Comparison of three strategies to evaluate uncertainty from in-house validation data. A case study: mercury determination in sediments

AbstractIn the present paper, three approaches are compared for the evaluation of the combined uncertainty in the determination of mercury in aquatic sediments by an aqua regia extraction procedure. For this, the data obtained in validation studies from five certified reference materials (CRMs), covering a range of concentrations from 0.8 to 130 mg kg−1 of mercury and analysed by three atomic spectroscopic techniques (cold vapour generation atomic fluorescence spectrometry, CV-AFS, cold vapour generation atomic absorption spectroscopy, and inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy), were considered. The combined uncertainty was firstly assessed by considering separately the data obtained for each CRM analysed (approach A). Moreover, this assessment was also performed with two other calculation approaches (B and C) based on the pooled data obtained from the validation step. The comparison of the results obtained for the different techniques showed a clear bias effect when using CV-AFS with nitric acid as a diluent. In relation to the strategies tested for the combined uncertainty assessment, approach C proved to be the easiest and friendliest method for uncertainty assessment.

[1]  Robert R. Greenberg,et al.  Recommended Inorganic Chemicals for Calibration. , 1988 .

[2]  Leonard Steinborn,et al.  International Organization for Standardization ISO/IEC 17025 General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories , 2004 .

[3]  A. D’Ulivo,et al.  Determination of mercury by continuous flow cold vapor atomic fluorescence spectrometry using micromolar concentration of sodium tetrahydroborate as reductant solution. , 2002, The Analyst.

[4]  Vicki J. Barwick,et al.  Measurement uncertainty: Approaches to the evaluation of uncertainties associated with recovery† , 1999 .

[5]  Werner Haesselbarth,et al.  Accounting for bias in measurement uncertainty estimation , 2004 .

[6]  Angels Sahuquillo,et al.  Determination of Cd, Cu, Pb and Zn in environmental samples: microwave-assisted total digestion versus aqua regia and nitric acid extraction , 2002 .

[7]  Hideyoshi Morita,et al.  Atomic fluorescence spectrometry of mercury: principles and developments , 1995 .

[8]  F. Xavier Rius,et al.  Estimating uncertainties of analytical results using information from the validation process , 1999 .

[9]  Johanna Smeyers-Verbeke,et al.  Operational definitions of uncertainty , 2001 .

[10]  M. Horvat.  Mercury - do we know enough? , 2001 .

[11]  F. Xavier Rius,et al.  Evaluating uncertainty in routine analysis , 1999 .

[12]  K Birch.  Estimating uncertainties in testing , 2001 .

[13]  Adriaan M. H. van der Veen.  Measurement uncertainty and the use of reference materials , 2003 .

[14]  Bertil Magnusson,et al.  Handbook for Calculation of Measurement Uncertainty in Environmental Laboratories Version 3 January 2008 , 2003 .

[15]  Ron Walker,et al.  Pitfalls in terminology and use of reference materials , 1999 .

[16]  P. Quevauviller,et al.  Trace element speciation for environment, food, and health , 2007 .

[17]  M. Horvat,et al.  Determination of total mercury in environmental and biological samples using k0-INAA, RNAA and CVAAS/AFS techniques: Advantages and disadvantages , 2004 .