Advertisement

Analytical Performance Characteristics

Chapter
  • 5.8k Downloads

Keywords

Inductively Couple Plasma Optical Emission Spectrometry Sensitivity Matrix Interlaboratory Study Standard Operation Procedure Zinc Isotope 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. AMC (1995) The Analytical Methods Committee: Uncertainty of measurement — implications for its use in analytical science. Analyst 120:2303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnold SF (1990) Mathematical statistics. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergmann G, von Oepen B, Zinn P (1987) Improvement in the definitions of sensitivity and selectivity. Anal Chem 59:2522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Björn E, Frech W, Hoffmann E, Lüdke C (1998) Investigation and quantification of spectroscopic interferences from polyatomic species in inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry using electrothermal vaporization or pneumatic nebulization for sample introduction. Spectrochim Acta 53B:1766Google Scholar
  5. Boumans PWJM (1991) Measuring detection limits in inductively coupled plasma emission spectrometry using the “SBR-RSDB approach” — I. A tutorial discussion of the theory. Spectrochim Acta 46B:431Google Scholar
  6. Boumans PWJM (1994) Detection limits and spectral interferences in atomic emission spectrometry. Anal Chem 66:459AGoogle Scholar
  7. Burns DT, Danzer K, Townshend A (2005) IUPAC, Analytical Chemistry Division: Use of the terms “Robust” and “Rugged” and the associated characteristics of “Robustness” and “Ruggedness” in descriptions of analytical procedures. Draft 2005Google Scholar
  8. Currie LA (1992) In pursuit of accuracy: nomenclature, assumtions, and standards. Pure Appl Chem 64:455Google Scholar
  9. Currie LA (1995) IUPAC, Analytical Chemistry Division, Commission on Analytical Nomenclature: Nomenclature in evaluation of analytical methods including detection and quantification capabilities. Pure Appl Chem 67:1699Google Scholar
  10. Currie LA (1997) Detection: International update, and some emerging dilemmas involving calibration, the blank, and multiple detection decisions. Chemometrics Intell Lab Syst 37:151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Danzer K (1975) Zur Ermittlung der Informationsmenge bei spektrochemischen Analysenverfahren. Z Chem 15:158Google Scholar
  12. Danzer K (1990) Problems of calibration in trace-, in-situ-micro-, and surface analysis. Fresenius J Anal Chem 337:794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Danzer K (2001) Selectivity and specificity in analytical chemistry. General considerations and attempt of a definition and quantification. Fresenius J Anal Chem 369:397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Danzer K (2004) A closer look at analytical signals. Anal Bioanal Chem 380:376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Danzer K, Fischbacher C, Jagemann K-U, Reichelt KJ (1998) Near-infrared diffuse reflection spectroscopy for non-invasive blood-glucose monitoring. LEOS Newsletter 12:2–9Google Scholar
  16. Danzer K, Schubert M, Liebich V (1991) Information theory in analytical chemistry. III. Distribution-analytical investigations. Fresenius J Anal Chem 341:511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Danzer K, Than E, Molch D, Küchler L (1987) Analytik — Systematischer Überblick, 2nd edn. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft Geest & Portig, Leipzig/Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  18. Danzer K, Wagner M (1993) Multisignal calibration in optical emission spectroscopy. Fresenius J Anal Chem 346:520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Danzer K, Venth K (1994) Multisignal calibration in spark-and ICP-OES. Fresenius J Anal Chem 350:339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Davies OL, Goldsmith PL (1984) Statistical methods in research and production. Longman, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. De la Calle García D, Reichenbächer M, Danzer K, Hurlbeck C, Bartzsch C, Feller K-H (1998) Use of solid-phase microextraction capillary gas chromatography (SPME-CGC) for the varietal characterization of wines by means of chemometrical methods. Fresenius J Anal Chem 360:784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. den Boef G, Hulanicki A (1983) IUPAC, Analytical Chemistry Division, Commission on Analytical Reactions and Reagents: Recommendations for the usage of selective, selectivity and related terms in analytical chemistry. Pure Appl Chem 55:553Google Scholar
  23. Doerffel K (1990) Statistik in der analytischen Chemie. Deutscher Verlag für Grundstof findustrie, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  24. Doerffel K, Müller H, Ullmann M (1986) Prozessanalytik. Deutscher Verlag für Grundstof findustrie, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  25. Doerffel K, Eckschlager K, Henrion G (1990) Chemometrische Strategien in der Analytik. Deutscher Verlag für Grundstoffindustrie, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  26. Eckschlager K, Danzer K (1994) Information theory in analytical chemistry. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Ehrlich G (1969) Entwicklung und gegenwärtiger Stand der Bemühungen um eine objektive Charakterisierung des Nachweisvermögens analytischer Verfahren. Wiss Z TH Leuna-Merseburg 11:22Google Scholar
  28. Ehrlich G, Danzer K (2006) Nachweisvermögen von Analysenverfahren. Objektive Bewertung und Ergebnisinterpretation. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. EURACHEM (1995) Quantifying uncertainty in analytical measurement. TeddingtonGoogle Scholar
  30. EURACHEM (1998) The fitness for purpose of analytical methods. TeddingtonGoogle Scholar
  31. Fleming J, Albus H, Neidhart B, Wegscheider W (1997a) Glossary of analytical terms (VII). Accr Qual Assur 2:51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fleming J, Albus H, Neidhart B, Wegscheider W (1997b) Glossary of analytical terms (VIII). Accr Qual Assur 2:160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fleming J, Neidhart B, Tausch C, Wegscheider W (1996a) Glossary of analytical terms (I). Accr Qual Assur 1:41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fleming J, Albus H, Neidhart B, Wegscheider W (1996b) Glossary of analytical terms (II). Accr Qual Assur 1:87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fleming J, Neidhart B, Albus H, Wegscheider W (1996c) Glossary of analytical terms (III). Accr Qual Assur 1:135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Fujiwara K, McHard JA, Foulk SJ, Bayer S, Winefordner JD (1980) Evaluation of selectivity in atomic absorption and atomic emission spectrometry. Canadian J Spectrosc 25:18Google Scholar
  37. Geiß S, Einax JW (2001) Comparison of detection limits in environmental analysis — is it possible? An approach on quality assurance in the lower working range by verification. Fresenius J Anal Chem 370:673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gottschalk G (1975) Standardisierung quantitativer Analysenverfahren — I. Allgemeine Grundlagen. Fresenius Z Anal Chem 275:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Graf U, Henning H-U, Stange K, Wilrich P-Th (1987) Formeln und Tabellen der angewandten mathematischen Statistik. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (3. Aufl)Google Scholar
  40. Hendricks MMWB, de Boer AH, Smilde AK (1996) Robustness of analytical chemical methods and pharmaceutical technological products. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  41. Horn R (2000) Kopplung einer elektrothermischen Verdampfungseinheit mit einem ICP-Massenspektrometer zur Verbesserung der Nachweisgrenze und der Spezifität. Diploma Thesis, Friedrich Schiller University of JenaGoogle Scholar
  42. Horwitz W, Kamps LR, Boyer KW (1980) Quality assurance in the analysis of foods for trace constituents. J Assoc Off Anal Chem 63:1344Google Scholar
  43. Huber PJ (1981) Robust statistics. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. ICH (1994) ICH Topic Q2A (ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline): Validation of analytical methods: Definitions and terminology (CPMP/ICH/381/95), ICH, LondonGoogle Scholar
  45. ICH (1996) ICH Topic Q2B (ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline): Validation of analytical methods: Methodology (CPMP/ICH/281/95), ICH, LondonGoogle Scholar
  46. Inczédy J, Lengyiel JT, Ure AM, Geleneser A, Hulanicki A (Eds) (1997) Compendium of analytical nomenclature, 3rd edn (IUPAC Orange Book), Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  47. ISO 3534-1 (1993), International Organization for Standardization (BIPM, IEC, IFCC, ISO, IUPAC, IUPAP, OIML), International vocabulary of basis and general terms in metrology. GenevaGoogle Scholar
  48. ISO 78-2 (1999) International Organisation for Standarization: Layout for standards — 2. Methods of chemical analysis. GenevaGoogle Scholar
  49. IUPAC Orange Book (1997, 2000) — printed version: Compendium of analytical nomenclature (Definitive Rules 1997); see Inczédy et al. (1997) — web version (from 2000 on): www.iupac.org/publications/analytical compendium/Google Scholar
  50. IUPAC (1995) Analytical Chemistry Division, Commission on Analytical Nomenclature: Nomenclature in evaluation of analytical methods including detection and quantification capabilities, prepared for publication by LA Currie, Pure Appl Chem 67:1699Google Scholar
  51. Jochum C, Jochum P, Kowalski BR (1981) Error propagation and optimal performance in multicomponent analysis. Anal Chem 53:85Google Scholar
  52. Kaiser H (1965) Zum Problem Nachweisgrenze. Fresenius Z Anal Chem 209:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kaiser H (1966) Zur Definition der Nachweisgrenze, der Garantiegrenze und der dabei benutzten Begriffe. Fresenius Z Anal Chem 216:80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kaiser H (1970) Quantitation in elemental analysis. Part I. Anal Chem 42(2):24A, Part II. 42(4):26AGoogle Scholar
  55. Kaiser H (1972) Zur Definition von Selektivität, Spezifität und Empfindlichkeit von Analysenverfahren. Fresenius Z Anal Chem 260:252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kaiser H, Specker H (1956) Bewertung und Vergleich von Analysenverfahren. Fresenius Z Anal Chem 149:46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kateman G, Buydens L (1993) Quality control in analytical chemistry, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  58. Kellner R, Mermet J-M, Otto M, Widmer HM (eds) (1998) Analytical chemistry. Wiley-VCH, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
  59. Lieck G (1998) Nachweisgrenze und Rauschen. LaborPraxis 22/June:62Google Scholar
  60. Long GL, Winefordner JD (1983) Limit of detection. A closer look at the IUPAC Definition. Anal Chem 55:712AGoogle Scholar
  61. Massart DL, Vandeginste BGM, Deming SN, Michotte Y, Kaufman L (1988) Chemometrics: a textbook. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  62. O’Rangers JJ, Condon RJ (2000) In: Kay JP, MacNeil JD, O’Rangers JJ (eds), Current issues in regulatory chemistry. (AOAC Int., Gaithersburg, MD, p 207Google Scholar
  63. Persson B-A, Vessman J (1998) Generating selectivity in analytical chemistry to reach the ultimate — specifity. Trends Anal Chem 17:117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Persson B-A, Vessman J (2001) The use of selectivity in analytical chemistry — some considerations. Trends Anal Chem 20:526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Prichard E, Green J, Houlgate P, Miller J, Newman E, Phillips G, Rowley A (2001) Analytical measurement terminology — handbook of terms used in quality assurance of analytical measurement. LGC, Teddington, Royal Society of Chemistry, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  66. Rodriguez LC, Garcia RB, Garcia Campana AM, Bosque Sendra JM (1998) A new approach to a complete robustness test of experimental nominal conditions of chemical testing procedures for internal analytical quality assessment. Chemom Intell Lab Syst 41:57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sachs L (1992) Angewandte Statistik, 7th edn. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York [1383]Google Scholar
  68. Sharaf MA, Illman DL, Kowalski BR (1986) Chemometrics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  69. St John PA, McCarthy WJ, Winefordner JD (1966) Application of signal-to-noise theory in molecular luminescence spectrometry. Anal Chem 38:1828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. St John PA, McCarthy WJ, Winefordner JD (1967) A statistical method for evaluation of limiting detectable sample concentrations. Anal Chem 39:1495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Streck S (2004) Die schnelle und effiziente analytische Bestimmung von Mengen-, Spuren-und Ultraspurenelementen im Blutplasma von Patienten mit unterschiedlichen Erkrankungen und der statistische Vergleich mit einer Kontrollgruppe. Doctoral thesis, Friedrich Schiller University of JenaGoogle Scholar
  72. Sturgeon RE, Lam JW (1999) The ETV as a thermochemical reactor for ICP-MS sample introduction. J Anal Atomic Spectrom 14:785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Taylor JK [1983] Validation of analytical methods. Anal Chem 55:600AGoogle Scholar
  74. Thiel G, Danzer K (1997) Direct analysis of mineral components in wine by inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES). Fresenius J Anal Chem 357:553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Thompson M (1995) Uncertainty in an uncertain world. Analyst 120:117NCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Thompson M, Statistical Subcommittee of the Analytical Method Committee (2004) The amazing Horwitz function. AMC Techn Brief 17Google Scholar
  77. Trullols E, Ruisanchez I, Rius FX (2004) Validation of qualitative analytical methods. Trends Anal Chem 23:137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. USP 23-NF18 (1995) The US pharmacopoeia & the national formulary. US Pharmacopeial Convention Inc, Rockville, MDGoogle Scholar
  79. USP 24-NF19 (2000) The US pharmacopoeia & the national formulary. US Pharmacopeial Convention Inc, Rockville, MDGoogle Scholar
  80. Valcarcel M (2000) Principles of analytical chemistry. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  81. Venth K, Danzer K, Kundermann G, Blaufuß K-H (1996) Multisignal evaluation in ICPMS. Determination of trace elements in Mo-Zr-alloys. Fresenius J Anal Chem 354:811Google Scholar
  82. Vessman J, Stefan RI, van Staden JF, Danzer K, Lindner W, Burns DT, Fajgelj A, Müller H (2001) IUPAC, Analytical Chemistry Division, Commission on General Aspects of Analytical Chemistry: Selectivity in analytical chemistry. Pure Appl Chem 73:1381Google Scholar
  83. Wahlich JC, Carr GP (1990) Chromatographic system suitability tests — what should we be using? J Pharmac Biomed Anal 8:619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wildner H, Wünsch G (1997) Neue Ansätze zur Quantifizierung der Robustheit als Güutekennzahl analytischer Systeme im Hinblick auf Bewertbarkeit und Vergleichbarkeit. J prakt Chem 339:107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Winefordner JD, Vickers TJ (1964) Calculation of limit of detectability in atomic absorption flame spectrometry. Anal Chem 36:1947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Winefordner JD, Parsons ML, Mansfield JM, McCarthy WJ (1967) Derivation of expressions for calculation of limiting detectable atomic concentration in atomic fluorescence flame spectrometry. Anal Chem 39:436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wünsch G (1994) Robustheit und Anfälligkeit als Kenngrößen zur Bewertung analytischer Systeme. J Prakt Chem 339:107Google Scholar
  88. Zeaiter M, Roger J-M, Bellon-Maurel V, Rutledge DN (2004) Robustness of models developed by multivariate calibration. Part I. The assessment of robustness. Trends Anal Chem 23:157CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Personalised recommendations