Calibration Standards – FAQs

  1. What is a Calibration Standard, and why do I need one?
  2. Are EA Labs Calibration Standards backed by literature? How?
  3. Does EA Labs have Certified Calibration Standards?
  4. What is a Certified Calibration Standard?
  5. Do EA Labs Calibration Standards adhere to ASTM, ISO, NIST, or other Nationally or Internationally recognized standards for the use or manufacturing of Calibration Standards?
  6. How do EA Labs Calibration Standards match up to the major OEM products?
  7. Can I purchase the same mass as why my OEM would sell me?
  8. What sets EA Labs’ Calibration Standards apart from the OEM standards?
  9. What purity is required for calibrating thermal analysis equipment?
Q: What is a Calibration Standard, and why do I need one?

Calibration Standards are used to calibrate Thermal Analysis equipment, among other equipment in the chemical testing world. Calibration Standards come in many varieties such as pure, alloys, chemical mixtures, and gases.

For Thermal Analysis equipment, most Calibration Standards are pure (99.99% or 4N) to highly pure (99.9999+% or 6+N). Though some are alloys such as Alumel and Perkalloy. Alloys are generally 2 component with both combined having 95 to 99.99% purity in the alloy.

Calibration standards for the Thermal Analysis industry are backed by nearly 100 years of experimental testing for the exact material reference point the Calibration Standard is used.

 
Q: Are EA Labs Calibration Standards backed by literature? How?

All EA Labs Calibration Standards are backed by literature sources which were sought out before manufacturing the Standards we sell.

EA Labs scientists started with the common practices, standards, and publications that the OEMs cite as their sources for information, and continued going backward through publications to find the original testing literature publication to determine exactly who, when, and how the material characteristic of a material was determined.

In addition to literature articles, the OEMs often cite the ITS-90 standards for material properties.  The ’90’ in the name refers to 1990, when the standard was last revised.  Even from this starting point, our scientists dive deeper into this standardized product to determine how the values were determined.  Our literature sources are all novel research completed by reputable sources and published in reputable and internationally known journals.

Q: Does EA Labs have Certified Calibration Standards?

EA Labs now carries both Certified Reference Materials (CRM) as an ISO 17034:2016 RMP (Reference Material Producer), certified by Perry Johnson Laboratory Accreditation, Inc. and Reference Materials with Certificate (RMC).  Both of our standards fall under the umbrella of ISO 17034:2016.  the primary difference between the 2 is the purity of the material offered and the paperwork. 

CRMs are top level purity with 3rd party testing used to validate our own internal testing along with extensive paperwork on the material, its properties, and its use.  RMCs are literature level purity at a minimum, and only internally tested for conformance to the literature specification.  The paperwork is also simplified to just the basic information on the material.

Q: What is a Certified Calibration Standard?

A Certified Calibration Standard or Certified Reference Materials are manufactured following standardized procedures, and the resulting material has a guaranteed purity of 99.0+ to 99.9999+% as tested and verified. For this reason, the cost of these standards is quite high, and guarantees a superior product with guaranteed properties.

Our primary competitor in this industry, TA Instruments, claims on their website and technical papers that materials conforms to the following:

        • 99.9999+% purity or “6N+” purity.
        • Certificate of Analysis / Spectrographic Analysis
        • Documentation proving the lot’s material characteristics meet the requirements (i.e. Tm of Indium = 156.59 oC, Certified Standard: 156 + 3 oC)

However, TA Instruments is not ISO 17034:2016 accredited, which means that their materials are not CRM unless they resell from an ISO 17034:2016 supplier or other similarly accredited manufacturer.  According to TA Instrument and Waters Corporation websites, TA Instruments is ISO 9001: 2015 accredited for the manufacturing of thermal analysis equipment, and Waters Corporation is accredited as ISO/IEC 17025:2017 and other laboratory operations.

Q: Do EA Labs Calibration Standards adhere to ASTM, ISO, NIST, or other Nationally or Internationally recognized standards for the use or manufacturing of Calibration Standards?

EA Labs Calibration Standards inherently adhere to all National and International standards for the use of these Calibration Standards for thermal analysis equipment.  EA Labs Calibration Standards are manufactured according to ISO 17024:2016 requirements and as outlined by NIST definitions.

In addition, all EA Labs Calibration Standards are recognized to provide the desired material property for all OEM equipment when used in accordance with the operating procedures for the equipment as backed by decades of literature citing their exact property and use for calibration.

ICTAC Standards – the International Confederation of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry provides a list a materials suitable for use as a calibration standard.  CRMs, RMs, and other standards listed as ICTAC simply imply that the material is approved by this international organization.

NIST Standards – OEMs and other CRM sellers, like EA Labs, do not technically sell a CRM which has been sold by and approved by NIST at this time.  NIST is currently only selling a few Melting /Freezing Point certified materials in bulk, and will sell to exhaustion with no statement of renewing with a new lot.  Currently, most sellers of NIST CRM, in their direct statement within their paperwork note that their test equipment was calibrated using material purchase from NIST (likely back in the 90s).  Using the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics, if the NIST material is X then their material, when tested against the NIST material is also X.

ASTM Standards – ASTM does not authorize or sell any standards.  Through efforts committee members overseeing the Thermal Analysis Series of ASTM Standards, a list of materials suitable for use as a calibration standard are given for each specific type of equipment.

Q: How do EA Labs Calibration Standards match up to the major OEM products?

In general, all OEMs sell a minimum 99.99% or 4N purity calibration standards. This purity is considered the minimum acceptable purity to achieve a desired material property for calibration purposes.  EA Labs sells the same or better, and sale page for each material lists its purity.

TA Instruments sells Certified Calibration Standards which they promote as 99.99998+% or 6N8 purity, for those materials with melt properties. See the description above for additional information on Certified Calibration Standards.  EA Labs sells the same as 7+N is nearly impossible to achieve.  Additionally, through this learning process, our scientists have determined that even the best trace metal analysis equipment cannot determine impurities below 0.00005% in an material.  Which means that 6N5 is really the best anyone can provide.

Q: Can I purchase the same mass as why my OEM would sell me?

To some degree, yes.  EA Labs has recently changed the variations of mass provided due to the lack of request to purchase some mass quantities.  Beyond this, EA Lab’s products meet or exceed what each OEM is known to sell at this time.

EA Labs has researched what each OEM sells as their standard product via direct purchase, website description, or through other purchasers.

When you select the Calibration Standard, look for your OEM’s part number, and it will show the closest mass to the standard mass your OEM would send you.  Please note that some of our products have a higher mass than what the OEM sells, and a lower rate.  Please see below for what sets EA Labs apart from the OEMs.

Q: What sets EA Labs’ Calibration Standards apart from the OEM standards?

EA Labs, in general, sells the exact same Calibration Standards (as CRMs and RMCs) as the OEMs, but this only puts us on par with the OEMs.

The primary differences between an EA Labs Calibration Standard and the OEM standards are:

  1. Purity – EA Labs only select the highest purity standard that meets or exceeds literature values.
  2. Form – Almost exclusively wire form for ease of cutting and use in the lab.
  3. Quantity – EA Labs sell quantities to meet your needs not our ease of sale and manufacture.
  4. Paperwork – EA Labs paperwork is extensive in covering the required items to conform to CRM and RMC requirements while exceeding those requirements with additional authentication components and documented information.
  5. Certification Backing – EA Labs backs the quality and use of all our standards during ISO, FDA, or other inspections as Certified for Use – FREE!  Our scientists will even help you with the appropriate paperwork required by your inspectors.  EA Labs materials have passed ISO and other international inspections across the world.
Q: What purity is required for calibrating thermal analysis equipment?

Most original research cites the use of 99.9999% or 6N pure material, but, at times, lists 99.999% or “highest available.”  The lowest purity percent  seen in original research publications is 99.99+% pure, typically for materials which are notoriously difficult to purify.

What is “original?”  This term to means that the research article was on novel or new research purposefully seeking to more accurately determine the value of the material’s physical property such as the melt temperature.  The values from these articles are often cited by other literature for decades.

What is most intriguing about the literature that the OEMs use to validate their numbers were published upwards of 30 years or more ago.  Against, starting with the research article cited, and then working backwards because most literature citation currently used are actually citing property values from prior research; the articles were not based on new experiments of the well established values.