A 11 ID 3 DfiSTID

NBS SPECIAL PUBLICATION 260-

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE / National Bureau of Standards

Standard Reference Materials:

A REFERENCE METHOD FOR

THE DETERMINATION

OF CHLORIDE IN SERUM
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The National Bureau of Standards' was established by an act of Congress on March 3, 1901. The Bureau's overall goal is to strengthen and advance the Nation's science and technology

and facilitate their effective application for public benefit. To this end, the Bureau conducts

research and provides: (1) a basis for the Nation's physical measurement system, (2) scientific and technological services for industry and government, (3) a technical basis for equity in trade, and (4) technical services to promote public safety. The Bureau's technical work is per- formed by the National Measurement Laboratory, the National Engineering Laboratory, and

the Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology.

THE NATIONAL MEASUREMENT LABORATORY provides the national system of

physical and chemical and materials measurement; coordinates the system with measurement

systems of other nations and furnishes essential services leading to accurate and uniform

physical and chemical measurement throughout the Nation's scientific community, industry,

and commerce; conducts materials research leading to improved methods of measurement,

standards, and data on the properties of materials needed by industry, commerce, educational

institutions, and Government; provides advisory and research services to other Government

agencies; develops, produces, and distributes Standard Reference Materials; and provides

calibration services. The Laboratory consists of the following centers:

Absolute Physical Quantities2 — Radiation Research — Thermodynamics and

Molecular Science — Analytical Chemistry — Materials Science. THE NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY provides technology and technical ser- vices to the public and private sectors to address national needs and to solve national problems; conducts research in engineering and applied science in support of these efforts; builds and maintains competence in the necessary disciplines required to carry out this research and technical service; develops engineering data and measurement capabilities;

provides engineering measurement traceability services; develops test methods and proposes

engineering standards and code changes; develops and proposes new engineering practices;

and develops and improves mechanisms to transfer results of its research to the ultimate user. The Laboratory consists of the following centers:

Applied Mathematics — Electronics and Electrical Engineering2 — Mechanical

Engineering and Process Technology2 — Building Technology — Fire Research —

Consumer Product Technology — Field Methods.

THE INSTITUTE FOR COMPUTER SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY conducts

research and provides scientific and technical services to aid Federal agencies in the selection, acquisition, application, and use of computer technology to improve effectiveness and

economy in Government operations in accordance with Public Law 89-306 (40 U.S.C. 759), relevant Executive Orders, and other directives; carries out this mission by managing the Federal Information Processing Standards Program, developing Federal ADP standards

guidelines, and managing Federal participation in ADP voluntary standardization activities; provides scientific and technological advisory services and assistance to Federal agencies; and

provides the technical foundation for computer-related policies of the Federal Government. The Institute consists of the following centers:

Programming Science and Technology — Computer Systems Engineering.

'Headquarters and Laboratories at Gaithersburg, MD, unless otherwise noted; mailing address Washington, DC 20234. 'Some divisions within the center are located at Boulder, CO 80303.
NOV 3 0 1979

Standard Reference Materials:

A REFERENCE METHOD FOR THE DETERMINATION OF

CHLORIDE IN SERUM

Ranee A. Velapoldi, Robert C. Paule,

Robert Schaffer, John Mandel,

Thomas J. Murphy, and

John W. Gramlich

National Measurement Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

With the cooperation of a Committee of Experts:

George N. Bowers, Jr.,

1 Bradley E. Copeland,2 Denis O. Rodgerson,3 and James M. White4

'Hartford Hospital, Hartford, Connecticut

2 New England Deaconess Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts

'Department of Pathology, University of California,

Los Angeles, California "Center for Disease Control, Atlanta, Georgia

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Luther H. Hodges, Jr., Under Secretary

Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director

Issued November 1979
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 79-600174

National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 260-67

Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Publ. 260-67, 97 pages (Nov. 1979) CODEN: XNBSAV

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1979

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402

Stock No. 003—003—02136-9 Price $3 J5

(Add 25 percent additional for other than U.S. mailing).
PREFACE

Standard Reference Materials (SRM's) as defined by the

National Bureau of Standards are well - characterized materials,

produced in quantity and certified for one or more physical

or chemical properties. They are used to assure the accuracy

and compatibility of measurements throughout the nation.

SRM's are widely used as primary standards in many diverse

fields in science, industry, and technology, both within the

United States and throughout the world. They are also used

extensively in the fields of environmental and clinical analysis. In many applications, traceability of quality control

and measurement processes to the national measurement system

are carried out through the mechanism and use of SRM's. For

many of the nation's scientists and technologists it is

therefore of more than passing interest to know the details

of the measurements made at NBS in arriving at the certified

values of the SRM's produced. An NBS series of papers, of

which this publication is a member, called the NBS Special

Publication - 260 Series is reserved for this purpose.

This 260 Series is dedicated to the dissemination of

information on different phases of the preparation, measurement, certification and use of NBS-SRM's. In general, much

more detail will be found in these papers than is generally

allowed, or desirable, in scientific journal articles. This

enables the user to assess the validity and accuracy of the

measurement processes employed, to judge the statistical

analysis, and to learn details of techniques and methods

utilized for work entailing the greatest care and accuracy.

These papers also should provide sufficient additional information not found on the certificate so that new applications

in diverse fields not foreseen at the time the SRM was originally issued will be sought and found.

iii
Inquiries concerning the technical content of this paper

should be directed to the author(s). Other questions concerned with the availability, delivery, price, and so forth

will receive prompt attention from:

Office of Standard Reference Materials

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

George A. Uriano, Chief

Office of Standard Reference Materials

iv
FOREWORD

A fundamental requirement for assuring adequate patient

care is the need for the accurate analysis of constituents

in body fluids. Two major functions of the National Bureau

of Standards (NBS) are to provide certified Standard

Reference Materials for the calibration of measurement

systems and to develop new or improved analytical methods.

The results presented in this NBS Special Publication provide

a methodology of known accuracy for the determination of

chloride in serum. The evaluation of a reference method by

comparison to a definitive method, used for the first time

at NBS in the development of reference methods for calcium,

sodium, and potassium in serum, also was applied to this work.

This hierarchy of analytical procedures has been accepted as

a valid format for developing reference methods by the

clinical community at a recent Conference on an Understanding

for a National Reference System in Clinical Chemistry.

In an undertaking of this magnitude, extensive collaboration with a committee of experts, the Center for Disease

Control, the Food and Drug Administration, and a wide

spectrum of participating analytical laboratories that

included Federal, state, hospital, industrial, and academic

laboratories was essential to establish a widely accepted

reference method. It is hoped that this work will provide

an additional basis for the development of future clinical

reference methods through continued collaboration and the

concerted efforts of the individual participants.

Philip D. LaFleur, Director

Center for Analytical Chemistry

v
NOTE

i

Because of concern for the usability of this chloride

reference method, the Center for Disease Control (CDC)

management has declined to endorse the method described in

this report. NBS supports the evolution of analytical

methods and desires to participate in interlaboratory exercises

that are aimed toward establishing the transferability of

proposed reference procedures. NBS believes it important

that the principles of analytical practice delineated in

this present report be circulated in a timely manner. Since

the method outlined in this report has been shown to satisfy

the generally accepted criteria of a reference method, it

should function as such until the efficacy of a subsequent

method has been demonstrated. NBS will maintain its primary

role in supplying SRM's and definitive methods.

vi
OTHER NBS PUBLICATIONS IN THIS SERIES

Catalog of NBS Standard Reference Materials

(1979-80 edition), R. W. Seward, ed., NBS

Spec. Publ. 260 (April 1979) $3.00* SN003-003-

02048-6

Michaelis, R. E., and Wyman, L. L., Standard

Reference Materials: Preparation of White Cast

Iron Spectrochemical Standards, NBS Misc.

Publ. 260-1 (June 1964). COM74-1 1061**

Michaelis, R. E., Wyman, L. L., and Flitsch, R.,

Standard Reference Materials: Preparation of

NBS Copper-Base Spectrochemical Standards,

NBS Misc. Publ. 260-2 (October 1964). COM74-

11063**

Michaelis, R. E., Yakowitz, H., and Moore, G. A.,

Standard Reference Materials: Metallographic

Characterization of an NBS Spectrometric LowAlloy Steel Standard, NBS Misc. Publ. 260-3

(October 1964). COM74-1 1060**

Hague, J. L., Mears, T. W., and Michaelis, R. E., Standard Reference Materials: Sources of

Information, NBS Misc. Publ. 260-4 (February

1965). COM74-11059

Alvarez, R., and Flitsch, R., Standard Reference

Materials: Accuracy of Solution X-Ray Spectrometric Analysis of Copper-Base Alloys, NBS

Misc. Publ. 260-5 (March 1965). PB168068**

Shultz, J. L, Standard Reference Materials:

Methods for the Chemical Analysis of White

Cast Iron Standards, NBS Misc. Publ. 260-6

(July 1975). COM74-11068**

Bell, R. K., Standard Reference Materials:

Methods for the Chemical Analysis of NBS

Copper-Base Spectrochemical Standards, NBS

Misc. Publ. 260-7 (October 1965). COM74-

11067**

Richmond, M. S., Standard Reference Materials:

Analysis of Uranium Concentrates at the

National Bureau of Standards, NBS Misc. Publ.

260-8 (December 1965). COM74-1 1066**

Anspach, S. C, Cavallo, L. M., Garfinkel, S. B., Hutchinson, J. M. R., and Smith, C. N., Standard Reference Materials: Half Lives of Materials

Used in the Preparation of Standard Reference

Materials of Nineteen Radioactive Nuclides

Issued by the National Bureau of Standards,

NBS Misc. Publ. 260-9 (November 1965).

COM74-11065**

Yakowitz, H., Vieth, D. L., Heinrich, K. F. J., and

Michaelis, R. E., Standard Reference Materials:

Homogeneity Characterization on NBS Spectrometric Standards II: Cartridge Brass and LowAlloy Steel, NBS Misc. Publ. 260-10 (December

1965). COM74-11064**

Napolitano, A., and Hawkins, E. G., Standard

Reference Materials: Viscosity of Standard

Lead-Silica Glass, NBS Misc. Publ. 260-11

(November 1966). NBS Misc. Publ. 260-11**

Yakowitz, H., Vieth, D. L., and Michaelis, R. E., Standard Reference Materials: Homogeneity

Characterization of NBS Spectrometric Standards III: White Cast Iron and Stainless Steel Powder Compact, NBS Misc. Publ. 260-12

(September 1966). NBS Misc. Publ. 260-12**

Spijkerman, J. L., Snediker, D. K., Ruegg, F. C,

and DeVoe, J. R., Standard Reference Materials: Mossbauer Spectroscopy Standard for the

Chemical Shift of Iron Compounds, NBS Misc.

Publ. 260-13 (July 1967). NBS Misc. Publ.

260-13**

Menis, O., and Sterling, J. T., Standard Reference

Materials: Determination of Oxygen in Ferrous

Materials - SRM 1090, 1091, and 1092, NBS

Misc. Publ. 260-14 (September 1966). NBS Misc.

Publ. 260-14**

Passaglia, E., and Shouse, P. J. Standard Refer- ence Materials: Recommended Method of Use

of Standard Light-Sensitive Paper for Calibrating Carbon Arcs Used in Testing Textiles for Colorfastness to Light, NBS Misc. Publ. 260-15

(June 1967). (Replaced by NBS Spec. Publ.

260-41.)

Yakowitz, H., Michaelis, R. E., and Vieth, D. L., Standard Reference Materials: Homogeneity

Characterization of NBS Spectrometric Standards IV: Preparation and Microprobe Characterization of W-20% MO Alloy Fabricated by

Powder Metallurgical Methods, NBS Spec.

Publ. 260-16 (January 1969). COM74-1 1062**

Catanzaro, E. J., Champion, C. E., Garner, E. L., Marinenko, G., Sappenfield, K. M., and Shields,

W. R. Standard Reference Materials: Boric

Acid; Isotopic and Assay Standard Reference

Materials, NBS Spec. Publ. 260-17 (February

1970). Out of Print

vii
Geller, S. B., Mantek, P.A., and Cleveland, N.

G., Standard Reference Materials: Calibration of NBS Secondary Standard Magnetic Tape

(Computer Amplitude Reference) Using the

Reference Tape Amplitude Measurement

"Process A, "NBS Spec. Publ. 260-18 (November

1969). (See NBS Spec. Publ. 260-29.)

Paule, R. C, and Mandel, J., Standard Reference

Materials: Analysis of Interlaboratory Measurements on the Vapor Pressure of Gold (Certification of Standard Reference Material 745). NBS

Spec. Publ. 260-19 (January 1970). PB190071**

Paule, R. C, and Mandel, J., Standard Reference

Materials: Analysis of Interlaboratory Measurements on the Vapor Pressures of Cadmium and

Silver, NBS Spec. Publ. 260-21 (January 1971).

COM74-11359**

Yakowitz, H., Fiori, C. E., and Michaelis, R. E., Standard Reference Materials: Homogeneity

Characterization of Fe-3 Si Alloy, NBS Spec.

Publ. 260-22 (February 1971). COM74-1 1357**

Napolitano, A., and Hawkins, E. G., Standard

Reference Materials: Viscosity of a Standard

Borosilicate Glass, NBS Spec. Publ. 260-23

(December 1970). COM71-00 157**

Sappenfield, K. M., Marineko, G., and Hague, J. L., Standard Reference Materials: Comparison

of Redox Standards, NBS Spec. Publ. 260-24

(January 1972). COM72-50058**

Hicho, G. E., Yakowitz, H., Rasberry, S. D., and

Michaelis, R. E., Standard Reference Materials:

A Standard Reference Material Containing

Nominally Four Percent Austenite, NBS Spec.

Publ. 260-25 (February 1971). COM74-1 1356**

Martin, J. F., Standard Reference Materials:

National Bureau of Standards-US Steel Corportion Joint Program for Determining Oxygen and

Nitrogen in Steel, NBS Spec. Publ. 260-26

(February 1971). 85 cents* SN003-003-00786-2

Garner, E. L., Machlan, L. A., and Shields, W. R.,

Standard Reference Materials: Uranium

Isotopic Standard Reference materials, NBS

Spec. Publ. 260-27 (April 1971). COM74-

11358**

Heinrich, K. F. J., Myklebust, R. L., Rasberry, S. D., and Michaelis, R. E., Standard Reference

Materials: Preparation and Evaluation of

SRM's 481 and 482 Gold-Silver and GoldCopper Alloys for Microanalysis, NBS Spec.

Publ. 260-28 (August 1971). COM71-50365**

viii

!

| Geller, S. B., Standard Reference Materials: Calibration of NBS Secondary Standard Magnetic

Tape (Computer Amplitude Reference) Using

the Reference Tape Amplitude Measurement

"Process A-Model 2," NBS Spec. Publ. 260-29

(June 1971). COM71-50282

Gorozhanina, R. S., Freedman, A. Y., and

Shaievitch, A. B. (translated by M. C. Selby),

Standard Reference Materials: Standard

Samples Issued in the USSR (A Translation

from the Russian). NBS Spec. Publ. 260-30 (June

1971). COM71-50283**

Hust, J. G., and Sparks, L. L., Standard Reference

Materials: Thermal Conductivity of Electrolytic Iron SRM 734 from 4 to 300 K, NBS Spec. Publ.

260-31 (November 1971). COM71-50563**

Mavrodineanu, R., and Lazar, J. W., Standard

Reference Materials: Standard Quartz Cuvettes,

for High Accuracy Spectrophotometry, NBS

Spec. Publ. 260-32 (December 1973). 55 cents* SN003-003-01213-1

Wagner, H. L., Standard Reference Materials:

Comparison of Original and Supplemental

SRM 705, Narrow Molecular Weight Distri- bution Polystyrene, NBS Spec. Publ. 260-33

(May 1972). COM72-50526**

Sparks, L. L., and Hust, J. G., Standard Reference

Materials: Thermoelectric Voltage, NBS Spec.

Publ. 260-34, (April 1972). COM72-50371**

Sparks, L. L., and Hust, J. G., Standard Refer- ence Materials: Thermal Conductivity of

Austenitic Stainless Steel, SRM 735 from 5

to 280 K, NBS Spec. Publ. 260-35 (April 1972.)

35 cents* COM72-50368**

Cali, J. P., Mandel, J., Moore, L. J., and Young, D.

S., Standard Reference Materials: A Referee

Method for the Determination of Calcium in Serum, NBS SRM 915, NBS Spec. Publ. 260-36

(May 1972). COM72-50527**

Shultz, J. I. Bell., R. K. Rains, T. C, and Menis,

O., Standard Reference Materials: Methods of

Analysis of NBS Clay Standards, NBS Spec.

Publ. 260-37 (June 1972). COM72-50692**

Richmond, J. C, and Hsia, J. J., Standard Refer- ence Materials: Preparation and Calibration of

Standards of Spectral Specular Reflectance,

NBS Spec. Publ. 260-38 (May 1972). COM72-

50528**

Clark, A. F., Denson, V.A., Hust, J. G., and

Powell, R. L., Standard Reference Materials

The Eddy Current Decay Method for Resistivity

Characterization of High-Purity Metals, NBS

Spec. Publ. 260-39 (May 1972). COM72-50529**
McAdie, H. G., Garn, P.D., and Menis, O., Standard Reference Materials: Selection of Thermal

Analysis Temperature Standards Through a Cooperative Study (SRM 758, 759, 760), NBS

Spec. Publ. 260-40 (August 1972.) COM72-

50776**

Wood, L. A., and Shouse, P. J., Standard

Reference Materials: Use of Standard LightSensitive Paper for Calibrating Carbon Arcs

Used in Testing Textiles for Colorfastness to

Light, NBS Spec. Publ. 260-41 (August 1972)

COM72-50775**

Wagner, H. L. and Verdier, P. H., eds., Standard

Reference Materials: The Characterization of

Linear Polyethylene, SRM 1475, NBS Spec.

Publ. 260-42 (September 1972). COM72-

50944**

Yakowitz, H., Ruff, A. W., and Michaelis, R. E., Standard Reference Materials: Preparation and

Homogeneity Characterization of an Austenitic

Iron-Chromium-Nickel Alloy, NBS Spec. Publ.

260-43 (November 1972). COM73-50760**

Schooley, J. F., Soulen, R. J., Jr., and Evans, G. A.,

Jr., Standard Reference Materials: Preparation

and Use of Superconductive Fixed Point

Devices, SRM 767, NBS Spec. Publ. 260-44

(December 1972). COM73-50037**

Greifer, B., Maienthal, E. J. Rains, T. C, and

Rasberry, S. D., Standard Reference Materials:

Powdered Lead-Based Paint, SRM 1579, NBS

Spec. Publ. 260-45 (March 1973). COM73-

50226**

Hust, J. G., and Giarratano, P. J., Standard Refer- ence Materials: Thermal Conductivity and

Electrical Resistivity Standard Reference Materials: Austenitic Stainless Steel, SRM's 735 and

798, from 4 to 1200 k, NBS Spec. Publ. 260-46

(March 1975). SN003-003-0 1278-5

Hust, J. G., Standard Reference Materials: Electrical Resistivity of Electrolytic Iron, SRM 797,

and Austenitic Stainless Steel, SRM 798, from 5 to 280 K, NBS Spec. Publ. 260-47 (February

1974). COM74-50176**

Mangum, B. W., and Wise, J. A., Standard Refer- ence Materials: Description and Use of Precision

Thermometers for the Clinical Laboratory,

SRM 933 and SRM 934, NBS Spec. Publ. 260-48

(May 1974). 60 cents* SN003-003-0 1278-5

Carpenter, B. S., and Reimer, G. M., Standard

Reference Materials Calibrated Glass Standards for Fission Track Use, NBS Spec. Publ.

260-49 (November 1974). SN003-003-0 1344-7

Hust, J. G., and Giarratano, P. J., Standard Refer- ence Materials: Thermal Conductivity and Electrical Resistivity Standard Reference Materials:

Electrolytic Iron, SRM's 734 and 797 from 4 to 1000 K, NBS Spec. Publ. 260-50 (June 1975).

$1.00* SN003-003-01425-7

Mavrodineanu, R., and Baldwin, J. R., Standard

Reference Materials: Glass Filters As a Standard

Reference Material for Spectrophotometry;

Selection; Preparation; Certification; Use-SRM

930, NBS Spec. Publ. 260-51 (November 1975).

$1.90* SN003-003-01481-8

Hust, J. G., and Giarratano, P. J., Standard Refer- ence Materials: Thermal Conductivity and Electrical Resistivity Standard Reference Materials

730 and 799, from 4 to 3000 K, NBS Spec. Publ.

260-52 (September 1975). $1.05* SN003-003-

01464-8

Durst, R. A., Standard Reference Materials:

Standardization of pH Measurements, NBS

Spec. Publ. 260-53 (Under Revision).

Burke, R. W., and Mavrondineanu, R. Standard

Reference Materials: Certification and Use of

Acidic Potassium Dichromate Solutions as an

Ultraviolet Absorbance Standard, NBS Spec.

Publ. 260-54 (August 1977). $3.00* SN003-003-

01828-7

Ditmars, D. A., Cezairliyan, A., Ishihara, S., and

Douglas, T. B., Standard Reference Materials:

Enthalpy and Heat Capacity; Molybdenum

SRM 781, from 273 to 2800 K, NBS Spec. Publ.

260-55 (September 1977). $2.20* SN003-003-

01836-8

Powell, R. L., Sparks, L. L., and Hust, J. G.,

Standard Reference Materials: Standard

Thermocouple Materials, Pt.67: SRM 1967, NBS

Spec. Publ. 260-56 (February 1978). $2.20*

SN003-OO3-0 18864

Cali, J. P. and Plebanski, T., Guide to United

States Reference Materials, NBS Spec. Publ.

260-57 (February 1978). $2.20* SN003-003-

01883-0

Barnes, J. D., and Martin, G. M., Standard Refer- ence Materials: Polyester Film for Oxygen Gas

Transmission Measurements SRM 1470, NBS

Spec. Publ. 260-58 (June 1979) $2.00* SN003-

003-02077

Chang, T., and Kahn, A. H., Standard Reference

Materials: Electron Paramagentic Resonance

Intensity Standard: SRM 2601, NBS Spec.

Publ. 260-59 (August 1978) $2.30* SN003-

003-01975-5
Velapoldi, R. A., Paule, R. C, Schaffer, R.,

Mandel, J., and Moody, J. R., Standard Refer- ence Materials: A Reference Method for the Determination of Sodium in Serum, NBS Spec.

Publ. 260-60 (August 1978). $3.00* SN003-O03-

01978-0

Verdier, P. H., and Wagner, H. L., Standard Refer- ence Materials: The Characterization of Linear

Polyethylene (SRM 1482, 1483, 1484), NBS

Spec. Publ. 260-61 (December 1978). $1.70*

SN003-003-02006-1

Soulen, R. J., and Dove, R. B., Standard Reference

Materials: Temperature Reference Standard

for Use Below 0.5 K (SRM 768), NBS Spec.

Publ. 260-62 (April 1979). $2.30* SN003-003-

02047-8

Velapoldi, R. A., Paule, R. C, Schaffer, R.,

Mandel, J., Machlan, J. L., and Gramlich, J. W.,

Standard Reference Materials: A Reference

Method for the Determination of Potassium in Serum, NBS Spec. Publ. 260-63 (May 1979).

$3.75* SN003-003-02068

Velapoldi, R. A., and Mielenz, K. D., Standard

Reference Materials: A Fluorescence Standard

Reference Material Quinine Sulfate Dihydrate

(SRM 936), NBS Spec. Publ. 260-64 (in press).

Marinenko, R. B., Heinrich, K. F. J., and Ruegg,

F. C, Standard Reference Materials: MicroHomogeneity Studies of NBS Standard Reference

Materials, NBS Research Materials, and Other

Related Samples, NBS Spec. Publ. 260-65

(September 1979). $3.50* SN-003-003-021 14-1 Venable, W. H., Jr. and Eckerle, K. L., Standard

Reference Materials: Didymium Glass Filters for Calibrating the Wavelength Scale of Spectrophotometers (SRM 2009, 2010, 2013), NBS Spec.

Publ. 260-66 (in press).

Velapoldi, R. A., Paule, R. C, Schaffer, R., Mandel,

J., Murphy, T. J., and Gramlich, J. W., Standard

Reference Materials: A Reference Method for the Determination of Chloride in Serum, NBS Spec.

Publ. 260-67 (in press).

* Send order with remittance to: Superintendent

of Documents, US Government Printing

Office, Washington, DC 20402. Remittance

from foreign countries should include an

additional one-fourth of the purchase price for postage. ** May be ordered from: National Technical

Information Services (NTIS), Springfield,

Virginia 22151.

X
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

I. INTRODUCTION 2

II. DEVELOPMENT OF THE SERUM CHLORIDE REFERENCE

METHOD 4

A. Organization 4

B. Participating Laboratories, Standards, Serum

Samples, and Definitive Method 7

C. Functions of the Various Groups 10

D. Plan for Testing the Candidate Reference

Method

.

12

III. REFERENCE METHOD PROTOCOL FOR THE DETERMINATION

OF SERUM CHLORIDE 14

A. General 14

B. Protocol Synopsis 14

C. Detailed Protocol 15

IV. RESULTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 29

A. Interlaboratory Exercise Results 29

V. DISCUSSION. . 56

A. Candidate Protocol 56

VI. CONCLUSIONS 60

VII. REFERENCES 62

APPENDIX A 65

APPENDIX B 66

APPENDIX C 68

APPENDIX D 78

xi
LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO . PAGE

1. Preliminary results from NBS comparing the

coulometric-amperometric (C-A) and IDMS

techniques for the determination of serum

chloride 6

2. Chloride concentrations for the seven serum pools

as determined by IDMS, the definitive method. . 10

3. Sodium chloride standard solutions 18

4. Serum chloride concentrations reported by the

participating laboratories for the Preliminary

Interlaboratory Exercise 31

5. Concentration of serum chloride reported by 34

the participating laboratories for §

Interlaboratory Exercise I, micro- and

macropipetting protocols 35

6. Concentration of serum chloride reported by the 38

participating laboratories for Interlaboratory §

Exercise II, micropipett ing protocol 39

7. Concentration of serum chloride reported by the

participating laboratories for Interlaboratory

Exercise II, macropipetting protocol 40

8. Percent deviations from averages for chloride in

serum from Interlaboratory Exercise II,

micropipetting protocol 43

9. Percent deviations from averages for chloride in

serum from Interlaboratory Exercise II,

macropipetting protocol 44

10. Ratios of standard deviations to average standard

deviation for chloride in serum from Interlaboratory Exercise II, micropipetting protocol . . 45

11. Ratios of standard deviations to average standard

deviation for chloride in serum from Interlaboratory Exercise II, macropipetting protocol . . 46

12. Components of standard deviation in mmol/L for

all Interlaboratory Exercise II chloride ion

levels (79-117 mmol/L) 48

xii
LIST OF TABLES (continued)

TABLE NO . PAGE

13. Summary of imprecision and bias results in mmol/L

for chloride ion in serum, Interlaboratory

Exercise II 50

14. Summary of chloride ion in serum values ±2

standard errors 51

15. Calibration curve data for chloride in serum,

Interlaboratory Exercise II, micropipetting

protocol 53

16. Calibration curve data for chloride in serum,

Interlaboratory Exercise II, macropipett ing

protocol 54

17. Calibration curve results for chloride in serum

as standard deviation of fit ( s £^ t

) i- n mmol/L . 55

18. Instruments, pipets, and various protocol

parameters used by the participating

laboratories in Interlaboratory Exercise I and Interlaboratory Exercise II 58

xiii
LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO . PAGE

1. Interrelationships and functions of the various

groups in the development of a clinical

reference method for the determination of

serum chloride 11

2. Typical calibration curve for the determination

of serum chloride by a coulometric-amperometric

technique 25

3. Percent deviation of individual results from the

collective average of the measurements obtained

in the Preliminary Interlaboratory Exercise . . 32

4. Percent deviations of the Interlaboratory

Exercise I measurements using micro- and

macropipett ing from the definitive method

values 36

5. Percent deviations of the Interlaboratory

Exercise II measurements using micro- and

macropipett ing from the definitive method

values 41

xiv
ABSTRACT

Guided by a committee of experts in clinical chemistry,

a reference method was established for the determination of

serum chloride based on a coulometric t itration-amperometric

end-point determination (C-A) . Its accuracy was evaluated

by comparing the values obtained by use of the method in 14

laboratories against the results obtained by a definitive

analytical method based on isotope dilution-mass spectrometry

(IDMS) . Seven serum pools with chloride concentrations in

the range 79.2 to 116.8 mmol/L were analyzed. Micro- and

macropipetting alternatives were tested using sample sizes

of 0.010-0.100 and 5.0 mL, respectively.

The laboratories used several different C-A instruments.

The results showed that the standard error for a single

laboratory's performance of the procedure was approximately

1.0 mmol/L with a maximum bias of 0.5 mmol/L over the range

of concentrations studied. These values are within the

accuracy and precision goals that had been set by the committee. The results from the micro- and macropipetting techniques

were similar. The calibration curve data showed excellent

linearity over the total concentration range, with 12 of 14

curves having standard deviations of fit of less than 0.80

mmol/L.

With appropriate experimental design, the reference

method may be used to establish the accuracy of field methods

as well as to determine reference chloride values for pooled

sera.

Key Words: Amperometry; chloride analysis; clinical

analysis; clinical chemistry; coulometry;

definitive method; electrolytes; reference

method; serum chloride analysis.

1
I. INTRODUCTION

Chloride, an electrolyte commonly analyzed in serum,

plays an integral role in the assessment of acid-base

imbalance, in calculating the anion gap, and acts as a secondary indication of changes in other electrolyte concentrations [l] 5

. An excess concentration of chloride in

perspiration is indicative of the disease cystic fibrosis [2]

.

Serum chloride has been determined by a wide range of

analytical methods; these include gravimetry, photometry,

iodometry, titrimetry, electrometry , conductometry , and

polarography as well as isotope dilution, indirect flame

emission photometry, and atomic absorption [3] . In general,

all these procedures suffer from interference from the

presence of bromide ion, and care must be taken in interpreting

analytical results for patients who may have elevated levels

of serum bromide [4].

Three analytical techniques have been suggested as standard procedures. They are: a mercurimetric determination

using diphenyl carbazone as an indicator [5] ; an argent imetric

determination using dichlorofluorescein as an indicator [6]

;

and a procedure developed by Cotlove based on established

principles of coulometric generation of titrant (Ag

+

) and

amperometric indication of the end point [7] . Whether any of

these methods should be considered by clinical laboratories

as the clinical reference method for serum chloride has not

been proven; the accuracy of none of these methods is known.

Two approaches may be used for establishing the accuracy

of analytical methods. In the first, the results obtained

from the methods in use for that analyte are compared using

typical samples and selected samples containing known interferences for the analyses. Statistical correlations are used

5 The bracketed numerals refer to the references listed at

the end of this paper.

2
to express the interrelationships of the methods. A technique

is then considered to be accurate to the degree established

by knowledge of the sources of error and the agreement of

results. In the second, a single candidate method is selected

(possibly the 'best' of the methods recognized by the first

approach) and studied in detail. Each step of the candidate

method is optimized and examined so that the systematic and

the random errors can be quantitatively expressed.

Studies have been organized using a combination of these

approaches to establish the accuracies of clinical chemistry

methods for total calcium, sodium, and potassium in serum

[8,9,10]. For calcium, the analytical procedure was based on

the flame atomic absorption spectrometric method of Pybus

,

Feldman, and Bowers [11] , while for sodium and potassium the

method was based on flame atomic emission spectrometry. The

accuracies of these methods were assessed by using them on

several human serum pools for calcium and bovine serum pools

for sodium and potassium in selected clinical laboratories

and comparing the results obtained against those obtained for

the same pools by isotope dilution-mass spectrometry (IDMS)

methods for calcium and potassium and an ion-exchange —

gravimetry method for sodium. These analyses were performed

at the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) where the high

accuracy of those methods 6 were established by determining

their systematic and random errors [12].

These studies, carried out with the guidance of clinical

laboratory experts, used (a) Standard Reference Materials

[13] as the pure, primary reference material to prepare standard solutions of calcium, sodium, and potassium for all the

analyses; (b) serum pools prepared at the Hartford Hospital

(Hartford) and/or the Center for Disease Control (CDC,

6 Such methods are referred to as definitive methods because

of their high accuracy and utility for evaluating the

accuracy of a candidate reference method.

3
Atlanta) ; (c) definitive method analyses for calcium, sodium,

or potassium at NBS; (d) statistical analysis of the data at

NBS; and (e) accuracy and precision goals as performance

standards that the methods would have to meet to be recommended as the clinical reference method for total calcium

[14] , sodium, or potassium [15] in serum.

This same approach was adopted to develop clinical

reference methods for a number of other serum electrolytes

including chloride, lithium, and magnesium. The work was

begun with the cooperation of individuals from the Standards

Committees of the American Association for Clinical Chemistry

(AACC) and the College of American Pathologists (CAP) , the

CDC and the NBS. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

provided major suppport for the NBS work. The progress of

this program was reported regularly to the AACC Standards

Committee. We present in this report the development of a clinical reference method for serum chloride.

A proposed reference method for both sodium and potassium

in serum using similar methodologies but without interlaboratory exercises has been reported recently [16] . .

II. DEVELOPMENT OF THE SERUM CHLORIDE REFERENCE METHOD

A. Organization

A panel of experts in clinical chemistry was invited

to meet at NBS in March 1974 to consider the development of

reference methods for five serum electrolytes, namely,

chloride, potassium, sodium, lithium, and magnesium. The

overall program for the development of these reference

methods was organized by Dr. Robert Schaffer (NBS) and

Dr. Ranee A. Velapoldi (NBS). The invited experts were

Dr. George N. Bowers, Jr. (Hartford Hospital),

Dr. Bradley E. Copeland (New England Deaconess Hospital),

4
Dr. Denis 0. Rodgerson (Center for Health Sciences, University

of California in Los Angeles), and Dr. James M. White 7 (CDC).

Prior to the meeting, several bovine serum pools prepared

at the CDC had been analyzed for chloride by a coulometricamperometric technique and by IDMS. The results, summarized

in Table 1, were presented at the meeting as follows:

coulometric- amperometric (C-A) 8 as obtained at NBS using

commercial instrumentation by Dr. R. A. Durst; and IDMS as

obtained at NBS by Mr. T. J. Murphy. On consideration of

1) the quite similar analytical results in Table 1, 2) alternative clinical laboratory procedures, and 3) instrumentation

available in most clinical laboratories, it was concluded

that the coulometric- amperometric technique using commercial

instrumentation for the determination of serum chloride was

the appropriate candidate methodology to evaluate as the

reference method and that its evaluation should be made

using IDMS as the definitive method.

7 Dr. James White died after this program was well underway.

He was recommended for membership on this Experts Committee

on electrolytes by Dr. Joseph H. Boutwell (CDC). Dr. White

made significant contributions to the development of the

reference methods. His knowledge, advice, and cooperation

in all phases of this work contributed greatly to the

success of the program.

8 The end point may be determined potent iometrically

however, for simplicity, the procedure will be represented

by the letters C-A.

5
Table 1. Preliminary results from NBS comparing the

coulometric-amperometric (C-A) and IDMS

techniques for the determination of serum

chloride

CI in Serum, mmol/L

Pool

1

4

7

IDMS

79. 2

101. 8

116. 8

C-Au

79. 8

100. 8

115. 3

Data from T. J. Murphy (NBS).

'Data from R. A. Durst (NBS).

The experts agreed to serve as the Committee to oversee

the development of the reference method for chloride (as

well as for the other electrolytes discussed at the meeting).

The Committee chose Dr. Bowers as chairman. Dr. Copeland

agreed to serve as the Committee's representative to work

with those at NBS who would be involved in writing the

protocol for the chloride reference method. The Committee

agreed that the coulometric method should use a concentration

bracketing technique rather than calibration curves for

determining chloride concentrations. However, calibration

curve data should be obtained as a general check on the

measurement system and to determine which of the primary

standard solutions would be used to bracket the chloride

levels in the samples being analyzed.

As goals for the candidate reference method, the maximum

bias of the method and its one-standard deviation imprecision

limit were set by the Committee at 2.0 and 1.5 mmol/L, respectively, for serum chloride at the 100.0 mmol/L level. These

goals were to be achieved by controlled, interlaboratory

6
tests involving a selected group of clinical chemistry

laboratories which would perform the analyses by the C-A

method according to the written protocol. NBS would provide

chloride values by the definitive method.

B. Participating Laboratories, Standards, Serum Samples,

and Definitive Method

The laboratories that were asked to participate in the

interlaboratory study were chosen to represent a wide spectrum

of clinical chemistry interests and included government

(federal and state) and hospital laboratories, and laboratories associated with suppliers of instruments and of test

and control materials. Two hospitals were located outside

the United States. The principal investigators at these

laboratories are named in the list below. Other scientists

in each of the laboratories who contributed to this study

are acknowledged by name in Appendix A. The list includes

three laboratories that participated only in the concluding

interlaboratory work. They were added to maintain a minimum

number of laboratories when some of the original laboratories

were unable to continue their participation. In alphabetical

order of the principal investigator, the laboratories that

participated in the interlaboratory studies are:

Dr. George N. Bowers, Jr.

Dr. Robert W. Burnett

Hartford Hospital

Hartford, CT 06115

Dr. Bradley E. Copeland

New England Deaconess Hospital

Boston, MA 02215

7
4

Dr. Richard A. Durst

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

Dr. Gordon Edwards

Dade Division

American Hospital Supply Co.

Miami, FL 33152

Dr. Lorentz Eldjarn

Dr. Johan Kofstad

Rikshospitalet , University of Oslo

Oslo, Norway

Dr. Nathan Gochman

Veterans Administration Hospital

San Diego, CA 92161

Mr. Cecil Hassig

American Instrument Co.

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Dr. Denis 0. Rodgerson

Center for Health Sciences, University of California

Los Angeles, CA 90025

Mr. William Ryan

Beckman Instruments

Fullerton, CA 92634

Mr. Leonard Sideman

Department of Health

Philadelphia, PA 19130

Dr. Barbara Tejeda

Food and Drug Administration

Washington, D. C. 20250

8
Dr. Thomas Tracey

Technicon, Inc.

Tarrytown, NY 10591

Dr. James M. White

Dr. Richard Carter

Center for Disease Control

Atlanta, GA 30333

Dr. Charles E. Willis

College of American Pathologists, Cleveland Clinic

Cleveland, OH 44106

NBS Standard Reference Material Sodium Chloride (SRM 919,

see Appendix B) was to be used as the pure, primary reference

material for all analyses [13]. Seven pools of homogeneous,

sterile, bovine serum having different concentrations of

chloride, were prepared at the CDC by Dr. David Bayse and

Ms. Sue Lewis. Samples of each pool were supplied in approximately 7-mL volumes in sealed vials that were labeled with

computer- generated random numbers. The samples, packed in

dry ice, were shipped to NBS by air and within 24 h of

packing were placed in freezers kept at -50 °C [17]. The

pools were numbered in code from 1 to 7 according to increasing

chloride concentration.

A definitive method based on IDMS was developed at NBS

and is given in Appendix C. The chloride concentrations for

the seven serum pools were determined by this procedure and

the results obtained are summarized in Table 2.

9
Table 2. Chloride concentrations for the seven

serum pools as determined by IDMS, the

definitive method.

Pool [CI" ] , mmol/L

1 79.2 + 0.4 a

2 84. 5 + 0.4

3 94. 0

+ 0. 5

4 101. 8

+ 0.5

5 107.2 + 0.5

6 112. 9

+ 0.6

7 116.8 + 0.6

a Estimated maximum error of 0.5 percent of the

value as reported by NBS Analytical Mass

Spectrometry Section. This estimated maximum

error includes both imprecision and an estimated

upper bound for possible systematic errors. The

estimated maximum error is believed to be equal

to or greater than the true error for the 95

percent confidence limits.

C. Functions of the Various Groups

The interrelationships and functions of the various

groups involved in developing C-A as a reference method for'

serum chloride are represented in figure 1. The Committee,

CDC, and NBS provided guidance and technical support for the

program and also served as participating laboratories. The

Experts Committee selected the candidate reference method,

set maximum bias and imprecision goals for an acceptable

reference method, assisted NBS in selecting other participating laboratories, and reviewed all analytical results.

The CDC provided the serum pools. The participating laboratories provided the interlaboratory test data and critiques

of the candidate reference method protocol.

10
EXPERTS

COMMITTEE

• GUIDE AND REVIEW

I

WORK

• SELECT CANDIDATE

METHOD • SET ANALYTICAL

GOALS

TECHNICAL

SUPPORT

CDC

PROVIDE SERUM

POOLS • OUTLINED

PROTOCOL

• SRM • DEFINITIVE METHOD AND DETERMINE

SERUM POOL VALUES • STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

DETAILED PROTOCOL

COORDINATION

OF WORK

PARTICIPATING LABORATORIES

• ANALYZE SERUM POOLS • PROTOCOL EVALUATION

Figure 1. Interrelationships and functions of the various

g

groups in the development of a clinical reference

method for the determination of serum chloride.

11
At NBS, Dr. R. Schaffer served as the Reference Method

Program Manager and Dr. R. A. Velapoldi served as the coordinator. The format of the interlaboratory exercises (IE) 9 was established within the constraints imposed by protocol

requirements and sample availability by Drs. John Mandel,

Robert Paule, and Ranee Velapoldi. Dr. Velapoldi wrote the

protocol for the candidate reference method from the outline

provided by Drs. B. Copeland and D. Grisley. Drs. Mandel

and Paule performed the statistical evaluation of the results

from the interlaboratory tests. The definitive method was

performed by Mr. Thomas Murphy and Dr. John Gramlich.

D. Plan for Testing the Candidate Reference Method

The general plan was to evaluate the candidate reference

method by performing a series of interlaboratory exercises,

which would consist of a preliminary test (IE-P) followed by

successive interlaboratory exercises until the goals for the

reference method were reached. A main objective of the IE-P

was to allow participating laboratories to become familiar

with and comment on the protocol. Since an evaluation of

the bias was not sought in the IE-P tes ting ' phase , normal

bovine serum samples [18] not having definitive method analyses were to be used. However, interlaboratory imprecision

was to be measured. If the imprecision of the results in

the IE-P was found to be small, IE testing would begin on

samples having definitive method chloride values.

In an IE, each participating laboratory would perform

the same analyses on two separate days: i.e., analyze a pair of samples from each serum pool on each of two days

where a minimum of one day or a maximum of seven days were

to elapse between the two series of analyses. The bias and

9 In previous reports, the Interlaboratory Exercises were

called Round Robin Tests.

12
imprecision values obtained by statistical analysis would

then be compared to the goals set by the Committee for the

reference method. If the goals were not met, additional

IE's using samples from other pools would be conducted by

following the protocol or a modified form of it until the

bias and imprecision goals were reached. Revisions and

modifications to the protocol could be made after an interlaboratory exercise had been completed but would not be made

after the final IE.

Three kinds of information were to be supplied by each

participating laboratory after finishing an interlaboratory

exercise

1. General Data — a list of the instrumental parameters

used and comments on the protocol including problems

encountered during the analysis;

2. Calibration Curve Data — a list of the ' instrumentally' measured mmol/L values 10 versus the actual

chloride concentrations of the standards calculated

from the NaCl used; and

3. Valid Measurement Data — a list of the sets of data

that constituted the three measurements on a single

sample

Examples of the data sheets on which the information was

collected are shown in Appendix D, Note 8.

10 These measured values also could have the units of time

for coulometric production of the titrant.

13
III. REFERENCE METHOD PROTOCOL FOR THE DETERMINATION

OF SERUM CHLORIDE

A. General

This protocol provides for the analysis of serum chloride

by a coulometric- amperometric procedure using a micropipet to

introduce the serum samples directly into the titration cup.

A macropipetting and diluting procedure is also included as

an alternative; however, the same instrumentation is used

for the determination. Both procedures are to conform to

the requirements of the instrumentation used.

B. Protocol Synopsis

The protocol must be followed exactly. The reference

method is used to analyze four samples of a serum or pool:

two on one day and the other two on a subsequent day.

Approximately 2 mL of sample is required to carry out the

micropipetting procedure while 25-40 mL is needed to carry

out the macropipetting procedure.

1. Use an analytical balance to weigh the SRM NaCl in the

appropriate quantity to prepare a stock standard

chloride solution;

2. Use single or multiple micropipets or a single macropipet to transfer aliquots of the sample to the C-A

titration cup or to dilute the aliquots to the levels

used as working solutions of a) the serum, b) the stock

standard chloride solutions, and c) the solution used

as a blank;

3. Obtain calibration curve data on the working blank and

standards

14
4. Measure the C-A values on the working solutions of the

serum sample; select the pair of working standards whose

C-A values most closely bracket the value for each

sample

;

5. For each sample to be analyzed, obtain three valid

measurement sets by measuring the C-A values obtained

from repeated sequential measurements of the working

solutions of the low bracketing standard, the aliquot of

that sample, and the high bracketing standard;

6. Calculate the chloride concentration of the aliquot for

each set by mathematical interpolation;

7. Average the three calculated values to obtain a 'single

measurement' of that sample; (in the statistical

analysis, each such average is designated a 'single

measurement ' )

;

8. Perform steps (4) through (7) for each sample to be

analyzed on the first day;

9. Repeat steps (1) through (8) on the subsequent day to

obtain the second pair of measurements needed for each

sample

;

10. Average the four values obtained by the replicate

determinations to obtain the chloride concentration

for each serum pool.

C. Detailed Protocol

The selection of the specific alternatives of the

protocol to be used dictates the glassware and diluent ' volumes needed. These needs are summarized in the protocol

or in Appendix D notes. Stock solutions and working solutions

are to be prepared at and maintained at a room temperature

that is constant within ±2 °C (see Appendix D, Note 1)

.

15
1 . Reagent Specifications

a. Water : At the time of preparation, the distilled

and/or deionized water used should exhibit a specific resistance of at least 10 kfi«m at 23 ± 2 °C.

At the time of use, titration of this water should

show a C-A value that is less than 0.1 percent of

full scale at the instrumental settings used for

the analysis. A large quantity of this water (more

than 10 L) must be available for use as diluent and

for the final rinsings of all glassware and other

apparatus that come in contact with the solutions

involved. Unless specified otherwise, the water

referred to in this protocol is this tested water.

b. Chloride Standard Solutions : Use Standard Reference

Material Sodium Chloride (originally issued as

SRM 919, Certificate reproduced in Appendix B) [13]

certified by the National Bureau of Standards. The

SRM NaCl should be dried at 110 °C for four hours

in a loosely capped container and then stored

in a desiccator containing CaSG\ or an equivalent

des iccant

.

c. The supporting electrolyte constituents used are

specified in the instruction manual for the

particular instrument used.

d. Nitric acid, chloroform, methanol and 95-percent

ethanol conforming to ACS [19] (or equivalent)

specifications are to be used.

2 . Glassware Specifications

a. Volumetric glassware (Appendix D, Note 2) should

be of borosilicate material and meet NBS Class A

[20] or equivalent specifications.

16
The micropipets should have the following accuracy

tolerances

Volume (yL) ±3 S.D. (yL)

20 0. 24

100 1.4

(Examples of appropriate micropipets are: ClayAdams, Parsippany, New Jersey 07054, Number 4625

for the 100 yL pipet and Number 4618 for the 20 yL,

see footnote 11, p. 57.)

All glass or plastic surfaces that come into contact

with reagents, water, diluent, sample, or supporting

electrolyte must be clean (Appendix D, Note 3).

Preparation of Reagents

Chloride Standard Stock Solutions : Prepare standard

solutions with nominal chloride concentrations of

75-, 90-, 100- , 110-, and 125-mmol/L. Weigh accurately (to 0.1 mg) approximately 1.09, 1.32, 1.46,

1.61, and 1.83 g of dried SRM NaCl (MW = 58.44277,

Appendix D, Note 4) and transfer each quantitatively into separate, appropriately labelled,

250-mL volumetric flasks. Dissolve the NaCl using

approximately 100 mL of water. Fill flasks to the

calibrated volume with water, stopper, and mix by

inverting the flask and shaking ten times. Repeat

flask inversion and shaking ten times. Calculate

the concentration of the NaCl solutions in mmol/L

to two decimal places according to the exact weights

of sodium chloride used, and record these values on

the data sheets; an example of this step is given

in Table 3.

17
Table 3. Sodium chloride standard solutions.

Solution (NaCl) a

, mmol/L NaCl, g

1 75 00 1. 0958

2 90 07 1. 3150

3 100. 12 1. 4628

4 110 09 1. 6085

5 125 10 1. 8278

aThe NaCl concentrations were calculated using

atomic weights from the literature reference

cited in Appendix D, Note 4.

b. Supporting Electrolyte Solution Follow the instrument manufacturer's instructions for the preparation

of the supporting electrolyte.

c. Dilute Nitric Acid (0.77 mol/L) : Prepare by making

a twenty-fold dilution of concentrated nitric acid

(15.4 mol/L) with water.

4 . Pipetting and Dilution Procedures

a . For Instruments in Which Microvolumes of Sample

are Added Directly to the Titration Cell

(1) Micropipetting of Solutions, General: Several

types of micropipets may be used including those

in which the solutions are drawn up by capillary

action or suction (aspirator or plunger) . Micropipets are to be used with a wash-out technique.

If all micropipets meet the accuracy specifications

given in Section IIIC-2, then different micropipets

may be used for solutions of blank, standard, and

sample; if they do not meet these specifications,

a single micropipet must be used throughout. In

18
the latter case, the micropipet must be cleaned

as described in Appendix D, Note 3, or if this

micropipet employs a plunger with a positive displacement that ejects all of the aliquot, the pipet

must be rinsed with the solution by filling and

expelling three times with some of the solution

transferred for this purpose to a separate container.

Micropipett ing Technique: Fill the micropipet by

immersing the tip just below the surface of the

solution and tilting the micropipet so that the

solution is drawn up the bore. Stop filling the

capillary at the calibrated mark. Withdraw the

pipet from the solution. Wipe the exterior wall

of the micropipet with clean absorbent paper

taking care to avoid contact with the delivery

tip. Deliver the aliquot to the sample cell by

immersing the tip of the micropipet just below the

surface of the supporting electrolyte and gently

expel all of the sample from the micropipet by

blowing. Alternatively, the solution is carefully

ejected by use of the plunger. Check to see that

the plunger has ejected all of the solution. Before

raising the micropipet tip from the electrolyte

solution in the cell, the micropipet is rinsed

with the supporting electrolyte- sample mixture

by drawing the mixture into the micropipet to the

calibrated mark and expelling back into the sample

cell. (NOTE: Do not immerse the micropipet deep

into the supporting electrolyte- sample mixture and

do not wipe off the exterior wall of the micropipet

as previously done.) Repeat this rinse operation

twice more.

19
b . For Instruments Which Require Samples that are

Prediluted with Supporting Electrolyte : The solution used for measurement must contain a silver

chloride dispersant for smooth titration performance. Directions for the preparation and addition

of the dispersant are found in the manufacturer's

instruction book for the instrument.

(1) Macropipetting and Diluting, General: To prepare

working solutions, the blank, stock standard, and

serum solutions are diluted fifty-fold with supporting electrolyte solution (Section IIIC-3b) using a 5-mL pipet with a wash-out technique ("to contain"

mode) . Only one volumetric pipet is used and the

wash-out technique is employed throughout to avoid

errors that may arise due to differences in pipet

volumes and delivery times.

(2) Macropipetting and Diluting Using the Wash-Out

Technique: Transfer approximately 200 mL of the

supporting electrolyte solution to a 250-mL volumetric flask. Then add 5 mL of the appropriate

solution by the following procedure. Fill the 5-mL

pipet to approximately 1 cm above its calibration

mark, withdraw the pipet from the container, and

wipe the delivery tip with clean, absorbent paper.

Contact the tip of the pipet to the side of a clean

waste container, and allow excess solution to drain

until the meniscus is at the calibrated mark on the

pipet. Remove the pipet from contact with the

container and direct the delivery tip of the pipet

into the receiver. Deliver the sample by contact

of the pipet tip with the wall inside the volumetric

flask and allow the solution to drain fully. After

drainage stops, gently expel the residual liquid.

Rinse the pipet by lowering the pipet tip into the

20
solution within the flask and refill the pipet with

solution to approximately 1 cm above the mark.

Allow the solution to drain fully and gently expel

residual liquid. Repeat the pipet rinsing two more

times. Finally wash the pipet tip with approximately

4 mL of fresh supporting electrolyte solution using

a wash bottle or a clean, disposable Pasteur pipet.

(NOTE: New, disposable pipets should be cleaned

before use.) Fill the flask to the calibrated volume

with the electrolyte solution. Mix thoroughly by

inverting the flask and shaking ten times. Repeat

the inversion and shaking procedure ten times.

Preparation of Working Solutions:

(a) Working Blank Solution and Working Standard

Solutions: Prepare the working solutions of the

blank solution and the working 75 . 0-, 90 . 0-. 100 . 0-,

110. 0-, and 125.0- mmol/L chloride standard solutions by making dilutions in appropriately labeled

volumetric flasks in the order cited. Condition

the 5-mL pipet by filling it with the solution to

be diluted. Discard this pipetful and repeat

filling and discarding twice more. Then refill the

pipet with the solution, adjust to the calibrated

volume, and deliver into the volumetric flask to be

used for the dilution. Rinse the pipet by filling

it three times with the supporting electrolyte

solution, each time delivering the rinse solution

into the volumetric flask. Fill the flask to the

calibrated volume with the electrolyte solution.

Wash out the pipet three times with water (see

Appendix D, Note 5) and expel the residual liquid.

(b) Working Sample Solutions: If at least 10 mL

of serum sample is available, condition the 5-mL

pipet with some of the sample to be diluted in the

21
following way: (1) Draw 1-2 mL of the sample into

the pipet, (2) withdraw the pipet from the container,

(3) wipe off the tip with a clean, absorbent paper,

(4) tilt the pipet to a horizontal position,

(5) allow a small volume of air to leak in and

rotate the pipet so that the conditioning liquid wets

all the internal surface to approximately 0.5 cm

above the calibration mark, (6) discard this conditioning solution, and (7) repeat steps (1-6).

Then prepare the working solutions as described in

sections IIIC-4b-(2), fill the 5-mL pipet with the

sample, adjust volume to the mark, deliver, rinse

three times into the volumetric flask with supporting

electrolyte, dilute to the calibrated volume, and

mix. Finally, wash out the pipet three times with

water (Appendix D, Note 5). For each of the next

sample solutions to be diluted, repeat step

IIIC-4b- (3) (b)

.

If between 5 and 10 mL of each sample is available,

a dry, 5-mL pipet must be used for each sample since

this volume of serum is insufficient for the pipetconditioning technique described above. In this

case, fill the clean, dry, 5-mL pipet with the serum

sample, adjust to volume, deliver and rinse into

the receiver, and dilute. Clean the pipet for the

next sample by washing the pipet with dilute HN0 3 , rinse with a minimum of four portions of water and

finally rinse twice with 95 percent ethanol. Allov

the pipet to drain. Apply minimum suction to the

top end of the pipet for one minute to remove any

remaining ethanol. The pipet is then ready for

use with the next serum sample. (NOTE: If the

dilute HN0 3 washings do not drain cleanly from the

pipet, wash the pipet as described in Appendix D,

22
Note 5. Then follow with the ethanol wash as

above.) Prepare the working solutions as above.

Solution Transfer to Sample Cell; Macropipett ing

in the 'To Deliver' Mode, General: Different 4-mL

pipets may be used for the transfer of the working

low standard, the working sample, and the working

high standard solutions to the sample titration

cell. Condition the pipet as described in

IIIC-4b-(3). Fill the pipet by the procedure

described in IIIC-4b-(2). Deliver the solution into

the clean sample titration cell by allowing the

pipet to drain with the tip against the side of the

sample cell. (NOTE: As a minimum, allow the pipet

to drain for the delivery time inscribed on the

pipet.) After drainage is complete, remove the

pipet and proceed with the titration. This pipet

may be used for further transfers of the same solution after rinsing once with the solution to be

transferred. Keep each of the three pipets used

for the transfer of the working low standard,

working sample, and the working high standard

separate to prevent cross-contamination of solutions.

After each titration, clean the sample cell and

electrodes by rinsing them three times with water.

Coulometric-Amperometric Titration Procedure

It is not possible to provide detailed instructions

for each type of instrument to assure necessary

instrument stability, linearity, titration conditions, etc. The operator must be familiar with the

instrument used. The instrument should meet all

the manufacturer's specifications. In general, the

accuracy of the method cannot be attained unless

the instrument is in optimum operating condition.

23
a. Determination of Standard Curve for Instruments

with Direct Concentration Readout

(1) Calibrate the system with the 100 mmol/L chloride

standard according to the instructions for the

particular instrument.

(2) Titrate ten samples of the 100 mmol/L standard.

Calculate the mean and standard deviation of the

values. The mean value should be within 0.5 mmol/L

of the value calculated from the amount weighed.

If this value is exceeded, recalibrate. The

standard deviation should not exceed 1 mmol/L.

(3) Titrate five samples of each of the approximately

75-, 90-, 110- , and 125-mmol/L standards in the same

manner as in step (2) above. The range of values

for the 75- and 90-mmol/L solutions should not

exceed 2 mmol/L and for the 110- and 125-mmol/L

standard should not exceed 4 mmol/L. If these

ranges are exceeded, recalibrate and repeat (2)

above. The mean values for all the standards

should be within 0.5 mmol/L of the calculated

value. On the data sheet provided, record the

standard solution concentrations in mmol/L to 2 decimal places and the experimentally obtained

values to at least one decimal place.

(4) A typical calibration curve is shown in figure 2.

b . Calibration for Time Readout Instruments Which

Measure Samples Prediluted with Supporting

Electrolyte :

(1) Titrate reagent blanks in triplicate and calculate

the average time of titration (IT) .

(2) Titrate ten samples of the approximately 100 mmol/L

working standard. Calculate the gross mean standard

24
130.0

120.0

o

§ 1 10.0

(0o

£ 100.0

3

o

1 90.0

o«5 80.0

70.0

I 1

70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 110.0 120.0 130.0

Chloride Concentration, mmol/L

Figure 2. Typical calibration curve for the determination

of serum chloride by a coulometric - amperometric

technique

.

time (GS^qq) and standard deviation of the time of

titration. The standard deviation should be

within 0.4 second.

(3) Calculate the net mean standard time (NS) by:

NS 100 " GS 100 " B CD

25
Titrate five samples of the approximately 75-,

90-, 110-, and 125-mmol/L standards. Calculate

the gross mean standard times. For GS75, GSqq,

GS^IO* an<^ ^125 ' t ^ie va ^- ues ^ or the standard

deviations should not exceed 0.5 seconds. If this

limit is exceeded, trouble- shoot the system.

Calculate NS75, N ^90' ^110' anc^ ^125 as

^

above and record the data on the sheet provided.

Plot on rectilinear graph paper the NS values as

ordinate versus the corresponding calculated

standard concentrations expressed in mmol/L of

chloride. The plot should be linear passing

through the origin ±1 second.

The standard deviation of fit for both types of

readouts can be calculated from the deviations,

d., of the N points from the least squares fitted

If on visual inspection, one point of the plot

exhibits a large residual from a smooth curve

drawn through the remaining points, remeasure that

standard solution. If the remeasured value for

the solution continues to exhibit the large deviation, prepare that standard solution again,

remeasure it, and compare the values obtained.

calibration line:

(2)

i=l

26
Sample Measurements

(1) Transfer the working sample to the sample

titration cell by the appropriate pipetting technique. Titrate the working sample solution and

select the two working standard solutions whose

direct readout values or titration times most

closely bracket that of the sample.

(2) Titrate the lower working standard, the

working sample, and the higher working standard in

that order and record each reading in the set.

(3) Repeat step d(2) until 3 'sets' of data are

obtained.

(4) Repeat steps d(l), (2), and (3) for all of

the samples.

(5) If one chloride value (working standard or

working sample) in the measurement format is wrong

due to a known error in technique, it may be disregarded and a repeat titration for that particular

solution should be run immediately. However, if

one chloride value appears to be in error and cannot

be excluded due to known faulty technique, report

that set of values. A repeat of the measurement

format should be run for that particular working

sample and both formats are to be reported with

appropriate explanation.

Data Recording and Calculations

(1) On the data sheet, record the concentrations

of the standard solutions in mmol/L of chloride to

two decimal figures and the corresponding instrument

readings to as many decimal places as possible.

27
(2) Calculate the concentration C of chloride

present in the sample in mmol/L by mathematical

interpolation as follows:

(C -C )(Y-X ) C = C, + — - — (3) (W

where

C is the sample concentration of chloride in

mmol/L,

is the low standard concentration of chloride

in mmol/L,

C2 is the high standard concentration of

chloride in mmol/L,

Y is the chloride concentration in mmol/L or

the titration time for the working sample

minus the blank,

is the chloride concentration in mmol/L or

the titration time for the low working

standard minus the blank, and

is the chloride concentration in mmol/L or

the titration time for the high working

standard minus the blank.

A, (3) Record the C calculated values to a minimum

of two decimal places in the column provided on

the data sheet.

(4) Average the results for the three aliquots of

the serum analyzed to obtain the 'single measurement' value. (See Section IV.)

(5) Average the four single measurement values to

obtain a chloride value for the serum pool analyzed.

28
IV. RESULTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The main objective of the statistical analyses of the

round robin data is to derive measures of precision and

accuracy for the micro- and macropipetting versions of the

reference method. Precision is characterized by the variability of the protocol measurements within a single laboratory, aw j-t-]1 i n

> and by the total variability of a laboratory's

protocol measurements, °t 0 tai' This latter uncertainty

includes the variability of 'between laboratory' measurements. Accuracy relates to the comparison between reference

method and definitive method values and is related to the

magnitude of the bias.

Each reported data point (test result) is the end product

of three sets of data, the number of sets specified by the

protocol. For simplicity of discussion, each reported data

point is referred to as a s ingle measurement , meaning that

each is the product of a single run-through of the protocol.

When "replication" is mentioned, replication of the entire

protocol process is meant, and "replication error" thus

refers to the variability among the end results of repeated

run-throughs of the protocol. Each interlaboratory exercise

is discussed separately; the final, detailed statistical

analysis is reported for the results from IE- II.

A. Interlaboratory Exercise Results

1. Preliminary Interlaboratory Exercise (Dates Run:

April-August 1975)

.

a. Ob j ect ives : To allow the participating laboratories to become familiar with and comment on the

protocol and to determine interlaboratory precision.

29
b. Samples : Three vials, each containing a sample

from the same serum pool. Each participating

laboratory was to analyze a single portion of each

sample within one day.

c. Procedure : The micro- or macropipett ing protocol

was used.

d. Data : The three data points reported by the individual laboratories are summarized in Table 4. The

data are presented graphically in figure 3 as the

percent difference from the collective average of

the reported values. Essentially all reported

values are within three percent of the collective

average of 103.9 mmol/L with a relative standard

deviation (CV) of less than two percent.

e. Comments and Protocol Deviations : The following

laboratory comments or protocol deviations were

received:

(1) Lab 3 : Schales -Schales titration procedure used

rather than C-A procedure.

(2) Lab 4 : Instrument designed for 1:40 dilution

rather than 1:50 specified in protocol.

(3) Lab 8 : The three samples were turbid. (Growth

of microorganisms?)

(4) Lab 11 : Stock standard solutions prepared in

500 mL quantities. Glassware cleaning done with

detergents

.

(5) Lab 13 : Instrument designed for 1:100 dilution

rather than 1:50 specified in the protocol.

30
f. Direction : On examining these results with the

statisticians and the Experts Committee, it was

concluded that an interlaboratory exercise should

be undertaken using samples with chloride concentration values determined by the definitive method.

Table 4. Serum chloride concentrations reported by the

participating laboratories for the Preliminary

Interlaboratory Exercise.

[CI] , mmol/La Laboratory Vial 1 Vial 2 Vial 3 Laboratory Average

1 105.0 104. 7 105 . 3 105.0

2 102.0 100. 3 100. 7 101. 0

3 105. 0 103. 7 105.0 104.

6

b

4

C 104. 5 104. 7 104. 9 104. 7

5 101.1 103. 3 104.5 103.0

6

C 103. 5 103. 7 104.6 103. 9

7 105. 6 105.6 104.2 105.1

8 103. 2 104.

1

103. 5 103.6

9 104. 5 104. 3 104. 2 104. 3

10 102.0 104. 0 103. 7 103. 2 11 101. 7 102.0 102. 7 102.

1

12 104. 7 105. 7 105. 0 105.1

13 C 104.4 104. 6 105. 3 104. 8

cl Each value represents a single measurement on a sample.

Schales-Schales titration procedure was used. Value was

not used to determine collective laboratory average.

Macropipett ing procedure.

31
CL

LiJ

Q) o

_o

o

ro

O a> — .aE

» I

>»

00 o

a»_ 1^ o

X)

o

in

ro

CVJ

96DJ9AV 0A|409||O0

9L|1 UIOJJ UOjjD I A9Q *U90J9d

+-> CDc

e -h O aJ

fn 4-> <-H ^

O

CO

+-> CO rH +-> 3 C

CO CD6

fH 0)

fn

a3 co 3

•H <D C +-» •H m

mh o

o

•H

4-> a3

CDbO

03fH

CD>

•H 03 >

CD CD>

•H

+J +-> S u

CD CD U rH

fn rH

CD O

Ph U

CD

Sh

•H

Ph

CD

CO •HO

fHCDX

m

fHo

•M

03

fHo

rQ

03 I—

I

fH

CD

+->

fH

oj

CDfH Cm

CD rG

4->

32
2. Inter laboratory Exercise I (IE-I) (Dates Run:

October-December 1975.)

a. Ob j ectives : To test the micro- and macropipett ing

procedures on serum samples having a wider range

of chloride values and to determine the imprecision and bias of the test results.

b. Samples : IE-I was a test series run on 12 samples — four vials (samples) of each of three different

concentrations (Pools 2, 4, and 6). Each laboratory

was to analyze two vials of each pool on one day

and the remaining pairs of samples on a subsequent

day with the requirement that a minimum of one day

and a maximum of seven days should elapse between

analyses

.

c. Protocol : The micro- and macropipett ing protocols

were used.

d. Comments and Protocol Deviations : The following

laboratory comments or protocol deviations were

received

:

(1) Lab 3 : Schales -Schales titration procedure

used

.

(2) Lab 4 : Used 1:40 dilution (instrument

required) rather than 1:50 dilution.

e. Data : The single-measurement data reported by the

laboratories for both pipetting alternatives are

summarized in Table 5. The data are presented

graphically in figure 4 as percent deviation of

each one-day 'single measurement' average from the

definitive method value. In general, the data

reported by most laboratories were within three

percent of the definitive method values. Most of

the laboratories reported results that bracketed

33
Table 5. Concentrations of serum chloride reported by the

participating laboratories for Interlaboratory

Exercise I, micro- and macropipetting protocols.

- - - [Cl] , mmol/L a - - - Laboratory poQl 2 Pqo1 4 pool fi Day 1 Day 2 Day 1 Day 2 Day 1 Day 2

1 84. 71 88. 60 102. 49 100. 69 114. 52 110. 19

89. 40 79. 89 101. 53 99. 26 120. 04 109. 84

2 82. 67 81. 00 100. 00 100. 33 110 . 00 109. 67

83. 00 82. 33 100. 33 100. 33 110. 00 109. 33

3

b

89. 67 90. 98 108. 67 107. 33 108. 75 117. 33

89. 37 89. 67 105. 86 108. 28 116. 67 117. 12

4

C 84. 35 84. 55 101. 43 101. 62 112. 15 113. 53

84. 32 84. 49 101. 62 102 . 61 112. 62 113. 25

5 C 85. 44 84. 55 100. 74 100. 56 112. 52 112 . 02

84. 52 83. 44 100. 52 101. 26 113. 28 110. 97

6

C 83. 91 85. 52 102. 56 101. 86 112. 81 114. 55

84. 61 85. 17 101. 24 102. 68 113. 95 115. 32

7 84. 60 84. 45 101. 49 101. 82 112. 72 113. 35

84. 68 84. 90 101. 63 102. 82 114. 47 113. 63

8 85. 66 83. 96 102. 27 101. 61 113. 30 113. 24

84. 28 84. 71 102. 43 102. 18 112. 69 113. 03

9 84. 27 84. 57 102 . 23 102. 20 112. 17 112 . 27

84. 57 84. 93 99. 80 101. 87 112. 63 112 . 03

10 84. 83 84. 67 102. 80 102. 17 113. 17 113. 67

84. 83 84. 67 102. 00 102. 67 112. 17 114. 17

11 C 84. 73 83. 46 101. 86 102. 03 113. 83 113. 86

84. 78 83. 46 103. 62 102. 24 116. 29 112 . 78

12 85. 37 84. 53 102. 40 102 . 10 114. 27 112. 33

84. 47 84. 37 102. 40 102. 27 114. 40 111. 43

13 85. 00 85. 67 102. 33 102. 67 113. 00 114. 67

85. 33 85. 67 102 . 33 103. 00 113. 33 114. 67

continued

34
Table 5 (continued)

Laboratory pool 2

[CI] , mmol/L a

Pool 4 Pool 6

Day 1 Day 2 Day 1 Day 2 Day 1 Day 2

14 85. 33 85.33 104. 77 102. 40 114. 37 114. 80

85.37 84. 73 104. 37 102. 77 116. 43 113. 77

15 84.61 84.77 102. 29 102. 13 113. 28 113. 19

84.67 84. 70 102. 05 102. 09 113. 36 113. 21

15

c 84.29 85.01 102. 16 101. 97 113. 63 113. 32

84.63 85. 19 102 . 14 101. 95 113. 41 113. 21

Definitive

Method Values 84.5 101.8 112.9

Each value is the single measurement average of three C-A

readings made on a single sample.

Schales -Schales titration method, data for comparison only.

Macropipetting protocol.

35
LJ

tnCLEo

00oocoo

w_o

0> * k_ _oo

(X>

lO

LO

evj

_ ro

00

— (T>

CNJ

— 00 c

ZJ oroQ

"Oco

<u JQEo-4— oo

-OD

CO CO

rH 5h CO

M o CD . (0 x> x> N 03 K {J A-1 W

bO

a co

u

P! i-i

a CD rH

O

H cti S

co PJ

O CDX

O ft

CD

X

m

H h~j P bO

co CD

C

+-' A^< 03 P O -H fir*-1 CO +-> +J

fll rrt CO rn +->

<-!—t P •H 4-> CD • i—1

<P

X ft

5-h CO CD CD "H P 0) ^ CO CD pj ft

CO 3 -M CD

X

O

CD i—1

5h 4-> ^ 5-i

D ifl

O CO

U e > p txO P -H CO

PJ r-1 k

HS-i

BC

H tj P •H CD CD O X PJ CO +-> CD

<D XJ CD •H CD CO XI

CO -M £ CO rH 03 -P •H CD 6 ft O g vD CD CD CD bO U rH fn X Pi

CD CDH -H

X > PJ 0 •» to

5h 3

4-> 4-> CD • >nmH - X >N CO

5h pj ^t- 5h S rH CD O 'H O =3 CD -H

4-> <+H « CH PJ > 5h CD CD CM •H O

rH XP P O co 03 fn o cd X> CD U i—1 O CD fn

CD

X CD •H P ft

O

1—1 P X s o3 co

X

u e • H 5h CD CD CD 6 3 CO O 5h i-I

4->

O

C

Pi 5h CO CD •> CD I—1 4-t CD •H t—1 CO CO -P o

CD bO P Pi CD rH

X

X S OX 3 P p -H X-H P CO P X 4-> <D CO

<-H 4-> CO CD rH CD O 0 rd -P > P

ft CD PJ

O P CO

CO -H -H CD XI CO pj

1=1 ft<-H CO co CD bO O O -H CD P -H

•H £ -M 5h T3 CO P O fi ft CD X CD

CD CD CD

U CUT)

•H CD CO T3 > -H^ rH rH CD T3 H ftp CD a CD PJ X

CO ?H - <u 6

+-> CO cnj =3 3

PJ 1 I—1 a4 PJ

CD

O CO nd CD >N PJ CO >S ^ u o rn CO X rH (D'H O O 3 o

a, e ftp

hwp

S9n|DA poiH9iA| aAjjjUj^aa

CD

rH

=3bO

IX 36
or were quite close to the definitive method

values

.

f. Direction : A second Interlaboratory Exercise

(IE- II) was to be run using both the micro- and

macropipett ing protocols. Test samples would

cover the full range of chloride concentrations.

3. Interlaboratory Exercise II : (IE-II. Dates Run:

February-April 1976.)

a. Qbj ective : To test both the micro- and macropipetting alternatives of the protocol on samples

with chloride concentrations over the nominal

range of 79.2 to 116.8 mmol/L.

b. Samples : IE-II was a test series run on a total of

20 samples — four vials of each of five different

chloride concentrations (Pools 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7).

Each laboratory was to analyze two vials of each

concentration on the first day and the remaining

pairs of samples after the elapse of a minimum of

one day and a maximum of seven days.

c. Protocol : The micro- and macropipetting versions

of the protocol were used.

d. Data Statistical Analysis : Results from IE-II are

given in Tables 6-7 and illustrated in figure 5.

e. Statistical Analysis : The data are presented as

two-way tables in which the rows represent the

different participating laboratories and the

columns represent the different sample pools. The

sample pool concentrations ranged from 79.2 to

116.8 millimoles of chloride ion per liter of

serum. The results for the micropipetting procedure and for the macropipetting procedure are listed

separately, and all single measurements reported

37
Table 6. Concentration of serum chloride reported by the

participating laboratories for Int erlaboratory

Exercise II, micropipetting protocol.

[CI] , mmol/L

JjaUU X d LUX y Pnnl ruui x1 XPnnl U U X OX Pnnl r KJ KJ X 44- Pnnl r U \J X Pnnl x U U ± 71

1-1 79. 53 94. 70 102. 38 108. 57 117.21

OUi 8 n nUJ^ 94 7 7 10? ft 5 X1 08U O a 47 117 74

1-2 80. 32 93. 57 103. 20 107. 91 117.28

8 0 14 Q ^ 4 ^ i n? 31 X1 08U O a 1 6 117 _L _L / i ft4 U4

2-1 77. 00 91. 60 99. 60 106. 62 116.10

7ft 7 ^ Qfl 7D i m 7D 1UH 1 04 , QO 1-L 1X JX QOi7 U

2-2 76. 36 92. 10 99. 95 104. 52 114 . 20

7 7 94 9 ? ftfi 99-7-7 a 9£7 *J5 -L1 06\J \J • 1 0 11^ X X .J a 0U 0VJ

4-1 79. 37 94. 88 101.90 108. 00 117 . 71

7 9 9 5 94 78 101 8 2 10 7 64 117 XX/ a 8O 0U 4-2 79.49 95. 37 102 . 70 108. 26 118.45

7Q ft 7 Q4 7 X 101 1U1 • 8o 8o 1U1 07/ • ft 5 118 X X O a 44t H"

7-1 78. 76 94. 47 101.96 107. 01 117 .49

7Q ?0 Q ^ XI X1 00VJ w • 00uu 11 07u / . ? 0 117 -L JL / . 68U O

7-2 79.45 95. 40 101. 77 107. 59 118.12

ft n xft o U . o uQ 7. ^ 7 io? i o U L . Uj 10 7 1 U / . £ y

1 i c AQ

8-1 78.05 94. 33 102.01 106. 92 116. 64

7/ yq . _linu QA Qft y 4 . y o lui 101 XI . o x 10ft ftO fto XX/ 117 . 17X /

8-2 79.43 94. 40 102. 07 107. 21 115.79

7ft /ft o O . o u q A o o X101U X X 0 . JU 10 7 ? ft z, u lift X X U . ift 1U

9-1 80. 20 94. 83 101.13 106. 53 114. 53

7 q ^ n qa i n y 4 . ± u 10 0 ft 7 ± U U . o / 10X 7 U / . z.7 oX 1 1 X c;0 11 J . JU

9-2 80. 43 94. 17 100.97 106. 30 116. 73

78. 53 93. 70 100. 17 106. 07 116.30

10-1 78. 35 94. 50 100.40 105. 20 115.60

78. 53 94. 03 99.80 106. 90 114.00

10-2 80.10 93. 10 99.41 107. 29 116. 95

77. 80 93. 63 102 . 50 106. 14 116.99

cont inued

38
Table 6 (continued)

Laboratory Pool 1

- - - [CI] , mmol/L - - -

Pool 3 Pool 4 Pool 5 Pool 7

1 "7 T 13-1 8 0 . 00 94

.

67 102

.

70 107 . 30 117 . 20

79. 70 95. 00 102. 00 107. 00 116 . 50

13 - Z

"7 A

/ 9 . o a 8 0 9 5 . 00 1 A •"> 10 2. A A 00 i a a 106. 33 117 11 / . 2 0

79. 50 95. 00 101. 90 107. 20 117 .00

14-1 O 1 81

.

c a 50 a c 96

.

C A 60 T A 1 103 . 3U 109 . 60 118 . 90

O A

8 0 . o a1 0 a c 96

.

r a 50 1 A £ 106 . 60 109

.

90 117 . 30

14-2 80. 40 95. 10 101. 40 107. 00 117 .30

79. 30 94. 30 102. 70 107. 80 116 . 50

15-1 79. 46 94. 59 101. 93 107. 47 116 .92

79. 54 94. 76 101. 99 107. 52 116 .89

15-2 79. 51 94. 81 102. 01 107. 40 116 .99

79. 39 94. 68 101. 97 107. 23 116 .86

Definitive

Method Values 79.2 94.0 101.8 107.2 116.8

aThe laboratory designation consists of two parts: the

initial digit (s) represents the assigned laboratory number

and the last digit represents either the first or second

day's results.

39
Table 7. Concentration of serum chloride reported by the

participating laboratories for Interlaboratory

Exercise II, macropipetting protocol.

[CI], mmol/L

a Laboratory r OO 1 1 r OO 1 j r OO 1 4 rOOl 5 Pool 7 5-1 79.87 94. 74 100. 85 106. 51 116. 45

/ O . DJ n a ~\ a inn /in 1UU . 4y 106 . O ~\ ol 115 . z /

5-2 79.45 93.44 101. 58 105. 68 116. 70

no £. o 94.1/ 10Z . 04 107 . T A 14 116 . 64

6-1 78.24 94. 73 101. 88 106. 43 117. 08

7 O £. 7

/ 0 . 6 O 9 5.01 101 . lz 106. O A Z4 117 . 00

6-2 78. 56 93.48 101. 34 106. 01 115. 95

78.30 93.61 101.63 106. 68 116. 52

11-1 79. 58 93. 53 101.26 107. 12 115. 22

79. 14 95.09 103.43 107. 03 115. 11

11-2 80.11 94.48 101.98 108. 01 116. 74

79.60 94.87 102 . 00 107. 63 116. 84

Definitive

Method Values 79.2 94. 0 101. 8 107. 2 116. 8

aThe laboratory designation consists of two parts: the

initial digit(s) represent the assigned laboratory number

and the last digit represents either the first or second

day's results.

40
(/> Q.Eo — CO uj 2 • 8 O TJ 3 sok_o2

CM*

CO

CM

CVj

CVJ - <M

C-gi

CM - CVJ

9l|l UIOJJ U0IIDIA9Q *uaOJ8d s CD P

h3

O CD X!

<D P r& P CD

M

N 4h

p

C CD i H rH 03 P O

t/1 03 +-> 03 75 P

P3 03

a •H o

03 P bO P 03 H CD e p CD CD (/) 4-> P X rC t/1 CD V) CD

0)

H -M CD T3 03X e P P

CD

O CD P X bO

c/) P CD

H P

c/) CD P -H ,£} •H

03

CDe

valu nex main

num • 3

rH t/) U/ i—i N (D >s CD CD i—i

T3 P P O T3 O > -H

•H P

CD

X P CD P P o

t/1 +-> nJ£ (S

U P H CD P P CD 03 c U 6 - o Ph P 3 P LO P c/i o

or CD CD

O 03 CDX

>» > *4H rH P 03 o W •H rH Q +-> P CD ro >^'H •« 03 (/) CD "O p fJtOH P 4-> VI cn O • H -H rH O w •M 4H •> £ CD 3 X w. 03 CD rH -H > (/) -M o P T3 7) O CD c3 O P (/) (U 4 i/) cd CD z 03 X CD -H P P

c—1

4-> X) >n (/) 03 >» P S P rH CD P

0>

O CD M 6 3 O P O P "H U P bO •H ow P rH +-> CD X 7) o i—i

4H CD 03 P 03 <D

<Z P -H Tj T3 o1 CD M+J PTJ

CO _J

4->

4-1

PJ CD •H Jm/1 Tj P X) CD CD

4-> HO

uent mber

O CD T3 Ph 03 Ph CD rH cr 3

CD P CD f) •H -H CD P, CO P

fS P,4H xi

XX 3 o O -H E—1 - 3 P

•H P P Csl t/i o CD

4->

U P! P U

03 ai CD • t3 T3 o3 o • H 6 X) rH p P P p > •H 03 o3 O Ph

CD T3

XX

X) P CD P rH

03 P O

X 03 03 rH

bOP

4-> 03 P C/1 HZ) •H

PJ i 03 P CD P

CD

O l/l rl IPp

X P U P rH O X </) p CD P u o x> 6 p Ph

CD •H

O 03

p •H

O

H

Ph 6 PnrH P 4H 4-> Ph

CDp3

bO

Ph
are included in the tables. The definitive method

values for the chloride concentrations in the

sample pools are listed at the bottom of

Tables 6-7.

The following statistical analysis was made. First

the data were inspected by calculating the percent

deviation of each day's results for each pool from

an overall average for that sample pool. These

percent deviation values for all laboratories

using the two pipetting procedures are listed in

Tables 8-9.

42
Table 8. Percent deviations from averages for chloride in

serum from Interlaboratory Exercise II, micropipetting protocol.

cl Laboratory Pool 1 Pool 3 Pool 4 Pool 5 Pool 7 1-1 0 . 64 0.40 0.79 1.25 0 . 70

1-2 1.20 . 16 1 . 03 . 79 . 69

2-1 -3.04 -3.40 -1.04 -1.33 -1.42

2-2 -2.69 -2.10 -1.73 -1.75 -1.76

4-1 . 48 . 24 . 1

5

. 59 . 94

A O 4-2 . 38 . 73 . 57

•7

. 72 1 . 54

7-1 - . 38 . 56 - . 71 r\ ""7 - . 07 . 80

7-2 . 79 . 13 . 20 . 24 . 13

8-1 - . 89 . 30 - . 05 - . 36 . 21

8-2 - . 34 - . 17 - . 02 . 05 - . 58

9-1 . 7 2 . 11 - . 69 - . 28 -2.26

9-2 . 25 - . 45 -1.12 - . 93 - . 12

10-1 -1.06 - . 10 -1 . 58 -1 . 06 -1.59

10-2 - . 42 -1.05 - . 74 - . 44 .27

X -J _L 9 71 ?Li jic: i - 0 3 1 7 13-2 .46 . 68 . 24 - .39 .38

14-1 1.98 2.32 3.19 2. 39 1.24

14-2 . 72 . 36 . 34 . 20 .21

15-1 . 9 8 . 34 .25 .29 . 21

15-2 . 21 .41 . 28 .12 .23

Average

used in 79.28 94. 36 101. 71 107. 18 116.65

calculations

,

mmol/L

aThe laboratory designation consists of two parts: the

initial digit (s) represent the assigned laboratory number

and the last digit represents either the first or second

day's results.

43
Table 9. Percent deviations from averages for chloride in

serum from Interlaboratory Exercise II, macropipetting protocol.

Laboratory Pool 1 Pool 3 Pool 4 Pool 5 Pool 7 5-1 0.07 0. 18 -0.95 -0. 11 -0.37

5-2 . 03 - . 50 . 17 - .34 .32

6-1 - .77 .63 - .13 - .41 .64

6-2 -.77 - . 77 - . 15 - .40 - .05

11-1 .40 . 04 .70 .28 -.97

11-2 1.03 .43 . 35 . 98 .43

Average

used in 79.04 94.27 101.63 106. 77 116.29

calculations

,

mmol/L

aThe laboratory designation consists of two parts: the

initial digit(s) represent the assigned laboratory number

and the last digit represents either the first or second

day's results.

A comparison was next made of the ability of each

laboratory to replicate its values relative to that

of the average replication ability of all laboratories. This was done by comparing the standard

deviation for each day's measurements for each pool

against the average standard deviation for all

laboratories for that pool (see Tables 10-11). If

all of the participating laboratories were of the

same population in regard to replication error,

the standard deviation ratios reported in Tables

10-11 would be larger than 2.44 and 2.14,

respectively, only about one percent of the time.

In practice, it is not too uncommon to encounter

44
Table 10. Ratios of standard deviations to average standard

deviation for chloride in serum from Interlaboratory Exercise II, micropipett ing protocol

.

Laboratory Pool 1 Pool 3 Pool 4 Pool 5 Pool 7 1-1 0.70 r\ TO 0.12 0.30 0. 17 0.74

1-2 O A

. 2 4

7 T T 3.11 .98 . 43 r* f\

. 50

2-1 *7 A

. 34 1 . 49 2. 32 2. 95 3.08

o o 2-2 1 T A 2.14 M 7

. 9 3 . 00 2. 71 T TO 1.12

4-1 *"7 O

. 7 8 . 99 . 09 .62 T 7. 13

4-2 . 24 1.06 . 91 1.05 . 01

7-1 . 59 1 . 39 2. 16 . 33 . 2 7 7-2 T O *7 1.23 7 r\ 7 3.03 .31 . 51 3.69

O T 8-1 T ^ O 1.42 1.04 . 77 .41 *7 A

. 74

8 - z 1 . lz . 6 6 . 85 . 09 . 5 2 9-1 . 9 b 1.21 . 29 1.20 1 A A 1.44

9-2 2.5/ H O

. 88 . 39 . 60

10-1 . 24 H O

. /8 . 66 2 . 91 2 . 24

10-2 3.11 O O

. 88 3. 41 1. 97 . 06

13-1 . 41 r r

. 55 .77 . 51 . 98

13-2 A T

. 41 . 00 . 11 1. 49 O O

. 28

14-1 1 . 76 . 17 3.64 . 51 2 . 24

14-2 1.49 1. 32 1 . 43 1.37 1.12

15-1 . 11 . 28 .07 .09 . 04

15-2 . 16 . 22 . 04 . 29 . 18

Average

standard

deviation

,

0.523 0.427 0.641 0. 413 0. 505

mmo 1 /

L

The laboratory designation consists of two parts: the

initial digit(s) represents the assigned laboratory number

and the last digit represents either the first or second

day ' s results

.

45
Table 11. Ratios of standard deviations to average standard

deviation for chloride in serum from Interlaboratory Exercise II, macropipett ing protocol.

Laboratorya Pool 1 Pool 3 Pool 4 Pool 5 Pool 7

5-1 2.36 0. 98 0. 53 0. 58 3. 37

5-2 1.18 1.19 . 68 2.83 .17

6-1 . 60 .46 1.12 .37 .23

6-2 . 40 . 21 .43 1.30 1.63

11-1 . 68 2. 54 3. 21 .17 .31

11-2 . 78 .63 . 03 .74 .29

Average

standard 0. 461 0. 435 0.478 0. 364 0.247

deviation,

mmo 1 /

L

aThe laboratory designation consists of two parts: the

initial digit (s) represents the assigned laboratory number

and the last digit represents either the first or second

day's results.

ratios that are somewhat larger, as this is a reflection of some heterogeneity of the laboratory

population in regard to replication error. (As

long as the standard deviation ratios are not too

large, this is normally not used as a reason for

rejection of a laboratory. However, laboratories

with large standard deviation ratios are advised

to reexamine their procedures for possible sources

of excessive replication error.)

The calculations on IE- II data were made on the

data in Tables 6 and 7 using a weighted least

squares fit to the following model [21]

:

46
ljk 1

H i \ j ' ij ijk J

where

Y. ;v = the sample concentration reported by the i

1 J K th laboratory, for the j sample, and for the

k*'*

1 replicate measurement,

y^ = a constant factor associated with the

average bias for laboratory i,

3^ = a slope factor for laboratory i_, expressing

the relation of bias to concentration,

Xj = the observed average concentration for

sample pool j (this average is taken over

all laboratories)

,

X = the weighted average concentration for all

samples (this average is taken over all

laboratories and over all sample pools) ,

X- . = a random sample interference factor (matrix

effect) for laboratory i and sample pool j

,

and

= a random replication error.

The above model is quite general, and extensive

experience has shown that it is well suited to

describe a number of measurement factors in interlaboratory tests [22] .

Weighted analyses of variance were made on the data

in the two-way tables using the fits to the above

model. (A modified version of the weighting procedure reported in reference 23 was used.) From the

analyses it is possible to derive the following

estimates for three components of variability, each

characterized by its standard deviation:

47
a

e = a e(Repl)

= t ^ie uncer dainty observed for

replicate measurements in a given,

laboratory on a given day,

QD

= °Day= t ^ie additional uncertainty that is

observed when measurements are

made on different days within the

same laboratory, and

a

L

= a Lab

= t ^ie additional uncertainty that is

observed when measurements are

made by different laboratories.

From the analyses, it was observed that the ranges

of values for the a

£

, a^, and components of

standard deviation were small, and that the values

did not depend significantly on the chloride ion

concentration. Because of this, only average a ,

o*q, and values are reported. These components

of standard deviation are given in Table 12.

Table 12. Components of standard deviation in mmol/L for

all IE-II chloride ion levels (79-117 mmol/L).

a e(Repl) Q Day g Lab

Micropipetting Protocol .69 .42 .90

(Pooled results from 10 labs)

Macropipetting Protocol .53 .37 .36

(Pooled results from 3 labs)

Because of the relatively small size of the chloride

ion IE tests, the individual components of standard

deviation are considered to be only advisory in

nature. Nevertheless, they do seem to indicate

that the three components ( a

e

» and a^) are all

of about the same order of magnitude. The final,

48
statements of uncertainty are made through the

recombination of these components.

One such final statement is 0

vr ^+-h'n i t ^ie exP ec1:e ^ uncertainty within a single laboratory from running

the- complete protocol (2 replicates/day for 2 days)

/s. The aw^-t j1 j[ n

results are reported in columns three

and seven in the top section of Table 13, and are

calculated as follows:

o

£

2 aD

: awithin

= ^

+

• ^

These are the expected uncertainties that a single

average laboratory could see by repeating the complete protocol a number of times and observing the

variability} of its results. This a . . , . is not within

the total uncertainty since there is also a "between laboratory" component, °Lab"

The standard deviation of the total uncertainty

expected as a result of a single laboratory running

the complete protocol is calculated as follows:

°e

2 a D2 ~ 2 aTotal

= \ — + — + °L ' (6)

Columns four and six in the top section of Table 13

list such standard deviations for the micro- and

macropipetting protocol data from IE-II. The preci

sion goal for the reference method is listed in

column five. Comparison of the tabulated standard

deviations and the goal shows that the precision

goals have been met.

49
Table 13. Summary of imprecision and bias results in mmol/L for

chloride ion in serum, IE- II.

79-117

____________ io Precision ------------

Micropipetting Protocol Macropipetting Protocol

CI Level ~ J JJ mmol/L comp within total

.32 .46 1.01

Goal °total CTwithin Q

comp

1.5 .52 .37 .30

CI Level

mmol/L

79

94

102

107

117

Micropipetting

Protocol

Accuracy

Round Robin

Composite Bias

ft

Macropipetting

Protocol

Round Robin

Composite Bias

obs"

X

DM^ Goal

.1 ±2.0 -.2

.4 ±2.0 .3

-.1 ±2.0 -.2

0 ±2.0 -.4

-.1 ±2.0 -.5

The standard errors of the IE- II composite values

are given in columns two and eight of the top section

of Table 13. These standard errors are calculated

from the components of standard deviation as follows:

Comp

D

(7)

where N represents the 10 or 3 laboratories partici

pating in the micro- or macropipetting procedures,

respectively. The bottom section of Table 13 lists

the observed biases between the reference method

50
interlaboratory composite values and the definitive

method values. The observed biases are within the

goals for the reference method.

The composite IE- II sample averages ± twice the

standard error for the micro- and the macropipetting

versions, and for the corresponding definitive method

values are listed in Table 14.

The accuracy of the IE- II results is within the

recommended goal of the reference method.

Table 14. Summary of chloride ion in serum values ±2

standard errors.

IE-II - Composite Values Definitive Method Values

(mmol/L) (mmol/L)

Micro Macro

79.3 ± .64 79.0 ± .60 79. 2 + .4 a

94.4 ± . 64 94.3 ± .60 94. 0

+ . 5

101.7 ± .64 101.6 ± .60 101. 8

+ . 5

107.2 ± .64 106.8 ± .60 107. 2

+ . 5

116.7 ± .64 116.3 ± .60 116. 8

+ . 6

Estimated maximum error of 0.5 percent of the value as

reported by NBS Analytical Mass Spectrometry Section. This

estimated maximum error includes both imprecision and an

estimated upper bound for possible systematic errors. The

estimated maximum error is believed to be equal to or

greater than the true error for the 95 percent confidence

1 imi ts

.

51
Auxiliary Statistical Analysis

The protocol requires a check on the automated

titrimeter by running a calibration curve each day

using freshly prepared standard solutions. The

necessity of these curves also provides a check on

the correct preparation of the standard solutions.

The data reported here on the calibration curve

check are advisory in nature since in the actual

analytical procedure only the pair of calibrating

solutions nearest to the unknown concentration is

used. The calibration curve data for the microand macropipetting procedures were reported and

are given in Tables 15 and 16. Straight line

least square fits were made to these data and the

resultant standard deviations of fit are given in

Table 17. These standard deviations of fit are

expressed in units of chloride ion concentration

(mmol/L) . The calibration curve data show excellent

linearity with all curves having standard deviation

of fit of 1.23 mmol/L or less, and 12 of the 14

curves having s £^ tof 0.79 mmol/L or less. This

analysis indicates that if in the calibration step

it is found that any calibration point deviates

from the calibration curve by more than 1.3 mmol/L,

then the standard solutions and the instrument

should be checked for sources of excessive error

before proceeding further into the analysis.

52
Table 15. Calibration curve data for chloride in serum,

Interlaboratory Exercise II, micropipetting

protocol

.

Lao

.

Mr. a

JNO . Q+- A 1 OLQ+- Aa 7 . Z ota. 70

<Z + A 4 ota. C + A b

1 -1

u x

b 75.0 90. 0 100. 0 110. 0 125. 0

Y

C

I / J. 10 ony u . mu z inn 1 UU . 7 OZ O

i i n 1 1 U . n o U o 1 Z 4 . 7 A

/ 4

1 -2 X 75.0 90.0 100. 0 110. 0 125. 0 v 7 c fin on 7 n y u . / u y y

.

y o iuy

.

o n o U 1 Z o . t n oU

4 -1 X 75.02 90. 01 100. 00 110. 00 125. 00 vY / b . o 1 on 7 7. o y . / o inn 1 U U . i i n 11U . 7 0 00 1 7 C 1 Z b . A 7 4 /

4 -2 X 75.02 90. 01 100. 00 110. 00 125. 00 vi 7/1 A 7

/ 4 . 0 Z on qa o y . o o y y

.

O I

i no l u y

.

7 7 17/1 1 Z 4 . Q 7 O Z

8 -1 X 75. 00 90.00 100. 00 110. 00 125. 00 vi 7 ^ n / b . u on o o y . o

Q Q y y

.

Q 1iin± u . 7

L 17/1 1 Z 4 . QO

9 -1 X 75.01 90. 00 100. 00 110. 03 125. 01 v 7/1 A

1 4 . 4 on a o y . 4

Q Q y y

.

Qyi n q l u y

.

A4

17/1 1 Z 4 . 0o

13 -1 X 75.00 90. 00 100. 00 110. 00 125. 00 vI 7 c n / b . U on n y u . u inn 1 U u

.

nui i n 1 1 u

.

nu

1 7 C 1 z b . nU

14 -1 X 75.0 90.0 100. 0 110. 0 125. 0

Y 76.0 90.0 99. 0 109. 0 124. 0

14 -2 X 75.0 90.0 100. 0 110. 0 125. 0

Y 75.0 90. 0 100. 0 111. 0 124. 0

15 -1 X 75.00 90. 00 100. 00 110. 00 125. 00

Y 47.14 56.14 62. 16 68. 23 77 . 23

The laboratory designation consists of two parts: the

initial digit(s) represent the assigned laboratory number

and the last digit represents either the first or second

day's results.

X = standard solution values in mmol/L.

r Y = instrument readings.

53
Table 16. Calibration curve data for chloride in serum,

Interlaboratory Exercise II, macropipetting

protocol

Lab. No.

a Std. 1 Std. 2 Std. 3 Std. 4 Std. 5

5-1

*c 75. 01 90. 01 100. 01 110. 00 125. 00

I L 3

L

O '7 9 31

0 342 39

0

5-2 X 75. 01 90. 01 100. 01 110. 00 125. 00

Y 23. 1 27. 8 31. 0 34. 2 38. 8

6-1 X 75. 00 89. 96 99. 93 110. 27 124. 87

Y 79. 06 94. 40 104. 85 115. 58 130. 36

11-1 X 74. 99 90. 03 100. 04 110. 08 124. 98

Y 26. 62 30. 34 33. 5 36. 72 41. 42

11-2 X 74. 99 90. 03 100. 04 110. 08 124. 98

Y 25. 74 30. 9 33. 94 38. 22 42. 84

aThe laboratory designation consists of two parts: the

initial digit(s) represent the assigned laboratory number

and the last digit represents either the first or second

day's results.

X = standard solution values in mmol/L.

C Y = instrument readings.

I

j

i

54
Table 17. Calibration curve results for chloride in serum

as standard deviation of fit (s^-.) in mmol/L.

- - - - - Micro ----- _____ Macro -----

9. S Si S Laboratory Number fit Laboratory Number fit

1-1 0.18 5-1 0.16

1-2 .41 5-2 .18

4-1 .30 6-1 .13

4-2 .10 11-1 1.23

8- 1 .20 11-2 .98

9- 1 .28

13- 1 (0)

14- 1 .79

14- 2 .51

15- 1 .04

The laboratory designation consists of two parts: the

initial digit(s) represent the assigned laboratory number

and the last digit represents either the first or the

second day's results.

4#

55
V. DISCUSSION

A. Candidate Protocol :

1. Preliminary Tests

Generally, in the development of a reference method

where the state of analytical knowledge leaves an uncertainty

in the choice of a candidate reference method, it is essential

that investigations be undertaken to assure optimized analytical conditions, minimized interferences, and freedom from

other sources of bias. Such preparation helps avoid initiating

the inter laboratory testing process with inappropriate procedures. However, in the case of chloride, the similarity

of test results obtained by use of the C-A method and the

highly specific IDMS method, led the Committee to decide to

proceed directly to the interlaboratory exercise phase with

the C-A method, without further preliminary studies.

2. Specifications

In light of prior experience [8,9,10,14,15,24], the

written protocol is explicit as to reagent and glassware

specifications, pipetting, and directions for dilution of

standard and sample. Thus, Class A or equivalent glassware,

reagent grade or equivalent chemicals, 'tested' water, analytical balances with a ±0.1 mg weighing capability, and micropipets with specified accuracy and precision are used. In

addition, the reference method provides for the use of

analytical techniques that should reduce the combined error

due to weighing, pipetting, and dilution to below one

percent of the measured values.

3. Coulometr ic—Amperometric Instrumentation

Coulometr ic- amperometr ic instrumentation has been used

extensively for the determination of serum chloride in the

clinical laboratory. In the Committee's judgment, it was

felt that these instruments might provide the necessary

56
accuracy and precision in a clinical reference method, and

that instructions for the use of specific instruments should

not be given in the protocol. Instead, it should be left to

the investigator to use the manufacturer's instructions for

the specific instrument he employs, since different readouts,

electrolytes, dispersants, micropipets, and sample volumes

might be used. Thus specifications were not presented other

than a requirement for stable instrument operating conditions.

As in sample preparation and handling, the human element in

achieving accuracy and precision is critical. It is essential

that operators be thoroughly familiar with their instruments

and alert to the onset of instrumental difficulties. Instrument linearity requirements are not included in the protocol

since the bracketing method for obtaining valid measurements

is used to ensure minimal error attributable to instrumental

variation

Instruments produced by five different manufacturers 11

were used in the interlaboratory exercise. All gave excellent

results and are listed in Table 18. On examination of the

data reported for calibration curves, excellent linearity was

found over the range of chloride concentrations from 75 to

125 mmol/L. More than 92 percent of the calibration curves

showed standard deviations of fit of 1.00 mmol/L or less. A

standard deviation of fit larger than 1.30 mmol/L would

clearly warrant a laboratory's examination of its operation

of the procedure and/or preparation of the standard solutions.

lx To describe instruments, it was necessary to identify

commercial products by the manufacturer's name. In no

instance does such identification imply endorsement by the

National Bureau of Standards, nor does it imply that the

particular product is necessarily the best available for

that purpose.

57
C/) CD

•i—I

ShO

4-> rt

5-. O

•8

bO •HP

cu

<HO

Ph

t—I & 92

CO o o u U crj o 2

+jo o H H

Phu

OO

rH

XX

CD X, • -P

CD r-1

XH Ph

•H

Ph

CD o

tJ v> rH CD -H U

C/)

U P rH Mi

CD

(/)

X

Sh

W CD

+->

X

p

CD Sh E o

o3 -P CO Sh crj rH

03 rH CD Ph o Ph

Cfi rH 0j •H O rH Q U rH O CD P P O P CD

rH

H P

Cu

XrH

t/5

p o P S H o P

•H rH

u

H CD

03 CD rH > CO Ph HO 6 P

o3 CDX »W P •H

V) 3 H P X O

CD Sh T3 P

Ph o 03 o H P CD P. 03 rH

rH •H - o Q (/) P 03 P rH

CD rH g CD p P P

rH P P H i p p

r-1 -H

p

</) • p

00 i—i

rH

CD rH

03

CO

tep S CD 1

Ph

•H

do

CD Sh o3 U

CI Da Mi 3

bOP 5h •H CD P ^P s mo p

cj pq

X!x

rH

CD oCM

bOP a e p o

Ph CJ

OOXX

X o

•H

CDI

ShUP P H p p 53

03 bO

rH 03

CD CD CJ Di u

•H

rH P> •HU

•HP

CD % P P

•H

p P CD 03 bO

rH 03

CD CD CJ Di 2 o

LO

<N]

Sh

CD rHhPI o

CJoCJ

X

.S3u pPh 3oH

ShU

•HP

CD 3X

oo

oooCN1

Sh

CD rHUP oCNi X X Hc t!p P CD 03 bO

rH 03

CD CD CJ Di U

•H

ShU

•H

P>

CD XoCNl mwi bOP

•HO

CJ

oo

h3

CDX

CD

Sh Dh

Sh

CD •PI

•H

CO

hh"

X

cn oXX

XX

to

to

<3- oCJ2 oCNl X

u

•HPop3P -P

R -P P rH •H Pi -Hp -HO P CD P CD > X o3 bO o3 bO X O H CC rH 03 rH O

CD CD CD CD OH CJ Di CJ Di Ph < o o o

•H •H •H

Sh Sh Sh P> P P

•H •H •H o U o

•H •H •H P •P P>

CD CD CD M Ac AcX

to

X

E?rH

•H

O

rH

U

DhoCO

CNl X o X Xo

•HIo

Sho p p p

p

•Hp -Hp P CD P CD

ct3 bO 03 bO H cC h rt

CD CD CD CD CJ Di CJ Di o

•HHPo

•HP

CD X o

•H

Sh PO

•HP

CD X

LO

rHI OCJ2

LO

rHI

•"J O

T3

CDp

C/5

CD I0Uo

ShPhg

•HP

03

Sh P

•HP

C/l CD rH

03u

COI m

CD rHu

CO

CD HPP

CDO

•H

(/) *d

CDPPopg

•HPOmp

to t30 X P

Sh Sh O O

•P Ph

crj 0

Sh Sh OX P>

03

O

rJ 2 03 X)

58
4. Statistical Analysis

The results discussed here are based on the analysis of

four replicate samples analyzed as pairs on two separate days.

Adherence to this pattern of replicate analysis facilitated

analysis of the performance of the reference method.

The imprecision and bias goals of 1.5 and 2.0 mmol/L,

respectively set at the 100 mmol/L level, were in fact reached

over the total concentration range by the laboratories using

either the micro- or macropipetting protocols. We believe

there are no differences in the imprecision or bias values

obtained by the two pipetting alternatives. In Table 13, the

a total va l ue f° r tfte macropipetting procedure was observed

to be approximately one-half that for the micropipetting

procedure. Because of the limited three - laboratory sample

in the macropipetting procedure, the a to i- a

^ has a lower

reliability than that for the micropipetting procedure which

involved 10 laboratories. Comparison of results from IE-I

with those from IE-II suggests that the imprecisions and

biases for both pipetting procedures are essentially equal

(see, for example, figures 4 and 5). The micropipetting

procedure results may be considered indicative of the

imprecisions and biases for both pipetting procedures.

Considering the uncertainties in the definitive method

values, the results from the micro- and macropipetting procedures show no significant bias from the definitive method

values, Table 14.

In summary, for laboratories in the population typical

of those participating in this study (i.e., clinical laboratories that have practiced the reference method and are in

good quality control) have imprecisions ( 0 -(- 0

-(- a i) within 1.0

mmol/L and biases within 0.5 mmol/L can be expected in the

performance of this reference method.

59
Auxiliary statistical analysis on the calibration curve

data showed excellent linearity with all curves having standard deviations of fit of 1.23 mmol/L or less and 12 of the

14 curves having Sf^ t

of 0.79 mmol/L or less.

VI. CONCLUSIONS

A candidate reference method, specified by a written

protocol for the determination of serum chloride employing

commercial coulometr ic- amperometr ic instrumentation, was

evaluated by comparing the results of analyses run on serum

and aqueous samples in a selected group of laboratories that

used the method against definitive method values for the same

samples. The results for samples having chloride concentrations in the 79 to 117 mmol/L range, showed a total imprecision

^ a total^ approximately 1.0 mmol/L and a maximum bias of

0.5 mmol/L. In IE-I and IE-II, similar imprecisions and

biases were found whether macropipett ing or micropipett ing

was used in the C-A procedure.

Statistical analysis of the results shows that the C-A

method can be carried out with the accuracy and precision

expected of a reference method for serum chloride. Hence,

the candidate method is considered to be the reference

method. This reference method may be used to establish the

accuracy of field methods for chloride by comparative testing.

It may also be used to determine reference material values

for serum chloride. Each of these uses would require an

appropriate experimental design to ensure its achievement of

accuracy and precision equal to those demonstrated here.

60
We would like to especially thank the principal investigators and other scientists in the participating laboratories

(listed in Appendix A), who, through their efforts, made this

work meaningful and possible. We thank Dr. David Bayse and

Ms. Sue Lewis, CDC, for providing excellent, homogeneous

serum pools used in the interlaboratory testing process.

The work at NBS was carried out in the Institute for

Materials Research. We thank Dr. Philip D. LaFleur, Director,

Center for Analytical Chemistry, and Mr. J. Paul Cali, Chief,

Office of Standard Reference Materials, for their support

and encouragement throughout this program. Special thanks

go to Dr. Richard Durst for discussions and suggestions in

the area of electrochemistry. Acknowledgement is also made

to Mr. John Matwey for help in sample handling. Special

thanks are due to Mrs. Joy Shoemaker of the Text Editing

Facility for her efforts in manuscript production which

included formatting, editing, and typing.

The Bureau of Medical Devices of The Food and Drug

Administration is acknowledged for their financial support

of this project.

61
VII. REFERENCES

[1] Weissberg, H. F., in "Water, Electrolyte, and Acid-Base

Balance," 2nd Edition, Williams and Wilkins Co.,

Baltimore, MD 1962, p. 81.

[2] di Sant'Agnese, P. A., Darling, R. C, Perera, G. A.,

and Shea, E . , Am. J. Med., 1_5, 777 (1953).

[3] Weissman, N. and Pileggi, V. J., in "Clinical Chemistry:

Principles and Technics." Henry, R. J., Cannon, D. C .

,

and Winkelman, J. W., Eds. 2nd Edition, Harper and Row,

New York, NY 1974, p. 712; Tietz, N. W. , in "Fundamentals of Clinical Chemistry, W. B. Saunders Co.,

Publisher, Philadelphia, PA 1970, p. 621

[4] Driscoll, J. L. and Martin, H. F. , Clin. Chem. , 12, 314

(1966)

.

[5] Schales, 0., in "Standard Methods of Clinical Chemistry,"

Vol. I., M. Reiner, Ed., Academic Press, New York, NY

1953, p. 37.

[6] Klein, G., in "Standard Methods of Clinical Chemistry,"

Vol. II, D. Seligson, Ed., Academic Press, New York, NY

1958, p. 22.

[7] Cotlove, E., in "Standard Methods of Clinical Chemistry,"

Vol. Ill, D. Seligson, Ed., Academic Press, New York, NY

1961, p. 81; Cotlove, E., Trantham, H. V., and Bowman,

R. L., J. Lab. Clin. Med., 51_, 461 (1968); Ibbott, F. A.,

in "Standard Methods of Clinical Chemistry," Vol. V,

S. Meites, Ed., Academic Press, New York, NY 1965, p. 101.

[8] Cali, J. P., Mandel, J., Moore, L. J., and Young, D. S.,

"A Referee Method for the Determination of Calcium in

Serum" Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.) Special Publication

260-36 (1972). For sale by: Superintendent of

Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,

D.C. 20402 SD Cat. No. C13 . 10 : 260 - 36

.

62
[9] Velapoldi, R. A., Paule, R. C. , Schaffer, R. , Mandel, J.,

and Moody, J. R. , "A Reference Method for the Determination of Sodium in Serum", Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.) Special

Publication, 260-60 (1978). For sale by: Superintendent

of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,

D.C. 20402 SD Cat. No. C13 . 10 : 260-60

.

[10] Velapoldi, R. A., Paule, R. C, Schaffer, R. , Mandel, J.,

Machlan, L. A., and Gramlich, J. W. , "A Reference Method

for the Determination of Potassium in Serum," Nat. Bur.

Stand. (U.S.) Special Publication, 260-63 (1979). For

sale by: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government

Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 SN 003-003-

02068.

[11] Pybus , J., Feldman, F. J., and Bowers, G. N. Jr., Clin.

Chem. , 16_, 998 (1970) . [12] See specific references in the Sections on Definitive

Methods in references 8-10.

[13] Available from: Office of Standard Reference Materials,

National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C. 20234.

[14] Cali, J. P., Bowers, G. N. , and Young, D. S., Clin.

Chem., 19_ (10), 1208 (1973).

[15] Velapoldi, R. A., Paule, R. C. , Schaffer, R. , Mandel, J.,

and Moody, J. R. , and Velapoldi, R. A., Paule, R. C.

,

Schaffer, R. , Mandel, J., Machlan, L. A., and Gramlich,

J. W. , To be Submitted.

[16] Carter, R. J., Mather, A., Dawson, C. D. , Turner, W. E .

,

Neese, J. W. , and Bayse, D. D. , "The Development of a CDC Reference Method for Sodium and Potassium in Serum,"

Draft Copy, Center for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA

30333.

[17] Serum samples have been stored frozen for several years

at temperatures below -20 °C with no apparent affect on

electrolyte concentration. White, J. CDC, Private

Communication

.

63
[18] Thawed serum samples were mailed to the participating

laboratories. In previous experiences at CDC, thawed

samples mailed to the west coast and returned after two

weeks showed no change in serum electrolyte concentration. White, J., CDC, Private Communication.

[19] Reagent Chemicals, American Chemical Society Specifications ACS Publications, Washington, D.C. (1968).

[20] Hughes, J. C, "Testing of Glass Volumetric Apparatus,"

NBS Circular 602, 1959. For sale by: The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,

Washington, D.C. 20025.

[21] Mandel, J., "Models, Transformations of Scale, and

Weighting", Journal of Quality Technology, Vol. 8,

No. 2, 86-97 (1976).

[22] Mandel, J., "The Inter laboratory Evaluation of Testing

Methods", ASTM Bulletin 239, 53-61 and 133 (1959).

[23] Mandel, J., "Estimation of Weighting Factors in Linear

Regression and Analysis of Variance", Technometrics

,

6, 1-25 (1964).

[24] Clinical reference methods are also being developed at

NBS for lithium and magnesium.

64
APPENDIX A

Scientists not previously acknowledged who contributed to

this study are:

Mrs. Harriet Bailey

Dr. Daniel Grisley

New England Deaconess Hospital

Ms. Leyda Ortega

Mr. G. S. King

American Hospital Supply

Ms. J. Schmitz

Veterans Administration Hospital

Ms. K. Koch

Beckman Instruments

Miss C. Wong

Mrs. Shirley Wertlake

University of California

Mr. Frank Doherty

Pennsylvania Department of Health

Ms. R. Stauffenberg

Food and Drug Administration

65
U. S. Department of Commerce

Frederick B. Dent

Secretary

National Bureau of Standards

Richard W. Roberts, Director

This Standard Reference Material is certified for use in the calibration and standardization of

procedures employed in the determination of sodium and chloride ions in clinical analyses. The

sample consists of highly purified sodium chloride. Chemical assay as well as analyses for specific

impurities indicate that the material may be considered essentially pure, except for occluded

moisture.

Purity 99. 9 ± 0.0 percent

The above value for the purity of the material is based on a sample dried over magnesium

perchlorate for 24 hours. At room temperature sodium chloride is hygroscopic above 60 percent

relative humidity. The sorbed water can be removed, however, by desiccation over freshly exposed

P2 Os or Mg(C104 ) 2 for 24 hours. Chloride was determined using the coulometric method of

Marinenko and Taylor [J. Res. NBS. 67A. 31 (1963)].

Based on 8 independent measurements of chloride content, the sample is considered homogeneous.

When the material is crushed and dried at 200 °C for 18 hours, the loss of moisture is about 0.08

percent. Coulometric determinations of chloride on the dried material indicate 99.995 ± 0.004

percent purity.

The sodium chloride used for this Standard Reference Material was obtained from the J. T. Baker Chemical Company, of Phillipsburg, New Jersey. Analyses were performed by G. Marinenko,

J. R. Baldwin, M. Darr, and T. C. Rains.

The overall direction and coordination of technical measurements leading to the certification were under the chairmanship of R. A. Durst.

The technical and support aspects concerning the preparation, certification, and issuance of this Standard Reference Material were coordinated through the Office of Standard Reference Materials

by T. W. Mears.

Standard Reference Material 919

Sodium Chloride

(Clinical Standard)

Washington, D. C. 20234

August 6, 1973

J. Paul Cali, Chief

Office of Standard Reference Materials

(over)

66
•f

This material was examined for eompliance with the specifications for reagent grade sodium

chloride' as given in Reagent Chemicals, 4th edition, published by the American Chemical Society.

The material meets or exceeds the minimum requirements in every respect.

Sodium was assayed using a gravimetric procedure in which the sodium chloride was converted

lo sodium sulfate. Approximately 250 mg of sodium chloride (dried at 500 °C for 4 hours in a platinum crucible) was dissolved in ultrapure sulfuric acid solution (1:1) and evaporated to dryness.

Ammonium carbonate was added and the crucible slowly heated to 600 °C, then 900 °. This treatment was repeated until the weight of sodium sulfate remained constant. Based on 6 deter- minations, the sodium assay is 39.

3

2 weight percent or 99.

9

6 percent of the amount computed for perfectly pure, stoichiometric NaCl.

A semiquantitative survey for trace elements by emission spectroscopy indicated less than 10

jug/g calcium, copper, iron, and magnesium. A value of less than 3 /ug/g magnesium was obtained by

atomic absorption spectrometry. Flame emission spectrometry indicated the presence of the following elements: potassium, 11 ;ug/g; calcium and cesium, less than 2 Mg/g; and rubidium and lithium

less than 0.5 pg/g.

This Standard Reference Material is intended for "in vitro" diagnostic use only.

This material is intended for use. as a standard for the determination of sodium and chloride

ions in clinical chemistry.

Sodium is most frequently determined by flame emission photometry. The operative details of

this methodology vary from instrument to instrument and are discussed at length in their respective

operating manuals. A standard solution of 100 mmol of sodium chloride per liter (suitable for both

sodium and chloride determinations) may be prepared by placing 5.85 g of SRM 919 (dried at 1 10

°C) in a 1 -liter volumetric flask and adding 3 ml of concentrated nitric acid (ACS Reagent Grade)

and 100 ml of deionized water. After the NaCl is dissolved, dilute to the mark with deionized water. The concentration required for analysis may be prepared by accurate dilutions with distilled water.

This Standard Reference Material should be stored in the well-closed original, bottle under

normal laboratory conditions. It is recommended that weighing and other manipulations not be

made when the relative humidity exceeds 60 percent.

Solutions of SRM 919 are stable indefinitely when stored in a well-stoppered, all-glass container. All such solutions should be clear and display no turbidity.

References:

[1] IN. W. Tietz, Fundamentals of Clinical Chemistry, pp. 616-618; 621-625, W. B. Saunders Co.,

Philadelphia, Pa. (1970).

[2] R. D. Henry, Clinical Chemistry, Principles and Practice, pp. 345-350; 402-409, Hoeber Medical

Division, Harper & Row, New York, IN. Y. (1967).

This Standard Reference Material has been measured and certified at the laboratories of the National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, Maryland. All inquiries should be addressed to:

Office of Standard Reference Materials

Room B31 1, Chemistry Building

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

The date of issuance and certification of this Standard Reference Material was August 6, 1973.

67
APPENDIX C

DEFINITIVE METHOD

Thermal Ionization Isotope Dilution Mass Spectrometry

Isotope dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS) , because of

its innate accuracy, has been used extensively at NBS to

accurately determine the concentration of elements in Standard

Reference Materials and other reference materials. An accurate measurement may be defined as one that is both precise

and free of unevaluated systematic errors. The concentration

determined by this procedure represents the "true value"

within the stated uncertainty limits.

At NBS the most accurate methods available to measure

a given chemical property are known as definitive methods.

A definitive method can be defined as one which has a valid

and well described theoretical foundation, has been experimentally evaluated so that reported results have negligible

systematic errors, and has high levels of precision. Thermal

ionization isotope dilution is regarded at NBS as a definitive method.

In isotope .dilution mass spectrometry the quantity of

an element present is estimated from the change produced in

its isotope composition by the addition of a known quantity

of an isotope of the element which alters the analyte's

isotopic composition. This alteration is measured by mass

spectrometry and the initial amount of the element present

in the sample is calculated.

The method, as we use it, consists essentially of the

following steps:

1) The addition to a weighed sample of a known amount

of a separated isotope of the element to be determined. We

prefer to make this addition as a weighed portion of a solution of known concentration.

68
2) Dissolution of the sample by appropriate means, and

thorough mixing of the resulting solution to ensure equilibration of the isotopes from the spike and the sample. This may

necessitate chemical treatment to convert the separated isotope

and natural element to the same oxidation state.

3) Chemical extraction of the isotopically altered

element in a form suitable for mass spectrographic analysis.

A major advantage of IDMS is the fact that since we are only

concerned with the ratio of isotopes, recoveries need not be

quantitative after equilibration.

4) Measurement of the altered isotopic ratio by thermal

ionization mass spectrometry. The instruments used are solid

sample, single stage instruments, designed and built at NBS.

Essential detailed descriptions of these instruments have

been published [1,2].

5) Calculation of the amount of element present in the

sample from the isotope ratio measurement. The calculation

for an element with isotopes a and b is shown by equation (1)

.

W C[A -RB ]

, sp L sp sp J M r -.^ ^/S = M-A — * W (1)

s where

R = measured isotopic ratio

W = weight spike solution, g s p

A = mole fraction a in spike

sp r B = mole fraction b in spike

sp r A = mole fraction a in natural element

B = mole fraction b in natural element

M = atomic weight natural element

W

s = weight of sample, g

(This calculated concentration must be corrected for blank.)

69
An analysis of the possible errors in IDMS shows that

errors could result from the following sources:

a) Error in the calibration of the concentration of the

spike isotope. The accuracy of a determination depends on

the "spike calibration". The spike solution is calibrated

against at least two different solutions of the pure natural

element by what has been called reverse isotope dilution.

Whenever possible, SRMs are used as the natural material. The

error from the spike calibration will be the same as for the

element determination and is due to the imprecision of the

ratio measurement.

b) Chemical errors. These could be caused by:

1) Incomplete dissolution of the sample. This is a problem

common to all wet analytical methods, and the analyst must

devise a system that ensures complete sample solution or

decomposition. 2) Loss of the element from sample or spike

due to volatility or adsorption during dissolution. This

can usually be detected by spiking some samples before

dissolution and some samples after dissolution. 3) Incomplete

mixing or equilibration of spike and natural isotopes. This

can be caused by differences of oxidation state or by the

occurence of the natural element in a complex or chelated

form. This source of error can be eliminated by proper

chemical treatment, for example, oxidation or reduction and

wet-ashing. 4) Isotopic fractionation in the chemical treatment if the separation is not quantitative. This is usually

not a problem but may occur with some techniques, such as in

the separation of lithium by ion exchange chromatography.

This can be detected by isotopic analysis of small fractions

of the natural material that have been put through the

partial separation.

In regard to the total chemical error, no undetected

errors should arise from this source in a well designed

analysis

.

70
c) Contamination or blank. Contamination or blank may

arise from reagents, apparatus, or dust from the laboratory

environment. It can be minimized by carrying out the chemical

operations in a carefully controlled atmosphere and by using

special high purity reagents. The total blank may be estimated

by carrying a number of "blanks" through all the steps of the

analysis. The average blank value can be treated as a systematic error and used as a correction. The uncertainty of this

correction is equal to the randomness of its measurement. For

concentrations where the blank represents a significant

fraction of the element determined, the blank may become the

largest source of error.

d) Interferences. Interferences mainly occur between

elements with isobars, that is different elements that have

isotopes of equal mass. This problem may be avoided by basing

the analysis on those isotopes of the element that are not

isobaric, or by chemically separating the interfering element.

Fortunately, most of the elements with isobars are in different groups of the periodic table, so separations are not

difficult. No concealed systematic error should arise from

this source.

For example, is isobaric with lt0 Ca, but K can be

easily separated from Ca by ion exchange chromatography. To

be sure that the 1*°K level is insignificant, the analyst can

monitor 39 K which is four orders of magnitude more abundant

than k °K in natural potassium.

e) Instrumental errors. Instrumental errors may be

caused by mass discrimination or fractionation, but are

usually cancelled since the same percentage error would be

present in the ratio measurement for the spike calibration.

With some elements, impurities in a sample can cause a different fractionation pattern from pure material. These

effects are usually small (less than 0.1%) and can usually

be corrected by repurifying the sample.

71
This analysis of the possible sources of systematic

error shows that these errors can be eliminated or corrected

as in the case of the blank. We are left then with the random

errors. Random errors are present in the isotope ratio measurements for both the determination and the spike calibration

and the blank correction. If the blank correction is insignificant, then the total error in a careful determination

reduces to the combined random error for the spike calibration

and the determination. This error is reflected in the

precision of the isotopic measurements which for many elements

is of the order of 0.05 to 0.25 percent. Therefore, absolute

accuracies of 0.1 to 0.5 percent are possible even for very

low concentrations in complex materials.

When the blank correction is significant then the uncertainty from this source must be added to the uncertainties

from the ratio measurements.

Determination of Chloride

Introduct ion

Some years ago, the absolute 35 C1/ 37 C1 ratio was measured

at NBS during a redetermination of the atomic weight of

chlorine [3] . The absolute 35 C1/ 37 C1 ratio was determined

to be 3.127 ± 0.008. A study of chlorine minerals had shown

this ratio to be invarient in natural samples within the

measurement uncertainty.

With the exception of sample size, the same mass spectrographs method in which chloride was analyzed using an

ammonical solution of silver chloride, seemed to be applicable to the determination of chloride in blood serum by

isotope dilution. However, preliminary experiments with

serum revealed that silver nitrate solution precipitated not

only silver chloride, but also some other material, probably

protein, so attempts were made to first remove the protein.

72
The Folin-Y/u method [4] in which protein is precipitated

by sodium tungstate from an acidified serum solution, produced

a clear "protein- free" filtrate. Unfortunately, the blank

for chloride was too high due principally to the chloride

content of the sodium tungstate. A modification of this

method using ammonium molybdate, which also precipitates

protein, and nitric acid instead of sulfuric acid reduced

the chloride blank to about 1 yg CI or less than 0.1 percent

of the chloride contained in 1 g of serum.

During actual IDMS determination of CI in serum, it was

found that further purification from organic matter was

necessary. Some samples became dark on drying on a filament

and gave a different fractionation pattern from the reference

during mass spectrometr ic analysis. When these samples were

further purified by allowing ammonia gas to escape and AgCl

to crystallize slowly from ammonical solution, the problem

disappeared.

Procedure

Four randomly selected vials (5 for lot 1) from each

of the seven pools of bovine blood serum were used for the

determination of chloride ion concentrations. The frozen

samples were allowed to thaw and equilibrate to room temperature. One-gram sub-samples were taken from each of the

vials and a duplicate sample was taken from one of the vials

from each lot. Each sub-sample was then treated as follows:

The 1-g sub-sample was spiked with 37 C1 [sufficient to

give a 35/37 ratio of approximately one), 8 mL of 0.1 mol/L

HN0 3 was added, and the solution was thoroughly mixed and

heated for two hours to equilibrate natural chloride with

the spike chloride. Protein was then precipitated with

ammonium molybdate solution and removed by filtration.

73
The chloride in the "protein- free" filtrate was precipitated as silver chloride which was allowed to settle from

the solution. The supernatant solution was removed by decantation and the AgCl was dissolved with a minimum of ammonium

hydroxide solution. AgCl was reprecipitated by the addition

of nitric acid, separated by centr ifugation and redissolved

in concentrated ammonium hydroxide. Further purification

was accomplished by allowing ammonia gas to escape and AgCl

to slowly crystallize. The supernatant liquid was withdrawn

and AgCl was again recrys talli zed from ammonium hydroxide

solution. Finally, the recrys talli zed AgCl was dissolved in

concentrated ammonium hydroxide to give a chloride concentration of 3 mg/mL.

Two different mass spectrometers were used for chlorine

isotopic ratio measurements. One instrument was dedicated

to blanks and separated isotope samples and the other to

spiked samples and the natural isotopic standard. The mass

spectrometr ic technique is described in NBS Technical Note

277 [5]. Major modifications in the procedure were the use

of degassed filaments and reduction of the sample size per

analyses to approximately 60 yg.

Results

The results of these determinations are shown in Table

1. The blank correction based on six blank determinations

was 0.7 yg or less than 0.03 percent of the amount of

chloride present in any sample. The results are reported

both on a weight and a volume basis using an average density

of 1.0312 g/mL at 23 °C for all lots of serum. The indicated

uncertainty is an estimated limit of error, and is larger

than the 95 percent confidence limits for a single determination (to) calculated from the concentration data. The additional allowance is made for possible error contributions

74
from spike calibrations and background signals. The estimated

accuracy is 0.5 percent and includes allowance for all known

sources of systematic error.

References

[1] Shields, W. R. , Ed., Analytical Mass Spectrometry

Section: Summary of Activities, July 1966 to June

1967, U. S. National Bureau of Standards Technical

Note 426, 1-53, U. S. Government Printing Office,

Washington, D. C. 20402 (1967).

[2] Garner, E. L. , Machlan, L. A., and Shields, W. R.

,

Standard Reference Materials: Uranium Isotopic Standard Reference Materials, U. S. National Bureau of

Standards Special publication 260-27, 1-150, U. S.

Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 20402

(1971)

.

[3] Shields, W. R. , Garner, E. L. , and Dibeler, V. H.

,

J. Res. Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), 66A (Phys. and Chem.),

No. 1, 1-3 (Jan. -Feb. 1962).

[4] Folin, 0. and Wu, H. , J. Biol. Chem. 38_, 81 (1919).

[5] Shields, W. R. , Editor, NBS Technical Note 277, 99 pages,

U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.

20234 (1966).

75
Table 1. Chloride in CDC Serum.

Sub-Sample Chloride Concentration

mmol/kg mmo 1 /

L

1- 1 76.95 79.35

2- 1 76.91 79.31

3- 1 76.63 79.02

4- 1 76.92 79.32

5- 1 76.85 79.25

5-2 76.92 79.32

Average 76.9 ± 0.4 79.2 ± 0.4 a

1- 1 81.83 84.38

2- 1 82.06 84.62

3- 1 81.90 84.46

4- 1 81.94 84.50

4-2 81.95 84.40

Average 81.9 ± 0.4 84.5 ± 0.4 a

1- 1 91.18 94.02

2- 1 91.12 93.96

3- 1 91.24 94.09

4- 1 91.14 93.98

4-2 91.22 94.06

Average 91.2 ± 0.5 94.0 ± 0.5 a

1- 1 98.62 101.69

2- 1 98.76 101.85

3- 1 98.68 101.76

4- 1 98.70 101.78

4-2 98.66 101.74

Average 98.7 ± 0.5 101.8 ± 0.5 a

1- 1 103.77 107.00

2- 1 104.00 107.25

3- 1 103.95 107.20

4- 1 103.86 107.10

4-2 103.98 107.22

Average 103.9 ± 0.5 107.2 ± 0.5 a

continued

76
Table 1 (continued)

Pool

P6

Sub -Sample

1- 1

2- 1 3- 1

4- 1 4-2

Chloride Concentration

mmol/kg

109.45

109. 51

109. 56

109. 50

109. 53

mmo 1 /

112. 86

112. 93

112.98

112.92

112. 95

Average 109.5 0.5 112. 9 0.6'

P7 1-1 113.15 116.68

2- 1 113.15 116.68

3- 1 113.34 116.87

4- 1 113.38 116.92

4-2 113.14 116.67

Average 113.2 0.6 116.8 0.6 a

a Estimated maximum error of 0.5 percent of the value as

reported by NBS Analytical Mass Spectrometry Section. This

estimated maximum error includes both imprecision and an

estimated upper bound for possible systematic errors. The

estimated maximum error is believed to be equal to or

greater than the true error for the 95 percent confidence

limits

77
APPENDIX D

Note 1:

A temperature range of ±2 °C is designated as the

operating temperature. In this temperature range the

maximum difference in aqueous solution volumes due to

thermal expansion of the liquid is 0.102 percent and

the difference in volume due to the volumetric glassware is very small since the coefficient of expansion

for borosilicate glass is 0.00001 per °C. (J. Lembeck,

"Calibration of Small Volumetric Laboratory Glassware",

NBSIR Report 74-461, 1974, Institute for Basic Standards, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C.

20234). We judge these errors to be acceptable for

this reference method. Larger temperature variations

may necessitate appropriate correction.

Note 2:

Glassware Required:

a) Micropipetting alternative : Volumetric Flasks : Five 250-mL.

Pipets: Micropipets as required for instrument with

the accuracy requirement specified in

Section IIIC-2.

b . Macropipett ing alternative : Volumetric Flasks : Ten 250-mL plus as many additional

250-mL volumetric flasks as there are samples to

be analyzed.

Pipets : One 5-mL; five 4-mL plus as many additional

4-mL pipets as there are samples to be analyzed.

78
Note 3:

Cleaning of Glassware:

a) Clean the glassware in the following manner:

(1) soak glassware for 60 min in 0.77 mol/L HN0 3 .

(2) Rinse six times with a volume of water equal to

at least 10 percent of the container volume.

(3) Use immediately or air dry (inverted in a dustfree environment) for later use.

Note 4:

The atomic weights used in this report are those

reported in : Pure and Applied Chemistry, 47_, 75

(1976)

.

Note 5:

If the wash solution does not drain cleanly from the

pipet, wash with 0.77 mol/L HN0 3 , H 2 0, Me OH , 70:30 v/v

CHCl 3 :MeOH, Me OH , and H 2 0 in that order. Then repeat

the water wash and check that the pipet does drain

properly

.

Note 6:

The three following pages are examples of the data

sheets returned from each laboratory after each round

robin test.

79
ELECTROLYTES IN SERUM - CLINICAL REFERENCE METHOD

CHLORIDE ION

INTERLABORATORY

LABORATORY 5 ANALYST XY EXERCISE II

DATE SAMPLES REC E I VED 2 - 1 8 - 7

DATES ANALYZED (1) 2-24 (2) 2-26

American Aminco -Cot love

INSTRUMENT MANUFACTURER Instrument Co. MODEL Chloride Titrato r

METHOD: MICRO MACRO X DIRECT READING TIME X

VOLUME TRANSFERRED TO TITRATION CELL 4 -° (ML)

TYPE MICROPIPET USED r____^_r_ 6 • 4 mL cone. Nitric Acid + ELECTROLYTE USED 100 mL Glacial Acetic QS to 1 liter

DISPERSANT USED Gelatin Reagent (6.2 g to 1 liter of hot wat er)

Weight ratio

Composed of: Knox Gelatin #1 60

Thymol Blue 1 Thymol 1

COMMENTS: Due to time involved in performing the macro

procedure on 10 samples, the dilutions of the serum samples

wer e made on the day before the titrations were performed.

They were allowed to set overnight at room temperature and

were shaken vigorously to ensure thorough mixing before

the analyses. This change was discussed with and approved

by NBS personnel.

i

80
DATA SHEET: STANDARD CURVE

LAB

5 DAY 2/24 / 76

Y

PROTOCOL USED; MANUAL SEMI -AUTOMATED

CALCULATED ION DIRECT READ-OUT

STANDARD CONCENTRATION, MMOL/L OR TIME

75.01 23.2

DILUENT BLANK

90.01 27.9

100.01 31.0

110.00 34.2

125.00 39.0

1.7

81
DATA REPORTING SHEET FOR VALID MEASUREMENTS

X PROTOCOL USED

LAB ION CI

DATE ANALYZED

MACRO MICRO

INTERLABORATORY EXERCISE_

2 ^ 24 OPERATOR XY

II

SAMPLE # 536603

STANDARD

CONCENTRATIONS

LO 110.00

HI 125.00

SAMPLE # 496322

.Cc

2

)

STANDARD

CONCENTRATIONS

LO 75.01

HI 90.01

SAMPLE # 453700

.(CH

2

)

STANDARD

CONCENTRATIONS

L0 100.01

HI 110.00

TIME OR DIRECT READOUT

VALID LO STD SAMPLE HI STD

SET Cc CY) Cc

2

) C

1

.

A 37 . 9 40.5 117 04

2 . Q

. O 37.9 40 .6 116 S6

3 . 35 .8 37.6 40 . 5 115. 74

TIME OR DIRECT READOUT

VALID LO STD SAMPLE HI STD

SET (c P CY) Cc

2

) c

1 . o

. o 26.0 29.4 7 R Q ?

2 . 24 . 9 25.9 29.4 78 . 34

3. 24 .8 26 .

1

29.3 79 . 34

TIME OR DIRECT READOUT

VALID LO STD SAMPLE HI STD

SET CC 1.5 CY) Cc

2 ) c

1. 32 . 7 34.9 35.9 106 . 88

2 . 32 .6 34.8 36.1 106 . 29

3. 32 . 7 34 . 8 36.0 106 . 37

82

& US. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979 O—31 1-046 (304)
NBS-114A (REV. 9-76)

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. NBS SP-260-672. Gov't Accession No, 3. ft«cifjt«tf s Accession No.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE A REFERENCE METHOD FOR THE DETERMINATION OF CHLORIDE

IN SERUM

5. Publication Date November 1979

6. Performing Organization Code

fenced. Velapoldi, Robert C. Paule, Robert Schaffer

John Mandel, Thomas J. Murphy, and John W. Gramlich

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, DC 20234

10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street, City, state, ZIP)

Same as above

13. Type of Report & Period Covered

Final

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 79-60017^

|

I Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less (actual summary of most si gni ticant information. It document includes a si gni licant bibliography or

literature survey, mention it here.) Guided by a committee of experts in clinical chemistry, a reference method was

established for the determination of serum chloride based on a coulometric titrationamperometric end-point determination (C-A) . Its accuracy was evaluated by comparing

the values obtained by use of the method in 14 laboratories against the results

obtained by a definitive analytical method based on isotope dilution-mass spectrometry

(IDMS). Seven serum pools with chloride concentrations in the range 79.2 to 116.8

mmol/L were analyzed. Micro- and macropipetting alternatives were tested using sample

sizes of 0.010-0.100 and 5.0 mL, respectively.

The laboratories used several different C-A instruments. The results showed that

the standard error for a single laboratory's performance of the procedure was approximately 1.0 mmol/L with a maximum bias of 0.5 mmol/L over the range of concentrations

studied. These values are within the accuracy and precision goals that had been set

by the committee. The results from the micro- and macropipetting techniques were

similar. The calibration curve data showed excellent linearity over the total

concentration range, with 12 of 14 curves having standard deviation of fit of less

than 0.80 mmol/L.

With appropriate experimental design, the reference method may be used to

establish the accuracy of field methods as well as to determine reference chloride

values for pooled sera.

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name;

separated by semicolons) Amperometry; chloride analysis; clinical analysis; clinical chemistry; coulometry;

definitive method; electrolytes; reference method; serum chloride analysis.

18. AVAILABILITY £T] Unlimited

I I For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

[25-Order From Sup. of Doc, U.S. Go^mmeQtPrinting Office, Washington, DC

20402, SD Stock No. SN003-003- 021 3O-9

Q Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCLASSIFIED

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

97

2?. Price $3.75

U SCOMM- DC

Subscribe now—

The new

National Bureau

of Standards

Journal

The expanded Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards reports NBS research and

development in those disciplines of the physical and engineering sciences in which the Bureau is active. These include physics, chemistry, engineering, mathematics, and computer sciences. Papers

cover a broad range of subjects, with major

emphasis on measurement methodology, and the basic technology underlying standardization. Also

included from time to time are survey articles on

topics closely related to the Bureau's technical and scientific programs. As a special service to subscribers each issue contains complete citations

to all recent NBS publications in NBS and non- NBS media. Issued six times a year. Annual subscriptions: domestic $17.00; foreign $21.25. Single copy, $3.00 domestic; $3.75 foreign.

• Note: The Journal was formerly published in two sections: Section A "Physics and Chemistry" and Section B "Mathematical Sciences."

NBS Board of Editors Churchill Eisenhart, Executive Editor (Mathematics)

John W. Cooper (Physics) Donald D. Wagman (Chemistry)

Andrew J. Fowell (Engineering)

Joseph O. Harrison (Computer Science)

Howard J. M. Hanley (Boulder Labs.)

Subscription Order Form

Enter my subscription to NBS Journal of Research

at $17.00. Add $4.25 for foreign mailing. No additional postage is required for mailing within the United States or its possessions.

(SJRA—File Code 2N)

Send Subscription to:

Credit Card Orders Only

Total charges $ Credit Card No

Fill in the boxes below.

Name-First, Last

Company Name or Additional Address Line

Street Address

City State Zip Code

(or) COUNTRY

PLEASE PRINT

Master Charge

Interbank No

Expiration Date Month/Year

Remittance Enclosed. Domestic: Check or money order. Foreign:

international money order,

draft on an American or Canadian

Bank, or by UNESCO coupons, Made payable to the Superintendent of Documents. Charge to my Deposit Account No

MAIL ORDER FORM TO:

Superintendent of Documents

Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402

NBS TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

PERIODICALS

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH—The Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards reports NBS research and develop- ment in those disciplines of the physical and engineering sciences in which the Bureau is active. These include physics, chemistry,

engineering, mathematics, and computer sciences. Papers cover a broad range of subjects, with major emphasis on measurement

methodology and the basic technology underlying standardization. Also included from time to time are survey articles on topics

closely related to the Bureau's technical and scientific programs. As a special service to subscribers each issue contains complete

citations to all recent Bureau publications in both NBS and non- NBS media. Issued six times a year. Annual subscription: domestic

$17; foreign $21.25. Single copy, $3 domestic; $3.75 foreign. NOTE: The Journal was formerly published in two sections: Section A "Physics and Chemistry" and Section B "Mathematical

Sciences." DIMENSIONS/NBS—This monthly magazine is published to in- form scientists, engineers, business and industry leaders, teachers,

students, and consumers of the latest advances in science and

technology, with primary emphasis on work at NBS. The magazine

highlights and reviews such issues as energy research, fire protection, building technology, metric conversion, pollution abatement,

health and safety, and consumer product performance. In addition, it reports the results of Bureau programs in measurement

standards and techniques, properties of matter and materials, engineering standards and services, instrumentation, and

automatic data processing. Annual subscription: domestic $11;

foreign $13.75. NONPERIODICALS

Monographs—Major contributions to the technical literature on

various subjects related to the Bureau's scientific and technical activities. Handbooks—Recommended codes of engineering and industrial practice (including safety codes) developed in cooperation with in- terested industries, professional organizations, and regulatory

bodies. Special Publications—Include proceedings of conferences sponsored by NBS, NBS annual reports, and other special publications

appropriate to this grouping such as wall charts, pocket cards, and

bibliographies. Applied Mathematics Series—Mathematical tables, manuals, and

studies of special interest to physicists, engineers, chemists,

biologists, mathematicians, computer programmers, and others engaged in scientific and technical work.

National Standard Reference Data Series—Provides quantitative data on the physical and chemical properties of materials, compiled from the world's literature and critically evaluated. Developed under a worldwide program coordinated by NBS under

the authority of the National Standard Data Act (Public Law

90-396).

NOTE: The principal publication outlet for the foregoing data is the Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data (JPCRD)

published quarterly for NBS by the American Chemical Society

(ACS) and the American Institute of Physics (AIP). Subscriptions,

reprints, and supplements available from ACS, 1 155 Sixteenth St., NW, Washington, DC 20056.

Building Science Series—Disseminates technical information developed at the Bureau on building materials, components,

systems, and whole structures. The series presents research results,

test methods, and performance criteria related to the structural and

environmental functions and the durability and safety characteristics of building elements and systems.

Technical Notes—Studies or reports which are complete in themselves but restrictive in their treatment of a subject. Analogous to monographs but not so comprehensive in scope or definitive in treatment of the subject area. Often serve as a vehicle for final reports of work performed at NBS under the sponsorship of other government agencies.

Voluntary Product Standards—Developed under procedures

published by the Department of Commerce in Part 10, Title 15, of

the Code of Federal Regulations. The standards establish nationally recognized requirements for products, and provide all concerned interests with a basis for common understanding of the

characteristics of the products. NBS administers this program as a supplement to the activities of the private sector standardizing

organizations. Consumer Information Series—Practical information, based on NBS research and experience, covering areas of interest to the con- sumer. Easily understandable language and illustrations provide

useful background knowledge for shopping in today's tech- nological marketplace. Order the above NBS publications from: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. Order the following NBS publications—FIPS and NBSIR's—from

the National Technical Information Services, Springfield, VA 22161

Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS

PUB)—Publications in this series collectively constitute the Federal Information Processing Standards Register. The Register

serves as the official source of information in the Federal Govern- ment regarding standards issued by NBS pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 as amended,

Public Law 89-306 (79 Stat. 1127), and as implemented by Executive Order 11717 (38 FR 12315, dated May 1 1, 1973) and Part 6 of Title 15 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations).

NBS Interagency Reports (NBSIR)—A special series of interim or

final reports on work performed by NBS for outside sponsors

(both government and non-government). In general, initial dis- tribution is handled by the sponsor; public distribution is by the National Technical Information Services, Springfield, VA 22161,

in paper copy or microfiche form.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES

The following current-awareness and literature-survey bibliographies

are issued periodically by the Bureau:

Cryogenic Data Center Current Awareness Service. A literature sur- vey issued biweekly. Annual subscription: domestic $25; foreign

$30. Liquefied Natural Gas. A literature survey issued quarterly. Annual

subscription: $20.

Superconducting Devices and Materials. A literature survey issued

quarterly. Annual subscription: $30. Please send subscription or- ders and remittances for the preceding bibliographic services to the National Bureau of Standards, Cryogenic Data Center (736) Boulder, CO 80303.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Washington. D C. 20234

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

OFFICIAL BUSINESS COM-2 15

Penalty for Private Use. $300

SPECIAL FOURTH-CLASS RATE BOOK