-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
Interlaboratory study of novel halogenated flame retardants: INTERFLAB
L. Melymuk, E. Goosey, N. Riddell, ML. Diamond,
Jazyk angličtina Země Německo
Typ dokumentu srovnávací studie, hodnotící studie, časopisecké články, práce podpořená grantem, validační studie
NLK
ProQuest Central
od 2013-01-01 do Před 1 rokem
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost)
od 2003-01-01 do Před 1 rokem
Health & Medicine (ProQuest)
od 2013-01-01 do Před 1 rokem
- MeSH
- halogeny analýza chemie MeSH
- hmotnostní spektrometrie metody MeSH
- internacionalita MeSH
- laboratoře * MeSH
- prach analýza MeSH
- reprodukovatelnost výsledků MeSH
- retardanty hoření analýza MeSH
- senzitivita a specificita MeSH
- znečištění vzduchu ve vnitřním prostředí analýza MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- hodnotící studie MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
- srovnávací studie MeSH
- validační studie MeSH
Flame retardants (FRs) have come under considerable scientific and public scrutiny over the past decade. A lack of reference materials and standardized analytical methods has resulted in questions regarding the variation of measurements from different studies. We evaluated this variation by performing an international interlaboratory study assessing analytical capabilities as well as the accuracy and precision of results for a range of flame retardants (International Flame Retardant Laboratory Study, INTERFLAB). Thirteen international research laboratories participated in a blind interlaboratory comparison of 24 FRs. Results demonstrate good precision within replicates of test mixtures from individual laboratories, but problematic accuracy for several FRs and laboratories. Large ranges in the values reported for decabromodiphenylethane (DBDPE), tris(1,3-dichloropropyl)phosphate (TDCIPP), tetrabromobisphenol-A (TBBPA), and hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) (>50 % relative standard deviations among measured values) and large deviations from the reference values (>25 % bias in accuracy) suggest potential problems for comparability of results. DBDPE, HBCD, and TBBPA had significantly poorer accuracy and precision, suggesting that current analytical methods are not providing reliable results for these FRs.
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc16020600
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20160725101046.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 160722s2015 gw f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1007/s00216-015-8843-7 $2 doi
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1007/s00216-015-8843-7 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)26134984
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a gw
- 100 1_
- $a Melymuk, Lisa $u Research Centre for Toxic Compounds in the Environment (RECETOX), Masaryk University, Kamenice 753/5, 62500, Brno, Czech Republic.
- 245 10
- $a Interlaboratory study of novel halogenated flame retardants: INTERFLAB / $c L. Melymuk, E. Goosey, N. Riddell, ML. Diamond,
- 520 9_
- $a Flame retardants (FRs) have come under considerable scientific and public scrutiny over the past decade. A lack of reference materials and standardized analytical methods has resulted in questions regarding the variation of measurements from different studies. We evaluated this variation by performing an international interlaboratory study assessing analytical capabilities as well as the accuracy and precision of results for a range of flame retardants (International Flame Retardant Laboratory Study, INTERFLAB). Thirteen international research laboratories participated in a blind interlaboratory comparison of 24 FRs. Results demonstrate good precision within replicates of test mixtures from individual laboratories, but problematic accuracy for several FRs and laboratories. Large ranges in the values reported for decabromodiphenylethane (DBDPE), tris(1,3-dichloropropyl)phosphate (TDCIPP), tetrabromobisphenol-A (TBBPA), and hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) (>50 % relative standard deviations among measured values) and large deviations from the reference values (>25 % bias in accuracy) suggest potential problems for comparability of results. DBDPE, HBCD, and TBBPA had significantly poorer accuracy and precision, suggesting that current analytical methods are not providing reliable results for these FRs.
- 650 _2
- $a znečištění vzduchu ve vnitřním prostředí $x analýza $7 D016902
- 650 _2
- $a prach $x analýza $7 D004391
- 650 _2
- $a retardanty hoření $x analýza $7 D005411
- 650 _2
- $a halogeny $x analýza $x chemie $7 D006219
- 650 _2
- $a internacionalita $7 D038622
- 650 12
- $a laboratoře $7 D007753
- 650 _2
- $a hmotnostní spektrometrie $x metody $7 D013058
- 650 _2
- $a reprodukovatelnost výsledků $7 D015203
- 650 _2
- $a senzitivita a specificita $7 D012680
- 655 _2
- $a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
- 655 _2
- $a hodnotící studie $7 D023362
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
- 655 _2
- $a validační studie $7 D023361
- 700 1_
- $a Goosey, Emma
- 700 1_
- $a Riddell, Nicole
- 700 1_
- $a Diamond, Miriam L
- 773 0_
- $w MED00006638 $t Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry $x 1618-2650 $g Roč. 407, č. 22 (2015), s. 6759-69
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26134984 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20160722 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20160725101304 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1155270 $s 945128
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2015 $b 407 $c 22 $d 6759-69 $e 20150702 $i 1618-2650 $m Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry $n Anal Bioanal Chem $x MED00006638
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20160722