Quick
Search: 
 
advanced search
 GSW Home    GeoRef Home    My GSW Alerts    Contact GSW    About GSW    Journals List    Help 
Economic Geology Don't get GSW? Talk to your librarian.
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

Economic Geology; August 1961; v. 56; no. 5; p. 855-872
This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Right arrow Order Hardcopy of Full Text via AGI/GeoRef
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Huff, L. C.
Right arrow Articles by Myers, A. T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

A comparison of analytical methods used in geochemical prospecting for copper

L. C. Huff, T. G. Lovering, H. W. Lakin, and A. T. Myers

Analytical methods used in geochemical prospecting for Cu were compared by analysis of samples of residual soil collected in duplicate near a Cu-bearing vein at the Malachite mine, Jefferson County, Colorado. In this area barren or "background" samples have a mean Cu content of 58 p.p.m. (parts per million) and anomalous samples containing Cu derived from the vein have a mean Cu content of 216 p.p.m. Most anomalous samples are above 100 p.p.m. and most barren samples are below. Geochemical prospecting tests, such as the spectrographic, biquinoline, dithizone, and chromograph tests for Cu and the citrate soluble and acid-soluble tests for total heavy metal, are almost as sensitive but are less precise and less accurate than standard quantitative trace analysis. Statistical techniques based chiefly upon the coefficient of variation show that the geochemical prospecting tests differ considerably among themselves in sensitivity, precision, and accuracy. This study indicates that the dithizone and the biquinoline tests for Cu are the best for geochemical prospecting in this area.

This record provided courtesy of AGI/GeoRef.







JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2008 by Society of Economic Geologists