Schlecht P C, Song R, Groff J H, Feng H A, Esche C A
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Robert A. Taft Laboratories, Cincinnati, OH 45226, USA.
Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1997 Nov;58(11):779-86. doi: 10.1080/15428119791012270.
The Environmental Lead Proficiency Analytical Testing (ELPAT) Program evaluates over 400 laboratories that perform lead measurements in paints, soils, and dusts. A previous National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health study, based on the ELPAT data over a 3-year period (1992-1995), found no large biases among common hotplate and microwave digestion techniques, but did detect small consistent bias between two common instrumental methods. This study expands on the earlier study by examining the total sample variability and its variation components (interlaboratory and intralaboratory). A correlation model was used to separate the variation components by estimating a variation ratio. The correlation model leads to a more general approach than a sample pairing technique developed by Youden. This study found no significant evidence that the relative contribution of intralaboratory and interlaboratory variability to total variability changes with lead loading levels. There were no significant differences in the relative contribution of variation components among three most commonly used analytical methods (combinations of sample preparation techniques and instrumental methods). The interlaboratory relative standard deviation is about 1.7 times the intralaboratory relative standard deviation. Both variation components are important parts of total variation although the laboratory-to-laboratory (including analyst-to-analyst) difference is greater than the within laboratory (including sample-to-sample) variation.
环境铅熟练度分析测试(ELPAT)项目对400多个在油漆、土壤和灰尘中进行铅测量的实验室进行评估。美国国家职业安全与健康研究所此前基于1992年至1995年这三年的ELPAT数据开展的一项研究发现,常见的热板消解技术和微波消解技术之间不存在较大偏差,但确实检测到两种常见仪器方法之间存在微小的一致性偏差。本研究通过检查总样本变异性及其变异成分(实验室间和实验室内)对早期研究进行了扩展。使用相关模型通过估计变异比来分离变异成分。与尤登开发的样本配对技术相比,相关模型提供了一种更通用的方法。本研究没有发现显著证据表明实验室内和实验室间变异性对总变异性的相对贡献会随着铅含量水平的变化而改变。三种最常用的分析方法(样本制备技术和仪器方法的组合)在变异成分的相对贡献方面没有显著差异。实验室间相对标准偏差约为实验室内相对标准偏差的1.7倍。尽管实验室之间(包括分析师之间)的差异大于实验室内(包括样本之间)的差异,但这两个变异成分都是总变异的重要组成部分。