Advanced search
Add to list

Relationship between content limits and assay methods : an interlaboratory statistical evaluation

(1992) ANALYST. 117(6). p.933-940
Author
Organization
Abstract
It has been statistically demonstrated, by means of interlaboratory acquired experimental results, that the prescribed content limits in a pharmacopoeial monograph should be critically reconsidered if one volumetric assay method is systematically substituted by another. Three different volumetric methods, prescribed as assays in phenothiazine monographs and ensuring the same content limit intervals, reveal different repeatabilities or reproducibilities. Analysis of variance and box-plot presentations confirm that for some of the three methods examined, interlaboratory variations contribute significantly to the total variances. For one particular method, however, this contribution is obviously less pronounced. Important contributions of method-to-method variations to the total variance are also established for three of the four participating laboratories.
Keywords
CONTENT LIMITS, STATISTICS, VOLUMETRIC ASSAY METHODS, ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, PRECISION

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
De Beer, Jacques O, Bart De Spiegeleer, Jos Hoogmartens, et al. “Relationship Between Content Limits and Assay Methods : an Interlaboratory Statistical Evaluation.” ANALYST 117.6 (1992): 933–940. Print.
APA
De Beer, J. O., De Spiegeleer, B., Hoogmartens, J., Samson, I., Massart, D. L., & Moors, M. (1992). Relationship between content limits and assay methods : an interlaboratory statistical evaluation. ANALYST, 117(6), 933–940.
Chicago author-date
De Beer, Jacques O, Bart De Spiegeleer, Jos Hoogmartens, Isabelle Samson, Desiré L Massart, and Martine Moors. 1992. “Relationship Between Content Limits and Assay Methods : an Interlaboratory Statistical Evaluation.” Analyst 117 (6): 933–940.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
De Beer, Jacques O, Bart De Spiegeleer, Jos Hoogmartens, Isabelle Samson, Desiré L Massart, and Martine Moors. 1992. “Relationship Between Content Limits and Assay Methods : an Interlaboratory Statistical Evaluation.” Analyst 117 (6): 933–940.
Vancouver
1.
De Beer JO, De Spiegeleer B, Hoogmartens J, Samson I, Massart DL, Moors M. Relationship between content limits and assay methods : an interlaboratory statistical evaluation. ANALYST. 1992;117(6):933–40.
IEEE
[1]
J. O. De Beer, B. De Spiegeleer, J. Hoogmartens, I. Samson, D. L. Massart, and M. Moors, “Relationship between content limits and assay methods : an interlaboratory statistical evaluation,” ANALYST, vol. 117, no. 6, pp. 933–940, 1992.
@article{7155066,
  abstract     = {It has been statistically demonstrated, by means of interlaboratory acquired experimental results, that the prescribed content limits in a pharmacopoeial monograph should be critically reconsidered if one volumetric assay method is systematically substituted by another. Three different volumetric methods, prescribed as assays in phenothiazine monographs and ensuring the same content limit intervals, reveal different repeatabilities or reproducibilities. Analysis of variance and box-plot presentations confirm that for some of the three methods examined, interlaboratory variations contribute significantly to the total variances. For one particular method, however, this contribution is obviously less pronounced. Important contributions of method-to-method variations to the total variance are also established for three of the four participating laboratories.},
  author       = {De Beer, Jacques O and De Spiegeleer, Bart and Hoogmartens, Jos and Samson, Isabelle and Massart, Desiré L and Moors, Martine},
  issn         = {0003-2654},
  journal      = {ANALYST},
  keywords     = {CONTENT LIMITS,STATISTICS,VOLUMETRIC ASSAY METHODS,ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE,PRECISION},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {6},
  pages        = {933--940},
  title        = {Relationship between content limits and assay methods : an interlaboratory statistical evaluation},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/an9921700933},
  volume       = {117},
  year         = {1992},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric