PAH analysis in biomass combustion wastes: an approach to evaluate bias and precision of analytical results using routine samples
- 101 Downloads
The aim of this work was to optimize and evaluate an analytical procedure to determine selected polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) using real samples. Samples of ash were collected during biomass combustion tests under different operating conditions during one week. PAHs were quantified using liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection. Samples were extracted by a simple sonication/agitation method using small amounts of solvent and samples. This paper includes how the performance (bias and precision) of the proposed method was estimated from the analyses of samples. In order to obtain reliable data, we estimated the possible presence of two types of analytical bias: bias proportional bias to the level of analyte, expressed as recovery, and constant bias, comparing results from analyses of different ash masses. Apart from bias studies, the analytical variability was also evaluated as intermediate precision from the overall analyses of different routine samples, with different mass fraction levels and test dates. Intermediate precision values were reduced among 5 % to 10 % when measures on the optimized sample sizes and similar mass fraction levels were taken. The use of samples is rarely applied to assess trueness of analytical methods. Therefore, the presented findings can be considered as an interesting contribution to the analytical chemistry research field.
KeywordsPAHs Ash Biomass combustion waste Bias Intermediate precision
This work has been carried out in the framework of the CLEANBIOM project, financed by the Spanish Government under the Grant CTM 2013-49121-C3. We are especially thankful for comments of Alen Horvat (University of Limerick).
- 1.Obaidullah M, Bram S, Verma VK, De Ruyck J (2012) Int J Renew Energy Res 2(1):147–160Google Scholar
- 2.Tissari J (2013) BIOHEALTH ERA-NET bioenergy program 6th joint call on clean biomass combustion. http://www.eranetbioenergy.net/file/download/33744902
- 10.Straka P, Havelková M (2012) Acta Geodyn Geomater 9(4):481–490Google Scholar
- 12.Košnář Z, Mercl F, Perná I, Tlustoš P (2016) Sci Total Environ 563–564:53–61Google Scholar
- 16.Borjabad E, García S, Rodríguez Maroto J, Escalada R, Sanz D, Pascual A, Rojas E, Aragón G,Ibarra I, Múgica I, Gutiérrez-Canas C, Sanfelix V, Gomar S, Moliner R, Ramos R (2016) In: 24th European biomass conference and exhibition. http://www.eubcecom/conference/publications-of-papers/proceedingshtml
- 21.Eurachem/CITAC Guide CG4 (2012) Quantifying uncertainty in analytical measurement. www.eurachem.org
- 22.ISO 5725-3 (1994) Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results—Part 3: intermediate measures of the precision of a standard measurement method. International Organization of Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar