Numerical transformation of geochemical data: 1.

Maximizing geochemical contrast to facilitate information extraction

and improve data presentation
Clifford R. Stanley
Department of Geology, Acadia University, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, B4P 2R6, Canada
(e-mail: cliff.stanley@acadiau.ca)

ABSTRACT: Data transformation in geoscience has typically been motivated by

three objectives: (1) creating normally distributed data; (2) creating data that are
additive; and (3) making errors constant across the range of the data.
Historically, transformation of geochemical concentrations has been undertaken to
achieve normality. Unfortunately, most geochemical distributions are multi-modal
and derived from several geological sources. Thus no continuous, monotonic
transformations exist that can convert these into (even approximately) normal
distributions, and thus transformation for this purpose is neither generally achievable
nor justified. Transformations that create additivity are rare in geochemical applica-
tions, although they are important in error treatment and lithogeochemical data
analysis. These transformations effectively convert data into a form that can be
sensibly manipulated, and thus facilitate subsequent data analysis. Transformation to
stabilizing errors in geochemical data is also not common, although it is a useful
attribute in subsequent geochemical data analysis.
Another type of data transformation, designed to maximize geochemical contrast
(or maximize data variance), may be achieved by raising geochemical concentrations
to a power after transforming the data to the 0 ↔ 1 interval. The power that
produces the maximum variance in the transformed result creates the maximum
geochemical contrast, affording the geochemist an opportunity to extract the most
information from the geochemical data.
The ‘maximum data variance’ transformation is based not on the subsequent data
analysis result (e.g. recognizable geochemical patterns; circular reasoning where ‘the
end justifies the means’), but on an optimal property created by the transform. As a
result, this transformation provides significant advantage in subsequent data analysis
because results achieved are not subjective.
KEYWORDS: geochemistry, data analysis, transformation, geochemical contrast, constant variance,
normal distribution, additivity.

INTRODUCTION A variety of transformation functions have been employed in

Geochemical concentration data from soil, drainage sediment, geochemical applications. Some simple transformations include
rock, soil gas and till samples collected in mineral exploration or logarithmic
environmental investigations have frequency distributions that
differ in a variety of ways (Aubrey 1954, 1956; Jizba 1959; y = log(x) (1)
Vistelius 1960; 1964; Oertel 1969a, b; Sinclair 1976; Meisch &
Kork 1978; De Wijs & Meisch 1979; Stanley & Sinclair 1986; (Finney 1941; Razumovsky 1941; Gaddum 1945; Pearce 1945;
Schneider 1988; McLachlan & Basford 1988; Cohen 1991; Ahrens 1954a, b, 1957; Bennett 1956; 1957; Aitchison &
Stanley 2003a). Observed frequency distributions of these data Brown 1957; Laurent 1963; Chapman 1977; Miesch 1977);
may, among other forms, be positively or negatively skewed, square root
multi-modal, or even truncated by an analytical detection limit.
As a result, geochemists sometimes find it advantageous to
transform the geochemical data to enhance its characteristics y = √x (2)
before numerically or graphically evaluating them (Curtis 1943;
Bartlett 1947; Tukey 1957, 1958; Kruskal 1968; Draper & Cox (Bartlett 1936; Anscombe 1948; Freeman & Tukey 1950; Blom
1969; Draper & Hunter 1969). 1954); power

Geochemistry: Exploration, Environment, Analysis, Vol. 6 2006, pp. 69–78 1467-7873/06/$15.00  2006 AAG/ Geological Society of London
70 C. R. Stanley
y = x
(3)
(Moore 1957; Healy & Taylor 1962); Box–Cox
y=x
1


(4)


(Box & Cox 1964; Howarth & Earle 1979; Joseph & Bhaumik
1997); angular
y = arcsin√x (5)
(Zubin 1936; Eisenhart et al. 1947; Anscombe 1948; Ghurye
1949; Freeman & Tukey 1950; Claringfold et al. 1953; Stevens
1953; Biggers & Claringfold 1954; Blom 1954; Fisher 1954); and
reciprocal
y=1 (6)
x original azimuths into and back from an additive set of variables
(Hoyle 1973) transformations. In these transformation func-
tions, the
‘s are commonly unconstrained, and therefore
represent arbitrarily chosen parameters.
Historically, many of these transformations have been
employed to create normally distributed variables (e.g. Hoyle
1973; Joseph & Bhaumik 1997; Box & Cox 1964); however, the
commonly multi-modal nature of geochemical concentration
data makes it virtually impossible to transform most geo-
chemical concentrations into new variables with distributions
approximating normality. As a result, applying the above
transformations to convert a multi-modal distribution into a
normal one may not be realizable, and thus may be misguided.
Other reasons exist for transforming geochemical data, and
these may impart, to the geochemical data, desirable features
that facilitate interpretation. Historically, and generally outside
the field of geochemistry, data have been transformed for three
different and distinct reasons (Tukey 1958; Dolby 1963; Kruskal
1968; Hoyle 1973): (1) to create a new variable that is ‘additive’
(Elston 1961; Hoyle 1973); (2) to create a new variable that has
‘constant variance’ (i.e. homoscedastic; Kendall & Stuart 1966;
Hoyle 1973); and (3) to create a new variable that is normally
distributed (Hoyle 1973; Joseph & Bhaumik 1997; Box & Cox
1964).
Additivity
‘Additivity’ is the linear property of a variable and allows it to be
numerically operated on in a linear manner that often has
physical meaning (Elston 1961; Hoyle 1973). Additivity is not
commonly understood by geologists, because it is a data feature
rarely sought, mostly because many geological variables are
already ‘additive’. The several examples below illustrate geo-
chemical applications where transformations may be used to
create additivity.
The first example involves a transformation required to
obtain ‘additivity’ in till geochemical exploration, where knowl-
edge of the glacial flow directions is critical to data interpret-
ation. Glacial flow directions can be determined by measuring
the azimuths of the long dimensions of clasts within a till.
Because elongate clasts line up parallel to the glacial flow
direction due to shear forces imparted by the moving ice (Mark
1973), these measurements can be used to determine the ice
dispersal direction. As a result, after collecting an adequate
number of till clast major axis azimuth measurements (generally
>50), the geochemist typically determines the average direction
of the major axes of the clasts to deduce the glacial flow
direction. This cannot be done by averaging the azimuth
measurements (in degrees) because this will produce a result
that is inconsistent with the true, average physical direction.
Rather, these azimuths must first be transformed into direction
cosines, producing a set of easting (x) and northing (y)
measurements corresponding to each azimuth (Fisher et al.
1987). These additivity-generating transformations are:
x = cos() and y = sin() (7)
The resulting x’s and y’s can then be averaged, and the mean x
and y values (x̄ and ȳ) can then be converted back into the
average azimuth using:
SD
 = arctan ȳ
x̄
(8)
Equations 7 and 8 are thus transformations that convert the
that can be operated on (averaged) to determine the azimuth of
the ice flow direction (Fisher et al. 1987).
Another example of additivity involves determination of
sampling error in geochemistry. Standard deviations of replicate
samples collected in the field typically are used to estimate the
combined magnitude of sampling and analytical (i.e. total) error.
Standard deviations of replicate analyses of the samples, in
contrast, estimate only the magnitude of analytical error.
Unfortunately, one may not simply subtract the analytical error
standard deviation (a) from the total error standard deviation
(t) to determine the sampling error standard deviation (s),
because errors are additive as variances (not as standard
deviations). As a result, we must square the total error and
analytical error standard deviations, to produce the correspond-
ing variances (Davis 1986). Then, by subtraction, we determine
the sampling error variance, and by taking the square root we
determine the sampling error standard deviation. These power
(square and square root) transformations are used to create
new variables that are additive (the variances), and can be
manipulated using the sum-of-variances equation:
s2 + a2 = t2 (9)
to determine sampling error.
A third example of additivity involves the inherent nature
of geochemical concentrations in rock samples, which vary
because geological material transfer processes (fractional
crystallization, diagenesis, metamorphism, weathering, hydro-
thermal alteration, etc.) have added and removed material to
and from the rocks over time. Because the absolute amounts of
each element in the rocks vary in proportion to how much of
each element is added or removed, these element amounts are
already linear (additive). For example, adding 1 g of Na to a
100 g rock containing 10% Na (i.e. containing 10 g of Na)
produces a new rock with an amount of Na equal to the amount
initially present plus the amount that was added (11 g).
Unfortunately, the absolute amounts of elements in samples
are not generally known in geochemistry because when the
samples are collected, information is lost about the size of the
rock. As a result, we normally describe rock compositions using
element concentrations (proportions), and these are not neces-
sarily proportional to the material transfers that take place to
cause compositional variability (Stanley & Madeisky 1995). This
is because addition or loss of an element can cause the
concentrations of other elements to change (via closure), even
though these elements were neither added nor removed (i.e.
 Numerical transformations of geochemical data: 1
they are conserved; Chayes 1962; Stanley & Madeisky 1995). As
a result, a transformation may be used to convert the concen-
trations into molar Pearce element ratios (PERs; Pearce 1968;
Russell & Nicholls 1988; Russell & Stanley 1990a; 1990b;
Stanley & Madeisky 1995), which are molar ratios with a
conserved element denominator that acts as a standardizing
variable to circumvent the effects of closure. The PERs have
values that change linearly with the amount of material
transfer that the numerator element of the ratio undergoes
during the material transfer process (Pearce 1968; Stanley &
Madeisky 1995). As a result, PERs are proportionally ‘additive’,
and the equation used to obtain a PER from concentration
data is:
x/gx
PERx/z = (10)
z/gz
where the element concentrations (x and z) are in mass units
(wt%, ppm, ppb, etc.), and the gram formula weights (g) are in
grams/mole (Stanley & Madeisky 1995). This conversion
formula is an ‘additive transformation’. Note that Equation 10
is also a multi-variate transformation, because it involves two
variables (x and z). As a result, Equation 10 may not be
considered by some to be strictly a transformation because it is
a function of two variables. Nevertheless, it does produce a new
variable that is additive.
One should note that although major element concentrations
are typically not ‘additive’, due to closure, trace element
concentrations commonly are. This can be demonstrated by
considering the definition of a concentration:
x=X (11)
S
where X is the mass of an element, S is the mass of a rock, and
x is the mass concentration of that element. Taking the
derivative of Equation 11 yields:
dx = dX
X2 dS (12)
S S
and dividing both sides by x and rearranging, gives:
dx = dX
dS
(13)
x X S
This indicates that the relative change in an element concen-
tration is a function of the relative change in the amount of the
element (dX/X; the effect of material transfer) and the relative
change in the size of the rock (dS/S; the effect of closure). When
material transfer does not involve a change in the size of the
rock (i.e. it is a perfect exchange process and dS=0), then the
relative change in concentration is equal to the relative change
in the amount of the element, and closure has no impact. As a
result, the magnitude of the dS/S term in Equation 13 describes
the magnitude of the closure effect. This allows Equation 13
to be used to illustrate why closure affects major element
concentrations much more than trace element concentrations.
Consider three rocks each containing a major element with a
concentration of 10 wt%, a minor element with a concentration
of 1 wt%, and a trace element with a concentration of 0.1 wt%.
Each of these rocks undergoes a different type of hydrothermal
metasomatism; in the first rock the major element is added, in
the second rock the minor element is added, and in the third
rock the trace element is added. Let us assume that the amount
of addition of each element is equal (0.1 g), and that the mass
of each rock was initially 100 g. For each rock, Equation 13 can
71
be used to determine the relative change in the element
concentration (dx/x). For the major element:
dx = dX
dS = 0.1
0.1 = 0.010
0.001 = 0.009 (14)
x X S 10 100
for the minor element:
dx = dX
dS = 0.1
0.1 = 0.100
0.001 = 0.099 (15)
x X S 1 100
and for the trace element:
dx = dX
dS = 0.1
0.1 = 1.000
0.001 = 0.999 (16)
x X S 0.1 100
In all cases, the closure term (dS/S)=0.001, but this closure
effect is proportionally largest, relative to the material transfer
effect (dX/X), for the major element and smallest for trace
element because the material transfer effects differ simply
because of the different concentration levels. Clearly, closure
introduces significant amounts of additional variation to major
elements, and has much less impact, introducing much less
variation, in elements with lower concentrations. In practice,
the effect of closure in trace elements is generally negligible, and
use of a transformation to create an additive geochemical
variable from a trace element concentration is generally unnec-
essary.
Although the above three examples illustrate the relevance of
additivity transformations in geochemical data analysis, trans-
formations to create new variables that have ‘additivity’ are
otherwise rarely undertaken in most geochemical applications.
Error variance stabilization
Another possible reason for data transformation is called ‘error
variance stabilization’. This has historically not been a tradi-
tional motivation for data transformation in geochemical appli-
cations, but is a desirable trait for geochemical data that are to
be numerically or statistically evaluated. Error variance stabiliz-
ation is used to treat data that are ‘heteroscedastic’, having
magnitudes of variations (measurement errors) that change
across the range of the data. Most geochemical concentration
data are ‘heteroscedastic’, as analytical errors commonly
increase with concentration (Thompson & Howarth 1973,
1976a, b, 1978; Thompson 1973, 1982; Fletcher 1981; Stanley &
Sinclair 1986; Stanley 2003b). This makes data evaluation
difficult, because the variations attributable to measurement
error vary across the range of the data, and the criteria used to
determine whether observed concentration differences are real
thus change across the range of concentrations as well.
Transformation to stabilize the error in a geochemical
variable creates a new variable that is ‘homoscedastic’ (has
constant error variance across the range of the new transformed
variable), and this attribute can significantly simplify subsequent
statistical tests, numerical procedures and the graphical presen-
tation of the data. The transformation function used is specific
to the model describing how measurement error changes with
concentration, and propagation of the original heteroscedastic
error into the new variable results in new (transformed) error
that is homoscedastic. Evaluation of homoscedastic data is far
simpler and leads to more compelling conclusions because the
data can be evaluated on an ‘even playing field’.
Examples of error stabilizing transformations commonly
used in other scientific applications (Hoyle 1973) include:
(1) the logarithmic transform (for proportional error; Equation
1); (2) the square root transform (for Poisson error;
72
Equation 2); and (3) the angular transform (for binomial error;
Equation 5).
To illustrate how these error-stabilizing transformations
work, consider Case 1, above. If proportional measurement
error is 10%, then =y=0.10 c, where c is an element concen-
tration. Propagation of this error into the logarithm of c (y=log
c) requires use of the generative error propagation equation
(Stanley 1990):
p p
1 p
&S D & & Sxy DSxy D
2
y2 = y x2i + 2
xi
i j
i=1 i=1j=i+1
In this case, there is only one variable (c), which we will assign
to x1, so Equation 17 simplifies significantly (the second term
equals zero). The only required partial derivative is thus:
Syc D = 1c
and Equation 17 becomes:
2
SD
y2 = 1 (0.10c)2 = 0.01
c
Clearly, regardless of the magnitude of c, the error in y (the
transformed variable) equals 0.01 and is constant (homo-
scedastic) across the range of y.
To date, no published geochemistry-related paper is known
to the author that transforms geochemical data for this purpose,
although ‘homoscedasticity’ would significantly facilitate a large
number of efforts to evaluate geochemical data.
Normality
In many geochemical applications, transformations are com-
monly undertaken to convert, or attempt to convert, the
observed frequency distribution into one that is normal,
approximately normal, or at least symmetric (e.g. Bartlett 1947;
Draper & Cox 1969; Hoyle 1973). This is typically done for
theoretical reasons, because subsequent statistical procedures
either require data that are normally distributed, or are substan-
tially simplified if the data are normally distributed (Hoyle
1973). A common transformation that has been used to convert
data into a new variable that is at least ‘nearly normal’ is the
Box–Cox transform (Equation 4). Typically,
is adjusted until
the resulting distribution has a skewness of 0 and a kurtosis or
3 (or nearly so; Joseph & Bhaumik 1997; Box & Cox 1964;
0 and 3 are the expected values of these parameters for a normal
distribution). A maximum likelihood objective function can be
maximized:
S D
n

<max
n ln2 + (

1)
2 y &lnx
i=1
i (20)
to determine the optimal value of
that produces a transformed
distribution with skewness and kurtosis closest to 0 and 3,
respectively (Joseph & Bhaumik 1997). Computer software in
the form of a MATLAB procedure (BOXCOX.M) is available
that determines the maximum likelihood value of
for a
Box–Cox transform that converts data into a newly trans-
formed variable with a distribution that comes closest to
normality (this procedure can be downloaded from the author’s
website at http://www.acadiau.ca\cstanley\software.htm).
C. R. Stanley
(17)
xixj
Fig. 1. Histogram of the
80 mesh (
177 µm) fraction Cu
concentrations (in ppm) from 247 B-horizon soil samples collected
(18)
over the Daisy Creek strata-bound Cu–Ag prospect, Montana, and
analysed after an aqua regia digest with atomic absorption spec-
trometry (Stanley 1984). The minimum, maximum, mean, standard
deviation, skewness and kurtosis of these data are 10 ppm, 973 ppm,
74.964 ppm, 123.411 ppm, 3.830 and 17.595, respectively. Data have
been rescaled to the interval 0 ↔ 1 and are plotted with 40 class
(19)
intervals (note that this does not change the skewness and kurtosis).
Unfortunately, most geochemical data derive from several
geological sources. Because multiple rock types or geological
materials may be represented in a geochemical survey dataset,
the frequency distribution of the geochemical data is commonly
multi-modal (Sinclair 1976; Stanley 1988). As a result, no matter
what transformation is used, it is generally impossible to obtain
a truly normally transformed distribution, unless the transfor-
mation is not monotonic (in which case the fundamental
structure of the data is destroyed, and the information in the
data is significantly altered). Application of the Box–Cox
transform to the soil Cu concentration data from the Daisy
Creek stratabound Cu–Ag prospect, Montana (Stanley 1984)
illustrates this problem (Fig. 1). The frequency distribution of
this dataset has been modelled using probability plot analysis
(Sinclair 1976; Stanley 1988), and is interpreted to consist of a
mixture of three lognormal populations (Fig. 2), with means and
mean  one standard deviation concentrations (in square
brackets) of 26 [17, 38], 78 [55, 111] and 313 [198, 496] ppm
that comprise 71, 19 and 10% of the data, respectively. These
component distributions can be related spatially to background,
chalcopyrite mineralized and chalcocite+bornite-mineralized
zones at the prospect, and so have validated geological causes
(Stanley 1984; Sinclair 1991).
Application of the maximum likelihood Box–Cox transform
to these data significantly reduces the skewness and kurtosis of
this soil concentration variable (from 3.830 and 17.595, to 0.161
and
0.564, respectively). However, even though these par-
ameters can be made more consistent with the expected values
for a normal distribution (0 and 3, respectively) by adjusting

to
0.58 using the maximum likelihood approach of Joseph &
Bhaumik (1997), the resulting distribution is still multi-modal,
has a non-ideal skewness and kurtosis, and exhibits other
significant departures from normality (Fig. 3). As a result, the
frequency distribution from this transformation in no way
approximates a normal distribution, even though the transform
employed is designed to create a distribution approximating
normality. Nevertheless, the transform radically reduced the
skewness of the data, because it stretched the data in concen-
tration ranges where data frequencies are high, and compressed
the data in concentration ranges where data frequencies are low
(Fig. 4).
 Numerical transformations of geochemical data: 1
Fig. 2. Probability plot of logarithmically transformed Cu concen-
trations (in ppm) from the Daisy Creek soil survey (Stanley 1984).
The frequency distribution of the logarithmically transformed data
can be modelled by a mixture of three component log-normal
populations with means,  one standard deviation values (in square
brackets), and component proportions (in %) of 26 [17, 38], 71%; 78
[55, 111] 19%; and 313 [198, 496] 10%, respectively. Thresholds to
separate these three sub-populations are 55 and 150 ppm.
Fig. 3. Histogram of Box–Cox transformed Cu concentrations for
samples from the Daisy Creek soil survey (Stanley 1984). The
maximum likelihood estimate of
is
0.58 (Joseph & Bhaumik
1997), causing the resulting Box–Cox transformed distribution to
have a skewness and kurtosis of 0.161 and
0.564, respectively. This
indicates that, despite the use of this ‘optimal transformation’, the
resulting distribution is not ‘nearly normal’. Data have been rescaled
to the interval 0 ↔ 1 and are plotted using 40 class intervals to allow
comparison with Fig. 1.
UNITIZED POWER TRANSFORMATION TO
MAXIMIZE DATA VARIANCE
The above motivations for transforming geochemical data are
not the only ones that endow optimal characteristics to the
resulting variables. Another reason for transforming data is to
increase the amount of information revealed by the data. In
geochemical applications, this is analogous to increasing geo-
chemical contrast. Evaluation of geochemical concentration
73
Fig. 4. Plot of concentration versus the corresponding maximum
likelihood Box–Cox transformation values (Equation 4) for the Cu
concentrations from the Daisy Creek soil survey (
=
0.58; Stanley
1984). The dashed straight line has been drawn from the minimum
to the maximum Cu concentration to illustrate the non-linear
character of this transformation.
data in mineral exploration or environmental applications
typically benefits from results that exhibit high geochemical
contrast (Rose et al. 1979; Levinson 1980). High geochemical
contrast makes patterns more easily and accurately interpreted,
and makes results more compelling. High geochemical contrast
can primarily be achieved a priori through prudent selection of
sampling and analytical strategies (determined via orientation
surveys) that result in geochemical data that emphasize com-
positional differences and thus robustly respond to the anoma-
lism of interest (Rose et al. 1979; Levinson 1980; Chao 1984;
Hall 1992; Hall & Bonham Carter 1998). However, certain
numerical procedures (data transformations) can also be used to
enhance the contrast of geochemical concentration data that do
not exhibit high contrast a posteriori, even after prudent selection
of appropriate sampling and analytical procedures. These
transformations are not typically used in geochemical data
evaluation, but are quite common in remote sensing data
processing (Barrett & Curtis 1992; Richards 1993; Verbyla
1995). A variety of transformations (e.g. contrast stretching,
linear stretching, histogram equalization, etc.) are employed in
GIS applications to ‘stretch’ data (increase its variance) so that
features not initially evident can be discerned.
Unfortunately, some of these data transformations are not
monotonic functions, and thus fundamentally alter the relative
relationships between concentrations. Others, with complicated
functional forms, are used for purely empirical purposes, and
thus may impart undesirable features to the data. As a result,
the best transformations for enhancing geochemical contrast
are those with simple functional forms, such as the power
transformation (Equation 3).
One characteristic of the power transformation is that the
variance of the transformed result can be increased through
application of a larger power (
), provided that the dataset
contains nominal concentrations greater than one. This is
because, under this proviso, the maximum value in the dataset
increases as
increases. This feature makes a power transform
a poor choice for enhancing geochemical contrast unless certain
constraints can be applied, because no maximum variance exists
if any raw data value exceeds unity.
However, if data fall within the interval 0 ↔ 1, then
every new variable resulting from transformation by a positive
power (within the interval 0 ↔ `) will also be within the
interval 0 ↔ 1. As a result, if the data are first rescaled to within
74 C. R. Stanley

the interval 0 ↔ 1, the resulting standard deviations of different

power-transformed variables derived from data within the
interval 0 ↔ 1 can be compared.
Note that rescaling the data to within the 0 ↔ 1 interval can
also be accomplished by expressing the concentration as a
proportion; however, this may not result in a rescaled variable
that exhibits the full dynamic range across that interval (e.g.
Fe2O3 concentrations from a banded iron formation could
exhibit proportions ranging across a relatively small range
within the 0 to 1 interval).
For data within the interval 0 ↔ 1 raised to the power
,
it can be shown that as
approaches 0, the variance of the
power-transformed variable also approaches 0, because all
power-transformed values approach 1; similarly, as

approaches `, the variance of the power-transformed variable
also approaches 0 because all power-transformed values
approach 0. Because the variance of the original data is positive
(a positive variance exists for the power transform when
=1,
assuming that the original data exhibit more than one value),
there must be some value of
where the maximum variance in
the power-transformed variable is obtained (C. Leon, 2004,
pers. comm.). As a result, it is a simple process to determine the Fig. 5. Plot of power (
) versus the resulting standard deviation of
power (
) that causes the power-transformed variable to exhibit the power-transformed Cu concentrations from the Daisy Creek soil
maximum variance (e.g. using the ‘solver’ macro in Excel). survey (Stanley 1984). The power (
) that maximizes variance of the
The power-transformed variable with maximum variance ex- rescaled values in the interval 0.001 to 0.999 is 0.44, and produces a
hibits the maximum geochemical contrast, and consequently standard deviation of 0.159.
potentially reveals the most information embedded within the
data.
It should be noted that rescaling, through subtraction of the
mean and division by the range, requires some adjustment to
ensure that the minimum and maximum rescaled values do not
equal 0 and 1. This is because as
goes to 0 or `, 0
[ 1
,
and thus if any rescaled value equals 0 or 1, the associated
standard deviation will not go to 0 because the power-
transformed values will converge on 0 and 1. As a result, the
rescaling transformation:

yi = SS xi
min
max
min
D
 (1
2ε) D +ε (21)

where ε is a small number (say, 0.001), ensures that the rescaled

values remain within the 0 ↔ 1 interval. This transformation is
‘affine’ and so retains the original relationships between the
variable values.
Furthermore, if the original dataset contains a small number
of positive or negative outliers, the power that maximizes the
variance of the unit interval rescaled variable will tend to be very
large (close to `) or very small (close to zero), respectively.
This may unduly stretch or compress the data during transfor-
mation, resulting in variations in the new variable that are
statistically insignificant, or the loss of resolution of statistically
significant variations. This problem can be avoided by excising
the outliers from the dataset for the purpose of identifying the
power that maximizes the geochemical contrast, and then
applying the resulting transformation to these excised samples
to re-include them in the dataset for subsequent interpretation.
Note that the maximum standard deviation obtainable using
a power transform for an initially mono-modal distribution is
less than the standard deviation of a uniform distribution on
that interval (equal to (1
0)/√12=0.288675), which is the
maximum theoretical standard deviation obtainable from a
mono-modal frequency distribution on that interval. Unless the
initial distribution is significantly multi-modal, this establishes
a maximum value that the resulting standard deviation can
reach.
Fig. 6. Histogram of ‘maximum data variance’ transformed Cu
concentrations from the Daisy Creek soil survey (Stanley 1984). The
power (
) that maximizes variance of the rescaled values in the
interval 0.001 to 0.999 is 0.44, and the resulting distribution has a
skewness and kurtosis of 2.069 and 4.519, respectively. This indicates
that maximizing variance does not produce a distribution that is
‘nearly normal’. Data have been plotted with 40 class intervals to
allow comparison with Figures 1 and 3.
An example of the application of the ‘maximum data
variance’ transformation is presented in Figures 5, 6 and 7 using
the Daisy Creek soil sample Cu concentrations (Stanley 1984).
After unitizing the concentrations to within the interval 0 ↔ 1
according to Equation 21, the resulting distribution has a
standard deviation of 0.128 (with a mean of 0.068), and a
skewness and kurtosis of 3.830 and 17.595, respectively.
After comparing the variances produced by different positive
powers (
), the power that maximizes the variance of the
resulting power-transformed distribution is 0.44 (Fig. 5). This
transformed distribution has a standard deviation of 0.248 (with
a mean of 0.049), which is larger than the original, unitized
distribution standard deviation (of 0.128).
The resulting power-transformed distribution for the Daisy
Creek soil survey is presented in Figure 6, and has a skewness
 Numerical transformations of geochemical data: 1 75

Fig. 8. Example bubbleplot illustrating bubble diameters propor-

tional to values of 1, 2, 4 and 8 in the upper row, and bubble areas
proportional to values of 1, 2, 4 and 8 on the lower row (the
diameters of the leftmost bubbles are equal). Bubbles areas propor-
tional to value do not appear to exhibit significant contrast because
the human eye naturally perceives dimension (length) rather than area
(Treisman & Gormican 1988; Hoffman 1998).

Fig. 7. Plot of concentration versus the corresponding ‘maximum

data variance’ transformation values (Equation 3) for the Cu con-
centration range observed in soils from the Daisy Creek soil survey
(
=0.44; Stanley 1984). The dashed straight line has been drawn from
the minimum to the maximum Cu concentration to illustrate the
non-linear character of this transformation, which also substantially
differs from the transformation in Figure 4.

and kurtosis of 2.069 and 4.519, respectively. As a result, it is

clearly not normally distributed. However, it has been stretched
monotonically within the interval 0 ↔ 1 (Fig. 7) such that its
variance is maximized. As a result, this transformed variable
exhibits an alternative optimal property, that of maximum
geochemical contrast.
Use of the maximum variance transformed values in data
analysis and presentation may thus afford substantial advantage.
Statistical tests may be more powerful, and geographic trends
may be more compelling when the geochemical contrast is
enhanced. As a result, use of this transformation before
data analysis or presentation may facilitate identification of
additional information in the data.
Other examples of transformation for this purpose have
been presented in Stanley et al. (2003); Moore et al. (2003).
Computer software in the form of a MATLAB procedure
(MAXVAL.M), that, like the Excel ‘Solver’ macro, deter-
mines the power producing the maximum variance in the
transformed variable, but which also produces a number of
additional graphs to validate the results, can be downloaded
from the author’s website (http://www.acadiau.ca\cstanley\
software.htm).

Data presentation
Presentation of the above transformed data in geographic space
may lead to recognition of spatial patterns that can be associated
with geological features of interest. However, like the selection
of an appropriate transformation, selection of an appropriate
format to present the transformed concentration data is very
important. Geochemical data are typically punctual data, col-
lected from finite points in space. Most geochemical samples
are collected from small volumes, but the results of geochemical
analysis of these samples are typically expected to represent
significantly larger regions of a survey area (e.g. on a square soil
grid, an actual sample may be derived from a single soil pit of
25 cm  25 cm area, but the sample spacing may be 50 m 
50 m). As a result, many geochemical concentrations do not
represent an integrated signal from across a large sample region,
but rather are typically grab samples from specific finite
locations.
Nevertheless, experience has shown that geochemical
samples collected in this way may exhibit discernible spatial
Fig. 9. Bubbleplot of raw Cu concentrations from the Daisy Creek
soil survey (Stanley 1984). Values were rescaled to the interval 0 ↔
1, and the bubble diameters are proportional to this rescaled value.
patterns. Unfortunately, there is no theoretical reason or
guarantee for any spatial patterns to exist a priori (e.g. some
surveys result in ‘salt-and-pepper’ type patterns reflecting
measurement of a geochemical variable that lacks regional
correlation). As a result, because geochemical data are not
fundamentally regionalized, and this may be in part due to
inadequate sample support (either the sizes of the samples are
too small, or the samples are not truly representative of the
areas from which they have been collected; Clark 1979; Sinclair
& Blackwell 2002), contouring of geochemical data is generally
not justified before spatial examination proves that patterns or
trends actually exist. Consequently, an alternative method for
displaying geochemical data to allow recognition of a spatial
trend, other than contouring, is necessary so that contouring is
76 C. R. Stanley
Fig. 10. Bubbleplot of raw Cu concentrations from the Daisy
Creek soil survey (Stanley 1984). Values were rescaled to the interval
0 ↔ 1, but in contrast to Figure 9, these bubble areas are
proportional to this rescaled value.
justified. A way to examine geochemical data in space without
employing contouring involves the use of bubbleplots.
Bubbleplots are diagrams composed of circles (or bubbles)
located at sample sites; the sizes of the bubbles are proportional
to the sample values. Typically, the sample values are propor-
tional to the bubble diameters or to the bubble areas (e.g. both
of these options are available in the bubbleplot facility in
Microsoft Excel). Figure 8 presents two rows of bubbles;
those in the top row have bubble diameters proportional to the
values 1, 2, 4 and 8, whereas those in the bottom row have
bubble areas proportional to these same values. Unfortunately,
if the values are proportional to the bubble areas (bottom row,
Fig. 8), the bubble sizes do not appear to reflect the fact that the
associated values successively double from left to right. This is
because the human eye (and brain) is more sensitive to a length
(one dimension) than an area (two dimensions; Treisman &
Gormican 1988; Hoffman 1998). The bubbles in the bottom
row do not exhibit a size contrast commensurate with the
numerical contrast of the associated values. In fact, the bubble
diameters in the bottom row actually increase in proportion to
the square root of the associated values. Because human
perception is length-based rather than area-based, use of
bubbleplots with bubble areas proportional to sample values is
not recommended, as it will result in plots that lack accurate
representations of geochemical contrast (there appears to be
less contrast than actually exists).
Two bubbleplots with bubble diameters and areas that
are proportional to sample concentrations are presented in
Figures 9 and 10. These display the Cu concentrations from the
Daisy Creek soil survey (after rescaling to the interval 0 ↔ 1),
Fig. 11. Bubbleplot of Box–Cox transformed Cu concentrations
from the Daisy Creek soil survey (Stanley 1984). Values were rescaled
to the interval 0 ↔ 1, and the bubble diameters are proportional to
this rescaled value.
which have a frequency distribution that is highly positively
skewed (Stanley 1984). As a result, a priori expectation of the
spatial pattern defined by these data should involve a small
number of large bubbles and a large number of small bubbles
(reflecting the large skewness in the data). Figure 9, where the
concentrations are proportional to bubble diameter, illustrates
this feature precisely. In contrast, Figure 10 implies that the
original data are much less positively skewed, and so does not
appear to be consistent with the underlying distribution of the
data (this is only because the human eye is less sensitive to
differences in area). As a result, this example illustrates that
human perception is more sensitive to dimension (or length)
than to area, and thus bubbleplots employed in geochemical
applications should have bubble diameters that are proportional
to the geochemical variable to be investigated.
Additional bubbleplots depicting the transformed results
from the Box–Cox transformation (Figs 3 and 4), and the
‘maximum data variance’ transformation (see Figs 6 and 7) for
the Daisy Creek soil survey Cu concentrations (with values
proportional to bubble diameters) are presented in Figures 11
and 12. These bubbleplots depict the underlying geochemical
pattern to greater and lesser degrees, and the differences in
the patterns are a function of the effects of the different
transformations employed.
All of these bubbleplots (Figs 9, 11 and 12) present both an
objective representation of the data, the different bubble
diameters proportional to the raw or transformed data, and a
subjective representation of the data, the different coloured
bubbles (light-, medium- and dark-grey) that correspond to
 Numerical transformations of geochemical data: 1
Fig. 12. Bubbleplot of ‘maximum data variance’ transformed Cu
concentrations from the Daisy Creek soil survey (Stanley 1984).
Values were rescaled to the interval 0.001 ↔ 0.999, raised to the
power of 0.44, and the bubble diameters are proportional to this
rescaled value.
the concentration ranges defined by thresholds determined
from the probability plot analysis depicted in Figure 2. This
dual representation bestows these bubbleplots with both an
interpretation of population membership (the bubble colours)
and the means to evaluate the extent to which this interpret-
ation is founded by the data. As a result, these bubble plots
facilitate rigorous scientific inquiry and hypothesis testing in the
interpretation of the geochemical patterns under examination.
When comparing these bubbleplots, the reader is reminded
to resist founding any judgement regarding the relative success
of these transformations based on the coherence of the pattern
observed. Rather, judgement should be based on the charac-
teristics that the various transformations imparted to the
transformed data.
CONCLUSIONS
Transformation of concentration data into a new variable which
exhibits a normal, near-normal or even symmetric frequency
distribution is not generally possible because of the multi-modal
character of many/most geochemical datasets. As a result,
transformation for this purpose is generally misguided and
unlikely to be successful.
However, transformation of concentration data to obtain
new variables that exhibit other optimal properties is warranted
on a variety of theoretical grounds. Use of a power transform to
maximize the variance of concentration data that has been
rescaled to within the interval 0 ↔ 1 is: (1) theoretically
desirable, (2) can be undertaken using a simple spreadsheet
77
program, and (3) provides a resulting variable that exhibits the
maximum geochemical contrast, and thus affords the geo-
chemist with the best opportunity to identify previously unrec-
ognized information in the data.
In the ‘maximum data variance’ transform, the nature of the
transformed variable’s resulting frequency distribution is not a
criterion used to assess whether the transform is appropriate or
not. This is because the desired characteristic sought, that of
‘maximum data variance’, is achieved a priori through use of the
associated transform. Thus, geochemists can avoid the tempta-
tion of employing circular logic to justify their data analysis. The
transformation employed is not justified based on the interpret-
ability of the results of the data analysis procedure, and thus is
scientific. As a result, use of a ‘maximum data variance’
transform will result in a more objective evaluation of geo-
chemical data, and provide new opportunities to recognize new
characteristics in the data that have not been previously
identified. Evaluation of the frequency distributions of geo-
chemical data should routinely include examination of the
results of this data transformation procedure. The resulting
transformation may be effectively represented using bubble-
plots with diameters that are proportional to the transformed
values.
This paper benefited from helpful discussions with Dr Carlos Leon,
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, and Dr Darlene Brodeur,
Department of Psychology, Acadia University. It has been supported
by an NSERC Discovery Grant to the author.
REFERENCES
AHRENS, L.H. 1954a. The lognormal distribution of the elements, I. Geochimica
et Cosmochimica Acta, 5, 49–73.
AHRENS, L.H. 1954b. The lognormal distribution of the elements, II.
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 6, 121–131.
AHRENS, L.H. 1957. The lognormal distribution of the elements, III. Geochimica
et Cosmochimica Acta, 11, 205–212.
AITCHISON, J. & BROWN, J.A.C. 1957. The Lognormal Distribution. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
ANSCOMBE, F.J. 1948. The transformation of Poisson, binomial and negative
binomial data. Biometrika, 35, 246–254.
AUBREY, K.V. 1954. Frequency distributions of the concentrations of
elements in rocks. Nature, 174 (4420), 141–142.
AUBREY, K.V. 1956. Frequency distributions of elements in igneous rocks.
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 9 (1-2), 83–89.
BARTLETT, M.S. 1936. The square-root transformation in analysis of variance.
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Supplement, 3, 68–78.
BARTLETT, M.S. 1947. The use of transformations. Biometrics, 3, 39–52.
BARRETT, E.C. & CURTIS, L.F. 1992. Introduction to Environmental Remote Sensing
3rd. Chapman and Hall, New York.
BENNETT, B.M. 1956. On the variance stabilizing properties of certain
logarithmic transformations, I. Trabajos de Estadistica, 7, 295–297.
BENNETT, B.M. 1957. On the variance stabilizing properties of certain
logarithmic transformations, II. Trabajos de Estadistica, 8, 69–74.
BIGGERS, J.D. & CLARINGFOLD, P.J. 1954. The angular transformation in
quantal analysis. Biometrics, 10, 570.
BLOM, G. 1954. Transformation of the binomial, negative binomial, Poisson
and chi-square distribution (correction: Biometrika 43, 235). Biometrika, 41,
302–316.
BOX, G.E.P. & COX, D.R. 1964. An analysis of transformations. Journal of the
Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 26, 211–243.
CHAO, T.T. 1984. Use of partial dissolution techniques in geochemical
exploration. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 20, 101–135.
CHAPMAN, R.P. 1977. Log transformations in exploration geochemistry.
Mathematical Geology, 9, 194–198.
CHAYES, F. 1962. Numerical correlation and petrographic variation. Journal of
Geology, 70, 440–452.
CLARINGFOLD, P.J., BIGGERS, J.B. & EMMENS, C.W. 1953. The angular
transformation in quantal analysis. Biometrics, 9, 467–483.
CLARK, I. 1979. Practical Geostatistics. Applied Science Publishers, London.
COHEN, A.C. 1991. Truncated and Censored Samples. Marcel Dekker, New York.
CURTIS, J.H. 1943. On transformations used in analysis of variance. Annals of
Mathematical Statistics, 14, 107–132.
DAVIS, J.C. 1986. Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology. John Wiley & Sons, New
York.
78
DE WIJS, H.J. & MEISCH, A.T. 1979. Universal data transformation. Professional
Paper. US Geological Survey.
DOLBY, J.L. 1963. A quick method for choosing a transformation.
Technometrics, 5, 317–326.
DRAPER, N.R. & COX, D.R. 1969. On distributions and their transformations
to normality. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society of London, Series B, 31,
472–476.
DRAPER, N.R. & HUNTER, W.G. 1969. Transformations: some examples
revisited. Technometrics, 11, 23–40.
EISENHART, C., HASTAY, H.W. & WALLIS, W.A. 1947. Inverse sine transfor-
mation of proportions. In: Techniques of Statistical Analysis. McGraw-Hill,
New York.
ELSTON, R.E. 1961. On additivity in the analysis of variance. Biometrics, 17,
209–219.
FINNEY, D.J. 1941. On the distribution of a variate whose logarithmic is
normally distributed. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society of London, Supplement,
7, 155–161.
FISHER, R.A. 1954. The analysis of variance with various binomial
transformations. Biometrics, 10, 130–151.
FISHER, N.I., LEWIS, T. & EMBLETON, B.J.J. 1987. Statistical Analysis of Spherical
Data. Cambridge University Press, New York.
FLETCHER, W.K. 1981. Analytical Methods in Geochemical Prospecting. Handbook
of Exploration Geochemistry, 1. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
FREEMAN, M.F. & TUKEY, J.W. 1950. Transformations related to the angular
and the square root. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 21, 607–611.
GADDUM, J.H. 1945. Lognormal distributions. Nature, 156, 463–466.
GHURYE, S.G. 1949. Transformation of a binomial variate for the analysis of
variance. Journal of the Indian Society of Agricultural Statistics, 2, 94–109.
HALL, G.E.M. 1992. Geoanalysis (special issue). Journal of Geochemical
Exploration, 44, 1–349.
HALL, G.E.M. & BONHAM CARTER, G.F. 1998. Selective extractions (special
issue). Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 61, 1–232.
HEALY, M.J.R. & TAYLOR, L.R. 1962. Tables for power-law transformations.
Biometrika, 49, 557–559.
HOFFMAN, D.D. 1998. Visual Intelligence: How we Create what we See. Norton &
Co., New York.
HOWARTH, R.J. & EARLE, S.A.M. 1979. Application of a generalized power
transformation to geochemical data. Mathematical Geology, 11, 45–62.
HOYLE, M.H. 1973. Transformations - an introduction and a bibliography.
International Statistical Reviews, 41, 203–223.
JIZBA, Z.V. 1959. Frequency distributions of elements in rocks. Geochimica et
Cosmochimica Acta, 16, 79–82.
JOSEPH, L. & BHAUMIK, B.K. 1997. Improved estimation of the Box-Cox
transform parameter and its application to hydrogeochemical data.
Mathematical Geology, 29, 963–976.
KENDALL, M.G. & STUART, A. 1966. The Advanced Theory of Statistics, 3. Griffin,
London.
KRUSKAL, J.B. 1968. Statistical analysis: transformations of data. In: SILLS, D.L.
& MERTON, R.L. (eds) International Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences.
MacMillan, New York.
LAURENT, A.G. 1963. The lognormal distribution and the translation method:
description and estimation problems. Journal of the American Statistical
Association, 58, 231–235.
LEVINSON, A.A. 1980. Introduction to Exploration Geochemistry. Applied
Publishing, Wilmette, Illinois.
MARK, D.A. 1973. Analysis of axial orientation data, including till fabrics.
Geological Society of America Bulletin, 84, 1369–1374.
MCLACHLAN, G.J. & BASFORD, K.E. 1988. Mixture Models. Marcel Dekker, New
York.
MIESCH, A.T. 1977. Log-transformation in geochemistry. Mathematical Geology,
9, 191–194.
MIESCH, A.T. & KORK, J.O. 1978. Frequency distributions of elements. US
Geological Survey Professional Paper, 188–189.
MOORE, C.C., STANLEY, C.R. & GOODWIN, T. 2003. Distribution of zinc and
cadmium in stream sediments from the West Barney’s River area.
Antigonish highlands, Nova Scotia. In: Nova Scotia Mining Matters Symposium,
Abstracts with Program, 10.
MOORE, P.G. 1957. Transformations to normality using fractional powers of
the variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 52, 237–246.
OERTEL, A.C. 1969a. Frequency distributions of element concentrations; 1.
Theoretical aspects. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 33 (7), 821–831.
OERTEL, A.C. 1969b. Frequency distributions of element concentrations; 2.
Surface soils and ferromagnesian minerals. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta,
33 (7), 833–839.
PEARCE, S.C. 1945. Lognormal distributions. Nature, 156, 747.
PEARCE, T.H. 1968. A contribution to the theory of variation diagrams.
Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 19, 142–157.
RAZUMOVSKY, N.K. 1941. On the role of the logarithmically normal law of
frequency distribution in petrology and geochemistry. Doklady Akademii
Nauk SSSR, 33 (1), 48–49.
C. R. Stanley
RICHARDS, J.C. 1993. Remote Sensing Digital Image Analysis: An Introduction 2nd
edn. Springer-Verlag, New York.
ROSE, A.W., HAWKES, H.E. & WEBB, J.S. 1979. Geochemistry In Mineral
Exploration 2nd edn. Academic Press, New York.
RUSSELL, J.K. & NICHOLLS, J. 1988. Analysis of petrologic hypotheses with
Pearce element ratios. Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology, 99, 25–35.
RUSSELL, J.K. & STANLEY, C.R. 1990a. Theory and application of Pearce element ratios
to geochemical data analysis. Geological Association of Canada, Short Course
Notes, 8.
RUSSELL, J.K. & STANLEY, C.R. 1990b. A theoretical basis for the development
and use of chemical variation diagrams. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 54
(9), 2419–2431.
SCHNEIDER, H. 1988. Truncated and Censored Samples from Normal Populations.
Marcel Dekker, New York.
SINCLAIR, A.J. 1976. Applications of Probability Graphs in Mineral Exploration.
Special Publication, 4. Association of Exploration Geochemists, Rexdale,
Ontario, Canada.
SINCLAIR, A.J. 1991. A fundamental approach to threshold estimation in
exploration geochemistry; probability plots revisited. Journal of Geochemical
Exploration, 41 (1–2), 1–22.
SINCLAIR, A.J. & BLACKWELL, G.H. 2002. Applied Mineral Inventory Estimation.
Cambridge University Press, New York.
STANLEY, C.R. 1984. The Geology and Geochemistry of the Daisy Creek Prospect, A
Stratabound Copper–Silver Occurrence in Western Montana. MSc Thesis. The
University of British Columbia.
STANLEY, C.R. 1988. PROBPLOT - An interactive computer program to fit mixtures
of normal (or log-normal) distributions using maximum likelihood optimization
procedures. Special Publication, 14. Association of Exploration Geochemists,
Rexdale, Ontario, Canada.
STANLEY, C.R. 1990. Error propagation and regression on Pearce element
ratio diagrams. In: RUSSELL, J.K. & STANLEY, C.R. (eds) Theory and Application
of Pearce Element Ratios to Geochemical Data Analysis. Short Course Notes, 8.
Geological Association of Canada, 179–216.
STANLEY, C.R. 2003a. Estimating sampling errors for major and trace
elements in geological materials using a propagation of variance approach.
Geochemistry: Exploration, Environment, Analysis, 3 (2), 169–178.
STANLEY, C.R. 2003b. THPLOT.M: A MATLAB function to imple-
ment generalized Thompson-Howarth error analysis using replicate data.
Computers and Geosciences, 29 (2), 225–237.
STANLEY, C.R. & MADEISKY, H.E. 1995. Pearce element ratio analysis in
lithogeochemical exploration. In: 17th International Geochemical Exploration
Symposium. Annual Meeting, Short Course. Society of Exploration
Geochemists, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
STANLEY, C.R. & SINCLAIR, A.J. 1986. Relative error analysis of replicate
geochemical data: advantages and applications. In: GeoExpo – 1986.
Exploration in the North American Cordillera. Programs and Abstracts. Regional
Symposium. Association of Exploration Geochemists, Vancouver, Canada,
77–78.
STANLEY, C.R., CARTER, J., CAAZLET, P. & CARROLL, B. 2003. Light hydro-
carbon gas and heavy metal lithogeochemistry as an indicator for
mineralisation in the Irish upper Carboniferous. In: 21st International
Geochemical Exploration Symposium. Program with Abstracts, 21. Association
of Exploration Geochemists, Dublin, 80.
STEVENS, W.L. 1953. Tables of the angular transformation. Biometrika, 40,
70–73.
THOMPSON, M. 1973. DUPAN 3, A subroutine for the interpretation of
duplicated data in geochemical analysis. Computers and Geosciences, 4, 333–340.
THOMPSON, M. 1982. Regression methods and the comparison of accuracy.
The Analyst, 107, 1169–1180.
THOMPSON, M. & HOWARTH, R.J. 1973. The rapid estimation and control of
precision by duplicate determinations. The Analyst, 98, 153–160.
THOMPSON, M. & HOWARTH, R.J. 1976a. Duplicate analysis in practice – Part
1. Theoretical approach and estimation of analytical reproducibility. The
Analyst, 101, 690–698.
THOMPSON, M. & HOWARTH, R.J. 1976b. Duplicate analysis in practice – Part
2. Examination of proposed methods and examples of its use. The Analyst,
101, 699–709.
THOMPSON, M. & HOWARTH, R.J. 1978. A new approach to the estimation of
analytical precision. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 9, 23–30.
TREISMAN, A.M. & GORMICAN, S. 1988. Feature analysis in early vision:
Evidence from search asymmetries. Psychological Review, 95, 15–48.
TUKEY, J.W. 1957. On the comparative anatomy of transformations. Annals of
Mathematical Statistics, 28, 602–632.
TUKEY, J.W. 1958. The true purpose of transformations. Biometrika, 24, 1041.
VERBYLA, D.L. 1995. Satellite Remote Sensing. Lewis Publishers, New York.
VISTELIUS, A.B. 1960. The skew frequency distribution and the fundamental
law of geochemical processes. Journal of Geology, 68 (1), 1–22.
VISTELIUS, A.B. 1964. Informational characteristics of frequency distributions
in geochemistry. Nature, 202 (4938), 1206.
ZUBIN, J. 1936. Note on a transformation function for proportions and
percentages. Journal of Applied Psychology, 19, 213–220.