Before reliable near infrared spectroscopic analysis - the critical sampling proviso. Part 1: Generalised theory of sampling

Non-representative sampling of materials, lots and processes intended for near infrared (NIR) analysis is often contributing hidden additions to the full Measurement Uncertainty (MU_total = TSE + TAE_NIR). The Total Sampling Error (TSE) can dominate over the Total Analytical Error (TAE_NIR) by factors ranging from 5 to 10 to even 25 times, depending on material heterogeneity and the specific sampling procedures employed to produce the minuscule aliquot, which is the only material analysed. This review (Parts 1 and 2), extensively referenced with easily available complementing literature, presents a brief of all sampling uncertainty elements in the “lot-to-aliquot” pathway, which must be identified and correctly managed (eliminated or maximally reduced) in order to achieve, and to be able to document, fully minimised MU_total. The more irregular and pervasive the heterogeneity, the higher the number of increments needed to reach ‘fit-for-purpose representativity’. A particular focus is necessary regarding the sampling bias, which is fundamentally different from the well-known analytical bias. Whereas the latter can easily be subjected to bias correction, the sampling bias is non-correctable by any posteori means, notably not by chemometrics, nor statistics. Instead, all sampling operations must be designed to exclude the so-called Incorrect Sampling Errors (ISE), which are the hidden bias-generating agents. The key element in this endeavour is representative sampling and sub-sampling before analysis, as laid out by the Theory of Sampling (TOS), which is presented here in a novel compact fashion along with a complement of selected examples and demonstrations. TOS includes a safeguard facility, termed the Replication Experiment (RE), which enables estimation of the total sampling-plus-analysis uncertainty level (MU_total) associated with NIR analysis (the RE is, for practical and logistical reasons, found in Part 2). Neglecting the TSE effects from the before-analysis domain is lack of due diligence. TOS to the fore!