Abstract
An inter-comparison exercise was performed between two laboratories on mineralised moss samples. Ten samples, together with three certified reference materials (CRM 61, CRM 62 and CRM 482) and five blanks were mineralised independently in the two laboratories and then analysed by both with different techniques (AAS, ICP-MS, and INAA). The elements analysed were: Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Ni, and Pb. Accuracy tests showed that, for AAS, the relative standard deviations for five repetitions of the same sample were between 0.2% for Cd and 2.9 % for Cr and that the concentration values found reference materials were withn one standard deviation from the certified values, with the exception of Cr and Cd for CRM 482. The statistical analysis was performed first with a simple linear regression and a Student t-test taking into account the possible influence of the mineralisation procedure and of the analytical technique, in order to evaluate their reliability. The results showed that more than 78% of the regressions had a correlation coefficient higher than 0.750, and that 83% of the slopes were not different from one with a level of significance of 0.01. Afterwards, the precision of the measurements were evaluated using maximum likelihood; the normalised errors showed that ICP-MS had a better performance on most of the elements analysed (with the exception of Fe) and that both the mineralisation procedures gave satisfactory results. The two laboratories were then found to produce reliable results.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 8
Claim · model-written summary
AAS relative standard deviation was 0.2% for Cd.
Verbatim
t0“Moss Samples”
e0“the relative standard deviations for five repetitions of the same sample were between 0.2% for Cd and 2.9 % for Cr”
Claim · model-written summary
AAS relative standard deviation was 2.9 % for Cr.
Verbatim
t0“Moss Samples”
e0“the relative standard deviations for five repetitions of the same sample were between 0.2% for Cd and 2.9 % for Cr”
Claim · model-written summary
Reference-material concentrations were within one standard deviation of certified values except Cr and Cd in CRM 482.
Verbatim
t0“Moss Samples”
e0“the concentration values found reference materials were withn one standard deviation from the certified values, with the exception of Cr and Cd for CRM 482.”
Claim · model-written summary
More than 78% of regressions had correlation coefficients above 0.750.
Verbatim
t0“Moss Samples”
e0“more than 78% of the regressions had a correlation coefficient higher than 0.750”
Claim · model-written summary
83% of slopes did not differ from one at significance level 0.01.
Verbatim
t0“Moss Samples”
e0“83% of the slopes were not different from one with a level of significance of 0.01.”
Claim · model-written summary
ICP-MS performed better for most elements except Fe.
- Taxon
- Mosst0
- Outcome
- better performance on most of the elements analysede0
- Qualifier
- with the exception of Fee0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“Moss Samples”
e0“ICP-MS had a better performance on most of the elements analysed (with the exception of Fe)”
Claim · model-written summary
Both mineralisation procedures gave satisfactory results.
Verbatim
t0“Moss Samples”
e0“both the mineralisation procedures gave satisfactory results.”
Claim · model-written summary
Both laboratories produced reliable results.
Verbatim
t0“Moss Samples”
e0“The two laboratories were then found to produce reliable results.”