首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     检索      


Comparability of PT schemes – what did we learn from COEPT?
Authors:Nick Boley  Adriaan M H van der Veen  Piotr Robouch  Manfred Golze  Johannes van de Kreeke  Ulf Örnemark  Barry Tylee
Institution:(1) LGC, Queens Road, Teddington, Middlesex, TW11 0LY, UK;(2) Nederlands Meetinstituut, Thijsseweg 11, 2629 JA Delft, The Netherlands;(3) Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements, Retiesweg, 2440, Geel, Belgium;(4) Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und –Prüfung, Unter den Eichen 87, 12200 Berlin, Germany;(5) EQUALIS AB, Box 977, 751 09 Uppsala, Sweden;(6) Health and Safety Laboratory, Harpur Hill, Buxton, SK17 9JN, UK
Abstract:The use of proficiency testing schemes (PTS) by laboratories as an integral part of their quality system has been increasing in recent years. Accreditation bodies, regulators and the laboratories’ customers are increasingly using results from PTS in their relationship with laboratories. There are many PTS available in Europe in analytical chemistry; EPTIS indicates over 400.The comparability of these PTS is now a real issue, as many organisers of PTS move into new markets. The COEPT project has systematically demonstrated (in four technical sectors – water, soil, food and occupational hygiene), that there are many similarities between PTS in each sector. For example, nearly all use the z-score as a performance index. One significant difference between many PTS is the value used for the term s in the z-score equation, and this gives a range of evaluations for the same data point. Despite this, the agreement between PTS in the same sector for the evaluation of data is approximately 85%. COEPT has given us a basis for establishing the comparability of PTS and showing us where further harmonisation could occur.Presented at the Eurachem PT Workshop September 2005, Portorož, Slovenia.
Keywords:Proficiency testing  Comparability  Harmonisation
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号