EVALUATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN THE CALIBRATION OF ANALYTICAL BALANCES BASED ON MATHEMATICAL MODELING
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55640/Keywords:
discreteness, drift, vibration, sensitivity coefficient, standard, convection, correlation.Abstract
To develop a mathematical model for the calibration of analytical balances, the MA204/A model of analytical balance manufactured by Mettler-Toledo was selected. The application of the modeling method enabled the identification of uncertainty sources affecting the calibration process, as well as their reduction.The results of the study showed that the primary sources of uncertainty affecting the MA204/A analytical balance are the off-center loading (eccentricity error) and the drift of the reference weights. Furthermore, it was established that reducing the dominant sources by 30–50% can decrease the overall uncertainty by 25–40%, which represents a practically significant outcome.
These findings further substantiate the practical applicability of the modeling results and confirm their reliability. Based on the conducted research, a set of practical recommendations for reducing uncertainty in the calibration process of analytical balances was developed, along with proposals for their implementation in practice.
References
1.JCGM 100:2008. Evaluation of measurement data — Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM). Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology, 2008.
2.EURAMET cg-18 (2015). Guidelines on the Calibration of Non-Automatic Weighing Instruments. European Association of National Metrology Institutes.
3.OIML R 111-1:2004. Weights of classes E1, E2, F1, F2, M1, M2, M3 — Metrological and technical requirements. International Organization of Legal Metrology.
4.ISO/IEC 17025:2017. General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. International Organization for Standardization.
5.BIPM. The International System of Units (SI). 9th edition. Bureau International des Poids et Mesures, 2019.
6.Cox M.G., Harris P.M. Best Practice Guide No. 6: Uncertainty evaluation. National Physical Laboratory, United Kingdom, 2006.
7.Willink R. Measurement Uncertainty and Probability. Cambridge University Press, 2013.
8.Bell S. A Beginner’s Guide to Uncertainty of Measurement. National Physical Laboratory, 1999.
9.Taylor J.R. An Introduction to Error Analysis: The Study of Uncertainties in Physical Measurements. University Science Books, 1997.
10.Rabinovich S.G. Measurement Errors and Uncertainties: Theory and Practice. Springer, 2005.
11.Ku H.H. Notes on the use of propagation of error formulas. Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards, 1966.
12.EURAMET cg-13 (2015). Guidelines on the Calibration of Temperature Sensors.
13.Bich W., Cox M., Harris P. Evolution of the “Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement”. Metrologia, 2006.
14.ISO 9001:2015. Quality management systems — Requirements. International Organization for Standardization.
15.OIML D 28:2004. Conventional value of the result of weighing in air. International Organization of Legal Metrology.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright of their manuscripts, and all Open Access articles are disseminated under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC-BY), which licenses unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is appropriately cited. The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, and so forth in this publication, even if not specifically identified, does not imply that these names are not protected by the relevant laws and regulations.
