-
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2018 11:10 am
Limit of detection and Limit of quantification
Discussions about HPLC, CE, TLC, SFC, and other "liquid phase" separation techniques.
12 posts
Page 1 of 1
Can we consider the standard deviation of precision for calculating LOD and LOQ.
-
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:29 pm
- Location: Switzerland
Probably yes.
See this 2nd article of a 5 part series from John Dolan's LCGC-Troubleshooting articles
http://www.lcresources.com/tsbible/hs2900.htm
See this 2nd article of a 5 part series from John Dolan's LCGC-Troubleshooting articles
http://www.lcresources.com/tsbible/hs2900.htm
-
- Posts: 3475
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:54 pm
- Location: Western Kentucky
Hollow wrote:
Probably yes.
See this 2nd article of a 5 part series from John Dolan's LCGC-Troubleshooting articles
http://www.lcresources.com/tsbible/hs2900.htm
Depends on what regulating agency if any the data is reported to. Once the lawyers get involved the science can get thrown out in favor of protocol.
The past is there to guide us into the future, not to dwell in.
-
- Posts: 1861
- Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 11:54 am
I notice the ICH are currently rewriting Q2(R1) and will be producing a Q2(R2) which will include this sort of topic.
-
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2018 11:10 am
Hollow wrote:
Probably yes.
See this 2nd article of a 5 part series from John Dolan's LCGC-Troubleshooting articles
http://www.lcresources.com/tsbible/hs2900.htm
In this article it was mentioned to take the standard deviation of calibration curve.
In method validation PRECISION is one parameter, so, can we consider the standard deviation of that precision as sigma value and substitute in the LOD formula.
-
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 12:36 pm
- Location: South America
Dear DeviSirisa
You can use this formula:
CV= 50 / S/N
Where S/N is the signal to noise ratio
Taken from Prctical HPLC Method Development Snyder et al.
Best regards
Fernando
You can use this formula:
CV= 50 / S/N
Where S/N is the signal to noise ratio
Taken from Prctical HPLC Method Development Snyder et al.
Best regards
Fernando
- tom jupille
- Site Admin
-
- Posts: 4978
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 4:55 pm
- Location: Alamo, CA / USA
Be careful with that one, Fernando! It is only an approximation, and uses a different measure for S/N from that used by the USP.
In any case, the reason for using the standard error of the y-intercept to evaluate LOD and LLOQ is that it avoids the issues involved with S/N measurements (e.g., the exact definition of S/N, where you measure the noise, over how long a interval you measure noise, etc.)
In any case, the reason for using the standard error of the y-intercept to evaluate LOD and LLOQ is that it avoids the issues involved with S/N measurements (e.g., the exact definition of S/N, where you measure the noise, over how long a interval you measure noise, etc.)
-- Tom Jupille
LC Resources / Separation Science Associates
tjupille@lcresources.com
+ 1 (925) 297-5374
LC Resources / Separation Science Associates
tjupille@lcresources.com
+ 1 (925) 297-5374
-
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 12:36 pm
- Location: South America
Dear Tom
Yes, as always you are right, it is only an aproximation but in certain cases a usefull one. Thank you for your explanation.
Best regards.
Fernando
Yes, as always you are right, it is only an aproximation but in certain cases a usefull one. Thank you for your explanation.
Best regards.
Fernando
-
- Posts: 656
- Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 7:45 am
- Location: Denmark
From a scientific point of view, I think using the precision and accuracy of the method to define LOD/LOQ is far better than the other methods. Depending what the method will be used for, the acceptable precision/accuracy will be different.
The S/N method is completely unrelated to the actual results of the method.
But that being said, the guidelines seem to favor the S/N measurement and I always include that in my validations. Otherwise I will have to do it anyway when the authorities come back with questions..
The S/N method is completely unrelated to the actual results of the method.
But that being said, the guidelines seem to favor the S/N measurement and I always include that in my validations. Otherwise I will have to do it anyway when the authorities come back with questions..
-
- Posts: 1861
- Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 11:54 am
I have had difficulties with S/N since discovering that of the three integrators provided with Thermo's Xcalibur some years ago, the two that reported S/N gave values that were orders of magnitude different, for the same chromatogram! Which raises the question of which to use...
Also S/N ratio is very vulnerable if the data have been collected with a signal threshold (if all points near a weak peak have been rounded to zero, then there is no noise, in which case the S/N ratio is infinite. It's also vulnerable in weak data, because weak data can have a very low S/N ratio, but still be very variable, in which case the limit of quantification will be drastically underestimated.
But the method based on the s.d. of the calibration curve is also far from perfect. Errors are harder to measure than means (i.e. the uncertainty of the s.d. (its own RSD) is generally a greater fraction of the s.d. than the s.d. is of the mean).
Also S/N ratio is very vulnerable if the data have been collected with a signal threshold (if all points near a weak peak have been rounded to zero, then there is no noise, in which case the S/N ratio is infinite. It's also vulnerable in weak data, because weak data can have a very low S/N ratio, but still be very variable, in which case the limit of quantification will be drastically underestimated.
But the method based on the s.d. of the calibration curve is also far from perfect. Errors are harder to measure than means (i.e. the uncertainty of the s.d. (its own RSD) is generally a greater fraction of the s.d. than the s.d. is of the mean).
-
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 12:36 pm
- Location: South America
Mattias wrote:
From a scientific point of view, I think using the precision and accuracy of the method to define LOD/LOQ is far better than the other methods. Depending what the method will be used for, the acceptable precision/accuracy will be different.
The S/N method is completely unrelated to the actual results of the method.
But that being said, the guidelines seem to favor the S/N measurement and I always include that in my validations. Otherwise I will have to do it anyway when the authorities come back with questions..
Hi Mattias
It is very interesting, how do you define the LOD/LOQ with the precision and accuracy (I think you use them from the assay)?
Greetings
Fernando
-
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 12:36 pm
- Location: South America
lmh wrote:
I have had difficulties with S/N since discovering that of the three integrators provided with Thermo's Xcalibur some years ago, the two that reported S/N gave values that were orders of magnitude different, for the same chromatogram! Which raises the question of which to use...
Also S/N ratio is very vulnerable if the data have been collected with a signal threshold (if all points near a weak peak have been rounded to zero, then there is no noise, in which case the S/N ratio is infinite. It's also vulnerable in weak data, because weak data can have a very low S/N ratio, but still be very variable, in which case the limit of quantification will be drastically underestimated.
But the method based on the s.d. of the calibration curve is also far from perfect. Errors are harder to measure than means (i.e. the uncertainty of the s.d. (its own RSD) is generally a greater fraction of the s.d. than the s.d. is of the mean).
Hi lmh
My experience is only with the Chemstation of the HP1100, I run a placebo for say 20 minutes, many times, and use the ASTM method of noise calculation.
Best rregards,
Fernando
12 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
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.
- Follow us on Twitter: @Sep_Science
- Follow us on Linkedin: Separation Science