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

Similar documents
PROTOCOL OF MASS AND VOLUME COMPARISONS BETWEEN SIM NMIs

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

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

Supplementary Comparison

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

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

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

SIM FORCE STANDARDS COMPARISON UP TO 10 kn

AFRIMETS. Supplementary Comparison Programme. Calibration of Gauge Blocks. by Mechanical Comparison Method AFRIMETS.L S3.

RECENT ILC ACTIVITY IN ROMANIAN MASS MEASUREMENTS

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

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

SIM AUV.A-K1.prev Microphone Intercomparison

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

OIML D 28 DOCUMENT. Edition 2004 (E) ORGANISATION INTERNATIONALE INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION. Conventional value of the result of weighing in air

INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON OF PLATINUM RESISTANCE THERMOMETERS BETWEEN CHILE AND ECUADOR

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

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

Final report on CCQM-K36.1 with erratum

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

Supplementary Comparison EURAMET.EM-S19 EURAMET Project No. 688

SIM Regional Comparison on. The Calibration of Internal and External Diameter Standards SIM.L-K FINAL REPORT July 2012

ASIA PACIFIC METROLOGY PROGRAME

Comparison of V and 10 V DC Voltage References

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

FORCE NATIONAL STANDARDS COMPARISON BETWEEN CENAM/MEXICO AND NIM/CHINA

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

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

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

Technical Protocol of the CIPM Key Comparison CCAUV.V-K5

Final Report 06 July 2006 Frank Wilkinson, Gan Xu, and Yuanjie Liu

Automated volume measurement for weihts using acoustic volumeter

COOMET.M.V-S2 (587/RU-a/12) COOMET SUPPLEMENTARY COMPARISON IN THE FIELD OF MEASUREMENTS OF LIQUIDS KINEMATIC VISCOSITY

Physics instruction for undergraduate college courses through the design of an experimental device

Comparison of measurement uncertainty budgets for calibration of sound calibrators: Euromet project 576

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

Comparison protocol EURAMET project

A bilateral comparison of a 1 kg platinum standard

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

Traceable Mass Determination and Uncertainty Calculation

Essentials of expressing measurement uncertainty

STUDY OF THE EFFECT OF LASER MARKING FOR STANDARD WEIGHTS

R SANAS Page 1 of 7

Loadcell Calibration - Evaluation of Uncertainties

MASS AND VOLUME COMPARISONS AT MIKES

Flowchart for the extraordinary calibrations prior to the redefinition of the kilogram. (BIPM proposal)

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

Final Report August 2010

Report on EURAMET.M.M-S9

Final Report EUROMET PROJECT 818 CALIBRATION FACTOR OF THERMISTOR MOUNTS. Jan P.M. de Vreede

Centre for Metrology and Accreditation, MIKES

PC TOOL FOR DATA ANALYSIS IN CALIBRATION OF SPECIAL WEIGHTS

Document No: TR 12 Issue No: 1

Certificate of Accreditation

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

Calibration of Analog Scales Based on. a Metrological Comparison Between. the SIM Guide and OIML R 76-1

Air Density Determination Using 1 kg Buoyancy Mass Comparison(III)

Mass determination of 1 kg silicon spheres for Avogadro project

Provläsningsexemplar / Preview INTERNATIONAL STANDARD ISO Second edition

High pressure comparison among seven European national laboratories

BUREAU INTERNATIONAL DES POIDS ET MESURES

FINAL REPORT ON THE KEY COMPARISON EUROMET.AUV.A-K3

Report on Key Comparison COOMET.AUV.A-K5: Pressure calibration of laboratory standard microphones in the frequency range 2 Hz to 10 khz

Uncertainty of Calibration. Results in Force Measurements

BUREAU INTERNATIONAL DES POIDS ET MESURES

ANNEXE 8. Technical protocols for the interlaboratory comparisons

Mason Technology Ltd

Mason Technology Ltd

DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT, AND COMMISSIONING OF A 120 kn DEADWEIGHT FORCE STANDARD MACHINE

analysis in capillary preparation. In despite of, to 100 mg 20 g in reliability of the the the drop first and weighing readings used in third drop

Technical Protocol of the Bilateral Comparison in Primary Angular Vibration Calibration CCAUV.V-S1

A guide to expression of uncertainty of measurements QA4EO-QAEO-GEN-DQK-006

Study for the requalification of Inmetro's Primary Hardness Standardization Machine for Vickers HV3 scale

Certificate of Accreditation

Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt

MASS DETERMINATION OF SILICON SPHERES USED FOR THE AVOGADRO PROJECT

NANOMETROLOGY AT CENAM

U.S. Sugar Monthly Import and Re-Exports

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)

EA-10/14. EA Guidelines on the Calibration of Static Torque Measuring Devices. Publication Reference PURPOSE

A SPRT Intercomparison at Hg, TPW, Ga, Sn and Zn ITS-90 Fixed Points between PTB and LATU with PTB as Pilot Laboratory

Certificate of Accreditation

Part 5: Total stations

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)

Morehouse. Edward Lane, Morehouse Instrument Company 1742 Sixth Ave York, PA PH: web: sales:

Comparison for Air Kerma from Radiation Protection Gamma-ray Beams with Brazilian Network /2017

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

Euramet EM-S40. Bilateral Comparison KIM-LIPI / LNE. Final Report

Portuguese Institute for Quality. Contents

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

Incorporation of the Caribbean to the Geocentric Reference System for the Americas SIRGAS

EUROMET Project 702 EUROMET.M.D-K4

Guidelines on the Calibration of Automatic Instruments for Weighing Road Vehicles in Motion and Measuring Axle Loads AWICal WIM Guide May 2018

Report of the key comparison APMP.QM-K19 APMP comparison on ph measurement of borate buffer

INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON BETWEEN TUBITAK-UME TURKEY AND INM ROMANIA IN THE FIELD OF FORCE MEASUREMENTS

Comparison of the air kerma standards for 137 Cs and 60 Co gamma-ray beams between the IAEA and the NIST. Ronaldo Minniti 1 and Ladislav Czap 2

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

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

Interlaboratory Comparison & Proficiency Testing Program

International Atomic Energy Agency. Department of Nuclear Sciences and Applications. IAEA Environment Laboratories

Transcription:

INTERLABORATORY MASS COMPARISON BETWEEN LABORATORIES BELONGING TO SIM SB-REGIONS COORDINATED BY CENAM (SIM.7.31a & SIM.7.31b) Jorge Nava 1, Luis O. Becerra 1, Tweedsmuir Mitchell, Mairy Sanz, Olman Ramos 3, Sandra Rodríguez 3, Gerson Vallejos 4, Marco Bautista 4, Francisco Garcia 5, Fernando Leyton 5, Aldo Quiroga 6, Juan G. Rodriguez 6, Ruben Ramirez 7, Arnoldo Florencio 7 1 CENAM México, BSJ-Jamaica, 3 LACOMET-Costa Rica, 4 IBMETRO Bolivia, 5 CESMEC Chile, 6 INDECOPI-Peru, 7 INTN Paraguay 7 Tel: (+5) 44 11 05 00, Fax: (+5) 44 11 05 68, e-mail: jnava@cenam.mx, lbecerra@cenam.mx Abstract: A round robin comparison in mass measurements between SIM member countries was carried out during the period April to November 005. CENAM acted as pilot laboratory. Six travelling standards with the following nominal s: kg, 1 kg, 00 g, 50 g, 1 g and 00 mg were circulated. These travelling standards complied with the accuracy recommended for class E [1,]. The results obtained are represented in this report. 1. INTRODCTION A meeting of the technical contacts of SIM MWG 7 was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in December 004. At this meeting, subsequent to a proposal by the BSJ, planning was commenced for a mass comparison between SIM member countries in which at least one country from each sub region should participate. CENAM accepted the role as pilot laboratory for the mass compassion, as it had taken part in the key comparisons of the CCM of the CIPM. The results of a comparison of six travelling standards among laboratories in the SIM region are presented in this report. This program was coordinated by CENAM (Centro Nacional de Metrología), México. The travelling standards used are: kg, 1 kg, 00 g, 50 g, 1 g and 00 mg, all of them are made of non-magnetic stainless steel. The measurements in this comparison were carried out from April 005 to December 005. The CENAM contributed the travelling standards and supplied their reference s. The density, the magnetic susceptibility, permanent magnetization, and conventional mass of all travelling standards except the density of the 00 mg were determined. A visual comparison of the surface roughness against roughness standards proved that the travelling standards complied with the accuracy class of OIML E [1,]. The comparison protocol as well as the volume data were included in the travel container in which the standards were transported. The SIM identification for this comparison is: SIM.7.31a (1 kg) and SIM.7.31b ( kg, 00 g, 50 g, 1 g y 00 mg).. AIM OF THE PROGRAM The aim of this comparison is to give confidence of the technical capacity of the SIM members and work in the mutual recognition agreements within the SIM and at the international level. On the other hand this comparison gives objective evidence about the technical competence of the laboratories, and it assists in identifying opportunities to improve the metrological assurance systems. One of the problems in organizing comparisons, in which different countries are involved, is that each of them has different necessities and different capabilities; this can be seen in the wide range of reported by the participants. 3. PARTICIPANTS Table 1 shows the seven participating laboratories of the SIM sub-regions. 1

Table 1: Participating Laboratories Acronym Country SIM Sub Centro Nacional de Metrología Bureau of Standards, Jamaica Laboratorio Costarricense de Metrología Instituto Boliviano de Metrología Centro de Estudios, Medición y Certificación de Calidad Instituto Nacional de Defensa de la Competencia y de la Protección de la Propiedad Intelectual. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología, Normalización y Metrología CENAM/ Pilot laboratory México region NORAMET BSJ Jamaica CARIMET LACOMET Costa Rica CAMET IBMETRO Bolivia ANDIMET CESMEC Chile SRAMET INDECOPI Peru ANDIMET INTN Paraguay SRAMET Table :- Sequence of the measurements INSTITTE PERIOD OF MEASREMENTS CENAM April-May 005 BSJ May 005 LACOMET June 005 IBMETRO August 005 INDECOPI September 005 INTN October 005 CESMEC November 005 CENAM December 005-January 006 Figure 1 shows the transportation sequence and measurements of the travelling standards. INTN INDECOPI Figure 1. CENAM CESMEC BSJ 4. DESIGN OF THE PROGRAM AND TIME SCHEDLE The program was designed according to the guidelines for CIPM (Comité International des Poids et Measures) key comparisons [3] and were used six travelling standards of kg, 1 kg, 00 g, 50 g, 1 g and 00 mg) were used. These standards comply with the requirements of class E of the International Recommendation OIML R111 [1,]. The travelling standards were circulated in only one petal of SIM sub-regions. As pilot laboratory, CENAM determined the conventional mass of the travelling standards at the beginning and the end of the comparison. The transportation of the travelling standards to the next participant was done by hand in order to avoid any contamination or damage. Table shows the measurements scheduled and the starting dates of each laboratory. IBMETRO LACOMET 5. REPORTING BY PARTICIPANT The measurement results were sent to the pilot laboratory in a final report where a list of the equipment used as balances and environmental conditions were included, besides the reference standard used in order to see the traceability on each laboratory. 6. STABILITY OF THE TRAVELLING STANDARDS The pilot laboratory (CENAM) monitored the stability of the travelling standards during a period of months before beginning of the laboratory measurements. No significant instability has been found, so that, the conventional mass s of the traveling standards were stable during this period. The travelling standards were circulated among six participating laboratories without any incident that

required any return to the pilot laboratory to re measure the travelling standards. 7. REFERENCE VALES 7.1 The reference s for this comparison were determined for the CENAM with an expanded calculated as is described in 7.6.1, 7.6. and 7.3. 7. Before circulating the travelling standards of kg, 1 kg, 00 g, 50 g and 1 g their volumes were determined at the CENAM density laboratory. The assumed density of the 00 mg weight was 7 950 kg m -3 as given by the manufacturer. 7.3 The expanded uncertainties of the reference s were obtained, according to GM-1995 [4], as the combined standard uncertainties multiplied by the coverage factor k =. The expanded corresponds to a coverage probability of approximately 95%. The was formed from the of measurement of the reference standard used, the weighing process and the air buoyancy correction. The component due to long-term changes was negligible. 7.4 Table 3 gives the mass changes m between the two re-calibrations by the pilot laboratory and the resulting drift uncertainties calculated by means of equation c): Table 3. Changes in mass of the travelling standards Reference m (k=) Nominal Value Drift (k=) kg 0,08 mg 0,05 mg 0,03 mg 1 kg 0,03 mg 0,00 mg 0,00 mg 00 g 0,01 mg 0,00 mg 0,01 mg 50 g 0,006 mg 0,00 mg 0,001 mg 1 g 0,00 mg 0,000 mg 0,000 mg 00 mg 0,001 mg 0,000 4 mg 0,000 mg 7.5 The instability of the travelling standards was taken into account in the calculation of the reference s and was included in the E n [5] as an additional component. 7.6 Therefore, the conventional mass s of the participants have to be linked to a CENAM s reference standards using the rules: 7.6.1 If two consecutive determinations of reference s are within the limits of the reference, their mean is used by all participants because we do not know when the changed. 7.6. If two reference s m 1 and m, were at times t 1 and t, differ significantly, a linear drift is assumed and for a participant i, measuring at time t i the mass m PL,i was interpolated using the following equation. m PL, i ( m m ) t i 1 = mpl,1 + PL, PL,1 a) t t1 8. RESLTS OF PARTICIPATING LABORATORIES 8.1 The results were sent directly to the pilot laboratory (CENAM). 8. The results of the measurements are shown in the tabular form, see table 4 to table 9 and as a graphical representation, see 1 to 6. The E n [4] is obtained from the following expression. E m m A PL n = b) A + PL + d m PL and PL are the conventional mass and associated with the pilot laboratory are while m A and A are the conventional mass and the associated with the participating laboratories. A drift d for the mass instability of the travelling standards is taken into account with the following equation: mpl, mpl,1 d = k c) 8.3 In the tables from 10 to 15 are included the E n s for all the travelling standards and for all the participants, including the pilot laboratory. The following rules were considered. 3 t 3

8.4 Participant A and pilot laboratory PL. The E n is calculated according to equation b): the measurements are considered as uncorrelated, in this case the denominator of (b) the equation is: ( m m ) PL, PL,1 + + A PL d) 3 8.5 Participant A and B from the same petal. The E n is calculated according to equation b): the measurements are considered as uncorrelated in this case the denominator from the equation b) is: ( m m ) PL, PL,1 + + + A B e) PL 3 Table 4:- Results for the kg standard Reference l CENAM - 0,0 0,08 BSJ - 0,5-0,18,38 LACOMET - 0,5-0,4 1,46 IBMETRO - 0,5-0,90 3,00 INDECOPI - 0,5 + 0,50 1,00 INTN - 0,5 + 0,0 3,00 CESMEC - 0,5-0,0 1,00 CENAM - 0,5 0,08 Table 5:- Results for the 1 kg standard Reference l CENAM - 0,16 0,03 BSJ - 0,16-0,09 1,8 LACOMET - 0,16-0,14 0,046 IBMETRO - 0,16-0,18 0,154 INDECOPI - 0,16-0,0 0,6 INTN - 0,16-0,1 1,6 CESMEC - 0,16-0,14 0,50 CENAM - 0,16 0,03 Reference l CENAM - 0,365 0,01 BSJ - 0,363-0,37 0,4 LACOMET - 0,361-0,367 9 0,009 6 IBMETRO - 0,356-0,381 0,034 INDECOPI - 0,354-0,36 0,05 INTN - 0,35-0,30 0,30 CESMEC - 0,349-0,3 0.10 CENAM - 0,345 0.01 Tablet 7:- Results for the 50 g standard Reference l CENAM - 0,061 0,006 BSJ - 0,060-0,08 0,10 LACOMET - 0,060-0,063 8 0,014 IBMETRO - 0,060-0,05 0,016 INDECOPI - 0,060-0,06 0,016 INTN - 0,060-0,08 0,10 CESMEC - 0,060-0,065 0,030 CENAM - 0,059 0,006 Table 8:- Results for the 1 g standard Reference l CENAM + 0,08 0,00 BSJ + 0,08 + 0,030 0,040 LACOME + 0,08 + 0,05 9 0,001 5 T IBMETRO + 0,08 + 0,06 4 0,003 INDECOP + 0,08 + 0,07 0,005 I INTN + 0,08 + 0,07 0,030 CESMEC + 0,08 + 0,07 0,010 CENAM + 0,08 0,00 Table 6:- Results for the 00 g standard 4

Table 9:- Results of the standard of 00 mg Reference l CENAM + 0,000 7 0,001 BSJ + 0,000 55-0,00 0,00 LACOMET + 0,000 55 + 0,000 08 0,000 54 IBMETRO + 0,000 55-0,004 4 0,00 INDECOPI + 0,000 55 + 0,000 9 0,003 INTN + 0,000 55 + 0,003 0,00 CESMEC + 0,000 55 + 0,001 0,006 CENAM + 0,000 4 0,001 Where: m n is the nominal of the travelling standards m l is the laboratory of the travelling standards m PL is the reference of the travelling standards Sheldon Walker Oscar Andrey Herrera Sancho REFERENCES BSJ LACOMET [1] OIML R111, Weights of classes E 1, E, F 1, F, M 1, M, M 3, 1994. [] Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-038-SCFI- 000, Pesa de clase de exactitud E 1, E, F 1, F, M 1, M, M 3. [3] Guidelines for CIPM key comparisons http://www.bipm.fr/utils/en/pdf/guidelines.pdf [4] Guide to the Expression of ncertainty in Measurement, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1995. [5] W. Wöger, Remarks on the E n -criterion sed in Measurement Comparison, Internationale Zusammenarbeit.PTB-Metteilungen 1999. Pages 4-7. 9. CONCLSIONS Of the 36 measurements results for the mass of the travelling standards, were used for calculating the respective E n between participants, see tables 10 to 15 of which one are greater than one respect to pilot laboratory and two are greater than one between them, these s were calculated using the d) and e) formulas. The degree of agreement among the participants seen to be excellent, in other words, the mass measurements carried out among SIM region members do not differ significantly. The uncertainties of each participant are plotted in graphical representation, see graphics 1 to 6 using the d) formula. The names of the participating laboratories were included in the report as an agreement between them. ACKNOWLEDGMENT Some of the participant institutions wish to acknowledge to their colleagues who they carried out the mass measurements: Leticia Luján Solís Raúl Hernández CENAM CESMEC 5

APPENDIX A GRAPHICS Graphic 1: The difference between the laboratory and the reference : kg kg Graphic 4: The difference between the laboratory and the reference : 50 g 50 g (m-mcenam)/mg 4.000.000 0.000 -.000-4.000 (m-mcenam)/mg. 0.100 0.050 0.000-0.050-0.100-6.000-0.150 Graphic : The difference between the laboratory and the reference : 1 kg 0.600 0.00-0.00 1 kg Graphic 6: The difference between the laboratory and the reference : 00 mg (m-mcenam)/mg 0.0100 0.0050 0.0000-0.0050 00 mg -0.600 Graphic 3: The difference between the laboratory and the reference : 00 g 00 g -0.0100 Graphic 5: The difference between the laboratory and the reference : 1g 0.015 1 g (m-mcenam)/mg 0.150 0.100 0.050 0.000-0.050-0.100 (m-mcenam)/mg 0.010 0.005 0.000-0.005-0.010-0.015-0.150 6

APPENDIX B En VALES Table 10: The E n for kg kg CENAM CENAM 0.0-0.01-0.3 0.7 0.14 0.0 BSJ -0.0-0.0-0.19 0.6 0.10-0.01 LACOMET 0.01 0.0-0.0 0.4 0.13 0.0 IBMETRO 0.3 0.19 0.0 0.44 0.6 0. INDECOPI -0.7-0.6-0.4-0.44-0.09-0.49 INTN -0.14-0.10-0.13-0.6 0.09-0.13 CESMEC -0.0 0.01-0.0-0. 0.49 0.13 Table 11: The E n for 1 kg 1 kg CENAM CENAM 0.05-0.98 0.0-0.15 0.04 0.04 BSJ -0.05-0.10-0.03-0.08 0.00-0.04 LACOMET 0.98 0.10 0.53 0.05 0.07 0.15 IBMETRO -0.0 0.03-0.53-0.4 0.0-0.0 INDECOPI 0.15 0.08-0.05 0.4 0.06 0.11 INTN -0.04 0.00-0.07-0.0-0.06-0.0 CESMEC -0.04 0.04-0.15 0.0-0.11 0.0 Table 1: The E n for 00 g 00 g CENAM CENAM -0.03-0.38-0.66-0.1 0.17 0.9 BSJ 0.03 0.01-0.05 0.04 0.18 0.19 LACOMET 0.38-0.01-0.33 0.15 0.3 0.47 IBMETRO 0.66 0.05 0.33 0.33 0.7 0.57 INDECOPI 0.1-0.04-0.15-0.34 0.0 0.35 INTN -0.17-0.18-0.3-0.7-0.0-0.06 CESMEC -0.9-0.19-0.47-0.57-0.35 0.06 Table 13: The E n for 50 g 50 g CENAM CENAM -0.0-0.5 0.47-0.1-0.0-0.16 BSJ 0.0 0.16 0.8 0.18 0.00 0.14 LACOMET 0.5-0.16 0.53 0.08-0.16-0.04 IBMETRO -0.47-0.8-0.53-0.43-0.8-0.38 INDECOPI 0.1-0.18-0.08 0.43-0.18-0.09 INTN 0.0 0.00 0.16 0.8 0.18 0.14 CESMEC 0.16-0.14 0.04 0.38 0.09-0.14 7

Table 14: The E n for 1 g 1 g CENAM CENAM 0.04-0.94-0.48-0.3-0.01-0.1 BSJ -0.04-0.10-0.09-0.07-0.03-0.07 LACOMET 0.94 0.10 0.13 0.1 0.01 0.11 IBMETRO 0.48 0.09-0.13 0.10 0.01 0.06 INDECOPI 0.3 0.07-0.1-0.10 0.00 0.00 INTN 0.01 0.03-0.01-0.01 0.00 0.00 CESMEC 0.1 0.07-0.11-0.06 0.00 0.00 Table 15: The E n for 00 mg 00 mg CENAM CENAM -0.13-0.34-1.96 0.11 0.1 0.08 BSJ 0.13 0.10-0.1 0.14 0.18 0.14 LACOMET 0.34-0.10-1.75 0.4 0.15 0.15 IBMETRO 1.96 0.1 1.75 1.30 0.37 0.83 INDECOPI -0.11-0.14-0.4-1.30 0.10 0.01 INTN -0.1-0.18-0.15-0.37-0.10-0.10 CESMEC -0.08-0.14-0.15-0.83-0.01 0.10 8