Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Sprache
- Englisch (2)
Schlagworte
- ALCOREF (1)
- Certified reference material (1)
- EMPIR (1)
- EURAMET (1)
- Ethanol in water (1)
- Supplementary comparison (1)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
Supplementary comparison study - measurement capabilities for the quantification of ethanol in water
(2022)
The accurate quantification of ethanol in water is essential for forensic applications such as blood and breath alcohol testing and for commercial applications such as the assessment of alcoholic beverages.
The intercomparison EURAMET.QM-S14 is part of a capacity building project named ALCOREF “Certified forensic alcohol reference materials”
that is running within the European Metrology Programme for Innovation and Research (EMPIR). The intercomparison should allow project partners and other interested National Metrology Institutes (NMIs) and Designated Institutes (DIs) to benchmark their analytical methods for the quantification of ethanol in water. The study plan was agreed by the European Association of National Metrology Institutes (EURAMET) Subcommittee Bio- and Organic Analysis (SCBOA) and the Organic Analysis Working Group (OAWG) of the Comité Consultatif pour la Quantité de Matière (CCQM) in February and April 2019, respectively. The intercomparison was coordinated by BAM. Two concentration levels relevant for the calibration and verification of evidential breath alcohol analysers were distributed to study participants. Fifteen institutes from 15 countries registered for the intercomparison and returned results. Participants mostly applied gas chromatography with flame ionisation detection (GC-FID) or mass spectroscopy (GC-MS), one participant used titrimetry and one participant employed a test bench for breath analyser calibration (“bubble train”). Participants did either in-house purity assessment of their commercial ethanol calibrants by Karl-Fischer titration, chromatographic methods, quantitative nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (qNMR) and/or density measurements; or they used ethanol/water Certified Reference Materials (CRMs) from NMIs/DIs for calibration.
CCQM OAWG agreed to use a consensus value from participants results that utilizes the reported uncertainties as Key Comparison Reference Value (KCRV). The Gaussian Random effects model with Hierarchical Bayesian solution (HB-REM) is a reasonable approach in this case. The KCRVs and Degrees of Equivalence (DoEs) were calculated with the NIST consensus builder version 1.2 Hierarchical Bayes procedure.
Successful participation in the interlaboratory comparison has demonstrated the capabilities in determining the mass fraction of ethanol in aqueous matrices in the range 0.1 mg/g to 8 mg/g. Fourteen out of 15 participants have successfully quantified both samples, one participant successfully quantified only the lower-level (0.6 mg/g) sample.
KEY COMPARISON
Under the auspices of the Organic Analysis Working Group (OAWG) of the Comité Consultatif pour la Quantité de Matière (CCQM) a key comparison, CCQM K55.c, was coordinated by the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) in 2012. Twenty National Measurement Institutes or Designated Institutes and the BIPM participated. Participants were required to assign the mass fraction of valine present as the main component in the comparison sample for CCQM-K55.c. The comparison samples were prepared from analytical grade L-valine purchased from a commercial supplier and used as provided without further treatment or purification.
Valine was selected to be representative of the performance of a laboratory's measurement capability for the purity assignment of organic compounds of low structural complexity [molecular weight range 100300] and high polarity (pKOW > –2).
The KCRV for the valine content of the material was 992.0 mg/g with a combined standard uncertainty of 0.3 mg/g. The key comparison reference value (KCRV) was assigned by combination of KCRVs assigned from participant results for each orthogonal impurity class. The relative expanded uncertainties reported by laboratories having results consistent with the KCRV ranged from 1 mg/g to 6 mg/g when using mass balance based approaches alone, 2 mg/g to 7 mg/g using quantitative 1H NMR (qNMR) based approaches and from 1 mg/g to 2.5 mg/g when a result obtained by a mass balance method was combined with a separate qNMR result.
The material provided several analytical challenges. In addition to the need to identify and quantify various related amino acid impurities including leucine, isoleucine, alanine and a-amino butyrate, care was required to select appropriate conditions for performing Karl Fischer titration assay for water content to avoid bias due to in situ formation of water by self-condensation under the assay conditions. It also proved to be a challenging compound for purity assignment by qNMR techniques.
There was overall excellent agreement between participants in the identification and the quantification of the total and individual related structure impurities, water content, residual solvent and total non-volatile content of the sample. Appropriate technical justifications were developed to rationalise observed discrepancies in the limited cases where methodology differences led to inconsistent results.
The comparison demonstrated that to perform a qNMR purity assignment the selection of appropriate parameters and an understanding of their potential influence on the assigned value is critical for reliable implementation of the method, particularly when one or more of the peaks to be quantified consist of complex multiplet signals.