Uncertainty due to volumetric operations is often underestimated
Abstract
Fifteen international titration standards were evaluated to determine minimum and maximum combined standard uncertainties. Assuming most thorough performance of the analyses revealed minimum values, whereas maximum values of uncertainty were obtained assuming that the analyses had been done under high time pressure. Minimum and maximum uncertainties were compared with the corresponding reproducibility standard deviations. Since the combined standard uncertainty is expected to lie between the reproducibility standard deviation and the maximum combined standard uncertainty, realistic standard uncertainties of individual influence quantities of volumetric and weighing procedures could be calculated. This top-down approach revealed up to 4 times higher uncertainties for volumetric operations compared to the bottom-up approach according to the current literature. Hence, uncertainty due to volumetric operations is obviously strongly underestimated. The present study additionally contains a ranking of the contributions to the uncertainty of titrimetric results.
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?
Wampfler and Rösslein found that the uncertainty of volumetric operations with burettes is strongly underestimated (up to a factor of 4) when the bottom-up approach of the Guide is used.
“Wampfler and Ro ¨sslein found that the uncertainty of volumetric operations with burettes is strongly underestimated (up to a factor of 4) when the bottom-up approach of the Guide is used [8].”
From Calibration, handling repeatability, and the Maximum Permissible Error of single-volume glass instruments (2010) · cites this paper as [8]
Cites
GUIDE TO THE EXPRESSION OF UNCERTAINTY IN MEASUREMENT
Standard, S. (2006) · Cited by 6,460 · see citing works
A Heuristic Derivation of the Horwitz Curve
Albert, R. H., & Horwitz, W. (1997) · Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1021/ac9608376 · Cited by 114 · see citing works
Evaluation of measurement uncertainty in analytical assays by means of Monte-Carlo simulation
Herrador, M. Á., & González, A. G. (2004) · Talanta · doi:10.1016/j.talanta.2004.03.011 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
Barwick, V. J., & Ellison, S. L. R. (1998) · Analytical Communications · doi:10.1039/a806576d · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Titrimetry at a metrological level
Felber, H., Rezzonico, S., & Máriássy, M. (2003) · Metrologia · doi:10.1088/0026-1394/40/5/006 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
A simplified approach to the estimation of analytical measurement uncertainty
Populaire, S., & Giménez, E. C. (2005) · Accreditation and Quality Assurance · doi:10.1007/s00769-005-0036-1 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
KADIS, R. (2004) · Talanta · doi:10.1016/j.talanta.2004.02.005 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
The New Measurement Concept Explained by Using an Introductory Example
Wampfler, B., Rösslein, M., & Felber, H. (2006) · Journal of Chemical Education · doi:10.1021/ed083p1382 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Self-citationThompson, M., Guffogg, S., Stangroom, S. G., et al. (2002) · The Analyst · doi:10.1039/b208975k · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Beinert, W., Rösslein, M., & Rezzonico, S. (2008) · Nachrichten aus der Chemie · doi:10.1002/nadc.200855411 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
- WAMPFLER, B., & ROSSLEIN, M.
- Affiliations
- Empa (CH)
- Corresponding author
- WAMPFLER, B
- Venue
- Talanta
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-04-15
- Volume
- 78
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 113-119
- ISSN
- 0039-9140 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2034026372
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 0.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Talanta (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DORA Empa (Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology (Empa)) (submittedVersion)
- 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 analysis, titration, combined uncertainty, weight measurement, uncertainty budget
- MeSH terms
- Reference Standards, Reproducibility of Results, Titrimetry
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
