REPORTS OF THE FINNISH ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE 6 Interlaboratory Proficiency Test 8/5 Metals in waste water and sludge Riitta Koivikko, Mirja Leivuori, Teemu Näykki, Timo SaraAho, Keijo Tervonen, Sari Lanteri, Ritva Väisänen and Markku Ilmakunnas Finnish Environment Institute
Metals in waste water and sludge Riitta Koivikko, Mirja Leivuori, Teemu Näykki, Timo SaraAho, Keijo Tervonen, Sari Lanteri, Ritva Väisänen and Markku Ilmakunnas
CONTENTS Introduction... Organizing the proficiency test.... Responsibilities.... s... 5. Samples and delivery... 5. Homogeneity and stability studies... 6.5 Feedback from the proficiency test... 6.6 Processing the data... 6.6. Pretesting the data... 6.6. Assigned values... 7.6. Standard deviation for proficiency assessment and... 8 Results and conclusions... 8. Results... 8. Analytical methods.... Uncertainties of the results... 6 Evaluation of the results... 7 5 Summary... 9 6 Summary in Finnish... References... APPENDIX : s in the proficiency test... APPENDIX : Preparation of the samples... APPENDIX : Homogeneity of the samples... 5 APPENDIX : Feedback from the proficiency test... 6 APPENDIX 5 : Evaluation of the assigned values and their uncertainties... 7 APPENDIX 6 : Terms in the results tables... APPENDIX 7 : Results of each participant... APPENDIX 8 : Summary of the s... 59 APPENDIX 9 : s in ascending order... 6 APPENDIX : Results grouped according to the methods... 9 APPENDIX : Significant differences in the results reported using different methods... APPENDIX : Estimation of the measurement uncertainties and examples of the reported values... 5 DOCUMENTATION PAGE... KUVAILULEHTI... PRESENTATIONSBLAD... 5 Proftest SYKE MET 8/5
Introduction Proftest SYKE carried out the proficiency test (PT) for analysis of elements in waste waters and sludge in October 5 (MET 8/5). The measurements were: Al, As, B, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Hg, Mn, Mo, Ni, Pb, Sb, Se, V, and Zn. Additional measurands for sludge were: Sn, N tot, P tot, S tot, and dry weight. Four sample types were: synthetic, municipal and industrial effluents as well as sludge sample. In total laboratories participated in the PT. In the PT the results of Finnish laboratories providing environmental data for Finnish environmental authorities were evaluated. Additionally, other water and environmental laboratories were welcomed to participate in the proficiency test. Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE) is appointed National Reference Laboratory in the environmental sector in Finland. The duties of the reference laboratory include providing interlaboratory proficiency tests and other comparisons for analytical laboratories and other producers of environmental information. This proficiency test has been carried out under the scope of the SYKE reference laboratory and it provides an external quality evaluation between laboratory results and mutual comparability of analytical reliability. The proficiency test was carried out in accordance with the international guidelines ISO/IEC 7 [], ISO 58 [] and IUPAC Technical report []. The Proftest SYKE has been accredited by the Finnish Accreditation Service as a proficiency testing provider (PT, ISO/IEC 7, www.finas.fi/scope/pt/uk). The organizing of this proficiency test is included in the accreditation scope. The warmest thanks to all the participants of this proficiency test. Organizing the proficiency test. Responsibilities Organizer Proftest SYKE, Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE), Laboratory Centre Hakuninmaantie 6, FI Helsinki, Finland Phone: +58 95 5, Fax. +58 9 8 The responsibilities in organizing the proficiency test Riitta Koivikko coordinator Mirja Leivuori substitute for coordinator Keijo Tervonen technical assistance Markku Ilmakunnas technical assistance Sari Lanteri technical assistance Ritva Väisänen technical assistance Timo SaraAho analytical expert (metals, nutrients and dry weight, IDICPMS) Teemu Näykki analytical expert (Hg, IDICPMS) Proftest SYKE MET 8/5
Subcontracting The sludge sample was homogenized and divided into subsamples at the laboratory of Water Protection Association of the Kokemäenjoki River in Tampere (KVVY, Finland, accredited testing laboratory T6 by the Finnish Accreditation Service, www.finas.fi/scope/t6/uk). Further, the homogeneity tests for Hg and N tot in the sludge sample were conducted by KVVY.. s In total laboratories participated in this proficiency test (Appendix ), participants from Finland, from Denmark and one participant from Kyrgyzstan. Altogether 65 % of the participants used accredited analytical methods at least for a part of the measurements. About 75 % of the Finnish participating laboratories provide data for use of the Finnish environmental authorities. For this proficiency test, the organizer has the codes (SYKE, Helsinki, T, www.finas.fi/scope/t/uk) and 8 (KVVY, testing of Hg and N tot in sludge sample) in the result tables.. Samples and delivery Four types of samples were delivered to the participants: synthetic, municipal waste water, industrial waste water, and sludge samples. The synthetic sample AM was prepared from the NIST traceable commercial reference material produced by Inorganic Ventures. The synthetic sample AHg was prepared by diluting from the NIST traceable AccuTrace TM Reference Standard produced by AccuStandard, Inc. The sample preparation is described in details in the Appendix. The synthetic sample AM was acidified with nitric acid and the synthetic mercury sample AHg with the hydrochloric acid. The samples VM and VHg were municipal waste water with additions of single element standard solutions (AccuStandard for Hg and Merck CertiPUR for other elements, Appendix ). The industrial waste water samples TM (after analysis: TN no digestion / TY digestion with acid or with acid mixture) and THg for Hg measurements were prepared with additions of single element standard solutions (AccuStandard for Hg and Merck CertiPUR for other elements, Appendix ). The tested sludge sample LM (after analysis: LM / LC oxygen combustion (only Hg) / LN digestion with HNO / LO digestion with HNO + HCl) was from sewage treatment plant from southern Finland. In general, no addition of metals was needed with exception for Sb, Se, and Sn (Appendix ). The addition was done with the Merck CertiPUR solution of metals. After homogenization the wet sludge was dried, homogenized and divided into subsamples using a vibrating feeder distributor. When preparing the samples, the purity of the used sample vessels was controlled. The randomly chosen sample vessels were filled with deionized water and the purity of the sample vessels was controlled after days by analyzing Cd, Cu, Hg, and Zn. According to the test results all used vessels fulfilled the purity requirements. Proftest SYKE MET 8/5 5
The samples were delivered on October 5 to the international participants and October 5 to the national participants. The samples arrived to the participants mainly on October 5. s, and received the samples on 6 October 5 and due to harsh delivery problems participants 8 received the samples on October 5. The samples were requested to be measured as follows: Mercury (AHg, VHg and THg) latest on October 5 The other samples latest on November 5 The results were requested to be reported latest on November 5 and all participants delivered accordingly. The preliminary results were delivered to the participants via email on 9 November 5. Due to corrections within the participant results affecting to the proficiency assessment, the corrected preliminary results were delivered on November 5.. Homogeneity and stability studies The homogeneity of the samples was tested by analyzing Cd, Cu, Hg, Mn, Pb, and Zn. More detailed information of homogeneity studies is shown in Appendix. According to the homogeneity test results, all samples were considered homogenous. The synthetic samples were traceable certified reference materials. However, homogeneity of these was checked by parallel measurements of three samples and they were considered homogenous. Based on the earlier similar proficiency tests the water samples are known to be stable over the given time period for the test. The stability of the sludge sample was studied by analyzing Cd, Cu, Hg, Mn, and Zn. The difference of the results from the homogeneity study and the result of the organizing laboratory (SYKE and KVVY) during the test were compared to the criterion. s pt taking into account the total measurement uncertainties. The criterion was fulfilled in each case, thus the sludge sample was considered stable..5 Feedback from the proficiency test The feedback from the proficiency test is shown in Appendix. The comments from the participants mainly dealt with their reporting errors with the samples. The comments from the provider are mainly focused to the lacking conversancy to the given information with the samples. Proftest SYKE is currently updating the results processing program and simultaneously the electronic interface will be improved. All the feedback is valuable and is exploited when improving the activities..6 Processing the data.6. Pretesting the data The normality of the data was tested by the KolmogorovSmirnov test. The outliers were rejected according to the Grubbs or Hampel test before calculating the mean. The results which differed more than 5 % or 5 times from the robust mean were rejected before the statistical 6 Proftest SYKE MET 8/5
robust results handling. The replicate results were tested using the Cochrantest. If the result has been reported as below detection limit, it has not been included in the statistical calculations. More information about the statistical handling of the data is available from the Guide for participant []..6. Assigned values For the synthetic sample AM the NIST traceable calculated concentrations were used as the assigned value, with the exception of Pb, where the used results were based on the metrologically traceable isotope dilution (ID) ICPMS technique. For Mo the robust mean was used as assigned value for the synthetic sample, as the result data did not support the usage of the calculated value. For Hg samples (AHg, THg, VHg) as well as for other samples for Pb (TN, VM) the assigned values based on IDICPMS results were used. The IDICPMS method is accredited for soluble lead in synthetic and natural waters and for soluble mercury in synthetic, natural and waste water in the scope of calibration laboratory (K5; www.finas.fi/scope/k5/uk). For the other samples and measurements the robust mean or mean value was used as the assigned value. If the number of results were low (n<), basically the mean value was reported as the assigned value (LN, LO, TY, TN: all but Cu, Fe, Mo, Zn). The robust mean or mean is not metrologically traceable assigned value. As it was not possible to have metrologically traceable assigned values, the robust means or means of the results were the best available values to be used as the assigned values. The reliability of the assigned value was statistically tested according to the IUPAC Technical report []. If the number of reported results was very low (n 6, LC:Hg; LN: Hg, Sb, Sn; LO:B, Cd, Co, Mo, Ni, V) or the deviation of the results was high (LN:As, Fe; TY:B), the assigned value and the total standard deviation were not estimated. For the calculated assigned values the expanded measurement uncertainty (k=) was estimated using standard uncertainties associated with individual operations involved in the preparation of the sample. The main individual source of the uncertainty was the uncertainty of the concentration in the stock solution. For the metrologically traceable mercury and lead results, the uncertainty is the expanded measurement uncertainty of the IDICPMS method. When using robust mean or mean as assigned value, the uncertainty of the assigned value was calculated using the robust standard deviation or standard deviation of the reported results [, ]. The uncertainty of the calculated and metrologically traceable assigned values for metals in the synthetic samples varied between.5 and 6 %. When using the robust mean or mean of the participant results as the assigned value, the uncertainties of the assigned values were between.7 and 9 % (Appendix 5). The assigned values have not been changed after reporting the preliminary results. Proftest SYKE MET 8/5 7
.6. Standard deviation for proficiency assessment and The target value for the standard deviation for proficiency assessment was estimated on the basis of the measurand concentration, the results of homogeneity and stability tests, the uncertainty of the assigned value, and the longterm variation in the former proficiency tests. The target value for the standard deviation for proficiency assessment ( s pt ) was set from 5 % to % depending on the measurements. The standard deviations of the proficiency assessment values have not been changed after reporting the preliminary results. When using the robust mean as the assigned value, the reliability was tested according to the criterion u pt / s pt., where u pt is the standard uncertainty of the assigned value (the expanded uncertainty of the assigned value (U pt ) divided by ) and s pt is the standard deviation for proficiency assessment []. When testing the reliability of the assigned value the criterion was mainly fulfilled and the assigned values were considered reliable. The reliability of the target value of the standard deviation and the corresponding was estimated by comparing the deviation for proficiency assessment (s pt ) with the robust standard deviation of the reported results (s rob ) []. The criterion s rob / s pt <. was mainly fulfilled. In the following cases, the criterion for the reliability of the assigned value and/or for the reliability of the target value for the deviation was not met and, therefore, the evaluation of the performance is weakened in this proficiency test: Sample Measurand LM N LN Co, Mo, LO As, Hg, Pb,, Zn, TN B,, Zn TY Mo, Se VM Al,, B, Mo Results and conclusions. Results The results and the performance of each participant are presented in Appendix 7 and the summary of the results in Table. The results of the replicate determinations are presented in Table. The summary of the s is shown in Appendix 8 and s in the ascending order in Appendix 9. The reported results grouped by the used analytical methods with their expanded uncertainties (k=) are presented in Appendix. The robust standard deviations of the results varied from. % to 7.5 % (Table ). The robust standard deviation of results was lower than % for 77 % of the results. Standard deviations higher than % apply mainly to the sludge sample (LN). For the waste water samples the robust standard deviations of the results varied from. % to.6 % and for the sludge sample the variation was from. % to 7.5 % (Table ). The robust standard deviations for waste water samples were approximately in the same range as in the previous similar proficiency test 8 Proftest SYKE MET 8/5
Proftest SYKE 8/ [5], where the deviations varied from 5. % to.%. For the sludge sample the robust standard deviations were somewhat lower than in the previous similar proficiency test Proftest SYKE / [6], where the deviations varied from. % to 6. %. Table. The summary of the results in the proficiency test MET 8/5. Analyte Sample Unit Assigned value Mean Rob. mean Median SD rob SD rob % spt % n (all) Acc z % Al AM 5 8 8 8 9 5.5 7 88 LN g/kg 5.7 5.7 5. 5.9.7 6.8 9 LO g/kg 6.5 6.5 6.6 7 86 TN 6 6 65 6. 9 TY 66 66 68 67 8. 9 VM 9.7 9. 9.7 9.8..6 6 8 As AM 5...5.5.5.5 5 7 9 LN mg/kg 5. 5..9.6. 8 LO mg/kg.7.7 5. 6 TN 9. 9. 9. 9..9. 5 TY 96.5 96.5 96.5 97. 8.5 8.8 5 9 VM 7.6 7.79 7.6 7.56.9.9 5 6 88 B AM 5..7..7 5.. 77 LN mg/kg...6.5. 8. 9 88 LO mg/kg.9. 5 TN 6 6 6 59. 5 9 89 TY 9 68.5 8 VM 5. 5.9 5. 5. 5.7. 9 Cd AM 5.5 5.6 5.67 5.5.9 8.6 8 9 LN mg/kg.68.68.68.667.9.8 8 88 LO mg/kg.78.78 6 TN 9.9 9.9 9.9.. 7. 5 9 TY.8.8.8.6. 6. 5 VM..6... 7.5 5 7 88 Co AM 5..6.6.6.7. 5 6 88 LN mg/kg 5. 5. 5. 5.5.89 6.5 5 8 LO mg/kg 6.5 6.5 6 TN....7. 7.5 5 TY.6.6... 5. 5 8 VM 6.79 6.8 6.79 6.75.7 6.9 5 86 Cr AM. 9. 9.5 9.8. 5. 8 8 LN mg/kg.5.5.5 9.9..7 5 8 LO mg/kg... 6 TN 66 66 66 6 9 5. TY 7 7 69 7 9 5. 9 VM 7.75 7.69 7.75 7.68.5 6.7 5 6 88 Cu AM 5..7.7.6.6. 8 78 LN mg/kg 7. 9 LO mg/kg 5 6 TN 8.8 8. 8.8 8.5 5. 6. 5 85 TY 86.9 86.9 86.6 85. 6. 6.9 5 9 VM 8.5 8. 8.5 8..79 9. 8 8 Drw LM % 87.5 87. 87.5 87..9. 5 Proftest SYKE MET 8/5 9
Table. The summary of the results in the proficiency test MET 8/5. Analyte Sample Unit Assigned value Mean Rob. mean Median SD rob SD rob % spt % n (all) Acc z % Fe AM 55 5 5 5 7 5. 85 LN g/kg 6 5.8 8 LO g/kg 6 6 7 86 TN 9 79 7. 5 TY 58 58 5 5 9 7.8 5 9 VM 7 8 7 7 79 5.7 5 8 9 Hg AHg.56.5.56.58.7.8 85 LC mg/kg.668.668 LN mg/kg.78.79 5 LO mg/kg.765.765.78 6 THg.95.9.95.9.6 8.8 85 VHg..7.9..9. 5 8 Mn AM 85. 8.9 85. 85. 5. 6. 7 88 LN mg/kg 56 5. 5 9 78 LN mg/kg 56 5. 5 9 78 LO mg/kg 66 66 6 5 6 TN 7 5.9 TY 5 5 5 5 5 5.8 9 VM 7 7 7 7 6.8 5 6 88 Mo AM..5..7..8 6 88 LN mg/kg.98.98.99 5..87 7.5 5 9 89 LO mg/kg 5.56 5.56 6..6.6 7 TN 6 6 6 5 9.9 TY 5 5 6 9 8. 5 8 88 VM.7.7.7..8 8. 5 N LM g/kg.6.6.6..9 9. 5 9 89 Ni AM 5...8.8. 5. 8 89 LN mg/kg.8.8.8.. 5.6 8 LO mg/kg.7.8 6 TN 77.9 77.9 77.9 77.5.7 6. 5 8 TY 8. 8. 8.7 8.8 5.7 6.7 5 9 VM 8. 7.9 8. 8.8.66 8. 6 88 P LM g/kg 6. 6. 6. 5.7.7.6 5 5 8 Pb AM 9.6 9.8 9.7 9..6 5.5 8 89 LN mg/kg 9. 9. 9. 9.8..5 5 8 LO mg/kg 9.6 9.6 8.7 6 8 TN 5.6..5.5.7 8. 5 67 TY.8.8.8... VM.85.7.76.75. 7.9 5 7 88 S LM g/kg.8.8.8.7. 9. 5 8 Sb AM 5.....6.6 LN mg/kg 7. 5. 5 LO mg/kg 6.7 6.7 6.7 65.. 6.9 8 TN 9. 9. 9. 9.6 7. 7.9 TY 9.6 9.6 89.8 9.6 8. 9. 8 88 VM 5.8 5. 5.8 5..8 7. 5 9 Proftest SYKE MET 8/5
Table. The summary of the results in the proficiency test MET 8/5. Analyte Sample Unit Assigned value Mean Rob. mean Median SD rob SD rob % spt % n (all) Acc z % Se AM 5..8.9.9.5. LN mg/kg 8.6 8.6 8.6 85..6.6 5 8 LO mg/kg 9. 9. 9. 5 6 TN.5.5.5.. 8. 5 TY 6. 6. 6. 6.6.5.6 8 VM 5.9 5.9 5. 5.9.. 5 85 Sn LN mg/kg 9.5.9 LO mg/kg 89. 89. 89. 9.7 6.5 7. 5 8 88 V AM 6. 6. 6. 6...7 LN mg/kg....6. 7. 5 8 LO mg/kg 5.6 5.8 6 TN 89. 89. 88. 89.5 5. 6. 5 9 89 TY 86.8 86.8 87. 87.7..8 5 8 88 VM 9.7 9.9 9.7 9.55.76 7.8 85 Zn AM 75. 7.9 7.8 7..7 5. 9 LN mg/kg 6 6 6 69 5 5.6 5 8 LO mg/kg 598 598 598 596 75.6 5 7 86 TN 8. 5 86 TY 8 6.5 5 8 VM....9.7 8. 9 95 Rob. mean: the robust mean, SD rob: the robust standard deviation, SD rob %: the robust standard deviation as percent, s pt %: the total standard deviation for proficiency assessment at the 95 % confidence interval, Acc z %: the results (%), where ïzï, n(all): the total number of the participants. In this PT the participants were requested to report duplicate results for all measurements. The participants reported the replicates with the exception of the participant. The results of the replicate determinations based on the ANOVA statistical handling are presented in Table. The estimation of the robustness of the methods could be done by the ratio s b /s w, which should not be exceeded for robust methods. However, in many cases the robustness exceeded the value ; varied between. and (Table ). Proftest SYKE MET 8/5
Table. The summary of repeatability on the basis of duplicate determinations (ANOVA) statistics. Analyte Sample Unit Assigned value Mean sw sb st sw% sb% st% sb/sw Al AM 5 8 9.9 5. 7.9.7.5 5..6 LN g/kg 5.7 5.7...6. 8. 8..6 LO g/kg 6.5 6.5..7.75.6 5.7 5.8 9. TN 6 6 6.67 5.5 6.. 5.5 5.6 5. TY 66 66.58 8.7 8.9.67 8 VM 9.7 9..7 5.6 5.7.9 7 7 9. As AM 5....559.7 7..9 8..5 LN mg/kg 5..5..7 7.9 7 8. LO mg/kg.7.7.6.76.77.77 6 6 TN 9. 9...5.69..7..6 TY 96.5 96.5.97 7.7 7.76. 7. 8.. VM 7.6 7.79.56.5.6 7. 7 8. B AM 5..7.9 6.8 6.9.8 6 6 5.7 LN mg/kg...96.5.5..7 LO mg/kg.9.787 5. 5.8 5.7 8 8 6.6 TN 6 6.8 6. 6..87 TY 5. 59. 59.7.7 9 9 VM 5. 5.9.69 7. 7.7. 5 5 Cd AM 5.5 5.6.9.6.5. 8. 8.8. LN mg/kg.68.68.89.88.8.8. LO mg/kg.78.5...6 6 6 9.7 TN 9.9 9.9.5..7. 6. 6. 5. TY.8.8.9.7.. 5.6 5.8. VM..6.766...9 7.7 7.9. Co AM 5..6.7.79.7..8 5.. LN mg/kg 5. 5..57.787.789.97 5 5 5 LO mg/kg 6.5..57.89....9 TN...666.9..6 7. 7.. TY.6.6.76..9.8 5.8 VM 6.79 6.8.9.567.577.6 8. 8.5 5. Cr AM. 9..65.99...7 5.. LN mg/kg.5.5.8.68.7. 9. LO mg/kg...89..6. 9. TN 66 66.9 8.7 8.8.78 5. 5. 6.8 TY 7 7.8..5. 7. 7.5 5. VM 7.75 7.69..667.697.6 8.5 8.9. Cu AM 5..7.7.69.69.8..7. LN mg/kg.9 6. 6.7.9 6. 6. 6.7 LO mg/kg.7.5.7.7 8. 8. TN 8.8 8..8 7.8 7..5 8. 8. 5.5 TY 86.9 86.9.5 5.85 5.99. 6.7 6.9.7 VM 8.5 8..79..8. 5. Drw LM % 87.5 87..7..5.5... Proftest SYKE MET 8/5
Table. The summary of repeatability on the basis of duplicate determinations (ANOVA) statistics. Analyte Sample Unit Assigned value Mean sw sb st sw% sb% st% sb/sw Fe AM 55 5 9.79..7.8 5.9 6.. LN g/kg..8.. 9. LO g/kg 6 6.887 6.8 6..7.8.9 6.8 TN.8 7. 7.. 6.5 6.6 6. TY 58 58.8 9. 9.. 8. 8. 6. VM 7 8.5 9.8 95.8. 6.6 6.9. Hg AHg.56.5.6.7.7. LN mg/kg.78.7.85.879.6. LO mg/kg.765.765.5.7.5 5.7 5.5 THg.95.9.88.9.. 5 5 VHg..7.7.8.9. 5 5 Mn AM 85. 8.9.6 6. 6..8 7. 7. 8 LN mg/kg.7 58. 58.. 6 6 6 LO mg/kg 66 66.89.9..79 8. 8.5 LO mg/kg 66 66.89.9..79 8. 8.5 TN.8.6.8.9 5. 5. 5.5 TY 5 5. 9.8.. 7.7 7.8 5.8 VM 7 7.8... 7.7 7.8 5.8 Mo AM..5.7...7 5. 5.. LN mg/kg.98.98.888.78.786.8 6 6 8.8 LO mg/kg 5.56.8...5 TN 6 6.7 7. 85..8..7.8 TY 5 5 7.6 88 9. 8. 8. 6.8 VM.7.7.7.5.59. 7. 7.. N LM g/kg.6.6.59.57.59. 7.9 8. 7. Ni AM 5...57.5.58. 5.7 5.9. LN mg/kg.8.8.8.85.86.6 8.7 LO mg/kg.7.7.76.77.95 7 7 8 TN 77.9 77.9.8.9.97. 6. 6. 6. TY 8. 8.. 5.6 5.6. 6. 6. 5. VM 8. 7.9.5.9... P LM g/kg 6. 6..7..5..9.. Pb AM 9.6 9.8.9.6.66. 5. 5.6.8 LN mg/kg 9. 9..69..9.. LO mg/kg 9.6 9.6.65.6.6. 7.6 TN 5.6..89.6.6.5 8. 8. 5. TY.8.8.755.95.. 8.7 9..9 VM.85.7.55..6 8.6 6.66 S LM g/kg.8.8..887.98.6 7.5 8.. Sb AM 5....5.8.. 5..5 LN mg/kg 7..6.9.9 5.9 87 87 5 LO mg/kg 6.7 6.7.76 9.9 9.. 5 5 TN 9. 9.. 6.7 6.5. 6.9 7..9 TY 9.6 9.6.68.7.8.9 6. VM 5.8 5..5.87.6.8 7. 8.8.5 Proftest SYKE MET 8/5
Table. The summary of repeatability on the basis of duplicate determinations (ANOVA) statistics. Analyte Sample Unit Assigned value Mean sw sb st sw% sb% st% sb/sw Se AM 5..8.78..5..8..8 LN mg/kg 8.6 8.6.8 9.8 9..6. LO mg/kg 9. 9.. 9.6 9.6.5 6.8 TN.5.5..5.9.7 6. 7.8. TY 6. 6..... 9. VM 5.9 5.9.98.8. 7..89 7.. Sn LN mg/kg 9.5.8.. 5 6 7. LO mg/kg 89. 89..9 5.65 5.7. 6. 6. 6. V AM 6. 6..585.97.6.9... LN mg/kg...7..5.99 6. 6.5 6.5 LO mg/kg 5.6.66.9.9.75 5 TN 89. 89..6 6.7 6.9.9 7.7 7.9. TY 86.8 86.8.9.7.5.6. 5..6 VM 9.7 9.9.88.98.6.9.5 Zn AM 75. 7.9.7.89.5. 5. 5.7. LN mg/kg 6 6 5.7..7.9.9 5. 5. LO mg/kg 598 598 5.9 66. 66.6.87 TN.8 8.89 9.7.5 7. 7..9 TY.78 7. 7.55. 5.6 5.8. VM...8.59.7.5 7.8 8.. Ass.val.: assigned value; s w : repeatability standard error; s b : between participants standard error; s t : reproducibility standard error.. Analytical methods The participants were allowed to use different analytical methods for the measurements in the PT. The used analytical methods and results of the participants grouped by methods are shown in more detail in Appendix. The statistical comparison of the analytical methods was possible for the data where the number of the results was 5. Effect of sample pretreatment on elemental concentrations in waste waters Elements in waste water were mainly measured from acidified samples without sample pretreatment with the exception of the industrial waste water sample (TN/TY). In average, 55 % of the participants measured the acidified industrial waste water without sample pretreatment (TN), and the other participants measured the industrial waste water after acid digestion (TY). The results of these samples were evaluated separately. The difference between the average concentrations of elements measured by different sample pretreatment methods was tested using the ttest. Statistically significant difference was observed for B, Ni and Zn analyses. In each case, no pretreatment approach gave significantly lower results compared to the pretreatment with acid digestion (Appendix ). For an unfiltered waste water sample the results are expected, acid digestion should give similar or higher results than without digestion. Proftest SYKE MET 8/5
Effect of sample pretreatment on elemental concentrations in sludge sample Elements in the sludge sample were measured mainly after acid digestion (LN/LO). In average, 55 % of the participants measured the sludge sample after nitric acid digestion (LN), and the other participants measured the sample after aqua regia digestion (LO). The results of these were evaluated separately. Both treatments can be considered as partial digestions only. For total element content other acid mixtures including hydrofluoric acid must be used. The difference between the average concentrations of elements measured by different acid digestion was tested using the ttest. Statistically significant difference was observed for Al and Sb analyses. In both cases, nitric acid digestion gave significantly lower results compared to the aqua regia digestion approach (Appendix ). The high standard deviation for Sb indicates that digestion with nitric acid alone is not suitable for antimony. The digestion method in general can highly influence the recoveries depending on digestion temperature and hold times as can the sample weight and acid amount ratio. Effect of measurement methods on elemental results The most commonly used analytical method was ICPMS, followed by ICPOES. FAAS technique was used by three participants and two participants used GAAS for some measurements. Hydride generation ICPOES and AAS techniques were both used by one participant and photometric analysis was used by one participant (Appendix ). The difference between the average concentrations of metals measured by different measurement methods was tested using the ttest. Statistically significant differences were observed for B analysis of both the synthetic sample AM as well as the municipal waste water sample VM. In both cases ICPOES technique gave lower results compared to the ICPMS result (Appendix ) Further, statistically significant difference was also found from Pb analysis of the synthetic sample. There ICPMS gave smaller results than ICPOES technique. ICPMS is in most cases the technique of preference due to its superior detection capabilities compared to other techniques when low concentrations are to be measured. In all the above described cases the standard deviation of ICPMS results is lower than those of ICPOES, but the number of results for each technique differs, which may skew the results. As a general note, a low recovery may be an indication of loss of analyte which can occur during sample pretreatment (e.g. volatilization during acid digestion) or measurement (e.g. GAAS analysis). It may also be caused by incorrect background correction (ICPOES) or matrix effects. Recoveries that are too high may be caused by spectral interferences (overlapping wavelengths in emission spectrometry, polyatomic or isobaric interferences in mass spectrometry), matrix effects or contamination. Matrix effects can often be overcome by matrix matching the calibration standards, however this is often difficult with environmental samples since the elemental concentrations vary a lot even within the same sample type. Proftest SYKE MET 8/5 5
Effect of measurement methods on mercury results For the analysis of mercury, ICPMS was the most often used method of analysis. That was followed by CVAFS and CVAAS and the used oxidants in mercury analyses for water or sludge samples were reported to be: KMnO /K S O 8, KBr/KBrO and KMnO solutions. One participant reported to measure mercury with CVICPMS technique. Also ICPOES method was used by some participants for Hg analyses of the sludge sample. For the sludge sample, aqua regia digestion (LO) was most commonly used, followed by nitric acid digestion (LN). One participant analysed mercury from the sludge sample with direct oxygen combustion (LC). No significant differences between the used measuring or digestion methods were found. As for the other metal determinations, also mercury results are affected by digestion procedures used (acids and oxidation reagents used, their concentration, amounts and purities, digestion temperature and time). For water samples hydrochloric acid is recommended to be used for sample preservation and BrCl is recommended to be used for oxidation of mercury species. Analytical techniques does not have so much effect on the results, but the fact is that for example using CVAFS lower detection limits can be achieved compared to CVAAS. CVICPMS technique is known to have very competent detection limits as well.. Uncertainties of the results Totally 78 % of the participants reported the expanded uncertainties (k=) with their results for at least some of their results (Table, Appendix ). The range of the reported uncertainties varied between the measurements and the sample types. As can be seen in Table, many of the participants have clearly under or overestimated their expanded (k=) measurement uncertainty. Expanded measurement uncertainty below 5% is not common for routine laboratories. Also measurement uncertainty over 5% should not exist, unless the measured concentration is near to the limit of quantification. In order to promote the enhancement of environmental measurements quality standards and traceability, the national quality recommendations for data entered into water quality registers have been published in Finland [7]. The recommendations for measurement uncertainties for most of the tested analytes in waste water are %. In this proficiency test some of the participants had their measurement uncertainties within these limits, while some did not achieve them. Harmonization of the uncertainties estimation should be continued. Several approaches were used for estimating of measurement uncertainty (Appendix ). The most used approach was based on the data obtained from method validation (Method 8), followed by the approach based on the internal quality data with sample replicates (Methods and ). Eight participants used MUkit measurement uncertainty software for the estimation of their uncertainties. The free software is available on the webpage: www.syke.fi/envical/en. Generally, the used approach for estimating measurement uncertainty did not make definite impact on the uncertainty estimates. 6 Proftest SYKE MET 8/5
Table. The range of the expanded measurement uncertainties (k=, U%) reported by the participants. Analyte AM / AHg % LC / LN / LO / LM % VM / VHg % TN / THg % TY % Al 59 7 8 59 As 55 5 75 B 5 55 Cd 5 55 5 5 7 Co 5 7 6 Cr 6 86 56 Cu 5 7 Drw 5 Fe 5 5 65 5 Hg 75 Mn 6 7 8 Mo 8 55 8 95 66 N Ni 85 6 8 P Pb 6 5 5 S Sb 98 7 6 95 8 Se 8 8 5 59 Sn 5 V 8 5 87 Zn 9 95 9 Evaluation of the results The evaluation of the participants was based on the s, which were calculated using the assigned values and the target values of the standard deviation for the proficiency assessment (Appendix 6). The s were interpreted as follows: Criteria Performance z Satisfactory < z < Questionable z ³ Unsatisfactory In total, 9 % of the results were satisfactory when total deviation of 5 % from the assigned values were accepted. Altogether 65 % of the participants used accredited analytical methods at least for a part of the measurements and 9 % of their results were satisfactory. The summary of the performance evaluation and comparison to the previous performance is presented in Table. In the previous similar PT, Proftest SYKE 8/ [5], the performance was satisfactory for 86 % of the all participants. Proftest SYKE MET 8/5 7
Table. Summary of the performance evaluation in the proficiency test MET 8/5. Sample Satisfactory results (%) Accepted deviation from the assigned value (%) Remarks AM / AHg 89 / 85 Difficulties in measurements for B and Cu, < 8% satisfactory results. In the MET 8/ the performance was satisfactory for 8/85 % of the results [5]. LM 88 55 Somewhat approximate performance evaluation for N LN / LO 96 / 9 5 Only approximate assessment for: Hg High uncertainty of the assigned value: As, Co, Hg, Pb, Mo and Zn Due to low number of results, LC:Hg; LN: Hg, Sb, Sn and LO:B, Cd, Co, Mo, Ni, V were not evaluated Due to high deviation of the results LN:As and LN:Fe were not evaluated. In the PT / the performance was satisfactory for 8 / 97 % of the results [6]. TN / THg 9 / 85 Difficulties in measurements for Pb, < 8% satisfactory results. Somewhat approximate performance evaluation for B, Zn In the MET 8/ the performance was satisfactory for 86/89 % of the results [5]. TY 9 Somewhat approximate performance evaluation for Mo, Se Due to high deviation of the results TY:B was not evaluated. In the MET 8/ the performance was satisfactory for 8 % of the results [5]. VM / VHg 89 / 8 55 Somewhat approximate performance evaluation for Al, B, Mo In the MET 8/ the performance was satisfactory for 9 % of the results [5]. In average, the satisfactory results varied between 8 % and 96 % for the tested sample types (Table ). The number of satisfactory results in the synthetic sample AM was the lowest for B and Cu, 77 and 78 %, respectively. However, in general the performance was better compared to the previous similar proficiency test in, when 8 % of AM results were satisfactory [5]. For many parameters/measurands the sludge sample turned out to be challenging and the number of participants analysing the sample was low. The evaluation of the sludge sample LM of some elements is only approximate due to weakness of the reliability of the assigned value, the target value for total deviation and the reliability of the corresponding (Table ). For the sludge sample, standard deviations of 5 % from the assigned value were accepted. Of the results obtained after nitric acid digestion (LN), 96 % of the results were satisfactory when the standard deviation of 5 % from the assigned value was accepted. Further, 9 % of the results obtained after aqua regia digestion (LO), were satisfactory when the standard deviation of 5 % from the assigned value was accepted. In the previous proficiency test for sludge sample, Proftest SYKE /, 8 % of results were satisfactory after nitric acid digestion (LN5), when the deviation of 5 5 % from the assigned value was accepted [6]. There, for the sludge sample after aqua regia digestion (LO5), 97 % of the results were satisfactory and the standard deviation of 5 % from the assigned value was accepted [6]. For dry weight of the sludge sample LM, all the results were satisfactory when the accepted standard deviation from the assigned value was 5 %. For N tot, P tot and S tot from the 8 Proftest SYKE MET 8/5
sample LM the accepted standard deviation from the assigned value was 5 % and 89, 8 and 8 % of the results were satisfactory, respectively. The four latter measurands were not analysed from the sludge sample within the previous proficiency test [6]. For the industrial waste water sample (TN/TY and THg) 9 % of the results were satisfactory, when deviations of % from the assigned value were accepted. For As, Co, Cr, Fe, Mn, Mo, Sb, and Se in the sample TN and for Cd, Pb, and Se in the sample TY all the results were satisfactory. For the municipal waste water sample VM all results for Mo were satisfactory. For Hg in the waste water THg the number of satisfactory results (85 %) was in the same level than in, when 89 % of results were satisfactory with the same accepted deviation ( %) from the assigned value [5]. 5 Summary Proftest SYKE carried out the proficiency test (PT) for analysis of elements in waste waters and sludge in October 5 (MET 8/5). The measurements were: Al, As, B, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Hg, Mn, Mo, Ni, Pb, Sb, Se, V, and Zn. Four sample types were: synthetic, municipal and industrial effluents as well as sludge sample. Additional measurands for sludge sample were Sn, N tot, P tot, S tot and dry weight. In total laboratories participated in the PT. For the synthetic sample AM the NIST traceable calculated concentrations were used as the assigned values with exception of Pb, where the used results were based on the metrologically traceable isotope dilution technique (IDICPMS). For Hg samples as well as for other Pb samples (AHg, THg, VHg, TN, VM, respectively) the assigned values based on IDICPMS results were used. For other samples and measurements the robust mean or mean value was used as the assigned value. The theoretical concentration, the robust mean or the mean of the results reported by the participants was chosen to be the assigned value for the measurand, with the exception of Pb and Hg where the used assigned values were based on the metrologically traceable isotope dilution (ID) ICPMS technique for some samples. The uncertainty for the assigned value was estimated at the 95 % confidence interval and it was between.5 and. % for the calculated and metrologically traceable assigned values and for assigned values based on the robust mean or mean it was between. 7.5 %. The evaluation of the performance was based on the s, which were calculated using the standard deviation for proficiency assessment at 95 % confidence level. In this proficiency test 9 % of the data was regarded to be satisfactory when the result was accepted to deviate from the assigned value 5 to %. About 65 % of the participants used accredited methods and 9 % of their results were satisfactory. Proftest SYKE MET 8/5 9
6 Summary in Finnish Proftest SYKE järjesti jätevesiä ja lietettä analysoiville laboratorioille pätevyyskokeen lokakuussa 5 (MET 8/5). Pätevyyskokeessa määritettiin Al, As, B, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, Hg, Mn, Mo, Ni, Pb, Sb, Se, V ja Zn synteettisestä näytteestä, viemärilaitoksen ja teollisuuden jätevesistä sekä lietteestä. Lisäksi määritettiin Sn, N tot, P tot, S tot ja kuivapaino lietteestä. Pätevyyskokeeseen osallistui yhteensä laboratoriota. Mittaussuureen vertailuarvona käytettiin laskennallista pitoisuutta, osallistujien tulosten robustia keskiarvoa tai keskiarvoa. Lyijylle ja elohopealle käytettiin metrologisesti jäljitettävää tavoitearvoa osassa testinäytteistä. Vertailuarvolle laskettiin mittausepävarmuus 95 % luottamusvälillä. Vertailuarvon laajennettu epävarmuus oli,5, % laskennallista tai metrologisesti jäljitettävää pitoisuutta vertailuarvona käytettäessä ja muilla välillä, 7,5 %. Pätevyyden arviointi tehtiin zarvon avulla ja tulosten sallittiin poiketa vertailuarvosta 5 %. Koko aineistossa hyväksyttäviä tuloksia oli 9 %. Noin 65 % osallistujista käytti akkreditoituja määritysmenetelmiä ja näistä tuloksista oli hyväksyttäviä 9 %. Proftest SYKE MET 8/5
REFERENCES. SFSEN ISO/IEC 7,. Conformity assessment General requirements for Proficiency Testing.. ISO 58, 5. Statistical methods for use in proficiency testing by interlaboratory comparisons.. Thompson, M., Ellison, S. L. R., Wood, R., 6. The International Harmonized Protocol for the Proficiency Testing of Analytical Chemistry laboratories (IUPAC Technical report). Pure Appl. Chem. 78: 596, www.iupac.org.. Proftest SYKE Guide for laboratories: www.syke.fi/proftest/en Running proficiency test www.syke.fi/download/noname/%7bffbf5968965ece96d8c%7d/9886. 5. Leivuori, M., Koivikko, R., SaraAho, T., Näykki, T., Björklöf, K., Tervonen, K., Lanteri, S., Väisänen, R. and Ilmakunnas, M. 5. Interlaboratory Proficiency Test 8/. Metals and mercury in waters. Reports of the Finnish Environment Institute 7/5. Helsinki. http://hdl.handle.net/8/56 6. Leivuori, M., KorhonenYlönen, K., SaraAho, T., Näykki, T., Tervonen, K., Lanteri, S. and Ilmakunnas, M.. Proficiency Test SYKE /. Metals in water and sludge. Reports of Finnish Environment Institute /. Helsinki. http://hdl.handle.net/8/976 7. Näykki, T., Kyröläinen, H., Witick, A., Mäkinen, I. Pehkonen, R., Väisänen, T., Sainio, P. ja Luotola M.. Laatusuositukset ympäristöhallinnon vedenlaaturekistereihin vietävälle tiedolle: Vesistä tehtävien analyyttien määritysrajat, mittausepävarmuudet sekä säilytysajat ja tavat. (Quality recommendations for data entered into the environmental administration s water quality registers: Quantification limits, measurement uncertainties, strorage times and methods associated with analytes determined from waters). Ympäristöhallinnon ohjeita /. (Environmental administration Guidelines /). 5 s. http://hdl.handle.net/8/9. 8. Näykki, T., Virtanen, A. and Leito, I.,. Software support for the Nordtest method of measurement uncertainty evaluation. Accred. Qual. Assur. 7: 66. MUkit website: www.syke.fi/envical. 9. Magnusson, B. Näykki. T., Hovind, H. and Krysell, M.,. Handbook for Calculation of Measurement Uncertainty in Environmental Laboratories. NT Technical Report 57. Nordtest.. Ellison, S., L., R. and Williams, A. (Eds). () Eurachem/CITAC guide: Quantifying Uncertainty in Analytical Measurement, Third edition, ISBN 9789896.. ISO/IEC Guide 98:8. Uncertainty of measurement Part : Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM: 995). Proftest SYKE MET 8/5
APPENDIX (/) APPENDIX : s in the proficiency test Country Denmark Finland Kyrgyz Republik Eurofins Miljø A/S, Vejen, Denmark Force Technology, Holstebro, Denmark Ahma ympäristö Oy, Oulu Boliden Harjavalta Oy Boliden Kokkola Oy Eurofins Scientific Finland Oy Kokkolan yksikkö Eurofins Viljavuuspalvelu, Mikkeli Hortilab Ab Oy KCL Kymen Laboratorio Oy Kokemäenjoen vesistön vesiensuojeluyhdistys ry, Tampere LounaisSuomen vesi ja ympäristötukimus Oy, Turku Metropolilab Oy Nab Labs Oy / Ambiotica Jyväskylä Norilsk Nickel Harjavalta Oy Novalab Oy Outokumpu Stainless Oy, Tutkimuskeskus, Tornio Ramboll Finland Oy, Ramboll Analytics, Lahti SavoKarjalan Ympäristötutkimus Oy, Kuopio SGS Inspection Services Oy, Kotka SSAB Europe Oy, Analyysilaboratorio, Hämeenlinna SYKE Ympäristökemia Helsinki UPM Tutkimuskeskus, Lappeenranta SAEPF, IssykKulNaryn, CholponAta City, Kyrgyz Republic Proftest SYKE MET 8/5
APPENDIX (/) APPENDIX : Preparation of the samples The synthetic sample AM was prepared by diluting from the NIST traceable certified reference material produced by Inorganic Ventures. The synthetic sample AHg was prepared by diluting from the NIST traceable AccuTrace TM Reference Standard produced by AccuStandard, Inc. The water samples VM, TM (TN/TY), VHg and THg were prepared by adding some separate metal solutions (Merck CertiPUR or AccuStandard) into the original water sample, if the original concentration was not high enough. The sludge sample LM (LC/LN/LO) was prepared from the sludge of sewage treatment plant. The addition of single metals was done using Merck CertiPUR solutions ( mg/l) to wet sludge with careful mixing. The spiked sludge was dried, ground, homogenized and divided into subsamples. Al As B Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Mn Mo Analyte Original Dilution Addition Ass. value Original Dilution Addition Ass. value Original Dilution Addition Ass. value Original Dilution Addition Ass. value Original Dilution Addition Ass. value Original Dilution Addition Ass. value Original Dilution Addition Ass. value Original Dilution Addition Ass. value Original Dilution Addition Ass. value Original Dilution Addition Ass. value AM 5 5 5 5. 5 5. 55 5.5 5 5.. 5 5. 55 55 85 85. 55. VM 5 9.7. 7 7.6 5 5....8 6.79.8 7 7.75 6. 8.5 7 79 7..7 TN / TY 6 6 / 66. 9 9. / 96.5 9 6 /.6 9.9 /.8.5. /.6 8 66 / 7 6 6.5 8.8 / 86.9 / 58 6 / 5 5 6 / 5 LN / LO mg/kg 56 57 / 65.5 /.7.7. /.7.68 / 6. 5. /.5 /. / 6968 / / 6 65 / 66.7 / 6..98 / Proftest SYKE MET 8/5
APPENDIX (/) Ntot Ni Ptot Pb Stot Sb Se Sn V Zn Analyte Original Dilution Addition Ass. value Original Dilution Addition Ass. value Original Dilution Addition Ass. value Original Dilution Addition Ass. value Original Dilution Addition Ass. value Original Dilution Addition Ass. value Original Dilution Addition Ass. value Original Dilution Addition Ass. value Original Dilution Addition Ass. value Original Dilution Addition Ass. value AM 5 5. 9.6 5 5. 5 5. 65 6. 75 75. VM 7. 8..8.5.85. 5 5.8.5 5 5.9. 9 9.7. TN / TY 86 77.9 / 8. 5. 5.6 /.8 7. 9 9. / 9.6 6.5.5 / 6. 6. 8 89. / 86.8 / LN / LO mg/kg 6.8 / 6 / 9 6 9 9. / 9.6 6 / 8.6 /.8 8.8 / 6.7. 5 8.6 / 9.. / 8.8 / 89.. / 595 6 / 598 Analyte Hg Original Dilution Addition Ass. value AHg.55.56 VHg.7.7. THg.67 /.765 LN / LO mg/kg <..9.95 Proftest SYKE MET 8/5
APPENDIX (/) APPENDIX : Homogeneity of the samples Homogeneity was tested from duplicate measurements of selected measurement from eight samples of each sample types (see table below). Criteria for homogeneity s a /s h <.5 and s sam <c, where s h = standard deviation for testing of homogeneity s a = analytical deviation, standard deviation of the results within sub samples s sam = betweensample deviation, standard deviation of the results between sub samples c = F s all + F s a, where s all = (. s h ) Measurement/ sample F and F are constants of F distribution derived from the standard statistical tables for the tested number of samples [, ]. Concentration [] [mg/kg] n spt sh % sh sa sa/sh Is sa/sh<.5? Cd/VM. 6 7.5.5... Yes.5.5 Yes Cu/ VM 8.67 6..7.8.5 Yes.5. Yes Mn/ VM 7 6 7.5..7.8.7 Yes.5.7 Yes Zn/ VM 8. 8..76.9.9 Yes.. Yes Cd/TM.8 6 7.5.5..6.9 Yes..6 Yes Cu/ TM 9. 6 7.5.5.5.6.7 Yes.. Yes Mn/ TM 7 6 5..7.. Yes..9 Yes Zn/ TM 6 7.5..8.. Yes.8. Yes Cd/LM.75 6 5.... Yes.. Yes Cu/ LM 9 6. 8.98..9 Yes 5.8 9. Yes Hg/LM.66 5 5 5... Yes..5 Yes Mn/ LM 7 6.5. 7.8.8.8 Yes 9.5. Yes Zn/ LM 659 6 7.5.5 6.5 7.87.8 Yes. 59 Yes Hg/VHg*.88 6.5.5.8..8 Yes.6.8 Yes Hg/THg*.95 6..6..7 Yes.. Yes Pb/VM*.87 6 7.5.5..5.7 Yes..5 Yes Pb/TM* 5. 6 7.5/.5.5.8. Yes.. Yes *) result based on the IDICPMS measurement s pt % = standard deviation for proficiency assessment ssam c Is ssam <c? Conclusion: The criteria were fulfilled for the tested analytes and the samples were regarded as homogenous Proftest SYKE MET 8/5 5
APPENDIX (/) APPENDIX : Feedback from the proficiency test FEEDBACK FROM THE PARTICIPANTS Comments on technical excecution Action / Proftest 5 reported minor leakage of the In future, the provider will be more careful sample THg. when tightening the glass sample bottles. Comments to the results Action / Proftest The reported results for Al, Fe, P and S were in the wrong unit. The provider does not correct the results after delivering the preliminary results. The results were outliers in the statistical treatment. The participant can recalculate the zscores 5 The participant informed that Their Cu results were erroneously reported for Zn for the sample TY, the right values were: TN: Cu 85. and 8. The reported method for TM was incorrect (TY) for Al, As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni, Pb, and Zn. The right method was TN. Sample AM: Zn was not enough for replicate measurements. After delivering the preliminary results, the participant informed difficulties in reporting the results for Cd and Hg and requested the results to be withdrawn. FEEDBACK TO THE PARTICIPANTS,, 5, 6, 7, 9,,,,, 5, 6, 7, 8,,,, according to the guide for participants []. Cu: The results were outliers in the statistical treatment, and thus did not affect the performance evaluation. If the results had been reported correctly, they would have been satisfactory. TM: In statistical treatment, the results were handled as outliers, and thus they did not affect the performance evaluation. If the results had been reported correctly, all but As results would have been satisfactory. The participant can recalculate the zscores according to the guide for participants []. The provider informs the volume of the samples in the information letter. The participant should order extra samples if needed for their method of analysis. The provider withdrew the results the participant requested from the final report. Comments For these participants the deviation of replicate measurements for some measurands and samples was high and those results were Cochran outliers (totally cases). The provider recommends the participants to validate their accepted deviation of replicate measurements. The participant reported only one result in their dataset when replicate results were requested for the PT. These results were not included in the calculation of assigned values. The provider recommends the participants to follow the given guidelines. The participant reported result < for B in samples AM and VM. The assigned values were 5. (AM) and 5. (VM). The provider recommends the participant to validate their detection limits. All In the English result sheet the units for Al and Fe were incorrect. The provider apologizes the error. The participants results were corrected into right unit by the provider. 6 Proftest SYKE MET 8/5
APPENDIX 5 (/) APPENDIX 5: Evaluation of the assigned values and their uncertainties Analyte Sample Unit Assigned value Upt Upt, % Evaluation method of assigned value upt/spt Al AM 5.6 Calculated value.6 LN g/kg 5.7. 5.5 Mean.8 LO g/kg 6.5..7 Mean. TN 6.9 Mean.9 TY 66 6.5 Mean. VM 9.7 7.8 8.5 Robust mean. As AM 5...7 Calculated value.5 LN mg/kg LO mg/kg.7.6.7 Mean. TN 9... Mean.5 TY 96.5.7.9 Mean. VM 7.6.57 7. Robust mean. B AM 5...9 Calculated value.9 LN mg/kg..5. Mean. LO mg/kg TN 6 8 6.7 Mean.5 TY VM 5.. 7.9 Robust mean. Cd AM 5.5..7 Calculated value. LN mg/kg.68.6 9. Mean. LO mg/kg TN 9.9.8.8 Mean.5 TY.8.6. Mean. VM..9.7 Robust mean. Co AM 5...6 Calculated value. LN mg/kg 5..56. Mean. LO mg/kg TN..9.6 Mean. TY.6..8 Mean.8 VM 6.79..8 Robust mean. Cr AM...7 Calculated value.7 LN mg/kg.5.6 8.6 Mean. LO mg/kg..6.6 Mean.5 TN 66 5. Mean.6 TY 7.6 Mean. VM 7.75.. Robust mean.9 Cu AM 5...5 Calculated value.5 LN mg/kg 8. Mean. LO mg/kg 8 6.5 Mean. TN 8.8.8.5 Robust mean. TY 86.9.7. Mean.9 VM 8.5.9 5.8 Robust mean.9 Drw LM % 87.5.6.7 Robust mean. Proftest SYKE MET 8/5 7
APPENDIX 5 (/) Analyte Sample Unit Assigned value Upt Upt, % Evaluation method of assigned value upt/spt Fe AM 55.6 Calculated value.6 LN g/kg LO g/kg 6 5. Mean. TN 57 5. Robust mean. TY 58 59 5. Mean. VM 7 8.5 Robust mean. Hg AHg.56.7. IDICPMS.5 LC mg/kg LN mg/kg LO mg/kg.765.9.9 Mean. THg.95.9. IDICPMS.5 VHg..6. IDICPMS. Mn AM 85...5 Calculated value.5 AM 85...5 Calculated value.5 LN mg/kg 8 8. Mean. LO mg/kg 66 5 6.9 Mean.8 TN 8. Mean. TY 5 8. Mean. VM 7 7. Robust mean.9 Mo AM... Robust mean. LN mg/kg.98.5.5 Mean. LO mg/kg TN 6 65.8 Robust mean.8 TY 5 5.7 Mean.8 VM.7. 5. Robust mean.6 N LM g/kg.6.8 5.6 Mean.7 Ni AM 5...7 Calculated value.7 LN mg/kg.8. 9.7 Mean. LO mg/kg TN 77.9.. Mean.7 TY 8..5.8 Mean. VM 8.. 5. Robust mean.6 P LM g/kg 6... Robust mean. Pb AM 9.6.9. IDICPMS. LN mg/kg 9..5 7.8 Mean. LO mg/kg 9.6.8 9. Mean.6 TN 5.6.. IDICPMS. TY.8.9 5.6 Mean.8 VM.85.. IDICPMS. S LM g/kg.8.6 5. Mean. Sb AM 5...9 Calculated value.9 LN mg/kg LO mg/kg 6.7 6.5.6 Mean.5 TN 9... Mean. TY 9.6..8 Mean. VM 5.8.6 5. Robust mean. 8 Proftest SYKE MET 8/5