Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of reproducibility precision on mass fraction in some interlaboratory studies of methods of food analysis

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The relationship between reproducibility standard deviation and mass fraction in food analysis has been studied in compilations of statistics from collaborative trials and from proficiency tests. There was a broad tendency for both categories of statistics to follow the Horwitz function although systematic deviations from it were easily detected at both extremes of the mass fraction range (below 10−7 and above 10−2). The two compilations were found to have very similar properties over the whole range of mass fractions, that is from about 10−10 (0.1 ppb) upwards. This similarity has implications for the determination of detection limit.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Horwitz W, Kamps LVR, Boyer KW. Quality assurance in the analysis of foods for trace constituents. J Assoc Off Anal Chem. 1980;63:1344–54.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Thompson M, Lowthian PJ. The Horwitz function revisited. J AOAC INTERNATIONAL. 1997;80:676–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Thompson M, Sykes M, Wood R. Comparisons between reproducibility standard deviations (SDR) derived from proficiency tests and from collaborative trials: mycotoxins in food. Accred Qual Assur. 2020;25:61–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Horwitz W. Protocol for the design, conduct and interpretation of method-performance studies: revised 1994 (Technical Report). Pure Appl Chem. 1995;67:331–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Thompson M, Mertens B, Kessler M, Fearn T. Efficacy of robust analysis of variance for the interpretation of data from collaborative trials. Analyst. 1993;118:235–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Analytical Methods Committee. The correlation between regression coefficients: combined significance testing for calibration and quantitation of bias: AMCTB No 87. Anal Methods. 2019;11:1845–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Thompson M. Uncertainty functions, a compact way of summarising or specifying the behaviour of analytical systems. TrAC Trends Anal Chem. 2011;30:1168–75.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Zitter H, God C. Ermittlung, Auswertung und Ursachen von Fehlern bei Betriebsanalysen. Fresenius Z Anal Chem. 1971;255:1–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Thompson M. An emergent optimal precision in chemical measurement at low concentrations. Anal Methods. 2013;5:4518–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Codex Alimentarius, http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/home/en/ Accessed 26 July 2021

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the availability of data: Norwich Survey data, to be posted on AMC Datasets, which can be found at https://www.rsc.org/amc; Fapas® data available on request, www.fapas.com.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, Birkbeck University of London, Malet Street, London, WC1E 7HX, UK

    Michael Thompson

  2. Fera Science Ltd, York Biotech Campus, Sand Hutton, York, YO41 1LZ, UK

    Mark Sykes & Kenneth Mathieson

  3. Food Standards Agency, London, UK

    Roger Wood

Authors
  1. Michael Thompson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark Sykes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kenneth Mathieson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Roger Wood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Sykes.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thompson, M., Sykes, M., Mathieson, K. et al. Comparison of reproducibility precision on mass fraction in some interlaboratory studies of methods of food analysis. Anal Bioanal Chem 414, 1105–1114 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-021-03736-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-021-03736-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation