Skip to main content
Log in

Method validation in analytical sciences: discussions on current practice and future challenges

  • Discussion Forum
  • Published:
Accreditation and Quality Assurance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Eurachem held a workshop on method validation in analytical sciences in Gent, Belgium, on 9–10 May 2016. A summary of the working group discussions is provided here. The discussions covered a range of issues concerned with current practice and future challenges in method validation, i.e. setting requirements for a method to be validated; planning validation studies; validation of qualitative and semi-quantitative methods; validation of multi-parameter methods; determination of trueness/bias; assessment of working range; validation in microbiology; and method validation under flexible scope of accreditation. Delegates (129) from 24 different countries and from different backgrounds, e.g. from both public and private laboratories, laboratory associations, accreditation bodies and universities, attended the working groups, thus providing opportunities to collect a variety of views and experiences as well as to identify potential gaps in current guidance and regulations. While the practicalities of assessing method performance characteristics are generally well understood, the issue of setting requirements for those characteristics beforehand is less straightforward. Although a number of documents addressing the principles of method validation are available, guidance on dealing with more complex and ‘non-ideal’ situations, as well as examples of good practice, would be welcomed and greater harmonisation of approaches was deemed necessary. There remains a need for guidance on both the concepts that apply to ‘qualitative’ or ‘nominal’ test methods and on the practical implementation of validation studies in such cases.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Magnusson B, Örnemark U (eds) (2014) Eurachem guide: the fitness for purpose of analytical methods—A laboratory guide to method validation and related topics, 2nd edn. www.eurachem.org

  2. JCGM 200 (2012). International vocabulary of metrology—basic and general concepts and associated terms (VIM 3rd edn). http://www.bipm.org/en/publications/guides/vim.html

  3. Bettencourt da Silva R, Williams A (eds) (2015) Eurachem/CITAC guide: setting and using target uncertainty in chemical measurement. www.eurachem.org

  4. Barwick V J, Prichard E (eds) (2011) Eurachem guide: terminology in analytical measurement—introduction to VIM 3. www.eurachem.org

  5. Hardcastle WA (ed) (1998) Qualitative analysis: a guide to best practice. Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ellison SLR, Fearn T (2005) Characterising the performance of qualitative analytical methods: statistics and terminology. Trends Anal Chem 24:468–476

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (2000) Off J Eur Union L 327: 1–73

  8. Commission Decision 2002/657/EC of 12 August 2002 implementing Council Directive 96/23/EC concerning the performance of analytical methods and the interpretation of results (2002) Off J Eur Union L 221: 8–36

  9. European Commission, Directorate general for health and food safety SANTE/11945/2015 (2015) Guidance document on analytical quality control and method validation procedures for pesticides residues analysis in food and feed. https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/plant/docs/pesticides_mrl_guidelines_wrkdoc_11945.pdf

  10. Eurachem reading list. www.eurachem.org

  11. Netherlands standard NEN 7777+C1:2012 en. Environment and food—performance characteristics of measurement methods. NEN, Delft

  12. Netherlands standard NEN 7779:2008 nl. Environment—Measurement uncertainty. NEN, Delft

  13. NIST Special Publication 829 (1992). Use of NIST standard reference materials for decisions on performance of analytical chemical methods and laboratories. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg. www.nist.gov

  14. ISO Guide 33 (2015) Reference materials—good practice in using reference materials. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  15. Nordic Committee on Food Analysis (NMKL) (2009) Validation of chemical analytical methods, NMKL Procedure No. 4, 3rd edn

  16. Nordic Committee on Food Analysis (NMKL) (2007) Evaluation of method bias using certified reference materials. NMKL Procedure No. 9, 2nd edn

  17. Magnusson B, Ellison SLR (2008) Treatment of uncorrected measurement bias in uncertainty estimation for chemical measurements. Anal Bioanal Chem 390:201–213

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. ISO, TR 13843 (2000) Water quality—guidance on validation of microbiological methods. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  19. ISO 16140-1:2016 Microbiology of the food chain—method validation—part 1: vocabulary. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

  20. ISO 16140-2:2016 Microbiology of the food chain—method validation—part 2: protocol for the validation of alternative (proprietary) methods against a reference method. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

  21. Nordic Committee on Food Analysis (NMKL) (2009) Nordval protocol on the validation of alternative microbiological methods. http://www.nmkl.org/dokumenter/nordval/NordValProtocol.pdf

  22. Eleftheriadou M, Tsimillis KC (eds) (2013) Eurachem guide: accreditation for microbiological laboratories, 2nd edn. www.eurachem.org

  23. EA-2/15M (2008) EA requirements for the accreditation of flexible scopes. http://www.european-accreditation.org

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors who were convenors of the working groups would like to thank all the attendees at the working groups.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Bertil Magnusson or Marina Patriarca.

Additional information

Papers published in this section do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Editors, the Editorial Board and the Publisher. A critical and constructive debate in the Discussion Forum or a Letter to the Editor is strongly encouraged!

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barwick, V., Ellison, S.L.R., Gjengedal, E. et al. Method validation in analytical sciences: discussions on current practice and future challenges. Accred Qual Assur 22, 253–263 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00769-017-1286-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00769-017-1286-4

Keywords

Navigation