CAUSES OF SAMPLING ERROR IN MINERAL EXPLORATION

Granulometric bias in mineral exploration and mining geology refer to the potential distortion
or skewing of the results due to the size distribution of particles within a sample. In mineral
exploration, granulometric bias can occur when samples are not representative of the entire
deposit due to uneven particle size distribution. For example, if a particle predominantly consists
of fine particles while ignoring large ones, the estimated grades may not reflect the true value of
the ore body. This can lead to misleading interpretation of deposit quality and size.

Granulometric error describes the uncertainty or inaccuracy that occurs when a material's particle
size distribution is sampled and analysed. It is among the ten major faults that Pierre Gy found
when analysing sample errors. Three main elements affect the granulometric error are the
sampling error's relative variance, the mass of the sample, and the size of the pieces being
sampled. These elements are necessary for calculating the granulometric error according to Gy's
formula. The granulometric error is affected by the heterogeneity of the material, both in terms
of its constitutional composition and its distribution, compositional heterogeneity describes the
variations in the internal composition of distinct sampling material fragments. Conversely, the
change in the particle size distribution is related to the distributional heterogeneity (R. C. A
Minnitt, 2007) .

During mining operations, granulometric bias can affect grade control measures. If sampling
methods do not account for particle variation within the ore body, there is a risk of
misclassifying blocks as economic or uneconomic based on incomplete information.

Fundamental sampling error

The heterogeneity of the sampled material is the primary cause of sampling errors. Obtaining a
representative sample becomes difficult when the material being sampled is extremely varied or
comprises different components. The fundamental sampling error arises due to the constitutional
heterogeneity within a sample lot. It is a measure of the variation in sub-sample grades of a
particular mass within the sample. The Fundamental sampling error is expressed as the relative
standard deviation of these sub-sample grades (N. Schofield, 2011)

For instance, differences in the mineral composition of the geological item being sampled in
mining projects may result in sampling errors. The results of the analysis of those samples might
not be indicative of the entire deposit if the samples that were taken do not fairly reflect the
composition of the deposit as a whole (Abzalov, 2011)

Grouping and segregation error

When small particles are released from sample apparatuses or conveyor belts, they tend to
separate from bigger fragments, a phenomenon known as grouping error. Consider a conveyor
belt that carries a blend of coarse and fine particles, for instance. The small particles may
segregate and gather in one location while the bigger fragments settle in another place as a result
of the belt's movement and vibration. Because of this unequal distribution, the gathered samples
might not fairly reflect the material's overall composition, which could lead to biased sampling
findings.
Conversely, segregation error happens when specific components or particles within a sample
separate and gather in particular areas. The sampled materials' various physical or chemical
characteristics, such as their adhesiveness, moisture content, or magnetic or electrostatic
qualities, may be the source of this. Smaller and heavier fragments, such gold grains or sulphide
minerals,
may separate and concentrate near the bottom of a blast hole cone, for example. As a result,
certain elements may be overrepresented in the samples that were gathered. Factors like the size
and number of increments (fragments) in the sample have an impact on both segregation and
grouping errors. The size of the increments is characterized by the grouping factor, while the
number of increments is characterized by the segregation factor. These elements are inextricably
linked to one another and cannot be separated. In order to reduce errors in grouping and
segregation, it's critical to comprehend the contributing elements (Abzalov, 2011)

(A) (B)

Rock 1 Heavy valuable

Light
fragme Rock 2 mineral
nts
Error in sampling practice

Errors in Sampling Procedures: Errors in the sampling technique itself can potentially result in
sampling errors. The degree to which the sample process was meticulously created, carried out,
and adhered to determines these inaccuracies. This group includes errors in delimitation,
extraction, processing, and weighing. Incorrect measurements or mixed sample numbers as a
result of human error are examples of this kind of inaccuracy. Inaccurate analysis and confusion
may result from improperly labelled or measured materials (Abzalov, 2011).
Here there are different types of error in this group namely;
a) Delimitation error
When some portions of the material being sampled have a lower probability of being included in
the sample than others, this is known as a delimitation error. For instance, stuff from the bottom
of a pile may be omitted if you simply scoop from the top. When the borders of the sample are
not precisely established, delimitation mistakes happen. An imperfect depiction of the substance
being sampled may result from the sampling tool selecting pieces of the material. For example,
sampling fractured ore at the draw point of an underground stope during mining operations may
not fully sample the spectrum of mineralization present, leading to delimitation errors.

Examples of delimitation errors: (A) sampling broken ore at the draw point of underground stope
represents an unresolvable issue of the delimitation error.; (B) sampling of crushed material (e.g.
blast hole cone) by a scoop having round shape profile

(A)

is partially missing) rejected by sampling scoop that has

a rounded section
 b) Extraction error
Extraction error is the result of a sampling tool which is selectively taking fragments,
therefore, these errors also known as sample recovery errors because they are caused by selective
sampling systems (Pitard, 1993). This type of error can be frequently observed in geological
exploration and mining geology applications. Inadequate preparation methods or improper
extraction techniques may be the source of these mistakes. For instance, collecting crushed
material with a sampling tool that has a rounded portion may result in extraction mistakes since
the tool's shape may prevent it from gathering a representative sample.
When drilling rocks with varying strengths, one of the most frequent instances of extraction error
is the preferential caving of soft material, such clay pods. Another common extraction error in
geological applications is the sampling of blast hole cones with an improperly constructed auger
drill that rejects large fragments. A rapid feed on one side of a riffle splitter employed incorrectly
results in an extraction error, as illustrated in Figure below. This method causes the fragments to
be distributed disproportionately and the heavier particles to be segregated on one side.
Examples of extraction errors are (A) the result of picking individual mineral grains (such as
gold grains) from the drill core surface; (B) the result of using a riffle splitter incorrectly (Pitard,
1993). (A) (B)

Correct Incorrect

c) Weighting error
When measuring sample weights, weighing errors may happen. This may occur as a result of
incorrect sample handling techniques or errors in the weighing apparatus. Errors in recorded
weights might arise from improper calibration of the weighing scale or careless handling of the
samples, which can compromise the accuracy of future analyses.
The inaccuracies caused by scales and weight meters are known as weighing errors. The author
has seen a situation where a laboratory was outfitted with robotic XRF instruments and other
cutting edge analytical tools, but the sample preparation phase was still carried out using
antiquated, badly calibrated scales, completely negating the advantages of having highly precise
analytical tools (Pitard, 1993).
Instrumental error
This category comprises mistakes made in a variety of analytical and instrumental measurements
made during the assaying and final aliquot weighing processes. An example of this kind of
inaccuracy is when assays become biased due to instrumental drift. The instruments may have
been calibrated incorrectly as well. The instrumental errors also comprise those resulting from
the use of outdated equipment, particularly if said equipment has inadequate detection limits.
Incorrectly selected analytical procedures, which are suboptimal for the given kind of
mineralization and/or grade ranges, represent a special example of instrumental mistakes.
For low-grade gold mineralization, for instance, fire assay with atomic absorption finish is
utilized, while fire assay with gravimetric finish is preferable for high-grade gold analysis. High
grade gold samples that have the atomic absorption finish applied to them may have their grades
wrongly calculated due to instrumental error.
Insitu nugget effect error
The existence of high-grade mineralization in small, localized pockets inside the larger mineral
deposit is known as the "nugget effect." The entire grade estimate may be significantly impacted
by these pockets, or nuggets. The mineral grades within the deposit are highly variable when the
nugget effect is substantial. Lowering the sampling grid and gathering two samples from each
hole (to get the variance of the basic error). Individual sample findings are not indicative of the
block grades in an environment with a high nugget impact, and they are also unable to accurately
identify the ore/waste limits (Pitard., 2009).
 REFERENCE
Abzalov, M. (2011). Sampling Error and Control of Assay Data Quality in Exploration and
Mining Geology. Application and Experience of Quality Control, pp-611-644.

N. Schofield, S. G. (2011). Fundamental Sampling Error and Sampling Precision in Resource

Estimation . Eighth International Mining Geology Conference , pp-33.

Pitard, F. (1993). Pierre Gy's Sampling Theory and Sampling Practise: 2nd Edition . New York :
CRC Press.

Pitard., C. A. (2009). Fourth World Conference on Sampling and Blending: The Smaller African
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Challenges of Sampling Gold: Paper 21, pp 111.

R. C. A Minnitt, P. M. (2007). Understanding the Components of Fundamental Sampling Error:

A Key to Good Sampling Practices. Journal of South African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy: Volume 107 Referred Paper, pp-507.