Leonid Konopelko, Miroslava Valkova, Nobuhiro Matsumoto, Michela Sega, Prabhat K. Gupta, Tatiana Macé, Adriaan M. H. van der Veen, Martin J. T. Milton, Rob M Wessel, Belén Martin, Gergely Vargha, Masaaki Maruyama, A V Kolobova, Elena Amico di Meane, P. Steele, Y A Kustikov, Victor M Serrano Caballero, Carlos Ramírez Nambo, V V Pankratov, Jin Bok Lee, Nompumelelo Leshabane, Francesca Rolle, Francisco Rangel Murillo, Stanislav Musil, Hans Joachim Heine, Ipeleng S Mokgoro, Marcel van der Schoot, Walter R. Miller, Dong Min Moon, Kenji Kato, Valnei Smarçao da Cunha, Franklin R. Guenther, Manuel de Jesús Avila Salas, Alejandro Pérez Castorena, Damian Smeulders, Laurie Besley, Ray L. Langenfelds, James Tshilongo, Zeyi Zhou, O V Efremova, Paul R Ziel, Jin Seog Kim, Frantisek Chromek, Han Qiao, and Angelique Botha
The first key comparison on carbon dioxide in nitrogen dates from 1993–1994 (CCQM-K1.b). Since then, numerous national metrology institutes (NMIs) have been setting up facilities for gas analysis, and have developed claims for their Calibration and Measurement Capabilities (CMCs) for these type mixtures. In the April 2005 meeting of the CCQM Gas Analysis Working Group, a policy was proposed to repeat key comparisons for stable mixtures every 10 years. Consequently in 2007 the key comparison CCQM-K52 'Carbon dioxide in synthetic air' was carried out. This comparison is consistent with the proposed policy and enables NMIs that could not participate in the previous comparison to take part. This report describes the results of a key comparison for carbon dioxide in synthetic air. The amount-of-substance fraction level of carbon dioxide chosen for this key comparison (360 µmol/mol) represents the ambient level of this component in air. In total 18 NMIs and one WMO laboratory participated in the comparison. The agreement of the results in this key comparison is very good. With a few exceptions, the results agree within 0.3% (or better) with the key comparison reference value. Most of the participants that did not participate in CCQM-K1.b do very well. In some cases, the uncertainties claimed are quite large in comparison with the NMIs for which this comparison is a true 'repeat', but the observed differences with the KCRV usually reflect that these claims are realistic. All participants in CCQM-K1.b that participated in this key comparison show improved results. 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).