Systematic errors external standards

The orthodox and standard quantum measurement theory uses a probability density view focused on the particle conception. The physical nature of the interaction that may lead to an event (click) is not central. Generally, it is true that a click will be eliciting the quantum state, but due to external factors, a click can be related to noise or any source of systematic error (lousy detectors) from the QM viewpoint developed here such events have no direct QM-related cause see Ref. [17], The probabilities cannot be primary. They can be useful as actually they are. One thing is sure the clicks do have a cause. But causality is a concept more related to a particle description it belongs to classical physics. 

Fig. 22. Systematic error caused by nonlinear calibration in using the external standard method 47)...

External quality assurance (EQA) is fundamental to the standardization of clinical laboratory methods because it provides a means to compare results generated in one laboratory with those of peer laboratories subscribing to the same EQA program. EQA programs are especially beneficial since internal QA and QC procedures are limited in their ability to detect bias in analytical methods. Internal QA/QC can only detect errors that result in a deviation from the original method validation inherent errors in the method may go unnoticed. Therefore, it is helpful to compare the results produced by a new method with those from other laboratories (Burtis and Ashwood, 2001). Monitoring the performance of laboratory procedures in a consistent manner keeps the laboratory accountable, and can reveal systematic errors that would otherwise be undetected. A prominent component of EQA is proficiency testing. 

Using the 40-ppb Pb standard and the WinLab software, implement an external mode of calibration. Retrieve or create a method title for this and conduct the calibration and quantitation. Evaluate whether the calibration is free from systematic error. If so, inject the ICV in triplicate. Record the code for the unknown and inject in triplicate. Run one or more drinking water samples. 

Use a solution from one of the six standards at 100 pg/mL as an external standard (ES) to compensate for instrumental fluctuation and other systematic errors. Analyze samples from each standard on an HPLC and monitor by UV at 214, 220, and 254 nm. 

Poor data quality can be attributed to three major causes, namely human error, systematic error and system incompatibility. Human errors are especially common among organizations where updating of databases is dominated by manual entries. On the other hand, systematic error arises when there is lack of standardization on the formats of information that is exchanged between entities (both internal and external) of a company s supply chain. This lack of standardization makes the exchanged information extremely prone to error. Lastly, system incompatibility usually arises when a company s IT infrastructure is equipped with multiple software systems that are not... 

The standard addition method [35] represents a combination of calibration with the aid of both external and internal standards. In ion chromatography, it is used predominantly for the analysis of samples with difficult matrices. Matrix problems may lead to an increase in nonprecision and/or express themselves as constant or proportional systematic deviations of the analytical results. Matrix influence can be identified via calculation of the recovery function. In constant systematic deviation, the error is independent of the analyte component. Such a deviation will cause a parallel shift of the calibration line. A possible origin for this deviation might be a codetection of a matrix component. In proportional systematic deviations, the error depends on the concentration of the analyte component. This type of deviation results in a change of the slope of the calibration line. Deviations of this kind can be caused by individual sample preparation steps such as sample digestion and sample extraction, and also by matrix effects. Systematic deviations can be identified by standard addition and/or calculation of the recovery function. 

In this section we outline a systematic methodology for removing uncertainties that are commonly included in comparisons between experimental and theoretical redox potentials, which are frequently reported relative to external reference couples, or reference electrodes. We study benchmark redox couples, including complexes that span three transition metal rows in various non-aqueous solvents. It is shown that the use of appropriate references, measured under the same conditions and calculated by using compatible computational frameworks, allows quantitative correlations between experimental and theoretical data. This approach leads to DFT redox potentials with standard deviations comparable to the experimental errors of cyclic voltammetry measurements, even at a rather modest level of theory (64 mV standard deviation for DFT/UB3LYP/LACVP/6-311G level see Figure 1.11). 

---