Loading…

Field comparison of manual and semi-automatic methods for the measurement of total gaseous mercury in ambient air and assessment of equivalence

The manual and semi-automatic methods for the measurement of total gaseous mercury in ambient air have been compared in a field trial for the first time. The comparison results have shown that whilst the expected random scatter is present, there was no significant systematic bias between the two met...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of environmental monitoring 2012-02, Vol.14 (2), p.657-665
Main Authors: Brown, Richard J. C, Kumar, Yarshini, Brown, Andrew S, Dexter, Matthew A, Corns, Warren T
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c399t-db00be6fe25547dc08c2b20226e11e4bcd7f08bfcef3a72ff5a43cbba547807d3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c399t-db00be6fe25547dc08c2b20226e11e4bcd7f08bfcef3a72ff5a43cbba547807d3
container_end_page 665
container_issue 2
container_start_page 657
container_title Journal of environmental monitoring
container_volume 14
creator Brown, Richard J. C
Kumar, Yarshini
Brown, Andrew S
Dexter, Matthew A
Corns, Warren T
description The manual and semi-automatic methods for the measurement of total gaseous mercury in ambient air have been compared in a field trial for the first time. The comparison results have shown that whilst the expected random scatter is present, there was no significant systematic bias between the two methods, whose operational differences have also been outlined and analysed in this work. Furthermore it has been observed that because variation in instrument sensitivity is largely random in nature there is little effect on the results of the comparison if the period between instrument calibrations is altered. When the manual and semi-automatic methods are compared according to guidelines produced by the European Commission the results presented here, taken together with other supporting evidence, strongly suggest that the two methods are equivalent. The results of the first field trial to compare the semi-automatic reference method with the manual method for the measurement of total gaseous mercury in air are presented.
doi_str_mv 10.1039/c2em10719h
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1039_c2em10719h</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1034809978</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c399t-db00be6fe25547dc08c2b20226e11e4bcd7f08bfcef3a72ff5a43cbba547807d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc1rFTEUxQex2FrduFfiSimM5mM-l1KsFgpudD3cJDe-yGTympsp9K_wXzbP1z5x02aThPM7J-Geqnol-AfB1fjRSAyC92LcPKlORNM1NVdKPT2cZXtcPSf6xTlXPZfPqmNZlhJDd1L9vvA4W2Zi2ELyFBcWHQuwrDAzWCwjDL6GNccA2RsWMG-iJeZiYnmD5Q60Jgy45J0xx1x8P4EwrlTEZNZ0y_zCIGi_Y8Cnv7FAhET3Nrxe_Q3MuBh8UR05mAlf3u2n1Y-Lz9_Pv9ZX375cnn-6qo0ax1xbzbnGzqFs26a3hg9Gasml7FAIbLSxveODdgadgl4610KjjNZQ6IH3Vp1W7_a52xSvV6Q8BU8G5xmW3d-nsRvEoNoypkfJ8myZpWwK-f5BspTVDHwc-6GgZ3vUpEiU0E3b5AOk2wLtuHH6V2qB39zlrjqgPaD3LRbg9R5IZA7qfwFvH9KnrXXqDy12tTw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1034809978</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Field comparison of manual and semi-automatic methods for the measurement of total gaseous mercury in ambient air and assessment of equivalence</title><source>Royal Society of Chemistry</source><creator>Brown, Richard J. C ; Kumar, Yarshini ; Brown, Andrew S ; Dexter, Matthew A ; Corns, Warren T</creator><creatorcontrib>Brown, Richard J. C ; Kumar, Yarshini ; Brown, Andrew S ; Dexter, Matthew A ; Corns, Warren T</creatorcontrib><description>The manual and semi-automatic methods for the measurement of total gaseous mercury in ambient air have been compared in a field trial for the first time. The comparison results have shown that whilst the expected random scatter is present, there was no significant systematic bias between the two methods, whose operational differences have also been outlined and analysed in this work. Furthermore it has been observed that because variation in instrument sensitivity is largely random in nature there is little effect on the results of the comparison if the period between instrument calibrations is altered. When the manual and semi-automatic methods are compared according to guidelines produced by the European Commission the results presented here, taken together with other supporting evidence, strongly suggest that the two methods are equivalent. The results of the first field trial to compare the semi-automatic reference method with the manual method for the measurement of total gaseous mercury in air are presented.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1464-0325</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1464-0333</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1039/c2em10719h</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22223186</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England</publisher><subject>Air Pollutants - analysis ; Air Pollution - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Atmosphere - chemistry ; Automation ; Environmental Monitoring - methods ; Mercury - analysis</subject><ispartof>Journal of environmental monitoring, 2012-02, Vol.14 (2), p.657-665</ispartof><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c399t-db00be6fe25547dc08c2b20226e11e4bcd7f08bfcef3a72ff5a43cbba547807d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c399t-db00be6fe25547dc08c2b20226e11e4bcd7f08bfcef3a72ff5a43cbba547807d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22223186$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Brown, Richard J. C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kumar, Yarshini</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, Andrew S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dexter, Matthew A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Corns, Warren T</creatorcontrib><title>Field comparison of manual and semi-automatic methods for the measurement of total gaseous mercury in ambient air and assessment of equivalence</title><title>Journal of environmental monitoring</title><addtitle>J Environ Monit</addtitle><description>The manual and semi-automatic methods for the measurement of total gaseous mercury in ambient air have been compared in a field trial for the first time. The comparison results have shown that whilst the expected random scatter is present, there was no significant systematic bias between the two methods, whose operational differences have also been outlined and analysed in this work. Furthermore it has been observed that because variation in instrument sensitivity is largely random in nature there is little effect on the results of the comparison if the period between instrument calibrations is altered. When the manual and semi-automatic methods are compared according to guidelines produced by the European Commission the results presented here, taken together with other supporting evidence, strongly suggest that the two methods are equivalent. The results of the first field trial to compare the semi-automatic reference method with the manual method for the measurement of total gaseous mercury in air are presented.</description><subject>Air Pollutants - analysis</subject><subject>Air Pollution - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Atmosphere - chemistry</subject><subject>Automation</subject><subject>Environmental Monitoring - methods</subject><subject>Mercury - analysis</subject><issn>1464-0325</issn><issn>1464-0333</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkc1rFTEUxQex2FrduFfiSimM5mM-l1KsFgpudD3cJDe-yGTympsp9K_wXzbP1z5x02aThPM7J-Geqnol-AfB1fjRSAyC92LcPKlORNM1NVdKPT2cZXtcPSf6xTlXPZfPqmNZlhJDd1L9vvA4W2Zi2ELyFBcWHQuwrDAzWCwjDL6GNccA2RsWMG-iJeZiYnmD5Q60Jgy45J0xx1x8P4EwrlTEZNZ0y_zCIGi_Y8Cnv7FAhET3Nrxe_Q3MuBh8UR05mAlf3u2n1Y-Lz9_Pv9ZX375cnn-6qo0ax1xbzbnGzqFs26a3hg9Gasml7FAIbLSxveODdgadgl4610KjjNZQ6IH3Vp1W7_a52xSvV6Q8BU8G5xmW3d-nsRvEoNoypkfJ8myZpWwK-f5BspTVDHwc-6GgZ3vUpEiU0E3b5AOk2wLtuHH6V2qB39zlrjqgPaD3LRbg9R5IZA7qfwFvH9KnrXXqDy12tTw</recordid><startdate>20120201</startdate><enddate>20120201</enddate><creator>Brown, Richard J. C</creator><creator>Kumar, Yarshini</creator><creator>Brown, Andrew S</creator><creator>Dexter, Matthew A</creator><creator>Corns, Warren T</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TV</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120201</creationdate><title>Field comparison of manual and semi-automatic methods for the measurement of total gaseous mercury in ambient air and assessment of equivalence</title><author>Brown, Richard J. C ; Kumar, Yarshini ; Brown, Andrew S ; Dexter, Matthew A ; Corns, Warren T</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c399t-db00be6fe25547dc08c2b20226e11e4bcd7f08bfcef3a72ff5a43cbba547807d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Air Pollutants - analysis</topic><topic>Air Pollution - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Atmosphere - chemistry</topic><topic>Automation</topic><topic>Environmental Monitoring - methods</topic><topic>Mercury - analysis</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Brown, Richard J. C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kumar, Yarshini</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brown, Andrew S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dexter, Matthew A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Corns, Warren T</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Pollution Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of environmental monitoring</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Brown, Richard J. C</au><au>Kumar, Yarshini</au><au>Brown, Andrew S</au><au>Dexter, Matthew A</au><au>Corns, Warren T</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Field comparison of manual and semi-automatic methods for the measurement of total gaseous mercury in ambient air and assessment of equivalence</atitle><jtitle>Journal of environmental monitoring</jtitle><addtitle>J Environ Monit</addtitle><date>2012-02-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>657</spage><epage>665</epage><pages>657-665</pages><issn>1464-0325</issn><eissn>1464-0333</eissn><abstract>The manual and semi-automatic methods for the measurement of total gaseous mercury in ambient air have been compared in a field trial for the first time. The comparison results have shown that whilst the expected random scatter is present, there was no significant systematic bias between the two methods, whose operational differences have also been outlined and analysed in this work. Furthermore it has been observed that because variation in instrument sensitivity is largely random in nature there is little effect on the results of the comparison if the period between instrument calibrations is altered. When the manual and semi-automatic methods are compared according to guidelines produced by the European Commission the results presented here, taken together with other supporting evidence, strongly suggest that the two methods are equivalent. The results of the first field trial to compare the semi-automatic reference method with the manual method for the measurement of total gaseous mercury in air are presented.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pmid>22223186</pmid><doi>10.1039/c2em10719h</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1464-0325
ispartof Journal of environmental monitoring, 2012-02, Vol.14 (2), p.657-665
issn 1464-0325
1464-0333
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1039_c2em10719h
source Royal Society of Chemistry
subjects Air Pollutants - analysis
Air Pollution - statistics & numerical data
Atmosphere - chemistry
Automation
Environmental Monitoring - methods
Mercury - analysis
title Field comparison of manual and semi-automatic methods for the measurement of total gaseous mercury in ambient air and assessment of equivalence
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T04%3A41%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Field%20comparison%20of%20manual%20and%20semi-automatic%20methods%20for%20the%20measurement%20of%20total%20gaseous%20mercury%20in%20ambient%20air%20and%20assessment%20of%20equivalence&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20environmental%20monitoring&rft.au=Brown,%20Richard%20J.%20C&rft.date=2012-02-01&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=657&rft.epage=665&rft.pages=657-665&rft.issn=1464-0325&rft.eissn=1464-0333&rft_id=info:doi/10.1039/c2em10719h&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1034809978%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c399t-db00be6fe25547dc08c2b20226e11e4bcd7f08bfcef3a72ff5a43cbba547807d3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1034809978&rft_id=info:pmid/22223186&rfr_iscdi=true