PMID- 19684922
OWN - NLM
STAT- PubMed-not-MEDLINE
DCOM- 20100304
LR  - 20090817
IS  - 1364-5528 (Electronic)
IS  - 0003-2654 (Linking)
VI  - 134
IP  - 9
DP  - 2009 Sep
TI  - Comment on 'Empirical versus modelling approaches to the estimation of 
      measurement uncertainty caused by primary sampling' by J. A. Lyn, M. H. Ramsey, 
      A. P. Damant and R. Wood.
PG  - 1934-5; discussion 1936
LID - 10.1039/b812422a [doi]
AB  - Recently, Lyn et al. (Analyst, 2007, 132, 1231) compared two ways of estimating 
      the standard uncertainty of sampling pistachio nuts for aflatoxins--a modelling 
      method and an empirical method. Their case study used robust analysis of variance 
      (RANOVA) to derive the uncertainty estimates, highlighting a substantial 
      difference between the two: the estimate of sampling uncertainty derived from the 
      modelling method was six-fold greater than that using the empirical approach (cf. 
      136% and 22.5%, respectively, when expressed as relative standard deviations 
      (RSDs) at 68% confidence). A further analysis of this case study is reported here 
      and suggests that the estimation uncertainty during RANOVA in the empirical 
      approach could account for this difference.
FAU - Geelhoed, B
AU  - Geelhoed B
AD  - Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg 15, 2629 JB, Delft, The Netherlands. 
      B.Geelhoed@tudelft.nl
LA  - eng
PT  - Comment
PT  - Journal Article
DEP - 20090709
PL  - England
TA  - Analyst
JT  - The Analyst
JID - 0372652
CON - Analyst. 2007 Dec;132(12):1231-7. PMID: 18318284
EDAT- 2009/08/18 09:00
MHDA- 2009/08/18 09:01
CRDT- 2009/08/18 09:00
PHST- 2009/08/18 09:00 [entrez]
PHST- 2009/08/18 09:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2009/08/18 09:01 [medline]
AID - 10.1039/b812422a [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - Analyst. 2009 Sep;134(9):1934-5; discussion 1936. doi: 10.1039/b812422a. Epub 
      2009 Jul 9.