Enhanced calibration precision: Leveraging RSE and WLS for optimal function optimization

Importance of the topic

Calibration quality underpins the reliability of chromatographic analyses across environmental, pharmaceutical, and industrial laboratories. Traditional metrics such as unweighted regression, relative standard deviation (RSD), and correlation coefficients often mask errors at low analyte concentrations. Employing relative standard error (RSE) alongside weighted least squares (WLS) and inverted calibration strategies delivers a more robust assessment of calibration performance and compliance with regulatory standards.

Objectives and Study Overview

This technical note demonstrates how RSE, WLS approximations, and inverse calibration improve precision and accuracy in ion chromatography (IC), high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), and gas chromatography (GC). It contrasts conventional unweighted methods with optimized approaches designed to minimize systematic and random errors across broad concentration ranges.

Methodology

• Definition and computation of RSE to standardize calibration error relative to mean concentration.
• Comparison of ordinary least squares (OLS) versus WLS using various weighting schemes (e.g., 1/amount²) and curve fits (linear and quadratic).
• Use of relative amount deviation plots to reveal concentration-dependent bias.
• Application of inverted curve fitting to enhance model performance in complex equilibrium systems.

Instrumentation

• Thermo Scientific Chromeleon Chromatography Data System (CDS) version 7.3.2 for data processing.
• Dionex IonPac AS23 column and ADRS 600 suppressor for suppressed conductivity IC measurements.
• Thermo Scientific Acclaim 120 C8 (2.1×150 mm, 3 μm) column with UV detection at 245 nm for RSLC of alkylphenones.
• Thermo Scientific TraceGOLD TG ALC1 GC column with headspace injection and flame ionization detector for ethanol analysis.

Main Results and Discussion

• IC fluoride calibration: Switching from linear OLS to quadratic WLS with offset and 1/amount² weighting reduced RSE from ~16.8% to ~1.6%, with a random deviation distribution.
• HPLC alkylphenones: WLS weighting lowered RSE for butyrophenone to <1%, eliminating low-concentration bias.
• GC ethanol: Quadratic WLS weighting cut RSE from 7.6% to 0.7%, producing uniform deviation across 100–5000 mg/L.
• Ammonium detection: Inverted calibration overcame non-quadratic conductivity behavior, achieving better fit where traditional models failed.

Benefits and Practical Applications

• RSE reveals calibration quality more effectively than RSD or r², especially at trace levels.
• WLS and appropriate weighting address heteroscedastic responses, improving analytical accuracy.
• Inverted calibration enhances curve fitting in complex equilibria and ensures regulatory compliance.
• These strategies support accurate quantification in environmental monitoring, QA/QC, and trace analysis.

Future Trends and Potential Applications

• Automating RSE and WLS calibration workflows within chromatography data systems for real-time optimization.
• Expanding inverse calibration approaches to emerging detectors and separation techniques.
• Developing advanced software modules and statistical tools to further reduce calibration uncertainty.
• Adopting these methods in regulated labs to meet evolving compliance and performance requirements.

Conclusion

Integrating RSE as the primary calibration metric together with WLS, proper weighting, and inverted curve fitting substantially enhances the precision and accuracy of chromatographic analyses. These optimized practices uncover biases that standard metrics overlook, ensuring reliable quantification across diverse concentration ranges and analytical methods.

References

• Sánchez J.M. Linear calibrations in chromatography: the incorrect use of OLS for low-level determinations. J Sep Sci. 2020;43:2708–2717.
• Sánchez J.M. The inadequate use of r² in analytical calibrations. J Sep Sci. 2021;44:4431–4441.
• Parr J., Friedman D. Guidelines for calibration in analytical chemistry. Pure Appl Chem. 1998;70:993–1014.
• Edgerley D.A. Techniques for improving calibration accuracy in environmental labs. WTQA ’98; EPA; 1998.
• U.S. EPA. 40 CFR Part 136: Test procedures for pollutant analysis. 2023.
• Thermo Fisher Scientific. Chromeleon CDS Help version 7.3.2. 2023.
• IUPAC. Nomenclature in evaluation of analytical methods. Pure Appl Chem. 1995;67:1699–1723.
• Hoisington J., Dolan J.W. Selecting the best curve fit. LC·GC Eur. 2004;17:138–143.
• Tellinghuisen J. Weighted least-squares in calibration: effect on accuracy. Analyst. 2007;132:536–543.
• Burrows R., Parr J. Evaluating instrument calibration in chromatography. LCGC Supplements. 2020;38.
• Thompson M. Why are we weighting? RSC Technical Brief. 2007.
• Centner V., Massart D.L., de Jong S. Inverse calibration predicts better than classical. Fresenius J Anal Chem. 1998;361:2–9.
• Besalú E. Connection between inverse and classical calibration. Talanta. 2013;116:45–49.