4.3 Article

ASSESSMENT OF QUALITY FOR MIDDLE LEVEL AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT-GENERATED WATER QUALITY DATA

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
Volume 50, Issue 6, Pages 1477-1487

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jawr.12213

Keywords

drinking water; quality assurance; quality control (QA; QC); education; public participation; source water protection; monitoring; geochemistry

Funding

  1. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey
  2. Senator George J. Mitchell Center at the University of Maine [G11AP20083]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Student scientists have analyzed groundwater used for drinking water in rural areas to understand groundwater quality. This was part of a greater effort to understand risks to drinking water. The data produced by middle level and high school students have not been accepted by experts because of concerns about method and student accuracy. We assessed the inherent errors associated with method accuracy, student precision, and sample variability to establish bounds for attainable trueness in water analyses. Analytical test kits and probes were evaluated for the determination of pH, conductivity, chloride, hardness, iron, total soluble metals, and nitrate. In terms of precision, all methods met or exceeded design specifications. Method trueness was variable and in general ranged from good to poor depending on method. A gage reproducibility and repeatability analysis of instrumental methods (pH and conductivity) partitioned the variances into student error (12-46%), instrumental error (8-21%), and random error (45-68%). Overall, student-generated data met some of the quality objectives consistent with the method limitations. Some methods exhibited a systematic bias and data adjustment may be necessary. Given good management of the student analyst process, it is possible to make precise and accurate measurements consistent with the methods specifications.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available