Cited by 18Scientific Measurement and Uncertainty EvaluationVarious Chemistry Research TopicsAnalytical chemistry methods development

Evaluation of measurement uncertainty in volumetric operations: the tolerance-based approach and the actual performance-based approach

KADIS, R·2004·Talanta

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

Crossref · 10.1016/j.talanta.2004.02.005

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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