The use of natural waters as U.S. Geological Survey reference samples

Victor J. Janzer

doi:10.1520/stp30311s

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70013313

The use of natural waters as U.S. Geological Survey reference samples

Victor J. Janzer

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The U.S. Geological Survey conducts research and collects hydrologic data relating to the Nation's water resources. Two water quality laboratories in Atlanta, Georgia, and Denver, Colorado, support the national research programs, and provide chemical analyses of natural waters for the data program. Additional chemical water quality data are provided by cooperator and contract laboratories. Continuous quality assurance efforts with these laboratories require several thousand reference samples each year. Reference samples approximating actual field samples provide the most realistic quality assurance for the laboratories. Seven types of natural matrix reference water samples are prepared for use in the Survey's quality assurance program. These include samples containing major constituents, trace metals, nutrients, herbicides, insecticides, trace metals in a water and suspended-sediment mixture, and precipitation (snowmelt). To prepare these reference samples, natural water is collected in plastic drums and the sediment is allowed to settle. The water is then filtered, selected constituents are added, and if necessary the water is acidified and sterilized by ultraviolet irradiation before bottling in plastic or glass. More than 1000 1-L samples of a given type may be prepared at a time. These reference samples are distributed twice yearly to more than 100 laboratories for chemical analysis. The most probable values for each constituent are determined by evaluating the data submitted by the laboratories using statistical techniques recommended by ASTM. A stockpile of several thousand reference samples is maintained by the preparation of new samples as needed. Periodically, some of these samples are submitted to laboratories as “unknowns”. When the analytical data for these samples are reported and evaluated, problem areas detected are promptly reported to the respective laboratory. Use of both identified and unidentified reference samples provides some of the quality assurance data necessary to ensure the continuing accuracy of chemical analyses obtained to support the Survey's basic water-data collection and research program activities.

Explore related subjects

Conference Paper

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Victor J. Janzer. 1985. The use of natural waters as U.S. Geological Survey reference samples. https://doi.org/10.1520/stp30311s

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Improving building footprint extraction using NAIP and 3DEP lidar derived features with deep learning

Accurate building footprint extraction is critical for applications ranging from population estimation to disaster management. Although optical imagery provides detailed spectral information, it often struggles with shadows, occlusions, and background clutter in dense urban environments. Lidar data, by contrast, offer precise elevation and structural attributes but face challenges such as variable point density and noise. This study integrates multispectral imagery from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) with lidar-derived feature height and intensity from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) to improve footprint extraction using a U-Net–based deep learning model. A six-band input stack (RGB, near-infrared, height, intensity) was developed, normalized, and tiled for training and evaluation against Microsoft Global Building Footprints (GBF). Results from the Houston, TX test site show that the six-band model achieved a precision of 0.86, recall of 0.88, F1 score of 0.87, and Intersection-over-Union (IoU) of 0.76, consistently outperforming four-band baselines by reducing false positives while maintaining sensitivity. Predictions on withheld Houston tiles confirmed strong within-region generalization, yielded a precision of 0.78, recall of 0.81, F1 score of 0.79, and IoU of 0.66. Qualitative analysis further revealed limitations stemming from both training label quality and vegetation–building confusion. These findings demonstrate the complementary value of integrating spectral and structural information for robust building footprint extraction and how domain adaptation strategies can be used to enhance cross-regional transferability.

Texas↗

USGS2026

Time-to-depth conversion of seismic-reflection data from eastern Lake Superior and implications for the eastern arm of the Midcontinent Rift

Seismic-reflection data were acquired in the mid 1980s along several lines across eastern Lake Superior by industry and the Great Lakes International Multidisciplinary Program on Crustal Evolution (GLIMPCE) (Fig. 1). The lines form part of a larger network of crossing lines over the entire lake, which can be used to develop three-dimensional geologic models of the Mesoproterozoic Midcontinent Rift that lies below. To better interpret these lines, we developed velocity models to convert seismic reflections versus two-way travel time (TWTT) to reflections versus depth. In addition, the velocity models themselves provide insights into the structure of the Midcontinent Rift by recognizing common velocity ranges for certain rock types (Grauch, 2023).

eastern Lake Superior↗

USGS2026

Revisiting the utility of regional-scale, high-quality geophysical data in mineral exploration - A case study featuring the Mammoth Magnetic Anomaly, Pinal County, Arizona

Regional aeromagnetic surveys passively measure the total magnetic intensity (TMI) and are a foundational tool used in mineral exploration (Airo, 2015). With the increased global demand and the number of critical mineral resources required for manufacturing high-tech devices, developing high-quality, regional-scale geophysical surveys could aid critical mineral exploration efforts and geologic mapping. In 2019, the U. S. Geological Survey launched the Earth Mapping Resources Initiative (Earth MRI) to modernize the geologic and geophysical mapping of regions that have the potential to contain critical mineral resources within the United States. In support of planning Earth MRI geophysical surveys, Drenth and Grauch (2019) defined five aeromagnetic data quality rankings (rank 1 through rank 5) applying them to the airborne geophysical survey inventory of the United States (Johnson et al., 2021). Rank 1 aeromagnetic surveys are of the highest quality, meeting modern standards and allowing best practices for qualitative and quantitative interpretation; whereas rank 5 aeromagnetic surveys are of the lowest quality, being useful only for qualitative interpretation of broad features. Through the Earth MRI effort, 48 high-quality, regional-scale rank 1 and 2 airborne magnetic and radiometric geophysical surveys have been planned, collected, or publicly release through May 2025 (U. S. Geological Survey, 2025). Here, a portion of a rank 1 Earth MRI aeromagnetic survey in southeast Arizona is presented and compared to a legacy rank 5 aeromagnetic survey over the Mammoth Magnetic Anomaly (MMA), demonstrating how modern, high-quality aeromagnetic data improves our view of crustal geology, aiding mineral exploration.

Arizona↗