Overview
The spreadsheet of diffusion tube co-location results, used for calculating a national bias adjustment factor, also contains information on the precision of the diffusion tubes, in those cases where duplicate or triplicate tubes were exposed. At the request of a number of local authorities, the precision data for each laboratory have been brought together in a summary form.
This page contains the following sections. Use the links below to jump to a specific section.
- Precision versus Accuracy (Bias)
- Good versus Poor Precision
- Precision Summary Results
- What to do with Poor Precision
Precision versus Accuracy (Bias)
Precision should not be confused with accuracy. Diffusion tube precision can be described as the ability of a measurement to be consistently reproduced, i.e., how similar the results of duplicate or triplicate tubes are to each other. Accuracy represents the ability of the measurement to represent the “true” value, which, in this case, is defined as the result from the automatic analyser. When averaged over a number of sets of results, bias can become evident. This represents the overall tendency of the diffusion tubes to depart from the “true” value, i.e., to systematically over- or under-read when compared against the reference method.
Once identified, bias can be adjusted for in order to improve the accuracy of diffusion tube results. This is completed using bias adjustment factors, which have been found to be specific to a laboratory and tube preparation method.
A spreadsheet database of bias adjustment factors obtained from Local Authority co-location studies has been compiled and can be downloaded from the National Bias Adjustment Factors page.
Unlike bias, poor precision cannot be adjusted for. It can only be improved by careful handling of the tubes in both the laboratory and the field. The two Figures below illustrate the difference between bias and precision. Both sets of results have the same calculated negative bias, shown by the vertical red line, compared with the true value. However, those in the top part of the Figure have poor precision, whereas those in the lower part have good precision (the vertical spread is just a way of displaying the large number of individual results).
Good versus Poor Precision
For the purposes of Local Air Quality Management, tube precision is separated into two categories, “good” or “poor”, as follows: tubes are considered to have “good” precision where the Coefficient of Variation (CV) of duplicate or triplicate diffusion tubes for eight or more periods during the year is less than 20%, and the average CV of all monitoring periods is less than 10%. Tubes are considered to have “poor” precision where the CV of four or more periods is greater than 20% and/or the average CV is greater than 10%.
A spreadsheet tool has been developed to calculate the overall precision of a particular co-location study or any sets of duplicate or triplicate results. The tool can be downloaded from the Local Bias Adjustment Factors page.
The distinction between “good” and “poor” precision is an indicator of how well the same measurement can be reproduced. This precision will reflect the laboratory’s performance or consistency in preparing and analysing the tubes, as well as the subsequent handling of the tubes in the field. Any laboratory can show “poor” precision for a particular period or co-location study, if this is due to poor handling of the tubes in the field.
Precision Summary Results
The diffusion tube precision summary results are provided below. This details the total number of recorded good/bad precision results for the last 3 years for laboratories that currently provide diffusion tube analysis.
Current Version
| Diffusion Tube Preparation Method | 2021 Good | 2021 Bad | 2022 Good | 2022 Bad | 2023 Good | 2023 Bad |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gradko, 50% TEA in Acetone | 16 | 0 | 16 | 0 | 16 | 0 |
| Gradko, 20% TEA in Water | 34 | 0 | 33 | 0 | 25 | 0 |
| ESG Didcot / SOCOTEC, 50% TEA in Acetone | 25 | 3 | 29 | 0 | 33 | 2 |
| ESG Didcot / SOCOTEC, 20% TEA in Water | 14 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 8 | 0 |
| Staffordshire Scientific Services | 15 | 1 | 13 | 0 | 12 | 0 |
| Glasgow Scientific Services | 2 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 |
| Edinburgh Scientific Services | 6 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 2 |
| Milton Keynes Council | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Tayside Scientific Services | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Lambeth Scientific Services | 8 | 1 | 6 | 4 | 10 | 1 |
| Aberdeen Scientific Services | 7 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 7 | 0 |
| South Yorkshire Air Quality Samplers | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| ESG Glasgow, 50% TEA in Acetone | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| ESG Glasgow, 20% TEA in Water | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Somerset County Council | 11 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 12 | 0 |
Details
Please note that the performance of a laboratory may change from one year to another. Therefore, when assessing the performance of a laboratory using the findings in the above summary, account should be taken of the proportion of “poor” precision co-location results, not just the presence or absence of poor precision co-location results. Given this, particular care should be exercised when interpreting the results for a laboratory with only a few precision results. Some laboratories in the co-location spreadsheet are not represented in the summary, because there were no duplicate or triplicate co-location results for that laboratory (some co-location studies are carried out using tubes exposed singly).
Please contact the LAQM Helpdesk if you require a copy of the full set of recorded precision results (2008 – Present) and all laboratories.
What to do with Poor Precision Results
Where results show “poor” precision, they should be treated with caution, and may not be suitable for their intended purpose. If a particular local authority has “poor” precision from most or all of its duplicate or triplicate data sets, it should review its own tube handling procedures.
If these are judged to be good then it will be appropriate to look at the precision results for the applicable laboratory to see if this may be the explanation for poor precision. The aim should be to use results from diffusion tubes that are giving “good” precision, as this will improve the overall reliability of the annual mean concentrations derived from diffusion tubes.
