OR/15/048 Data availability and analytical methodology - Revision history

Dbk at 15:09, 11 September 2015

2015-09-11T15:09:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:09, 11 September 2015
Line 2:		Line 2:
	{{OR/15/048}}		{{OR/15/048}}
	==Groundwater data sources==		==Groundwater data sources==
	Groundwater chemical data were acquired for the area by collection of 24 new groundwater samples, and collation with unique sample site data from the Environment Agency (EA) database (1 additional site). The EA data include analyses of major elements, selected trace elements and field-determined parameters. These data comprise time-series analyses, generally spanning from 1995 to 2006. These time-series data are discussed separately in Section 5.5. Where there was a site monitored by the EA, but not sampled by the BGS, the most recent data were added to the 24 new groundwater samples to expand the spatial coverage and create a data set of 25 sites (see [[OR15048 fig4.jpg \| Figure 4]]). Data for 2006 were selected to be comparable to associated BGS analyses. All the groundwaters in this study were located in zones D or E as defined by Reeves et al. (1978)<ref name"Reeves 1978">REEVES, M J, PARRY, E L, and RICHARDSON, G. 1978. Preliminary investigation of the groundwater resources of the western part of the Vale of Pickering. ''Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology'', Vol. 11, 253–262.</ref> (See [[OR/15/048 Regional geology and hydrogeology #Aquifer resources \| Regional geology and hydrogeology]]).		Groundwater chemical data were acquired for the area by collection of 24 new groundwater samples, and collation with unique sample site data from the Environment Agency (EA) database (1 additional site). The EA data include analyses of major elements, selected trace elements and field-determined parameters. These data comprise time-series analyses, generally spanning from 1995 to 2006. These time-series data are discussed separately in Section 5.5. Where there was a site monitored by the EA, but not sampled by the BGS, the most recent data were added to the 24 new groundwater samples to expand the spatial coverage and create a data set of 25 sites (see [[Media:OR15048 fig4.jpg \| Figure 4]]). Data for 2006 were selected to be comparable to associated BGS analyses. All the groundwaters in this study were located in zones D or E as defined by Reeves et al. (1978)<ref name"Reeves 1978">REEVES, M J, PARRY, E L, and RICHARDSON, G. 1978. Preliminary investigation of the groundwater resources of the western part of the Vale of Pickering. ''Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology'', Vol. 11, 253–262.</ref> (See [[OR/15/048 Regional geology and hydrogeology #Aquifer resources \| Regional geology and hydrogeology]]).

	==Groundwater sampling and analysis ==		==Groundwater sampling and analysis ==
	A total of 24 groundwater samples were collected by BGS during September 2006 from commercial abstraction and private boreholes exploiting the Corallian aquifer of the Vale of Pickering. These were almost exclusively from the unconfined aquifer exposed on the periphery of the Vale of Pickering. Few boreholes are available within the confined part of the Corallian aquifer below Jurassic clays. The sample locations are shown in [[OR15048 fig4.jpg \| Figure 4]].		A total of 24 groundwater samples were collected by BGS during September 2006 from commercial abstraction and private boreholes exploiting the Corallian aquifer of the Vale of Pickering. These were almost exclusively from the unconfined aquifer exposed on the periphery of the Vale of Pickering. Few boreholes are available within the confined part of the Corallian aquifer below Jurassic clays. The sample locations are shown in [[Media:OR15048 fig4.jpg \| Figure 4]].

	Samples were mostly collected from continuously pumping boreholes, although in the case of private boreholes this was not always possible. Where practical, the pumps at private sources were switched on at least 10 minutes prior to samples being taken. Efforts were made to sample the groundwater as close to the borehole as possible and with minimum transport through pipes or hoses. Sampling from storage tanks was mostly avoided. At one site this could not be avoided, although the rapid flush rate through the tank meant that a sample could be obtained that had only had a residence time in the tank of a few hours.		Samples were mostly collected from continuously pumping boreholes, although in the case of private boreholes this was not always possible. Where practical, the pumps at private sources were switched on at least 10 minutes prior to samples being taken. Efforts were made to sample the groundwater as close to the borehole as possible and with minimum transport through pipes or hoses. Sampling from storage tanks was mostly avoided. At one site this could not be avoided, although the rapid flush rate through the tank meant that a sample could be obtained that had only had a residence time in the tank of a few hours.

Dbk at 15:05, 11 September 2015

2015-09-11T15:05:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:05, 11 September 2015
Line 2:		Line 2:
	{{OR/15/048}}		{{OR/15/048}}
	==Groundwater data sources==		==Groundwater data sources==
	Groundwater chemical data were acquired for the area by collection of 24 new groundwater samples, and collation with unique sample site data from the Environment Agency (EA) database (1 additional site). The EA data include analyses of major elements, selected trace elements and field-determined parameters. These data comprise time-series analyses, generally spanning from 1995 to 2006. These time-series data are discussed separately in Section 5.5. Where there was a site monitored by the EA, but not sampled by the BGS, the most recent data were added to the 24 new groundwater samples to expand the spatial coverage and create a data set of 25 sites (see [[~~file:~~OR15048 fig4.jpg \| Figure 4]]). Data for 2006 were selected to be comparable to associated BGS analyses. All the groundwaters in this study were located in zones D or E as defined by Reeves et al. (1978)<ref name"Reeves 1978">REEVES, M J, PARRY, E L, and RICHARDSON, G. 1978. Preliminary investigation of the groundwater resources of the western part of the Vale of Pickering. ''Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology'', Vol. 11, 253–262.</ref> (See [[OR/15/048 Regional geology and hydrogeology #Aquifer resources \| Regional geology and hydrogeology]]).		Groundwater chemical data were acquired for the area by collection of 24 new groundwater samples, and collation with unique sample site data from the Environment Agency (EA) database (1 additional site). The EA data include analyses of major elements, selected trace elements and field-determined parameters. These data comprise time-series analyses, generally spanning from 1995 to 2006. These time-series data are discussed separately in Section 5.5. Where there was a site monitored by the EA, but not sampled by the BGS, the most recent data were added to the 24 new groundwater samples to expand the spatial coverage and create a data set of 25 sites (see [[OR15048 fig4.jpg \| Figure 4]]). Data for 2006 were selected to be comparable to associated BGS analyses. All the groundwaters in this study were located in zones D or E as defined by Reeves et al. (1978)<ref name"Reeves 1978">REEVES, M J, PARRY, E L, and RICHARDSON, G. 1978. Preliminary investigation of the groundwater resources of the western part of the Vale of Pickering. ''Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology'', Vol. 11, 253–262.</ref> (See [[OR/15/048 Regional geology and hydrogeology #Aquifer resources \| Regional geology and hydrogeology]]).

	==Groundwater sampling and analysis ==		==Groundwater sampling and analysis ==

Dbk at 15:05, 11 September 2015

2015-09-11T15:05:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:05, 11 September 2015
Line 2:		Line 2:
	{{OR/15/048}}		{{OR/15/048}}
	==Groundwater data sources==		==Groundwater data sources==
	Groundwater chemical data were acquired for the area by collection of 24 new groundwater samples, and collation with unique sample site data from the Environment Agency (EA) database (1 additional site). The EA data include analyses of major elements, selected trace elements and field-determined parameters. These data comprise time-series analyses, generally spanning from 1995 to 2006. These time-series data are discussed separately in Section 5.5. Where there was a site monitored by the EA, but not sampled by the BGS, the most recent data were added to the 24 new groundwater samples to expand the spatial coverage and create a data set of 25 sites (see [[OR15048 fig4.jpg \| Figure 4]]). Data for 2006 were selected to be comparable to associated BGS analyses. All the groundwaters in this study were located in zones D or E as defined by Reeves et al. (1978)<ref name"Reeves 1978">REEVES, M J, PARRY, E L, and RICHARDSON, G. 1978. Preliminary investigation of the groundwater resources of the western part of the Vale of Pickering. ''Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology'', Vol. 11, 253–262.</ref> (See [[OR/15/048 Regional geology and hydrogeology #Aquifer resources \| Regional geology and hydrogeology]]).		Groundwater chemical data were acquired for the area by collection of 24 new groundwater samples, and collation with unique sample site data from the Environment Agency (EA) database (1 additional site). The EA data include analyses of major elements, selected trace elements and field-determined parameters. These data comprise time-series analyses, generally spanning from 1995 to 2006. These time-series data are discussed separately in Section 5.5. Where there was a site monitored by the EA, but not sampled by the BGS, the most recent data were added to the 24 new groundwater samples to expand the spatial coverage and create a data set of 25 sites (see [[file:OR15048 fig4.jpg \| Figure 4]]). Data for 2006 were selected to be comparable to associated BGS analyses. All the groundwaters in this study were located in zones D or E as defined by Reeves et al. (1978)<ref name"Reeves 1978">REEVES, M J, PARRY, E L, and RICHARDSON, G. 1978. Preliminary investigation of the groundwater resources of the western part of the Vale of Pickering. ''Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology'', Vol. 11, 253–262.</ref> (See [[OR/15/048 Regional geology and hydrogeology #Aquifer resources \| Regional geology and hydrogeology]]).

	==Groundwater sampling and analysis ==		==Groundwater sampling and analysis ==

Dbk at 15:04, 11 September 2015

2015-09-11T15:04:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:04, 11 September 2015
Line 2:		Line 2:
	{{OR/15/048}}		{{OR/15/048}}
	==Groundwater data sources==		==Groundwater data sources==
	Groundwater chemical data were acquired for the area by collection of 24 new groundwater samples, and collation with unique sample site data from the Environment Agency (EA) database (1 additional site). The EA data include analyses of major elements, selected trace elements and field-determined parameters. These data comprise time-series analyses, generally spanning from 1995 to 2006. These time-series data are discussed separately in Section 5.5. Where there was a site monitored by the EA, but not sampled by the BGS, the most recent data were added to the 24 new groundwater samples to expand the spatial coverage and create a data set of 25 sites ([[~~see~~ Figure 4]]). Data for 2006 were selected to be comparable to associated BGS analyses. All the groundwaters in this study were located in zones D or E as defined by Reeves et al. (1978)<ref name"Reeves 1978">REEVES, M J, PARRY, E L, and RICHARDSON, G. 1978. Preliminary investigation of the groundwater resources of the western part of the Vale of Pickering. ''Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology'', Vol. 11, 253–262.</ref> (See [[OR/15/048 Regional geology and hydrogeology #Aquifer resources \| Regional geology and hydrogeology]]).		Groundwater chemical data were acquired for the area by collection of 24 new groundwater samples, and collation with unique sample site data from the Environment Agency (EA) database (1 additional site). The EA data include analyses of major elements, selected trace elements and field-determined parameters. These data comprise time-series analyses, generally spanning from 1995 to 2006. These time-series data are discussed separately in Section 5.5. Where there was a site monitored by the EA, but not sampled by the BGS, the most recent data were added to the 24 new groundwater samples to expand the spatial coverage and create a data set of 25 sites (see [[OR15048 fig4.jpg \| Figure 4]]). Data for 2006 were selected to be comparable to associated BGS analyses. All the groundwaters in this study were located in zones D or E as defined by Reeves et al. (1978)<ref name"Reeves 1978">REEVES, M J, PARRY, E L, and RICHARDSON, G. 1978. Preliminary investigation of the groundwater resources of the western part of the Vale of Pickering. ''Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology'', Vol. 11, 253–262.</ref> (See [[OR/15/048 Regional geology and hydrogeology #Aquifer resources \| Regional geology and hydrogeology]]).

	==Groundwater sampling and analysis ==		==Groundwater sampling and analysis ==
	A total of 24 groundwater samples were collected by BGS during September 2006 from commercial abstraction and private boreholes exploiting the Corallian aquifer of the Vale of Pickering. These were almost exclusively from the unconfined aquifer exposed on the periphery of the Vale of Pickering. Few boreholes are available within the confined part of the Corallian aquifer below Jurassic clays. The sample locations are shown in [[Figure 4]].		A total of 24 groundwater samples were collected by BGS during September 2006 from commercial abstraction and private boreholes exploiting the Corallian aquifer of the Vale of Pickering. These were almost exclusively from the unconfined aquifer exposed on the periphery of the Vale of Pickering. Few boreholes are available within the confined part of the Corallian aquifer below Jurassic clays. The sample locations are shown in [[OR15048 fig4.jpg \| Figure 4]].

	Samples were mostly collected from continuously pumping boreholes, although in the case of private boreholes this was not always possible. Where practical, the pumps at private sources were switched on at least 10 minutes prior to samples being taken. Efforts were made to sample the groundwater as close to the borehole as possible and with minimum transport through pipes or hoses. Sampling from storage tanks was mostly avoided. At one site this could not be avoided, although the rapid flush rate through the tank meant that a sample could be obtained that had only had a residence time in the tank of a few hours.		Samples were mostly collected from continuously pumping boreholes, although in the case of private boreholes this was not always possible. Where practical, the pumps at private sources were switched on at least 10 minutes prior to samples being taken. Efforts were made to sample the groundwater as close to the borehole as possible and with minimum transport through pipes or hoses. Sampling from storage tanks was mostly avoided. At one site this could not be avoided, although the rapid flush rate through the tank meant that a sample could be obtained that had only had a residence time in the tank of a few hours.

Dbk at 14:36, 10 September 2015

2015-09-10T14:36:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:36, 10 September 2015
Line 2:		Line 2:
	{{OR/15/048}}		{{OR/15/048}}
	==Groundwater data sources==		==Groundwater data sources==
	Groundwater chemical data were acquired for the area by collection of 24 new groundwater samples, and collation with unique sample site data from the Environment Agency (EA) database (1 additional site). The EA data include analyses of major elements, selected trace elements and field-determined parameters. These data comprise time-series analyses, generally spanning from 1995 to 2006. These time-series data are discussed separately in Section 5.5. Where there was a site monitored by the EA, but not sampled by the BGS, the most recent data were added to the 24 new groundwater samples to expand the spatial coverage and create a data set of 25 sites (see Figure 2.4). Data for 2006 were selected to be comparable to associated BGS analyses. All the groundwaters in this study were located in zones D or E as defined by Reeves et al. (1978)<ref name"Reeves 1978">REEVES, M J, PARRY, E L, and RICHARDSON, G. 1978. Preliminary investigation of the groundwater resources of the western part of the Vale of Pickering. ''Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology'', Vol. 11, 253–262.</ref> (See [[OR/15/048 Regional geology and hydrogeology #Aquifer resources \| Regional geology and hydrogeology]]).		Groundwater chemical data were acquired for the area by collection of 24 new groundwater samples, and collation with unique sample site data from the Environment Agency (EA) database (1 additional site). The EA data include analyses of major elements, selected trace elements and field-determined parameters. These data comprise time-series analyses, generally spanning from 1995 to 2006. These time-series data are discussed separately in Section 5.5. Where there was a site monitored by the EA, but not sampled by the BGS, the most recent data were added to the 24 new groundwater samples to expand the spatial coverage and create a data set of 25 sites ([[see Figure 4]]). Data for 2006 were selected to be comparable to associated BGS analyses. All the groundwaters in this study were located in zones D or E as defined by Reeves et al. (1978)<ref name"Reeves 1978">REEVES, M J, PARRY, E L, and RICHARDSON, G. 1978. Preliminary investigation of the groundwater resources of the western part of the Vale of Pickering. ''Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology'', Vol. 11, 253–262.</ref> (See [[OR/15/048 Regional geology and hydrogeology #Aquifer resources \| Regional geology and hydrogeology]]).

	==Groundwater sampling and analysis ==		==Groundwater sampling and analysis ==
	A total of 24 groundwater samples were collected by BGS during September 2006 from commercial abstraction and private boreholes exploiting the Corallian aquifer of the Vale of Pickering. These were almost exclusively from the unconfined aquifer exposed on the periphery of the Vale of Pickering. Few boreholes are available within the confined part of the Corallian aquifer below Jurassic clays. The sample locations are shown in Figure 2.4.		A total of 24 groundwater samples were collected by BGS during September 2006 from commercial abstraction and private boreholes exploiting the Corallian aquifer of the Vale of Pickering. These were almost exclusively from the unconfined aquifer exposed on the periphery of the Vale of Pickering. Few boreholes are available within the confined part of the Corallian aquifer below Jurassic clays. The sample locations are shown in [[Figure 4]].

	Samples were mostly collected from continuously pumping boreholes, although in the case of private boreholes this was not always possible. Where practical, the pumps at private sources were switched on at least 10 minutes prior to samples being taken. Efforts were made to sample the groundwater as close to the borehole as possible and with minimum transport through pipes or hoses. Sampling from storage tanks was mostly avoided. At one site this could not be avoided, although the rapid flush rate through the tank meant that a sample could be obtained that had only had a residence time in the tank of a few hours.		Samples were mostly collected from continuously pumping boreholes, although in the case of private boreholes this was not always possible. Where practical, the pumps at private sources were switched on at least 10 minutes prior to samples being taken. Efforts were made to sample the groundwater as close to the borehole as possible and with minimum transport through pipes or hoses. Sampling from storage tanks was mostly avoided. At one site this could not be avoided, although the rapid flush rate through the tank meant that a sample could be obtained that had only had a residence time in the tank of a few hours.

Dbk at 13:04, 10 September 2015

2015-09-10T13:04:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:04, 10 September 2015
Line 2:		Line 2:
	{{OR/15/048}}		{{OR/15/048}}
	==Groundwater data sources==		==Groundwater data sources==
	Groundwater chemical data were acquired for the area by collection of 24 new groundwater samples, and collation with unique sample site data from the Environment Agency (EA) database (1 additional site). The EA data include analyses of major elements, selected trace elements and field-determined parameters. These data comprise time-series analyses, generally spanning from 1995 to 2006. These time-series data are discussed separately in Section 5.5. Where there was a site monitored by the EA, but not sampled by the BGS, the most recent data were added to the 24 new groundwater samples to expand the spatial coverage and create a data set of 25 sites (see Figure 2.4). Data for 2006 were selected to be comparable to associated BGS analyses. All the groundwaters in this study were located in zones D or E as defined by Reeves et al. (1978) (See [[OR/15/048 Regional geology and hydrogeology #Aquifer resources \| Regional geology and hydrogeology]]).		Groundwater chemical data were acquired for the area by collection of 24 new groundwater samples, and collation with unique sample site data from the Environment Agency (EA) database (1 additional site). The EA data include analyses of major elements, selected trace elements and field-determined parameters. These data comprise time-series analyses, generally spanning from 1995 to 2006. These time-series data are discussed separately in Section 5.5. Where there was a site monitored by the EA, but not sampled by the BGS, the most recent data were added to the 24 new groundwater samples to expand the spatial coverage and create a data set of 25 sites (see Figure 2.4). Data for 2006 were selected to be comparable to associated BGS analyses. All the groundwaters in this study were located in zones D or E as defined by Reeves et al. (1978)<ref name"Reeves 1978">REEVES, M J, PARRY, E L, and RICHARDSON, G. 1978. Preliminary investigation of the groundwater resources of the western part of the Vale of Pickering. ''Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology'', Vol. 11, 253–262.</ref> (See [[OR/15/048 Regional geology and hydrogeology #Aquifer resources \| Regional geology and hydrogeology]]).

	==Groundwater sampling and analysis ==		==Groundwater sampling and analysis ==
	A total of 24 groundwater samples were collected by BGS during September 2006 from commercial abstraction and private boreholes exploiting the Corallian aquifer of the Vale of Pickering. These were almost exclusively from the unconfined aquifer exposed on the periphery of the Vale of Pickering. Few boreholes are available within the confined part of the Corallian aquifer below Jurassic clays. The sample locations are shown in Figure 2.4.		A total of 24 groundwater samples were collected by BGS during September 2006 from commercial abstraction and private boreholes exploiting the Corallian aquifer of the Vale of Pickering. These were almost exclusively from the unconfined aquifer exposed on the periphery of the Vale of Pickering. Few boreholes are available within the confined part of the Corallian aquifer below Jurassic clays. The sample locations are shown in Figure 2.4.
Line 19:		Line 20:
	The data collected as a result of the sampling campaign and the archive EA data were combined into one set for the purposes of statistical handling and interpretation. For many trace elements, the concentrations were below the detection limits of the analytical techniques used. As the data reported were obtained from more than one laboratory source and by more than one method, the detection limits for any given determinand can vary, indeed detection limits can vary from day to day on a single instrument. This produces left-censored data sets that require special statistical analysis methods for calculating summary statistics.		The data collected as a result of the sampling campaign and the archive EA data were combined into one set for the purposes of statistical handling and interpretation. For many trace elements, the concentrations were below the detection limits of the analytical techniques used. As the data reported were obtained from more than one laboratory source and by more than one method, the detection limits for any given determinand can vary, indeed detection limits can vary from day to day on a single instrument. This produces left-censored data sets that require special statistical analysis methods for calculating summary statistics.

	Summary statistics were calculated in the R statistical computer environment using the NADA package. This package is used to perform statistical analysis on censored data and uses the methods described in Helsel (2005). The methods used to summarise the combined BGS-EA dataset were the Kaplan-Meier (K-M) method the 'regression on order statistics' (ROS) method. These methods can both be used to summarise multiply-censored data sets (Lee and Helsel, 2005b, 2007). The ROS method is particularly useful for small data sets (n<30) where other methods may become inaccurate. It is also particularly useful where the non-detects comprise up to 80% of the data set.		Summary statistics were calculated in the R statistical computer environment using the NADA package. This package is used to perform statistical analysis on censored data and uses the methods described in Helsel (2005)<ref name="Helsel 2005">HELSEL, D. 2005. ''Nondetects and Data Analysis: Statistics for Censored Environmental Data''. (New York: Wiley & Sons.)</ref>. The methods used to summarise the combined BGS-EA dataset were the Kaplan-Meier (K-M) method the 'regression on order statistics' (ROS) method. These methods can both be used to summarise multiply-censored data sets (Lee and Helsel, 2005b<ref name="Lee 2005">LEE, L, and HELSEL, D. 2005b. Statistical analysis of water-quality data containing multiple detection limits: S-language software for regression on order statistics. ''Computers & Geosciences'', Vol. 31, 1241–1248.</ref>, 2007<ref name="Lee 2007">LEE, L, and HELSEL, D. 2007. Statistical analysis of water-quality data containing multiple detection limits II: S-language software for nonparametric distribution modeling and hypothesis testing. ''Computers & Geosciences'', Vol. 33, 696–704.</ref>). The ROS method is particularly useful for small data sets (n<30) where other methods may become inaccurate. It is also particularly useful where the non-detects comprise up to 80% of the data set.

	As noted by Lee and Helsel (2005a, b), where the data set has greater than 80% non-detects, the estimated summary statistics are very tenuous. They suggest that in such cases the data can only be summarised by presenting minimum and maximum concentrations (Lee and Helsel, 2005a). The summary statistics in this report were calculated using each of the above methods. The most appropriate method for each analyte was taken following the recommendations of Helsel (2005), as given below:		As noted by Lee and Helsel (2005a<ref name="Lee 2005a">LEE, L, and HELSEL, D. 2005a. Baseline models of trace elements in major aquifers of the United States. ''Applied Geochemistry'', Vol. 20, 1560–1570.</ref>, b<ref name="Lee 2005b">LEE, L, and HELSEL, D. 2005b. Statistical analysis of water-quality data containing multiple detection limits: S-language software for regression on order statistics. ''Computers & Geosciences'', Vol. 31, 1241–1248.</ref>), where the data set has greater than 80% non-detects, the estimated summary statistics are very tenuous. They suggest that in such cases the data can only be summarised by presenting minimum and maximum concentrations (Lee and Helsel, 2005a<ref name="Lee 2005a"></ref>). The summary statistics in this report were calculated using each of the above methods. The most appropriate method for each analyte was taken following the recommendations of Helsel (2005)<ref name="Helsel 2005"></ref>, as given below:

	{\|		{\|
Line 33:		Line 34:
	The summary statistics reported are therefore derived from a range of methods and do not all present the same parameters.		The summary statistics reported are therefore derived from a range of methods and do not all present the same parameters.

	In the Baseline report series the 95th percentile of a data distribution has typically been used as an upper cut-off for outlier compositions. The choice of percentile is somewhat arbitrary and other percentiles have been used within the literature. The 90–95th percentile was used by Lee and Helsel (2005a) and the 97.7th percentile was used by Langmuir (1997). While using percentiles as an upper limit provides a simple definition of outliers, the method clearly has its limitations. For example, many UK groundwaters are contaminated by nitrate derived from long-term use of nitrogenous fertilisers in agriculture. Nitrate concentrations are therefore variable and the 95% threshold in unconfined aquifers rarely represents a cut-off between natural and anthropogenically-influenced compositions. Likewise, for some elements data presented above a given threshold are presented as anomalous, when they can in fact represent baseline concentrations. However, the 95th percentile represents a simplification to exclude the upper 5% of the data distribution and has been used in the Baseline report series as one measure for estimating likely upper limits to baseline concentrations. Concentrations above this threshold are unlikely to be exceeded in future samples unless conditions within the aquifer have changed. It should be emphasised that this is not the only factor used when attempting to characterise the baseline groundwater compositions. A combination of understanding of the hydrogeological and geochemical processes, rainfall compositions, land use and residence times, together with temporal variability observed through time-series data are also taken into consideration.		In the Baseline report series the 95th percentile of a data distribution has typically been used as an upper cut-off for outlier compositions. The choice of percentile is somewhat arbitrary and other percentiles have been used within the literature. The 90–95th percentile was used by Lee and Helsel (2005a)<ref name="Lee 2005a"></ref> and the 97.7th percentile was used by Langmuir (1997)<ref name="Langmuir 1997"> LANGMUIR, D. 1997. ''Aqueous Environmental Geochemistry''. (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.) </ref>. While using percentiles as an upper limit provides a simple definition of outliers, the method clearly has its limitations. For example, many UK groundwaters are contaminated by nitrate derived from long-term use of nitrogenous fertilisers in agriculture. Nitrate concentrations are therefore variable and the 95% threshold in unconfined aquifers rarely represents a cut-off between natural and anthropogenically-influenced compositions. Likewise, for some elements data presented above a given threshold are presented as anomalous, when they can in fact represent baseline concentrations. However, the 95th percentile represents a simplification to exclude the upper 5% of the data distribution and has been used in the Baseline report series as one measure for estimating likely upper limits to baseline concentrations. Concentrations above this threshold are unlikely to be exceeded in future samples unless conditions within the aquifer have changed. It should be emphasised that this is not the only factor used when attempting to characterise the baseline groundwater compositions. A combination of understanding of the hydrogeological and geochemical processes, rainfall compositions, land use and residence times, together with temporal variability observed through time-series data are also taken into consideration.

	In addition to the statistical analysis, saturation indices were calculated for the newly collected groundwater samples using PHREEQCi and the wateq4f.dat database. Saturation indices will be discussed where appropriate in Section 5. It should be remembered that minerals which are predicted to dissolve or precipitate may not actually do so because of kinetic constraints or indeed absence of the mineral in the case of dissolution (Zhu and Anderson, 2002).		In addition to the statistical analysis, saturation indices were calculated for the newly collected groundwater samples using PHREEQCi and the wateq4f.dat database. Saturation indices will be discussed where appropriate in Section 5. It should be remembered that minerals which are predicted to dissolve or precipitate may not actually do so because of kinetic constraints or indeed absence of the mineral in the case of dissolution (Zhu and Anderson, 2002 <ref name="Zhu 2002"> ZHU, C, and ANDERSON, G. 2002. ''Environmental Applications of Geochemical Modeling''. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.) </ref>).

	==References==		==References==

Dbk: Protected "OR/15/048 Data availability and analytical methodology" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)) [cascading]

2015-09-04T13:27:11Z

Protected "OR/15/048 Data availability and analytical methodology" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)) [cascading]

← Older revision	Revision as of 14:27, 4 September 2015
(No difference)

Dbk: /* Data handling */

2015-09-04T13:26:34Z

Data handling

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:26, 4 September 2015
Line 23:		Line 23:
	As noted by Lee and Helsel (2005a, b), where the data set has greater than 80% non-detects, the estimated summary statistics are very tenuous. They suggest that in such cases the data can only be summarised by presenting minimum and maximum concentrations (Lee and Helsel, 2005a). The summary statistics in this report were calculated using each of the above methods. The most appropriate method for each analyte was taken following the recommendations of Helsel (2005), as given below:		As noted by Lee and Helsel (2005a, b), where the data set has greater than 80% non-detects, the estimated summary statistics are very tenuous. They suggest that in such cases the data can only be summarised by presenting minimum and maximum concentrations (Lee and Helsel, 2005a). The summary statistics in this report were calculated using each of the above methods. The most appropriate method for each analyte was taken following the recommendations of Helsel (2005), as given below:

	: {\|		{\|
	\| <50% non-detects \|\| K-M method		\| <50% non-detects \|\| K-M method
	\|-		\|-

Dbk: /* Data handling */

2015-09-04T13:26:17Z

Data handling

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:26, 4 September 2015
Line 23:		Line 23:
	As noted by Lee and Helsel (2005a, b), where the data set has greater than 80% non-detects, the estimated summary statistics are very tenuous. They suggest that in such cases the data can only be summarised by presenting minimum and maximum concentrations (Lee and Helsel, 2005a). The summary statistics in this report were calculated using each of the above methods. The most appropriate method for each analyte was taken following the recommendations of Helsel (2005), as given below:		As noted by Lee and Helsel (2005a, b), where the data set has greater than 80% non-detects, the estimated summary statistics are very tenuous. They suggest that in such cases the data can only be summarised by presenting minimum and maximum concentrations (Lee and Helsel, 2005a). The summary statistics in this report were calculated using each of the above methods. The most appropriate method for each analyte was taken following the recommendations of Helsel (2005), as given below:

	{\|		: {\|
	\| <50% non-detects \|\| K-M method		\| <50% non-detects \|\| K-M method
	\|-		\|-

Dbk: /* Data handling */

2015-09-04T13:25:59Z

Data handling

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:25, 4 September 2015
Line 23:		Line 23:
	As noted by Lee and Helsel (2005a, b), where the data set has greater than 80% non-detects, the estimated summary statistics are very tenuous. They suggest that in such cases the data can only be summarised by presenting minimum and maximum concentrations (Lee and Helsel, 2005a). The summary statistics in this report were calculated using each of the above methods. The most appropriate method for each analyte was taken following the recommendations of Helsel (2005), as given below:		As noted by Lee and Helsel (2005a, b), where the data set has greater than 80% non-detects, the estimated summary statistics are very tenuous. They suggest that in such cases the data can only be summarised by presenting minimum and maximum concentrations (Lee and Helsel, 2005a). The summary statistics in this report were calculated using each of the above methods. The most appropriate method for each analyte was taken following the recommendations of Helsel (2005), as given below:

	\|}		{\|
	\| <50% non-detects \|\| K-M method		\| <50% non-detects \|\| K-M method
	\|-		\|-
Line 29:		Line 29:
	\|-		\|-
	\| >80% non-detects \|\| ranges only quoted.		\| >80% non-detects \|\| ranges only quoted.
	{\|		\|}

	The summary statistics reported are therefore derived from a range of methods and do not all present the same parameters.		The summary statistics reported are therefore derived from a range of methods and do not all present the same parameters.