定价： 862元

定价： 259元

定价： 798元

This guide provides a recommended systematic sequence for using the referenced test methods for evaluating the durability of EC insulating glass units (IGUs) as described in section 1.2. , (See Appendix X1, Section X1.4.)This guide provides a summary of the durability issues addressed by each of the series of standards that are necessary for assesing the durability of electrochromic coatings (ECCs) in insulating glass units (IGUs). When fully implemented in buildings in the U.S., ECCs in IGUs have the potential of significantly reducing our current energy consumption for all uses-not just buildings. IGUs with ECCs will, of necessity, have to be able to pass the applicable standards listed in Appendix X1, Section X1.4, as well as an ASTM standard on wind loading for IGUs. Passing these will not be sufficient because the operating temperatures of ECCs in IGUs can potentially be as high as 90°C at the center-of glass, whereas the highest temperature used in Test Method E2188 is 60°C . Listings of existing and proposed standards are given in Table 1 and in Appendix X1, Section X1.4.1.1 This guide provides the recommended sequence for using the referenced ASTM test methods for assessing the durability of absorptive electrochromic coatings (ECCs) within sealed insulating glass units. Cross sections of typical electrochromic glazings have three to five-layers of coatings that include one to three active layers sandwiched between two transparent conducting electrodes (TCOs, see Section 3). Examples of the cross-sectional arrangements can be found in “Evaluation Criteria and Test Methods for Electrochromic Windows.” (For a list of acronyms used in this standard, see Appendix X1, Section X1.1).1.2 This guide is applicable only for layered (one or more active coatings between the TCOs) absorptive ECCs on vision glass (superstrate and substrate) areas planned for use in IGUs for buildings, such as glass doors, windows, skylights, and exterior wall systems. The layers used for electrochromically changing the optical properties may be inorganic or organic materials between the superstrate and substrate.1.3 The ECCs used in this guide will ultimately be exposed (Test Method E2141) to solar radiation and deployed to control the amount of radiation by absorption and reflection and thus, limit the solar heat gain and amount of solar radiation that is transmitted into the building.1.4 This guide is not applicable to other types of coatings on vision glass with other chromogenic coatings, for example, photochromic and thermochromic coatings.1.5 This guide is not applicable to IGUs that will be constructed from superstrate or substrate materials other than glass.1.6 The test methods referenced in this guide are laboratory test methods conducted under specified conditions.1.7 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.8 There is no comparable International Standards Organization Standard.1.9 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory requirements prior to use.

定价： 0元

1.1 This guide is intended to assist the maintenance engineer in the preparation of a specification or work instruction for re-coating items that are presently coated with what is known within the nuclear power industry as an "unqualified coating."

定价： 0元

It is intended that this practice be used to provide a sample representative of the coal from which it is collected. Because of the variability of coal and the wide variety of mechanical sampling equipment available, caution should be used in all stages of the sample collection process, the design of sampling system specifications, the equipment procurement and the acceptance testing of installed equipment.After removal from the sampling system and further preparation (Practice D 2013), the sample may be analyzed for a number of different parameters. These parameters may define the lot's value, its ability to meet specifications, its environmental impact, as well as other properties.1.1 This practice covers procedures for the mechanical collection of a sample under Classification I-B-1 and I-B-2 (Practice D 2234/D 2234M) and the within-system preparation (reduction and division) of gross samples utilizing various components of the mechanical sampling system.1.2 This practice describes mechanical sampling procedures for coals (1) by size and condition of preparation (for example, mechanically cleaned coal or raw coal) and (2) by sampling characteristics.1.3 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. Within the text the inch-pound units are shown in brackets. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, use each system independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in nonconformance with the 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 and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

定价： 0元

This practice provides a procedure for determining the temperature history of plastic gas pressure pipe encased in metallic casings.The data obtained are indicative of the temperature attainable within a service riser of a specific design and size in a given geographical location under the climatogical conditions in existence during the test period.The data obtained can be used within the constraints of 4.2 to design the maximum allowable operating pressures permitted by existing codes.1.1 This practice describes a procedure for the determination of the temperature history of above-ground plastic gas pressure pipe encased in a metallic casing. Such temperature changes may be due to ambient air temperature, or solar exposure, or both.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 and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

定价： 0元

Health information networks (HINs) have arisen in recent years as a way to share common information within organizational arrangements among those healthcare facilities that have been formed into large, more comprehensive integrated delivery systems (IDS) and managed care organizations (MCO) offering a full range of healthcare services, both inpatient and ambulatory.The specific organizational structures to which the MCO term was originally applied most probably have evolved into something quite different. Furthermore, IDS organizations are contracting with other organizations that have a market larger than a single IDS itself and are buying such services for themselves rather than offering them internally.These organizations will need a frame of reference for the global information needed to provide all of the services required during patient care. For a global Concept Model consult ADA Specification 1000.0–1000.18 and TR 1039.Pharmacotherapy will require a number of these services, including those of the clinical laboratory for therapeutic drug monitoring as well as pharmacy services of both resident and nonresident care organizations and stand-alone pharmacies to ensure freedom from medication errors and conduct ongoing investigations of both the outcomes of care and the management of resources related to pharmacotherapy.Pharmacotherapy functions include prescribing (clinical orders), dispensing, administering, and monitoring, which support “pharmaceutical care” defined as “provision of drug therapy to achieve desired therapeutic outcomes that improve a patient’s quality of life.” These functions address patients’ needs that require information support as noted in Table 1.Another aspect of the monitoring function is the development of instrumentation for testing at point of care (POCT) for high-value immediate-benefit services that support pharmacotherapy. POCT, however, needs supervision and training from skilled laboratorians for the actual performers, whether that supervision comes from within the IDS or outside of it. This range of operation is only achievable by distributed HIN structures that shall have the same quality of clinical and data services as offered by laboratories close at hand. Data management of POCT is documented separately (see CLSI POCT1, ASTP2), but such data management for support of pharmacotherapy shall be placed into the broader context of this practice and linked to CLSI LIS-9A. Thus, this practice should be used to first organize the global domain and then the interconnected subdomains.1.1 This practice applies to the process of defining and documenting the capabilities, logical data sources, and pathways of data exchange regarding pharmacotherapy information services within a given network architecture serving a set of healthcare constituents.1.2 This practice is not a technical implementation standard but, rather, describes how the implementation methods and techniques can be used to coordinate pharmacotherapy services logically within an electronic health record (EHR) systems environment involving participating organizations and sites connected by a networked communication system.1.3 This practice covers the content of the nodes and arcs of the resulting logical network involving EHR, pharmacy, and clinical laboratory-capable sites. This practice also considers the various purposes and organizational arrangements for coordinating pharmacotherapy services within the network boundaries and the considerations for connections among external networks.1.4 This practice refers to other standards for conventions within various data domains, such as pharmacy systems, clinical laboratory information management systems (CLIMS), and EHR systems, and for messaging conventions.1.5 This practice is intended to outline how integration of pharmacy, CLIMS, and EHR information systems can be undertaken to result in a transparent pharmacotherapy clinical decision support environment, regardless of the underlying implementation architecture, by describing the logical interoperability of information domains as facilitated by information and communications technology (ICT).1.6 This practice is directed at pharmacists, clinical pharmacologists, clinical laboratorians, information system managers, and information systems vendors for use in planning and implementing coordinated pharmacotherapy services through effective dialog.1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.

定价： 0元

5.1 This practice can be used in a single laboratory for trace analysis (that is, where: 1) there are concentrations near the lower limit of the method and 2) the measurements system’s capability to discriminate analyte presence from analyte absence is of interest). In these testing situations, a reliable estimate of the minimum level at which there is confidence that detection of the analyte by the method represents true presence of the analyte in the sample is key. Where within-laboratory detection is important to data use, the WDE procedure should be used to establish the within-laboratory detection capability for each unique application of a method.5.2 When properly applied, the WDE procedure ensures that the 99 %/95 % WDE has the following properties:5.2.1 Routinely Achievable Detection—The laboratory is able to attain detection performance routinely, using studied measurement systems, without extraordinary effort, and therefore at reasonable cost. This property is needed for a detection limit to be practically useful while scientifically sound. Representative equipment and analysts must be included in the study that generates the data to calculate the WDE.5.2.2 Inclusion of Routine Sources of Error—If appropriate data are used in calculation, the WDE practice will realistically account for sources of variation and bias common to the measurement process and routine for sample analysis. These sources include, but are not limited to: 1) intrinsic instrument noise, 2) some typical amount of carryover error, and 3) differences in analysts, sample preparation, and instruments (including signal-processing methods and software versions).5.2.3 Exclusion of Avoidable Sources of Error—The WDE practice excludes avoidable sources of bias and variation, (that is, those which can reasonably be avoided in routine field measurements). Avoidable sources would include, but are not limited to: 1) inappropriate modifications to the method, the sample, measurement procedure, or measurement equipment, and 2) gross and easily discernible transcription errors (provided there was a way to detect and either correct or eliminate such errors in routine sample testing).5.2.4 Low Probability of False Detection—Consistent with a measured concentration threshold (YC), the WCL is a true concentration that will provide a high probability (estimated at 99 %) of true non-detection (and thus a low estimated probability of false detection (α) equal to 1 %). Thus, when a sample with a real concentration of zero is measured, the probability of not detecting the analyte (that is, the probability that the measured value of the blank will be less than the WCL) would be greater than 99 %. To be most useful, this property must be demonstrated for the particular matrix being used, and not just for reagent-grade water.5.2.5 Low Probability of False Non-detection—Where appropriate data have been used for calculations, the WDE provides a true concentration at which there is a high estimated probability (at least 95 %) of true detection (and thus a low estimated probability of false non-detection (β) equal to 5 % at the WDE), with a simultaneously low estimated probability of false detection. Thus, when a sample with a true concentration at the WDE is measured, the probability of detection would be estimated to be at least 95 %. To be useful, this property must be demonstrated for the particular matrix being used, and not just for reagent-grade water.Note 1—The referenced probabilities, α and β, are key parameters for risk-based assessment of a detection limit.5.3 When this practice is utilized by a laboratory to develop these false-positive- and false-negative-control point estimates, from data representative of routine operations, the laboratory may confidently claim these levels of false-positive and false-negative control in the future, so long as the data used remain representative of that future operation. The laboratory may also qualify reported data using the appropriate point estimates (for example YC, YD, WCL, WDE) or censor data below the WCL as a valid basis for these data-reporting practices.5.3.1 The WDE Standard does not provide the basis for any prospective use of the test method by other laboratories for reliable detection of low-level concentrations, even for the same analyte and same media (matrix).5.3.2 The WDE values from a given laboratory may be used to compare the detection power of different methods for analysis of the same analyte in the same matrix by that laboratory.5.4 The WDE practice applies to measurement methods for which calibration error (that is, the error in the calibration of the measurement system) is minor relative to the combined other sources of variability. Some examples of other sources and when they may be dominant are:5.4.1 Sample preparation (dominant especially when calibration standards do not go through sample-preparation steps).5.4.2 Differences in analysts where a laboratory has more than one person who may perform each method step.5.4.3 Instrument differences (measurement equipment), which could take the form of differences in manufacturer, model, hardware, electronics, separation columns, sampling rate, chemical-processing rate, integration time, software algorithms, internal-signal processing and thresholds, effective sample volume, and contamination level.5.5 Reducing calibration error by use of allowable, though more stringent, calibration procedures (for example, multiple concentrations, replication, tight calibration-acceptance criteria, etc.) and through calibration verification (for example, analysis of a traceable standard from a second, independent source, calibration diagnostics) can reduce the magnitude of the calibration error.5.6 Alternative Data-Quality Objectives—Other values for α, β, confidence, etc. may be chosen as parameters; however, this procedure addresses only those stated here in.5.7 Collectively, the many sources of variation combine to cause within-laboratory measurements at any true concentration to be normally distributed. The assumption of normality is important for some of the statistics used; data normality should be assessed if there is reason to believe this assumption is not valid.5.8 If control of false negatives is not a data-quality objective, the WCL determined through this procedure provides a sound criterion for future determination of false-positive control; in such cases, the laboratory may confidently claim that true values above the WCL have a statistically significant difference from like-matrix zero-concentration samples (for example, from the method blank), but nothing more.5.9 Where as-measured values (for example, not corrected for bias), not true values are of interest, YC and YD may be used as these as-measured levels of the WCL and WDE.1.1 This practice provides a procedure for computing a 99 %/95 % Within-laboratory Detection Estimate (WDE) and the associated critical level/value (WCL). The WDE is the minimum concentration, with false positives and false negative appropriately controlled, such that values above these minimums are reliable detections. The WCL is the point at which only false positives are controlled appropriately. A false positive is the reporting of an analyte as present when the analyte is not actually present; false negatives are reports of analyte absence when the analyte is actually present. This practice is distinguished from the Interlaboratory Detection Estimate (IDE) practice in that the IDE Standard utilizes data from multiple, independent laboratories, while this practice is for use by a single laboratory. The IDE would be utilized where interlaboratory issues are of concern (for example, limits for published methods); this practice (and values derived from it) are applicable where the results from a single laboratory, single operator, single instrument, etc. are involved (for example, in understanding, censoring and reporting data).1.2 The establishment of a WDE involves determining the concentration below which the precision and bias of an analytical procedure indicates insufficient confidence in false-positive and false-negative control to assert detection of the analyte in the future analysis of an unknown number of samples. Most traditional approaches attempt to determine this detection “limit” by estimating precision at only a single, arbitrary point. The WDE approach is intended to be a more technically rigorous replacement for other approaches for estimating detection limits. The WDE practice addresses a number of critical issues that are ignored in other approaches.1.2.1 First, rather than making a single-point estimate of precision, the WDE protocol requires an estimate of precision at multiple points in the analytical range, especially in the range of the expected detection limit. These estimates are then used to create an appropriate model of the method’s precision. This approach is a more credible way to determine the point where relative precision has become too large for reliable detection. This process requires more data than has been historically required by single-point approaches or by processes for modeling the relationship between standard deviation and concentration.1.2.2 Second, unlike most other approaches, the WDE process accounts for analytical bias at the concentrations of interest. The relationship of true concentration to measured concentration (that is, the recovery curve) is established and utilized in converting from as-measured to true concentration.1.2.3 Third, most traditional approaches to detection limits only address the issue of false positives. Although false negatives may not be of concern in some data uses, there are many uses where understanding and/or control of false negatives is important. Without the false-negative-control information, data reported with just a critical-level value are incompletely described and the qualities of data at these levels incompletely disclosed.1.2.4 Fourth and last, the WDE standard utilizes a statistical-tolerance interval in calculations, such that future measurements may reasonably be expected to be encompassed by the WDE 90 % of the time. Many older approaches have used the statistical confidence interval, which is not intended to encompass individual future measurements, and has been misunderstood and misapplied. Procedures using the confidence interval cannot provide the stated control when the detection-limit value is applied to future sample results; such application is the primary use of these values.1.3 To summarize, the WDE is computed to be the lowest true concentration at which there is 90 % confidence that a single (future) measurement (from the studied laboratory) will have a true detection probability of at least 95 % and a true non-detection probability of at least 99 % (when measuring a blank sample). For the laboratory in the study, the critical value is the true concentration at which, on average, (with approximately 90 % confidence) will not be exceeded by 99 % of all measurements of samples with true concentration of zero (that is, blanks). These values are established by modeling the precision and establishing the recovery/bias over a range of concentrations, as well as by using a tolerance interval. The complexities of the WDE procedure may appear daunting, but the additional considerations are necessary if meaningfully estimates of the actual detection capabilities of analytical methods are to be made. The concepts are tractable by degreed chemists, and the use of the available ASTM DQCALC Excel-based software makes the data analysis and limit determinations easy.1.4 A within-laboratory detection estimate is useful in characterizing the concentration below which a method, for an analyte, as implemented in a specific laboratory, does not (with high confidence) discriminate the presence of the analyte from that of the absence of an analyte. As such an estimator, the WDE Standard (and the WDE and WCL values produced through its application) are useful where a trace-analysis testing method needs to be used.

定价： 0元

定价： 533元

定价： 353元

定价： 329元

定价： 894元

定价： 329元

定价： 377元