Die Vulgata zum Canticum Annae (1 Sam 2, 1-10, fer. IV ad Laud. II) : ein Entwurf zu einem wissenschaftlichen Kommentar

oai:mthz.ub.lmu.de:article/9

Research Evaluation of the Laboratory Comparison Exercise for NO, NO2, SO2, CO and O3 Langen (D) 1st - 6th September 2013

From the 1st to the 6th of September 2013 in Langen (D), 7 Laboratories of WHO/AQUILA (Network of European Air Quality Reference Laboratories) met at a laboratory comparison exercise to evaluate their proficiency in the analysis of inorganic gaseous pollutants covered by European Directive about air quality (SO2, CO, NO, NO2 and O3). The proficiency evaluation, where each participant’s bias was compared to two criteria, provides information on the current situation and capabilities to the European Commission and can be used by participants in their quality control system. On the basis of criteria imposed by the European Commission, 75.7% of the results reported by the laboratories were good both in terms of measured values and reported uncertainties. Another 20.9% of the results had good measured values, but the reported uncertainties were too high and for 2.0% values the uncertainty was underestimated. 1.4% values were questionable. Comparability of results among participants at the highest concentration level, excluding outliers, is acceptable for NO, SO2 and O3 measurements while NO2 and CO one showed less satisfactory results.JRC.H.2-Air and Climat

Evaluation of the Laboratory Comparison Exercise for SO2, CO, O3, NO and NO2, Langen 23rd-28th October 2011

From the 23rd to the 28th of October 2011 in Langen (DE), 7 Laboratories of WHO/AQUILA (Network of European Air Quality Reference Laboratories) met at an laboratory comparison exercise to evaluate their proficiency in the analysis of inorganic gaseous pollutants covered by European Directive about air quality (SO2, CO, NO, NO2 and O3). The proficiency evaluation, where each participant’s bias was compared to two criteria, provides information on the current situation and capabilities to the European Commission and can be used by participants in their quality control system. On the basis of criteria imposed by the European Commission, 59.4% of the results reported by the laboratories were good both in terms of measured values and reported uncertainties. Another 39.9% of the results had good measured values, but the reported uncertainties were too high and only 0.7% delivered questionable results. Comparability of results among participants at the highest concentration level, excluding outliers, is acceptable for CO and NO measurements while SO2, O3 and NO2 measurements showed less satisfactory results.JRC.H.2-Air and Climat

Evaluation of the Laboratory Comparison Exercise for NO, NO2, SO2, CO and O3 4th – 9th of October 2015, Langen (D)

From the 4th to the 9th of October 2015 seven Laboratories of the World Health Organization (WHO) European-Region met for another joint JRC-ERLAP/WHO inter-laboratory comparison exercise (IE). They met at the National Air Quality Reference laboratory at the German Federal Environment Agency in Langen, Germany, to evaluate their proficiency in the analysis of inorganic gaseous pollutants (NO, NO2, SO2, CO and O3) covered by the European Air Quality Directive 2008/50 EC and recent revision 2015/1480/EC. The proficiency evaluation, where each participant’s bias was compared to two criteria, provides information on the current situation and capabilities to the European Commission and can be used by participants in their quality control system. On the basis of criteria imposed by the European Commission, 73.2% of the results reported by the laboratories were good both in terms of measured values and reported uncertainties. Another 23.9% of the results had good measured values, but the reported uncertainties were too high and for 0.7% values the uncertainty was underestimated. 1.4% values were questionable and 0.7% unsatisfactory. Comparability of results among participants (reproducibility) at the highest concentration level, excluding outliers, is acceptable for CO and SO2 measurements while NO2, NO and O3 one showed less satisfactory results.JRC.H.2-Air and Climat

The Evaluation of the Interlaboratory Comparison Exercise for SO2, O3, NO and NO2 Langen 20th-25th September 2009

From the 20th to the 25th of September 2009 in Langen (DE), 4 national reference laboratories (NRL) of AQUILA network and 3 laboratories of the World Health Organisation (WHO) Euro-Region met for an interlaboratory comparison exercise (IE) to evaluate their proficiency in the analysis of inorganic gaseous pollutants covered by European Air Quality Directives (SO2, NO, NO2 and O3). Most of the laboratories participating in the IE used automated CEN reference methods, which are mandatory in the EU, while some laboratories of the WHO Euro-Region performed analysis using manual methods. In this report proficiency evaluation was made at different degrees for each laboratory taking into account the differences in the methodologies and the completeness of the information provided by participants. For the laboratories who expressed their uncertainty, performance was evaluated using two criteria, providing information on their proficiency to the European Commission and supporting the national quality control systems. In terms of criteria imposed by the European Commission (that are not mandatory for WHO laboratories), 71% of the results reported by National Reference Laboratories (AQUILA network) were good both in terms of measured values and reported uncertainties. Another 23% of the results had good measured values, but the reported uncertainties were either too high (19%) or too small (4%). There were no questionable nor unacceptable values. AQUILA laboratories presented good comparability among participants for NO2, O3, and SO2. The relative reproducibility limit for NO was above the objective deriving from the standard deviation for proficiency assessment. For WHO laboratories using automated techniques, the results are satisfactory for SO2, NO2 and NO measurement methods, while one laboratory needs further investigation of their O3 measurements. The laboratory using manual methods presented results comparable to those of the automated methods for NO and O3 but there were questionable results for NO2 and SO2 and unsatisfactory results for NO2.JRC.DDG.H.4-Transport and air qualit