Comparison of ISO-GUM and Monte Carlo methods for the evaluation of measurement uncertainty: application to direct cadmium measurement in water by GFAAS.

The propagation stage of uncertainty evaluation, known as the propagation of distributions, is in most cases approached by the GUM (Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement) uncertainty framework which is based on the law of propagation of uncertainty assigned to various input quantities and the characterization of the measurand (output quantity) by a Gaussian or a t-distribution. Recently, a Supplement to the ISO-GUM was prepared by the JCGM (Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology). This Guide gives guidance on propagating probability distributions assigned to various input quantities through a numerical simulation (Monte Carlo Method) and determining a probability distribution for the measurand. In the present work the two approaches were used to estimate the uncertainty of the direct determination of cadmium in water by graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry (GFAAS). The expanded uncertainty results (at 95% confidence levels) obtained with the GUM Uncertainty Framework and the Monte Carlo Method at the concentration level of 3.01 μg/L were ±0.20 μg/L and ±0.18 μg/L, respectively. Thus, the GUM Uncertainty Framework slightly overestimates the overall uncertainty by 10%. Even after taking into account additional sources of uncertainty that the GUM Uncertainty Framework considers as negligible, the Monte Carlo gives again the same uncertainty result (±0.18 μg/L). The main source of this difference is the approximation used by the GUM Uncertainty Framework in estimating the standard uncertainty of the calibration curve produced by least squares regression. Although the GUM Uncertainty Framework proves to be adequate in this particular case, generally the Monte Carlo Method has features that avoid the assumptions and the limitations of the GUM Uncertainty Framework.

[1]  Brian D. Ripley,et al.  Stochastic Simulation , 2005 .

[2]  Václav Synek,et al.  Attempts to include uncorrected bias in the measurement uncertainty. , 2005, Talanta.

[3]  D Brynn Hibbert,et al.  The uncertainty of a result from a linear calibration. , 2006, The Analyst.

[4]  Raghu N. Kacker,et al.  Comparison of ISO-GUM, draft GUM Supplement 1 and Bayesian statistics using simple linear calibration , 2006 .

[5]  J. Gooding,et al.  Data analysis for chemistry : an introductory guide for students and laboratory scientists , 2005 .

[6]  Stephen L. R. Ellison Using validation data for ISO measurement uncertainty estimationPart 1. Principles of an approach using cause and effect analysis , 1998 .

[7]  Peter M. Harris,et al.  Evaluation of Measurement Uncertainty Based on the Propagation of Distributions Using Monte Carlo Simulation , 2003 .

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

[9]  Taryana Suryana,et al.  iso/iec 17025 , 2009 .

[10]  A. G. González,et al.  Evaluation of measurement uncertainty in analytical assays by means of Monte-Carlo simulation. , 2004, Talanta.

[11]  Maurice G. Cox,et al.  The use of a Monte Carlo method for evaluating uncertainty and expanded uncertainty , 2006 .

[12]  S. Standard GUIDE TO THE EXPRESSION OF UNCERTAINTY IN MEASUREMENT , 2006 .

[13]  A. Gustavo González,et al.  Estimation of the uncertainty of indirect measurements from the propagation of distributions by using the Monte-Carlo method: An overview , 2005 .

[14]  M. Solaguren-Beascoa Fernández,et al.  Implementation in MATLAB of the adaptive Monte Carlo method for the evaluation of measurement uncertainties , 2009 .