Does using same calibration curve for chemical analysis introduce correlation in sample error/uncertainty values?
Please note that calibrating an instrument once a month is another story as compared to constructing the calibration curve from that instrument. The former is meant to check the accuracy of the instrument's output and the latter serves to determine the concentration of a substance by noting the response of the instrument to 6-7 standards.
Also note that all instrumental analysis techniques are relative with very very few exceptions (gravimetry, microwave spectroscopy, coulometry which are absolute etc.). The rest all need standards for comparison.
In analytical chemistry, it will be considered a bad practice to make a calibration curve one day and use it for the entire month. The good practice is to make a fresh calibration curve for every batch of samples and there should be a &quot;reference&quot; check which keeps on validating the calibration curve after a certain number of samples have been analyzed.
The main reason is that most instruments will show what is called as the drift i.e., a low frequency and hence long term noise in the baseline. The baseline response can rise and decline slowly.
Also the word correlation is perhaps not suitable in your situation. Correlation has a very specific meaning in signal processing/instrumental analysis. What you imply is the influence of interferences and something called as the matric effect. Suppose, you have b, along with c,d,e,...,f. Yes, the presence of the additional components can indeed influence the signal of b. In most cases, the signal of b is decreased causing a lower result than expected.
Beyond your hypothetical situation, one can say nothing. Which instrument you had mind?