+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: to contaminate or not to contaminate (/showthread.php?tid=148)
to contaminate or not to contaminate - trowelhead - 14th June 2006
Heres a bit of early morning fun. I was wondering last night on the way home about an environmental sampling mystery. Id always heard differing accounts about if it does or does not, but if you smoke while collecting soil samples etc does the cigerette ash contaminate the sample to such an extent that it becomes unusable for any effective result? Im not really talking bulk samples here but more burnt material or that of a cremation etc. Obviously this is highly unproffesionaland and is always seen on site as a hanous crime but does it in reality cause any great problems for the final processing of the sample.
[?]
Close enough for a country job!
to contaminate or not to contaminate - achingknees - 14th June 2006
buggers up phosphate sampling. Probably not great idea for radiocarbon but pre-treatment washing would normally negate possible contamination.
to contaminate or not to contaminate - Steve Walsh - 16th June 2006
Never sure what the true facts are but I have always found smoking on site unacceptable (and I was a smoker and thought it unacceptable then as now). These days smoking at work is not allowed this includes construction sites and the fact that Arcaheologists seem to think they are exempt from these does not help in the quest for professional respect and recognition which we all strive for.
Lets face it smoking anywhere other than the home is going to become increasingly marginalised in the next few years. I think we as a profession should adhere to the same standards and H&S guidelines as everyone else. Its no good us moaning about H&S standards on site if we break the rules we dont agree with is it?
A trowel is a thing to lust for!
to contaminate or not to contaminate - troll - 19th June 2006
It has to be said that all else aside-if your smoking when sampling then you are sampling the context with your lips.
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
to contaminate or not to contaminate - Soils - 6th July 2006
As with all environmental sampling, contamination has to be kept to a minimum.
smoking is not recomended, as the ash will add extra contaminates to the soil. With soil processing for phosphate-p, mag sus or loi anaylis, the method for sampling proparly would be to use plastic over metal and to clean the area before sampling, and to clean the tools before each sample both at depths (topsoil/ subsoil) and locations. due to the small amount of soil needed for this process (typicaly a large hand full of soil or two) you will want to minimise contamination, however, the lab prep and processing as well as the statistical work on the results should be able to filter out any anomolys from the data. but remember all enviromental sampling should be conducted with minimum contamination.
if you are to sample for coleoptra, you again need to clean the tools between each measured layer of bulk, as you take your samples, as the samples are processed acording to there depth, so idealy you do not want the tisk of beatles from the layer above contaminating the sample from the layer below it or worse, a layer sevral samples below that.