Mark Sykes, head of science for Fapas Proficiency Testing and principal scientist at Fera Science Ltd
CREDIT: Mark Sykes
Mark Sykes is head of science for Fapas Proficiency Testing and a principal scientist at Fera Science Ltd, UK. He joined Fera in 1997 as a specialist in pesticide and veterinary residue analysis by mass spectrometry and became the scientific advisor for Fapas in 2009. With degrees in chemistry and analytical chemistry from the University of York and the University of Huddersfield, he now leads efforts to ensure the scientific integrity of Fapas programs. Sykes has co-authored more than 30 peer-reviewed papers, is a member of the Royal Society of Chemistry, and represents Fapas internationally.
Q: Could you share a bit about your career path and how it’s shaped your approach to quality assurance?
A: “I’m an analytical chemist by training, and I’ve always been drawn to the analytical side of the field. After university, I began working in analytical environments and have remained in that area ever since.
My career with Fera Science and its predecessor organizations spans about 28 years. I started out as a specialist in mass spectrometry, focusing on the analysis of food for pesticide residues and veterinary medicines, before moving into Fera’s proficiency testing division, which goes by the brand name Fapas.
At the time, this was a new position created to provide technical supervision and scientific advice on the various challenges that arise in running proficiency tests. In essence, my job is about advising labs on the quality of their analyses, based on the data they produce. What I enjoy most is the variety. Although my background was in mass spectrometry and pesticide residues, I’ve had to expand my knowledge across many different types of analysis, which keeps the work both challenging and interesting.”
Q: What problems can arise when labs don’t have effective quality assurance measures in place?
A: “When a laboratory performs an analysis on behalf of a client, whether within the same organization or as a third party, there’s a lot of risk in getting a result wrong. If a lab simply carries out analyses and reports the results, it might not realize whether those results are good or bad.
Imagine a shipment of produce held at customs, awaiting test results to confirm whether it’s safe to import. That’s a big responsibility for the lab. If they get it wrong, two scenarios are possible: they could release the shipment on the basis that it’s safe, when in fact a contaminant was missed, potentially causing problems for consumers. Alternatively, they might decide it’s not fit for purpose, leading to the destruction and waste of the entire container.
That’s why it’s so important to get the quality of the analysis right.”
Q: What does external quality assurance (EQA) involve, and why should it be a priority for lab managers?
A: “There are several ways a laboratory can demonstrate that it’s getting the right answer. One way is to use validated methods and maintain internal quality controls. While these are important, they’re all internal mechanisms. The lab might also hold accreditation, typically to ISO 17025, which is the international standard for laboratory testing methods. This adds an extra layer of oversight through internal controls and external audits.
However, the best measure of a lab’s accuracy is through EQA or proficiency testing. In this process, the lab receives a blind sample that must be treated like any other routine sample. The lab analyzes it and reports the results, which are then compared with those from other laboratories participating in the test. This interlaboratory comparison provides a measure of how well the lab performs relative to its peers.”
Q: Can you share some examples of the kinds of issues EQA can uncover?
A: “In its simplest form, a laboratory might perform poorly in a proficiency test simply because someone made an error. One of the most common mistakes we find is simple calculation errors. Perhaps they’ve picked up the wrong pipette or volumetric flask, or measured 10 microliters of standard instead of 100. These kinds of mistakes are easy to spot in proficiency testing results.
There can also be equipment-related problems. Maybe the balance hasn’t been calibrated recently, or a sample that should have been stored at -20 was compromised because the freezer failed over the weekend. It could even be that an instrument is out of calibration. These are problems labs should be able to troubleshoot.
Other issues are a bit more nuanced. In proficiency testing, labs must use their routine method, and sometimes a fundamental parameter within that method hasn’t been fully considered. A good example is vitamin analysis for food products, where certain parameters are crucial for obtaining accurate results. If those parameters are neglected, you’ll end up with the wrong answer.
That said, proficiency testing works for most labs most of the time. When a lab performs poorly, it’s usually very obvious—and it serves as an important warning to investigate what’s happening. It might be a problem with staff training, especially if there’s high turnover, or it could be that management systems aren’t as robust as they ought to be. Whatever the cause, identifying these issues helps laboratories improve.”
Q: How can lab managers use EQA results to strengthen their lab’s performance?
A: “It’s good practice to create a control chart to track the lab’s performance in similar proficiency tests over time. A single proficiency test is just a snapshot in time; it shows how the lab performed at that moment. By building a control chart, you can see long-term trends, which helps lab managers recognize when something goes wrong.
If a lab hasn’t performed well, the key question is why. Is there something fundamentally wrong, or was it just a one-off blip? Having that historical context makes it much easier to interpret and investigate what’s going on.
Proficiency testing is really a measure of precision—how reproducible the laboratory’s performance is over time—but a control chart can also reveal accuracy. A lab might perform precisely yet consistently show a bias in its results, which is equally important to address.”
Q: What role does Fapas play in supporting laboratory quality and performance?
A: “Fapas is well known around the world for the proficiency tests we offer. When I visit customer laboratories, I often see their certificates and accreditations displayed in the reception area—and very often, among them, there’s a certificate of participation from a Fapas proficiency test. That’s always satisfying to see. It shows we’re doing our job well, and it also sends a message to their clients that they take quality assurance seriously.
We aim to provide a wide range of proficiency tests to suit clients across different geographies and analytical disciplines. We’re also open to bespoke requests. If a lab needs something that isn’t in our standard program, we encourage them to reach out to us, as we may be able to create a custom solution.
Fapas itself has a long history. It was established in 1990 to help laboratories meet quality standards. Our early experience helped shape the International Harmonized Protocol for Proficiency Testing of (Chemical) Analytical Laboratories, which later became the foundation for ISO 17043, the international standard used today.”
Click here to explore how Fapas can help your laboratory.
