GeoPT5. An International Proficiency Test for Analytical Geochemistry Laboratories - Report on Round 5

Results are presented from the seventy two laboratories participating in GeoPT5, round five of the international proficiency testing programme for analytical geochemistry laboratories. The sample for round five, AMH-1 (Mount Hood andesite), was distributed during March 1999 and participating laboratories were asked to analyse the sample using their routine techniques and submit results to the steering by 15th June 1999. In this report, contributed data are listed together with the derived z-scores from which participating laboratories can assess their analytical performance. Z-scores in the range -2 to 2 are considered satisfactory. Z-score values that lie outside this range may indicate unsuspected analytical bias. The distinctive feature of the present round is that AMH-1 is a candidate reference material prepared by the USGS and it is intended that the present proficiency testing data will contribute to the reference material characterisation programme.     

GeoPT4. An International Proficiency Test for Analytical Geochemistry Laboratories - Report on Round 4 (March 1999)

Results are presented from the seventy five laboratories participating in GeoPT4, round four of the international proficiency testing programme for analytical geochemistry laboratories. Laboratories were required to analyse the sample OU-2 (Belford dolerite) using routine methods of analysis. The sample was distributed during September 1998 with a deadline for the submission of results of 15th January 1999. In this report, contributed data are analysed and z-scores calculated. Z-score values provide participating laboratories with information concerning the quality of their results and indicate data that may be subject to unsuspected analytical bias. Laboratories are invited to examine these data and take the appropriate action.     

GeoPT2. International Proficiency Test for Analytical Geochemistry Laboratories - Report on Round 2

Results from sixty laboratories participating in GeoPT2, the international proficiency testing programme for analytical geochemistry laboratories, are reported. Compared with 71.3% in the last round, 74.6% of the reported data complied with the laboratories' selected fitness for purpose criteria.     

GeoPT3. International Proficiency Test for Analytical Geochemistry Laboratories - Report on Round 3

Results from seventy two laboratories participating in GeoPT3, round three of the international proficiency testing programme for analytical geochemistry laboratories, are presented. The report includes analytical results contributed by participating laboratories, together with the z-scores derived from these results using appropriate fitness for purpose criteria. These data are available for use as part of the laboratories' quality control procedures to assess the reliability of analysed results.     

An Evaluation of Methods for Assessing the Competence of Laboratories Based on Performance in the GeoPT Proficiency Testing Scheme

The original certification protocol, published by the International Association of Geoanalysts in 2003, specified that the competence of laboratories selected as competent to contribute certification measurements should be evaluated from their performance in the GeoPT proficiency testing programme. Round 39 of the IAG GeoPT proficiency testing programme provided an opportunity to examine four methods of evaluating laboratory competence based largely on the use of proficiency testing z‐scores as performance indicators. This opportunity arose because two test materials were co‐analysed by participating laboratories in this round: a syenite, SyMP‐1, supplied by the USGS, and an established CRM, the nepheline syenite, CGL 006. The performance of laboratories was assessed in four ways; in each case, consensus values and their uncertainties as derived from selective data sets of competent laboratories were compared with results derived from the routine GeoPT data assessment, involving all submitted measurements. An overall comparison of results showed no significant statistical differences in either consensus values or uncertainties between these data sets. This conclusion was unexpected and calls into question the widely held assumption that ‘better’ consensus data would be obtained from a subset of laboratories judged to be competent on the basis of proficiency testing performance indicators.     

The GeoPT Proficiency Testing Scheme for Laboratories Routinely Analysing Silicate Rocks: A Review of the Operating Protocol and Proposals for its Modification

The GeoPT proficiency testing programme for geochemical laboratories has been operating for nearly 20 years. This review, based on an analysis of accumulated data and extensive experience, examines whether the protocol followed during this period continues to be appropriate. Possible changes that might be considered for future implementation are examined, in particular the procedures for calculating assigned values, target values, z‐scores and the applicability of dual fitness‐for‐purpose criteria. We conclude that the existing protocol remains largely appropriate and effective, but propose that a single fitness‐for‐purpose criterion be adopted, with an option for laboratories to recalculate their z‐scores if the criterion is inappropriate for their requirements.     

An Assessment of Performance in the Routine Analysis of Silicate Rocks Based on an Analysis of Data Submitted to the GeoPT Proficiency Testing Programme for Geochemical Laboratories (2001–2011)

Data reported by laboratories contributing to the GeoPT proficiency testing programme for geochemical laboratories over the period from 2001 to 2011 have been assessed to identify the elements and concentration ranges over which analytical performance can be considered satisfactory. Criteria developed in the paper indicated that performance in the content determination of the elements/constituents SiO₂, Al₂O₃, MnO, Cs, Dy, Er, Eu, Ga, Hf, Ho, Lu, Nd, Pr, Sm, Sr, Tb, Tl, Tm, U, Y, Yb and Zn was satisfactory over the full concentration range assessed. The elements/constituents TiO₂, Fe₂O₃(T), MgO, CaO, Na₂O, K₂O, P₂O₅, Ba, Be, Cd, Ce, Co, Gd, La, Li, Nb, Rb, Sb, Sc, Sn, Ta, Th, V and Zr showed some degradation in performance at lower concentration levels (approaching the detection limit of some techniques). Performance in determining LOI, As, Bi, Cr, Cu, Ge, Mo, Ni, Pb and W was in general unsatisfactory over the full concentration range assessed. Other elements (especially Fe(II)O, H₂O⁺, CO₂, Ag, Au, B, Br, Cl, F, Hg, I, In, Ir, N, Os, Pd, Pt, Re, Rh, S, Se, Te) could not be evaluated as they were not routinely reported by laboratories participating in the GeoPT programme, often because they are present in silicate rocks at sufficiently low concentrations to require a pre‐concentration stage. Some suggestions are made for the causes of unsatisfactory performance, but further progress will require a detailed assessment of the methods used by participating laboratories, which will form the subject of a further paper.