Abstract

The Workplace Analysis Scheme for Proficiency (WASP) is a proficiency testing scheme for the analysis of occupational hygiene and environmental air samples and is operated in the UK by the Health and Safety Laboratory. Since 1997, WASP has offered samples of benzene, toluene and m-xylene, at environmental levels on Tenax, and has about 35 laboratories participating, mostly from industry, local government and consultancy organisations in the UK. The results reported cover the first 10 rounds of the environmental analytes (1997–1999) and demonstrate the important role of proficiency testing in assessing the quality of laboratory performance. Estimates are obtained for within-laboratory precision and the total variability at each analyte level. The estimates of within-laboratory precision suggest that laboratories have more difficulty analysing toluene and m-xylene than benzene. Linear relationships for the reproducibility relative standard deviation (RSD_T) with loading level are evident for the analytes at occupational levels. At environmental levels, the relationship between loading level and reproducibility is much less well defined. The standard deviation for the proficiency testing assessment for all three analytes at the environmental level is 14%, as derived from the benzene data. Expanded uncertainty estimates (k = 1.96), for the analysis of samples since the scheme started, are obtained from the average total variance, and are 27% for benzene, 39% for toluene and 36% for m-xylene. Although the linear trend of performance against round number was not significant at the 95% level of confidence (p = 0.23 for benzene, p = 0.3 for toluene and p = 0.32 for m-xylene), there was a general improvement in RSD_T from 26–34% to about 8–13% 10 rounds later. Currently, for a laboratory to meet one of the data quality objectives in the Ambient Air Directive (indicative measurement of benzene, expanded uncertainty ±30% or less), it would have to achieve a level of analytical performance to satisfy the category 1 (best performance) limit of better than ±8.8%. In the last proficiency testing round, discussed in this paper, only 58% of laboratories obtained performance scores that indicated that they were able to consistently achieve this level of performance.