Advertisement

Metrological traceability is not always a straight line

  • Marc PrielEmail author
  • Soraya Amarouche
  • Paola Fisicaro
General Paper

Abstract

The two most important concepts in metrology are certainly “traceability to standards” and “measurement uncertainty evaluation”. So far the questions related to these concepts have been reasonably solved in the metrology of “classical quantities”, but for the introduction of metrological concepts in new fields, such as chemistry and biology, a lot of problems remain and must be solved in order to support international arrangements. In this presentation, the authors want to develop the strategy implemented at Laboratoire national de métrologie et d’essais (LNE) in metrology in chemistry and biology. The strategy is based on: (1) pure solutions for calibration of analytical instruments, (2) use of certified reference materials (matrix reference materials), and (3) participation to proficiency testing schemes. Examples will be presented in organic and inorganic chemistry. For laboratory medicine, proficiency testing providers play an important role in the organization of External Quality Assessment Schemes. For the time being, the reference value or the assigned value of the comparison is calculated with the results obtained by the participants. This assigned value is not often traceable to SI units. One of the methods suggested by LNE is to ensure the metrological traceability to SI units of the assigned value for the more critical quantities carried on analytes by implementing the Joint committee for traceability in laboratory medicine reference methods.

Keywords

Traceability in chemical measurements Certified reference materials Proficiency testing schemes Metrological traceability 

References

  1. 1.
    International Vocabulary of Metrology—basic and general concepts and associated terms. JCGM 200: 2008: http://www.bipm.org/utils/common/documents/jcgm/JCGM_200_2008.pdf
  2. 2.
    Milton MJT, Quinn TJ (2001) Metrologia 38:289–296. doi: 10.1088/0026-1394/38/4/1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Majors RE (1991) LC–GC Int 4:10Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vial J, Le Mapihan K, Jardy A (2002) Bio-forum Int Ed Fr 2:18Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Quevauviller P (2004) Trends Analyt Chem 23:171. doi: 10.1016/S0165-9936(04)00314-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Emons H, Linsinger TPJ (2003) Trends Analyt Chem 23:442. doi: 10.1016/S0165-9936(04)00604-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Institut français de l’environnement (2000) In: IFEN (eds) Etudes et Travaux IFEN, ‘‘les pesticides dans les eaux’’. IFEN, OrleansGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Deplagne J, Vial J, Pichon V, Hennion M-C, Lalere B, Hervouet G (2006) J Chromatogr A 1123:31. doi: 10.1016/j.chroma.2006.04.085 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    NF ISO 5725 standard (1994) Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results. Internal Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eurachem/Citac guide CG4 (2000) In: Ellison SLR, Rosslein M, Williams A (eds) Quantifying uncertainty in analytical measurement, 2nd edn. United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vial J, Ménier I, Jardy A, Anger P, Brun A, Burbaud L (1998) J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci 708:131. doi: 10.1016/S0378-4347(97)00668-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    ISO/CEI 17025 standard (2005) General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cofrac Guide d’évaluation des incertitudes de mesure des analyses de biologie médicale Doc LAB GTA 14 Novembre 2006Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fisicaro P, Amarouche S, Lalere B, Labarraque G, Priel M (2008) Accred Qual Assur 13:361–366. doi: 10.1007/s00769-008-0402-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thompson M, Ellison SLR, Wood R (2006) The international harmonized protocol for the proficiency testing of analytical chemistry laboratories (IUPAC Technical Report). Pure Appl Chem 78:145–196. doi: 10.1351/pac200678010145 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Priel M, Amarouche S, Désenfant M, De Graeve J (2008) Using proficiency testing results latest alternative method for uncertainty evaluation: application in clinical chemistry. Transverse disciplines in metrology. In: Proceedings of the 13th international metrology congress (Publication ISTE)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire national de métrologie et d’essaisParisFrance

Personalised recommendations