CCQM-K55.b (Aldrin) : Final report: october 2012. CCQM-K55.b key comparison on the characterization of organic substances for chemical purity

Under the auspices of the Organic Analysis Working Group (OAWG) of the Comité Consultatif pour la Quantité de Matière (CCQM) a key comparison, CCQM K55.b, was coordinated by the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) in 2010/2011. Nineteen national measurement institutes and the BIPM participated. Participants were required to assign the mass fraction of aldrin present as the main component in the comparison sample for CCQM-K55.b which consisted of technical grade aldrin obtained from the National Measurement Institute Australia that had been subject to serial recrystallization and drying prior to sub-division into the units supplied for the comparison. Aldrin was selected to be representative of the performance of a laboratory's measurement capability for the purity assignment of organic compounds of medium structural complexity [molar mass range 300 Da to 500 Da] and low polarity (pKOW < −2) for which related structure impurities can be quantified by capillary gas phase chromatography (GC). The key comparison reference value (KCRV) for the aldrin content of the material was 950.8 mg/g with a combined standard uncertainty of 0.85 mg/g. The KCRV was assigned by combination of KCRVs assigned by consensus from participant results for each orthogonal impurity class. The relative expanded uncertainties reported by laboratories having results consistent with the KCRV ranged from 0.3% to 0.6% using a mass balance approach and 0.5% to 1% using a qNMR method. The major analytical challenge posed by the material proved to be the detection and quantification of a significant amount of oligomeric organic material within the sample and most participants relying on a mass balance approach displayed a positive bias relative to the KCRV (overestimation of aldrin content) in excess of 10 mg/g due to not having adequate procedures in place to detect and quantify the non-volatile content—specifically the non-volatile organics content—of the comparison sample. There was in general excellent agreement between participants in the identification and the quantification of the total and individual related structure impurities, water content and the residual solvent content of the sample. The comparison demonstrated the utility of 1H NMR as an independent method for quantitative analysis of high purity compounds. In discussion of the participant results it was noted that while several had access to qNMR estimates for the aldrin content that were inconsistent with their mass balance determination they decided to accept the mass balance result and assumed a hidden bias in their NMR data. By contrast, laboratories that placed greater confidence in their qNMR result were able to resolve the discrepancy through additional studies that provided evidence of the presence of non-volatile organic impurity at the requisite level to bring their mass balance and qNMR estimates into agreement.Fil: Westwood, Steven. Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM); FranciaFil: Josephs, Ralf. Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM); FranciaFil: Choteau, Tiphaine. Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM); FranciaFil: Daireaux, Adeline. Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM); FranciaFil: Mesquida, Charline. Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM); FranciaFil: Wielgosz, Robert. Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM); FranciaFil: Rosso, Adriana. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Industrial (INTI); ArgentinaFil: Ruiz de Arechavaleta, Mariana. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Industrial (INTI); ArgentinaFil: Davies, Stephen. National Measurement Institute (NMIA); AustraliaFil: Wang, Hongjie. National Measurement Institute (NMIA); AustraliaFil: Pires do Rego, Eliane Cristina. Instituto Nacional de Metrologia, Qualidade e Tecnologia (INMetro); BrasilFil: Marques Rodrigues, Janaína. Instituto Nacional de Metrologia, Qualidade e Tecnologia (INMetro); BrasilFil: de Freitas Guimarães, Evelyn. Instituto Nacional de Metrologia, Qualidade e Tecnologia (INMetro); BrasilFil: Barreto Sousa, Marcus Vinicius. Instituto Nacional de Metrologia, Qualidade e Tecnologia (INMetro); BrasilFil: Monteiro, Tânia Maria. Instituto Nacional de Metrologia, Qualidade e Tecnologia (INMetro); BrasilFil: Alves das Neves Valente, Laura. Instituto Nacional de Metrologia, Qualidade e Tecnologia (INMetro); BrasilFil: Marques Violante, Fernando Gustavo. Instituto Nacional de Metrologia, Qualidade e Tecnologia (INMetro); BrasilFil: Rubim, Renato. Instituto Nacional de Metrologia, Qualidade e Tecnologia (INMetro); BrasilFil: Almeida, Ribeiro. Instituto Nacional de Metrologia, Qualidade e Tecnologia (INMetro); BrasilFil: Baptista Quaresma, Maria Cristina. Instituto Nacional de Metrologia, Qualidade e Tecnologia (INMetro); BrasilFil: Nogueira, Raquel. Instituto Nacional de Metrologia, Qualidade e Tecnologia (INMetro); BrasilFil: Windust, Anthony. Institute for National Measurement Standards. National Research Council Canada (NRC-INMS); CanadáFil: Dai, Xinhua. National Institute of Metrology (NIM); ChinaFil: Li, Xiaomin. National Institute of Metrology (NIM); ChinaFil: Zhang, Wei. National Institute of Metrology (NIM); ChinaFil: Li, Ming. National Institute of Metrology (NIM); ChinaFil: Shao, Mingwu. National Institute of Metrology (NIM); ChinaFil: Wei, Chao. National Institute of Metrology (NIM); ChinaFil: Wong, Siu-kay. Government Laboratory of Hong Kong SAR (GLHK); ChinaFil: Cabillic, Julie. Laboratoire National de Métrologie et d’Essais (LNE); FranciaFil: Gantois, Fanny. Laboratoire National de Métrologie et d’Essais (LNE); FranciaFil: Philipp, Rosemarie. Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung (BAM); AlemaniaFil: Pfeifer, Dietmar. Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung (BAM); AlemaniaFil: Hein, Sebastian. Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung (BAM); AlemaniaFil: Klyk-Seitz, Urszula-Anna. Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung (BAM); AlemaniaFil: Ishikawa, Keiichiro. National Metrology Institute of Japan (NMIJ); JapónFil: Castro, Esther. Centro Nacional de Metrología (CENAM); MéxicoFil: Gonzalez, Norma. Centro Nacional de Metrología (CENAM); MéxicoFil: Krylov, Anatoly. D. I. Mendeleev Institute for Metrology (VNIIM); RusiaFil: Lin, Teo Tang. Health Sciences Authority (HSA); SingapurFil: Kooi, Lee Tong. Health Sciences Authority (HSA); SingapurFil: Fernandes-Whaley, M. National Metrology Institute of South Africa (NMISA); SudáfricaFil: Prévoo, D. National Metrology Institute of South Africa (NMISA); SudáfricaFil: Archer, M. National Metrology Institute of South Africa (NMISA); SudáfricaFil: Visser, R. National Metrology Institute of South Africa (NMISA); SudáfricaFil: Nlhapo, N. National Metrology Institute of South Africa (NMISA); SudáfricaFil: de Vos, B. National Metrology Institute of South Africa (NMISA); SudáfricaFil: Ahn, Seonghee. Korea Research Institute of Standards and Science (KRISS); Corea del SurFil: Pookrod, Preeyaporn. National Institute of Metrology of Thailand (NIMT); TailandiaFil: Wiangnon, Kanjana. National Institute of Metrology of Thailand (NIMT); TailandiaFil: Sudsiri, Nittaya. National Institute of Metrology of Thailand (NIMT); TailandiaFil: Muaksang, Kittiya. National Institute of Metrology of Thailand (NIMT); TailandiaFil: Cherdchu, Chainarong. National Institute of Metrology of Thailand (NIMT); TailandiaFil: Gören, Ahmet Ceyhan. National Metrology Institute (TUBITAK UME); TurquíaFil: Bilsel, Mine. National Metrology Institute (TUBITAK UME); TurquíaFil: LeGoff, Thierry. LGC Limited; Reino UnidoFil: Bearden, Dan. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); Estados UnidosFil: Bedner, Mary. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); Estados UnidosFil: Duewer, David. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); Estados UnidosFil: Hancock, Diane. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); Estados UnidosFil: Lang, Brian. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); Estados UnidosFil: Lippa, Katrice. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); Estados UnidosFil: Schantz, Michele. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); Estados UnidosFil: Sieber, John. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); Estados Unido

Assessing the performance of measurement devices for continuously monitoring of organic matter and nutrient in river water

The evaluation of the metrological performance parameters of 27 water quality monitoring devices for continuously measuring nutrients and organic matter in river waters was conducted both under controlled conditions in the laboratory and under field conditions during a 3-month field trial. It consisted of (i) designing protocols to assess metrological performance parameters under controlled and field conditions of monitoring devices (ii) selecting a site to conduct a field trial (iii) selecting monitoring devices and (iv) conducting the testing. The results obtained for the devices measuring nitrate, total nitrogen and organic carbon are presented in this paper. The performances evaluated under controlled conditions were very acceptable with the vast majority of the monitoring devices being characterized by a repeatability below 5 %, a bias below 10 %, a linearity deviation below 10 % and a combined expanded uncertainty below 15 %. Moreover, the monitoring devices tested were found to have quantification limits suitable with regard to the concentration levels measured in the Oise River between October 2015 and February 2016. Finally, from the results obtained as well as the feedback on testing a great variety of monitoring devices, it was possible to draw some recommendations for improving the measurements using the devices tested

Methodological Framework Design to sustain integration of non-target screening into French national water monitoring programs

Non-target analysis for the identification of contaminants of emerging concern or transformation products in the environment are increasingly popular and of great interest in terms of research areas as well as for improvement of regulatory monitoring, such as WFD. AQUAREF, the French Reference Laboratory for Water and Aquatic Environment has defined and implemented a technical program of actions in order to identify and propose some solutions to the main technical and operational locks..

Joint Research Project env08 “Traceable measurements for monitoring critical pollutants under the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) 2000/60/EC”

The Joint Research Project ENV08 “Traceable measurements for monitoring critical pollutants under the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) 2000/60/EC” is a multi-partner trans-national project within the targeted call “Environment” of the European Metrology Research Programme (EMRP). The EMRP represents a metrology-focused European programme of coordinated research and development that facilitates closer integration of national research programmes. ENV08 deals with the grand challenges for multidisciplinary metrology in environment meeting “the most urgent industrial and societal needs” as stated in the EMRP Outline 2008. The project aims to provide reference methods capable of analysing priority hazardous substances specified in the WFD at the proposed low environmental quality standard concentrations in the body of ground, surface and coastal waters. In addition, ENV08 will answer the need for accuracy and comparability of measurements for the end users capabilities assessment by developing concepts for reference materials. ENV08 is coordinated by BAM (Germany) and involves 14 European institutes. Five institutes work on the development of a validated measurement procedure for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) in whole water samples at a concentration level required by the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD)

Targeting RET in Patients With RET-Rearranged Lung Cancers: Results From the Global, Multicenter RET Registry

Purpose In addition to prospective trials for non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) that are driven by less common genomic alterations, registries provide complementary information on patient response to targeted therapies. Here, we present the results of an international registry of patients with RET-rearranged NSCLCs, providing the largest data set, to our knowledge, on outcomes of RET-directed therapy thus far. Methods A global, multicenter network of thoracic oncologists identified patients with pathologically confirmed NSCLC that harbored a RET rearrangement. Molecular profiling was performed locally by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction, fluorescence in situ hybridization, or next-generation sequencing. Anonymized data-clinical, pathologic, and molecular features-were collected centrally and analyzed by an independent statistician. Best response to RET tyrosine kinase inhibition administered outside of a clinical trial was determined by RECIST v1.1. Results By April 2016, 165 patients with RET-rearranged NSCLC from 29 centers across Europe, Asia, and the United States were accrued. Median age was 61 years (range, 29 to 89 years). The majority of patients were never smokers (63%) with lung adenocarcinomas (98%) and advanced disease (91%). The most frequent rearrangement was KIF5B-RET (72%). Of those patients, 53 received one or more RET tyrosine kinase inhibitors in sequence: cabozantinib (21 patients), vandetanib (11 patients), sunitinib (10 patients), sorafenib (two patients), alectinib (two patients), lenvatinib (two patients), nintedanib (two patients), ponatinib (two patients), and regorafenib (one patient). The rate of any complete or partial response to cabozantinib, vandetanib, and sunitinib was 37%, 18%, and 22%, respectively. Further responses were observed with lenvantinib and nintedanib. Median progression-free survival was 2.3 months (95% CI, 1.6 to 5.0 months), and median overall survival was 6.8 months (95% CI, 3.9 to 14.3 months). Conclusion Available multikinase inhibitors had limited activity in patients with RET-rearranged NSCLC in this retrospective study. Further investigation of the biology of RET-rearranged lung cancers and identification of new targeted therapeutics will be required to improve outcomes for these patients. (C) 2017 by American Society of Clinical Oncolog