Abstract
AbstractIn the field of water content measurement, the calibration of coulometric methods (e.g., coulometric Karl Fischer titration or evolved water vapor analysis) is often overlooked. However, as coulometric water content measurement methods are used to calibrate secondary methods, their results must be obtained with the highest degree of confidence. The utility of calibrating such instruments has been recently demonstrated. Both single and multiple point calibration methods have been suggested. This work compares these calibration methods for the evolved water vapor analysis technique. Two uncertainty estimation approaches (Kragten’s spreadsheet and M-CARE software tool) were compared as well, both based on the ISO GUM method.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference20 articles.
1. J. Styks, M. Wróbel, J. Frączek, A. Knapczyk, Energies 13, 1859 (2020).
2. MARLAP Manual Volume II: Chapter 12, Laboratory Sample Preparation, (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2015). https://www.epa.gov/radiation/marlap-manual-and-supporting-documents. Accessed 11 Nov 2020
3. P.J. Haines, Thermal Methods of Analysis: Principles, Applications and Problems (Springer, Berlin, 2012)
4. E. Freire, in Protein Stability and Folding: Theory and Practice, ed. by B.A. Shirley (Humana Press, Totowa, 1995), pp. 191–218
5. C. Capitain, J. Ross-Jones, S. Möhring, N. Tippkötter, Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 149, 104914 (2020)
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献