CRICOS No.

00213J
1
MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY FOR MICROBIOLOGICAL ANALYSES

James J. Smith, B.Sc., Ph.D., MASM
Applied and Environmental Microbiology/Chemistry, Food Microbiology
Queensland University of Technology, School of Life Sciences, 2 George St., GPO Box 2434, Brisbane QLD
4055 Australia. Tel: 61-7-3864-4238, FAX: 61-7-3864-1534, email: jj.smith@qut.edu.au

We are but human; uncertainty always limits our prospect
-Roald Amundsen (1872-1928)

Background
Regulatory authorities and clients are increasingly requiring microbiological laboratories to provide
estimates of measurement uncertainty. As a result laboratory assessors and auditors are increasingly
asking laboratories to demonstrate that they have estimated uncertainty for analytical procedures,
understand sources of uncertainty, and what corrective actions are possible as a result. Laboratory
managers need to know how to satisfy these requirements in a cost and time effective way.
Standard methods for determining Measurement Uncertainty such as the ISO GUM Methodology may
be difficult to follow and therefore implement. In this article we attempt to describe in simple terms
how to estimate MU in the typical water microbiology laboratory. There are many methods and
approaches to estimating MU, and this article should not be seen as definitive, but rather a practical
starting point for laboratory managers and analysts. For more comprehensive information on this
subject we recommend Niemel (2003).

What is Measurement Uncertainty?
MU attempts to quantitatively estimate the range of values that an analyst believes could reasonably
be attributed to a test result. It is often reported as the error or expected variation of a result. To
estimate MU of a test method analysts attempt to identify and estimate the sources and magnitudes of
errors in the method. The combined effect of all errors on the accuracy of the test result is then
determined and reported. It should be noted that the MU of a microbiological analysis is only an
estimate, since all sources of error in a test cannot generally be determined and/or quantified.

Firstly, definition of some basic MU-related terms is required.
Result = best estimate of the true value
Measurement uncertainty (MU) = estimate of magnitude of the range around the result in which
the true value is contained.
Standard Uncertainty (u) = known, estimated, or determined MUs associated with
components/steps in an analysis leading to a result, often a standard deviation.
Relative Standard Uncertainty (w) = standard deviation divided by the mean (or median).
Usually expressed as a percent (15% = 0.015, etc.) An important concept which normalizes sources of
error.
Combined Relative Uncertainty (u
c
) = the overall uncertainty determined for the result of an
analytical process result, taking all significant relative standard uncertainties into consideration.
Expanded Uncertainty (U) = the combined relative standard uncertainty value, multiplied by a
coverage factor that allows the probability that the result lies within the MU range to be known. For
example, multiplying a standard deviation by the coverage factor 1.96 = 95% confidence interval.
Coverage Factor (k) = used to multiply the u
c
to produce a given confidence interval.
*Confidence Interval (C.I.) = The chance/probability that the true value lies within the MU
range (typical), or conversely, that the true value lies outside the MU range.

The relationship between the above terms is illustrated in figure 1. Some proficiency schemes report
replicate data sets means, while others use medians. Medians are less affected by outlier data in a set
Permission has been granted by the author to display this article on the Institute for Sustainable Resources website and associated sites.
September 2008
CRICOS No. 00213J
2
than means. Statistical values termed robust have typically used median values in their calculations
rather than means. For the purposes of MU estimation, one may use either mean or median values.


Figure 1. Conceptual illustration of some components of estimation of measurement uncertainty. A,
B, C and D indicate individual components/steps of the analysis. Note that the combined relative
standard (u
c
) and expanded (U) uncertainties would be bidirectional () around the true value.

Estimating MU
One may estimate MU of a laboratory analytical method by either of two general approaches:
Top-down/Global-MU estimation of the method as a whole, ignoring individual analytical
components.
Bottom-up-estimating and combining MU for individual analytical components to obtain an overall
method MU.

Top-Down MU Estimation
Top-down MU estimation is most conveniently accomplished through intra-laboratory replicate
analyses as part of routine microbiological analytical quality assurance, and/or data provided via inter-
laboratory proficiency evaluation (PE). Organisms in PE samples are often more homogeneous than
actual samples, however such samples are useful for estimating MU associated specifically with the
analysis itself (including sub-sampling.) In such cases, precision of numbers of microorganisms in
replicate samples is critical in order to resolve MU associated with the analytical method from that of
the dose itself. When using PE sample results, one must consider what type of MU one is estimating.
If the inter-laboratory MU of a specific method is to be estimated one must ensure the other
laboratories are using the same specific method. Such an approach does not indicate MU associated
with analysis within the laboratory itself. The latter may be estimated using replicate ( 10) sample
analysis of actual or spiked samples of the same type. Prior to the availability of precisely enumerated,
stable microbial reference materials, samples for analyses for MU estimation had to be analyzed
simultaneously (analysts, methods, etc.) due to storage effects on cell numbers and physiology. This
has largely been alleviated through the availability of products such as BioBall (BTF Ltd, Sydney,
Australia.) Analyses for MU calculations ( 10) do not. For example, to determine MU for a method
in which several analysts may perform the analyses or analytical components, subdivision and analysis
of sub-samples by different analysts constitutes 1 replicate set for those analysts. While a laboratory
may sub-sample and analyse 10 sets on one day, day-to-day method variations are more
effectively represented in MU estimations when such analyses take place over time. The mean and
variation in sample results themselves constitute the combined relative standard and/or expanded
uncertainty. Replicate analyses by the same analyst using the same method will indicate MU of that
TRUE VALUE
ANALYTICAL STEP
RELATIVE STANDARD
UNCERTAINTY (w)
COMBINED RELATIVE
STANDARD UNCERTAINTY (u
c
)
MULTICOMPONENT ANALYSIS
EXPANDED
UNCERTAINTY (U)
SAMPLE
2 2 2 2
D C B A C
w w w w u + + + =
A
B
C
D
Permission has been granted by the author to display this article on the Institute for Sustainable Resources website and associated sites.
September 2008
CRICOS No. 00213J
3
method for that specific analyst using that method. Replicate analyses by all analysts using the same
method (Escherichia coli for example) indicate MU between analysts as a whole for that specific
method, etc.
MU using Performance Evaluation Results
PE sample results are transformed to their base-10 logarithms before calculation of statistical values
such as means, medians, robust coefficient of variation (CV), interquartile ranges (IQR), normalized
IQR, standard deviations, or reproducibility standard deviations (S
R
or RSD
R
). This should also be
done for intra-laboratory data (see below). In order to convert these statistical values information into
a relative standard uncertainty/deviation using IQR data, the IQR is first multiplied by a conversion
factor (0.7413) to produce a normalised IQR, which is an estimate of the standard deviation . If a
robust coefficient of variation is reported this may be used directly as an estimate of relative standard
deviation (w). For example, if PE sample results for E. coli analysis using an identical method are: 60
results, median log
10
1.905, IQR log
10
0.223, the relative standard uncertainty for the method is:
[(0.223 X 0.7413)/1.905] = 0.088 or 8.8%, which should also be equivalent to the CV (if reported). If
the standard deviation and mean or median are reported, they be used directly to calculate relative
standard deviation.
This encompasses all components of the analysis and all participating PE laboratories. Hence, this can
be considered equivalent to the combined relative standard uncertainty (u
c
) from figure 1 for all
laboratories in the PE group for E. coli using the particular method. To expand this uncertainty,
multiply u
c
(0.088) by a coverage factor (k) of 1.96 to obtain the 95% level of confidence as expanded
uncertainty (U) of 0.0.173. This indicates that in 95% of E. coli analyses using the specific method, the
result will be within 18% of the median. Comparison of your own laboratories MU for a method (see
below) with all PE participants for a method (see above) is useful for examination of ones laboratory
compared to the industry average.
Within-laboratory MU Estimation
For the purposes of intra-laboratory MU estimation, replicate analyses within the same laboratory are
required. For example, in order to estimate MU between two analysts using the same method on the
same sample matrix, have them independently analyse the same sample, including sub-sampling. Over
time, have them analyse a minimum of nine more such samples. Transform each samples result (1-10)
to its base 10 logarithm and calculate the mean ([log
10
A + log
10
B]/2) for each sample. Then for each
sample calculate the variance as ([log
10
A
1
mean 1)
2
+ (log
10
B
1
mean 1)
2
]/2). For additional
analysts, add their results to the mean and variance (example: [log
10
C
1
mean 1]
2
) calculations,
ensuring to divide by the total number of analyses/analysts, respectively.
Now calculate the reproducibility standard deviation (S
R
) as the square root of the mean of the
variances: /10 variances of sum . In the case presented in table I this is 0.095 log
10
. This represents
the standard deviation in log
10
units for this type of analysis and is analogous to combined standard
uncertainty. To expand or enlarge this to the 95% confidence interval, multiply by 1.96, resulting in an
expanded RSD of 0.19 log
10
. For reporting, this indicates that the result reported using these analysts
and this method will have a 95% probability of being within 0.19 log
10
of the true value. For example,
a result of 253 cfu/ml (log
10
[253] = 2.40) could be reported as 2.40 0.19 log
10
cfu/ml, or with the
upper and lower limits 2.40 log (2.21, 2.59)

cfu/ml.
Table I. Example intra-laboratory estimation of MU.
Sample
Analyst
A Result
Analyst
B Result
Log 10
(result A)
Log 10
(result B)
MEAN Variance
1 110 136 2.04 2.13 2.09 0.0042
2 56 72 1.75 1.86 1.80 0.0060
3 310 275 2.49 2.44 2.47 0.0014
4 1.1 X 10
5
2.5 X 10
5
5.04 5.40 5.22 0.0636
5 710 656 2.85 2.82 2.83 0.0006
6 35 35 1.54 1.54 1.54 0.0000
7 156 140 2.19 2.15 2.17 0.0011
8 503 555 2.70 2.74 2.72 0.0009
9 1.2 X 10
3
1.7 X 10
3
3.08 3.23 3.15 0.0114
10 220 195 2.34 2.29 2.67 0.0014
Permission has been granted by the author to display this article on the Institute for Sustainable Resources website and associated sites.
September 2008
CRICOS No. 00213J
4
S
R
= 0.095
As log
10
-based results may not be clear to clients, they may be transformed back to their non-
logarithmic equivalents: 10
2.40
= 253 (10
2.21
= 162, 10
2.59
= 389). To convert this to a combined relative
standard deviation, divide the range (162-389) by two, then divide by the mean:
253 ([389-162]/2) = 114 cfu/ml
114/253 = 45%.
The reported results (253 45%, or 253 114 cfu/ml, at the 95% level of confidence) may be more
easily understood by clients. Note that this percentage represents the expanded uncertainty (U) for all
analyses using this method and these analysts in this laboratory.
It is convenient to using spreadsheets for calculating and updating such MU estimations. Additional
analysts, methods and results may be added to the spreadsheet, allowing trend analysis as well as
inclusion of increasing numbers of replicate samples in MU estimations (which generally decreases
confidence intervals). Such systems also facilitate estimations of other types of intra-, and inter-
laboratory MU (inter-method, inter-analyst, inter-laboratory, etc.)

Bottom-up MU Estimation
Most analysts have considered at some time questions such as,
how representative is this 100 ml sample of the true average concentration in the larger body of
water?
using maximum 2.5% tolerance pipettes for dilutions and/or plating sub-samples, how does this
affect the accuracy of the final result?
how different are the results when one analyst counts colonies on a plate as opposed to another?
The first question relates to the variability in distribution of a target organism in a water body. While it
may be possible to estimate the variability within water bodies through replicate sampling, this
variation is generally not under laboratory control and will not be used in the examples below.
However, it should be noted that estimates of temporal (time), spatial (space) and/or distribution
variation can be made.
The second and third questions relate specifically to variability in the analytical processes within the
laboratory. Each relates to components of analyses, each with an associated standard uncertainty,
which is required to determine the combined MU of an analytical process. Much of this data is
generated by good laboratory quality control procedures. If not, one may use manufacturer-provided
instrument tolerances (for example 5% tolerance on 100 ml drinking water collection bottles), assume
distributions for particular components such as colony counts or sample homogeneity (normal,
rectangular, etc.), design experiments to estimate individual component uncertainties, or a
combination of the above.

The steps in estimation of overall analytical MU may be summarized as follows:
1. Define final result in terms of units (CFU/ml) and form of expression of uncertainty (standard
deviation at a given confidence interval, percentage, etc.)
2. List components of the overall analysis likely to produce significant uncertainty (source sampling,
sub-sampling, dilution, colony counting, colony confirmation, etc.) and estimate the uncertainty of
these steps. One may use personal or expert experience to choose and or/estimate significant
components.
There are two ways to estimate the standard uncertainties at each step of the analytical process.
Type A-MU estimates based on the statistical analysis of a series of observations.
Type B-MU estimates based on criteria other than type A, such as manufacturers specifications,
operator experience, handbook reference data, calibration reports, etc.

A-type estimations involve observing the variation of each step separately throughout the analytical
process; for example, replicate recovery experiments in which the sample holding time or colony
counting analyst is varied. This assumes that all other influencing factors (such as analyte
concentration) do not significantly affect the determination of the individual component. Once
estimated the MU value is then assumed valid for future analyses.
Permission has been granted by the author to display this article on the Institute for Sustainable Resources website and associated sites.
September 2008
CRICOS No. 00213J
5
It is important to note that often a large number of replicates are required for type-A estimations to
reduce the uncertainty associated with the replication. The number of replicates generally
recommended for observing the variation of a process is ten, although more replicates will always
yield a more robust estimate.
One of the significant challenges to making A-type measurements previously in the microbiology
laboratory has been the difficulty of producing highly accurate and easy-to-use samples of
microbiological organisms. Such reference material must be as precisely enumerated as possible (low
MU) in order to discern methodological component MU from reference MU. However, producing
accurately enumerated, stable spike doses of microorganisms for Type-A estimations is can be time
consuming, doses are generally unstable for use at a later time, and the enumeration uncertainty may
be large as one typically enumerates does using a method which itself contains components of
analytical MU one wishes to estimate. Products such as BioBall, (BTF Pty. Ltd., Sydney) have
recently become available which simplify A-type measurements considerably. BioBall is a freeze-
dried ball that contains a precise number of colony forming units, of common microbiological
analytes. BioBall doses have low variance (MU) (< 5-10%) and are stable long-term (1-24 mos.)
allowing more effective estimation of method component standard uncertainties. Stated another way,
if ones spike dose uncertainty is a significant component of overall uncertainty (see below),
estimations of other method component standard uncertainties using such doses will be affected by
dose MU itself. Lowering the MU can be critical, since a lower MU allow more precise
determinations of analytical components and procedures uncertainties. This in turn allows better
determination of analytical components contributing significant MU and estimation of global MU for
reporting.
B-type estimations are essentially all those determined by methods other than that described for type
A. These may include assumed distributions (Poisson, binomial, rectangular, triangular),
manufacturer-provided tolerances, expert opinion, etc.
3. Quantify the relative standard uncertainties associated with each component and disregard those
found insignificant to overall measurement uncertainty (see below).
Part of overall MU estimation lies in identification of the significant sources of uncertainty (step 3
above). So what criteria define significance? As guides, EURACHEM/CITAC (2000) suggests that
components that are less than one third of the largest need not be evaluated in detail, while NATA
(2003) recommends that components contributing less than 1/5-1/3 of total uncertainty can be
disregarded. Niemel (2003) suggests whenever one component is 4-5 times the next largest
component; it effectively determines the overall MU estimation result. In other words, unless there are
a large number of uncertainty components which are 20-25% of the next largest component, the
former do not need to be evaluated in detail, although they can be included in overall MU estimation
calculation if desired.
4. Combine relative standard uncertainties according to GUM (see below) and expand using an
appropriate coverage factor (95% is most frequently recommended), if desired.
When the component uncertainties to be included in estimation of overall analytical measurement
uncertainty have been estimated, the standard uncertainties cannot be simply added together to
determine the combined standard uncertainty. However, the mathematics is generally similar to that
used for propagation of error, often using the square-root of sum-of-squares. Fortunately, for most
cases of microbiological analysis of water the terms simplify considerably and generally follow the
GUM format (see figure 1 for definition of terms and equation.)
5. Report result in a format as determined in (1) such as: 1.5 x 10
3
CFU/ml with 10% relative
uncertainty (unexpanded), or 1.5 x 10
3
CFU/ml 20% the 95% level of confidence. Alternatively
multiply the mean result by the expanded combined relative standard uncertainty 1.5 x 10
3
CFU/ml
300 CFU/ml at the 95% level of confidence.
The two critical steps to this process are steps 2 and 3. Step 3 involves estimating the standard
uncertainties (as relative standard deviations) at each part of the analytical process, while step 3
calculates the overall error.


Permission has been granted by the author to display this article on the Institute for Sustainable Resources website and associated sites.
September 2008
CRICOS No. 00213J
6


Simple Example of bottom-up MU Estimation
A one ml sample of wastewater is resuspended in a 99 ml dilution blank and analysed
for E. coli using membrane filtration onto a chromogenic agar medium. Colony counts by the
same analyst are: 50 CFU/100 ml E. coli. The steps for one approach to estimation of MU are:
1. The final result format is CFU E. coli/100 ml with MU as a standard deviation at the 95%
level of confidence. The formula for calculating results is: volume CFU
ml analyzed volume
observed CFU
/
) (
=
2. Sources thought to possibly contribute significant sources of MU are:
Tolerance of pipette delivering 1 ml (accuracy 2.5%)
Inter-analyst colony counting uncertainty, determined from replicate counting of all
analytical staff associated with this specific method as a standard deviation from the mean
all analysts of 10% at the 95% interval of confidence.
Inter-lot chromogenic medium comparisons from normal QC operations indicate a batch-
to-batch recovery of 85% 15%.
We will assume the organisms are uniformly homogenous in samples and hence the
distribution of a single plate count will follow a Poisson distribution.
Sample spike-storage trials using a randomly-selected storage times up to the maximum
have indicated a reduction in CFU of mean 15% with a standard deviation 7%. Hence,
the largest observed decrease was (15 + 7) = 22%.
3. Estimate component relative standard deviations:
Volume (w
V
): maximum standard deviation = 2.5%, As this is a percentage, there is no
need to divide by mean to obtain relative standard deviation, hence w
V
= 0.025
Counting (w
C
): uncertainty = 10% at 95% confidence. Since the coverage factor for 95%
C.I. is 1.96, dividing 10% by 1.96 = 5%, As this is a percentage, there is no need to divide
by mean for relative standard deviation, hence w
C
= 0.05.
Plating medium (w
m
): recovery = 85% 15%. Dividing the standard uncertainty (15%)
by the mean (85%) = w
m
= 0.17.
Distribution (w
D
): One may reference tables of uncertainty related to the number of
colonies observed for single plate counts assuming a Poisson distribution, or use the
formula: w
D
2
= 1/z, where z is the observed, or average number of colonies observed.
Hence, in this case w
D
2
= 1/50 = 0.02, and w
D
= 0.14.
Holding (w
H
): In this case it was observed that colony counts showed a negative skewed
distribution with storage (likely due to die-off or injury of cells precluding subsequent
colony formation). This may be described by an asymmetric triangular distribution (see
Niemel [2003], section 2.4.3). The formula for which is
2 3
% 22
=
H
w = 5.2% or 0.05.
Relative standard deviations are: w
D
= 0.025, w
C
= 0.05, w
m
= 0.17, w
D
= 0.14, w
H
=
0.05. As none of the component relative standard uncertainties are less than 20-25% of the
next largest component, none will be considered insignificant.
4. Combining relative standard uncertainties according to GUM:
( )
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
) 05 . 0 ( ) 14 . 0 ( ) 17 . 0 ( ) 05 . 0 ( 025 . 0 + + + + = + + + + =
H D m c V C
w w w w w u = 0.23 or 23%.
Expanding the combined relative standard uncertainty to the 95% level of confidence:
U = u
c
(1.96) = (0.23)(1.96) = 0.45 or 45%.
As the formula for calculation of the mean is: ml CFU
ml analyzed volume
observed CFU
100 / ) 100 (
) (
=
Permission has been granted by the author to display this article on the Institute for Sustainable Resources website and associated sites.
September 2008
CRICOS No. 00213J
7
Mean result = = ) 100 (
1
. 50
ml
coli E CFU
5 x 10
3
CFU/100 ml
Expanded uncertainty at the 95% level of confidence:
(5 x 10
3
)(0.45) = 2.25 x 10
3
.

5. Report result in a format as determined in (1):
5 x 10
3
CFU E. coli/100 ml 2.25 x 10
3
CFU E. coli/ml at the 95% level of confidence.

The result format can be tailored to satisfy the requirements of the body to whom it is reported, while
the data obtained for component MUs in step three can be used by laboratory staff to identify
significant components of the analysis contributing to overall MU. For example; in this case both the
variation in plating medium and the Poisson distribution of the colony count contribute the largest
sources of uncertainty. A laboratory may wish to pursue corrective actions to reduce medium
variability, while the distribution component is largely determined by the number of colonies counted
per plate, or average per set of plates, and can only be reduced by counting greater numbers of
colonies. As most methods have defined upper limits for enumeration of colonies per plate, actions are
limited to setting lower CFU/plate(s) limits.
We emphasize that the above example is not exhaustive. Consideration of uncertainty components
associated with sub-sampling (distribution), dilution blank volume, and confirmation of presumptive
colonies (for those methods requiring confirmation) comprise additional sources of uncertainty which
may be included if desired.

Uses for MU Determinations











Figure 2. Schematic example of use of integration of measurement uncertainty into laboratory
processes.

Once MU has been determined, how is it applied for compliance with specifications? Maximum limits
are commonly set for microbiological testing of water. However, microbiological specifications rarely
make reference to uncertainty when interpreting compliance. If a maximum specified limit falls within
the expanded-MU for a measured value, does the result indicate compliance? Measured values (c)
should be expressed with expanded uncertainty (u
c
) at the 95% CI. Compliance with the guideline or
regulatory specification limit (x) is satisfied if the expanded measured value (count) is less than the
specification limit. If the expanded count still exceeds the specified limit when the expanded
uncertainty interval is halved, the measured value is non-compliant with the specification. If the
GLOBAL MU
ESTIMATION
BOTTOM-UP MU
ESTIMATION
LABORATORY
REPLICATE AND/OR
PE DATA
ANALYTICAL
COMPONENT
VARIANCES (w)
EXCESSIVE COMPONENT MU?
[ ] 3 ...) /( > + + +
D C B A n
w w w w w ?
CORRECTIVE ACTION
POSSIBLE?
MU REPORTED
WITH RESULTS
Permission has been granted by the author to display this article on the Institute for Sustainable Resources website and associated sites.
September 2008
CRICOS No. 00213J
8
expanded measured value is greater than the specification, but when the expanded uncertainty is
halved the measured value is lower than the specification, a statement cannot be made with 95%
confidence regarding compliance or non-compliance. In such cases it is recommended that uncertainty
be reported with the result and a statement that compliance cannot be determined with 95% confidence
included. The above may be calculated using:

Q = (x-c)/u
c


If Q < 1 the result is compliant. If 1 Q > 0.5 compliance cannot be determined. If Q 0.5 the result
is non-compliant. Examples are:

Specification: < 100 cfu/ml

Result: 75 20 cfu/ml at the 95% CI; Q = (100-75)/20 = 1.25, compliant.
Result: 85 20 cfu/ml at the 95% CI; Q = (100-85)/20 = 0.75, compliance at 95% CI cannot be
determined.
Result: 90 20 cfu/ml at the 95% CI; Q = (100-90)/20 = 0.5, non-compliant.

Note that compliance may occur at a lower level of confidence (90% for example) as the expanded
MU (u
c
) will be lower. Readers are referred to UKAS (2000) and HPA (2005) for further information
regarding use of MU in compliance testing.

In addition to compliance determinations, and a generally more thorough understanding of the
analytical process(es) through the application of MU estimation, two additional applications are
readily apparent. Firstly, results may be reported to clients and regulatory agencies which include MU
estimations and associated confidence intervals. This is typically done using global MU estimates.
This assists laboratories to more closely comply with ISO17025 (2005) and other standardisation and
compliance organisations, as well as client requirements for regulatory compliance reporting.
Secondly, MU estimation allows laboratories (and laboratory auditors/assessors) to identify analytical
components which may introduce significant sources of uncertainty. If significant MU components are
identified whose magnitude may be reduced through practical corrective actions, the laboratory may
choose to pursue such actions, and thus reduce the uncertainty of reported results. This should be
reflected through subsequent reductions in globally estimated MU, and particularly MU of the
specifically identified component.
MU estimation may appear quite complex at first. However, it is suggested laboratories start with
global estimations based on routinely generated intra-, and inter-laboratory replication data. These are
the MU estimates typically reported with results (Fig 2.). If MU appears excessive and/or PE z-scores
indicate excessive variation, analysis of method(s) using the bottom-up approach should assist in
identification and corrective actions to reduce overall analytical MU. Hence, MU estimation may fulfil
two objectives; assisting clients in interpreting microbiological result precision for critical applications
such as risk assessments, regulatory compliance, etc., and continuing laboratory quality improvement.

References

BIPM, IEC, IFCC, ISO, IUPAC, IUPAP, OIML. Guide to the expression of uncertainty in
measurement. International Organisation for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland. ISBN 92-67-
10188-9, First Ed. 1993.

EURACHEM/CITAC Guide (2000). Quantifying uncertainty in analytical measurement, 2
nd
Ed.

Health Protection Agency (HPA) (2005). Uncertainty of measurement in testing. National Standard
Method QSOP 4 Issue 5. http://www.hpa-standardmethods.org.uk/pdf_sops.asp.

ISO-IEC 17025:2005. General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories.
ISO, Geneva (1999)
Permission has been granted by the author to display this article on the Institute for Sustainable Resources website and associated sites.
September 2008
CRICOS No. 00213J
9

International Organization for Standardization (2005). Microbiology of food and animal feeding
stuffs-guide on estimation of measurement uncertainty for quantitative determinations. ISO/PTDS
19036.

NATA (2003) Uncertainty of measurement in biological, forensic, medical and veterinary testing.
NATA Tech. Circular, Dec. 2003

Niemel, S. (2003). Uncertainty of quantitative determinations derived by cultivation of
microorganisms. Publication J4/2003, MIKES, Helsinki, Finland.

United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) (2000). The expression of uncertainty in testing.
UKAS Publication LAB 12, Edition 1.



Permission has been granted by the author to display this article on the Institute for Sustainable Resources website and associated sites.
September 2008