Table 7. Results from sampling location 7, Volunteer AAP site.
a. Analytical results.
TNT on-site
Laboratory analysis (g/g)
analysis
(g/g)
Sample
TNB
TNT
2,4-DNT
Total
Discrete samples
1a
101,000
--
114,000
--
114,000
1b
129,000
--
109,000
--
109,000
2a
28,600
--
55,700
--
55,700
2b
27,300
--
54,700
--
54,700
3a
53,600
--
74,300
--
74,300
3b
49,700
--
71,000
--
71,000
4a
90,100
--
106,000
--
106,000
4b
130,000
--
102,000
--
102,000
5a
90,100
--
101,000
--
101,000
5b
95,700
--
101,000
--
101,000
6a
104,000
--
101,000
--
101,000
6b
65,300
--
101,000
--
101,000
7a
116,000
--
65,200
--
65,200
7b
108,000
--
93,000
--
93,000
mean
84,900
89,300
Composites
C1
56,400
--
105,000
--
105,000
C2
58,600
--
95,700
--
95,700
C3
54,300
--
126,000
--
126,000
C4
60,600
--
105,000
--
105,000
C5
54,600
--
104,000
--
104,000
C6
59,700
--
105,000
--
105,000
C7
54,900
--
108,000
--
108,000
mean
57,000
107,000
std. dev.
2,600
9,230
tions 7 and 7R (Tables 7b and 7d). Since concen-
give an identical picture of the analyte distribu-
trations differed by only a factor of 5 for indi-
tion on the site gives us added confidence that the
vidual samples, ANOVA was conducted on un-
results are not random, but are depicting an accu-
transformed data. F ratios for field analyses were
rate representation of concentration distributions.
7.8 and 47.8 for locations 7 and 7R, which were
Linear correlation analysis was conducted on
significant at the 99% level and greater than the
the results from lab and field analyses for 7 and
99.9% level respectively. Corresponding F ratios
7R (Tables 7b and 7d); however, the introduction
from the lab results were 14.3 and 39.0, significant
of bias by excluding stones prior to lab analysis
at 99% and greater than the 99.9% levels. These
makes these results only of marginal interest. In
ratios show that significant differences existed
fact, paired t-tests for field vs. lab data from the
among individual samples for both 7 and 7R. Sam-
two locations give contradictory conclusions, but
ples 1, 4, 5 and 6 were not significantly different
the composite samples from both locations clearly
from each other using the lab results for both 7
demonstrate the expected bias. Thus, the results
and 7R according to LSD tests. Likewise, samples
for this location do not offer a valid comparison
3 and 7 were not significantly different from each
of the accuracy of the field method and the lab
other, while sample 2 was significantly different
method. Nevertheless, the field method and the
from the other six samples for both 7 and 7R. The
lab analyses provide very similar pictures of
fact that these two sets of independent results
analyte distributions.
24
Previous Page
