Quevauviller P
European Commission, DG Research, rue de la Loi 200 (MO75 3/9), B-1049 Brussels, Belgium.
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2001;8(4):251-5. doi: 10.1007/BF02987402.
Traceability issues are of increasing concern in all fields where chemical measurements form the basis for decisions. The concepts of accuracy and traceability as applied to environmental analysis are, however, still prone to misunderstandings, which has been recently illustrated by controversial discussions among the analytical community with respect to accuracy and traceability issues in the area of speciation analysis. Analytical techniques used for the determination of chemical species (speciation analysis) are generally based on a succession of steps (e.g. extraction derivatisation, separation, detection) which are all prone to various sources of systematic errors. Many speciation measurement techniques have been studied within the last decade through interlaboratory studies and certification of reference materials. These collaborative efforts have been understood as being directed towards strive for accuracy (trueness and precision). It has been recognised recently that the achievements actually enabled mostly to establish reference points (e.g. certified values in reference materials) which does not necessarily correspond to 'true values' but rather offer a mean for laboratories to compare their data internationally and, hence, achieve traceability. This ambiguity still generates confusion and misunderstandings among the scientific community. This communication discusses this issue, focusing on analytical measurements only. Extending discussions on general traceability issues would imply an examination of steps prior to laboratory work (sampling, storage, etc.) which is beyond the scope of this contribution.
在化学测量作为决策依据的所有领域,可追溯性问题日益受到关注。然而,应用于环境分析的准确度和可追溯性概念仍容易产生误解,最近分析界关于形态分析领域准确度和可追溯性问题的争议性讨论就说明了这一点。用于测定化学形态(形态分析)的分析技术通常基于一系列步骤(例如萃取、衍生化、分离、检测),所有这些步骤都容易出现各种系统误差源。在过去十年中,通过实验室间研究和参考物质的认证,对许多形态测量技术进行了研究。这些合作努力被理解为旨在追求准确度(真实性和精密度)。最近人们认识到,实际取得的成果大多只是建立了参考点(例如参考物质中的认证值),这些参考点不一定对应于“真实值”,而是为实验室提供了一种在国际上比较其数据的方法,从而实现可追溯性。这种模糊性在科学界仍然会产生困惑和误解。本通讯仅针对分析测量讨论这个问题。扩展关于一般可追溯性问题的讨论会涉及对实验室工作之前的步骤(采样、储存等)进行审查,这超出了本论文的范围。