Basic calibration functions for analytical chemistry

The chemCal package was first designed in the course of a lecture and lab course on “Analytics of Organic Trace Contaminants” at the University of Bremen from October to December 2004. In the fall 2005, an email exchange with Ron Wehrens led to the belief that it would be desirable to implement the inverse prediction method given in Massart et al. (1997) since it also covers the case of weighted regression. Studies of the IUPAC orange book and of DIN 32645 as well as publications by Currie and the Analytical Method Committee of the Royal Society of Chemistry and a nice paper by Castillo and Castells provided further understanding of the matter.

At the moment, the package consists of four functions, working on univariate linear models of class lm or rlm, plus two datasets for validation.

A bug report and the following e-mail exchange on the r-devel mailing list about prediction intervals from weighted regression entailed some further studies on this subject. However, I did not encounter any proof or explanation of the formula cited below yet, so I can’t really confirm that Massart’s method is correct.

When calibrating an analytical method, the first task is to generate a suitable model. If we want to use the chemCal functions, we will have to restrict ourselves to univariate, possibly weighted, linear regression so far.

Once such a model has been created, the calibration can be graphically shown by using the calplot function:

library(chemCal)
+m0 <- lm(y ~ x, data = massart97ex3)
+calplot(m0)

As we can see, the scatter increases with increasing x. This is also illustrated by one of the diagnostic plots for linear models provided by R:

plot(m0, which=3)

Therefore, in Example 8 in Massart et al. (1997), weighted regression is proposed which can be reproduced by

attach(massart97ex3)
+yx <- split(y, x)
+ybar <- sapply(yx, mean)
+s <- round(sapply(yx, sd), digits = 2)
+w <- round(1 / (s^2), digits = 3)
+weights <- w[factor(x)]
+m <- lm(y ~ x, w = weights)

If we now want to predict a new x value from measured y values, we use the inverse.predict function:

inverse.predict(m, 15, ws=1.67)

## $Prediction
+## [1] 5.865367
+## 
+## $`Standard Error`
+## [1] 0.8926109
+## 
+## $Confidence
+## [1] 2.478285
+## 
+## $`Confidence Limits`
+## [1] 3.387082 8.343652

inverse.predict(m, 90, ws = 0.145)

## $Prediction
+## [1] 44.06025
+## 
+## $`Standard Error`
+## [1] 2.829162
+## 
+## $Confidence
+## [1] 7.855012
+## 
+## $`Confidence Limits`
+## [1] 36.20523 51.91526

The weight ws assigned to the measured y value has to be given by the user in the case of weighted regression, or alternatively, the approximate variance var.s at this location.

Some theory for `inverse.predict`

Equation 8.28 in Massart et al. (1997) gives a general equation for predicting the standard error \(s_{\hat{x_s}}\) for an \(x\) value predicted from measurements of \(y\) according to the linear calibration function \(y = b_0 + b_1 \cdot x\):

+\[\begin{equation} +s_{\hat{x_s}} = \frac{s_e}{b_1} \sqrt{\frac{1}{w_s m} + \frac{1}{\sum{w_i}} + + \frac{(\bar{y_s} - \bar{y_w})^2 \sum{w_i}} + {{b_1}^2 \left( \sum{w_i} \sum{w_i {x_i}^2} - + {\left( \sum{ w_i x_i } \right)}^2 \right) }} +\end{equation}\] +

with

+\[\begin{equation} +s_e = \sqrt{ \frac{\sum w_i (y_i - \hat{y_i})^2}{n - 2}} +\end{equation}\] +

where \(w_i\) is the weight for calibration standard \(i\), \(y_i\) is the mean \(y\) value (!) observed for standard \(i\), \(\hat{y_i}\) is the estimated value for standard \(i\), \(n\) is the number calibration standards, \(w_s\) is the weight attributed to the sample \(s\), \(m\) is the number of replicate measurements of sample \(s\), \(\bar{y_s}\) is the mean response for the sample, \(\bar{y_w} = \frac{\sum{w_i y_i}}{\sum{w_i}}\) is the weighted mean of responses \(y_i\), and \(x_i\) is the given \(x\) value for standard \(i\).

The weight \(w_s\) for the sample should be estimated or calculated in accordance to the weights used in the linear regression.

I adjusted the above equation in order to be able to take a different precisions in standards and samples into account. In analogy to Equation 8.26 from we get

+\[\begin{equation} +s_{\hat{x_s}} = \frac{1}{b_1} \sqrt{\frac{{s_s}^2}{w_s m} + + {s_e}^2 \left( \frac{1}{\sum{w_i}} + + \frac{(\bar{y_s} - \bar{y_w})^2 \sum{w_i}} + {{b_1}^2 \left( \sum{w_i} \sum{w_i {x_i}^2} - {\left( \sum{ w_i x_i } \right)}^2 \right) } \right) } +\end{equation}\] +

where I interpret \(\frac{{s_s}^2}{w_s}\) as an estimator of the variance at location \(\hat{x_s}\), which can be replaced by a user-specified value using the argument var.s of the function inverse.predict.

Massart, D. L, B. G. M. Vandeginste, L. M. C. Buydens, S. De Jong, P. J. Lewi, and J Smeyers-Verbeke. 1997. Handbook of Chemometrics and Qualimetrics: Part A. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

+ + + +

Introduction to chemCal

Johannes Ranke

2018-07-05

Basic calibration functions for analytical chemistry

Some theory for `inverse.predict`

Introduction to chemCal

Johannes Ranke

2018-07-05

Basic calibration functions for analytical chemistry

Some theory for inverse.predict

Some theory for `inverse.predict`