MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY PREPARED FOR ENAO ASSESSOR CALIBRATION COURSE OCTOBER/NOVEMBER Prepared by MJ Mc Nerney for ENAO Assessor Calibration

Similar documents
APPENDIX G EVALUATION OF MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY

APPENDIX G ESTIMATION OF UNCERTAINTY OF MEASUREMENT

Reproducibility within the Laboratory R w Control Sample Covering the Whole Analytical Process

SAMM POLICY 5 (SP5) POLICY ON MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY REQUIREMENTS FOR SAMM TESTING LABORATORIES Issue 2, 28 February 2007 (Amd. 1, 11 August 2014)

Calculation of Measurement Uncertainty

OA03 UNCERTAINTY OF MEASUREMENT IN CHEMICAL TESTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARD SIST EN ISO/IEC Table of contents

Measurement Uncertainty Principles and Implementation in QC

NORDTEST NT TR 537 edition :11

Uncertainty of Measurement (Analytical) Maré Linsky 14 October 2015

Ivo Leito University of Tartu

Measurement uncertainty revisited Alternative approaches to uncertainty evaluation

Practical and Valid Guidelines for Realistic Estimation of Measurement Uncertainty in Pesticide Multi-Residue Analysis*

Traceability, validation and measurement uncertainty 3 pillars for quality of measurement results. David MILDE

Precision estimated by series of analysis ISO and Approach Duplicate Approach

DECISION LIMITS FOR THE CONFIRMATORY QUANTIFICATION OF THRESHOLD SUBSTANCES

HOW TO ASSESS THE MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY

A61-02 CALA Guidance on Traceability Revision 1.2 October 15, 2012

The Role of Proficiency Tests in the Estimation of Measurement Uncertainty of PCDD/PCDF and PCB Determination by Isotope Dilution Methods

A basic introduction to reference materials. POPs Strategy

Measurement Uncertainty - How to Calculate It In The Medical Laboratory

Measurement Uncertainty: A practical guide to understanding what your results really mean.

The bias component in measurement uncertainty

Unit 4. Statistics, Detection Limits and Uncertainty. Experts Teaching from Practical Experience

CALCULATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN CHEMICAL ANALYSIS. A.Gnanavelu

Uncertainty due to Finite Resolution Measurements

Measurement uncertainty: Top down or Bottom up?

UNDERESTIMATING UNCERTAINTY

3.1.1 The method can detect, identify, and potentially measure the amount of (quantify) an analyte(s):

Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM)- An Overview

P103d Annex: Policy on Estimating Measurement Uncertainty for Construction Materials & Geotechnical Testing Labs Date of Issue 09/13/05

Document No: TR 12 Issue No: 1

Procedure for Uncertainty Determination for Calibration Consoles

Introduction to the evaluation of uncertainty

Recent Developments in Standards for Measurement Uncertainty and Traceability (An Overview of ISO and US Uncertainty Activities) CMM Seminar

A Unified Approach to Uncertainty for Quality Improvement

Uncertainty of Measurement

Measurement Uncertainty, March 2009, F. Cordeiro 1

Recovery/bias evaluation

ISO/TS TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION. Water quality Guidance on analytical quality control for chemical and physicochemical water analysis

Method Validation and Accreditation

Doubt-Free Uncertainty In Measurement

Vocabulary of Metrology

DECISION LIMITS FOR THE CONFIRMATORY QUANTIFICATION OF THRESHOLD SUBSTANCES

Larry A. DeWerd, PhD, FAAPM UW ADCL & Dept. Medical Physics University of Wisconsin

Measurement Uncertainty Knowing the Unknown

Why is knowledge on measurement uncertainty so important in setting policies on energy efficiency? Rainer Stamminger & Christoforos Spiliotopoulos

Analytical Measurement Uncertainty APHL Quality Management System (QMS) Competency Guidelines

EA-10/14. EA Guidelines on the Calibration of Static Torque Measuring Devices. Publication Reference PURPOSE

Provläsningsexemplar / Preview INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ISO Second edition

Example method validation and MU approach for Cadmium in seafood test method

Draft EURACHEM/CITAC Guide Quantifying Uncertainty in Analytical Measurement. Second Edition. Draft: June 1999

Technical Guide 4 A Guide on Measurement Uncertainty in Medical Testing

SAMPLE. Accuracy Calibration Certificate. Instrument Type: EURAMET cg-18 v. 4.0 Sample ACC ISO17025 WI v.1.0

SCOPE OF ACCREDITATION TO ISO/IEC 17025:2005 & ANSI/NCSL Z

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TESTING AUTHORITIES (NATA) REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCREDITATION OF ICP-MS TECHNIQUES

What is measurement uncertainty?

Uncertainty of Measurement A Concept

Proficiency testing: Aqueous ethanol. Test and measurement Workshop Marcellé Archer. 20 September 2011

ISO 376 Calibration Uncertainty C. Ferrero

Analysis of interlaboratory comparison when the measurements are not normally distributed

Provläsningsexemplar / Preview INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ISO Second edition

Metallic materials Brinell hardness test. Part 3: Calibration of reference blocks

R SANAS Page 1 of 7

Participants in the Proficiency Test THM 02/2016

VAM Project Development and Harmonisation of Measurement Uncertainty Principles

2.1. Accuracy, n- how close the indication of the thermometer is to the true value.

Guidelines on the Calibration of Automatic Instruments for Weighing Road Vehicles in Motion and Measuring Axle Loads AWICal WIM Guide May 2018

Scoring systems for quantitative schemes what are the different principles?

Measurement Uncertainty in Mechanical Testing

Analytical Strategy: HS 2014 Rafael Hodel, Stefanie Jucker. Quality Control: Quantitative Nuclear Magnetic Resonance

JAB NOTE4. ESTIMATION OF MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY (Electrical Testing / High Power Testing) Japan Accreditation Board (JAB)

Manual stack emissions monitoring Performance Standard for laboratories carrying out analysis of samples

TOLERANCES AND UNCERTAINTIES IN PERFORMANCE DATA OF REFRIGERANT COMPRESSORS JANUARY 2017

Calibration Traceability Guidelines

WADA Technical Document TD2018DL DECISION LIMITS FOR THE CONFIRMATORY QUANTIFICATION OF THRESHOLD SUBSTANCES

Certificate of Accreditation to ISO/IEC 17025:2005

The Uncertainty of Reference Standards

ISO INTERNATIONAL STANDARD. Statistical methods for use in proficiency testing by interlaboratory comparisons

Resval. Practical tool for the validation of an analytical method and the quantification of the uncertainty of measurement.

Certificate of Accreditation

Requirements of a reference measurement procedure and how they relate to a certified reference material for ctni that is fit for purpose

ROLE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF UNCERTAINTY IN HV MEASUREMENT OF PORCELAIN INSULATORS A CASE STUDY

Measurement uncertainty and legal limits in analytical measurements

y, x k estimates of Y, X k.

WADA Technical Document TD2019DL DECISION LIMITS FOR THE CONFIRMATORY QUANTIFICATION OF THRESHOLD SUBSTANCES

Philipp Koskarti

Implementation of ISO/IEC in a low level liquid s cintillation tritium laboratory

Analytische Qualitätssicherung Baden-Württemberg

ISO/IEC requirements. General matters of quality system, requirements for documentation and the list of the documents required for a

Part 5: Total stations

Comparability and Traceability Point of view from a metrological institute

Joint Committee for Traceability in Laboratory Medicine Terminology. R. Wielgosz and S. Maniguet

CALIBRATION REPORT FOR THERMOHYDROMETER

ASTM D3803 Precision and Bias for New Versus Used Activated Carbon, Revisited

SWGDRUG GLOSSARY. Independent science-based organization that has the authority to grant

CALIBRATION CERTIFICATE # 503

International Atomic Energy Agency. Department of Nuclear Sciences and Applications. IAEA Environment Laboratories

Uncertainty and its Impact on the Quality of Measurement

Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) and its supplemental guides

Workshop on Understanding and Evaluating Radioanalytical Measurement Uncertainty November 2007

Transcription:

MEASUREMENT PREPARED FOR ENAO ASSESSOR CALIBRATION COURSE UNCERTAINTY OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2012 Prepared by for ENAO Assessor Calibration B

SCOPE Introduction House Rules Overview 17025 & 15189 MU Approaches Terminology Uncertainty Typical Approach for Test Labs Caution Distribution Functions Scenario Test Model

SCOPE Type A & Type B Coverage Type B Example for MU of RM MU Process Reproducibility data Sources Bias data sources Nordtest T537 Examples 1-4 Summary

MU: ISO/IEC 17025 5.4.6.1 A calibration laboratory, or a testing laboratory performing its own calibrations, shall have and shall apply a procedure to estimate the uncertainty of measurement for all calibrations and types of calibrations. 5.4.6.2 Testing laboratories shall have and shall apply procedures for estimating uncertainty of measurement. In certain cases the nature of the test method may preclude rigorous, metrologically and statistically valid, calculation of uncertainty measurement. In these cases the laboratory shall at least attempt to identify all the components of uncertainty and make a reasonable estimation, and shall ensure that the form of reporting of the result does not give a wrong impression of the uncertainty. Note 1: The degree of rigour needed in an estimation of uncertainty of measurement depends on factors such as: The requirements of the test method; The requirements of the customer; The existence of narrow limits on which decisions on conformity to a specification are based

MU: ISO/IEC 17025 Note 2: In those cases where a well-recognized test method specifies limits to the values of the major sources of uncertainty of measurement and specifies the form of presentation of calculated results, the laboratory is considered to have satisfied this clause by following the test method and reporting instructions. 5.4.6.3 When estimating the uncertainty of measurement, all uncertainty components which are of importance in the given situation shall be taken into account using appropriate methods of analysis. Note 1: Sources contributing to the uncertainty include, but are not limited to, the reference standards and reference materials used, methods and equipment used, environmental conditions, properties and condition of the item being tested or calibrated, and the operator. Note 2: The predicted long-term behaviour of the tested and/or calibrated item is not normally taken into account when estimating measurement uncertainty. Note 3: For further information, see ISO 5725 and the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM).

MU: ISO 15189 5.6.2 The laboratory shall determine the uncertainty of results, where relevant and possible. Uncertainty components which are of importance shall be taken into account. Sources that contribute to uncertainty may include sampling, sample preparation, sample portion selection, calibrators, reference materials, input quantities, equipment used, environmental conditions, condition of the sample and changes of operator.

MU APPROACHES Type A (Top Down): Evaluation of components using statistical probability distributions of the results of a series of measurements and can be characterized by standard deviations of the respective distributions Type B (Bottom Up): Evaluation of components, and characterizing as standard deviations, by estimating their assumed probability distributions using: Previous measurement data; Experience with or general knowledge of the behaviour and properties of relevant materials or instruments; Manufacturer s specifications; Data provided in calibration and other certificates; Uncertainties assigned to reference data taken from handbooks.

TERMINOLOGY Component: Each of the separate contributions to uncertainty is referred to as an uncertainty component. Standard Uncertainty u(x i ) : When expressed as a standard deviation, an uncertainty component is known as a standard uncertainty. Combined Standard Uncertainty u c (y): Square root of the sum of he squares of all the standard uncertainties. Expanded Uncertainty (U): The multiple of u c (y) and a coverage factor, k, which is approx equal to the Z value.

TYPICAL APPROACHES Usually comes down to a combination of both Type A & B approaches. Precision and bias are the main components of MU and can easily be calculated using the validation data for both parameters (Type A). However Type B approach needs to be applied for: A) Preparation of any reference materials used during the validation; B) Any dilution or concentration stages that may be used for RM and samples

CAUTION Always keep sight of the objective and that is to obtain a realistic and robust estimation of the measurement uncertainty for a specific result. Can become quite academic if too much detail is evaluated. In practice it is more usual in test laboratories to consider uncertainties associated with overall method performance in relation to precision and bias with respect to testing of samples and reference materials. Other possible contributors to the MU should be evaluated for significance.

TYPE B APPROACH Estimate all the contributing components to the measurement uncertainty Convert them to relative standard uncertainties Combine the relative standard uncertainties as the square root of the sum of the squares of the relative standard uncertainties Determine the expanded uncertainty using the relevant coverage factor.

! TYPE B APPROACH: SCENARIO TEST MODEL +,-!3)0! 4555!678-! 455!678-! 3,6&-(82(=! 3),>0,/0! 45!678-! 34!!!39!!!!3:!!!!!3;!!!!!3<! 2(,7(>)'!!! "#$%&6(>)!?/(&,/(0@! 0%-$)(0@!A/! BA>B(>)/,)(0! "#$%&!'()* $&! +,-%./,)(0! (#$%&! 1(')! 2('$-)! C+!3)0! DBBA6!E! ">F%/A>!?(/'A>>(-!

TYPE B BUDGET

EXAMPLE: TYPE B DETERMINATION OF MU FOR THE REF MATERIAL

DISTRIBUTION FUNCTIONS

TYPE B EVALUATION OF REF MATERIAL Uncertainty Budget for a Ref Material:

TYPE A APPROACH MU DETERMINATION PROCESS Specify Measurand Quantify within laboratory Reproducibility Quantify Bias Convert components to standard uncertainties of all the same units or relative standard uncertainties. Calculate combined standard uncertainty Calculate expanded uncertainty

TYPE A APPROACH Combined Standard Uncertainty: Expanded Uncertainty: at a 95% confidence level.

WHAT S COVERED BY TYPE A? All components, except the reference material, are included in a Type A approach where the uncertainties associated with the Reproducibility and the Bias are evaluated using statistical data (usually from validation or verification trials). Precision and bias studies take into account the influence of equipment set-up, calibration, QC, environmental factors and personnel. The only external component that needs to be additionally included is the uncertainty associated with the Reference Material. Note: Discuss Medical & Empirical methods

WITHIN-LAB REPRODUCIBILITY QC chart history stable standards over prolonged period of time covering the working range of the method. Validation/verification data for within-lab reproducibility. PT performance over a number if studies.

BIAS QC chart history CRMs Spiked or fortified samples Standard Addition PT Studies/Inter-laboratory studies Validation/Verification studies.

NORDTEST REPORT T537

NORDTEST REPORT T537

EXAMPLE 1

EXAMPLE 1 (CONTD)

EXAMPLE 2

EXAMPLE 3 In this example, the u(rw) is estimated from a quality control sample and the u(bias) is estimated from two different sources: in the first example the use of a CRM and in the second example participation in interlaboratory comparisons. In the summary table both ways of calculating the u(bias) will be compared. For this analysis, the sample-work up is a major error source (both for random and systematic errors), and it is thus crucial that this step is included in the calculations. The number of interlaboratory comparisons is too few to get a good estimate.

EX 3: PCB WITH INTERNAL QC + A CRM 1) Specify Measurand: Sum of 7 PCBs in sediment by extraction and GC-MS. 2) Quantify u R : The control sample which is a CRM gives an s R = 8% at a level of 150 ug/kg dry matter. 3) Quantify method and lab bias: The CRM is certified to 152 ± 14 ug/kg. The mean result on the QC chart is 144, so there is a bias of 5,3%. The s bias = 8% (n=22).

EX 3: PCB WITH INTERNAL QC + A CRM

EX 4: PCB WITH INTERNAL QC + PT RESULTS 1) Specify Measurand: Sum of 7 PCBs in sediment by extraction and GC-MS. 2) Quantify u R : The control sample which is a stable in-house material gives a s R = 8% at a level of 150 ug/kg dry matter. 3) Quantify method and lab bias: Participation in 3 PT studies with conc similar to QC level. The bias of the lab in the 3 studies are -2%; -12%, -5%. RMS bias = 7,6%. The s R in the 3 studies are: 12%, 10% and 11 %, on average s R = 11% (n=14). So, U c(ref) = 11/ 14 = 2,9%.

EX 4: PCB WITH INTERNAL QC + PT RESULTS

SUMMARY Use existing data from validation/verification; PT studies; QC, etc. Cover the working range of the test. Check assumptions of level of significance of components. Cross-check MU results using different methodologies, where relevant, practical and possible.