Prior to 1975, most geochemical drainage surveys for gold were based on analyses for pathfinder elements, such as As and Cu, rather than direct analysis for gold, for two reasons. Firstly, analytical methods lacked the required sensitivity and precision to determine gold abundance at background levels in stream sediments (usually in the range 1 - 10 ppb). Direct analysis was also inhibited by concern about the potential for gross sampling error, brought about by the dispersion of gold as rare discrete particles of the extremely dense native metal. This sampling error, commonly termed the 'nugget effect' has two components: erratic distribution of the element within the stream environment, related to hydraulic factors, and the difficulty in taking representative samples, both in the field and later in sub-sampling for analysis. In more recent years the collection of very large samples was commonly advocated to overcome the sampling problem (Hams, 1982; Nichol, 1986)._x000D_
Two methods have been widely used to evaluate the gold content of bulk samples (Elliott and Towsey, 1989). The preparation and analysis of heavy mineral concentrates has in recent years been largely superseded by the leaching of gold contained in bulk samples by cyanide, commonly termed the BLEG (Bulk Leach Extractable Gold) or BCL (Bulk Cyanide Leach) methods. The terms BLEG and BCL are essentially interchangeable and the latter will be adopted for the remainder of this paper. The strengths and weaknesses of these two techniques were compared with conventional total gold analysis on fine fraction (<75 m) stream sediments in a previous paper (mazzucchelli, 1987). this paper represents an update of this review, focusing principally on the bcl and fine fraction total gold (fftg) methods, based on theoretical considerations and the results of recent sampling and laboratory work.>