the method with the ±25% accuracy criterion. Techniques for the latter determination are discussed in the Appendix and elsewhere [1].
If the results for 4 concentrations fail the 25% accuracy criterion, then the set of samples collected at 0.1 x exposure limit should be excluded from the data set. The pooled rT and the bias should be recalculated on this reduced data set before performing the accuracy analysis described in the previous paragraph.
For the 12 samplers collected at the ceiling limit, the accuracy analysis described above should be repeated using only the data collected at the ceiling limit.
3. FIELD EVALUATION
While field evaluation is not required in method evaluation, it does provide a further test of the method, since conditions which exist in the field are difficult to reproduce in the laboratory. Also unknown variables may affect sampling results when field samples are taken. This type of evaluation is recommended to further study the performance of the method in terms of field precision, bias, interferences and the general utility of the method.
Both the collection of area samples and personal samples should be included in the field evaluation of the method. Area samples should provide an estimate of field precision and bias. Personal samples may confirm these values and also provide a means to assess the utility of the method. A statistical study design should be prepared, based on the variability of the method and the statistical precision required for estimates of the differences in analyte concentrations yielded by the independent method and the method under evaluation [20].
If this type of statistically designed study is not feasible, a minimum of 20 pairs of samples of the method under study and an independent method should be used for personal sampling. Placement of the samplers on the workers should be random to prevent the biasing of results due to the "handedness" of the worker. Workers sampled should be in areas where both low and high concentrations of the analyte may be present.
As a minimum, sets of 6 area samplers paired with independent methods should be placed in areas of low, intermediate, and high analyte concentration. If the atmosphere sampled is not homogeneous, precautions may have to be taken to ensure that all samplers are exposed to the same concentrations. This can be done by using field exposure chambers, such as those described in the literature [21,22].
Field precision and bias of the area sampler results of the method under study should compare with laboratory evaluation results, provided that precautions have been taken to ensure that all samplers have been exposed to the same homogeneous atmosphere. Differences in precision and bias should be investigated. Sources of variation should be studied and corrections implemented where necessary. Evaluation of personal sampler results should be done cautiously, since observable differences may be due to work practices or other situations which are beyond the control of the method.
A field evaluation of a method also allows the developer of the method to determine its ruggedness. Although this may be a subjective judgement, first hand experience with the method in the field may suggest changes in
the sampler or method that may make the method more easily used in the field and less subject to variability.
