one point vs multiple points calibration

Discussions about HPLC, CE, TLC, SFC, and other "liquid phase" separation techniques.

6 posts Page 1 of 1
I was reading a 2006 thread, https://www.chromforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4697&hilit=multiple+point+calibration+standard&start=30


and summarized the correct conclusion, at least I thought, in this Google Doc.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uW4ydYRC0suC9Pta1tBnYvEu7eRSDPZG/view?usp=sharing

I am not sure if this is going to work or violate anything.

If works, can you please open the link, and add to the comments if you agree. If not, can you provide a reason why. Your name/contacts is optional.

Such that we will find consensus. Thanks and Cheers!
Excel
last link did not work, I am trying again

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing
Excel
There's a risk of restarting the entire debate here, but perhaps that's no bad thing; more than a decade has passed, and opinions change.

There is some confusion about the role of multiple points on a calibration curve. You have two sources of error.
(1) Random variation
(2) A systematic difference between the true curve of response versus concentration, and your calibration curve (which is an approximation to the true curve of response versus concentration). (I assume concentration but the situation is just the same if you're measuring amount).

You need to get a result that is sufficiently close to the correct value. If you are suffering from random variation, then multi-point calibration is not going to rescue you, since the overall error results both from inaccuracies in the calibration curve, and inaccuracies in the measurement of the sample. In this instance you need to replicate calibration and also sample measurements, until the standard error on the mean of the multiple measurements is small enough compared to your required precision. In this particular situation, the calibration curve's contribution to the overall error depends on its standard deviation at the concentration of the sample. Merely adding more points might not improve the situation. For example, if you're currently using 1 point calibration at 100nM, and you add a couple more calibration points at 10 and 20uM, the resulting curve will be almost unchanged around 100uM, so any random error in the 100uM point will have just the same effect as before; the standard deviation of the curve at 100uM is unchanged, but you have no way to know this. You'd need more replicates of the 100uM point.

Multiple points in the calibration curve are the thing that solves problem (2). It's quite simple: over the region in which you intend to measure samples, the deviation between the true curve and the calibration curve must be smaller than the acceptable precision (allowing also for additional errors from random variation). Single point calibration is, as Peter Apps said, actually 2-point calibration using the origin as a spare point, so if all your measurements are within a few percent of the calibrant value, and you've proven that the curve is approximately linear at the calibrant value, and points towards the origin, then your single-point calibration is safe. If the calibration curve is proven to be approximately linear at the calibrant value but it's not pointing towards the origin, then you will need at least two points, to find the slope and intercept.

The main point is you don't have to worry what the curve does outside the region in which you intend to use it, but you do have to worry about what it does at all points between your lowest and highest samples. This means that you need enough calibration points to define the curve. You cannot, unfortunately, set a global rule of what this is, or at least not without knowing about the curvature and characteristics of the detector. I suppose it might be possible to assume that all detectors follow smooth curves, not strange S-bends (though this is a bit dangerous; MS can happily do an S-shape), and state some sort of rule of starting with 3 calibration points, A, B and the average of A and B, and determining the number of required calibration points based on the deviation of the mean of A and B from the standard containing the mean concentration (does that make sense?). I.e. how far does the curve that we measure deviate from a straight line that we can easily fit? But it's all a bit guessworkish. Good statistical packages can actually show the confidence intervals on a regression, which is really what you want to know. If I think my curve is sufficiently well defined by 5 points, how far off could it be?

In practice, use multiple replicates of points at single concentrations if your assay is to be used over a narrow range, but you are fighting against random errors for precision. Use multiple points over an appropriate range if you're measuring samples over a wider range, and fighting a curvy calibration curve. I don't know how you put that in concrete terms in a document intended for less-informed readers!
Thanks lmh for your insights.

one point, if the std and sample are similar enough then the systemic error will be cancelled off between the std and samples,unless the precision/accuracy is no good.

one question, when LC MS is employed, do you actually see the relative response factor going down(or up) twice or more (so as to in the shape of S or two S)?

To all, do you have a reference guidance/article summarizing when to adopt one calibration? when two? Three? Five? seven?
Excel
Check out sections 5 and 6 of the "statistics in analytical chemistry" series by Coleman and Vanetta:
https://www.americanlaboratory.com/1403 ... lpi_4346=4
-- Tom Jupille
LC Resources / Separation Science Associates
tjupille@lcresources.com
+ 1 (925) 297-5374
The S-shaped curve can happen where you have binding sites or something that cause initially an upward-curving calibration curve (low points are lower than they should be, because a limited number of binding sites are mopping up some of the analyte; later they are swamped out and become irrelevant, so the slope becomes more linear again) - and then at very high concentrations things start to saturate (electrospray usually shows saturation at some point in a curvy way). So it will be an exceptional situation, happening over a wide range of concentrations.
But I don't want to generalise; out there, somewhere, there is always some horrible analyte that is giving painfully weird calibration curves to a perfectly innocent analyst who doesn't deserve the stress they're enduring.
6 posts Page 1 of 1

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 1117 on Mon Jan 31, 2022 2:50 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Latest Blog Posts from Separation Science

Separation Science offers free learning from the experts covering methods, applications, webinars, eSeminars, videos, tutorials for users of liquid chromatography, gas chromatography, mass spectrometry, sample preparation and related analytical techniques.

Subscribe to our eNewsletter with daily, weekly or monthly updates: Food & Beverage, Environmental, (Bio)Pharmaceutical, Bioclinical, Liquid Chromatography, Gas Chromatography and Mass Spectrometry.

Liquid Chromatography

Gas Chromatography

Mass Spectrometry