Sampling 25 Cost per sample Analysis 20 15 Cost per (Lanal) sample. Consequential Costs (C, in £) False positive 1,360,000 Potential cost per sample , e.g. unnecessary remediation. (top 1m dig & dump) False 1,000,000 Potential cost negative per sample of litigation if contamination found after development (£20m for whole site (Finnamore et al, 2000)) Uncertainty (mg/kg) Sampling 55.33 19.60 From Robust (ssamp) ANOVA on measurements Analytical 1.48 13.56 produced from (sanal) balanced Measurement 55.35 23.84 design. (smeas) Threshold 59 Site-specific value (T) action for (mg/kg) As. Contaminant concentration (cm) (mg/kg) False positive 326.97 211.83 Average of all locations over “Probably the action False 47.97 39.82 Average of all negative locations over “Possibly the action level”.
Sampling 25 Cost per sample Analysis (Lanal) 20 15 Cost per sample. Consequential Costs (C, in £) False positive 1,360,000 Potential cost per sample , e.g. unnecessary remediation. (top 1m dig & dump) False negative 1,000,000 Potential cost per sample of litigation if contamination found after development (£20m for whole site (Finnamore et al, 2000)) Uncertainty (mg/kg) Sampling (ssamp) 55.33 19.60 From Robust ANOVA on measurements produced from balanced design. Analytical (sanal) 1.48 13.56 Measurement (smeas) 55.35 23.84 Threshold value (T) (mg/kg) 59 Site-specific action for As. Contaminant concentration (cm) (mg/kg) False positive 326.97 211.83 Average of all locations “Probably over the action False negative 47.97 39.82 Average of all locations “Possibly over the action level”.
Can_in_situ_measurements_be_more_FFP_final.docx