Skip to main content
Log in

A novel approach for the determination of detection limits for metal analysis of environmental water samples

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite the widespread use of the USEPA method (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR 136 Appendix B) for the determination of method detection limit (MDL), criticisms have been raised that the method does not account for measurement bias and outliers that subsequently lead to a common misunderstanding of the requirement for the determination of MDL. This paper demonstrates that it is difficult to follow the USEPA method for verifying the MDL for analysis involving multiple metals and proposes a precision and bias criterion for determining the MDL. A multiple-point fitted profile, based on the correlation between relative standard deviation (RSD) and concentration, is used to derive a robust MDL value. Representative examples of As, Ca, Cr, and Cu are used to illustrate this procedure. A procedure for identifying outliers is also discussed.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Geiß S, Einax JW (2001) Fresenius J Anal Chem 370:673–678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. US Environmental Protection Agency (1984) Definition and procedure for the determination of the method detection limit—Revision 1.11, 40 CFR Part 136, Appendix B

  3. ISO (1997) Capability of detection—Part 1. Terms and definitions. ISO 11843-1, International Organisation for Standardization, Geneva

  4. NCCLS (2004) Protocols for determination of limits of detection and limits of quantitation; approved guideline. NCCLS document EP17-A (ISBN 1-56238-551-8). NCCLS, 940 West Valley Road, Suite 1400, Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087-1898, USA

  5. Gibbons RD, Coleman DE, Maddalone RF (1997) Environ Sci Technol 31:2071–2077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Roke DM, Lorenzato S (1995) Technometric 37:176–184

    Google Scholar 

  7. Glaser JA, Foerst DL, McKee GD, Quave SA, Budde WL (1981) Environ Sci Technol 15:1426–1435

    Google Scholar 

  8. MacDougall D et al (1980) Anal Chem 52:2242–2249

    Google Scholar 

  9. Keith LH (1983) Anal Chem 55:2210–2218

    Google Scholar 

  10. Currie LA (1995) Pure Appl Chem 67:1699–1722

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Currie LA (1985) In: Kurtz DA (ed) Trace residue analysis, chemometric estimations of sampling, amount, and error, ACS Symposium Series 284. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  12. Currie LA (1968) Anal Chem 40:586–593

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hubaux A, Vos G (1970) Anal Chem 42:849–855

    Google Scholar 

  14. Miller JN, Miller JC (2000) Statistics and chemometrics for analytical chemistry, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kimbrough DE, Wakakuwa J (1994) Environ Sci Technol 28:338–345

    Google Scholar 

  16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1984) Inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometric method for trace elements analysis of water and wastes Method 200.7, 1994, supplement I, Revision 4.4

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to X Jin Yang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yang, X.J., Low, G.KC. & Foley, R. A novel approach for the determination of detection limits for metal analysis of environmental water samples. Anal Bioanal Chem 381, 1253–1263 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-004-3019-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-004-3019-x

Keywords

Navigation