Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reproducibility estimates from single-laboratory ruggedness tests compared with those derived from collaborative trials of six microbiological measurement methods

  • General Paper
  • Published:
Accreditation and Quality Assurance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This work investigated the feasibility of single-laboratory ruggedness experiments to estimate between-laboratory reproducibility. Six microbiological measurement methods that had already been subject to multi-laboratory validation were studied. Ruggedness experiments were designed and executed to determine sensitivity coefficients for factors judged likely to vary between laboratories. These were combined with estimates of factor variation to give reproducibility estimates. The single-laboratory estimates of reproducibility were generally not similar to those generated from multi-laboratory work. The experimental plans were difficult to design and execute, and were only partially successful in producing useful sensitivity coefficients. The authors conclude that ruggedness tests do not offer a single-laboratory alternative to multi-laboratory method validation or a practical approach to the evaluation of measurement uncertainty for microbiological methods.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. ECVAM (1998) Validation of analytical methods for food control. Report of a Joint FAO/IAEA Expert Consultation, Vienna, Austria, 2–4 December 1997. FAO Food Nutrition Paper:68. Rome, FAO

  2. CCRVDF Report of the twelfth session of the Codex Committee on Residues Of Veterinary Drugs in Foods, Washington, DC, 28–31 March 2000. Geneva, Codex

  3. CCPR Report Of The Thirty-Second Session of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, The Hague, 1–8 May 2000, Geneva

  4. CCMAS Report of the twenty-third session of the Codex Committee On Methods Of Analysis And Sampling, Budapest, Hungary, 26 February–2 March 2001, Geneva, Switzerland, CODEX

  5. Fajgelj A, Ambrus A (2000) Principles and practice of method validation. Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. IUPAC International Workshop on Principles and Practices of Method Validation, November 4–6, 1999, Budapest, Hungary. Workshop Report. 2000. IUPAC

  7. FAO Guidelines for Single-Laboratory Validation of Analytical Methods for Trace-Level Concentrations of Organic Chemicals. 2000. FAO

  8. Thompson M, Ellison SLR, Wood R (2002) Pure Appl Chem 74:835–855. doi:10.1351/pac200274050835

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hill ARC, Reynolds SL (1999) Analyst (Lond) 124:953–958. doi:10.1039/a900603f

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Baylis CL, Jewell K, Oscroft CA, Brookes FL (2001) Guidelines for establishing the suitability of food microbiology methods. Guideline No. 29. Campden and Chorleywood Food Research Association, Chipping Campden

    Google Scholar 

  11. Pettipher GL, Fulford RJ, Mabbitt LA (1983) J Appl Bacteriol 54:177–182

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Curiale MS, Sons T, McAllister JS, Halsey B, Fox TL (1990) J Assoc Off Anal Chem 73:242–248

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Curiale MS, Gangar V, D’Onorio A, Gambrel-Lenarz S, McAllister JS (1997) J AOAC Int 80:505–516

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Gangar V, Curiale MS, Lindberg K, Gambrel-Lenarz S (1999) J AOAC Int 82:73–78

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Minitab Inc Minitab Release 14. 2004. State College, PA, U.S.A

  16. Dejaegher B, Heyden YV (2007) J Chromatogr A 1158:138–157. doi:10.1016/j.chroma.2007.02.086

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Youden WJ, Steiner EH (1975) Statistical Manual of the association of official analytical chemists. AOAC, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  18. Vander Heyden Y, Nijhuis A, Smeyers-Verbeke J, Vandeginste BG, Massart DL (2001) J Pharm Biomed Anal 24:723–753. doi:10.1016/S0731-7085(00)00529-X

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Corry JE, Jarvis B, Passmore S, Hedges A (2007) Food Microbiol 24:230–253. doi:10.1016/j.fm.2006.05.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Betts GD (2004) Predicting bacterial spoilage of meat products. Dissertation, University of Surrey

  21. Thompson M (2000) Analyst (Lond) 125:2020–2025. doi:10.1039/b006376m

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Thompson M, Guffogg S, Stangroom S, Osborne P, Key P, Wood R (2002) Analyst (Lond) 127:1669–1675. doi:10.1039/b208975k

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Goeres DM, Loetterle LR, Hamilton MA, Murga R, Kirby DW, Donlan RM (2005) Microbiology 151:757–762. doi:10.1099/mic.0.27709-0

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. ISO (2006) Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs—guidelines for the estimation of measurement uncertainty for quantitative determinations. ISO/TS 19036. 1-2-2006. International Organisation for Standardisation, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  25. Lombard B (2006) Accred Qual Assur 11:94–100. doi:10.1007/s00769-005-0085-5

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Habib I, Sampers I, Uyttendaele M, Berkvens D, De Zutter L (2008) Food Microbiol 25:65–74. doi:10.1016/j.fm.2007.07.010

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. ISO (1994) Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results—Part 3: intermediate measures of the precision of a standard measurement method. ISO 5725-3:1994. International Organisation for Standardisation, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  28. Jarvis B, Corry JEL, Hedges AJ (2007) J Appl Microbiol 103:462–467. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2672.2006.03258.x

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Ellison SLR, Holcombe DG, Burns M (2001) Analyst (Lond) 126:199–210. doi:10.1039/b008099n

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was carried out with financial support from the Food Standards Agency.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Statistics Group, Campden BRI, Chipping Campden, Gloucestershire, GL55 6LD, UK

    Keith Jewell

  2. Department of Microbiology, Campden BRI, Chipping Campden, Gloucestershire, GL55 6LD, UK

    Heather Leach & Christopher Baylis

Authors
  1. Keith Jewell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Heather Leach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christopher Baylis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Keith Jewell or Christopher Baylis.

Additional information

Campden BRI was previously known as the Campden and Chorleywood Food Research Association.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Tables (DOC 385 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jewell, K., Leach, H. & Baylis, C. Reproducibility estimates from single-laboratory ruggedness tests compared with those derived from collaborative trials of six microbiological measurement methods. Accred Qual Assur 14, 123–137 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00769-008-0480-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00769-008-0480-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation