Characterizing nonconstant instrumental variance in emerging miniaturized analytical techniques

• Many researchers implicitly assume constant variance, leading to lower quality calibrations, uncertainty, and LOD estimates.
• Characterized three miniaturized techniques—distance-based detection in paper, carbon-ink CSV, and microchip electrophoresis.
• Accounted for heteroskedasticity using variance fitting and WLS; quantified improvements experimentally & with simulations.

Measurement variance is a crucial aspect of quantitative chemical analysis. Variance directly affects important analytical figures of merit, including detection limit, quantitation limit, and confidence intervals. Most reported analyses for emerging analytical techniques implicitly assume constant variance (homoskedasticity) by using unweighted regression calibrations. Despite the assumption of constant variance, it is known that most instruments exhibit heteroskedasticity, where variance changes with signal intensity. Ignoring nonconstant variance results in suboptimal calibrations, invalid uncertainty estimates, and incorrect detection limits. Three techniques where homoskedasticity is often assumed were covered in this work to evaluate if heteroskedasticity had a significant quantitative impact—naked-eye, distance-based detection using paper-based analytical devices (PADs), cathodic stripping voltammetry (CSV) with disposable carbon-ink electrode devices, and microchip electrophoresis (MCE) with conductivity detection. Despite these techniques representing a wide range of chemistries and precision, heteroskedastic behavior was confirmed for each. The general variance forms were analyzed, and recommendations for accounting for nonconstant variance discussed. Monte Carlo simulations of instrument responses were performed to quantify the benefits of weighted regression, and the sensitivity to uncertainty in the variance function was tested. Results show that heteroskedasticity should be considered during development of new techniques; even moderate uncertainty (30%) in the variance function still results in weighted regression outperforming unweighted regressions. We recommend utilizing the power model of variance because it is easy to apply, requires little additional experimentation, and produces higher-precision results and more reliable uncertainty estimates than assuming homoskedasticity.

Figure optionsDownload as PowerPoint slide