Traceability and analytical chemistry

The concepts of traceability are not always well accepted by the analytical chemistry community. There is a benign kind of neglect towards these ideas [1] or even straight hostility (e.g. the reactions of Alexandrov [2], and Ackermann et al. [3], on the papers of Hasselbarth 

The reason for this reticent attitude stems from the specific culture in which analytical chemistry grew into a major scientific discipline and as a consequence of the development of another distinct activity, namely chemical analysis. In its diversity of approaches, analytical chemistry is complex, it contains a variety of different techniques, some of them more reliable and accurate than others. As a discipline, analytical chemistry cannot be treated as a collection of general, simple, absolute or dogmatic concepts. It is an immensely practical subject. Its driving force is power of detection, reliability (traceability could be a tool for achieving this) and efficiency and cost [5], 

Analytical chemistry is a science with its own theoretical underpinnings, its laws, axioms, corollaries and a 

Analytical chemistry is complex because it draws on any available technique or on any information that is suitable for its specific purpose. As Murray [8] mentioned a good measurement scientist, in particular an analytical chemist, is an opportunistic scavenger always on the lookout for something lying around that can be adapted to a new purpose. Twentieth century analytical chemistry is similar to the revolution Picasso brought to twentieth century art when he declared When there is something to steal, I steal it [9], 

Serious analytical chemists realise that too often analytical results are far from being accurate and that these inaccuracies do not only occur on the discipline s borderline, in the application of methods under development, but also during the application of well-established techniques. King [10] mentions a case on the determination of elemental lead in cabbage in an inter- 

---