Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Zeitschriftenartikel (2)
- Beitrag zu einem Tagungsband (1)
- Vortrag (1)
- Forschungsbericht (1)
Sprache
- Englisch (5)
Schlagworte
- Interlaboratory test (5) (entfernen)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
Eingeladener Vortrag
- nein (1)
Safety experts, carriers or traders must be able to rely on the validity of the method and on correct results of safety tests and assessments in the laboratory.
Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und –prüfung (BAM), Berlin and Physikalisch-Technischen Bundesanstalt (PTB), Braunschweig have extensive experience in the field of testing and assessment of physical hazards of chemicals.
Interlaboratory tests on different test methods have been performed by BAM and PTB during the last 10 years. Significant differences between the results of the participating laboratories were observed in all interlaboratory test. The deviations of the test results were not caused only by laboratory faults but also by deficiencies of the test method; i.e. many of the method descriptions are too ambiguous and allow divergences for interpretation.
Therefore, it is necessary to know exactly how good the method is that is used to classify dangerous goods or hazardous substances or to determine safety-relevant parameters. A key criterion is the measurement uncertainty.
One can choose simple methods with large error limits, but the measurement uncer-tainties should be known and always communicated together with the test results. This would allow safety specialists to be able to assess test results correctly and make well-founded decisions, e.g. for adequate protective measures.
Interlaboratory tests play a decisive role in assessing the reliability of test results. Participation in interlaboratory tests is not only a crucial element of the quality as-surance of laboratories; as such it is explicitly recommended in DIN EN ISO/IEC 17025. In addition, interlaboratory tests are also used to develop and validate test methods and can be used for the determination of the measurement uncertainty.
Therefore, the BAM and PTB continue to support the further development of the interlaboratory test programme of CEQAT-DGHS (Centre for quality assurance for testing of dangerous goods and hazardous substances, www.ceqat-dghs.bam.de), established in 2007. This programme is run by BAM in collaboration with the PTB and the QuoData Gesellschaft für Qualitätsmanagement und Statistik mbH, Dresden.
A new interlaboratory test for methods validation on the test method UN Test N.5 "Test method for substances which in contact with water emit flammable gases” is currently being prepared and will be carried out in 2018. Laboratories that specialise in this test are invited to participate in the interlaboratory test. Interested laboratories can check the details and register to participate in the interlaboratory test at the CEQAT-DGHS website.
Laboratory test results are of vital importance for correctly classifying and labelling chemicals as “hazardous” as defined in the UN Globally Harmonized System (GHS) / EC CLP Regulation or as “dangerous goods” as defined in the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods. Interlaboratory tests play a decisive role in assessing the reliability of laboratory test results. Interlaboratory tests performed over the last 10 years have examined different laboratory test methods. After analysing the results of these interlaboratory tests, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. There is a need for improvement and validation for all laboratory test methods examined.
2. To avoid any discrepancy concerning the classification and labelling of chemicals, the use of validated laboratory test methods should be state of the art, with the results accompanied by the measurement uncertainty and (if applicable) the probability of incorrect classification.
This paper addresses the probability of correct/incorrect classification (for example, as dangerous goods) on the basis of the measurement deviation obtained from interlaboratory tests performed by the Centre for quality assurance for testing of dangerous goods and hazardous substances (CEQAT-DGHS) to validate laboratory test methods. This paper outlines typical results (e.g. so-called “Shark profiles” – the probability of incorrect classification as a function of the true value estimated from interlaboratory test data) as well as general conclusions and steps to be taken to guarantee that laboratory test results are fit for purpose and of high quality.
Laboratory test results are of vital importance for correctly classifying and labelling chemicals as “hazardous” as defined in the UN Globally Harmonized System (GHS) / EC CLP Regulation or as “dangerous goods” as defined in the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods. Interlaboratory tests play a decisive role in assessing the reliability of laboratory test results. Interlaboratory tests performed over the last 10 years have examined different laboratory test methods. After analysing the results of these interlaboratory tests, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. There is a need for improvement and validation for all laboratory test methods examined.
2. To avoid any discrepancy concerning the classification and labelling of chemicals, the use of validated laboratory test methods should be state of the art, with the results accompanied by the measurement uncertainty and (if applicable) the probability of incorrect classification.
This paper addresses the probability of correct/incorrect classification (for example, as dangerous goods) on the basis of the measurement deviation obtained from interlaboratory tests performed by the Centre for quality assurance for testing of dangerous goods and hazardous substances (CEQAT-DGHS) to validate laboratory test methods. This paper outlines typical results (e.g. so-called “Shark profiles” – the probability of incorrect classification as a function of the true value estimated from interlaboratory test data) as well as general conclusions and steps to be taken to guarantee that laboratory test results are fit for purpose and of high quality.
For the classification and safe handling and use of the chemicals, special standardized testing proce-dures have been developed and are used world-wide. Safety experts must be able to fully rely on the precise execution of the respective laboratory tests and assessments. In this context interlaboratory tests (round robin tests, interlaboratory comparisons / intercomparisons) are a crucial element of a laboratory's quality system. Participation in interlaboratory tests is explicitly recommended by the standard ISO/IEC 17025.
The present document reports on the results of the interlaboratory test 2010/2011 on the test method DIN EN 15188:2007 “Determination of the spontaneous ignition behaviour of dust accumulations” [1] which was organized by the Center for Quality Assurance for Testing of Dangerous Goods and Haz-ardous Substances.
The test method DIN EN 15188:2007 is applied to characterize the self-ignition behaviour of combus-tible dusts. The experimental basis for describing the self-ignition behaviour of a given dust is the de-termination of the self-ignition temperatures (TSI) of differently-sized volumes of the dust sample by isoperibolic hot storage experiments (storage at constant oven temperatures) in commercially availa-ble ovens. The results thus measured reflect the dependence of self-ignition temperatures upon dust volume [1].
Several internal investigations and interlaboratory comparisons in the past have shown significant differences between the lab-specific results of hot storage tests.
Figure 2-1 shows the Pseudo-Arrhenius plot of hot storage tests of eight different laboratories (Round Robin Test 2002, BAM). The dust under this investigation was Lycopodium powder (spores). The par-ticipants of this interlaboratory test used different laboratory ovens (size, ventilation) as well as differ-ent sample baskets (shape, mesh size, single- and double-walled).
Figure 2-1 shows clearly that this test failed to produce reasonable reproducibility of the TSI between the different laboratories. As possible reasons for the deviations have been identified lab-specific dif-ferences, e.g.:
- oven ventilation (enforced, natural convection),
- oven size,
- sample baskets,
- radiation effects,
- measuring precision (temperature difference between tests with ignition and no ignition),
- minimum sample size.
To reduce the differences between the labs it was necessary to ameliorate the testing method and to improve the execution of the method by the lab. From there, the installation of an inner chamber into the laboratory oven was suggested as experimental set-up in EN 15188:2007 to provide more repro-ducible test conditions. The aappropriateness of this set-up has not been verified yet.
The current interlaboratory test 2010-2011 focuses on the use of a special mesh wire screen and spe-cial volumes of the sample baskets (cubes) to normalise/harmonise the test conditions in the different labs. In preparation for the interlaboratory test a joint program between Syngenta and BAM has been initiated in 2009. As a result of these investigations a modified set-up ( chapter 3) has been identi-fied to be probably more appropriate than the suggested set-up in DIN EN-15188:2007.
Due to the time-consuming test procedure and to optimize the workflow for the laboratories this in-terlaboratory test should be performed stepwise as a multi-level test ( chapter 5.4) on one typical test sample.
This paper presents the results of an interlaboratory study of the rheological properties of cement paste and ultrasound gel as reference substance. The goal was to quantify the comparability and reproducibility of measurements of the Bingham parameters yield stress and plastic viscosity when measured on one specific paste composition and one particular ultrasound gel in different laboratories using different rheometers and measurement geometries.
The procedures for both in preparing the cement paste and carrying out the rheological measurements on cement paste and ultrasound gel were carefully defined for all of the study’s participants. Different conversion schemes for comparing the results obtained with the different measurement setups are presented here and critically discussed. The procedure proposed in this paper ensured a reasonable comparability of the results with a coefficient of variation for the yield stress of 27% and for the plastic viscosity of 24%, despite the individual measurement series’ having been performed in different labs with different rheometers and measurement geometries.