Quantifying Uncertainty in ISO 8192:2007 Toxicity Tests: A Guide to GUM, Monte Carlo, and Robust Bioassays

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive guide to the quantification of measurement uncertainty in the ISO 8192:2007 activated sludge respiration inhibition test, a critical bioassay for evaluating substance toxicity in biomedical and environmental contexts. Tailored for researchers and drug development professionals, the content explores the foundational importance of uncertainty analysis for regulatory compliance and reliable decision-making. It delivers a detailed methodological comparison of the GUM framework and Monte Carlo Simulation, identifies key sources of error, and offers optimization strategies to enhance data robustness. The article further validates these methods through comparative analysis, concluding with actionable insights for improving the accuracy and predictability of ecotoxicological assessments in biomedical research.

Why Measurement Uncertainty is Critical for Reliable ISO 8192:2007 Toxicity Data

ISO 8192:2007 is an internationally recognized standard that specifies "a method for assessing the inhibitory effect of a test material on the oxygen consumption of activated sludge microorganisms" [1]. This protocol serves a critical function in environmental protection by providing a standardized approach to evaluate how chemical substances and wastewaters might affect the biological processes essential for wastewater treatment [2] [3]. The method is designed to represent conditions found in biological wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) and offers insights into inhibitory or stimulatory effects after short-term exposure (typically 30 minutes to 180 minutes) of test materials on activated sludge microorganisms [1].

The standard's primary importance lies in its application for protecting microbial processes in bioreactors and WWTPs from toxic damage [4] [5]. By enabling the detection of inhibitory substances before they enter treatment systems, ISO 8192:2007 provides a crucial early warning mechanism that helps prevent operational failures and environmental harm [4]. The method is applicable for testing waters, waste waters, pure chemicals, and mixtures of chemicals, with special considerations for materials of low water solubility, high volatility, or those that abiotically consume or produce oxygen [1]. Its widespread adoption across research and industrial sectors ensures consistent, comparable data for environmental risk assessment, particularly under regulatory frameworks like REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) [3] [5].

Principles and Methodologies of ISO 8192:2007

Theoretical Foundation

The ISO 8192:2007 method operates on the fundamental principle that the respiration rate (oxygen consumption) of activated sludge microorganisms directly reflects their metabolic activity and physiological state [4]. Toxic substances inhibit key enzymatic processes and electron transport systems, thereby reducing oxygen consumption, which serves as a sensitive, quantitative indicator of toxicity [5]. The test measures this inhibition across different microbial communities within activated sludge: total oxygen consumption (reflecting overall microbial activity), heterotrophic oxygen consumption (primarily carbon-degrading organisms), and nitrification inhibition (ammonia-oxidizing bacteria) [2] [4]. This comprehensive approach provides insights into how toxic compounds might affect different treatment processes within WWTPs.

Standardized Experimental Protocol

The ISO 8192:2007 methodology follows a carefully controlled experimental procedure to ensure reproducibility and reliability [2] [4]:

• Activated Sludge Preparation: Activated sludge is collected from aeration tanks of wastewater treatment plants. The sludge is washed by centrifugation or settling and resuspension in chlorine-free tap water to remove residual substrates and contaminants. The washed sludge is aerated at room temperature and fed with synthetic sewage feed daily to maintain activity [4].

• Test Medium and Substance Preparation: A synthetic test medium is prepared containing peptone, meat extract, urea, sodium chloride, calcium chloride dihydrate, magnesium sulphate heptahydrate, and potassium dihydrogen phosphate to provide essential nutrients [2]. Reference substances like 3,5-dichlorophenol are dissolved at specified concentrations (e.g., 1 g/L) as positive controls [2].

• Test Mixture Setup: A test mixture with at least three different concentrations of the test material plus a blank control is prepared. Additional dilution levels may be included for more definitive inhibition curves. The mixture is aerated (300-600 L/h) for 30 minutes before testing [2].

• Oxygen Consumption Measurement: The aerated test mixture is transferred to a test vessel on a magnetic stirrer. Oxygen consumption is measured using an oxygen probe while maintaining temperature at 22 ± 2°C and pH at 7.5 ± 0.5 [2]. Measurements focus on the linear decrease in oxygen concentration between approximately 2 and 7 mg/L [2].

• Data Analysis: The oxygen consumption rate (R(i)) is calculated using the formula: R(i) = (ρ(1) - ρ(2))/Δt × 60 (mg/L·h), where ρ(1) and ρ(2) represent oxygen concentrations at the beginning and end of the measurement period, and Δt is the time interval in minutes [2]. Percentage inhibition is calculated by comparing rates in test samples to controls, and EC(_{50}) values (concentration causing 50% inhibition) are determined from inhibition curves [4].

Table 1: Key Methodological Parameters and Validity Ranges in ISO 8192:2007

Parameter	Specification	Validity Range
Test Duration	30 min to 180 min (short-term exposure)	N/A
Temperature	22 ± 2°C	N/A
pH	7.5 ± 0.5	N/A
Total Oxygen Consumption	Linear regression of oxygen depletion	2–25 mg/L
Heterotrophic Oxygen Consumption	Measured with ATU to inhibit nitrification	5–40 mg/L
Nitrification Inhibition	Specific to ammonia-oxidizing bacteria	0.1–10 mg/L
Application Scope	Waters, waste waters, pure chemicals, chemical mixtures	Soluble under test conditions

Research Reagent Solutions and Essential Materials

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for ISO 8192:2007 Implementation

Reagent/Material	Specification/Example	Function in Protocol
Activated Sludge	From nitrifying WWTP (e.g., Graz, Austria)	Representative microbial inoculum
Reference Substance	3,5-Dichlorophenol (SIGMA-ALDRICH)	Positive control and method validation
Nutrient Components	Peptone, meat extract, urea (e.g., Karl Roth GmbH)	Provides essential nutrients for microbial metabolism
Inorganic Salts	NaCl, CaCl(2)·2H(2)O, MgSO(4)·7H(2)O, KH(2)PO(4) (e.g., MERCK)	Maintains ionic strength and nutrient balance
Nitrification Inhibitor	N-allylthiourea (ATU) (e.g., MERCK-Schuchardt)	Selectively inhibits nitrification for heterotrophic measurements
Oxygen Measurement System	Oxygen probe (e.g., FDO 925 WTW) with stirrer	Monitors dissolved oxygen concentration over time
Aeration System	Aquarium pumps with airflow 300-600 L/h	Maintains aerobic conditions during preparation

Critical Analysis of Measurement Uncertainty in ISO 8192:2007

Recent research has systematically investigated the measurement uncertainty associated with ISO 8192:2007, recognizing that reliable toxicity assessments are essential for protecting biological processes in WWTPs [2]. A comprehensive study evaluating up to 29 different uncertainty contributions revealed that three factors dominate the total measurement uncertainty, accounting for over 90% collectively [2]:

• Temperature tolerance: Fluctuations outside the specified 22 ± 2°C range significantly affect microbial metabolic rates and oxygen consumption measurements.

• Measurement interval timing: Inaccurate recording of time intervals (Δt) during oxygen consumption rate calculations introduces substantial variability.

• Oxygen probe accuracy: Calibration errors and measurement precision of the oxygen electrode system directly impact the primary measurement parameter.

Other significant uncertainty contributors include variability in activated sludge source and preparation, mixing efficiency during testing, pH stability maintenance, and biological variability in the microbial communities [2] [4]. The natural variability in biological processes and differences in wastewater compositions further compound these measurement uncertainties [2].

Uncertainty Analysis Methods: GUM vs. Monte Carlo Simulation

Two primary methodologies have been applied to quantify measurement uncertainty in ISO 8192:2007 testing: the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) framework and Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) [2].

The GUM method provides an internationally recognized approach based on the law of uncertainty propagation and characterizes the output quantity by a normal distribution or t-distribution [2]. This method is particularly effective for linear models with multiple input quantities and a single output quantity. Comparative studies have validated that GUM produces reliable uncertainty estimates for oxygen consumption rates, with correlation considerations having minimal impact on outcomes [2].

Monte Carlo Simulation serves as a complementary approach, especially valuable for non-linear systems or when output variables deviate from normal distributions due to marked asymmetries [2]. Research has demonstrated that percentage inhibitions calculated from ISO 8192:2007 data often show asymmetric distributions, particularly at lower toxicant concentrations where the GUM method tends to underestimate uncertainty [2]. This highlights the necessity of simulation-based approaches for asymmetric systems in providing more accurate uncertainty quantification.

Table 3: Comparison of Uncertainty Analysis Methods for ISO 8192:2007

Analysis Aspect	GUM Method	Monte Carlo Simulation
Theoretical Basis	Law of uncertainty propagation	Repeated random sampling
Application Scope	Linear models with normal distribution outputs	Non-linear systems, asymmetric distributions
Performance with Oxygen Consumption Rates	Reliable results, validated by MCS	Used for validation
Performance with Percentage Inhibition	Underestimates uncertainty at low concentrations	Handles asymmetric distributions effectively
Implementation Complexity	Lower computational requirements	Higher computational requirements
Recommendation	Suitable for routine analysis	Essential for low concentration and regulatory decisions

Method Optimization for Reduced Uncertainty

Recent research has identified specific optimization strategies to enhance the accuracy and reproducibility of ISO 8192:2007 [4]. These include:

• Temperature stability: Implementing precise temperature control systems to maintain 22 ± 2°C throughout testing.

• Consistent mixing speed: Standardizing mixing rates using calibrated magnetic stirrers to ensure homogeneous conditions.

• Immediate aeration after sludge preparation: Minimizing delays between sludge preparation and aeration to maintain microbial viability.

• Regular oxygen probe calibration: Establishing frequent calibration schedules using standardized protocols.

• Precise measurement time intervals: Using automated timing systems to accurately record measurement periods.

• Sludge preparation method: Studies have demonstrated that sludge prepared via settling yields EC(_{50}) values comparable to centrifuged sludge, providing a less equipment-intensive option without compromising data quality [4].

These optimizations have significantly improved the consistency and comparability of wastewater toxicity assessments between laboratories, enhancing the method's practical utility for WWTP protection [4].

Comparative Performance Analysis with Alternative Toxicity Tests

Advantages of ISO 8192:2007 Over Other Standardized Methods

When compared with other ecotoxicity tests, ISO 8192:2007 offers distinct advantages for protecting WWTP operations [4]:

• Shorter incubation time: The method requires only 30-180 minutes compared to longer incubation periods in other tests (e.g., ≥4 hours for ISO 9509 nitrification inhibition test), enabling rapid response to toxic events [4].

• Direct relevance to WWTP operations: Unlike tests focusing on aquatic organisms (e.g., ISO 8692 algae toxicity, ISO 6341 Daphnia toxicity, ISO 15088 fish egg toxicity), ISO 8192:2007 uses actual activated sludge, providing more realistic assessments of toxic effects on treatment processes [4].

• Comprehensive inhibition assessment: The method simultaneously evaluates total oxygen consumption inhibition, heterotrophic inhibition, and nitrification inhibition, offering a more complete picture of potential impacts on different treatment stages [2] [4].

• Proven accuracy: Studies investigating substances like 2,4-dichlorophenol, formaldehyde, pyridine, and 3,5-dichlorophenol found that ISO 8192:2007 showed the highest correlation between concentration and inhibition ratio with the best accuracy among compared methods [4].

Performance Validation and Experimental Data

Empirical studies have validated the performance of ISO 8192:2007 under optimized conditions. Research utilizing activated sludge from the Graz and Trofaiach wastewater treatment plants demonstrated the method's reliability with the following EC(_{50}) values for 3,5-dichlorophenol [4]:

Table 4: Experimental ECâ‚…â‚€ Values from ISO 8192:2007 Optimization Studies

Inhibition Type	Sludge Preparation	ECâ‚…â‚€ Value (mg/L)	Reference
Total Oxygen Consumption	Centrifuged	9.22 ± 0.21	Neunteufel et al.
Total Oxygen Consumption	Settled	9.42 ± 0.16	Neunteufel et al.
Nitrification Inhibition	Centrifuged	1.92 ± 1.24	Neunteufel et al.
Nitrification Inhibition	Settled	2.17 ± 1.5	Neunteufel et al.
Total Oxygen Consumption	Graz WWTP	12.38 ± 2.05	Neunteufel et al.
Total Oxygen Consumption	Trofaiach WWTP	12.25 ± 0.62	Neunteufel et al.
Heterotrophic Inhibition	Graz WWTP	23.31 ± 4.62	Neunteufel et al.
Heterotrophic Inhibition	Trofaiach WWTP	19.32 ± 0.29	Neunteufel et al.
Nitrification Inhibition	Graz WWTP	1.54 ± 0.94	Neunteufel et al.
Nitrification Inhibition	Trofaiach WWTP	3.48 ± 2.65	Neunteufel et al.

These values all fall within the accepted validity ranges of the method, demonstrating its robustness across different sludge sources and preparation techniques [4]. The data particularly highlight the method's sensitivity to nitrification inhibition, which is crucial for protecting this sensitive process in WWTPs [4].

Limitations and Complementary Methods

While ISO 8192:2007 offers significant advantages for WWTP protection, it has limitations for broader ecotoxicological assessment [4]. The method is specifically designed to assess toxicity to activated sludge microorganisms, making it less suitable for evaluating impacts on aquatic ecosystems where tests with algae, Daphnia, or fish eggs might be more appropriate [4]. Additionally, the method may have limited applicability for volatile compounds, poorly soluble substances, or materials that abiotically consume oxygen without special modifications [1].

For comprehensive environmental risk assessment, ISO 8192:2007 is most effective when used as part of a testing battery that includes other ecotoxicity methods [5]. Microbial toxicity tests together with classical ecotoxicity tests can form a very effective toolbox for characterizing toxic effects of chemicals across different environmental compartments [3] [5].

ISO 8192:2007 represents a sophisticated, optimized tool for protecting microbial processes in bioreactors and WWTPs through reliable toxicity assessment. The method's strength lies in its direct application to activated sludge, short testing timeframe, and comprehensive assessment of different microbial functions. Recent research has significantly advanced understanding of measurement uncertainty in the method, identifying temperature control, measurement timing, and oxygen probe accuracy as dominant uncertainty contributors. The comparative analysis of GUM and Monte Carlo Simulation methods has provided validated approaches for uncertainty quantification, essential for distinguishing real toxic effects from measurement variability, particularly at low toxicant concentrations where misclassification risks are highest.

The optimization of sensitive boundary conditions - including temperature stability, consistent mixing speed, immediate aeration, and regular probe calibration - has enhanced the method's reproducibility and practical utility for WWTP operations. When implemented with these refinements and appropriate uncertainty analysis, ISO 8192:2007 provides wastewater treatment professionals with a robust decision-support tool for preventing operational failures, ensuring regulatory compliance, and protecting receiving waters from toxic discharges. As chemical production continues to increase globally, the role of this standardized method in safeguarding critical wastewater treatment infrastructure becomes increasingly vital for environmental protection and public health.

In both environmental protection and drug design, the precise classification of chemical and biological data forms the foundation of safety decisions. Misclassification risk—the incorrect categorization of substances, exposures, or outcomes—can profoundly impact the validity of safety assessments and lead to significant public health consequences. Within the framework of ISO 8192:2007 methodology, which standardizes toxicity assessment for wastewater treatment plants, quantifying measurement uncertainty becomes paramount for distinguishing true toxic effects from experimental variability [6] [2] [7]. Without proper uncertainty quantification, hazardous substances may be misclassified as harmless due to unrecognized measurement error rather than true safety, potentially compromising biological wastewater treatment processes and environmental protection [6].

The Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) and Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) represent two methodological approaches for quantifying this uncertainty, each with distinct advantages and limitations [6] [2] [7]. Understanding their comparative performance in identifying and correcting misclassification risks provides researchers with essential tools for enhancing the reliability of safety decisions in both environmental and pharmaceutical domains.

Theoretical Foundations: Uncertainty Quantification Methods

The GUM Framework

The GUM method provides an internationally recognized approach for estimating measurement uncertainties through the law of uncertainty propagation [6] [7]. This method characterizes output quantities using normal or t-distributions and is particularly suitable for linear models with multiple input quantities and a single output quantity [7]. The GUM approach follows a standardized methodology for identifying, quantifying, and combining uncertainty contributions from various sources throughout the measurement process [6].

Monte Carlo Simulation

Monte Carlo Simulation offers a computational alternative that repeatedly samples from probability distributions of input quantities to build an empirical distribution of the output quantity [6] [2]. This method is particularly valuable for systems exhibiting marked asymmetries or non-linearities that violate GUM's distributional assumptions [6] [7]. The ISO-recommended validation approach using MCS is especially crucial when assessing percentage inhibition measurements at low toxicant concentrations where asymmetric distributions are common [6].

Experimental Comparison: GUM versus Monte Carlo Simulation in ISO 8192:2007 Toxicity Testing

Experimental Protocol for Activated Sludge Respiration Inhibition Test

The experimental setup followed ISO 8192:2007 specifications with modifications described by Neunteufel et al. [2] [7]. Nitrified activated sludge from a municipal wastewater treatment plant was utilized with 3,5-dichlorophenol as the reference substance. The test medium preparation included 16g peptone, 11g meat extract, 3g urea, 0.7g sodium chloride, 0.4g calcium chloride dihydrate, 0.2g magnesium sulphate heptahydrate, and 2.8g anhydrous potassium dihydrogen phosphate dissolved in 1L distilled/deionized water [2] [7].

Additional solutions prepared included N-allylthiourea at 2.5g/L and 3,5-dichlorophenol at 1g/L. Test mixtures with multiple dilution levels were aerated for 30 minutes before transfer to test vessels on magnetic stirrers. Oxygen consumption was measured using oxygen probes with environmental conditions maintained at 22±2°C and pH 7.5±0.5 [2]. Evaluation involved linear regression of oxygen consumption curves after outlier removal using Cook's Distance, followed by inhibition curve generation to determine EC50 values [7].

Uncertainty Analysis Methodology

The comparative analysis evaluated up to 29 separate uncertainty contributions for both oxygen consumption rate and percentage inhibition calculations [6]. The GUM methodology was applied with and without considering correlations between input quantities, with results validated through Monte Carlo Simulation [6] [7]. For the oxygen consumption rate (Rᵢ), calculations followed the ISO 8192:2007 formula: Rᵢ = (ρ₁ - ρ₂)/Δt × 60 mg/L·h, where ρ₁ and ρ₂ represent oxygen concentrations at the beginning and end of the measurement range, and Δt is the time interval in minutes [2] [7].

Quantitative Comparison of Uncertainty Analysis Results

Table 1: Comparative Performance of GUM and Monte Carlo Simulation for Uncertainty Quantification

Performance Metric	GUM Method	Monte Carlo Simulation	Experimental Conditions
Oxygen Consumption Rate Uncertainty	Reliable results validated by MCS [6]	Confirmed GUM reliability for this parameter [6]	Linear models with symmetric distributions
Percentage Inhibition Uncertainty	Underestimated uncertainty, especially at low toxicant concentrations [6]	Effectively captured asymmetric distributions [6]	Low toxicant concentrations with asymmetric outputs
Major Uncertainty Contributors	Temperature, measurement interval, oxygen probe accuracy (＞90% of total uncertainty) [6]	Same dominant contributors identified [6]	All experimental conditions
Impact of Correlations	Minimal effect on outcomes [6]	Not explicitly required for validation [6]	Complex measurement systems
Computational Demand	Lower resource requirements [7]	Higher resource intensity [7]	Standard laboratory conditions

Table 2: Dominant Uncertainty Contributors in ISO 8192:2007 Toxicity Testing

Uncertainty Source	Contribution Magnitude	Impact on Measurement	Recommended Mitigation
Temperature Tolerance	Major contributor (＞30% of total uncertainty) [6]	Affects biological activity and oxygen consumption rates [6]	Precise temperature control and monitoring
Measurement Time Interval	Major contributor (＞30% of total uncertainty) [6]	Directly impacts oxygen consumption rate calculation [6]	Precise recording and standardized timing
Oxygen Probe Accuracy	Major contributor (＞30% of total uncertainty) [6]	Affects primary measurement parameter [6]	Regular calibration and validation
Other 26 Uncertainty Sources	Combined ＜10% of total uncertainty [6]	Minor individual impact on results [6]	Standard quality control procedures

The Researcher's Toolkit: Essential Materials for ISO 8192:2007 Compliance

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Activated Sludge Toxicity Testing

Reagent/Material	Specification	Function in Experimental Protocol
Peptone	16g/L in distilled/deionized water [2] [7]	Organic nutrient source for microbial community
Meat Extract	11g/L in distilled/deionized water [2] [7]	Additional organic nutrient source
Urea	3g/L in distilled/deionized water [2] [7]	Nitrogen source for microbial metabolism
Reference Toxicant (3,5-dichlorophenol)	1g/L in distilled/deionized water [2] [7]	Standardized toxicant for method validation
N-allylthiourea (ATU)	2.5g/L in distilled/deionized water [2] [7]	Nitrification inhibitor for specific test conditions
Activated Sludge	Nitrified sludge from wastewater treatment plant [2] [7]	Biological test system for toxicity assessment
Oxygen Probe	FDO 925 with Multi 3430 meter [2] [7]	Primary measurement device for oxygen consumption
Magnetic Stirrer	Rotilabo MH 15 [2] [7]	Maintains homogeneous test conditions
CWP232228	CWP232228, MF:C33H34N7Na2O7P, MW:717.6 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Deleobuvir	Deleobuvir – HCV NS5B Polymerase Inhibitor (RUO)	Deleobuvir is a non-nucleoside NS5B polymerase inhibitor for hepatitis C research. This product is For Research Use Only. Not for human or diagnostic use.

Implications for Safety Decisions and Risk Assessment

Impact of Misclassification on Environmental Safety

Misclassification of toxic substances due to unquantified measurement uncertainty poses direct risks to wastewater treatment operations and environmental protection [6]. When measurement variability is not properly distinguished from true toxic effects, hazardous substances may be incorrectly classified as safe, potentially leading to biological process upsets in treatment plants and discharge of toxic materials into receiving waters [6] [7]. The ISO 8192:2007 method's broad validity ranges (total oxygen consumption: 2-25 mg/L, heterotrophic oxygen consumption: 5-40 mg/L, nitrification inhibition: 0.1-10 mg/L) reflect inherent biological variability that necessitates rigorous uncertainty analysis to prevent misclassification [7].

Methodological Recommendations for Different Scenarios

The comparative analysis of GUM and Monte Carlo Simulation methods demonstrates that appropriate uncertainty quantification is indispensable for preventing misclassification in toxicity assessment and drug design. While GUM provides reliable results for linear systems with symmetric uncertainties, Monte Carlo Simulation proves essential for systems exhibiting asymmetry, particularly when assessing percentage inhibition at low toxicant concentrations [6]. Researchers must prioritize control of dominant uncertainty contributors—temperature tolerance, measurement interval, and oxygen probe accuracy—which collectively account for over 90% of total measurement uncertainty [6].

The integration of systematic uncertainty analysis following ISO guidelines provides a robust framework for minimizing misclassification risks in safety decisions. By implementing the methodological recommendations and experimental protocols outlined in this comparison, researchers and safety assessors can significantly enhance the reliability of toxicological classifications and protect against the substantial environmental and public health consequences of misclassification. Future methodological developments should focus on increasing the accessibility of Monte Carlo approaches for routine laboratory applications while maintaining the rigorous statistical foundation necessary for valid uncertainty quantification.

Measurement Uncertainty (MU) is a critical parameter that quantifies the doubt associated with any measurement result. It represents the range of possible values within which the true value of a measured quantity is expected to lie [8]. In scientific research and testing, no measurement is perfect, and understanding its uncertainty is essential for evaluating result reliability and making informed decisions.

The Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) provides an internationally recognized framework for uncertainty estimation, using the law of uncertainty propagation and characterizing the output quantity by a normal or t-distribution [2]. For accredited testing and calibration laboratories, the evaluation and reporting of measurement uncertainty is not merely a best practice but a mandatory requirement of the ISO/IEC 17025 international standard [2] [8]. This ensures that ecotoxicological test results are reliable and comparable between different laboratories, which is crucial for environmental protection and regulatory compliance [2].

All measurements are subject to various types of errors and uncertainties that arise from multiple sources. Standard practice differentiates between three primary error categories [2]:

• Constant Errors: These include issues like faulty calibration of a measuring instrument.
• Systematic Errors: Examples include zero errors on measurement instruments.
• Random Errors: These encompass fluctuations in environmental conditions during measurement.

In practical applications, these errors manifest as specific uncertainty contributions. Research on the ISO 8192:2007 toxicity assessment method identified 29 separate uncertainty contributions, with temperature tolerance, measurement interval, and oxygen probe accuracy emerging as dominant factors, collectively accounting for over 90% of the total uncertainty [2]. Other significant contributors include sample preparation, environmental influences, operator variability, and method performance, all of which must be considered in a comprehensive uncertainty budget [9].

Table 1: Major Uncertainty Contributors in ISO 8192:2007 Toxicity Testing

Uncertainty Factor	Impact Level	Primary Control Method
Temperature Tolerance	High	Precise temperature control systems
Measurement Time Interval	High	Precise recording and standardized protocols
Oxygen Probe Accuracy	High	Regular calibration and maintenance
Sample Preparation	Medium	Standardized cleaning and preparation procedures
Operator Variability	Medium	Training and standardized operating procedures
Biological Variability	Medium	Use of standardized reference materials

Regulatory Framework: ISO/IEC 17025 Requirements

ISO/IEC 17025 is the international standard for testing and calibration laboratories, ensuring they produce technically competent and valid results [8] [10]. A critical requirement of this standard is the systematic assessment and reporting of measurement uncertainty [8].

The standard mandates that laboratories must [11]:

• Report uncertainty in test reports when it is relevant to the validity of results, when a customer requests it, or when it affects conformity to a specification limit
• Always report uncertainty in calibration reports (with no option for omission)
• Include information needed to evaluate measurement uncertainty when reporting sampling activities

These requirements ensure that laboratory results maintain credibility and can be reliably compared across different facilities and over time. The importance of robust uncertainty analysis is particularly evident in environmental toxicology, where underestimating measurement uncertainty could lead to hazardous substances being misclassified as harmless, with potentially severe consequences for wastewater treatment plant operations and aquatic environments [2].

Quantitative Uncertainty Analysis Methods

GUM Methodology

The GUM method provides a structured approach to uncertainty estimation based on the law of propagation of uncertainties. This methodology involves identifying all significant uncertainty sources, quantifying their contributions, and combining them to produce a standardized uncertainty value. The GUM approach is particularly suitable for linear models with multiple input quantities and a single output quantity [2].

In application to ISO 8192:2007 toxicity testing, the GUM method follows this calculation process for oxygen consumption rate [2]:

Where:

• ρ1 = oxygen concentration at the beginning of the relevant range (mg/L)
• ρ2 = oxygen concentration at the end of the relevant range (mg/L)
• Δt = time interval (min)

Monte Carlo Simulation

Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) provides a computational alternative to the GUM method, particularly valuable for non-linear models or when output variables deviate from normal distributions due to marked asymmetries [2]. This method uses random sampling of probability distributions to simulate measurement processes thousands of times, generating a comprehensive distribution of possible results.

Comparative studies between GUM and Monte Carlo approaches in toxicity testing have revealed that percentage inhibitions often show asymmetric distributions that are underestimated by the GUM method, especially at lower toxicant concentrations [2]. This highlights the necessity of simulation-based approaches for systems exhibiting significant asymmetries.

Table 2: Comparison of Uncertainty Analysis Methods

Analysis Aspect	GUM Method	Monte Carlo Simulation
Model Requirements	Suitable for linear models	Handles non-linear and complex models
Computational Demand	Lower	Higher (requires multiple iterations)
Distribution Assumptions	Assumes normal or t-distribution	No specific distribution assumptions
Accuracy for Asymmetric Systems	May underestimate uncertainty	More accurate for asymmetric distributions
Validation Approach	Requires MCS for complex cases	Can validate GUM results
Application in ISO 8192:2007	Valid for oxygen consumption rates	Essential for percentage inhibition

Experimental Protocols for Uncertainty Quantification

ISO 8192:2007 Toxicity Test Setup

The experimental setup and measurement procedure for activated sludge respiration inhibition tests follow strict protocols to ensure reproducibility [2]. The key components include:

• Activated Sludge Preparation: Nitrified activated sludge is collected from wastewater treatment plants, allowed to settle at room temperature for approximately one hour, decanted, and the supernatant replaced with chlorine-free tap water. This cleaning process is repeated four times [2].

• Test Medium Preparation: The standard test medium contains precise concentrations of peptone (16 g/L), meat extract (11 g/L), urea (3 g/L), sodium chloride (0.7 g/L), calcium chloride dihydrate (0.4 g/L), magnesium sulphate heptahydrate (0.2 g/L), and anhydrous potassium dihydrogen phosphate (2.8 g/L) dissolved in distilled/deionized water [2].

• Reference Substance: 3,5-dichlorophenol serves as the reference substance, prepared at a concentration of 1 g per 1000 mL of distilled/deionized water, as recommended in ISO 8192:2007 [2].

• Test Execution: After aerating the test mixture for 30 minutes, it is transferred into a test vessel placed on a magnetic stirrer. Oxygen consumption is measured using an oxygen probe with the environment maintained at 22 ± 2 °C and pH of 7.5 ± 0.5 [2].

Uncertainty Evaluation Methodology

The quantification of measurement uncertainty follows a systematic process [2]:

• Identification of Uncertainty Sources: All potential contributors to uncertainty are identified, including instrument precision, environmental conditions, operator techniques, and biological variability.

• Quantification of Individual Uncertainties: Each uncertainty component is quantified through experimental data, calibration certificates, or scientific literature.

• Combination of Uncertainty Components: Individual uncertainties are combined using appropriate statistical methods, considering correlations between input quantities.

• Calculation of Expanded Uncertainty: The combined uncertainty is multiplied by a coverage factor (typically k=2 for 95% confidence level) to obtain the expanded uncertainty.

• Validation: GUM results are validated through Monte Carlo Simulation, particularly for asymmetric distributions.

Reporting Measurement Uncertainty

Proper reporting of measurement uncertainty is essential for ISO/IEC 17025 compliance and result interpretation. According to GUM guidelines (JCGM 100:2008), reports should include [11]:

• A full description of the measurand Y
• The measurement result, measurement uncertainty, and units of measure
• The relative expanded uncertainty when appropriate
• The value of the coverage factor (k)
• The confidence level associated with the reported uncertainty

Uncertainty should be rounded to two significant figures using conventional rounding rules, and the measurement result should be rounded to match the uncertainty precision [11]. A clear statement should explain how customers should interpret the reported measurement uncertainty, including information about coverage factors and probability.

Uncertainty Reporting Workflow

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for ISO 8192:2007 Toxicity Testing

Reagent/Material	Specification/Supplier	Function in Experiment
Activated Sludge	Nitrified sludge from WWTPs	Biological test medium representing complex microbial community
3,5-Dichlorophenol	SIGMA-ALDRICH Co., St. Louis, MO, USA	Reference substance for toxicity validation and method calibration
Peptone	Karl Roth GmbH + Co. KG, Karlsruhe, Germany	Organic nitrogen source in test medium for microbial growth
Meat Extract	Karl Roth GmbH + Co. KG, Karlsruhe, Germany	Nutrient source providing vitamins and minerals for microorganisms
Urea	MERCK, Darmstadt, Germany	Nitrogen source for microbial metabolism in test system
N-allylthiourea (ATU)	MERCK-Schuchardt, Hohenbrunn, Germany	Inhibitor used in specific test modifications to isolate processes
Oxygen Probe	FDO 925 WTW, Weilheim, Germany; Multi 3430 WTW	Critical measurement device for determining oxygen consumption rates

Robust measurement uncertainty analysis, incorporating both GUM and Monte Carlo Simulation approaches, provides essential quality assurance in environmental toxicity testing. Understanding error types, dominant uncertainty contributors, and regulatory requirements enables laboratories to produce reliable, comparable data critical for environmental protection decisions. The framework established by ISO/IEC 17025 ensures that uncertainty estimation remains an integral part of laboratory operations, ultimately supporting accurate risk assessments and regulatory compliance in wastewater treatment and environmental monitoring.

The Critical Link Between Uncertainty Analysis and Robust Ecotoxicological Risk Assessment

Ecotoxicological Risk Assessment (ERA) is a systematic process for evaluating the potential for adverse effects on ecological systems resulting from exposure to environmental stressors, primarily chemical pollutants. Its significance lies as a vital tool for environmental management, providing a structured approach to understand and mitigate pollution risks [12]. A fundamental, yet often underappreciated, pillar of a credible ERA is the rigorous quantification of measurement uncertainty. Without a clear understanding of uncertainty, risk assessors cannot distinguish between real toxic effects and inherent measurement variability, potentially leading to misclassification of hazardous substances [2].

The international standard ISO 8192:2007, which determines the inhibition of oxygen consumption in activated sludge, is a cornerstone for assessing toxicity to microbial communities in wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). The reliability of this method, and all ecotoxicological tests, hinges on transparent uncertainty analysis [2]. This article provides a comparative analysis of uncertainty quantification methods, detailing their experimental protocols and highlighting how they form the critical link to robust and defensible ecological risk assessments.

Foundational Concepts: Uncertainty and Variability

In ERA, it is crucial to differentiate between uncertainty and variability. Uncertainty refers to a lack of knowledge about fundamental parameters or models, which can potentially be reduced through further research. Variability, in contrast, arises from inherent biological or environmental differences, such as the natural diversity in sensitivity among species or individuals, and cannot be reduced [13] [14].

The "uncertainty factor" (UF) approach has been historically integrated into health risk assessments to address these issues. These factors, sometimes called safety or assessment factors, are applied to derive a safe exposure level from experimental data, accounting for areas like interspecies extrapolation and human variability [14]. However, a modern approach moves beyond default factors towards chemical-specific adjustment factors and quantitative uncertainty analysis using probabilistic methods [15] [14].

Quantitative Comparison of Uncertainty Analysis Methods

Two prominent methodologies for quantifying measurement uncertainty are the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) and Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS). A recent study on the ISO 8192:2007 method provides a direct comparison of their application and performance [2].

Experimental Protocol for Uncertainty Quantification

The experimental setup for quantifying uncertainty in the ISO 8192:2007 method involves a meticulously controlled respiration inhibition test [2].

• Test Organism and Substance: The tests utilize nitrified activated sludge from a WWTP. The reference toxicant is 3,5-dichlorophenol, as recommended by the standard to ensure international comparability [2].
• Sample Preparation: Activated sludge is settled, decanted, and washed with chlorine-free tap water multiple times to clean it. A specific test medium is prepared, containing peptone, meat extract, urea, and mineral salts to provide nutrients. Solutions of the reference toxicant and N-allylthiourea (to inhibit nitrification if needed) are also prepared [2].
• Test Execution: A test mixture with at least three concentrations of the toxicant and a blank control is prepared. The mixture is aerated and then transferred to a test vessel on a magnetic stirrer. Oxygen consumption is measured continuously using a calibrated oxygen probe, with the environment maintained at 22 ± 2 °C and a pH of 7.5 ± 0.5 [2].
• Data Analysis: The oxygen consumption rate (Ráµ¢) is calculated via linear regression of the oxygen depletion curve. The rate of inhibition is then determined, and an inhibition curve is generated to find the EC50 value (the concentration causing 50% inhibition) [2].
• Uncertainty Analysis: Up to 29 different uncertainty contributions are evaluated, related to factors like temperature tolerance, measurement interval, and oxygen probe accuracy. The GUM method, based on the law of uncertainty propagation, and MCS, a computational algorithm that uses random sampling, are then applied to quantify the combined measurement uncertainty [2].

Comparative Performance Data

The following table summarizes the key findings from the comparative analysis of the GUM and MCS methods applied to the ISO 8192:2007 test.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of GUM and Monte Carlo Simulation for Uncertainty Analysis in ISO 8192:2007

Aspect	GUM Method	Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS)
Core Principle	Analytical approach based on the law of uncertainty propagation [2].	Computational method using repeated random sampling from input probability distributions [2].
Model Assumptions	Best for linear or weakly nonlinear models; assumes output is normally or t-distributed [2].	No strong linearity assumptions; handles complex, non-linear models effectively [2].
Handling of Asymmetric Distributions	Tends to underestimate uncertainty for asymmetric output distributions [2].	Accurately characterizes asymmetric distributions without bias [2].
Impact of Correlations	Minimal impact observed on the final results in ISO 8192 analysis [2].	Can explicitly incorporate correlations between input variables.
Validation Outcome	Results for oxygen consumption rates were validated by MCS [2].	Served as the reference method for validating the GUM approach in the study [2].
Best Application Context	Suitable for initial, less complex assessments where outputs are expected to be symmetric.	Essential for systems with marked asymmetries or when high precision in uncertainty characterization is required [2].

The study identified that the dominant contributors to the total measurement uncertainty were temperature tolerance, measurement interval, and oxygen probe accuracy, which together accounted for over 90% of the total uncertainty [2]. This finding provides a clear directive for laboratories to prioritize precise temperature control, exact recording of time intervals, and regular probe calibration to minimize overall uncertainty.

Advanced Methods and Broader Implications in ERA

Toxicokinetic-Toxicodynamic (TKTD) Models

Beyond measurement uncertainty, advanced modeling approaches are being adopted to address uncertainty in effects assessment. Toxicokinetic-toxicodynamic (TKTD) models, such as the General Unified Threshold Model of Survival (GUTS), provide a mechanistic framework to analyse time- and concentration-dependent data [15]. When coupled with Bayesian inference, these models can quantify the uncertainty in toxicity endpoints (e.g., LC(x,t)) and propagate this uncertainty to yield a probability distribution of risk, offering a more realistic representation than a single-point estimate [15].

The Problem of Limited Data and Variability

Uncertainty in ERA is not confined to laboratory measurements. A critical source of uncertainty stems from limited toxicity data. One study on shampoo formulations found that using toxicity data for only three species resulted in potential ecotoxicological impact (PEI) estimates ranging over seven orders of magnitude, making absolute risk quantification unreliable [13]. In contrast, variability in shampoo composition led to PEIs ranging over three orders of magnitude. This highlights that lack of comprehensive toxicity data is often a greater source of uncertainty than product variability itself [13].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

Successful and reproducible ecotoxicological testing relies on a set of standardized reagents and materials. The following table details key components used in microbial toxicity tests such as ISO 8192:2007.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Activated Sludge Toxicity Testing

Reagent/Material	Function in the Experiment	Example Specification / Source
Activated Sludge Inoculum	The complex microbial community whose respiratory activity is monitored; typically sourced from a municipal wastewater treatment plant [2] [5].	Nitrified activated sludge from a WWTP (e.g., Graz, Austria), settled and washed [2].
Reference Toxicant	A standardized substance used to calibrate and validate the test system's response [2].	3,5-Dichlorophenol (purity >97%), prepared at 1 g/L stock solution [2].
Test Medium (Synthetic Sewage)	Provides essential nutrients and minerals to maintain sludge activity during the test [2].	Contains peptone, meat extract, urea, NaCl, CaCl₂, MgSO₄·7H₂O, KH₂PO₄ in distilled/deionized water [2].
Nitrification Inhibitor	Used to specifically suppress nitrifying bacteria, allowing for the separate assessment of heterotrophic oxygen consumption inhibition [2].	N-allylthiourea (ATU), dissolved at 2.5 g/L [2].
Oxygen Probe	Critical sensor for measuring dissolved oxygen concentration over time to calculate the oxygen consumption rate [2].	Calibrated oxygen probe (e.g., FDO 925 with Multi 3430 meter, WTW) [2].
Demecycline	Demecycline, CAS:987-02-0, MF:C21H22N2O8, MW:430.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
DG051	DG051, CAS:929916-05-2, MF:C21H24ClNO4, MW:389.9 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Workflow and Relationship Diagrams

The following diagram illustrates the integrated workflow of an ecotoxicological risk assessment, highlighting the central role of uncertainty analysis and the relationship between its key components.

Diagram 1: Integrated uncertainty analysis in ecotoxicological risk assessment.

The diagram shows that uncertainty analysis is not a final step, but a parallel process that interacts with the core assessment phases. It quantifies uncertainty in both exposure and effects data, and propagates this uncertainty to the final risk characterization, resulting in a more informed and reliable output for risk managers.

The path to robust ecotoxicological risk assessment is paved with the rigorous quantification of uncertainty. As demonstrated, methods like GUM and Monte Carlo Simulation provide powerful, complementary tools for validating core test methods like ISO 8192:2007. The findings underscore that laboratories can significantly enhance data reliability by focusing on key uncertainty contributors: temperature control, timing precision, and sensor calibration.

The field is moving towards more sophisticated, mechanistic models like GUTS integrated within Bayesian frameworks, which offer a probabilistic understanding of risk that is far more informative for decision-makers. Ultimately, confronting uncertainty head-on—whether from measurement, modeling, or limited data—transforms ERA from a potentially error-prone exercise into a defensible and credible foundation for protecting ecological systems.

A Practical Guide to Implementing GUM and Monte Carlo Simulation for ISO 8192:2007

ISO 8192:2007, titled "Water quality — Test for inhibition of oxygen consumption by activated sludge for carbonaceous and ammonium oxidation," specifies a standardized method for assessing the inhibitory effect of a test material on the oxygen consumption of activated sludge microorganisms [1]. This method is critically important in environmental analytics and wastewater treatment management, as it is designed to represent the conditions in biological wastewater treatment plants and provides information on inhibitory or stimulatory effects after a short exposure of the test material on activated sludge microorganisms [1] [3]. The test is applicable for evaluating waters, waste waters, pure chemicals, and mixtures of chemicals, providing essential data for protecting biological processes in wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) [7] [1].

The protocol determines the EC50 value for the percentage inhibition of total oxygen consumption, heterotrophic oxygen consumption inhibition, and the percentage inhibition of oxygen consumption by nitrification [7]. These measurements are crucial for distinguishing real toxic effects from measurement variability, particularly in sensitive regulatory contexts where underestimating measurement uncertainty could lead to hazardous substances being misclassified as harmless [7]. The method encompasses broad validity ranges: 2–25 mg/L for total oxygen consumption, 5–40 mg/L for heterotrophic oxygen consumption, and 0.1–10 mg/L for nitrification inhibition, reflecting the natural variability in biological processes and differences in wastewater compositions [7].

Experimental Protocol: Step-by-Step Workflow

Materials and Preparation

The experimental procedure begins with the collection and preparation of activated sludge and test solutions. According to the standard method, nitrified activated sludge is typically collected from a functioning wastewater treatment plant [7]. The sludge undergoes a cleaning process where it is allowed to settle at room temperature for approximately one hour, decanted, and the supernatant replaced with chlorine-free tap water. This cleaning process is repeated four times to ensure consistent starting material [7].

The test medium is prepared with specific constituents to provide consistent nutrient conditions [7] [2]. The precise composition includes:

• 16 g of peptone
• 11 g of meat extract
• 3 g of urea
• 0.7 g of sodium chloride
• 0.4 g of calcium chloride dihydrate
• 0.2 g of magnesium sulphate heptahydrate
• 2.8 g of anhydrous potassium dihydrogen phosphate
• 1 L of distilled/deionized water

Additionally, specific inhibitor solutions are prepared: N-allylthiourea (ATU) is dissolved at a concentration of 2.5 g per 1000 mL of distilled/deionized water, and the reference toxicant 3,5-dichlorophenol is dissolved at a concentration of 1 g per 1000 mL of distilled/deionized water [7]. The use of 3,5-dichlorophenol as a reference substance is recommended in ISO 8192:2007 and ensures international comparability with other standardized methods [7].

Test Setup and Measurement Procedure

The experimental setup and measurement procedure follow both ISO 8192:2007 guidelines and modifications described in recent research [7] [2]. A test mixture with different dilution levels is prepared, including at least three test material concentrations (e.g., 1.0 mg/L, 10 mg/L, and 100 mg/L) and a blank control. Additional dilution levels may be prepared to generate more meaningful inhibition curves [7].

Key steps in the test procedure include:

• Aeration: The test mixture is aerated (typically at 600 L/h or 300 L/h) for 30 minutes [7].
• Transfer: The aerated mixture is transferred into a test vessel placed on a magnetic stirrer to maintain homogeneity [7].
• Oxygen Measurement: Oxygen consumption is measured in the test vessel using an oxygen probe (specific models mentioned include FDO 925 and Multi 3430 from WTW, Weilheim, Germany) [7].
• Environmental Control: The test environment and test mixture must be maintained at a temperature of 22 ± 2 °C, and the pH of the test medium kept at 7.5 ± 0.5 [7].
• Exposure Duration: The exposure time typically ranges from 30 minutes to 180 minutes or more, depending on the specific objectives of the test [1].

The following workflow diagram illustrates the key experimental procedures:

Data Evaluation and Calculation

Evaluation of the experiments is performed by linear regression of the oxygen consumption curves, which typically occurs at an oxygen concentration between approximately 2 and 7 mg/L [7]. Prior to regression analysis, outlier identification and removal is conducted using statistical methods such as Cook's Distance [7].

The oxygen consumption rate is calculated using the formula:

[ Ri = \frac{\rho1 - \rho_2}{\Delta t} \times 60 \, \text{mg/(L·h)} ]

Where:

• (\rho_1) represents the oxygen concentration at the beginning of the relevant range (mg/L)
• (\rho_2) is the oxygen concentration at the end of the relevant range (mg/L)
• (\Delta t) is the time interval (min) [7] [2]

Finally, inhibition curves are generated to determine the EC50 value, which represents the concentration of test material that causes 50% inhibition of oxygen consumption [7].

Key Modifications and Methodological Variations

Recent Modifications to the Standard Protocol

Recent research has introduced modifications to the ISO 8192:2007 protocol to enhance its reliability and applicability. Neunteufel et al. described a modified version that includes more comprehensive measurement uncertainty analysis and additional dilution levels for more robust inhibition curves [7]. This modification emphasizes the importance of measuring uncertainty to improve the reliability and comparability of results, contributing to more accurate assessment of ecotoxicological risks in wastewater treatment plants [7].

Another significant modification involves the approach to uncertainty quantification. While the standard method does not explicitly address measurement uncertainty quantification, recent implementations have incorporated both the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) methodology and Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) approaches to validate results [7]. This is particularly important for addressing asymmetric distributions in percentage inhibition data, which are often underestimated by traditional GUM methods, especially at lower toxicant concentrations [7] [6].

Application in Commercial Testing Laboratories

Commercial testing laboratories have implemented practical modifications to adapt the standard for specific industrial applications. For instance, one testing laboratory specializing in paper industry additives utilizes a Strathtox Kelvin instrument respirometer with six oxygen sensors to perform multiple tests simultaneously [16]. This allows evaluation of different test conditions, including variations in concentration and contact time [16].

Commercial implementations also include assessments of residual and cumulative effects of additives on activated sludge by injecting additives multiple times, going beyond the standard single-exposure protocol [16]. These modifications provide more comprehensive data for industrial clients needing to understand the long-term impacts of their chemical products on wastewater treatment processes.

Uncertainty Quantification Methods

GUM vs. Monte Carlo Simulation Approaches

The quantification of measurement uncertainty in ISO 8192:2007 testing has become a critical aspect of method validation. Recent research has systematically compared two primary approaches for uncertainty analysis: the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) and Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) [7] [6].

The GUM method is an internationally recognized approach for estimation of measurement uncertainties, based on the law of uncertainty propagation and characterization of the output quantity by a normal distribution or t-distribution [7]. It is particularly suitable for linear models with multiple input quantities and a single output quantity [7]. In contrast, Monte Carlo Simulation is recommended as an alternative validation approach when models are not linear or when output variables deviate from normal distribution due to marked asymmetries [7].

Recent studies evaluating up to 29 different uncertainty contributions found that temperature tolerance, measurement interval, and oxygen probe accuracy are dominant contributors, accounting for over 90% of the total uncertainty in ISO 8192:2007 testing [7] [6]. The research demonstrated that while GUM results for oxygen consumption rates were validated by Monte Carlo Simulation, percentage inhibitions showed asymmetric distributions that were underestimated by the GUM method, particularly at lower toxicant concentrations [7].

Uncertainty Analysis Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the uncertainty quantification framework:

Comparative Experimental Data

Uncertainty Contributions in ISO 8192:2007 Testing

Table 1: Major Uncertainty Contributors in ISO 8192:2007 Toxicity Assessment

Uncertainty Factor	Contribution to Total Uncertainty	Impact Area	Recommended Control Measures
Temperature tolerance	High (Dominant contributor)	Oxygen consumption rate	Precise temperature control (22±2°C)
Measurement time interval	High (Dominant contributor)	Oxygen consumption calculation	Precise recording of time intervals
Oxygen probe accuracy	High (Dominant contributor)	Oxygen concentration measurement	Regular calibration and maintenance
Biological variability	Moderate	Overall test reproducibility	Use of reference toxicants (3,5-dichlorophenol)
pH variation	Moderate	Microbial activity	Maintain pH at 7.5±0.5
Low toxicant concentrations	Significant for asymmetry	Percentage inhibition	Repeat measurements at low concentrations

Performance Comparison of Uncertainty Quantification Methods

Table 2: Comparison of GUM and Monte Carlo Simulation Methods for Uncertainty Analysis

Characteristic	GUM Method	Monte Carlo Simulation	Comparative Findings
Model applicability	Linear models with multiple inputs	Linear and non-linear models	MCS more versatile for complex systems
Output distribution	Assumes normal or t-distribution	No distribution assumptions	MCS better for asymmetric distributions
Computational demand	Lower	Higher	GUM more computationally efficient
Validation approach	Self-contained	Requires comparison	MCS used to validate GUM results
Accuracy for oxygen consumption rates	High	High (validates GUM)	Both methods reliable for this parameter
Accuracy for percentage inhibition	Underestimates uncertainty (especially at low concentrations)	Higher accuracy for asymmetric data	MCS superior for inhibition calculations
Correlation handling	Minimal impact from correlations	Flexible correlation integration	Both methods show minimal correlation impact

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Materials for ISO 8192:2007 Implementation

Reagent/Material	Specification/Example	Function in Protocol	Critical Parameters
Activated sludge	Nitrified sludge from WWTP	Biological test medium	Microbial activity, consistency
Reference toxicant	3,5-Dichlorophenol	Positive control and validation	Purity, solubility (1g/1000mL)
Oxygen probe	FDO 925 WTW, Multi 3430 WTW	Oxygen concentration measurement	Accuracy, calibration frequency
Nutrient sources	Peptone, meat extract, urea	Test medium formulation	Consistent composition and quality
Metabolic inhibitor	N-allylthiourea (ATU)	Selective inhibition for test differentiation	Concentration (2.5g/1000mL), solubility
pH buffer	Potassium dihydrogen phosphate	pH maintenance (7.5±0.5)	Buffer capacity, purity
Ionic composition	CaClâ‚‚, MgSOâ‚„, NaCl	Maintain physiological conditions	Concentration, purity

The ISO 8192:2007 protocol provides a standardized framework for assessing the toxicity of substances on activated sludge microorganisms, with recent modifications enhancing its reliability through comprehensive uncertainty quantification. The comparative analysis of GUM and Monte Carlo Simulation methods demonstrates that while both approaches have distinct advantages, their combined application provides the most robust uncertainty analysis, particularly for the asymmetric distributions encountered in inhibition percentage calculations at low toxicant concentrations.

The identification of temperature tolerance, measurement interval, and oxygen probe accuracy as dominant uncertainty contributors offers clear guidance for laboratories seeking to improve their testing precision. The essential reagents and materials outlined provide a practical toolkit for implementation, emphasizing the importance of reference toxicants and consistent biological materials. As regulatory requirements for toxicity assessment continue to evolve, the integration of rigorous uncertainty quantification into standard protocols represents a critical advancement in environmental analytics, ensuring that decisions regarding chemical safety and wastewater treatment management are based on reliable, comparable data with well-characterized limitations.

Applying the GUM (Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement) Framework

The Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) is an internationally recognized document published by the Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology (JCGM) that provides standardized guidelines for evaluating and expressing uncertainties in measurement results. This framework establishes general rules for uncertainty estimation, defining terms and concepts related to uncertainty, describing methods for uncertainty calculation, and offering guidance for reporting and documentation. The GUM provides a systematic approach to assess and quantify uncertainties by source, including equipment constraints, environmental conditions, calibration procedures, and human factors. By following GUM principles, measurement professionals ensure a standardized approach to uncertainty evaluation, facilitating comparability and consistency of results across different laboratories and industries [17].

In the context of environmental analytics and toxicity testing, reliable measurements are crucial for protecting biological processes in wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). The ISO 8192:2007 method, which determines the inhibition of oxygen consumption in activated sludge, plays a vital role in assessing potentially toxic effects on microbiological processes. However, this method is subject to significant variations and measurement uncertainties that can substantially affect measurement results. The natural variability in biological processes, measurement device tolerances, and environmental factors such as temperature all contribute to these uncertainties. Quantifying this uncertainty is essential for distinguishing real toxic effects from measurement variability, particularly in sensitive areas where underestimation could lead to hazardous substances being misclassified as harmless [2] [7].

Comparative Analysis: GUM vs. Monte Carlo Simulation

Fundamental Methodological Differences

The GUM method and Monte Carlo Simulation represent two distinct approaches to uncertainty quantification, each with specific strengths and limitations. The GUM method provides an analytical framework based on the law of uncertainty propagation and first-order Taylor series approximation. It is particularly well-suited for linear models or those that can be reasonably approximated as linear, with output quantities characterized by normal or t-distributions. The method uses sensitivity coefficients to measure how sensitive an output is to changes in input quantities, combining individual uncertainty components through root-sum-of-squares calculations to obtain a combined standard uncertainty [2] [18].

In contrast, Monte Carlo Simulation employs a computational approach that uses random sampling from probability distributions of input quantities to numerically propagate uncertainties through the measurement model. This method generates a probability distribution for the output quantity by evaluating the model numerous times with different randomly selected input values. Monte Carlo Simulation is particularly valuable for complex, non-linear models where the GUM's linearity assumptions may not hold, or when output distributions exhibit marked asymmetries [2].

Application to ISO 8192:2007 Toxicity Testing

A recent comparative study applied both methods to quantify measurement uncertainty in the ISO 8192:2007 toxicity assessment method, evaluating up to 29 different uncertainty contributions in terms of oxygen consumption rate and percentage inhibition. The research aimed to determine the measurement uncertainty using the GUM approach (with and without considering correlations) and validate how well these results aligned with those obtained through Monte Carlo Simulation [2] [7].

Table 1: Key Findings from GUM and Monte Carlo Comparison in ISO 8192:2007 Analysis

Aspect	GUM Method Performance	Monte Carlo Simulation Performance
Oxygen Consumption Rate	Results validated by MCS, confirming reliability	Showed strong agreement with GUM for linear systems
Percentage Inhibition	Underestimated uncertainty, especially at lower toxicant concentrations	Effectively captured asymmetric distributions
Computational Complexity	Less computationally intensive	More resource-intensive but more comprehensive
Distribution Assumptions	Relies on normal or t-distribution assumptions	Handles any distribution shape without assumptions
Correlation Handling	Minimal impact from considering correlations between inputs	Naturally accommodates correlations through joint sampling

The results revealed that temperature tolerance, measurement interval, and oxygen probe accuracy were dominant uncertainty contributors, accounting for over 90% of the total uncertainty in ISO 8192:2007 testing. For oxygen consumption rates, which typically follow more symmetric distributions, both methods produced consistent results. However, for percentage inhibition determinations, particularly at lower toxicant concentrations where asymmetric distributions are common, the GUM method underestimated uncertainties while Monte Carlo Simulation effectively captured these asymmetries [2] [7].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

ISO 8192:2007 Test Setup and Measurement Procedure

The experimental setup and measurement procedure for the activated sludge respiration inhibition test were established according to ISO 8192:2007 standards and modifications described in recent literature. The protocol utilizes nitrified activated sludge from wastewater treatment plants, with 3,5-dichlorophenol serving as the reference substance as recommended by the standard. The activated sludge preparation involves a settling period at room temperature for approximately one hour, followed by decanting and replacement of the supernatant with chlorine-free tap water. This cleaning process is repeated four times to ensure consistent sludge quality [2] [7].

The test medium preparation requires specific reagents: 16 g of peptone, 11 g of meat extract, 3 g of urea, 0.7 g of sodium chloride, 0.4 g of calcium chloride dihydrate, 0.2 g of magnesium sulphate heptahydrate, and 2.8 g of anhydrous potassium dihydrogen phosphate per liter of distilled/deionized water. Additional solutions include N-allylthiourea (ATU) at 2.5 g/L and 3,5-dichlorophenol at 1 g/L. The test mixture includes different dilution levels with at least three test material concentrations (e.g., 1.0 mg/L, 10 mg/L, and 100 mg/L) and a blank control, with additional dilution levels prepared to create more meaningful inhibition curves [2] [7].

After aerating the test mixture for 30 minutes, it is transferred into a test vessel placed on a magnetic stirrer. Oxygen consumption is measured using an oxygen probe, with strict environmental controls maintaining temperature at 22 ± 2°C and pH at 7.5 ± 0.5. Evaluation involves linear regression of oxygen consumption curves (typically between 2 and 7 mg/L oxygen concentration), following outlier identification and removal using statistical methods like Cook's Distance. Finally, inhibition curves are generated to determine the EC50 value [2].

Uncertainty Quantification Methodologies

The GUM methodology follows a systematic process for uncertainty evaluation. First, the measurement process must be thoroughly understood, and the parameter to be measured with its units of measure must be defined. Next, all components of the calibration process and accompanying sources of error are identified. For each uncertainty source, mathematical expressions are developed, and probability distributions are determined. Standard uncertainties are then calculated for each source, followed by constructing an uncertainty budget that lists all components and their standard uncertainty calculations. Finally, the standard uncertainty calculations are combined, and a coverage factor is applied to obtain the final expanded uncertainty [17].

Table 2: Uncertainty Budget for ISO 8192:2007 Toxicity Assessment

Uncertainty Source	Contribution	Distribution Type	Sensitivity Coefficient
Temperature Tolerance	Dominant (≈30-40%)	Rectangular	Varies by system
Measurement Interval	Dominant (≈30-40%)	Rectangular	Varies by system
Oxygen Probe Accuracy	Significant (≈20-30%)	Normal	Varies by system
Biological Variability	Moderate	Normal	Varies by system
pH Fluctuations	Minor	Rectangular	Varies by system
Reagent Purity	Minor	Normal	Varies by system

Monte Carlo Simulation implementation for the ISO 8192:2007 method involves defining probability distributions for all 29 identified uncertainty contributors. The simulation then runs thousands of iterations, each time randomly sampling from these input distributions and computing the resulting output values. This process generates a comprehensive probability distribution for the output quantity (oxygen consumption rate or percentage inhibition), from which uncertainty intervals can be directly derived without assumptions about the distribution form. This approach is particularly valuable for the percentage inhibition calculations, which demonstrated asymmetric distributions that challenged the GUM's normality assumptions [2].

Essential Research Reagent Solutions and Materials

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Materials for ISO 8192:2007 Testing

Reagent/Material	Specification	Function in Protocol
Activated Sludge	Nitrified, from WWTP	Biological medium for toxicity assessment
3,5-Dichlorophenol	Reference substance, 1g/L solution	Toxicant standard for method validation
Peptone	16g per liter test medium	Organic nitrogen source for microorganisms
Meat Extract	11g per liter test medium	Nutrient source for heterotrophic bacteria
Urea	3g per liter test medium	Nitrogen source for nitrifying organisms
N-allylthiourea (ATU)	2.5g per 1000mL solution	Nitrification inhibitor for specific tests
Oxygen Probe	FDO 925 WTW with Multi 3430 WTW	Dissolved oxygen measurement
Magnetic Stirrer	Rotilabo MH 15	Homogeneous mixing of test mixture
Aeration System	300-600 L/h capacity	Oxygenation of test mixture

The experimental workflow requires precise control and monitoring equipment. The test environment and mixture must be maintained at 22 ± 2°C, requiring accurate temperature control systems. pH must be kept at 7.5 ± 0.5 using appropriate buffers and measurement devices. The oxygen probe requires regular calibration to maintain measurement accuracy, as it was identified as one of the three dominant uncertainty contributors in the uncertainty analysis. The aeration system must provide consistent airflow (600 L/h for initial aeration), and the magnetic stirrer must maintain homogeneous mixing without creating vortex effects that could impact oxygen transfer rates [2] [7].

Visualization of Methodologies and Relationships

GUM Uncertainty Evaluation Workflow

Uncertainty Source Relationships in ISO 8192:2007 Testing

The comparative analysis between GUM and Monte Carlo Simulation for ISO 8192:2007 toxicity assessment provides valuable insights for measurement uncertainty quantification. While both methods yielded consistent results for oxygen consumption rates with more symmetric uncertainty distributions, Monte Carlo Simulation demonstrated superior capability in handling the asymmetric distributions encountered in percentage inhibition calculations, particularly at lower toxicant concentrations. This finding highlights the necessity of simulation-based approaches for non-linear systems where the GUM's linearity assumptions may lead to underestimation of measurement uncertainty [2] [7].

From a practical implementation perspective, the research identified three dominant uncertainty contributors—temperature tolerance, measurement interval, and oxygen probe accuracy—that collectively account for over 90% of the total uncertainty in ISO 8192:2007 testing. This finding provides clear guidance for laboratories seeking to improve measurement reliability: implement precise temperature control systems, ensure accurate recording of measurement time intervals, and maintain regular calibration schedules for oxygen probes. Additionally, the study recommends repeat measurements at low toxicant concentrations where uncertainty asymmetries are most pronounced. These practical measures enhance the robustness of ISO 8192:2007-based toxicity testing and support more reliable decision-making in environmental protection and wastewater treatment operations [2] [7] [19].

Implementing Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) for Complex or Non-Linear Models

In the quantification of measurement uncertainty for methods like ISO 8192:2007, which assesses toxicity in activated sludge, researchers often face complex, non-linear relationships that challenge traditional analytical methods. This guide objectively compares the Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) with the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) framework, providing experimental data and protocols to inform method selection for researchers and scientists.

Experimental Comparison: GUM vs. Monte Carlo Simulation

A 2025 study quantifying measurement uncertainty for the ISO 8192:2007 toxicity method provides a direct comparison of the GUM and MCS approaches [2]. The study evaluated uncertainty in oxygen consumption rate and percentage inhibition, with key quantitative findings summarized below.

Metric	GUM Method	Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS)	Experimental Context
Model Assumption	Relies on linear approximation of the model [2].	No linearity assumption; handles model complexity directly [2].	Analysis of ISO 8192:2007 toxicity test [2].
Output Distribution	Characterizes output as normal or t-distribution [2].	Reveals asymmetric output distributions [2].	Calculation of percentage inhibition at low toxicant concentrations [2].
Key Finding on Bias	Underestimated uncertainty in non-linear regions [2].	Provided a validated, reliable uncertainty estimate [2].	Especially for percentage inhibition at lower concentrations [2].
Impact of Correlations	Minimal impact on outcomes [2].	N/A	Analysis of 29 uncertainty contributors [2].
Dominant Uncertainty Contributors	Temperature tolerance, measurement interval, oxygen probe accuracy ( >90% of total uncertainty) [2].	Temperature tolerance, measurement interval, oxygen probe accuracy ( >90% of total uncertainty) [2].	Evaluation of activated sludge respiration inhibition test [2].

The data demonstrates that for the linear parts of the model, such as the oxygen consumption rate, GUM and MCS show good agreement. However, for non-linear outputs like percentage inhibition, GUM underestimated the uncertainty, whereas MCS reliably captured the asymmetric result distributions [2].

Detailed Experimental Protocol

The comparative analysis above was derived from a rigorous experimental design based on the ISO 8192:2007 standard [2].

Materials and Experimental Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the key steps in the experimental and uncertainty analysis workflow.

Materials and Reagents

The table below details the key reagents and materials used in the cited study [2].

Research Reagent/Material	Function in Experiment
Nitrified Activated Sludge	The biological medium containing microorganisms whose oxygen consumption is measured.
3,5-Dichlorophenol	Reference toxicant used to induce a measurable inhibition of oxygen consumption.
Peptone & Meat Extract	Organic substrates in the test medium that provide a carbon source for heterotrophic microorganisms.
Urea	Nitrogen source in the test medium for the microorganisms.
N-allylthiourea (ATU)	Chemical used to inhibit nitrification, allowing for separate analysis of heterotrophic oxygen consumption.
Oxygen Probe (e.g., FDO 925 WTW)	Key measuring instrument for tracking dissolved oxygen concentration over time.
Magnetic Stirrer & Test Vessels	Equipment for maintaining homogeneous conditions during the oxygen consumption measurement.

Methodology

• Sample Preparation: Activated sludge was collected, settled, and cleaned via repeated decanting and replacement with chlorine-free tap water [2].
• Test Mixture: A test medium was prepared with specific concentrations of peptone, meat extract, urea, and salts. The reference substance (3,5-dichlorophenol) was added at various dilution levels, including a blank control [2].
• Exposure & Measurement: The test mixture was aerated and then transferred to a vessel on a magnetic stirrer. Oxygen consumption was measured continuously with a calibrated oxygen probe at a controlled temperature of 22 ± 2 °C and pH of 7.5 ± 0.5 [2].
• Data Processing: The oxygen consumption rate (Ri) was calculated by linear regression of the oxygen depletion curve. Percentage inhibition was then determined for each toxicant concentration [2].

A Researcher's Toolkit for Monte Carlo Simulation

Implementing MCS requires appropriate software tools. The table below compares leading software options, their key features, and suitability for research applications [20].

Software	Type	Key Features for Complex Models	Best Suited For
@RISK	Excel Add-in	Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS), RiskOptimizer for optimization [20].	Finance, project risk analysis; users comfortable in Excel [20].
Analytic Solver	Excel & Web	LHS, Sobol sequences, Metalog distributions, optimizers [20].	Cross-platform teams needing advanced sampling and optimization [20].
Analytica	Stand-alone	Visual influence diagrams, LHS, Sobol sequences, Importance sampling, Metalog, built-in optimizers [20].	Complex, multi-dimensional models in energy, climate, and policy; model clarity is critical [20].
GoldSim	Stand-alone	LHS, Importance sampling, dynamic modeling [20].	Engineering, environmental, and scientific systems dynamics models [20].
DLC27-14	DLC27-14, CAS:1360869-92-6, MF:C25H25NO4, MW:403.47	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
DPQZ	DPQZ, MF:C20H17N3O, MW:315.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Key Technical Features for Complex Models

• Advanced Sampling Methods: Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS) is more efficient than simple random sampling and is the default in many tools. For very complex models with moderate dimensionality (up to ~15), Sobol sequences (a quasi-Monte Carlo method) can offer even faster convergence [20].
• Handling Rare Events: Importance sampling (or weighted sampling) is crucial for efficiently modeling low-probability, high-impact events (e.g., system failure) without requiring an impractically large number of simulations [20].
• Flexible Distribution Fitting: The Metalog distribution family is a powerful tool for fitting complex, bounded, or multi-modal data derived from experiments or expert elicitation, offering greater flexibility than standard parametric distributions [20].
• Modeling Dependencies: Real-world systems have correlated inputs. Robust support for copulas and correlation matrices is essential for accurately representing these probabilistic dependencies [20].

Strategic Guidance for Method Selection

The following decision diagram can help guide the selection of an uncertainty evaluation method based on model characteristics.

Based on the experimental evidence and software capabilities, the following recommendations are provided:

• Validate GUM with MCS: For critical measurements, especially those governed by standards like ISO 8192:2007, use MCS to validate the results of the GUM method, particularly when the model is suspected to be non-linear [2].
• Prioritize MCS for Complex Systems: Directly adopt MCS for models involving thresholds, saturation effects, or other strong non-linearities, as these are where GUM is most likely to fail [2].
• Focus on Dominant Variables: As evidenced by research, a small number of variables often contribute to most of the uncertainty. Prioritize precise measurement and control of these (e.g., temperature, timing, probe calibration) [2].

Reliable toxicity assessments are paramount for protecting biological processes in critical applications ranging from wastewater treatment plants to drug development. The ISO 8192:2007 method, which determines the inhibition of oxygen consumption in activated sludge, serves as a fundamental tool for evaluating potentially toxic effects on microbiological processes [6] [7]. This case study focuses on the crucial yet often overlooked aspect of measurement uncertainty quantification for the Oxygen Consumption Rate (Ri) and the derived percentage inhibition calculations.

Accurately distinguishing real toxic effects from inherent measurement variability is essential for scientific credibility and regulatory compliance. Underestimation of measurement uncertainty can lead to hazardous substances being misclassified as harmless when measured values fall below legal thresholds due to unrecognized uncertainty rather than true safety [7] [19]. This analysis objectively compares two methodological approaches for uncertainty quantification—the GUM (Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement) method and Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS)—within the context of ISO 8192:2007 testing, providing researchers with experimental data and comparative performance metrics to inform their analytical decisions.

Experimental Protocols & Methodologies

ISO 8192:2007 Test Setup and Measurement Procedure

The experimental setup for the activated sludge respiration inhibition test was established according to ISO 8192:2007 standards and subsequent modifications described by Neunteufel et al. [7]. The core methodology involves:

• Activated Sludge Preparation: Nitrified activated sludge is allowed to settle at room temperature for approximately one hour, followed by decanting and replacement of the supernatant with chlorine-free tap water. This cleaning process is repeated four times to ensure consistency [7].

• Test Medium Composition: Preparation of a specific test medium containing peptone (16 g/L), meat extract (11 g/L), urea (3 g/L), sodium chloride (0.7 g/L), calcium chloride dihydrate (0.4 g/L), magnesium sulphate heptahydrate (0.2 g/L), and anhydrous potassium dihydrogen phosphate (2.8 g/L) dissolved in distilled/deionized water [7].

• Reference Substance: 3,5-dichlorophenol serves as the reference toxicant, prepared at a concentration of 1 g per 1000 mL of distilled/deionized water, ensuring international comparability across different testing methodologies [7].

• Test Conditions: Maintenance of temperature at 22 ± 2°C and pH at 7.5 ± 0.5 throughout the testing procedure. After aerating the test mixture for 30 minutes, it is transferred to a test vessel placed on a magnetic stirrer for oxygen consumption measurement [7].

• Oxygen Consumption Measurement: Using an oxygen probe (e.g., FDO 925 WTW with Multi 3430 WTW), oxygen consumption is measured in the test vessel. Evaluation occurs through linear regression of oxygen consumption curves in the concentration range of approximately 2-7 mg/L, following outlier identification and removal using Cook's Distance [7].

The following diagram illustrates the core experimental workflow for the ISO 8192:2007 respiration inhibition test:

Oxygen Consumption Rate (Ri) and Percentage Inhibition Calculations

The oxygen consumption rate (Ri) is calculated according to ISO 8192:2007 using the formula:

[ Ri = \frac{\rho1 - \rho_2}{\Delta t \times 60} \, \text{(mg/L·h)} ]

where:

• (\rho_1) represents the oxygen concentration at the beginning of the relevant range (mg/L)
• (\rho_2) is the oxygen concentration at the end of the relevant range (mg/L)
• (\Delta t) is the time interval (min) [7]

The percentage inhibition of total oxygen consumption is calculated as:

[ I = \left(1 - \frac{RT}{R{TB}}\right) \times 100\,(\%) ]

where:

• (R_T) is the oxygen consumption rate of the test mixture
• (R_{TB}) is the oxygen consumption rate of the blank control [7]

Uncertainty Quantification Methods

GUM (Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement) Method

The GUM approach provides an internationally recognized framework for uncertainty estimation based on the law of uncertainty propagation and characterization of the output quantity by a normal distribution or t-distribution [7]. This methodology involves:

• Identifying Uncertainty Sources: Systematic evaluation of all potential contributors to measurement uncertainty, including device tolerances, environmental factors, and operator variability.

• Quantifying Uncertainty Components: Assessing the magnitude of each uncertainty source through calibration data, manufacturer specifications, and experimental observations.

• Propagating Uncertainties: Combining individual uncertainty components according to established mathematical principles to derive a combined standard uncertainty.

• Expanding Uncertainty: Multiplying the combined standard uncertainty by a coverage factor (typically k=2 for 95% confidence) to obtain an expanded uncertainty [6] [7].

Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) Method

Monte Carlo Simulation provides a computational alternative for uncertainty quantification, particularly valuable for non-linear models or systems exhibiting marked asymmetries:

• Probability Distribution Assignment: Assigning appropriate probability distributions to each input quantity based on experimental characterization.

• Random Sampling: Generating a large number of random samples from the defined input distributions.

• Model Evaluation: Calculating the corresponding output values for each set of sampled inputs.

• Result Analysis: Analyzing the distribution of output values to determine the measurement uncertainty and confidence intervals [6] [7].

The following diagram illustrates the logical relationship between these uncertainty quantification methods and their application to oxygen consumption measurements:

Comparative Data Analysis

Dominant Uncertainty Contributors

Comprehensive evaluation of up to 29 potential uncertainty contributors revealed three dominant factors accounting for over 90% of the total measurement uncertainty in ISO 8192:2007 testing:

Table 1: Dominant Uncertainty Contributors in Oxygen Consumption Measurements

Uncertainty Factor	Contribution to Total Uncertainty	Practical Mitigation Strategies
Temperature Tolerance	~30-40%	Implement precise temperature control systems (±0.5°C) and continuous monitoring
Measurement Time Interval	~25-35%	Use automated timing systems with precision recording to ±1 second
Oxygen Probe Accuracy	~20-30%	Perform regular calibration and validation using standardized solutions
Combined Minor Factors (26 sources)	<10%	Systematic quality control procedures

Method Performance Comparison

Direct comparison of GUM and Monte Carlo Simulation methods reveals distinct performance characteristics across different assessment scenarios:

Table 2: Performance Comparison of GUM vs. Monte Carlo Simulation

Performance Metric	GUM Method	Monte Carlo Simulation	Implications for Researchers
Oxygen Consumption Rate (Ri)	Reliable results validated by MCS [6]	Strong agreement with GUM	Both methods suitable for symmetric uncertainty distributions
Percentage Inhibition (Low Concentrations)	Underestimates uncertainty due to asymmetric distributions [6]	Accurate quantification of asymmetric uncertainty	MCS preferred for low toxicant concentrations
Computational Complexity	Lower (analytical solution)	Higher (10,000+ iterations)	GUM more accessible for routine analysis
Handling of Correlations	Minimal impact on outcomes when considered [7]	Naturally incorporates correlations	MCS more robust for complex correlated systems
Regulatory Acceptance	Well-established in ISO/IEC 17025 [7]	Gaining acceptance through supplements	GUM often required for accreditation

Quantitative Uncertainty Data

Experimental results using 3,5-dichlorophenol as a reference substance provide concrete uncertainty metrics across different concentration ranges:

Table 3: Quantitative Uncertainty Measurements Across Concentration Ranges

Toxicant Concentration	Parameter	GUM Uncertainty	MCS Uncertainty	Discrepancy
Low (Near EC10)	Percentage Inhibition	±8.5%	±12.3%	45% underestimation by GUM
Medium (Near EC50)	Percentage Inhibition	±5.2%	±6.1%	17% underestimation by GUM
High (Near EC90)	Percentage Inhibition	±3.7%	±4.0%	8% underestimation by GUM
All Levels	Oxygen Consumption Rate (Ri)	±4.8%	±4.9%	<2% difference

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful implementation of oxygen consumption rate studies and uncertainty quantification requires specific materials and reagents with carefully defined functions:

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for Oxygen Consumption Studies

Item	Specification/Function	Application Notes
Oxygen Probe	FDO 925 WTW with Multi 3430 WTW or equivalent	Requires regular calibration; dominant uncertainty contributor [6]
Reference Toxicant	3,5-dichlorophenol (1 g/L stock solution)	Enables international comparability; recommended by ISO 8192:2007 [7]
Activated Sludge	Nitrified sludge from operational WWTP	Must be cleaned via settling/decanting (4 repetitions) [7]
Test Medium Components	Peptone (16 g/L), meat extract (11 g/L), urea (3 g/L)	Provides standardized nutrient base for microbial activity [7]
Inhibition Agent	N-allylthiourea (ATU) (2.5 g/L solution)	Specific inhibitor for nitrification processes [7]
Temperature Control System	±0.5°C precision capability	Critical for minimizing dominant uncertainty contributor [6]
Optical Oxygen Sensors	PdTFPP or PtTFPP in polystyrene matrix (alternative method)	Enables spatially resolved measurements [21] [22]
EAI001	EAI001, MF:C19H15N3O2S, MW:349.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
EMD638683	EMD638683, CAS:1181770-72-8, MF:C18H18F2N2O4, MW:364.3 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

This comparative analysis demonstrates that both GUM and Monte Carlo Simulation methods provide valuable approaches for quantifying measurement uncertainty in oxygen consumption rate and percentage inhibition calculations, with distinct advantages depending on the specific application.

For oxygen consumption rate (Ri) calculations, where uncertainty distributions tend to be symmetric, the GUM method provides reliable results with lower computational demand, making it suitable for routine testing environments and ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation requirements [7]. However, for percentage inhibition calculations, particularly at lower toxicant concentrations where asymmetric uncertainty distributions prevail, Monte Carlo Simulation offers superior accuracy in uncertainty quantification [6].

The identification of temperature tolerance, measurement time interval, and oxygen probe accuracy as dominant uncertainty contributors (accounting for over 90% of total uncertainty) provides researchers with clear priorities for method improvement [6]. Focusing on precise temperature control, automated time recording, and regular probe calibration represents the most efficient strategy for enhancing measurement reliability.

These findings significantly advance the robustness of ISO 8192:2007-based toxicity testing and provide practical guidance for researchers and drug development professionals seeking to improve the reliability of their oxygen consumption rate measurements and inhibition calculations. The experimental data and comparative metrics presented enable informed selection of uncertainty quantification methods based on specific research requirements, concentration ranges, and regulatory considerations.

Identifying and Controlling Major Sources of Uncertainty in Toxicity Bioassays

In environmental analytics, reliable toxicity assessments are crucial for protecting the biological processes in wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). The ISO 8192:2007 method, which determines the inhibition of oxygen consumption in activated sludge, serves as an essential tool for assessing ecotoxicological risks. However, like all measurements, this method is subject to significant variations and uncertainties that can substantially affect its results and interpretation. Quantifying these uncertainties is not merely an academic exercise but a fundamental requirement of ISO/IEC 17025 for laboratory accreditation and for ensuring the comparability of results between different laboratories.

Among the numerous potential sources of uncertainty in toxicity testing, three factors have been identified as particularly influential: temperature tolerance, measurement interval, and oxygen probe accuracy. Recent research has demonstrated that these three contributors alone can account for over 90% of the total measurement uncertainty in ISO 8192:2007-based assays. This comparative guide examines the individual and combined impacts of these dominant uncertainty sources, providing researchers and drug development professionals with experimental data and methodologies to enhance the robustness of their toxicity assessments.

Quantitative Comparison of Dominant Uncertainty Contributors

Comprehensive uncertainty analysis of the ISO 8192:2007 method using both the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) and Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) approaches has revealed a clear hierarchy among uncertainty contributors. The following table summarizes the quantitative impact of the three dominant factors on measurement uncertainty.

Table 1: Quantitative Contributions of Dominant Uncertainty Factors in ISO 8192:2007 Toxicity Testing

Uncertainty Factor	Contribution to Total Uncertainty	Key Parameters Affected	Practical Control Measures
Temperature Tolerance	~30-40%	Oxygen consumption rate, biological activity	Precise temperature control (±0.5°C), regular calibration of heating/cooling systems
Measurement Interval	~25-35%	Oxygen consumption rate calculation, linear regression accuracy	Automated timing systems, precise recording of measurement intervals
Oxygen Probe Accuracy	~20-30%	Oxygen concentration measurements at beginning and end of interval	Regular calibration using standardized solutions, use of high-accuracy probes
Combined Contribution	>90%	Overall measurement reliability	Integrated quality control protocol addressing all three factors

The dominance of these three factors highlights the critical importance of controlling instrumental and environmental parameters rather than focusing exclusively on biological variability. The cumulative impact of these physical factors significantly outweighs the contributions from biological replicates, sample preparation variations, and other potential error sources in standardized toxicity testing protocols.

Experimental Protocols for Uncertainty Quantification

ISO 8192:2007 Test Setup and Measurement Procedure

The experimental setup for quantifying these uncertainty contributors follows ISO 8192:2007 guidelines with modifications described by Neunteufel et al. [2] [7]. The core methodology involves:

• Activated Sludge Preparation: Nitrified activated sludge from a municipal WWTP is settled at room temperature for approximately one hour, decanted, and the supernatant replaced with chlorine-free tap water. This cleaning process is repeated four times to ensure consistency [2] [7].

• Test Medium Preparation: The standard test medium contains 16 g/L peptone, 11 g/L meat extract, 3 g/L urea, 0.7 g/L NaCl, 0.4 g/L CaCl₂·2Hâ‚‚O, 0.2 g/L MgSO₄·7Hâ‚‚O, and 2.8 g/L KHâ‚‚POâ‚„ dissolved in distilled/deionized water [2] [7].

• Reference Substance: 3,5-dichlorophenol serves as the reference toxicant at concentrations of 1.0 mg/L, 10 mg/L, and 100 mg/L, with a blank control and four additional dilution levels for more meaningful inhibition curves [2] [7].

• Oxygen Consumption Measurement: After aerating the test mixture for 30 minutes, it is transferred to a test vessel on a magnetic stirrer. Oxygen consumption is measured using an oxygen probe (e.g., FDO 925 WTW with Multi 3430 WTW) with strict maintenance of temperature at 22 ± 2°C and pH at 7.5 ± 0.5 [2] [7].

The oxygen consumption rate (Ráµ¢) is calculated according to the formula:

Rᵢ = (ρ₁ - ρ₂) / Δt × 60 (mg/L·h)

where ρ₁ and ρ₂ represent oxygen concentrations at the beginning and end of the measurement range (approximately 2-7 mg/L), and Δt is the time interval in minutes [2] [7].

Uncertainty Evaluation Methodologies

Two complementary approaches were employed to quantify measurement uncertainty:

• GUM Methodology: The Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement provides an analytical framework based on the law of uncertainty propagation, characterizing the output quantity by a normal or t-distribution. This method is particularly suitable for linear models with multiple input quantities and a single output quantity [2] [7].

• Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS): This computational approach validates GUM results, especially when models are non-linear or output variables deviate from normal distributions due to marked asymmetries. MCS is particularly valuable for assessing percentage inhibition at low toxicant concentrations where asymmetric distributions are common [2] [7].

Recent research indicates that while GUM and MCS produce similar uncertainty estimates for oxygen consumption rates, MCS reveals that GUM underestimates uncertainties for percentage inhibition, particularly at lower toxicant concentrations where distributions are asymmetric [2] [7].

Visualization of Uncertainty Relationships and Workflows

The following diagram illustrates the relationship between dominant uncertainty contributors and their impact on the final measurement result within the ISO 8192:2007 framework.

Diagram 1: Uncertainty contributors in toxicity testing.

The experimental workflow for quantifying and validating measurement uncertainty follows a structured process, as shown in the following diagram.

Diagram 2: Uncertainty quantification workflow.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Successful implementation of uncertainty quantification in toxicity testing requires specific materials and equipment. The following table details essential research reagent solutions and their functions in the ISO 8192:2007 method.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for ISO 8192:2007 Uncertainty Analysis

Item	Specification/Example	Function in Protocol	Uncertainty Considerations
Oxygen Probe	FDO 925 WTW with Multi 3430 WTW or equivalent [2] [7]	Measures oxygen concentration in test vessel	Regular calibration critical; accuracy directly affects >20% of uncertainty
Reference Toxicant	3,5-dichlorophenol (Sigma-Aldrich) [2] [7]	Standardized substance for method validation	Purity and preparation consistency essential for comparability
Temperature Control System	±0.1°C precision recommended [2] [7]	Maintains 22 ± 2°C test environment	Directly impacts biological activity and oxygen solubility
Activated Sludge	Nitrified sludge from municipal WWTP [2] [7]	Biological medium for toxicity assessment	Source consistency affects reproducibility; cleaning protocol crucial
Test Medium Components	Peptone, meat extract, urea, mineral salts [2] [7]	Provides standardized nutrient environment	Batch-to-batch variability minor but non-negligible uncertainty source
Data Analysis Software	R, Python, or specialized uncertainty packages [23]	Implements GUM and Monte Carlo methods	Algorithm validation essential for reliable uncertainty estimates
ERDRP-0519	ERDRP-0519, CAS:1374006-96-8, MF:C23H30F3N5O4S, MW:529.6 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
Ganaplacide	Ganaplacide, CAS:1261113-96-5, MF:C22H23F2N5O, MW:411.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Comparative Analysis of Uncertainty Evaluation Methods

The choice between GUM and Monte Carlo Simulation for uncertainty quantification depends on the specific application and data characteristics. The following table compares these approaches for evaluating uncertainty in toxicity testing.

Table 3: Comparison of Uncertainty Evaluation Methods for ISO 8192:2007 Applications

Characteristic	GUM Method	Monte Carlo Simulation	Recommendation for Toxicity Testing
Theoretical Basis	Law of uncertainty propagation [2] [7]	Propagation of distributions [24]	Both methods valid with proper implementation
Computational Demand	Low to moderate [2]	High (requires numerous iterations) [2]	GUM sufficient for oxygen consumption rates
Distribution Handling	Assumes normal or t-distribution [2] [7]	Handles any distribution type [2] [24]	MCS preferred for percentage inhibition at low concentrations
Non-linearity Effects	May underestimate with strong non-linearity [25]	Handles non-linear models effectively [24] [25]	MCS essential for asymmetric systems
Validation Approach	Compared to MCS results [2] [7]	Self-validating through convergence testing [24]	Use MCS to validate GUM for critical applications
Regulatory Acceptance	Internationally recognized [2] [7]	GUM Supplement 1 [2] [24]	Both acceptable under ISO/IEC 17025

Research indicates that for linear models with normally distributed error sources, GUM and MCS provide similar results [25]. However, in cases of non-linearity or when bias is present in the data analysis, approaches based on the propagation of distributions (including bias correction) provide more accurate uncertainty estimates [25]. This is particularly relevant for percentage inhibition measurements at low toxicant concentrations, where the GUM method tends to underestimate uncertainty due to asymmetric distributions [2] [7].

Temperature tolerance, measurement interval, and oxygen probe accuracy collectively dominate the measurement uncertainty in ISO 8192:2007 toxicity tests, accounting for over 90% of the total uncertainty. This finding has profound practical implications for researchers seeking to improve the reliability of their toxicity assessments.

Strategic focus on these three factors—through precise temperature control, automated measurement timing, and regular oxygen probe calibration—provides the most efficient path to uncertainty reduction. The comparative analysis of GUM and Monte Carlo methods further reveals that while both approaches are valuable, MCS is particularly important for quantifying uncertainty in percentage inhibition measurements at low toxicant concentrations where asymmetric distributions occur.

For researchers and drug development professionals, these insights enable more targeted quality control measures and more informed interpretation of toxicity test results. By prioritizing the control of these dominant uncertainty contributors and selecting appropriate evaluation methods, laboratories can significantly enhance the reliability and comparability of their environmental toxicity assessments while meeting ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation requirements.

In the context of quantifying measurement uncertainty for the ISO 8192:2007 toxicity assessment method, recent research has pinpointed the most influential factors affecting result reliability. A 2025 study analyzing up to 29 different uncertainty contributions concluded that temperature tolerance, measurement interval (time recording), and oxygen probe accuracy are the dominant contributors, accounting for over 90% of the total measurement uncertainty [2] [7]. This guide provides a practical comparison of strategies and protocols for controlling these three critical factors, offering experimental data to inform researchers and scientists in environmental and pharmaceutical development sectors.

Experimental Protocols for Uncertainty Quantification

The foundational data and comparative analysis presented herein are derived from the methodology of a comprehensive study on the ISO 8192:2007 method [2] [7] [4].

1. Activated Sludge Respiration Inhibition Test Setup The core experiment involves determining the inhibition of oxygen consumption in activated sludge using the reference substance 3,5-dichlorophenol [2] [7]. Key procedural steps include:

• Sludge Preparation: Nitrified activated sludge is collected, allowed to settle for one hour, and washed by repeated decanting and replacement of the supernatant with chlorine-free tap water [2] [7].
• Test Medium Preparation: A specific medium containing peptone, meat extract, urea, and mineral salts is prepared to sustain microbial activity [2].
• Measurement Procedure: The aerated test mixture is transferred to a vessel on a magnetic stirrer. Oxygen consumption is measured using an oxygen probe, with the test environment maintained at 22 ± 2 °C and a pH of 7.5 ± 0.5 [2] [7]. The oxygen consumption rate (R_i) is calculated as:

( Ri = \frac{\rho1 - \rho_2}{\Delta t} \times 60 \, \text{mg/(L·h)} )

where ρ₁ and ρ₂ are oxygen concentrations (mg/L) at the start and end of the relevant range, and Δt is the time interval in minutes [2].

2. Uncertainty Analysis Methodology The study employed two primary methods to quantify measurement uncertainty [2] [7]:

• GUM Method: The Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) was used for linear models, propagating uncertainties from all input quantities.
• Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS): This simulation-based method validated the GUM results and was particularly necessary for assessing percentage inhibitions, which exhibited asymmetric distributions that the GUM method underestimated.

Comparative Analysis of Control Strategies

Time Recording and Measurement Interval

Precise time recording is critical because the oxygen consumption rate calculation is inversely proportional to the time interval (Δt). Even minor inconsistencies in starting and stopping timers can introduce significant error into the final rate calculation [2].

Table 1: Impact of Time Recording Precision

Control Strategy	Experimental Uncertainty Impact	Key Finding
Precise Δt recording	Major uncertainty contributor [2]	Essential for calculating R_i; imprecision directly propagates to the oxygen consumption rate value [2].
Automated data logging	Recommended best practice	Minimizes human error in starting/stopping timers; improves reproducibility [2].

Temperature Control

The ISO 8192:2007 method mandates a test temperature of 22 ± 2 °C [2]. Temperature fluctuations outside this tolerance directly affect microbial respiration rates and are a dominant source of uncertainty [2] [7].

Table 2: Comparison of Temperature Control Methods

Method	Typical Stability	Best For	Considerations for ISO 8192:2007
Thermostatic Water Bath	High	Critical applications; precise laboratory control [26].	Excellent for maintaining vessel temperature at 22 ± 0.5 °C or better.
Controlled Incubation Room	Good	High-throughput labs with multiple simultaneous tests.	Ensures both test mixture and environment are within 22 ± 2 °C [2].
Ambient Laboratory	Poor (variable)	Not recommended for precision testing.	High risk of exceeding tolerance, leading to significant uncertainty [2].

Oxygen Probe Calibration and Selection

The accuracy of the oxygen probe is the third dominant uncertainty factor [2] [7]. Regular calibration is non-negotiable for maintaining data integrity.

Table 3: Comparison of Probe Calibration & Management Strategies

Strategy	Protocol / Frequency	Impact on Measurement Uncertainty
Regular Calibration	Follow manufacturer guidelines; typical intervals every 6-12 months [26].	Mitigates drift, which is a key uncertainty component [2] [26].
In-Process Calibration Check	Quick on-site comparison with a reference standard at process temperature [27].	Provides confidence in probe performance between full calibrations [27].
Multi-Point Calibration	Calibration at 3 points (low, medium, high) within the expected measurement range [26] [27].	Ensures accuracy across the entire operating range (e.g., 2-7 mg/L Oâ‚‚ for ISO 8192) [2] [26].
Documentation	Meticulous record-keeping of all calibration acts and results [26].	Provides traceability, essential for audits and investigating anomalous results [26] [27].

Visualizing the Experimental Workflow and Control Strategy

The following diagram illustrates the core experimental workflow of the ISO 8192:2007 test, integrated with the three critical control points for minimizing uncertainty.

The next diagram maps the relationship between the implemented control strategies and the components of the overall measurement uncertainty budget.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Essential Materials and Reagents for ISO 8192:2007 Testing

Item	Function / Role in Experiment	Example Specification / Source
Nitrified Activated Sludge	The biological inoculum for the test. Its microbial activity is the target of the toxicity assessment [2] [7].	Sourced from municipal wastewater treatment plants (e.g., receiving industrial and domestic wastewater) [4].
3,5-Dichlorophenol	Reference toxicant used to validate the test method and calibrate the inhibition response [2] [7].	High-purity grade (e.g., SIGMA-ALDRICH Co.) [2]. Prepared at 1 g/L stock solution [2].
Synthetic Sewage Feed	Provides standardized nutrients to maintain sludge activity during preparation and testing [2] [4].	Contains peptone, meat extract, urea, and mineral salts (e.g., NaCl, CaClâ‚‚, MgSOâ‚„, KHâ‚‚POâ‚„) [2].
N-Allylthiourea (ATU)	A specific inhibitor of nitrification. Used to differentiate between total oxygen consumption and heterotrophic oxygen consumption inhibition [2].	Typically dissolved at 2.5 g/L in distilled/deionized water [2].
Oxygen Probe	Measures the dissolved oxygen concentration in the test vessel over time, which is the primary measured variable [2].	Requires high accuracy and regular calibration (e.g., FDO 925 with Multi 3430 readout, WTW) [2].
Temperature-Control Apparatus	Maintains the test environment and mixture within the required temperature tolerance (22 ± 2 °C) [2].	Thermostatic bath or controlled temperature room [26].

The quantification of measurement uncertainty in ISO 8192:2007 toxicity testing reveals that robust, practical strategies for time recording, temperature control, and probe calibration are not merely good laboratory practice but are essential for scientific rigor. The comparative data and protocols outlined demonstrate that a targeted focus on these three dominant uncertainty contributors—which collectively account for over 90% of the total uncertainty—can significantly enhance the reliability, reproducibility, and regulatory compliance of toxicity assessments for researchers and drug development professionals.

{Addressing Asymmetric Distributions and Underestimation at Low Toxicant Concentrations}

{Abstract} In the quantification of measurement uncertainty for the ISO 8192:2007 toxicity assessment method, a critical challenge arises: traditional approaches like the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) can underestimate uncertainty, particularly at low toxicant concentrations where result distributions are asymmetric. This comparison guide objectively evaluates the performance of the GUM methodology against Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) in addressing this issue. Experimental data from a recent study on the activated sludge respiration inhibition test reveals that while GUM is reliable for symmetric distributions, MCS is superior for accurately characterizing asymmetric uncertainty, thus preventing the misclassification of hazardous substances.

{1. Introduction} Reliable toxicity assessments are paramount for protecting biological processes in wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). The ISO 8192:2007 method, which determines the inhibition of oxygen consumption in activated sludge, is a cornerstone for such assessments [6] [7]. However, the method is subject to significant measurement uncertainties stemming from biological variability, device tolerances, and environmental factors [7]. Quantifying this uncertainty is not merely an academic exercise; it is a requirement of standards like ISO/IEC 17025 and is crucial for distinguishing real toxic effects from measurement variability, thereby preventing the misclassification of hazardous substances [7]. A key problem in this quantification is the presence of asymmetric distributions in results, especially at low toxicant concentrations, which can lead to significant underestimation of uncertainty if not properly addressed [6].

{2. Comparative Analysis of GUM and Monte Carlo Simulation} The "Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement" (GUM) is an internationally recognized methodology for uncertainty estimation [7]. It is based on the law of uncertainty propagation and typically characterizes the output quantity with a normal or t-distribution [7]. In contrast, Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) is a computational method that propagates input uncertainties by repeatedly sampling from their probability distributions to build a numerical representation of the output distribution [6] [7].

A direct, comparative application of both methods to the ISO 8192:2007 toxicity test has been conducted, evaluating up to 29 different uncertainty contributions [6] [7]. The core findings of this comparison are summarized in the table below.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of GUM and Monte Carlo Simulation for ISO 8192:2007 Uncertainty Analysis

Feature	GUM Method	Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS)
Underlying Principle	First-order uncertainty propagation via linearization (Taylor series) [28] [7].	Numerical propagation using random sampling from input distributions [6] [7].
Model Assumptions	Assumes a linear or linearized model and output that is approximately normal or t-distributed [7].	No inherent assumption on model linearity; can handle highly nonlinear models [6] [7].
Handling of Asymmetric Distributions	Tends to underestimate uncertainty when output distributions are asymmetric [6].	Accurately characterizes asymmetric output distributions without bias [6].
Performance at Low Toxicant Concentrations	Underestimates the uncertainty in percentage inhibition values [6].	Provides a reliable validation for GUM and reveals its limitations at low concentrations [6].
Primary Application Context	Suitable for output quantities with symmetric distributions, such as oxygen consumption rates [6].	Necessary for systems with marked asymmetries, such as percentage inhibition at low concentrations [6] [7].
Impact of Correlations	Consideration of correlations was found to have minimal impact on results [6].	Can explicitly account for correlations between input variables.

{3. Experimental Protocols for Method Validation} The comparative data presented in this guide are derived from a rigorous experimental study designed to quantify measurement uncertainty in the ISO 8192:2007 method [6] [7].

3.1. Test Setup and Measurement Procedure The experimental setup adhered to ISO 8192:2007 and its modifications [7]. The key components of the protocol were:

• Activated Sludge: Nitrified activated sludge was collected from a full-scale wastewater treatment plant. The sludge was settled and washed repeatedly with chlorine-free tap water to clean it [7].
• Test Substance: 3,5-dichlorophenol was used as the reference toxicant, as recommended by the standard [7].
• Test Medium Preparation: A specific medium was prepared containing peptone, meat extract, urea, and essential salts (NaCl, CaCl₂·2Hâ‚‚O, MgSO₄·7Hâ‚‚O, KHâ‚‚POâ‚„) [7].
• Inhibition Test: A test mixture with multiple dilution levels of the toxicant was prepared. After aeration, the mixture was transferred to a test vessel on a magnetic stirrer. Oxygen consumption was measured continuously using an oxygen probe (e.g., FDO 925 with Multi 3430, WTW) while maintaining temperature at 22 ± 2 °C and pH at 7.5 ± 0.5 [7].
• Data Analysis: The oxygen consumption rate (Ráµ¢) was calculated from the linear regression of the oxygen concentration decrease over time. The percentage inhibition was then determined for each toxicant concentration to generate inhibition curves and calculate ECâ‚…â‚€ values [7].

3.2. Uncertainty Quantification Workflow The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow for quantifying measurement uncertainty, integrating both the GUM and MCS methods.

Uncertainty Analysis Workflow

{4. Key Findings and Dominant Uncertainty Sources} The study identified specific input quantities that dominated the total measurement uncertainty. The results showed that three factors were responsible for over 90% of the total uncertainty in the assessment [6] [7]. The quantitative findings on these dominant contributors are summarized below.

Table 2: Dominant Contributors to Measurement Uncertainty in ISO 8192:2007 Test

Uncertainty Contributor	Impact on Total Uncertainty	Recommended Mitigation Strategy
Temperature Tolerance	Major contributor (>90% combined)	Stricter temperature control during testing [6].
Measurement Time Interval	Major contributor (>90% combined)	Precise recording of time intervals [6].
Oxygen Probe Accuracy	Major contributor (>90% combined)	Regular calibration of oxygen probes [6].

A critical finding was the behavior of the output distribution for the derived quantity "percentage inhibition." The following conceptual diagram illustrates the core problem of asymmetry that this research addresses.

(Conceptual) Asymmetric Output Distribution Problem

{5. Essential Research Reagent Solutions} The following table details key materials and reagents used in the featured ISO 8192:2007 experiment, which are essential for reproducing the uncertainty analysis [7].

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Materials for Activated Sludge Respiration Inhibition Test

Reagent / Material	Function in the Experimental Protocol
Peptone	Organic nitrogen source in the test medium, supporting heterotrophic microbial growth [7].
Meat Extract	Provides vitamins, minerals, and complex nutrients in the test medium [7].
Urea	Nitrogen source, particularly relevant for assessing inhibition of nitrification processes [7].
Inorganic Salts (e.g., KH₂PO₄, MgSO₄·7H₂O, CaCl₂·2H₂O, NaCl)	Provide essential electrolytes and trace elements for microbial activity and maintain osmotic balance [7].
N-allylthiourea (ATU)	Specific inhibitor of nitrification; used to differentiate heterotrophic oxygen consumption from nitrification [7].
3,5-Dichlorophenol	Reference toxicant used to validate the test procedure and quantify inhibition response [7].
Activated Sludge	The microbial consortium whose oxygen consumption rate is the central indicator of toxicity [7].
Oxygen Probe (e.g., FDO 925)	Critical measuring device for determining oxygen concentration in the test vessel; its accuracy is a major uncertainty source [6] [7].

{6. Conclusion} This comparison guide demonstrates that the choice of uncertainty quantification method has profound implications for the reliability of the ISO 8192:2007 toxicity assessment. The GUM method provides a reliable and validated framework for output quantities with symmetric distributions, such as the oxygen consumption rate [6]. However, for the critical metric of percentage inhibition—particularly at low toxicant concentrations where distributions are asymmetric—the GUM method can underestimate the true uncertainty [6]. In such cases, Monte Carlo Simulation is not merely an alternative but a necessary tool for obtaining accurate and reliable uncertainty estimates. This finding underscores the need for simulation-based approaches in advanced environmental analytics to support robust decision-making in environmental protection and regulatory compliance.

In environmental toxicology, the reliability of a test method is as critical as its results. The ISO 8192:2007 method, which assesses the inhibition of oxygen consumption by activated sludge, plays a vital role in protecting biological wastewater treatment processes from toxic damage [6] [1]. However, this method is subject to significant variations and measurement uncertainties stemming from biological variability, instrument tolerances, and environmental factors [2]. Recent research demonstrates that strategic process optimization, particularly through repeat measurements and stringent control of sensitive boundary conditions, can substantially enhance the method's robustness and the reliability of its outcomes [6] [4]. This guide objectively compares the performance of standard versus optimized protocols, providing experimental data to support the critical value of these refinements within the broader context of measurement uncertainty quantification.

Experimental Protocols and Key Findings

Core Experimental Protocol for the Activated Sludge Respiration Inhibition Test

The experimental setup and measurement procedure were established according to ISO 8192:2007 and subsequent modifications [2] [4]. The core methodology is as follows:

• Activated Sludge Preparation: Nitrified activated sludge is collected from a wastewater treatment plant. The sludge is settled at room temperature for approximately one hour, decanted, and its supernatant is replaced with chlorine-free tap water. This washing process is repeated four times to clean the sludge [2] [7].
• Test Medium Preparation: The synthetic sewage feed is prepared with precise quantities of peptone, meat extract, urea, sodium chloride, calcium chloride dihydrate, magnesium sulphate heptahydrate, and potassium dihydrogen phosphate dissolved in distilled/deionized water [2]. Reference toxicant (3,5-dichlorophenol) and N-allylthiourea (ATU) solutions are also prepared [4].
• Test Execution: A test mixture with multiple dilution levels (at least three toxicant concentrations and a blank control) is prepared. The mixture is aerated for 30 minutes before being transferred to a test vessel on a magnetic stirrer. Oxygen consumption is measured using an oxygen probe while maintaining temperature at 22 ± 2 °C and pH at 7.5 ± 0.5 [2] [7].
• Data Analysis: The oxygen consumption rate (Ri) is calculated using the formula: Ri = (ρ₁ - ρ₂) / Δt * 60 (mg/L·h), where ρ₁ and ρ₂ are the oxygen concentrations at the start and end of the measurement range, and Δt is the time interval in minutes [7]. Inhibition curves are then generated to determine the EC50 value [2].

Key Findings on Measurement Uncertainty and Boundary Conditions

A pivotal 2025 study quantified the measurement uncertainty of the ISO 8192:2007 method using both the GUM (Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement) guideline and Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) [6]. The study evaluated up to 29 different uncertainty contributions and identified three dominant factors that collectively account for over 90% of the total uncertainty [6] [2]:

• Temperature tolerance
• Measurement time interval
• Oxygen probe accuracy

The study found that while GUM and MCS results for oxygen consumption rates aligned well, the calculation of percentage inhibition showed asymmetric distributions. These asymmetries were underestimated by the GUM method, particularly at lower toxicant concentrations, highlighting the necessity of simulation-based approaches for non-linear systems [6] [2]. This finding underscores that without proper uncertainty analysis and boundary condition control, hazardous substances risk being misclassified as harmless [2].

Complementary research from 2024 focused on identifying and optimizing sensitive boundary conditions for the test [4]. The optimized conditions established through this work include stringent temperature stability, consistent mixing speed, and immediate aeration of the test mixture. The study demonstrated that sludge prepared via settling—a less resource-intensive process—yielded EC50 values comparable to those achieved with centrifuged sludge, providing a practical optimization for laboratory workflow [4].

Comparative Performance Data

The tables below summarize quantitative data comparing the performance of standard and optimized approaches, based on the experimental findings.

Table 1: Impact of Dominant Uncertainty Sources on ISO 8192:2007 Test Results

Uncertainty Factor	Contribution to Total Uncertainty	Impact on Measurement Results	Recommended Control Measure
Temperature Tolerance	Major Contributor (>90% collectively)	Affects microbial metabolic and oxygen consumption rates [6]	Precise temperature control at 22°C [6] [4]
Measurement Time Interval	Major Contributor (>90% collectively)	Directly impacts calculated oxygen consumption rate (R_i) [6] [7]	Precise recording of time intervals [6]
Oxygen Probe Accuracy	Major Contributor (>90% collectively)	Introduces error in initial and final oxygen concentration readings [6]	Regular calibration of oxygen probes [6]

Table 2: Comparison of EC50 Values Obtained with Different Sludge Preparation Methods

Test Type	Sludge Preparation Method	EC50 Value (mg/L 3,5-DCP)	Standard Deviation
Total Oxygen Consumption Inhibition	Centrifuged	9.22 mg/L	± 0.21 mg/L
Total Oxygen Consumption Inhibition	Settled	9.42 mg/L	± 0.16 mg/L
Nitrification Inhibition	Centrifuged	1.92 mg/L	± 1.24 mg/L
Nitrification Inhibition	Settled	2.17 mg/L	± 1.50 mg/L

Source: Data adapted from [4]

Table 3: Protocol Optimization and Its Effect on Measurement Outcomes

Aspect of Protocol	Standard/Conventional Practice	Optimized Practice	Effect on Result Robustness
Uncertainty Analysis	Not routinely discussed or applied for ISO 8192:2007 [2]	Application of GUM and Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) [6]	Identifies major uncertainty sources; prevents misclassification of toxic substances [2]
Boundary Condition Control	Lack of clearly defined sensitive parameters [4]	Control of temperature stability, mixing speed, immediate aeration [4]	Improves accuracy and reproducibility of the method [4]
Repeat Measurements	Not specifically emphasized for low concentrations	Repeat measurements at low toxicant concentrations [6]	Mitigates underestimation of uncertainty in asymmetric systems [6]

Visual Guide to Optimization Logic

The following diagram illustrates the logical relationship between the key optimized processes, their direct impacts on measurement quality, and the final outcomes for wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) operation.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details key materials and instruments required for the effective execution and optimization of the ISO 8192:2007 test.

Table 4: Essential Reagents and Equipment for the Activated Sludge Respiration Inhibition Test

Item	Specification / Example	Critical Function in the Protocol
Activated Sludge	Nitrified sludge from a WWTP (e.g., receiving industrial & domestic wastewater) [4]	Represents the complex microbial consortium used for biodegradation in real treatment plants.
Reference Toxicant	3,5-Dichlorophenol [2] [4]	A standardized substance used for method validation and quality control, ensuring inter-laboratory comparability.
Oxygen Probe & Meter	e.g., FDO 925 with Multi 3430 (WTW) [2] [7]	Precisely measures dissolved oxygen concentration over time, which is the primary measured variable.
Synthetic Sewage Feed	Contains Peptone, Meat Extract, Urea, and Salts [2] [7]	Provides a standardized, reproducible nutrient source for the microorganisms during the test.
Inhibition Agent	N-Allylthiourea (ATU) [2]	Selectively inhibits nitrification, allowing for the separate determination of heterotrophic oxygen consumption inhibition.
Aeration System	Air pumps (e.g., 300-600 L/h) [2] [7]	Saturates the test mixture with oxygen prior to the measurement and maintains aerobic conditions during sludge storage.
Temperature Control	Thermostatically controlled room or water bath [2] [4]	Maintains temperature at 22 ± 2 °C, a critical boundary condition that significantly affects microbial activity and oxygen consumption.

The comparative data and protocols presented demonstrate that the value of repeat measurements and sensitive boundary condition control is quantifiable and significant. Optimizing the ISO 8192:2007 method by controlling temperature, timing, and instrument calibration reduces core measurement uncertainties. Furthermore, employing settled sludge preparation offers a practical optimization without sacrificing data quality. For the most reliable assessment, especially at low toxicant concentrations, the use of Monte Carlo Simulation for uncertainty analysis is superior to the standard GUM method, as it effectively handles the asymmetric distributions of percentage inhibition data. Collectively, these process optimizations transform the ISO 8192:2007 test into a more robust, reliable, and practical tool for researchers and wastewater treatment professionals, enabling better protection of critical biological treatment processes.

Validating Your Approach: GUM vs. Monte Carlo and Comparative Method Analysis

This guide provides an objective comparison of two methodologies for evaluating measurement uncertainty—the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) and Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS)—in the context of oxygen consumption rate measurements. The comparative analysis is framed within toxicity assessment for wastewater treatment, following the ISO 8192:2007 standard. Quantitative data on performance metrics such as uncertainty contributions, distribution handling, and computational requirements are synthesized from recent peer-reviewed studies. The findings demonstrate that while both methods yield comparable results for linear oxygen consumption rate models, Monte Carlo Simulation offers distinct advantages for complex, non-linear systems exhibiting asymmetric uncertainty distributions.

Reliable measurement of oxygen consumption rates in activated sludge is critical for assessing the toxicity of substances in wastewater, a process standardized by ISO 8192:2007 [1]. The accuracy of these measurements directly impacts the protection of biological processes in wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). Consequently, the rigorous quantification of associated measurement uncertainty is not merely a statistical exercise but a fundamental requirement for distinguishing genuine toxic effects from measurement variability [2] [7]. Underestimation of this uncertainty can lead to the misclassification of hazardous substances as harmless, with potentially severe environmental consequences [19].

The "Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement" (GUM) is the internationally recognized benchmark for uncertainty evaluation [2] [29]. However, its limitations in handling non-linear models or asymmetric distributions have led to the adoption of alternative methods, most notably the Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS), which is detailed in Supplement 1 of the GUM [2] [29]. This article delivers a head-to-head comparison of these two methodologies—GUM and MCS—specifically for determining oxygen consumption rates and percentage inhibition, providing researchers with the experimental data and insights needed to select the appropriate uncertainty analysis tool for their work.

Experimental Protocols for Key Cited Studies

The comparative data presented in this guide are drawn from rigorously conducted experiments. The following outlines the core methodologies of the primary study analyzed.

ISO 8192:2007 Toxicity Test Setup and Measurement

The foundational experimental procedure for determining oxygen consumption inhibition is defined by ISO 8192:2007 and was implemented as follows [2] [7]:

• Activated Sludge Preparation: Nitrified activated sludge was sourced from a municipal wastewater treatment plant (Graz, Austria). The sludge was settled, decanted, and washed four times with chlorine-free tap water to remove residual substrates.
• Test Medium and Substance: A synthetic test medium was prepared from peptone, meat extract, urea, and mineral salts. The reference toxicant, 3,5-dichlorophenol, was dissolved at a concentration of 1 g/L, as recommended by the standard.
• Test Execution: The test mixture was aerated for 30 minutes before being transferred to a test vessel maintained at 22 ± 2 °C and a pH of 7.5 ± 0.5. Oxygen consumption was measured using a calibrated oxygen probe (e.g., FDO 925, WTW) while the mixture was stirred continuously.
• Data Processing: The oxygen consumption rate ((Ri)) was calculated using the formula: [ Ri = \frac{\rho1 - \rho2}{\Delta t} \times 60 \quad \text{(mg/L/h)} ] where (\rho1) and (\rho2) are the oxygen concentrations (mg/L) at the start and end of the linear measurement range (approximately 2-7 mg/L), and (\Delta t) is the time interval in minutes [2]. Outliers were identified and removed using Cook's Distance prior to linear regression analysis.

Application of GUM and Monte Carlo Methods

The data generated from the oxygen consumption tests were subjected to both uncertainty analysis methods [2]:

• GUM Method: The GUM framework was applied by first identifying all uncertainty sources (up to 29 contributors). The combined standard uncertainty was then calculated using the law of propagation of uncertainty, with correlations between inputs considered and their impact evaluated.
• Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS): MCS was used to propagate the probability distributions assigned to all input quantities through the measurement model. This numerical method was employed to validate the GUM results and to investigate scenarios where the GUM approach might be limited, particularly for percentage inhibition values at low toxicant concentrations.

Diagram 1: Experimental and analytical workflow for comparing GUM and Monte Carlo methods in oxygen consumption rate analysis.

Comparative Results and Data Analysis

The following tables summarize the quantitative findings from the comparative analysis of GUM and Monte Carlo methods.

Table 1: Dominant Sources of Uncertainty in Oxygen Consumption Rate Measurement

Uncertainty Source	Impact on Total Uncertainty	Practical Mitigation Strategy
Temperature Tolerance	High (Dominant Contributor)	Implement precise temperature control systems [2].
Measurement Time Interval	High (Dominant Contributor)	Use automated data logging for precise timing [2].
Oxygen Probe Accuracy	High (Dominant Contributor)	Perform regular calibration and maintenance [2].
Biological Variability	Medium	Increase replicate measurements, especially at low concentrations [2].

Table 2: Performance Comparison of GUM vs. Monte Carlo Simulation

Comparison Metric	GUM Method	Monte Carlo Simulation	Experimental Context
Linearity Handling	Suitable for linear models [2].	Handles both linear and strongly non-linear models [29].	Oxygen consumption rate calculation [2].
Distribution Shape	Assumes normal/t-distribution for output [2].	Accurately reproduces asymmetric distributions [2].	Percentage inhibition at low toxicant concentrations [2].
Uncertainty Estimate	Reliable for oxygen consumption rates [2].	Can reveal underestimation by GUM for asymmetric systems [2].	Validation of GUM results for percentage inhibition [2].
Computational Demand	Lower (Analytical approach) [29].	Higher (Numerical simulation) [29].	Requirement for iterative calculations [29].
Result Correlation	Minimal impact from considering variable correlations [2].	Naturally incorporates correlations through joint distributions [29].	Analysis of up to 29 correlated uncertainty inputs [2].

The data reveal that for the direct calculation of the oxygen consumption rate ((R_i)), a relatively linear model, both GUM and MCS produced consistent and reliable uncertainty estimates, validating the use of the GUM method for this specific output [2]. However, for derived metrics like the percentage inhibition, particularly at lower concentrations of toxicant, the output distributions were often asymmetric. In these cases, the GUM method, which inherently assumes a symmetric normal or t-distribution, underestimated the measurement uncertainty, whereas MCS accurately captured the distribution's shape and provided a more reliable uncertainty interval [2].

This pattern is consistent with findings in other fields. For instance, a study on perspiration measurement systems noted that MCS could provide more accurate results for non-linear relationships, overcoming the limitations of the GUM's first-order Taylor series approximation [29]. Similarly, in the determination of cadmium in water, the GUM framework overestimated the expanded uncertainty by approximately 10% compared to MCS [30].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Reagents and Materials for ISO 8192:2007 Oxygen Consumption Inhibition Tests

Item	Function in the Experiment	Example Specification/Supplier
Nitrified Activated Sludge	Provides the microbial consortium for measuring oxygen consumption inhibition.	Sourced from a full-scale municipal WWTP [2].
3,5-Dichlorophenol	Reference toxicant used to standardize the test and validate results.	Purity >98%, e.g., SIGMA-ALDRICH [2].
Peptone and Meat Extract	Organic substrates in the test medium that support heterotrophic microbial activity.	e.g., Karl Roth GmbH + Co. KG [2].
N-Allylthiourea (ATU)	Specific inhibitor of nitrification; used to differentiate microbial respiration types.	Dissolved at 2.5 g/L, e.g., MERCK-Schuchardt [2].
Oxygen Probe	Precisely measures dissolved oxygen concentration over time.	e.g., FDO 925 with Multi 3430 meter (WTW) [2].
Mineral Salts (Urea, MgSOâ‚„, KHâ‚‚POâ‚„, etc.)	Provides essential inorganic nutrients for microbial growth and activity.	e.g., MERCK, Darmstadt [2].

Discussion and Interpretation

The comparative analysis indicates that the choice between GUM and MCS is not a matter of which is universally superior, but rather which is more appropriate for the specific output of the measurement model.

Diagram 2: Decision logic for selecting between GUM and Monte Carlo methods based on measurement model characteristics.

For the direct calculation of oxygen consumption rates ((R_i)), which is based on a linear equation, the GUM method is both sufficient and efficient. Its results have been validated against MCS, confirming its reliability for this purpose [2]. The dominant sources of uncertainty in this context are primarily physical and instrumental: temperature tolerance, measurement time interval, and oxygen probe accuracy. These factors collectively accounted for over 90% of the total uncertainty, directing quality control efforts towards precise temperature control, automated timing, and regular probe calibration [2].

In contrast, for derived metrics like percentage inhibition, which can exhibit strong non-linearity and asymmetry—especially at low toxicant concentrations—MCS is the recommended approach. It overcomes the fundamental limitations of the GUM method, which relies on first-order linearization and assumes symmetric distributions [2] [29]. The underestimation of uncertainty by GUM in these asymmetric scenarios is a critical finding, as it can affect the assessment of compliance with regulatory thresholds.

This head-to-head comparison demonstrates that both GUM and Monte Carlo Simulation are valuable tools for evaluating measurement uncertainty in oxygen consumption rates. The GUM method provides a reliable and computationally efficient approach for linear components of the analysis, such as the core oxygen consumption rate calculation. However, for the non-linear and asymmetric uncertainty distributions often encountered in derived toxicity metrics like percentage inhibition, Monte Carlo Simulation offers a more robust and accurate solution.

The findings underscore the importance of moving beyond a one-size-fits-all approach to uncertainty analysis. Researchers should consider the nature of their specific measurement model when selecting an evaluation method. For critical applications, using Monte Carlo Simulation to validate GUM results, or as the primary tool for complex models, significantly enhances the reliability of toxicity assessments and supports better environmental decision-making.

In the field of drug development and environmental toxicology, accurately determining the inhibitory effect of a compound is fundamental for assessing its potency and toxicity. A critical yet often overlooked challenge is the validation of results when the percentage inhibition data exhibits asymmetric distributions. Traditional analytical methods, derived from the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM), can significantly underestimate the uncertainty in these cases, leading to potentially flawed scientific and regulatory decisions [2]. This guide objectively compares the GUM method and Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) for quantifying measurement uncertainty within the context of the ISO 8192:2007 method, which determines the inhibition of oxygen consumption in activated sludge [2]. The analysis demonstrates that for asymmetric percentage inhibition data, simulation-based approaches are not merely an alternative but an essential tool for ensuring scientific rigor and reproducibility [31].

Methodological Comparison: GUM vs. Monte Carlo Simulation

The core of uncertainty quantification for inhibition measurements lies in selecting an appropriate statistical method. The following section provides a detailed comparison of the two predominant approaches.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Uncertainty Quantification Methods

Feature	GUM (Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement)	Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS)
Core Principle	Applies the law of uncertainty propagation using a first-order Taylor series approximation [2].	Uses computational power to randomly sample from input probability distributions and model the output distribution [2].
Model Assumptions	Assumes a linear model and characterizes the output with a normal or t-distribution [2].	Makes no strong assumptions about model linearity; handles complex, non-linear systems effectively [2].
Handling of Asymmetric Data	Prone to underestimating uncertainty, especially at lower toxicant concentrations where distributions are asymmetric [2].	Accurately characterizes asymmetric output distributions, providing a more realistic uncertainty estimate [2].
Implementation Complexity	Relatively straightforward, can be implemented manually or with basic software.	Requires computational resources and software capable of running thousands of iterations.
Validation Status	Considered reliable for linear models with symmetric outputs [2].	Recommended by GUM Supplement 1 for validating GUM results, particularly for non-linear or asymmetric systems [2].
Primary Application in Inhibition Testing	Suitable for preliminary analysis or when input variables are known to produce symmetric outputs.	Essential for final analysis of percentage inhibition data, which often displays inherent asymmetry [2].

Detailed Experimental Protocols

ISO 8192:2007 Activated Sludge Respiration Inhibition Test

This protocol is used to determine the toxicity of a substance by measuring its inhibition of oxygen consumption in activated sludge [2].

• Sludge Preparation: Nitrified activated sludge is allowed to settle at room temperature for one hour. The supernatant is decanted and replaced with chlorine-free tap water. This cleaning process is repeated four times [2].
• Test Medium Preparation: A specific test medium is prepared, containing peptone (16 g/L), meat extract (11 g/L), urea (3 g/L), sodium chloride (0.7 g/L), calcium chloride dihydrate (0.4 g/L), magnesium sulphate heptahydrate (0.2 g/L), and anhydrous potassium dihydrogen phosphate (2.8 g/L), dissolved in distilled/deionized water [2].
• Reference Substance Preparation: 3,5-Dichlorophenol is dissolved at a concentration of 1 g/L in distilled/deionized water to serve as a reference toxicant [2].
• Test Setup: A test mixture with at least three different concentrations of the test material and a blank control is prepared. The mixture is aerated for 30 minutes before being transferred to a test vessel on a magnetic stirrer [2].
• Measurement: Oxygen consumption is measured in the test vessel using an oxygen probe, with the environment maintained at 22 ± 2 °C and a pH of 7.5 ± 0.5 [2].
• Calculation: The oxygen consumption rate is calculated using the formula: ( Ri = \frac{\rho1 - \rho2}{\Delta t} \times 60 \text{ (mg/L·h)} ) where ( \rho1 ) and ( \rho_2 ) are the oxygen concentrations at the beginning and end of the measurement range (mg/L), and ( \Delta t ) is the time interval (min) [2].
• Data Analysis: Inhibition curves are generated from the oxygen consumption rates to determine the EC50 value.

High-Throughput Screening (HTS) for Compound Potency

This protocol is used in drug discovery to rapidly evaluate the potency of thousands of compounds [32].

• Primary Screening: Compounds are first tested at a single, uniform concentration to measure percent inhibition [32].
• Hit Identification: Compounds exhibiting inhibition above a predefined threshold are selected for further analysis [32].
• Dose-Response Assay: Selected hits undergo a dose-response analysis, where their effect is measured across a range of concentrations [32].
• Curve Fitting: The four-parameter logistic Hill equation is used to model the relationship between inhibitor concentration and response, from which IC50 values are derived as a measure of compound potency [32].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Inhibition Testing

Item	Function in the Experiment
Activated Sludge	Serves as the biological system containing the microorganisms whose oxygen consumption is monitored to assess toxicity [2].
3,5-Dichlorophenol	A reference substance recommended by ISO 8192:2007 used to validate the test procedure and ensure consistent, comparable results between laboratories [2].
N-Allylthiourea (ATU)	An inhibitor of nitrification, used to selectively measure heterotrophic oxygen consumption inhibition by preventing the activity of nitrifying bacteria [2].
Oxygen Probe	A critical measurement device for accurately determining the dissolved oxygen concentration in the test vessel over time [2].
Test Medium (Peptone, Meat Extract, Urea)	Provides essential organic and inorganic nutrients to maintain the metabolic activity and stability of the microorganisms in the activated sludge during the test [2].

Workflow and Decision Pathway for Uncertainty Analysis

The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow for quantifying measurement uncertainty in inhibition testing, highlighting the critical decision point where simulations become essential.

Uncertainty Analysis Workflow

Research on the ISO 8192:2007 method has identified several key contributors to the total measurement uncertainty. The most significant factors, which account for over 90% of the total uncertainty, are [2]:

• Temperature tolerance
• Measurement time interval
• Oxygen probe accuracy

Controlling these variables is critical for reducing overall uncertainty and improving the reliability of inhibition measurements [2].

The comparison clearly demonstrates that while the GUM method provides a foundational approach to uncertainty quantification, it is inadequate for the asymmetric percentage inhibition data commonly encountered in toxicity and potency testing. Monte Carlo Simulation is an essential tool for validating such results, as it accurately captures the true uncertainty without the simplifying assumptions that lead to underestimation. Integrating MCS into the analytical workflow, as part of a broader commitment to transparency and scientific rigor, is paramount for improving the reproducibility and reliability of research outcomes in drug development and environmental toxicology [31].

Within the framework of research quantifying measurement uncertainty for the ISO 8192:2007 method, benchmarking its performance against other toxicity evaluation techniques is imperative. The ISO 8192:2007 standard, which determines the inhibition of oxygen consumption in activated sludge, is a vital tool for protecting biological processes in wastewater treatment plants [2] [7]. However, its reliability and appropriate application depend on understanding its capabilities relative to other common methods. This guide provides an objective comparison of the Oxygen Consumption Rate Inhibition Method (OCRIM) with other established techniques, based on experimental data and analysis. The focus is on the sensitivity, accuracy, and practical performance of these methods when evaluating the toxicity of typical pollutants, thereby offering researchers and drug development professionals a clear basis for methodological selection.

Experimental Protocols for Key Toxicity Methods

A comparative study evaluated four common test methods for toxicity evaluation of typical toxicants on activated sludge [33]. The following outlines the core experimental protocols for each method as implemented in that study.

Oxygen Consumption Rate Inhibition Method (OCRIM)

• Principle: Measures the effect of wastewater or chemicals on the oxygen consumption rate of activated sludge, indicating inhibition on biological treatment [33].
• Procedure: Activated sludge was washed and prepared. A test mixture with different dilution levels of the toxicant and a blank control was prepared. After aeration, the mixture was transferred to a test vessel on a magnetic stirrer. Oxygen consumption was measured using an oxygen probe, and the oxygen consumption rate was calculated based on the change in oxygen concentration over a specific time interval [2] [7] [33].

Dehydrogenase Activity Inhibition Method (DAIM)

• Principle: Based on the effect of toxicants on dehydrogenase enzyme activity, measured through a color reaction [33].
• Procedure: The specific experimental procedure involves incubating activated sludge with a toxicant and a substrate that dehydrogenase acts upon. The activity of the dehydrogenase enzyme is then determined by measuring the rate of formation of a colored product, with inhibition indicating toxicity.

Nitrification Rate Inhibition Method (NRIM)

• Principle: Utilizes nitrifying bacteria as the test organism, which are reported to be more susceptible to toxic substances [33]. The method is standardized as ISO 9509 (2006).
• Procedure: The procedure involves exposing nitrifying sludge to the toxicant and measuring the rate of ammonium oxidation to nitrate. The inhibition of this nitrification rate is used to quantify toxicity.

Growth Rate Inhibition Method (GRIM)

• Principle: A more intuitive method that compares the optical density of activated sludge suspended liquid exposed to a toxic sample with a blank control to obtain the inhibition rate on microbial growth [33]. It is guided by ISO 15522 (1999).
• Procedure: Activated sludge is exposed to the toxicant in a growth medium. The growth is monitored by measuring the optical density of the sludge suspension over time, and the inhibition of growth rate is calculated relative to the control.

Comparative Performance Data

The same study compared the four methods using typical toxicants, including 3,5-dichlorophenol (a reference toxicant), and evaluated them based on sensitivity, accuracy, and response time [33]. The following tables summarize the key quantitative findings.

Table 1: Effective Concentration (ECâ‚…â‚€) Values for Typical Toxicants by Test Method (mg/L)

Toxicant	OCRIM	DAIM	NRIM	GRIM
3,5-Dichlorophenol	4.65	6.11	0.83	6.89
2,4-Dichlorophenol	8.91	12.30	1.45	13.20
Formaldehyde	12.50	16.80	2.10	18.10
Pyridine	485.00	562.00	62.30	610.00

Table 2: Overall Performance Comparison of Toxicity Test Methods

Performance Indicator	OCRIM	DAIM	NRIM	GRIM
Sensitivity (to reference toxicant)	High	Medium	Very High	Low
Accuracy (Error value of ECâ‚…â‚€)	< 0.15 mg/L	~0.20 mg/L	~0.25 mg/L	~0.30 mg/L
Response Time	< 40 minutes	~60 minutes	~120 minutes	> 7 days
Correlation (R²) between concentration & inhibition	Highest	High	Medium	Low

The Researcher's Toolkit: Essential Materials and Reagents

The following table details key reagents and materials used in the ISO 8192:2007 Oxygen Consumption Rate Inhibition Test, based on experimental setups from the cited research [2] [7].

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Activated Sludge Respiration Inhibition Test

Item	Function / Description
Activated Sludge	Sourced from a wastewater treatment plant; the biological medium whose oxygen consumption is monitored.
3,5-Dichlorophenol	Reference toxicant used to standardize the test and ensure international comparability.
Test Medium	Provides essential nutrients; contains peptone, meat extract, urea, and mineral salts (e.g., NaCl, CaClâ‚‚, MgSOâ‚„, KHâ‚‚POâ‚„).
N-Allylthiourea (ATU)	Inhibitor of nitrification; used to selectively measure heterotrophic oxygen consumption.
Oxygen Probe	Critical instrument for measuring dissolved oxygen concentration in the test vessel over time.
Aeration System	Provides aeration to the test mixture prior to measurement.

Experimental Workflow for Method Benchmarking

The diagram below illustrates the logical workflow of a comparative study benchmarking the Oxygen Consumption Rate Inhibition Method against other toxicity evaluation techniques.

The comparative data reveals a clear performance hierarchy among the tested methods. The Nitrification Rate Inhibition Method (NRIM) demonstrated the highest sensitivity, with ECâ‚…â‚€ values an order of magnitude lower than the other methods for all tested toxicants [33]. This is attributed to the known high susceptibility of nitrifying bacteria to toxic substances. However, the Oxygen Consumption Rate Inhibition Method (OCRIM) proved to be the most well-rounded method overall. It offered high sensitivity, the best accuracy (as indicated by the lowest error values for effective concentrations), and the fastest response time of less than 40 minutes [33].

Furthermore, OCRIM showed the highest correlation between toxicant concentration and inhibition ratio, making it a highly reliable and predictable test. This performance profile, combined with its status as an international standard (ISO 8192:2007), makes OCRIM a particularly robust and efficient choice for routine toxicity screening in contexts like wastewater treatment monitoring [33]. For research scenarios where ultimate sensitivity is the primary concern, such as detecting trace levels of highly specific inhibitors, NRIM may be preferable despite its longer response time. This analysis provides a data-driven foundation for selecting the most appropriate toxicity testing method based on the specific requirements of sensitivity, speed, and operational convenience.

The accurate assessment of wastewater toxicity is critical for protecting the biological processes essential to wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). The ISO 8192:2007 method, which determines the inhibition of oxygen consumption in activated sludge, serves as a internationally recognized procedure for this purpose [6] [2]. However, like all analytical methods, it is subject to measurement uncertainties that can substantially affect the reliability and interpretation of its results [7]. These uncertainties stem from multiple sources, including biological variability, measurement device tolerances, and environmental factors [7].

The quantification of this measurement uncertainty is not merely an academic exercise; it is a fundamental requirement for laboratories accredited under ISO/IEC 17025 and crucial for making informed environmental decisions [7]. Underestimation of measurement uncertainty can lead to hazardous substances being misclassified as harmless, potentially resulting in operational failures at WWTPs and harm to the aquatic environment [7].

This guide synthesizes recent research on two primary approaches for quantifying measurement uncertainty in ISO 8192:2007 applications: the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) framework and Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS). By comparing their performance characteristics, data requirements, and implementation complexities, we provide evidence-based recommendations for method selection tailored to specific research objectives and laboratory capabilities.

Experimental Foundations: ISO 8192:2007 and Uncertainty Analysis

The ISO 8192:2007 Method Fundamentals

The ISO 8192:2007 method assesses toxicity by measuring the inhibition of oxygen consumption in activated sludge [6]. The test determines the EC50 value for three types of inhibition: percentage inhibition of total oxygen consumption, heterotrophic oxygen consumption inhibition, and percentage inhibition of oxygen consumption by nitrification [2] [7]. The method's validity spans different concentration ranges: 2–25 mg/L for total oxygen consumption, 5–40 mg/L for heterotrophic oxygen consumption, and 0.1–10 mg/L for nitrification inhibition [7].

The experimental procedure utilizes activated sludge from wastewater treatment plants, with 3,5-dichlorophenol typically serving as the reference substance to ensure international comparability [2]. The oxygen consumption rate ((R_i)) is calculated using the formula:

[ Ri = \frac{\rho1 - \rho_2}{\Delta t} \times 60 \quad \text{(mg/L·h)} ]

where (ρ1) represents the oxygen concentration at the beginning of the measurement range (mg/L), (ρ2) is the oxygen concentration at the end of the range (mg/L), and (Δt) is the time interval in minutes [2].

Recent investigations have identified up to 29 distinct contributors to measurement uncertainty in the ISO 8192:2007 method [6]. Among these, three factors dominate, collectively accounting for over 90% of the total uncertainty:

• Temperature tolerance: Fluctuations outside the specified 22 ± 2°C range significantly impact biological activity and oxygen consumption measurements [6]
• Measurement interval: Precise recording of time intervals is crucial for accurate oxygen consumption rate calculations [6]
• Oxygen probe accuracy: Regular calibration of oxygen probes is essential for reliable measurements [6]

Other important factors include pH stability (maintained at 7.5 ± 0.5), activated sludge preparation methods, and mixing consistency [7] [4]. These dominant uncertainty sources highlight the critical need for stringent procedural controls in toxicity testing laboratories.

Table 1: Major Uncertainty Contributors in ISO 8192:2007 Toxicity Testing

Uncertainty Factor	Impact Level	Recommended Control Measures
Temperature Tolerance	High (>30% of total uncertainty)	Maintain 22 ± 2°C; use calibrated temperature control systems
Measurement Interval	High (>30% of total uncertainty)	Precise time recording; automated measurement systems
Oxygen Probe Accuracy	High (>30% of total uncertainty)	Regular calibration; validation with standards
pH Stability	Medium	Buffer solutions; regular pH meter calibration
Sludge Preparation	Medium	Standardized washing procedures; consistent source

Uncertainty Quantification Methodologies

GUM Framework Approach

The Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) provides an internationally recognized approach for uncertainty estimation [7]. The GUM method is based on the law of uncertainty propagation and characterizes output quantities using a normal distribution or t-distribution [7]. It is particularly well-suited for linear models with multiple input quantities and a single output quantity [7].

The GUM approach involves:

• Identifying all significant uncertainty sources
• Quantifying the magnitude of each uncertainty component
• Calculating the combined uncertainty through error propagation
• Determining the expanded uncertainty to provide a confidence interval

This method has gained worldwide acceptance and distribution across various scientific disciplines [7]. Its structured framework facilitates standardized reporting and comparability of uncertainty estimates between different laboratories [7].

Monte Carlo Simulation Approach

Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) provides a computational alternative to the analytical GUM approach [6] [2]. Rather than relying on analytical error propagation, MCS uses random sampling from probability distributions representing each input uncertainty source [7]. By performing thousands of iterations, it builds a numerical representation of the output distribution [7].

MCS is particularly valuable for:

• Non-linear models where analytical propagation becomes complex
• Systems exhibiting asymmetric output distributions
• Validating results obtained through the GUM method
• Systems where input variables have complex statistical relationships

The method is described in Supplement 1 to the GUM and has been widely adopted for uncertainty analysis in complex measurement systems [7].

Experimental Comparison Protocol

Recent research directly comparing GUM and MCS for ISO 8192:2007 uncertainty quantification employed a rigorous experimental design [6] [2]. The methodology encompassed:

Test Setup and Measurement Procedure: Investigations used activated sludge from the Graz, Austria wastewater treatment plant, with 3,5-dichlorophenol as the reference substance [2]. The activated sludge underwent settling at room temperature for approximately one hour, followed by decanting and replacement of the supernatant with chlorine-free tap water—a process repeated four times to clean the sludge [2].

Test Medium Preparation: The standardized medium contained peptone (16 g/L), meat extract (11 g/L), urea (3 g/L), sodium chloride (0.7 g/L), calcium chloride dihydrate (0.4 g/L), magnesium sulphate heptahydrate (0.2 g/L), and anhydrous potassium dihydrogen phosphate (2.8 g/L) dissolved in distilled/deionized water [2]. Additional solutions included N-allylthiourea (ATU) at 2.5 g/L and 3,5-dichlorophenol at 1 g/L [2].

Measurement Conditions: The test mixture was aerated (600 L/h and 300 L/h) for 30 minutes before transfer to a test vessel on a magnetic stirrer [2]. Oxygen consumption was measured using an oxygen probe (FDO 925 WTW and Multi 3430 WTW) with temperature maintained at 22 ± 2°C and pH at 7.5 ± 0.5 [2]. Evaluation involved linear regression of oxygen consumption curves after outlier removal using Cook's Distance [2].

Uncertainty Analysis Implementation: Both GUM and MCS were applied to the same dataset, evaluating up to 29 uncertainty contributions for oxygen consumption rate and percentage inhibition [6]. The comparison assessed methodological agreement, computational requirements, and practical implementation challenges.

The following workflow diagram illustrates the experimental and analytical process for comparing these uncertainty quantification methods:

Uncertainty Quantification Experimental Workflow

Comparative Analysis of GUM vs. Monte Carlo Simulation

Performance Comparison Metrics

Direct experimental comparison reveals distinct performance characteristics for each uncertainty quantification method:

Table 2: Method Performance Comparison for ISO 8192:2007 Uncertainty Analysis

Performance Metric	GUM Method	Monte Carlo Simulation
Oxygen Consumption Rate	Reliable results validated by MCS [6]	Strong agreement with GUM for linear systems [6]
Percentage Inhibition	Underestimates uncertainty at lower toxicant concentrations [6]	Handles asymmetric distributions effectively [6]
Computational Efficiency	Higher; suitable for routine analysis [7]	Lower; requires significant computation [7]
Implementation Complexity	Lower; established protocols [7]	Higher; requires programming/software [7]
Correlation Handling	Minimal impact from correlation consideration [6]	Naturally accommodates complex correlations [7]
Regulatory Acceptance	High; internationally recognized [7]	Growing acceptance for validation [7]

Data Structure and Method Selection Guidelines

The choice between GUM and Monte Carlo Simulation should be guided by the specific data structure and research requirements:

GUM is recommended when:

• Analyzing oxygen consumption rates rather than percentage inhibition [6]
• Working with approximately linear systems [7]
• Resources are limited for complex computational approaches [7]
• Results are needed quickly for routine assessment [7]
• The output quantity follows a normal or t-distribution [7]

Monte Carlo Simulation is preferable when:

• Assessing percentage inhibition, particularly at low toxicant concentrations [6]
• Dealing with asymmetric distributions in output variables [6]
• Validating GUM results for critical applications [7]
• Analyzing complex, non-linear systems [7]
• Comprehensive uncertainty characterization is required [7]

Hybrid approaches combining both methods offer a robust solution, using GUM for initial analysis and MCS for validation and special cases [6].

Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Implementation of reliable ISO 8192:2007 toxicity testing with proper uncertainty quantification requires specific research reagents and materials:

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for ISO 8192:2007 Testing

Reagent/Material	Specification	Function in Protocol
Activated Sludge	From nitrifying WWTP; washed and settled [2]	Biological test medium representing WWTP conditions
3,5-Dichlorophenol	1 g/L in distilled/deionized water [2]	Reference toxicant for method validation and calibration
Synthetic Test Medium	Peptone (16 g/L), meat extract (11 g/L), urea (3 g/L) [2]	Nutrient source maintaining microbial activity during testing
N-Allylthiourea (ATU)	2.5 g/L in distilled/deionized water [2]	Nitrification inhibitor for specific inhibition assessments
Oxygen Probe	FDO 925 WTW with Multi 3430 WTW [2]	Primary measurement device for oxygen consumption rate
Magnetic Stirrer	Rotilabo MH 15 [2]	Maintaining homogeneous test mixture conditions
Aeration System	SuperFish (600 L/h) and JBL (300 L/h) [2]	Oxygenation of test mixture prior to measurement

The comparative analysis of GUM and Monte Carlo Simulation for quantifying measurement uncertainty in ISO 8192:2007 toxicity testing reveals a complementary relationship between these methodologies. For oxygen consumption rate measurements, the GUM method provides reliable, computationally efficient uncertainty estimates suitable for routine laboratory applications. However, for percentage inhibition calculations—particularly at lower toxicant concentrations where asymmetric distributions prevail—Monte Carlo Simulation offers superior performance by accurately capturing the complex statistical behavior of these systems.

These findings support a tiered approach to method selection based on data structure and specific research requirements. Laboratories should prioritize identification of dominant uncertainty sources (temperature control, measurement interval, oxygen probe accuracy) regardless of the statistical approach employed. The integration of both methods provides the most comprehensive uncertainty characterization, with GUM serving as the primary tool for most applications and MCS reserved for validation purposes and cases involving significant distributional asymmetries.

Conclusion

The rigorous quantification of measurement uncertainty is not merely a statistical exercise but a fundamental requirement for generating reliable and defensible data from ISO 8192:2007 toxicity tests. This analysis demonstrates that while the GUM method provides reliable results for linear models like oxygen consumption rates, Monte Carlo Simulation is indispensable for accurately characterizing the asymmetric uncertainty distributions often found in percentage inhibition data, particularly at low concentrations. The identification of temperature, timing, and oxygen probe accuracy as dominant error sources provides a clear roadmap for laboratory optimization. For biomedical and clinical research, these enhanced uncertainty practices are crucial for improving the predictability of drug-related toxicity on microbial communities, ensuring regulatory compliance, and building a more robust foundation for environmental risk assessment of pharmaceuticals and chemical agents. Future work should focus on integrating these uncertainty quantification frameworks into standardized automated analysis tools to further improve accessibility and reproducibility.

References

• 1. ISO 8192:2007 - Water quality — Test for inhibition of ... [https://www.iso.org/standard/37369.html]
• 2. A Comparative Analysis of GUM and Monte Carlo Simulation [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12568270/]
• 3. Microbiological toxicity tests using standardized ISO/OECD ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11365844/]
• 4. Determination of Toxicity Using the Activated Sludge ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/16/23/3464]
• 5. Microbiological toxicity tests using standardized ISO/OECD ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00253-024-13286-0]
• 6. A Comparative Analysis of GUM and Monte Carlo Simulation [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41150556/]
• 7. A Comparative Analysis of GUM and Monte Carlo Simulation [https://www.mdpi.com/2305-6304/13/10/857]
• 8. Understanding ISO/IEC 17025 Requirements ... [https://www.labmanager.com/uncertainty-in-measurement-training-program-16756]
• 9. Common Mistakes in ISO/IEC 17025 Assessments [https://nac-us.org/2025/09/30/common-mistakes-in-iso-iec-17025-assessments/]
• 10. The Definitive Guide to Understanding ISO/IEC 17025 [https://www.masmanagementsystems.com.au/iso-17025/]
• 11. How to Report Uncertainty in Measurement [https://www.isobudgets.com/how-to-report-uncertainty-in-measurement/]
• 12. Ecotoxicological Risk Assessment → Term [https://pollution.sustainability-directory.com/term/ecotoxicological-risk-assessment/]
• 13. Confronting variability with uncertainty in the ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412018330058]
• 14. The Scientific Basis of Uncertainty Factors Used in Setting ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4643360/]
• 15. Recommendations to address uncertainties in ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-47698-0]
• 16. Inhibition of the respiration of activated sludge [https://www.webctp.com/en/inhibition-of-the-respiration-of-activated-sludge]
• 17. Understanding GUM and Measurement Uncertainty [https://www.interfaceforce.com/understanding-gum-and-measurement-uncertainty/]
• 18. Derivation of Two Fundamental Equations in the GUM from ... [https://medium.com/@snp.kriss/derivation-of-two-fundamental-equations-in-the-gum-from-the-law-of-uncertainty-propagation-cf8604c6ae6f]
• 19. Bettina Neunteufel's Post [https://www.linkedin.com/posts/bettina-neunteufel-9562a71a9_quantification-and-validation-of-measurement-activity-7386370878860759041-KbSK]
• 20. Top Monte Carlo Simulation Tools for 2025 [Full Comparison] [https://analytica.com/decision-technologies/comparing-monte-carlo-simulation-software/]
• 21. Spatially resolved quantification of oxygen consumption rate ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11056769/]
• 22. Size-related variability of oxygen consumption rates in ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2024/lc/d4lc00204k]
• 23. GISTEMP Uncertainty Analysis: Global Annual Mean ... [https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/uncertainty/quantification.html]
• 24. Measurement Uncertainty Evaluation: Differences Between ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2673-8244/5/4/59]
• 25. Comparison of uncertainty evaluation methods for virtual ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266591742400761X]
• 26. Tempsens Temperature Sensor Calibration Guide [https://tempsens.com/blog/tempsens-temperature-sensor-calibration-guide/?srsltid=AfmBOoqw60fmJRsZMH91BXibvoa7XeKHOd5apnH302jfrB7_ch9tNNZ_]
• 27. Temperature Sensor Calibration: All You Need to Know [https://www.elpro.com/en/learn/temperature-sensor-calibration]
• 28. Experimental uncertainty analysis [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_uncertainty_analysis]
• 29. Comparison of GUM and Monte Carlo methods for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263224116001627]
• 30. Comparison of ISO-GUM and Monte Carlo methods for the ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21238753/]
• 31. Improving transparency and scientific rigor in academic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6346653/]
• 32. Theoretical and Experimental Relationships between ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2472555222074500]
• 33. Comparison of four test methods for toxicity evaluation ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969719324428]