Bilateral comparison of relative humidity standards between NMISA and MIKES

D. Jonker (Corresponding Author), Martti Heinonen, H.G. Liedberg, M.R. Mnguni

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

This article describes a bilateral comparison of the relative humidity measurement standards of the National Metrology Institute of South Africa (NMISA) and the Centre for Metrology and Accreditation (MIKES-Finland). The purpose of this comparison was to test the relative humidity calibration capabilities of NMISA, particularly at temperatures other than ambient (19 °C to 25 °C). A lack of participation in top level relative humidity intercomparisons at NMISA (identified at a previous assessment), also necessitates this comparison. This article will present the results of the comparison, as well as further measurements performed to determine the causes of differences between laboratories, revealed by the comparison. Five thermohygrometers with capacitive sensors were used as comparison artifacts. The comparison range was 10 %rh–95 %rh at temperatures from 5 °C to 55 °C. NMISA calibrated the artifacts against reference unsaturated salt solutions, while MIKES calibrated the artifacts in a climatic chamber using two chilled mirror hygrometers as reference standards. Results obtained by the laboratories agreed fairly well (differences of approximately 1.5 %rh or less) for one thermohygrometer, which had a wire mesh filter, but measurement points performed with the other four, which had less porous filters, showed significant differences. Measurements at NMISA were performed at constant humidity and rising temperature, in static conditions (no air flow), without removing the filters from the sensors, while MIKES performed measurements at constant temperature and rising humidity, in flowing air, without filters removed. Further measurements are being performed at NMISA to evaluate the comparison differences. With these measurements, the effects of filters, air flow, and differences in measurement order are investigated.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1458-1467
JournalInternational Journal of Thermophysics
Volume33
Issue number8-9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2012
MoE publication typeA1 Journal article-refereed

Fingerprint

Republic of South Africa
metrology
humidity
artifacts
filters
air flow
air filters
humidity measurement
hygrometers
wire cloth
Finland
temperature
sensors
chambers
mirrors
salts
causes

Keywords

  • bilateral comparison
  • relative humidity
  • thermohygrometers
  • calibration

Cite this

Jonker, D. ; Heinonen, Martti ; Liedberg, H.G. ; Mnguni, M.R. / Bilateral comparison of relative humidity standards between NMISA and MIKES. In: International Journal of Thermophysics. 2012 ; Vol. 33, No. 8-9. pp. 1458-1467.
@article{c4a6ecec87b941f7a5d706fbf2ac918b,
title = "Bilateral comparison of relative humidity standards between NMISA and MIKES",
abstract = "This article describes a bilateral comparison of the relative humidity measurement standards of the National Metrology Institute of South Africa (NMISA) and the Centre for Metrology and Accreditation (MIKES-Finland). The purpose of this comparison was to test the relative humidity calibration capabilities of NMISA, particularly at temperatures other than ambient (19 °C to 25 °C). A lack of participation in top level relative humidity intercomparisons at NMISA (identified at a previous assessment), also necessitates this comparison. This article will present the results of the comparison, as well as further measurements performed to determine the causes of differences between laboratories, revealed by the comparison. Five thermohygrometers with capacitive sensors were used as comparison artifacts. The comparison range was 10 {\%}rh–95 {\%}rh at temperatures from 5 °C to 55 °C. NMISA calibrated the artifacts against reference unsaturated salt solutions, while MIKES calibrated the artifacts in a climatic chamber using two chilled mirror hygrometers as reference standards. Results obtained by the laboratories agreed fairly well (differences of approximately 1.5 {\%}rh or less) for one thermohygrometer, which had a wire mesh filter, but measurement points performed with the other four, which had less porous filters, showed significant differences. Measurements at NMISA were performed at constant humidity and rising temperature, in static conditions (no air flow), without removing the filters from the sensors, while MIKES performed measurements at constant temperature and rising humidity, in flowing air, without filters removed. Further measurements are being performed at NMISA to evaluate the comparison differences. With these measurements, the effects of filters, air flow, and differences in measurement order are investigated.",
keywords = "bilateral comparison, relative humidity, thermohygrometers, calibration",
author = "D. Jonker and Martti Heinonen and H.G. Liedberg and M.R. Mnguni",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1007/s10765-011-1114-8",
language = "English",
volume = "33",
pages = "1458--1467",
journal = "International Journal of Thermophysics",
issn = "0195-928X",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "8-9",

}

Bilateral comparison of relative humidity standards between NMISA and MIKES. / Jonker, D. (Corresponding Author); Heinonen, Martti; Liedberg, H.G.; Mnguni, M.R.

In: International Journal of Thermophysics, Vol. 33, No. 8-9, 2012, p. 1458-1467.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Bilateral comparison of relative humidity standards between NMISA and MIKES

AU - Jonker, D.

AU - Heinonen, Martti

AU - Liedberg, H.G.

AU - Mnguni, M.R.

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - This article describes a bilateral comparison of the relative humidity measurement standards of the National Metrology Institute of South Africa (NMISA) and the Centre for Metrology and Accreditation (MIKES-Finland). The purpose of this comparison was to test the relative humidity calibration capabilities of NMISA, particularly at temperatures other than ambient (19 °C to 25 °C). A lack of participation in top level relative humidity intercomparisons at NMISA (identified at a previous assessment), also necessitates this comparison. This article will present the results of the comparison, as well as further measurements performed to determine the causes of differences between laboratories, revealed by the comparison. Five thermohygrometers with capacitive sensors were used as comparison artifacts. The comparison range was 10 %rh–95 %rh at temperatures from 5 °C to 55 °C. NMISA calibrated the artifacts against reference unsaturated salt solutions, while MIKES calibrated the artifacts in a climatic chamber using two chilled mirror hygrometers as reference standards. Results obtained by the laboratories agreed fairly well (differences of approximately 1.5 %rh or less) for one thermohygrometer, which had a wire mesh filter, but measurement points performed with the other four, which had less porous filters, showed significant differences. Measurements at NMISA were performed at constant humidity and rising temperature, in static conditions (no air flow), without removing the filters from the sensors, while MIKES performed measurements at constant temperature and rising humidity, in flowing air, without filters removed. Further measurements are being performed at NMISA to evaluate the comparison differences. With these measurements, the effects of filters, air flow, and differences in measurement order are investigated.

AB - This article describes a bilateral comparison of the relative humidity measurement standards of the National Metrology Institute of South Africa (NMISA) and the Centre for Metrology and Accreditation (MIKES-Finland). The purpose of this comparison was to test the relative humidity calibration capabilities of NMISA, particularly at temperatures other than ambient (19 °C to 25 °C). A lack of participation in top level relative humidity intercomparisons at NMISA (identified at a previous assessment), also necessitates this comparison. This article will present the results of the comparison, as well as further measurements performed to determine the causes of differences between laboratories, revealed by the comparison. Five thermohygrometers with capacitive sensors were used as comparison artifacts. The comparison range was 10 %rh–95 %rh at temperatures from 5 °C to 55 °C. NMISA calibrated the artifacts against reference unsaturated salt solutions, while MIKES calibrated the artifacts in a climatic chamber using two chilled mirror hygrometers as reference standards. Results obtained by the laboratories agreed fairly well (differences of approximately 1.5 %rh or less) for one thermohygrometer, which had a wire mesh filter, but measurement points performed with the other four, which had less porous filters, showed significant differences. Measurements at NMISA were performed at constant humidity and rising temperature, in static conditions (no air flow), without removing the filters from the sensors, while MIKES performed measurements at constant temperature and rising humidity, in flowing air, without filters removed. Further measurements are being performed at NMISA to evaluate the comparison differences. With these measurements, the effects of filters, air flow, and differences in measurement order are investigated.

KW - bilateral comparison

KW - relative humidity

KW - thermohygrometers

KW - calibration

U2 - 10.1007/s10765-011-1114-8

DO - 10.1007/s10765-011-1114-8

M3 - Article

VL - 33

SP - 1458

EP - 1467

JO - International Journal of Thermophysics

JF - International Journal of Thermophysics

SN - 0195-928X

IS - 8-9

ER -