Improved evaluation of measurement uncertainty from sampling by inclusion of between-sampler bias using sampling proficiency testing.

A realistic estimate of the uncertainty of a measurement result is essential for its reliable interpretation. Recent methods for such estimation include the contribution to uncertainty from the sampling process, but they only include the random and not the systematic effects. Sampling Proficiency Tests (SPTs) have been used previously to assess the performance of samplers, but the results can also be used to evaluate measurement uncertainty, including the systematic effects. A new SPT conducted on the determination of moisture in fresh butter is used to exemplify how SPT results can be used not only to score samplers but also to estimate uncertainty. The comparison between uncertainty evaluated within- and between-samplers is used to demonstrate that sampling bias is causing the estimates of expanded relative uncertainty to rise by over a factor of two (from 0.39% to 0.87%) in this case. General criteria are given for the experimental design and the sampling target that are required to apply this approach to measurements on any material.

The duplicate method of uncertainty estimation: are eight targets enough?

This paper presents methods for calculating confidence intervals for estimates of sampling uncertainty (s(samp)) and analytical uncertainty (s(anal)) using the chi-squared distribution. These uncertainty estimates are derived from application of the duplicate method, which recommends a minimum of eight duplicate samples. The methods are applied to two case studies--moisture in butter and nitrate in lettuce. Use of the recommended minimum of eight duplicate samples is justified for both case studies as the confidence intervals calculated using greater than eight duplicates did not show any appreciable reduction in width. It is considered that eight duplicates provide estimates of uncertainty that are both acceptably accurate and cost effective.

Empirical versus modelling approaches to the estimation of measurement uncertainty caused by primary sampling.

Measurement uncertainty is a vital issue within analytical science. There are strong arguments that primary sampling should be considered the first and perhaps the most influential step in the measurement process. Increasingly, analytical laboratories are required to report measurement results to clients together with estimates of the uncertainty. Furthermore, these estimates can be used when pursuing regulation enforcement to decide whether a measured analyte concentration is above a threshold value. With its recognised importance in analytical measurement, the question arises of 'what is the most appropriate method to estimate the measurement uncertainty?'. Two broad methods for uncertainty estimation are identified, the modelling method and the empirical method. In modelling, the estimation of uncertainty involves the identification, quantification and summation (as variances) of each potential source of uncertainty. This approach has been applied to purely analytical systems, but becomes increasingly problematic in identifying all of such sources when it is applied to primary sampling. Applications of this methodology to sampling often utilise long-established theoretical models of sampling and adopt the assumption that a 'correct' sampling protocol will ensure a representative sample. The empirical approach to uncertainty estimation involves replicated measurements from either inter-organisational trials and/or internal method validation and quality control. A more simple method involves duplicating sampling and analysis, by one organisation, for a small proportion of the total number of samples. This has proven to be a suitable alternative to these often expensive and time-consuming trials, in routine surveillance and one-off surveys, especially where heterogeneity is the main source of uncertainty. A case study of aflatoxins in pistachio nuts is used to broadly demonstrate the strengths and weakness of the two methods of uncertainty estimation. The estimate of sampling uncertainty made using the modelling approach (136%, at 68% confidence) is six times larger than that found using the empirical approach (22.5%). The difficulty in establishing reliable estimates for the input variable for the modelling approach is thought to be the main cause of the discrepancy. The empirical approach to uncertainty estimation, with the automatic inclusion of sampling within the uncertainty statement, is recognised as generally the most practical procedure, providing the more reliable estimates. The modelling approach is also shown to have a useful role, especially in choosing strategies to change the sampling uncertainty, when required.

Scoring in genetically modified organism proficiency tests based on log-transformed results.

The study considers data from 2 UK-based proficiency schemes and includes data from a total of 29 rounds and 43 test materials over a period of 3 years. The results from the 2 schemes are similar and reinforce each other. The amplification process used in quantitative polymerase chain reaction determinations predicts a mixture of normal, binomial, and lognormal distributions dominated by the latter 2. As predicted, the study results consistently follow a positively skewed distribution. Log-transformation prior to calculating z-scores is effective in establishing near-symmetric distributions that are sufficiently close to normal to justify interpretation on the basis of the normal distribution.

Optimising uncertainty in physical sample preparation.

Uncertainty associated with the result of a measurement can be dominated by the physical sample preparation stage of the measurement process. In view of this, the Optimised Uncertainty (OU) methodology has been further developed to allow the optimisation of the uncertainty from this source, in addition to that from the primary sampling and the subsequent chemical analysis. This new methodology for the optimisation of physical sample preparation uncertainty (u(prep), estimated as s(prep)) is applied for the first time, to a case study of myclobutanil in retail strawberries. An increase in expenditure (+7865%) on the preparatory process was advised in order to reduce the s(prep) by the 69% recommended. This reduction is desirable given the predicted overall saving, under optimised conditions, of 33,000 pounds Sterling per batch. This new methodology has been shown to provide guidance on the appropriate distribution of resources between the three principle stages of a measurement process, including physical sample preparation.

Two-stage application of the optimised uncertainty method: a practical assessment.

Uncertainty estimates from routine sampling and analytical procedures can be assessed as being fit for purpose using the optimised uncertainty (OU) method. The OU method recommends an optimal level of uncertainty that should be reached in order to minimise the expected financial loss, given a misclassification of a batch as a result of the uncertainty. Sampling theory can used as a predictive tool when a change in sampling uncertainty is recommended by the OU method. The OU methodology has been applied iteratively for the first time using a case study of wholesale butter and the determination of five quality indicators (moisture, fat, solids-not-fat (SNF), peroxide value (PV) and free fatty acid (FFA)). The sampling uncertainty (s(samp)) was found to be sub-optimal for moisture and PV determination, for 3-fold composite samples. A revised sampling protocol was devised using Gy's sampling theory. It was predicted that an increase in sample mass would reduce the sampling uncertainty to the optimal level, resulting in a saving in expectation of loss of over pounds 2000 per 20 tonne batch, when compared to current methods. Application of the optimal protocol did not however, achieve the desired reduction in s(samp) due to limitations in sampling theory. The OU methodology proved to be a useful tool in identifying broad weaknesses within a routine protocol and assessing fitness for purpose. However, the successful routine application of sampling theory, as part of the optimisation process, requires substantial prior knowledge of the sampling target.

Determination of isotopically labelled monoesterphthalates in urine by high performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry.

A method of analysis for monoesters of phthalic acid ('monoesterphthalates') in human urine has been developed. The method was needed to determine the hydrolysis and excretion efficiency of isotopically-labelled phthalate diesters ('phthalates') when they were fed to volunteers as part of a biomarker study to estimate total exposure to phthalates. The targeted substances were 13C-monobutylphthalate (MBP), 2H4-monobutylphthalate (MBP), 2H4-monobenzylphthalate (MBeP), 13C-monocyclohexylphthalate (MCHP), 13C-monoethylhexylphthalate (MEHP), and 13C-monoisodecylphthalate (MIDP). The monoesters in urine were deconjugated enzymatically, extracted into solvent, and then determined by high performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) using atmospheric pressure chemical ionisation in the negative ion mode. The limits of determination were 10 ng ml(-1) for MBP, MCHP, MBeP and MEHP, and 40 ng ml(-1) for MIDP. The recovery from urine spiked at 100 ng ml(-1) was in the range from 70 to 85% except for MIDP which was lower at 55%. The between-batch reproducibility of the analysis was in the range 8 to 17% (n = 6 batches on separate days).