Closed davidchampredon closed 2 years ago
@davidchampredon I agree. This is currently missing. We could use 'replicateType' for a category name and use the proposed names (biological, composite, technical, etc.) once we agree on the definitions.
@davidchampredon could you elaborate a bit more on the definitions of the proposed replicate types?
@davidchampredon @NielsNicolai a source that may help start the conversation. From Table 6.3 in US EPA For Non-chemist. Considering the list below I would classify 1. as a 'true' field replicate; 2. as a subsample of a single field sample' and 3-5 are 'analytical lab replicates' for QA/AC.
If the goal is to get a representative sample the ideal situation (I think) is to collect co-located samples (e.g., 24-h composite samples). Analyzing the composite sample seems to be the efficient way to proceed. Reporting the results of the analysis, based on some previous discussions with @davidchampredon, doing triplicate analyses ('analytical replicate' and some have referred to it as a 'technical replicate') on a representative sub-sample of the composite field sample and reporting all three values is recommended.
@davidchampredon will add replicateID to WWMeasure. The options will be modifications to those suggested by @davidchampredon : 1. trueReplicate: time separated sample taken at the same field location and not composited; 2. compReplicate: subsamples taken from a single large grab or composite field sample; 3. techReplicate: analytical subsample result from a single primary sample. Although there may be others I think these are the primary three we need to distinguish for WW surveillance.
Hmm I'm still not completely following. @DougManuel could we put this on the agenda for the next steering group meeting?
We added two new fields to the "SampleReport" table, one is called 'origin' which has 'derived', 'field', and 'synthetic' as valid input values. The other field is 'replicateType', which has 'colocated', 'fieldReplicate', 'msd', 'lcsd', 'labDuplicate', and 'unique' as valid input values. We think that this structure (together with the parent-child relationship captured in the table) should be able to record this information well.
(Suggestion, not entirely sure this is necessary, but the
sampleID
does not seem to identify the type of replicate, if there is more than one replicate)Add a field either in the
sample
table orWWMeasure
to specify the type of replicate: biological (true) replicate, pseudo-replicate (composite) and sub-sample (technical rep).