Selectivity in analytical chemistry: Two interpretations for univariate methods
Article (Accepted Version)
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
Selectivity is extremely important in analytical chemistry but its definition is elusive despite continued efforts by professional organizations and individual scientists. This paper shows that the existing selectivity concepts for univariate analytical methods broadly fall in two classes: selectivity concepts based on measurement error and concepts based on response surfaces (the response surface being the 3D plot of the univariate signal as a function of analyte and interferent concentration, respectively). The strengths and weaknesses of the different definitions are analyzed and contradictions between them unveiled. The error based selectivity is very general and very safe but its application to a range of samples (as opposed to a single sample) requires the knowledge of some constraint about the possible sample compositions. The selectivity concepts based on the response surface are easily applied to linear response surfaces but may lead to difficulties and counterintuitive result...s when applied to nonlinear response surfaces. A particular advantage of this class of selectivity is that with linear response surfaces it can provide a concentration independent measure of selectivity. In contrast, the error based selectivity concept allows only yes/no type decision about selectivity.
Keywords:
Analytical method / Selectivity / Error / InterferenceSource:
Talanta, 2015, 132, 680-684Publisher:
- Elsevier Science Bv, Amsterdam
Funding / projects:
- Rational design and synthesis of biologically active and coordination compounds and functional materials, relevant for (bio)nanotechnology (RS-MESTD-Basic Research (BR or ON)-172035)
- OTKA, Hungary [K104724]
Note:
- This is the peer-reviewed version of the following article: Dorkó, Z.; Verbić, T.; Horvai, G. Selectivity in Analytical Chemistry: Two Interpretations for Univariate Methods. Talanta 2015, 132, 680–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2014.10.018
DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2014.10.018
ISSN: 0039-9140
PubMed: 25476364
WoS: 000349278900094
Scopus: 2-s2.0-84910069908
Collections
Institution/Community
Hemijski fakultet / Faculty of ChemistryTY - JOUR AU - Dorko, Zsanett AU - Verbić, Tatjana AU - Horvai, George PY - 2015 UR - https://cherry.chem.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/3416 AB - Selectivity is extremely important in analytical chemistry but its definition is elusive despite continued efforts by professional organizations and individual scientists. This paper shows that the existing selectivity concepts for univariate analytical methods broadly fall in two classes: selectivity concepts based on measurement error and concepts based on response surfaces (the response surface being the 3D plot of the univariate signal as a function of analyte and interferent concentration, respectively). The strengths and weaknesses of the different definitions are analyzed and contradictions between them unveiled. The error based selectivity is very general and very safe but its application to a range of samples (as opposed to a single sample) requires the knowledge of some constraint about the possible sample compositions. The selectivity concepts based on the response surface are easily applied to linear response surfaces but may lead to difficulties and counterintuitive results when applied to nonlinear response surfaces. A particular advantage of this class of selectivity is that with linear response surfaces it can provide a concentration independent measure of selectivity. In contrast, the error based selectivity concept allows only yes/no type decision about selectivity. PB - Elsevier Science Bv, Amsterdam T2 - Talanta T1 - Selectivity in analytical chemistry: Two interpretations for univariate methods VL - 132 SP - 680 EP - 684 DO - 10.1016/j.talanta.2014.10.018 ER -
@article{ author = "Dorko, Zsanett and Verbić, Tatjana and Horvai, George", year = "2015", abstract = "Selectivity is extremely important in analytical chemistry but its definition is elusive despite continued efforts by professional organizations and individual scientists. This paper shows that the existing selectivity concepts for univariate analytical methods broadly fall in two classes: selectivity concepts based on measurement error and concepts based on response surfaces (the response surface being the 3D plot of the univariate signal as a function of analyte and interferent concentration, respectively). The strengths and weaknesses of the different definitions are analyzed and contradictions between them unveiled. The error based selectivity is very general and very safe but its application to a range of samples (as opposed to a single sample) requires the knowledge of some constraint about the possible sample compositions. The selectivity concepts based on the response surface are easily applied to linear response surfaces but may lead to difficulties and counterintuitive results when applied to nonlinear response surfaces. A particular advantage of this class of selectivity is that with linear response surfaces it can provide a concentration independent measure of selectivity. In contrast, the error based selectivity concept allows only yes/no type decision about selectivity.", publisher = "Elsevier Science Bv, Amsterdam", journal = "Talanta", title = "Selectivity in analytical chemistry: Two interpretations for univariate methods", volume = "132", pages = "680-684", doi = "10.1016/j.talanta.2014.10.018" }
Dorko, Z., Verbić, T.,& Horvai, G.. (2015). Selectivity in analytical chemistry: Two interpretations for univariate methods. in Talanta Elsevier Science Bv, Amsterdam., 132, 680-684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2014.10.018
Dorko Z, Verbić T, Horvai G. Selectivity in analytical chemistry: Two interpretations for univariate methods. in Talanta. 2015;132:680-684. doi:10.1016/j.talanta.2014.10.018 .
Dorko, Zsanett, Verbić, Tatjana, Horvai, George, "Selectivity in analytical chemistry: Two interpretations for univariate methods" in Talanta, 132 (2015):680-684, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2014.10.018 . .