4.7 Article

Relative uncertainty-based Bayesian interlaboratory consensus building

Journal

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
Volume 870, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.161977

Keywords

Interlaboratory consensus; Environmental sampling; Measurement uncertainty; Bayesian inference

Ask authors/readers for more resources

An uncertainty-based Bayesian strategy was developed and tested among environmental laboratories to address the interlaboratory agreement problem. The proposed hybrid approach showed no sensitivity to outliers and had a transparent and robust agreement structure. The algorithmic procedure can explore both laboratory performances and conformity between independent samples.
An interlaboratory comparison is typically conducted among the laboratories for the purpose of providing quality assurance and control. To solve the interlaboratory agreement problem, a distinct type of metrological challenge, a new uncertainty-based Bayesian strategy was developed and tested among environmental laboratories. A holistic algorithm with the key phases of sampling, outlier analysis, recognition, and simulation-based structure identification was developed and is being addressed in place of conventional indices and plots. Computer simulations showed that the proposed hybrid approach has no discernible sensitivity to outliers and that the agreement structure is transparent and robust. Some meta-data is also generated by the analysis based on relative uncertainty. To measure the perfor-mance and capability of Bayesian consensus building algorithm, the uncertainty intervals were established and com-parative evaluations have been carried out using the conventional techniques. As a result, the suggested algorithm can explore both the laboratory performances (harmony) and the conformity between two independent samples. The algorithmic procedure features a generalizable framework that may be adapted in other fields to obtain a consen-sus among the laboratories.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available