Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Zeitschriftenartikel (8)
- Corrigendum (1)
Sprache
- Englisch (9)
Schlagworte
- Biology (2)
- Comparability (2)
- Data (2)
- Fluorescence (2)
- Imaging (2)
- Life science (2)
- Medicine (2)
- Microscopy (2)
- NO2 (2)
- Quality assurance (2)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
A modern day light microscope has evolved from a tool devoted to making primarily empirical observations to what is now a sophisticated, quantitative device that is an integral part of both physical and life science research. Nowadays, microscopes are found in nearly every experimental laboratory. However, despite their prevalent use in capturing and quantifying scientific phenomena, neither a thorough understanding of the principles underlying quantitative imaging techniques nor appropriate knowledge of how to calibrate, operate and maintain microscopes can be taken for granted. This is clearly demonstrated by the well-documented and widespread difficulties that are routinely encountered in evaluating acquired data and reproducing scientific experiments. Indeed, studies have shown that more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to repeat another scientist’s experiments, while more than half have even failed to reproduce their own experiments1. One factor behind the reproducibility crisis of experiments published in scientific journals is the frequent underreporting of imaging methods caused by a lack of awareness and/or a lack of knowledge of the applied technique2,3. Whereas quality control procedures for some methods used in biomedical research, such as genomics (e.g., DNA sequencing, RNA-seq) or cytometry, have been introduced (e.g. ENCODE4), this issue has not been tackled for optical microscopy instrumentation and images. Although many calibration standards and protocols have been published, there is a lack of awareness and agreement on common Standards and guidelines for quality assessment and reproducibility5.
In April 2020, the QUality Assessment and REProducibility for instruments and images in Light Microscopy (QUAREP-LiMi) initiative6 was formed. This initiative comprises imaging scientists from academia and industry who share a common interest in achieving a better understanding of the performance and limitations of microscopes and improved quality control (QC) in light microscopy. The ultimate goal of the QUAREP-LiMi initiative is to establish a set of common QC standards, guidelines, metadata models7,8, and tools9,10, including detailed protocols, with the ultimate aim of improving reproducible advances in scientific research.
This White Paper 1) summarizes the major obstacles identified in the field that motivated the launch of the QUAREP-LiMi initiative; 2) identifies the urgent need to address these obstacles in a grassroots manner, through a community of Stakeholders including, researchers, imaging scientists11, bioimage analysts, bioimage informatics developers, corporate partners, Funding agencies, standards organizations, scientific publishers, and observers of such; 3) outlines the current actions of the QUAREPLiMi initiative, and 4) proposes future steps that can be taken to improve the dissemination and acceptance of the proposed guidelines to manage QC.
To summarize, the principal goal of the QUAREP-LiMi initiative is to improve the overall quality and reproducibility of light microscope image data by introducing broadly accepted standard practices and accurately captured image data metrics.
This key comparison aims to assess the core capabilities of the participants in gas analysis. Such competences include, among others, the capabilities to prepare Primary Standard gas Mixtures (PSMs), perform the necessary purity analysis on the materials used in the gas mixture preparation, the verification of the composition of newly prepared PSMs against existing ones, and the capability of calibrating the composition of a gas mixture. According to the Strategy for Key Comparisons of the Gas Analysis Working Group, this key comparison is classified as an RMO track A key comparison.
The artefacts were binary mixtures of propane in nitrogen at a nominal amount-of-substance fraction level of 1000 μmol/mol. The values and uncertainties from the gravimetric gas mixture preparation were used as key comparison reference values (KCRVs). Each transfer standard had its own KCRV. The results are generally good. All results are within ± 1 % of the KCRV.
There is a high international priority attached to activities which reduce NOx in the atmosphere. The current level of permitted emissions is typically between 50 µmol/mol and 100 µmol/mol, but lower values are expected in the future. Currently, ambient air quality monitoring regulations also require the measurement of NOx mole fractions as low as 0.2 µmol/mol. The production of accurate standards at these levels of mole fractions requires either dilution of a stable higher concentration gas standard or production by a dynamic technique, for example one based on permeation tubes.
The CCQM-K74 key comparison was designed to evaluate the level of comparability of National Metrology Institutes' measurement capabilities and standards for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) at a nominal mole fraction of 10 µmol/mol.
The measurements of this key comparison took place from June 2009 to May 2010.
Seventeen laboratories took part in this comparison coordinated by the BIPM and VSL. The key comparison reference value was based on BIPM measurement results, and the standard measurement uncertainty of the reference value was 0.042 µmol/mol.
This key comparison demonstrated that the results of the majority of the participants agreed within limits of ±3% relative to the reference value. The results of only one laboratory lay significantly outside these limits. Likewise this comparison made clear that a full interpretation of the results of the comparison needed to take into account the presence of nitric acid (in the range 100 nmol/mol to 350 nmol/mol) in the cylinders circulated as part of the comparison, as well as the possible presence of nitric acid in the primary standards used by participating laboratories.
Main text. To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report. Note that this text is that which appears in Appendix B of the BIPM key comparison database kcdb.bipm.org/.
The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by the CCQM, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA).
DatesIssue 1A (Technical Supplement 2012)
We report the results of a Versailles Project on Advanced Materials and Standards interlaboratory study on the intensity scale calibration of x-ray photoelectron spectrometers using low-density polyethylene (LDPE) as an alternative material to gold, silver, and copper. An improved set of LDPE reference spectra, corrected for different instrument geometries using a quartz-monochromated Al Kα x-ray source, was developed using data provided by participants in this study. Using
these new reference spectra, a transmission function was calculated for each dataset that participants provided. When compared to a similar calibration procedure using the NPL reference spectra for gold, the LDPE intensity calibration method achieves an absolute offset of ∼3.0% and a systematic deviation of ±6.5% on average across all participants. For spectra recorded at high pass energies (≥90 eV), values of absolute offset and systematic deviation are ∼5.8% and ±5.7%, respectively, whereas for spectra collected at lower pass energies (<90 eV), values of absolute offset and systematic deviation are ∼4.9% and ±8.8%, respectively; low pass energy spectra perform worse than the global average, in terms of systematic deviations, due to diminished count rates and signal-to-noise ratio. Differences in absolute offset are attributed to the surface roughness of the LDPE induced by sample preparation. We further assess the usability of LDPE as a secondary reference material and comment on its performance in the presence of issues such as variable dark noise, x-ray warm up times, inaccuracy at low count rates, and underlying spectrometer problems. In response to participant feedback and the results of the study, we provide an updated LDPE intensity calibration protocol to address the issues highlighted in the interlaboratory study. We also comment on the lack of implementation of a consistent and traceable intensity calibration method across the community of x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) users and, therefore, propose a route to achieving this with the assistance of instrument manufacturers, metrology laboratories, and experts leading to an international standard for XPS intensity scale calibration.
The lead authors failed to name two collaborators as co-authors. The authors listed should include:
Miss Claudia L. Compean-Gonzalez (ORCID:
0000-0002-2367-8450) and Dr. Giacomo Ceccone (ORCID:
0000-0003-4637-0771).
These co-authors participated in VAMAS project A27, provided data that were analyzed and presented in this publication (and supporting information), and reviewed the manuscript before submission.
This pilot study compares the performance of participants in analyzing gas mixtures of nitrogen dioxide in nitrogen by comparison with in-house gravimetric standards using Fourier transformed infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR). In this study the same gas mixtures were used as in the key comparison CCQM-K74, which was designed to evaluate the level of comparability of National Metrology Institutes' measurement capabilities for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) at a nominal mole fraction of 10 µmol/mol. In the comparison CCQM-K74 most of the participants used chemiluminescence, with a small number using UV absorption or FT-IR spectroscopy, and thus it is of interest to improve understanding of the comparative performance of these techniques because they do not exhibit any cross-sensitivity to nitric acid (HNO3), which was known to be present in the mixtures used for the comparison.
The results of this pilot study indicate good consistency and a level of agreement similar to that reported in the comparison CCQM-K74, demonstrating that FT-IR can be operated as a comparison method when calibrated with appropriate gas standards and can achieve similar measurement uncertainties to chemiluminescence and UV absorption techniques.
An additional pilot study, CCQM-P110-B2, was conducted on the same gas mixtures in parallel with this pilot study. The second study addressed FT-IR spectroscopy when used to measure the gas mixtures with respect to reference spectra. The results of this second study will be reported elsewhere.
Main text. To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report.
The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by the CCQM-GAWG.
DatesIssue 1A (Technical Supplement 2012)
This study describes an interlaboratory comparison (ILC) among nine (9) laboratories to evaluate and validate the standard operation procedure (SOP) for single-particle (sp) ICP-TOFMS developed within the context of the Horizon 2020 project ACEnano. The ILC was based on the characterization of two different Pt nanoparticle (NP) suspensions in terms of particle mass, particle number concentration, and isotopic composition. The two Pt NP suspensions were measured using icpTOF instruments (TOFWERK AG, Switzerland).
Two Pt NP samples were characterized and mass equivalent spherical sizes (MESSs) of 40.4 ± 7 nm and 58.8 ± 8 nm were obtained, respectively. MESSs showed <16% relative standard deviation (RSD) among all participating labs and <4% RSD after exclusion of the two outliers. A good agreement was achieved between the different participating laboratories regarding particle mass, but the particle number concentration results were more scattered, with <53% RSD among all laboratories, which is consistent with results from previous ILC studies conducted using ICP-MS instrumentation equipped with a sequential mass spectrometer. Additionally, the capabilities of sp-ICP-TOFMS to determine masses on a particle basis are discussed with respect to the potential for particle density determination. Finally, because quasi-simultaneous multi-isotope and multielement determinations are a strength of ICP-TOFMS instrumentation, the precision and trueness of isotope ratio determinations were assessed. The average of 1000 measured particles yielded a precision of below ±1% for intensity ratios of the most abundant Pt isotopes, i.e. 194Pt and 195Pt, while the accuracy of isotope ratios with the lower abundant isotopes was limited by counting statistics.
The community-driven initiative Quality Assessment and Reproducibility for Instruments & Images in Light Microscopy (QUAREP-LiMi) wants to improve reproducibility for light microscopy image data through Quality control (QC) management of instruments and images. It aims for a common set of QC guidelines for Hardware calibration and image acquisition, management and analysis.