5.1 General: 5.1.1 Sediment provides habitat for many aquatic organisms and is a major repository for many of the more persistent chemicals that are introduced into surface waters. In the aquatic environment, most anthropogenic chemicals and waste materials including toxic organic and inorganic chemicals eventually accumulate in sediment. Mounting evidences exists of environmental degradation in areas where USEPA Water Quality Criteria (WQC; Stephan et al.(66)) are not exceeded, yet organisms in or near sediments are adversely affected Chapman, 1989 (67). The WQC were developed to protect organisms in the water column and were not directed toward protecting organisms in sediment. Concentrations of contaminants in sediment may be several orders of magnitude higher than in the overlying water; however, whole sediment concentrations have not been strongly correlated to bioavailability Burton, 1991 (68). Partitioning or sorption of a compound between water and sediment may depend on many factors including: aqueous solubility, pH, redox, affinity for sediment organic carbon and dissolved organic carbon, grain size of the sediment, sediment mineral constituents (oxides of iron, manganese, and aluminum), and the quantity of acid volatile sulfides in sediment Di Toro et al. 1991(69) Giesy et al. 1988 (70). Although certain chemicals are highly sorbed to sediment, these compounds may still be available to the biota. Chemicals in sediments may be directly toxic to aquatic life or can be a source of chemicals for bioaccumulation in the food chain.5.1.2 The objective of a sediment test is to determine whether chemicals in sediment are harmful to or are bioaccumulated by benthic organisms. The tests can be used to measure interactive toxic effects of complex chemical mixtures in sediment. Furthermore, knowledge of specific pathways of interactions among sediments and test organisms is not necessary to conduct the tests Kemp et al. 1988, (71). Sediment tests can be used to: (1) determine the relationship between toxic effects and bioavailability, (2) investigate interactions among chemicals, (3) compare the sensitivities of different organisms, (4) determine spatial and temporal distribution of contamination, (5) evaluate hazards of dredged material, (6) measure toxicity as part of product licensing or safety testing, (7) rank areas for clean up, and (8) estimate the effectiveness of remediation or management practices.5.1.3 A variety of methods have been developed for assessing the toxicity of chemicals in sediments using amphipods, midges, polychaetes, oligochaetes, mayflies, or cladocerans (Test Method E1706, Guide E1525, Guide E1850; Annex A1, Annex A2; USEPA, 2000 (72), EPA 1994b, (73), Environment Canada 1997a, (74), Enviroment Canada 1997b,(75)). Several endpoints are suggested in these methods to measure potential effects of contaminants in sediment including survival, growth, behavior, or reproduction; however, survival of test organisms in 10-day exposures is the endpoint most commonly reported. These short-term exposures that only measure effects on survival can be used to identify high levels of contamination in sediments, but may not be able to identify moderate levels of contamination in sediments (USEPA USEPA, 2000 (72); Sibley et al.1996, (76); Sibley et al.1997a, (77); Sibley et al.1997b, (78); Benoit et al.1997, (79); Ingersoll et al.1998, (80)). Sublethal endpoints in sediment tests might also prove to be better estimates of responses of benthic communities to contaminants in the field, Kembel et al. 1994 (81). Insufficient information is available to determine if the long-term test conducted with Leptocheirus plumulosus (Annex A2) is more sensitive than 10-d toxicity tests conducted with this or other species.5.1.3.1 The decision to conduct short-term or long-term toxicity tests depends on the goal of the assessment. In some instances, sufficient information may be gained by measuring sublethal endpoints in 10-day tests. In other instances, the 10-day tests could be used to screen samples for toxicity before long-term tests are conducted. While the long-term tests are needed to determine direct effects on reproduction, measurement of growth in these toxicity tests may serve as an indirect estimate of reproductive effects of contaminants associated with sediments (Annex A1).5.1.3.2 Use of sublethal endpoints for assessment of contaminant risk is not unique to toxicity testing with sediments. Numerous regulatory programs require the use of sublethal endpoints in the decision-making process (Pittinger and Adams, 1997, (82)) including: (1) Water Quality Criteria (and State Standards); (2) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) effluent monitoring (including chemical-specific limits and sublethal endpoints in toxicity tests); (3) Federal Insecticide, Rodenticide and Fungicide Act (FIFRA) and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA, tiered assessment includes several sublethal endpoints with fish and aquatic invertebrates); (4) Superfund (Comprehensive Environmental Responses, Compensation and Liability Act; CERCLA); (5) Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, sublethal toxicity testing with fish and invertebrates); (6) European Economic Community (EC, sublethal toxicity testing with fish and invertebrates); and (7) the Paris Commission (behavioral endpoints).5.1.4 Results of toxicity tests on sediments spiked at different concentrations of chemicals can be used to establish cause and effect relationships between chemicals and biological responses. Results of toxicity tests with test materials spiked into sediments at different concentrations may be reported in terms of an LC50 (median lethal concentration), an EC50 (median effect concentration), an IC50 (inhibition concentration), or as a NOEC (no observed effect concentration) or LOEC (lowest observed effect concentration). However, spiked sediment may not be representative of chemicals associated with sediment in the field. Mixing time Stemmer et al. 1990b, (83), aging ( Landrum et al. 1989, (84), Word et al. 1987, (85), Landrum et al., 1992,(86)), and the chemical form of the material can affect responses of test organisms in spiked sediment tests.5.1.5 Evaluating effect concentrations for chemicals in sediment requires knowledge of factors controlling their bioavailability. Similar concentrations of a chemical in units of mass of chemical per mass of sediment dry weight often exhibit a range in toxicity in different sediments Di Toro et al. 1990, (87) Di Toro et al. 1991,(69). Effect concentrations of chemicals in sediment have been correlated to interstitial water concentrations, and effect concentrations in interstitial water are often similar to effect concentrations in water-only exposures. The bioavailability of nonionic organic compounds in sediment is often inversely correlated with the organic carbon concentration. Whatever the route of exposure, these correlations of effect concentrations to interstitial water concentrations indicate that predicted or measured concentrations in interstitial water can be used to quantify the exposure concentration to an organism. Therefore, information on partitioning of chemicals between solid and liquid phases of sediment is useful for establishing effect concentrations Di Toro et al. 1991, (69).5.1.6 Field surveys can be designed to provide either a qualitative reconnaissance of the distribution of sediment contamination or a quantitative statistical comparison of contamination among sites.5.1.7 Surveys of sediment toxicity are usually part of more comprehensive analyses of biological, chemical, geological, and hydrographic data. Statistical correlations may be improved and sampling costs may be reduced if subsamples are taken simultaneously for sediment tests, chemical analyses, and benthic community structure.5.1.8 Table 2 lists several approaches the USEPA has considered for the assessment of sediment quality USEPA, 1992, (88). These approaches include: (1) equilibrium partitioning, (2) tissue residues, (3) interstitial water toxicity, (4) whole-sediment toxicity and sediment-spiking tests, (5) benthic community structure, (6) effect ranges (for example, effect range median, ERM), and (7) sediment quality triad (see USEPA, 1989a, 1990a, 1990b and 1992b, (89, 90, 91, 92 and Wenning and Ingersoll (2002 (93)) for a critique of these methods). The sediment assessment approaches listed in Table 2 can be classified as numeric (for example, equilibrium partitioning), descriptive (for example, whole-sediment toxicity tests), or a combination of numeric and descriptive approaches (for example, ERM, USEPA, 1992c, (94). Numeric methods can be used to derive chemical-specific sediment quality guidelines (SQGs). Descriptive methods such as toxicity tests with field-collected sediment cannot be used alone to develop numerical SQGs for individual chemicals. Although each approach can be used to make site-specific decisions, no one single approach can adequately address sediment quality. Overall, an integration of several methods using the weight of evidence is the most desirable approach for assessing the effects of contaminants associated with sediment, (Long et al. 1991(95) MacDonald et al. 1996 (96) Ingersoll et al. 1996 (97) Ingersoll et al. 1997 (98), Wenning and Ingersoll 2002 (93)). Hazard evaluations integrating data from laboratory exposures, chemical analyses, and benthic community assessments (the sediment quality triad) provide strong complementary evidence of the degree of pollution-induced degradation in aquatic communities (Burton, 1991 (68), Chapman 1992, 1997 (99, 100).)5.2 Regulatory Applications—Test Method E1706 provides information on the regulatory applications of sediment toxicity tests.5.3 Performance-based Criteria: 5.3.1 The USEPA Environmental Monitoring Management Council (EMMC) recommended the use of performance-based methods in developing standards, (Williams, 1993 (101). Performance-based methods were defined by EMMC as a monitoring approach which permits the use of appropriate methods that meet preestablished demonstrated performance standards (11.2).5.3.2 The USEPA Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, and Office of Research and Development held a workshop to provide an opportunity for experts in the field of sediment toxicology and staff from the USEPA Regional and Headquarters Program offices to discuss the development of standard freshwater, estuarine, and marine sediment testing procedures (USEPA, 1992a, 1994a (88, 102)). Workgroup participants arrived at a consensus on several culturing and testing methods. In developing guidance for culturing test organisms to be included in the USEPA methods manual for sediment tests, it was agreed that no one method should be required to culture organisms. However, the consensus at the workshop was that success of a test depends on the health of the cultures. Therefore, having healthy test organisms of known quality and age for testing was determined to be the key consideration relative to culturing methods. A performance-based criteria approach was selected in USEPA, 2000 (72) as the preferred method through which individual laboratories could use unique culturing methods rather than requiring use of one culturing method.5.3.3 This standard recommends the use of performance-based criteria to allow each laboratory to optimize culture methods and minimize effects of test organism health on the reliability and comparability of test results. See Annex A1 and Annex A2 for a listing of performance criteria for culturing or testing.1.1 This test method covers procedures for testing estuarine or marine organisms in the laboratory to evaluate the toxicity of contaminants associated with whole sediments. Sediments may be collected from the field or spiked with compounds in the laboratory. General guidance is presented in Sections 1 – 15 for conducting sediment toxicity tests with estuarine or marine amphipods. Specific guidance for conducting 10-d sediment toxicity tests with estuarine or marine amphipods is outlined in Annex A1 and specific guidance for conducting 28-d sediment toxicity tests with Leptocheirus plumulosus is outlined in Annex A2.1.2 Procedures are described for testing estuarine or marine amphipod crustaceans in 10-d laboratory exposures to evaluate the toxicity of contaminants associated with whole sediments (Annex A1; USEPA 1994a (1)). Sediments may be collected from the field or spiked with compounds in the laboratory. A toxicity method is outlined for four species of estuarine or marine sediment-burrowing amphipods found within United States coastal waters. The species are Ampelisca abdita, a marine species that inhabits marine and mesohaline portions of the Atlantic coast, the Gulf of Mexico, and San Francisco Bay; Eohaustorius estuarius, a Pacific coast estuarine species; Leptocheirus plumulosus, an Atlantic coast estuarine species; and Rhepoxynius abronius , a Pacific coast marine species. Generally, the method described may be applied to all four species, although acclimation procedures and some test conditions (that is, temperature and salinity) will be species-specific (Sections 12 and Annex A1). The toxicity test is conducted in 1-L glass chambers containing 175 mL of sediment and 775 mL of overlying seawater. Exposure is static (that is, water is not renewed), and the animals are not fed over the 10-d exposure period. The endpoint in the toxicity test is survival with reburial of surviving amphipods as an additional measurement that can be used as an endpoint for some of the test species (for R. abronius and E. estuarius). Performance criteria established for this test include the average survival of amphipods in negative control treatment must be greater than or equal to 90 %. Procedures are described for use with sediments with pore-water salinity ranging from >0 o/oo to fully marine.1.3 A procedure is also described for determining the chronic toxicity of contaminants associated with whole sediments with the amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus in laboratory exposures (Annex A2; USEPA-USACE 2001(2)). The toxicity test is conducted for 28 d in 1-L glass chambers containing 175 mL of sediment and about 775 mL of overlying water. Test temperature is 25° ± 2 °C, and the recommended overlying water salinity is 5 o/oo ± 2 o/oo (for test sediment with pore water at 1 o/oo to 10 o/oo ) or 20 o/oo ± 2 o/oo (for test sediment with pore water >10 o/oo ). Four hundred millilitres of overlying water is renewed three times per week, at which times test organisms are fed. The endpoints in the toxicity test are survival, growth, and reproduction of amphipods. Performance criteria established for this test include the average survival of amphipods in negative control treatment must be greater than or equal to 80 % and there must be measurable growth and reproduction in all replicates of the negative control treatment. This test is applicable for use with sediments from oligohaline to fully marine environments, with a silt content greater than 5 % and a clay content less than 85 %.1.4 A salinity of 5 or 20 o/oo is recommended for routine application of 28-d test with L. plumulosus (Annex A2; USEPA-USACE 2001 (2)) and a salinity of 20 o/oo is recommended for routine application of the 10-d test with E. estuarius or L. plumulosus (Annex A1). However, the salinity of the overlying water for tests with these two species can be adjusted to a specific salinity of interest (for example, salinity representative of site of interest or the objective of the study may be to evaluate the influence of salinity on the bioavailability of chemicals in sediment). More importantly, the salinity tested must be within the tolerance range of the test organisms (as outlined in Annex A1 and Annex A2). If tests are conducted with procedures different from those described in 1.3 or in Table A1.1 (for example, different salinity, lighting, temperature, feeding conditions), additional tests are required to determine comparability of results (1.10). If there is not a need to make comparisons among studies, then the test could be conducted just at a selected salinity for the sediment of interest.1.5 Future revisions of this standard may include additional annexes describing whole-sediment toxicity tests with other groups of estuarine or marine invertebrates (for example, information presented in Guide E1611 on sediment testing with polychaetes could be added as an annex to future revisions to this standard). Future editions to this standard may also include methods for conducting the toxicity tests in smaller chambers with less sediment (Ho et al. 2000 (3), Ferretti et al. 2002 (4)).1.6 Procedures outlined in this standard are based primarily on procedures described in the USEPA (1994a (1)), USEPA-USACE (2001(2)), Test Method E1706, and Guides E1391, E1525, E1688, Environment Canada (1992 (5)), DeWitt et al. (1992a (6); 1997a (7)), Emery et al. (1997 (8)), and Emery and Moore (1996 (9)), Swartz et al. (1985 (10)), DeWitt et al. (1989 (11)), Scott and Redmond (1989 (12)), and Schlekat et al. (1992 (13)).1.7 Additional sediment toxicity research and methods development are now in progress to (1) refine sediment spiking procedures, (2) refine sediment dilution procedures, (3) refine sediment Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) procedures, (4) produce additional data on confirmation of responses in laboratory tests with natural populations of benthic organisms (that is, field validation studies), and (5) evaluate relative sensitivity of endpoints measured in 10- and 28-d toxicity tests using estuarine or marine amphipods. This information will be described in future editions of this standard.1.8 Although standard procedures are described in Annex A2 of this standard for conducting chronic sediment tests with L. plumulosus, further investigation of certain issues could aid in the interpretation of test results. Some of these issues include further investigation to evaluate the relative toxicological sensitivity of the lethal and sublethal endpoints to a wide variety of chemicals spiked in sediment and to mixtures of chemicals in sediments from contamination gradients in the field (USEPA-USACE 2001 (2)). Additional research is needed to evaluate the ability of the lethal and sublethal endpoints to estimate the responses of populations and communities of benthic invertebrates to contaminated sediments. Research is also needed to link the toxicity test endpoints to a field-validated population model of L. plumulosus that would then generate estimates of population-level responses of the amphipod to test sediments and thereby provide additional ecologically relevant interpretive guidance for the laboratory toxicity test.1.9 This standard outlines specific test methods for evaluating the toxicity of sediments with A. abdita, E. estuarius, L. plumulosus, and R. abronius. While standard procedures are described in this standard, further investigation of certain issues could aid in the interpretation of test results. Some of these issues include the effect of shipping on organism sensitivity, additional performance criteria for organism health, sensitivity of various populations of the same test species, and confirmation of responses in laboratory tests with natural benthos populations.1.10 General procedures described in this standard might be useful for conducting tests with other estuarine or marine organisms (for example, Corophium spp., Grandidierella japonica, Lepidactylus dytiscus, Streblospio benedicti), although modifications may be necessary. Results of tests, even those with the same species, using procedures different from those described in the test method may not be comparable and using these different procedures may alter bioavailability. Comparison of results obtained using modified versions of these procedures might provide useful information concerning new concepts and procedures for conducting sediment tests with aquatic organisms. If tests are conducted with procedures different from those described in this test method, additional tests are required to determine comparability of results. General procedures described in this test method might be useful for conducting tests with other aquatic organisms; however, modifications may be necessary.1.11 Selection of Toxicity Testing Organisms: 1.11.1 The choice of a test organism has a major influence on the relevance, success, and interpretation of a test. Furthermore, no one organism is best suited for all sediments. The following criteria were considered when selecting test organisms to be described in this standard (Table 1 and Guide E1525). Ideally, a test organism should: (1) have a toxicological database demonstrating relative sensitivity to a range of contaminants of interest in sediment, (2) have a database for interlaboratory comparisons of procedures (for example, round-robin studies), (3) be in direct contact with sediment, (4) be readily available from culture or through field collection, (5) be easily maintained in the laboratory, (6) be easily identified, (7) be ecologically or economically important, (8) have a broad geographical distribution, be indigenous (either present or historical) to the site being evaluated, or have a niche similar to organisms of concern (for example, similar feeding guild or behavior to the indigenous organisms), (9) be tolerant of a broad range of sediment physico-chemical characteristics (for example, grain size), and (10) be compatible with selected exposure methods and endpoints (Guide E1525). Methods utilizing selected organisms should also be (11) peer reviewed (for example, journal articles) and (12) confirmed with responses with natural populations of benthic organisms.ATL = Atlantic Coast, PAC = Pacific Coast, GOM= Gulf of Mexico1.11.2 Of these criteria (Table 1), a database demonstrating relative sensitivity to contaminants, contact with sediment, ease of culture in the laboratory or availability for field-collection, ease of handling in the laboratory, tolerance to varying sediment physico-chemical characteristics, and confirmation with responses with natural benthic populations were the primary criteria used for selecting A. abdita, E. estuarius, L. plumulosus, and R. abronius for the current edition of this standard for 10-d sediment tests (Annex A1). The species chosen for this method are intimately associated with sediment, due to their tube- dwelling or free-burrowing, and sediment ingesting nature. Amphipods have been used extensively to test the toxicity of marine, estuarine, and freshwater sediments (Swartz et al., 1985 (10); DeWitt et al., 1989 (11); Scott and Redmond, 1989 (12); DeWitt et al., 1992a (6); Schlekat et al., 1992 (13)). The selection of test species for this standard followed the consensus of experts in the field of sediment toxicology who participated in a workshop entitled “Testing Issues for Freshwater and Marine Sediments”. The workshop was sponsored by USEPA Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, and Office of Research and Development, and was held in Washington, D.C. from 16-18 September 1992 (USEPA, 1992 (15)). Of the candidate species discussed at the workshop, A. abdita, E. estuarius, L. plumulosus, and R. abronius best fulfilled the selection criteria, and presented the availability of a combination of one estuarine and one marine species each for both the Atlantic (the estuarine L. plumulosus and the marine A. abdita ) and Pacific (the estuarine E. estuarius and the marine R. abronius) coasts. Ampelisca abdita is also native to portions of the Gulf of Mexico and San Francisco Bay. Many other organisms that might be appropriate for sediment testing do not now meet these selection criteria because little emphasis has been placed on developing standardized testing procedures for benthic organisms. For example, a fifth species, Grandidierella japonica was not selected because workshop participants felt that the use of this species was not sufficiently broad to warrant standardization of the method. Environment Canada (1992 (5)) has recommended the use of the following amphipod species for sediment toxicity testing: Amphiporeia virginiana, Corophium volutator , Eohaustorius washingtonianus, Foxiphalus xiximeus, and Leptocheirus pinguis. A database similar to those available for A. abdita, E. estuarius, L. plumulosus, and R. abronius must be developed in order for these and other organisms to be included in future editions of this standard.1.11.3 The primary criterion used for selecting L. plumulosus for chronic testing of sediments was that this species is found in both oligohaline and mesohaline regions of estuaries on the East Coast of the United States and is tolerant to a wide range of sediment grain size distribution (USEPA-USACE 2001 (2), Annex Annex A2). This species is easily cultured in the laboratory and has a relatively short generation time (that is, about 24 d at 23 °C, DeWitt et al. 1992a(6)) that makes this species adaptable to chronic testing (Section 12).1.11.4 An important consideration in the selection of specific species for test method development is the existence of information concerning relative sensitivity of the organisms both to single chemicals and complex mixtures. Several studies have evaluated the sensitivities of A. abdita, E. estuarius, L. plumulosus, or R. abronius, either relative to one another, or to other commonly tested estuarine or marine species. For example, the sensitivity of marine amphipods was compared to other species that were used in generating saltwater Water Quality Criteria. Seven amphipod genera, including Ampelisca abdita and Rhepoxynius abronius, were among the test species used to generate saltwater Water Quality Criteria for 12 chemicals. Acute amphipod toxicity data from 4-d water-only tests for each of the 12 chemicals was compared to data for (1) all other species, (2) other benthic species, and (3) other infaunal species. Amphipods were generally of median sensitivity for each comparison. The average percentile rank of amphipods among all species tested was 57 %; among all benthic species, 56 %; and, among all infaunal species, 54 %. Thus, amphipods are not uniquely sensitive relative to all species, benthic species, or even infaunal species (USEPA 1994a (1)). Additional research may be warranted to develop tests using species that are consistently more sensitive than amphipods, thereby offering protection to less sensitive groups.1.11.5 Williams et al. (1986 (16)) compared the sensitivity of the R. abronius 10-d whole sediment test, the oyster embryo (Crassostrea gigas) 48-h abnormality test, and the bacterium (Vibrio fisheri) 1-h luminescence inhibition test (that is, the Microtox2 test) to sediments collected from 46 contaminated sites in Commencement Bay, WA. Rhepoxynius abronius were exposed to whole sediment, while the oyster and bacterium tests were conducted with sediment elutriates and extracts, respectfully. Microtox2 was the most sensitive test, with 63 % of the sites eliciting significant inhibition of luminescence. Significant mortality of R. abronius was observed in 40 % of test sediments, and oyster abnormality occurred in 35 % of sediment elutriates. Complete concordance (that is, sediments that were either toxic or not-toxic in all three tests) was observed in 41 % of the sediments. Possible sources for the lack of concordance at other sites include interspecific differences in sensitivity among test organisms, heterogeneity in contaminant types associated with test sediments, and differences in routes of exposure inherent in each toxicity test. These results highlight the importance of using multiple assays when performing sediment assessments.1.11.6 Several studies have compared the sensitivity of combinations of the four amphipods to sediment contaminants. For example, there are several comparisons between A. abdita and R. abronius, between E. estuarius and R. abronius, and between A. abdita and L. plumulosus. There are fewer examples of direct comparisons between E. estuarius and L. plumulosus , and no examples comparing L. plumulosus and R. abronius. There is some overlap in relative sensitivity from comparison to comparison within each species combination, which appears to indicate that all four species are within the same range of relative sensitivity to contaminated sediments.1.11.6.1 Word et al. (1989 (17)) compared the sensitivity of A. abdita and R. abronius to contaminated sediments in a series of experiments. Both species were tested at 15 °C. Experiments were designed to compare the response of the organism rather than to provide a comparison of the sensitivity of the methods (that is, Ampelisca abdita would normally be tested at 20 °C). Sediments collected from Oakland Harbor, CA, were used for the comparisons. Twenty-six sediments were tested in one comparison, while 5 were tested in the other. Analysis of results using Kruskal Wallace rank sum test for both experiments demonstrated that R. abronius exhibited greater sensitivity to the sediments than A. abdita at 15 °C. Long and Buchman (1989 (18)) also compared the sensitivity of A. abdita and R. abronius to sediments from Oakland Harbor, CA. They also determined that A. abdita showed less sensitivity than R. abronius, but they also showed that A. abdita was less sensitive to sediment grain size factors than R. abronius.1.11.6.2 DeWitt et al. (1989 (11)) compared the sensitivity of E. estuarius and R. abronius to sediment spiked with fluoranthene and field-collected sediment from industrial waterways in Puget Sound, WA, in 10-d tests, and to aqueous cadmium (CdCl2) in a 4-d water-only test. The sensitivity of E. estuarius was from two (to spiked-spiked sediment) to seven (to one Puget Sound, WA, sediment) times less sensitive than R. abronius in sediment tests, and ten times less sensitive to CdCl2 in the water-only test. These results are supported by the findings of Pastorok and Becker (1990 (19)) who found the acute sensitivity of E. estuarius and R. abronius to be generally comparable to each other, and both were more sensitive than Neanthes arenaceodentata (survival and biomass endpoints), Panope generosa (survival), and Dendraster excentricus (survival).1.11.6.3 Leptocheirus plumulosus was as sensitive as the freshwater amphipod Hyalella azteca to an artificially created gradient of sediment contamination when the latter was acclimated to oligohaline salinity (that is, 6 o/oo ; McGee et al., 1993 (20)). DeWitt et al. (1992b (21)) compared the sensitivity of L. plumulosus with three other amphipod species, two mollusks, and one polychaete to highly contaminated sediment collected from Baltimore Harbor, MD, that was serially diluted with clean sediment. Leptocheirus plumulosus was more sensitive than the amphipods Hyalella azteca and Lepidactylus dytiscus and exhibited equal sensitivity with E. estuarius. Schlekat et al. (1995 (22)) describe the results of an interlaboratory comparison of 10-d tests with A. abdita, L. plumulosus and E. estuarius using dilutions of sediments collected from Black Rock Harbor, CT. There was strong agreement among species and laboratories in the ranking of sediment toxicity and the ability to discriminate between toxic and non-toxic sediments.1.11.6.4 Hartwell et al. (2000 (23)) evaluated the response of Leptocheirus plumulosus (10-d survival or growth) to the response of the amphipod Lepidactylus dytiscus (10-d survival or growth), the polychaete Streblospio benedicti (10-d survival or growth), and lettuce germination (Lactuca sativa in 3-d exposure) and observed that L. plumulosus was relatively insensitive compared to the response of either L. dytiscus or S. benedicti in exposures to 4 sediments with elevated metal concentrations.1.11.6.5 Ammonia is a naturally occurring compound in marine sediment that results from the degradation of organic debris. Interstitial ammonia concentrations in test sediment can range from <1 mg/L to in excess of 400 mg/L (Word et al., 1997 (24)). Some benthic infauna show toxicity to ammonia at concentrations of about 20 mg/L (Kohn et al., 1994 (25)). Based on water-only and spiked-sediment experiments with ammonia, threshold limits for test initiation and termination have been established for the L. plumulosus chronic test. Smaller (younger) individuals are more sensitive to ammonia than larger (older) individuals (DeWitt et al., 1997a(7), b (26). Results of a 28-d test indicated that neonates can tolerate very high levels of pore-water ammonia (>300 mg/L total ammonia) for

定价： 983元 加购物车

4.1 This guide is intended for the use of architects, engineers, office managers, and others interested in designing, specifying, or operating office environments.4.2 It is not intended to be applied to other environments, for example, open plan schools.4.3 While this guide attempts to clarify the many interacting variables that influence acoustical performance, it is not intended to supplant the experience and judgment of experts in the field of acoustics. Competent technical advice should be sought for success in the design of offices, including comparisons of test results carried out according to ASTM standards.1.1 This guide discusses the principles and interactions that affect the acoustical performance of open and closed offices. It describes the application and use of the relevant series of ASTM standards.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.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 加购物车

This specification provides the standard appearance, capacity, design, and dimensional requirements for eight types of multiple neck distilling/boiling glass flasks for laboratory use. Flasks, which shall be made of borosilicate glass conforming to specified maximum residual thermal stresses, are available in the following types: Type I, standard taper necks of equal height; Type II, three tooled necks of unequal height; Type III, three standard taper necks of unequal height; Type IV, three standard taper necks of equal height; Type V, three tooled necks that are angled; Type VI, three standard taper necks that are angled; Type VII, two standard taper necks of unequal height; and Type VIII, two standard taper necks that are angled.1.1 This specification provides standard dimensional requirements for multiple neck distilling/boiling flasks.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 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 加购物车

This specification provides the material and performance requirements for glass Dewar flasks suitable for general laboratory use. Flasks shall be made of Type I, Class A borosilicate glass conforming to specified maximum residual thermal stress. The properties to which the flasks shall conform are appearance, design, capacity, and dimensions.1.1 This specification provides standard material and performance requirements for glass Dewar flasks suitable for general laboratory use.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 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 加购物车

4.1 This practice is useful for sampling fire debris to screen for the presence of ignitable liquid residues prior to extraction with other techniques. It is most appropriate for sampling light to medium range ignitable liquids (such as light oxygenates, lacquer thinners, and other similar volatile compounds or products), and less appropriate for sampling ignitable liquids that have compounds in the heavy range.3, 4, 54.1.1 When sampled for screening purposes, the instrumentation typically utilized is a gas chromatograph with either a mass spectrometer (GC-MS, refer to Test Method E1618) or flame ionization detector (GC-FID).4.2 This practice is generally less efficient at recovering limited quantities of ignitable liquids than Practices E1386, E1412, E1413, and E2154, particularly for higher boiling compounds.4.3 The separation takes place in a closed container and the sample remains in approximately the same condition in which it was submitted. Since only a small aliquot of the sample headspace is removed for analysis, sample reanalysis may be possible.4.4 High concentrations of highly volatile compounds can saturate the headspace, inhibiting the recovery of less volatile components and leading to the detection or identification of only the more volatile compounds in the sample.4.5 This practice is intended for use in conjunction with other extraction techniques, such as those described in Practices E1386, E1412, E1413, and E2154, when analysis of a sample for all classes of ignitable liquids is required or desired.NOTE 1: The headspace specimen (the portion in the syringe) is consumed in the analysis. Preserve an extract for potential reanalysis (see Practice E2451) using an alternative separation and concentration practice, such as those described in Practices E1386, E1412, and E1413, if preservation is required per laboratory policies.1.1 This practice describes the procedure for removing vapor from the headspace of a fire debris container for the purpose of detecting or identifying ignitable liquid residues.1.2 Separation and concentration procedures are listed in the referenced documents. (See Practices E1386, E1412, E1413, and E2154.)1.3 This practice offers a set of instructions for performing one or more specific operations. This standard cannot replace knowledge, skill, or ability acquired through appropriate education, training, and experience and should be used in conjunction with sound professional judgment.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 and health 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 加购物车

5.1 This test method provides quick and accurate ratings for the sensory heat in low heat chilies ranging from 200 to 2500 Scoville heat units.5.2 Sensory results from this test method correlate highly (r2 = 0.94) with results from high-pressure liquid chromatography; making the two methods substitutable.61.1 This test method describes standardized procedures for the sensory evaluation of heat in low heat chili peppers ranging from 200 to 2500 Scoville heat units.1.2 This test method is intended as an alternative to the Scoville heat test (see ASTA Method 21.0 and ISO 3513), but results can be expressed in Scoville heat units (S.H.U.).1.3 This test method does not apply for ground red pepper or oleoresin capsicums.1.4 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the 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. Specific precautionary statements are given in Section 8.

定价： 515元 加购物车

5.1 This test method provides quick and accurate ratings for the sensory heat in oleoresin capsicums ranging from 100 000 to 1 000 000 Scoville heat units.5.2 Sensory results from this test method correlate highly (r2 = 0.94) with results from high pressure liquid chromatography; making the two methods substitutable.61.1 This test method describes standardized procedures for the sensory evaluation of heat in oleoresin capsicums ranging from 100 000 to 1 000 000 Scoville heat units (S.H.U.).1.2 This test method is intended as an alternative to the Scoville heat test, but results can be expressed in Scoville heat units (see ASTA Method 21.0 and ISO 3513).1.3 This test method does not apply for ground red pepper, low heat chili peppers, or chili powder.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 and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. Specific precautionary statements are given in Section 8.

定价： 515元 加购物车

4.1 Types of architectural joint systems included in this test method are the following:4.1.1 Metallic systems;4.1.2 Compression seals:4.1.2.1 With frames, and4.1.2.2 Without frames,4.1.3 Strip seals;4.1.4 Preformed sealant systems (see Appendix X1):4.1.4.1 With frames, and4.1.4.2 Without frames,4.1.5 Preformed foams and sponges:4.1.5.1 Self-Expanding, and4.1.5.2 Nonexpanding,4.1.6 Fire barriers:4.1.6.1 Used as joint systems, and4.1.6.2 Used as a part of the joint system, and4.1.7 Elastomeric membrane systems:4.1.7.1 With nosing material(s), and4.1.7.2 Without nosing material(s).4.2 This test method will assist users, producers, building officials, code authorities, and others in verifying some performance characteristics of representative specimens of architectural joint systems under common test conditions. The following performance characteristics are verifiable:4.2.1 The maximum joint width,4.2.2 The minimum joint width, and4.2.3 The movement capability.4.3 This test compares similar architectural joint systems by cycling but does not accurately reflect the system's application. Similar refers to the same type of architectural system within the same subsection under 4.1.4.4 This test method does not provide information on:4.4.1 Durability of the architectural joint system under actual service conditions, including the effects of cycled temperature on the joint system,4.4.2 Loading capability of the system and the effects of a load on the functional parameters established by this test method,4.4.3 Rotational, vertical, and horizontal shear capabilities of the specimen,4.4.4 Any other attributes of the specimen, such as fire resistance, wear resistance, chemical resistance, air infiltration, watertightness, and so forth, and4.4.5 Testing or compatibility of substrates.4.5 This test method is only to be used as one element in the selection of an architectural joint system for a particular application. It is not intended as an independent pass/fail acceptance procedure. In conjunction with this test method, other test methods are to be used to evaluate the importance of other service conditions such as durability, structural loading, and compatibility.1.1 This test method covers testing procedures for architectural joint systems. This test method is intended for the following uses for architectural joint systems:1.1.1 To verify movement capability information supplied to the user by the producer,1.1.2 To standardize comparison of movement capability by relating it to specified nominal joint widths,1.1.3 To determine the cyclic movement capability between specified minimum and maximum joint widths without visual deleterious effects, and1.1.4 To provide the user with graphic information, drawings or pictures in the test report, depicting them at minimum, maximum, and nominal joint widths during cycling.1.2 This test method is intended to be used only as part of a specification or acceptance criterion due to the limited movements tested.1.3 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system are not necessarily exact equivalents; therefore, to ensure conformance with the standard, each system shall be used independently of the other, and values from the two systems shall not be combined.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 加购物车

4.1 This guide describes the principal types of sampling designs and provides formulas for estimating population means and standard errors of the estimates. Practice E105 provides principles for designing probability sampling plans in relation to the objectives of study, costs, and practical constraints. Practice E122 aids in specifying the required sample size. Practice E141 describes conditions to ensure validity of the results of sampling. Further description of the designs and formulas in this guide, and beyond it, can be found in textbooks (1-10).34.2 Sampling, both discrete and bulk, is a clerical and physical operation. It generally involves training enumerators and technicians to use maps, directories and stop watches so as to locate designated sampling units. Once a sampling unit is located at its address, discrete sampling and area sampling enumeration proceeds to a measurement. For bulk sampling, material is extracted into a composite.4.3 A sampling plan consists of instructions telling how to list addresses and how to select the addresses to be measured or extracted. A frame is a listing of addresses each of which is indexed by a single integer or by an n-tuple (several integer) number. The sampled population consists of all addresses in the frame that can actually be selected and measured. It is sometimes different from a targeted population that the user would have preferred to be covered.4.4 A selection scheme designates which indexes constitute the sample. If certified random numbers completely control the selection scheme the sample is called a probability sample. Certified random numbers are those generated either from a table (for example, Ref (11)) that has been tested for equal digit frequencies and for serial independence, from a computer program that was checked to have a long cycle length, or from a random physical method such as tossing of a coin or a casino-quality spinner.4.5 The objective of sampling is often to estimate the mean of the population for some variable of interest by the corresponding sample mean. By adopting probability sampling, selection bias can be essentially eliminated, so the primary goal of sample design in discrete sampling becomes reducing sampling variance.AbstractThis guide defines terms and introduces basic methods for probability sampling of discrete populations, areas, and bulk materials. It provides an overview of common probability sampling methods employed by users of ASTM standards. This guide also describes the principal types of sampling designs and provides formulas for estimating population means and standard errors of the estimates.1.1 This guide defines terms and introduces basic methods for probability sampling of discrete populations, areas, and bulk materials. It provides an overview of common probability sampling methods employed by users of ASTM standards.1.2 Sampling may be done for the purpose of estimation, of comparison between parts of a sampled population, or for acceptance of lots. Sampling is also used for the purpose of auditing information obtained from complete enumeration of the population.1.3 No system of units is specified 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 加购物车

This specification provides standard dimensional requirements for flat-bottom and round-bottom glass boiling flasks. Boiling flasks shall be in the following types: type I – flat bottomed: class 1 - tooled top, long neck; class 2 - ring neck, long neck; class 3 - ring neck, long neck, wicker protector; class 4 - standard taper neck, short neck; class 5 - standard taper neck, long neck. Type II – round bottomed: class 1—tooled top, long neck; class 2—ring neck, short neck; class 3—standard taper neck, short neck; class 4—standard taper neck, long neck; class 5—standard taper neck, short neck with side arm; class 6—standard taper neck, short neck with thermometer well; and class 7—ball and socket neck, short neck. Type III – heart-shape bottomed: class 1—standard taper neck, short neck. Necks on all single-neck flasks shall be circular in cross section and perpendicular to the center of the flask body. The top shall be strengthened and finished. Flat bottoms shall be in a plane perpendicular to the vertical axis through the neck of the flask. Round-bottomed flasks shall be spherical in shape to the point of juncture with the flask neck. The nominal capacity of a flask shall not exceed the actual capacity to the base of the neck.1.1 This specification provides standard dimensional requirements for flat-bottom and round-bottom glass boiling flasks.NOTE 1: For packaging standards, choose among the following standards, E920, E921, E1133, and E1157.1.2 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 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 加购物车

This specification provides standard dimensional requirements for glass conical flasks suitable for general laboratory use. Conical flasks (Erlenmeyer) shall be classified into four types which are divided into classes. Type I is for general purpose with graduated scale and shall be designated into two classes: Class 1 with narrow mouth and heavy duty beaded top and Class 2 with wide mouth and heavy duty beaded top. Type II flasks have tapered ground joint with graduated scale. This type shall be divided into three classes: Class 1 with outer conical, joint without stopper, Class 2 with stopper and Class 3 is used for iodine determination. Flasks of Type III have screw thread finish, with graduated scale. Lastly, Type IV flasks are used for culture and they are differentiated into three classes: Class 1 flask has long neck, plain top, Class 2 has wide base (Fernbach), and Class 3 has also wide base and low form. The flasks shall be made of borosilicate glass.1.1 This specification provides standard dimensional requirements for glass conical flasks suitable for general laboratory use.NOTE 1: For packaging standards, choose the following standards; E920, E921, and E1133.1.2 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 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 加购物车

This specification covers standard dimensional requirements for glass distillation flasks. It includes general purpose flasks and flasks designed for specific tests especially in the petroleum testing area. Distillation flasks shall be of the following types: Type I and Type II. Type II distilling flasks shall be of the following classes: Class 1; Class 2; Class 3; Class 4; and Class 5.1.1 This specification covers standard dimensional requirements for glass distillation flasks. It includes general purpose flasks and flasks designed for specific tests especially in the petroleum testing area.NOTE 1: For packaging standards, choose among Specifications E920, E1157, and E1133.1.2 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 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 加购物车

5.1 This test method is primarily intended as a test for compliance with compositional specifications. It is assumed that all who use this test method will be trained analysts capable of performing common laboratory procedures skillfully and safely. It is expected that the work will be performed in a properly equipped laboratory.1.1 This test method covers the determination of oxygen in titanium and titanium alloys in mass fractions from 0.01 % to 0.5 % and the determination of nitrogen in titanium and titanium alloys in mass fractions from 0.003 % to 0.11 %.1.2 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. Specific warning statements are given in 8.8.1.3 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 加购物车

4.1 This practice is useful for preparing extracts from fire debris for later analysis by gas chromatography mass spectrometry.4.2 This is a very sensitive separation procedure, capable of isolating quantities smaller than 1/10 μL of ignitable liquid residue from a sample.1.1 This practice describes the procedure for separation of small quantities of ignitable liquid residues from samples of fire debris using an adsorbent material to extract the residue from the static headspace above the sample, then eluting the adsorbent with a solvent.1.2 While this practice is suitable for successfully extracting ignitable liquid residues over the entire range of concentration, the headspace concentration methods are best used when a high level of sensitivity is required due to a very low concentration of ignitable liquid residues in the sample.1.2.1 Unlike other methods of separation and concentration, this practice is essentially nondestructive.1.3 Alternate separation and concentration procedures are listed in the referenced documents (see Practices E1386, E1388, E1413, and E2154).1.4 This practice does not replace knowledge, skill, ability, experience, education, or training and should be used in conjunction with professional judgment.1.5 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this 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： 515元 加购物车

5.1 Modern offices and other multipurpose buildings commonly have suspended acoustical ceilings installed over room dividing partitions. The test facility prescribed in this test method is useful for providing ceiling attenuation data on the relevant ceiling/partition elements and systems, to ensure that the transmission of sound through the ceiling and plenum space, or through the combination of ceiling, plenum space, and partition systems, provides a suitable degree of acoustical isolation.5.2 This test method is useful for rating and specifying, under standardized conditions, the sound attenuation performance of ceiling materials when mounted in a specified suspension system.5.3 This test method may be useful for selecting a wall-ceiling system for probable compliance with a performance specification for overall sound isolation between rooms. However, the actual field performance may differ significantly, particularly if the field plenum depth is not within the limits specified in this test method or if the plenum space contains large ducts, beams, etc., or both. (See Test Method E336.)5.4 The flexibility inherent in the test facility enables evaluation of the effects of penetrations, induced leakage paths, luminaire, and air diffuser installations and discontinuities in the ceiling suspension system at the partition line, including penetration of the partition into the ceiling plenum. The effect of installing plenum barriers at the partition line may also be investigated.5.5 With the concentration of sound absorbent area offered by a suspended sound absorbent ceiling installed in a room, it is not possible to obtain a good approximation to a diffuse sound field in that room. The plenum dimensions prevent the maintenance of a diffuse sound field above the test specimen. These factors affect the values of the measured ceiling sound attenuation and thus the measurements are not a fundamental property of the ceiling. The test method measures the acoustical properties attainable under the prescribed test conditions, which have been arbitrarily selected. The conditions must be adhered to in every test facility so that the measured results will be consistent. Two methods for obtaining A, the receiving room absorption, are given without preference. One method, known as the steady state method, has been used to obtain an estimate for A in the AMA 1-II-1967 standard. The other method follows the procedures used in Test Methods E90 and C423; justification for the use of this method may be found in reference (1)5. Persons wishing to further investigate the limitations imposed by this test method are advised to read references (2), (3), (4) and (5).5.6 Notwithstanding the above limitations, this type of test method has been used successfully for a number of years to rank order commercial ceiling systems and the test results are commonly used for this purpose.1.1 This test method utilizes a laboratory space so arranged that it simulates a pair of horizontally adjacent small offices or rooms separated by a partition and sharing a common plenum space. The partition either extends to the underside of a common plenum space or penetrates through it. In the prescribed configuration, special design features of the facility ensure that the only significant sound transmission path is by way of the ceiling and the plenum space.1.2 Within the limitations outlined in the significance statement, the primary quantity measured by this test method is the ceiling attenuation of a suspended ceiling installed in a laboratory environment. By accounting for receiving room sound absorption, the normalized ceiling attenuation may be determined.1.3 The test method may also be used to evaluate the attenuation of composite ceiling systems comprised of the ceiling material and other components such as luminaires and ventilating systems.1.4 The field performance of a ceiling system may differ significantly from the results obtained by this test method (see Section 5, , and Test Method E336).1.5 The procedures may also be used to study the additional sound insulation that may be achieved by other attenuation measures. This would include materials used either as plenum barriers or as backing for all or part of the ceiling.1.6 The facility may also be used to study the performance of an integrated system comprising plenum, ceiling, and partition, tested as a single assembly.1.7 The values stated in either 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 from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard.1.8 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.9 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 590元 加购物车