Chemical measurement process

Functions of Standards. Fluorescent standards can be used for three basic functions calibration, standardization, and measurement method assessment. In calibration, the standard is used to check or calibrate Instrument characteristics and perturbations on true spectra. For standardization, standards are used to determine the function that relates chemical concentration to Instrument response. This latter use has been expanded from pure materials to quite complex standards that are carried through the total chemical measurement process (10). These more complex standards are now used to assess the precision and accuracy of measurement procedures. 

If the sample and standard have essentially the same matrices (e.g., air particulates or river sediments), one can go through the total measurement process with both the sample and the standard in order to (a) check the accuracy of the measurement process used (compare the concentration values obtained for the standard with the certified values) and (b) obtain some confidence about the accuracy of the concentration measurements on the unknown sample since both have gone through the same chemical measurement process (except sample collection). It is not recommended, however, that pure standards be used to standardize the total chemical measurement process for natural matrix type samples chemical concentrations in the natural matrices could be seriously misread, especially since the pure PAH probably would be totally extracted in a given solvent, whereas the PAH in the matrix material probably would not be. All the parameters and matrix effects. Including extraction efficiencies, are carefully checked in the certification process leading to SRM s. 

The lower part of the analytical process (grey) is - mostly merged as a black box - sometimes known as the chemical measurement process (CMP) see Currie [1985, 1995, 1999]. 

The analytical process in the stricter sense or chemical measurement process, respectively, has a conspicuous similarity with the general information process which is shown in Fig. 2.2. 

Fig. 3.1. Chemical measurement process (above) and information process (below) 1 Measurement, 2 Signal validation, 3 Evaluation/calibration, 4 Data evaluation, A Coding, B Selection, C Decoding, data evaluation... 

Multidimensional Data Intercomparisons. Estimation of reliable uncertainty intervals becomes quite complex for non-linear operations and for some of the more sophisticated multidimensional models. For this reason, "chemometric" validation, using common, carefully-constructed test data sets, is of increasing importance. Data evaluation intercomparison exercises are thus analogous to Standard Reference Material (SRM) laboratory intercomparisons, except that the final, data evaluation step of the chemical measurement process is being tested. 

Some chemists feel that the mole is an unnecessary SI unit as they make measurements in mass/mass or mass/ volume units, using ratio methods. The definition and the importance of the mole has been discussed elsewhere [8], and the distinction has been made between its importance as a concept, the importance of the related atomic mass values, and the lesser role of the mole as a unit for actually reporting results. A distinctive feature of the mole is the need to define the entity . This is an extra dimension compared with other SI units. For example, it is not necessary to ask, is this a mass when measuring the mass of an object, in the way that it is critical to ask, is this lead before attempting to measure the amount of lead. A mole measurement thus requires two issues to be addressed, namely identity and amount. It follows therefore that traceability claims must show unbroken chains covering both of these issues. It is because of the existence of a vast number of chemical species that it is necessary to clearly specify and separate the specified chemical entities from all other possible chemical entities prior to measurement. This leads to complex chemical measurement processes, with considerable attention to validation of the measurement method being required. 

As a prerequisite for practical implementation of the analytical procedure concept it is assumed that the chemical measurement process remains in a state of sta-... 

All these goals could be attained by means of a systematized set of steps that is referred to as the Total Analytical Process (TAP) or Chemical Measurement Process (CMP). However, these terms have different meanings. Hence, TAP is defined as all steps that are between the general problem... 

FIGURE 2.2 Scheme of the main steps of a chemical measurement process (CMP). (Reprinted from Valcarcel, M., Principios de Qmmica Anah tica, chaps. 4 and 7, Springer-Verlag Iberica, Berlin, pp. 175-239 and 337-365, 1999. With permission.)... 

The functional (not statistical) relationship for the chemical measurement process, relating the expected value of the observed (gross) signal or response variable E(y) to the analyte amount x. The corresponding graphical display for a single analyte is referred to as the calibration curve. When extended to additional variables or analytes which occur in multicomponent analysis, the curve becomes a calibration surface or hypersurface. 

Table I has been prepared from this perspective. The authors selected are drawn primarily from those who have contributed basic statements on the issue of detection capabilities of chemical measurement processes ["detection limits"], as opposed to simply addressing detection decisions for observed results ["critical levels"]. In fairness to those not listed, it is important to note that a) a selection only, spanning the last several decades has been given, and that b) there also exist many excellent articles (15.16) and books (12.17.18 > which review the topic. It is immediately clear from Table I that the terminology has been wide ranging, even in those cases where the conceptual basis (hypothesis testing) has been Identical. Nomenclature, unlike scientific facts and concepts, can be approached, however, through consensus. The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry [lUPAC], which appears twice in Table I, is the international body of chemists charged with this responsibility. At this point it will be helpful to examine the position of lUPAC as well as the contributions of some of the other authors cited in Table I.

This text consists of an overview chapter and four principal sections. The first section addresses the issue of detection from the perspective of the well-informed but nonscientific public, that is, the most extensive user community of detection limits. The authors of Chapters 2 and 3, a former member of Congress and a former congressional subcommittee staff director, respectively, are eminently qualified to present the public view because they have both helped to shape that view and because they respond to the public s technological needs. The second section begins with a tutorial chapter, followed by six contributions treating fundamental characteristics of the chemical measurement process, which must be taken into account to derive meaningful detection limits. Included in this section... 

Attention should be paid to the appropriate measurement data for the detector and the adjustment of equipment in every radio-chemical measuring process. The zero effect should always be determined and kept as low as possible. 

Qualitative analysis. This concerns the identification of the analytes present in a sample being subjected to the chemical measurement process. 

Two different terms can be found in the literature when dealing with qualitative analysis although they present slightly different connotations. The word detection is normally used to refer to a chemical measurement process for qualitative purposes, opposed to determination, which is reserved for quantitative analysis. Identification is usually employed for qualitative analysis aimed at recognizing the analyte (or its reaction product) from some chemical or physicochemical properties. As it entails the use of a standard for signal comparison, it is more appropriate as an alternative to qualitative analysis from a metrological point of view. 

The relevance of such errors depends on the particular analytical problem. In general, all positive results from a qualitative test will be systematically confirmed by a conventional chemical measurement process when any error made may have a significant social or economical impact and, therefore, their practical impact in the decision-making is low. However, quality assurance of negative responses is crucial, as their practical effects are more relevant. Indeed, they are especially serious when detecting or identifying a toxic chemical in environmental, food, or clinical samples as no confirmatory step is carried out. 

Qualitative analysis can be classified according to a variety of criteria. One of them considers the analytical technique used and, therefore, qualitative chemical measurement processes can be divided into two main blocks classical and instrumental qualitative analyses. Their main characteristics will be briefly discussed below. 

The chemical measurement process used in classical qualitative analysis can be either a direct or a systematic procedure using sequential separations to indirectly raise sensitivity and selectivity. The quaHtative analysis also differs depending on whether a single analyte, a family of analytes, a small group, or a wide range of groups are to be identified. 

The future of chemometrics and analytical chemistry seems bright as this class of statistical and mathematical methods becomes more and more integrated into all phases of the chemical measurement process. 

The chemical measurement process is constituted by several steps field sampling, sample handling, laboratory sample preparation, separation and quantitation, data handling and statistical evaluation, results interpretation and conclusion suggestion, and finally required action [46]. 

---