I

Figure 1. Analytical calibration CUNB

of signal, x, vs. concentration, c
The unknown Signal. xu, is re@& 10 an w h o m
con(amat1m. cu, tJwcu$ the equation x = mc +
i. where rn io the slop and I is Uw lnteroept ot
me line

The ability to quantify a trace ele-
ment or molecule in chemical and bio-
logical matrices using specific analyti-
cal methods is often viewed in terms
of the limit of detection. This limit of
detection is a number, expressed in
units of concentration (or amount),
that describes the lowest concentra.
tion level (or amount) of the element
that an analyst can determine to be
statistically different from an analyti-
cal blank (I).Although this definition
seems rather straightforward. signifi-
cant problems have been encountered
in expressing these values because of
the various approaches to the term
“statistically different.” The calculat-
ed limit of detection for an element
can easily vary an order of magnitude
through the use of different statistical
approaches (1-13). In spite of the fact
that the International Union of Pure
and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC)
adopted a model for the limit of detec-
tion calculations in 1975 (I),and the
ACS Subcommittee on Environmental
Analytical Chemistry reaffirmed this
standard in 1980 (2),acceptance of
this model by the general analytical
community has been slow. The result
of this slow acceptance bas led to a
great deal of uncertainty when limits
of detection are used a s ~ abasis for
comparison between various analytical
procedures, methods. or analytical in-
strumenffi. Unless the limits of detec-
tion are calculated in a consistent
manner, the comparison may be
meaningless.
It is the purpose of this REPORT to
examine the statistical meaning of
limit of detection values in a format
consistent with the IUPAC definition.
It is not intended to be a comprehen-
sive review of the various methods of
calculating limit of detection values.
For a more complete review, the read-
er is referred to the excellent articles
by Kaiser ( 3 4 , Boumans (7-9). Cur-
rie(lO),Glaseret al. IiI),aswellas
available textbooks (12,13J. Rather,
this HEPOHT is intended to be a sim-
ple and general discussion on methods
for calculating limits of detection; it is
geared to the analyst who does not
have a rigorous knowledge of statis-
tics. In this examination, the signifi.
cance of the limit of detection values
will be emphasized, and the possible
problems encnuntered when using

7 1 2 ~ ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, VOL.55. NO. 7, JUNE 1 9 8 ~ 000%2700/83/035 1-7 12ASO 1.50/0

Q 1983American Chemical Society
 Gary L. Long
J. D. Winefordner
Department of Chemism
University of Flwida
Galmville. FIB. 32611

Flgure 2. Normal distribution curve for

a measured x variable
me pink shaded wet. 01. represents me pobabll-
hvmt XE 3 A,( + k(r)OrxL a(& + 3%)

limit of detection values obtained
from non-IUPAC methods as a basis
for comparing methods and instru-
menta will be discussed. Also, two
methods will be introduced that per-
mit measurement errors in the analyt-
ical sensitivity to be included in the
limit of detection calculation. These
two methods as well as the IUPAC
method will be evaluated for their
ability to incorporate these errors into
the numerical limit of detection.
Definition
The IUPAC definition, adopted in
1975, states that “the limit of detec-
tion, expressed as a concentration CL
(or amount, qL), is derived from the
smallest measure, XL,that can be de-
tected with reasonable certainty for a
given analytical procedure” (I). This
concept is further clarified by the ACS
definition, which states “the limit of
detection is the lowest concentration
of an analyte that an analytical pro-
cess can reliably detect” (2).To un-
derstand what a reasonably certain
measure or a reliable detection is, the
method of measurement as well as the
errors (including noises) agsociated
with the measurement must be well
understood.
Measurements
Generally, most analytical methods
require the construction of analytical
calibration curves for the determina-
tion of unknowns. These cuwes are
generally plots of signal, x, vs. analyte
concentration, c, and are represented
as in Figure 1. The relationship be-
tween x and c can be obtained by per-
forming a linear regression analysis on
the data. This analytical calibration
relationship cnn be expressed as
x=mc+i
where m is the slope or analytical sen-
sitivity and i is the intercept. When an
unknown sample containing the ana-
lyte is subjected to the analytical pro-
cedure, a value, xu, can be measured.
This value may then be inserted into
Equation 1to determine the concen-
tration of the unknown, cu. However,
the ability to solve accurately for h~is
dependent upon how well the m and i

ANALYTiCAL CHEMISTRY. VOL. 55. NO. 7, JUNE 1983 713,.

values are known. As long as the cali-
bration curve is obtained in the linear
response region of the method, the
more points obtained in the construc-
tion of the calibration curve the better
defined them value will be. Also, if
points are sampled near the origin, the
i value may be better defined. How-
ever, if the m and i values are not well-
defined because of nonlinearity in the
calibration curve or a poor choice of
calibration curve ranges, the result of
the unknown determination, eu,may
he subject to considerable error.
Statistics
The amount of error associated with
a measurement of x can be statistical-
ly estimated. Most measurements are
subject to error that follows a normal
distribution. If a sufficiently large
number of observations is made, plot-
ting the measured responses would
produce a curve similar to that shown
in Figure 2. The mean value of the re-
sponses, p, occurs a t the center of the
curve. The curve is symmetric around
p and extends outward in units of
standard deviation, u. Since this curve
includes all x values that could be ob-
tained from the procedure for the
sample, the area under the curve can
be expressed in terms of probability, P
(i.e., there is a 100% chance, P = 1,
that a measured x value would fall
somewhere under the curve).
The relationship between area and
probability can he measured to esti-
mate the chance that a newly mea-
sured x value, XE, would he a certain
number of standard deviation units
.away from the mean response, p. In
Figure 2, XE is shown to the right of p
and can be measured to be ku away
from p. By dissecting the curve with a
line drawn a t this x value, the area to
the right of the line, a,is the prohabil-
+
ity that XE 3 ( p ku). This chance,
which is represented by the pink shad-
ed area, can be determined from
where the XE value is ku away from p,
(Le., (XE - p ) / u = k).
This illustration can also be used to
aid in the explanation of the smallest
detectable signal, XL, in the IUPAC
definition. When the determination of
a limit of detection is performed,
blank measurements, XB, are normally
taken. The question, however, is "how
well are these XB values known?" A
mean value of the blank responses, XB,
can he calculated as
ng
XBi
(3)
and the standard deviation as
714A ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, VOL. 55. NO. 7, JUNE 1983
as shown in Figure 3. The limit of de-
tection is found by relating ksB to a
concentration value by dividing by the
slope of the calibration curve line ob-
tained from the linear regression anal-
ysis. However, the value obtained
can only be a true reflection of the
limit of detection when m is well-de-
fined and i is essentially 0.
The use of k = 3 allows a confidence
level of 99.86% that XL Z (FB 3se)+
for a measurement based on the error
of the blank signal following a normal
I
--
I
-
distribution. I t must he emphasized
that if XB does not follow a normal
distribution, then the probability
Figure 3. Analytical calibration curve +
that XL 2 (XB 3.38)would he
of signal, x, vs. concentration, c, show- lOO(1 - l k z ) ,or 89%according to
ing the relationship of ks. to the limit of Tschebyscheffs inequality ( 5 ) .Hence,
detection, q values of k < 3 should not be used for
limit of detection calculations.
Other Approaches
The majority of the other approach-
nB
es to calculating CL values are similar
(XBj - XBB)'
j-1 to the IUPAC model in that SB and k
Sgz = (4) factors are involved. However, it is be-
(ne - 1)
cause of these terms that trouble may
for nB Observations. Because a finite he encountered when CL values are
small number of blank readings is nor- used as a basis for the comparison be-
mally taken, e.g., nB = 20 or greater, tween procedures, methods, or instru-
SB must be used instead of OB. If a ments. The most widely debated of
sample of this size is used, SB can be the two factors has been the choice of
considered to he a reasonable indica- a value fork. Kaiser was perhaps the
tor of OB. If the random error follows a first to stress the use of k = 3 for cL
normal distribution, a plot of these re- values ( 3 , 4 ) .This value has also been
sponses (frequency of occurrence vs. agreed upon by other authors (9,13),
XB values) would resemble Figure 2. by IUPAC ( I , 14),and by the ACS (2).
The probability that the smallest dis- A value of 2 for k had been initially
cernible analytical signal, XL. can be suggested ( 8 )hut this value corre-
measured and not be a random fluctu- sponds to a 97.7% confidence level for
ation of the blank is dependent upon normal distribution and 75% for a
how many standard deviation units XL nonnormal distribution of measure- -.
is from XB. If XL is 3SB away from XB, ment error.
the area to the right of XL is no less Although the use of k = 3 instead of
than 0.0013.Thus, there is a 0.13% k = 2 s l i g k y increases the CL value, it
chance that a signal measured a t XL or is clear that e~ values must differ by a
greater would be the result of a ran- factor of three for the values to be sig-
dom fluctuation of the blank signal. nificantly different. Nevertheless, fac-
This small chance of error can then tors of less than three have been com-
fulfill the reouirement of a reasonablv monly used for comparison purposes.
certain signal. In order to minimize confusion,
In defining CL, IUPAC states that IUPAC suggested that XL values be re-
XL = XB + kSB (5)
ported in all literature with their k
value, x ~ ( k - 8 ) . I t would be extremely
where k is a numerical factor chosen in useful to go one step further and in-
accordance with the confidence level clude the k values when CL values are
desired. The CL is a function of XL and reported, C L ( ~ = S ) .This change would
therefore be beneficial because CL values are
more commonly reported than XL
values.
A problem encountered in the com-
where m is the analytical sensitivity. parative use of CL values is the use of
Because the mean blank reading, XB, the standard deviation of the mean, sg
is not always 0, the signal must be ( 1 1 ) . the pooled standard deviation, sp
background corrected. By substituting (7,12), or the relative standard devia-
Equation 5 into Equation 6, Equation tion (RSD)( 7 , 9 ) .Although each of
7 is obtained these standard deviation expressions
is important and has its place in ana-
lytical chemistry, the use or misuse of
these expressions in CL calculations
This definition of e~ can be illustrated may result in significant deviation
Advertising removed
from this page

Figure 4. Normal distribution C U N ~ Sfor the blank observation. %(pink line), the
llmit of detection. x (blue line), and the limit of identification, xI (purple line)
M e all standard deviations follow a m
from the IUPAC model.
The standard deviation of the mean
(or the standard error), sg, is ex-
pressed by
This value is calculated by dividing
the standard deviation of the blank
measures, 8 8 , by the square root of the
number of blank Observations, nB.
Usually when ss values are used, the k
factor is replaced by a t distribution
value. Even though the t values reflect
the problem of defining a standard de-
viation for a finite number of ohserva-
tions, 3SB > t. SB/(nB)’/2 for a = 0.005
and five observations (four degrees of
freedom). This inequality greatly in-
creases as ne increases. If a large num-
ber of observations are taken on the
blank, say 30, the use of the t and
will reduce the value of CL by a factor
of six from the IUPAC model.
The use of the pooled standard de.
viation includes the number of blank
measurements as well as sample mea-
surements. Generally, the pooled stan
dard deviation, SP, is expressed as
where 8s is the standard deviation ofa
sample measurement and ng is the
number of sample obnervations. If e
= SB, then Equation 9 reduces to
For ns = 1, sp is essentially the same
as SB. However, if ns and n e are both
large, sp < SB. Again, the use of a largt
number of observations as mentioned
above would cause a sirmifieant reduc-
tion in the value as eompared to the
IUPAC model.
Another common practice involves
the use of the RSD, which is d e f i e d
as
716A ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, VOC. 55. NO. 7, JUNE 1983
I dlswibutim and are equal
This relationship is useful in ex-
pressing the “concentrational limit of
determination,” CD (7). Here, the mea-
sure XD corresponding to CD is defined
as
XD = ko SB (12)
where SB is the standard deviation of
the blank (not the RSD), and kD is a
confidence factor that is defined by
the reciprocal of the magnitude of the
RSD value. For a maximum allowed
RSD of5%, kD = 20 and for a RSD of
lG%, kD = 10.
Another limiting expression involv-
ing RSD values involves the rearrang-
ing of Equation 7 (9). If the back-
ground signal is included in the nu-
merator and denominator of Equation
7, then
Table 1. Statlstlcal Expresslons for the Slope and Intercept
In many ICP determinations, the
RSD has been measured to be 0.01 (as
determined by emission flicker noise).
Unfortunately, many ICP m values in
papers and current manufacturers’
bulletins have been calculated with
k = 2. Inserting these values into
Equation 13 yields
A problem that may be encountered
with thii approach is that the RSD for
some spectrometric detection systems
may be >0.01.Before using this meth-
od, an analyst should reconfirm the
validity of RSD 4 0.01. Failure to
measure and correct for high RSD val-
ues could result in erroneous val-
ues. An attempt to compare an ICP q,
value obtained from this method and
an IUPAC value for the same anal-
ysis procedure would be meaningless.
A well-based but seldom used con-
cept in the calculation of detection
limits is the limit of identification, 9.
as described by Boumans (7) or the
limit of guarantee for purity, cc, de-
scribed by Kaiser (3).These concepts
are essentially the same and are based
on the idea that the lowest statistical-
ly discernible signal should be
XI = XL + 381
where 81 is the error associated with the
measurements at the XI level, or
if 81 = SB. This concept is illustrated in
n
Advertising removed
from this page
 Figure 4. When measurements are
made for a sample, the x values ob-
tained should follow normal distribu-
tion around a mean value. If a sample
were measured to have a mean a t the
XL value, the distribution of these x
values around XL would resemble the
blue line in Figure 4.One-half of the
time the measurement would fall
below the XL value and could not be
considered a true signal according to
the IUPAC definition. To avoid this
high probability, the limit of XI is set
at 3sr away from XL. This level is cbo-
sen so the areas a and 0 are equal. If
SI = SB then this level is 3SB away from
XL or 6 s away
~ from ZB. By using Figure 5. Analytical calibration curve
k = 3, the area of the XI distribution of signal, x. vs. concentration, c, show-
curve below XL, (3, is no less than ing graphical approach to limit of detec-
0.0013. Thus, there is a 0.13% chance tion calculation
that an x value measured a t XI would While dashed lines are Uw limit of emor bars. cL
is obtalned ham xc if no m w occurs in slope. ca
fall below the XL limit and not be con- is obtained tmm xc if slope error is significant
sidered as a true signal.
This idea of further statistically
separating the blank measurements dard deviation of the slope, s, in the
distributions and true signal distribu- CL expression. The second method, a
tions has been proposed by the ACS propagation of errors approach, con-
Subcommittee on Environmental An- siders the standard deviation of the
alytical Chemistry and has been concentration, sE. This value is calcu-
termed the limit of quantitation (2). lated by including the standard devia-
Since the numerical significance of the tions of the blank, slope, and intercept
analyte concentration increases as the in the equation. The statistical expres-
analyte signal increases above XL, a sions for these values are listed in
minimum criterion, representing the Table I.
ability to quantify the sample, can be Although these models require ad-
established reasonably far way from ditional calculations, most linear re-
ZB.This criterion, called the limit of gression analyses are performed using
quantification (LOQ), is 1Ou away calculators or microcomputers. With
from i i ~For
. limit of detection work, additional programming, these calcu-
u = ss. Samples that are measured as
lations can be easily performed, allow-
having a signal, x, where x > 1 0 8 ~are ing more accurate determinations of
termed tobe in the region of quantita- CL values to be made. These values
tion while samples where 3SB Q x Q may also be used for a truer compara-
1OSB are termed to be in the region of tive look at the ability of an analytical
detection. method or instrument to quantify
By setting the quantitation level as trace elements (or compounds) in a
loss or the identification limit as ~ S B , sample.
a much higher probability is afforded
that the sample signal is not just a
random fluctuation of the blank.
However, when making comparisons Graphical Approach
using LOQ or CI to IUPAC CL values, To obtain a more reliable CL value,
the analyst must bear in mind the dif- the m value should be expressed as a
ference in the kfactors for each limit. confidence interval m f t,s,, where
8, is the standard deviation of the

Methods Involving slope and t, is a t distribution value

Analytical Sensiilviiy Error chosen for the desired confidence
level, a,and the degrees of freedom, u.
The previous models for calculating The insertion of this interval into
detection limits consider the error in Equation 7 produces
the blank measurements. These mod-
els also consider the analytical sensi-
tivity, m, as a well-defined value. In
practice, however, m may have signifi-
cant error due to nonlinearity in the
calibration curve, or measurement er- The effect of the inclusion of the con-
rors. fidence interval can best be seen by
The following proposed detection referring to Figure 5. The error bars
limit approaches include errors associ- (confidence interval) generated
ated with measurements of the analyt- around the regression line are indicat-
ical
'
sensitivity.
. " ' The first method, a ed as white dashed lines. Because of
graphical approach, includes the stan- error in the slope, three concentration

710A ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, VOL. 55, NO. 7. JUNE 1983

Advertising removed
from this page
 values are found for a given XL value.
When tasm = 0, (as in Equation 7), the
value of CL is obtained. However, the
reduced analytical sensitivity yields a
value, CR, to the right of CL. If
m >> tasm, then the CR will not be sta-
tistically different from CL. For the sit-
uation when tasm is not sufficiently
small as compared to m, a CR may be
aubstantially larger than CL, There-
fore, only the larger value should be
used in reporting a limit of detection.
An important consideration in the
me of this model is the choice of a
t value. The recommended k value of 3
involves a 99.87% confidence level,
Therefore, the t should reflect a simi-
ar level. An a = 0.0005 results in a
:onfidence level of 99.9% for a two-
;ailed t distribution. The degrees of
ieedom, u, are n - 2 for a linear re-
:ression model. The n value used
5hould be the number of points used
;o prepare the calibration curve, i.e.,
?achpoint consists of a mean measure
md a concentration value.

Propagationof Errors Approach

In the second approach used to
evaluate CL, the error in the intercept
term, i, as well as the error in m are
considered. To include these errors,
Equation 1must be rearranged to

From Equation 18,any value of x can

be related to a concentration using the
m and i values obtained from the lin-
ear regression model. The i term is
usually neglected in most cases and
sssumed to be 0 because the analytical
measures are background subtracted.
But in most linear regression analyses,
i # 0. If a true reflection of the error
in the determined concentration is
sought, the error in m and i must be
included in Equation 7.
The contribution of each term to
the total error may be found by taking
the first derivative of c with respect to
each term:

(3
+ - sm2
Taking the designated derivatives and
(19)

the square root gives

+ (- %)2sm2]1/2 (20)
and finally combining like terms
yields

s, =
[...+ si2 +(q2smj1/2
(21)
m

720A ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, VOL. 55, NO. 7, JUNE 1983

Advertising removed
from this page

Equation 21 allows the determination
of standard deviation in a c value cal-
culated from any x value.
In the case of limits of detection,
the EL value is actually a confidence
value expression of how well the blank
is known. If Equation 7 is reconsid-
ered, it can be written as
CL = ks, (22)
-
where the S B h term describes the
error in terms of c (if c a), Equa-
tion 21 could now be used to evaluate
se where x is the blank signal, jte, and
SB is substituted for 9. By measuring
ZB. SB,and calculating m, i,, ,s and si,
the value of s, can be determined.
In most determinations, the data
-are background corrected, that is,
XB = 0. Substituting the above mea-
sured and calculated values in Equa-
tions 21 and 22, the expression for CL
is further simplified to
722A ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY, VOL. 55. NO. 7, JUNE 1983
0.05
5 tion curves, the third approach clearly
In the event that no significant
error occurred in the slope, Equation
21 reduces to
k[se2+ ~ i * ] ’ ’ ~
CL = (24)
m
If the error in the intercept, si, is suffi-
ciently small, Equation 23 reduces to
Equation 7, which is the IUPAC defi-
nition of the limit of detection.
Evaluation of Approaches
The IUPAC, graphical, and propa-
gation of errors models will be applied
to four different sets of experimental
data to show the effect of certain ex-
perimental conditions on the estima-
tion of CL values (Table 11).The data
in Table I1 have been taken from a re-
cent paper on ICP-excited ICP fluo-
rescence detection limits ( I 5 ) .The
four sets of typical experimental con-
ditions are: A, Ca(I1) fluorescence
data which have well-defined m and i
values; B, Ca(I1) fluorescence data
where SB is essentially the same as in
A, but the calibration curve data are
taken far away from CL resulting in a
poorly defined i value and a well.de.
fined m value; C, Cu(1) fluorescence
data where there is nonlinearity in the
calibration curve resulting in ill-de-
fined m and i values; and D, Co(II)
fluorescence data where extreme non-
linearity in the calibration curve re-
sults in severe errors in both m and i
values. The limit of detection values,
C L ( L = ~ ) for
, the three methods are tab-
ulated in Table 111. Here the C L ( ~= 3)
values are reported only to one signifi-
cant figure, as all CL values should be.
The subscript numbers representing
the second significant digit in cases A
and B are included only for compara-
tive purposes.
For case A, the IUPAC model and
the graphical approach agree well.
Only the propagation of errors model
shows a significantly higher C L ( =~ 3)
value; this deviation is the result of
the error associated with the intercept
value.
The values obtained in case B em-
phasize the problem of an ill-defined,
nonzero intercept. This problem is the
direct result of constructing calibra-
tion curves for detection limits when
the lowest point of the calibration
curve data is considerably removed
from the CL(k = 3) value. Only the
propagation of errors model accounts
for this error, while the other two
methods indicate an erroneously low
CL(k = 3) value. Although there are no
set guidelines for constructing calibra-
illustrates the problem of sampling
too far away from the limit of detec-
tion.
In some instances, calibration
curves may not be linear. Although
the linear regression procedure will fit
a line through the data, the resulting
m value is by no means a “true” repre-
sentation of the analytical sensitivity
a t all concentrations. Nonlinear cali-
bration curves generally produce sig-
nificant sm, si, and i values. Case C
represents such conditions. The
IUPAC model results in a CL(k = 3, of
0.03 ppm. Repeating the CL calcula-
tion using the graphical approach re-
sults in a value of 0.3 ppm. Finally al-
lowing m and i errors to be included
results in a CL(k 3) of 5 ppm for the
propagation of errors method. The
propagation of errors value is 170
times the IUPAC CL(k = 3) value.
The problem of nonlinearity can be
further emphasized by considering
case D. Here, the errors associated
with m and i are greater; however, the
large value of sm results in a special
problem with the graphical approach.
If t,s, > m, then the concentration
value for the limit of detection can
even be negative. Such negative values
are the direct result of the graphical
model not being statistically valid. Al-
though the graphical model is easier to
Advertising removed
from this page
 use than the propagation of errors ap-
proach, the former may give erroneous
results as seen in Case D. Thus, the
graphical method could be used only
for approximating CL values. The de-
tection limit using the propagation of
errors approach is calculated to be
6 ppm. Correspondingly. the detection
limit for the IUPAC model is 0.5 ppm,
differing hy a factor of 12 between the
two methods.
Conclusions
Based on the above considerations,
the graphical approach to CI, should
not be used. The IUPAC approach is
valid only if the major source of error
is in the blank, i.e., SR* >> si*or sm2.
Therefore, the IUPAC approach in
most cases gives artificially low values
of CL. The propagation of errors ap-
proach i s certainly the most liberal ap-
proach and will give values of CL con-
sistent with the reliability of the blank
measures and the signal measures of
the standards.
We recommend that analysts report
limits of detection using the IUPAC
approach with k = 3 ( c L , ~ 3,). The
use of the propagation of errors ap-
proach is also recommended because
errors in the analyte measurements
can be incorporated into the CL value.
By adopting these approaches, mean-
ingful comparisons of analytical meth-
ods and instruments based on CL val-
ues can be made.
James D. Winefordner (1. ) is a gradu-
ate research professor in chemistry a t
the University of Florida. His re-
interests include diagnostical mea-
surements of flames and plasmas;
laser-excited luminescence, pho-
toacoustic and photoionization of
molecules in gases and liquids; laser-
excited fluorescence of a t o m in
flames and plasmas; development of
trace analytical methods for atoms
and molecules based upon lumines-
cence, chemiluminescence. pho-
toacoustic, and ionization methods;
specialized methods for molecules
based upon synchronous lumines-
cence, room-temperature phospho-
rimetry, energy transfer lumines-
P ~ I ~ P
cence. and time resolution; deuelop-
724A ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY. VOL NO. 7. JUNE 1983
References
(1) “Nomenclature.symbols. units and
their usage in spectrochemical analysis-
11,” Spectroehim.Acto R l97R,33fl,242.
(2) “Guidelines for Data Acquisition and
Data Quality Evaluation in Environmen-
tal Chemistry.” Anal. Chcm. 19RO.52,
2242.
(3) Kaiser. H. “Two Papers on the Limit of
Detection of a Complete Analytical Pro-
cedure”;Hafner: New York, 1969.
(4) Kaiser, H. Anal. Chem. 1970.42, (2).
24 A.
( 5 ) Kaiser. H.Anal. Chem. 1970.42, (4).
26 A.
(6) Kaiser, H. Speetroehim.Acta R 1978.
33R. 551.
(7) Houmans. P.W.J.M. Speetrochim.
Acta R 1978,33R,625.
(8) Bournan!, P.W.J.M.; deBoer, F. J.
Sperlroehrm.Acto R 1972.27R. 391.
(9)Houmans. P.W.J.M. “Lines Coinci-
dence Tables for Inductively Coupled
Plasma Atomic Emission Spectrometry”;
Pergamon: Oxford. 1980.
(10) Currie. L.A. Nurl. Imtrum. Methods
1972,100,387.
(11) Glaser,J. A,; Fwrst. D. L.; McKee,
C. D.; Quave,S. A.; Budde, W. L.Enui-
Ion. Sri. Teehnol. l9Rl. 1.5, 1426.
(12) Peters, D. G.; Hayes. J. M.; Hieftje,
C. M. “Chemical Separation and Mea-
surements”;Saunderr: Philadelphia,
1974; Chapter 2.
(13) Winefordner. J. D. “Trace Analysis:
Spectroscopic Methods for Elements”;
Wiley: New York. 1976; Chapter 1.
(14) “Nomenclature.symbols, units, and
their usage in spectrochemical analysis-
III.”Spcctrochim.Acto R 1978.33fl.
248.
(15) Kosinski, M. A.; Uchida, H.; Wine-
fordner,J. D. Anal. Chem. 1983,5.5.688.
Thiswork wassupported by AF-AFOSR.
F49620-M-C.W05.
ment of new instrumental methods
based upon new optical and detection
approaches; and applications of ana-
lytical techniques.
Gary L. Long is a postdoctoral asso-
ciate in the department of chemistry
a t the Uniuersity of Florida. He re-
ceived his RS in chemistry from Wake
Forest University in 1978 and his
PhD in anolytical chemistry from
North Carolina State University in
1982. His research interests include
ICP-excited ICP fluorescence spec-
trometry, laser-excited flame fluores-
cence spectrometry, and the investi-
gation of chemical and physical inter-
ferences in flame and plasma spectro-
metric analyses.