No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Nanoparticles with size in the range from 10 nm to 300 nm and from three different materials (Au 10 nm, Ag 20 nm, and PSL 30 nm, 100 nm and 300 nm) were used in this supplementary comparison. The selected nanoparticles meet the requirements of different measurement methods such as Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM), Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM), Dynamic Light Scattering (DLS), and Differential Mobility Analyzer (DMA), Small Angle X-Ray Scattering and for forth. All 37 participating laboratories returned results, but not all laboratories were able to perform measurement of all 5 nanoparticles. In order to determine the degree of equivalence (DOE), two reference values were considered in this comparison: the method dependent reference value (MRV) and the global reference value (GRV). The MRVs were determined for different measurement methods according to the corresponding reported uncertainties and measurement values from the participants. Each measurement method owns its own MRV. Since the measurement data from DLS were very different from and inconsistent with the measurement data from the other methods, the MRV for DLS was used in the En number calculation for the measurement data reported from the DLS method. The GRV was determined from the MRVs and their uncertainties of all the measurement methods except DLS, and was applied in the En number calculations for the measurement data reported from AFM, EM, DMA and SAXS methods. The assumption that the particles are spherical was commonly made in the nanoparticle measurements. Non-sphericity of particles, if exists, could have different impacts on different measurement methods. It is also important to note that the methods used are measuring mean diameters of a population of particles, not just a single particle, and that the meaning of the mean diameter could differ for different methods. Probably if participants include a different specific contribution in the uncertainty in a harmonized way, taking the non-cancelled method-dependent "systematic" errors into account, it may be easier to compare the results. KEY WORDS FOR SEARCH Nanoparticles; Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM); Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM); Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM); Dynamic Light Scattering (DLS); and Differential Mobility Analyzer (DMA); Small Angle X-Ray Scattering 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 CCL, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (CIPM MRA).

No abstract

The increasing interaction between laboratories from universities and research institutes with other society sectors, such as industries and government agencies, has led a growing number of those laboratories to adopt quality management systems based on international requirements standards. As a consequence, there is a crescent interest on practical information related to implementation of quality management systems in laboratories that provide testing services and carry out research activities. In this context, this article presents the practical approach applied for implementing a quality management system based on ISO/ IEC 17025 at the materials metrology division (Dimat)-Inmetro and at its laboratories. The approach is consistent with a hierarchical implementation, where the laboratory quality management system must fulfill ISO/IEC 17025 requirements as well as internal requirements from the upper layers of the quality management system. The implementing approach discussed here was specifically developed to be applied inside a particular hierarchical quality management structure. However, due to its general characteristics, it can be useful for diverse implementing cases.