Quantitation upper limit

The method limit of quantitation and limit of detection must be determined as well as the limit of linearity. The limit of quantitation is defined as the level at which the measurement is quantitatively meaningful the limit of detection is the level at which the measurement is larger than the uncertainty and the limit of linearity is the upper level of the measurement rehabihty (39). These limits are determined by plotting concentration vs response. 

The translation model was refined and developed further in a later article (Lehmann and Kuhn, 1984). It is assumed that in the early stages of evolution, guanosine and cytidine were the most important building blocks for RNA syntheses, as they allow strong base pairing (via three hydrogen bonds). Quantitative considerations lead to an upper limit of about 50 nucleotides for a reasonable chain length. 

The upper limit depends quantitatively on the viscosity that can be processed through the casting fixtures in reasonable time. Too high a viscosity may also lead to problems under certain flow conditions as, for example, when propellant folds over on itself to form a void space which may remain as a defect in the cured grain. If the propellant grain is to be formed and cured by screw extrusion, however, somewhat higher viscosities can be handled. A viscosity of 1600 poise has been reported (9) for a PVC plastisol propellant processed this way. 

Upper limit of quantification (ULOQ) the highest amount of an analyte in a sample that can be determined quantitatively with precision and accuracy. 

Though there is good evidence, as summarised above, of LCB in poly(vinyl chloride), there is as yet little quantitative information. Lyngaae-Jorgensen (201) has found that the ratio Aiw/Mn does not much exceed 2.0, and has used this quantity to set an upper limit of 2 x 10" 4 long branches per repeat unit for material polymerized at 55° C (conversion not stated). He has used light-scattering and GPC techniques to obtain an upper limit of 6 x 10-4 branches per repeat unit in commercial samples of this polymer (202). 

Intra-laboratory CVs range from 9.9% for ethylmalonate (at 102 pmol/1) to 40.7% for suberylglycine (at 48.6 pmol/1) and inter-laboratory CVs from 42.5% for ethylmalonate (at 102 pmol/1) to 757.4% for tiglyglycine at 83.5 pmol/1. This wide variation is also accompanied by marked variability in the reference ranges used by different laboratories an example is shown (Fig. 1.2.1) for a single return from 18 respondents who quantitated ethylmalonate in a single sample (sample 109) and reported both the result and the upper limit of normal used by their laboratory. Clearly the clinical significance of this apparently extreme variability depends upon the clinical context... 

Quality Control (QC) QC samples are used to check the performance of the bioanalytical method as well as to assess the precision and accuracy of the results of postdose samples. QC samples are prepared by spiking the analyte of interest and the IS into a blank/control matrix and processing similar to the postdose samples. QC samples cover the low (3 x LLOQ LLOQ = lower limit of quantitation), medium, and high (70-85% of ULOQ ULOQ = upper limit of quantitation) concentration ranges of the standard curve and are spaced across the standard curve and the postdose sample batch. 

Lower Limit of Quantification (LLOQ) The lowest concentration of the analyte of interest in a matrix that can be quantitatively determined using the standard curve with acceptable precision and accuracy. The LLOQ is usually defined as the lowest concentration at which the assay imprecision does not exceed 20%. Upper Limit of Quantification (ULOQ) The highest concentration of an analyte in a matrix that can be quantitatively determined using the standard curve with an acceptable precision and accuracy. If the analyte concentrations in the postdose samples are higher than the ULOQ, then a dilution QC is needed to cover the highest anticipated dilution. 

The previous assumptions probably produce upper limits to the weight percents of hydroaromatic hydrocarbons. However, comparison of the values in columns 3 and 5 of Table XIV reveals that the increased contribution of these compounds in the products compared to the feed must be quantitatively significant. Furthermore, the deficiencies associated with these necessary assumptions should be minimized by considering the ratio of aromatic to hydroaromatic hydrocarbons in the products relative to the corresponding ratio for the feed. Thus, the hydroaromatic to aromatic hydrocarbon ratio in the products relative to the feed is oa. 5 to 1. 

VS/QCs should be prepared independently from the standard calibrators. Five or more levels of VS, including the low limit of quantitation (LLOQ), low, mid, high, and upper limits of quantitation (ULOQ) concentrations are often prepared. 

For all practical purposes, the upper limit of quantitation is the point where the calibration curve becomes nonlinear. This point is called the limit of linearity (LOL). These can be seen from the calibration curve presented in Figure 1.3. Analytical methods are expected to have a linear dynamic range (LDR) of at least two orders of magnitude, although shorter ranges are also acceptable. 

It is generally believed that as long as the same amount of an internal standard is added to all the samples in a batch (run), i.e., calibration standards, quality controls, and unknown samples, the concentration of an internal standard is not important. This is probably why not much information exists as how to determine an appropriate concentration for an internal standard. Some researchers proposed that the concentration of an internal standard should be approximately half of the upper limit of quantitation (ULOQ) of the analyte [13,14] or even higher than the ULOQ [2], while others suggested a relatively lower concentration corresponding to about the first third of the calibration range, in order to minimize potential interferences with the analyte due to potential impurities from SIL internal standards [15]. Unfortunately, none of these were followed by more detailed theoretical considerations or supporting experimental data. 

The variation in the data not explained by the principal component model is called the residual variance. Classification in SIMCA is made by comparing the residual variance of a sample with the average residual variance of those samples that make up the class. This comparison provides a direct measure of the similarity of a sample to a particular class and can be considered as a measure of the goodness of fit of a sample for a particular class model. To provide a quantitative basis for this comparison, an / -statistic is used to compare the residual variance of the sample with the mean residual variance of the class [72], The F-statistic can also be used to compute an upper limit for the residual variance of those samples that belong to the class, with the final result being a set of probabilities of class membership for each sample. 

---