5.1 The determination of WPPO composition is useful in optimization of process variables, diagnosing unit performance, and in evaluating the effect of changes in waste plastic composition on WPPO performance properties.5.1.1 Aromatics and olefin hydrocarbon type analysis, including sub-classes, may be useful for evaluating suitability of WPPO as a feedstock for further processing.1.1 This test method covers a standard procedure for the determination of hydrocarbon types (saturates, olefins, styrenes, aromatics and polyaromatics) of waste plastic process oil (WPPO) from chemical or thermal processes using gas chromatography and vacuum ultraviolet absorption spectroscopy detection (GC-VUV).1.1.1 This test method is applicable for plastic recycling and circular schemes including wide range density material from polyethylene and polypropylene.1.1.2 The test method is applicable to waste plastic process oil having a final boiling point of 545 °C or lower at atmospheric pressure as measured by this test or Test Method D2887. This test method is limited to samples having a boiling range greater than 36 °C, and having a vapor pressure sufficiently low to permit sampling at ambient temperature.1.1.3 WPPOs with initial boiling points less than nC5 (36 °C) and final boiling point less than nC15 (271 °C) may be analyzed by Test Method D8369.1.1.4 Appendix X3 is applicable to waste plastic process oils that are predominantly hydrocarbons in the boiling range of pentane, nC5 (36 °C) to tetrahexacontane, nC64 (629 °C).1.2 Concentrations of group type totals are determined by percent mass or percent volume. The applicable working ranges are as follows:Total Aromatics %Mass 1 to 50Monoaromatics %Mass 1 to 50Diaromatics %Mass 1 to 15Tri-plus aromatics %Mass 0.5 to 5PAH %Mass 0.5 to 15Saturates %Mass 5 to 99Olefins %Mass 1 to 80Conjugated diolefins %Mass 0.2 to 5Styrenes %Mass 0.2 to 5The final precision concentration ranges will be defined by a future ILS.1.2.1 Saturates totals are the result of the summation of normal paraffins, isoparaffins, and naphthenes.1.2.2 Aromatics are the summation of monoaromatic and polyaromatic group types. Polyaromatic totals are the result of the summation of diaromatic and tri-plus aromatic group types.1.2.3 Olefin totals are the result of the sum of mono-olefins, conjugated diolefins, non-conjugated diolefins, and cyclic olefins.1.2.4 Styrenes totals are the sum of styrene and alkylated styrenes. Styrenes are classified separately, neither as aromatic nor olefin.1.3 Waste plastic process oil containing mixed plastic types such as polyethylene terephthalate PET and polyvinyl chloride or other material may yield compounds including hetero-compounds that are not speciated by this test method.1.4 Individual components are typically not baseline separated by the procedure described in this test method. The coelutions are resolved at the detector using VUV absorbance spectra and deconvolution algorithms.1.5 This test method may apply to other process oils from sources such as tires and bio-mass boiling between pentane (36 °C) and tetratetracontane (545 °C), but has not been extensively tested for such applications.1.6 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement, other than the boiling point of normal paraffins (°F) in Table 2 and Table X.3.1, are included in this standard.1.7 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.1.8 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

5.1 This test method is intended to evaluate the penetration and permeation resistance for complete ensembles to vapors from chemical warfare agents and other chemical substances.5.1.1 This test method differs from Test Method F1052 by providing an evaluation of ensembles worn on human test subjects and measuring the inward leakage of a chemical agent vapor simulant as it would be absorbed by the wearer’s skin. Test Method F1052 is not applicable to the range of protective ensembles that are evaluated by this test method.5.1.2 This test method differs from Test Method F1359/F1359M by using a chemical agent vapor simulant as compared to a liquid challenge and in the use of human test subjects. This test method further provides a quantitative assessment of inward leakage for the chemical agent vapor simulant.5.1.3 The use of this test method to determine the inward leakage of other chemical vapor threats must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.5.2 This test method is applied to complete ensembles consisting of a suit or garment in combination with gloves, footwear, respirators, and interface devices.5.2.1 This test method permits any combination or configuration of ensemble elements and components, including ensembles where the respirator covers the face or head.5.2.2 This test method accommodates protective ensembles or protective clothing having any combination of the following characteristics:(1) The protective ensemble or clothing is constructed of air-permeable, semipermeable, or impermeable fabrics,(2) The protective ensemble or clothing is of a single or multi-layered design, or(3) The protective ensemble or clothing is constructed of inert or sorptive fabrics.5.3 MeS has been used as a simulant for chemical warfare agents. MeS is primarily a simulant for distilled mustard (HD) with a similar vapor pressure, density, and water solubility. The use of MeS in vapor form does not simulate all agents or hazardous substances to which ensemble wearers are potentially exposed.5.4 The principal results of this test are physiological protective dosage factors that indicate the relative effectiveness of the ensemble in preventing the inward leakage of the chemical agent vapor simulant and its consequent dosage to the wearer’s skin as determined by the use and placement of personal adsorbent devices (PAD) on human test subjects.5.4.1 Specific information on inward leakage of chemical agent vapor simulant is provided by local physiological protective dosage factors for individual PAD locations to assist in determining possible points of entry of the chemical agent vapor simulant into the ensemble.5.4.2 The determination of the local physiological protective dosage factors is based on ratio of the outside exposure dosage to the inside exposure dosage on the wearer’s skin at specific locations of the body and accounts for the specific susceptibility of the average human’s skin at those locations to the effects of blister agent, distilled mustard using the onset of symptoms exposure dosages (OSED) at different points on the body. The specific OSED values used in this test method are based on the exposure concentration of distilled mustard that causes threshold effects to the average individual human in the form of reversible skin ulceration and blistering (1).55.4.3 The body locations chosen for the placement of PADs were chosen to represent the range of body areas on the human body, with preference to those body areas generally near interfaces found in common two-piece ensembles with separate respirator, gloves, and footwear. Additional locations are permitted to be used for the placement of PAD where there are specific areas of interest for evaluating the inward leakage of the chemical agent vapor simulant.NOTE 1: Common interface areas for protective ensemble include the hood to respirator facemask, clothing or suit closure, upper torso garment to lower torso garment, garment sleeve to glove, and garment pant cuff to footwear.5.4.4 An assessment of the vapor penetration and permeation resistance for the entire ensemble is provided by the determination of a systemic physiological protective dosage factor. The same PAD data are used in a body region hazard analysis to determine the overall physiological protective dosage factor accounting for the areas of the body represented by the location, and the relative effects of the nerve agent, VX. A systemic analysis assists in the evaluation for those chemical agents, such as nerve agents, affecting the human body through a cumulative dose absorbed by the skin (2).5.4.5 Examples of analyses applying PAD data for the assessment of ensemble inward leakage resistance are provided in NFPA 1971, Standard on Protective Ensemble for Structural and Proximity Fire Fighting, and NFPA 1994, Standard on Protective Ensemble for CBRN Terrorism Incidents.5.4.6 The general procedures in this test method are based on Test Operations Procedure (TOP 10-2-022), Man-In-Simulant Test (MIST)—Chemical Vapor Testing of Chemical/ Biological Protective Suits.5.5 The human subject activities simulate possible causes of changes in ensemble vapor barrier during expected activities. These activities are primarily based on stationary activities provided in Part A of Practices F1154 and are intended to create movements that are likely to affect the integrity of the ensemble and its interface areas. Additional activities (such as dragging a dummy and climbing a ladder) have been added to simulate activities that might be used by first responders during emergency events such as rescuing victims from a terrorism incident involving chemical agents. The test method permits the modification of the activity protocol to simulate the specific needs of the protective ensemble application.5.6 The length of the human subject exposure to the chemical agent vapor simulant is set at 30 min in the test chamber with a 5-min decontamination period. This test duration is intended to replicate a possible exposure of a first responder during a terrorism incident involving chemical agents. If a self-contained breathing apparatus is used, a 60-min rated respirator must be used or provisions made for supplemental umbilical air (through a supplied air system). The test method permits the adjustment of the exposure period to simulate the specific needs of the protective ensemble application.5.7 Test results generated by this test method are specific to the ensemble being evaluated. Changing any part of the ensemble necessitates a new set of testing for the modified ensemble.5.8 Additional information on man-in-simulant testing is provided in (3).1.1 This test method specifies the test equipment and procedures for conducting tests to estimate the entry of chemical agent vapor simulant through protective ensembles while worn by test subjects.1.2 This test method permits the evaluation of protective ensembles consisting of protective garments or suits, gloves, footwear, respirators, and interface devices.1.3 The results of this test method yield local physiological protective dosage factors at individual locations of the human body as well as a systemic physiological protective dosage factor for the entire ensemble.1.4 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.1.5 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

4.1 This practice is a guideline for short-term and long-term assessment of skeletal muscle and bone tissue responses to long-term implant materials. For testing of final finished medical devices, the test article for implantation shall be as for intended use, including packaging and sterilization. The tissue responses to the test article are compared to the skeletal muscle and/or bone tissue response(s) elicited by control materials. The controls consistently demonstrate known cellular reaction and wound healing.1.1 This practice provides guidelines for biological assessment of tissue responses to nonabsorbable for medical device implants. It assesses the effects of the material that is implanted intramuscularly or intraosseously. The experimental protocol is not designed to provide a comprehensive assessment of the systemic toxicity, immune response, carcinogenicity, or mutagenicity of the material since other standards address these issues. It applies only to materials with projected applications in humans where the materials will reside in bone or skeletal muscle tissue in excess of 30 days. Applications in other organ systems or tissues may be inappropriate and are therefore excluded. Control materials are well recognized with a well-characterized long-term response and can include metals and any one of the metal alloys in Specification F67, F75, F90, F136, F138, or F562, high purity dense aluminum oxide as described in Specification F603, ultra high molecular weight polyethylene as stated in Specification F648, or USP polyethylene negative control.1.2 The values stated in SI units, including units officially accepted for use with SI, are to be regarded as standard. No other systems of measurement are included in this standard.1.3 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.1.4 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： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

5.1 Significance of Thermal Resistance Measurements—Knowledge of the thermal resistance of new buildings is important to determine whether the quality of construction satisfies criteria set by the designer, by the owner, or by a regulatory agency. Differences in quality of materials or workmanship may cause building components not to achieve design performance.5.1.1 For Existing Buildings—Knowledge of thermal resistance is important to the owners of older buildings to determine whether the buildings should receive insulation or other energy-conserving improvements. Inadequate knowledge of the thermal properties of materials or heat flow paths within the construction or degradation of materials may cause inaccurate assumptions in calculations that use published data.5.2 Advantage of In-Situ Data—This practice provides information about thermal performance that is based on measured data. This may determine the quality of new construction for acceptance by the owner or occupant or it may provide justification for an energy conservation investment that could not be made based on calculations using published design data.5.3 Heat Flow Paths—This practice assumes that net heat flow is perpendicular to the surface of the building envelope component within a given subsection. Knowledge of surface temperature in the area subject to measurement is required for placing sensors appropriately. Appropriate use of infrared thermography is often used to obtain such information. Thermography reveals nonuniform surface temperatures caused by structural members, convection currents, air leakage, and moisture in insulation. Practices C1060 and C1153 detail the appropriate use of infrared thermography. Note that thermography as a basis for extrapolating the results obtained at a measurement site to other similar parts of the same building is beyond the scope of this practice.5.4 User Knowledge Required—This practice requires that the user have knowledge that the data employed represent an adequate sample of locations to describe the thermal performance of the construction. Sources for this knowledge include the referenced literature in Practice C1046 and related works listed in Appendix X2. The accuracy of the calculation is strongly dependent on the history of the temperature differences across the envelope component. The sensing and data collection apparatuses shall have been used properly. Factors such as convection and moisture migration affect interpretation of the field data.5.5 Indoor-Outdoor Temperature Difference—The speed of convergence of the summation technique described in this practice improves with the size of the average indoor-outdoor temperature difference across the building envelope. The sum of least squares technique is insensitive to indoor-outdoor temperature difference, to small and drifting temperature differences, and to small accumulated heat fluxes.5.6 Time-Varying Thermal Conditions—The field data represent varying thermal conditions. Therefore, obtain time-series data at least five times more frequently than the most frequent cyclical heat input, such as a furnace cycle. Obtain the data for a long enough period such that two sets of data that end a user-chosen time period apart do not cause the calculation of thermal resistance to be different by more than 10 %, as discussed in 6.4.5.6.1 Gather the data over an adequate range of thermal conditions to represent the thermal resistance under the conditions to be characterized.NOTE 2: The construction of some building components includes materials whose thermal performance is dependent on the direction of heat flow, for example, switching modes between convection and stable stratification in horizontal air spaces.5.7 Lateral Heat Flow—Avoid areas with significant lateral heat flow. Report the location of each source of temperature and heat flux data. Identify possible sources of lateral heat flow, including a highly conductive surface, thermal bridges beneath the surface, convection cells, etc., that may violate the assumption of heat flow perpendicular to the building envelope component.NOTE 3: Appropriate choice of heat flow sensors and placement of those sensors can sometimes provide meaningful results in the presence of lateral heat flow in building components. Metal surfaces and certain concrete or masonry components may create severe difficulties for measurement due to lateral heat flow.5.8 Light- to Medium-Weight Construction—This practice is limited to light- to medium-weight construction that has an indoor temperature that varies by less than 3 K. The heaviest construction to which this practice applies would weigh 440 kg/m2, assuming that the massive elements in building construction all have a specific heat of about 0.9 kJ/kg K. Examples of the heaviest construction include: (1) a 390-kg/m2 wall with a brick veneer, a layer of insulation, and concrete blocks on the inside layer or (2) a 76-mm concrete slab with insulated built-up roofing of 240 kg/m2. Insufficient knowledge and experience exists to extend the practice to heavier construction.5.9 Heat Flow Modes—The mode of heat flow is a significant factor determining R-value in construction that contains air spaces. In horizontal construction, air stratifies or convects, depending on whether heat flow is downwards or upwards. In vertical construction, such as walls with cavities, convection cells affect determination of R-value significantly. In these configurations, apparent R-value is a function of mean temperature, temperature difference, and location along the height of the convection cell. Measurements on a construction whose performance is changing with conditions is beyond the scope of this practice.1.1 This practice covers how to obtain and use data from in-situ measurement of temperatures and heat fluxes on building envelopes to compute thermal resistance. Thermal resistance is defined in Terminology C168 in terms of steady-state conditions only. This practice provides an estimate of that value for the range of temperatures encountered during the measurement of temperatures and heat flux.1.2 This practice presents two specific techniques, the summation technique and the sum of least squares technique, and permits the use of other techniques that have been properly validated. This practice provides a means for estimating the mean temperature of the building component for estimating the dependence of measured R-value on temperature for the summation technique. The sum of least squares technique produces a calculation of thermal resistance which is a function of mean temperature.1.3 Each thermal resistance calculation applies to a subsection of the building envelope component that was instrumented. Each calculation applies to temperature conditions similar to those of the measurement. The calculation of thermal resistance from in-situ data represents in-service conditions. However, field measurements of temperature and heat flux may not achieve the accuracy obtainable in laboratory apparatuses.1.4 This practice permits calculation of thermal resistance on portions of a building envelope that have been properly instrumented with temperature and heat flux sensing instruments. The size of sensors and construction of the building component determine how many sensors shall be used and where they should be placed. Because of the variety of possible construction types, sensor placement and subsequent data analysis require the demonstrated good judgement of the user.1.5 Each calculation pertains only to a defined subsection of the building envelope. Combining results from different subsections to characterize overall thermal resistance is beyond the scope of this practice.1.6 This practice sets criteria for the data-collection techniques necessary for the calculation of thermal properties (see Note 1). Any valid technique may provide the data for this practice, but the results of this practice shall not be considered to be from an ASTM standard, unless the instrumentation technique itself is an ASTM standard.NOTE 1: Currently only Practice C1046 can provide the data for this practice. It also offers guidance on how to place sensors in a manner representative of more than just the instrumented portions of the building components.1.7 This practice pertains to light-through medium-weight construction as defined by example in 5.8. The calculations apply to the range of indoor and outdoor temperatures observed.1.8 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.9 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.1.10 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： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

4.1 Identification of a brackish water, seawater, or brine is determined by comparison of the concentrations of their dissolved constituents. The results are used to evaluate the origin of the water, determine if it is a possible pollutant or determine if it is a commercial source of a valuable constituent such as iodine or bromine.1.1 These test methods2 cover the determination of soluble iodide and bromide ions, or both, in brackish water, seawater, and brines. Four test methods are given as follows:1.1.1 Test Method A for both Iodide and Bromide Ions—Volumetric, for concentrations from 0.2 mg/L to 2000 mg/L iodide and from 5 mg/L to 6500 mg/L bromide (Sections 7 – 15).1.1.2 Test Method B for Iodide Ion—Colorimetric, for concentrations from 0.2 mg/L to 2000 mg/L iodide (Sections 16 – 25).1.1.3 Test Method C for Iodide Ion—Selective electrode, for concentrations from 1 mg/L to 2000 mg/L iodide (Sections 26 – 34).1.1.4 Test Method D for Bromide Ion—Colorimetric, for concentrations from 40 mg/L to 6500 mg/L bromide (Sections 35 – 44).1.2 Test Method A is intended for use on all brackish waters, seawaters, and brines that contain appreciable amounts of iodide or bromide ions or both. Test Methods B, C, and D, because of their rapidity and sensitivity, are recommended for the analysis of brackish waters, seawaters, and brines in the field and in the laboratory.1.3 Samples containing from 0.2 mg/L to 2000 mg/L of iodide or 5 mg/L to 6500 mg/L of bromide may be analyzed by these methods.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. For specific precautionary statements, see 20.2 and 39.2.1.6 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 Results of this test method are used to predict displacements in rock mass caused by loads from a structure or from underground construction for the load range that the device can apply. It is one of several tests that should be performed.5.2 Because the jack can apply directed loads, this test method can be performed to provide an estimate of anisotropy.5.3 In theory, the analysis of test data is straight forward; the modulus estimate requires a record of applied hydraulic pressure versus borehole diameter change, and a knowledge of the rock's Poisson's ratio. In practice, the above procedure, using the original theoretical formula, frequently has resulted in computing a material modulus that was demonstrably too low.5.4 For analyzing the test data it is assumed that the rock mass is linearly elastic, isotropic, and homogeneous. Within these assumptions, this test method can provide useful data for rock masses for which equivalent continuous properties cannot be found or estimated.NOTE 1: Notwithstanding the statements on precision and bias contained in this test method; the precision of this test method is dependent on the competence of the personnel performing it, and the suitability of the equipment and facilities used. Agencies that meet the criteria of Practice D3740 are generally considered capable of competent and objective testing. Users of this test method are cautioned that compliance with Practice D3740 does not in itself assure reliable testing. Reliable testing depends on many factors; Practice D3740 provides a means of evaluating some of those factors.1.1 This test method covers the estimation of in situ modulus of a rock mass at various depths and orientations. Information on time-dependent deformation may also be obtained.1.2 This test method covers testing in an N size drill hole and is more relevant to a borehole jack device designed for “hard rock” than for soft rock.1.3 All observed and calculated values shall conform to the guidelines for significant digits and rounding established in Practice D6026.1.3.1 The method used to specify how data are collected, calculated, or recorded in this standard is not directly related to the accuracy to which the data can be applied in design or other uses, or both. How one applies the results obtained using this standard is beyond its scope.1.4 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to inch-pound units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.1.5 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 and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

5.1 Assumptions: 5.1.1 The control well discharges at a constant rate, Q.5.1.2 The control well is of infinitesimal diameter and fully penetrates the aquifer.5.1.3 The aquifer is homogeneous, isotropic, and areally extensive.NOTE 1: Slug and pumping tests implicitly assume a porous medium. Fractured rock and carbonate settings may not provide meaningful data and information.5.1.4 The aquifer remains saturated (that is, water level does not decline below the top of the aquifer).5.1.5 The aquifer is overlain or underlain, or both, everywhere by confining beds individually having uniform hydraulic conductivities, specific storages, and thicknesses. The confining beds are bounded on the distal sides by one of the cases shown in Fig. 1.5.1.6 Flow in the aquifer is two-dimensional and radial in the horizontal plane.5.2 The geometry of the well and aquifer system is shown in Fig. 1.5.3 Implications of Assumptions: 5.3.1 Paragraph 5.1.1 indicates that the discharge from the control well is at a constant rate. Paragraph 8.1 of Test Method D4050 discusses the variation from a strictly constant rate that is acceptable. A continuous trend in the change of the discharge rate could result in misinterpretation of the water-level change data unless taken into consideration.NOTE 2: The quality of the result produced by this standard is dependent on the competence of the personnel performing it, and the suitability of the equipment and facilities used. Agencies that meet the criteria of Practice D3740 are generally considered capable of competent and objective testing/sampling/inspection/etc. Users of this standard are cautioned that compliance with Practice D3740 does not in itself assure reliable results. Reliable results depend on many factors; Practice D3740 provides a means of evaluating some of those factors.5.3.2 The leaky confining bed problem considered by the modified Hantush method requires that the control well has an infinitesimal diameter and has no storage. Moench (6) generalized the field situation addressed by the modified Hantush (1) method to include the well bore storage in the pumped well. The mathematical approach that he used to obtain a solution for that more general problem results in a Laplace transform solution whose analytical inversion has not been developed and probably would be very complicated, if possible, to evaluate. Moench (6) used a numerical Laplace inversion algorithm to develop type curves for selected situations. The situations considered by Moench indicate that large well bore storage may mask effects of leakage derived from storage changes in the confining beds. The particular combinations of aquifer and confining bed properties and well radius that result in such masking is not explicitly given. However, Moench ((6), p. 1125) states “Thus observable effects of well bore storage are maximized, for a given well diameter, when aquifer transmissivity Kb and the storage coefficient Ssb are small.” Moench (p. 1129) notes that “...one way to reduce or effectively eliminate the masking effect of well bore storage is to isolate the aquifer of interest with hydraulic packers and repeat the pump test under pressurized conditions. Because well bore storage C will then be due to fluid compressibility rather than changing water levels in the well”...“the dimensionless well bore storage parameter may be reduced by 4 to 5 orders of magnitude.”5.3.3 The modified Hantush method assumes, for Cases 1 and 3 (see Fig. 1), that the heads in source layers on the distal side of confining beds remain constant. Neuman and Witherspoon (7) developed a solution for a case that could correspond to Hantush's Case 1 with K" = O  = S" except that they do not require the head in the unpumped aquifer to remain constant. For that case, they concluded that the drawdowns in the pumped aquifer would not be affected by the properties of the other, unpumped, aquifer when (Neuman and Witherspoon (7) p. 810) time satisfies:5.3.4 Implicit in the assumptions are the conditions that the flow in the confining beds is essentially vertical and in the aquifer is essentially horizontal. Hantush's (8) analysis of an aquifer bounded only by one leaky confining bed suggested that these assumptions are acceptably accurate whereverThat form of relation between aquifer and confining bed properties may also be a useful guide for the case of two leaky confining beds.1.1 This practice covers an analytical procedure for determining the transmissivity and storage coefficient of a confined aquifer taking into consideration the change in storage of water in overlying or underlying confining beds, or both. This practice is used to analyze water-level or head data collected from one or more observation wells or piezometers during the pumping of water from a control well at a constant rate. With appropriate changes in sign, this practice also can be used to analyze the effects of injecting water into a control well at a constant rate.1.2 This analytical procedure is used in conjunction with Test Method D4050.1.3 Limitations—The valid use of the modified Hantush method (1)2 is limited to the determination of hydraulic properties for aquifers in hydrogeologic settings with reasonable correspondence to the assumptions of the Hantush-Jacob method (Practice D6029/D6029M) with the exception that in this case the gain or loss of water in storage in the confining beds is taken into consideration (see 5.1). All possible combinations of impermeable beds and source beds (for example, beds in which the head remains uniform) are considered on the distal side of the leaky beds that confine the aquifer of interest (see Fig. 1).FIG. 1 Cross Sections Through Discharging Wells in Leaky Aquifers with Storage of Water in the Confining Beds, Illustrating Three Different Cases of Boundary Conditions (from Reed (2) )1.4 All observed and calculated values shall conform to the guidelines for significant digits and rounding established in Practice D6026.1.4.1 The procedures used to specify how data are collected/recorded and calculated in the standard are regarded as the industry standard. In addition, they are representative of the significant digits that generally should be retained. The procedures used do not consider material variation, purpose for obtaining the data, special purpose studies, or any considerations for the user’s objectives; and it is common practice to increase or reduce significant digits of reported data to be commensurate with these considerations. It is beyond the scope of these test methods to consider significant digits used in analysis methods for engineering data.1.5 The values stated in SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values for the two systems may result in nonconformance with the standard. Reporting of results in units other than SI shall not be regarded as nonconformance with this standard.1.6 This practice offers a set of instructions for performing one or more specific operations. This document cannot replace education or experience and should be used in conjunction with professional judgment. Not all aspects of the practice may be applicable in all circumstances. This ASTM standard is not intended to represent or replace the standard of care by which the adequacy of a given professional service must be judged, nor should this document be applied without the consideration of a project’s many unique aspects. The word “Standard” in the title of this document means only that the document has been approved through the ASTM consensus process.1.7 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.1.8 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： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

5.1 Benzene is a compound that endangers health, and the concentration is limited by environmental protection agencies to produce a less toxic gasoline.5.2 This test method is fast, simple to run, and inexpensive.5.3 This test method is applicable for quality control in the production and distribution of spark-ignition engine fuels.1.1 This test method covers the determination of the percentage of benzene in spark-ignition engine fuels. It is applicable to concentrations from 0.1 % to 5 % by volume.1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.3 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.1.4 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： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

5.1 This test method provides a means for obtaining useful in-service fluid analysis properties in the field. It is not to be confused with laboratory or portable FTIR devices which provide measurements per the existing Test Methods listed in 4.1.1.1. Each of these monitored properties has been shown over time to indicate either contamination in the fluid system or a particular breakdown modality of the fluid, which is critical information to assess the health of the fluid as well as the machinery. By utilizing the field device, it is possible for those operating machinery, in locations and situations where it is not practical to gather a sample for the laboratory, to obtain quality in-service fluid analysis. This may be due to the need to have an analysis done in real-time, on-the-spot to maximize the operational hours of equipment, or to have the analysis performed at a location where no laboratory analysis is available.1.1 This test method describes the use of a grating spectrometer to analyze properties of an in-service fluid sample which are indicative of the status of that fluid and related machinery.1.2 This test method provides a means for the assessment of in-service fluid properties using infrared spectroscopy. It describes a methodology for sampling, performing analysis, and providing key in-service fluid properties with a self-contained unit that is meant for field use. It provides analysis of in-service fluids at any stage of their useful life, including newly utilized fluid.1.3 In particular, these key in-service fluid properties include oxidation, nitration, sulfation, soot, and antiwear additives. They are applicable for hydrocarbon type (API Group I-IV) fluids from machinery lubricants, including reciprocating engine oils, turbine oils, hydraulic oils, and gear oils.1.4 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.4.1 Exception—The unit for wavenumbers is in cm-1.1.5 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： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

4.1 Uses—This guide is intended for use on a voluntary basis by parties who wish to conduct a VES on a parcel of real estate to determine if a VEC is identified for the TP (that is, the presence or likely presence of COC vapors in the vadose zone of the TP caused by the release of vapors from contaminated soil and/or groundwater either on or near the TP as identified by the Tier 1 or Tier 2 procedures in this guide). The process defined in this guide is a screening process that requires information similar to information generally collected as part of an E1527 Phase I ESA as well as additional information described in subsection 5.3 and Section 8 of this guide. If a VEC is identified by this screening process, the user may conduct further investigation. This guide, however, defines a procedure for determining in connection with a property involved in a real estate transaction whether a VEC exists or does not exist. A “VEC exists” determination is appropriate, for example, when there is known COC contamination in, at or on the TP, such as may be the case when COC-contaminated groundwater exists in the subsurface of the TP. A “VEC does not exist” determination is appropriate, for example, when subsurface sampling has confirmed that COC’s are not present. The guide can be applied to property with existing structures, property with structures that will be substantially rehabilitated, property without existing structures but having planned structures (for example, property in development), or property without existing structures and with no planned structures (for example, undeveloped property with no planned development).4.2 Clarifications on Use: 4.2.1 Use in Conjunction with E1527 Phase I ESA—This practice, when used in conjunction with E1527 Phase I ESA, may assist the user and environmental professional in developing information about VECs associated with a TP. This guide has utility for a wide range of persons, including those who may not be involved in a real estate transaction.4.2.2 Independent Use—This guide may be used independent of an E1527 Phase I ESA to determine if a VEC exists or does not exist.4.2.3 Site-Specific—This guide is property specific in that it relates to screening of VECs associated with a specific parcel of real estate. Consequently, this guide does not address many additional issues raised in transactions such as purchases of business entities or interests therein, or of their assets, that may well involve environmental liabilities pertaining to properties previously owned or operated or other off-site environmental liabilities. The guide does not replace a Phase I ESA conducted by an environmental professional or any obligation of the environmental professional under E1527 to identify all recognized environmental conditions (RECs) related to the TP.4.3 Who May Conduct—A VES should be performed by an environmental professional. No practical standard can be designed to eliminate the role of professional judgment and the value and need for experience in the party performing the investigation. The professional judgment of an environmental professional is, consequently, vital to the performance of this screening (refer also to Appendix X2). Prior to commencing work, the environmental professional and user should determine the applicability of state professional licensing or registration laws with respect to any vapor intrusion activities to be undertaken to investigate a VEC.4.4 Additional Services Contracted For—Additional services may be contracted for between the user and the environmental professional. Such additional services may include business environmental risk issues not included within the scope of this guide (see subsection 11.3 for some possible examples).4.5 Principles—The following principles are an integral part of this guide and are intended to be referred to in resolving any ambiguity or exercising such discretion as is accorded the user or environmental professional in performing a VES.4.5.1 Uncertainty Not Eliminated in Screening—No vapor encroachment screen, such as included in Sections 8 and 9 of this guide, can wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the identification of VECs in connection with a TP. Screening is intended to reduce, but not eliminate, uncertainty regarding whether or not a VEC exists in connection with a property.4.5.2 Not Exhaustive—The guide is not meant to be an exhaustive screening. There is a point at which the cost of information obtained or the time required to gather it outweighs the usefulness of the information and, in fact, may be a material detriment to the orderly completion of real estate transactions. One of the purposes of this guide is to identify a balance between the competing goals of limiting the costs and time demands inherent in performing a VES and the reduction of uncertainty about unknown conditions resulting from additional information.4.5.3 Level of Investigation is Variable—Not every property will warrant the same level of screening. The appropriate level of screening should be guided by the nature of the property subject to screening and the information already available or developed during the course of the investigation.4.5.4 Comparison with Subsequent Investigation—It should not be concluded or assumed that an investigation was not adequate because the investigation did not identify VECs in connection with a property. The VES must be evaluated based on the reasonableness of judgments made at the time and under the circumstances in which they were made. Subsequent VESs should not be considered valid bases to judge the appropriateness of any prior screening if based on hindsight, new information, use of developing technology or analytical techniques, or similar factors.4.6 Continued Viability of VES—Subject to subsection 4.7, a VES conducted according to the procedures presented in this guide and completed less than 180 days before the date of acquisition of the property or, for transactions not involving an acquisition, the date of the intended use of the VES, is presumed to be valid. Subject to subsection 4.7 and the user’s responsibilities set forth in Section 6, a VES conducted according to the procedures presented in this guide and for which the information was collected or updated within one year before the date of acquisition of the property or, for transactions not involving an acquisition, the date of the intended use of the VES may be used provided that the following components of the investigation were conducted or updated within 180 days of the date of purchase or the date of the intended transaction:4.6.1 Reviews of federal, tribal, state, and local government records;4.6.2 Update on the operations existing at the TP;4.6.3 Evaluation of any new potential preferential pathways for vapor migration;4.6.4 Screening of any new contaminated plume migration that might cause a VEC on the TP; and4.6.5 Screening of any new contaminant releases in the AOC that might cause a VEC on the TP.4.7 Use of a Prior VES Screen—This guide recognizes that VESs performed in accordance with this guide will include information that subsequent users may want to use to avoid undertaking duplicative screening procedures. Therefore, this guide describes procedures to be followed to assist users in determining the appropriateness of using information in VESs performed more than one year prior to the date of acquisition of the property or, for transactions not involving an acquisition, the date of the intended use of the VES. The use of a prior VES is based on the following principles that should be adhered to in addition to the specific procedures set forth elsewhere in this guide:4.7.1 Use of Prior Information—Subject to the criteria set forth in subsection 4.6, users and environmental professionals may use information in a prior VES provided such information was generated as a result of procedures that are consistent with the procedures presented in this guide. However, such information should not be used without current investigation of conditions likely to affect VECs in connection with the TP. Additional investigation may be necessary to document conditions that may have changed materially since the prior VES was conducted.4.7.2 Contractual Issues Regarding Use of a Prior VES—The contractual and legal obligations between prior and subsequent users of a VES or between environmental professionals who conducted the prior VES and those who would like to use such a prior VES are beyond the scope of this guide.4.8 Actual Knowledge Exception—If the user or environmental professional conducting a VES has actual knowledge that the information being used from a prior VES is not accurate or if it is obvious, based on other information obtained by means of a Phase I and/or Phase II ESA or known to the person conducting the Phase I and/or Phase II ESA, that the information being used is not accurate, such information from a prior VES may not be used.4.9 Rules of Engagement—The contractual and legal obligations between an environmental professional and a user (and other parties, if any) are outside the scope of this guide. No specific legal relationship between the environmental professional and the user is necessary for the user to implement the procedures presented in this guide.1.1 Purpose—The purpose of this guide is to provide practical guidance and a useful process for conducting a vapor encroachment screen (VES) on a property parcel involved in a real estate transaction in the United States of America with respect to chemicals of concern (COC) that may migrate as vapors into the vadose zone of a property as a result of contaminated soil and/or groundwater on or near the property. This guide may be used in conjunction with E1527 but does not alter or in any way define the scope of that practice. In addition, performance of this guide is not a requirement of and does not constitute, expand, or in any way define “all appropriate inquiry” as defined and approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the regulations there under, including 40 CFR Sec. 312.11.1.1.1 Vapor Encroachment Condition (VEC)—The goal of conducting a VES, as established by this guide, on a parcel of property is to identify a vapor encroachment condition (VEC), which is the presence or likely presence of COC vapors in the vadose zone of the target property (TP) caused by the release of vapors from contaminated soil and/or groundwater either on or near the TP as identified by Tier 1 (see Section 8) or Tier 2 (see Section 9) procedures.1.1.2 Federal, State, and Local Environmental Laws—This guide does not address requirements of any federal, state, or local laws with respect to vapor intrusion. Users are cautioned that federal, state, and local laws, regulations, or policy may impose vapor encroachment screening or vapor intrusion assessment obligations that are beyond the scope of this guide (information is provided in Appendix X5 and Appendix X9). Users should also be aware that there may be other legal obligations, for example, disclosure, with regard to COC or COC vapors discovered on the TP that are not addressed in this guide. This ASTM practice does not supersede existing federal, state and local statutes and regulations.1.1.3 Documentation—The scope of this guide includes investigation and reporting actions. Sufficient documentation of all sources, records, and resources used in the investigation procedures that are set out in this guide should be provided in the VES report (refer to Section 10).1.2 Objectives—Objectives guiding the development of this guide are: (1) to synthesize and put into writing a practical guide for conducting a VES on a property involved in a real estate transaction and (2) to provide that the process to screen for a VEC is practical and reasonable.1.3 Considerations Outside the —The use of this guide is strictly limited to the scope set forth in this section. Section 11 of this guide identifies, for informational purposes, certain tasks (not an all-inclusive list) that may be conducted on a property that are beyond the scope of this guide but that may warrant consideration by parties to a real estate transaction. Whether to include an investigation of any such conditions in the environmental professional's scope of services should be evaluated by the user and should be agreed upon between the user and environmental professional as additional services beyond the scope of this guide before initiation of a Phase I ESA conducted in conjunction with a VES or initiation of an independent VES.1.4 Units—The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard.1.5 Organization of this Guide—This guide has eleven sections and nine appendices. The appendices are included for informational purposes and are not part of the procedures prescribed in this guide.Section 1 contains the scope of the guide.Section 2 includes the referenced documents.Section 3 has definitions of terms pertinent to this guide, terms used in this guide but defined in E1527, and acronyms.Section 4 is directed at the significance and use of this guide.Section 5 discusses the relationship between this guide and E1527.Section 6 describes the user's responsibilities under this guide.Sections 7 – 10 consist of the main body of the VES process, including evaluation and report preparation.Section 11 provides information regarding non-scope considerations (see 1.3).Appendix X1 provides legal background for vapor encroachment screening.Appendix X2 provides guidance on suggested qualifications for the environmental professional conducting the VES.Appendix X3 provides a sample questionnaire for the environmental professional to obtain pertinent information for the VES from the property owner/operator/occupants.Appendix X4 provides a recommended table of contents and report format for the VES investigation when not incorporated into a Phase I ESA report.Appendix X5 includes a listing of federal and state agency web sites that discuss vapor intrusion assessment policies and guidance.Appendix X6 includes a list of chemicals of potential concern.Appendix X7 provides general guidance for vapor intrusion assessment and mitigation.Appendix X8 provides general guidance and references for data collection in the conduct of vapor intrusion investigations.Appendix X9 provides a supplemental bibliography of federal and state vapor intrusion guidance and other publications that may assist the environmental professional conducting a VES or vapor intrusion assessment.1.6 This guide 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 guide cannot replace education or experience and should be used in conjunction with professional judgment. Not all aspects of this guide may be applicable in all circumstances. This ASTM standard is not intended to represent or replace the standard of care by which the adequacy of a given professional service must be judged, nor should this guide be applied without consideration of a project's many unique aspects. The word “Standard” in the title means only that the guide has been approved through the ASTM consensus process.1.8 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

5.1 Silver may be used to treat consumer textile products to provide enhanced antimicrobial (fungi, bacteria, viruses) properties (3, 4). At any point in a textile product’s lifecycle, there may be a need to measure the amount of silver present. This standard prescribes a test method based on ICP-OES or ICP-MS analysis that manufacturers, producers, analysts, policymakers, regulators, and others may use for measurement of total silver in textiles. As described in Guide E3025, determination of total silver in a consumer textile product is one component of a tiered approach to determine if silver is present, possibly as nanomaterial(s) (one or more external dimensions in the nanoscale), prior to measuring the form and dimension of the Ag that is found. ICP-OES or ICP-MS analysis alone is not sufficient to determine whether a textile contains silver nanomaterial(s).NOTE 4: There are many different chemical and physical forms of silver that are used to treat textiles and an overview of this topic is provided in Guide E3025.5.2 As described in Guide E3025, the amount of silver in a textile can decrease over time as silver metal and silver compounds can react with oxygen and other oxidation-reduction (redox) active agents present in the environment to form soluble ionic species which are released by contact with moisture (for example, from ambient humidity, washing, body sweat, rain, or other sources). Hence, if silver is measured in a textile, the result may only be indicative of that moment in the article’s life cycle and great care is necessary in drawing temporal inferences from the results.5.3 If silver is measured by ICP-OES or ICP-MS analysis, additional analyses are needed to elucidate the form of silver in the textile specimen. This step is necessary because ICP-OES or ICP-MS results are for total silver independent of chemical and physical form and textiles may be treated with silver in sizes that range from the nanoscale (for example, salt nanoparticles) to the micrometer scale (for example, particulates or fibers).5.4 If no silver is detected by ICP-OES, the more sensitive ICP-MS should be used to determine if silver is present in a test specimen. If no silver is detected in a textile sample using appropriate (fit for purpose) analytical techniques, then testing can be terminated.NOTE 5: Typical method detection limits are 0.6 µg Ag/L by ICP-OES and 0.002 µg Ag/L by ICP-MS which are comparable to limits successfully used to detect silver in a range of products, including sports textiles and wound dressings (2).5.5 Results of ICP-OES or ICP-MS analysis may be qualitative or quantitative, depending upon the efficacy of the digestion procedure for the textile matrix. Regardless, ICP-OES or ICP-MS analysis is recommended as a first step to screen for the presence of silver in a textile and results can be used to inform subsequent more detailed analyses as part of a tiered approach to determine if a textile contains silver nanomaterial(s).1.1 This test method covers the use of inductively coupled plasma–optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES) and inductively coupled plasma–mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) analyses for determination of the mass fraction of total silver in consumer textile products made of any combination of natural or manufactured fibers. Either ICP-OES or ICP-MS analysis is recommended as a first step to test for and quantify silver in a textile and results can be used to inform subsequent, more detailed analyses as part of the tiered approach described in Guide E3025 to determine if a textile contains silver nanomaterial(s).1.2 This test method prescribes acid digestion to prepare test sample solutions from samples of textiles utilizing an appropriate internal standard followed by external calibration and analysis with either ICP-OES or ICP-MS to quantify total silver.1.3 This test method is believed to provide quantitative results for textiles made of fibers of rayon, cotton, polyester, and lycra that contain metallic silver (see Section 17). It is the analyst’s responsibility to establish the efficacy (ability to achieve the planned and desired analytical result) of this test method for other textile matrices and forms of silver.1.4 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurements 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： 646元 / 折扣价： 550 元 加购物车

5.1 These procedures are used by producers and users of RDF for determining the total sulfur content of the fuel.1.1 These test methods present two alternative procedures for the determination of total sulfur in prepared analysis samples of solid refuse-derived fuel (RDF). Sulfur is included in the ultimate analysis of RDF.1.2 The test methods appear in the following order:Test SectionsEschka Method 8 – 11Bomb Washing Method 12 and 131.3 These test methods may be applicable to any waste material from which a laboratory analysis sample can be prepared.1.4 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. Inch-pound units are provided for information.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. For specific precautionary statements see Section 6.1.6 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

3.1 This practice establishes the procedure for the construction and installation of platforms to be fabricated and installed by the shipyards within the cargo tanks.1.1 This practice covers design, construction, and installation criteria for platforms in cargo tanks.1.2 Where platforms are attached to ladders see Figs. 1-4.FIG. 1 Cargo Platform—BulkheadFIG. 2 Cargo Platform ElevationFIG. 3 Cargo Platform—GirderFIG. 4 Cargo Platforms Showing Typical Sections1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses after SI units are included for information only and are not considered standard.1.4 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.1.5 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： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

4.1 The utility, range, and efficacy of adhesives in clinical medicine are well documented in the literature. Whether being used as an adhesive, hemostatic, sealant, or carrier for drugs or growth factors, or both, the scope of adhesive use in clinical medicine continues to expand. There are several factors which are vital to the success and efficacy of a medical tissue adhesive including, (1) adequate tissue bonding strength, (2) tissue compatibility, (3) acceptable biodegradable properties when the adhesive is used internally, (4) availability, (5) ease of application, and (6) cost.4.2 Medical adhesives are currently used for a variety of applications and tissue types. Applications range from fixation of external tissues to internal application for use with either similar or dissimilar opposing surfaces. While the biological or chemical makeup, or both, of the adhesive may define its characteristics, additional mechanical factors including adhesive volume or method of application, or both, may also contribute significantly toward the performance of the adhesive. In an effort to fairly and adequately quantify adhesive bonding strength for medical adhesives, it is important to develop a consistent, reproducible testing standard for evaluative and comparative purposes. Due to the fact that the adhesives will be used on or in living tissues, a readily available biological testing surface is preferred.4.3 The data generated from a standardized testing method on biologic tissue may vary from that found in vivo, however, testing results should offer valuable information on the potential bonding capacity and for the preparation of subsequent in vivo experiments.4.4 The complexity and variety of individual applications for tissue adhesive devices, even within a single indicated use (surgical procedure), is such that the results of a tensile test are not suitable for determining allowable design stresses without thorough analysis and understanding of the application and adhesive behaviors.4.5 This test method may be used for comparing adhesives or bonding processes for susceptibility to fatigue and environmental changes, but such comparisons must be made with great caution since different adhesives may respond differently to varying conditions.1.1 This test method is intended to provide a means for comparison of the adhesive strengths of tissue adhesives intended for use as surgical adhesives or sealants, or both, on soft tissue. With the appropriate choice of substrate, it may also be used for purposes of quality control in the manufacture of tissue adhesive based medical devices.1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.3 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 and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

5.1 Test Method D1294 for the determination of tensile strength may be used for the acceptance testing of commercial shipments of wool, but caution is advised since technicians may fail to get good agreement between results. Comparative tests as directed in 5.1.1 may be advisable.5.1.1 If there are differences of practical significance between reported test results for two laboratories (or more), comparative test should be performed to determine if there is a statistical bias between them, using competent statistical assistance. As a minimum, use the samples for such a comparative test that are as homogenous as possible, drawn from the same lot of material as the samples that resulted in disparate results during initial testing and randomly assigned in equal numbers to each laboratory. The test results from the laboratories involved should be compared using a statistical test for unpaired data, a probability level chosen prior to the testing series. If bias is found, either its cause must be found and corrected, or future test results for that material must be adjusted in consideration of the known bias.5.2 This test method is useful in studying the relationship between fiber strength and product quality; results should be considered comparative rather than fundamental since the strength found will be lower than the sum of the strengths of the individual fibers present due to slight differences in tensioning.5.3 Elongation may be obtained also but the accuracy of elongation measurements is limited and their determination is, therefore, not included as a formal part of this test method.5.4 The basic differences between the procedures employed in this test method and those of Test Method D2524 are in the gage lengths employed and the methods of clamping. In Test Method D2524, specific clamps are required whereas in Test Method D1294, any conventional clamps may be used. Results for breaking load determined by Test Method D2524 average 30 % higher than those obtained by Test Method D1294.1.1 This test method covers the determination of the breaking force (or load) and estimation of the tensile strength and tenacity of wool fiber bundles with a 1-in. (25.4 mm) gage length. A procedure for preparation of the fiber bundle is included.1.2 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard. Because the instrument is calibrated in inch-pound units, inch-pound units are shown first, contrary to Committee D13 policy.NOTE 1: For other methods of measuring breaking tenacity of fiber bundles, refer to Test Methods D1445 and D2524.NOTE 2: This test method can be used for other fibers that lend themselves to the same kind of preparation but the difference in density must be taken into account when calculating the tensile strength. It is not necessary to know or correct for the density of a fiber when calculating breaking tenacity.1.3 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.1.4 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： 702元 / 折扣价： 597 元 加购物车