Hi all, in relation to the issue #493, and some submitter requests, I'm trying to collect your experiences and opinions on reporting and interpreting of the replicates analyzed by different labs.
Situation: some data submitters have samples (same organism or a pool, same matrix) split and sent to different analytical labs, where both labs would f.ex. analyze for DRYWT% and maybe even same contaminants but with different methods.
Some submitters, by DOME logic, would report both replicates with the same SMPNO, SUBNO, MATRX, but different AMLNK and most likely Value.
In this case, DATSU would flag such records as replicates, and the HARSAT tool would pick only one in random for the assessment.
Some other submitters would report each of the subsamples sent to different labs with a different SUBNO, which would then be treated by HARSAT differently.
As a background information, present definition of SUBNO in DOME is: 'Sub-sample identification (each fish, egg, bird, aggregate, grab portion or core slice)' and in DATSU: 'A part of the sample. No two sub-samples within a given sample should have the same ‘Sub-sample number/identification’. Biota: In a haul, a sub-sample identification would be for each fish of the same species. A new species would receive a new sample number (SMPNO). If one mammal is reported, the sample number and the sub-sample number would be "1". Real identifications are allowed. For birds, each egg, bird or aggregate pool of same species is a sub-sample. ' So, note this definition does not foresee splitting single organism or an aggregation into additional subsamples.
Question:
As i see from these 2 scenarios, i can either A) stick to the original SUBNO definition and request data submitters to report the same PARAM from the same MATRX of the same organism or an aggregation as replicates with the same SUBNO. Then it would be up to HARSAT how to treat them. At least, present request from the submitters is that each replicate of the supporting parameters, like DRYWT% is to follow the ALABO.
Or i can B) expand the SUBNO definition to the sample batches sent to each ALABO, and recommend submitters to apply different SUBNO for them. HARSAT would treat them as two separate data streams, including both supporting PARAMs and evt. contaminants.
Both options don't care about the VFLAG proposed in #493
I'd appreciate if you shared your opinions
Hi all, in relation to the issue #493, and some submitter requests, I'm trying to collect your experiences and opinions on reporting and interpreting of the replicates analyzed by different labs.
Situation: some data submitters have samples (same organism or a pool, same matrix) split and sent to different analytical labs, where both labs would f.ex. analyze for DRYWT% and maybe even same contaminants but with different methods.
Some submitters, by DOME logic, would report both replicates with the same SMPNO, SUBNO, MATRX, but different AMLNK and most likely Value.
In this case, DATSU would flag such records as replicates, and the HARSAT tool would pick only one in random for the assessment.
Some other submitters would report each of the subsamples sent to different labs with a different SUBNO, which would then be treated by HARSAT differently.
As a background information, present definition of SUBNO in DOME is: 'Sub-sample identification (each fish, egg, bird, aggregate, grab portion or core slice)' and in DATSU: 'A part of the sample. No two sub-samples within a given sample should have the same ‘Sub-sample number/identification’. Biota: In a haul, a sub-sample identification would be for each fish of the same species. A new species would receive a new sample number (SMPNO). If one mammal is reported, the sample number and the sub-sample number would be "1". Real identifications are allowed. For birds, each egg, bird or aggregate pool of same species is a sub-sample. ' So, note this definition does not foresee splitting single organism or an aggregation into additional subsamples.
Question:
As i see from these 2 scenarios, i can either A) stick to the original SUBNO definition and request data submitters to report the same PARAM from the same MATRX of the same organism or an aggregation as replicates with the same SUBNO. Then it would be up to HARSAT how to treat them. At least, present request from the submitters is that each replicate of the supporting parameters, like DRYWT% is to follow the ALABO.
Or i can B) expand the SUBNO definition to the sample batches sent to each ALABO, and recommend submitters to apply different SUBNO for them. HARSAT would treat them as two separate data streams, including both supporting PARAMs and evt. contaminants.
Both options don't care about the VFLAG proposed in #493
I'd appreciate if you shared your opinions