Abstract
An interlaboratory collaborative study was conducted to evaluate the performance of methods and laboratories for the measurement of fluoride in vegetation. Samples of 8 plant species containing about 5-200 ppm fluoride were distributed to 40 participants who were instructed to use their routine methods of analysis. Methods which had sufficient participants to allow the inclusion of results in statistical analyses were classified into 3 categories: (1) Willard-Winter method (similar to the AOAC official final action method); (2) semiautomated and potentiometric methods (similar to the 2 AOAC official first action methods); and (3) potentiometric analysis with prior ashing, fusion, and/or distillation (not an approved method). There was a significant interaction of methods with samples caused by 3 of the 8 samples. In the other 5 samples, the Willard-Winter and semiautomated methods gave higher mean values for fluoride content than did the 2 potentiometric methods. Despite considerable improvement in speed and simplicity of fluoride analyses during the last decade, agreement between laboratories has not improved because of the variety of methods and techniques in use, the inherent differences between methods, and, apparently, poor laboratory quality control.
