Should the concept and associated term “calibrator” not be used in calibration, rather than “reference material”?
| Journal | Accreditation and Quality Assurance: Journal for Quality, Comparability and Reliability in Chemical Measurement |
| Publisher | Springer Berlin / Heidelberg |
| ISSN | 0949-1775 (Print) 1432-0517 (Online) |
| Issue | Volume 13, Number 9 / September, 2008 |
| Category | Editorial |
| DOI | 10.1007/s00769-008-0446-y |
| Pages | 491-492 |
| Subject Collection | Chemistry and Materials Science |
| SpringerLink Date | Friday, August 22, 2008 |
Paul De Bičvre
In the revised VIM [1] a ‘‘calibrator’’ is defined as a ‘‘measurement standard used in calibration’’ [VIM3,5.12]1.
Clearly, the VIM definition reveals something about the function for which the calibrator is used in a measurement.
Thus, a measurement standard used in calibration is a calibrator.
So, what is a ‘‘measurement standard’’? In the same VIM, it is defined as: ‘‘measurement standard
etalon
realization of the definition of a given quantity, with stated quantity value and associated measurement uncertainty, used as a reference’’ [VIM3, 5.1]
It is important to read an accompanying note:
‘‘NOTE 1 A ‘‘realization of the definition of a given quantity’’ can be provided by a measuring system, a material measure, or a reference material’’
We learn that, next to the measurement standard called calibrator2, there are other measurement standards which can serve as a ‘‘realization of the definition of a given quantity,’’ such as a reference material (RM). Of the three possible types of measurement standards serving that purpose, ‘‘calibrator’’ is just one. It follows that a calibrator is a measurement standard, but not all measurement standards are calibrators.
Isn’t all of this not a good reason to simply use the concept and associated term ‘‘calibrator’’ when we calibrate?
Since the term RM is used to designate a whole family of different materials, including CRM, wouldn’t it simplify our communication not to use ‘‘RM’’ for the designation of only one member of the family of measurement standards?
There are also special ‘‘measurement standards’’ defined in the VIM, such as: ‘‘primary measurement standard
primary standard
measurement standard established using a primary reference measurement procedure or created as an artifact, chosen by convention’’ [VIM3, 5.4]
Since the concept and term ‘‘primary measurement standard’’ is a family name automatically including any member of that family, e.g. ‘‘primary calibrator,’’ it would be clarifying if we would also use the concept and associated term ‘‘primary calibrator’’ where and when appropriate.
[Note: it should be noted that this definition shifts the attention from the material to the procedure by means of which the primary measurement standard has been
produced. Therefore, the VIM meets the requirement to understand:
‘‘primary reference measurement procedure
primary reference procedure
reference measurement procedure used to obtain a measurement result without relation to a measurement standard for a quantity of the same kind’’
[VIM3, 2.8]
P. De Bie`vre (&)
Duineneind 9, 2460 Kasterlee, Belgium
e-mail: paul.de.bievre@...
1 Concepts the term of which is in bold font, are defined elsewhere in the VIM.
2 The term ‘‘calibrant’’ is sometimes used. The VIM has opted for ‘‘calibrator.’’
Invia email