Advanced Assessment of Environmental Factors Affecting Calibration Traceability and Measurement Reliability

The accuracy, traceability, and reliability of calibration measurements is highly dependent on the environment in today's metrology laboratories. Ambient temperature, relative humidity, atmospheric pressure, vibration and airflow have significant impact on measurement uncertainty and on the long-term stability of calibrated instruments (JCGM 100:2008; Bell 2001). In this study, these environmental factors are evaluated using an advanced experimental and analytical methodology. Experiments were performed in controlled lab facilities with high accuracy balances, volumetric measuring glassware, and digital measurement system in the temperature range of 18 °C to 32 °C, relative humidity from 35% to 75% and under observed atmospheric pressure. The tests were repeated 10 times for each test condition (n=10), and 10 times for each instrument type for a total of 30 measurements per environmental condition (3 instruments × 10 repeats). Using the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (JCGM 100:2008) relationships between environmental fluctuations and calibration deviations were quantified through statistical analysis and uncertainty modelling. The calibration uncertainty was largest for the volumetric measurement, 42%, and had a good linear dependence (R2 = 0.93) with temperature variation. For electronic instrumentation and mass measurements, the impacts of humidity were more pronounced, with the effect showing a non-linear relationship above 60% RH, which is consistent with Ahmed et al. (2019) and Wang et al. (2017). The overall calibration uncertainty was reduced by 18.7% (paired t-test, p < 0.01) using the novel environmental compensation algorithm based on empirical transfer functions generated in real-time using polynomial correction factors. These results
highlight the need for regular monitoring of the environment alongside compensation to guarantee a traceable calibration, in line with the ISO/IEC 17025:2017 (ISO/IEC 2017).

Environmental factors, Calibration traceability, Measurement reliability, Metrology, Uncertainty analysis, Temperature effect, Humidity effect, Precision calibration

1. ASME. (1973/2017). ASME B89.6.2: Temperature and humidity environment for dimensional measurement. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. ASTM International. (2021). ASTM E542-01(2021): Standard practice for calibration of laboratory volumetric apparatus. ASTM International. https://doi.org/10.1520/E0542-01R21 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bell, S. A. (2001). A beginner’s guide to uncertainty of measurement (Measurement Good Practice Guide No. 11, Issue 2). National Physical Laboratory. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bentley, J. P. (2005). Principles of measurement systems (4th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. BIPM, IEC, IFCC, ILAC, ISO, IUPAC, IUPAP, & OIML. (2012). International vocabulary of metrology—Basic and general concepts and associated terms (VIM) (3rd ed., JCGM 200:2012). Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Cox, M. G., & Harris, P. M. (2010). Software support for metrology: Best practice guide No. 6—Uncertainty evaluation (NPL Report MS 6). National Physical Laboratory. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Cox, M. G., & Siebert, B. R. L. (2006). The use of a Monte Carlo method for evaluating uncertainty and expanded uncertainty. Metrologia, 43(4), S178–S188. https://doi.org/10.1088/0026-1394/43/4/S03 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Davis, R. S. (1992). Equation for the determination of the density of moist air (1981/91). Metrologia, 29(1), 67–70. https://doi.org/10.1088/0026-1394/29/1/008 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Doiron, T., & Beers, J. S. (1995). The gage block handbook (NIST Monograph 180). National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.MONO.180 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. European Accreditation. (2022). EA-4/02 M: Evaluation of the uncertainty of measurement in calibration. European Accreditation. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. EURACHEM/CITAC. (2012). Quantifying uncertainty in analytical measurement (3rd ed., S. L. R. Ellison & A. Williams, Eds.). EURACHEM/CITAC. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. EURAMET. (2015). Guidelines on the calibration of non-automatic weighing instruments (EURAMET Calibration Guide No. 18, Version 4.0). EURAMET. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. EURAMET. (2018). Guidelines on the determination of uncertainty in gravimetric volume calibration (EURAMET Calibration Guide No. 19, Version 3.0). EURAMET. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. EURAMET. (2022). Guidelines on the calibration of electromechanical and mechanical manometers (EURAMET Calibration Guide No. 17, Version 4.1). EURAMET. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Farahani, H., Wagiran, R., & Hamidon, M. N. (2014). Humidity sensors principle, mechanism, and fabrication technologies: A comprehensive review. Sensors, 14(5), 7881–7939. https://doi.org/10.3390/s140507881 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Fluke Corporation. (2006). Calibration: Philosophy in practice (2nd ed.). Fluke Corporation. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Gupta, S. V. (2002). Practical density measurement and hydrometry. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780367801496 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Hall, B. D. (2008). Evaluating methods of calculating measurement uncertainty. Metrologia, 45(2), L5–L8. https://doi.org/10.1088/0026-1394/45/2/N01 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Harris, G. L. (2019). Selected procedures for volumetric calibrations (NISTIR 7383-2019). National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.7383-2019 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. IEC. (2010). IEC 61010-1:2010: Safety requirements for electrical equipment for measurement, control, and laboratory use—Part 1: General requirements. International Electrotechnical Commission. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. ILAC. (2020a). ILAC P10:07/2020: ILAC policy on metrological traceability of measurement results. International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. ILAC. (2020b). ILAC P14:09/2020: ILAC policy for measurement uncertainty in calibration. International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. ISO. (2016). ISO 1:2016: Geometrical product specifications (GPS)—Standard reference temperature for the specification of geometrical and dimensional properties. International Organization for Standardization. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. ISO. (1998). ISO 3650:1998: Geometrical product specifications (GPS)—Length standards—Gauge blocks. International Organization for Standardization. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. ISO. (2021). ISO 4787:2021: Laboratory glass and plastic ware—Volumetric instruments—Methods for testing of capacity and for use. International Organization for Standardization. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. ISO/IEC. (2017). ISO/IEC 17025:2017: General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. International Organization for Standardization. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. JCGM. (2008a). Evaluation of measurement data—Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (JCGM 100:2008). Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. JCGM. (2008b). Evaluation of measurement data—Supplement 1 to the Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement—Propagation of distributions using a Monte Carlo method (JCGM 101:2008). Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. JCGM. (2020). Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement—Developing and using measurement models (JCGM GUM-6:2020). Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Morris, A. S., & Langari, R. (2016). Measurement and instrumentation: Theory and application (2nd ed.). Academic Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2019a). SOP 2: Applying air buoyancy corrections. NIST Office of Weights and Measures. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2019b). SOP 14: Gravimetric calibration of volumetric standards using an electronic balance. NIST Office of Weights and Measures. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2019c). SOP 49: Calibration of environmental monitoring standards by direct comparison. National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8250 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2026). NIST Handbook 44: Specifications, tolerances, and other technical requirements for weighing and measuring devices. National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.HB.44-2026 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. OIML. (2004). OIML R 111-1:2004: Weights of classes E1, E2, F1, F2, M1, M1–2, M2, M2–3 and M3—Part 1: Metrological and technical requirements. International Organization of Legal Metrology. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Pendrill, L. R. (2014). Using measurement uncertainty in decision-making and conformity assessment. Metrologia, 51(4), S206–S218. https://doi.org/10.1088/0026-1394/51/4/S206 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Phillips, S. D., Shakarji, C. M., Balsamo, A., Krystek, M., & Morse, E. P. (2016). The 2016 revision of ISO 1—Standard reference temperature for the specification of geometrical and dimensional properties. Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 121, Article 26. https://doi.org/10.6028/JRES.121.026 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Picard, A., Davis, R. S., Gläser, M., & Fujii, K. (2008). Revised formula for the density of moist air (CIPM-2007). Metrologia, 45(2), 149–155. https://doi.org/10.1088/0026-1394/45/2/004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Possolo, A., & Iyer, H. K. (2017). Invited article: Concepts and tools for the evaluation of measurement uncertainty. Review of Scientific Instruments, 88(1), 011301. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4974274 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Tanaka, M., Girard, G., Davis, R., Peuto, A., & Bignell, N. (2001). Recommended table for the density of water between 0 °C and 40 °C based on recent experimental reports. Metrologia, 38(4), 301–309. https://doi.org/10.1088/0026-1394/38/4/3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Taylor, B. N., & Kuyatt, C. E. (1994). Guidelines for evaluating and expressing the uncertainty of NIST measurement results (NIST Technical Note 1297). National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.1297 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Tsilingiris, P. T. (2008). Thermophysical and transport properties of humid air at temperature range between 0 and 100 °C. Energy Conversion and Management, 49(5), 1098–1110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2007.09.015 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Willink, R. (2013a). An improved procedure for combining Type A and Type B components of measurement uncertainty. International Journal of Metrology and Quality Engineering, 4(1), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1051/ijmqe/2012038 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Willink, R. (2013b). Measurement uncertainty and probability. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139135085 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Wichmann, B. A., Parkin, G. I., & Barker, R. M. (2000). Software support for metrology: Best practice guide No. 1—Validation of software in measurement systems. National Physical Laboratory. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]