4.1 An important aspect of the appearance of glossy coating surfaces is the distinctness (clarity) of images reflected by them. The values obtained in this measuring procedure correlate well with visual ratings for DOI (image clarity).4.2 Although Test Methods D523 and D4039 are useful in characterizing some aspects of glossy appearance, they do not provide satisfactory ratings for DOI (image clarity).4.3 The measurement conditions given conform to the conditions specified in Test Methods E430.4.4 The measurement conditions given in this test method conform to the conditions specified in ISO 10216.4.5 The scale values obtained with the measuring procedures of this test method range from 0 to 100 with a value of 100 representing perfect DOI (image clarity).4.6 The DOI (image clarity) scale value does not, of itself, indicate any specific cause for reduction in reflected image sharpness. Surface irregularities such as haze, orange peel, and wrinkle, when present, may be cited as causes for reduction of image sharpness.1.1 These test methods describe the measurement of the distinctness-of-image (DOI) gloss of coating surfaces using electro-optical measuring techniques.1.2 The coatings assessed shall be applied to planar rigid surfaces.1.3 Test Method—The light through a small slit is projected on the specimen surface and its reflected image intensity is measured through a sliding combed shutter to provide a value of image clarity.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： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

The following uses of imaging-guided stereotactic surgery have been documented in the literature, and are presented as examples. This list is not inclusive of all the techniques presently being used, and certainly does not reflect nor intend to impede the development of new techniques in the future:Biopsy of intracranial tissue,Implantation of radioisotopes by various techniques,Aspiration of cysts,Aspiration of abcesses,Instillation of therapeutic agents, including antibiotics, chemotherapeutic agents, tissue, drugs, and neurotransmitters,Insertion of electrodes for recording of electrical activity or impedance,Insertion of probes for lesion production in functional neurosurgery,Insertion of electrodes for stimulation,Aspiration of hematomas,Resection of mass lesions,Laser vaporization or removal of intracranial tissue,Guidance of externally delivered radiation therapy,Adjunct to open surgical procedures,Placement of catheters into ventricles, cysts, and so forth, andHyperthermia.AbstractThis specification covers the different types, appropriate applicability, and safety and sterilizability requirements that pertain to the combined use of stereotactic instruments or systems with imaging techniques, to direct a diagnostic or therapeutic modality into a specific target within the brain, based on localization information derived from such imaging techniques. A stereotactic instrument or system is a guiding, aiming, or viewing device used in human neurosurgery for the purpose of manually directing a system or treating modality to a specific point within the brain by radiographic, imaging, or other visualization or identification of landmarks or targets or lesions.1.1 This specification covers the combined use of stereotactic instruments or systems with imaging techniques, to direct a diagnostic or therapeutic modality into a specific target within the brain, based on localization information derived from such imaging techniques.1.2 For the purpose of this specification, a stereotactic instrument or system is a guiding, aiming, or viewing device used in human neurosurgery for the purpose of manually directing a system or treating modality to a specific point within the brain by radiographic, imaging, or other visualization or identification of landmarks or targets or lesions.1.3 Definition of Stereotactic Imaging Systems—Types of imaging-guided systems all require three components: an imaging system, a stereotactic frame, or other physical device to identify the position of a point in space, and a method to relate image-generated coordinates to frame or device coordinates. See Performance Specification F 1266. The imaging technique must reliably and reproducibly generate data concerning normal or abnormal anatomic structures, or both, that can interface with the coordinate system of the stereotactic frame or other stereotactic system. The imaging-guided systems must allow accurate direction of therapeutic, viewing or diagnostic modalities to a specific point or volume or along a specific trajectory within the brain or often accurate estimation of structure size and location allowing biopsy, resection, vaporization, implantation, aspiration, or other manipulation, or combination thereof. The standards of accuracy, reproducibility, and safety must be met for the imaging modality, the stereotactic system, and the method of interface between the two, and for the system as a whole. The mechanical parts of the imaging modality and the stereotactic system should be constructed to allow maximal interaction with minimal interference with each other, to minimize imaging artifact and distortion, and minimize potential contamination of the surgical field.1.4 General Types of Imaging that May Be Used With Stereotactic Systems—Currently employed imaging modalities used in imaging-guided stereotactic systems include radiography, angiography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, biplane and multiplane digital subtraction angiography, and positron emission scanning. However, it is recognized that other modalities may be interfaced with currently available and future stereotactic systems and that new imaging modalities may evolve in the future. Standards for imaging devices will be dealt with in documents concerning such devices, and will not be addressed herein.1.5 General types of diagnostic modalities include biopsy instruments, cannulas, endoscopes, electrodes, or other such instruments. Therapeutic modalities include, but are not limited to, heating, cooling, irradiation, laser, injection, tissue transplantation, mechanical or ultrasonic disruption, and any modality ordinarily used in cerebrospinal surgery.1.6 Probe—Any system or modality directed by stereotactic techniques, including mechanical or other probe, a device that is inserted into the brain or points to a target, and stereotactically directed treatment or diagnostic modality.Note 1—Examples presented throughout this specification are listed for clarity only; that does not imply that use should be restricted to the procedures or examples listed.1.7 Robot—A power-driven servo-controlled system for controlling and advancing a probe according to a predetermined targeting program.1.8 Digitizer—A device that is directed to indicate the position of a probe or point in stereotactic or other coordinates.1.9 Frameless System—A system that does not require a stereotactic frame, that identifies and localizes a point or volume in space by means of data registration, and a method to relate that point or volume to its representation derived from an imaging system.1.10 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard.1.11 The following precautionary caveat pertains only to the test method portion, Section 3, of this specification: 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： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

5.1 Particle characterization, especially particle size distribution, has been an important parameter for quality control (QC) and research and development (R&D) in a very wide variety of industries and markets, anywhere a particulate system is a final product or an intermediate constituent somewhere in the process. But size alone is not a sufficient morphological measurement to use to understand many factors of the complete particle morphology of particulate systems and their effects on other properties. This information is expected to contribute to the understanding of the effects of shape on powder spreadability and flowability in the creation of the bed in powder bed fusion AM and the density and porosity of the final AM parts (definitions in ISO/ASTM 52900 and Terminology B243). Ultimately, specifications can be developed for quality control (QC) tolerances for these shape parameters that can be measured with a straightforward, fast automated analysis1.1 This guide explains how to characterize the quality of metal powder feedstock to additive manufacturing (AM) relative to the powder shape using automated static or dynamic image analysis by optical photography. This guide will describe the method(s) to measure powder shape parameters that can identify potentially detrimental powder characteristics and specifically describe how to identify and quantify the proportion of agglomerates/satellites and other irregularly shaped non-spherical powder particles in a powder batch.1.2 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the 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： 515元 / 折扣价： 438 元 加购物车

4.1 The Manual Observer-Dependent Assay—The manual quantification of cell and CFU cultures based on observer-dependent criteria or judgment is an extremely tedious and time-consuming task and is significantly impacted by user bias. In order to maintain consistency in data acquisition, pharmacological and drug discovery and development studies utilizing cell- and colony-based assays often require that a single observer count cells and colonies in hundreds, and potentially thousands of cultures. Due to observer fatigue, both accuracy and reproducibility of quantification suffer severely (5). When multiple observers are employed, observer fatigue is reduced, but the accuracy and reproducibility of cell and colony enumeration is still significantly compromised due to observer bias and significant intra- and inter-observer variability (2, 4) . Use of quantitative automated image analysis provides data for both the number of colonies as well as the number of cells in each colony. These data can also be used to calculate mean cells per colony. Traditional methods for quantification of colonies by hand-counting coupled with an assay for cell number (for example, DNA or mitochondrial) remains a viable method that can be used to calculate the mean number of cells per colony. These traditional methods have the advantage that they are currently less labor intensive and less technically demanding (8, 9). However, the traditional assays do not, provide colony level information (for example, variation and skew), nor do they provide a means for excluding cells that are not part of a colony from the calculation of mean colony size. As a result, the measurement of the mean number of cells per colony that is obtained from these alternative methods may differ when substantial numbers of cells in a sample are not associated with colony formation. By employing state-of-the-art image acquisition, processing and analysis hardware and software, an accurate, precise, robust and automated analysis system is realized.4.1.1 Areas of Application—Cell and colony enumeration (CFU assay) is becoming particularly important in the manufacture, quality assurance/control (QA/QC), and development of product safety and potency release criteria for cell-based regenerative medicine and cellular therapy. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has a guidance document that indicates that the CFU assay may be appropriate for testing stability of placental and umbilical cord blood-derived stem cells (7). Since cell source validation and QA/QC comprise approximately 50 % of the manufacturing cost of cellular therapies (10), developing a precise, robust, and cost-effective means for enumerating cells and colonies is vital to sustainability and growth in this industry. The broad areas of use for automated analysis of colony forming unit assays include:4.1.1.1 Characterization of a cell source by correlating biological potential and functional potency with CFU formation.4.1.1.2 Characterization of the effect of processing steps or biological or physical manipulation (for example, stimuli) on cells or colony formation.4.1.1.3 Cell and colony characterization using specific fluorescent and non-fluorescent (differentiation) markers.4.1.1.4 Extrapolation of the biological potency (for example, differentiation, proliferative, and so forth) of a larger sample from application of colony forming assay to sub-samples.4.1.1.5 Provision of criteria for sub-colony selection of preferred colonies (specific tissue type, proliferation rate, and so forth) for use and/or further expansion.4.2 The Technology (image acquisition, processing, and analysis)—Current standards utilize user input for defining the presence and location of colonies based on visualization of an entire culture surface at low magnification through the eyepieces of a microscope. In this case, the sample may be viewed in transmission light mode (unstained or with a histochemical marker) or fluorescently with a dye or antibody. For this practice, the colony count is the only measurable output parameter. Utilizing a microscope-based imaging system to stitch together high resolution image tiles into a single mosaic image of the entire culture surface and subsequently “clustering” segmented cells using image processing algorithms to delineate colonies, provides a fully automated, accurate, and precise method for characterizing the biological potential and functional potency of the cultured cells. Furthermore, extracted parameters in addition to colony number provide means of further characterization and sub-classification of colony level statistics. These parameters include, but are not limited to, cell/nuclear count, cell/nuclear density, colony morphology (shape and size parameters), secondary marker coverage, effective proliferation rates, and so forth (Fig. A1.2). In addition to human connective tissue progenitors (CTPs) derived from bone, bone marrow, cartilage, adipose tissue, muscle, periosteum, and synovium, this practice and technology has been implemented in the cell and colony identification and characterization of several cell and tissue types including: umbilical cord blood hematopoietic stem cells (Fig. X1.2); adipose-derived stem cells (Fig. X1.3); and human epidermal (Fig. X1.4) and dermal (Fig. X1.5) stem cells.4.3 Benefits of Automated Analysis of CFU Assays—Automated analysis is expected to provide more rapid, reproducible, and precise results in comparison to the manual enumeration of cells and colonies utilizing a microscope and hemocytometer. In addition to being time consuming, labor intensive, and subjective, manual enumeration has been shown to have a significant degree of intra- and inter-observer variability, with coefficients of variation (CV) ranging from 8.1 % to 40.0 % and 22.7 % to 80 %, respectively. Standard CVs for cell viability assessment and progenitor (colony) type enumeration have been shown to range from 19.4 % to 42.9 % and 46.6 % to 100 %, respectively (4, 11, 12). In contrast, studies focusing on bacteria, bone marrow-derived stem cells and osteogenic progenitor cells have collectively concluded that automated enumeration provides significantly greater accuracy, precision, and/or speed for counting and sizing cells and colonies, relative to conventional manual methodologies (4-6). Automated methods for enumerating cells and colonies are less biased, less time consuming, less laborious, and provide greater qualitative and quantitative data for intrinsic characteristics of cell and colony type and morphology.4.4 Selection of Cell Culture Surface Area and Optimal Cell Seeding Density—When performing a CFU assay, optimizing the cell culture surface area and cell seeding density is critical to developing methods for generating reliable and reproducible colony- and cell-level data. If seeding density is too low, then the frequency of observed colonies is decreased. This can result in a sampling size that is inadequate to characterize the population of CFUs in the sample. If seeding density is too high, the colonies that are formed may be too closely spaced. Overlapping colony footprints compromise colony counting and characterization. Because the intrinsic range of CFU prevalence in a given cell source may vary widely, in many cases, a trial and error approach to optimizing cell seeding density (or range of densities) that are needed for a given cell source will be necessary. It is important to note that the more heterogeneous the cell source (for example, bone marrow), the more colonies that are needed to accurately represent the stem and progenitor cell constituents. Further, the cell type, effective proliferation rate (EPR) and specific cell culture conditions (for example, media, serum, factors, oxygen tension, and so forth) can impact colony formation. For example, the automated CFU assay depicted in Fig. A1.2 employs a six-day culture period, two media changes, 20 % oxygen tension, alpha-MEM media (with 25 % fetal bovine serum, ascorbate, dexamethasone and streptomycin), an optimized cell seeding density of 250 000 nucleated cells per cm2 (250 000 cells per 1 mL of cell culture medium) and a cell culture surface area of 22 mm by 22 mm (dual-chamber Lab-Tek culture slides) (12, 13).4.5 Useful Documents—A number of useful documents are available that address best practices for conducting quantitative measurements of cells using imaging approaches: Guide F2998, Guide F3294, ISO 20391-1, ISO 20391-2, and “FDA Guidance on Technical Performance Assessment of Digital Pathology Whole Slide Imaging Devices,” (14).1.1 This practice, provided its limitations are understood, describes a procedure for quantitative measurement of the number and biological characteristics of colonies derived from a stem cell or progenitor population using image analysis.1.2 This practice is applied in an in vitro laboratory setting.1.3 This practice utilizes: (a) standardized protocols for image capture of cells and colonies derived from in vitro processing of a defined population of starting cells in a defined field of view (FOV), and (b) standardized protocols for image processing and analysis.1.4 The relevant FOV may be two-dimensional or three-dimensional, depending on the CFU assay system being interrogated.1.5 The primary unit to be used in the outcome of analysis is the number of colonies present in the FOV. In addition, the characteristics and sub-classification of individual colonies and cells within the FOV may also be evaluated, based on extant morphological features, distributional properties, or properties elicited using secondary markers (for example, staining or labeling methods).1.6 Imaging methods require that images of the relevant FOV be captured at sufficient resolution to enable detection and characterization of individual cells and over a FOV that is sufficient to detect, discriminate between, and characterize colonies as complete objects for assessment.1.7 Image processing procedures applicable to two- and three-dimensional data sets are used to identify cells or colonies as discreet objects within the FOV. Imaging methods may be optimized for multiple cell types and cell features using analytical tools for segmentation and clustering to define groups of cells related to each other by proximity or morphology in a manner that is indicative of a shared lineage relationship (that is, clonal expansion of a single founding stem cell or progenitor).1.8 The characteristics of individual colony objects (cells per colony, cell density, cell size, cell distribution, cell heterogeneity, cell genotype or phenotype, and the pattern, distribution and intensity of expression of secondary markers) are informative of differences in underlying biological properties of the clonal progeny.1.9 Under appropriately controlled experimental conditions, differences between colonies can be informative of the biological properties and underlying heterogeneity of colony founding cells (CFUs) within a starting population.1.10 Cell and colony area/volume, number, and so forth may be expressed as a function of cell culture area (square millimeters), or initial cell suspension volume (milliliters).1.11 Sequential imaging of the FOV using two or more optical methods may be valuable in accumulating quantitative information regarding individual cells or colony objects in the sample. In addition, repeated imaging of the same sample will be necessary in the setting of process tracking and validation. Therefore, this practice requires a means of reproducible identification of the location of cells and colonies (centroids) within the FOV area/volume using a defined coordinate system.1.12 To achieve a sufficiently large field-of-view (FOV), images of sufficient resolution may be captured as multiple image fields/tiles at high magnification and then combined together to form a mosaic representing the entire cell culture area.1.13 Cells and tissues commonly used in tissue engineering, regenerative medicine, and cellular therapy are routinely assayed and analyzed to define the number, prevalence, biological features, and biological potential of the original stem cell and progenitor population(s).1.13.1 Common applicable cell types and cell sources include, but are not limited to: mammalian stem and progenitor cells; adult-derived cells (for example, blood, bone marrow, skin, fat, muscle, mucosa) cells, fetal-derived cells (for example, cord blood, placental/cord, amniotic fluid); embryonic stem cells (ESC) (that is, derived from inner cell mass of blastocysts); induced pluripotent cells (iPC) (for example, reprogrammed adult cells); culture expanded cells; and terminally differentiated cells of a specific type of tissue.1.13.2 Common applicable examples of mature differentiated phenotypes which are relevant to detection of differentiation within and among clonal colonies include: hematopoietic phenotypes (erythrocytes, lymphocytes, neutrophiles, eosinophiles, basophiles, monocytes, macrophages, and so forth), adult tissue-specific progenitor cell phenotypes (oteoblasts, chondrocytes, adipocytes, and so forth), and other tissues (hepatocytes, neurons, endothelial cells, keratinocyte, pancreatic islets, and so forth).1.14 The number of stem cells and progenitor cells in various tissues can be assayed in vitro by liberating the cells from the tissues using methods that preserve the viability and biological potential of the underlying stem cell and/or progenitor population, and placing the tissue-derived cells in an in vitro environment that results in efficient activation and proliferation of stem and progenitor cells as clonal colonies. The true number of stem cells and progenitors (true colony forming units (tCFU)) can thereby be estimated on the basis of the number of colony-forming units observed (observed colony forming units (oCFU)) to have formed (1-3)2 (Fig. A1.1). The prevalence of stem cells and/or progenitors can be estimated on the basis of the number of observed colony-forming units (oCFU) detected, divided by the number of total cells assayed.1.15 The automated image acquisition and analysis approach (described herein) to cell and colony enumeration has been validated and found to provide superior accuracy and precision when compared to the current “gold standard” of manual observer defined visual cell and colony counting under a brightfield or fluorescent microscope with or without a hemocytometer (4), reducing both intra- and inter-observer variation. Several groups have attempted to automate this and/or similar processes in the past (5, 6) . Recent reports further demonstrate the capability of extracting qualitative and quantitative data for colonies of various cell types at the cellular and even nuclear level (4, 7).1.16 Advances in software and hardware now broadly enable systematic automated analytical approaches. This evolving technology creates the need for general agreement on units of measurement, nomenclature, process definitions, and analytical interpretation as presented in this practice.1.17 Standardized methods for automated CFU analysis open opportunities to enhance the value and utility of CFU assays in several scientific and commercial domains:1.17.1 Standardized methods for automated CFU analysis open opportunities to advance the specificity of CFU analysis methods though optimization of generalizable protocols and quantitative metrics for specific cell types and CFU assay systems which can be applied uniformly between disparate laboratories.1.17.2 Standardized methods for automated CFU analysis open opportunities to reduce the cost of colony analysis in all aspects of biological sciences by increasing throughput and reducing work flow demands.1.17.3 Standardized methods for automated CFU analysis open opportunities to improve the sensitivity and specificity of experimental systems seeking to detect the effects of in vitro conditions, biological stimuli, biomaterials and in vitro processing steps on the attachment, migration, proliferation, differentiation, and survival of stem cells and progenitors.1.18 Limitations are described as follows:1.18.1 Colony Identification—Cell Source/Colony Type/Marker Variability—Stem cells and progenitors from various tissue sources and in different in vitro environments will manifest different biological features. Therefore, the specific means to detect cells or nuclei and secondary markers utilized and the implementation of their respective staining protocols will differ depending on the CFU assay system, cell type(s) and markers being interrogated. Optimized protocols for image capture and image analysis to detect cells and colonies, to define colony objects and to characterize colony objects will vary depending on the cell source being utilized and CFU system being used. These protocols will require independent optimization, characterization and validation in each application. However, once defined, these can be generalized between labs and across clinical and research domains.1.18.2 Instrumentation-Induced Variability in Image Capture—Choice of image acquisition components described above may adversely affect segmentation of cells and subsequent colony identification if not properly addressed. For example, use of a mercury bulb rather than a fiber-optic fluorescent light source or the general misalignment of optics could produce uneven illumination or vignetting of tiled images comprising the primary large FOV image. This may be corrected by applying background subtraction routines to each tile in a large FOV image prior to tile stitching.1.18.3 CFU Assay System Associated Variation in Imaging Artifacts—In addition to the presentation of colony objects with unique features that must be utilized to define colony identification, each image from each CFU system may present non-cell and non-colony artifacts (for example, cell debris, lint, glass aberrations, reflections, autofluorescence, and so forth) that may confound the detection of cells and colonies if not identified and managed.1.18.4 Image Capture Methods and Quality Control Variation—Variation in image quality will significantly affect the precision and reproducibility of image analysis methods. Variation in focus, illumination, tile registration, exposure time, quenching, and emission spectral bleeding, are all important potential limitations or threats to image quality and reproducibility.1.19 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.20 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.1.21 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 The gradation (size distribution) of glass beads has a significant influence on the retroreflective efficiency of a pavement marking system.5.2 This test method is for the characterization of the gradation (size distribution) of glass beads for the purpose of compliance testing against standard specification for glass beads in pavement marking applications.5.3 While there are potential industrial applications for this test method beyond the measurement of gradation (size distribution) of glass beads for pavement markings, those are beyond the scope of this standard.1.1 This test method covers the determination of the gradation (size distribution) of glass spheres used in pavement marking systems using a Flowing Stream Digital Analyzer. Typical gradations for pavement marking systems are defined in ranges from Type 0 through 5 in AASHTO M247-08.1.2 This test method provides for the presentation of the size data in a variety of formats to the requirements of the agency pavement marking material specification. For most specifications the standard format is to present the size data as “Percent Retained” or “Percent Passing” relative to a series of standard US sieve sizes.1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this 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

5.1 Processed images are used for many purposes by the forensic science community. They can yield information not readily apparent in the original image, which can assist an expert in drawing a conclusion that might not otherwise be reached.5.2 This guide addresses image processing and related legal considerations in the following three categories:5.2.1 Image enhancement,5.2.2 Image restoration, and5.2.3 Image compression.1.1 This guide provides digital image processing guidelines to ensure the production of quality forensic imagery for use as evidence in a court of law.1.2 This guide briefly describes advantages, disadvantages, and potential limitations of each major process.1.3 This standard cannot replace knowledge, skills, or abilities acquired through education, training, and experience, and is to be used in conjunction with professional judgment by individuals with such discipline-specific knowledge, skills, and abilities.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

1.1 This practice covers procedures to perform JK-type inclusion ratings using automatic image analysis in accordance with microscopical methods A and D of Practice E 45.1.2 This practice deals only with the recommended test methods and nothing in it should be construed as defining or establishing limits of acceptability for any grade of steel or other alloy where the method is appropriate.1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the standard. Values in parentheses are conversions and are approximate.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 and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

5.1 The protocols that exist for photographing a decedent’s face at autopsy for identification purposes (for example, NAME Forensic Autopsy Performance Standards) do not always result in the capture of facial images that can be used for automated FR searches or manual facial comparisons. It is not always feasible to collect fingerprints from decedents (for example, in disaster situations or when a decedent is in a state of advanced decomposition), and radiograph (medical or dental) comparison requires at least a presumptive identification of remains so appropriate comparative antemortem radiographs can be obtained to confirm the identification. If the decedent’s DNA or appropriate family reference DNA profiles are not already stored within a DNA repository (for example, the FBI’s CODIS), a DNA association will also require the presumptive identification of a decedent to ensure that appropriate samples are collected for comparison/association.5.2 It is advisable to follow the guidelines presented in this guide even when not all facial components are present as even incomplete facial images can assist automated FR and manual facial comparison processes, especially through more accurate recording of minute facial details.5.3 For the purpose of facial image capture, there are various perimortem or postmortem conditions or both that can degrade the usability of any facial images captured:5.3.1 Presence of trauma (for example, entry/exit wounds, lacerations, bruising, missing components, etc.),5.3.2 Obscuring matter (for example, blood, fluids, dirt, debris, hair, clothing accessories, and so forth), and5.3.3 Decomposition and other postmortem changes (for example, bloating, mummification, skeletonization, evidence of insect or scavenger activity, etc.).5.4 Before any attempt is made to clean or alter the decedent for facial image capture, nationally accepted standards or agency protocols or both should be followed so the alterations do not affect forensic evidence collection, documentation, or chain of custody.1.1 The purpose of this document is to provide guidelines for capturing postmortem facial images of human remains in controlled (for example, morgue) and semi-controlled (for example, field) settings to facilitate automated facial recognition (FR) searches or manual facial comparisons that could contribute to forensic investigations.1.2 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.1.3 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

4.1 This standard provides a practice for RIQR evaluations of film and non-film imaging systems when exposed through an absorber material. Three alternate data evaluation methods are provided in Section 9. Determining RIQR requires the comparison of at least two radiographs or radiographic processes whereby the relative degree of image quality difference may be determined using the EPS plaque arrangement of Fig. 1 as a relative image quality indicator (RIQI). In conjunction with the RIQI, a specified radiographic technique or method must be established and carefully controlled for each radiographic process. This practice is designed to allow the determination of subtle changes in EPS that may arise to radiographic imaging system performance levels resultant from process improvements/changes or change of equipment attributes. This practice does not address relative unsharpness of a radiographic imaging system as provided in Practice E2002. The common element with any relative comparison is the use of the same RIQI arrangement for both processes under evaluation.4.2 In addition to the standard evaluation method described in Section 9, there may be other techniques/methods in which the basic RIQR arrangement of Fig. 1 might be utilized to perform specialized assessments of relative image quality performance. For example, other radiographic variables can be altered to facilitate evaluations provided these differences are known and documented for both processes. Where multiple radiographic process variables are evaluated, it is incumbent upon the user of this practice to control those normal process attributes to the degree suitable for the application. Specialized RIQR techniques may also be useful with micro focus X-ray, isotope sources of radiation or with the use of non-film radiographic imaging systems. RIQR may also be useful in evaluating imaging systems with alternate materials (RIQI and base plate) such as plastic, copper-nickel, or aluminum. When using any of these specialized applications, the specific method or techniques used shall be as specified and approved by the cognizant engineering organization.1.1 This standard covers a practice whereby industrial radiographic imaging systems or techniques may be comparatively assessed using the concept of relative image quality response (RIQR). Changes within a radiographic technique such as film/detector types, distances, or filtering/collimation can be comparatively assessed using this standard. The RIQR method presented within this practice is based upon the use of equivalent penetrameter sensitivity (EPS) described within Practice E1025 and subsection 5.4 of this practice. Fig. 1 illustrates a relative image quality indicator (RIQI) that has four different plaque thicknesses (0.38 mm, 0.25 mm, 0.20 mm, and 0.13 mm (0.015 in., 0.010 in., 0.008 in., and 0.005 in.)) sequentially positioned (from top to bottom) on an absorber plate of a specified material and thickness. The four plaques contain a total of 14 different arrays of penetrameter-type hole sizes designed to render varied conditions of threshold visibility when exposed to the appropriate radiation. Each “EPS” array consists of 30 identical holes; thus, providing the user with a quantity of threshold sensitivity levels suitable for relative image qualitative response comparisons. There are two standard materials (steel and plastic) specified herein for the RIQI and absorber. For special applications the user may design a non-standard RIQI-absorber configuration; however the RIQI configuration shall be controlled by a drawing similar to Fig. 1. Use of a non-standard RIQI-absorber configuration shall be described in the user’s written technique and approved by the CEO.1.2 This practice is not intended to qualify the performance of a specific radiographic technique nor for assurance that a radiographic technique will detect specific discontinuities in a specimen undergoing radiographic examination.1.3 This practice is not intended to be used to classify or derive performance classification categories for radiographic imaging systems. For example, performance classifications of radiographic film systems may be found within Test Method E1815, and manufacturer characterization of computed radiography (CR) systems may be found in Practice E2446. However, the RIQI and absorber described in this practice are used by Practice E2446 for manufacturer characterization of computed radiography (CR) systems and by Practice E2445 to evaluate performance and to monitor long term stability of CR systems.1.4 These tests are for applications below 4 MeV. When a gamma source or other high energy source is used, these tests may still be used to characterize the system, but may need a modification of the absorber thickness to adjust the available RIQR range as agreed between the user and cognizant engineering organization (CEO). For high-energy X-ray applications (4 MV to 25 MV), Test Method E1735 provides a similar RIQR standard practice.1.5 The values stated in SI are to be regarded as the standard.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： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

4.1 Morphological analysis used for facial comparison should utilize consistent terminology and methodology. This guide provides a standard set of facial components, characteristics, and descriptors to be used as a framework in conjunction with a systematic method of analysis for facial image comparison.4.2 The order of the facial components in this set is presented from the top of the face to the bottom, not in order of importance or priority.4.3 Within this guide, the term “face” generally refers to the face, head, and neck inclusively unless specified otherwise.4.4 There are several instances in this guide in which the term “distance” or “approximate distance” is used. When this term is used in this guide, it does not mean to imply that the precise value of this dimension shall be determined, but rather the relative size of this dimension compared to the overall width or height of the face, if not otherwise specified. In this guide, it is recommended that photoanthropometry not be used at all because of its limitations.1.1 This guide defines a set of facial components, characteristics, and descriptors to be considered during a morphological facial comparison (see FISWG Best Practices for Facial Image Comparison Feature List for Morphological Analysis).1.2 This set of facial components, characteristics, and descriptors describes the facial features that may be visible and comparable between images.1.3 This guide defines a standard set of facial components, characteristics, and descriptors that should be used for facial comparison.1.4 This guide does not define the comparison process itself, just the feature set to be used during such comparisons.1.5 This guide does not define a classification system to constrain how those descriptors shall be articulated as applied to samples.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

This practice covers the design, material grouping classification, and manufacture of wire image quality indicators (IQI) used to indicate the quality of radiologic images. This practice, applicable to X-ray and gamma-ray radiology, covers the use of wire penetrameters as the controlling image quality indicator for the material thickness range from 6.4 to 152 mm [0.25 to 6.0 in.]. The alloy group(s) of the material, the thickness or thickness range of the material, and the applicable IQI's that represent the required IQI thickness(s) and alloy(s) shall be considered when selecting IQI's.1.1 This practice2 covers the design, material grouping classification, and manufacture of wire image quality indicators (IQI) used to indicate the quality of radiographic images.1.2 This practice is applicable to X-ray and gamma-ray radiography.1.3 This practice covers the use of wire penetrameters as the controlling image quality indicator for the material thickness range from 6.4 to 152 mm (0.25 to 6.0 in.).1.4 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as 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 Many microplastic particles enter the environment, including ambient waters and drinking water supplies, via wastewater sources resulting from both industrial processes and consumer products. The presence of high percentages of organic particles, including cellulose material originating from toilet paper and chitin-based materials originating from insect exoskeletons, makes visual identification and subsequent quantification of microplastic particles in wastewater difficult.5.2 This test method, associated sampling Practice D8332, and preparation Practice D8333 provide a standardized approach for the preparation of water and, particularly, wastewater samples. The isolation of microplastic particles from interfering contaminants by Practice D8333 enables positive identification and, therefore, quantification of microplastic particles.5.3 Using this test method, microplastic particles are characterized in terms of size, shape, and quantity, allowing for the enumeration of subsequent particle count for a given volume of sample. The method does not provide qualitative identification of plastic composition.1.1 This test method covers the determination of microplastic particle size distribution, shape characterization, and number concentration (particle counts) in sample extracts containing particles between 5 µm and 100 µm. Light is transmitted through a flow cell containing particles in liquid medium. The particles create shadows as they pass through the field of vision of a camera, producing a multitude of images. The images are then used to measure size, shape, and concentration.1.2 This test method is used as a complementary technique for microplastic particle and fiber polymer identification methods infrared microscopy and gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy pyrolysis.1.3 This test method requires that samples are collected according to Practice D8332 and prepared according to Practice D8333 prior to use.1.4 Units—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： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

5.1 The gauge is intended to provide a means for measuring image or detector unsharpness and basic spatial resolution of the image or detector as independently as practicable from the imaging system and contrast sensitivity limitations. When the duplex gauge is positioned directly on the film or the digital detector and not on the test object, then the determined unsharpness corresponds to the inherent film or detector unsharpness (Udetector) and the determined basic spatial resolution corresponds to the basic spatial detector resolution SRbdetector.NOTE 1: The gauge, described in ISO 19232-5, is equivalent to this standard in the dimensions and the evaluation procedure.5.2 Basis of Application 5.2.1 The following items are subject to contractual agreement between the parties using or referencing this practice.5.2.1.1 Personnel Qualification—Personnel performing examinations to this practice shall be qualified in accordance with NAS410, EN 4179, ANSI/ASNT CP 189, ISO 9712, or SNT-TC-1A and certified by the employer or certifying agency as applicable. Other equivalent qualification documents may be used when specified on the contract or purchase order. The applicable revision shall be the latest unless otherwise specified in the contractual agreement between parties.5.2.1.2 If specified in the contractual agreement, NDT agencies shall be qualified and evaluated as described in Specification E543. The applicable edition of Specification E543 shall be specified in the contract.1.1 This practice covers the design and basic use of a gauge used to determine the image unsharpness and the basic spatial resolution of film radiographs or of digital images taken with CR imaging plates, digital detector arrays, or radioscopic systems.1.2 This practice is applicable to radiographic and radioscopic imaging systems utilizing X-ray and gamma ray radiation sources.1.3 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.4 The gauge described can be used effectively with tube voltages up to 600 kV.1.5 When using source voltages in the megavolt range, the results may not be completely satisfactory. The gauge may be used in the MV range, preferably for characterization of detectors without object.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： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

5.1 Qualitative measurement of “nodularity” and “nodule count” using visual estimations has been practiced for many years. These methods suffer from poor reproducibility and repeatability. The introduction of computer-aided image analysis enables metallographers to measure and count individual particles of interest in a microstructure with a high degree of precision. This greatly reduces measurement variations compared to visual estimation methods (see, for example, Test Method A247).5.2 This method defines a procedure for measuring the number of nodules and the quality of nodularity of spherulitic graphite in a cast iron microstructure. The specimen’s location in a casting or cast test specimen, and the orientation of the plane-of-polish, are governed by product standards. When a product standard is not defined, choose the test location randomly or at specific systematically chosen depths as needed. The plane-of-polish may be parallel or perpendicular to the solidification direction, or chosen at random, depending upon the needs of the study.5.3 This test method may be used to determine variations within a given test specimen, within a given location in a casting, between different locations in a casting, or for the same location in different castings over time. Results from this test method may be used to qualify material for shipment in accordance with guidelines agreed upon between purchaser and manufacturer or can be used to monitor process quality or product variations.5.4 Measurements are performed using a computer-controlled automatic image analysis system.5.5 A minimum number of specimens and a minimum surface area to be evaluated may be defined by producer-purchaser agreement, provided at least 500 particles meeting the minimum size requirements are measured. The number of particles analyzed shall be indicated in the final analysis report (see 9.6).1.1 This test method is used to determine the percent nodularity and the nodule count per unit area (that is, number of nodules per mm2) using a light microscopical image of graphite in nodular cast iron. Images generated by other devices, such as a scanning electron microscope, are not specifically addressed, but can be utilized if the system is calibrated in both x and y directions.1.2 Measurement of secondary or temper carbon in other types of cast iron, for example, malleable cast iron or in graphitic tool steels, is not specifically included in this standard because of the different graphite shapes and sizes inherent to such grades1.3 This standard deals only with the recommended test method and nothing in it should be construed as defining or establishing limits of acceptability or fitness for purpose of the material tested.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

4.1 This standard provides a practice for determining the relative image quality response of a radiographic detector (film, CR imaging plate, or DDA) when exposed to 4 to 25 MeV X-rays as any single component of the total X-ray system (for example, screens) is varied.4.2 The practice is not intended to be used to compare two different systems or imaging types.4.3 The approach uses RIQR evaluations of film and non-film imaging systems when exposed through an absorber material. Three alternate data evaluation methods are provided in Section 8. Determining RIQR requires the comparison of at least two radiographs or radiographic processes whereby the relative degree of image quality difference may be determined using the EPS plaque arrangement of Fig. 1 as a relative image quality indicator (RIQI). In conjunction with the RIQI, a specified radiographic technique or method must be established and carefully controlled for each radiographic process. This practice is designed to allow the determination of subtle changes in EPS that may arise to radiographic imaging system performance levels resultant from process improvements/changes, technique changes, or change of equipment attributes. This practice does not address relative unsharpness of a radiographic imaging system as provided in Practice E2002. The common element with any relative comparison is the use of the same RIQI arrangement for both processes under evaluation.4.4 In addition to the standard evaluation method described in Section 8, there may be other techniques/methods in which the basic RIQR arrangement of Fig. 1 might be utilized to perform specialized assessments of relative image quality performance. For example, other radiographic variables can be altered to facilitate evaluations provided these differences are known and documented for both processes. Where multiple radiographic process variables are evaluated, it is incumbent upon the user of this practice to control those normal process attributes to the degree suitable for the application. RIQR may also be useful in evaluating imaging systems with alternate materials (RIQI and base plate). When using any of these specialized applications, the specific method or techniques used shall be as specified and approved by the RT Level III.1.1 This standard provides a practice whereby industrial radiographic imaging systems or specific factors that affect image quality (that is, hardware, techniques, etc.) may be comparatively assessed using the concept of relative image quality response (RIQR) when exposed to X-radiation sources having photon energies from 4 to 25 MeV. The RIQR method presented within this practice is based upon the use of equivalent penetrameter sensitivity (EPS) described within Practice E1025 and Section 5 of this practice. For special applications, the user may design a non-standard RIQI-absorber configuration; however, the RIQI configuration shall be controlled by a drawing similar to Fig. 1. Use of a non-standard RIQI-absorber configuration shall be described in the user’s written technique and approved by the RT Level III.1.2 This practice is not intended to qualify the performance of a specific radiographic technique nor for assurance that a radiographic technique will detect specific discontinuities in a specimen undergoing radiographic examination.1.3 This practice is not intended to be used to classify or derive performance classification categories for radiographic imaging systems. For example, performance classifications of radiographic film systems may be found within Test Method E1815, manufacturer characterization of computed radiography (CR) systems may be found in Practice E2446, and manufacturer characterization of digital Detector Array (DDA) systems may be found in Practice E2597.1.4 This standard is not intended to be used with Cobalt 60 sources or X-ray sources below 4 MeV. For low energy X-ray applications (below 4 MeV), Test Method E746 provides a similar RIQR standard practice.1.5 The values stated in either SI or inch-pound units are to be regarded as the standard. The values given in parentheses are for information only.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： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车