Limits of detection/decision/determination

  • Thread starter Thread starter Beer-monster
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limits
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on clarifying the differences between limits of detection, decision, and determination in chemical analysis. The limits of detection refer to the lowest concentration of an analyte that can be reliably identified, while limits of decision indicate the threshold for deciding whether a substance is present or absent. Limits of determination relate to the lowest concentration at which an analyte can be quantified with acceptable precision. The implications of these limits are crucial for experimental design, particularly in calibration and mathematical modeling. Understanding these concepts is essential for accurate results in instrumental analysis, especially for those transitioning from physics to analytical chemistry.
Beer-monster
Messages
285
Reaction score
0
Could someone help me clarify the differences between the limts of detection, decision and determination. I've looked around for various definitions for each, and many seem awfully similar.

Could someone also clarify, what are the implications of each for chemical analysis? I have idea for what I think is the limit of detection, but since the differences are a bit sketchy I don't want to push it:redface:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
it's actually a very important experimental concept, in particular with experiments involving calibration along with its mathematical details. You'll want to relate the concept with its mathematical features as well as graphical associations. Is this for instrumental analysis?
 
Yep, for a analytical chem exam (I'm a physicist by trade - and confused).

I think they're different multipled of the standard deviation, however I'm not how that defines their roles in calibration.analysis.
 

Thread 'Prove that evolution is constant (Provide at least two arguments to support your position)'

I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Where are the limits being taken in these thermodynamics equations?
Replies
0
Views
1K
B Some very basic questions around the double slit experiment
Replies
14
Views
2K
A Game theory, quantum physics and the Bell inequality (paper)
Replies
2
Views
3K
I Vibrational energy in molecules
Replies
12
Views
3K
I Precise intuition about limits and infinitesimals
Replies
4
Views
2K
Possibilities of being able to break known biological limitations
Replies
2
Views
1K
A Can entanglement be detected in a single Bell pair?
Replies
1
Views
2K
Is Quantum Mechanics Bound by the Limits of Pure Chance?
Replies
27
Views
3K
MHB Understanding Differentiability and Continuity in Complex Analysis
Replies
2
Views
2K
I J0524-0336, surprisingly high Li concentration
Replies
2
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top