iTeh StandardsiTeh Standards
EURUSD
Your shopping cart is empty.
ASTM

ASTM E1950-98

(Practice)

Standard Practice for Reporting Results from Methods of Chemical Analysis

Standard Practice for Reporting Results from Methods of Chemical Analysis

SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers the approximate number of digits required to express the expected precision of results reported from standard methods of chemical analysis. This practice provides selection criteria and proper form and symbols for coding results when necessary to indicate the relative reliability of results having small values.

General Information

Status
Historical
Publication Date
09-May-1998
ICS
71.040.40 - Chemical analysis
Technical Committee
E01 - Analytical Chemistry for Metals, Ores, and Related Materials
Drafting Committee
E01.22 - Laboratory Quality
Current Stage
Ref Project

Relations

Replaced By
ASTM E1950-98(2003) - Standard Practice for Reporting Results from Methods of Chemical Analysis
Effective Date
01-Oct-2003
Referred By
ASTM E415-21 - Standard Test Method for Analysis of Carbon and Low-Alloy Steel by Spark Atomic Emission Spectrometry
Effective Date
10-May-1998
Referred By
ASTM E1915-20 - Standard Test Methods for Analysis of Metal Bearing Ores and Related Materials for Carbon, Sulfur, and Acid-Base Characteristics
Effective Date
10-May-1998

Buy Standard

ASTM E1950-98 - Standard Practice for Reporting Results from Methods of Chemical AnalysisASTM E1950-98 - Standard Practice for Reporting Results from Methods of Chemical Analysis
PreviousNext
Standard
ASTM E1950-98 - Standard Practice for Reporting Results from Methods of Chemical Analysis
English language
6 pages
sale 15% off
Preview
sale 15% off
Preview

Standards Content (Sample)


NOTICE: This standard has either been superceded and replaced by a new version or discontinued.
Contact ASTM International (www.astm.org) for the latest information.
Designation: E 1950 – 98
Standard Practice for
Reporting Results from Methods of Chemical Analysis
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E 1950; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (e) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
1. Scope 3.2.3 null limit, NL, n—the analyte content below which
results are so near zero that averaging is unlikely to yield a
1.1 This practice covers the approximate number of digits
value significantly different from zero.
required to express the expected precision of results reported
3.2.4 quantitative, adj— relating to results, having a nu-
from standard methods of chemical analysis. This practice
merical value that includes at least one significant digit (see
provides selection criteria and proper form and symbols for
Practice E 29).
coding results when necessary to indicate the relative reliability
of results having small values.
4. Significance and Use
1.2 Specifically excluded is consideration of report forms
4.1 A result should be stated to a sufficient number of digits
and the associated informational content of reports in which
so that a user receives both quantitative information and a
results are tabulated or transmitted. It is assumed that the
measure of the variability of the value reported.
reporting laboratory has established a report format to ensure
4.2 The range of application of most methods of chemical
proper identification of the materials tested, the nature and
analysis is based upon the presumption that the quantitative
conditions of the test, the responsible personnel, and other
results produced are to be used to compare the analyte content
related information in accordance with existing regulations and
of the test material with specified limiting values. However,
good laboratory practices.
analytical results may be used legitimately for other purposes.
2. Referenced Documents If the same material is analyzed a number of times or a product
is analyzed periodically during an interval of production, each
2.1 ASTM Standards:
set of results may be averaged to yield an average result having
E 29 Practice for Using Significant Digits in Test Data to
improved reliability. Results that fall below the lower limit,
Determine Conformance with Specifications
although not quantitative individually, contain compositional
E 135 Terminology Relating to Analytical Chemistry for
information and shall be reported. The reporting system in this
Metals, Ores, and Related Materials
practice permits the analyst to indicate which values are likely
E 1601 Practice for Conducting an Interlaboratory Study to
to be rendered quantitative by averaging and which are not.
Evaluate the Performance of an Analytical Method
4.3 The system is simple enough to be used routinely in
E 1763 Guide for Interpretation and Use of Results from the
reporting results from standard methods and assists those
Interlaboratory Testing of Chemical Analysis Methods
untrained in statistics to apply results appropriately.
3. Terminology
5. Rounding Calculated Values
3.1 Definitions:
5.1 Use information from the precision section of the
3.1.1 For definitions of terms, refer to Terminology E 135.
method to determine the appropriate number of digits to report
3.2 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard:
as follows:
3.2.1 lower limit, L, n—the lower limit of the quantitative
5.1.1 Estimate the reproducibility index, R, at the analyte
analyte concentration range.
level of the result, C, from an equation of R as a function of
3.2.2 low-level reproducibility index, K , n—the reproduc-
R
concentration or from the table of statistical information.
ibility index constant (for low analyte levels) determined in
5.1.2 Calculate the percent relative reproducibility index:
accordance with Guide E 1763.
R 5 100 3 R / C (1)
rel%
5.1.3 For results within the range of application specified in
This practice is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E-1 on Analytical
the method, round the values to the number of digits specified
Chemistry for Metals, Ores and Related Materials and is the direct responsibility of
Subcommittee E01.22 on Statistics and Quality Control.
in Table 1 (see A1.1.1 through A1.1.2).
Current edition approved May 10, 1998. Published August 1998.
5.1.4 For results less than the lower limit, proceed in
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 14.02.
3 accordance with Section 6 to establish the number of digits and
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 03.05.
appropriate coding for rounding and reporting the values.
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 03.06.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.
NOTICE: This standard has either been superceded and replaced by a new version or discontinued.
Contact ASTM International (www.astm.org) for the latest information.
E1950–98
TABLE 1 Rounding Guide
6.3.2 Results Less Than L—Round values to the second
R Number decimal place of L, and enclose in parentheses before report-
rel%
of Digits
ing. Examples: For L equal to 1.5, round to x.x and report (x.x);
5-50% 2
for L equal to 0.22, round to 0.xx and report (0.xx); for L equal
0.5-5% 3
to 0.00050, round to 0.000xx and report (0.000xx).
0.05 - 0.5 % 4
6.3.3 Results Less Than NL—If the method is a “biased-
< 0.05 % 5
zero” procedure, treat in accordance with 6.4; otherwise, round
in accordance with 6.3.2, and enclose in parentheses followed
by an asterisk before reporting. Examples: (-0.2)*, (0.04)*, and
5.2 Calculated values shall be rounded to the required (-0.00003)*.
number of digits in accordance with the rounding-off method 6.4 Special Rule for “Biased-Zero” Methods:
of Practice E 29. 6.4.1 For results from “biased-zero” methods only, do not
5.2.1 The procedure is summarized as follows: report numerical values for results less than NL. Replace them
5.2.1.1 When rounding off a number to a specified number with the symbol (– –)*.
of digits, choose that digit that is nearest. If two choices are 6.5 Reference to the Method:
possible, as when the digits dropped are exactly a five or a five 6.5.1 Cite the designation of the standard method used to
followed only by zeros, choose that ending in an even digit. determine each analyte reported.
6.6 Explanations of Coding Symbols:
6. Procedure 6.6.1 If results less than L are reported for any analyte,
append the following explanation:
6.1 Preliminary Precaution—For a method to be used to
analyze materials with analyte content very near zero, the NOTE 1—Results in parentheses are not reliable for individual compari-
sons.
analyst shall determine that it is capable of producing “unbi-
ased” estimates of zero. If the method occasionally yields
6.6.2 If results less than NL are reported for any analyte,
negative results for low analyte levels, that capability is
append the following explanation: * These values cannot be
demonstrated. Proceed in accordance with 6.2.
distinguished from zero.
6.1.1 Test for “Biased-Zero” Methods—Prepare the method
6.6.3 If the symbol (– –)* is reported for any analyte,
to perform determinations. Include all aspects of instrument
append the following explanation: (– –)* The method cannot
preparation and calibration. Apply the method to a “blank”
report an unbiased estimate at this low analyte level.
sample or one known to have a negligible analyte content but
7. Use of Uncoded and Coded Values
that meets the method’s scope requirements in all other
7.1 Uncoded Data:
respects. If the method yields a negative result, it is not a
7.1.1 Numerical values reported without enclosing paren-
“biased-zero” method; proceed in accordance with 6.2. If,
theses are quantitative results and may be used for comparisons
during the course of at least ten replicate determinations,
with specified limiting values.
several zeros but no negative values are observed, it is a
7.2 Coded Data:
“biased-zero” method. Apply the biased-zero rule of 6.4 in
7.2.1 Values enclosed in parentheses are not quantitative,
reporting results lower than NL (see 6.2.2).
that is, individual values are not suitable for comparisons.
6.2 Critical Concentrations:
However, data in parentheses not followed by an asterisk, may
6.2.1 From the method, obtain the value of the lower limit,
yield values that are quantitative if a sufficient number are
L, to two digits (add a final zero, if necessary). Determine the
averaged (see A2.2.3).
decimal place of the second digit.
7.2.2 Values coded with an asterisk are from materials that
6.2.2 Calculate the null limit as follows:
are likely to produce randomly occurring negative values for
NL 5 L / 4 (2)
repeated determinations. They may be averaged, but unless the
6.3 Basic Rules:
average includes a large number of individual results (more
6.3.1 Numerical values shall be reported for every result
than 25), even the first digit is not likely to be significant.
(including negative values) obtained from a properly con-
8. Keywords
ducted method except as provided for certain results from
“biased-zero” methods in accordance with 6.1.1 and 6.4.
8.1 quantitative results; reporting results
NOTICE: This standard has either been superceded and replaced by a new version or discontinued.
Contact ASTM International (www.astm.org) for the latest information.
E1950–98
ANNEXES
(Mandatory Information)
A1. STATISTICAL BASIS FOR QUANTITATION CRITERIA
A1.1 Quantitation is the ability to determine a result whose report four digits (the first three are significant.) If R is 0.05
rel%
% or less, report five digits (the first four are significant.)
value may be compared with specified limiting values. Practice
E 29 adds the concept of significant digits. This term is used in
A1.2 Results from materials with analyte content less than
this practice to identify the digits in a value that are not
L are not quantitative as defined in this practice, but their
expected to change appreciably if the result is redetermined.
values contain information concerning the analyte content.
The statistical basis for quantitation is found in Practice E 1601
These results are reported, but their use for individual com-
and Guide E 1763. The lower limit (L) of a method’s
parisons is discouraged.
quantitative range is calculated from its reproducibility index,
A1.2.1 Guide E 1763 provides calculations for K , the
R
R, which is determined in the interlaboratory study (ILS). The
constant value R achieves at analyte contents near L and lower.
analyte content of a material must be greater than that limit if
This value of R divided by 2.8 yields the reproducibility
results are to exhibit at least one significant digit.
standard deviation, s , which, added to and subtracted from a
R
result, signifies a confidence interval. While indicating uncer-
A1.1.1 R represents the largest difference between results
tainty, this approach does not lend itself to easy recognition of
obtained in two laboratories on the same material that is not
a value’s reliability because the user must apply a rather
expected to be exceeded in more than 1 in 20 comparisons (95
complex interpretive process to decide how the data may be
% confidence level). L is arbitrarily defined as the analyte
used.
content at which R represents a 50 % relative error. At this
A1.2.2 The ultimate user, if willing to expend time and
analyte content, the average difference (50 % confidence level)
resources, can reduce variability by averaging a number of
between results in two laboratories is about 18 % of their mean.
results from the same material obtained in different laborato-
Results at this analyte level are quantitative with approximately
ries. For example, if a material having an analyte content of R
one significant digit, and, in accordance with Practice E 29 and
is analyzed once in four laboratories, the relative variability of
common statistical practice, are reported with two digits to
such an average (four values) is 50 %, the same as the
preserve the statistical information it contains. Only the first
variability of single results from a material with twice the
digit is considered significant.
analyte content (that is, at L).
A1.1.2 Users of standard methods (or data obtained from
A1.2.3 The limit to the enhancement in precision by repli-
them) can use R values reported at the analyte levels of the test
cation is established only by the resources the user is willing to
materials (Practice E 1601) or the equation relating R to analyte
expend. A reasonable (though arbitrary) limit is the null limit,
concentration (for ILS evaluated in accordance with Guide E
NL = R/2 (which is equivalent to L/4). The null limit is the
1763) to estimate the reliability of data at any concentration
lowest analyte level at which the average of 16 or more results
within the quantitative range of the method. If R is5%or
yields an average value having at least one significant digit.
rel%
less relative to the determined value, report results with three Results below NL are, for practical purposes, indistinguishable
digits (the first two are significant.) If R is 0.5 % or less, from zero.
rel%
A2. PRACTICAL BASIS FOR QUANTITATION CRITERIA
A2.1 The practical basis for quantitation must provide quantitative, but averages are also unlikely to be quantitative.
guidance to analysts and users of results who have little Individual and average values that are less than NL are
statistical training. The criteria should be consistent with the
expected to be estimates of zero.
ILS statistics and criteria discussed in Annex A1, simple to
A2.2.3 Class 2 consists of results with values falling within
understand, and convenient to use. The coding applied to each
the range NL to L. Individual results are not quantitative, but
value should give an unmistakable visual indication of its
averages of values obtained in different laboratories may be
reliability.
quantitative. The number of values needed to obtain a quanti-
tative average ranges from 2 (at analyte levels just less than L)
A2.2 A system to meet these requirements classifies results
into three concentration ranges: to 16 (at analyte levels just greater than NL).
A2.2.1 Class 1 consists of results with values falling be-
A2.3 The classifications in A2.2 meet the requirements in
tween the upper and lower application limits stated in the
A2.1. The analyst classifies each result by comparing its value
method. These results are expected to be quantitative as
with L (from the method’s scope) and the calculated value of
discussed in Annex A1.
A2.2.2 Class 3 consists of results with values les
...

Questions, Comments and Discussion

Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.

This May Also Interest You

ASTM
ASTM E2857-22(Guide)
Standard Guide for Validating Analytical Methods

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Method validation is a process of demonstrating that the method meets the required performance capabilities. International standards such as ISO/IEC 17025, certifying bodies, and regulatory agencies require evidence that analytical methods are capable of producing valid results. This applies to laboratories using published standard test methods, modified standard test methods, and in-house test methods.  
4.2 Although a collaborative study is part of this guide, this guide may be used by a single laboratory for method validation when a formal collaboration study is not practical. This guide may also be applied before a full collaboration study to predict the reliability of the method.  
4.3 The use of multiple validation techniques described in this guide increases confidence in the validity or application of the method.  
4.4 It is beyond the scope of this guide to describe fully the fundamental considerations in Section 5. For a more descriptive definition of these concepts, refer to the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) technical report, “Harmonized Guidelines for Single Laboratory Validation of Methods of Analysis” (1), the IUPAC Compendium of Analytical Nomenclature (Orange Book) (2), and the Eurachem publication, The Fitness for Purpose of Analytical Methods, A Laboratory Guide to Method Validation and Related Topics (3).
SCOPE
1.1 This guide describes procedures for the validation of chemical and spectrochemical analytical test methods that are used by a metals, ores, and related materials analysis laboratory.  
1.2 This guide may be applied to the validation of laboratory developed (in-house) methods, addition of analytes to an existing standard test method, variation or scope expansion of an existing standard method, or the use of new or different laboratory equipment.  
1.3 The suggested approaches in this guide may also be used to validate the implementation of standard test methods used routinely by laboratories of the mining, ore processing, and metals industry.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

  • Guide
    5 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
  • Guide
    5 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM E1601-19(Practice)
Standard Practice for Conducting an Interlaboratory Study to Evaluate the Performance of an Analytical Method

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Ideally, interlaboratory testing of a method is conducted by a randomly chosen group of laboratories that typifies the kind of laboratory that is likely to use the method. In actuality, this ideal is only approximated by the laboratories that are available and willing to undertake the test work. The coordinator of the program must ensure that every participating laboratory has appropriate facilities and personnel and performs the method exactly as written. If this goal is achieved, the statistics developed during the ILS will be adequate for determining if the method is capable of producing satisfactory precision in actual use. If the program includes certified reference materials, the test data also provide information concerning the bias of the method. The statistics provide a general guide to the expected performance of the method.
SCOPE
1.1 This practice covers procedures and statistics for an interlaboratory study (ILS) of the performance of an analytical method. The study provides statistical values which are useful in determining if a method is satisfactory for the purposes for which it was developed. These statistical values may be incorporated in the method's precision and bias section. This practice discusses the meaning of the statistics and what users of analytical methods may learn from them.  
1.2 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.3 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

  • Standard
    14 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
  • Standard
    14 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM E396-17(Test Method)
Standard Test Methods for Chemical Analysis of Cadmium

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 These test methods for the chemical analysis of cadmium are primarily intended to test such material for compliance with compositional specifications in Specification B440. It is assumed that all who use these test methods will be trained analysts capable of performing common laboratory procedures skillfully and safely. It is expected that work will be performed in a properly equipped laboratory.
SCOPE
1.1 These test methods cover the chemical analysis of cadmium having chemical compositions with the following limits:    
Element  
Composition, max, %  
Antimony  
0.001  
Arsenic  
0.003  
Copper  
0.015  
Lead  
0.025  
Silver  
0.010  
Thallium  
0.003  
Tin  
0.010  
Zinc  
0.035  
1.2 The test methods appear in the following order:    
Sections  
Antimony by the Rhodamine B Spectrophotometric Method
[0.0002 % to 0.0010 %]  
62 – 72  
Arsenic by the Molybdenum Blue Spectrophotometric Method
[0.001 % to 0.005 %]  
40 – 50  
Copper by the Neocuproine Spectrophotometric Method [0.002 % to 0.030 %]  
10 – 19  
Copper, Lead, Silver, and Zinc by the Atomic Absorption Spectrometry Method [0.004 % to 0.02 % Cu, 0.01 % to 0.05 % Pb, 0.004 % to 0.02 % Ag,
and 0.01 % to 0.05 % Zn]  
51 – 61  
Lead by the Dithizone Spectrophotometric Method [0.001 % to 0.05 %]  
20 – 29  
Thallium by the Rhodamine B Spectrophotometric Method
[0.0003 % to 0.005 %]  
30 – 39  
Tin by the 8-Quinolinol Spectrophotometric Method [0.0025 % to 0.0150 %]  
73 – 82  
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. Specific precautionary information is given in Section 6, , , and .  
1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

  • Standard
    13 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
  • Standard
    13 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM D5788-95(2024)(Guide)
Standard Guide for Spiking Organics into Aqueous Samples

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Matrix spiking of samples is commonly used to determine the bias under specific analytical conditions, or the applicability of a test method to a particular sample matrix, by determining the extent to which the added spike is recovered from the sample matrix under these conditions. Reactions or interactions of the analyte or component of interest with the sample matrix may cause a significant positive or negative effect on recovery and may render the chosen analytical, or monitoring, process ineffectual for that sample matrix.  
5.2 Matrix spiking of samples can also be used to monitor the performance of a laboratory, individual instrument, or analyst as part of a regular quality assurance program. Changes in spike recoveries from the same or similar matrices over time may indicate variations in the quality of analyses and analytical results.  
5.3 Spiking of samples may be performed in the field or in the laboratory, depending on what part of the analytical process is to be tested. Field spiking tests the recovery of the overall process, including preservation and shipping of the sample and may be considered a measure of the stability of the analytes in the matrix. Laboratory spiking tests the laboratory process only. Spiking of sample extracts, concentrates, or dilutions will be reflective of only that portion of the process subsequent to the addition of the spike.  
5.4 Special precautions shall be observed when nonlaboratory personnel perform spiking in the field. It is recommended that all spike preparation work be performed in a laboratory by experienced analysts so that the field operation consists solely of adding a prepared spiking solution to the sample matrix. Training of field personnel and validation of their spiking techniques are necessary to ensure that spikes are added accurately and reproducibly. Consistent and acceptable recoveries from duplicate field spikes can be used to document the reproducibility of sampling and the spiking technique....
SCOPE
1.1 This guide covers the general technique of “spiking” aqueous samples with organic analytes or components. It is intended to be applicable to a broad range of organic materials in aqueous media. Although the specific details and handling procedures required for all types of compounds are not described, this general approach is given to serve as a guideline to the analyst in accurately preparing spiked samples for subsequent analysis or comparison. Guidance is also provided to aid the analyst in calculating recoveries and interpreting results. It is the responsibility of the analyst to determine whether the methods and materials cited here are compatible with the analytes of interest.  
1.2 The procedures in this guide are focused on “matrix spike” preparation, analysis, results, and interpretation. The applicability of these procedures to the preparation of calibration standards, calibration check standards, laboratory control standards, reference materials, and other quality control materials by spiking is incidental. A sample (the matrix) is fortified (spiked) with the analyte of interest for a variety of analytical and quality control purposes. While the spiking of multiple sample test portions is discussed, the method of standard additions is not covered.  
1.3 This guide is intended for use in conjunction with the individual analytical test method that provides procedures for analysis of the analyte or component of interest. The test method is used to determine an analyte or component's background level and, again after spiking, its now elevated level. Each test method typically provides procedures not only for samples, but also for calibration standards or analytical control solutions, or both. These procedures include preparation, handling, storage, preservation, and analysis techniques. These procedures are applicable by extension, using the analyst's judgement on a case-by-case basis, to spiking solutions, ...

  • Guide
    7 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM D7959-24(Test Method)
Standard Test Method for Chloride Content Determination of Aviation Turbine Fuels using Chloride Test Strip

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Chloride present in aviation turbine fuel can originate from refinery salt drier carryover or possibly from seawater contamination (for example, product transferred by barge). Elevated chloride levels have caused corrosive and abrasive wear of aircraft fuel control systems leading to engine failure.4
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers a rapid means of determining chloride content of aviation turbine fuel. This methodology is applicable for chloride concentrations between 0 mg/L to 0.5 mg/L. This methodology will not detect chlorine originating from chlorinated organic compounds (that is, covalent bond).  
1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.4 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

  • Standard
    8 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
  • Standard
    8 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM E203-24(Test Method)
Standard Test Method for Water Using Volumetric Karl Fischer Titration

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
4.1 Titration techniques using KF reagent are one of the most widely used for the determination of water.  
4.2 Although the volumetric KF titration can determine low levels of water, it is generally accepted that coulometric KF titrations (see Test Method E1064) are more accurate for routine determination of very low levels of water. As a general rule, if samples routinely contain water concentrations of 500 mg/kg or less, the coulometric technique should be considered.  
4.3 Applications can be subdivided into two sections: (1) organic and inorganic compounds, in which water may be determined directly, and (2) compounds, in which water cannot be determined directly, but in which interferences may be eliminated by suitable chemical reactions or modifications of the procedure. Further discussion of interferences is included in Section 5 and Appendix X2.  
4.4 Water can be determined directly in the presence of the following types of compounds:    
Organic Compounds  
Acetals  
Ethers  
Acids (Note 1)  
Halides  
Acyl halides  
Hydrocarbons (saturated and unsaturated)  
Alcohols  
Ketones, stable (Note 4)  
Aldehydes, stable (Note 2)  
Nitriles  
Amides  
Orthoesters  
Amines, weak (Note 3)  
Peroxides (hydro, dialkyl)  
Anhydrides  
Sulfides  
Disulfides  
Thiocyanates  
Esters  
Thioesters  
Inorganic Compounds  
Acids (Note 5)  
Cupric oxide  
Acid oxides (Note 6)  
Desiccants  
Aluminum oxides  
Hydrazine sulfate  
Anhydrides  
Salts of organic and inorganic acids (Note 6)  
Barium dioxide  
Calcium carbonate  
Note 1: Some acids, such as formic, acetic, and adipic acid, are slowly esterified. When using pyridine-free reagents, commercially available buffer solutions can be added to the sample prior to titration. With formic acid, it may be necessary to use methanol-free solvents and titrants (1).4
Note 2: Examples of stable aldehydes are formaldehyde, sugars, chloral, etc. Formaldehyde polymers cont...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method is intended as a general guide for the application of the volumetric Karl Fischer (KF) titration for determining free water and water of hydration in most solid or liquid organic and inorganic compounds. This test method is designed for use with automatic titration systems capable of determining the KF titration end point potentiometrically; however, a manual titration method for determining the end point visually is included as Appendix X1. Samples that are gaseous at room temperature are not covered (see Appendix X4). This test method covers the use of pyridine-free KF reagents for determining water by the volumetric titration. Determination of water using KF coulometric titration is not discussed. By proper choice of the sample size, KF reagent concentration and apparatus, this test method is suitable for measurement of water over a wide concentration range, that is, parts per million to pure water.  
1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard.  
1.3 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. Specific warnings are given in 3.1.  
1.4 Review the current Safety Data Sheets (SDS) for detailed information concerning toxicity, first aid procedures, and safety precautions for chemicals used in this test procedure.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

  • Standard
    9 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
  • Standard
    9 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM E3063-24(Test Method)
Standard Test Method for Antimony Content Using Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA)

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 High levels of antimony are commonly used in flame retardant formulations for various materials. NAA is a test method that can be useful for verifying these levels and, for other materials, NAA can also be useful in establishing the amount of low level contamination, if any, with high sensitivity and high precision.  
5.2 Neutron activation analysis provides a rapid, highly sensitive, nondestructive procedure for antimony determination in a wide range of matrices. This test method is independent of the chemical form of the antimony.  
5.3 This test method can be used for quality and process control in the petrochemical and other manufacturing industries, and for research purposes in a broad spectrum of applications.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the measurement of antimony concentration in plastics or other hydrocarbon or organic matrix by using neutron activation analysis (NAA). The sample is activated by irradiation with neutrons from a research reactor and the subsequently emitted gamma-rays are detected with a germanium semiconductor detector. The same system may be used to determine antimony concentrations ranging from 1 ng/g to 10 000 μg/g with the lower end of the range limited by numerous interferences and the upper limit established by the demonstrated practical application of NAA.  
1.2 This test method may be used on either solid or liquid samples, provided that they can be made to conform in size and shape during irradiation and counting to a standard sample of known antimony content using very simple sample preparation. Several variants of this method have been described in the technical literature. A monograph is available which provides a comprehensive description of the principles of neutron activation analysis using reactor neutrons (1).2  
1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. Specific precautions are given in Section 9.  
1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

  • Standard
    9 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
  • Standard
    9 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM E2927-23(Test Method)
Standard Test Method for Determination of Trace Elements in Soda-Lime Glass Samples Using Laser Ablation Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry for Forensic Comparisons

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test method is useful for the determination of elemental concentrations in the range of approximately 0.1 µgg-1 to 10 percent (%) (See Table X1.1) in soda-lime glass samples (7 and 8). A standard test method can aid in the interchange of data between laboratories and in the creation and use of glass databases.  
5.2 The determination of elemental concentrations in glass provides high discriminating value in the forensic comparison of glass fragments.  
5.3 This test method produces minimal destruction of the sample. Microscopic craters of 50 µm to 100 µm in diameter by 80 µm to 150 µm deep are left in the glass fragment after analysis. The mass removed per replicate is approximately 0.4 µg to 3 µg (6).  
5.4 Appropriate sampling techniques shall be used to account for natural heterogeneity of the materials at a microscopic scale.  
5.5 The precision, bias, and limits of detection of the method (for each element measured) shall be established during validation of the method. The measurement uncertainty of any concentration value used for a comparison shall be recorded with the concentration.  
5.6 Acid digestion of glass followed by either Inductively Coupled Plasma-Optical Emission Spectrometry (ICP-OES) or Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) can also be used for trace elemental analysis of glass, and offer similar detection levels and the ability for quantitative analysis. However, these methods are destructive, and require larger sample sizes and more sample preparation (Test Method E2330).  
5.7 Micro X-Ray Fluorescence (µ-XRF) uses comparable sample sizes to those used for LA-ICP-MS with the advantage of being non-destructive of the sample. Some of the drawbacks of µ-XRF include lower sensitivity and precision, and longer analysis time (Test Method E2926).  
5.8 Scanning Electron Microscopy with Energy Dispersive Spectrometry (SEM-EDS) is also available for elemental analysis, but it is of limited use for forensic glass source d...
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers a procedure for the quantitative elemental analysis of the following seventeen elements: lithium (Li), magnesium (Mg), aluminum (Al), potassium (K), calcium (Ca), iron (Fe), titanium (Ti), manganese (Mn), rubidium (Rb), strontium (Sr), zirconium (Zr), barium (Ba), lanthanum (La), cerium (Ce), neodymium (Nd), hafnium (Hf) and lead (Pb) through the use of laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) for the forensic comparison of glass fragments. The potential of these elements to provide the best discrimination among different sources of soda-lime glasses has been published elsewhere (1-5).2 Silicon (Si) is also monitored for use as a normalization standard. Additional elements may be added as needed, for example, tin (Sn) can be used to monitor the orientation of float glass fragments.  
1.2 The method only consumes approximately 0.4 µg to 3 µg of glass per replicate and is suitable for the analysis of full thickness samples as well as irregularly shaped fragments as small as 0.1 mm by 0.1 mm by 0.2 mm (6) in dimension. The concentrations of the elements listed above range from the low parts per million (µgg-1) to percent (%) levels in soda-lime glass, the most common type encountered in forensic cases. This standard method can be applied for the quantitative analysis of other glass types; however, some modifications in the reference standard glasses and the element menu may be required.  
1.3 This standard is intended for use by competent forensic science practitioners with the requisite formal education, discipline-specific training (see Practice E2917), and demonstrated proficiency to perform forensic casework.  
1.4 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the respo...

  • Standard
    8 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
  • Standard
    8 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM D5808-23(Test Method)
Standard Test Method for Determining Chloride in Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Related Chemicals by Microcoulometry

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 Organic as well as inorganic chlorine compounds can prove harmful to equipment and reactions in processes involving hydrocarbons.  
5.2 Maximum chloride levels are often specified for process streams and for hydrocarbon products.  
5.3 Organic chloride species are potentially damaging to refinery processes. Hydrochloric acid can be produced in hydrotreating or reforming reactors and this acid accumulates in condensing regions of the refinery.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method covers the determination of organic chloride in aromatic hydrocarbons, their derivatives, and related chemicals.  
1.2 This test method is applicable to samples with chloride concentrations to 25 mg/kg. The limit of detection (LOD) is 0.2 mg/kg and the limit of quantitation (LOQ) is 0.7 mg/kg. With careful analytical technique or the measurement of replicates, or both, this method can be used to successfully analyze concentrations below the LOD.
Note 1: The maximum is the highest concentration from the interlaboratory study and the LOD and LOQ were calculated from Performance Testing Program (PTP) data. See Table 1.  
1.3 This test method is preferred over Test Method D5194 for products, such as styrene, that are polymerized by the sodium biphenyl reagent.  
1.4 In determining the conformance of the test results using this method to applicable specifications, results shall be rounded off in accordance with the rounding-off method of Practice E29.  
1.5 Organic chloride values of samples containing inorganic chlorides will be biased high due to partial recovery of inorganic species during combustion. Interference from inorganic species can be reduced by water washing the sample before analysis. This does not apply to water soluble samples.  
1.6 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. For specific hazard statements, see 7.3 and Section 9.  
1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

  • Standard
    5 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
  • Standard
    5 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
ASTM
ASTM E2160-23(Test Method)
Standard Test Method for Heat of Reaction of Thermally Reactive Materials by Differential Scanning Calorimetry

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
5.1 This test method is useful in determining the extrapolated onset temperature, the peak heat flow temperature and the heat of reaction of a material. Any onset temperature determined by this test method is not valid for use as the sole information used for determination of storage or processing conditions.  
5.2 This test method is useful in determining the fraction of a reaction that has been completed in a sample prior to testing. This fraction of reaction that has been completed can be a measure of the degree of cure of a thermally reactive polymer or can be a measure of decomposition of a thermally reactive material upon aging.  
5.3 The heat of reaction values may be used in Practice E1231 to determine hazard potential figures-of-merit Explosion Potential and Shock Sensitivity.  
5.4 This test method may be used in research, process control, quality assurance, and specification acceptance.
SCOPE
1.1 This test method determines the exothermic heat of reaction of thermally reactive chemicals or chemical mixtures, using milligram specimen sizes, by differential scanning calorimetry. Such reactive materials may include thermally unstable or thermoset materials.  
1.2 This test method also determines the extrapolated onset temperature and peak heat flow temperature for the exothermic reaction.  
1.3 This test method may be performed on solids, liquids or slurries.  
1.4 The applicable temperature range of this test method is 25 °C to 600 °C.  
1.5 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.  
1.6 This standard is related to Test Method E537, but provides additional information.  
1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.  
1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

  • Standard
    6 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off
  • Standard
    6 pages
    English language
    sale 15% off