Quantitative Analysts

C E Pipftei er et al. Antiepilephc Dn Levels Quality Control Program Interlaboratory alxlity, mAntieptleptic Drugs Quantitative Analysts and Interpretation,C E Pi pengere/a/ (Ed),New Y k, Raven Press, 1978, p 187-197... 

For the quantitative analyst, the equations derived above bring with them a reasonably clear guideline. Working at higher frequencies gives access to lines of greater absorption coefficient for a given molecule, no matter what its shape or symmetry. 

Carryover is one of the major problems faced by trace quantitative analysts and shonld be checked regularly throughout the entire process of method development it must also be evaluated and assessed during method validation (Section 10.2.9b) and sample analysis (see Section 10.5.5, where a more detailed method of evaluation of the effect of carryover on the accnracy of an assay (Zeng 2006) is described). 

Gant-Branum, R. L. Kerr, T. J. McLean, J. A., Labeling strategies in mass spectrometry-based protein quantitation . Analyst 2009,134,1525-1530. 

Equation 15 is not used direcdy for quantitation of aes data due to the same limitations discussed above for xps. Particularly troubling for aes is the inabihty to determine B for a given matrix. Thus, the analyst is left with comparing aes data from an unknown with those of known materials in an attempt to estimate relative atom ratios. This proceeds along the same lines as for xps and allows quantitation of aes data to a precision of typically better than ca 20%. 

Flavor Description. TypicaHy, a sensory analyst determines if two samples differ, and attempts to explain their differences so that changes can be made. The Arthur D. Litde flavor profile (FP), quantitative descriptive analysis (QDA), and spectmm method are three of the most popular methods designed to answer these and more compHcated questions (30—33). AH three methods involve the training of people in the nominal scaling of the flavor quaHties present in the food being studied, but they differ in their method for quantitation. 

Failure Mode and Ejfect Analysis (FMEA) This is a systematic study of the causes of failures and their effects. All causes or modes of failure are considered for each element of a system, and then all possible outcomes or effects are recorded. This method is usually used in combination with fault tree analysis, a quantitative technique. FMEA is a comphcated procedure, usually carried out by experienced risk analysts. 

We previously encountered failure modes and effects (FMEA) and failure modes effects and criticality analysis (FMECA) as qualitative methods for accident analysis. These tabular methods for reliability analysis may be made quantitative by associating failure rates with the parts in a systems model to estimate the system reliability. FMEA/FMECA may be applied in design or operational phases (ANSI/IEEE Std 352-1975, MIL-STD-1543 and MIL-STD-1629A). Typical headings in the F.Mld. A identify the system and component under analysis, failure modes, the ef fect i>f failure, an estimale of how critical apart is, the estimated probability of the failure, mitigaturs and IHissihiy die support systems. The style and contents of a FMEA are flexible and depend upon the. ilitcLiives of the analyst. 

For application in chemical process quantitative risk analysis (CPQRA), the hierarchical format of HTA enables the analyst to choose the level of event breakdown for which data are likely to be available. This is useful for human reliability quantification (see the discussion in Chapter 5). 

This manager requested quantitative results, so the analyst must estimate the probability of each failure or error included in the event tree. Data for all the failures and errors in this particular problem are available in tables in the Handbook, Swain and Guttman (1983). The analyst must modify these data as necessary to account for specific characteristics of the work situation, such as stress levels, equipment design features, and interoperator dependencies. Table 5.1 summarizes the data used in this problem. 

Having ascertained the nature of the constituents of a given sample, the analyst is then frequently called upon to determine how much of each component, or of specified components, is present. Such determinations lie within the realm of quantitative analysis, and to supply the required information a variety of techniques is available. 

The function of the analyst is to obtain a result as near to the true value as possible by the correct application of the analytical procedure employed. The level of confidence that the analyst may enjoy in his results will be very small unless he has knowledge of the accuracy and precision of the method used as well as being aware of the sources of error which may be introduced. Quantitative analysis is not simply a case of taking a sample, carrying out a single determination and then claiming that the value obtained is irrefutable. It also requires a sound knowledge of the chemistry involved, of the possibilities of interferences from other ions, elements and compounds as well as of the statistical distribution of values. The purpose of this chapter is to explain some of the terms employed and to outline the statistical procedures which may be applied to the analytical results. 

The relative error is the absolute error divided by the true value it is usually expressed in terms of percentage or in parts per thousand. The true or absolute value of a quantity cannot be established experimentally, so that the observed result must be compared with the most probable value. With pure substances the quantity will ultimately depend upon the relative atomic mass of the constituent elements. Determinations of the relative atomic mass have been made with the utmost care, and the accuracy obtained usually far exceeds that attained in ordinary quantitative analysis the analyst must accordingly accept their reliability. With natural or industrial products, we must accept provisionally the results obtained by analysts of repute using carefully tested methods. If several analysts determine the same constituent in the same sample by different methods, the most probable value, which is usually the average, can be deduced from their results. In both cases, the establishment of the most probable value involves the application of statistical methods and the concept of precision. 

It is necessary to draw attention to the variable pH of water which may be encountered in quantitative analysis. Water in equilibrium with the normal atmosphere which contains 0.03 per cent by volume of carbon dioxide has a pH of about 5.7 very carefully prepared conductivity water has a pH close to 7 water saturated with carbon dioxide under a pressure of one atmosphere has a pH of about 3.7 at 25 °C. The analyst may therefore be dealing, according to the conditions that prevail in the laboratory, with water having a pH between the two extremes pH 3.7 and pH 7. Hence for indicators which show their alkaline colours at pH values above 4.5, the effect of carbon dioxide introduced during a titration, either from the atmosphere or from the titrating solutions, must be seriously considered. This subject is discussed again later (Section 10.12). 

Active matter (anionic surfactant) in AOS consists of alkene- and hydroxy-alkanemonosulfonates, as well as small amounts of disulfonates. Active matter (AM) content is usually expressed as milliequivalents per 100 grams, or as weight percent. Three methods are available for the determination of AM in AOS calculation by difference, the two-phase titration such as methylene blue-active substances (MBAS) and by potentiometric titration with cationic. The calculation method has a number of inherent error factors. The two-phase titration methods may not be completely quantitative and can yield values differing by several percent from those obtained from the total sulfur content. These methods employ trichloromethane, the effects from which the analyst must be protected. The best method for routine use is probably the potentiometric titration method but this requires the availability of more expensive equipment. 

All samples can be reduced to such a chromatogram and if the reduced chromatogram can be resolved then, almost without exception, so can the sample. In the following discussion it is assumed that all the components of the mixture have equal importance and must be isolated and quantitatively estimated. The analyst will, at times, be presented with samples for which a full analysis is not required and such samples will be discussed subsequently. 

In LC both quantitative and qualitative accuracy depends heavily on the components of the sample being adequately resolved from one another. The subject of resolution has already been discussed, but it is necessary to consider those areas where uncertainty can still arise. Unfortunately, unless the analyst is aware of the pitfalls and how to deal with them, false assumptions of resolution can be made very easily. 

In many analyses, fhe compound(s) of inferesf are found as par of a complex mixfure and fhe role of fhe chromatographic technique is to provide separation of fhe components of that mixture to allow their identification or quantitative determination. From a qualitative perspective, the main limitation of chromatography in isolation is its inability to provide an unequivocal identification of the components of a mixture even if they can be completely separated from each other. Identification is based on the comparison of the retention characteristics, simplistically the retention time, of an unknown with those of reference materials determined under identical experimental conditions. There are, however, so many compounds in existence that even if the retention characteristics of an unknown and a reference material are, within the limits of experimental error, identical, the analyst cannot say with absolute certainty that the two compounds are the same. Despite a range of chromatographic conditions being available to the analyst, it is not always possible to effect complete separation of all of the components of a mixture and this may prevent the precise and accurate quantitative determination of the analyte(s) of interest. 

The limit of detection (LOD) (see Figure 2.6) is defined as the smallest quantity of an analyte that can be reliably detected. This is a subjective definition and to introduce some objectivity it is considered to be that amount of analyte which produces a signal that exceeds the noise by a certain factor. The factor used, usually between 2 and 10 [11], depends upon the analysis being carried out. Higher values are used for quantitative measurements in which the analyst is concerned with the ability to determine the analyte accurately and precisely. 

From a quantitative perspective, each peak is defined by two parameters, i.e. the position of its baseline and the retention time boundaries, with those derived by the computer system being shown in Figure 3.27. It is not the intention of this present author to discuss how these have been determined but simply to point out that their positions may have a significant effect on the accuracy and precision of any quantitative measurements, especially, as in Figure 3.27, when the baseline is not horizontal and the signals from each of the components are not fully resolved. It is usual for the software to allow the analyst to override the parameters chosen by the computer to provide what they consider to be more appropriate peak limits and/or baseline positions. 

The development of a quantitative method involving LC-MS is, in principle, no different from developing a quantitative method nsing any other analytical technique the intensity of signal from the analyte(s) of interest in the unknown sample is compared with that from known amounts of the analyte. The task of the analyst is to decide how this is best achieved knowing the resources available and the purpose for which the results are required. 

Quantitative methodology employing mass spectrometry usually involves selected-ion monitoring (see Section 3.5.2.1) or selected-decomposition monitoring (see Section 3.4.2.4) in which a small number of ions or decompositions of ions specific to the compound(s) of interest are monitored. It is the role of the analyst to choose these ions/decompositions, in association with chromatographic performance, to provide sensitivity and selectivity such that when incorporated into a method the required analyses may be carried out with adequate precision and accuracy. 

Jones, R., High-Pass and Band-Pass Digital Filtering with Peak to Trough Measurement Applied to Quantitative Ultraviolet Spectrometry, Analyst 112, November 1987, 1495-1498. 

In Section 42.2 we have discussed that queuing theory may provide a good qualitative picture of the behaviour of queues in an analytical laboratory. However the analytical process is too complex to obtain good quantitative predictions. As this was also true for queuing problems in other fields, another branch of Operations Research, called Discrete Event Simulation emerged. The basic principle of discrete event simulation is to generate sample arrivals. Each sample is characterized by a number of descriptors, e.g. one of those descriptors is the analysis time. In the jargon of simulation software, a sample is an object, with a number of attributes (e.g. analysis time) and associated values (e.g. 30 min). Other objects are e.g. instruments and analysts. A possible attribute is a list of the analytical... 

---