B King, submitted to Accreditation Quality Assurance.
Eurachem
Reports
EURACHEM Education and Training Working Group
Active Feedback Sought for the Glossary of Analytical Terms
Analytical data play a vital part in our daily lives, with increasing influence on both economy and ecology. The harmonisation of the European market - including the Eastern European countries - and the opening of international borders for trade and communication have led to serious problems with terminology in analytical chemistry. We can identify the three main reasons which have caused this situation. These can be classified as "linguistics", "semantics", and "acceptance".
Frequent translations of a term through a chain of languages, and the use of terms by non-native speakers, may lead to a misuse of terms followed by grave misunderstandings. In addition, the coexistence of different meanings of terms due to their independent definition by national and international bodies or authorities, together with recommendations given by international organisations like IUPAC, leads to problems of semantics and confusion resulting in a decrease of acceptance.
A STRATEGY ON TERMINOLOGY
During the last five years, the EURACHEM Education & Training Working Group (E&T WG) has analysed this situation, and has developed a strategy to deal with it. The first, and most important, step of this concept is to provide a forum which initiates and enables international discussions to take place among the experts in the field. The catalyst for these discussions will be a dictionary-like "glossary of terms" which will be published as a series in Accreditation and Quality Assurance. Each term of the glossary is provided with a definition (taken from the highest international level, if possible ISO) followed by a scientific description of the meaning of the definition and one or more examples which explain its practical use. In addition, translations of the term into other European languages will be given. This structure will facilitate translation of the glossary into other languages, and errors will be minimised if not excluded. The translation will be performed by the E & T WG-members, being experts in the field and native speakers of their respective language. Finally it will be published in a suitable national journal.
Active feedback will be sought at both the national and international levels, to enable a dynamic development of the glossary on the highest possible scientific and linguistic levels. This might also include the deletion of existing words and the creation of new words if, in the latter case, the scientific definition and meaning has no linguistic equivalent in a given language. Let's take as an example the term traceability which by definition describes a way to achieve quality (accuracy, comparability) in chemical measurements. The equivalent in German would be Rückführbarkeit but in the respective DIN-norm the term Rückverfolgbarkeit is used, the linguistic meaning of which is "follow the way (track) back". Consequently, the term Rückverfolgbarkeit is part of providing assurance of quality and not of creating quality. Unfortunately, there is no English word for Rückverfolgbarkeit. There are two ways of solving this problem: one is to create a new English word and the other is to introduce the German word into the English language.
We are willing to "grasp the nettle" and open the debate on this issue by proposing the term trackability to cover this concept.
DISCUSSION FORUM
It is proposed that the EURACHEM Education and Training Working Group should be the catalyst which will promote a wider debate of the issues raised by this glossary of terms. All analytical scientists are urged to contribute to the debate and work towards a consensus on the usage of the key terms covered by the glossary.
This debate can be carried forward by addressing your comments to:
Prof Dr Helmut Günzler, Managing Editor, Accreditation and Quality Assurance, Bismarckstraße 4, D-69469 WEINHEIM, GERMANY, for consideration by the Education and Training Working Group.
Alternatively, comments can be sent by Email only to:
Dr John Fleming, Laboratory of the Government Chemist, Email: jwf@lgc.co.uk
Dr John Fleming, LGC, UNITED KINGDOM
Mr Heiner Albus, Philipps-Universität Marburg, GERMANY
Prof Dr Bernd Neidhart, Philipps-Universität Marburg, GERMANY
Prof Dr Wolfhard Wegscheider, University of Mining & Metallurgy, AUSTRIA
Eurachem
Reports
IMEP6 Soon to be Evaluated
The International Measurement Evaluation Programme (IMEP) has now completed its 6th measurement round, (IMEP6) Trace Elements in Water. An overview of results was recently presented at a EURACHEM/CITAC workshop1 which attracted considerable interest from the delegates. IMEP is coordinated from the Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements (IRMM), and is run under the auspices of IUPAC, EURACHEM, EUROMET and CITAC. The programme aims to be a tool for field laboratories to compare their results to SItraceable values and is also offered to regulating and accrediting bodies. Samples with undisclosed values are sent to interested laboratories. They return their measurement result with a statement of uncertainty, claiming to embrace the "true value". The SItraceable values are established by Isotope Dilution Mass Spectrometry (IDMS) which has the potential to be a primary method of measurement.2 For IMEP6, this was done in collaboration with NIST (USA) and University of Regensburg (Germany). Uncertainty ranges are evaluated according to ISOBIPM and EURACHEM guidelines.3,4 A strategy of IMEP is that the SItraceable values, which will serve as references, should be obtained by means of well understood measurement processes, rather than from averaging a number of values from different analytical techniques. IMEP rounds are run in cases where the objective evaluation of measurement results is important.
In IMEP6, fourteen trace elements (Ag, B, Ba, Cd, Cu, Fe, Li, Mo, Ni, Pb, Rb, Sr, Tl and Zn) were under investigation in a synthetic and natural water material.5 Some 200 laboratories in 30 countries participated in this IMEP round. 29 participants were regionally coordinated from Chile. The first results from the certification work and evaluation of participants' results will appear in 19976,7.
IMEP rounds planned in near future are shown in the table (bottom right). IMEP7, Trace elements in Human Serum, is being planned in close cooperation with organisers of external quality assurance programmes in the Nordic countries. There will, however, be room for approximately 150 international participants.
Laboratories interested in this or in any other future round, or simply in more information, please contact:
Mrs. Lutgart Van Nevel
Tel: +32 (0)14 571 702, Fax: +32 (0) 584 273; 14 591 978
Dr. Philip Taylor
Tel: +32 (0)14 571 615, Fax: +32 (0)14 584 273; 591 978
IRMM, B2440 GEEL, BELGIUM
Dr Philip Taylor, Prof Dr Paul De Bièvre, Mrs Lutgart Van Nevel, Dr Ulf Örnemark
IRMM, Belgium
References
- EURACHEM/CITAC, Workshop on Traceability and Comparability of AmountofSubstance Measurements, Leeuwenhorst Congres Centrum, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands, 46 September 1996.
- Comité Consultatif pour la Quantité de Matière (CCQM), 'Report of the l't Meeting', BIPM (Editor), Pavillon de Breteuil, F92312 Sevres Cedex, France, April 1995.
- 'Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement', International Organisation for Standardisation ISO), ISBN9267101889, Geneva, Switzerland, 1993.
- 'Quantifying Uncertainty in Analytical Measurement', EURACHEM, ISBN 0948926082, 1995.
- 'The International Measurement Evaluation Programme (IMEP), IMEP6, Trace Elements in Water, Report to the Participants', Report GE/RSIM/25/1996, IRMM, September 1996.
- I. Papadakis, P. Taylor and P. De Bievre, 'SI-Traceable Values for Cadmium Concentrations in the Water Samples of IMEP6', accepted for publication in Fresenius J. Anal. Chem.
- U. Ornemark, P. Taylor and P. De Bievre, 'Certification of Rubidium in Water Material for the International Measurement Evaluation Programme (IMEP) using Isotope Dilution Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry', submitted for publication in J. Anal. At. Spectrom.
- A. Lamberty, L. Van Nevel, J.R. Moody and P. De Bievre, Accred. Qual. Assur., 1996, 1, 71.
IMEP Rounds Planned in the Near Future |
|
| Elements of Interest |
|
IMEP-7 | Trace Elements in Serum |
Ca, Cl, Fe, K, Li, Mg, Na, Se, Zn | 1997-98 |
IMEP-8 | n(13C)/n(12C) in CO2 |
| 1997-99 |
IMEP-9 | Trace Elements in Water |
Same as in IMEP-6 and similar to IMEP-38 | 1997-98 |
EURACHEM / EUROMET Interface Group
EUROMET Amount of Substance Projects
Ref | Subject | Type | Status | Proposer/ Co-ordinator | Partners (Institutions) | Participating countries |
300 | Intercomparison of Definitive Method for pH Measurement. | Comparison | Completed | Mrs Petra Spitzer |
| DE, DK, HU, IT, PL
|
313 | Realising Comparability of Primary Gas Standard Mixtures. (PSM)
| Co-operation | Agreed | Mr Anton Alink | NPL, Nmi | GB, NL |
316 | Realising raceability by Tn(13C)/n(12C) Measurements in CO2 (IDMS)
| Co-operation | Agreed | Prof Dr G Dube | IRMM, PTB | CE, DE |
332 | Determination of Trace Elements in Water | Traceability | Agreed
| TBA (Contact Prof Dr Paul De Bièvre) | IRMM, PTB | CE, DE |
333 | Determination of Iron in Milk Powder | Traceability | Agreed
| Dr P Taylor | IRMM, LNE, PTB, VTT | CE, DE, FI, FR |
366 | Documenting Water Purity by Electrolytic Conductivity | Comparison | Agreed | Hans D Jensen | DFM, Nmi, NPL, PTB, OMH, BNM, OFMET, NIST | CH, DE, DK, FR, GB, HU, NL, US |
370 | Intercomparison of Primary Standard Measurement Devices for pH | Comparison
| Agreed | Mrs Petra Spitzer | Merck, KGaA, PTB, Radiometer A/S, U. of Newcastle, OMH, U. of Milan, GUM | DE, DK, GB, HU, IT, PL |
381 | Comparison of Electrolytic Conductivity measurements at 0.01, 0.1 and 1.0 S/m | Comparison | Agreed | Hans D Jensen | BNM, DFM, Nmi, NPL, OMH, PTB, SMU, VTT | DE, DK, FI, FR, GB, HU, NL, SK |
Eurachem
Reports
VIEWPOINT !
The use of expiry dates for Chemicals & Reagents
OECD GLP guidelines state that reagents should be labelled, as
appropriate, indicating source, identity, concentration and stability
information, the preparation date, earliest expiration date and
specific storage instructions.
EURACHEM's chemical laboratories guide says that reagents prepared
in the laboratory should be labelled to identify substance, strength,
solvent, any special precautions or hazards, restrictions of use
and date of preparation and/or expiry. Similar guidance is given
in the CITAC Guide.
Altogether these documents, with EN 45001 and GLP, only recommend
the use of expiry dates of a reagent on the label, without giving
specific guidance.
Not surprisingly, the most common problem a joint EUROLAB / EURACHEM-NL
Working Group (WG) encountered was the GLP requirement to have
an expiry date for every reagent used. The WG recommended: "The
most practical solution is to develop a policy for arriving at
sensible expiry dates for every chemical used. To avoid unnecessary
retesting of expired chemicals, one should consider the chemical
stability of the compound under storage conditions and the turnover
time in relation to the amount purchased.". 1 This is
a promising proposal, since each experienced analyst could lay
down a sensible expiry date for the reagent in question.
However, the WG still considers it necessary that even chemicals
like NaCl should have an expiry date.
To solve the problem, I propose the following:
- To avoid unnecessary measures and expenditures, the listing
of an expiry date should not be mandatory.
- Depending on the purpose of the test and on the chemicalphysical
nature of the reagent / chemical, the analyst should make this
decision based on professional judgement.
Dr Werner Steck
BASF-AG, LUDWIGSHAFEN
Any comments on this article should be addressed to Dr Werner
Steck or the EURACHEM Secretariat
References
- EUROLAB TCQA WG 2 and EURACHEM Netherlands WG 3; Final
draft "Quality Assurance according to EN 45001 and OECD GLP
A guide to simultaneous implementation 1996", Section 2.1.
Back to: |
Headline |
News |
Workshop & Conference |
Reports