White Paper

A Risk Based Approach

to Select and Test Weighing Instruments

Good Weighing Practice™ (GWP®) is a universal approach to

selecting and testing weighing instruments based on user require-
ments. GWP® allows to reduce measurement errors and ensures
reliable weighings in a straightforward and efficient way.

Contents

1 Summary

2 Selection of a Weighing Instrument

2.1 Specifications & Uncertainty

2.2 Essentials to Select a Weighing Instrument

2.3 Example

2.4 Safety Factor

3 Testing Procedures and Frequencies

3.1 Regulatory Requirements

3.2 Test Procedures

3.3 Test Frequencies

3.4 Test Limits

3.5 Test Weights

3.6 User Tests

3.7 Instruments with Automatic Test and Adjustment Features

4 Appendix

5 Glossary

6 Literature References
 1 Summary
White Paper

Selection of a Weighing Instrument

Each weighing instrument has limits to its performance. While for the evaluation of a weighing instrument vari-
ous criteria are to be considered, GWP® uses two key issues for a successful choice:
• The weighing capacity must be larger than the largest gross load expected to be weighed by the user;
• the minimum weight 1) of the weighing instrument for the accuracy required must be smaller than the small-
est sample expected to be weighed by the user.

Test Procedures and Frequencies

To achieve verification of laboratory weighing instruments effectively, GWP® recommends the following types of
procedures to be carried out with a weighing instrument:
• Calibration by authorized personnel (a service technician, for example);
• routine tests to be carried out by the user;
• automatic tests or adjustments effected by the instrument.

The testing procedures and corresponding frequencies recommended by GWP® are based on
• the required weighing accuracy of the application;
• the severity of impact (e.g. on business, consumer and environment), in case that the weighing instrument
should not deliver the correct weighing result (malfunction);
• the detectability of such a malfunction.

The recommended test frequencies are increased with higher accuracy (i.e., more stringent requirements) and
with increasing severity of impact, and are decreased with detectability of a malfunction. The frequencies extend
between yearly to daily. Sensitivity should be tested most often, followed, with decreasing frequency, by repeat-
ability (if at all) and eccentricity (if at all). The user does not need to test nonlinearity, because this property is
calibrated with sufficient frequency through maintenance.

For the user tests, two test weights are recommended:

• A large weight preferably with a mass equal to the nominal capacity of the weighing instrument, and
• a small weight preferably with a mass equal to a few percent of the nominal capacity of the weighing instru-
ment.

The user tests of sensitivity and eccentricity should be carried out with the large weight; the test of repeatability
with the small weight.

The test limits recommended by GWP® are based on

• the weighing accuracy required by the application;
• the safety factor chosen by the user, establishing a warning limit, or the expansion factor chosen;
• the mass of the smallest sample to be weighed (where applicable);
• the mass of the test weight used (where applicable).

1) If the minimum weight specification of a weighing instrument is not known, it can be

calculated from its repeatability specification, according to mmin = (k/Areq)·sRP , where
Areq is the required weighing accuracy, k is the expansion factor, and sRP is the stan-
dard deviation of the repeatability.

2 White Paper
METTLER TOLEDO
White Paper 2 Selection of a Weighing Instrument

2.1 Specifications & Uncertainty

“because
I buy an analytical balance with a readability of 0.1 mg,
that is the accuracy I need for my application.
“
Statements like this are often heard. In the wake of this requirement, a user may select an analytical balance
with a capacity of 200 g and a readability of 0.1 mg, because it is believed that this balance is “accurate to
0.1 mg”. This is a misconception, for the simple reason that the readability of an instrument is not equivalent to
its weighing accuracy.

There are several properties, quantified in the specifications of the weighing instrument, which limit its perfor-
mance. The most important are repeatability (RP), eccentricity (EC), nonlinearity (NL) and sensitivity (SE). How
do they influence the performance, and hence, the selection of a weighing instrument?
To answer this question, the term “weighing uncertainty” must first be discussed. The “International Vocabulary
of Metrology” [VIM] defines uncertainty as a parameter which expresses the dispersion of the values of a mea-
surement.

The weighing uncertainty, i.e., the uncertainty when an object is weighed on a weighing instrument, can be
estimated from the specifications of a weighing instrument (typically the case when performing a design qualifi-
cation), or from test measurements with the weighing instrument (typically the case when carrying out an opera-
tional qualification or performance qualification), or from a combination of both. The essential influences can be
combined according to statistical methods to obtain the weighing uncertainty [GUM].

Uncertainty can be expressed either as standard uncertainty u (corresponding to the standard deviation of a sta-
tistical process), or as expanded uncertainty U 2). To obtain the expanded uncertainty, the standard uncertainty
must be multiplied with the expansion factor k. Figure 1 shows uncertainties of various balances which were
estimated according to these rules from their typical specifications.

2) also referred to as “uncertainty interval”

Relative Weighing Uncertainty

Various Balance Models, Without Tare Load (@ k=2)
1
Relative Expanded Weighing Uncertainty U [%]

0.1

XP6U
XP26
XP205
XP204
0.01 XP1203S
XP4002S
XP10001S
XP64000L

0.001

0.0001
1E-05 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Sample Mass mS [g]

Figure 1: Relative weighing uncertainties of various balances, from an ultra-microbalance with a readability of 0.1 µg to a
precision balance with 1 g. Shown is the relative uncertainty U (in %) versus sample mass mS (in g). Uncertainties are
estimated from typical specifications of the balances, and are expanded with a factor k=2, with the assumption of zero tare
load (i.e., gross load = sample mass).

White Paper
METTLER TOLEDO
3
White Paper
Relative Weighing Uncertainty
Model XP204 Individual Uncertainty Contributions (@ k=2)
1

Relative Expanded Weighing Uncertainty U [%]

0.1

0.01

U_tot
U_RP
0.001 U_EC
U_NL
U_SE

0.0001

0.00001
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Sample Mass mS [g]

Figure. 2: Relative weighing uncertainty versus sample mass (with zero tare load) of an analytical balance with a
capacity of 200g and a readability of 0.1g (U_tot, thick black curve). The contributing components to uncertainty
are also shown: repeatability (U_RP, orange), eccentricity (U_EC, green), nonlinearity (U_NL, blue) and sensitivity
offset (U_SE, pink). Uncertainties are expanded with a factor of k=2. Repeatability dominates uncertainty in yellow-
ish region, sensitivity or eccentricity in greenish region.

What can be deduced from figure 1 is that the uncertainties as a function of the sample mass behave similarly
for all balances models. It is their “position”, i.e., their location relative to the axes of sample mass and uncer-
tainty, which is dependent on the model of balance. The characteristics of this behavior become more obvious
from figure 2, where the individual contributing components are shown. The uncertainty as a function of the
sample mass can be separated into three distinctive regions:
1. Region 1 with sample masses less than the lower rollover limit mass 3) (about 10 g in this example 4), yel-
lowish in figure 2, where the relative uncertainty is dominated by repeatability. As repeatability is a weak
function of gross load (if at all), the relative uncertainty decreases inversely proportional to the sample mass.
2. Region 2 with sample masses larger than the upper rollover limit mass 5) (about 100 g in this example 6),
greenish in figure 2, where the relative uncertainty is dominated by sensitivity (offset) or by eccentricity 7).
The relative uncertainties of these properties are independent of sample load; consequently, the combined
relative uncertainty remains (essentially) constant.
3. Region 3 is the transition region with sample masses between the lower and upper rollover limit mass, where
the uncertainty rolls off from inverse proportionality to a constant value.

Moreover, nonlinearity hardly contributes a significant part to uncertainty, as its relative uncertainty, over the
entire range of sample mass is smaller than any other contribution 8).

2.2 Essentials to Select a Weighing Instrument

With these facts in mind, and with the knowledge of the weighing accuracy required for an application, and the
mass of the sample to be weighed, two essential selection criteria for a weighing instrument can be formulated:

3) Largest sample mass, at which the contribution of repeatability dominates uncertainty.

4) The value given (10 g) for the lower rollover limit mass is valid for the analytical balance, the uncertainty of
which is depicted in fig. 2. Other weighing instruments will exhibit other limit masses.
5) Smallest sample mass, at which the contributions of sensitivity offset and eccentricity dominate uncertainty.
6) The value given (100 g) for the upper rollover limit mass is valid for the analytical balance, the uncertainty of

which is depicted in fig. 2. Other weighing instruments will exhibit other limit masses.
7) Again, this is dependent on the model of weighing instrument: there are balances, where eccentricity is domi-

nant and sensitivity is of inferior importance.

8) This may not be true for all weighing instruments. However, the probability that this applies for a majority of

instruments is rather high.

4 White Paper
METTLER TOLEDO
White Paper 1. The capacity of the weighing instrument must be larger than, or equal to, the largest gross load, i.e., the sum
of the tare load and the sample (or net) load, to be handled in the application.
2. The uncertainty when weighing the smallest sample must be smaller than, or equal to, the accuracy required
(Areq) by the user’s application.

If a weighing instrument meets these two conditions, it is in principle suitable for the application. The second
condition is also known as “minimum weight condition”. For a small sample mass, repeatability is the dominat-
ing contribution (region 1, figure 2), from which the smallest mass, satisfying the required uncertainty condi-
tion, can be calculated. This amount of mass is referred to as “minimum sample weight”, or simply “minimum
weight”. If the minimum weight of a balance is unknown, it can be determined from repeatability. Because a
small sample weight lies in region 1, repeatability (sRP) is the only balance property on which the minimum
weight depends 9).
mmin = (k/Areq )·sRP .
As discussed above, it is not the readability that determines the accuracy of a weighing instrument, but rather its
repeatability, or depending on it, its minimum weight capability.

2.3 Example
A food company needs a balance for their QC department. At a specific point in this process, the mass of sam-
ples as small as 20 mg must be determined with a relative weighing accuracy of 1%. The gross load is limited
to 180 g. What balance suits this application?

From these givens, it can be concluded that any balance with a capacity of 180 g or more (rule 1), and a mini-
mum weight capability of 20 mg or lower (rule 2) is a candidate for this application.
If the minimum weight of the balance would not be known, the equivalent repeatability can be calculated
instead. With an expansion factor of k = 2, and the required accuracy of 1%, the equivalent required repeatabil-
ity is
sRP = mmin (Areq/k) = 20 mg (1%/2) = 0.1 mg.

For example, the METTLER TOLEDO XP204 analytical balance would fit this application. This balance has a
(maximum) capacity of 220 g and a typical repeatability of 0.05 mg at 200 g. Figure 1 confirms this: the uncer-
tainty curve (at k = 2) of an XP204 with a 20 mg sample mass passes below the 1% level 10).

2.4 Safety Factor

Repeatabilities determined from a limited number of on site weighings will vary, even if the setup is left unal-
tered 11). Besides these statistical variations, environmental conditions, labware used, or the operator may
change, influencing the performance of the weighing instrument 12). It is therefore recommended to apply a
safety factor 13), which establishes a safety margin between the warning and the control limit. The safety fac-
tor is the quotient between the (accuracy) control limit and the (accuracy) warning limit. GWP® recommends a
safety factor of 2 by default to compensate for the variation in the determination of repeatability.

Revisiting our example and applying a safety factor of 2, both the required minimum weight and the repeatability
decrease by this factor. The required repeatability thus amounts to 0.05 mg, a value that an XP204 may not be

9) an appropriate expansion factor k must be chosen

10) This diagram bases on a typical repeatability of 0.04 mg at zero tare. With 200 g tare, the typical repeatabil-
ity increases to 0.05 mg. Even though, it can be concluded from the diagram that the uncertainty margin at
20 mg is large enough to accommodate for this increase.
11) The standard deviation of a random variable is itself a random variable. For example, the standard deviation

calculated from the readings of 10 weighings of the same object may accidentally exceed the true value of
repeatability by as much as 180% or underestimate the true value by as low as 70% on a 95% confidence
level (see appendix “Estimating the Standard Deviation of a Stochastic Process”).
12) see 'reproducibility' in glossary
13) not to be confounded with the expansion factor k

White Paper
METTLER TOLEDO
5
 able to provide. As an alternative, the XP205 semimicro balance with a typical repeatability of 0.007 mg (at low
White Paper
load) could be used instead.

3 Procedures and Frequencies

3.1 Regulatory Requirements

“dardsMeasuring equipment shall be calibrated or verified at specified intervals […] against measurement stan-
traceable to international or national measurement standards.
ISO 9001: 7.6 Control of Monitoring and Measuring Devices “
“to Standard
Apparatus used in a study should be periodically inspected, cleaned, maintained, and calibrated according
Operating Procedures. It is the responsibility of test facility management to ensure that instruments

OECD Principles of GLP, 4.2 Use, Calibration, and Maintenance“

are adequate and functioning according to their intended use.
of Equipment

The statements cited above delegate the responsibility for the correct operation of equipment to the user. This
applies also for weighing instruments. Statements like these are usually formulated vaguely, as they are meant
as general guidelines. They can therefore not be put to work for daily routine. Questions like

“ How often should I test my balance? “

emerge in situations, where guidance is needed to design standard operating procedures that neither are too
exhaustive, and thus are costly and time consuming, nor are too loose to assure the proper functioning of a
weighing instrument.

3.2 Test Procedures

Most likely, the majority of all samples being weighed on laboratory weighing instruments, especially in labo-
ratory applications, satisfy the condition of being “small samples” 14), i.e., samples with a mass considerably
smaller than the capacity of the weighing instrument, a few percent of capacity, say. When discussing the rela-
tive uncertainty versus sample mass, it was already mentioned that weighing uncertainty is governed by repeat-
ability, if a small sample is weighed (figure 2).

Consequently, with the majority of weighings, repeatability is the most important contribution to uncertainty.
This would be a good reason to recommend repeatability to be tested most frequently. However, this test com-
prises repeated weighings of the same test weight multiple times, usually around 10 times. To perform this test
properly, considerable effort and elaborated skills are required. On the other hand, the test of sensitivity can be
carried out with one single weighing of a test weight, certainly less of an effort. What is more, the sensitivity test
would reveal any serious problem with the instrument, or if the result were to drift; in short, it may be regarded
as an elementary test of the functionality of the weighing instrument. Although sensitivity is not the most critical
property of a weighing instrument by far, the sensitivity test is proposed to be carried out with the highest fre-
quency for the reasons cited, followed by repeatability with a lower frequency.

Revisiting figure 2 and its explanations, it was said that eccentricity influences only weighings of samples with
a considerable mass compared to the capacity of the weighing instrument, larger than a few percent, say 15).
Besides, placing containers and samples in the center of the weighing platform, or at least in the same place
for the tare and the gross readings, the influence of eccentricity can be avoided entirely. This is the reason, why
GWP® recommends to test for eccentricity less frequently than for repeatability or sensitivity. For less demand-

14) i.e., net load, not gross load

15) i) mass is dependent on the model of the weighing instrument;
ii) eccentricity may be superseded by sensitivity, making it negligible (also dependent
on the model)

6 White Paper
METTLER TOLEDO
White Paper ing applications, it can even be dropped, as eccentricity is tested when the weighing instrument is calibrated by
authorized personnel. For the least demanding applications, even the test of repeatability can be dropped.

Nonlinearity is not recommended to being tested by the user at all, as its influence on weighing uncertainty is
inferior and hardly dominant with any model of weighing instrument; besides, it is being taken care of when the
weighing instrument is calibrated by authorized personnel.

GWP® recommends test procedures for weighing instruments as follows:

i) Calibration by authorized personnel, including the determination of weighing uncertainty or minimum weight,
if applicable; the aim is to assess the complete performance of the instrument by testing all relevant weighing
parameters of the instrument.
ii) Routine test of sensitivity, repeatability and eccentricity (but not nonlinearity), to be carried out by the user
within defined intervals; the aim is to confirm its suitability for the application.
iii) Automatic tests or adjustments, such as those of the sensitivity, carried out automatically by the weighing
instrument; the aim is to reduce the effort of manual testing.

3.3 Test Frequencies

GWP® thus recommends testing procedures and corresponding frequencies based on
i) the required weighing accuracy of the application, and
ii) the impact (e.g. for business, consumer or environment), in case that the weighing instrument should not
function properly.
iii) the detectability of a malfunction.

The recommended frequencies for the test of all properties extend from daily for risky applications (user or auto-
matic tests), over weekly, monthly, quarterly, twice a year to yearly (e.g. calibration by authorised personnel).
It is assumed that the more stringent the accuracy requirements of a weighing are, the higher the probability
becomes that the weighing result does not meet the accuracy requirements. In this case, the test frequency is
increased. Similarly, if the severity of the impact increases, the tests should be performed more frequently. That
way, a higher impact is offset by more frequent tests, thereby lowering the likelihood of occurrence of the impact,
and hence, offsetting the increase of risk that otherwise would occur.

If the malfunction of the weighing instrument is easily detectable, the test frequency is decreased.

Weighing Accuracy

0.01%

0.1%
es
reas
y Inc
nc
que
Fre
st
Te
1%

10%
Low Medium High Severity of Impact

Fig. 3: Test frequencies increase as a function of more stringent weighing accuracy and
increasing severity of impact in case of a incorrect weighing (qualitative chart).

White Paper
METTLER TOLEDO
7
 3.4 Test Limits – Control and Warning Limit
White Paper
Routine tests are based on the required weighing accuracy for an application. Simply speaking, the weighing
accuracy must be better than or equal to the accuracy required. The required accuracy is referred to as control
limit CL, meaning that if this limit is exceeded, immediate action must be taken. In its simplest fashion, the test
limit is equal to the control limit, and thus equal to the required weighing accuracy Areq of the application.

It was previously recommended to introduce a warning limit WL, the value of which is smaller than the control
limit by a suitable factor, namely the safety factor SF introduced previously 16). The warning limit is obtained by
dividing the control limit by the safety factor WL = CL/SF . This allows to test for the warning limit. If the warning
limit is violated, there is still a safety margin before a process must be halted. This gives “room” for corrective
actions.

Test results of each individual property are therefore to be compared to warning limits, which in turn depend on
the control limits via the safety factor. However, these deviations (sensitivity, repeatability, eccentricity and non-
linearity 17) may occur simultaneously; the sum of their deviations may thus be larger than the warning limit. A
simple way to deal with this is to allocate only a part of the warning limit allowance to each individual property.
This is achieved by dividing the warning limit by the uncertainty combination factor UC 18) to obtain the test limit
against which the individual test results are compared, accounting for the accumulation. The warning limits for
all properties (with the exception of repeatability 19) are thus obtained as follows
∆WL = mT·Areq/(SF·UC) = ½(mT·Areq/SF) (limit value for sensitivity offset, nonlinearity and eccentricity),
sRP|WL = mS,min (Areq/k)/(SF) (limit standard deviation for repeatability),
where A req is the required relative accuracy, SF the safety factor, mT the mass of the test weight, mS,min the mass
of the smallest sample to be weighed and k the expansion factor.

3.5 Test Weights

“ Which weight should I use to test my balance? “

For the user tests, two test weights are recommended:
i) A large weight preferably of a mass equal to the capacity of the weighing instrument. GWP® recommends the
next available single weight denomination according to the OIML20) classification which is smaller than or
equal to the nominal capacity of the weighing instrument.
ii) A small weight preferably of a mass equal to a few percent of the capacity of the weighing instrument. GWP®
recommends the next available single weight denomination according to the OIML20) classification which is
smaller than or equal to 5% of the nominal capacity of the weighing instrument.

Fig. 4
GWP® recommends two test weights. The
large weight has mass close to the nominal
capacity of the weighing instrument, while
the small weight amounts to a few percent
of the nominal capacity. The large weight is
used to test sensitivity and eccentricity, the
small for repeatability (if required, together
with an additional tare mass).

16) GWP® recommends at least a factor of 2; if a large operational margin is required, this factor should be cho-
sed correspondingly higher.
17) nonlinearity is not tested by the user
18) UC = 2; see 'uncertainty combination factor' in glossary
19) Repeatability dominates uncertainty in region 1 (fig. 2, yellowish). In a laboratory environment, by far the most

number of weighings of sample masses will occur in this region. The allowance of repeatability need therefore
not be reduced and can thus be directly compared to the warning limit. Moreover, the standard deviation of
repeatability is already expanded by k, the coverage or expansion factor.
20) or ASTM

8 White Paper
METTLER TOLEDO
White Paper Balance Model Capacity Readability Large Weight Small Weight
XP6U 6.1 g 0.1 µg 5g 200 mg
XP26 22 g 1 µg 20 g 1g
XP205 220 g 10 µg 200 g 10 g
XP204 220 g 0.1 mg 200 g 10 g
XP1203S 1.21 kg 1 mg 1 kg 50 g
XP4002S 4.1 kg 10 mg 2 kg 200 g
XP10001S 10.1 kg 0.1 g 10 kg 500 g
XP64000L 64.1 kg 1g 50 kg 2 kg
Table 1: Examples of balance models and recommended test weights.

As further guidelines, GWP® uses the following rules:

1. Weights for the test of the sensitivity of weighing instruments need to be calibrated and must be traceable
(reference weight). Their maximum permissible error (mpe) must not be larger than 1/3 of the warning limit,
so that its influence compared to the warning limit may be neglected entirely 21). The lowest weight class
which fulfills this condition is selected. Since the warning limit depends on the control limit, and thus on the
required weighing accuracy, so does the mpe of the test weight.
2. All other tests (i.e. tests of repeatability or eccentricity) may be performed with any weight, provided it does
not change its mass during the test. Of course, it is always possible to use a calibrated test weight for these
tests as well, but this is not required.
3. According to figure 2, testing for sensitivity with a test weight which is too small (compared to the capacity of
the weighing instrument) runs the risk of the test measurement becoming “contaminated” by the influence of
repeatability 22).

Test weights for sensitivity are typically of higher accuracy class (OIML F or E). However, even though in some
cases an OIML class M weight would suffice for a test, GWP® substitutes that class for an OIML class F2 weight.
The reason is that the surface of class M weights is allowed to remain rough 23). This increases the chances for
potential contamination, a feature which is not tolerated in laboratories.

Test weights for sensitivity must be (re-)calibrated themselves in regular intervals to provide traceability.

3.6 User Tests

The following tests are recommended:
a) Sensitivity preferably with the large weight. At the user’s discretion, the test can be performed with the small
weight, or at an arbitrary “operating point” 24).
b) Repeatability preferably with the small weight. It is recommendable to involve in the repeatability measure-
ment tare weights or containers that will be used later. 25)
c) Eccentricity preferably with the large weight.

21) with this condition, the contribution of variance of the test weight is limited to less than
10% of the variance of the warning limit
22) depending on the test limit which depends on the required weighing accuracy
23) see OIML R 111-1
24) There is a potential loss of test selectivity when using a small weight, i.e., the sensitiv-
ity test becomes contaminated by repeatability deviations (see fig. 2, region 1). This
may especially apply to test weights smaller than the second weight recommended by
GWP®.
25) Tare weights, or even more so, vessels may degrade repeatability.

White Paper
METTLER TOLEDO
9
 Revisiting the example introduced earlier, featuring the requirement of a relative weighing accuracy of Areq = 1%,
White Paper
with a smallest sample mass of mS,min = 20 mg, a safety factor of SF = 2, and an expansion factor of k = 2, a
balance with a nominal capacity of 200 g was chosen. According to the rules for test weights, a large weight of
mT = 200 g, and a small weight of 10 g (5%) should be used for the user tests. The warning limits for the test of
sensitivity and eccentricity is
∆WL = ½(mT·Areq/SF) = ½(200 g·1%/2) = 0.5 g,
while the warning limit for the test of repeatability is
sRP|WL = mS,min (Areq/k)/SF = 20 mg(1%/2)/2 = 0.05 mg (standard deviation).

Why is 5% enough to test repeatability?

As pointed out above, the majority of weighings take place with small samples. This is the case in a labora-
tory when weighing small amounts of substance in a vessel, for example. It is therefore reasonable to test the
repeatability with a test weight in the order of a few percent of the capacity of the weighing instrument, rounded
to the next weight denomination. While repeatability generally tends to increase with increasing gross load,
this increase is usually feeble, a factor of 2 from zero load to nominal capacity 26), for example. Nevertheless,
repeatability may be regarded as essentially constant for small sample weights, i.e., weighings where the tare
and gross loads are close to each other and therefore both readings exhibit essentially the same repeatability.
This fact is depicted in figure 5. It can be seen that the uncertainty, and therefore the repeatability, as all other
contributions are negligible, remains essentially constant for small sample weights (compared to the capacity of
the balances) 27).

If repeatability is a critical issue, it is recommendable to put the tare object (container, vessel, flask, etc.) on the
weighing platform and to test repeatability with the test weight at this “working point”. 28)

Why can the minimum weight be determined with a test weight larger than the
minimum weight?
By definition, minimum weight is the lowest amount of sample mass that can be weighed, complying with a
given required weighing accuracy. The most obvious method to test for minimum weight is to use a test weight
with a mass of the (expected) minimum weight and determine the repeatability of the weighing instrument with
this test weight. If the resulting weighing uncertainty is smaller than the required uncertainty, the test passes, if it
is greater, the test fails.

This method has several disadvantages.

First, if the test passes, there is no guarantee that there might not be still a smaller mass satisfying the accuracy
requirements. To find out about this, the test need to be repeated with a smaller test weight.

Second, if the test fails, the test need to be repeated, too, but this time with a larger test weight. In both cases,
the test may require an iterative approach, demanding more effort than just for one test. This is a waste of
resources.

26) gross
27) see also USP<1251> "Weighing on an Analytical Balance", draft revision PF35(2)
[March-April 2009], Table 1: "Suggested Performance Qualification Tests"
28) It should be mentioned here that not only the mass of a tare load, but also its dimen-
sions may influence the repeatability of the weighing. On an XP205 semimicro bal-
ance, for example, repeatability increases about 5 times when weighing a sample into
a volumetric flask of 250 ml, compared to weighing the sample together with a com-
pact tare of the same mass as the flask (around 90 g). See also [1].

10 White Paper
METTLER TOLEDO
White Paper Third, using OIML test weights, as is very convenient, come only in denominations of 1-2-5. This means that a
minimum weight of 3.5 g, for example, could not be confirmed, unless the test is carried out with a weight com-
bination of three weight pieces, namely 2 g, 1 g and 0.5 g. Needless to say that determining the repeatability
with a test load composed of three test weights is a tedious and error prone task.

Fourth, minimum weight of analytical and microbalances are in the order of a few milligrams. Handling such a
small weight is difficult, and the faintest draft may blow the weight away.

Absolute Weighing Uncertainty

Various Balance Models, Without Tare Load (@ k=2)
Absolute Expanded Weighing Uncertainty U [g]

10

0.1
XP6U
0.01 XP26
XP205
XP204
0.001 XP1203S
XP4002S
XP10001S
0.0001 XP64000L

0.00001

0.000001

0.0000001
1E-05 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Sample Mass mS [g]

Fig. 5: Weighing uncertainties of various balances, from an ultra-microbalance with a readability of 0.1 µg to a pre-
cision balance with 1 g. Shown is the (absolute) uncertainty U (in g) versus sample mass mS (in g). Uncertainties
are estimated from typical specifications of the balances, and are expanded with a factor k=2, with the assumption
of zero tare load (i.e., gross load = sample mass).

W
Fig. 6: Sensitivity of a weighing instrument: Shown is the displayed
1 weighing value W versus the load m on the platform. To test for
sensitivity, it is recommended to use a test weight close to nominal
capacity (1).
Using a smaller test weight (a <1) results in a smaller measurable
sensitivity offset, which is partially disturbed by repeatability (red
band). Using a very small test weight (b <<1) results in a measur-
able sensitivity offset which is buried entirely in the dispersion band
of repeatability.

(Remark: This diagram, and particularly the test masses of (a) and
(b) weights, are not shown to scale.)

0 m
0 b a 1 [nom. capacity]

White Paper
METTLER TOLEDO
11
 There is a more efficient method to test minimum weight. It bases on the fact that with all balances, repeatability
White Paper
is no function of sample mass, i.e., remains constant, as long as the sample mass amounts to no more than a
few percent of the weighing capacity 29). With this knowledge, it becomes clear that the repeatability needs not
be determined with a test weight of the very minimum mass, but can be chosen larger, as long as the condition
stated is met. The repeatability obtained from this test can then be used to calculate the minimum weight (see
footnote 1, page 2).
The advantages of this method are manifold:
• only one test must be performed;
• the mass of the test weight can be chosen so that the test can be conveniently carried out;
• intermediate, i.e., non 1-2-5 values for the minimum weight are possible.

Why should a test weight close to capacity be chosen for the test of sensitivity?
Referring to figure 2, region 1, where the sample mass is smaller than the lower rollover limit mass, 10 g in this
example 30), it was said that repeatability dominates the uncertainty, i.e., all other properties (sensitivity, eccen-
tricity and nonlinearity) contribute negligible amounts to uncertainty, compared to repeatability. A test result
in this region is contaminated by deviations caused by repeatability, the more so, the smaller the test weight
becomes. Simply speaking, sensitivity is buried in repeatability (see also figure 6). Therefore, a test weight close
to capacity should be chosen.

3.7 Instruments with Automatic Test and Adjustment Features

“with What is the importance of the adjustment with built-in weights versus an adjustment
an external weight?
“
Adjustment mechanisms built into weighing instruments consist of one or more reference weights, and a loading
mechanism that is actuated either manually or automatically. Such a mechanism allows to conveniently test or
adjust the sensitivity of the weighing instrument. Because the built-in weight cannot be lost, cannot be touched
and is kept in a sheltered place inside the instrument, this concept has advantages over testing or adjusting with
an external weight, which is vulnerable to damage, dirt and other adverse effects; besides, it allows to substan-
tially reduce the frequency of such tests or adjustments with external reference weights.

However, because the built-in test weight is not accessible, it cannot be declared as being traceable, since trace-
ability requires that the weight can be removed and compared periodically with another reference of a higher
class which is not possible. Nevertheless, the built-in weight can be tested against an external reference by com-
paring the weighing result of the built-in weight with the weighing result of an external reference weight which is
weighed immediately thereafter, the very weighing instrument being the comparator. With this comparison, the
integrity of the built-in calibration mechanism can be tested.

If a weighing instrument features such an adjustment mechanism, GWP® recommends the (frequent) use of it,
as it is a procedure that requires little to no effort, with the exception of a short interruption of use to the instru-
ment. As a consequence, routine tests of sensitivity with external reference weights may then be performed less
frequently. 31)

29) depending on the model of weighing instrument

30) The lower rollover limit mass is a function of the model of weighing instrument and of the test limit. In the
example shown in the diagram, the test limit is the combination of the typical specification of sensitivity and
eccentricity.
31) “For a scale with a built-in auto-calibrator, we recommend that external performance checks be performed on
a periodic basis, but less frequently as compared to a scale without this feature.”
Answer to a question directed to the US Food and Drug Administration about the “auto calibration feature”.
http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm124777.htm

12 White Paper
METTLER TOLEDO
White Paper 4 Appendix

Estimating the Standard Deviation of a Stochastic Process

The determination of the repeatability of a weighing instrument from repeated weighings is an elusive operation.
Primarily, this has less to do with weighing, than it has with statistics. Indeed, the results of weighings must be
considered like a random variable, at least to some extent, since a weighing instrument may not always deliver
the same results when the same load is repeatedly weighed. The higher the number of scale intervals of a
weighing instrument, the more the result of a weighing tends to be disturbed by stochastic influences.

From a sample of readings (“realizations”) of a stochastic process, it is possible to calculate the standard devia-
tion of the sample and use its value as an estimate for the true standard deviation of the process. One may ask
for the confidence interval which contains 95% of the estimated standard deviations. These limits of the confi-
dence interval are a function of the sample size. The larger the sample (i.e., the number of readings), the closer
these limits are to the true value, and vice versa. Figure 7 depicts the graph of these limits for a normally distrib-
uted process.

Confidence Interval of Standard Deviation Estimator

10
Estimated to True Standard Deviation Ratio s/σ

95% Upper Limit

1 True Std. Dev.
95% Lower Limit

0.1
1 10 100
Sample Size n
Fig. 7: Uncertainty interval of the standard deviation estimated from normally distributed samples (readings), ver-
sus sample size n (number of readings), for a 95% confidence level. The uncertainty limits of the estimated stan-
dard deviation are farthest from the true value for the smallest possible sample size of 2, and get closer to the true
value with increasing sample size. Example: For 10 readings (n=10), the estimated standard deviation s lies within
the interval of approximately 0.7 to 1.8 times of the true value s, with a confidence level of 95% for the standard
deviation.

White Paper
METTLER TOLEDO
13
 5 Glossary
White Paper

accuracy
The closeness of agreement between a test result and the accepted reference value ([ISO 5725], 3.6). For
repeated measurements, accuracy requires trueness (absence of systematic deviations) and precision. If no bias
is present, or if bias is corrected for, the accuracy A of a result can be described by its uncertainty U.

adjustment
The action of setting a measuring instrument or mass embodiment so that the measured value is correct, or
deviates as little as possible from the correct value, or the deviation remains within limits of error.

application
The special use or purpose to which a weighing instrument is put, such as a weighing that must be performed
for a specific task, with a specific method, in a specific sequence and in a specific environment.

control limit
Tolerance CL of a process relative to its target value. Violation of the tolerance is an infringement of the quality
requirements, and therefore requires a correction of the process.   warning limit

calibration
Determination of the deviation between the measured value and the true value of the measurand under specified
measurement conditions without making any changes (  adjustment).

Design Qualification
Defines the specifications of an instrument and documents the decision process that results in selection of the
supplier and of the instrument.

eccentricity
Deviation in the measurement value caused by eccentric loading, in other words, the asymmetrical placement of
the center of gravity of the load relative to the load receiver. Eccentricity is expressed as the largest magnitude of
any of the deviations between off-center and the center reading for a given test load (load dependent).

expansion factor
Factor k that expands the standard (measurement) uncertainty u into the uncertainty interval U.

maximum permissible error

Largest allowed deviation from a specified value (nominal value).

mpe
maximum permissible error
 

nonlinearity
Deviation of the measurement value from the straight line between zero load and nominal load. Nonlinearity is
expressed as the largest magnitude of any linearity deviation within the test interval (load dependent).

Operational Qualification
Documents that an instrument functions according to the defined specifications in the intended environment.

14 White Paper
METTLER TOLEDO
White Paper Performance Qualification
Documents that an instrument conforms to the requirements and specifications in routine operation.

repeatability
Ability of a weighing instrument to display identical measurement values for repeated weighings of the same or
similar objects under the same conditions, such as the same measurement procedure, same operator, same
measuring system, same operating conditions and same location over a short period of time. Repeatability is
expressed as the standard deviation of multiple weighings (weakly gross load dependent, if at all).

reproducibility
Ability of a weighing instrument to display identical measurement values for repeated weighings of the same
or similar objects under a set of conditions that includes different locations, operators or measuring systems.
Repeatability is expressed as the standard deviation of multiple weighings.

safety factor
The safety factor SF is the quotient between control limit CL and warning limit WL
SF = CL/WL .
A safety factor >1 allows for differences between repeatability and reproducibility (standard deviation of repro-
ducibility is larger) and adds safety to the process by accounting for any changes that could affect weighings
during daily operation (e.g. environment, different handling by operators).

sensitivity
Slope of the straight line between zero load and nominal load. Sensitivity is expressed as either a dimensionless
number (correct value: exactly 1) or as deviation from the correct value at nominal load.

sensitivity offset
Magnitude of deviation of the sensitivity from the correct value (independent of load, if expressed as slope; load
dependent, if expressed as a deviation at nominal load).

traceability
The ability of a measurement result, or value of a standard, to be related to suitable other standards, usually
international or national standards, through an unbroken chain of comparison measurements ([VIM] 6.10).

warning limit
Tolerance WL of a process relative to its target value. Violation of the tolerance is not in itself an infringement of
the quality requirements, but indicates drift of the process and therefore requires more intensive monitoring of the
process. —>control limit

uncertainty
Parameter, characterizing the dispersion of the quantity values being attributed to a measurand, based on the
information used. The parameter may be, for example, a standard deviation called standard measurement
uncertainty [VIM].

uncertainty combination factor

Factor UC = 2 that accounts for the fact that non-ideal properties, such as sensitivity offset, nonlinearity or
eccentricity may occur simultaneously, and therefore not the entire warning limit allowance can be allocated to
each of them. Instead, the allowance is divided by the statistical combination factor of √(1+1+1) ≈ 1.73, rounded
up (for the sake of simplicity) to 2, yielding the warning limit applicable to each individual property.

White Paper
METTLER TOLEDO
15
 6 Literature References
White Paper

[GUM]
Guide To The Expression Of Uncertainty In Measurement (GUM).
International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, First edition 1995

[VIM]
International Vocabulary of Metrology – Basic and General Concepts and Associated Terms (VIM).
ISO/IEC Guide 99: 2007

[ISO 5725]
Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of Measurement Methods and Results;
Part 1 – General Principles and Definitions.
International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 1994

[ISO 9001]
Quality management systems — Requirements
International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 2000

[1]
Arthur Reichmuth: Weighing Small Samples on Laboratory Balances.
13th International Metrology Congress, Lille (F), June 18-21, 2007

www.mt.com
For more information

Mettler-Toledo AG
GWP ®

Good Weighing Practice™

Laboratory & Weighing Technologies
Im Langacher
CH-8606 Greifensee, Switzerland The global weighing guideline GWP® reduces risks
Tel. +41 44 944 22 11, Fax +41 44 944 30 60 associated with your weighing processes and helps to
• choose the appropriate balance
11793489 40/12 • reduce costs by optimizing testing procedures
• comply with the most common regulatory requirements
Subject to technical changes.
© 07/2009 Mettler-Toledo AG www.mt.com/GWP

16 White Paper
METTLER TOLEDO