Search USGSSearch

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

Estimating aftershock risk for entry into earthquake-damaged buildings

We present a simple method to estimate the risk of experiencing strong shaking from aftershocks during entry into earthquake-damaged buildings. We compute wait times until the probability of strong ground shaking from aftershocks reaches a predefined risk threshold; for example, a 0.4 percent probability of experiencing Modified Mercalli Intensity 7 or greater shaking during the planned building entry. We also develop a relation between aftershock probability and the probability of strong shaking, so that users can reference the U.S. Geological Survey aftershock forecast during an ongoing aftershock sequence to determine if the risk threshold has been met. We apply our method to active continental regions (for example, the Western United States), stable continental regions (for example, the Central and Eastern United States), and subduction zones (for example, Cascadia or Alaska).

Open-File Report

End-user needs for remote sensing wetlands of the Prairie Pothole Region of North America

The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of North America comprises globally important grassland and wetland ecosystems critical for numerous populations of migratory birds. Due to the importance of this region for migratory birds, and particularly waterfowl, and the threats of habitat loss due to intensifying agriculture, there is a mature and diverse system of conservation organizations, agencies, and partnerships that spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually on habitat conservation to support migratory bird populations. Remote sensing can be a powerful tool for observing and evaluating global change at large scales as well as expanding inferences from field studies to the broader landscape with statistical models. However, development and utilization of these tools has lagged behind their demand for several reasons, including concerns over spatial and temporal resolution and accuracy of products; perception of a misalignment with decision-maker needs; technological barriers such as skill sets of conservation professionals, computing resources, data access, and usability. In this report, we summarize the needs of conservation professionals and scientists who use or want to use remote sensing data products to inform science about wetland change and conservation of wetlands in the PPR. We assembled this information through several methods leading up to, during, and following a January 2026 PPR Wetland Remote Sensing Workshop. The workshop included United States and Canadian scientists, conservation professionals, and policy experts. Our goal was to bring together end-users and remote sensing product developers jointly to explore reducing the lag between product development and utilization of products to inform science and conservation. Specifically, we aimed to identify gaps in wetland remote sensing that limit effective monitoring, management, and conservation in the PPR, and to develop a framework that outlines pathways to address these gaps by fostering collaboration, improving communication networks, encouraging discussion, and building on existing and ongoing efforts. This report summarizes our participants’ descriptions of end-user needs and the outcomes of the workshop.

Prairie Pothole region

Bathymetric survey and storage capacity of Upper Lake Mary near Flagstaff, Arizona in 2024

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the city of Flagstaff, collected bathymetric, light detection and ranging (lidar), and land-survey data of Upper Lake Mary in Arizona during the months of April and October 2024. The city of Flagstaff uses a combination of groundwater from well fields throughout the Flagstaff area and surface water, mainly from Upper Lake Mary, for its potable water supply. The purpose of the survey is to update previous surveys using new technology and compare the results to previous surveys to determine if there was a decrease in storage capacity that could affect the city’s water supply. The lakebed was mapped in April 2024 using a vessel equipped with a multibeam echosounder (MBES) and mobile lidar scanner with positioning captured using a real-time kinematic global navigation satellite system (RTK GNSS) base and receivers. In October 2024, areas of the reservoir that were too shallow for the boat and shoreline that were not captured by the vessel-based lidar were surveyed on foot using hand-held RTK GNSS receivers. At full pool (spillway elevation of 6,831.82 feet above NAVD 88 [2,082.34 meters (m)], Upper Lake Mary has a storage capacity of 16,449.80 acre-feet (20,290,611.73 cubic meters) and a surface area of 953.57 acres (3,860,926.075 square meters). The reservoir is 5.7 miles (9.7 kilometers) long and varies in width from 326 feet (99.36 m) near the central, narrow portion of the reservoir to 2,613 feet (796.44 m) in the upper portion. Comparisons between this survey and the previous two surveys from the 1950s and 2006 indicate no apparent decrease in reservoir area or storage capacity. Results of the 2024 survey indicate that Upper Lake Mary’s storage capacity increased by 0.9 percent from the 2006 survey and a 1.6 percent increase in surface area from the 2006 survey.

Arizona