Skip Navigation


Annals of Occupational Hygiene Advance Access originally published online on January 24, 2006
Annals of Occupational Hygiene 2006 50(4):417-425; doi:10.1093/annhyg/mei077
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
50/4/417    most recent
mei077v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by STACEY, P. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by STACEY, P. R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


© 2006 British Occupational Hygiene Society Published by Oxford University Press

Original Article

The Performance of Laboratories Analysing Heavy Metals in the Workplace Analysis Scheme for Proficiency (WASP)

PETER R. STACEY*

The Health and Safety Laboratory, Harpur Hill, Buxton SK17 9JN, UK

* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: +44 (0)1298 218554; fax: +44 (0)1298 218571; e-mail: Peter.Stacey{at}hsl.gov.uk

This paper discusses the proficiency of laboratories analysing identical test samples representative of metals in air in the Workplace Analysis Scheme for Proficiency (WASP) and the variability of results from laboratories used to assess personal exposure in the workplace. Over 11 years, the performance of laboratories has significantly improved for lead, cadmium and chromium. Laboratories show better agreement when using inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES) than flame atomic absorption spectroscopy (FAAS) when analysing chromium, but not when analysing lead and cadmium. Data from the proficiency testing scheme show that for a customer to have confidence that a measurement value does not exceed the workplace exposure limit the analytical result would have to be <134 µg m–3 for lead and 23 µg m–3 for cadmium for an 8 h sample and 129 µg m–3 for lead, 21 µg m–3 for cadmium and 429 µg m–3 for chromium for a 4 h sample (for samples with relatively soluble matrices), before considering the further uncertainties due to sampling. The performance criterion for satisfactory performance (±8.3%) was found to be appropriate as long as laboratories participated consecutively in all rounds. Estimates of the overall uncertainty of results from ICP-AES and FAAS analysis were shown to meet the criteria in EN482. Samples from some types of workplace environments are more difficult than the WASP test material to dissolve into solution, so it is expected that estimates of uncertainty are larger for less soluble analytes and matrices. WASP has now initiated a programme to help laboratories assess their performance with more complex matrices.

Keywords: analysis • cadmium • chromium • lead • occupational hygiene • performance • proficiency-testing • uncertainty


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 ANN OCCUP HYGHome page
P. Stacey and O. Butler
Performance of Laboratories Analysing Welding Fume on Filter Samples: Results from the WASP Proficiency Testing Scheme
Ann. Hyg., June 1, 2008; 52(4): 287 - 295.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.