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...
Saved in:
Published in: | Journal of environmental monitoring 2012-02, Vol.14 (2), p.657-665 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , |
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 & 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 & 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 & 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 |