4.0 Article

International comparability of determination of mass fractions of chromium, copper, iron, manganese and zinc in aluminium alloy: Comit, Consultatif pour la Quantit, de MatiSre key comparison K42

期刊

ACCREDITATION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE
卷 15, 期 7, 页码 401-407

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00769-010-0641-5

关键词

Aluminium alloy; International comparison; CCQM-K42; Key comparison

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The degree of equivalence within the participating national metrology institutes for the measurement results of the mass fractions of the analytes Cr, Cu, Fe, Mn and Zn in an aluminium alloy was assessed. This interlaboratory comit, consultatif pour la quantit, de matiSre key comparison (CCQM-K42) was organised as an activity of the Inorganic Analytical Working Group of CCQM. In total seven laboratories participated, six of them for all analytes. Measurands were the mass fractions of the analytes in a range of 0.05 and 0.2%. As an outcome the consistency of the results for all elements investigated was acceptable, hence satisfactory comparability was established. An aluminium based certified reference material-undisclosed to the analysts which one it was-was used as test sample. For the purpose of this study homogeneity was tested at BAM. Each laboratory was free to choose any analytical method they wanted to use for the analysis. Consequently various methods of measurement were employed: instrumental neutron activation analysis, X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (XRF) using fused cast-bead method combined with reconstitution technique, inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP OES) and inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Metrological traceability of the measurement results to the SI unit had to be demonstrated. Therefore, methods such as spark OES or XRF (without fused cast-bead technique)-both of them being most important methods for the analysis of metals and alloys in industrial laboratories-could not be used in the frame of the key comparison.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据