Report of the CCQM-K124: trace elements and chromium speciation in drinking water—part A: trace elements in drinking water, part B: chromium speciation in drinking water
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CCQM-K124 was organized by the Inorganic Analysis Working Group (IAWG) of CCQM to assess and document the capabilities of the national metrology institutes (NMIs) or the designated institutes (DIs) to measure the mass fractions of trace elements (As, B, Cd, Ca, Cr, Hg and Mo) and hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) in drinking water. The National Metrology Institute of Japan (NMIJ) and the Government Laboratory, Hong Kong SAR (GLHK) acted as the coordinating laboratories. This comparison is divided into two parts. Part A was organized by the NMIJ and the trace elements were the analytes, and Part B was organised by the GLHK and Cr(VI) was the analyte. In Part A, results were submitted by 14 NMIs and nine DIs. The participants used different measurement methods, though most of them used direct measurement using inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES), inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), and isotope dilution technique with ICP-MS. The results of As, B, Cd, Ca and Cr show good agreement with the exception of some outliers. Concerning Hg, instability was observed when the sample was stored in the light. And some participants observed instability of Mo. Therefore, it was agreed to abandon the Hg and Mo analysis as this sample was not satisfactory for KC. In Part B, results were submitted by six NMIs and one DI. The methods applied were direct measurement using 1,5-diphenylcarbazide (DPC) derivatisation UV-visible spectrophotometry, standard addition using ion chromatography-UV-visible spectrophotometry or HPLC—inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) and isotope dilution technique with ion chromatography—ICP-MS. The results of all participants show good agreement. Accounting for relative expanded uncertainty, comparability of measurement results for each of As, B, Cd, Ca, Cr and Cr(VI) was successfully demonstrated by the participating NMIs or DIs. Main text To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report . Note that this text is that which appears in Appendix B of the BIPM key comparison database kcdb.bipm.org/ . The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by the CCQM, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (CIPM MRA).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".