Accreditation and Quality Assurance

, Volume 15, Issue 7, pp 421–427

Failures of the global measurement system. Part 1: the case of chemistry

Discussion Forum

Abstract

This discussion puts a case of advocatus diaboli: that the Treaty of the Metre, its associated administrative apparatus and the International System of measurement units (SI) has basically failed for chemical measurement and is largely irrelevant to modern analysis, much of practical measurement in modern economies and much of recent technology. The practical use of the chemical unit termed the mole, the introduction to the SI units of the thermodynamic mole and the invention of a new physical quantity called “amount of substance” are each reviewed with the conclusion that the current means of expressing the results of chemical measurements are unsatisfactory in both practice and theory and are imposing large and readily avoidable costs on all advanced economies.

Keywords

Treaty of the metre Mole Amount of substance Metrology 

References

  1. 1.
    Poposki N, Majcen N, Taylor P (2009) Assessing publicly financed metrology expenditures against economic parameters. Accred Qual Assur 14:359–368. doi:10.1007/s00769-009-0538-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Silsbee F (1949) Establishment and maintenance of the electrical units, National Bureau of Standards Circular 475, 30 June, Gaithersburg, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Price G (2002) An arrogance of technicians. Accred Qual Assur 7:77–78. doi:10.1007/s00769-001-0426-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Price G (2001) On the communication of measurement results. Measurement 29:293–305. doi:10,1016/s0263-2241(00)00053-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Price G (2003) Traceability to units. Accred Qual Assur 8:475–476. doi:10.1007/s00769-003-0599-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Boer J (1968–1970) Some general aspects of the international system of units. Recuil de Traveaux du BIPM, volume 2, SevresGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mills I, Milton M (2009) Amount of substance and the mole. Chemistry International volume 31 No 2 http://www.iupac.org/publications/ci/20093102/1_mills.html
  8. 8.
    Price G, De Bievre P (2009) Simple principles for metrology in chemistry: identifying and counting. Accred Qual Assur 14:295–305. doi:10.1007/s00769-009-0529-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mills I, Mohr T, Taylor B, Williams E (2006) Redefinition of the kilogram, ampere, Kelvin and mole: a proposed approach to implementing CIPM recommendation 1 (Cl-2005). Metrologia 43:227–246. doi:10.1088/0026-1394/43/3/006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    De Bievre P (2008) Essential for metrology in chemistry, but not yet achieved: truly internationally understood concepts and associated terms. Metrologia 45:335–341. doi:10.1088/0026-1394/45/3/011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Toman B, Possolo A (2009) Laboratory effects models for interlaboratory comparison. Accred Qual Assur 14:553–563. doi:10.1007/s00769-009-0547-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mars Climate Orbiter Mishap Investigation Board (1999) Phase 1 Report Nov 10 NASA ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/reports/1999/MCO_report.pdf
  13. 13.
    Price G (1997) Traceability in analysis: why 19th century physics makes lousy 21st century chemistry. Metrology Society of Australia: Proceedings of the second biennial conference, pp 289–294Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    De Bievre P (2006) Counting is measuring: learning from the banks? Accred Qual Assur 11:1–2. doi:10.1007/s00769-006-0090-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    De Bievre P (2007) Numerosity versus mass. Accred Qual Assur 12:221–222. doi:10.1007/s00769-007-0268-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    De Bievre P (2009) What is our best measured when measuring “something” in “something”. Accred Qual Assur 14:177–178. doi:10.1007/s00769-009-0501-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Johansson I (2008) Functions and shapes in the light of the international system of units. Metaphys Int J Ontol Metaphys 9:93–117. doi:10.1007/s12133-008-0025-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mills I (1994/1995) Unity as a unit. Metrologia 31:537–541. doi: 10.1088/0026-1394/31/6/013 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dybkaer R (2004) Units for quantities of dimension one. Metrologia 41:69–73. doi:10.1088/0026-1394/41/1/010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Quinn T, Mills I (1998) The use and abuse of the terms percent, parts per million and parts in 10n. Metrologia 35:807–810. doi:10.1088/0026-1394/35/6/3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    White D, Nicholas J (2001) Comment on Quinn and Mills’ proposal for the uno. Metrologia 38:369–371. doi:10.1088/0026-1394/38/4/10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MenaiAustralia

Personalised recommendations