PTS-021 Final Report Calibration of Digital Thermometer-Amd-01

PTS-021
Amd-01
Final Report on the Proficiency Testing Scheme “102-TCS”

For Determination of temperature calibration of Digital Thermometer and
thermocouple probe (Type–K)
Date: 07 July 2023
1. Introduction
This report presents the results of the inter-laboratory comparison / proficiency testing program round PTS-
021, involving the temperature calibration of Digital Thermometer with thermocouple probe (K-Type) of with
twelve nos. of laboratories participating.
Inter-Laboratory proficiency testing program for calibration laboratories are valuable means for assessing
laboratories’ abilities to competently perform the prescribed calibration. Proficiency testing program provides
objective evidence that a laboratory can achieve the level of accuracy for which it is accredited or nominated.
Also provides a means for improving the quality and performance of laboratories and offers a unique chance
to verify their results together with their uncertainty calculation.
Temperature calibration is a crucial quantity in the establishment of traceability for the measurements which are
fundamental to the testing carried out by the industry. This strengthens the confidence among the national and
regional calibration services, the confidence of the laboratory in its own measurements and the customer’s
confidence in the services offered by the calibration laboratory.
This scheme (102-TCS) is conducted by Global Proficiency Testing Company, based in Dubai, United Arab
Emirates during the first quarter of year 2023. Participating in this kind of proficiency testing programs is
mandatory requirement of ISO 17025: 2017 for accredited laboratories and an essential aspect of laboratory
practice in all areas of testing, calibrations and inspections. Participation in proficiency testing schemes
provides laboratories with an objective means of assessing and demonstrating the reliability of the calibration
data they produce.
Participating in PT scheme is not the only, but one of the main quality assurance elements to assess
laboratory’s ability to perform calibrations competently. Therefore, accreditation bodies require accredited
laboratories to regularly participate in inter-laboratory proficiency testing programs to prove their ability to
perform calibrations accurately. Participation in PT Scheme is prerequisite of all accrediting bodies for granting
accreditation. The results from the Proficiency Testing Program can be useful for participating labs,
accreditation bodies, end users and various other organizations who use services of the labs. Successful
participation in a specific proficiency testing program can be a valid evidence of competence for that exercise.
Similarly, unsuccessful performance may reflect a random departure from a laboratory’s normal state of
competence.
PTS-021: Calibration of digital thermometer scheme “102-TCS” Page 1 of 17

Global Proficiency Testing Company, Office 3100, Schon Business Park, DIP-1, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Phone # +971-56-3405687 email: info@gptc.ae, Website: www.gptc.ae
2. Confidentiality
Global Proficiency testing company operates accredited Quality Management System as per ISO 17043: 2010
and is committed to confidentiality as per the requirements of the standard. In order to maintain confidentiality,
each participant was assigned a code number to protect their identity. Each participant will get their related code
number separately in a “Certificate of Participation”, once the final report is released. It is ensured that each
participant receives only the code number which is related to them.
It was requested that all communication related to PT program shall only be through official company email
info@gptc.ae and participants were requested to send the final test reports related to this PT program using this
email address.
Participants were requested not to contact any staff of GPTC personally for confidentiality reasons.
3. Experimental Design
This program was designed for calibration laboratories (accredited or not or candidate for accreditation) having
calibration of thermometer in their scope of services. This proficiency testing scheme was organized in
accordance with the requirements of ISO 17043: 2010 and the results processing and participant performance
evaluation was conducted according to the guidelines as set in ISO 13258: 2022.
Results (as reported by participants) with corresponding summary statistics are presented in Section 12 of this
report including performance scores and illustrated graphically.
In this round of the PT Scheme total twelve participants took part. Participant’s locations are as given below.
• 7 participants are from Emirates of Dubai
• 2 participants are from the Emirates of Sharjah.
• 1 participant from Abu Dhabi.
• 1 participant from KSA.
• 1 participant from Qatar.
All of the participants are not accredited for this calibration. Some are candidates for accreditation in this task.
This is a Sequential participation schemes (sometimes known as measurement comparison schemes) involve
the proficiency test item being circulated successively from one participant to the next (i.e. sequential
participation), or occasionally circulated back to the proficiency testing provider for rechecking as explained in
ISO 17043: 2010: Annex A2. Model 1 in Figure A.1 provides a brief summary of this type of design.
As per requirements of this design a reference laboratory that is capable of providing a metrologically traceable
assigned value with sufficiently small measurement uncertainty and reliability for the proficiency calibration item
was used for this scheme. The reference lab was requested to carry out initial calibration of artefact. After that
the artefact was circulated to all participants one by one to calibrate the digital thermometer using their own
reference equipment which they used to calibrate the thermometers of their customers. Once the last participant
has performed their calibration the thermometer is sent back to the reference laboratory to make sure that the
artefact remains stable during the circulation period of the PT round.
Each participant was sent detailed “Instructions to participants” in advance to follow for calibration of the artefact
in this round of PT.
4. Artefact Description
The Artefact (digital thermometer) was having a range of -40 ºC to 1090 ºC with 0.1 ºC readability.
Asset Number of the artefact is DT-01 with serial no. 59820445WS, Make: Fluke and Model: Fluke -51-2 50HZ
Set points for calibration readings were -10 ºC, 3 ºC, 50 ºC, 250 ºC, 500 ºC, 750 ºC. during this round (PTS-
021) of PT.
The participants were allowed to calibrate all or leave any readings set point as per their requirements or
capability.
All participants were requested not to make any adjustment in artefact or change the settings except “zero
setting” during the calibrations.
5. Method of Calibration
The participants were advised to follow their routine / accredited methods for this calibration.
6. Calibration Results
The calibration results of artefact, which were submitted by all participating laboratories, are summarized in
Table 4 to Table 9 given in Section 12 of this report along with their lab code.
7. Reference Data and Analysis.
7.1 Reference Laboratory: - Metrology Department of Dubai Central Laboratory was given the role of the
reference laboratory (RL). The reference lab has better CMC than all the participants of this round of PT.
The reference laboratory is accredited by (EIAC) and its accreditation certificate number is LB-CAL- 001.
EIAC is one of the signatories to the Multilateral Agreement (MLA) for the recognition of calibration
certificates. The thermometer was calibrated by DCL at their premises of main laboratories.
7.2 Method of data analysis: - The purpose of this proficiency testing was to conduct an assessment of
laboratories performance by comparing their results with each other and against a reference value.
Quantitative analysis of test results is carried out in accordance with the recommendations of IS0 17043:
2010 “Conformity Assessment — General Requirements for Proficiency Testing” and ISO 13528: 2022
“Statistical Methods for the use in proficiency testing by inter-laboratory comparisons”. in accordance with
international practice, measurement performance has been assessed on the basis of En scores for each
measurement. En scores can be useful when an objective for the proficiency testing scheme is to evaluate
a participant’s ability to have results close to the assigned value within their claimed expanded uncertainty.
This statistic is conventional for proficiency testing in calibration.
All calculations were carried out on unrounded data values, therefore apparently some minor difference
can be observed however the values are correct. The Assigned values (“𝑥𝑥𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 “) and Uncertainty of Stability
were derived from Ref. Lab values as mentioned in below Clause 7.6.
Although the Uncertainty of stability was zero or almost negligible except at the set-point of 250 °C where
some instability (0.9°C difference) was observed, however all these observed uncertainty values were
added in the average expanded uncertainty of reference lab for performance evaluation (En-scores
calculations) (Table 1)
7.3 Consistency Check of Data: - Apparently all received data from participants was quite consistent and
there were no such values which can be considered as blunder. Also, the Reference values are
independent from the participants values, therefore owing to this fact Grubbs test (ISO 5725-2) was not
necessary to perform on data.

7.4 Calculation of En Scores: - Details are given in below section 9 of this report.
7.5 Graphical presentation of data: - Obtained En-Score for each participant is graphically presented in X-Y
scatter plot for easy visualization of data and to compare with En Action limits of ±1. Also, the results of
each participant’s measurement were plotted against the reference lab results and reference lab’s
uncertainty as X-Y scatter plots along participant’s reported “expanded uncertainties” for easy comparison
and understanding. Refer to Fig 2 to Fig 13. Stability analysis of the artefact during the period of round is
illustrated in Fig.1.
7.6 Stability Testing: - To ensure the stability of the artefact (Digital Thermometer) during the whole period of
this PT round (PTS-019), As mentioned above in clause 7.1 an accredited reference laboratory (DCL),
which was not part of the participants, calibrated the artefact (Thermometer) at the beginning and at the
end of the round (certificate ref. 569615 & 610836). The reference values were derived by taking the
averages of before and after calibration results from the Reference Lab. (Table 1). Difference in initial and
final readings were minor however the uncertainty of stability (Ustability) was calculated at each set-point
using the formula-1 and added to the final expanded uncertainty of reference lab to calculate the final
uncertainty of reference lab (Final U), which is considered during participant’s evaluation.
𝑈𝑈𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = �
�𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 − 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 �²
12
……………………Formula-1 *
*This Formula is Reported by Proficiency Testing Australia, Report No. 608–Mass Proficiency Testing Program–Round One May 2009
Table (1) Reference values of Digital Thermometer:
Ref. Reading (°C) Ref. Error (°C) Ref. U (°C)

Nominal Avg. Ref. Avg. Ref. Avg. Ref. ‘U’ Stability Final ‘U’
Temp. (°C) 1st 2nd Value 1st 2nd error 1st 2nd ‘U’ (°C) (°C)
-10 -9 -9.1 -9.05 -1.0 -0.9 -0.95 0.2 0.2 0.20 0.029 0.229
3 3.6 3.6 3.6 0.6 0.6 0.60 0.2 0.2 0.20 0.000 0.20
50 50 50.0 50 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.2 0.2 0.20 0.000 0.20
250 249.9 250.8 250.35 -0.1 0.8 0.35 0.2 0.2 0.20 0.260 0.46
500 499.9 500.3 500.1 -0.1 0.3 0.10 0.9 0.9 0.90 0.115 1.02
750 754.2 754.3 754.25 4.2 4.3 4.25 2.5 2.5 2.50 0.029 2.53

Fig. 1 - Stability of the Device during PT round.
Reference Values: Deviation from nominal temperature during the round (°C)
5.0
4.0
3.0
Deviation (°C)
2.0 Initial
Cablibration
1.0
0.0 Final
Calibration
-1.0
-2.0
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Calibration Set Points (°C)
8. Reporting of results by Participants

Laboratories were requested to report their test results in a format Results Sheet (Refer Table 1 in the
“Instructions to Participants”. Also, the participating laboratories were instructed to report their uncertainties at
95% confidence levels and at (k = 2).
It is understood that some participants were not able to calibrate all the requested temperature ranges / set-
points, therefore, laboratories measurement capabilities are summarized in Table 2 in following section 9.
En Scores for all Participants has been summarized in Table 3, showing highlighted unsatisfactory results in
Red colour and satisfactory results in green colour.
Results (as reported by participants) were compared with corresponding results of reference values as reported
by (RL) and summarized in the below tables (Table 4 – Table 9).
All the En Scores of the participants’ laboratories are plotted as graphic charts against En limits of (±1) which
are showing the points of the laboratory’s results. Also, laboratories uncertainty and deviation / error are plotted
against reference values in charts format to reflect their compatibility with reference values, (Fig. 2 to Fig 13 are
showing the results of this comparison).
9. Calculation of En Scores
Monitoring of laboratory’s performance is conducted as per ISO/IEC 13528: 2022, based on the matching and
comparison with reference values of RL by means of En Scores. For all results this value has been calculated
as per the formula -2 as given below.
𝒙𝒙 − 𝑿𝑿𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹
𝑬𝑬𝒏𝒏 =
�𝑼𝑼𝟐𝟐 𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳𝑳 + 𝑼𝑼𝟐𝟐 𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹 ……………………………Formula-2

Where,
“x” is the participant laboratory result for the measured parameter.
XRef is the average of the two calibration values measured by RL,
ULab is the laboratory’s reported uncertainty of measurement at 95% confidence level and at (k=2).
URef is the estimated maximum of uncertainty reported by RL. (refer to table 1 above).
9.1 As per guidelines of ISO 17043: 2010: Annex B.4.1 the statistical determination of performance based on
En -Score is done as given below.
for En Scores:
| En | ≤ 1,0 indicates “satisfactory” performance and generates no signal;

| En | > 1,0 indicates “unsatisfactory” performance and generates action signal.
For all results the En Score has been calculated using above formula 2. A result to be acceptable the En Score
(also called En number) should be equal to or less than 1, consequently, the Red Highlighted values in table-3
are unsatisfactory / outlier results (i.e En ≤ 1 = satisfactory and En > 1 = unsatisfactory). These participants are
requested to investigate the root cause of the outlier results, implement appropriate corrective action and a
report shall be available for reviewing/checking by assessment team from accrediting body during their nearest
next assessment visit.
Table-2- Ranges of Participants (i.e. Lab's Capability)
Lab Code Temp. Ranges covered by participants.

-10 oC 3 oC 50 oC 250 oC 500 oC 750 oC
Lb284      x
Lb285    x x x
Lb286      x
Lb287      x
Lb288      x
Lb289      x
Lb290    x x x
Lb291      x
Lb292     x x
Lb293      
Lb294    x x x
Lb300      x
 = Calibrated Set-points
x = Un-calibrated Set-points (Beyond Lab’s Capability)

Table-3 Summary of En Scores for all participants.
En Scores
Lab Code
-10 ºC 3 ºC 50 ºC 250 ºC 500 ºC 750 ºC
Lb284 -0.2 -0.4 -0.4 1.8 1.6 x
Lb285 -0.1 0.0 0.0 x x x
Lb286 -0.5 -0.3 -0.3 2.7 0.8 x
Lb287 -0.1 0.6 -0.6 0.8 0.4 x
Lb288 -0.9 0.4 -0.8 0.7 0.2 x
Lb289 -0.1 0.2 -0.1 0.3 0.1 x
Lb290 -0.1 -0.2 -0.2 x x x
Lb291 -0.2 -0.4 -0.4 2.0 1.9 x
Lb292 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.8 x x
Lb293 -1.0 0.4 0.9 0.6 0.5 -0.4
Lb294 -0.5 -0.4 -0.4 x x x

Lb300 -0.1 -2.0 0.7 -0.1 -1.3 x
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
x Not participated
10. Technical Comments by GPTC:

This round of interlaboratory comparison had 12 laboratories participating from 3 countries. The artefact used
in this round exhibited good stability, which enabled full evaluation of the participating laboratories capabilities.
In the field of temperature, out of 54 submitted results, four participating laboratories (Lb284, Lb286, Lb291 and
Lb300) have 7 results unsatisfactory with |En| > 1 and generated action signals. The results of other participating
laboratories are satisfactory.
The participant Lb293 and 288 has reported results just on the border of unsatisfactory range for set-point -10
ºC, they are also requested to be cautious because a very minor change in their results, can put them in
unsatisfactory range.
Interlaboratory comparisons in the field of the meteorology are not very frequently organized. However, results
of this comparison can prove that participating laboratories have a good level of confidence in their calibration
and measurement capabilities (CMCs). The CMCs depend on quality of laboratory’s overall technical
infrastructure (equipment, personnel, facilities, etc.) and not on any single factor.
En scores should be interpreted with caution, because they are ratios of two separate (but related) performance
measures. The numerator is the deviation of the result from the assigned value, The denominator is a combined
expanded uncertainty, that should not be larger than the deviation in the numerator, if the participant has
determined their uncertainty correctly and if the proficiency testing provider has determined URef correctly.
Therefore, scores of En ≥ 1,0 or En ≤ -1,0 could indicate a need to review the uncertainty estimates, or to correct
a measurement issue; similarly, En > -1,0 or En < 1,0 should be taken as an indicator of successful performance
only if the uncertainties are valid and the deviation (x - XRef) is smaller than needed by the participant’s customers
The evaluation using En Scores has some disadvantages as well. In cases when laboratory is not using its best
calibration and measurement capabilities in the comparison, the results can be misleading. For example, if the
laboratory had input large uncertainty into the interlaboratory comparison, its En Score would be rather small.
On the other hand, the best results are provided in cases when laboratory has small En number and small
uncertainty compared to other laboratories.
The labs with unsatisfactory results are requested to investigate root cause / review their procedures for any
systematic error or to determine the source of error and implement necessary corrective actions as may be
needed to prevent recurrence of these errors in future. The records of corrective actions implemented should
be available to review by the accrediting body during their next visit to participating lab.
Participants should review and compare their reported uncertainty along with Reference Lab and those of other
participants, to assess consistency (or not) and thereby gain an opportunity to identify whether their evaluation
of uncertainty is not counting all relevant components or is over-counting some components. e.g. Lb289 has
reported high uncertainties with compare to other participant thus making their results less reliable even though
they are in satisfactory range.
GPTC has noticed that many participants have reported uncertainty of measurement values less than the
reference lab which is not impossible however very difficult. Therefore, participants are requested to review and
ensure the correctness of their uncertainties of measurement.
Some participants have reported almost same uncertainties at low and high temperatures, since these
uncertainties are in oC and not the percentages, therefore GPTC would urge the participants to consider this
point and again look in to matter to ensure the correctness of their uncertainty calculations.
Unsatisfactory results of some participants may be possibly, due to one or more of the following technical
reasons:
10.1 Uncertainty / uncertainty budget is not correctly calculated and outlier participants should recalculate their
uncertainty values
10.2 The environment of measurement (temperature; humidity ...etc.) was not controlled and/or not taken in
the consideration.
11. References
11.1 ISO 13528: 2022 Statistical Methods for the Use in Proficiency Testing by Inter-Laboratory Comparisons.
11.2 ISO/IEC 17043: 2010 - Conformity Assessment — General Requirements for Proficiency Testing.
11.3 ISO 5752: Part 2: Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results.
11.4 ISO Guide 35: 2017 Reference materials - Guidance for characterization and assessment of homogeneity
and stability
11.5 IUPAC-2006 The International Harmonized Protocol for the Proficiency Testing of Analytical Chemistry
Laboratories

12. Summary Statistics and graphical illustration of Participants Data.
Table -4 Analysis of Temperature Data (-10 °C)
Reference Data Participant's Data
Lab Nominal Av. Ref. Final Ref. Avg Ref. Error Lab's Reading Lab's "U" Lab - Ref
Lab's En
Code Temp. (°C) Reading (°C) "U" (°C) (°C) (°C) (°C) (°C)
Lb284 -10 -9.05 0.23 0.95 -9.1 0.17 -0.05 -0.2
Lb285 -10 -9.05 0.23 0.95 -9.1 0.30 -0.05 -0.1
Lb286 -10 -9.05 0.23 0.95 -9.3 0.44 -0.25 -0.5
Lb287 -10 -9.05 0.23 0.95 -9.1 0.27 -0.05 -0.1
Lb288 -10 -9.05 0.23 0.95 -9.3 0.17 -0.25 -0.9
Lb289 -10 -9.05 0.23 0.95 -9.1 0.80 -0.05 -0.1
Lb290 -10 -9.05 0.23 0.95 -9.1 0.36 -0.05 -0.1
Lb291 -10 -9.05 0.23 0.95 -9.1 0.13 -0.05 -0.2
Lb292 -10 -9.05 0.23 0.95 -9.1 0.37 -0.05 -0.1
Lb293 -10 -9.05 0.23 0.95 -9.3 0.10 -0.25 -1.0
Lb294 -10 -9.05 0.23 0.95 -9.2 0.20 -0.15 -0.5
Lb300 -10 -9.05 0.23 0.95 -9.1 0.48 -0.05 -0.1
Fig.2
Temperature Data (-10 °C): X-Y Scatter plot, En Scores against Action limit
1.5
1.0
0.5
En Score
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
Lb284
Lb285
Lb286
Lb287
Lb288
Lb289
Lb290
Lb291
Lb292
Lb293
Lb294
Lb300
Temperature (-10 °C) Lower Action Limit Upper Action Limit Xref

Fig. 3
Temp. -10 °C : Lab's Results & Exp. uncertainty against Ref. Value & Expanded Uncertainty
-8.3
-8.4
-8.5
Lab's Temperature Readings (-10 °C)
-8.6
-8.7
-8.8
-8.9
-9
-9.1
-9.2
-9.3
-9.4
-9.5
-9.6
-9.7
-9.8
-9.9
-10
Lb284
Lb285
Lb286
Lb287
Lb288
Lb289
Lb290
Lb291
Lb292
Lb293
Lb294
Lb300
Lab's Reading (°C) Av. Ref. Reading (°C) Final Ref. "U" (°C)
Table -5 Analysis of temperature Data (3 °C)

Av. Ref.
Lab Nominal Final Ref. Avg Ref. Lab's Reading Lab's "U" Lab - Ref
Reading Lab's En
Code Temp. (°C) "U" (°C) Error (°C) (°C) (°C) (°C)
(°C)
Lb284 3 3.6 0.20 0.95 3.5 0.17 -0.10 -0.4

Lb285 3 3.6 0.20 0.95 3.6 0.30 0.00 0.0
Lb286 3 3.6 0.20 0.95 3.5 0.32 -0.10 -0.3
Lb287 3 3.6 0.20 0.95 3.8 0.27 0.20 0.6
Lb288 3 3.6 0.20 0.95 3.7 0.17 0.10 0.4
Lb289 3 3.6 0.20 0.95 3.8 0.80 0.20 0.2
Lb290 3 3.6 0.20 0.95 3.5 0.36 -0.10 -0.2
Lb291 3 3.6 0.20 0.95 3.5 0.13 -0.10 -0.4
Lb292 3 3.6 0.20 0.95 3.6 0.38 0.00 0.0
Lb293 3 3.6 0.20 0.95 3.7 0.10 0.10 0.4
Lb294 3 3.6 0.20 0.95 3.5 0.20 -0.10 -0.4
Lb300 3 3.6 0.20 0.95 2.6 0.45 -1.00 -2.0

Fig. 4
Temperature Data (3 °C): X-Y Scatter plot, En Scores against Action limit
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
En Score
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5
Lb284
Lb285
Lb286
Lb287
Lb288
Lb289
Lb290
Lb291
Lb292
Lb293
Lb294
Lb300
Temperature (3 °C) Lower Action Limit Upper Action Limit Xref
Fig. 5
Temp. 3 °C: Lab's Results & Exp. uncertainty against Ref. Value & Expanded Uncertainty
4.6
4.4
4.2
Lab's Temperature Readings (3 °C)
4
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
3
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2
Lb284
Lb285
Lb286
Lb287
Lb288
Lb289
Lb290
Lb291
Lb292
Lb293
Lb294
Lb300
Temperature (3 °C) Av. Ref. Reading (°C) Ref U±

Table-6 Analysis of temperature Data (50 °C)
Lab Nominal Av. Ref. Final Ref. Avg Ref. Lab's Reading Lab's "U" Lab - Ref
Lab's En
Code Temp. (°C) Reading (°C) "U" (°C) Error (°C) (°C) (°C) (°C)
Lb284 50 50.0 0.20 0.0 49.9 0.15 -0.100 -0.4
Lb285 50 50.0 0.20 0.0 50.0 0.30 0.001 0.0
Lb286 50 50.0 0.20 0.0 49.9 0.26 -0.100 -0.3
Lb287 50 50.0 0.20 0.0 49.8 0.27 -0.200 -0.6
Lb288 50 50.0 0.20 0.0 49.8 0.17 -0.200 -0.8
Lb289 50 50.0 0.20 0.0 49.9 0.70 -0.100 -0.1
Lb290 50 50.0 0.20 0.0 49.9 0.36 -0.100 -0.2
Lb291 50 50.0 0.20 0.0 49.9 0.12 -0.100 -0.4
Lb292 50 50.0 0.20 0.0 50.0 0.37 0.000 0.0
Lb293 50 50.0 0.20 0.0 50.2 0.10 0.200 0.9
Lb294 50 50.0 0.20 0.0 49.9 0.20 -0.100 -0.4
Lb300 50 50.0 0.20 0.0 50.3 0.40 0.300 0.7
Fig. 6
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
En Score
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
Lb284
Lb285
Lb286
Lb287
Lb288
Lb289
Lb290
Lb291
Lb292
Lb293
Lb294
Lb300

Fig. 7
Temperature Data (50 °C): Lab's Results & Exp. uncertainty against Ref. Value & Expanded Uncertainty
50.8
50.7
50.6
50.5
50.4
50.3
50.2
50.1
50.0
49.9
49.8
49.7
49.6
49.5
49.4
49.3
49.2
49.1
Lb284
Lb285
Lb286
Lb287
Lb288
Lb289
Lb290
Lb291
Lb292
Lb293
Lb294
Lb300
Lab's Reading (°C) Av. Ref. Reading (°C) Ref U±
Table -7 Analysis of Temperature Data (250 °C)

Av. Ref.
Nominal Final Ref. "U" Avg Ref. Lab's Reading Lab's "U" Lab - Ref
Lab Code Reading Lab's En
Temp. (°C) (°C) Error (°C) (°C) (°C) (°C)
(°C)
Lb284 250 250.35 0.46 0.35000 251.5 0.46 1.15000 1.8
Lb285 250 250.35 0.46 0.35000
Lb286 250 250.35 0.46 0.35000 251.8 0.26 1.45000 2.7
Lb287 250 250.35 0.46 0.35000 250.8 0.38 0.45000 0.8
Lb288 250 250.35 0.46 0.35000 250.7 0.25 0.35000 0.7
Lb289 250 250.35 0.46 0.35000 250.6 0.7 0.25000 0.3
Lb290 250 250.35 0.46 0.35000
Lb291 250 250.35 0.46 0.35000 251.4 0.23 1.05000 2.0
Lb292 250 250.35 0.46 0.35000 250.8 0.37 0.45000 0.8
Lb293 250 250.35 0.46 0.35000 250.7 0.29 0.35000 0.6
Lb294 250 250.35 0.46 0.35000
Lb300 250 250.35 0.46 0.35000 250.3 0.51 -0.05000 -0.1

Fig. 8
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
En Score
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
Lb284
Lb285
Lb286
Lb287
Lb288
Lb289
Lb290
Lb291
Lb292
Lb293
Lb294
Lb300
Fig. 9
250 °C : Lab's Results & expanded uncertainty against Ref. Value & Expanded Uncertainty
252.25
252
251.75
251.5
251.25
251
250.75
250.5
250.25
250
249.75
249.5
Lb284
Lb285
Lb286
Lb287
Lb288
Lb289
Lb290
Lb291
Lb292
Lb293
Lb294
Lb300

Nominal Av. Ref. Lab's
Lab Final Ref. Avg Ref. Lab's "U" Lab - Ref
Temp. Reading Reading Lab's En
Code "U" (°C) Error (°C) (°C) (°C)
(°C) (°C) (°C)
Lb284 500 500.1 1.015 0.1 501.9 0.46 1.8 1.6
Lb285 500 500.1 1.015 0.1
Lb286 500 500.1 1.015 0.1 501.3 1.15 1.2 0.8
Lb287 500 500.1 1.015 0.1 500.5 0.38 0.4 0.4
Lb288 500 500.1 1.015 0.1 500.5 1.4 0.4 0.2
Lb289 500 500.1 1.015 0.1 500.2 0.7 0.1 0.1
Lb290 500 500.1 1.015 0.1
Lb291 500 500.1 1.015 0.1 502.3 0.56 2.2 1.9
Lb292 500 500.1 1.015 0.1
Lb293 500 500.1 1.015 0.1 500.6 0.3 0.5 0.5
Lb294 500 500.1 1.015 0.1
Lb300 500 500.1 1.015 0.1 498.6 0.51 -1.5 -1.3
Fig. 10
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
En Score
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
Lb284
Lb285
Lb286
Lb287
Lb288
Lb289
Lb290
Lb291
Lb292
Lb293
Lb294
Lb300

Fig. 11
Temp.500 °C : Lab's Results & expanded uncertainty Vs Ref. Value & Expanded Uncertainty
503
502.5
502
501.5
501
500.5
500
499.5
499
498.5
498
497.5
497
Lb284
Lb285
Lb286
Lb287
Lb288
Lb289
Lb290
Lb291
Lb292
Lb293
Lb294
Lb300
Nominal Av. Ref. Final Ref. "U" Avg Ref. Lab's Reading Lab's "U" Lab - Ref.
Lab Code Lab's En
Temp. (°C) Reading (°C) (°C) Error (°C) (°C) (°C) (°C)
Lb284 750 754.25 2.53 4.25
Lb285 750 754.25 2.53 4.25
Lb286 750 754.25 2.53 4.25
Lb287 750 754.25 2.53 4.25
Lb288 750 754.25 2.53 4.25
Lb289 750 754.25 2.53 4.25
Lb290 750 754.25 2.53 4.25
Lb291 750 754.25 2.53 4.25
Lb292 750 754.25 2.53 4.25
Lb293 750 754.25 2.53 4.25 753.1 0.49 -1.15 -0.4
Lb294 750 754.25 2.53 4.25
Lb300 750 754.25 2.53 4.25

Fig. 12
2
1.5
1
0.5
En Score
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
Lb284
Lb285
Lb286
Lb287
Lb288
Lb289
Lb290
Lb291
Lb292
Lb293
Lb294
Lb300
Fig. 13
Temp. 750 °C : Lab's Results & expanded uncertainty vs Ref. Lab & Expanded Uncertainty
758
757
756
755
754
753
752
751
750
Lb284
Lb285
Lb286
Lb287
Lb288
Lb289
Lb290
Lb291
Lb292
Lb293
Lb294
Lb300
PTP Coordinator: Zahid Mahmood Authorized By: Shahnaz Alam (GM)

Contact: +971 50 3405681
What’s App: +971 56 3405687
Email: info@gptc.ae
Note: This report is amended on July 7, 2023 because of a typing error in table-3 on page 07 of 17 of this report, where performance
scores were corrected for Lb293.
------------------- End of Report --------------------


PTS-021 Final Report Calibration of Digital Thermometer-Amd-01

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PTS-021 Final Report Calibration of Digital Thermometer-Amd-01

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PTS-021

Final Report on the Proficiency Testing Scheme “102-TCS”

PTS-021: Calibration of digital thermometer scheme “102-TCS” Page 1 of 17

7. Reference Data and Analysis.

PTS-021: Calibration of digital thermometer scheme “102-TCS” Page 3 of 17

Table (1) Reference values of Digital Thermometer:

Ref. Reading (°C) Ref. Error (°C) Ref. U (°C)

50 50 50.0 50 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.2 0.2 0.20 0.000 0.20

PTS-021: Calibration of digital thermometer scheme “102-TCS” Page 4 of 17

8. Reporting of results by Participants

PTS-021: Calibration of digital thermometer scheme “102-TCS” Page 5 of 17

| En | ≤ 1,0 indicates “satisfactory” performance and generates no signal;

Table-2- Ranges of Participants (i.e. Lab's Capability)

Lab Code Temp. Ranges covered by participants.

PTS-021: Calibration of digital thermometer scheme “102-TCS” Page 6 of 17

Lb294 -0.5 -0.4 -0.4 x x x

10. Technical Comments by GPTC:

PTS-021: Calibration of digital thermometer scheme “102-TCS” Page 8 of 17

Lb284 -10 -9.05 0.23 0.95 -9.1 0.17 -0.05 -0.2

Lb285 -10 -9.05 0.23 0.95 -9.1 0.30 -0.05 -0.1

Lb286 -10 -9.05 0.23 0.95 -9.3 0.44 -0.25 -0.5

Lb287 -10 -9.05 0.23 0.95 -9.1 0.27 -0.05 -0.1

Lb288 -10 -9.05 0.23 0.95 -9.3 0.17 -0.25 -0.9

Lb289 -10 -9.05 0.23 0.95 -9.1 0.80 -0.05 -0.1

Lb290 -10 -9.05 0.23 0.95 -9.1 0.36 -0.05 -0.1

Lb291 -10 -9.05 0.23 0.95 -9.1 0.13 -0.05 -0.2

Lb292 -10 -9.05 0.23 0.95 -9.1 0.37 -0.05 -0.1

Lb293 -10 -9.05 0.23 0.95 -9.3 0.10 -0.25 -1.0

Lb294 -10 -9.05 0.23 0.95 -9.2 0.20 -0.15 -0.5

Lb300 -10 -9.05 0.23 0.95 -9.1 0.48 -0.05 -0.1

PTS-021: Calibration of digital thermometer scheme “102-TCS” Page 9 of 17

Table -5 Analysis of temperature Data (3 °C)

Lb284 3 3.6 0.20 0.95 3.5 0.17 -0.10 -0.4

PTS-021: Calibration of digital thermometer scheme “102-TCS” Page 10 of 17

Temperature (3 °C) Av. Ref. Reading (°C) Ref U±

PTS-021: Calibration of digital thermometer scheme “102-TCS” Page 11 of 17

Lb284 50 50.0 0.20 0.0 49.9 0.15 -0.100 -0.4

Lb285 50 50.0 0.20 0.0 50.0 0.30 0.001 0.0

Lb286 50 50.0 0.20 0.0 49.9 0.26 -0.100 -0.3

Lb287 50 50.0 0.20 0.0 49.8 0.27 -0.200 -0.6

Lb288 50 50.0 0.20 0.0 49.8 0.17 -0.200 -0.8

Lb289 50 50.0 0.20 0.0 49.9 0.70 -0.100 -0.1

Lb290 50 50.0 0.20 0.0 49.9 0.36 -0.100 -0.2

Lb291 50 50.0 0.20 0.0 49.9 0.12 -0.100 -0.4

Lb292 50 50.0 0.20 0.0 50.0 0.37 0.000 0.0

Lb293 50 50.0 0.20 0.0 50.2 0.10 0.200 0.9

Lb294 50 50.0 0.20 0.0 49.9 0.20 -0.100 -0.4

Lb300 50 50.0 0.20 0.0 50.3 0.40 0.300 0.7

PTS-021: Calibration of digital thermometer scheme “102-TCS” Page 12 of 17

Table -7 Analysis of Temperature Data (250 °C)

Lb284 250 250.35 0.46 0.35000 251.5 0.46 1.15000 1.8

Lb285 250 250.35 0.46 0.35000

Lb286 250 250.35 0.46 0.35000 251.8 0.26 1.45000 2.7

Lb287 250 250.35 0.46 0.35000 250.8 0.38 0.45000 0.8

Lb288 250 250.35 0.46 0.35000 250.7 0.25 0.35000 0.7

Lb289 250 250.35 0.46 0.35000 250.6 0.7 0.25000 0.3

Lb290 250 250.35 0.46 0.35000

Lb291 250 250.35 0.46 0.35000 251.4 0.23 1.05000 2.0

Lb292 250 250.35 0.46 0.35000 250.8 0.37 0.45000 0.8

Lb293 250 250.35 0.46 0.35000 250.7 0.29 0.35000 0.6

Lb294 250 250.35 0.46 0.35000

Lb300 250 250.35 0.46 0.35000 250.3 0.51 -0.05000 -0.1

PTS-021: Calibration of digital thermometer scheme “102-TCS” Page 13 of 17

Lab's Reading (°C) Av. Ref. Reading (°C) Ref U±