Advertisement

Accreditation and Quality Assurance

, Volume 11, Issue 8–9, pp 462–469 | Cite as

Chlorophyll-a determination: results of an interlaboratory comparison

  • Petra SchillingEmail author
  • Martin Powilleit
  • Steffen Uhlig
Practitioner's Report

Abstract

A chlorophyll-a interlaboratory comparison was carried out to compare three different analytical chlorophyll-a determination methods: a German standard DIN 38412-16, a method of the HELCOM-Combine-Manual and the different “in-house” methods of participating laboratories. Eleven laboratories took part. They had to determinate the chlorophyll-a and phaeopigment content in two seawater samples taken from the Baltic Sea. Furthermore, for the assessment three different statistical evaluation methods were applied: the German standard DIN 38402-42, the Q-method combined with an estimator according to Huber and the Cofino-method. All analytical methods were appropriate to determine the chlorophyll-a content. The relative standard deviations of reproducibility for chlorophyll-a varied between 12 and 31%. None of the analytical methods was appropriate to determine the phaeopigment content quantitatively. The relative standard deviations of reproducibility for phaeopigments ranged between 87 and 158%. The applied statistical evaluation methods resulted in different assessments. The Q-method combined with an estimator according to Huber proved to be the best qualified method.

Keywords

Chlorophyll-a Cofino-method Interlaboratory comparison Marine monitoring Phaeopigments 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Renate Deutschmann and Eva Schmidt for their excellent technical assistance and all laboratories for participating in the interlaboratory comparison.

References

  1. 1.
    Lally CM, Parsons TR (1993) Biological oceanography: an introduction. Pergamon Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    UNESCO (1997) Phytoplankton pigments in oceanography. In: Jeffrey SW Mantoura RFC, Wright SW (eds) Guidelines to modern methods. Monographs on oceanographic methodology 10Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    DIN 38412 Teil 16 (1985) Deutsche Einheitsverfahren zur Wasser-, Abwasser- und Schlammuntersuchung; Testverfahren mit Wasserorganismen (Gruppe L) – Bestimmung des Chlorophyll-a-Gehaltes von Oberflächenwasser (L42). 16. Lieferung 1986Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ISO 10260 (1992) Water quality: measurement of biochemical parameters – spectrometric determination of the chlorophyll-a concentrationGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Manual for marine monitoring in the COMBINE Programme of HELCOM, PART C. Programme for monitoring of eutrophication and its effects, Annex C-4 Phytoplankton chlorophyll-a: http://sea.helcom.fi/Monas/Combine Manual2/PartC/CFrame.htmGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    JAMP eutrophication monitoring guidelines – chlorophyll-a (ASMO 1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Strickland JDH, Parsons TR (1968) A practical handbook of seawater analysis fisheries. Research Board of Canada Ottawa, Bulletin 167:185–206Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jeffrey SW, Humphrey GF (1975) Biochem Physiol Pflanzen 167:191–194Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lorenzen CJ (1967) Limnol Oceanogr 12:343–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    DIN 38402 Teil 42 (1984) Deutsche Einheitsverfahren zur Wasser-, Abwasser- und Schlammuntersuchung; Allgemeine Angaben (Gruppe A) – Ringversuche, Auswertung (A42). 45. Lieferung 1999Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Uhlig S, Lischer P (1998) Analyst 2:167–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huber PJ (1981) Robust statistics. Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cofino WP, van Stokkum IHM, Wells DE, Ariese F, Wegener J-HM, Peerboom RAL (2000) Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems 53:37–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Uhlig S, Henschel P (1997) Fresenius J Anal Chem 358:761–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Loth P, Raschewski U (1989) Überarbeitung der Methode Chlorophyll als Diskussionsgrundlage für Ausgewählte Methoden der Wasseruntersuchung, Band II. unpublished manuscriptGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stich HB, Brinker A (2005) Arch Hydrobiol 162:111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    QUASIMEME Laboratory Performance Studies, reports 1999–2005; http://www.quasimeme.org/Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Müller C, Uhlig S (2001) Biometrika 88:353–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Petra Schilling
    • 1
    Email author
  • Martin Powilleit
    • 2
  • Steffen Uhlig
    • 3
  1. 1.Laboratory for Water AnalysisFederal Environmental AgencyBerlinGermany
  2. 2.University of RostockInstitute of Biological Sciences, Marine BiologyRostockGermany
  3. 3.quo dataGesellschaft für Qualitätsmanagement und Statistik mbHDresden-LangebrueckGermany

Personalised recommendations