Appropriate Sampling for Optimised Measurement (ASOM), rather than the Theory of Sampling (TOS) Approach, to Ensure Suitable Measurement Quality: A Refutation of Esbensen and Wagner (2014)

The ‘Appropriate Sampling for Optimised Measurement’ (ASOM) approach considers measurement to be the focus of the sampling process, and sampling to be only the first part of the measurement process. To achieve ASOM, the uncertainty of measurements, including its contribution from sampling, needs to be estimated and optimised in order to achieve fitness-for-purpose. Such samples are then ‘sufficiently’ representative. The ‘Theory of Sampling’ (TOS) focuses on the processes of primary sampling and sample preparation and assumes that samples are ‘representative’ if they are correctly prepared by nominally ‘correct’ protocols. It defines around ten sampling ‘errors’, which are either modelled or minimised to improve sampling quality. It is argued that the ASOM approach is more effective in achieving appropriate measurement quality than in applying TOS to just the first part of the measurement process. The comparison is made less effective by the different objectives, scopes, terminology and assumptions of the two approaches. ASOM can be applied to in situ materials that are too variable to be modelled accurately, or where sources of uncertainty are unsuspected. The proposed integration of ASOM with TOS (Esbensen and Wagner 2014, Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 57, 93–106) is therefore effectively impossible. However, some TOS procedures can be useful within the ASOM approach.

[1]  Michael H. Ramsey,et al.  Modifying uncertainty from sampling to achieve fitness for purpose: a case study on nitrate in lettuce , 2007 .

[2]  Michael H. Ramsey,et al.  Empirical versus modelling approaches to the estimation of measurement uncertainty caused by primary sampling , 2007 .

[3]  D. Coad,et al.  The duplicate method of uncertainty estimation: are eight targets enough? , 2007, The Analyst.

[4]  Michael H. Ramsey,et al.  Sampling proficiency test for the estimation of uncertainty in the spatial delineation of contamination , 2000 .

[5]  Tom Fearn,et al.  What exactly is fitness for purpose in analytical measurement , 1996 .

[6]  Michael H. Ramsey,et al.  Appropriate rather than representative sampling, based on acceptable levels of uncertainty , 2002 .

[7]  R. Wood,et al.  Measurement uncertainty from physical sample preparation: estimation including systematic error. , 2003, The Analyst.

[8]  B. Geelhoed,et al.  Improved evaluation of measurement uncertainty from sampling by inclusion of between-sampler bias using sampling proficiency testing. , 2011, The Analyst.

[9]  Kim H. Esbensen,et al.  Theory of sampling (TOS) versus measurement uncertainty (MU): A call for integration , 2014 .

[10]  M. Ramsey,et al.  Optimized contaminated land investigation at minimum overall cost to achieve fitness-for-purpose. , 2002, Journal of environmental monitoring : JEM.

[11]  M. Ramsey,et al.  Inter-organisational sampling trials for the uncertainty estimation of landfill gas measurements. , 2001, Journal of environmental monitoring : JEM.

[12]  Michael H. Ramsey When is sampling part of the measurement process? , 2004 .

[13]  Kim H. Esbensen,et al.  Representative Sampling for reliable data analysis: Theory Of Sampling , 2005 .

[14]  Michael H. Ramsey,et al.  Proficiency testing in sampling: pilot study on contaminated land , 1995 .

[15]  Michael H. Ramsey,et al.  New Approach to Geochemical Measurement: Estimation of Measurement Uncertainty from Sampling, rather than an Assumption of Representative Sampling , 2010 .