定价： 468元 / 折扣价： 398 元 加购物车

5.1 This test method can be used for manufacturing quality control or manufacturing quality assurance purposes to determine the CEG concentration of PET yarns used in either geogrids or geotextiles.5.2 The CEG content of the PET yarns may have an influence on the properties of the geosynthetic, such as its hydrolysis resistance. The lower the value, the higher the hydrolysis resistance of the yarns.5.3 This test does not set the limiting (maximum) value for various engineering applications. Such a specification is a decision of the design engineer, owner, and/or regulator.1.1 This test procedure is based significantly on the GRI GG7 test procedure, Carboxyl End Group Content of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Yarns.1.2  This test method is used to determine the concentration, in mmol/kg, of carboxyl end groups (CEG) found in poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) yarns by titration.1.3 This test is applicable to geogrid yarns that are made from PET resin.NOTE 1: This test is also applicable to high-strength geotextile yarns that are made from PET and are used in reinforcement applications.1.4 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 515元 / 折扣价： 438 元 加购物车

定价： 364元 / 折扣价： 310 元

4.1 Each Facility Rating Scale (see Figs. 1-4) in this classification provides a means to estimate the level of serviceability of a building or facility for one topic of serviceability and to compare that level against the level of any other building or facility.4.2 This classification can be used for comparing how well different buildings or facilities meet a particular requirement for serviceability. It is applicable despite differences such as location, structure, mechanical systems, age, and building shape.4.3 This classification can be used to estimate the amount of variance of serviceability from target or from requirement, for a single office facility, or within a group of office facilities.4.4 This classification can be used to estimate the following:4.4.1 Serviceability of an existing facility for uses other than its present use.4.4.2 Serviceability (potential) of a facility that has been planned but not yet built.4.4.3 Serviceability (potential) of a facility for which a remodeling has been planned.4.5 Use of this classification does not result in building evaluation or diagnosis. Building evaluation or diagnosis generally requires a special expertise in building engineering or technology and the use of instruments, tools, or measurements.4.6 This classification applies only to facilities that are building constructions, or parts thereof. (While this classification may be useful in rating the serviceability of facilities that are not building constructions, such facilities are outside the scope of this classification.)4.7 This classification is not intended for, and is not suitable for, use for regulatory purposes, nor for fire hazard assessment nor for fire risk assessment.1.1 This classification covers pairs of scales for classifying an aspect of the serviceability of an office facility, that is, the capability of an office facility to meet certain possible requirements to enable work groups or project groups to function effectively and productively.1.2 Within that aspect of serviceability, each pair of scales, shown in Figs. 1-4, are for classifying one topic of serviceability. Each paragraph in an Occupant Requirement Scale (see Figs. 1-4) summarizes one level of serviceability on that topic, which occupants might require. The matching entry in the Facility Rating Scale (see Figs. 1-4) is a translation of the requirement into a description of certain features of a facility which, taken in combination, indicate that the facility is likely to meet that level of required serviceability.FIG. 1 Scale A.2.1 for Meeting and Conference RoomsFIG. 1 Scale A.2.1 for Meeting and Conference Rooms (continued)FIG. 1 Scale A.2.1 for Meeting and Conference Rooms (continued)FIG. 2 Scale A.2.2 for Informal Meetings and InteractionFIG. 2 Scale A.2.2 for Informal Meetings and Interaction (continued)FIG. 3 Scale A.2.3 for Group Layout and TerritoryFIG. 3 Scale A.2.3 for Group Layout and Territory (continued)FIG. 4 Scale A.2.4 for Group WorkroomsFIG. 4 Scale A.2.4 for Group Workrooms (continued)1.3 The entries in the Facility Rating Scale (see Figs. 1-4) are indicative and not comprehensive. They are for quick scanning to estimate approximately, quickly, and economically, how well an office facility is likely to meet the needs of one or another type of occupant group over time. The entries are not for measuring, knowing, or evaluating how an office facility is performing.1.4 This classification can be used to estimate the level of serviceability of an existing facility. It can also be used to estimate the serviceability of a facility that has been planned but not yet built, such as one for which single-line drawings and outline specifications have been prepared.1.5 This classification indicates what would cause a facility to be rated at a certain level of serviceability but does not state how to conduct a serviceability rating nor how to assign a serviceability score. That information is found in Practice E1334. The scales in this classification are complimentary to and compatible with Practice E1334. Each requires the other.1.6 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to inch-pound units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.1.7 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 646元 / 折扣价： 550 元 加购物车

5.1 The determination of class group composition of automotive spark-ignition fuels as well as quantification of various individual species such as oxygenates and aromatics in automotive fuels is useful for evaluating quality and expected performance, as well as compliance with various governmental regulations.1.1 This test method is a standard procedure for the determination in percent mass or percent volume of hydrocarbon group types (paraffins, isoparaffins, olefins, naphthenes, aromatics), methanol, ethanol, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, naphthalene, and methylnaphthalenes in automotive spark-ignition engine fuels using gas chromatography and vacuum ultraviolet detection (GC-VUV).1.1.1 The concentration ranges for which precision has been determined are as follows:Property Units Applicable RangeParaffins % Volume 3.572 to 23.105Isoparaffins % Volume 22.697 to 71.993Olefins % Volume 0.011 to 44.002Olefins % Mass 0.027 to 41.954Naphthenes % Volume 0.606 to 18.416Aromatics % Volume 14.743 to 58.124Methanol % Volume 0.063 to 3.426Ethanol % Mass 0.042 to 15.991Benzene % Volume 0.09 to 1.091Toluene % Volume 0.698 to 31.377Ethylbenzene % Volume 0.5 to 3.175Xylenes % Volume 3.037 to 18.955Naphthalene % Volume 0.019 to 0.779Methylnaphthalenes % Volume 0.21 to 1.4841.1.2 This test method may be applicable to other concentration ranges, to other properties, or to other hydrocarbon streams, however precision has not been determined.1.2 Individual hydrocarbon components are typically not baseline-separated by the procedure described in this test method, that is, some components will coelute. The coelutions are resolved at the detector using VUV absorbance spectra and deconvolution algorithms.1.3 While this test method reports percent mass and percent volume for several specific components that may be present in automotive spark-ignition engine fuel, it does not attempt to speciate all possible components that may occur in automotive spark-ignition engine fuel. In particular, this test method is not intended as a type of detailed hydrocarbon analysis (DHA).1.4 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.5 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. See specific hazard statements in subsection 8.4 and Section 9.1.6 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 646元 / 折扣价： 550 元 加购物车

5.1 Accurate quantitative compositional information on hydrocarbon types can be useful in determining the effects of processes in the production of various finished fuels. Producers may require additional determinations such as n-paraffins, i-paraffins, naphthenes, and aromatics for process optimization. This information also may be useful for indicating the quality of fuels and for assessing the relative combustion properties of finished fuels. This test method can be used to make such determinations.1.1 This test method covers the quantitative determination of total n-paraffins, total i-paraffins, total naphthenes (cycloparaffins), total one ring (1R) and total two ring plus (2R+) aromatic hydrocarbons in hydrocarbon liquids having a boiling point between 36 °C and 343 °C by GCxGC (flow modulated comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography). The method has been applied to aviation turbine fuels and is applicable to other low olefinic fuels in the stated boiling point range.1.2 This test method has an interim precision. An expanded full interlaboratory study is to be completed in <5 years. The test method working concentration ranges in mass percent for which the interim precision has been determined are as follows:Hydrocarbon Type Lower limit(mass percent) Upper limit(mass percent)Total i-paraffins 22.0 24.3Total n-paraffins 19.0 21.9Total naphthenes (cycloparaffins) 34.3 36.7Total one ring aromatics 18.7 21.8Total two ring plus aromatics 0.5 1.91.3 This test method is applicable to other group type concentration ranges, to other hydrocarbon types such as selected individual components, for example, benzene, toluene, or n-paraffins by carbon number, or to other hydrocarbon streams; however, precision has not been determined at this time. A future ILS will include a variety of sample types and extend the reporting.1.4 This test method is not intended to determine unsaturated hydrocarbons, such as olefins, content which may interfere with the cycloparaffins; this test method is applicable to samples with < 1% by mass total olefins as determined by D1319.1.5 This test method is not intended to determine FAME (fatty acid methyl esters). For such applications, Test Method D7797, IP 585, or equivalent test methods are available.1.6 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.7 This standard test method does not mandate or describe a specific software package for data processing and display. Any commercially available GCxGC software used for data processing and display shall meet the requirements for the calculation of the results. Appendix X1 provides some guidelines.1.8 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.9 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 843元 / 折扣价： 717 元 加购物车

4.1 Using best practices for SGPE ensures that decisions made will be based on scientific principles, and the outputs obtained will be more objective than those evaluation sessions conducted without this planning, structure, focus, and best practices. These small group evaluations contrast with more formal product tests that include a prequalified participant sample, hypothesis testing, and statistical analysis. Without best sensory practices and procedures, SGPE may be unstructured, unsystematic, difficult to manage, and may lead to outputs that are unclear, not credible, or ignored. Additionally, the use of proper sensory practices reduces bias among participants with specific sample knowledge or a desire to advance an agenda. This guide provides a framework for conceptualizing, organizing, and executing these SGPE.4.2 SGPE are used in situations in which formal, hypothesis-driven product evaluations are not required. These include situations in which the decision risk is small or stakeholders feel comfortable in making a decision with the attendant risks, or both. Examples of these situations may include limited availability of samples or other resources, potential patent exposure, or low incidence of target population. The SGPE could be an initial screening step or a precursor test before a more formal product test. In the proper context, SGPE can also be a decision-making tool in and of itself. Using the framework presented here provides a degree of rigor that may be absent when a few people evaluate a product without controlled conditions. A poster presented at the 2009 Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium (1)3 reported the results of a survey on SGPE. 59 % of respondents (N = 92) stated that, at their place of employment, typically, non-sensory professionals organized SGPE. Table 1 summarizes key differences between a typical unstructured product evaluation with a small group not following best practices and an SGPE that follows the best practices outlined in this guide.1.1 This guide covers those occasions in which a small group of individuals (generally between three and ten) with potentially different functional roles and degrees of training in sensory and product evaluation, evaluates a product or series of products for a specific objective, with a pre-identified decision to be made, but without the use of formal hypothesis testing or statistics. In the product testing industry, these are often referred to as “benchings,” “cuttings,” or “bench screenings” or, in the case of food products, “tastings,” “informal tastings,” “team tastings,” or “technical tastings.” In this guide, the term “Small Group Product Evaluation” (SGPE) is used.1.2 The aim of this guide is to provide best practices to ensure that SGPE are conducted with sufficient rigor to enable the most appropriate decision or to yield the needed learning while considering the risk. Because the participants may be heterogeneous with respect to functional role, knowledge of the issue at hand, sensory sensitivity, and degree of sensory or product evaluation training, the likelihood of agreement on a path forward is not assured. Additionally, participants may have certain biases with respect to the issue to be decided, because of prior knowledge or their role within the organization. These potential derailers can be addressed through proper planning and execution of an SGPE. When SGPE are unstructured, unfocused and experimental error and biases uncontrolled, the outputs of SGPEs do not inform decisions or deliver the desired learning in a scientific manner. The goal of this document is to elevate the practice of small group product evaluations by outlining a structure, defining decision criteria in advance, and providing guidelines for implementation, drawing upon existing sensory theory and methods. Outputs from these SGPE are used to inform decisions and determine next steps including the risks involved with each of these.SGPE are widely used, and when properly conducted, are an option in the sensory professional’s toolbox. SGPE should be conducted only when the risks are known, stated, and shared. Limited timing and resources alone are not adequate reasons to utilize SPGE testing and forgo formal sensory testing. Risks in doing so must be clearly communicated and agreed to by all involved parties.The proper uses of SGPE are several: to screen variables, to establish hypotheses, to gain information about a product set or category, to take a course of action where a low risk product decision is needed or for product learning throughout a development program. In all of these cases, the team must accept the risks that come with having SGPE outputs to inform a decision. One risk involved in SGPE is missing small differences among products (beta risk), when the goal of the evaluation is to find such differences, particularly those differences that might be important to the consumer. An SGPE failure to find differences does not mean that product similarity or equivalence is established, since much larger sample sizes than are common to SPGE’s are required to establish similarity/equivalence.1.3 This guide covers the planning and implementation processes, including objective setting, method determination, number and types of participants, ballots, sample preparation, decision criteria, products to be included, review of information collected, and management of the post-product evaluation discussion to arrive at a decision within the small group. Documenting and communicating SGPE outputs are also covered, as well as next steps if a decision cannot be reached. Worked examples across industries including food, household, and personal care are included. The different types of SGPE covered include those commonly executed but is not exhaustive.1.4 This guide does not cover the use of small group evaluations to pilot research or test protocols before implementation in larger scale testing. In addition, the use of small group evaluations to substitute for larger evaluations that incorporate formal hypothesis testing and statistical analysis or to replace hedonic testing are neither recommended nor included within this guide. SGPE that are regular activities of a quality function and product reviews that are done for demonstration or informative purposes with no defined decision criteria are also not covered in this guide.1.5 See 5.2 for a best practice recommendation for the role of the sensory professional or trained delegate in the planning, designing, conducting, or oversight of structured SGPE.1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.7 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 646元 / 折扣价： 550 元 加购物车