Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

J H Groff

Publications and source records attributed to J H Groff.

14 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1997

Interlaboratory and intralaboratory variabilities in the Environmental Lead Proficiency Analytical Testing (ELPAT) Program.

The Environmental Lead Proficiency Analytical Testing (ELPAT) Program evaluates over 400 laboratories that perform lead measurements in paints, soils, and dusts. A previous National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health study, based on the ELPAT data over a 3-year period (1992-1995), found no large biases among common hotplate and microwave digestion techniques, but did detect small consistent bias between two common instrumental methods. This study expands on the earlier study by examining the total sample variability and its variation components (interlaboratory and intralaboratory). A correlation model was used to separate the variation components by estimating a variation ratio. The correlation model leads to a more general approach than a sample pairing technique developed by Youden. This study found no significant evidence that the relative contribution of intralaboratory and interlaboratory variability to total variability changes with lead loading levels. There were no significant differences in the relative contribution of variation components among three most commonly used analytical methods (combinations of sample preparation techniques and instrumental methods). The interlaboratory relative standard deviation is about 1.7 times the intralaboratory relative standard deviation. Both variation components are important parts of total variation although the laboratory-to-laboratory (including analyst-to-analyst) difference is greater than the within laboratory (including sample-to-sample) variation.

Chemistry Techniques, Analytical↗
PubMed1996

Laboratory and analytical method performance of lead measurements in paint chips, soils, and dusts.

The National Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program (NLLAP) recognizes laboratories capable of analyzing lead in paints, soils, and dusts. NLLAP requires successful participation in the Environmental Lead Proficiency Analytical Testing (ELPAT) program. For paint chip analyses, laboratory-to-laboratory variability is about 10% relative standard deviation (RSD) for lead levels near 0.5%, the HUD definition of lead-based paint. For soil analyses, RSDs are about 9 to 10% near relevant federal soil standards and 16% near the lowest state bare soil standard that currently exists. For dust wipe analyses, RSDs range from 10 to 16% for lead levels near relevant HUD standards. Of participating laboratories, 92 to 93% consistently meet ELPAT performance limits. A variety of analytical methods gives similar results. No conclusive significant differences were found among most frequently used hotplate and microwave sample preparation techniques. In addition, several participating laboratories have successfully used ultrasonic extraction methods, a method suitable for use at abatement sites. The three most frequently used instrumental techniques, flame atomic absorption (FAA), inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES), and graphite furnace atomic absorption show no statistically significant differences in ability to meet ELPAT performance limits. However, small statistically significant biases between these methods sometimes occur. The magnitude of biases is less than 5% of the corresponding laboratory mean near relevant federal standards except for lead levels near the lowest HUD lead wipe standard, where biases can be as high as 8%. Other instrumental methods that have been used successfully include ICP-mass spectroscopy, direct current plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy, dithizone spectrophotometry, and anodic stripping voltametry.

Accreditation↗
PubMed1992

Performance of laboratories measuring silica in the Proficiency Analytical Testing program.

A statistical study was performed on the results reported by laboratories analyzing silica samples in the first 101 rounds of the Proficiency Analytical Testing (PAT) program. Five laboratories participated in the first round of the PAT program in 1972, and participation grew to 130 laboratories before falling to 105 in Round 101. The laboratories use all three of the major methods of analysis: colorimetry, x-ray diffractometry, and infrared spectroscopy. The objectives of the study were to determine bias between methods, the variability associated with the methods, and any changes in bias or variability caused by a number of factors. The colorimetric method has consistently given the lowest results, particularly at higher loadings. X-ray diffractometry results were biased higher than infrared spectroscopy results during one period but not in the following period. Between the two periods, the procedures and materials used to prepare PAT samples changed in a number of ways, but the switch to quartz dust with a smaller particle size is a likely explanation for the bias difference. Generally, silica analyses have improved in precision over time, and this improvement has taken place for all three of the methods. The colorimetric method has shown the poorest precision of the three methods, but, unlike the differences in bias, the differences in precision have diminished considerably over time. Precision estimates from other studies were compared to those from this study to learn more about sources of variability. The largest source of variability, the differences between laboratories, was large even when laboratories used the same method, as they did in a collaborative study of silica methods.

Air Pollutants, Occupational↗