National comparison of methods for determination of radon in water

The article describes three interlaboratory experiments concerning 222Rn determination in water samples. The first two experiments were carried out with the use of artificial radon waters prepared by the Laboratory of Radiometric Expertise (LER), Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences in Kraków in 2014 and 2018. The third experiment was performed using natural environment waters collected in the vicinity of the former uranium mine in Kowary in 2016. Most of the institutions performing radon in water measurements in Poland were gathered in the Polish Radon Centre Network, and they participated in the experiments. The goal of these exercises was to evaluate different measurement techniques used routinely in Polish laboratories and the laboratories’ proficiency of radon in water measurements. In the experiment performed in 2018, the reference values of 222Rn concentration in water were calculated based on the method developed at LER. The participants’ results appeared to be worse for low radon concentration than for high radon concentrations. The conclusions drawn on that base indicated the weaknesses of the used methods and probably the sampling. The interlaboratory experiments, in term, can help to improve the participants’ skills and reliability of their results.

Estimation of the POD Function and the LOD of a Binary Microbiological Measurement Method from an Interlaboratory Experiment

Background: We deal with interlaboratory experiments (collaborative studies) in which k participating laboratories, selected randomly from a population of laboratories, use samples from one and the same material or matrix. They perform binary microbiological measurements for which the measurement results are either “0” (target microorganisms not detected) or “1” (target microorganisms detected). The performance of such a measurement method is described by its probability of detection (POD) function, i.e., the POD as a function of the contamination of the sample (CFU per gram or CFU per milliliter), or by the level of detection (LODp), i.e., the contamination level of the sample that is detected (measurement result “1”) with a specified probability p. Objective: We derive an approximate statistical analysis that is simple enough to be implemented in a spreadsheet application. Methods: Under the assumption of a Poisson distribution of the number of CFU in the samples, we estimate the mean POD function of the laboratories and the SD of the laboratory effect based on a complementary log-log model, a special case of the Generalized Linear Model in the special situation in which the contamination level is known by means other than the POD. The estimates are obtained by maximization of the Laplace approximation of the likelihood function. By simulation, a bias correction factor for the estimate of the SD is obtained. With the estimated POD function, LODs can be estimated. The model can also be used to evaluate the relative LOD of an alternative method with repect to a reference method. Results: The EXCEL program PODLOD-interlab_ver1.xls for this method of statistical analysis can be downloaded from http://www.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/fachbereich/vwl/iso/ehemalige/wilrich. Highlights: A simple approximate statistical method for the estimation of the POD and LOD is derived. The method also allows the estimation of the RLOD of an alternative method with respect to reference method. The method is implemented in an EXCEL program that can be downloaded from http://www.wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/fachbereich/vwl/iso/ehemalige/wilrich.

Monitoring Temporary Immunodepression by Flow Cytometric Measurement of Monocytic HLA-DR Expression: A Multicenter Standardized Study

Background: Single-center trials have shown that monocytic HLA-DR is a good marker for monitoring the severity of temporary immunodepression after trauma, major surgery, or sepsis. A new test for measuring monocytic HLA-DR is now available. Methods: We evaluated a new test reagent set for monocytic HLA-DR expression (BD Quantibrite™ HLA-DR/Monocyte reagent; Becton Dickinson) in single-laboratory and interlaboratory experiments, assessing preanalytical handling, lyse-no-wash (LNW) vs lyse-wash (LW) values, reference values, and the effect of use of different flow cytometers and different instrument settings on test variance. Results: For preanalytical handling, EDTA anticoagulation, storage on ice as soon as possible, and staining within 4 h after blood collection gave results comparable to values obtained for samples analyzed immediately after collection (mean increase of ∼4% in monocytic HLA-DR). Comparison of LNW and LW revealed slightly higher results for LNW (∼18% higher for LNW compared with LW; r = 0.982). Comparison of different flow cytometers and instrument settings gave CVs <4%, demonstrating the independence of the test from these variables and suggesting that this method qualifies as a standardized test. CV values from the interlaboratory comparison ranged from 15% (blood sample unprocessed before transport) to 25% (stained and fixed before transport). Conclusions: For the BD Quantibrite HLA-DR/Monocyte test, preanalytical handling is standardized. Single-laboratory results demonstrated the independence of this test from flow cytometer and instrument settings. Interlaboratory results showed greater variance than single-laboratory values. This interlaboratory variance was partly attributable to the influence of transport and can be reduced by optimization of transport conditions.

Experimental Designs for Interlaboratory Precision Experiments: Comparison of ISO 5725 with Draft NEN 6303

To determine the precision of standardized analytical methods, interlaboratory experiments are carried out in which several laboratories analyze identical samples from well homogenized batches of material. From the test results, estimates of the standard deviations under repeatability as well as under reproducibility conditions are calculated. In the present work, the experimental designs recommended in the International Standard ISO 5725 have been compared with a design proposed in the draft Netherlands Standard NEN 6303. This has been done by comparing their mathematical models as well as by applying them to the results of a recent collaborative study on the determination of heavy metals in edible oils and fats. The reproducibility standard deviation is estimated equally well with both Standards, but it appeared that the designs given in ISO 5725 can lead to serious underestimation (uniform-level design) or overestimation (split-level design) of the repeatability standard deviation. By using the design proposed in NEN 6303, these biases can be avoided. Hence, it is recommended that interlaboratory studies be organized according to the design of NEN 6303.