Mehlich 3 Evaluation Robert O. Miller ALP Technical Director Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO SERA-6 Meeting, Raleigh, NC, June 21, 2011 Miller,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
A Perspective on Geotechnical Testing: The Details Matter
Advertisements

Chapter 2 The Process of Experimentation
Soil Phosphorus Tests in the North-Central Region Antonio Mallarino Iowa State University.
Animal, Plant & Soil Science
5 th Alps-Adria Workshop, 6 th -9 th March 2006, Opatija, Croatia Mineral fertilization and liming impact on maize and wheat yield Zdenko LONČARIĆ, Domagoj.
Agricultural Laboratory Proficiency Program SoilPlantWater Environmental Soil Serving the Laboratory “Serving the Laboratory Testing Industry, Improving.
Long-Term Soil P and K Trends in Relation to Nutrient Removal in Corn-Soybean Rotations Antonio Mallarino Iowa State University Joint Meeting NEC-17, NCERA-13,
Abstract Wisconsin requires Bray P1 as the routine soil test phosphorus method for fertilizer recommendations and phosphorus loss risk predictions. Highly.
Assessing Laboratory Quality – Systematic Bias Robert O. Miller Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO.
Morteza Mozaffari Soil Testing and Research Laboratory, Marianna Efforts to Improve N Use Efficiency of Corn in Arkansas Highlights of Research in Progress.
Enrichment of Trace Metals in an Ultisol Impacted by Applied Broiler Litter Irenus A. Tazisong Zachary Senwo Robert Taylor.
Soils Data Summary. Stormwater Management: LID Practices | 2 Soil Phosphorus Levels.
World Health Organization
Nutrient Content of Lettuce Plant and Soil Analysis (ESC 515) Amy Angert George Scherer.
Analysis of Tropical Rain Forest Soil & Tropical Dry Forest Tree  Determination of Soil pH  Comparison of Available NH4-N and NO3-N  Comparison of %
The Effect of Non-Composted and Composted Soil on Nutrient Concentrations in Green Beans By Nicol, Scott, and Jenn.
Soil and Plant Sampling and Analysis
Rao Mylavarapu Soil & Water Science Department, IFAS University of Florida.
Soil Sampling & Testing Advanced Soils Topics for Master Gardeners Amy Shober UF-IFAS Gulf Coast REC 1 of 13 ©2008 University of Florida-IFAS.
Chemometrics Method comparison
Changes in Spoil Electrical Conductivity (EC) and Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) Following Irrigation at a Mine Site in Northwestern New Mexico Steven Perkins,
Garrett Bayrd, L.E.G. Shannon and Wilson, Inc. QUANTIFYING ERRORS IN MANUAL INCLINOMETER FIELD MEASUREMENTS.
PROPAGATION OF ERROR.  We tend to use these words interchangeably, but in science they are different Accuracy vs. Precision.
08/02/011 Statistical Summary of the Mack T10 Precision/BOI Matrix.
The following minimum specified ranges should be considered: Drug substance or a finished (drug) product 80 to 120 % of the test concentration Content.
Soil Sampling and Nutrient Recommendations Soil Education Short Course.
GOLF COURSE AND TURF SOLUTIONS PRESENTED BY GAVIN OLSEN.
Soil Nutrient Accumulation in an Orchardgrass Hayfield following Poultry Litter Application R.A. Gilfillen 1 *, B.B. Sleugh 2, W.T. Willian 1, and M.L.
Chem. 31 – 9/23 Lecture Guest Lecture Dr. Roy Dixon.
Correlations of Soil and Hay Micronutrients Purpose: Is there a correlation between soil micronutrients and those in the hay crop?
Methods and Materials Soils – 25 Kansas soils were dried for 48 h at 60 o C, ground, sieved to 2 mm. After preparation, soils were analyzed for Walkley-Black.
Lecture 4 Basic Statistics Dr. A.K.M. Shafiqul Islam School of Bioprocess Engineering University Malaysia Perlis
Quality Control Lecture 5
Median Median Absolute Deviation MAD % Relative Median Absolute Deviation %RMAD = MAD / median x 100.
ERT 207 ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY 13 JAN 2011 Lecture 4.
Evaluating Field Soils In-field evaluation Routine soil tests Biological tests Comprehensive soil health evaluation (Cornell)
Designing an Experiment Lesson 1.3 Chapter 1: Using Scientific Inquiry Interactive Science Grade 8, Pearson Education Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
pH CEC due to organic matter (me/100g soil) 3% 1% 7% Organic matter level 5%
Proposed Agriculture Courses Board of Education October 6, 2015.
Chapter 3: Soil Sampling And Soil Sensing
PROVON® Hand & Body Butter Clinical Claims Poster – Talking Points.
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008 Intelligent Consumer Chapter 14 This multimedia product and its contents are protected under copyright law. The following.
Ert 207 Analytical chemistry
Fertilizer recommendations for field crops in Croatia Ph. D. Zdenko Loncaric, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Agroecology Osijek, Republic of Croatia.
West Hills College Farm of the Future The Precision-Farming Guide for Agriculturalists Chapter Four Soil Sampling and Analysis.
Validation Defination Establishing documentary evidence which provides a high degree of assurance that specification process will consistently produce.
Evaluation Requirements for MSP and Characteristics of Designs to Estimate Impacts with Confidence Ellen Bobronnikov February 16, 2011.
Plant tissue analysis for testing nutrients deficiency in Banana Next End.
May 2010 Understanding the NCDA&CS Plant Analysis Report NCDA&CS Agronomic Division Plant/Waste/Solution/Media Section.
Task Group Study of Extended Time PEI Tests on an Oil Matrix ESCIT Meeting 2007 August 9 Midland, Michigan Presented by: Ted Selby Task Group Chair.
Development of Toxicity Indicators Steven Bay Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP)
Chem. 31 – 6/13 Lecture. Announcements I Pipet and Buret Calibration Lab Report Due Quiz and Homework Returned in Lab Exam 1 on Thursday –Will cover material.
Marco A. Galang, Lawrence A. Morris, and Daniel Markewitz D.B. Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, The University of Georgia, DW Brooks Drive,
Evaluation Requirements for MSP and Characteristics of Designs to Estimate Impacts with Confidence Ellen Bobronnikov March 23, 2011.
Carbon Cycling in Perennial Biofuel Management Systems
Statistical Summary of the Mack T10 Precision/BOI Matrix
17F4-final-presentation
Strategies for Eliminating Interferences in Optical Emission Spectroscopy Best practices to optimize your method and correct for interferences to produce.
A COMPARISON OF MINERAL CONTENT IN ORGANICALLY AND
Choice of Methods and Instruments
Student name Student ID Degree program Area of specialization
Chapter 1: The Nature of Analytical Chemistry
Gerald Dyer, Jr., MPH October 20, 2016
Mohamed Dirir, Norma Sinclair, and Erin Strauts
Student name Student ID Degree program Area of specialization
Student name Student ID Degree program Area of specialization
Student name Student ID Degree program
Student name Student ID Degree program Area of specialization
Student name Student ID Degree program Area of specialization
Student name Student ID Degree program Area of specialization
Presentation transcript:

Mehlich 3 Evaluation Robert O. Miller ALP Technical Director Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO SERA-6 Meeting, Raleigh, NC, June 21, 2011 Miller, 2011

Observations M3 Phosphorus observations across proficiency programs have shown consistent differences between ICP and SPEC P analysis methods on specific soils. Although a majority of soil testing labs utilize ICP for M3 P analysis, many use nutrient calibration models based on SPEC analysis. M3 SPEC – ICP differences have been report to be insignificant and a nonissue, however differences remain relevant.

M-3 Comparison Miller, 2011 Proficiency program M-3 P comparisons SPEC vs ICP Correlative soils properties with M-3 P Differences M-3 Solution Instrument Calibration, P and K

M3 P Spec and ICP Comparisons Miller, 2011 M3 P methods comparison of proficiency data (NAPT) have suggested method bias difference, however the database lacks intra- lab measurement error. M3 soil data from the ALP Program, with intra-lab error, provides conclusive evidence P analysis method differences, which are soil dependent. Of 70 ALP soils, 32 indicate a statistical significant difference between SPEC and ICP P values. SRS-0702 SRS-0702 * SRS-0703 * SRS-0705 SRS-0705 * SRS-0715 * SRS-0804 * SRS-0901 SRS-0901 * SRS-0906 * Soil ID M3-P Spec M3-P ICP MeanStdevMeanStdev M3 P methods significant different at the 0.05 level, three replications multiple labs

Miller, 2011 Mehlich 3 P Spec vs ICP 1:1 line 70 Soils, Collected from Thirty States - ALP ALP Data base y = 1.15x y = 1.15x R 2 = 0.957

Mehlich 3 P Spec vs ICP Relative % Difference M3-P Range (ppm) > 60 % Diff Miller, Soils, Collected from Thirty States - ALP ALP Data base

Mehlich 3 P Spec vs ICP Parse soil pH < 7.3 (0.01 M CaCl 2 ), N = 50 1:1 line Miller, 2011 ALP Data base

Mehlich 3 P Spec vs ICP Relative % Difference Miller, 2011 Reduced Data Set, pH < 7.3 (0.01 M CaCl 2 ) pH < Soils, pH < 7.3 ALP Data base

Mehlich 3 P Spec vs ICP Delta Correlation Property 1 Correlation pH sp pH (1:1) M3-K SOM-WB Sand % Silt % Clay % Miller, Correlations, soil pH < 7.3, phosphorus methods removed. 28 soils ALP Data base Reduced Data Set, pH < 7.3 (0.01 M CaCl 2 )

Eliason, Lamb and Rehm, Soils - MN

M3 P Spec and ICP Comparisons Miller, 2011 Differences in M-3 between SPEC and ICP can be described as Non-Reactive Phosphorous(NRP). Differences in M-3 between SPEC and ICP can be described as Non-Reactive Phosphorous (NRP). Large NRP differences primarily associated with M3 P levels less than 40 ppm. High NRP is identified with soils with low pH, high sand content and low silt contents. Maybe associated with aluminum. Soils with high NRP were collected from Oklahoma, Arkansas, Iowa, eastern Nebraska and eastern Illinois. No-Till soils greater difference.

Mehlich 3 Standard Solution Evaluation ID 1 P (ppm) K (ppm) Bottle # Bottle # Bottle # Bottle # Bottle #5 00 Bottle #6 ?? Bottle #7 ?? An evaluation of seven M3 solutions was conducted in 2010 of 24 labs. Seven bottles were prepared, #1- #5 from reagent solution standards, #6 - #7 of soil extracts. Reagent standard solutions balanced ionic strength. Laboratories analyzed for P, K, Ca, Mg, Na and Zn each in triplicate in ALP Cycle 12. Miller, Submitted ALP Program Cycle 12. Bottles #6 and #7 soil extracts of ALP of SRS-0802 and SRS-0715.

Mehlich 3 P Calibration Evaluation An evaluation of M3 3 solutions was conducted in ALP Cycle 12, 12 labs participating. ICP Labs 12, sorted by low standard Miller, 2011 ID 1 P (ppm) Bottle #1 8.2 Bottle # Bottle # Bottle # Bottle #5 0 Lab #12 has P precision issue across standards

Mehlich 3 K Calibration Evaluation ICP Labs, 16, sorted by mid range standard An evaluation of M3 solutions was conducted in ALP cycle 12, 16 labs participating. Miller, 2011 ID 1 K (ppm) Bottle #1 154 Bottle # Bottle # Bottle #4 451 Bottle #5 0 Labs #15 and #16 have high bias issues, all standards

Mehlich 3 Phosphorus Calibration Evaluation Miller, 2011 ALP Data base A performance report for M3 analyses was provided to each ALP participating laboratory.

U6288A U6304A U6322A U6333A U6336A U6356A U6718A U6791A U9814A U6816A Lab ID SlopeIntercept R2R2R2R2 Mehlich 3 ICP Phosphorus Evaluation Calibration Evaluation – 5 standards Miller, 2011 ALP Data base Ten of twelve reporting labs. Highlighted values indicate deviation from known calibration standards.

ID 1 M3 P SPEC (ppm) M3 P ICP (ppm) MeanStdMeanStd Bottle # * 1.0 Bottle # * 1.8 Mehlich 3 Phosphorus Evaluation Soil extract comparison Soil extract comparison Miller, Bottles #6 and #7 soil extracts of ALP soil SRS-0802 and SRS Mean values significant different at the 0.05 level based on twelve labs, triplicate. ALP Data base

Summary Miller, 2011 NRP associated with soils with low pH, high sand content and low silt contents. Location specific. Impact on recommendations and P index tool (PLAT). Evaluation of M3 P calibration standards show that 4 of 12 of labs have P calibrations that deviate greater than 5% from the known calibration slope. M3 K show that 5 of 16 labs show K calibration deviations greater than 5% from the known calibration slope.

Future work Miller, 2011 ALP will include Mehlich 1 elemental standard calibration solutions for Cycle 16, for P, K, Ca, Mg, Mn, and Zn. Solutions to be analyzed in triplicate for the evaluation of bias and precision.

Thank you for your time and attention