Search

Key comparison (KC) CCQM-K18.2016 was performed to evaluate the degree of equivalence between pH measurement results on an unknown carbonate buffer reported by participating National Metrology Institutes and Designated Institutes (NMI/DIs). The participants used the highest metrological method existing at their institution. The nominal buffer pH was 10.0 and was determined only at 25 °C. Good agreement of the results is demonstrated by most participants. 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 (CIPM MRA).

The first practical comparison of the characteristics of Ag|AgCl electrodes prepared at different National Metrology Institutes (NMIs) has been carried out as a pilot study organised by the Consultative Committee for Amount of Substance (CCQM). Each NMI prepared at least three Ag|AgCl electrodes representative of those employed in their primary pH calibration facilities. The electrodes were sent to a coordinating laboratory where comparative measurements of their potential difference to a de facto reference, slope as a function of chloride ion concentration and electrochemical impedance were made. Electrodes from most NMIs were highly repeatable and consistent within the typical rejection criteria applied during production. An analysis of the electrode slopes in a phosphate buffer containing different concentrations of NaCl revealed the influence of variances in the Ag|AgCl electrodes between NMIs on the certified pH value of the buffer solution. The difference between NMIs is consistent with submitted values in CCQM-K9, although biases were smaller in the analysis here, suggesting the presence of other unknown contributions to the uncertainty such as cell design. The smaller biases observed in this work may also reflect improvements in the Ag|AgCl electrodes since CCQM-K9 was performed. Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy suggests a similar microstructure for electrodes prepared by most NMIs.

Key Comparison CCQM-K36.2016 was a follow-up comparison for K36 and provided updated support for the corresponding calibration and measurement capability (CMC) entries in the BIPM CMC database. It aimed to demonstrate the capabilities of the participating NMIs to measure electrolytic conductivity of aqueous electrolyte solutions in the conductivity range 0.15 S m−1 to 1.5 S m−1 and in the conductivity range 1.5 mS m−1 to 15 mS m−1. To this end electrolytic conductivity of a potassium chloride solution (nominal conductivity 0.5 S m−1) and of a HCl solution (nominal conductivity 5 mS m−1) had to be measured. 17 NMIs participated in the comparison. The key comparison reference value (KCRV) of the KCl solution was (0.50999 +/-0.00032) S m−1 and the KCRV of the HCl solution was (4.9877 +/-0.012) mS m−1. Both values were estimated from the medians of the results considered eligible for KCRV calculation. They were given with their expanded uncertainties (95% coverage). The majority of the 0.5 S m-1 results were consistent with the KCRV. Two institutes showed a small inconsistency, one outlier was observed. The conductivity of the HCl solution showed a small, but steady linear drift of 0.00006843 mS m−1 per day during the measurement period and was corrected for KCRV calculation. Some institutes reported unstable measurement conditions for this solution. The results of seven participants have been inconsistent with the KCRV. 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 (CIPM MRA).

The APMP.QM-K91 was organised by TCQM of APMP to test the abilities of the national metrology institutes in the APMP region to measure a pH value of a phthalate buffer. This APMP comparison on pH measurement was proposed by the National Metrology Institute of Japan at the APMP-TCQM meeting held September 22–23, 2014. After approval by TCQM, the comparison has been conducted by NMIJ. The comparison is a key comparison following CCQM-K91. The comparison material was a phthalate buffer of pH around 4.0 and the measurement temperatures were 15 °C, 25 °C and 37 °C. This is the third APMP key comparison on pH measurement and the fifth APMP comparison on pH measurement following APMP.QM-P06 (two phosphate buffers) in 2004, APMP.QM-P09 (a phthalate buffer) in 2006, APMP.QM-K9/APMP.QM-P16 (a phosphate buffer) in 2010-2011 and APMP.QM-K19/APMP.QM-P25 (a borate buffer) in 2013-2014. The results can be used further by any participant to support its CMC claim at least for a phthalate buffer. That claim will concern the pH method employed by the participant during this comparison and will cover the used temperature(s) or the full temperature range between 15°C and 37 °C for the participant which measured pH values at the three temperatures. 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 (CIPM MRA).

Results of CCQM-K99 key comparison on unknown phosphate buffer pH ∼ 7.5 at 5 °C, 15 °C, 25 °C, 37 °C and 50 °C are reported. Good agreement is found between the majority of participants. 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 (CIPM MRA).

The APMP.QM-K19 was organised by TCQM of APMP to test the abilities of the national metrology institutes in the APMP region to measure a pH value of a borate buffer. This APMP comparison on pH measurement was proposed by the National Metrology Institute of Japan (NMIJ) and the National Institute of Metrology (Thailand) (NIMT) at the APMP-TCQM meeting held 26?27 November 2012. After approval by TCQM, the comparison has been conducted by NMIJ and NIMT. The comparison is a key comparison following CCQM-K19 and CCQM-K19.1. The comparison material was a borate buffer of pH around 9.2 and the measurement temperatures were 15 ?C, 25 ?C and 37 ?C. This is the second APMP key comparison on pH measurement and the fourth APMP comparison on pH measurement following APMP.QM-P06 (two phosphate buffers) in 2004, APMP.QM-P09 (a phthalate buffer) in 2006 and APMP.QM-K9/APMP.QM-P16 (a phosphate buffer) in 2010?2011. The results can be used further by any participant to support its CMC claim at least for a borate buffer. That claim will concern the pH method employed by the participant during this comparison and will cover the used temperature(s) or the full temperature range between 15?C and 37 ?C for the participant which measured pH values at the three temperatures. 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 CCQM, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (CIPM MRA).

CCQM-K9.2 was performed supplementary to the key comparison CCQM-K9 on the pH determination of a phosphate buffer with nominal pH ~ 6.9 (at 25 ?C). The sample composition was very similar in both comparisons. Only the source of the starting material used for sample preparation was different. The comparison was restricted to the use of the primary method for pH (Harned cell measurement) as defined in the IUPAC Recommendations [2]. The measurement temperatures were 15 ?C, 25 ?C, 37 ?C. CCQM-K9.2, CCQM-K.9 and the first supplementary comparison CCQM-K9.1 [5] are activities of the Electrochemical Working Group (EAWG) of the CCQM. All three comparisons were coordinated by the PTB, Germany. The Danish Primary Laboratory (DPL) successfully took part in the CCQM-K9. Meanwhile the primary set-up for pH in Denmark moved from DPL affiliated to Radiometer Medical to DFM, Denmark. The subsequent comparison allows assessing the degree of equivalence for the measurement of pH at DFM after the move. Due to the interest of other laboratories in demonstrating their progress in pH measurements on the primary level the CCQM-K9.2 supplementary comparison was extended to other participants than DFM, namely NMIJ, VNIIFTRI, INMETRO and CMI. The reported quantity for CCQM-K9.2 was not the pH of the sample but the acidity function at zero chloride molality (see chapter 12). To calculate the pH value from the acidity function it is necessary to know the ionic strength of the sample buffer solution, which was undisclosed by the coordinator. With the exception of the Czech Metrology Institute, CMI, good agreement in the determined acidity function is found between the participants. The results reported by DFM and by PTB agree within their measurement uncertainty at all measurement temperatures. 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).

The key comparison CCQM-K18 was started in order to evaluate the equivalence of metrology institutes as a follow-up of the previous study CCQM-P52. As a sample a carbonate buffer solution was used with a composition slightly different to the usual one. There were 13 institutes participating in the comparison using a primary method for pH measurement. The fair agreement between the results reflects increased difficulty in measurement, where the buffer composition may slightly change during the measurement and extrapolation to the start time of measurement is usually necessary. 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).

The second key comparison for the quantity pH, CCQM-K17, was carried out to assess the degree of equivalence of the national primary measurement procedures used to determine the pH of primary standard buffer solutions. The CCQM-K17 comparison allows estimations of the capability of ten national metrology institutes (NMIs) to determine the pH of a phthalate buffer of unknown concentration at different temperatures. The key comparison was co-ordinated by the CCQM Working Group on Electrochemical Analysis and piloted by the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) with assistance from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Slovak Institute of Metrology (SMU). The measurement results of the NMIs agreed not at the same level as for the first key comparison on pH CCQM-K9. The results obtained by seven of the eleven participants agree very well within the uncertainty stated by the participants. Four participants obtained results somewhat lower. The two groups of results are most obviously evident at a measurement temperature of 37 °C. 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 Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA).