Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Sprache
- Englisch (9)
Schlagworte
- Gas analysis (2)
- Analysis (1)
- Benz[a]anthracene (BaA) (1)
- Benzo[a]pyrene (BaP) (1)
- CCQM-K (1)
- CCQM-K101 (1)
- Chromatographische Analyse (1)
- Comparability (1)
- EURAMET.QM-K111 (1)
- Energy gases (1)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
Solutions of organic analytes of known mass fraction are typically used to calibrate the measurement processes used to determine these compounds in matrix samples. Appropriate value assignments and uncertainty calculations for calibration solutions are critical for accurate measurements. Evidence of successful participation in formal, relevant international comparisons is needed to document measurement capability claims (CMCs) made by national metrology institutes (NMIs) and designated institutes (DIs). To enable NMIs and DIs to update or establish their claims, in 2015 the Organic Analysis Working Group (OAWG) sponsored CCQM-K131 "Low-Polarity Analytes in a Multicomponent Organic Solution: Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Acetonitrile".
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) result from combustion sources and are ubiquitous in environmental samples. The PAH congeners, benz[a]anthracene (BaA), benzo[a]pyrene (BaP), and naphthalene (Nap) were selected as the target analytes for CCQM-K131. These targets span the volatility range of PAHs found in environmental samples and include potentially problematic chromatographic separations. Nineteen NMIs participated in CCQM-K131. The consensus summary mass fractions for the three PAHs are in the range of (5 to 25) μg/g with relative standard deviations of (2.5 to 3.5) %.
Successful participation in CCQM-K131 demonstrates the following measurement capabilities in determining mass fraction of organic compounds of moderate to insignificant volatility, molar mass of 100 g/mol up to 500 g/mol, and polarity pKow < −2 in a multicomponent organic solution ranging in mass fraction from 100 ng/g to 100 μg/g: (1) value assignment of primary reference standards (if in-house purity assessment carried out), (2) value assignment of single and/or multi-component organic solutions, and (3) separation and quantification using gas chromatography or liquid chromatography.
This key comparison aims to assess the core capabilities of the participants in gas analysis. Such competences include, among others, the capabilities to prepare Primary Standard gas Mixtures (PSMs), perform the necessary purity analysis on the materials used in the gas mixture preparation, the verification of the composition of newly prepared PSMs against existing ones, and the capability of calibrating the composition of a gas mixture. According to the Strategy for Key Comparisons of the Gas Analysis Working Group, this key comparison is classified as an RMO track A key comparison.
The artefacts were binary mixtures of propane in nitrogen at a nominal amount-of-substance fraction level of 1000 μmol/mol. The values and uncertainties from the gravimetric gas mixture preparation were used as key comparison reference values (KCRVs). Each transfer standard had its own KCRV. The results are generally good. All results are within ± 1 % of the KCRV.
The requirement for a metrological infrastructure to ensure the interchangability of 'nonconventional’ energy gases within existing European infrastructure1 was the driving force behind the work undertaken in the three-year EMRP Characterisation of energy gases project EMRP ENG01 (June 2010 - May 2013).
As part of work package one of the project, Standards and methods were used to perform composition and impurity measurements on samples of real energy gases collected from around Europe. The aim of this study was to compare the results obtained from different labs, and thereby provide an evaluation of the labs’ capabilities and provide insight into the feasibility of different analytical methodologies for use with future measurements.
This key comparison aims to assess the capabilities of the participants to determine the amount-of-substance fraction oxygen in nitrogen. The GAWG has classified this as a track B comparison, due to the unexpected 50 μmol/mol argon mole fraction content of the transfer standards, which effects the achievable performance of some measurement techniques such a GC-TCD. The separation of oxygen and argon is challenging, and not all systems in use are equally well designed for it. As this analytical challenge due to a substantial fraction of argon in the transfer standards became a reality, the Gas Analysis Working Group (GAWG) decided to qualify this key comparison as a regular key comparison and not as a core comparison, which may be used to support calibration and measurement capabilities (CMCs) for oxygen in nitrogen, or for oxygen in nitrogen mixtures containing argon only (see also the section on support to CMCs).
This project concerns the purity analysis of nitrogen as used in reference gas mixture preparation. This project was carried out without adding impurities to the gas used for this comparison, and is therefore more representative to evaluate the analysis of CO, CO2, CH4, O2, Ar and H2O impurities in high purity nitrogen. The analysis of the amount–of–substance fraction water was optional.
Two 50 litre high purity nitrogen cylinders were purchased from a well-qualified supplier of specialty gases. The listed components were expected to be present in the pure nitrogen at the target levels as a result of the purification of the nitrogen. From the start of this comparison it was clear that the comparison may not lead to reference values for the constituents analysed.
The results indicate that analyses of high purity gases are often limited by the limits of detection of analytical equipment used. The reports of the participating laboratories also indicate that there is no agreed method of determination of the uncertainty on a detection Limit value. The results provide useful information on the Performance of participants. For all analysed components there is reasonable agreement in results for LNE, VSL, Metas and NPL.
For BAM only the Argon result is in agreement.
Refinery gas is a complex mixture of hydrocarbons and non-combustible gases (e.g., carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, helium). It is obtained as part of the refining and conversion of crude oil. This key comparison aims to evaluate the measurement capabilities for these types of mixtures. The results of the key comparison indicate that the analysis of a refinery-type gas mixture is for some laboratories a challenge. Overall, four laboratories (VSL, NIM, NPL and VNIIM) have satisfactory results. The results of some participants highlight some non-trivial issues, such as appropriate separation between saturated and unsaturated hydrocarbons, and issues with the measurement of nitrogen, hydrogen and helium.
Main text. To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report. Note that this text is that which appears in Appendix B of the BIPM key comparison database kcdb.bipm.org/.
The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by the CCQM, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA).
DatesIssue 1A (Technical Supplement 2012)
Abstract The use of proficiency testing schemes (PTS) by laboratories as an integral part of their quality
system has been increasing in recent years. Accreditation bodies, regulators and the laboratories customers
are increasingly using results from PTS in their relationship with laboratories. There are many PTS available in
Europe in analytical chemistry; EPTIS indicates over 400. The comparability of these PTS is now a real issue,
as many organisers of PTS move into new markets. The COEPT project has systematically demonstrated (in four
technical sectors water, soil, food and occupational hygiene), that there are many similarities between PTS in
each sector. For example, nearly all use the z-score as a performance index. One significant difference between
many PTS is the value used for the term s in the z-score equation, and this gives a range of evaluations for the
same data point. Despite this, the agreement between PTS in the same sector for the evaluation of data is
approximately 85%. COEPT has given us a basis for establishing the comparability of PTS and showing us where
further harmonisation could occur.
CCQM-K118 was an international key comparison on natural gas composition with two types of gases, i.e., a low calorific hydrogen-enriched natural gas and a high calorific LNG type of gas. There were 14 participating laboratories. The traveling standards (i.e., 14 mixtures each) were obtained from an external source and checked for homogeneity and stability before and after the participants' measurements at the two coordinating laboratories. The data evaluation was performed using a consensus value and a laboratory effect model. The results of the participants were benchmarked against a key comparison reference value computed from the largest consistent subset (LCS) of the submitted results, adjusted for the differences between the travelling standards. For the first time in a key comparison in gas analysis, the model included a term to account for excess variability in the LCS. Most of the participants reported one or a few (slightly) discrepant results. Partly this is due to the heterogeneity and heteroscedasticity of the datasets. In all, the results in this key comparison demonstrate the good comparability of the national measurement standards for natural gas composition maintained by the participating NMIs.
Main text. To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report. Note that this text is that which appears in Appendix B of the BIPM key comparison database kcdb.bipm.org/.
The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by the CCQM, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA).
To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report. Note that this text is that which appears in Appendix B of the BIPM key comparison database https://www.bipm.org/kcdb/.
The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by the CCQM, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (CIPM MRA).