| |
|
|
|
Registro Completo |
|
Biblioteca(s): |
Embrapa Hortaliças. |
|
Data corrente: |
12/04/2010 |
|
Data da última atualização: |
22/07/2010 |
|
Tipo da produção científica: |
Comunicado Técnico/Recomendações Técnicas |
|
Autoria: |
LIZ, R. S. de; GUEDES, I. M. R.; MICHEREFF FILHO, M.; RIBEIRO, M. G. P. de M.; GUIMARAES, J. A. |
|
Afiliação: |
RONALDO SETTI DE LIZ, CNPH; ITALO MORAES ROCHA GUEDES, CNPH; MIGUEL MICHEREFF FILHO, CNPH; JORGE ANDERSON GUIMARAES, CNPH. |
|
Título: |
Manejo do idiamim no cultivo do morangueiro. |
|
Ano de publicação: |
2009 |
|
Fonte/Imprenta: |
Brasília, DF: Embrapa Hortaliças, 2009. |
|
Páginas: |
8 p. |
|
Série: |
(Embrapa Hortaliças. Comunicado Técnico, 69). |
|
Idioma: |
Português |
|
Palavras-Chave: |
Cultivo. |
|
Thesagro: |
Coleóptero; Doença; Inseto; Morango; Produção. |
|
Thesaurus Nal: |
Fragaria ananassa. |
|
Categoria do assunto: |
-- |
|
URL: |
https://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/CNPH-2010/36374/1/cot-69.pdf
|
|
Marc: |
LEADER 00681nam a2200253 a 4500
001 1779818
005 2010-07-22
008 2009 bl uuuu u0uu1 u #d
100 1 $aLIZ, R. S. de
245 $aManejo do idiamim no cultivo do morangueiro.
260 $aBrasília, DF: Embrapa Hortaliças$c2009
300 $a8 p.
490 $a(Embrapa Hortaliças. Comunicado Técnico, 69).
650 $aFragaria ananassa
650 $aColeóptero
650 $aDoença
650 $aInseto
650 $aMorango
650 $aProdução
653 $aCultivo
700 1 $aGUEDES, I. M. R.
700 1 $aMICHEREFF FILHO, M.
700 1 $aRIBEIRO, M. G. P. de M.
700 1 $aGUIMARAES, J. A.
Download
Esconder MarcMostrar Marc Completo |
|
Registro original: |
Embrapa Hortaliças (CNPH) |
|
|
Biblioteca |
ID |
Origem |
Tipo/Formato |
Classificação |
Cutter |
Registro |
Volume |
Status |
URL |
Voltar
|
|
|
 | Acesso ao texto completo restrito à biblioteca da Embrapa Pecuária Sudeste. Para informações adicionais entre em contato com cppse.biblioteca@embrapa.br. |
Registro Completo
|
Biblioteca(s): |
Embrapa Pecuária Sudeste. |
|
Data corrente: |
03/12/2020 |
|
Data da última atualização: |
03/12/2020 |
|
Tipo da produção científica: |
Artigo em Periódico Indexado |
|
Circulação/Nível: |
A - 1 |
|
Autoria: |
VIRGILIO, A.; SILVA, A. B. S.; NOGUEIRA, A. R. de A.; NÓBREGA, J. A.; DONATI, G. L. |
|
Afiliação: |
Alex Virgilio, USP; Ana Beatriz S. Silva, UFSCAR; ANA RITA DE ARAUJO NOGUEIRA, CPPSE; Joaquim A. Nóbrega, UFSCAR; George L. Donati, Wake Forest University. |
|
Título: |
Calculating limits of detection and defining working ranges for multi-signal calibration methods. |
|
Ano de publicação: |
2020 |
|
Fonte/Imprenta: |
Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry, v. 35, p. 1614-1620, 2020 |
|
DOI: |
10.1039/d0ja00212g |
|
Idioma: |
Inglês |
|
Conteúdo: |
Multi-signal calibration methods, such as multi-energy calibration (MEC) and multi-isotope calibration (MICal), have increasingly been used to improve the efficiency of spectrochemical instrumental analyses. As MEC and MICal are adopted by an increasing number of laboratories, questions on their working ranges, the most appropriate calibration standard concentration (Cstd) to be used, and the best approach to calculate limits of detection (LOD) and quantification (LOQ) have been raised. In this study, we evaluate the effects of working with different combinations of Cstd and analyte concentration in the sample (Csam) on the accuracy of MEC and MICal. Chromium, Cu and Mo are used as models for MEC determinations by microwave-induced plasma optical emission spectrometry (MIP OES) and inductively coupled plasma OES (ICP OES), and MICal determinations by ICP mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), respectively. We use the error propagation approach to determine LODs and LOQs, evaluate the effect of employing different values of Cstd in these calculations, and compare the results with those from external standard calibration (EC) using the IUPAC approach. Finally, we apply MEC and MICal to analyze certified reference materials and compare the results with those from the traditional standard additions (SA) method. Although presenting usually higher LODs and LOQs compared to EC, MEC and MICal generally provide trueness similar to, and sometimes better than, SA. LOD and LOQ calculations based on the error propagation approach provide robust results, and trueness and precision depend on the calibration slope and the analyte level in the sample. The best results for MEC and MICal are found when working within the 0.1 < calibration slope < 0.9 range. A simple pre-analysis test comparing the analytical signal recorded for the sample (Isam) and a calibration standard (Istd) may ensure such conditions if 0.11 MenosMulti-signal calibration methods, such as multi-energy calibration (MEC) and multi-isotope calibration (MICal), have increasingly been used to improve the efficiency of spectrochemical instrumental analyses. As MEC and MICal are adopted by an increasing number of laboratories, questions on their working ranges, the most appropriate calibration standard concentration (Cstd) to be used, and the best approach to calculate limits of detection (LOD) and quantification (LOQ) have been raised. In this study, we evaluate the effects of working with different combinations of Cstd and analyte concentration in the sample (Csam) on the accuracy of MEC and MICal. Chromium, Cu and Mo are used as models for MEC determinations by microwave-induced plasma optical emission spectrometry (MIP OES) and inductively coupled plasma OES (ICP OES), and MICal determinations by ICP mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), respectively. We use the error propagation approach to determine LODs and LOQs, evaluate the effect of employing different values of Cstd in these calculations, and compare the results with those from external standard calibration (EC) using the IUPAC approach. Finally, we apply MEC and MICal to analyze certified reference materials and compare the results with those from the traditional standard additions (SA) method. Although presenting usually higher LODs and LOQs compared to EC, MEC and MICal generally provide trueness similar to, and sometimes better than, SA. LOD and LOQ calculations based o... Mostrar Tudo |
|
Palavras-Chave: |
Analyte concentration in the sample; Calibration methods; Calibration standard concentration; Limits of detection; Limits of quantification; Multi energy calibration; Multi isotope calibration. |
|
Categoria do assunto: |
W Química e Física |
|
Marc: |
LEADER 02991naa a2200265 a 4500
001 2127525
005 2020-12-03
008 2020 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d
024 7 $a10.1039/d0ja00212g$2DOI
100 1 $aVIRGILIO, A.
245 $aCalculating limits of detection and defining working ranges for multi-signal calibration methods.$h[electronic resource]
260 $c2020
520 $aMulti-signal calibration methods, such as multi-energy calibration (MEC) and multi-isotope calibration (MICal), have increasingly been used to improve the efficiency of spectrochemical instrumental analyses. As MEC and MICal are adopted by an increasing number of laboratories, questions on their working ranges, the most appropriate calibration standard concentration (Cstd) to be used, and the best approach to calculate limits of detection (LOD) and quantification (LOQ) have been raised. In this study, we evaluate the effects of working with different combinations of Cstd and analyte concentration in the sample (Csam) on the accuracy of MEC and MICal. Chromium, Cu and Mo are used as models for MEC determinations by microwave-induced plasma optical emission spectrometry (MIP OES) and inductively coupled plasma OES (ICP OES), and MICal determinations by ICP mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), respectively. We use the error propagation approach to determine LODs and LOQs, evaluate the effect of employing different values of Cstd in these calculations, and compare the results with those from external standard calibration (EC) using the IUPAC approach. Finally, we apply MEC and MICal to analyze certified reference materials and compare the results with those from the traditional standard additions (SA) method. Although presenting usually higher LODs and LOQs compared to EC, MEC and MICal generally provide trueness similar to, and sometimes better than, SA. LOD and LOQ calculations based on the error propagation approach provide robust results, and trueness and precision depend on the calibration slope and the analyte level in the sample. The best results for MEC and MICal are found when working within the 0.1 < calibration slope < 0.9 range. A simple pre-analysis test comparing the analytical signal recorded for the sample (Isam) and a calibration standard (Istd) may ensure such conditions if 0.11 <Isam/Istd < 9.00. MEC and MICal are simple and efficient alternatives to EC and SA. They are particularly effective for minimizing matrix effects and analyzing complex-matrix samples.
653 $aAnalyte concentration in the sample
653 $aCalibration methods
653 $aCalibration standard concentration
653 $aLimits of detection
653 $aLimits of quantification
653 $aMulti energy calibration
653 $aMulti isotope calibration
700 1 $aSILVA, A. B. S.
700 1 $aNOGUEIRA, A. R. de A.
700 1 $aNÓBREGA, J. A.
700 1 $aDONATI, G. L.
773 $tJournal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry$gv. 35, p. 1614-1620, 2020
Download
Esconder MarcMostrar Marc Completo |
|
Registro original: |
Embrapa Pecuária Sudeste (CPPSE) |
|
|
Biblioteca |
ID |
Origem |
Tipo/Formato |
Classificação |
Cutter |
Registro |
Volume |
Status |
Fechar
|
| Nenhum registro encontrado para a expressão de busca informada. |
|
|
