Discover the important features of CRMs, how they should be used and understand the various associated terminologies.
While geological reference materials (RMs) have existed for many years, their use has become widespread only in the last decade. This increase in popularity stems from the recognition of the critical role RMs play in monitoring the quality of assay data generated in analytical laboratories. To the geologist, reference materials have application in grass roots exploration, resource definition, minesite exploration and grade control. To the chemist they facilitate the calibration of analytical equipment, evaluation and validation of analytical methods and routine in-house Quality Assurance/Quality Control.
Many terms are used to describe RMs or Certified Reference Materials (CRMs) and this can be confusing to the uninitiated. The term ‘standard’ strictly refers to an (ISO) approved and documented procedure in industry but its use as a synonym for RMs is widespread and entrenched throughout the mining and chemical industry. Other terms in common usage include Standard Reference Materials (SRMs), In-house or Internal Reference Materials (IRMs) and Matrix-Matched or Mine Matched Certified Reference Materials (MMCRMs). See our Glossary of Terms for further detail.
The CRM in question must have a proven level of homogeneity such that the observed variance in repeat assays can be attributed almost exclusively to measurement error. In other words, any sampling error resulting from inhomogeneity of the reference material should be small enough in comparison to measurement error that it’s negligible.
The CRM should be well characterised by round robin evaluation at a minimum of 10 recognised mineral testing laboratories and certified in accordance with International Standards Organisation (ISO) recommendations. This evaluation program should include analysis of variance (ANOVA) treatment to establish uniformity of the measured property throughout the entire batch.
A reference material is no better than the user’s perception of it. Therefore, it is critical, that the user has total confidence in its quality. If this is not the case and analytical problems are suspected, the task of assigning the source of error to the suspect laboratory is fraught with uncertainty. It is imperative, therefore, that the CRM producer’s credentials and reputation are unassailable and that the certification documentation is sufficiently comprehensive.
CRMs are most commonly used in the mining industry to monitor bias in chemical analyses of geological samples. Critical concentrations in mining operations are cutoff and head grades and CRMs are generally selected to approximate these grades. CRMs are usually inserted at a frequency of 1 in 20 to 1 in 30 into the sample stream and the results produced by the laboratory are then compared against the certified values. CRM blanks are devoid of the metal(s) of interest and are used to monitor contamination within the laboratory.
No analytical method is 100% accurate and therefore a certain amount of error is tolerated. This margin of error is variously referred to as a window of acceptability, control limit or performance gate. Generally, results lying within two (or sometimes three) standard deviations either side of the certified value are deemed acceptable, although precise application of control limits should be at the discretion of the QC manager concerned.
There are various methods used to determine the standard deviation. These methods are empirically derived and based on an analysis of errors contributing to the spread of results obtained in the round robin certification program. These are laboratory measurement errors and sampling errors. Measurement errors include between-laboratory bias, between-batch bias (reproducibility errors) and within-batch precision (repeatability errors). Sampling errors relate to the level of homogeneity of the CRM and should be negligible in comparison with measurement errors.
ISO requires that Certificates of Analysis include a measurement of uncertainty of the certified value. This is generally expressed as a 95% Confidence Interval and should not be confused with Control Limits. Put simply, Control Limits provide an expectation of acceptable laboratory performance while Confidence Intervals provide an estimate of the reliability of the certified value.
This parameter is a measure of homogeneity of the CRM. We have pioneered a method of reduced analytical subsampling for evaluating the homogeneity of gold in CRMs. This involves the analysis of gold by high precision neutron activation analysis (NAA) on analytical subsample weights of 0.5g to 1.5g (compared to 25g to 50g for the fire assay method). By employing a sufficiently reduced subsample weight in a series of determinations by the same method, analytical error becomes negligible when compared with subsampling error. The corresponding standard deviation at a 25g to 50g subsample weight can then be determined from the observed standard deviation of the 0.5g to 1.5g data using the known relationship between the two parameters (Ingamells, C. O. and Switzer, P. (1973), Talanta 20, 547-568). The absolute homogeneity of gold is then determined from tables of factors for two-sided tolerance limits for normal distributions. All OREAS and custom gold CRMs undergo this stringent testing and without exception exhibit a very high level of repeatability consistent with excellent homogeneity.
The following terms are used here and in literature elsewhere to discuss reference materials.
Reference Materials (RMs) – Samples sufficiently homogeneous and stable with respect to one or more specified properties, which have been established to be fit for its intended use to check results for specific methods in a measurement process. RM’s may be chemicals, solutions, gas mixtures, matrix reference materials, physico-chemical reference materials, objects or biological specimens. The essential difference between an RM and a CRM is that the CRM is characterised by a metrologically valid procedure for one or more specified properties, accompanied by an RM certificate that provides the value of the specified property, its associated uncertainty, and a statement of metrological traceability.
Repeatability – The closeness of agreement between results for the same parameter carried out by the same method, by the same operator, with the same instrument, in the same laboratory, over a short interval of time.
Reproducibility – The closeness of agreement between results for the same parameter carried out by a different method, or different operator, or different instrument, or in a different laboratory, or over an interval of time quite long in comparison to the duration of a single measurement.
Each quarter, we will keep you up to date with news on the latest OREAS CRMs and QA/QC best practices in the analytical industry.