Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dark uncertainty

  • General Paper
  • Published:
Accreditation and Quality Assurance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Standard uncertainties obtained by the GUM approach for a range of analytical methods are compared directly and indirectly with estimates of reproducibility standard deviation for the same methods. Results were obtained from both routine analysis and international key comparisons. A general tendency for the uncertainty to be substantially less than the reproducibility standard deviation was found.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The term ‘estimate’ is used in relation to measurement uncertainty in this paper because, although the GUM does not treat measurement uncertainties as estimates, statements of uncertainty are invariably based on observed dispersions or judgements that are themselves estimates of a population parameter. Further, stated uncertainties may be over- or, more commonly, under-stated owing, for example, to incomplete models, and therefore in some sense subject to error.

References

  1. ISO/IEC Guide 98:1995 (1995) Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM). ISO, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  2. Analytical Methods Committee (1995) Analyst 120:2303–2308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Horwitz W, Albert R (1997) Analyst 122:615–617

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Horwitz W (2003) J AOAC Internat 86:109–111

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Moroto A, Boqué R, Riu J, Ruis X (1999) Trend Anal Chem 18:577–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hund E, Massart DL, Smeyers-Verbeke J (2001) Trends Anal Chem 20:394–406

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Williams A, Ellison SLR, Roesslein M (Eds) (2000) Eurachem/CITAC guide. Quantifying uncertainty in analytical measurement, 2nd edn. Available from the Eurachem secretariat and website (http://www.eurachem.com/) and (hard copy). LGC Ltd, London (ISBN: 0-948926-15-5)

  8. Barwick VJ, Ellison SLR (1998) Anal Commun 35:377–383

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Thompson M (2000) Analyst 125:385–386

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Thompson M, Guffogg S, Stangroom S, Osborne P, Keys P, Wood R (2002) Analyst 127:1669–1675

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Populaire S, Giménez EC (2006) Accred Qual Assur 10:485–493

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ellison SLR, Mathieson K (2008) Accred Qual Assur 13:231–238

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. http://www.kcdb.bipm.org/default.asp

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Science, Birkbeck University of London, Malet Street, London, WC1E 7HX, UK

    Michael Thompson

  2. LGC Ltd, Queens Road, Teddington, Middlesex, TW11 0LY, UK

    Stephen L. R. Ellison

Authors
  1. Michael Thompson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephen L. R. Ellison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Thompson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Thompson, M., Ellison, S.L.R. Dark uncertainty. Accred Qual Assur 16, 483–487 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00769-011-0803-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00769-011-0803-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation