AdmixtureMaterial other than water, aggregate, or hydraulic cement, used as an ingredient of concrete and added to concrete before or during its mixing to modify its properties. AggregateGranular material, such as sand, gravel, crushed stone, and iron blast-furnace slag, used with a cementing medium to form concrete or mortar. AnchorA steel element either cast into concrete or postinstalled into a hardened concrete member and used to transmit applied loads to the concrete. Anchor, adhesiveA post-installed anchor, inserted into hardened concrete with an anchor hole diameter not greater than 1.
|Published (Last):||18 December 2006|
|PDF File Size:||6.97 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||20.94 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The EPA3 document development committee was team of experts who worked together well. National Center for Biotechnology InformationU. User verification of performance for precision and trueness — ScienceOpen Selection and analytical evaluation of methods with statistical techniques.
Table 3 shows the results of the same calculation for the remaining days. For labs seeking a quick check to insure their methods are meeting manufacturer specifications, EP15 may be the right choice. Evaluation of precision performance of quantitative measurement methods.
Estimation of Repeatability and Within-Laboratory Precision The following example relates to the verification of performance of calcium according to EPA2 using a five day protocol. When evaluating the precision of an assay, the trivial approach for estimating repeatability for any given level is to perform 20 replicate analyses in a single run on a single day.
Care must be taken in knowing which term is being referred to. Linnet K, Boyd JC. Open in a separate window. Elsevier Saunders; St Louis: While the term precision relates to the concept of variation around a central value, imprecision is actually what is measured.
Part of the process of verifying or validating a method to confirm that it is suitable for use is an assessment of precision. This could be useful, for example, if the intent of the experiment was to estimate the bias of one laboratory in a system relative to another, or to the mean of the laboratories in a system.
T is best calculated csi a spreadsheet and is given by:. Calculation of the verification interval would be complicated, but the committee simplified it greatly by providing tables for the difficult-to-calculate quantities based on the number of replicate measurements per run, the number of runs, and cpsi uncertainty of the target value.
There should be at least one quality control QC sample in each run. No literary matter in The Clinical Biochemist — Reviews is to be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form by electronic or mechanical means, photocopying or recording, without permission.
If the user is interested in estimating bias relative to the peer group for proficiency testing, and wants clsl estimate how the measurement procedure will perform well on proficiency testing, proficiency testing materials with peer group values for the measurement procedure being evaluated are appropriate.
It is generally a22 in the laboratory that the variation associated with repeated analysis will follow a normal distribution, also known as the Laplace-Gaussian or Gaussian distribution. If the estimated bias exceeds allowable bias, it is not acceptable.
The user needs access to software to do the ANOVA calculations, but they are available in Excel, Minitab, Analyze-it, and other software packages that do statistical calculations. The first step is to calculate the mean of the replicates for each day, then for each result subtract the mean for that day and square the resultant value. The following example relates to the verification of performance of calcium according to EPA2 using a five day protocol.
Requests to do so should be addressed to the Editor. The repeatability and within-laboratory standard deviations are then compared to the claimed or published standard deviations.
If this is true then using the principle of analysis of variance components:. Finally, we can calculate the total or within-laboratory SD s l using the equation:. Sometimes the manufacturer identifies the comparative measurement procedure only generically.
Evaluating Assay Precision EP15 first describes a precision verification experiment. However, for a method clsii in-house a higher level of proof is required to validate the method, in which case EPA2 would be the appropriate guideline to use. Support Center Support Center.
SP-066(04): ACI Detailing Manual-2004
The data from the fallout planchets presented in Figures 14 and 15 show an accounting for 5. Results The results of the calf thyroid measurements are set forth in Table 36 along with the daily amounts of radioiodine ingested. Background is at a higher level here because the area is covered with the throw-out from the Sedan Event, and variable because the loose surface dust is stirred up when one walks in this area. It is assumed that this is because of the heavier deposition and larger particle size and that , though present, was not observable. The crystal was then positioned so that the thyroid mass was centered six inches from the face of the crystal with the collimator on.
ACI 315-08 PDF
Zulkigis More stringent measures to avoid cross-contamination are being examined for future experiments. This evidence substantiates the different milk to grass ratios indicated above. To determine if a difference of uptake exists in the thyroids because the milk consumed came from cows eating different types of contaminated feed. The points plotted are simply the cpm recorded, without efficiencies acj into account.