LINKING SIM MASS COMPARISONS TO THE KCRV ON 1 kg. Luis O. Becerra CENAM Querétaro, Qro., Mexico,

Similar documents
INTERLABORATORY MASS COMPARISON BETWEEN LABORATORIES BELONGING TO SIM SUB-REGIONS COORDINATED BY CENAM (SIM.7.31a & SIM.7.31b)

Final Report on CIPM key comparison of multiples and submultiples of the kilogram (CCM.M-K2)

DRAFT B, Final Report on CIPM key comparison of 1 kg standards in stainless steel (CCM.M-K1)

FINAL REPORT OF THE BILATERAL COMPARISON OF THE CALIBRATIONS OF STANDARD WEIGHTS BETWEEN CENAM-MEXICO AND INEN-ECUADOR SIM.M.M-S4 (SIM.7.

PROTOCOL OF MASS AND VOLUME COMPARISONS BETWEEN SIM NMIs

Force Key Comparison CCM.F-K1.a and CCM.F-K1.b 5 kn and 10 kn. Aimo Pusa MIKES Finland

Final Report on APMP.M.M-K4.1 - Bilateral Comparison of 1 kg Stainless Steel Mass Standards between KRISS and A*STAR

INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON OF WATER TRIPLE POINT CELLS LEADING TO A MORE PRECISE DEFINITION OF THE KELVIN

A comparison of primary platinum-iridium kilogram mass standards among eighteen European NMIs

Supplementary Comparison

National Physical Laboratory Hampton Road Teddington Middlesex United Kingdom TW11 0LW

The BIPM key comparison database, Aug /10

The Journey from Ω Through 19 Orders of Magnitude

The ITS-90 after definition of neon isotopic reference composition: extent of the isotopic effect tested on previous inter-comparison results

USDA Dairy Import License Circular for 2018

HYDROMETER CALIBRATION: LINKING SIM NMIs TO THE EURAMET KEY COMPARISON REFERENCE VALUE OF EURAMET.M.D-K4

Centro Nacional de Metrología. CIPM Key Comparison CCL KC-6

Final Report. APMP.EM-K4.1 APMP Key Comparison of Capacitance at 10 pf

Final Report on. Regional Key Comparison for Volume of liquids at 20 L and 100 ml Conducted January 2007 to December 2008 SIM.M.

USDA Dairy Import License Circular for 2018 Commodity/

SIM SIM.M.D-K3. provide. SIM.M.M-K5 for. A set of. Institute LACOMET LATU INTI. Country Costa Rica Uruguay Argentina Chile México Canada Brazil

Supplementary comparison SIM.M.FF-S12. Final Report for Volume of Liquids at 20 L

SIM FORCE STANDARDS COMPARISON UP TO 10 kn

CCL-K5. CMM 1D: Step Gauge and Ball Bars. Final Report

Preparation of nitrous oxide (N 2 O) in air standard being traceable to SI by gravimetric method

Final Report. SIM / ANDIMET Supplementary Comparison for Volume of Liquids at 100 ml and 100 µl SIM.M.FF-S7

Force Key Comparison EUROMET.M.F-K2. (50 kn and 100 kn) EURAMET Project No 518. Final Report. 14 July Pilot: NPL, United Kingdom

USDA Dairy Import License Circular for 2018

CCM short note on the dissemination process after the proposed redefinition of the kilogram

Appendix B: Detailed tables showing overall figures by country and measure

CCM-Working Group on Gravimetry (CCM-WGG) Alessandro Germak INRIM, Torino, Italy

INTERCOMPARISON OF WATER TRIPLE POINT CELLS FROM INTIBS AND INRIM 1. INTRODUCTION

Force Key Comparison CCM.F-K4.a and CCM.F-K4.b for 4 MN and 2 MN Forces. Final Report. T.W. Bartel NIST Mass and Force Group U.S.A.

REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP ON HARDNESS (WGH) ACTIVITIES (2005) Prepared by A. Germak (Chairman) and S. Low (Secretary)

Interamerican Metrology System (SIM) Regional Metrology Organization (RMO) Capacitance Comparison, Final Report

Final Report on COOMET Key Comparison of Capacitance at 10 pf (COOMET.EM-K4)

CCT-K5: Comparison of local realizations of the ITS-90 between the silver point and 1700 C using vacuum tungsten strip lamps as transfer standards

NPL REPORT ENG 13. Report on EUROMET key comparison of multiples and submultiples of the kilogram (EUROMET.M.M-K2) M Perkin NOT RESTRICTED

CCQM-K27.2 Second Subsequent Study: Determination of Ethanol in Aqueous Media Final Report

APMP.T-K3.4: Key comparison of realizations of the ITS-90 over the range C to C

Preparation of nitrous oxide in air standard (320 nmol/mol) for CCQM-K68

National Physical Laboratory Hampton Road Teddington Middlesex United Kingdom TW11 0LW

Final Report on Key Comparison EUROMET.M.P-K3.a in the Gauge Pressure Range 50 kpa to 1000 kpa. May 2005

International Student Enrollment Fall 2018 By CIP Code, Country of Citizenship, and Education Level Harpur College of Arts and Sciences

Comparison between the CENAM (Mexico) 150 kn and the INRiM (Italy) 1 MN force standard machines

Final report on CCQM-K36.1 with erratum

Report on CCM Pilot Study CCM.R-kg-P1. Comparison of future realizations of the kilogram. Final Report

A Collaboration Between Ten National Measurement Institutes To Measure The Mass Of Two One Kilogram Mass Standards

How Well Are Recessions and Recoveries Forecast? Prakash Loungani, Herman Stekler and Natalia Tamirisa

CCQM-P28: An international comparison of ground-level ozone reference standards

DISTILLED SPIRITS - IMPORTS BY VALUE DECEMBER 2017

04 June Dim A W V Total. Total Laser Met

DISTILLED SPIRITS - IMPORTS BY VOLUME DECEMBER 2017

CCT Working Group for Humidity

Maintaining and disseminating the kilogram following its redefinition

ASIA PACIFIC METROLOGY PROGRAME

Report on EURAMET.M.M-S9

Key Comparisons, the MRA and CMCs: An International Measurement Infrastructure. Robert Wielgosz. Bureau International des Poids et Mesures

EuroGeoSurveys & ASGMI The Geological Surveys of Europe and IberoAmerica

BIPM.RI(II)-K1.Am-241, CCRI(II)-K2.Am-241, and COOMET.RI(II)-K2.Am.241

Final Report on the APMP Air Speed Key Comparison (APMP.M.FF-K3)

Supplementary Appendix for. Version: February 3, 2014

BIPM.RI(II)-K1.F-18, BIPM.RI(II)-K4.F18, CCRI(II)-K3.F-18 and APMP.RI(II)-K3.F-18

Final Report. CCEM Comparison of 10 pf Capacitance Standards. Anne-Marie Jeffery Electricity Division NIST May 2000 Revised March 2002

Summary of the ICRM Life Sciences Working Group Meeting

U.S. Sugar Monthly Import and Re-Exports

BIPM/CIPM key comparison CCM.FF-K Final Report for Volume of Liquids at 20 L and 100 ml - Piloted by Centro Nacional de Metrología (CENAM)

Introduction. (hqp:// units/new- si/)

Mass determination of 1 kg silicon spheres for Avogadro project

Calibration, traceability, uncertainty and comparing measurement results. Workshop 16 March 2015 VSL, Delft The Netherlands

Final report to the CCT on key comparison CCT-K6 Comparison of local realisations of dew-point temperature scales in the range -50 C to +20 C

DISTILLED SPIRITS - EXPORTS BY VALUE DECEMBER 2017

Lab i x i u i Lab i x i u i / (mg/kg) / (mg/kg) / (mg/kg) / (mg/kg)

2017 Source of Foreign Income Earned By Fund

TMM UPDATE TRANS DAY OF REMEMBRANCE 2017

INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON OF PLATINUM RESISTANCE THERMOMETERS BETWEEN CHILE AND ECUADOR

Temperature measurement

INTERNATIONAL KEY COMPARISON OF LIQUID HYDROCARBON FLOW FACILITIES CCM-FF-K2 (Final Report) BIPM Pavillon de Breteuil F Sevres France

Governments that have requested pre-export notifications pursuant to article 12, paragraph 10 (a), of the 1988 Convention

Analytical Measurements, 19, Moskovsky Prospekt, St-Petersburg, Russia

Force Key Comparison APMP.M.F-K2.a and APMP.M.F-K2.b (50 kn and 100 kn) Final Report 6 August Pilot: KRISS, Republic of Korea Yon-Kyu Park

A preparative comparison using the harmonisation method on standards of synthetic natural gas (CCQM-P87)

Comparison between the mass spectrometer and speed-of-sound measurements of M Ar for the k B determination

Office of Budget & Planning 311 Thomas Boyd Hall Baton Rouge, LA Telephone 225/ Fax 225/

Key comparison BIPM.RI(I)-K1 of the air-kerma standards of the LNE-LNHB, France and the BIPM in 60 Co gamma radiation

G. Ratel*, C. Michotte*, Y. Hino** *BIPM and **NMIJ, Japan

Final Report on the Torque Key Comparison CCM.T-K2 Measurand Torque: 0 kn m, 10 kn m, 20 kn m Dirk Röske 1), Koji Ogushi 2)

About the Authors Geography and Tourism: The Attraction of Place p. 1 The Elements of Geography p. 2 Themes of Geography p. 4 Location: The Where of

International Standardization for Measurement and Characterization of Nanomaterials

Calibration of long gauge blocks. Technical protocol (Issue 1)

Demography, Time and Space

Connectivity in the LAC region

Implementation of MRA NMIs, BIPM,RMO-TCs Improvement of Global Measurement Standards NMIs, BIPM

Highlights in the work of the BIPM during 2017

FORCE STANDARDS COMPARISON BETWEEN PTB (GERMANY) AND CENAM (MEXICO).

Introduction to time-use surveys

ICC Rev August 2010 Original: English. Agreement. International Coffee Council 105 th Session September 2010 London, England

Key comparison BIPM.RI(I)-K7 of the air-kerma standards of the CMI, Czech Republic and the BIPM in mammography x-rays

TC-Chair Annual Report 2008/2009 TC-M

Overview. TC Thermometry Graham Machin. Introduction to TC-T Annual meeting Selected comparisons TC-T training for future thermal metrologists

Transcription:

LINKING SIM MASS COMPARISONS TO THE KCRV ON 1 kg Luis O. Becerra CENAM Querétaro, Qro., Mexico, lbecerra@cenam.mx Abstract. Within the frame of SIM (Sistema Interamericano de Metrología), inter laboratory mass comparisons have been performed in different nominal values. The main objective of these comparisons was to asses the equivalence level of SIM laboratories, among themselves and with other national metrology institutes from other metrological regions. The present work shows the degree of equivalence in 1 kg, of SIM laboratories with the Key Comparison Reference Value (KCRV), of CCM.M-K1 and therefore with those NMIs participants of the CCM.M- K1 by simple differences. Keywords: Mass, Mass comparisons 1. Introduction In the frame of SIM, mass comparisons were performed among SIM NMIs where the travelling standards were stainless steel mass standards of different nominal values. An important goal of these comparisons was to evaluate the degree of consistency among SIM laboratories in mass measurement. The present work expounds the evaluation of consistency at the 1 kg level among SIM laboratories and between SIM laboratories and the KCRV (Key Comparison Reference Value) of CCM.M-K1 and therefore with those NMIs participants of the CCM.M-K1 by simple differences.. Mass Comparisons used for this analysis For the purpose of this paper were analysed the reported values in 1 kg of three comparisons performed in the frame of SIM and the reported values of the key comparison of CCM in 1 kg too. SIM.7.16a [1] Nominal value: 1 kg Participant NMIs: CENAM-Mexico, LANAMET-Nicaragua, CONACYT-El Salvador, LNMG-Guatemala, LACOMET-Costa Rica, CENAMEP-Panama, Pilot Laboratory: CENAM Date: May 003 - Nov 003 SIM.7.9 (SIM.M.M-S1) [] Nominal values: 1 kg, 100 g, 0 g, 5 g and 100 Participant NMIs: CEM-España, CENAM-Mexico, IBMETRO-Bolivia, INDECOPI-Peru, INEN-Ecuador, SIC-Colombia, SENCAMER-Venezuela

Pilot Laboratories: CEM, CENAM Date: Jul 004 Jul 005 SIM.7.31a (SIM.M.M-S) [3] Nominal values: 1 kg Participant NMIs: CENAM-Mexico, BSJ-Jamaica, LACOMET-Costa Rica, IBMETRO-Bolivia, CESMEC-Chile, INDECOPI-Peru, INTN-Paraguay Pilot Laboratory: CENAM Date: Apr 005 - Jan 006 CMM.M-K1 [4] Nominal value: 1 kg Participant NMIs: BIPM-International (BIPM is an International laboratory not a NMI), CSIRO-Australia, NRC-Canada, NIM-China, BNM-INM/CNAM-France, PTB-Germany, IMGC-Italy, NMIJ/AIST-Japan, KRISS-Republic of Korea, CENAM-Mexico, VSL-Netherlands, VNIIM-Russia, SMU-Slovakia, NPL-United Kingdom, NIST-USA Pilot Laboratory: BIPM Date: Feb 1995 - Nov 1997 All reports were published. For the Mass comparison SIM.7.9, only the reported results for 1 kg were used for the purpose of this paper. Tables 1 to 3 report the mass differences between the participant laboratories and CENAM in SIM comparisons. Mass differences between participant laboratories and CENAM in CCM.M.K1 comparison are reported in table 4. For CCM.M-K1, mass difference between participant laboratories and the KCRV are reported in table 5. Table 1. Mass difference between NMI i and CENAM, in SIM.7.16a. diff.. (k=) NMI CENAM --- 0.15 LANAMET 0.17 0.54 CENAMEP -0.06 0.43 LACOMET -0.93 0.34 LNMG 0.4 1.0 CONACYT 0.4 1.0

Table. Mass difference between NMI i and CENAM, in SIM.7.9. NMI diff.. (k=) CENAM --- 0.00 CEM -0.00 0.086 SIC -0.14 0.18 SENCAMER 1.19 0.5 INEN -0.01 0.19 INDECOPI -0.04 0.30 IBMETRO -0.08 0.15 Table 3. Mass difference between NMI i and CENAM, in SIM.7.31a. NMI diff.. (k=) CENAM --- 0.030 BSJ 0.1 1.3 LACOMET -0.054 0.055 IBMETRO 0.03 0.16 INDECOPI -0.04 0.6 INTN 0.1 1.6 CESMEC 0.0 0.50 Table 4. Mass difference between NMI i and CENAM, in CCM.M-K1 NMI diff.. (k=) CENAM --- 0.06 BIPM 0.001 0.036 VSL -0.017 0.045 NIST -0.00 0.047 NPL 0.001 0.041 NRC -0.019 0.043 NMIJ -0.0 0.038 VNIIM 0.047 0.055 CSIRO 0.003 0.039 PTB -0.003 0.037 NIM -0.003 0.053 SMU 0.058 0.05 KRISS -0.003 0.039 IMGC -0.00 0.038 BNM 0.004 0.034

Table 5. Mass difference between NMI i and KCRV, in CCM.M-K1 NMI diff.. (k=) BIPM 0.003 0.04 VSL -0.015 0.037 NIST -0.018 0.039 NPL 0.00 0.03 NRC -0.017 0.034 NMIJ -0.00 0.08 VNIIM 0.049 0.048 CSIRO 0.005 0.09 PTB -0.001 0.06 NIM -0.001 0.046 SMU 0.060 0.044 KRISS -0.001 0.09 IMGC 0.000 0.07 BNM 0.006 0.0 CENAM 0.00 0.07 All differences reported in tables 1 to 5, were assessed for each particular comparison. The uncertainty associated to each difference comprises the reported uncertainty for the corresponding participants and the stability of the standards used. 3. Evaluation of the degree of equivalence between SIM NMIs and KCRV in 1 kg CENAM was the key linkage between SIM participant laboratories and the KCRV. The mass differences obtained between CENAM and SIM participant laboratories in corresponding comparison were used in order to link the results of SIM laboratories with those of the KCRV of CCM.M-K1. It is assumed that all results have systematic differences among them within the uncertainty interval of such differences. The mass difference between SIM s laboratory i and KCRV of CCM.M-K1 is calculated by, diff( NMI KCRV) = diff( NMI CENAM ) diff( CENAM KCRV) ij ij j CCM (1) where, ( ) NMI ij CENAM j diff is the mass difference between the NMI i and CENAM in the comparison j, diff ( CENAMCCM KCRV ) is the mass difference between CENAM and the KCRV of CCM.M-K1

The uncertainty of these mass difference is evaluated by combination of the standard uncertainty of the mass difference between SIM s laboratory and CENAM, the standard uncertainty of the mass difference between CENAM and the KCRV, a component of uncertainty due to the CENAM s reproducibility, minus CENAM s reported uncertainties for the corresponding comparisons. () udiff ( NMI KCRV ) = [ u diff ( NMI CENAM ) u CENAM ( ) ( ) ( ) i 1 ( diff ( CENAM KCRV )) u ( CENAM ) + u ( CENAM ')] + u CCM where, udiff NMI ij CENAM ) is the standard uncertainty of the mass difference between ( ) ( j the NMI i and CENAM for the comparison j, u( diff ( CENAM KCRV )) is the standard uncertainty of the mass difference between CENAM and the KCRV of the CCM.M-K1, u ( CENAM j ) is the reported uncertainty by CENAM in the comparison j, u ( CENAM CCM ) is the reported uncertainty by CENAM in the CCM.M-K1. u ( CENAM ) is the component due to the CENAM s reproducibility, which was estimated as 7 µg, In table 6, are reported the calculated mass differences between SIM s NMIs and the KCRV of the CCM.M-K1, and the expanded uncertainties evaluated for those mass differences. Table 6. Mass difference between NMI i and the KCRV of CCM.M-K1. Comparison NMI Diff U, k= CENAM 0.00 0.07 SIM.7.16a LANAMET 0.17 0.5 CENAMEP -0.05 0.40 LACOMET -0.9 0.30 LNMG 0.4 1.0 CONACYT 0.4 1.0 SIM.7.31a BSJ 0.1 1.3 (SIM.M-S) LACOMET -0.05 0.049 IBMETRO 0.03 0.15 INDECOPI -0.04 0.6 INTN 0.1 1.6 SIM.7.9, (SIM.M.M-S1) ij CESMEC 0.0 0.50 CEM -0.018 0.085 SIC -0.14 0.18 SENCAMER 1.19 0.5 INEN -0.01 0.19 INDECOPI -0.04 0.30 IBMETRO -0.08 0.15 j j

In figure 1, LACOMET 1 was calculated from its participation in SIM.7.16a and LACOMET was calculated from its participation in SIM.7.31a. Changes were reported in the traceability system of LACOMET between its participations in SIM.7.16a and SIM.7.31a. IBMETRO 1 and INDECOPI 1 were calculated from SIM.7.31a results, and IBMETRO and INDECOPI were calculated from SIM.7.9 results. Figure 1. Mass differences between SIM s NMIs and the KCRV of CCM.M-K1 (1 kg). The uncertainties are plotted with k=..000 1.500 1.000 Diff NMI - KCRV 1 kg diff (milligrams) 0.500 0.000-0.500-1.000-1.500 -.000 CENAM LANAMET CENAMEP LACOMET 1 LNMG CONACYT BSJ LACOMET IBMETRO 1 INDECOPI 1 INTN CESMEC CEM SIC SENCAMER INEN INDECOPI IBMETRO NMIs 4. Evaluation of the degree of equivalence between SIM laboratories and participant laboratories of CCM.M-K1 The mass difference between two laboratories that did not participate in the same comparison could be estimated using the corresponding difference of each laboratory and CENAM. (3) diff NMI NMI ) = diff ( NMI CENAM ) + diff ( NMI CENAM ) where, ( ) NMI ij CENAM j ( ij kl ij j kl l diff is the mass difference between the laboratory i and CENAM in the comparison j,

diff( lnmi kl CENAM l ) is the mass difference between the laboratory k and CENAM in the comparison l, the standard uncertainty of this difference is calculated from, u ( diff ( NMI NMI )) = [ u ( diff ( NMI CENAM )) u ( CENAM ) + u ij 1 ( diff ( NMI CENAM )) u ( CENAM ) + u ( CENAM ')] kl kl l ij l j j (4) where, u( diff ( NMI kl CENAMl )) is the standard uncertainty of the mass difference between the NMI k and CENAM for the comparison l, u ( CENAM l ) is the reported uncertainty by CENAM in the comparison l. From formula 4, it is possible to estimate the degree of equivalence among SIM laboratories and between SIM laboratories and participant laboratories of CCM.M- K1, see tables 7, 8 and 9. 5. Conclusions From this evaluation it is possible to estimate the degree of equivalence of SIM laboratories with the KCRV of CCM.M-K1, and the degree of equivalence among SIM laboratories and between SIM laboratories and participant laboratories of CCM.M-K1. LACOMET, IBMETRO and INDECOPI participated in two of the comparisons analysed, and from these results it is possible to confirm that IBMETRO and INDECOPI participations throw differences against the KCRV consistent within the uncertainty intervals. LACOMET participations show on the other hand, differences that are not consistent within the uncertainty intervals. This situation is mainly due to LACOMET s significant changes in its traceability chain. References [1] J. Nava et al. - Interlaboratory mass comparison between laboratories belonging to SIM CAMET region coordinated by CENAM (SIM.7.16a, SIM.7.16b)- 005 NCSL International Workshop and Symposium [] San Andrés M.M et al. Final report, Comparison of standards of mass (10, 5 g, 0 g, 100 g, and 1 kg), SIM.7.9 [3] J. Nava et al. - Interlaboratory mass comparison between laboratories belonging to SIM sub-regions coordinated by CENAM (SIM.7.31a & SIM.7.31b) - Simposio de Metrología, Oct 006, Querétaro, Mexico. [4] C. Aupetit, et al. - Draft B, Final Report on CIPM key comparison of 1 kg standards in stainless steel (CCM.M.-K1)

SIM.7.31a SIM.M.M.-S SIM.7.9 SIM.M.M-S1 CCM.M.K1 Table 7. Mass differences between NMI A minus NMI B and the expanded uncertainty. Values in milligrams. SIM.7.16a A\B CENAM LANAMET CENAMEP LACOMET LNMG CONACYT diff k= diff k= diff k= diff k= diff k= diff k= BSJ 0.1 1.3-0.1 1.4 0.1 1.3 1.0 1.3-0.3 1.6-0.3 1.6 LACOMET -0.054 0.055-0. 0.5 0.00 0.40 0.87 0.30-0.4 1.0-0.4 1.0 IBMETRO 0.03 0.16-0.13 0.54 0.09 0.43 0.96 0.34-0.3 1.0-0.3 1.0 INDECOPI -0.04 0.6-0.1 0.58 0.0 0.48 0.89 0.40-0.4 1.0-0.4 1.0 INTN 0.1 1.6-0.1 1.7 0.1 1.6 1.0 1.6-0.3 1.9-0.3 1.9 CESMEC 0.0 0.50-0.15 0.7 0.08 0.64 0.95 0.58-0.3 1.1-0.3 1.1 CEM -0.00 0.086-0.19 0.53 0.04 0.41 0.91 0.31-0.4 1.0-0.4 1.0 SIC -0.14 0.18-0.30 0.55-0.08 0.44 0.79 0.35-0.5 1.0-0.5 1.0 SENCAMER 1.19 0.5 1.03 0.58 1.5 0.47.1 0.39 0.8 1.0 0.8 1.0 INEN -0.01 0.19-0.17 0.55 0.05 0.44 0.9 0.36-0.4 1.0-0.4 1.0 INDECOPI -0.04 0.30-0.0 0.60 0.0 0.50 0.89 0.4-0.4 1.0-0.4 1.0 IBMETRO -0.08 0.15-0.4 0.54-0.0 0.43 0.85 0.34-0.4 1.0-0.4 1.0 BIPM 0.001 0.036-0.16 0.5 0.06 0.40 0.93 0.30-0.4 1.0-0.4 1.0 VSL -0.017 0.045-0.18 0.5 0.04 0.40 0.91 0.30-0.4 1.0-0.4 1.0 NIST -0.00 0.047-0.19 0.5 0.04 0.40 0.91 0.30-0.4 1.0-0.4 1.0 NPL 0.001 0.041-0.16 0.5 0.06 0.40 0.93 0.30-0.4 1.0-0.4 1.0 NRC -0.019 0.043-0.18 0.5 0.04 0.40 0.91 0.30-0.4 1.0-0.4 1.0 NMIJ -0.0 0.038-0.19 0.5 0.03 0.40 0.90 0.30-0.4 1.0-0.4 1.0 VNIIM 0.047 0.055-0.1 0.5 0.10 0.40 0.97 0.30-0.3 1.0-0.3 1.0 CSIRO 0.003 0.039-0.16 0.5 0.06 0.40 0.93 0.30-0.4 1.0-0.4 1.0 PTB -0.003 0.037-0.17 0.5 0.05 0.40 0.9 0.30-0.4 1.0-0.4 1.0 NIM -0.003 0.053-0.17 0.5 0.05 0.40 0.9 0.30-0.4 1.0-0.4 1.0 SMU 0.058 0.05-0.11 0.5 0.11 0.40 0.98 0.30-0.3 1.0-0.3 1.0 KRISS -0.003 0.039-0.17 0.5 0.05 0.40 0.9 0.30-0.4 1.0-0.4 1.0 IMGC -0.00 0.038-0.17 0.5 0.05 0.40 0.9 0.30-0.4 1.0-0.4 1.0 BNM 0.004 0.034-0.16 0.5 0.06 0.40 0.93 0.30-0.4 1.0-0.4 1.0

SIM.7.16a SIM.7.31a SIM.M.M.-S CCM.M.K1 Table 8. Mass differences between NMI A minus NMI B and the expanded uncertainty. Values in milligrams. SIM.7.9 (SIM.M.M-S1) A\B CEM SIC SENCAMER INEN INDECOPI IBMETRO diff k= diff k= diff k= diff k= diff k= diff k= LANAMET 0.19 0.53 0.30 0.55-1.03 0.58 0.17 0.55 0.0 0.60 0.4 0.54 CENAMEP -0.04 0.41 0.08 0.44-1.5 0.47-0.05 0.44-0.0 0.50 0.0 0.43 LACOMET -0.91 0.31-0.79 0.35 -.1 0.39-0.9 0.36-0.89 0.4-0.85 0.34 LNMG 0.4 1.0 0.5 1.0-0.8 1.0 0.4 1.0 0.4 1.0 0.4 1.0 CONACYT 0.4 1.0 0.5 1.0-0.8 1.0 0.4 1.0 0.4 1.0 0.4 1.0 BSJ 0.1 1.3 0. 1.3-1.1 1.3 0.1 1.3 0.1 1.3 0.1 1.3 LACOMET -0.03 0.10 0.09 0.19-1.5 0.5-0.04 0.0-0.01 0.30 0.03 0.16 IBMETRO 0.05 0.18 0.17 0.4-1.16 0.9 0.04 0.5 0.07 0.34 0.11 0. INDECOPI -0.0 0.7 0.10 0.3-1.3 0.36-0.03 0.3 0.00 0.40 0.04 0.30 INTN 0.1 1.6 0. 1.6-1.1 1.6 0.1 1.6 0.1 1.6 0.1 1.6 CESMEC 0.04 0.51 0.16 0.53-1.17 0.56 0.03 0.54 0.06 0.58 0.10 0.5 BIPM 0.01 0.088 0.14 0.18-1.19 0.5 0.01 0.19 0.04 0.30 0.08 0.15 VSL 0.003 0.09 0.1 0.18-1.1 0.5-0.01 0.19 0.0 0.30 0.06 0.16 NIST 0.000 0.093 0.1 0.19-1.1 0.5-0.01 0.19 0.0 0.30 0.06 0.16 NPL 0.01 0.091 0.14 0.18-1.19 0.5 0.01 0.19 0.04 0.30 0.08 0.15 NRC 0.001 0.091 0.1 0.18-1.1 0.5-0.01 0.19 0.0 0.30 0.06 0.15 NMIJ -0.00 0.089 0.1 0.18-1.1 0.5-0.01 0.19 0.0 0.30 0.06 0.15 VNIIM 0.067 0.098 0.19 0.19-1.14 0.6 0.06 0.0 0.09 0.30 0.13 0.16 CSIRO 0.03 0.090 0.14 0.18-1.19 0.5 0.01 0.19 0.04 0.30 0.08 0.15 PTB 0.017 0.089 0.14 0.18-1.19 0.5 0.01 0.19 0.04 0.30 0.08 0.15 NIM 0.017 0.097 0.14 0.19-1.19 0.5 0.01 0.0 0.04 0.30 0.08 0.16 SMU 0.078 0.096 0.0 0.19-1.13 0.5 0.07 0.0 0.10 0.30 0.14 0.16 KRISS 0.017 0.090 0.14 0.18-1.19 0.5 0.01 0.19 0.04 0.30 0.08 0.15 IMGC 0.018 0.089 0.14 0.18-1.19 0.5 0.01 0.19 0.04 0.30 0.08 0.15 BNM 0.04 0.088 0.14 0.18-1.19 0.5 0.01 0.19 0.04 0.30 0.08 0.15

SIM.7.16a SIM.7.9 SIM.M.M-S1 CCM.M.K1 Table 9. Mass differences between NMI A minus NMI B and the expanded uncertainty. Values in milligrams. SIM.7.31a (SIM.M.M.-S) A\B BSJ LACOMET IBMETRO INDECOPI INTN CESMEC diff k= diff k= diff k= diff k= diff k= diff k= LANAMET 0.1 1.4 0. 0.5 0.13 0.54 0.1 0.58 0.1 1.7 0.15 0.7 CENAMEP -0.1 1.3 0.00 0.40-0.09 0.43-0.0 0.48-0.1 1.6-0.08 0.64 LACOMET -1.0 1.3-0.87 0.30-0.96 0.34-0.89 0.40-1.0 1.6-0.95 0.58 LNMG 0.3 1.6 0.4 1.0 0.3 1.0 0.4 1.0 0.3 1.9 0.3 1.1 CONACYT 0.3 1.6 0.4 1.0 0.3 1.0 0.4 1.0 0.3 1.9 0.3 1.1 CEM -0.1 1.3 0.03 0.10-0.05 0.18 0.0 0.7-0.1 1.6-0.04 0.51 SIC -0. 1.3-0.09 0.19-0.17 0.4-0.10 0.3-0. 1.6-0.16 0.53 SENCAMER 1.1 1.3 1.5 0.5 1.16 0.9 1.3 0.36 1.1 1.6 1.17 0.56 INEN -0.1 1.3 0.04 0.0-0.04 0.5 0.03 0.3-0.1 1.6-0.03 0.54 INDECOPI -0.1 1.3 0.01 0.30-0.07 0.34 0.00 0.40-0.1 1.6-0.06 0.58 IBMETRO -0.1 1.3-0.03 0.16-0.11 0. -0.04 0.30-0.1 1.6-0.10 0.5 BIPM -0.1 1.3 0.055 0.054-0.03 0.16 0.04 0.6-0.1 1.6-0.0 0.50 VSL -0.1 1.3 0.037 0.061-0.05 0.16 0.0 0.6-0.1 1.6-0.04 0.50 NIST -0.1 1.3 0.034 0.06-0.05 0.16 0.0 0.6-0.1 1.6-0.04 0.50 NPL -0.1 1.3 0.055 0.058-0.03 0.16 0.04 0.6-0.1 1.6-0.0 0.50 NRC -0.1 1.3 0.035 0.059-0.05 0.16 0.0 0.6-0.1 1.6-0.04 0.50 NMIJ -0.1 1.3 0.03 0.055-0.05 0.16 0.0 0.6-0.1 1.6-0.04 0.50 VNIIM 0.0 1.3 0.101 0.068 0.0 0.16 0.09 0.6 0.0 1.6 0.03 0.50 CSIRO -0.1 1.3 0.057 0.056-0.03 0.16 0.04 0.6-0.1 1.6-0.0 0.50 PTB -0.1 1.3 0.051 0.055-0.04 0.16 0.04 0.6-0.1 1.6-0.0 0.50 NIM -0.1 1.3 0.051 0.067-0.04 0.16 0.04 0.6-0.1 1.6-0.0 0.50 SMU 0.0 1.3 0.11 0.066 0.03 0.16 0.10 0.6 0.0 1.6 0.04 0.50 KRISS -0.1 1.3 0.051 0.056-0.04 0.16 0.04 0.6-0.1 1.6-0.0 0.50 IMGC -0.1 1.3 0.05 0.055-0.03 0.16 0.04 0.6-0.1 1.6-0.0 0.50 BNM -0.1 1.3 0.058 0.053-0.03 0.16 0.04 0.6-0.1 1.6-0.0 0.50