CHANGES IN ISO/IEC 17025:2017 – SAMPLING UNCERTAINTY?

« Back to Previous Page
4
0
Am I wrong or ISO/IEC DIS 17025:2016 proposes in clause 7.6.2 that laboratories performing sampling MUST evaluate “sampling uncertainty”? I...

Please to read the entire article.

Marked as spam
Posted by Alexis Oramas Pérez (Discussions: 1, Comments: 18)
Replied on March 14, 2017 12:00 am
6 views
0
Private comment
Please ignore this post. It is a replay of the one above, posted by mistake. I don´t see any option to delete it. Sorry. Debate is developing in the post above.
Marked as spam
Posted by Alexis Oramas Pérez (Discussions: 1, Comments: 18)
Replied on March 14, 2017 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
1. I don't think that it is a discrimination. It is about responsibility and intended scope of the test result. If a laboratory tests an incoming sample, they are only responsible for the results of "that" sample. If a laboratory is responsible for the result of the whole population (for example the pollution level of a lake), of course they have to think about the effects of sampling.
2,3. If we are talking about uncertainty, we can not expect that assessors and laboratories can be wholly prepared for it. There is no true way of estimating uncertainties, we have only some accepted conventions. Like ordinary GUF or MCMC. It is about awareness and level of understanding.
Those methods which are available today will be a good beginning point for most of us after this clause is effective. As we start to think about sampling uncertainty and its statistical nature and discuss it together then we will develop better methods in time.
Marked as spam
Posted by Abbas Dundar (Discussions: 0, Comments: 3)
Replied on March 14, 2017 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
(cont.)
There is no need to worry about the audits. Good assessors always knew what to ask/demand and when. (Bad auditors can be bad on any of the clauses.)
4. Sorry I do not know anything about this.
Marked as spam
Posted by Abbas Dundar (Discussions: 0, Comments: 3)
Replied on March 14, 2017 8:00 pm
0
Private comment
Dear Abbas:

Imagine two different first-party labs, in different factories, each of which carries out sampling in the respective production line of its factory and then analyses those samples, being both accredited for the two activities. Now, according to the DIS, they will have to evaluate sampling uncertainty, as well as that for the actual measurement.

Then, one of those two labs has the “clever” idea of making an arrangement with the production manager so, from now on, the production department is to do the sampling and then take the samples to the lab to be analysed. So, this lab can claim it doesn´t carry out sampling, thus it isn´t compelled to evaluate sampling uncertainty and simply continues evaluating measurement uncertainty.

Meanwhile, the other lab, which continues to carry out its sampling, is now compelled to evaluate them both. Do you get the picture? Isn´t this unfair?

“Isn´t this some kind of discrimination?”

Hope you get now my point.

Best regards,
Alexis

Marked as spam
Posted by Alexis Oramas Pérez (Discussions: 1, Comments: 18)
Replied on March 15, 2017 8:00 pm
« Back to Previous Page