EurekaMag.com logo
+ Site Statistics
References:
52,725,316
Abstracts:
28,411,598
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on Google+Follow on Google+
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

Evaluation of agreement among routine methods for determination of fluoride in vegetation inter laboratory collaborative study


Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 65(5): 1150-1154
Evaluation of agreement among routine methods for determination of fluoride in vegetation inter laboratory collaborative study
An interlaboratory collaborative study was conducted to evaluate the performance of methods and laboratories for the measurement of fluoride in vegetation. Samples of 8 plant species [citrus leaves, loblolly pine needles, balsam fir needles, cherry leaves, milo maize leaves, pasture grass, eucalyptus leaves, hay] containing about 5-200 ppm fluoride were distributed to 40 participants who were instructed to use their routine methods of analysis. Methods which had sufficient participants to allow the inclusion of results in statistical analyses were classified into 3 categories: Willard-Winter method (similar to the AOAC [Association of Official Analytical Chemists] official final action method); semiautomated and potentiometric methods (similar to the 2 AOAC official first action methods); and potentiometric analysis with prior ashing, fusion, and/or distillation (not an approved method). There was a significant interaction of methods with samples caused by 3 of the 8 samples. In the other 5 samples, the Willard-Winter and semiautomated methods gave higher mean values for fluoride content than did the 2 potentiometric methods. Despite considerable improvement in speed and simplicity of fluoride analyses during the last decade, agreement between laboratories has not improved because of the variety of methods and techniques in use, the inherent differences between methods, and, apparently, poor laboratory quality control.


Accession: 005395993



Related references

Evaluation of agreement among routine methods for determination of fluoride in vegetation: interlaboratory collaborative study Chemical analysis, pollutants, methods. Journal of the Association of Offical Analytical Chemists 65(5): 1150-1154, 1982

Collaborative study of three methods for the determination of fluoride in vegetation. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 61(1): 150-153, 1978

Collaborative study of 3 methods for the determination of fluoride in vegetation. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 61(1): 150-153, 1978

Collaborative study of a potentiometric method for the determination of fluoride in vegetation. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 58(6): 1129-1134, 1975

Collaborative study of analytical methods for fluoride in vegetation: effects of individual techniques on results. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 55(5): 991-1003, 1972

An inter-laboratory comparative study of fluoride determination in water. Water SA 32(3): 365-370, 2006

Inter-methods agreement for the assessment of percentage of body fat between two laboratory methods in male adolescent cyclists. Nutricion Hospitalaria 28(4): 1049-1052, 2014

Comparison of routine and reference methods for the determination of moisture, solids-not-fat and fat in butter: A pilot collaborative study. International Dairy Journal 7(10): 655-658, Oct, 1997

Determination of fluoride in vegetation: a comparative study of four sample preparation methods. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 58(6): 1135-1137, 1975

Determination of fluoride in vegetation a comparative study of 4 sample preparation methods. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 58(6): 1135-1137, 1975