Search
  • Stephen Biss

Traceability of Measurement Results is Through the Certificate of Calibration


Purpose:

To lay the groundwork for the argument that traceability of the measurement results to the SI units is through the calibration of the individual instrument to reference standards - the étalons.

If reliability, requires traceability, then the Certificate of Calibration and the identity of the reference standards used during that calibration are relevant to the reliability of the measurement result.

Q. Now in – let me just find it. In Exhibit 12, on page 7, we have an example of – and this is with respect to Intoxilyzer 80 dash 0-0-4-6-3-2. A. The Intoxilyzer that was used in this case. Q. Yes. We have a certificate of calibration dated – I think it’s September 1st, 2009. A. It appears to be, yes. Q. And it appears to be a certificate by the manufacturer saying that on that date, that the instrument was calibrated using calibration solutions that were traceable to NIST. A. Yes. Q. Standard material, 18-28. A. Yeah. That’s what it says. Q. All right. Okay. Now, NIST is a reliable organisation? A. Yes, it’s a standard for references.

Q. We should think of it maybe as being the equivalent of the National Research Council in Canada? A. Ah, no, it’s a standard reference organisation. So, they have the references for weights and measures and temperature.

Q. Okay. Okay, I’m showing you a certificate of analysis by NIST for a standard reference material, 18-28. A. This is the first time I’ve seen one of these. Q. I’ll just give you a moment to take a look. A. All right. Q. All right, so I want to suggest to you sir, that in assessing whether or not an individual Intoxilyzer 8000 or 8000C, if its measurement results are reliable, that both the certificate of calibration by the manufacturer that’s contained in the previous exhibit we referred to, and the NIST statement of traceability, of authenticity, of the – of reference standard 18-28, both of those items are relevant to an assessment, as a scientist, of the reliability of this particular Intoxilyzer. A. Well, you’re relying on the certificate of the manufacturer who said that they followed the procedures as recommended by ASCLD/LAB and used NIST traceable standards that that is information that you can use to determine that the instrument is properly calibrated. Q. Yes. A. This is additional information beyond that... Q. Yes. A. ...that you would need for that purpose if you wanted to go into that kind of detail. Q. Yes. But if we wanted to establish whether

a measurement result on this particular Intoxilyzer 8000 or 8000C in this case, if those measurement results are reliable, then the certificate of calibration by the manufacturer indicating that its calibration and calibration solutions used are traceable to NIST and then another document from NIST indicating the quality of the measurement standard that was used, both of those documents are relevant from a scientific perspective, to the reliability of the measurement result on this Intoxilyzer 8000C. A. In the same way that a stand alone calibration check or a calibration check that’s performed as part of a breath test, does the same thing. It’s checking the calibration of the instrument. Q. You’re saying that – you said this morning that what is done during a periodic inspection of an instrument, when you were answering my friend’s questions. A. All right. Q. And you said that when a police officer is running a calibration check, on an instrument, that those are not calibrations... A. Correct. Q. ...of the instrument. A. That’s correct. It’s a calibration check. Q. But the certificate of calibration by the manufacturer is a piece of information that a scientist can use. The Court might use it as evidence of the reliability of any measurement result coming from that quantitative analysis instrument. A. Correct. And the reliability of that measurement is determined at the time of testing. Q. Well, you see, that’s where I think – and I think that’s the essence of the difference in the perspective

between you and Mr. Kupferschmidt, in that my suggestion to you is, that all the international scientific literature about measurement talks about the traceability of a measurement result. And in this case, we’ve got evidence, we’ve got information about the traceability of the measurement result on this Intoxilyzer 8000C through its certificate of calibration and through the calibration using standards from NIST which themselves, are traceable back to the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures that that’s the source of the traceability of the measurement in the international scientific literature. A. Correct. Q. What you’re saying is that that’s not important, that rather, all that’s important is a stand-alone calibration check at 100 milligrams per 100 mils. Not done under lab conditions. A. That's correct. That’s my position. That’s my opinion, be that of the Centre of Forensic Sciences and also the Alcohol Test Committee, ‘cause the traceability, you’re right, it goes to that certificate that was produced. That certificate was produced using standards and operating procedures by that organisation. But again, the proper working order of the instrument is determined at that time using a single standard. Q. Well, I’m not so much asking you about proper working... THE COURT: Can I just intervene just for a moment, Mr. Biss, just to address the last exhibit. Exhibit 27 is the National Institute of Standards and Technology Certificate of Analysis. EXHIBIT NUMBER 27: National Institute of

Standards and Technology Certificate of Analysis – produced and marked. THE COURT: Can I – can I just intervene just for a moment, Mr. Biss, just to clarify where you’re going with this? The Crown isn’t required to establish anything other than the device used falls within the legislation ...

#crossex #calibration #traceability

12 views

© 2020 Allbiss Lawdata Ltd. All rights reserved. This is not a government web site.

 

 

For more information respecting this database or to report misuse contact: Allbiss Lawdata Ltd., 303-470 Hensall Circle, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, L5A 3V4, 905-273-3322. The author and the participants make no representation or warranty  whatsoever as to the authenticity and reliability of the information contained herein.  WARNING: All information contained herein is provided  for the purpose of discussion and peer review only and should not be construed as formal legal advice. The authors disclaim any and all liability resulting from reliance upon such information. You are strongly encouraged to seek professional legal advice before relying upon any of the information contained herein. Legal advice should be sought directly from a properly retained lawyer or attorney. 

WARNING: Please do not attempt to use any text, image, or video that you see on this site in Court. These comments, images, and videos are NOT EVIDENCE. The Courts will need to hear evidence from a properly qualified expert. The author is not a scientist. The author is not an expert. These pages exist to promote discussion among defence lawyers.

 

Intoxilyzer®  is a registered trademark of CMI, Inc. The Intoxilyzer® 5000C is an "approved instrument" in Canada.
Breathalyzer® is a registered trademark of Draeger Safety, Inc., Breathalyzer Division. The owner of the trademark is Robert F. Borkenstein and Draeger Safety, Inc. has leased the exclusive rights of use from him. The Breathalyzer® 900 and Breathalyzer® 900A were "approved instruments" in Canada.
DrugTest® 5000 is also a registered trademark of Draeger Safety, Inc.. DrugTest® 5000 is "approved drug screening equipment" in Canada.
Alcotest® is a registered trademark of Draeger Safety, Inc. The Alcotest® 7410 GLC and 6810 are each an "approved screening device" in Canada.
Datamaster®  is a registered trademark of National Patent Analytical Systems, Inc.  The BAC Datamaster® C  is an "approved instrument" in Canada.