Abstract
The bias of an analytical procedure is calculated in the assessment of trueness. If this experimental bias is not significant, we assume that the procedure is unbiased and, consequently, the results obtained with this procedure are not corrected for this bias. However, when assessing trueness there is always a probability of incorrectly concluding that the experimental bias is not significant. Therefore, non-significant experimental bias should be included as a component of uncertainty. In this paper, we have studied if it is always necessary to include this term and which is the best approach to include this bias in the uncertainty budget. To answer these questions, we have used the Monte-Carlo method to simulate the assessment of trueness of biased procedures and the future results these procedures provide. The results show that nonsignificant experimental bias should be included as a component of uncertainty when the uncertainty of this bias represents at least a 30% of the overall uncertainty.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Phillips SD, Eberhardt KR, Parry B (1997) J Res Natl Inst Stand Technol 102: 577–585
Satterthwaite FE (1941) Psychometrika 6: 309–316
BIPM, IEC, IFCC, ISO, IUPAC, IUPAP, OIML (1993) Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement, ISO, Geneva
EURACHEM (1995) Quantifying uncertainty in analytical measurements, EURACHEM Secretariat, P.O. Box 46, Teddington, Middlesex, TW 11 OLY, UK
Maroto A, Riu J, Boqué R, Rius FX (1999) Anal Chim Acta 391: 173–185
Maroto A, Boqué R, Riu J, Rius FX (1999) Trends Anal Chem 18/9–10:577584
Ellison SLR, Williams A (1998) Accred Qual Assur 3: 6–10
Barwick VJ, Ellison SLR (2000) Accred Qual Assur 5: 47–53
EURACHEM/CITAC Guide (2000) Quantifying uncertainty in analytical measurement, EURACHEM, 2nd Edition. Helsinki
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Maroto, A., Boqué, R., Riu, J., Rius, F.X. (2002). Should non-significant bias be included in the uncertainty budget?. In: De Bièvre, P., Günzler, H. (eds) Measurement Uncertainty in Chemical Analysis. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-05173-3_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-05173-3_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-07884-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-05173-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive