Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />A S C I <br />..~R.WYi~.Y:.4 P~.~ <br />~' ry. ~..~.~.. <br />2. APPROACH <br />' In order to eliminate as much variability as possible from the database, the following <br />approach to sampling and analysis was taken: <br />' all samples were taken in a manner consistent with the sampling and handling <br />protocols described in the John C. Halepaska report of May 1992, already <br />' submitted to CMLRB by BMRC; <br />" specifically, samples were tested and treated for potential sulphide <br />' interference at the time of sampling, Iby the addition of cadmium nitrate), <br />prior to preservation to pH 12 with sodium hydroxide to prevent cyanide <br />volatilization. Samples were rechecked for sulphide species on receipt by the <br />' laboratory. <br />samples were treated for potential nitrate interference in the cyanide analysis <br />with sulphamic acid by Laboratory "C", (see data description beelow); <br />' the same samples were split and analyses were performed by two separate <br />laboratories; <br />' laboratories were requested to use specified methods of analysis for all <br />parameters requested, to eliminate method variation. (This was not possible <br />' for total cyanide in the case of Laboratory "A", and Laboratory "A" chose to <br />use ion chromography for free cyanide analysis) <br />both laboratories instituted full QA/OC procedures for the samples, including <br />replicate analyses and "spiking" of samples, to assess the potential for matrix <br />variation effects. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />2 <br />