Környezeti mintavételezés II

Environmental Sampling II.

SCHEDULE 2020

	OMSZ LRK	Gellért Hill	Info Park	extra
	Air Quality	Water Sampling	Soil Sampling
virtual field work		march 24.	april 14.
lab data	march 3.	march 31.	april 21.
talk	march 10.	april 7.	april 28.	april 21.
report submission	march 24.	april 14.	may 5.
test	may 5.	may 12.	may 12.	may 19.
	cromatogram smog alert	water radon	soil sampling , heavy metal

GRADES

		Talks			OMSZ LRK		Gellért Hill		Info Park		final
		topic	date	grade	test	rep	test	rep	test	rep	grade
A	Abisheva Sandugash (KAZ)	atom lake	2. 25.	4	2	4/5	4	4/5	5	4	4
A	Davletova Assel (KAZ)	PM10	3. 10.	3	4	4/5	2	4/5	3	4	4
A	Jornthapha Sirilak	rad	4. 7.	4	2	4/5	3	4/5	5	4	4
A	Mora Cárdenas Ledy Janeth (ECU)	soil	4. 28.	4	4	4/5	3	4/5	4	4	4
A	Ofosu-Brakoh Abigail Amponsaah (GHA)	forest	4. 21.	4	3	4/5	2	4/5	4	4	4
B	Binti Mahadi Izzati Hanun	rad	4. 7.	5	4	4/5	2	5	5	5	4
B	Houatthongkham Lattanamany Poona (LAO)	footpr	4. 21.	5	3	4/5	2	5	1	5	3
B	Huynh Ngoc Thu Huong (VIE)	water	4. 21.	5	5	4/5	3	5	5	5	5
B	Ngo Vu Hoang Minh (VIE)	soil	4. 28.	4	5	4/5	5	5	5	5	5
B	Prasetyo Dhimaz Galih ()	PM2.5	3. 10.	4/5	5	4/5	5	5	5	5	5
C	Kimaiyo Netty Jeruto (KEN)	soil	4. 28.	3/4	5	3/4	4	4/5	4	5	4
C	Nkotya Emanuel Amos	rad	4. 7.	3	3/4	3/4	4	4/5	4	5	4
C	Rotich Ibrahim Kipngeno (KEN)	energy	3. 10.	5	2/3	3/4	4	4/5	3	5	4
C	Wagah Edwin Odhiambo (KEN)	chrom.gr.	3. 10.	5	2/3	3/4	3	4/5	4	5	4
D	Ahmad Arslan (PAK)	water	4. 14.	4	2/3	3	4	4	4	4	4
D	Bayla Zakaria (MAR)	rad	4. 7.	4/5	3	3	3	4	3	4	4
D	Houamsavanthong Ounheuane (LAO)	soil	4. 28.	3	2	3	3	4	3	4	3
D	Irshad Isma (PAK)	smog	2. 25.	4	4	3	5	4	5	4	4
D	Sharoon Daud	VOC	3. 10.	4	2	3	3	4	3	4	3
D	Abu Naja Walaa Mohammed (PAL)	water	4 .21.	4	3	3	2	4	2	4	3
E	Okolo Collins Chukwuebuka (KEN)	chrom.gr.	3. 10.	4	4	5	4	5	5	3	4
E	Sarwar Sohail (PAK)	water	4. 21.	3/4	2	5	2	5	5	3	4
E	Yousif Noor Sabah (IRQ)	oil spill	2. 25.	4	2	5	4	5	4	3	4
E	Marzougui Linda	rad	4. 7.	3/4	4	5	2/3	5	2	3	4
E	Tran Minh Hai (VIE)	soil	4. 28.	3/4	2	5	3	5	5	3	4
F	Bitiukova Ekaterina (RUS)	oil	4 .21.	5	3	5	3/4	5	5	5	5
F	Hegedűs Máté (HUN)	soil	4. 28.	5	4	5	5	5	5	5	5
F	Hellner Anna Zsófia (HUN)	rad	4. 7.	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5
F	Iakovchuk Nadezhda (RUS)	PM10	3. 10.	4/5	5	5	4	5	5	5	5

talk grade justification

February 25.

Abisheva Sandugash, Irshad Isma, Yousif Noor Sabah:

very nice presentations, well prepared talks, good story, but there were not enough scientific background in the lectures

March 10.

Davletova Assel

good: good lecture about PM10, nice webpage and citation, not so good part: no answer for the questions, no data = 0

Prasetyo Dhimaz Galih

good: nice graphs not so good part: unit mistake, some answer for the questions

Wagah Edwin Odhiambo

good: style of the lecture, reasoning of the messages during the lecture, uncertainty not so good part: RT uncertainty is not that much important

Sharoon Daud

good: good lecture, not so good part: significant digits

Okolo Collins Chukwuebuka

good: logical lecture not so good part: answers to the questions were uncertain sometimes

Iakovchuk Nadezhda

good: nice diagramms, good lecture not so good part: answer for the questions

Rotich Ibrahim Kipngeno

good: scientific concepts were used very well, basic maps were the start of reasoning, wide thinking in the topic not so good part: nothing

April 7.

Jornthapha Sirilak

good: answer for the question, sampling plan not so good part: uncertainties are not good

Binti Mahadi Izzati Hanun

good: very good introduction, spectrum is good not so good part: some uncertainty

Nkotya Emanuel Amos

good: good formula for uncertainty not so good part: too long, many unimportant part, ±9.75 is wrong,

Bayla Zakaria

good: good background, nice lecture not so good part: acidification

Marzougui Linda

good: good logic not so good part: introduction is too long, reading

Heller Anna

good: radon loss, spectrum, sampling plan not so good part: part of the uncertainty

For everybody: radon loss ¹ decay loss

For the report please look the radon in water limit values in drinking water up in the web materials

April 21.

Ofosu-Brakoh Abigail Amponsaah

good: logical, interesting lecture not so good part: answer for the question climate, biodiversity

Houatthongkham Lattanamany Poona

good: very good lecture, excellent calculations, very logical not so good part: too long

Huynh Ngoc Thu Huong

good: very good lecture, answer for the questions Mekong delta not so good part: none

Abu Naja Walaa Mohammed

good: interesting topic, lot of information not so good part: sometimes less reasoning

Sarwar Sohail

good: information mining from the web not so good part: no pictures, numbers, not a focused talk

Bitiukova Ekaterina

good: professional maps, very logical structure not so good part: climate not necessarry warmer, this is marginal in fact

April 28.

Hegedüs Máté

good: XRF introduction, soil creation, research for minerals in soil not so good part: Kb lines are missing

Mora Cárdenas Ledy Janeth

good: general contamination overview not so good part: mineral analysis, Rh Kb

Ngo Vu Hoang Minh

good: soil sampling process not so good part: table too simple, magnetite, digits, *

Kimaiyo Netty Jeruto

good: soil introduction, keV comparision not so good part: answers to the questions, *

Houamsavanthong Ounheuane

good: soil forming factors not so good part: 188, number of atoms, digits on x-axis, what is count, molibden, *

Tran Minh Hai

good: heavy metal overview not so good part: Kr, Tc in table, digits, answers – elements assignment

* read sentences literally from the slides are not suggested and not a good way to give a talk

report grade justification

LRK Air Quality .

Group A good: very well established work not so good part: transformation of dimensions have errors

Group B good: detailed descriptions, good citations not so good part: chromatogram calculation is wrong

Group C good: good environmental study, but tables are missing with real data not so good part: ppb is not good, should have transformed

Group D good: SO₂/O₃ analysis is good, but NO/NO₂ analysis is missing not so good part: calculation is completely missing

Group E good: well done!, 7. figure is great, chromatogram calculation is good not so good part: none

Group F good: good reasoning, good conclusions, chromatogram calculation is good not so good part: none

Radon in water

Group A good: introduction not so good part: radon loss dimension

Group B good: sampling description not so good part:

Group C good: methodology not so good part: spectrum analysis

Group D good: introduction not so good part: too short, radon loss value is not correct, too many digits

Group E good: uncertainty not so good part: too many digits sometimes

Group F good: overview, spectrum not so good part:

Sampling and XRF of Soil

Group A good: overview, citations not so good part: citations not refered, soil sample preparation missing

Group B good: sample preparation with photos, heavy metal thresholds not so good part:

Group C good: carefull work, history of soil in Lágymányos, xrf analysis not so good part: sampling points location is shifted

Group D good: good overview not so good part: sample preparaion is missing

Group E good: generally good not so good part: too short, no figures, pictures to explain thoughts, xrf analysis

Group F good: carefull work, literature citing, xrf calibration not so good part: sample preparation missing

OMSZ LRK

Gellért Hill

Info Park

GRADES