Talk:Detection limit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, which collaborates on Chemistry and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.. |
|||
[edit] Incorrect definition
The current description of detection limit is fundamentally wrong in the sense that the detection limit is not the level at which the detection decision is taken. The detection decision is a one-sided test (Ho: analyte is absent) that only considers false positives. Assume for example that a risk of 5% is accepted to report a positive when in fact the analye is absent. Further assume that the distribution is Gaussian, as is done in the figure. Then the decision should be taken at about 1.65 sigma. This is called the critical level or decision limit. The detection limit is the level that will lead to false non-detects with a certain probability (say 5%) if the decision is taken at the critical level. Assuming two identical Gaussian distributions (the second one for Ha: analyte present at this level) leads to a detection limit of about 3.30 sigma. Klaas Faber 80.126.235.235 (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Merge proposal
I suggest that Detection limit and Detection Limits be merged. Biscuittin 18:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Support Added templates. --Kkmurray 14:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
While the initial definition on the Detection Limits entry seems OK, most of the information appears to be related to the amount of material being probed, rather than a description of what a detection limit (or detection limits) is. Perhaps the heading for that entry is in appropriate. Mattj63 23:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
In looking closer, it seems perhaps the intent of the table with different techniques was to list the detection limit of each technique. If that's the case, then this information would be better suited to an entry on the individual technique or groups of techniques (e.g. surface analysis). I think the Detection Limit entry should be limited to what a detection limit actually is and how it is defined. Mattj63 03:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The relationship between the different definitions of detection limit (IDL, LLD, MDL, LOQ) is misleading since the relationship is not that simple. Estimating an instrument detection limit does not necessarily tell you anything about the method detection limit or the lower limit of detection. I will remove this if no objections. Mattj63 15:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Material at the end
I don't know what the material at the end of this article is or means. Perhaps the material at the end should just be removed? What I am referring to, is the list of analytical methods. There doesn't really seem to be any information related to detection limit in that section. --Chris (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
