P36: possible changes where no P02 change needed (BODCNVS-1718)

[MeganAnneFrench]

Hi, Based on Dick's list from November 2022 (unshaded columns), I have listed some P01s with a suggested P36 change (pale yellow column with red test) where no change is required at the P02 level. Some of these are as queries. As discussed in our meeting on 20 February 2023, there is a note at the top about changing the name of P36 "Heavy metals" to "Metals and metalloids". Megan P36s no P02 change.xlsx

[gwemon]

@MeganAnneFrench Having analysed the content of the spreadsheet attached to this ticket here is my feedback: 1) all the P01 variables in your spreadsheet that are currently mapped to P02='RMIN' are correctly mapped because they are geological variables derived from mineralogical analysis of sediments i.e. mineralogical composition of sediments. I don't think they would be of any interest to EMODnet chemistry P36 category because they would not relate to contamination but more to the natural composition of rocks and sediments; This could be confusing. So I's recommend not to map P02:RMIN to P36:HVYMTL 2) I agree with your suggestion regarding phaeopigments and have added the P02 codes for phaeop in water bodies and sediments (PHSD and PHWC) to the terms mapped to P36:CHPHYLL 3) Are you suggesting to map http://vocab.nerc.ac.uk/collection/P02/current/SCOX/ to the P36 code for Dissolved gases? 4) For the same reason as 1) the parameter codes under this category look at radioactivity coming from rocks and I am not sure it relates to radioactivity as an environmental hazard; but please let me know if that's not correct.

[MeganAnneFrench]

Hi Gwen, Thanks for looking into this. Point by point: 1) Ok, no problem. Would it be possible to map the following P01s to a S26 of "geological sample"? Or is that only used for geological rock samples? [image: image.png] 2) OK! 3) It makes sense to me, but others may have reasons to disagree. 4) As it is only one P01 (GAK40BED), you can leave it as is. However, radioactivity coming from rocks is generally considered an environmental hazard as it still acts as a source of radiation that can be damaging for people (e.g. radon can cause cancer). Background Radiation | US EPA https://www.epa.gov/radtown/background-radiation Thanks again, Megan

On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 at 18:18, Gwen Moncoiffé @.***> wrote:

@MeganAnneFrench https://github.com/MeganAnneFrench Having analysed the content of the spreadsheet attached to this ticket here is my feedback:

1. all the P01 variables in your spreadsheet that are currently mapped to P02='RMIN' are correctly mapped because they are geological variables derived from mineralogical analysis of sediments i.e. mineralogical composition of sediments. I don't think they would be of any interest to EMODnet chemistry P36 category because they would not relate to contamination but more to the natural composition of rocks and sediments; This could be confusing. So I's recommend not to map P02:RMIN to P36:HVYMTL
2. I agree with your suggestion regarding phaeopigments and have added the P02 codes for phaeop in water bodies and sediments (PHSD and PHWC) to the terms mapped to P36:CHPHYLL
3. Are you suggesting to map http://vocab.nerc.ac.uk/collection/P02/current/SCOX/ to the P36 code for Dissolved gases?
4. For the same reason as 1) the parameter codes under this category look at radioactivity coming from rocks and I am not sure it relates to radioactivity as an environmental hazard; but please let me know if that's not correct.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/nvs-vocabs/EMODnetChemVocabs/issues/33#issuecomment-1518058821, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AZFHC364FZAEKJ4HDO7LOH3XCKXNJANCNFSM6AAAAAAVG22VF4 . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>