Variability measurement uncertainty

Example 57 The three files can be used to assess the risk structure for a given set of parameters and either four, five, or six repeat measurements that go into the mean. At the bottom, there is an indicator that shows whether the 95% confidence limits on the mean are both within the set limits ( YES ) or not ( NO ). Now, for an uncertainty in the drug/weight ratio of 1%, a weight variability of 2%, a measurement uncertainty of 0.4%, and fi 3.5% from the nearest specification limit, the ratio of OOS measurements associated with YES as opposed to those associated with NO was found to be 0 50 (n == 4), 11 39 (n = 5), respectively 24 26 (u = 6). This nicely illustrates that it is possible for a mean to be definitely inside some limit and to have individual measurements outside the same limit purely by chance. In a simulation on the basis of 1000 sets of n - 4 numbers e ND(0, 1), the Xmean. Sx, and CL(Xmean) were calculated, and the results were categorized according to the following criteria ... 

Figure 22.4 Monte Carlo techniques were used to simulate different hypothetical individuals for different instances of the trial design, using variability and uncertainty distributions from the model analysis. The result is a collection of predicted outcomes, shown as a binned histogram (top figure). Success was defined as a difference in end point measurement of X or smaller between drug and comparator. Likelihood of success (shown in the bottom figure as a cumulative probability) for this example (low/medium drug dose and high comparator dose) is seen to be low, about 33%.

Thus, the error in the solution vector is expected to be large for an ill-conditioned problem and small for a well-conditioned one. In parameter estimation, vector b is comprised of a linear combination of the response variables (measurements) which contain the error terms. Matrix A does not depend explicitly on the response variables, it depends only on the parameter sensitivity coefficients which depend only on the independent variables (assumed to be known precisely) and on the estimated parameter vector k which incorporates the uncertainty in the data. As a result, we expect most of the uncertainty in Equation 8.29 to be present in Ab. 

In the context of assessment factors, it is important to distinguish between the two terms variability and uncertainty. Variability refers to observed differences attributable to true heterogeneity or diversity, i.e., inherent biological differences between species, strains, and individuals. Variability is the result of natural random processes and is usually not reducible by further measurement or study although it can be better characterized. Uncertainty relates to lack of knowledge about, e.g., models, parameters, constants, data, etc., and can sometimes be minimized, reduced, or eliminated if additional information is obtained (US-EPA 2003). 

Finally, the MOS should also take into account the uncertainties in the estimated exposure. For predicted exposure estimates, this requires an uncertainty analysis (Section 8.2.3) involving the determination of the uncertainty in the model output value, based on the collective uncertainty of the model input parameters. General sources of variability and uncertainty in exposure assessments are measurement errors, sampling errors, variability in natural systems and human behavior, limitations in model description, limitations in generic or indirect data, and professional judgment. 

The cause and effect diagram is widely used when identifying the effects on a result, including a chemical analysis result. It is used for example in measurement uncertainty to analyse the uncertainty sources. A cause and effect diagram describes a relationship between variables. The undesirable outcome is shown as an effect, and related causes are shown as leading to, or potentially leading to, this effect. 

It is useful to distinguish between variability, parameter uncertainty, and model uncertainty, since they require different treatment in risk analysis (Suter and Barnthouse 1993). Variability refers to actual variation in real-world states and processes. Parameter uncertainty refers to imprecise knowledge of parameters used to describe variability or processes in a risk model this can arise from many sources including measurement error, sampling error, and the use of surrogate measurements or expert judgment. Model uncertainty refers to uncertainty about the structure of the risk model, including what parameters should be included and how they should be combined in the model equations. 

At this stage it may be worth conjecturing as to why some calorimetric smdies of peroxides and hydroperoxides are seemingly unreliable. Recall that an ether that has been left standing too long autooxidizes to a peroxide, which then has a tendency to explode on heating or when shocked. In an experimental combustion process, this same tendency to explode may result in incomplete combustion with attendant carbon build-up. If so, there are thermodynamically ill-defined and irreproducible products that increase the variability and uncertainty in the measurements and essentially invalidate the results derived . 

Reproductive risk descriptors are intended to address variability of risk within the population and the overall adverse impact on the population. In particular, differences between high-end and central tendency estimates reflect variability in the population but not the scientific uncertainty inherent in the risk estimates. There is uncertainty in all estimates of risk, including reproductive risk. These uncertainties can result from measurement uncertainties, modelling uncertainties and assumptions made due to incomplete data. Risk assessments should address the impact of each of these uncertainties on confidence in the estimated reproductive risk values. 

The top-down approach is often used when there are method validation data from properly conducted interlaboratory studies, and when the laboratory using reproducibility as the measurement uncertainty can demonstrate that such data are applicable to its operations. Chapter 5 describes these types of studies in greater detail. In assigning the reproducibility standard deviation, sR, to the measurement uncertainty from method validation of a standard method, it is assumed that usual laboratory variables (mass, volume, temperature, times, pH) are within normal limits (e.g., 2°C for temperature, 5% for timing of steps, 0.05 for pH). Clause 5.4.6.2 in ISO/ 17025 (ISO/IEC 2005) reads, In those cases where a well-recognized test method specifies limits to the values of the major sources of uncertainty of measurement and specifies the form of presentation of the calculated results, the laboratory is considered to have satisfied this clause by following the test method and reporting instructions. ... 

In fact, difficulties in sourcing and preparing large numbers (>50) of authentic compounds in mixed standards and the time taken for subsequent multilevel calibration of the analytical system with all these standards, can even add to measurement uncertainty in extreme cases. For example, if the time taken for multilevel calibration extends over several days, it is possible for the system response to have drifted significantly over the period reducing confidence in the subsequent data. Other difficult to characterize contributions to variability can also creep in, for example, analyte interactions and the general stability of mixed standards. 

Emission coefficients are estimates of emissions per unit of activity level. These coefficients are generally estimated using actual measurements of emissions and information about activity levels from a subset of representative sources. The emission measurements used as an input to these coefficients are subject to considerable uncertainty, being based on measurements at ten sources or, at most, at a few hundred sources. Usually, no direct estimates of associated variability or uncertainty, are available. Depending upon the level of detail in the model being used to make the emission estimates, emission coefficients may be assumed constant over time or across regions, or new combustion and other technologies may be assumed to be available. 

Uncertainty and variability The extent to which the variability and uncertainty in the information or in the procedures, measures, methods, or models are evaluated and characterized... 

In a probabilistic risk assessment, both variability and uncertainty in input variables can be taken into consideration. Variability represents the true heterogeneity in time, space, and of different members of a population. Examples of variability are interindividual variability in consumption and in sensitivity to, for instance, an allergen. Uncertainty is a lack of knowledge about the true value of the quantity. An example of uncertainty is associated with the limit of detection of an analytical method and the exploration of the threshold value outside the range of measurements. In contrast to the variability, uncertainty can be decreased, for example, by increasing the number of data points or using a more accurate method of analysis. 

Probability distribution models can be used to represent frequency distributions of variability or uncertainty distributions. When the data set represents variability for a model parameter, there can be uncertainty in any non-parametric statistic associated with the empirical data. For situations in which the data are a random, representative sample from an unbiased measurement or estimation technique, the uncertainty in a statistic could arise because of random sampling error (and thus be dependent on factors such as the sample size and range of variability within the data) and random measurement or estimation errors. The observed data can be corrected to remove the effect of known random measurement error to produce an error-free data set (Zheng Frey, 2005). 

Zheng J, Frey HC (2005) Quantitative analysis of variability and uncertainty with known measurement error Methodology and case study. Risk Analysis, 25(3) 663-676. 

Next we consider the bioconcentration factor, BCF, of PBLx. Previously in this annex, we used results from a series of experiments to develop for BCF a probability distribution that includes both variability and uncertainty. Again, an assumed evaluation of the data and measurements indicates that only 40% of the observed variance is due to variability and the remaining 60% of the observed variance is attributable to uncertainty. So the concentration data consist of a family of distributions with a variance having a geometric standard deviation of 1.93 due to variability. These curves have a location range that spans a range with a geometric standard deviation of 2.37. 

Meteorological processes, emission changes and measurement uncertainty lead to variability in deposition rates. Deposition measurements are uncertain mainly from ambiguities in sampling techniques. Meteorological variability produces potentially large within year and year-to-year differences in exposure to deposition. 

Laboratory simulations of aqueous-phase chemical systems are necessary to 1) verify reaction mechanisms and 2) assign a value and an uncertainty to transformation rates. A dynamic cloud chemistry simulation chamber has been characterized to obtain these rates and their uncertainties. Initial experimental results exhibited large uncertainties, with a 26% variability in cloud liquid water as the major contributor to measurement uncertainty. Uncertainties in transformation rates were as high as factor of ten. Standard operating procedures and computer control of the simulation chamber decreased the variability in the observed liquid water content, experiment duration and final temperature from 0.65 to 0.10 g nr3, 180 to 5.3 s and 1.73 to 0.27°C respectively. The consequences of this improved control over the experimental variables with respect to cloud chemistry were tested for the aqueous transformation of SO2 using a cloud-physics and chemistry model of this system. These results were compared to measurements made prior to the institution of standard operating procedures and computer control to quantify the reduction in reaction rate uncertainty resulting from those controls. 

Extinction, which is the failure of the kinematic scattering theory (Ihki hki) is only a minor problem in X-ray diffraction. In neutron diffraction, extinction is serious and pervasive throughout the whole data, as shown by the examples in Thble 3.2. The best methods available for extinction correction require careful measurement of crystal dimensions. Although somewhat empirical, it has proved to be very effective [184, 185]. At least one, and sometimes six, additional extinction parameters, gis0 or gij, have to be added to the variable parameters. Uncertainty in the validity of these extinction parameters appears to have very little effect on atomic positional coordinates, but may influence the absolute values of the atomic temperature factors. This is important in charge density or electrostatic potential... 

---