The big ugly AAS reliability/validity question (1 Viewer)

~*HSC 4 life*~

Active Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2003
Messages
2,411
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
which question?

there was two i can remember on the top of my head

lamp/flame

and validty...die validity!
 

Plebeian

Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2003
Messages
579
Location
Sutherland Shire
Reliability
+ for performing multiple analysis
- for not discarding the 0.64 result

Validity
+ AAS a suitable technique
- only using one sample of soil

I don't know how correct that is though.
 

stevenwong86

New Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
15
I wrote it was good, but it could have been improved by:

-collecting more samples
-using a graph and line of best fit instead of taking the average
 

ay_caramba

Crazily Sane.
Joined
Apr 6, 2004
Messages
298
Gender
Female
HSC
2004
ok not too confident abt this one
Validity:
* AAS generally an accurate technique, would be valid if AAS had been accurately calibrated beforehand--argh
* validity would be undermined if standard solutions used were contaminated- okay thats a load of crap
Reliability:
* multiple tests were performed
* majority of results were of a similar value.. except the 0.64 one


oh dear.
 

Narelle

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2004
Messages
103
Location
my most humble abode
Gender
Female
HSC
2004
Techie said:
Reliability
+ for performing multiple analysis
- for not discarding the 0.64 result

Validity
+ AAS a suitable technique
- only using one sample of soil

I don't know how correct that is though.
Indeed... I concur
 

Managore

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2004
Messages
158
Location
Sydney Australia
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Dammit I forgot to give the positives.. I said it more samples, disregarding 0.64 and doing more decimal places for further accuracy...
 

Komaticom

Bored Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2004
Messages
589
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Uni Grad
2008
Bah!
I just picked an element with valence 3+ and said it forms a precipitate.
Bah! I'm screwed.
 

aim54x

XccenTRiX
Joined
Mar 25, 2004
Messages
452
Location
lost in the mists of time, shrouded by thought
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Techie said:
Reliability
+ for performing multiple analysis
- for not discarding the 0.64 result

Validity
+ AAS a suitable technique
- only using one sample of soil
.
i wrote d same xcept i didn't mention more samples.
technique correct
concentration unreliable cause the inclusion of the outlier
 

The Bograt

boredofuni
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
286
Location
Caringbah, Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
I said anything I could think of:
-get more samples
-samples in different places, especially near possible sources of mercury
-valid in that they used an 'approved' method
-exclude 0.64 result
-valid in that they tested same sample multiple times
-AAS is bloody accurate
-I gave the new average without 0.64

Reckon it would have been worth saying do tests at different depths?
 

googleplex

New Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2004
Messages
29
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
What I got from the question:

The sample was taken from one site; 5 lots of AAS tests done on that sample. Soil is a not a homogenous mixture so obviously you could get different amounts of mercury if you split a sample of soil into five tests.

So why would you discard the 0.6 reading - AAS is extremely accurate, e.g 0.01ppm, so why would it produce discrepant results UNLESS the method was flawed.
 

Steven12

Lord Chubbington
Joined
Mar 5, 2004
Messages
407
Location
sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
far out, i knew i screwed this question cos i said it wasnt a really reliable test as soil particles can get in the way of the experiment(cant believe i said that), and i also said the average absorbance wasnt reliable cos 0.64 was far out, therefore the average absorbance is also incorrect.

man, i think this question was out of 5. i get for 2 it if am lucky, far out and i had such high expectation of this exam, arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr why wont put more theory into this exam?
 

sneeble

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Messages
177
Location
sydney - inner west
Hrrm...

I said the validity was flawed due to the fact they only tested one sample. I said samples from different depths/areas needed to be taken, as one sample doesn't accurately test the hypothesis.

I said the reliability was flawed also, seeing as the same sample tested 5 times came up with different results; inconsistent results from 1 sample space = unreliable, IMHO. There is no point in splitting one sample into 5 tests and averaging the result of all the tests, I don't think that's what they meant.
 
Last edited:

sub

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2004
Messages
621
crap i forgot to mention something about the aas technique :( ...everything else i got
 

xeriphic

Member
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
452
Location
Sydney
I only put

valid
* AAS accurate in small concentrations

reliable
* repeated
* more sources for mercury samples from near site
 

rogersla

Dude
Joined
Mar 15, 2004
Messages
10
Location
Newcastle
Gender
Female
HSC
2004
I said that the method in theory is reliable but big left-field values (such as the .64 one) can ruin the validity. Of course much more eloquently.
 

lucyinthehole

Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Messages
256
i put something like
AAS = appropriate technique
reliability good for 1,2,3 and 5 (within 2 ppm variation wan't it?)
4 should've been discarded
since it wasn't, validity kinda scrwed up
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top