定价： 1333元 / 折扣价： 1134 元

4.1 Each Facility Rating Scale in this classification provides a means for estimating the level of serviceability of a building or facility for one topic of serviceability, and for comparing that level against the level of any other building or facility.4.2 This classification can be used for comparing how well different buildings or facilities meet a particular requirement for serviceability. It is applicable despite differences such as location, structure, mechanical systems, age, and building shape.4.3 This classification can be used to estimate the amount of variance of serviceability from target or from requirement, for a single office facility, or within a group of office facilities.4.4 This classification can be used to estimate the following: (1) serviceability of an existing facility for uses other than its present use; (2) the serviceability (potential) of a facility that has been planned but not yet built; and (3) the serviceability (potential) of a facility for which a remodelling has been planned.4.5 The use of this classification does not result in building evaluation or diagnosis. Building evaluation or diagnosis generally requires special expertise in building engineering or technology and the use of instruments, tools, or measurements.4.6 This classification applies only to facilities that are building constructions or parts thereof. (While this classification may be useful in rating the serviceability of facilities that are not building constructions, such facilities are outside the scope of this classification.)4.7 This classification is not intended for, and is not suitable for, use for regulatory purposes, nor for fire hazard assessment nor for fire risk assessment.1.1 This classification covers pairs of scales for classifying an aspect of the serviceability of an office facility, that is, the capability of an office facility to meet certain possible requirements for special facilities and technologies.1.2 Each pair of scales, shown in Figs. 1-4, is for classifying one topic of serviceability. Each paragraph in an Occupant Requirement Scale (DEMAND Scale see Figs. 1-4) summarizes one level of requirement for serviceability on which occupants might require. The matching paragraph in the Facility Rating Scale (SUPPLY Scale see Figs. 1-4) is an interpretation of the requirement into a description of certain features of a facility which, taken in combination, indicate that the facility is likely to meet that level of required serviceability.FIG. 1 Demand Scale A.13.1 for Group or Shared Conference CenterFIG. 1 Supply Scale A.13.1 for Group or Shared Conference Center (continued)FIG. 2 Demand Scale A.13.2 for Video Conferencing ProvisionFIG. 2 Supply Scale A.13.2 for Video Conferencing Provision (continued)FIG. 3 Demand Scale A.13.3 for Simultaneous InterpretationFIG. 3 Supply Scale A.13.3 for Simultaneous Interpretation (continued)FIG. 4 Demand Scale A.13.4 for Satellite and Microwave LinksFIG. 4 Supply Scale A.13.4 for Satellite and Microwave Links (continued)FIG. 5 Demand and Supply Scales A.13.5 for Telecommunications Center1.3 The entries in the Facility Rating Scale (See Figs. 1-4) are indicative and not comprehensive. They are for quick scanning, to estimate approximately, quickly, and economically, how well an office facility is likely to meet the needs of one or another type of occupant group over time. The entries are not for measuring, knowing, and evaluating how an office facility is performing.1.4 This classification can be used to estimate the level of serviceability of an existing facility. It can also be used to estimate the serviceability of a facility that has been planned but not yet built, such as one for which single-line drawings and outline specifications have been prepared.1.5 This classification indicates what would cause a facility to be rated at a certain level of serviceability, but it does not state how to conduct a serviceability rating nor how to assign a serviceability score. That information is found in Practice E1679. The scales in this classification are complementary to and compatible with Practice E1679. Each requires the other.1.6 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.7 This 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

定价： 1547元 / 折扣价： 1315 元

定价： 910元 / 折扣价： 774 元

定价： 1502元 / 折扣价： 1277 元

定价： 637元 / 折扣价： 542 元

定价： 1001元 / 折扣价： 851 元

定价： 2457元 / 折扣价： 2089 元

5.1 There are no reproducible standardized protocols for preparing specimens used to evaluate the microbicidal efficacy of non-chemical treatments such as ultraviolet (UV), highenergy electron beam, or other forms of non-chemical antimicrobial technologies.5.2 Conventional protocols for applying bioburdens to carriers (see Test Method E2197) cause cells to stack upon one another, thereby creating multiple cell layers in which cells in layers closer to the carrier are masked by cells in overlying layers, which makes relative comparison of different non-chemical antimicrobial treatments more difficult.5.3 Steel and other metal carriers have asperities that can shield a percentage of the applied cells from direct exposure to electromagnetic irradiation.5.4 The combined effects of 5.2 and 5.3 confound determination of the microbicidal effect of electromagnetic irradiation on test specimens.5.5 The practice addresses these two confounding factors by:5.5.1 Using glass microscope slides – the surfaces of which are asperity-free – as carriers.5.5.2 Reliably depositing bacterial cells onto the carrier as a monolayer.5.6 The resulting specimen ensures that all microbes deposited onto the carrier are exposed equally to the irradiation source thereby ensuring that the only variables are the controlled ones – starting inoculum concentration, wavelength (λ – in nm), exposure time(s), and resulting energy dose (J).1.1 This practice provides a protocol for creating bacterial cell monolayers on a flat surface.1.2 The cultures used and culture preparation steps in this Practice are similar to AOAC Method 961.02 and US EPA MB-06. However, test bacteria are applied to the carrier using an automated deposition device (6.2) rather than as a suspension droplet.1.3 The carrier inspection protocol is similar to US EPA MB-03 except that carrier surfaces are inspected microscopically rather than visually, unaided.1.4 A monolayer of cells eliminates the confounding effect caused by the shadowing effect of outer layers of bacteria stacked upon other bacteria on test specimens – thereby attenuating directed energy beams (that is, ultraviolet light, high-energy electron beams) before they can reach underlying cells.1.5 An asperity-free surface eliminates the shadowing effect of specimen surface topology that can block direct exposure of target bacteria to non-chemical antimicrobial treatments.1.6 This practice provides a reproducible target microbe and surface specimen to minimize specimen variability within and between testing facilities. This facilitates direct data comparisons among various non-chemical antimicrobial technologies.1.6.1 Antimicrobial pesticides used in clinical and industrial applications are expected to overcome shadowing effects. However, this practice meets a need for a protocol that facilitates relative comparisons among non-chemical antimicrobial treatments.1.6.2 This practice is not intended to satisfy or replace existing test requirements for liquid chemical antimicrobial treatments (for example Test Methods E1153 and E2197) or established regulatory agency performance standards such as US EPA MB-06.1.7 This practice was validated using Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC 6538) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ATCC 15442) using a protocol based on AOAC Method 961.02. If other cultures are used, the suitability of this practice must be confirmed by inspecting prepared surfaces, by using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) or comparable high-resolution microscopy.1.8 The specimens prepared in accordance with this practice are not meant to simulate end-use conditions.1.8.1 Non-chemical technologies are only to be used on visibly clean, non-porous surfaces. Consequently, a soil load is not used.1.9 Units—The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.10 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.1.11 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 Turbidity is a measure of scattered light that results from the interaction between a beam of light and particulate material in a liquid sample. Particulate material is typically undesirable in water from a health perspective and its removal is often required when the water is intended for consumption. Thus, turbidity has been used as a key indicator for water quality to assess the health and quality of environmental water sources. Higher turbidity values are typically associated with poorer water quality.5.1.1 Turbidity is also used in environmental monitoring to assess the health and stability of water-based ecosystems such as in lakes, rivers and streams. In general, the lower the turbidity, the healthier the ecosystem.5.2 Turbidity measurement is a qualitative parameter for water but its traceability to a primary light scatter standard allows the measurement to be applied as a quantitative measurement. When used as a quantative measurement, turbidity is typically reported generically in turbidity units (TUs).5.2.1 Turbidity measurements are based on the instruments’ calibration with primary standard reference materials. These reference standards are traceable to formazin concentrate (normally at a value of 4000 TU). The reference concentrate is linearly diluted to provide calibration standard values. Alternative standard reference materials, such as SDVB co-polymer or stabilized formazin, are manufactured to match the formazin polymer dilutions and provide highly consistent and stable values for which to calibrate turbidity sensors.5.2.1.1 When used for regulatory compliance reporting, specific turbidity calibration standards may be required. The user of this guide should check with regulatory entities regarding specifics of allowable calibration standard materials.5.2.2 The traceability to calibrations from different technologies (and other calibration standards) to primary formazin standards provides for a basis for defined turbidity units. This provides equivalence in the magnitude of the turbidity unit between the different measurement technologies when they are all calibrated on standards that are traced to primary formazin. This means that a TU is equivalent in its magnitude to a nephelometric turbidity unit (NTU), and all other units as described in this guide. See Table 1.5.2.3 Turbidity is not an inherent property of the sample, such as temperature, but in part is dependent on the technology used to derive the value. Even though the magnitude of turbidity units are equivalent and are based on turbidity standards, the units do not maintain this equivalence when measurement of samples is practiced. Turbidity standards are generally free of interferences and samples are not. Depending on the type of technology employed for measurement, the magnitude of the different interferences on a given sample can differ significantly with respect to the different measurement technologies. The user of a turbidity technology should expect to observe a lack of measurement equivalence across different turbidity measurement designs when common samples are analyzed. See Section 6 on interferences.5.2.4 Depending on the application, some instruments are calibrated on a sample that has been characterized (or defined) by some independent means. The calibration may include one or more samples that have been characterized with respect to the application of its use. See Test Methods D3977.5.3 Turbidity is not a quantative measure of any chemical or physical property of water. Different expected interactions between a given measurement technology and a given sample with a unique combination of interferences can significantly impact the final turbidity result. As stated in 5.3, depending on the technology used, the result will differ. It is imperative to provide a linkage of metadata that is reflective of the design type (that is, technology) used to generate the turbidity values. In all ASTM standards, the measurement units are reflective of the design criteria and the information is presented in Table 1.5.3.1 The actual reporting units, signified by a two to four-letter code, are based upon distinguishing design criteria for each of the common measurement technologies. The intent of attaching the measurement unit to the determined turbidity value is to indicate the type of technology used.5.3.2 Even though various instrument designs may be grouped by technology type (that is, FNU, NTU, FBU, etc., and refer to Table 1), instruments within a group should not be considered to be identical nor it is proposed that sample values obtained will be alike. Instruments within each technology may still have other design differences whereby samples give different results. For example, pathlength differences between two instruments with the same reporting units can impact measurements and the relative difference in results.5.4 Discussion of Table 1: 5.4.1 Table 1 provides a summary of technologies and their respective reporting units that are in the different ASTM test methods. The reporting unit is a two to four letter-code that has been assigned to a unique type of technology. The reporting unit follows every reported turbidity measurement and serves as metadata to the respective measurement.5.4.2 The key design features are based on three criteria: (1) type of light source used, (2) primary detector angle with respect to the incident light beam, and (3) number of detectors used.5.4.2.1 If the measurement unit begins with an “F” then the light source is a near-IR wavelength. Most designs will encompass a light source that is in the 860 ± 60 nm range. The strength of this wavelength is that most natural colors do not absorb at this level, which reduces or eliminates color interference. Two things that interfere at the near-IR are carbon black and copper sulfate. Second, the incident light beams are easily collimated, which extends the overall operational range. Third, the output of the light source can be regulated to provide a stable output over time. The weakness is that longer wavelengths are less sensitive to smaller particles with respect to response at very low turbidities.5.4.2.2 If the measurement unit either begins with an “N” or is a two-letter unit (for example, BU, AU), the incident light source will be in the 400–680-nm range. The strength of this wavelength range is increased sensitivity to smaller particles when compared to longer wavelengths (such as those in the near infared (IR) range). The weakness of this wavelength range is that color that absorbs at the same wavelengths, as those that are emitted by light source will cause a negative interference. Second, if the source is an incandescent light source, additional optics is required to maintain collimation and stability over time. The light source will typically need to periodic replacement over the life of an instrument.5.4.2.3 If the measurement unit includes an “R” it is a nephelometric method that utilizes a 90-degree detector plus one other detector. This is referred to as a ratio metric technique and helps to compensate for color interference, regardless of the wavelength of the incident light source. The technique also helps to linearize the response to turbidity at higher levels and can provide an extended measurement range. The technique can also help to stabilize measurement outputs. The technique is the most flexible across different applications because of the combination of sensitivity to low turbidity ranges and the ability can measure very high turbidity levels.5.4.2.4 If the measurement unit has a “B” it indicates a backscatter technique. These techniques typically have a wide range, but are not sensitive at low turbidities. They are also more susceptible to color and particulate absorbance interferences.5.4.2.5 If the measurement unit has an “A” it indicates an attenuation or absorbance measurement. The measurement is a combination of light that is attenuated and absorbed, in combination. Color is a significant interference, except for applications that require color to be considered part of the overall turbidity measurement. The method is very sensitive to wavelength and thus, the reporting unit should also include the wavelength of the incident light beam.5.4.2.6 If the measurement unit contains an “M” it indicates a technology in which at least two incident light beams and two detectors are employed. The method also encompasses a ratio technique. These designs are very similar to ratio techniques as are the advantages and limitations.5.4.2.7 Other Units: (a) mNTU—The technology indicates a monochromatic incident light source in visible wavelength range and a nephelometric technique. The technology design allows for an improved limit of detection over conventional light sources. Its primary use for low turbidity measurements, such the monitoring for membrane breaches and ultra-purification processes.(b) SSU—The “SS” portion of the unit indicates a surface scatter technique is being used. The technique positions both the light source and detector that are in the same horizontal plane above the sample. Light that is scattered by particles at or very near the surface and detected at an angle that is at 90 degrees to the centerline of the incident light beam. The system has a high detection range, but low sensitivity. It is also susceptible to color interferences, but to a lesser degree than techniques that pass light completely through the sample. The technique is valuable for applications where it is desirable for the sample not to touch the optics of the instrument.5.4.3 The table provides information regarding to the most prominent applications and discusses interference concerns. This information is based on technologies that are in the field at the time this guide was written, but does not constitute endorsement to any given manufacture of a given technology. In some cases, a design can be successfully used outside of the stated applications in Table 1. The user should perform testing to ensure the technology meets limit of detection, sensitivity, and range requirements that insure representative data can be acquired.5.4.4 Range of Measurement—Table 1 provides guidance on the estimated range of use for the different measurement technologies. A key design criterion is the pathlength of measurement. This is the actual distance that light travels through a sample to generate the scatter that ultimately becomes detected. It encompasses both the incident light distance and the receive angles for the scattered light detectors. The longer the pathlength, the lower the measurement ranges, but the better the sensitivity. Shorter pathlengths may provide a greater range, but a poorer sensitivity and a poorer the limit of detection.1.1 This guide covers the best practices for use of various turbidimeter designs for measurement of turbidity in waters including: drinking water, wastewater, industrial waters, and for regulatory and environmental monitoring. This guide covers both continuous and static measurements.1.1.1 In principle there are three basic applications for on-line measurement set ups. The first is the bypass or slipstream technique; a portion of sample is transported from the process or sample stream and to the turbidimeter for analysis. It is then either transported back to the sample stream or to waste. The second is the in-line measurement; the sensor is submerged directly into the sample or process stream, which is typically contained in a pipe. The third is in-situ where the sensor is directly inserted into the sample stream. The in-situ principle is intended for the monitoring of water during any step within a processing train, including immediately before or after the process itself.1.1.2 Static covers both benchtop and portable designs for the measurement of water samples that are captured into a cell and then measured.1.2 Depending on the monitoring goals and desired data requirements, certain technologies will deliver more desirable results for a given application. This guide will help the user align a technology to a given application with respect to best practices for data collection.1.3 Some designs are applicable for either a lower or upper measurement range. This guide will help provide guidance to the best-suited technologies based given range of turbidity.1.4 Modern electronic turbidimeters are comprised of many parts that can cause them to produce different results on samples. The wavelength of incident light used, detector type, detector angle, number of detectors (and angles), and optical pathlength are all design criteria that may be different among instruments. When these sensors are all calibrated with the sample turbidity standards, they will all read the standards the same. However, samples comprise of completely different matrices and may measure quite differently among these different technologies.1.4.1 This guide does not provide calibration information but rather will defer the user to the appropriate ASTM turbidity method and its calibration protocols. When calibrated on traceable primary turbidity standards, the assigned turbidity units such as those used in Table 1 are equivalent. For example, a 1 NTU formazin standard is also equivalent in measurement magnitude to a 1 FNU, a 1 FAU, and a 1 BU standard and so forth.1.4.2 Improved traceability beyond the scope of this guide may be practiced and would include the listing of the make and model number of the instrument used to determine the turbidity values.1.5 This guide does not purport to cover all available technologies for high-level turbidity measurement.1.6 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as standard. No other units of measurement are included in this standard.1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.1.8 This guide does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. Refer to the MSDSs for all chemicals used in this procedure.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： 646元 / 折扣价： 550 元 加购物车

The definitions of the terms presented in this standard were created by this subcommittee. This standard does not purport to address safety concerns associated with the use of AM technologies. 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 of additive manufacturing. 1.1 This terminology includes terms, definitions of terms, descriptions of terms, nomenclature, and acronyms associated with additive-manufacturing (AM) technologies in an effort to standardize terminology used by AM users, producers, researchers, educators, press/media and others. Note 1—The subcommittee responsible for this standard will review definitions on a three-year basis to determine if the definition is still accurate as stated. Revisions will be made when determined to be necessary.

定价： 0元 / 折扣价： 0 元

定价： 1092元 / 折扣价： 929 元

4.1 Laser profiling assessment is a quality control tool for identifying and quantifying deformation, physical damage, and other pipe anomalies after installation, providing means and methods for determining the quality of workmanship and compliance with project specifications. Laser profiling can be used for:4.1.1 Measurement of the structural shape, cross sectional area and defects;4.1.2 Collection of data needed for pipe rehabilitation or replacement design; and4.1.3 Post rehabilitation, replacement or new construction workmanship verification.4.2 A laser profile pre-acceptance and condition assessment survey provides significant information in a clear and concise manner, including but not limited to graphs and still frame digital images of pipe condition prior to acceptance, thereby providing objective data on the installed quality and percentage ovality, deformation, deflection or deviation, that is often not possible from an inspection by either a mandrel or CCTV only survey.1.1 Laser profiling is a non-contact inspection method used to create a pipe wall profile and internal measurement using a standard CCTV pipe inspection system, 360 degree laser light projector, a measurement by means of infrared sensors and geometrical profiling software. This practice covers the procedure for the measurement to determine any deviation of the internal surface of installed pipe compared to the design. The measurements may be used to verify that the installation has met design requirements for acceptance or to collect data that will facilitate an assessment of the condition of pipe or conduit due to structural deviations or deterioration. This standard practice provides minimum requirements on means and methods for laser profiling to meet the needs of engineers, contractors, owners, regulatory agencies, and financing institutions.1.2 This practice applies to all types of pipe material, all types of construction, and pipe shapes.1.3 This practice applies to depressurized and gravity flow storm sewers, drains, sanitary sewers, and combined sewers with diameters from 6 in. to 72 in. (150 mm and 1800 mm).1.4 This standard does not include all aspects of pipe inspection, such as joint gaps, soil/water infiltration in joints, cracks, holes, surface damage, repairs, corrosion, and structural problems associated with these conditions.1.5 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.1.6 The profiling process may require physical access to lines, entry manholes, and operations along roadways that may include safety hazards.1.7 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. There are no safety hazards specifically, however, associated with the use of the laser ring profiler specified (listed and labeled as specified in 1.3).1.8 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

4.1 Laser profiling assessment is a quality control tool for identifying and quantifying deformation, physical damage, and other pipe anomalies after installation, providing means and methods for determining the quality of workmanship and compliance with project specifications. Laser profiling capabilities include:4.1.1 Measurement of the structural shape, cross sectional area and defects;4.1.2 Collection of data needed for pipe rehabilitation or replacement design; and4.1.3 Post rehabilitation, replacement or new construction workmanship verification.4.2 A laser profile pre-acceptance and condition assessment survey provides significant information in a clear and concise manner, including but not limited to graphs and still frame digital images of pipe condition prior to acceptance, thereby providing objective data on the installed quality and percentage ovality, or degree of deformation, deflection or deviation, that is often not possible from an inspection by either a mandrel or only CCTV.1.1 This practice covers the procedure for the post installation verification and acceptance of buried pipe deformation using a visible rotating laser light diode(s), a pipeline and conduit inspection analog or digital CCTV camera system and image processing software. The combination CCTV pipe inspection system, with cable distance counter or onboard distance encoder, rotating laser light diode(s) and ovality measurement software shall be used to perform a pipe measurement and ovality confirmation survey, of new or existing pipelines and conduits as directed by the responsible contracting authority. This standard practice provides minimum requirements on means and methods for laser profiling to meet the needs of engineers, contractors, owners, regulatory agencies, and financing institutions.1.2 This practice applies to all types of material, all types of construction, or shape.1.3 This practice applies to gravity flow storm sewers, drains, sanitary sewers, and combined sewers with diameters from 6 in. to 72 in. (150 mm to 1800 mm).1.4 The Laser Light Diode(s) shall be tested, labeled and certified to conform to US requirements for CDRH Class 2 or below (not considered to be hazardous) laser products or certified to conform to EU requirements for Class 2M or below laser products as per IEC 60825-1, or both.1.5 The profiling process may require physical access to lines, entry manholes and operations along roadways that may include safety hazards.1.6 This practice includes inspection requirements for determining pipeline and conduit ovality only and does not include all the required components of a complete inspection. The user of this practice should consider additional items outside this practice for inspection such as joint gap measurement, soil/water infiltration, crack and hole measurement, surface damage evaluation, evaluation of any pipeline repairs, and corrosion evaluation.1.7 This standard practice does not address limitations in accuracy due to improper lighting, dust, humidity, fog, moisture on pipe walls or horizontal/vertical offsets. Care should be taken to limit environmental factors in the pipeline that affect accuracy of the inspection.1.8 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.1.9 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. There are no safety hazards specifically, however, associated with the use of the laser profiler specified (listed and labeled as specified in 1.3).1.10 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

定价： 590元 / 折扣价： 502 元 加购物车

4.1 This guide provides guidance on how a surrogate material can be selected and inserted into a field workflow for confidence checks and process assessments of on-site biological assessment technologies to demonstrate that the technology is working in the field environment in the hands of operators.4.2 Use of a surrogate material instead of an inactivated or attenuated biological agent (or its components) is beneficial due to (1) ease of production and handling, (2) ease of acquisition and transportation, (3) the ability to use the material with minimal equipment and facility constraints, for example, biosafety containment, and (4) minimized risk of contamination of personnel, equipment and the environment with a potential biological agent.4.3 This guide covers the basic design of confidence checks and process assessments that may be used to target (1) the workflow in the field, (2) the performance of the on-site biological assessment technology, and (3) the operator’s ability to process a material in the field workflow, in order to increase confidence in each component. These demonstrations provide emergency responders with insight into routine operation of a nucleic acid-based biological assessment technology and the opportunity to assess and demonstrate their capabilities according to a defined training program in their jurisdiction.4.4 This guide may be used to aid operators in the routine use of any nucleic acid-based on-site biological assessment technology. Using a surrogate material, operators are able to gain confidence in their ability to perform operations in the workflow and gather routine information (for example, operator performance, assessment results over time) in the field.4.5 This guide should be used in accordance with Practices E2458 and Guide E2770.4.6 This guide should be used according to the appropriate risk reduction measures (including personal protective equipment) that are needed for the biosafety level of the surrogate material (preferably Biosafety Level 1; the level should be verified with the provider of the surrogate material).4.7 This guide is not meant to provide performance characterization of biological agent assays used with on-site biological assessment technologies.1.1 This guide describes factors to consider when developing, selecting, and using a surrogate material for evaluating the operational performance of nucleic acid-based on-site biological assessment technologies. Operational performance includes the workflow, technology, operator, controls, and result reporting.1.2 Users of this guide include developers and manufacturers of on-site biological assessment technologies or surrogate materials, as well as the initial responder community and other operators of the technologies.1.3 This guide recommends the use of surrogate materials to support training; improve the knowledge, skills, and confidence of operators; and enable confidence check and process assessment demonstrations in support of jurisdictional biothreat mission capabilities as recommended in Guide E2770, Section 8.1.4 This guide recommends the use of surrogate materials in combination with a training program as articulated in Guide E2770 and coordinated among the initial responder organization, hazardous materials response unit, Urban Search and Rescue (US&R) team, National Guard Civil Support Team (CST), Laboratory Response Network (LRN) reference laboratory, local law enforcement, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and other agencies as defined by jurisdictional protocols.1.5 This guide recommends the selection of a surrogate material that challenges the workflow in a way similar to the challenge imposed by suspected biological agents encountered in real-world emergency response scenarios while posing minimal health and safety risks.1.6 This guide describes considerations when using a surrogate material for a confidence check of nucleic acid-based on-site biological assessment technologies.1.7 This guide describes factors involved in the use of a surrogate material to perform a process assessment when the operator has access to well-characterized nucleic acid-based assays specific to the surrogate material that enable the operator to target the analytical process applied to on-site biological assessment.1.8 This guide does not replace third-party validation of on-site biological assessment technologies to assess the ability of the technologies to correctly detect and identify a biological agent. This guide recommends that all on-site biological assessment technologies be demonstrated to perform according to internationally recognized consensus standards (for example, AOAC Standard Method Performance Requirements) as consistent with Guide E2770 and Practices E2458.1.9 For the purposes of this guide, sample collection should be performed according to Practices E2458.1.10 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.1.11 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