Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How should metrology bodies treat method-defined measurands?

  • Discussion Forum
  • Published:
Accreditation and Quality Assurance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This discussion article explores how metrology bodies should approach method-defined measurands (also called operationally defined measurands). It begins by considering the different types of measurement that can be encountered and comparing their difference qualities, before discussing in more detail method-defined measurands and the nature of their current and future treatment by the global metrology system. The discussion highlights work performed within the Consultative Committee for Amount of Substance to address what should be within the scope of the International Committee for Weights and Measures Mutual Recognition Arrangement (CIPM-MRA) when method-defined measurands are considered and also how the metrology community can contribute to ensuring stability and comparability of these measurements outside the formal scope of the CIPM-MRA.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Consideration of the nature (also called ‘identity’) of the measurand, which is fundamental in measurement fields outside physics, is outside the scope of this treatment.

  2. Moisture in grain remains in an area where there remains a lack of an agreed international standard method.

  3. For non-method-defined measurands, documentary standards may publish agreed performance criteria (such as uncertainty and limit of detection) rather than specifying a particular method.

  4. There is also a valid argument for Rockwell Hardness constituting a traceability exception to the CIPM-MRA, but because international coordination in this area predates the CIPM-MRA this issue is often neglected.

References

  1. ISO 17034 (2016) General requirements for the competence of reference material producers. ISO, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  2. Simonet BM, Lendl B, Valcárcel M (2006) Method-defined parameters: measurands sometimes forgotten. TrAC Trends Anal Chem 25(5):520–527

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. De Bievre P (2008) Essential for metrology in chemistry, but not yet achieved: truly internationally understood concepts and associated terms. Metrologia 45(3):335–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. ISO (1995) Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. ISO, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  5. JCGM 200 (2012) International vocabulary of metrology—basic and general concepts and associated terms, VIM, 3rd edn. BIPM, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  6. Thompson M, Ellison SL (2011) Dark uncertainty. Accred Qual Assur 16:483–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Flores E, Viallon J, Choteau T, Moussay P, Idrees F, Wielgosz RI, Konopelko LA (2019) CCQM-K120 (carbon dioxide at background and urban level). Metrologia 56:08001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. ISO 14687–2 (2012) Hydrogen fuel—product specification—part 2: proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell applications for road vehicles. ISO, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  9. CCQM (2019) Report of the CCQM task group on method defined measurands. https://www.bipm.org/cc/CCQM/Allowed/25/CCQM19-43_TG_Method_defined_measurands_approved_report_20190424.pdf

  10. ISO 9277 (2010) Determination of the specific surface area of solids by gas adsorption - BET method. ISO, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The fruitful discussions with, and input from, CCQM colleagues, especially the Task Group on Method-Defined Measurands, is gratefully acknowledged. The funding by the UK Department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy of the UK National Measurement System is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Physical Laboratory, Hampton Road, Teddington, TW11 0LW, UK

    Richard J. C. Brown

  2. Federal Institute of Metrology (METAS), Lindenweg 50, 3003, Bern-Wabern, Switzerland

    Hanspeter Andres

Authors
  1. Richard J. C. Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hanspeter Andres
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard J. C. Brown.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The views of the authors are expressed and do not necessarily reflect those of NPL Management Ltd or of METAS.

Papers published in this section do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Editors, the Editorial Board and the Publisher.

A critical and constructive debate in the Discussion Forum or a Letter to the Editor is strongly encouraged!

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brown, R.J.C., Andres, H. How should metrology bodies treat method-defined measurands?. Accred Qual Assur 25, 161–166 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00769-020-01424-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00769-020-01424-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation