The human factor: results of a small-angle scattering data analysis round robin

Journal Article (2023)
Author(s)

Brian R. Pauw (BAM Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing)

Glen J. Smales (BAM Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing)

Andy S. Anker (University of Copenhagen)

Venkatasamy Annadurai (University of Mysore, NIE First Grade College)

Daniel M. Balazs (Institute of Science and Technology (IST Austria))

Ralf Bienert (BAM Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing)

W.G. Bouwman (TU Delft - Applied Sciences)

Ingo Bressler (BAM Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing)

Joachim Breternitz (Helmholtz-Zentrum Berlin)

undefined More Authors (External organisation)

Research Group
RST/Neutron and Photon Methods for Materials
DOI related publication
https://doi.org/10.1107/S1600576723008324 Final published version
More Info
expand_more
Publication Year
2023
Language
English
Research Group
RST/Neutron and Photon Methods for Materials
Issue number
6 Pt
Volume number
56
Pages (from-to)
1618-1629
Downloads counter
292
Collections
Institutional Repository
Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Abstract

A round-robin study has been carried out to estimate the impact of the human element in small-angle scattering data analysis. Four corrected datasets were provided to participants ready for analysis. All datasets were measured on samples containing spherical scatterers, with two datasets in dilute dispersions and two from powders. Most of the 46 participants correctly identified the number of populations in the dilute dispersions, with half of the population mean entries within 1.5% and half of the population width entries within 40%. Due to the added complexity of the structure factor, far fewer people submitted answers on the powder datasets. For those that did, half of the entries for the means and widths were within 44 and 86%, respectively. This round-robin experiment highlights several causes for the discrepancies, for which solutions are proposed.