Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 8, 2026

Split Point Analysis and Uncertainty Quantification of Thermal-Optical Organic/Elemental Carbon Measurements
Published on: September 7, 2019
Uncertainty in measurement and total error: different roads to the same quality destination?
Ian Farrance1, Tony Badrick2, Robert Frenkel3
1Discipline of Laboratory Medicine, School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Bundoora, Victoria 3083, Australia.
Abstract:
The debate comparing the benefits of measurement uncertainty (uncertainty in measurement, MU) with total error (TE) for the assessment of laboratory performance continues. The summary recently provided in this journal by members of the Task and Finish Group on Total Error (TFG-TE) of the EFLM put the arguments into clear perspective. Even though there is generally strong support for TE in many laboratories, some of the arguments proposed for its on-going support require further comment. In a recent opinion which focused directly on the TFG-TE summary, several potentially confusing statements regarding ISO15189 and the Evaluation of measurement data - Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM) were again promulgated to promote TE methods for assessing uncertainty in laboratory measurement. In this opinion, we present an alternative view of the key issues and outline our views with regard to the relationship between ISO15189, uncertainty in measurement and the GUM.
Related Concept Videos
Propagation of Uncertainty from Random Error
Uncertainty in Measurement: Accuracy and Precision
Propagation of Uncertainty from Systematic Error
Uncertainty in Measurement: Reading Instruments
Uncertainty in Measurement: Significant Figures
The Uncertainty Principle

