OUR QUALITY STUDIES
It is an essential need that the results of analyses carried out by analysis laboratories to be reliable and in expedient quality. In accordance with this purpose, efficiency experiments are one of the most important elements to provide the quality of experimental results as the external quality control instrument which is one of the requirements of the standard TS EN ISO/IEC 1725. Efficiency test results are used as an objective evidence to evaluate the efficiency of the laboratory.
DOKTOLAB, with quality awareness, has been attending the widely attended efficiency tests held internationally by American Fertilizers Instutite every month.
Results of the efficiency tests we attended proves the reliability of our analysis reports. Our results are always within the gap of “Z-score” which is acceptable for each analysis. Z-score is the gap between the laboratory result and the value assigned considering the variance of the method.
As DOKTOLAB the reason why we publish the results of international laboratory tests is to be able to inform our customers about the reliability of our results.
International efficiency of our test results for the primary plant nutrition elements such as Nitrogen(N), Phosphorus(P2O5) Potassium(K2O) are presented on the graphics below. As seen on the graphics, our results are within the limits of reliability.
Figure 1. % Nitrogen(N) Test results of International Efficiency
Z-Skoru: Z-Score, Katılım tarihi: Date attended
Figure 2. % Phosphorus(P2O5) Test results of International Efficiency
Z-Skoru: Z-Score, Katılım tarihi: Date attended
Figure 3. % Potassium(K2O) Test results of International Efficiency
Z-Skoru: Z-Score, Katılım tarihi: Date attended
Our Test results of International Efficiency for the other secondary and micro plant nutrition elements in fertilizer are summarized separately for each parameter on the below charts. These results show that z-scores attained here are within the values of acceptable limits.
N L A : Number of Laboratory Attended
Table 1. Test results of International Efficiency for % Magnesium (Mg) in fertilizer
| DATE |
NLA |
Z-SCORE |
COMMENT |
| 2006–12 |
43 |
-2,19 |
Efficient |
| 2007–01 |
55 |
-0,78 |
Efficient |
| 2007–04 |
44 |
0,30 |
Efficient |
| 2007–06 |
45 |
-0,38 |
Efficient |
| 2007–07 |
43 |
0,43 |
Efficient |
|
2007–08 |
42 |
1,11 |
Efficient |
|
2007–09 |
47 |
1,49 |
Efficient |
|
2007–10 |
44 |
0,76 |
Efficient |
|
2007–11 |
29 |
1,05 |
Efficient |
|
2007–12 |
5 |
1,62 |
Efficient |
|
2008–01 |
53 |
-0,55 |
Efficient |
|
2008–02 |
47 |
-0,19 |
Efficient |
|
2008–06 |
54 |
0,98 |
Efficient |
|
2008–09 |
47 |
0,64 |
Efficient |
|
2010–03 |
50 |
-0,25 |
Efficient |
|
2010–05 |
56 |
-0,43 |
Efficient |
Table 2. Test results of International Efficiency for % Sulphur (S) in fertilizer
| DATE |
NLA |
Z-SCORE |
COMMENT |
| 2006–12 |
41 |
-0,52 |
Efficient |
| 2007–01 |
39 |
-0,36 |
Efficient |
| 2007–04 |
35 |
-0,30 |
Efficient |
|
2007–05 |
17 |
-1,20 |
Efficient |
|
2007–06 |
37 |
-1,31 |
Efficient |
|
2007–07 |
34 |
0,18 |
Efficient |
|
2007–09 |
39 |
-1,33 |
Efficient |
|
2007–10 |
39 |
-0,58 |
Efficient |
|
2008–01 |
42 |
-0,69 |
Efficient |
|
2008–02 |
36 |
-1,12 |
Efficient |
|
2008–04 |
38 |
-0,20 |
Efficient |
|
2008–06 |
43 |
-0,78 |
Efficient |
|
2008–07 |
36 |
-0,36 |
Efficient |
|
2008–08 |
43 |
-1,07 |
Efficient |
|
2008–09 |
39 |
1,27 |
Efficient |
|
2008–10 |
49 |
-1,35 |
Efficient |
|
2008–11 |
48 |
-1,07 |
Efficient |
|
2009–02 |
49 |
-1,15 |
Efficient |
|
2009–03 |
27 |
-1,97 |
Efficient |
|
2009–04 |
46 |
-1,42 |
Efficient |
|
2009–05 |
31 |
-0,31 |
Efficient |
|
2009–06 |
43 |
0,26 |
Efficient |
|
2010–01 |
23 |
-0,69 |
Efficient |
|
2010–03 |
41 |
-0,91 |
Efficient |
|
2010–04 |
28 |
-1,32 |
Efficient |
|
2010–05 |
45 |
-0,41 |
Efficient |
|
2010–06 |
45 |
-0,53 |
Efficient |
|
2010–07 |
45 |
-1,0 |
Efficient |
|
2010–08 |
40 |
-0,4 |
Efficient |
|
2010–10 |
34 |
-0,31 |
Efficient |
|
2010–11 |
46 |
-0,17 |
Efficient |
Table 3. Test results of International Efficiency for % Boron (B) in fertilizer
| DATE |
NLA |
Z-SCORE |
COMMENT |
| 2006–12 |
23 |
-0,99 |
Efficient |
|
2007–03 |
30 |
-0,38 |
Efficient |
| 2007–04 |
25 |
-0,72 |
Efficient |
|
2007–05 |
25 |
-0,52 |
Efficient |
|
2007–06 |
22 |
-1,11 |
Efficient |
|
2007–09 |
28 |
0,86 |
Efficient |
|
2007–10 |
27 |
0,25 |
Efficient |
|
2007–11 |
7 |
0,06 |
Efficient |
|
2008–01 |
6 |
0,15 |
Efficient |
|
2008–05 |
5 |
-0,47 |
Efficient |
|
2008–07 |
7 |
0,25 |
Efficient |
|
2008–09 |
28 |
1,53 |
Efficient |
|
2009–02 |
9 |
1,09 |
Efficient |
|
2009–03 |
27 |
-0,52 |
Efficient |
|
2009–04 |
11 |
-0,45 |
Efficient |
|
2010–03 |
31 |
0,57 |
Efficient |
|
2010–05 |
32 |
-0,67 |
Efficient |
|
2010–10 |
33 |
0,95 |
Efficient |
Table 4. Test results of International Efficiency for % Copper (Cu) in fertilizer
| DATE |
NLA |
Z-SCORE |
COMMENT |
| 2006–12 |
22 |
-0,71 |
Efficient |
|
2007–01 |
28 |
0,80 |
Efficient |
|
2007–03 |
47 |
-0,60 |
Efficient |
|
2007–06 |
21 |
-0,21 |
Efficient |
|
2007–07 |
21 |
-0,30 |
Efficient |
|
2007–08 |
26 |
-0,9 |
Efficient |
|
2007–09 |
26 |
3,05 |
Efficient |
|
2007–10 |
18 |
-0,08 |
Efficient |
|
2007–11 |
7 |
2,02 |
Efficient |
|
2008–01 |
19 |
2,39 |
Efficient |
|
2008–02 |
14 |
1,91 |
Efficient |
|
2008–05 |
26 |
1,49 |
Efficient |
|
2008–06 |
27 |
1,73 |
Efficient |
|
2008–07 |
28 |
0,13 |
Efficient |
|
2008–10 |
64 |
-0,86 |
Efficient |
|
2008–12 |
54 |
-1,46 |
Efficient |
|
2009–03 |
43 |
0,37 |
Efficient |
|
2009–06 |
41 |
-0,53 |
Efficient |
|
2010–05 |
27 |
1,67 |
Efficient |
Table 5. Test results of International Efficiency for % Iron (Fe) in fertilizer
|
DATE |
NLA |
Z-SCORE |
COMMENT |
|
2006–12 |
41 |
-0,50 |
Efficient |
|
2007–01 |
51 |
-1,75 |
Efficient |
|
2007–03 |
46 |
-2,06 |
Efficient |
|
2007–04 |
42 |
-0,37 |
Efficient |
|
2007–05 |
43 |
-0,92 |
Efficient |
|
2007–06 |
20 |
0,79 |
Efficient |
|
2007–07 |
47 |
-0,94 |
Efficient |
|
2007–08 |
45 |
-0,25 |
Efficient |
|
2007–09 |
45 |
-0,33 |
Efficient |
|
2007–10 |
40 |
-0,23 |
Efficient |
|
2007–11 |
24 |
0,96 |
Efficient |
|
2007–12 |
5 |
-0,64 |
Efficient |
|
2008–01 |
12 |
-1,89 |
Efficient |
|
2008–02 |
35 |
-0,37 |
Efficient |
|
2008–03 |
46 |
-1,19 |
Efficient |
|
2008–05 |
12 |
-1,63 |
Efficient |
|
2008–06 |
48 |
0,95 |
Efficient |
|
2008–08 |
54 |
-1,31 |
Efficient |
|
2008–09 |
52 |
0,68 |
Efficient |
|
2008–10 |
15 |
-0,72 |
Efficient |
|
2008–12 |
53 |
-1,41 |
Efficient |
|
2009–03 |
43 |
-0,13 |
Efficient |
|
2009–04 |
17 |
-1,3 |
Efficient |
|
2009–05 |
46 |
-1,98 |
Efficient |
|
2009–06 |
46 |
-1,9 |
Efficient |
|
2010–03 |
48 |
0,79 |
Efficient |
|
2010–05 |
52 |
-1,08 |
Efficient |
|
2010–06 |
50 |
-0,67 |
Efficient |
|
2010–07 |
49 |
-0,74 |
Efficient |
|
2010–10 |
50 |
-0,67 |
Efficient |
Table 6. Test results of International Efficiency for % Manganese (Mn) in fertilizer
|
DATE |
NLA |
Z-SCORE |
COMMENT |
|
2007–01 |
50 |
-0,88 |
Efficient |
|
2007–03 |
51 |
-0,75 |
Efficient |
|
2007–04 |
43 |
-1,15 |
Efficient |
|
2007–05 |
23 |
-0,98 |
Efficient |
|
2007–07 |
42 |
-0,31 |
Efficient |
|
2007–08 |
43 |
0,25 |
Efficient |
|
2007–09 |
45 |
-0,5 |
Efficient |
|
2007–10 |
40 |
-0,93 |
Efficient |
|
2007–11 |
15 |
-2,33 |
Efficient |
|
2008–01 |
8 |
1,72 |
Efficient |
|
2008–02 |
12 |
0,15 |
Efficient |
|
2008–03 |
19 |
0,4 |
Efficient |
|
2008–06 |
14 |
-0,31 |
Efficient |
|
2008–07 |
13 |
-0,67 |
Efficient |
|
2008–08 |
53 |
-0,43 |
Efficient |
|
2008–09 |
48 |
0,56 |
Efficient |
|
2008–10 |
16 |
-0,63 |
Efficient |
|
2008–12 |
48 |
-0,87 |
Efficient |
|
2009–02 |
17 |
-1,04 |
Efficient |
|
2009–03 |
42 |
0,37 |
Efficient |
|
2009–04 |
19 |
-0,82 |
Efficient |
|
2009–05 |
17 |
-0,99 |
Efficient |
|
2010–03 |
46 |
-0,52 |
Efficient |
|
2010–06 |
46 |
-0,58 |
Efficient |
|
2010–10 |
43 |
-0,549 |
Efficient |
Table 7. Test results of International Efficiency for % Zinc (Zn) in fertilizer
|
DATE |
NLA |
Z-SCORE |
COMMENT |
|
2006–12 |
29 |
-0,66 |
Efficient |
|
2007–03 |
50 |
-1,22 |
Efficient |
|
2007–04 |
41 |
0,43 |
Efficient |
|
2007–05 |
47 |
-0,38 |
Efficient |
|
2007–06 |
31 |
-0,49 |
Efficient |
|
2007–07 |
21 |
0,51 |
Efficient |
|
2007–08 |
27 |
-0,60 |
Efficient |
|
2007–09 |
49 |
-0,77 |
Efficient |
|
2007–10 |
41 |
-1,36 |
Efficient |
|
2008–01 |
6 |
-0,48 |
Efficient |
|
2008–05 |
27 |
-1,07 |
Efficient |
|
2008–06 |
20 |
0,28 |
Efficient |
|
2008–07 |
33 |
-1,33 |
Efficient |
|
2008–08 |
27 |
1,69 |
Efficient |
|
2008–09 |
49 |
0,27 |
Efficient |
|
2008–10 |
62 |
-0,71 |
Efficient |
|
2008–11 |
52 |
0,27 |
Efficient |
|
2008–12 |
55 |
-1,25 |
Efficient |
|
2009–02 |
54 |
-0,56 |
Efficient |
|
2009–03 |
40 |
0,85 |
Efficient |
|
2009–04 |
54 |
0,99 |
Efficient |
|
2009–05 |
45 |
-1,08 |
Efficient |
|
2010–05 |
54 |
-1,49 |
Efficient |
|
2010–10 |
43 |
-1,32 |
Efficient |
We keep on attending the Efficiency Tests to enable our quality to be permanent and to be able to reach the better. You can follow the further updated results from this page.