results from Canada and the U.S. Linear equations describing the relationship between results from the U.S. and Norway (or Canada) explained over 90% of the variance for most analytes. Notable discrepancies occurred for labile inorganic aluminum and acid-neutralizing capacity, two analytes critical to acid deposition studies. A linear model explained about 35% of the variance for labile inorganic aluminum. Considerable laboratory bias was evident for acid-neutralizing capacity in both sets of split sample measurements. Difference in methodologies and holding times may account for these discrepancies. For any of the analytes, the practical significance of the differences is dependent on the objectives and constraints of each application. The effects of laboratory and methodology were statistically confounded. Standardizing analytical methods would assist the chemist in interpreting data from studies, notably those of lake acidification, in other nations. (Copyright (c) 1988 Gordon and Breach, Science Publishers, Inc.)
Notes
Includes bibliographical references. "Reprint article published in International Journal of Environmental and Analytical Chemistry, vol. 34, pp. 299-314, 1988." Microfiche.