Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Sampling Methods: Sample Types

Sampling Methods: Sample Types

Sampling materials are classified into three main types: solid, liquid, and gas.
Solid samples include a variety of substances, such as sediments from water bodies, soil, metals, and biological tissues. Two standard methods for extracting sediments from water bodies are grab sampling and piston coring. Grab sampling involves using a device to collect a discrete sediment sample from the bottom of a water body with minimal disturbance. Grab samples do not always represent the entire area due to...

Sampling Plans

Sampling Plans

Sampling is a crucial step in analytical chemistry, allowing researchers to collect representative data from a large population. Common sampling methods include random, judgmental, systematic, stratified, and cluster sampling.
Random sampling is a method where each member of the population has an equal chance of being selected for the sample. It involves selecting individuals randomly, often using random number generators or lottery-type methods. For example, when analyzing the properties of a...

Sampling Methods: Overview

Sampling Methods: Overview

A sample refers to a smaller subset representative of a larger population. In analytical chemistry, studying or analyzing an entire population is often impractical or impossible. Therefore, samples are used to draw inferences and generalize the whole population. The sampling method selects individuals or items from a population to create a sample. Standard sampling methods include random, judgemental, systematic, stratified, and cluster sampling.
In analytical chemistry, the choice of...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Third-Party Observation in Psychotherapy: Playing to the Audience.

American journal of psychotherapy·2023

Same author

Investigation of the quantum vacuum as an energy sink for subcritical and supercritical vaporization lasers.

Heliyon·2020

Same author

Pediatric Exposures Reported to the Toxicology Investigators Consortium, 2010-2015.

Pediatric emergency care·2019

Same author

A Man in His 50s With Hemoptysis, Dyspnea, and Bilateral Patchy Ground-Glass Opacities.

Chest·2019

Same author

The cosmic microwave background radiation power spectrum as a random bit generator for symmetric- and asymmetric-key cryptography.

Heliyon·2017

Same author

The accidental use of 'inadvertent'.

International journal of obstetric anesthesia·2006

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Mar 8, 2026

Measuring Sub-23 Nanometer Real Driving Particle Number Emissions Using the Portable DownToTen Sampling System

Measuring Sub-23 Nanometer Real Driving Particle Number Emissions Using the Portable DownToTen Sampling System

Published on: May 22, 2020

Pressure Correction is Not Required for Particulate Matter Sampling.

Dean R Lillquist, Jeffrey S Lee, David O Wallace¹

¹a Rocky Mountain Center for Occupational and Environmental Health , University of Utah , Salt Lake City , Utah , USA.

Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association (1995)

|January 13, 2017

Summary

This summary is machine-generated.

Pressure corrections for particulate matter (PM10) sampling lack scientific basis. This leads to inaccurate exposure assessments and unfairly stricter standards for high-elevation cities.

More Related Videos

Composition and Distribution Analysis of Bioaerosols Under Different Environmental Conditions

Composition and Distribution Analysis of Bioaerosols Under Different Environmental Conditions

Published on: January 7, 2019

Production and Measurement of Organic Particulate Matter in a Flow Tube Reactor

Production and Measurement of Organic Particulate Matter in a Flow Tube Reactor

Published on: December 15, 2018

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Mar 8, 2026

Measuring Sub-23 Nanometer Real Driving Particle Number Emissions Using the Portable DownToTen Sampling System

Measuring Sub-23 Nanometer Real Driving Particle Number Emissions Using the Portable DownToTen Sampling System

Published on: May 22, 2020

Composition and Distribution Analysis of Bioaerosols Under Different Environmental Conditions

Composition and Distribution Analysis of Bioaerosols Under Different Environmental Conditions

Published on: January 7, 2019

Production and Measurement of Organic Particulate Matter in a Flow Tube Reactor

Production and Measurement of Organic Particulate Matter in a Flow Tube Reactor

Published on: December 15, 2018

Area of Science:

Environmental Science
Air Quality Monitoring
Public Health

Background:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mandates pressure corrections for PM10 measurements.
These corrections are applied before comparing data to National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Current methods for PM10 determination involve gravimetric analysis (weight per unit volume).

Purpose of the Study:

To evaluate the scientific validity of pressure corrections for PM10 sampling.
To identify the implications of applying these corrections on exposure assessments and regulatory compliance.

Main Methods:

Analysis of the chemical, physiological, and toxicological basis for pressure corrections in PM10 sampling.
Examination of data expressed in weight per unit volume (e.g., µg/m³).

Main Results:

No established chemical, physiological, or toxicological rationale supports pressure corrections for PM10 when results are in mass concentration.
Misapplication of pressure corrections results in non-equivalent dose comparisons across different elevations.
Cities at higher altitudes face disproportionately stringent compliance standards due to these corrections.

Conclusions:

Pressure corrections for PM10 measurements are scientifically unfounded and should be re-evaluated.
Inaccurate exposure assessments and inequitable regulatory burdens arise from current EPA methods.
Revising these methods is crucial for accurate air quality monitoring and fair environmental standards.