Evaluation of measurement uncertainty in volumetric operations: the tolerance-based approach and the actual performance-based approach
Abstract
Although relatively small compared to other sources of uncertainty in an analytical procedure, uncertainty in volumetric operations needs to be properly evaluated. In this paper, the problem of volumetric uncertainty is addressed with the critical examination of the procedure for its evaluation recommended in the EURACHEM Guide Quantifying Uncertainty in Analytical Measurement. Some characteristic features of volumetric apparatus as a measuring device are considered in relation to accuracy specification usually expressed in the form of "capacity tolerances". On the basis of the underlying metrology, written standards to which volumetric ware is manufactured, and evidences available from experimental studies, it is shown that the tolerance already includes a random error inherent in the use of volumetric apparatus. Therefore, no additional allowance, except for temperature effects, needs be made if the uncertainty is derived from the tolerance. A detailed analysis of relevant uncertainty sources is presented, with two different procedures for evaluating the uncertainty identified; one of them relies on the prescribed tolerance while the other is based on the experimental estimation of the actual performance in the user's hand. The uncertainty budget for each of these two approaches is evaluated, analysed and illustrated with a numerical example.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Kadis noted in the Conclusions that normal variations in manipulating and reading volumetric glassware are understood to be included in the stated tolerance, and thus no additional allowance, except the temperature effects, is needed for obtaining the total uncertainty; the authors fully agree.
“Kadis gave a thorough discussion of the topic [7] and noted in the Conclusions: ' 'It is essential that normal variations in manipulating and reading volumetric glassware are understood to be included in the stated tolerance, and thus no additional allowance, except the temperature effects, is needed for obtaining the total uncertainty.'' We fully agree with this statement”
From Calibration, handling repeatability, and the Maximum Permissible Error of single-volume glass instruments (2010) · cites this paper as [7]
Cites
Vogel's textbook of quantitative chemical analysis
Vogel, A. I., & Jeffery, G. H. (1989) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 2,259 · see citing works
Microdiffusion Analysis and Volumetric Error
(1948) · Nature · doi:10.1038/161583a0 · Cited by 2,182 · see citing works
Quantitative Chemical Analysis
(1873) · Nature · doi:10.1038/009026a0 · Cited by 355 · see citing works
Fehler bei chemischen Analysen
Eckschlager, K. (1965) · Cited by 28 · see citing works
The calibration of small volumetric laboratory glassware
Lembeck, J. (1974) · doi:10.6028/nbs.ir.74-461 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Doerffel, K. (1964) · Zeitschrift für Chemie · doi:10.1002/zfch.19640040820 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Correct evaluation of type-B standard uncertainty
Kadis, R. L. (2000) · Measurement Techniques · doi:10.1007/bf02503653 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Self-citationEstimating Measurement Bias & Uncertainty Of A Weighing
Toledo, M., & Reichmuth, A. (2001) · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Use of non-aqueous solvents in glassware calibrated to deliver water
Buchanan, E. (1966) · Talanta · doi:10.1016/0039-9140(66)80110-8 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Some aspects of pipette usage. Part I. Precision
Dean, G. A., & Herringshaw, J. F. (1961) · The Analyst · doi:10.1039/an9618600434 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Uncertainty due to volumetric operations is often underestimated
WAMPFLER, B., & ROSSLEIN, M. (2009) · Talanta · doi:10.1016/j.talanta.2008.10.047 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Meyer, V. R., Pfohl, J., & Winter, B. (2010) · Accreditation and Quality Assurance · doi:10.1007/s00769-010-0693-6 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
- Authors
- KADIS, R.
- Affiliations
- D.I. Mendeleyev Institute for Metrology (RU)
- Corresponding author
- KADIS, R
- Venue
- Talanta
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2004-09
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 167-173
- ISSN
- 0039-9140 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1982308000
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 1.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Talanta (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Scientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation
- Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Physical and Theoretical Chemistry › Various Chemistry Research Topics
- Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Analytical Chemistry › Analytical chemistry methods development
- Keywords
- measurement uncertainty, volumetric apparatus, uncertainty budget, random error, temperature effects
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review