Accreditation and Quality Assurance

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 21–29 | Cite as

Measurement uncertainty evaluation and in-house method validation of the herbicide iodosulfuron-methyl-sodium in water samples by using HPLC analysis

  • Andreja Drolc
  • Albin Pintar
Practitioner's Report


A method for separation and quantitative determination of the iodosulfuron-methyl-sodium in water samples by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) was developed and in-house validated in order to demonstrate its performance for monitoring of heterogeneous photocatalytic elimination of the herbicide iodosulfuron-methyl-sodium from water. Surface and ground water samples were used to demonstrate its selectivity, detection and quantification limits, linearity, trueness and precision. In addition, stability of iodosulfuron-methyl-sodium was studied in function of temperature and time. Method accuracy was quantified through measurement uncertainty estimate based on method validation data. The paper gives practical and easy to follow guidance on how uncertainty estimates can be obtained from method validation experiments. It shows that, if properly planned and executed, key precision and trueness studies undertaken for validation purposes can also provide much of the data needed to produce an estimate of measurement uncertainty. Our analytical protocol allowed us to quantify iodosulfuron-methyl-sodium in ground water and surface water in concentration level between 2.50–50.0 μmol L−1 with satisfactory recoveries (99–104%) and repeatability lower or equal than 0.3% for all the matrices. We also estimated within-laboratory reproducibility over 3-month period, which was 0.7%. We proved that the method was selective for determination of iodosulfuron-methyl-sodium in the relevant matrices. Measurement uncertainty of results was evaluated to be 4.0% with 95% confidence level. After validation and measurement uncertainty evaluation steps, results obtained showed that the method can be applied to efficiently monitor heterogenous photocatalytic degradation of the herbicide iodosulfuron-methyl-sodium.


Photocatalytic degradation HPLC Iodosulfuron-methyl-sodium Method validation Measurement uncertainty 



The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology of the Republic of Slovenia (Program P2-0150) and from the Metrological Institute of the Republic of Slovenia (MIRS).


  1. 1.
    Brigante MC, Emmelin L, Previtera R, Baudot JM, Chovelon J (2005) Agric Food Chem 53:5347–5352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rouchard J, Moulard C, Elen H, Bulcke R (2003) Toxicol Environ Chem 85:103–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stenrød M, Heggen HE, Bolli RI, Eklo OM (2008) Agric Ecosyst Environ 123:15–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fresno F, Guillard C, Coronado JM, Chovelon JM, Tudela D, Soria J, Herrmann JM (2005) Photochem Photobiol A Chem 173:13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    BIPM, IEC, IFCC, ILAC, IUPAC, IUPAP, ISO, OIML (2008) The International Vocabulary of Metrology—basic and general concepts and associated terms (VIM), 3rd edn, JCGM 200Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    BIPM, IEC, IFCC, ISO, IUPAC, IUPAP, OIML (1995) Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement, International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ellison SLR, Rosslein M, Williams A (eds) (2000) EURACHEM/CITAC, quantifying uncertainty in analytical measurement, 2nd edn. LGC, TeddingtonGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barwick VJ, Ellison SLR (1998) Protocol for uncertainty evaluation from validation data. VAM, TeddingtonGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Magnusson B, Naykki T, Hovind H, Krysell M (2004) Handbook for calculation of measurement uncertainty in environmental laboratories (Nordtest Technical Report 537), 2nd edn. Nordtest, OslGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    ISO/IEC 17025 (2005) General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories, International Organization for Standardization, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    EURACHEM (1998) The fitness for purpose of analytical methods. Eurachem LGC, TeddingtonGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    International Union of Pure, Applied Chemistry (2002) Pure Appl Chem 74:835–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barwick VJ (1999) Sources of uncertainty in gas chromatography and high-performance liquid chromatography. J Chromatogr A 849:13–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hund E, Massart DL, Smeyers-Verbeke J (2003) Anal Chim Acta 480:39–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Toro I, Dulsat JF, Fabregas JL, Claramunt J (2004) J Pharm Biomed Anal 36:57–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dias MG, Camoes MFGFC, Oliveira L (2008) Food Chem 109:815–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kruve A, Herodes K, Leito I (2010) J AOAC Intern 93:306–314Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    APHA-AWWA-WEF (2005) Standard methods for examination of water and waste water, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Miller JN, Miller JC (2000) Statistics and chemometrics for analytical chemistry. Prentice Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    ISO 8466-1 (1990) Water quality—Calibration and evaluation of analytical methods and estimation of performance characteristics—Part 1: Statistical evaluation of the linear calibration function, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    International Union of Pure, Applied Chemistry (1999) Pure Appl Chem 71:337–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory for Environmental Sciences and EngineeringNational Institute of ChemistryLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations