Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM

181
International comparison CCQM-K120.a Carbon dioxide in Air at background level (380-480) μmol/mol CCQM-K120.b Carbon dioxide in Air at urban level (480-800) μmol/mol (Final) Edgar Flores *1 , Joële Viallon 1 , Tiphaine Choteau 1 , Philippe Moussay 1 , Faraz Idrees 1 , Robert I. Wielgosz 1 , Jeongsoon Lee 2 , Ewelina Zalewska 3 , Gerard Nieuwenkamp 3 , Adriaan van der Veen 3 , Leonid Konopelko 4 , Kustikov Y.A. 4 , Kolobova A.V. 4 , Chubchenko Y.K. 4 , Efremova O.V. 4 , BI Zhe 5 , Zeyi Zhou 5 , Walter R. Miller Jr. 6 , George C. Rhoderick 6 , Joseph T. Hodges 6 , Takuya Shimosaka 7 , Nobuyuki Aoki 7 , Brad Hall 8 , Paul Brewer 9 , Dariusz Cieciora 10 , Michela Sega 11 , Tatiana Macé 12 , Judit Fükő 13 , Zsófia Nagyné Szilágyi 13 , Tamás Büki 13 , Mudalo I. Jozela 14 , Napo G. Ntsasa 14 , Nompumelelo Leshabane 14 , James Tshilongo 14 , Prabha Johri 15 , Tanil Tarhan 16 . 1 Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM), Pavillon de Breteuil, F-92312 Sèvres Cedex, France. 2 Korea Research Institute of Standards and Science (KRISS),1 Doryong-Dong, Yuseong-Gu, Daejeon 305-340, Republic of Korea. 3 Dutch Metrology Institute (VSL), Thijsseweg 11 2629 JA Delft The Netherlands. 4 D.I.Mendeleyev Institute for Metrology (VNIIM), 19 Moskovsky pr., St. Petersburg, 190005 Russia. 5 National Institute of Metrology (NIM), China, No.18, Bei-San-Huan Dong Str., Beijing 100013, China. 6 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8393, USA. 7 National Metrology Institute of Japan (NMIJ), 305-8563 1-1-1 Umesono, Tsukuba Ibaraki, Japan. 8 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 325 Broadway, Mail Stop R.GMD1, Boulder, CO 80305 USA. 9 National Physical Laboratory (NPL), Hampton Road, Teddington, Middx, TW11 0LW, UK. 10 Central Office of Measures (Główny Urzad Miar), Elektoralna 2 00-139 Warsaw, Poland. 11 Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica (INRIM), Strada delle Cacce 91, I-10135, Torino, Italy. 12 Laboratoire National de métrologie et d’Essais (LNE), 1, rue Gaston Boissier 75724 Paris Cedex 15, France. 13 Hungarian Trade Licensing Office (BFKH), Németvölgyi út 37-39, Budapest 1124, Hungary. 14 National Metrology Institute of South Africa (NMISA), CSIR Campus Building 5, Meiring Naude Road, Pretoria, 0182 South Africa. 15 National Physical Laboratory INDIA (NPLI), CSIR-National Physical Laboratory, Dr. K.S. Krishnan Marg, New Delhi – 110012, India. 16 National Metrology Institute (UME), Gas Metrology Laboratory Baris Mah. Dr. Zeki Acar Cad. No:1, 41470 Gebze / Kocaeli Turkey. Coordinating laboratory: Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), USA Study coordinator: Edgar Flores (BIPM) Correspondence to be addressed to: Edgar Flores [email protected] (Tel: + 33 1 45 07 70 92) Field: Amount of substance Organizing Body: CCQM

Transcript of Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM

Page 1: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM

International comparison

CCQM-K120a Carbon dioxide in Air at background level (380-480) micromolmol

CCQM-K120b Carbon dioxide in Air at urban level (480-800) micromolmol

(Final)

Edgar Flores1 Joeumlle Viallon1 Tiphaine Choteau1 Philippe Moussay1 Faraz Idrees1 Robert I Wielgosz1 Jeongsoon Lee 2 Ewelina Zalewska3 Gerard Nieuwenkamp3 Adriaan van der Veen3 Leonid Konopelko4 Kustikov YA4 Kolobova AV4 Chubchenko YK4 Efremova OV4 BI Zhe5 Zeyi Zhou5 Walter R Miller Jr6 George C Rhoderick6 Joseph T Hodges6 Takuya Shimosaka7 Nobuyuki Aoki7 Brad Hall8 Paul Brewer9 Dariusz Cieciora10 Michela Sega11 Tatiana Maceacute12 Judit Fuumlkő13 Zsoacutefia Nagyneacute Szilaacutegyi13 Tamaacutes Buumlki13 Mudalo I Jozela 14 Napo G Ntsasa14 Nompumelelo Leshabane14 James Tshilongo14 Prabha Johri15 Tanil Tarhan16

1Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) Pavillon de Breteuil F-92312 Segravevres Cedex France 2Korea Research Institute of Standards and Science (KRISS)1 Doryong-Dong Yuseong-Gu Daejeon 305-340 Republic of Korea 3Dutch Metrology Institute (VSL) Thijsseweg 11 2629 JA Delft The Netherlands 4DIMendeleyev Institute for Metrology (VNIIM) 19 Moskovsky pr St Petersburg 190005 Russia 5National Institute of Metrology (NIM) China No18 Bei-San-Huan Dong Str Beijing 100013 China 6National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 100 Bureau Drive Gaithersburg MD 20899-8393 USA 7National Metrology Institute of Japan (NMIJ) 305-8563 1-1-1 Umesono Tsukuba Ibaraki Japan 8National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 325 Broadway Mail Stop RGMD1 Boulder CO 80305 USA 9National Physical Laboratory (NPL) Hampton Road Teddington Middx TW11 0LW UK 10Central Office of Measures (Głoacutewny Urzad Miar) Elektoralna 2 00-139 Warsaw Poland 11Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica (INRIM) Strada delle Cacce 91 I-10135 Torino Italy 12Laboratoire National de meacutetrologie et drsquoEssais (LNE) 1 rue Gaston Boissier 75724 Paris Cedex 15 France 13Hungarian Trade Licensing Office (BFKH) Neacutemetvoumllgyi uacutet 37-39 Budapest 1124 Hungary 14National Metrology Institute of South Africa (NMISA) CSIR Campus Building 5 Meiring Naude Road Pretoria 0182 South Africa 15National Physical Laboratory INDIA (NPLI) CSIR-National Physical Laboratory Dr KS Krishnan Marg New Delhi ndash 110012 India 16National Metrology Institute (UME) Gas Metrology Laboratory Baris Mah Dr Zeki Acar Cad No1 41470 Gebze Kocaeli Turkey

Coordinating laboratory Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) USA Study coordinator Edgar Flores (BIPM)

Correspondence to be addressed to Edgar Flores edgarfloresbipmorg (Tel + 33 1 45 07 70 92)

Field Amount of substance Organizing Body CCQM

P a g e | 2

Contents

1 RATIONALE FOR COMPARISON 4

2 MEASURAND QUANTITIES AND UNITS 4

3 PARTICIPANTS 4

4 SCHEDULE 5

41 Measurement order 5

5 MEASUREMENT STANDARDS 7

6 PREPARATION VALUES SUBMITTED AND STABILITY MEASUREMENTS BY PARTICIPANTS 8

7 MEASUREMENTS AT THE BIPM 9

71 Measurements results 10

72 Graphical representation of measurement results 19

73 Isotope ratios of CCQM-K120 standards 26

8 KEY COMPARISON REFERENCE VALUE (KCRV) 28

81 Degrees of equivalence and graph of equivalence 29 KCRV calculations for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 30 KCRV calculations for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 30 KCRV calculations for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 30

9 CONCLUSIONS 36

10 lsquoHOW FAR THE LIGHT SHINESrsquo STATEMENT 36

BIBLIOGRAPHY 37

ANNEX I- DECISIONS OF THE 38TH MEETING OF THE CCQM GAWG (16-17 APRIL 2018) 38

ANNEX II- STABILITY STUDIES BY PARTICIPANTS 40

ANNEX III- GC-FID RESULTS 42 GC-FID based candidate reference values for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 42 GC-FID based candidate reference values for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 42 GC-FID based candidate reference values for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 43

ANNEX IV- BIPM VALUE ASSIGNMENT PROCEDURE 48 GC-FID 48

P a g e | 3

FTIR 51 Delta Ray 55

ANNEX V - MEASUREMENT REPORTS OF PARTICIPANTS 57

NMIJ Measurements before return of cylinders 57

GUM Measurements before return of cylinders 63

INRIM Measurements before return of cylinders 67

KRISS Measurements before return of cylinders 74

LNE Measurements before return of cylinders 82

BFKH Measurements before return of cylinders 91 Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders 98

NIM Measurements before return of cylinders 104

NIST Measurements before return of cylinders 111 Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders 117

NMISA Measurements before return of cylinders 125

NOAA Measurements before return of cylinders 133

NPL Measurements before return of cylinders 139

NPLI Measurements before return of cylinders 144 Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders 149

UME Measurements before return of cylinders 151 Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders 157

VNIIM Measurements before return of cylinders 164 Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders 171

VSL Measurements before return of cylinders 178

P a g e | 4

1 Rationale for comparison CCQM‐K120a comparison involves preparing standards of carbon dioxide in air which are fit for purpose for the atmospheric monitoring community with stringent requirements on matrix composition and measurement uncertainty of the CO2 mole fraction This represents an analytical challenge and is therefore considered as a Track C comparison The comparison will underpin CMC claims for CO2 in air for standards and calibrations services for the atmospheric monitoring community matrix matched to real air over the mole fraction range of 250 μmolmol to 520 μmolmol CCQM‐K120b comparison tests core skills and competencies required in gravimetric preparation analytical certification and purity analysis It is considered as a Track A comparison It will underpin CO2 in air and nitrogen claims in a mole fraction range starting at the smallest participantrsquos reported expanded uncertainty and ending at 500 mmolmol Participants successful in this comparison may use their result in the flexible scheme and underpin claims for all core mixtures This study has involved a comparison at the BIPM of a suite of 44 gas standards prepared by each of the participating laboratories Fourteen laboratories took part in both comparisons (CCQM-K120a CCQM-K120b) and just one solely in the CCQM-K120b comparison The standards were sent to the BIPM where the comparison measurements were performed Two measurement methods were used to compare the standards to ensure no measurement method dependant bias GC-FID and FTIR spectroscopic analysis corrected for isotopic variation in the CO2 gases measured at the BIPM using absorption laser spectroscopy Following the advice of the CCQM Gas Analysis Working Group results from the FTIR method were used to

calculate the key comparison reference values

2 Measurand quantities and Units The measurand is the mole fraction of carbon dioxide in air with measurement results being expressed in molmol (or one of its multiples mmolmol μmolmol or nmolmol)

3 Participants This study involved a simultaneous comparison of a suite of 44 gas standards prepared by each of the participating laboratories Fourteen laboratories took part in both comparisons (CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b BFKH GUM KRISS LNE NIM NIST NMIJ NMISA NOAA

P a g e | 5

NPL NPLI UME VNIIM and VSL) and only one solely in the CCQM-K120b comparison (INRIM)

4 Schedule The revised schedule for the project was as follows April 2016 ndash October 2016 Mixture preparation verification and stability tests by participants November 2016 ndash February 2017 Shipment of cylinders to the BIPM (to arrive by 1 of December) February 2017 ndash April 2017 Analysis of mixtures by the BIPM (details below) May 2017 ndash July 2017 Shipment of cylinders from the BIPM to participants August 2017 ndash November 2017 2nd set of analysis of mixtures by participants January 2018 Distribution of Draft A of this report May 2018 Distribution of Draft B of this report

41 Measurement order The forty four cylinders of the comparison were separated into batches and analyzed in the sequence described in Table 1 Each batch was made up of the participantsrsquo cylinders control cylinders for ratio calculations and additional cylinders for quality control The FTIR measurements were organized in fourteen batches comprised each of four participantrsquos cylinders including two control cylinders for ratio calculation and one for quality control For GC-FID measurements the cylinders were divided into nine batches Batches were composed of between four and six participantsrsquo cylinders three control cylinders (A B and C) for ratio quantification and additional cylinders if required to maintain the total batch size of nine standards Table 1 lists in detail the schedule of the GC-FID and FTIR measurements The Delta Ray measurements were organized in 12 batches containing four cylinders each and two calibration cylinders These measurements were performed during weeks 14 15 and 16

P a g e | 6

Week in 2017 Batch GC‐FID Batch FTIR measurements measurements

NIST FB04278 379045 NOAA CC310084 379500 6 GC1 VSL 5604614 378900

(6‐10 February) NPL 2179 380270 NMIJ CPC00486 386617

VNIIM M365601 380200 7 GC2 LNE 1029045 379480

(13‐17 February) KRISS D500642 378900 NIM FB03747 383430

GUM D298392 380100 BFKH OMH54 379840 8 GC3 UME PSM298266 379920

(20‐24 February) NPLI JJ108891 375720 NMISA M51 8232 380200

NIST FB04300 472662 NOAA CC305198 479260 9 GC4 VSL 5604880 480480

(27 February‐ 3 March) NPL 2170 480020 NMIJ CPC00494 471301

VNIIM M365664 480180 NIST FB04278 37904510 GC5 LNE 1029047 477600 FT‐1 NOAA CC310084 379500

(6‐10 March) KRISS D500647 480000 NPL 2179 380270

NIM FB03744 489150 NMIJ CPC00486 386617

GUM D298393 478100 FT‐2 NMIJ CPC00486 386617 BFKH OMH44 479890 VNIIM M365601 380200

11 GC6 UME PSM266468 480420 KRISS D500642 378900 (13‐17 March) NPLI JJ108862 480520 FT‐3 NIM FB03747 383430

NMISA M51 8167 479500 LNE 1029045 379480

INRIM D247440 479300

NIST FB04287 794533 FT‐4 GUM D298392 380100 NOAA CB11668 794080 NMISA M51 8232 380200

12 GC7 VSL 5604705 795700 BFKH OMH54 379840 (20‐24 March) NPL 2181 799700 FT‐5 UME PSM298266 379920

NMIJ CPC00558 803658 NPLI JJ108891 375720

VNIIM M365707 800730 NIST FB04300 472662 LNE 1029048 802200 FT‐6 NOAA CC305198 47926013 GC8 KRISS D500672 800800 VSL 5604880 480480

(27‐31 March) NIM FB03748 809820 NPL 2170 480020 GUM D298402 800500 FT‐7 NMIJ CPC00494 471301

BFKH OMH69 800300 VNIIM M365664 480180

UME PSM298347 800760 FT‐8 LNE 1029047 47760014 GC9 NPLI JJ108854 796380 KRISS D500647 480000

(3‐7 April) NMISA M51 8244 799100 NIM FB03744 489150 INRIM D247445 798900 FT‐9 GUM D298393 478100

BFKH OMH44 479890

UME PSM266468 480420 FT‐10 NPLI JJ108862 480520 NMISA M51 8167 479500 INRIM D247440 479300

NIST FB04287 79453315 FT‐11 NOAA CB11668 794080

(10‐14 April) VSL 5604705 795700

NPL 2181 799700 FT‐12 NMIJ CPC00558 803658 VNIIM M365707 800730 LNE 1029048 802200

KRISS D500672 800800 FT‐13 NIM FB03748 809820

P a g e | 7

GUM D298402 800500 BFKH OMH69 800300

UME PSM298347 80076016 FT‐14 NPLI JJ108854 796380

(17‐21 April) NMISA M51 8244 799100 INRIM D247445 798900

Table 1 Schedule of the CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b measurements

5 Measurement standards Each laboratory taking part in the CCQM-K120a comparison was requested to produce one standard at the nominal mole fraction of 380 micromolmol and another at the mole fraction 480 micromolmol For those taking part in the CCQM-K120b comparison the standards were requested at the nominal mole fractions of 480 micromolmol and 800 micromolmol The mole fraction of carbon dioxide was requested to be within plusmn 10 micromolmol of the nominal mole fractions of the cylinders The carbon dioxide was requested to be produced in a dry air matrix produced from scrubbed real air or synthetic air that has been blended from pure gases that are the main constituents of air (nitrogen oxygen argon) and two other constituents (nitrous oxide and methane)The table below describes the limits of the gas matrix composition of the scrubbed dry real air and synthetic air which were to be met by participants Species lsquoAmbientrsquo

level mole fraction

Unit Min mole fraction

Unit Max mole fraction

Unit

N2 0780876 molmol 07804 molmol 07814 molmol O2 02093335 molmol 02088 molmol 02098 molmol Ar 00093332 molmol 00089 molmol 00097 molmol CH4 1900 nmolmol 0 nmolmol 1900 nmolmol N2O 330 nmolmol 0 nmolmol 330 nmolmol Table 2 CCQM-K120a matrix composition limit values(380 micromol mol and 480 micromolmol CO2 in airdagger) daggerEach participating laboratory was required to submit two standards one with nominal CO2 mole fraction of (370 to 390) micromolmol and the second with (470 to 490) micromolmol Species lsquoAmbientrsquo

level mole fraction

Unit Min mole fraction

Unit Max mole fraction

Unit

N2 0780876 molmol 07789 molmol 07829 molmol O2 02093335 molmol 02073 molmol 02113 molmol Ar 00093332 molmol 00078 molmol 00108 molmol CH4 1900 nmolmol 0 nmolmol 1900 nmolmol N2O 330 nmolmol 0 nmolmol 330 nmolmol

Table 3 CCQM-K120b matrix composition limits values(480 micromol mol and 800 micromolmol CO2 in airDagger)DaggerEach participating laboratory was required to submit two standards one with nominal CO2 mole fraction of (470 to 490) micromolmol and the second with (790 to 810) micromolmol (A laboratory participating in both CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b need only submit 3 standards in total)

P a g e | 8

Aditionally the following information was requested from each participant

In the case of standards produced with synthetic air

- a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas - a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar N2O and CH4 parent

gas - a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures - a purity table for each of the final mixtures including gravimetric uncertainties - a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures - a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared

and the time they are shipped to the BIPM

In the case of standards produced with scrubbed lsquorealrsquo air

- a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas - results of the analysis and mole fractions and uncertainties of N2 O2 Ar N2O and CH4 in

the scrubbed real air - a brief outline of the preparation procedure of the final mixtures - a composition table for each of the final mixtures including gravimetric uncertainties

when relevant - a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures - a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared

and the time they are shipped to the BIPM

6 Preparation values submitted and stability measurements by participants

Information on mixtures submitted by participating laboratories via the comparison submission forms on initial submission and after stability testing of cylinders is included in ANNEX V The CO2 mole fractions submitted by participants are listed in Table 5 where

xNMI is the value assigned by the participating NMIs

U(xNMI) is the expanded uncertainty including contributions from verification associated with the assigned value xNMI The comparison protocol permitted stability testing to be performed by laboratories after standards had been returned to them by the BIPM and before the comparison results were known As a result three laboratories provided new values and uncertainties namely NIST NPLI and BFKH In addition UME modified the uncertainty budget only and resubmitted this to the comparison organizers This subject was discussed during the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018) and it was agreed that only the uncertainties resubmitted by UME (Table 15) will replace the original uncertainties NIST NPLI BFKH resubmitted values and

P a g e | 9

uncertainties will only be reported in an annex (see ANNEX II- ) (Table 15) with no influence on the KCRV and the degree of equivalence (DOE) of the comparison Figure 1 plots the CO2 mole fraction reported by the participants for each gas standard In this figure the error bars represent the standard uncertainty associated with the reported value It can be observed that participants prepared all mixtures with a CO2 mole fraction within 10 micromol mol-1 of the nominal values as requested At 380 micromolmol NPLI submitted the mixture with the smallest CO2 mole fraction 37572plusmn322 micromolmol and NIMJ with the highest 38662plusmn005 micromolmol At 480 micromolmol NIMJ produced the lowest mole fraction 47130plusmn005 micromolmol and NIM the highest 48915plusmn022 micromolmol At 800 micromolmol NOAA produced the lowest mole fraction 79408plusmn048 micromolmol and NIM the highest 80982plusmn026 micromolmol The expanded uncertainties reported by the participants are plotted in Figure 2 Regarding the gas matrix composition thirty-five standards were produced in synthetic air and nine in purified (scrubbed) real air (see Table 5) The compositions of the mixtures reported by participants are listed in Table 6 Seven standards out of forty-four mixtures were not within specifications (gas mixture composition) as requested in the comparison protocol1

7 Measurements at the BIPM

On receipt by the BIPM all cylinders were allowed to equilibrate at laboratory temperature for at least 24 hours All cylinders were rolled for at least 1 hour to ensure homogeneity of the mixture

Cylinders were analysed in batches of n cylinders first by GC-FID then by FTIR and finally by the Delta Ray

For FTIR measurements each batch contained 4 cylinders from participants and 2 controls (at nominal mole fractions of 480 and 800 micromolmol) Each cylinder was connected from the pressure reducer to one inlet of a 32-inlet automatic gas sampler The procedure before starting measurements was identical as described below for GC-FID The reported value is the drift corrected ratio between the FTIR response and one control cylinder (at ~ 800 micromol mol-1) with a further correction required to take into account the isotopic composition of each mixtures Due to depletion of the control cylinder at nominally 480 micromolmol before completion of all measurements only ratios against the 800 micromolmol cylinder could be calculated for all standards Further details regarding the FTIR measurements are described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure FTIR

1 This nominal fraction limits were given in order to avoid possible biases that could be introduced into the spectroscopic comparison method (FTIR) due to variation in the composition of the air matrix in different standards For those standards that did not meet the tolerances specified in the protocol the BIPM included an additional uncertainty component in its FTIR analytical uncertainty to account for the impact of this

P a g e | 10

When the cylinders were analysed by GC-FID batches were composed of between four and six participantsrsquo cylinders three control cylinders (A B and C at nominal mole fractions of 380 480 and 800 micromolmol respectively) for ratio quantification and additional cylinders if required to maintain the total batch size of nine standards Each cylinder was connected from the pressure reducer to one inlet of a 16-inlet automatic gas sampler The sampler was connected to a gas chromatograph (GC-FID) The pressure reducer of each cylinder was flushed nine times with the mixture The cylinder valve was then closed leaving the high pressure side of the pressure reducer at the cylinder pressure and the low pressure side of the pressure reducer at ~300 kPa (abs) The cylinders were left stand at least 24 hours to allow conditioning of the pressure reducers The reported value was the drift corrected ratio between the GC-FID response and one control cylinder (at ~ 480 micromol mol-1) These measurements were performed under intermediate precision conditions (over ten weeks) Ratios against the other control cylinders were calculated but no substantial difference was observed with the ratio against the control cylinder at 480 micromolmol Further details regarding GC-FID measurements are described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure GC-FID

When the cylinders were analyzed by the Delta Ray each batch contained 4 cylinders from participants and 2 calibration standards Each cylinder was connected from the pressure reducer to one inlet of a 16-inlet automatic gas sampler The same procedure was again applied for flushing the gas lines Further details are described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure Delta Ray

The measurements performed by the Delta Ray analyser were only used to measure the isotopic ratios in each cylinder and further correct the FTIR responses due isotopic differences between the control cylinders and the samples as described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure FTIR In this manner the FTIR reported values for each cylinder were corrected for the isotopic composition and further ratioed to the response to a control cylinder (also corrected for the isotopic composition)

71 Measurements results

Measurements were performed at the BIPM from February to April 2017 Table 7 lists the inlet pressure before and after the standards were analyzed by the BIPM

Each cylinder was value assigned using the methods described in section 7 (details in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure)

Results of these series of measurements are listed in Table 8 where

FTR is the (mean) ratio between the FTIR response to the mixture under analysis and the control cylinder both corrected for the isotopic composition

FTRu is the standard uncertainty of the reported ratio based on FTIR measurements

(described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure FTIR)

wGCR is the reported value based on GC-FID measurements

P a g e | 11

GCRu the standard uncertainty of the reported value based on GC-FID (described in

ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure GC-FID) The δ13C and δ18O measurements on the VPDB-CO2 scale performed by Delta Ray are listed in Table 11 The typical uncertainties for each of the methods used by the BIPM are listed in Table 4

Comparison method name

Measurement quantity Symbol unit Typical relative

standard uncertainty ()

FTIR Ratio to control cylinder under intermediate precision condition FTR 1 0009

GC-FID Ratio to control cylinder under intermediate precision conditions wGCR 1 0007

Table 4 Comparison methods used during the CCQM-K120 international comparison and typical uncertainties obtained by the BIPM

Participant Cylinder references Gas Matrix

NMIrsquos assigned CO2 mole fraction xNMI

(micromol mol-1)

NMIrsquos assigned CO2

expanded uncertainty U(xNMI)

k = 2 (micromol mol-1)

Before the return of cylinders

BFKH OMH54 Synthetic Air 379840 1710

BFKH OMH44 Synthetic Air 479890 2110

BFKH OMH69 Synthetic Air 800300 2920

GUM D298392 Synthetic Air 380100 4400

GUM D298393 Synthetic Air 478100 5200

GUM D298402 Synthetic Air 800500 8600

INRIM D247440 Synthetic Air 479300 1600

INRIM D247445 Synthetic Air 798900 2600

KRISS D500642 Synthetic Air 378900 0200

KRISS D500647 Synthetic Air 480000 0200

KRISS D500672 Synthetic Air 800800 0400

LNE 1029045 Synthetic Air 379480 0790

LNE 1029047 Synthetic Air 477600 1000

LNE 1029048 Synthetic Air 802200 1700

NIM FB03747 Synthetic Air 383430 0200

NIM FB03744 Synthetic Air 489150 0220

NIM FB03748 Synthetic Air 809820 0260

NIST FB04278 Real Air 379045 0391

NIST FB04300 Real Air 472662 0428

NIST FB04287 Real Air 794533 1029

NMIJ CPC00486 Real Air 386617 0050

P a g e | 12

NMIJ CPC00494 Real Air 471301 0051

NMIJ CPC00558 Real Air 803658 0078

NMISA M51 8232 Synthetic Air 380200 2000

NMISA M51 8167 Synthetic Air 479500 1600

NMISA M51 8244 Synthetic Air 799100 1000

NOAA CC310084 Real Air 379500 0210

NOAA CC305198 Real Air 479260 0260

NOAA CB11668 Real Air 794080 0480

NPL 2179 Synthetic Air 380270 0190

NPL 2170 Synthetic Air 480020 0240

NPL 2181 Synthetic Air 799700 0400

NPLI JJ108891 Synthetic Air 375720 3220

NPLI JJ108862 Synthetic Air 480520 3040

NPLI JJ108854 Synthetic Air 796380 5030

UME PSM298266 Synthetic Air 379920 0190

UME PSM266468 Synthetic Air 480420 0250

UME PSM298347 Synthetic Air 800760 0360

VNIIM M365601 Synthetic Air 380200 0110

VNIIM M365664 Synthetic Air 480180 0130

VNIIM M365707 Synthetic Air 800730 0190

VSL 5604614 Synthetic Air 378900 0280

VSL 5604880 Synthetic Air 480480 0360

VSL 5604705 Synthetic Air 795700 0600

Table 5 Standards and reported values provided by participants Re-submitted values following stability testing which were included following the decision of the CCQM GAWG see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of

the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

Figure 1 CO2 mole fractions xNMI reported by participants The error bars represents the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the submitted values

GUM KRISS LNE NIM NMIJ NMISA NOAA NPL VNIIM VSL BFKH NIST NPLI UME374

376

378

380

382

384

386

GUM INRIM KRISS LNE NIM NMIJ NMISA NOAA NPL VNIIM VSL BFKH NIST NPLI UME460

465

470

475

480

485

490GUM INRIM KRISS LNE NMIJ NOAA NPL VNIIM VSL NIM NMISA BFKH NIST NPLI UME

792

796

800

804

808

812

x NM

I (

mol

mol

-1)

P a g e | 14

Figure 2 Participantsrsquo assigned CO2 expanded uncertainties U(xNMI)

NM

IJ

NM

IJ

NM

IJ

VN

IIM

VN

IIM

UM

E

UM

E

NP

L

VN

IIM

KR

ISS

KR

ISS

NIM

NO

AA

NIM

NP

L

NIM

NO

AA

UM

E

VS

L

VS

L

NIS

T

KR

ISS

NP

L

NIS

T

NO

AA

VS

L

LNE

LNE

NM

ISA

NIS

T

INR

IM

NM

ISA

BF

KH

LNE

NM

ISA

BF

KH

INR

IM

BF

KH

NP

LI

NP

LI

GU

M

NP

LI

GU

M

GU

M

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9U

(xN

MI)

m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 15

Participant Number of Cylinder

NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos

assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned

N2 expanded

uncertainty O2

expanded uncertainty

Ar expanded

uncertainty CH4 mole fraction

expanded uncertainty

N2O mole fraction

expanded uncertainty

mole fraction

k =2 mole fraction k=2 mole fraction k =2 k=2 k=2

xN2 U(xN2) xO2 U(xO2) xAr U(xAr) xNMI U(xNMI) xNMI U(xNMI)

(molmol) (molmol) (molmol) (molmol) (molmol) (molmol) (nmolmol) (nmolmol) (nmolmol) (nmolmol)

BFKH OMH54 0780390 0000160 0209615 0000048 0009607 0000017 1030 1200

BFKH OMH44 0780640 0000160 0209514 0000048 0009360 0000017 1030 1200

BFKH OMH69 0780720 0000160 0209161 0000048 0009314 0000017 1030 1200

GUM D298392 0780800 0000200 0209500 0000100 0009250 0000010

GUM D298393 0780700 0000200 0209600 0000100 0009190 0000010

GUM D298402 0780200 0000200 0209700 0000100 0009380 0000010

INRIM D247440 0781132 0000006 0209063 0000006 0009326 0000004

INRIM D247445 0782389 0000006 0207553 0000005 0009259 0000004

KRISS D500642 0781139 0000005 0209256 0000004 0009226 0000001 9 2 0200 0000

KRISS D500647 0780915 0000004 0209152 0000004 0009452 0000001 10 3 0200 0000

KRISS D500672 0780407 0000004 0209452 0000004 0009339 0000001 15 3 0200 0000

LNE 1029045 0780686 0000025 0209528 0000019 0009407 0000022

LNE 1029047 0781355 0000025 0208794 0000018 0009374 0000022

LNE 1029048 0782710 0000027 0207187 0000021 0009301 0000021

NIM FB03747 0782000 0000029 0209000 0000028 0009220 0000010 1 0 0791 0607

NIM FB03744 0781000 0000028 0210000 0000026 0009040 0000010 1 0 0790 0601

NIM FB03748 0781000 0000027 0210000 0000026 0007940 0000010 1 0 0790 0586

NIST FB04278 0780812 0000118 0209470 0000710 0009339 0000370

NIST FB04300 0780771 0000128 0209422 0000081 0009334 0000034

P a g e | 16

NIST FB04287 0780499 0000114 0209370 0000067 0009336 0000040

NMIJ CPC00486 0780915 0000025 0209365 0000007 0009334 0000024 2 2 0900 0900

NMIJ CPC00494 0780937 0000024 0209259 0000007 0009333 0000024 3 2 0900 0900

NMIJ CPC00558 0780602 0000022 0209270 0000006 0009325 0000021 3 2 0900 0900

NMISA M51 8232 0780700 0000048 0209600 0000015 0009400 0000005 7 4 0000 0000

NMISA M51 8167 0780900 0000028 0209600 0000011 0008900 0000005 9 6 0000 0000

NMISA M51 8244 0779300 0000031 0210600 0000016 0009300 0000005 10 6 0000 0000

NOAA CC310084 0209500 0000200 1762 3 317200 0500

NOAA CC305198 0209500 0000200 1887 4 328600 0500

NOAA CB11668 0209500 0000200 1889 4 328800 0500

NPL 2179 0780790 0000470 0209600 0000130 0009232 0000018 lt10 - lt10 0000

NPL 2170 0780690 0780690 0209500 0209500 0009334 0009334 lt10 - lt10 0000

NPL 2181 0780550 0000470 0209280 0000130 0009367 0000019 lt10 - lt10 0000

NPLI JJ108891 0781273 0002210 0209688 0000590 0009040 0000030

NPLI JJ108862 0781989 0002210 0208853 0000590 0009158 0000030

NPLI JJ108854 0781363 0002210 0209789 0000594 0008847 0000030

UME PSM298266 0780339 0000017 0209966 0000017 0009314 0000002

UME PSM266468 0779968 0000017 0210229 0000017 0009322 0000002

UME PSM298347 0779552 0000016 0210352 0000016 0009295 0000002

VNIIM M365601 0781015 0000013 0209188 0000013 0009416 0000005 9 2

VNIIM M365664 0780928 0000011 0209270 0000012 0009322 0000005 10 2

VNIIM M365707 0781000 0000011 0209199 0000012 0009000 0000005 10 2

VSL 5604614 0781177 0000017 0209152 0000016 0009292 0000006 16 7 0021 0024

VSL 5604880 0781092 0000017 0209146 0000016 0009281 0000006 16 7 0021 0024

VSL 5604705 0780708 0000017 0209246 0000015 0009251 0000006 16 7 0021 0024

Table 6 Matrix composition of the submitted gas mixtures according to participantsrsquo reports in ANNEX V Synthetic Air is identified as S A and Purified real air as R A No data given

P a g e | 17

Number Date of pressure on pressure on Number Date of pressure on pressure on

Lab of Cylinder arrival arrival departure Lab of Cylinder arrival arrival departure

Mpa Mpa Mpa Mpa

BFKH OMH54 1292016 995 776 NMISA M51 8232 19122016 1297 952

BFKH OMH44 1292016 959 784 NMISA M51 8167 19122016 96 709

BFKH OMH69 1292016 984 755 NMISA M51 8244 19122016 1061 572

GUM D298392 28092016 1446 1103 NOAA CC310084 322017 1348 1282

GUM D298393 28092016 1523 116 NOAA CC305198 322017 1342 1284

GUM D298402 28092016 1505 108 NOAA CB11668 322017 1194 1138

INRIM D247440 13012017 897 534 NPL 2179 9122016 1046 855

INRIM D247445 13012017 922 544 NPL 2170 9122016 1119 94

KRISS D500642 20122016 927 739 NPL 2181 9122016 1112 935

KRISS D500647 20122016 884 711 NPLI JJ108891 922017 10 836

KRISS D500672 20122016 905 703 NPLI JJ108862 922017 105 897

LNE 1029045 28112016 1311 1113 NPLI JJ108854 922017 982 811

LNE 1029047 28112016 1287 1113 UME PSM298266 23112016 903 582

LNE 1029048 28112016 1322 1141 UME PSM266468 23112016 908 546

NIM FB03747 14122016 82 527 UME PSM298347 23112016 918 542

NIM FB03744 14122016 865 593 VNIIM M365601 512017 84 43

NIM FB03748 14122016 802 473 VNIIM M365664 512017 866 537

NIST FB04278 312017 1003 725 VNIIM M365707 512017 853 527

NIST FB04300 312017 1023 746 VSL 5604614 15112016 1049 634

NIST FB04287 312017 1005 721 VSL 5604880 15112016 1012 68

NMIJ CPC00486 922017 957 753 VSL 5604705 15112016 1045 707

NMIJ CPC00494 922017 928 752

NMIJ CPC00558 922017 84 677

Table 7 Pressure of the gas standards on arrival and departure from the BIPM

P a g e | 18

xNMI u(xNMI)

FTR

FTRu

wGCR

GCRu

Participant

Number of Cylinder

Assigned NMIrsquos CO2 mole

fraction in

(micromolmol)

Assigned NMIrsquos

Standard uncertainty

(k=1) (micromolmol)

FTIR (Under intermediate precision conditions)

Ratio to control

cylinder

Standard uncertainty in the Ratio to

control cylinder

GC-FID

(Under intermediate precision conditions)

Ratio to control

cylinder

Standard uncertainty in the Ratio to control

cylinder

BFKH OMH54 379800 0855 0435893607 0000026077 0787699648 0000056828 BFKH OMH44 479900 1055 0539981600 0000030887 0976036480 0000059163

BFKH OMH69 800300 1460 0930134790 0000079551 1681896740 0000095864

GUM D298392 380100 2200 0441372447 0000014142 0797442344 0000052495

GUM D298393 478100 2600 0555225000 0000027459 1003704868 0000094363

GUM D298402 800500 4300 0929933927 0000085245 1681786329 0000104750

INRIM D247440 479300 0800 0556774608 0000200000 1006168965 0000071077

INRIM D247445 798900 1300 0927989884 0000059393 1677871699 0000087418

KRISS D500642 378900 0100 0440414238 0000026926 0795445471 0000074696

KRISS D500647 480000 0100 0557780245 0000035341 1008228786 0000056189

KRISS D500672 800800 0200 0930402740 0000108930 1682410057 0000106300

LNE 1029045 379480 0395 0440901535 0000025239 0796419628 0000056088

LNE 1029047 477600 0500 0554855777 0000046174 1002959828 0000101902

LNE 1029048 802200 0850 0932191570 0000046232 1685756190 0000102865

NIM FB03747 383430 0100 0445715112 0000021260 0804945901 0000057626

NIM FB03744 489150 0110 0568919872 0000044283 1028323070 0000061887

NIM FB03748 809820 0130 0941620390 0000127224 1702705250 0000084949

NIST FB04278 379045 0195 0441858957 0000014036 0798159371 0000076697

NIST FB04300 472662 0214 0550247743 0000021932 0994649947 0000056864

NIST FB04287 794530 0514 0924730373 0000047693 1672406610 0000052361

NMIJ CPC00486 386617 0025 0449318716 0000022804 0811714164 0000057115

NMIJ CPC00494 471301 0026 0547653232 0000049336 0989730987 0000128859

NMIJ CPC00558 803658 0039 0933998556 0000062657 1689072068 0000061122

NMISA M51 8232 380200 1000 0441463446 0000030414 0797746449 0000071374

NMISA M51 8167 479500 0800 0556816358 0000063789 1006620384 0000139031

NMISA M51 8244 799100 0500 0927761085 0000058032 1678197948 0000120968

NOAA CC310084 379500 0105 0441196927 0000016125 0796836602 0000097427

NOAA CC305198 479260 0130 0557198873 0000046487 1007173065 0000061590

NOAA CB11668 794080 0240 0923707672 0000052071 1670538345 0000102943

NPL 2179 380270 0095 0442066316 0000015232 0798660385 0000055036

NPL 2170 480020 0120 0557939086 0000029155 1008480431 0000075981

NPL 2181 799700 0200 0929525453 0000066014 1680929399 0000081883

NPLI JJ108891 375720 1610 0435541280 0000044283 0786899117 0000051131

NPLI JJ108862 480520 1520 0558985244 0000078492 1010295612 0000070031

NPLI JJ108854 796380 2515 0923587308 0000048435 1670046415 0000092977

UME PSM298266 37992 0095 0441777548 0000066603 0798242598 0000076656

UME PSM266468 48042 0125 0558597569 0000077666 1009847197 0000062025

UME PSM298347 800760 0180 0930853610 0000059811 1683852629 0000186416

P a g e | 19

Table 8 Results of BIPM CO2 comparison measurements Re-submitted values following stability testing which were included following the decision of the CCQM GAWG (see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the

CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018))

72 Graphical representation of measurement results

Table 9 summarizes the figures showing the measurements results obtained by different methods at the BIPM

Table 9 List of figures corresponding to results obtained from FTIR and GC-FID at the BIPM

VNIIM M365601 380200 0055 0441966430 0000016643 0798479627 0000066343

VNIIM M365664 480180 0065 0558130273 0000048384 1008861333 0000059090

VNIIM M365707 800730 0095 0930604477 0000058131 1683192751 0000075295

VSL 5604614 378900 0140 0440539300 0000017205 0795901702 0000077266

VSL 5604880 480480 0180 0558580000 0000018028 1009802467 0000054009

VSL 5604705 795700 0300 0925375760 0000052705 1673272267 0000122172

Comparison method

CO2 mole fraction Plot

FTIR ( Ratio to control cylinder under intermediate precision conditions) 380 micromolmol Figure 3 480 micromolmol Figure 4 800 micromolmol Figure 5 GC-FID (Ratio to control cylinder under intermediate precision conditions)

380 micromolmol Figure 6 480 micromolmol Figure 7 800 micromolmol Figure 8

P a g e | 20

FTIR

Figure 3 FTIR ratios to control standard for the cylinders at nominally 380 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

374 376 378 380 382 384 386 3880434

0436

0438

0440

0442

0444

0446

0448

0450

GUM

KRISS

LNE

NIM

NMIJ

NMISANOAA

NPLVNIIM

VSL

BFKH

NIST

NPLI

UMERFT

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 21

Figure 4 FTIR ratios to control standard for the cylinders at nominally 480 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

460 465 470 475 480 485 490

0540

0545

0550

0555

0560

0565

0570

GUM

INRIM

KRISS

LNE

NIM

NMIJ

NMISANOAA

NPLVNIIMVSL

BFKH

NIST

NPLIUME

RFT

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 22

Figure 5 FTIR ratios to control standard for the cylinders at 800 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

792 794 796 798 800 802 804 806 808 810 8120922

0924

0926

0928

0930

0932

0934

0936

0938

0940

0942

0944

GUM

INRIM

KRISS

LNE

NMIJ

NOAA

NPL

VNIIM

VSL

NIM

NMISA

BFKH

NIST

NPLI

UME

RFT

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 23

GC-FID

Figure 6 GC-FID ratios to control standard for the cylinders at nominally 380 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

374 376 378 380 382 384 386 388

0785

0790

0795

0800

0805

0810

0815

KRISSVSL

LNENOAA

GUMNMISA

VNIIMNPL

NIM

NMIJ

BFKH

NIST

NPLI

UME

RG

C

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 24

Figure 7 GC-FID ratios to control standard for the cylinders at 480 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

460 465 470 475 480 485 490097

098

099

100

101

102

103

NMIJ

LNEGUM

NOAAINRIMNMISA

KRISSNPLVNIIMVSL

NIM

BFKH

NIST

NPLIUME

RG

C

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 25

Figure 8 GC-FID ratios to control standard for the cylinders at 800 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

792 794 796 798 800 802 804 806 808 810 8121665

1670

1675

1680

1685

1690

1695

1700

1705

NOAA

VSL

INRIMNMISA

NPLGUM

VNIIM

LNE

NMIJ

KRISS

NIM

BFKH

NIST

NPLI

UMERG

C

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 26

73 Isotope ratios of CCQM-K120 standards The δ13C and δ18O values reported by participants are listed in Table 10 The delta values of the complete set of cylinders on the VPDB-CO2 scale were also measured by the BIPM using the Delta Ray analyser to correct the FTIR response The measured isotope ratio values are listed Table 11 The method for measuring and calibrating the Delta Ray is fully described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure Delta Ray The method used by the BIPM for measuring isotope ratios is described in a recent publication5 and was validated with CO2 in air standards that had been value assigned for their isotopic composition by the WMO-CCL laboratory for isotope ratios MPI-BGC Jena with traceability of the standards used to the VPDB-CO2 scale realized with the JENA air standards reference set The measurements made by the BIPM have been used for all corrections made in the FTIR comparison method and were considered fit for purpose noting that a 1 permil difference in δ13C measurements can lead to a bias of 0004 micromolmol in CO2 mole fraction measurements in instruments based on a spectroscopic technique and similarly a 0002 micromolmol bias from a 1 permil difference in δ18O measurements Reported values for isotopic composition by participants were for information only The agreement between reported values and BIPM measured values is variable For δ13C values the difference between BIPM measured values and those reported by participants was smaller than 04 permil for NMIJ NPL and NOAA smaller than 2 permil for UME and VNIIM and almost 12 permil for NIST (noting that the NIST reported at the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG that this had been a typographical error on their part and the NIST and BIPM values were actually in full agreement) For δ18O values the difference between BIPM measured values and those reported by participants is smaller than 3 permil for NMIJ and NOAA and almost 10 permil for NPL The compatibility of CO2 isotope ratio measurements will be the focus of a future CCQM GAWG comparison enabling sources for differences to be studied in greater detail

Lab Number of Cylinder

δ13C on VPDB-CO2 scale

u(δ13C) Standard uncertainty (k=1)

δ18O on VPDB-CO2 scale

u(δ18O) Standard uncertainty (k=1) Comments

(permil) (permil) (permil) (permil)

NIST FB04278 -28 2 - -

NIST FB04300 -28 2 - -

NIST FB04287 -28 2 - -

NMIJ 3BIS85282 -892 - -991 - CO2 pure

NOAA CC310084 -87 02 -03 02

NOAA CC305198 -88 02 -64 02

NOAA CB11668 -85 04 -197 04

NPL 2179 -55 05 -225 05

NPL 2170 -55 05 -225 05

NPL 2181 -55 05 -225 05

UME PSM298266 -165 005 - - CO2 pure

VNIIM M365601 -48 045 - -

VNIIM M365664 -48 045 - -

VNIIM M365707 -48 045 - -

Table 10 δ13C and δ18

O values reported by participants value measured by the gas supplier according to the participant

P a g e | 27

Lab

Number of Cylinder

δ13C on VPDB-

CO2 scale

u(δ13C) Standard

uncertainty (k=1)

δ18O on VPDB-

CO2 scale

u(δ18O) Standard

uncertainty (k=1) Lab

Number of Cylinder

δ13C on VPDB-

CO2 scale

u(δ13C) Standard

uncertainty (k=1)

δ18O on VPDB-

CO2 scale

u(δ18O) Standard

uncertainty (k=1)

(permil) (permil) (permil) (permil) NMIJ CPC00558 -897 018 -1166 048

BFKH OMH54 -6676 018 -1723 048 NMISA M51 8232 -321 018 -2661 048

BFKH OMH44 -6653 018 -1734 048 NMISA M51 8167 -3209 018 -2655 048

BFKH OMH69 -6691 018 -2615 048 NMISA M51 8244 -3189 018 -2646 048

GUM D298392 -4431 018 -2877 048 NOAA CC310084 -886 018 -032 048

GUM D298393 -4432 018 -2865 048 NOAA CC305198 -891 018 -906 048

GUM D298402 -4418 018 -2847 048 NOAA CB11668 -888 018 -2128 048

INRIM D247440 -4927 018 -3436 048 NPL 2179 -522 018 -3231 048

INRIM D247445 -4952 018 -3449 048 NPL 2170 -521 018 -317 048

KRISS D500642 -2338 018 -1749 048 NPL 2181 -525 018 -3174 048

KRISS D500647 -2341 018 -1903 048 NPLI JJ108891 -887 018 -1087 048

KRISS D500672 -2334 018 -1884 048 NPLI JJ108862 -917 018 -1131 048

LNE 1029045 -3781 018 -2861 048 NPLI JJ108854 -915 018 -1149 048

LNE 1029047 -3786 018 -2775 048 UME PSM298266 -007 018 -2481 048

LNE 1029048 -3811 018 -2804 048 UME PSM266468 -005 018 -2453 048

NIM FB03747 -2055 018 -3007 048 UME PSM298347 016 018 -2446 048

NIM FB03744 -2052 018 -2978 048 VNIIM M365601 -4643 018 -2661 048

NIM FB03748 -2062 018 -2995 048 VNIIM M365664 -4635 018 -2584 048

NIST FB04278 -3983 018 -3092 048 VNIIM M365707 -4647 018 -2594 048

NIST FB04300 -3985 018 -3048 048 VSL 5604614 -3957 018 -3288 048

NIST FB04287 -3983 018 -3053 048 VSL 5604880 -3969 018 -3224 048

NMIJ CPC00486 -891 018 -987 048 VSL 5604705 -3574 018 -3064 048

NMIJ CPC00494 -903 018 -1184 048

Table 11 δ13C and δ18O value assignment vs VPDB-CO2 for each CO2 in air standard

P a g e | 28

In the case of the CCQM-K120a comparison it should be noted that the isotopic composition of CO2 at background levels in the atmosphere would be expected to have values close to the nominal values of -85 permil for δ13C and of 0 permil for δ18O when expressed on the VPDB-CO2 scale The standards submitted for the CCQM-K120a comparison had δ13C values that varied between -67 permil to 0 permil and δ18O values that varied between -35 permil to 0 permil This range of isotopic composition could result in measurement biases of up to 03 micromolmol in spectroscopic instruments for which isotopic composition had not been taken into account

8 Key Comparison Reference Value (KCRV)

During the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG it was agreed that the key comparison

reference values for CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b were to be calculated using

the measurement results of the FTIR spectrometer

Several statistical approaches all based on least-square regressions of measurement results obtained at the same nominal mole fraction were presented during 38th meeting of the

CCQM GAWG (GAWG18-32 ) From this analysis it was agreed to fit the FTIR results versus the participantrsquos submitted values with a line using the

Generalised Least Square approach defined in the standard ISO 614320019 (Gas analysis ndash Comparison methods for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures) It was also agreed to select the largest subset of cylinders

contributing to the regression line so as to obtain a consistent set with

regard to the regression ie a set that allows the goodness-of-fit parameter

to be less than 2 The measure of goodness-of-fit is defined as the

maximum value of the weighted differences between the coordinates of measured

and adjusted points (both on the x and the y axes) For all regressions the normalized sum of the squared weighted deviations where n is the number of points and p = 2 the number of parameters of the fit is also

provided for indication Both values are expected to be lower than 2 with the

condition on being stricter as it imposes all points to comply with the

fit

Notation The degree of equivalence is defined as

D = (1)

where

P a g e | 29

xKCRV is the amount of substance fraction in the cylinder predicted by the linear analysis function for the corresponding analyzer response (ratio to the control cylinder by FTIR)

u(xKCRV) is the standard uncertainty of the KCRV value

xNMI is the amount of substance fraction reported by the participating laboratory u(xNMI) is the standard uncertainty associated with the reported value xNMI

D is difference in amount of substance fraction as measured by the laboratory and

the reference value x and u(D) is the standard uncertainty of this difference expressed as

= (2)

and the expanded uncertainty at 95 confidence level )()( DukDU (3) where k denotes the coverage factor taken as k = 2 (normal distribution approximately 95 level of confidence)

81 Degrees of equivalence and graph of equivalence The analysis of the data from the comparison was performed following the process outlined in ISO 61432001 The regression analysis was performed with XLGenlinev11 a computer programme developed by NPL which implements this methodology by taking into consideration uncertainties in both axes During the 38th meeting of the GAWG it was decided that due the potential adsorption of a proportion of CO2 molecules onto the internal surface of a cylinder and valve (that can cause a deviation from the gravimetric amount fraction by as much as 100 nmol mol-1 demonstrated by Brewer et al2 ) a lower limit for uncertainties that could be used in the calculation of the KCRV was to be fixed It was decided that any standard uncertainty value lower than 0095 micromol mol-1 submitted by a participant was to be replaced by this value for the calculation of the KCRV The limit value was chosen based on the lowest uncertainty that had been reported by a participant for which adsorption effects had been considered (in this case NPL with cylinder 2179) In this manner the original uncertainties for the KCRV calculation of standards CPC00486 (NMIJ

P a g e | 30

original uncertainty 0025 micromol mol-1) CPC00494 (NMIJ original uncertainty 0025 micromol mol-

1) CPC00558 (NMIJ original uncertainty 0039 micromol mol-1) 00255 M365601 (VNIIM original uncertainty 0055 micromol mol-1) and M365664 (VNIIM original uncertainty 0065 micromol mol-1) were replaced by 0095 micromol mol-1 This cutoff was only applied to calculate the KCRVs The degree of equivalences were calculated using the uncertainties submitted by participants (equation 1)

KCRV calculations for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 With the FTIR measurement data set the set of self-consistent standards identified included eleven standards Three standards were excluded namely OMH54 (BFKH) FB04278 (NIST) and JJ108891 (NPLI) as these laboratories had reported changes in their reported values following stability testing The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 074 and the normalized sum of the squared weighted deviations 11 2 0227 Key comparison reference values and degrees of equivalence are listed in Table 12 Degrees of equivalence are plotted in Figure 9

KCRV calculations for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 With the FTIR measurement data set the set of self-consistent standards identified included twelve standards Three standards were excluded namely OMH44 (BFKH) FB03744 (NIST) and JJ108862 (NPLI) as these laboratories had reported changes in their reported values following stability testing The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 136 and the normalized sum of the squared weighted deviations 12 2 0463 The resulting key comparison reference values and degrees of equivalence are listed in Table 13 Degrees of equivalence are plotted in Figure 10

KCRV calculations for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1

Several statistical approaches were presented during the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (GAWG18-32 see ANNEX II- ) comprising different alternatives of sets of self-consistent standards From those the GAWG selected a solution where the two extreme mole fractions at this nominal mole fraction FB03748 (NIM 810424 micromol mol-1) and CB11668 (NOAA 794608 micromol mol-1) were removed from the set of self-consistent standards The solution involved then including ten cylinders for KCRV calculations Five were excluded namely FB03748 (NIM) CB11668 (NOAA) OMH69 (BFKH) FB04287 (NIST) and JJ108854 (NPLI) The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 180 and the normalized sum of the squared weighted deviations 10 2 0950 Key

P a g e | 31

comparison reference values and degrees of equivalence are listed in Table 14 Degrees of equivalence are plotted in Figure 11

Participant Cylinder

xKCRV u(xKCRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D1( xNMI- xKCRV ) u(D1) U( D1)

( XLGENLINE predictied

value from FTIR)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298392 379664 0044 380100 2200 0436 2200 4401

KRISS D500642 378828 0055 378900 0100 0072 0114 0228

LNE 1029045 379253 0051 379480 0395 0227 0398 0796

NIM FB03747 383453 0052 383430 0100 -0023 0113 0226

NMIJ CPC00486 386597 0088 386617 0025 0020 0091 0182

NMISA M51 8232 379743 0050 380200 1000 0457 1001 2002

NOAA CC310084 379511 0046 379500 0105 -0011 0115 0229

NPL 2179 380269 0041 380270 0095 0001 0103 0207

VNIIM M365601 380182 0042 380200 0055 0018 0069 0138

VSL 5604614 378937 0051 378900 0140 -0037 0149 0298

UME PSM298266 380017 0071 379920 0095 -0097 0118 0237

BFKH OMH54 374884 0099 379800 0850 4916 0856 1711

NIST FB04278 380088 0042 379045 0195 -1044 0200 0400

NPLI JJ108891 374576 0108 375720 1610 1144 1614 3227

Table 12 Degrees of Equivalence using FTIR measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision of the the CCQM

GAWG Uncertainties below the cutoff value of 0095 micromol molminus1

Participant Cylinder

xKCRV u(xKCRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D2( xNMI- xKCRV ) u(D2) U( D2)

( XLGENLINE predictied value

from FTIR)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298393 477706 0051 478100 2600 0394 2601 5201

INRIM D247440 479007 0173 479300 0800 0293 0819 1637

KRISS D500647 479851 0052 480000 0100 0149 0113 0225

LNE 1029047 477397 0061 477600 0500 0203 0504 1007

NIM FB03744 489202 0099 489150 0110 ‐0052 0148 0296

NMIJ CPC00494 471351 0094 471301 0026 ‐0050 0097 0195

NMISA M51 8167 479042 0068 479500 0800 0458 0803 1606

NOAA CC305198 479363 0058 479260 0130 ‐0103 0142 0284

P a g e | 32

NPL 2170 479985 0049 480020 0120 0035 0130 0259

VNIIM M365664 480145 0059 480180 0065 0035 0088 0175

VSL 5604880 480523 0045 480480 0180 ‐0043 0186 0371

UME PSM266468 480537 0078 480420 0125 ‐0117 0147 0295

BFKH OMH44 464911 0138 479900 1050 14989 1059 2118

NIST FB04300 473529 0071 472662 0214 ‐0867 0225 0451

NPLI JJ108862 480863 0079 480520 1520 ‐0343 1522 3044

Table 13 Degrees of Equivalence using FTIR measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision of the the CCQM

GAWG Uncertainties below the cutoff value of 0095 micromol molminus1

Participant Cylinder

xKCRV u(xKCRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D3( xNMI- xKCRV ) u(D3) U( D3)

( XLGENLINE predictied value

from FTIR)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298402 800105 0106 800500 4300 0395 4301 8603

INRIM D247445 798389 0128 798900 1300 0511 1306 2613

KRISS D500672 800519 0118 800800 0200 0281 0232 0464

LNE 1029048 802099 0078 802200 0850 0101 0854 1707

NMIJ CPC00558 803694 0114 803658 0039 -0036 0120 0240

NPL 2181 799744 0101 799700 0200 -0044 0224 0448

NMISA M518244 798187 0132 799100 0500 0913 0517 1034

VNIIM M365707 800697 0084 800730 0095 0033 0127 0253

VSL 5604705 796080 0191 795700 0300 -0380 0356 0712

UME PSM298347 800917 0083 800760 0180 -0157 0198 0396

NIM FB03748 810424 0327 809820 0130 -0604 0351 0703

NOAA CB11668 794608 0237 794080 0240 -0528 0337 0674

BFKH OMH69 800282 0100 800300 1450 0018 1453 2907

NIST FB04287 795511 0208 794530 0514 -0981 0555 1109

NPLI JJ108854 794501 0239 796380 2515 1879 2526 5053

Table 14 Degrees of Equivalence using FTIR measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision of the the CCQM

GAWG Uncertainties below the cutoff value of 0095 micromol molminus1

P a g e | 33

Figure 9 Degrees of Equivalence at a nominal value of 380 micromolmol for CO2 mole fractions The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

KR

ISS

LNE

NIM

NM

IJ

NM

ISA

NO

AA

NP

L

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI-4

-2

0

2

4

D m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 34

Figure 10 Degrees of Equivalence at a nominal value of 480 micromolmol for CO2 mole fractions The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

INR

IM

KR

ISS

LNE

NIM

NM

IJ

NM

ISA

NO

AA

NP

L

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI

-4

-2

0

2

4

D m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 35

Figure 11 Degrees of Equivalence at a nominal value of 800 micromolmol for CO2 mole fractions The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

INR

IM

KR

ISS

LNE

NM

IJ

NP

L

NM

ISA

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

NIM

NO

AA

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI-4

-2

0

2

4

D m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 36

9 Conclusions The comparison have been successful in demonstrating the degrees of equivalence of CO2 in air standards amongst participating NMIs at nominal mole fractions of 380 micromolmol 480 micromolmol and 800 micromolmol In addition the results can be compared to those of CCQM-K52 (organized in 2006) allowing the following conclusions to be drawn

a) the uncertainy of the key comparison reference value has been reduced by a factor of at least 4 with a standard uncertainty of 005 micromolmol for CCQM-K120a (compared to 02 micromolmol for CCQM-K52)

b) methods based on spectroscopy (FTIR with corrections for isotope ratios) and GC-FID for comparing CO2 in air standards have demonstrated excellent agreement with the standard deviation of the difference in reference values found by the two methods being 007 micromolmol at 380 micromolmol and 005 micromolmol at 480 micromolmol

c) the uncertainties are now at the level where adsorption effects within cylinders and on

surfaces needs to be considered and this has led to a mnimium value of 0095 micromolmol being used as the standard uncertainty for standards for key comparison reference value calculation

d) providing standards to communities measuring atmospheric CO2 with spectroscopic

methods produced with CO2 originating from combustion sources can lead to isotope ratios in the CO2 which will produce biases in mole fractions measurements of up to 03 micromolmol These biases can be corrected by either measuring isotope ratios of the gas standard and appropriate processing by the user or by using CO2 which has been closely matched to atmospheric isotope ratio values in the production of the standard

10 lsquoHow far the light shinesrsquo statement The following lsquoHow far the light shinesrsquo statement agreed during the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG was CCQM‐K120a comparison involves preparing standards of carbon dioxide in air which are fit for purpose for the atmospheric monitoring community with stringent requirements on matrix composition and measurement uncertainty of the CO2 mole fraction This represents an analytical challenge and is therefore considered as a Track C comparison The comparison will underpin CMC claims for CO2 in air for standards and calibrations services for the atmospheric

P a g e | 37

monitoring community matrix matched to real air over the mole fraction range of 250 μmolmol to 520 μmolmol CCQM‐K120b comparison tests core skills and competencies required in gravimetric preparation analytical certification and purity analysis It is considered as a Track A comparison It will underpin CO2 in air and nitrogen claims in a mole fraction range starting at the smallest participantrsquos reported expanded uncertainty and ending at 500 mmolmol Participants successful in this comparison may use their result in the flexible scheme and underpin claims for all core mixtures

Bibliography

1 W Bader B Bovy S Conway K Strong D Smale A J Turner T Blumenstock C Boone A Coulon O Garcia D W T Griffith F Hase P Hausmann N Jones P Krummel I Murata I Morino H Nakajima S ODoherty C Paton-Walsh J Robinson R Sandrin M Schneider C Servais R Sussmann and E MahieuTen years of atmospheric methane from ground-based NDACC FTIR observations Atmos Chem Phys Discuss2016 2016 1 2 P J Brewer R J C Brown K V Resner R E Hill-Pearce D R Worton N D C Allen K C Blakley D Benucci and M R EllisonInfluence of Pressure on the Composition of Gaseous Reference Materials Analytical Chemistry2018 90(5) 3490 3 M B Esler D W T Griffith S R Wilson and L P SteelePrecision Trace Gas Analysis by FT-IR Spectroscopy 1 Simultaneous Analysis of CO2 CH4 N2O and CO in Air Anal Chem1999 72(1) 206- 215 4 M B Esler D W T Griffith S R Wilson and L P SteelePrecision Trace Gas Analysis by FT-IR Spectroscopy 2 The 13C12C Isotope Ratio of CO2 Anal Chem 1999 72(1) 216 5 E Flores J Viallon P Moussay D W T Griffith and R WielgoszCalibration strategies for FTIR and other IRIS instruments for ac-curate δ13C and δ18O measurements of CO2 in air Anal Chem2017 Submitted 6 D W T GriffithSynthetic Calibration and Quantitative Analysis of Gas-Phase FT-IR Spectra Appl Spectrosc1996 50(1) 59 7 D W T Griffith N M Deutscher C Caldow G Kettlewell M Riggenbach and S HammerA Fourier transform infrared trace gas and isotope analyser for atmospheric applications Atmos Meas Tech2012 5(10) 2481 8 D W T Griffith N B Jones B McNamara C P Walsh W Bell and C BernardoIntercomparison of NDSC Ground-Based Solar FTIR Measurements of Atmospheric Gases at Lauder New Zealand J Atmos Oceanic Tech2003 20 (8) 1138- 1153 9 ISO Gas analysis- Comparison methods for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures in 61432001 (2001) 10 G Nelson Gas Mixtures Preparation and Control (Lewis Publishers Florida USA 1992) 11 L S Rothman A Barbe D Chris Benner L R Brown C Camy-Peyret M R Carleer K Chance C Clerbaux V Dana V M Devi A Fayt J M Flaud R R Gamache A Goldman D Jacquemart K W Jucks W J Lafferty J Y Mandin S T Massie V Nemtchinov D A Newnham A Perrin C P Rinsland J Schroeder K M Smith M A H Smith K Tang R A Toth J Vander Auwera P Varanasi and K YoshinoThe HITRAN molecular spectroscopic database edition of 2000 including updates through 2001 J Quant Spectrosc Radiat Transfer 82(1ndash4) 5 12 L S Rothman I E Gordon Y Babikov A Barbe D Chris Benner P F Bernath M Birk L Bizzocchi V Boudon L R Brown A Campargue K Chance E A Cohen L H Coudert V M Devi B J Drouin A Fayt J M Flaud R R Gamache J J Harrison J M Hartmann C Hill J T Hodges D Jacquemart A Jolly J Lamouroux R J Le Roy G Li D A Long O M Lyulin C J Mackie S T Massie S Mikhailenko H S P Muumlller O V Naumenko A V Nikitin J Orphal V Perevalov A Perrin E R Polovtseva C Richard M A H

P a g e | 38

Smith E Starikova K Sung S Tashkun J Tennyson G C Toon V G Tyuterev and G WagnerThe HITRAN2012 molecular spectroscopic database J Quant Spectrosc Radiat Transfer2013 130 4

ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

As results of the discussion of the key points of the Draft A report of the CCQM-K120 comparison during the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG the following decisions were taken

a) the key comparison reference value for CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b are to be based on the measurement results of the FTIR spectrometer

b) the re-submitted uncertainties by UME replace the original uncertainty values used in Draft A report (see Table 15) and are to be used for the calculation of the KCRV

c) NIST NPLI and BFKH submitted new measurement results as well as uncertainties after the measurements performed on return of the standards in their laboratoires This was not expected in the protocol of the comparison Therefore their values have not been used in the KCRV calucltaions The original values are used for DOE calculations the modified values have been included in AnnexII

d) considering that NPL was the only participant that considered a potential effect of adsorption of a proportion of the molecules onto the internal surface of a cylinder and valve (for more information see GAWG18-00) a limit on the uncertainties claimed by participants contributing to the KCRV is fixed to 0095 micromol mol-1 meaning that any uncertainty value smaller to this value will be replaced by 0095 micromol mol-1 to calculate KCRVs

e) The KCRV for the standatds at the nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 are to be calculated including standards with mole fractions within plusmn 5 micromol mol-1 of the nominal value (795 micromol mol-1 to 805 micromol mol-1)

P a g e | 39

P a g e | 40

ANNEX II- Stability studies by participants After the return of cylinder to the participants and before results of the comparison were known four participants reported modified uncertainties and also values and uncertainties compared to their originally reported values see Table 15 The participants that reported changes to their originally submitted values were

BFKH submitted the same values but with less decimals for cylinders OMH54 and OMH69 and proposed a new value for cylinder OMH44 The new value changed from 47989plusmn211 micromolmol to 4644plusmn211 micromolmol

NIST submitted new values and uncertainties for cylinders FB04278 FB04300 and FB04287

NPLI submitted new values for cylinders JJ108891 JJ108862 and JJ108854 The mole fractions for cylinders JJ108891 and JJ108854 were increased by 252 micromolmol and 242 micromolmol respectively and reduced for cylinder JJ108862 by 195 micromolmol The uncertainties for cylinders JJ108891 and JJ108862 were also increased by 22 and 72 but reduced for cylinder JJ108854 by 33

UME The uncertainties of cylinders PSM298266 PSM266468 and PSM298347 were increased by 19 47 and 33 respectively

Participant Cylinder references Gas Matrix

NMIrsquos assigned CO2 mole fraction xNMI

(micromol mol-1)

NMIrsquos assigned CO2

expanded uncertainty U(xNMI)

k = 2 (micromol mol-1)

Before the return of cylinders

BFKH OMH54 Synthetic Air 379840 1710

BFKH OMH44 Synthetic Air 479890 2110

BFKH OMH69 Synthetic Air 800300 2920

GUM D298392 Synthetic Air 380100 4400

GUM D298393 Synthetic Air 478100 5200

GUM D298402 Synthetic Air 800500 8600

INRIM D247440 Synthetic Air 479300 1600

INRIM D247445 Synthetic Air 798900 2600

KRISS D500642 Synthetic Air 378900 0200

KRISS D500647 Synthetic Air 480000 0200

KRISS D500672 Synthetic Air 800800 0400

LNE 1029045 Synthetic Air 379480 0790

LNE 1029047 Synthetic Air 477600 1000

LNE 1029048 Synthetic Air 802200 1700

NIM FB03747 Synthetic Air 383430 0200

NIM FB03744 Synthetic Air 489150 0220

P a g e | 41

NIM FB03748 Synthetic Air 809820 0260

NIST FB04278 Real Air 379045 0391

NIST FB04300 Real Air 472662 0428

NIST FB04287 Real Air 794533 1029

NMIJ CPC00486 Real Air 386617 0050

NMIJ CPC00494 Real Air 471301 0051

NMIJ CPC00558 Real Air 803658 0078

NMISA M51 8232 Synthetic Air 380200 2000

NMISA M51 8167 Synthetic Air 479500 1600

NMISA M51 8244 Synthetic Air 799100 1000

NOAA CC310084 Real Air 379500 0210

NOAA CC305198 Real Air 479260 0260

NOAA CB11668 Real Air 794080 0480

NPL 2179 Synthetic Air 380270 0190

NPL 2170 Synthetic Air 480020 0240

NPL 2181 Synthetic Air 799700 0400

NPLI JJ108891 Synthetic Air 375720 3220

NPLI JJ108862 Synthetic Air 480520 3040

NPLI JJ108854 Synthetic Air 796380 5030

UME PSM298266 Synthetic Air 379920 0160

UME PSM266468 Synthetic Air 480420 0170

UME PSM298347 Synthetic Air 800760 0270

VNIIM M365601 Synthetic Air 380200 0110

VNIIM M365664 Synthetic Air 480180 0130

VNIIM M365707 Synthetic Air 800730 0190

VSL 5604614 Synthetic Air 378900 0280

VSL 5604880 Synthetic Air 480480 0360

VSL 5604705 Synthetic Air 795700 0600

Additional data received following

stability testing

BFKH‐2nd value OMH54 Synthetic Air 3798 17

BFKH‐2nd value OMH44 Synthetic Air 4644 28

BFKH‐2nd value OMH69 Synthetic Air 8003 29

NIST‐2nd value FB04278 Real Air 38030 028

NIST‐2nd value FB04300 Real Air 47340 034

NIST‐2nd value FB04287 Real Air 79512 058

NIST‐3th value FB04278 Real Air 38007 030

NIST‐3th value FB04300 Real Air 47337 052

NIST‐3th value FB04287 Real Air 79477 038

NPLI‐2nd value JJ108891 Synthetic Air 37824 395

NPLI‐2nd value JJ108862 Synthetic Air 47857 523

NPLI‐2nd value JJ108854 Synthetic Air 79880 335

UME‐2nd value PSM298266 Synthetic Air 379920 019

P a g e | 42

UME‐2nd value PSM266468 Synthetic Air 480420 025

UME‐2nd value PSM298347 Synthetic Air 800760 036

Table 15 Standards and reported values provided by participants in Draft A report

ANNEX III- GC-FID results

GC-FID based candidate reference values for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 With the GC-FID measurement data set the set of self-consistent standards identified was the same as with FTIR including eleven standards with three excluded namely OMH54 (BFKH neither original nor newly submitted results included) FB04278 (NIST neither original nor newly submitted results included) and JJ108891 (NPLI neither original and newly submitted results included) The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 169 (lt 2 required to demonstrate consistency of the ensemble) Reference values and differences from these are listed in Table 16 The difference between the KCRV calculated with FTIR measurement data (xKCRV_FTIR) and GC-FID based candidate reference values (xRV_FTIR) measurements for this batch of cylinders is plotted in Figure 12 showing negligible difference between the methods

GC-FID based candidate reference values for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 With the GC-FID measurement data set the set of self-consistent standards identified was the same as with FTIR The data set of self-consistent standards identified included twelve standards with three excluded namely OMH44 (BFKH neither original nor newly submitted results included) FB03744 (NIST neither original nor newly submitted results included) and JJ108862 (NPLI neither original nor newly submitted results included) The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 141 (lt 2 required to demonstrate consistency of the ensemble) Reference values and differences from these are listed in Table 17

P a g e | 43

The difference between the KCRV calculated with FTIR measurement data (xKCRV_FTIR) and GC-FID based candidate reference values (xRV_FTIR) measurements for this batch of cylinders is plotted in Figure 13 showing negligible difference between the methods

GC-FID based candidate reference values for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 Including ten cylinders with five excluded namely FB03748 (NIM) CB11668 (NOAA) OMH69 (BFKH neither original and newly submitted results included) FB04287 (NIST neither original nor newly submitted results included) and JJ108854 (NPLI neither original nor newly submitted results included) the goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 191(lt 2 required to demonstrate consistency of the ensemble) Reference values and differences from these are listed in Table 18 The difference between the KCRV calculated with FTIR measurement data (xKCRV_FTIR) and GC-FID based candidate reference values (xRV_FTIR) measurements for this batch of cylinders is plotted in Figure 14 showing negligible difference between the methods

Participant Cylinder

xRV u(xRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D1( xNMI- xKCRV )

u(D1) U( D1)

( XLGENLINE predictied

value from GC-FID)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298392 379719 0050 380100 2200 0381 2201 4401

KRISS D500642 378753 0063 378900 0100 0147 0118 0236

LNE 1029045 379224 0054 379480 0395 0256 0399 0797

NIM FB03747 383350 0056 383430 0100 0080 0115 0229

NMIJ CPC00486 386624 0092 386617 0025 ‐0007 0095 0190

NMISA M51 8232 379866 0054 380200 1000 0334 1001 2003

NOAA CC310084 379426 0065 379500 0105 0074 0124 0247

NPL 2179 380308 0048 380270 0095 ‐0038 0106 0213

VNIIM M365601 380221 0051 380200 0055 ‐0021 0075 0150

VSL 5604614 378973 0062 378900 0140 ‐0073 0153 0306

UME PSM298266 380106 0055 379920 0095 ‐0186 0110 0220

BFKH OMH54 375005 0101 379800 0850 4795 0856 1712

NIST FB04278 380066 0055 379045 0195 ‐1021 0203 0406

NPLI JJ108891 374617 0105 375720 1610 1103 1613 3227

Table 16 Difference from candidate reference value using GC-FID measurements at the nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision

of the the CCQM GAWG First uncertainty submitted by the participant (lt 0095 micromol mol-1 see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

P a g e | 44

Participant Cylinder

xRV u(xRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D2( xNMI- xKCRV ) u(D2) U( D2)

( XLGENLINE predictied

value from GC-FID)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298393 477789 0065 478100 2600 0311 2601 5202

INRIM D247440 478928 0056 479300 0800 0372 0802 1604

KRISS D500647 479881 0051 480000 0100 0119 0112 0225

LNE 1029047 477444 0069 477600 0500 0156 0505 1009

NIM FB03744 489173 0097 489150 0110 ‐0023 0147 0294

NMIJ CPC00494 471327 0107 471301 0026 ‐0026 0110 0220

NMISA M51 8167 479137 0078 479500 0800 0363 0804 1608

NOAA CC305198 479392 0053 479260 0130 ‐0132 0140 0281

NPL 2170 479997 0056 480020 0120 0023 0133 0265

VNIIM M365664 480173 0052 480180 0065 0007 0083 0167

VSL 5604880 480608 0051 480480 0180 ‐0128 0187 0374

UME PSM266468 480629 0053 480420 0125 ‐0209 0136 0272

BFKH OMH44 464994 0144 479900 1050 14906 1060 2120

NIST FB04300 473601 0077 472662 0214 ‐0940 0227 0455

NPLI JJ108862 480836 0055 480520 1520 ‐0316 1521 3042

Table 17 Difference from candidate reference value using GC-FID measurements at the nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision of

the the CCQM GAWG First uncertainty submitted by the participant (lt 0095 micromol mol-1 see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

Participant Cylinder

xRV u(xRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D3( xNMI- xKCRV )

u(D3) U( D3)

( XLGENLINE predictied

value from GC-FID) (k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298402 800002 0083 800500 4300 0498 4301 8602

INRIM D247445 798031 0105 798900 1300 0869 1304 2608

KRISS D500672 800316 0080 800800 0200 0484 0215 0431

LNE 1029048 802001 0068 802200 0850 0199 0853 1705

NMIJ CPC00558 803670 0057 803658 0039 ‐0012 0069 0138

NPL 2181 799570 0081 799700 0200 0130 0216 0432

NMISA M51 8244 798195 0111 799100 0500 0905 0512 1024

VNIIM M365707 800710 0066 800730 0095 0020 0116 0232

VSL 5604705 795715 0150 795700 0300 ‐0015 0335 0670

UME PSM298347 801042 0180 800760 0135 ‐0282 0172 0344

NIM FB03748 810535 0165 809820 0130 ‐0715 0210 0420

NOAA CB11668 794338 0170 794080 0240 ‐0258 0294 0588

BFKH OMH69 800057 0079 800300 1450 0243 1452 2904

P a g e | 45

NIST FB04287 795279 0147 794530 0514 ‐0749 0535 1070

NPLI JJ108854 794091 0173 796380 2515 2289 2521 5042

Table 18 Difference from candidate reference value using GC-FID measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the

decision of the the CCQM GAWG First uncertainty submitted by the participant (lt 0095 micromol mol-1 see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

Figure 12 Difference between the KCRV values obtained using FTIR and GC-FID reference values at 380

micromolmol The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

KR

ISS

LNE

NIM

NM

IJ

NM

ISA

NO

AA

NP

L

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Diff

(x K

CR

V_F

TIR

-xR

V_G

C-F

ID)

m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 46

Figure 13 Difference between the KCRV values obtained using FTIR and GC-FID reference values at 480 micromolmol The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

INR

IM

KR

ISS

LNE

NIM

NM

IJ

NM

ISA

NO

AA

NP

L

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Diff

(x K

CR

V_

FT

IR-x

RV

_G

C-F

ID)

m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 47

Figure 14 Difference between the KCRV values obtained using FTIR and GC-FID reference values at 800 micromolmol The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

In summary the measurement performance obtained with GC-FID and FTIR at the BIPM were rather similar with standard measurement uncertainties of the reference values having a range of 004 micromolmol to 011 micromolmol at 380 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for FTIR 005 micromolmol to 011 micromolmol at 380 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for GC-FID 005 micromolmol to 017 micromolmol at 480 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for FTIR 005 micromolmol to 014 micromolmol at 480 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for GC-FID 008 micromolmol to 033 micromolmol at 800 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for FTIR 006 micromolmol to 018 micromolmol at 800 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for GC-FID

The reference values calculated from the two measurement techniques agree with each other within their stated uncertainties for all measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 380 micromolmol all measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 480 micromolmol all measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 800 micromolmol The magnitude of the proposed reference values can be compared to the laboratories reported standard measurement uncertainties for their standards which range from 0025 micromolmol to 43 micromolmol

GU

M

INR

IM

KR

ISS

LNE

NM

IJ

NP

L

NM

ISA

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

NIM

NO

AA

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Diff

(x K

CR

V_

FT

IR-x

RV

_GC

-FID

)

mo

l mo

l-1

P a g e | 48

ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure The cylinders were analysed in batches first by GC-FID then by FTIR and finally by the Delta Ray

GC-FID The GC-FID is a modified Agilent system series 7890A acquired from the SRA Instruments lsquoFrance It is equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID) a Haysep Q (12 feet) column a methanizer and the FID detector is supplied with pure oxygen and hydrogen (see Figure 15)

Figure 15 Internal schematics of the BIPM system for Gas Chromatography with Flame Ionization Detector (GC-FID) comprised by a Haysep (12 feet) column a Sample loop of 1 mL two Valco six port valves and a FID detector

The GC-FID is equipped with

- two 6 port valve V1 (Vici-valco) - one 1 mL stainless steel injection loop - one one-way valve - one Haysep Q (80-100 Mesh 12ftx18x20mm) - one flame ionization detector (FID) - one methanizer - one hydrogen generator - one helium purifier - one control computer for the GC-FID equipped with

o ChemStation version Rev B0402 (118) o ProChem Set-up version 257 o ProChem software version 201

- one barometer (Sensor Technique DC 2510)

Haysep

P a g e | 49

The gas mixtures used for operating the facility were

- one helium 60 gas cylinder quality 999999 - one oxygen 55 in gas cylinder quality 999995 - source of air with pressure of 7 bars - one 50 L CO2air commercial secondary gas standards (control standard A) produced by

Messer with an initial internal pressure of 150 bar with the composition specified to be within the following ranges

CH4 185 ppm CO2 386 ppm Ar 9410 ppm O2 207 N2 Matrix gas

- one 50 L CO2air commercial secondary gas standards (control standard B) produced by Messer with an initial internal pressure of 150 bar with the composition specified to be within the following ranges

CH4 184 ppm CO2 476 ppm Ar 9415 ppm O2 210 N2 Matrix gas

- one 40 L CO2air standard (control standard C) produced by Scott Marrin (cylinder CB 10422) with an initial internal pressure of 100 bar with the composition specified to be within the following ranges

CO2 79112 ppm CH4 184 ppm

GC-FID separation and quantification method The GC-FID was operated at 30 degC A Haysep Q (80-100 Mesh 12ftx18x20mm) column was used at a temperature of 30 degC for the analysis Helium column carrier2 gas passed through a heated gas purifier was used at a flow rate of 40 ml min-1 The FID was supplied with 320 ml min-1 of pure oxygen3 and 40 ml min-1 of hydrogen4 A 1 ml stainless steel sample loop was used to introduce the CO2air sample onto the column The pressure in the sample loop was measured by a calibrated pressure sensor having a resolution of 02 hPa and recorded at each injection Finally the peak areas were estimated with an on-line computing integrator

Sampling sequence

Table 19 displays a typical sampling sequence The sampling sequence was setup so as to analyse six unkown CO2Air gas mixtures together with three control standards (A B C) Three unknown were bracketed by control standards A and B followed by the other three bracketed by 2 The Carrier Gas is He grade 60 passing through a SAES gettersreg PS2-GC50-R-2 for extra purification 3 The Flame is produced from Oxygen grade 55 4 Hydrogen is produced on site by a commercial H2 generator CG2200 (Claind) It produces grade 60 H2 at a maximum flow rate of 200 mlmin with a purity higher than 9999999

P a g e | 50

control standards B and C Each individual cylinders analysis (unkowns and controls) consisted in three successive measurements of the GC-FID response (CO2 peak area)

Control Cylinder A A1 A2 A3

Control Cylinder B B1 B2 B3

Cylinder 1 Cyl11 Cyl12 Cyl13 Cylinder 2 Cyl21 Cyl22 Cyl23

Cylinder 3 Cyl31 Cyl32 Cyl33 Control Cylinder A A4 A5 A6

Control Cylinder B B4 B5 B6

Control Cylinder B B7 B8 B9

Control Cylinder C C1 C2 C3

Cylinder 4 Cyl41 Cyl42 Cyl43

Cylinder 5 Cyl51 Cyl52 Cyl53

Cylinder 6 Cyl61 Cyl62 Cyl63

Control Cylinder B B10 B11 B12

Control Cylinder C C4 C5 C6 Table 19 Typical GC-FID sampling sequence

Considering that the analysis of each CO2Air gas mixture took 10 minutes this measuring sequence took about 390 minutes to be completed This sequence was repeated four times with the first one not used in the calculation Adding flushing and conditioning about three days were necessary to complete the analysis of six unkown cylinders

Participantrsquos cylinders were divided in batches of four to six and additional cylinders of the BIPM were added if required to obtain batches of equal size

It was checked that the results obtained using controls A B and C were consistent but only the ratios to the control cylinder B were used as GC-FID results and listed in Table 8

Ratios to the control standard

The ratios to the control cylinder were calculated determining first the average responses of three successive measurements performed on the CO2Air standard gas mixtures as well as on the control cylinders (A B and C) The drift corrected response to the control cylinder as any time was calculated by interpolation in between two control measurements The average response to the CO2air standards mixtures was then divided by the drift corrected response of the control

cylinder to obtain GCR the ratio for one cylinder in one sequence

The last three sequences were then combined with the calculation of the weighted mean defined as

wGCR

P a g e | 51

3

1

_

l

lwGClwGC RwR (1)

Where the weigth wl for the series l is defined as

3

1

2_

2_

1

1

j

lGC

lGC

l

Ru

Ruw (2)

and lGCRu _ is the standard deviation of the mean of the three repeats

The uncertainty of the weighted mean is defined as

3

1

2_

2

1

1

llGC

wGC

RuRu

(3)

In addition to this component the intermediate precision or stability of the instrument response during the full measuring period was evaluated by the standard deviation of the mean of the drift corrected ratio to the control cylinder of one standard exclusively used for this purpose giving uIntpre = 0000046 This component was further combined with the weighted mean uncertainty to provide the combined standard uncertainty associated with measurements performed with GC-FID resulting in a typical relative standard uncertainty of 0007

FTIR A vacuum Bruker Vertex 70v FTIR Spectrometer equipped with a RockSolid interferometer (vacuum better than 02 hPa) with 1 cm-1 resolution (016 optional) a 40 mm beam diameter a globar source and CaF2 beam splitter was used for the study The spectrometer was configured with a liquid N2-cooled mid-infrared Indium Antimonide (InSb) detector and a 1001 m multi-pass White-type gas cell of volume 075 L (Gemini Scientific Instruments USA) The wetted surfaces of the gas cell were electro-polished stainless steel treated with silconert 2000 (Silcotek) and gold (mirror coatings) to minimize surface adsorption and desorption effects for CO2 The interferometer was scanned at 64 scans min-1 and spectra co-added for five minutes to obtain an acceptable signal-to-noise ratio The transmission spectra of gas reference standards obtained following this procedure had a very high signal to noise ratio of typically ~1 x 104 peak-peak from (2240ndash3380) cm-1 In order to prevent nonlinear responses produced by excess photon flux reaching the InSb detector special care was put into adjusting the instrument parameters of the software to ensure that the apparent intensity from the InSb detector was zero at 1850 cm-1 The spectrometer user interface was controlled using a BIPM developed software named B-FOS that allowed the automatic setting of all instrument parameters into Brukerrsquos proprietary OPUS software for control spectral acquisition and on-line analysis through the use of MALT (Multiple Atmospheric Layer Transmission)3 4 6 spectrum analysis software version 556

P a g e | 52

MALT retrieves concentrations of each trace gas in the sample from a least-squares fit to the measured spectrum based on a model calculation and Hitran line parameters12 This code is the basis for quantitative analysis of open and closed path FTIR trace gas measurements and has been compared with other codes such as SFIT1 for ground based solar FT-IR measurements with agreement of better than 07 (Griffith et al8)

The spectra were constructed by co-adding up to 320 scans recorded in about 5 minutes to provide a single spectrum of a sample This single spectrum was ratioed with a similar spectrum of ultra-pure N2 collected under similar conditions to provide an absorbance or transmission spectrum of the gas sample (relative to ultra-pure N2) in the gas cell The sample flow rates were kept at ~400 mL minminus1 Assuming perfect mixing in the cell it was estimated that 999 of the sample was replaced after 10 min of flow and 99998 replaced after 20 min10 In order to ensure the complete exchange of samples only the measured spectra obtained after flowing the sample through the White-type cell for 40 min (9999999 gas replacement) were used for mole fraction determinations The sample pressure was measured by means of the calibrated barometer Mensor Series 6000 The relative uncertainty of this pressure sensor was u(P) = 002 The sample temperature was measured with a calibrated 100 Ω RTD temperature probe introduced into the outlet gas of the White-type gas cell with a standard uncertainty u(T)=002 K

The recorded spectra were analysed online by non-linear least squares fitting in the spectra region 3500ndash3800 cm-1 (plotted in Figure 16) with modelled spectra calculated by MALT 55 using absorption line parameters from the HITRAN database version 2012 As previously described by Griffith et al7 this region shows peaks that are due to the major isotopologue 12C16O16O (written 626 using the HitranAir Force Geophysics Laboratory (AFGL) shorthand notation 11) Since all standards used during this work were ultra-dry CO2air gas mixtures the cross sensitivity with H2O was not considered

Figure 16 Typical measured and fitted spectra (upper part) and residual signal (lower part) in the region 3500ndash3800 cm-1 obtained on a standard of CO2 in air at 38433 μmol mol-1 The absorption feature is due to the major isotopologue 626

3500 3550 3600 3650 3700 3750 3800

070

075

080

085

090

095

100

3500 3550 3600 3650 3700 3750 3800

-0002

0000

0002

Measured

Tra

nsm

itan

ce

Fitted

Residual

Wavenumbercm-1

P a g e | 53

Ratios to the control standard

The ratios to the control cylinder were calculated between the FTIR responses measured at the 626 isotopologue band of the sample i (Cyli) and of the control cylinder

The measurements were performed following a sequence which included the analysis of four cylinders bracketed by the analysis of the two control cylinders (A B) repeated three times Control A was the Scott Marrin cylinder CB 10326 value assigned by NIST with a mole fraction of 37890plusmn009 micromol mol-1 and as control B was used the commercial mixture Messer 400309 with a mole fraction of 85000plusmn17 micromol mol-1

Since the analysis of each CO2Air gas mixture takes 40 minutes (35 minutes of flush and 5 minutes of acquisition) fifteen hours of continuous measurements were necessary to accomplish the measurement of four cylinders

The drift corrected response to the control cylinder B during the analysis of a sample Bcor was estimated by interpolation in between two measurements of B The ratio RFT between the response to a sample Cyl and the drift corrected control Bcor was then calculated Finally the measurement results for one cylinder was the average of the three ratios obtained during a full sequence named RFTi for cylinder Cyli

The control cylinder A suffered from a leak in the gas line to the autosampler and was emptied before the end of all measurements It was however checked that measurements performed with this control cylinder A with sufficient pressure were equivalent to those obtained with the control cylinder B

Uncertainty determination

The uncertainty assigned to each ratio to the control cylinder uFT_R was the combination of three components combined according to the Guide for Uncertainty in Measurements using the software GUM workbench (see Table 21)

uStab the short term stability of the 626 response to the sample This term was estimated from the typical Allan deviation at an averaging time of five minutes of the FTIR response measured on the 626 peak resulting in the value ustab = 6 nmol mol-1

independent of the mole fraction This same term applies to the control cylinder measurements

uIsoCorr the uncertainty contribution due to the correction of the 626 response arising from the sample isotopic composition (also valid for the control cylinder) as measured by the Delta Ray All responses of the FTIR calculated at the 626 peak had to be corrected to account for the fact that samples had a different isotopic composition than natural air The correction was calculated with the Delta Ray so that the uncertainty contribution due to the isotopic composition correction was estimated from the uncertainty of the Delta Ray measurements uδ13C=018 permil and uδ18O=048 permil (see further information in Flores et al5) It can be calculated that a 1 permil bias in δ13C results in a bias equal to 41 nmol mol-1 in the CO2 mole fraction Similarly a 1 permil bias in δ18O results in a bias equal to 17 nmol mol-1 Therefore assuming maximum biases in the delta values equal to the Delta Ray standard uncertainty the maximum biases in the CO2 mole fraction were estimated to be 072 nmol mol-1 (from δ13C ) and 082 nmol mol-1 (from δ18O) Being conservative the two terms were added in a maximum bias of 154 nmol mol-1 Considering a

P a g e | 54

rectangular distribution of the uncertainty the standard uncertainty takes the value 154radic3 089nmol mol-1 This is negligible compared to other

components

uPBEs the uncertainty contribution due Pressure Broadening Effects was calculated through a sensitivity study of MALT Using one primary version of MALT in 1982 D Griffith looked at the carrier gas effect in NDIR analyzers for CO2 MALT by default uses either the amount-weighted selfair broadened widths or the air only widths provided by HITRAN and allows some degree of fiddling for fitting spectra contained in different gas matrices since it allows to the users to scale the input parameter broad by any arbitrary factor Different line broadening factor can be calculated then for air using Griffth et al 1982 equation

(7)

Where xN2 xO2 and xAr are the mole fractions of nitrogen oxygen and argon in air FN2 =1 by definition FO2 = 081 and FAr = 078 are the line broadening factors for oxygen and argon (in average) Assuming xN2 = 0780876 mol mol-1 xO2 = 02093335 mol mol-1 and xAr = 00093332 mol mol-1 then the line broadening factor of air FAIR should be equal to 095771603 The broadening parameter in MALT for air is broad = 1 by convention It can be scaled by FAIR to obtain a broad value for any ldquoair likerdquo matrix using the equation

(8)

In order to estimate the amount of the change in the CO2 response one absorbance spectrum was fitted using standard input parameters varying the factor broad according to the two possible extremes composition of the matrix as stated in the protocol of the CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b comparisons In the case of the CCQM-K120a comparison two values of the factor broad were determined using equation 8 modelling cylinders containing the minimum and the maximum allowed mole fractions of oxygen and assuming nitrogen and argon were impacted to keep a sum of the three equals to 1 The mole fractions and the corresponding values of broad are summarized in the table below

K120a min K120a max

Compoundxi (mol mol-

1) xi (mol mol-

1) Nitrogen 078140 078042Oxygen 020880 020980Argon 000934 000933

broad 1000105801 0999907486

Table 20 Extermes of air matrix compositions in the comparison CCQM-K120a and the corresponding values of broad

P a g e | 55

As result a ΔCO2 equal to 0031 micromol mol-1 was observed between both fittings Considering this difference as a rectangular distribution then a uPBEs_ΔO2_ K120a= (00031)(2radic3) = 0009 micromol mol-1 is obtained The same procedure was used with the the limits stated for the CCQM‐K120b and a ΔCO2 of 0467 micromol mol-1 was obtained with factors FAIR_CCQM-K120b_min= 1000403273 and FAIR_CCQM-K120b_max= 0999610014 If this difference is considered again as a rectangular distribution then uPBEs_ΔO2_ K120b= (0125)(2radic3) = 0036 micromol mol-1

Table 21 Uncertainty budget for the calculation of the FTIR ratios to the control cylinder

The final uncertainty for the ratios of the cylinders that had a gas matrix within the limits of the CCQM-K120a were at 380 micromol mol-1 uFT_R_380A=14 times10-6 and at 480 micromol mol-1 uFT_R_480A =15 times10-6 The uncertainty for the ratios of the cylinders that had a gas matrix within the limits of the CCQM-K120b were at 480 micromol mol-1 uFT_R_480A =44 times10-6 at 800 micromol mol-1 uFT_R_480A =45 times10-6 Combined with the standard deviations on three ratios this resulted in standard relative uncertainties on the averaged ratio between 14times10-5 and 25times10-4 All the combined standard uncertainties are listed in Table 8

Delta Ray Since MALT measurements (FTIR) are done using linestrengths from the HITRAN database that are scaled by the natural abundance for each isotopologue the 12CO2 measurement of each cylinder needed to be corrected according their own isotopic composition The isotopic composition of each cylinder was measured using the Delta Ray Delta Ray is based on direct absorption laser spectroscopy It uses a tunable diode laser which scans over the spectral region that covers 18O and 13C isotopologues of CO2

For this comparison Delta Ray measurements were performed after calibrating the instrument following the manufacturerrsquos recommendations that consist in using two pure CO2 references gases with high and low isotope values two CO2 in air reference standards with high and low concentration and one dry CO2 scrubbed whole air (Scott Marrin Inc) The instrument was calibrated using cylinder 401557 (pure CO2 source gas well δ13C = - 138 permil and δ18O = - 714 permil VPDBj-RAS06 scale) cylinder C11375KO (pure CO2 source combustion δ13C = - 4213 permil and δ18O = -277 permil VPDBj-RAS06 scale) standard NPL 1788 (NPL CO2 in air mole fraction 3800plusmn019 micromol mol-1 δ13C = - 138 permil and δ18O = - 714 permil VPDBj-RAS06 scale)

Quantity Value

Standard Uncertainty Sensitivity Coefficient

Uncertainty contribution Index

48000middot10-6 mol mol-1

00108middot10-6 mol mol-

1 12middot10-3 13middot10-6 (Ratio) 747

84605middot10-6 mol mol-1

00150middot10-6 mol mol-1 -450middot10-6 -67middot10-6 (Ratio) 205

84695middot10-6 mol mol-1

00150middot10-6 mol mol-1 -220middot10-6 -34middot10-6 (Ratio) 51

Value Standard Uncertainty

0567141 (Ratio) 15middot10-6 (Ratio)

P a g e | 56

standard NPL 1907 (NPL CO2 in air mole fraction 7910plusmn04 micromol mol-1 δ13C = - 4213 permil and δ18O = -277 permil VPDBj-RAS06 scale) and dry CO2 scrubbed whole air (Scott Marrin)

As reported by Flores et al 20185 a residual bias in the δ13C and δ18O measurements which remained following the implementation of the manufacturerrsquos calibration procedure was removed by the application of an additional two point calibration (two CO2 in air standards with known but differing isotopic composition) Standards NPL 1788 (δ13C = - 138 permil and δ18O = - 714 permil) and NPL 1907 (δ13C = - 4213 permil and δ18O = -277 permil) were used as two point calibration mixtures

Samplingsequence

The measurement procedure for analyzing a set of CO2Air gas standards by Delta Ray is based on the analysis of four CO2Air gas mixtures between two CO2Air gas mixture used as the two-point calibration standards (A B) The measurement sequence starts by measuring the δ13C and δ18O response of calibration cylinder (A) and (B) then of four CO2Air standards for finalizing again with the calibration standars Since the analysis of each CO2Air gas mixture takes 40 minutes sixteen hours of continuous measurements were necessary to accomplish the measurement of four cylinders three times

The measured δ13C and δ18O responses of the control cylinders were drift corrected Then used together with the δ13C and δ18O measured by MPI-Jena in XLGenlinev11 for predicting the δ13C and δ18O of the unknown cylinders traceable to the VPDB-CO2 scale

Uncertainty determination

Times series analysis were performed with the Delta Ray during the validation work resulting in Allan deviations of 003 permil for δ13C and 005 permil for δ18O at the optimum averaging time of 300 s In addition it was further noted that the noise of the instrument was significantly higher when measuring during two hours which is the time period of a typical calibration Using a rectangular distribution the standard uncertainty of 031 permil for δ13C and 035 permil for δ18O was observed This component was further combined with the Allan deviations and taken as the stability uncertainty associated with the instrument response

The two-point calibration of the delta value requires the knowledge of the uncertainty associated with them which was in this case taken as the uncertainties deduced from MPI-Jena measurements equal to 0015permil for δ13C and 0328permil for δ18O

After calibration with the two additional CO2 in air standards the standard uncertainties associated with the instrument measurement were finally equal to 018 permil for δ13C and 048 permil for δ18O

P a g e | 57

ANNEX V - Measurement reports of participants

NMIJ

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 58

P a g e | 59

P a g e | 60

P a g e | 61

P a g e | 62

P a g e | 63

GUM

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM-K120-R Project name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department

Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form

Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute Central Office of Measures (Głoacutewny Urzad Miar)

Address Elektoralna 2 00-139 Warsaw Poland

Contact person Dariusz Cieciora

P a g e | 64

Telephone (48) 22 581 94 39 Fax (48) 22 581 93 95

Email dciecioragumgovpl gasgumgovpl

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a YES

CCQM‐K120b YES

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 D298392 3801 44 2

2 D298393 4781 52 2

3 D298402 8005 86 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number D298392

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07808 molmol 00002 molmol 2

O2 02095 molmol 00001 molmol 2

Ar 000925 molmol 000001 molmol 2

CH4 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

P a g e | 65

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number D298393

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07807 molmol 00002 molmol 2

O2 02096 molmol 00001 molmol 2

Ar 000919 molmol 000001 molmol 2

CH4 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number D298402

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07802 molmol 00002 molmol 2

O2 02097 molmol 00001 molmol 2

Ar 000938 molmol 000001 molmol 2

CH4 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 D298392 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

2 D298393 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

3 D298402 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

A4 Uncertainty Budget Please provide a complete uncertainty budgets for the CO2 mole fraction values reported

Uncertainty budget for the cylinder no D298392

Uncertainty source Estimate

(micromolmol)

Standard uncertainty (micromolmol)

Distribution Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution (micromolmol)

gravimetric 3801 042 normal 1 042

verification - 112 normal 1 112

systematic error - 187 rectangular 1 187 Uncertainty budget for the cylinder no D298393

Uncertainty source Estimate

(micromolmol)

Standard uncertainty (micromolmol)

Distribution Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution (micromolmol)

gravimetric 4781 048 normal 1 048

P a g e | 66

verification - 098 normal 1 098

systematic error - 235 rectangular 1 235 Uncertainty budget for the cylinder no D298402

Uncertainty source Estimate

(micromolmol)

Standard uncertainty (micromolmol)

Distribution Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution (micromolmol)

gravimetric 8005 068 normal 1 068

verification - 160 normal 1 160

systematic error - 393 rectangular 1 393

A5 Additional information

The final mixtures were prepared according ISO 6142 the cylinders evacuated on turbo molecular pump filled up an weighted on the verification balance The mixtures were prepared in aluminium (with coated layers) cylinders The mixtures were prepared with used pure nitrogen and oxygen and one step premixture of argon and two steps premixture of carbon dioxide

The verification according to ISO 6143 The measurements were repeated 10 times for the standards and the sample The curve was calculated from ratios by the software B_leastexe (linear case)

The standards were prepared by gravimetric method according to ISO 6142 The standards were prepared from separate premixtures and were diluted according ISO 6145-9

The purity of pure gases used for preparation was taken from the certificates of producer Cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM - cylinder D298392 139 bar - cylinder D298393 147 bar - cylinder D298402 147 bar

P a g e | 67

INRIM

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM‐K120‐R Project name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department

Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form

Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute INRiM‐Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica

Address Strada delle Cacce 91 I‐10135 Torino Italy

Contact person Michela Sega

Telephone +39 011 3919948 Fax +39 011 3919937

Email msegainrimit

P a g e | 68

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a No

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 D247440 4793 16 2

2 D247445 7989 26 2

3

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number D247440

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0781132 molmol 0000006 molmol 2

O2 02090627 molmol 00000055 molmol 2

Ar 00093259 molmol 00000037 molmol 2

CH4 ‐ nmolmol nmolmol

N2O ‐ nmolmol nmolmol

P a g e | 69

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number D247445

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0782389 molmol 0000006 molmol

O2 02075526 molmol 00000054 molmol

Ar 00092586 molmol 00000036 molmol

CH4 nmolmol nmolmol

N2O nmolmol nmolmol

A4 Uncertainty Budget The model equation used to calculate the mole fraction of CO2 in the final mixtures is taken from the International Standard ISO 6142‐12015

r

jq

iiji

j

r

jq

iiji

jj

Mx

m

Mx

mx

x

1

1

1

1

CO

prepCO

2

2

where the index i refers to the various components while j refers to the different parent mixtures The uncertainty budget was evaluated according to the guidelines prescribed in ISO 6142‐12015 The uncertainty budget for the gravimetric preparation of the mixture at 4793 micromolmol of CO2 which takes into account the weighted masses of the parent mixtures the molar masses of gases and their purity is reported in the following table

P a g e | 70

Uncertainty component

u(xi)

Uncertainty source

Standard uncertainty

u(xi) δxCO2prepδxi

Contribution tou(xCO2 prep)

|δxCO2prepδxi|u(xi)

u(mCO2) Weighed mass of the parent mixture of CO2

82∙10‐4 g 720∙10‐6

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 59∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(mN2) Weighed mass of the balance gas N2

82∙10‐4 g ‐764∙10‐7

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 63∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(mAr_O2) Weighed mass of the parent mixture of Ar in O2

82∙10‐4 g ‐662∙10‐7

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 54∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(MCO2) Molar mass of CO2 10∙10‐3 g∙mol‐1 ‐772∙10‐8

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 77∙10‐11 mol∙mol‐1

u(MN2) Molar mass of N2 20∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 ‐361∙10‐6

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 72∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(MAr) Molar mass of Ar 58∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 138∙10‐7

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 80∙10‐11 mol∙mol‐1

u(MO2) Molar mass of O2 28∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 310∙10‐6

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 87∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xN2inCO2) Mole fraction of N2 in the parent mixture of CO2

10∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 ‐432∙10‐4 43∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xN2inN2) Mole fraction of N2 in balance gas (purity)

87∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1 329∙10‐4 29∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xArinAr_O2) Mole fraction of Ar in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 129∙10‐4 11∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(xO2inN2) Mole fraction of O2 in balance gas (impurity)

14∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1 375∙10‐4 53∙10‐11 mol∙mol‐1

u(xO2inAr_O2) Mole fraction of O2

in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 104∙10‐4 90∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inCO2) Mole fraction of CO2 in the parent mixture of CO2

10∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 951∙10‐2 95∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inN2) Mole fraction of CO2 in balance gas (impurity)

29∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1 686∙10‐1 20∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inAr_O2) Mole fraction of CO2 in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1 219∙10‐1 19∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

Uncertainty budget for the gravimetric preparation of the mixture at 4793 micromolmol of CO2

P a g e | 71

The following table reports the uncertainty budget for the gravimetric preparation of the mixture at 7989 micromolmol of CO2

Uncertainty component

u(xi)

Uncertainty source

Standard uncertainty

u(xi) δxCO2prepδxi

Contribution tou(xCO2 prep)

|δxCO2prepδxi|u(xi)

u(mCO2) Weighed mass of the parent mixture of CO2

82∙10‐4 g 671∙10‐6

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 55∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(mN2) Weighed mass of the balance gas N2

82∙10‐4 g ‐128∙10‐6

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 10∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(mAr_O2) Weighed mass of the parent mixture of Ar in O2

82∙10‐4 g ‐111∙10‐6

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 91∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(MCO2) Molar mass of CO2 10∙10‐3 g∙mol‐1 365∙10‐7

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 36∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(MN2) Molar mass of N2 20∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 469∙10‐4

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 94∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(MAr) Molar mass of Ar 58∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 510∙10‐6

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 30∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(MO2) Molar mass of O2 28∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 114∙10‐4

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 32∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(xN2inCO2) Mole fraction of N2 in the parent mixture of CO2

10∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 ‐669∙10‐4 67∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xN2inN2) Mole fraction of N2 in balance gas (purity)

87∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1 498∙10‐4 43∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xArinAr_O2) Mole fraction of Ar in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 214∙10‐4 19∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(xO2inN2) Mole fraction of O2 in balance gas (impurity)

14∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1 569∙10‐4 80∙10‐11 mol∙mol‐1

u(xO2inAr_O2) Mole fraction of O2

in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 171∙10‐4 15∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inCO2) Mole fraction of CO2 in the parent mixture of CO2

10∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 159∙10‐1 16∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inN2) Mole fraction of CO2 in balance gas (impurity)

29∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1 624∙10‐1 18∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inAr_O2) Mole fraction of CO2 in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1 217∙10‐1 19∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

Uncertainty budget for the gravimetric preparation of the mixture at 7989 micromolmol of CO2 The additional contribution derived from the analytical verification was taken into account in accordance to the prescription of ISO 6142‐12015

P a g e | 72

2verCOprepCOverCO

2prepCO

2certCO )()()(

2

122222

xxxuxuxu

The following table reports the mole fractions with the associated uncertainties of the preparation and verification for the two prepared mixtures

Cylinder number xCO2 prep

micromolmol u(xCO2prep)micromolmol

xCO2 ver micromolmol

u(xCO2ver)micromolmol

D247440 4793 01 4783 12

D247445 7989 02 7965 12

A5 Additional information

a) Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas

Component Mole Fraction x u(x)

CO2 gt099998 molmol 58 micromolmol

CO le01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

H2 le01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

N2 le10 micromolmol 3 micromolmol

O2 le3 micromolmol 09 micromolmol

H2O le5 micromolmol 14 micromolmol

CnHm le3 micromolmol 09 micromolmol

Purity table for CO2

b) Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar parent gases

Component Mole Fraction x u(x)

N2 gt0999999 molmol 03 micromolmol

CO2 lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

H2 lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

O2 lt05 micromolmol 014 micromolmol

H2O lt05 micromolmol 014 micromolmol

CnHm lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

Purity table for N2

Component Mole Fraction x u(x)

O2 gt0999999 molmol 03 micromolmol

CO lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

CO2 lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

H2 lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

H2O lt05 micromolmol 014 micromolmol

CnHm lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

Purity table for O2

P a g e | 73

Component Mole Fraction x u(x)

Ar gt099999 molmol 29 micromolmol

O2 lt2 micromolmol 06 micromolmol

H2O lt3 micromolmol 09 micromolmol

CnHm lt05 micromolmol 014 micromolmol

Purity table for Ar

c) Brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures

In order to produce the final mixtures the following premixtures were prepared 1) Premixture of CO2 in N2 at 0080122 molmol (U=0000025 molmol) gravimetrically prepared (double

substitution scheme A‐B‐B‐A) from pure CO2 (48) and N2 (60) 2) Premixture of CO2 in N2 at 50054 micromolmol (U=21 micromolmol) gravimetrically prepared (double

substitution scheme A‐B‐B‐A) from the above mentioned mixture n 1 of CO2 in N2 (0080122 molmol) diluted with N2 (60)

3) Premixture of Ar in O2 (Ar 0042703 molmol O2 0957297 molmol) gravimetrically prepared (double substitution scheme A‐B‐B‐A) from pure Ar (50) and O2 (60)

The final mixtures were gravimetrically prepared (double substitution scheme A‐B‐B‐A) by using premixtures n 2 and n 3 as parent mixtures and using N2 60 as balance gas to obtain the target CO2 mole fractions Concerning premixture n 3 an additional determination of the mole fraction of CO2 in the mixture was carried out by NDIR spectroscopy The instrument was calibrated in the range (01‐1) micromolmol using dynamic dilution The obtained value is 03 micromolmol of CO2 (u=009 micromolmol calculated assuming a rectangular distribution) which was taken into account for assigning the mole fraction of the final mixtures (CO2 4793 and 7989 micromolmol respectively) and evaluating the associated uncertainty

d) Brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures

After preparation the mixtures were rolled for 24 h to be homogenized An analytical verification was carried out by NDIR spectroscopy using for each mixture a 3‐point calibration curve based on WTLS in the range (330‐520) micromolmol and (690‐900) micromolmol respectively The calibration standards were prepared starting from a mixture of CO2 in synthetic air at a nominal mole fraction of 4800 micromolmol diluted with synthetic air by means of Mass Flow Controllers calibrated at INRiM Each calibration point was repeated 5 times Each calibration curve was validated by using an independent mixture of CO2 in synthetic air having a the mole fraction within the calibration range

e) Brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM

The mixtures were tested for their stability on a weekly basis following the same procedure as described in d) No trends in the analytical response were observed within 3 weeks and the mixtures could be considered stable

f) Cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM 90 bar for each cylinder

P a g e | 74

KRISS

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 75

P a g e | 76

P a g e | 77

P a g e | 78

P a g e | 79

P a g e | 80

P a g e | 81

P a g e | 82

LNE

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

SubmissionformCCQM‐K120‐RProject name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department

Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form

Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute LNE

Address 1 rue Gaston Boissier

75724 Paris Cedex 15

Contact person Mace Tatiana

P a g e | 83

Telephone +33140433853 Fax +33140433737

Email tatianamacelnefr

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty

Coverage factor

certx CO2 μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 1029045‐CO2air 0028 37948 079 2

2 1029047‐CO2AIR 0029 4776 10 2

3 1029048‐CO2AIR 0030 8022 17 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number CO2AIR 0028

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0780686 molmol 0000025 molmol 2

O2 0209528 molmol 0000019 molmol 2

Ar 0009407 molmol 0000022 molmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number CO2AIR 0029

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Unit Coverage

P a g e | 84

Uncertainty Factor

N2 0781355 molmol 0000025 molmol 2

O2 0208794 molmol 0000018 molmol 2

Ar 0009374 molmol 0000022 molmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number CO2AIR 0030

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0782710 molmol 0000027 molmol 2

O2 0207187 molmol 0000021 molmol 2

Ar 0009301 molmol 0000021 molmol 2

A4 Uncertainty Budget

Please provide a complete uncertainty budgets for the CO2 mole fraction values reported

CO2Air 0028 37948 plusmn 079 micromolmol (k=2)

Xi Unit Value u(Xi) Sensib C(Xi) C(Xi)u(Xi) poids

Mass CO2 Premix g 6021896 0017 606175153 010304978 679

CO2 molar mass gmol 440095 000091 ‐012936318 ‐000011772 000

CO2 concentration (premix) molmol 000998425 000000097 377979757 003666404 086

N2 molar mass gmol 2801348 0000099 ‐276210444 ‐000027345 000

Mass ArgO2 Premix g 3981732 0017 ‐020862621 ‐000354665 001

Arg concentration (premix) molmol 004288429 00000048 204187142 9801E‐05 000

Arg molar mass gmol 39948 0001 011015474 000011015 000

O2 molar mass gmol 319988 000042 245849547 000103257 000

N2 purity molmol 099997493 00000144 ‐281970074 ‐000406037 001

Mass N2 g 1170753 002 ‐024083902 ‐000481678 001

Stability 0 038 1 038 9232

CO2Air 0029 4776 plusmn 10 micromolmol (k=2)

Xi Unit Value u(Xi) Sensib C(Xi) C(Xi)u(Xi) Weight

Mass CO2 Premix g 7635147 0017 595567319 010124644 391

CO2 molar mass gmol 440095 000091 ‐016114898 ‐000014665 000

CO2 concentration (premix) molmol 000998425 000000097 47573918 00461467 081

N2 molar mass gmol 2801348 0000099 ‐346583037 ‐000034312 000

P a g e | 85

Mass ArgO2 Premix g 3997202 0017 ‐026063746 ‐000443084 001

Arg concentration (premix) molmol 004288429 00000048 256082804 000012292 000

Arg molar mass gmol 39948 0001 013815138 000013815 000

O2 molar mass gmol 319988 000042 308334014 0001295 000

N2 purity molmol 099997494 00000144 ‐350551134 ‐000504794 001

Mass N2 g 1165053 002 ‐030088103 ‐000601762 001

Stability 0 05 1 05 9525

CO2Air 0030 8022 plusmn 17 micromolmol (k=2)

Uncertainty source Unit Value Xi u(Xi) Sensitivity coefficient

C(Xi) C(Xi)u(Xi)

Contribution to the

uncertainty

Mass CO2 Premix g 128097 0020 575918809 011518376 201

CO2 molar mass gmol 440095 000091 ‐02614445 ‐000023791

000

CO2 concentration (premix)

molmol 000998425 000000097 799263648 007752857 091

N2 molar mass gmol 2801348 0000099 ‐578813182 ‐000057303

000

Mass ArgO2 Premix g 3961709 0021 ‐043832537 ‐000920483

001

Arg concentration (premix)

molmol 004288429 00000048 426841537 000020488 000

Arg molar mass gmol 39948 0001 023027218 000023027 000

O2 molar mass gmol 319988 000042 513934409 000215852 000

N2 purity molmol 099997493 00000144 ‐564097099 ‐0008123 001

Mass N2 g 1114778 0023 ‐050600475 ‐001163811

002

Stability 0 08 1 08 9704

A5 Additional information

Please include in this section in the case of standards produced with synthetic air

a) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg PurCO2pur007txt degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg

P a g e | 86

Component molmol uncertainty ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ CO2 09999922500 00000026021 H2O 00000015000 00000008660 O2 00000010000 00000005774 Methane 00000010000 00000005774 H2 00000002500 00000001443 N2 00000040000 00000023094

b) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar parent gas

a Pure Argon degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg PurAr_A106273txt degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg Component molmol uncertainty ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Ar 09999998100 00000000880 O2 00000000050 00000000029 H2O 00000000100 00000000058 CO2 00000000005 00000000003 CnHm 00000000250 00000000144 N2 00000001500 00000000866

b Pure Oxygen

degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg PurO2_207494Htxt degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg Component molmol uncertainty ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ O2 09999974360 00000011650 CO2 00000001640 00000000082 CO 00000000500 00000000289 CnHm 00000000500 00000000289 N2 00000020000 00000011547 H2O 00000002500 00000001443 H2 00000000500 00000000289

c Pure Nitrogen

degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg Purazote_bip_GQ88DUItxt degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg

P a g e | 87

Component molmol uncertainty ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ N2 09999749345 00000144338 CO2 00000000005 00000000003 H2O 00000000100 00000000058 Ar 00000250000 00000144338 O2 00000000050 00000000029 H2 00000000250 00000000144 CnHm 00000000250 00000000144

c) Dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures

a Argonoxygen premix

b CO2N2 premix

c Final mixtures of CO2 in air

ArgonO2

428843 plusmn 000096

Pure Argon

94147 g (u=0011 g)

Pure Oxygen

1736737 g (u=0015 g)

CO2N2 0065

099842 plusmn 000020

CO2N2 0064

100131 plusmn 00013

181585 g (u=0016 g)

Pure N2

1422808 g (u=0019 g)

Pure CO2

248725 g (u=0017 g)

Pure N2

1550854 g (u=0019 g)

P a g e | 88

d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures The gravimetric concentrations of the CO2 gas mixtures in air have been verified with a micro gas chromatograph (chrompack CP2003) The components are separated by a HayeSep A

CO2Air 0028

37948 plusmn 079 micromolmol

CO2N2 0065

60219 g (u=0017 g)

ArgonO2

398173 g (u=0017 g)

Pure N2

1170753 g (u=0020 g)

CO2Air 0029

4776 plusmn 10 micromolmol

CO2N2 0065

76351 g (u=0017 g)

ArgonO2

399720 g (u=0017 g)

Pur N2

1165053 g (u=0020 g)

CO2Air 0030

8022 plusmn 17 micromolmol

CO2N2 0065

128097 g (u=0020 g)

ArgonO2

396171 g (u=0021 g)

Pur N2

1114778 g (u=0023 g)

P a g e | 89

column at 70degC with an hydrogen pressure at 200 kPa The injection is performed at a pressure of 15 bar during 100 ms Each CO2 gas mixture in air is compared by chromatography to a reference gas mixture of CO2 in air generated by dilution of a high concentration gravimetric gas mixture (CO2 in nitrogen) with a Molbloc flowmeter 30 runs are performed with the reference gas mixture 30 runs are performed with the gas mixture to be verified and 30 runs are performed again with the reference gas mixture The 10 previous runs are used to calculate the analytical concentration The gas mixture is validated if the difference between the analytical and gravimetric concentrations is lower than the quadratic sum of the variances

e) Stability of the gas mixtures between the time they were prepared and the time they were shipped to the BIPM The CO2 gases mixtures in air have been analysed 3 times during a period of 2 months before being sent to BIPM

P a g e | 90

P a g e | 91

BFKH

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for carbon dioxide in air standards in the

range (380‐480) micromolmol and (480‐800) micromolmol

A1 General information

Institute Hungarian Trade Licensing Office MKEH

Address Neacutemetvoumllgyi uacutet 37‐39 Budapest

1124 Hungary

Contact person Judit Fuumlkő Zsoacutefia Nagyneacute Szilaacutegyi Tamaacutes Buumlki

Telephone +36 1 4585988

+36 1 4585800

Fax + 36 1 4585 937

Email tothnefjmkehhu

P a g e | 92

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 OMH54 37984 171 2

2 OMH44 47989 211 2

3 OMH69 80030 292 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted)

(Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number OMH54

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit CoverageFactor

N2 078039 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209615 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009607 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5130 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number OMH44

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

P a g e | 93

N2 078064 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209514 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009360 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5130 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number OMH69

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078072 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209161 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009314 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5130 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

A4 Uncertainty Budget

Uncertainty budget of preparation of CO2 standard by gravimetry

OMH69 800ppm

Uncertainty

source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 138729 g Normal 000046 g 1 33158E‐04

martix mass 11397986 g Normal 0026 g 1 22811E‐05

P a g e | 94

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000333

ppm 027

OMH44 480ppm

Uncertainty

source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 081399 g Normal 000034 g 1 41770E‐04

martix mass 111578 g Normal 0026 g 1 23302E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000419

ppm 020

OMH54 380ppm

Uncertainty

source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 064422 g Normal 000032 g 1 49672E‐04

martix mass 11159357 g Normal 0026 g 1 23299E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000498

P a g e | 95

ppm 019

The standard uncertainty of xi can be expressed as xuxuxuxuxu sti

2veri

2veri

2prepi

2i

2 (1)

xprep amount-of-substance fraction from preparation (micromolmol) uprep uncertainty of xprep (micromolmol) uver uncertainty from verification (micromolmol) ust uncertainty of calibration standard (micromolmol)

verix diffenece between the gravimetric preparation value and the result of verification measurement (micromolmol)

Ux stated uncertainty of laboratory at 95 level of confidence (micromolmol) k assigned coverage factor for degree of equivalence Laboratory Code

Cylinder xprep uprep uver ust verix k U(xi)

U(xi)

ppm ppm rel

MKEH OMH54 37984 019 08 019 014 2 171 045

OMH44 47989 020 10 020 018 2 211 044

OMH69 80030 027 14 028 015 2 292 036

A5 Additional information

A51 SOURCE OF CO2 NITROGEN OXIGEN ARGON

CO2 48 from SIAD Italy

N2 45 from Messer Hungary

O2 50 from Messer Hungary

Ar 46 from Messer Hungary

A52 PURITY TABLE OF PURE CO2 (38458)

Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol)

Uncertainty

(molmol)

CO2 specifications 09999885 00000133

N2 specifications 00000050 00000058

H2O specifications 00000025 00000029

P a g e | 96

CH4 specifications 00000025 00000029

O2 specifications 00000015 00000017

A53 PURITY TABLE OF PURE NITROGEN

Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol)

Uncertainty

(molmol)

N2 specifications 09999870 00000150

O2 specifications 00000050 00000058

H2O specifications 00000050 00000058

CH4 specifications 00000025 00000029

CO specifications 00000005 00000006

A54 PURITY TABLE OF PURE OXIGEN

Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol)

Uncertainty

(molmol)

O2 specifications 09999866 00000155

N2 specifications 00000100 00000115

H2O specifications 00000025 00000029

CH4 specifications 000000003 00000004

CO specifications 000000003 00000004

CO2 specifications 000000003 00000004

A55 PURITY TABLE OF PURE ARGON

Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol)

Uncertainty

(molmol)

Ar specifications 09999822 00000206

P a g e | 97

O2 specifications 00000025 00000029

H2O specifications 00000050 00000058

N2 specifications 00000100 00000116

CO2 specifications 00000003 00000004

A56 PREPARATION OF THE MIXTURES

We used 94 L aluminum cylinder (Luxfer) with brass valves DIN10 All the three mixtures were prepared without dilution series First the pure CO2 was filled with using loop into the properly prepared cylinder the mass measurement of the loop was carried out by an analytical balance ndash Mettler Toledo AE240‐S After the pure gases were filled directly gravimetrically after each other and the measurement of the gas mass was carried out by a topload balance ndash Mettler Toledo XP26003L

A57 VERIFICATION OF THE MIXTURES

All the three mixtures measured using methaniser at Agilent GC‐FID and we used MKEH standard gases one by one for calibration this method to the purpose of confirm that the gravimetric value and uncertainty for the carbon dioxide mole fraction of its standards is valid and it is included in the calculation of the reference value

A58 STABILITY OF THE MIXTURES

All the three mixtures were measured using methaniser at Agilent GC‐FID three times independently between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM There wasnrsquot significant difference between the certified values and the measured values

A59 CYLINDER PRESSURE BEFORE SHIPMENT TO THE BIPM 100 bar

P a g e | 98

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for carbon dioxide in air standards in the range (380‐480) micromolmol and (480‐800) micromolmol A1 General information

Institute Government Office of the Capital City Budapest BFKH (former MKEH)

Address Neacutemetvoumllgyi uacutet 37‐39Budapest 1124 Hungary

Contact person Judit Fuumlkő Tamaacutes Buumlki Zsoacutefia Nagyneacute Szilaacutegyi

Telephone +36 1 4585988 +36 1 4585800

Fax + 36 1 4585 937

Email fukojuditbfkhgovhu

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 OMH54 3798 17 2

2 OMH44 4644 28 2

P a g e | 99

3 OMH69 8003 29 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted)

(Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number OMH54

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078039 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209615 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009607 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5100 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number OMH44

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078064 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209514 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009360 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5100 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number OMH69

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078072 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209161 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009314 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5100 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

P a g e | 100

A4 Uncertainty Budget Uncertainty budget of preparation of CO2 standard by gravimetry

OMH69 800ppm

Uncertainty source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 138729 g Normal 000046 g 1 33158E‐04

martix mass 11397986 g Normal 0026 g 1 22811E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000333

ppm 027

OMH44 480ppm

Uncertainty source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 081399 g Normal 000034 g 1 41770E‐04

martix mass 111578 g Normal 0026 g 1 23302E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000419

ppm 020

P a g e | 101

OMH54 380ppm

Uncertainty source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 064422 g Normal 000032 g 1 49672E‐04

martix mass 11159357 g Normal 0026 g 1 23299E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000498

ppm 019

The standard uncertainty of xi can be expressed as

xuxuxuxuxu sti2

veri2

veri2

prepi2

i2 (1)

xprep amount-of-substance fraction from preparation (micromolmol) uprep uncertainty of xprep (micromolmol) uver uncertainty from verification (micromolmol) ust uncertainty of calibration standard (micromolmol)

verix diffenece between the gravimetric preparation value and the result of verification measurement (micromolmol)

Ux stated uncertainty of laboratory at 95 level of confidence (micromolmol) k assigned coverage factor for degree of equivalence

Laboratory Code

Cylinder xprep

uprep xmeas um ust verix k U(xi) U(xi)

ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm rel

BFKH OMH54 37984 019 08 019 014 2 17 045

OMH44 47989 020 46444 14 020 2 28 058

OMH69 80030 027 14 028 015 2 29 036

The stability measurements indicated some preparation mistake in case of the OMH44 cylinder The certified value of this cylinder was calculated from the measurements and the uncertainty from the equation below

xuxuxuxu sti2

easmi2

prepi2

i2

P a g e | 102

A5 Additional information A51 SOURCE OF CO2 NITROGEN OXIGEN ARGON CO2 48 from SIAD Italy N2 45 from Messer Hungary O2 50 from Messer Hungary Ar 46 from Messer Hungary A52 PURITY TABLE OF PURE CO2 (38458) Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol) Uncertainty (molmol)

CO2 Specifications 09999885 00000133 N2 Specifications 00000050 00000058 H2O Specifications 00000025 00000029 CH4 Specifications 00000025 00000029 O2 Specifications 00000015 00000017 A53 PURITY TABLE OF PURE NITROGEN Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol) Uncertainty (molmol)

N2 Specifications 09999870 00000150 O2 Specifications 00000050 00000058 H2O Specifications 00000050 00000058 CH4 Specifications 00000025 00000029 CO Specifications 00000005 00000006 A54 PURITY TABLE OF PURE OXIGEN Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol) Uncertainty (molmol)

O2 Specifications 09999866 0000016 N2 Specifications 00000100 0000012 H2O Specifications 00000025 00000029 CH4 Specifications 000000003 00000004 CO Specifications 000000003 00000004 CO2 Specifications 000000003 00000004 A55 PURITY TABLE OF PURE ARGON Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol) Uncertainty (molmol)

Ar Specifications 09999822 00000200 O2 Specifications 00000025 00000029 H2O Specifications 00000050 00000058 N2 Specifications 00000100 0000012 CO2 Specifications 00000003 00000004 A56 PREPARATION OF THE MIXTURES We used 94 L aluminum cylinder (Luxfer) with brass valves DIN10

P a g e | 103

All the three mixtures were prepared without dilution series First the pure CO2 was filled with using loop into the properly prepared cylinder the mass measurement of the loop was carried out by an analytical balance ndash Mettler Toledo AE240‐S After the pure gases were filled directly gravimetrically after each other and the measurement of the gas mass was carried out by a topload balance ndash Mettler Toledo XP26003L A57 VERIFICATION OF THE MIXTURES All the three mixtures measured using methaniser at Agilent GC‐FID and we used MKEH standard gases one by one for calibration this method to the purpose of confirm that the gravimetric value and uncertainty for the carbon dioxide mole fraction of its standards is valid and it is included in the calculation of the reference value A58 STABILITY OF THE MIXTURES All the three mixtures were measured using methaniser at Agilent GC‐FID three times independently between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM A59 CYLINDER PRESSURE BEFORE SHIPMENT TO THE BIPM 100 bar

P a g e | 104

NIM

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM-K120 Carbon dioxide in Air Laboratory National Institute of Metrology

Cylinders number FB03748 FB03744 FB03747

Preparation report

A1 General information

Institute National Institute of Metrology China

Address 18 Bei San Huan Dong Lu Chaoyang District City Bei Jing

Building 17 Room 217

Contact person BI Zhe Zeyi Zhou

Telephone 86-10-84232306 Fax 86-10-84232306

Email zhouzynimaccn bizhnimaccn

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM-K120a Yes

CCQM-K120b Yes

A3 Submitted values for carbon dioxide preparation results in each standard

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2 μmolmol )( CO2 certxU

μmolmol

1 FB03748 80982 026 2

2 FB03744 48915 022 2

P a g e | 105

3 FB03747 38343 020 2

A4 Submitted values for each standardrsquos matrix Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted)

(Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number FB03748

Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage

Factor CH4(Methane) 101times10-9 molmol 203E-10 molmol 2 C2H4(Ethene) 146times10-10 molmol 113E-10 molmol 2 C3H8(Propane) 518times10-10 molmol 405E-10 molmol 2 N2(Nitrogen) 0781 molmol 271E-05 molmol 2 O2(Oxygen) 0210 molmol 260E-05 molmol 2 Ar(Argon) 794times10-3 molmol 969E-06 molmol 2 H2O(Water) 291times10-7 molmol 139E-07 molmol 2 N2O(Dinitrogen_oxide) 790times10-10 molmol 586E-10 molmol 2 CO2(Carbon_dioxide) 80982times10-4 molmol 248E-07 molmol 2 (Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number FB03744

Component Mole fraction Value

Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

CH4(Methane) 101E-09 molmol 308E-10 molmol 2 C2H4(Ethene) 880E-11 molmol 685E-11 molmol 2 C3H8(Propane) 313E-10 molmol 245E-10 molmol 2 N2(Nitrogen) 781E-01 molmol 275E-05 molmol 2 O2(Oxygen) 210E-01 molmol 264E-05 molmol 2 Ar(Argon) 904E-03 molmol 990E-06 molmol 2 H2O(Water) 290E-07 molmol 139E-07 molmol 2 N2O(Dinitrogen_oxide) 790E-10 molmol 601E-10 molmol 2 CO2(Carbon_dioxide) 48915E-04 molmol 191E-07 molmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number FB03747 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage

Factor CH4(Methane) 101E-09 molmol 408E-10 molmol 2 C2H4(Ethene) 690E-11 molmol 537E-11 molmol 2 C3H8(Propane) 245E-10 molmol 192E-10 molmol 2 N2(Nitrogen) 782E-01 molmol 288E-05 molmol 2 O2(Oxygen) 209E-01 molmol 276E-05 molmol 2 Ar(Argon) 922E-03 molmol 102E-05 molmol 2 H2O(Water) 289E-07 molmol 139E-07 molmol 2 N2O(Dinitrogen_oxide) 791E-10 molmol 607E-10 molmol 2 CO2(Carbon_dioxide) 38343E-04 molmol 183E-07 molmol 2 CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

P a g e | 106

Cylinder

Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 2 3

A5 Uncertainty Budget Please provide a complete uncertainty budgets for the CO2 mole fraction values reported

Uncertainty budget

Cylinder

Gravimetric

valueμmolmol

Component distribution Standard

uncertaintyμmolmol

FB03748 80982

Combined uncertainty of

Purity Molecular and

Weighing

Normal 0124

Repeatability of the

measurement Normal 0040

Combined standard uncertainty 013

FB03744 48915

Combined uncertainty of

Purity Molecular and

Weighing

Normal 0096

Repeatability of the

measurement Normal 0030

Combined standard uncertainty 011

FB03747 38343

Combined uncertainty of

Purity Molecular and

Weighing

Normal 0092

Repeatability of the

measurement Normal 0030

Combined standard uncertainty 010

A6 Additional information

P a g e | 107

Please include in this section in the case of standards produced with synthetic air

g) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas h) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar NO2 and CH4 parent gas i) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures j) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures k) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time

they are shipped to the BIPM and l) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

a) purity table for the nominally pure CO2 09999924 molmol

Component Amount fraction

(10-6molmol)

Standard uncertainty

(10-6molmol) Assumed distribution

CH4 113 045 Normal

C2H4 018 007 Normal

C3H8 064 025 Normal

O2 052 021 Normal

Ar 010 004 Normal

N2 251 100 Normal

H2O 250 100 Normal

N2O 0001 00006 Rectangular

CO2 9999924 15 Normal

b) purity table for the nominally pure N2 0 9999521 molmol

Component Amount fraction

(10-6molmol)

Standard uncertainty

(10-6molmol) Assumed distribution

CH4 0001 00005 Rectangular

Ar 483 48 Normal

O2 002 0006 Normal

CO2 0010 0003 Normal

H2O 010 004 Normal

N2O 0001 00004 Rectangular

P a g e | 108

N2 9999521 48 Normal

purity table for the nominally pure O2 0 9999959 molmol

Component Amount fraction

(10-6molmol)

Standard uncertainty

(10-6molmol) Assumed distribution

CH4 0001 00003 Normal

Ar 20 05 Normal

N2 11 03 Normal

CO2 00012 00004 Rectangular

H2O 12 04 Normal

N2O 0001 00004 Rectangular

O2 9999959 48 Normal

purity table for the nominally pure Ar 09999998 molmol

Component Amount fraction

(10-6molmol)

Standard uncertainty

(10-6molmol) Assumed distribution

CH4 0001 00003 Normal

O2 0020 0005 Normal

N2 0010 0001 Normal

CO2 0001 00004 Rectangular

H2O 01 04 Normal

N2O 0001 00004 Rectangular

Ar 9999998 48 Normal

P a g e | 109

c) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures

d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures Seven primary standard cylinders of CO2 in air mixture were measured by CRDs A linearity regression was established based on these seven cylinders For each point an average of date recorded in 2 minutes were used The verification wre done by the comparison of gravimetric values and the calculated values

Gravimetric value Fitted value Relative deviation

y = 1002382 x + 0187049 Rsup2 = 1000000

350

450

550

650

750

850

350 450 550 650 750 850

Measured value VS Gravimetric value

1047095 g

CO2

N2

26743 g

CO2N2 15998ppm

Ar O2 N2

FB03748

CO2N2 32592 g Ar 7193 g O2 153303 g N2 466458 g

FB03744

CO2N2 19417 g Ar 8082 g O2 150754 g N2 472375 g

FB03747

CO2N2 14474 g Ar 7835 g O2 142777 g N2 453560 g

P a g e | 110

μmolmol μmolmol 80982 80965 -0021 81307 81319 0015 49106 49113 0014 48915 48928 0025 37819 37818 -0003 39162 39161 -0004 38343 38332 -0030

e) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are

prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM

Three test gas mixtures were prepared 3 months before the comparison After gas mixtures for the comparison were prepared a liner regression was done by combining the test gas mixtures and the comparison cylinders No significant drift of the values was observed between the time they were prepared and the time they were shipped to the BIPM f) cylinders pressure before shipment to the BIPM

Cylinder No Pressure (bar) FB03748 90 FB03744 90 FB03747 90

P a g e | 111

NIST

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM‐K120‐R Project name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department

Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form

Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute NIST

Address 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8393

Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8393

Contact person George C Rhoderick

Telephone 301‐975‐3937 Fax 301‐977‐8392

P a g e | 112

Email GeorgeRhodericknistgov

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 FB04278 3790449 03908 2

2 FB04300 4726617 04280 2

3 FB04287 7945334 10287 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number FB04278

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0780812 molmol 0000118 molmol 2

O2 0209470 molmol 000071 molmol 2

Ar 0009339 molmol 000037 molmol 2

CH4 nmolmol nmolmol

N2O nmolmol nmolmol

P a g e | 113

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number FB04300

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0780771 molmol 0000128 molmol 2

O2 0209422 molmol 0000081 molmol 2

Ar 0009334 molmol 0000034 molmol 2

CH4 nmolmol nmolmol

N2O nmolmol nmolmol

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number FB04287

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0780499 molmol 0000114 molmol 2

O2 0209370 molmol 0000067 molmol 2

Ar 0009336 molmol 0000040 molmol 2

CH4 nmolmol nmolmol

N2O nmolmol nmolmol

CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 FB04278 ‐28 plusmn 2 1

2 FB04300 ‐28 plusmn 2 1

3 FB04287 ‐28 plusmn 2 1

A4 Uncertainty Budget Please provide a complete uncertainty budgets for the CO2 mole fraction values reported

P a g e | 114

A5 Additional information

FB04278

Standard Relative ContributionValue Uncertainty Uncertianty to Uncertainty

Major Component MW 2801340 000016 00000058 00020

Minor Component MW 4400950 000052 00000119 00041

Mass Parent Gas 1893585 000146 00000769 00264

Mass Balance Gas 7453878 00020 00000027 00009

Minor Component Wt Fraction 0023250750 0000006755 00002905 00997

Mass minor component - Parent 044027281 000013232 00003005 01031Mass minor component - Bal 000006695 000001936 02890953 991626

Total mass minor component 044017935 000022556 00005124 01758

Moles of minor component 001000192 000000513 00005126 01758

Balance gas wt fraction (purity) 0755569792 390976E-05 00000517 00177

Mass balance gas - parent 1397906371 000148549 00001063 00365Mass balance gas - balance 56319253120 002918142 00000518 00178

Total mass balance gas 57717159491 002921920 00000506 00174

Moles of balance gas 2060341104 000104994 00000510 00175

Moles impurities from parent 013966291020 000002524000 00001807 00620

Moles impurities from balance 56340784 00010163 00001804 00619

Total Moles of gas 263871542 00014615 00000554 00190

Conc minor component (ppm) 3790449 01954Relative uncert 0052 0292 100000

FB04300

Standard Relative Contribution

Value Uncertainty Uncertianty to Uncertainty

Major Component MW 2801340 000016 00000058 00025

Minor Component MW 4400950 000052 00000119 00050

Mass Parent Gas 2953886 000141 00000477 00201

Mass Balance Gas 74869117 000194 00000026 00011

CO2 Component Wt Fraction 0018926076 0000006339 00003350 01414

Mass CO2 component - Parent 055905476 000018915 00003383 01428Mass CO2 component - Balance Air 000003828 000000898 02345407 989951

Total mass CO2 component 055885777 000025068 00004486 01893

Moles of minor component 001269857 000000570 00004487 01894

Balance gas wt fraction (purity) 07556035 000004300 00000569 00240Mass balance gas - parent 2190310136 000191642 00000875 00369

Mass balance gas - balance 56571366688 003222901 00000570 00240

Total mass balance gas 58761676824 003228594 00000549 00232

Moles of balance gas 2097627451 000115899 00000553 00233

Moles impurities from parent 021883087438 000003747112 00001712 00723

Moles impurities from balance 56582830 00011276 00001993 00841

Total Moles of gas 268660869 00016174 00000602 00254

Conc minor component (ppm) 4726617 02140Relative uncert 0045 0237 100000

FB04287

Standard Relative ContributionValue Uncertainty Uncertianty to Uncertainty

Major Component MW 2801340 000016 00000058 00021

Minor Component MW 4400950 000052 00000119 00042

Mass Parent Gas 3957940 000137 00000346 00122

Mass Balance Gas 7227358 00020 00000028 00010

Minor Component Wt Fraction 0023250750 0000006716 00002889 01017

Mass minor component - Parent 092025076 000026773 00002909 01025Mass minor component - Bal 000005052 000001421 02813263 990842

Total mass minor component 092005795 000059343 00006450 02272

Moles of minor component 002090589 000001349 00006451 02272

Balance gas wt fraction (purity) 0755575527 389029E-05 00000515 00181

Mass balance gas - parent 2921880196 000218877 00000749 00264Mass balance gas - balance 54608149036 002815892 00000516 00182

Total mass balance gas 57530029233 002824386 00000491 00173

Moles of balance gas 2053661078 000101531 00000494 00174

Moles impurities from parent 029192104701 000004836046 00001657 00583

Moles impurities from balance 54627264 00009803 00001795 00632

Total Moles of gas 263121641 00014122 00000537 00189

Conc minor component (ppm) 7945334 05143Relative uncert 0065 0284 100000

P a g e | 115

Please include in this section in the case of standards produced with synthetic air

m) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas n) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar NO2 and CH4

parent gas o) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures p) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures q) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are

prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM and r) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

Or with real air

a) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas Compound molmol Uncertainty CO2 0999994000 0000002000 N2 0000002000 0000001155 O2 0000002000 0000001155 Ar 0000002000 0000001155

b) results of the analysis and mole fractions and uncertainties of CO2 N2 O2 Ar N2O and CH4 in the scrubbed real air (if performed)

Cylinder FB04300 Compound molmol Uncertainty N2 0781133467 0000043500 CO2 0000000151 0000000036 O2 0209528241 0000039865 Ar 0009338142 0000017407

Cylinder FB04278 Compound molmol Uncertainty N2 0781102830 0000039359 CO2 0000000059 0000000017 O2 0209554557 0000034507 Ar 0009342554 0000018932

Cylinder FB04287 Compound molmol Uncertainty N2 0781108354 0000039152 CO2 0000000046 0000000013 O2 0209548136 0000033045 Ar 0009343463 0000020998

P a g e | 116

c) a brief outline of the preparation procedure of the final mixtures

The three cylinders were evacuated to ~ 05 micro of Hg filled to ~ 07 Mpa with UHP Air and vented to atmosphere (four times) and evacuated to ~ 05 micro Hg A calculated aliquot of the parent cylinder was added to each cylinder and then weighed A calculated aliquot of the matrix gas was added to each cylinder and then weighed The cylinders were rolled for ~ three hours to mix the component gases

d) a composition table for each of the final mixtures including gravimetric Uncertainties when relevant Cylinder FB04300 Compound molmol Uncertainty CO2 0000472662 0000000214 N2 0780771482 0000063800 O2 0209421668 0000040372 Ar 0009334188 0000016775 Cylinder FB04278 Compound molmol Uncertainty CO2 0000379045 0000000195 N2 0780812166 0000058766 O2 0209469584 0000035657 Ar 0009339205 0000018480 Cylinder FB04287 Compound molmol Uncertainty CO2 0000794533 0000000514 N2 0780498735 0000056955 O2 0209370336 0000033285 Ar 0009336395 0000019945

e) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures The cylinders were verified against five existing PSMs a minimum of six times using an Isotopic CO2 Cavity Ringdown Spectrometer

f) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM and

g) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

P a g e | 117

Cylinder MPa FB04300 965 FB04278 1034 FB04278 999

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders 1st report

2nd report received on May 16 2018

Addendum to NIST Report for CCQM-K120a and b 1 Introduction NIST agreed to participate in the CCQM-K120a and b Key Comparison (KC) with the understanding that this KC involved gravimetrically value-assigned samples As stated in the protocol summary the comparison involved ldquohellip preparative capabilities for carbon dioxide in air primary reference mixturesrdquo Based on this description of the KC as involving primary reference mixtures NIST assumed that the participantsrsquo value assignments and reported data were restricted solely to those that derive from purity assessments and primary gravimetric measurements However prior to submission of the reported concentrations to GAWG NIST discovered a significant discrepancy in the gravimetric values which was caused by extenuating circumstances (discussed below) and which was quantified using supplementary measurements carried out at NIST Nevertheless to follow the KC protocol and to meet the imposed deadlines NIST submitted only the gravimetric-based concentration values for the three required CO2-in-air samples despite having assessed that the results were not expected to agree with the eventual calculated KCRV 2 Background Studies on CO2 adsorptiondesorption issues NIST performed and continues to investigate an adsorptiondesorption phenomenon with CO2 in air mixtures [1] NIST has observed in 5 and 6 L aluminum cylinders containing nominal 400 micromolmol CO2 in air mixtures initial CO2 adsorption to the cylinder walls of as little as 02 micromolmol to more than 1 micromolmol depending on the cylinder and internal treatment tested It has been observed that CO2 initially adsorbs on the cylinder walls when a mixture is

NIST CCQM K120 comparison samples dataPressure August 112017 Pressure

Original Reported Original Verified Veri‐Grav departure Re‐verified Value ReVerified value‐ back

Cylinder Gravimetirc Value ppm Value ppm Diff from NIST Stability check ppm Grav Value ppm to NIST

FB04278 37905 plusmn 039 38030 plusmn 028 033 1034 MPa 38007 plusmn 030 027 724 MPa

FB04300 47266 plusmn 043 47340 plusmn 034 016 965 MPa 47337 plusmn 052 015 724 MPa

FB04287 79453 plusmn 103 79512 plusmn 058 007 999 MPa 79477 plusmn 038 003 724 MPa

Re‐verified Value Re‐Verified‐ Pressure back

SRM Sample Original Certified Value Stability check ppm Orig Cert to NIST

1720‐A‐26 39397 plusmn 013 39403 plusmn 020 0015 414 MPa (600 psi)

P a g e | 118

prepared to high pressure (asymp12 MPa asymp1800 psi) NIST modeled some of that early data that shows an increase in CO2 mole fraction (∆x) with reduced cylinder pressure from measurements of a CO2 in air mixture contained in a 6 L aluminum cylinder using the Langmuir isotherm (Irving Langmuir 1916 1918) and is shown in Figure 1

Figure 1 Measured CO2 mole fraction increase versus pressure decrease in a 6 L aluminum cylinder Solid black points represent actual measured mole fraction Solid blue line represents applied Langmuir Isotherm model Using the actual measured CO2 change in 5 L and 6 L cylinders and the Langmuir isotherm NIST modeled for projected ∆x CO2 variation for 30 L and 47 L aluminum cylinders as shown in Figure 2 The models predict that the larger the cylinder volume the less change in the CO2 mole fraction with pressure loss NIST studies of CO2 in air mixtures contained in 30 L cylinders indeed show less increase in the mole fraction of CO2 as the pressure in the cylinder decreases Therefore the surface-to-volume ratio appears to play a major role the larger the cylinder volume the less CO2 increase It is most likely that this phenomenon takes place not only at ambient CO2 mole fractions but also at much higher levels including a few molmol and higher

Figure 2 Projected variation in ∆x for 6-L 30-L and 47-L cylinders applying Langmuir Isotherm This background information was presented at the GAWG meeting in April 2017 as analyses of K120 a and b were underway These results account for the discrepant NIST values in K120 a and b More generally this study informed participants of the serious potential pitfalls associated with desorption of CO2 from cylinder walls and the dependence of this process on total charge cylinder dimensions etc and revealed the possibility of unaccounted for Type B uncertainties caused by interactions of CO2 with cylinder walls Partly because of these findings and the

P a g e | 119

occurrence of extremely low uncertainties reported by some NMIs GAWG decided to put a lower limit on the expanded uncertainty equal to 019 mol mol-1 thus affecting the relative weighting of the results contributing to the KCRV 3 Preparation of K120 Samples In conjunction with submitting freshly prepared gravimetric standards for the CCQM-K120 CO2 in air key comparison NIST also wanted to prepare a complete new suite of ambient level CO2 in air primary standard mixtures (PSMs) starting with a pure natural isotopic CO2 source That new pure CO2 source arrived at NIST in November 2016 Because there was a limited amount of pure CO2 in the cylinder obtained NIST started development by gravimetrically preparing four PSMs in the range of 1-3 molmol in CO2 and moisture scrubbed real air Upon completion of those PSMs in early December 2016 they were analyzed by GC-TCD along with the NIST 2012 CO2 suite with ratios calculated from peak area responses to a control Generalized least squares regression was used to plot the ratios vs gravimetric values of the 2012 PSMs The new percent level PSMs were predicted from the regression line The results of that comparison are shown in Table 1 Inspection of the residuals from the difference of the predicted Ysolution- YGrav value for the 2012 PSMs reveals excellent agreement However the predicted Yeval values for the new PSMs disagree with their gravimetric values by more than -2 Table 1 New percent level PSMs predicted from linear regression of 2012 PSMs

Based on these results either the 2012 suite of PSMs had increased in mole fraction because of desorption of CO2 from the cylinder surface with pressure decrease or the new source of pure CO2 was contaminated Indeed the pure CO2 was eventually analyzed in January of 2017 and found to be contaminated with 31 molmol N2 Because NIST had no time to obtain another source of pure CO2 to make another set of PSMs (K120 samples needed to be shipped to BIPM by the end of December 2016) we had to assume that the 2012 percent level PSMs were stable We made this assumption knowing that it most likely was not the case because the CO2 mole fraction had increased as these standards were below asymp 45 MPa (asymp650 psi) Not having another source of CO2 (the original CO2 source used for the 2012 suite and the source for over three decades was spent) NIST could not prepare new percent-level standards to verify the 2012 percent level standards and determine if the CO2 had indeed increased

Res idua l

2012 PSM X (Ratio) Y (Grav molmol) X‐Solution Y‐Solution uTest (Y‐Sol ‐Grav)

FA02584 244265 49500 244266 49490 Pass ‐002

FA02588 22877 46190 22877 46205 Pass 003

APEX1099215 078272 15422 078272 15420 Pass ‐001

APEX1099172 063673 12535 063656 12538 Pass 002

CAL016532 050028 09869 05003 09869 Pass 000

difference

From New CO2 Xin (Ratio) uXin Yeval (molmol) uYeval Grav Value Yeval‐Grav

FB03808 139347 000103 27669 00033 28288 ‐219

APEX1099165 118456 000141 23442 00035 24043 ‐250

APEX1099188 11708 000130 23164 00033 23773 ‐256

APEX1099246 078483 000058 15462 00015 15822 ‐228

(plusmn 00007)

P a g e | 120

NIST moved forward and prepared the three K120 standards from the 2012 PSMs cylinder number APEX1099215 at (15422 plusmn 00010) molmol and APEX1099172 at (12535 plusmn 00009) molmol (highlighted in green in Table 1) Figure 3 shows the preparation scheme

Figure 3 Preparation scheme for NIST K120 samples It is very important to state here that both cylinders were low in pressure when the three K120 standards were prepared from them APEX1099215 at 520 psi and APEX1099172 at 390 psi While NIST did not have stability data for percent-level CO2 in air mixtures we still suspected that the CO2 also increases at this mole fraction level as the pressure decreases After preparation of the three K120 standards they were compared to the 2012 ambient level PSMs and three SRM samples were also included Figure 4 shows the generalized least squares regression plotted for the 2012 PSMs represented by the black circles The blue circles represent the predicted value for the SRM 1720 samples from that regression and the red triangles represent the original SRM 1720 certified value The green squares represent the predicted value for the K120 samples from that regression line while the yellow circle with red border represent the gravimetric values From this plot the blue dotted linear regression line appears to cover all the data points

Pure CO2

CC282116

999940 plusmn 00002

APEX1099172 APEX1099215

12535 plusmn 00009 15422 plusmn 00010

molmol molmol

FB04300 FB04300 FB04300

472662 plusmn 0214 379045 plusmn 0214 794533 plusmn 0514

micromolmol micromolmol micromolmol

combined uncerta inties k=1

350

450

550

650

750

850

950

070 090 110 130 150 170 190

CO2mole fraction micro

molmol

Response Ratio

2012 CO2 PSMs

K120 Standards Predicted

K120 Grav Value

Predicted SRM 1720

SRM1720 Certified Value

P a g e | 121

Figure 4 Generalized least squares regression through NIST 2012 ambient CO2 PSM suite predicting SRM 1720 and K120 samples However if we expand the lower portion of the regression from (350-400) micromolmol we see disagreement between the new standards and SRM 1720 certified values as shown in Figure 5 While the predicted and gravimetric value for the 380 micromolmol K120 standard are still on the regression line the SRM 1720 certified values are off the regression line by around +1 micromol mol (03 relative) However the predicted and gravimetric value for the 380 micromolmol K120 sample lie on the regression line NIST has complete confidence that the SRM 1720 samples contained in 30-L cylinders are stable since they were all at pressures of +11 MPa Therefore NIST suspected that the 2012 PSMs all had increased in concentration and hence would predict the SRM 1720 samples to have less CO2 The fact that the K120 samples also lie on the line with the 2012 PSM regression we can postulate that the 2012 percent level PSMs had also increased in CO2 mole fraction as they had pressures less than 45 MPa (650 psi) when used to prepare the K120 samples

Figure 5 Expansion of Figure 4 illustrating that the SRM 1720 certified values lie off the regression line while K120 gravimetric and predicted values are still on the regression line Expanded uncertainty error bars are present but too small to be observed except in the red triangle SRM 1720 Certified Value NIST took this data for the 2012 ambient level PSMs and determined values by comparison to SRM sample 1720-A-29 with a certified value of (39312 plusmn 013) micromolmol with and (k = 2) uncertainty value at a pressure of +12 MPa The values determined for the PSMs from the SRM 1720 sample are significantly different from their gravimetric values with reduced pressure as shown in Table 2 Table 2 Ambient level 2012 PSMs determined from SRM sample 1720-A-29

4 Validity of SRM 1720 samples The SRM 1720 sample used to verify these PSMs is contained in a 30-Liter aluminum cylinder Other SRM 1720 samples have shown to be stable within uncertainty limits down to around 600 psi as shown in Table 3

‐029

‐037‐031

378

383

388

393

398

074 075 075 076 076 077 077 078 078 079 079

CO2mole fraction micro

molmol

Response Ratio

2012 CO2 PSMs

K120 Standard Predicted

K120 Standard Grav Value

SRM 1720 Predicted Value

SRM 1720 Certified Value

Gravimetric Concentration vs SRM1720 Difference Pressure

2012 PSM Mole Fraction micromolmol micromolmol micromolmol Diff ps i (Mpa)

APEX1099211 96107 plusmn 003 96091 plusmn 020 0160 002 1200 (827)

APEX1099176 91907 plusmn 046 91922 plusmn 025 ‐0150 ‐002 650 (448)

APEX1099164 67362 plusmn 035 67405 plusmn 015 ‐0430 ‐006 800 (552)

APEX1099223 63330 plusmn 042 63367 plusmn 017 ‐0370 ‐006 700 (483)

APEX1005714 42108 plusmn 006 42246 plusmn 009 ‐1380 ‐033 300 (207)

APEX1005721 39885 plusmn 006 40003 plusmn 015 ‐1180 ‐030 400 (276)

APEX1005690 37944 plusmn 006 38048 plusmn 010 ‐1040 ‐027 400 (276)

uncerta inty k=1

P a g e | 122

Table 3 Mole fractions showing increase in 30 Liter SRM 1720 samples with pressure loss

SRM 1720 samples were originally certified by comparing to the 2012 suite of four PSMs when they were at full pressure (+11 MPa) three of which are given in Table 2 APEX1005714 (42108 plusmn 006) micromolmol APEX1005721 (39885 plusmn 006) micromolmol and APEX1005690 (37944 plusmn 006) micromolmol The SRM 1720 samples were also analyzed by NOAA with results showing agreement between NIST and NOAA [2] Figure 6 shows that agreement for the 30 real air cylinder samples that comprised SRM 1720

Figure 6 Comparison of NIST and NOAA CO2 values for 30 SRM 1720 samples Error bars are expanded uncertainties at approximate 95 confidence interval 5 Verifying the K120 Samples Because all the original NIST 2012 PSMs at the 380 to 420 micromolmol range were low in pressure they could not be trusted to verify the new K120 PSMs Therefore in late December 2016 NIST used SRM sample 1720-A-29 then at 1700 psi to verify the gravimetric mole fractions in the K120 standards using CRDS Table 4 shows the gravimetric and verified values for the NIST K120 samples The December 2016 verified value is significantly higher by as much as 1 micromolmol than the gravimetric value for each of the three K120 standards This provides strong evidence that even the molmol 2012 PSMs have increased in mole fraction with the decrease in pressure Table 4 Gravimetric and verified values for NIST K120 samples

30 ‐Liter August 2017 Stability

SRM Original Certified Stability check 2017 ‐

Sample Value ppm value ppm Cert ppm

1720‐A‐26a 39397 + 013 (SRM used by BIPM for K120) 39403 + 020 + 006 600 psi 414 Mpa

1720‐AL‐01 38833 plusmn 013 38867 plusmn 014 + 034 325 psi 224 Mpa

1720‐AL‐27 39339 plusmn 013 39364 plusmn 015 + 025 450 psi 31 Mpa

All verified and stability check values determined against SRM 1720‐A‐29 (still at a pressure of 1500+ psi)

All uncertainties reported as expanded k = 2

aSRM 1720‐A‐26 was sent to BIPM as part of their system validation for K120

388

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30mole fraction micro

mol mol ‐1

Sample

NIST

NOAA

Pressure

Original Reported December 2016 Verified Verified‐Grav Verified‐Grav departure

Cylinder Gravimetirc Value ppm Verified Value micromolmol Diff in micromolmol Diff from NIST

FB04278 37905 plusmn 039 38008 plusmn 028 103 027 1034 MPa

FB04300 47266 plusmn 043 47340 plusmn 034 068 016 965 MPa

FB04287 79453 plusmn 103 79512 plusmn 058 059 007 999 MPa

P a g e | 123

Uncertainties at 95 confidence interval NIST was aware when they shipped their K120 samples to BIPM for the K120 comparison that their gravimetric values were not good However we followed the K120 protocol laid down for ldquopreparative capabilities for carbon dioxide in air primary reference mixturesrdquo and submitted the gravimetric values knowing that the verified values were the correct molar fractions for these mixtures 6 Stability check of K120 samples NIST received the three K120 samples back from BIPM in August 2017 and proceeded to check them for stability The three samples were once again compared to SRM 1720-A-29 and those results are shown in Table 5 The August 2017 stability check values agree with the December 2016 verified values and therefore have remained stable as they should be since the pressures were well above those where increases in mole fraction have been observed Table 5 Stability check results for K120 samples

Uncertainties at 95 confidence interval

7 Isotopic Composition The original value submitted by NIST for δ13C of -28 + 2 permil was an error of data transcription NIST had determined this value in 2014 for the pure source of CO2 used to prepare the submitted standards to be δ13C = -38 + 2 permil as determined by FTIR After receiveing the three standards back from BIPM NIST measured the δ13C to be -401 + 01 permil as determined by GC-IRMS 8 NIST Best-Estimate Value If it had been explicitly stated that participants could report their ldquobest-estimate valuerdquo for samples submitted for this CCQM-K120 key comparison for ambient CO2 in air which would not necessarily be their true gravimetric value then NIST would have submitted the values obtained from verification against the SRM sample NIST ldquobest-estimate valuesrdquo are thus given in Table 6 Table 6 NIST Best-Estimate (Verified) Values

August 2017 August 2017 Pressure

December 2016 Verified August 2017 Stability check‐Dec 2016 Stabiity check‐ back

Cylinder Verified Value micromolmol Stability check micromolmol Verified Value micromolmol Verified Value Diff to NIST

FB04278 38008 plusmn 028 38007 plusmn 030 ‐001 ‐0003 724 MPa

FB04300 47340 plusmn 034 47337 plusmn 052 ‐003 ‐0006 724 MPa

FB04287 79512 plusmn 058 79477 plusmn 038 ‐035 ‐0044 724 MPa

P a g e | 124

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 FB04278 38008 028 2

2 FB04300 47340 034 2

3 FB04287 79512 058 2

9 Observations from this Comparison NIST has the opinion that this key comparison was unnecessarily rushed to completion by the pilot laboratory As co-pilot on this comparison NIST should not have agreed to the arbitrary and premature deadline imposed by the pilot laboratory knowing that an optimal level of sample control had not been demonstrated Given that future key comparisons will continue to be co-piloted both parties must agree that the preliminary studies and procedures are sufficiently well-established to set firm deadlines for sample submission by participating NMIrsquos Ideally the mutual decision to set the timeline for the KC and the readiness of other NMIrsquos to participate should be discussed formally by the GAWG at the Spring or Fall meeting NIST also recommends that the GAWG draft a formal policy document that unambiguously defines the terms such as ldquogravimetricrdquo ldquoprimaryrdquo ldquopreparativerdquo ldquoanalyticalrdquo ldquobest-estimaterdquo among others which are used to describe the scope of key comparisons For example in the context of gas standards we might propose that ldquoprimaryrdquo refers to mixtures prepared by gravimetry or manometry On the other hand ldquopreparativerdquo appears with ldquoprimaryrdquo in the K120 a and b protocol summary statement What is the exact meaning of ldquopreparativerdquo in this context Similarly the term ldquobest-estimaterdquo was mentioned in discussions on K120 a and b during the April 2018 GAWG meeting when referring to acceptable reported values by NMIs although the exact meaning of this term was not clarified NISTrsquos current position is that ldquobest-estimaterdquo falls outside the scope of K120a and b and is more consistent with an ldquoanalyticalrdquo comparison These examples illustrate the need for a precise terminology to specify acceptable methods used for value assignment in future KCs For transparency this terminology should be formally defined by the GAWG for unambiguous use in subsequent KC protocols References 1 Miller WR Rhoderick GC Guenther FR Anal Chem 2015 87(3) pp 1957-1962 2 Rhoderick GR Kitzis DR Kelley ME Miller WR Hall BD Dlugokencky EJ Tans PP Possolo A Carney J Anal Chem 2016 88(6) 3376-3385 doi

101021acsanalchem6b00123

P a g e | 125

NMISA

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 126

P a g e | 127

P a g e | 128

P a g e | 129

P a g e | 130

P a g e | 131

P a g e | 132

P a g e | 133

NOAA

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 134

P a g e | 135

P a g e | 136

P a g e | 137

P a g e | 138

P a g e | 139

NPL

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM‐K120‐R Project name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards

A1 General information

Institute National Physical Laboratory

Address Hampton Road

Teddington

TW11 0LW

Contact person Paul Brewer

Telephone +44 (0) 208 943 6007 Fax

Email paulbrewernplcouk

P a g e | 140

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a CCQM‐K120b

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide amount fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 2179 38027 019 2

2 2170 48002 024 2

3 2181 79970 040 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number 2179

Component Amount fraction Value

Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078079 molmol 000047 molmol 2

O2 020960 molmol 000013 molmol 2

Ar 0009232 molmol 0000018 molmol 2

CH4 lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

Table 1 Composition of standard 1

P a g e | 141

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number 2170

Component Amount fraction Value

Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078069 molmol 000047 molmol 2

O2 020950 molmol 000013 molmol 2

Ar 0009334 molmol 0000019 molmol 2

CH4 lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

Table 2 Composition of standard 2 (Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number 2181

Component Amount fraction Value

Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078055 molmol 000047 molmol 2

O2 020928 molmol 000013 molmol 2

Ar 0009367 molmol 0000019 molmol 2

CH4 lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

Table 3 Composition of standard 3 CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 2179 ‐55 permil 10 permil 2 ‐225 permil 10 permil 2

2 2170 ‐55 permil 10 permil 2 ‐225 permil 10 permil 2

3 2181 ‐55 permil 10 permil 2 ‐225 permil 10 permil 2

Table 4 Isotopic composition of each submitted standard vs VPDB

A4 Uncertainty Budget The estimated uncertainty for the measurement contains the following components

Purity analysis of CO2 and synthetic air

Gravimetric preparation (weighing and atomic weight uncertainties)

Analytical validation

Table 5 details the uncertainty analysis The preparation component includes estimated uncertainty from purity analysis weighing and atomic weights

Relative Uncertainty ()

Identifier Component Preparation

(k=1) Validation

(k=1) Total(k=2)

2179 CO2 0018 002 005

2170 CO2 0014 002 005

2181 CO2 0010 002 005

Table 5 Uncertainty contributors To calculate the combined uncertainty the uncertainties were combined as the square root of the sum of squares The reported uncertainty of the result is based on standard uncertainties multiplied by a coverage factor of k=2 providing a level of confidence of approximately 95

P a g e | 142

A5 Additional information Description of the procedure Three gas mixtures were prepared for this comparison (2170 2179 and 2181) at NPL in synthetic air from sources of CO2 (BOC speciality gases) O2 (BOC speciality gases N 60) N2 (Air Products BIP+) and Ar (Air Products BIP+) The pure industrial source of CO2 was spiked with pure 13CO2 to achieve an isotopic composition close to natural abundance The mixtures were prepared in BOC 10 litre cylinders with Spectraseal passivation Two further sets of three reference standards was prepared and these were used to validate the comparison mixtures The scheme below shows the gravimetric dilutions with nominal CO2 amount fractions

Figure 1 Dilution scheme for gravimetric preparation

A Picarro G2301 Cavity ring-down spectrometer was used to validate the amount fraction of CO2 in mixtures 2170 2179 and 2181 The analyser response to the matrix gas was recorded The analyser response to a reference mixture was then recorded for a five minute period followed by either 2170 2179 or 2181 for the same time This sequence was repeated four times At the end of the experiment the analyser response to the matrix gas was recorded a second time To minimise the effects from zero drift a mean of the analyser response to the matrix gas before and after the experiment was used The amount fractions of 2170 2179 and 2181 were then determined by multiplying the ratio of the analyser response to each mixture and the reference mixture (both were corrected for the analyser response to matrix gas) with the amount fraction of the reference mixture These measurements were used to validate the gravimetric amount fractions submitted Cylinders were maintained at a laboratory temperature of (20 plusmn 3) C throughout the period of analysis Samples were introduced into the analyser at atmospheric pressure (excess flow was passed to vent) using a low volume gas regulator Purity tables for the CO2 Ar N2 and O2 are provided below

P a g e | 143

Component Amount Fraction (micromolmol) Expanded Uncertainty (micromolmol)

CO2 99999980 006

N2 0050 0029

O2 0050 0029

CO 0050 0029

Ar 0050 0029

Table 6 CO2 purity table

Component Amount Fraction (micromolmol) Expanded Uncertainty (micromolmol)

Ar 99999993 002

N2 0039 0023

O2 00050 00029

CO2 0007 0004

CO 00018 00010

CH4 000029 000017

Table 7 Ar purity table

Component Amount Fraction (micromolmol) Expanded Uncertainty (micromolmol)

N2 9999843 16

O2 0015 0009

Ar 1567 157

CO2 000085 000049

CO 000058 000033

CH4 000080 000046

Table 8 N2 purity table

Component Amount Fraction (micromolmol) Expanded Uncertainty (micromolmol)

O2 9999991 03

N2 050 029

Ar 0050 0029

CO2 019 019

CH4 00282 00048

Table 9 O2 purity table The mixtures were prepared on during the period 24th October to 8th November 2016 Measurements to study the stability of the mixtures were carried out over a 6 week period The cylinder pressure of mixtures 2170 2179 and 2181 prior to shipping was gt 10 MPa

P a g e | 144

NPLI

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM-K120

Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM-K120-R

Project name CCQM-K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899-8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute CSIR-National Physical Laboratory INDIA

Address CSIR-National Physical Laboratory Dr KS Krishnan Marg New Delhi ndash 110012 INDIA

Contact Person Dr Prabha Johri

Telephone 91 11 4560 856385658331

Fax 91 11 4560 9310

P a g e | 145

email pjohrinplindiaorg

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM-K120a (only) yes

CCQM-K120b (only) Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification Number

Carbon Dioxide mole fraction XCO2cert molmol

Expanded Uncertainties molmol

Coverage factor

1 JJ108891 37572 322 2

2 JJ108862 48052 304 2

3 JJ108854 79638 503 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix composition Component mol fraction and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) Standard1 Cylinder Number JJ108891

component Mole fraction value

unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0781273 molmol 0002210 molmol 2

O2 0209688 molmol 0000590 molmol 2

Ar 0009040 molmol 0000030 molmol 2

Standard 2 Cylinder Number JJ108862

component Mole fraction value

unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0781989 molmol 0002210 molmol 2

O2 0208853 molmol 0000590 molmol 2

Ar 0009158 molmol 0000030 molmol 2

P a g e | 146

Standard 3 Cylinder Number JJ108854

Component Mole fraction value

unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0781363 molmol 0002210 molmol 2

O2 0209789 molmol 0000594 molmol 2

Ar 0008847 molmol 0000030 molmol 2

A4 Uncertainty Budget The final uncertainty budget was estimated by combining two uncertainty components (ie preparation of PSGM and its analysis both)

(i) The Expanded Uncertainty estimation of all the prepared gas mixtures (PSGMs) has been calculated according to ISO 6142 Preparation of Calibration gas mixtures ndash Gravimetric method taking account of following factors 1 Raymor Balance 1 Mass Pieces 2 Bouancy corrections for weights 3 Handling of cylinder 4 Residual gases in the cylinder 5 Expansion of the cylinder due to filling of gas at High pressure (ii) Uncertainties in the analysis These are calculated taking acount of

1 Standard deviation Repeatability 2 Reproducibility amp 3 Instrument response

A5 Additional Information b) A purity table with uncertainties for pure Ar N2 and O2 parent gas The purity of N2 O2 and Ar parent gases were determined using tiger optics CRDS analyzers model for the following H2O CH4 and CO gas components The moisture of the gases were determined using Tiger Optics moisture analyzer model LaserTrace CH4 was determined using Tiger Optics methan analyzer model MTO-1000-CH4 and CO gas was determined using Tiger Optics CO analyzer model HALO 3-CO Purity of Argon gas was found to be as given below

P a g e | 147

Name of gases Concentration ppm Expanded Uncertainties Coverage factor

H2O moisture 145 023 2

CO gas 027 008 2

CH4 gas Not Detected (ND) (lt0001 )

Purity of N2 gas was found to be as given below

Name of gases Concentration ppm Expanded Uncertainties Coverage factor

H2O moisture 083 005 2

CO gas 34 024 2

CH4 gas ND (lt0001 )

Purity of O2 gas was found to be as given below

Name of gases Concentration ppm Expanded Uncertainties Coverage factor

H2O moisture 095 005 2

CH4 gas ND (lt0001 )

c) A brief out line of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures The preparation procedure involves following steps

1) Preparation of gas mixtures of CO2 in nitrogen gas Al cylinders 10 litre were evacuated and purged with nitogen gas and again evacuated with heating of the cylinders at 60-70oC This process is repeated thrice before any preparation of gas mixture was carried out The theoritical calculations were carried out for the desired concentrations Gas mixtures of CO2 in nitrogen gas from pure gas were prepared in two series in the concentrations around 20544 and 20392 molmol These gas mixtures were diluted in the concentration ranges from ( 370~ 1000 molmol) Total of 9 cylindres were prepared All the preparation of Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) were done in acordance to ISO 6142 Gas Analysis -Preparation of calibration gas mixtures - Gravimetric Method These cylinders were validated in acordance to ISO 6143 Gas analysis - Comparision method for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures Thus the prepared CO2 gas mixtures were certified as CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM)

P a g e | 148

2) Preparation of CO2 in synthetic air These mixtures were prepared from the two series of CO2 premixtures prepared in nitrogen gas in the concentration around 20544 and 20392 molmol as mentioned above The empty cylinders were evacuated and purged with dry nitogen gas and again evacuated with heating This process is repeated thrice for the pre-preparation of the cylinders The thoeritical calculations were carried out similating the desired concentration range as given in CCQM K-120 The required amount of pre mixture of CO2 in Nitrogen is transferred in the pre prepared evacuated cylinder These mixtures were now added with desired amount of pure Argon gas pure oxygen gas and finally top up has been done by nitrogen gas to simulate the synthetic air concentration Total of 9 cylinders were prepared in the concentration ranges ( 370~800 molmol) These cylinders were validated using above prepared binary mixtures of CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures Validation of Synthetic Air Mixtures

The prepared synthetic air gas mixture cylinders were validated using above prepared binary mixtures of CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) as per ISO 6143

The standard and sample gases were injected into eight-port gas sampling valves of the Agilent Gas Chromatograph with flame ionization detector (FID) Model 6890N US 10723001 The GC column used was Haysep D length 12 ft dia 18rdquo and mesh 100120 Helium gas was used as a carrier gas The measurement conditions were the sample loop of 05 ml oven temperature of 80oC detector temperature of 250oC hydrogen and air flow rate of 20 mlmin and 300 mlmin respectively All the Synthetic air CO2 gas mixtures were evaluated using a higher concentration CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) The average response was calculated by using the six values rejecting first and last two values each time for each measurement series The analysis of the cylinders were carried out three times The collected data is analysed and the uncertainty budget was evaluated

f) Cylider pressure before shipment to BIPM

SlNo Cylinder No Conc (Approx) molmol Pressure

1 JJ108891 380 110Bar 1596 psi

2 JJ108862 480 110Bar 1596 psi

3 JJ108854 800 110Bar 1596 psi

The Team members Dr Daya Soni Dr Khem Singh Ms S Bhatt Ms Joty Pokheryal Dr SG Aggarwal Dr PJohri

P a g e | 149

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM-K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM-K120-R (Stability Studies) Project name CCQM-K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899-8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute CSIR-National Physical Laboratory INDIA

Address CSIR-National Physical Laboratory Dr KS Krishnan Marg New Delhi ndash 110012 INDIA

Contact Person Dr Prabha Johri

Telephone 91 11 4560 856385658331

Fax 91 11 4560 9310

email pjohrinplindiaorg

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM-K120a (only) yes

CCQM-K120b (only) Yes

P a g e | 150

Stability Studies Result A3 NMI stability analysis values with its analytical uncertainty budget only

Cylinder Identification Number

Carbon Dioxide mole fraction XCO2cert molmol

Expanded Uncertainties molmol

Coverage factor

1 JJ108891

37824 395 2

2 JJ108862

47857 523 2

3 JJ108854

79880 335 2

A4 Uncertainty Budget The stability uncertainty budget was estimated using analytical uncertainty components only These are calculated taking account of

1 Standard deviation Repeatability 2 Calibration standard uncertainty 3 Instrument response

A5 A brief outline of the Stability Analysis Procedure applied to the Cylinders returned from BIPM France

The cylinders of the synthetic air gas mixtures arrived from BIPM France cylinders were analyzed using the prepared binary mixtures of CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) as per ISO 6143 The cylinders returned from BIPM and the binary standards gas mixtures in nitrogen gas cylinders are put to rotation for over night before using for its stability studies

The standard and sample gases were injected into eight-port gas sampling valves of the Agilent Gas Chromatograph with flame ionization detector (FID) Model 6890N US 10723001 The GC column used was Haysep D length 12 ft dia 18rdquo and mesh 100120 Helium gas was used as a carrier gas The measurement conditions were the sample loop of 05 ml oven temperature of 80oC detector temperature of 250oC hydrogen and air flow rate of 20 mlmin and 300 mlmin respectively All the Synthetic air CO2 gas mixtures were evaluated using a higher concentration CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Reference Gas Mixtures (PRGM) The average response was calculated by using six values rejecting first and last two values each time for each measurement series The analysis of the cylinders was carried out three times The collected data is analyzed and the analytical uncertainty budget was evaluated and reported in the stability result

The Team members Dr Daya Soni Dr Khem Singh Ms S Bhatt Dr SG Aggarwal Dr PJohri

P a g e | 151

UME

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM‐K120‐R

A1 General information

Institute UME

Address TUumlBİTAK UME ‐ Gas Metrology Laboratory Baris Mah Dr Zeki Acar Cad No1 41470 Gebze Kocaeli TURKEY

Contact person Dr Tanıl Tarhan

Telephone + 90 262 679 5000 6401 Fax + 90 262 679 5001

Email taniltarhantubitakgovtr

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2 μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 PSM298266 37992 016 2

2 PSM266468 48042 017 2

3 PSM298347 80076 027 2

P a g e | 152

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number PSM298266

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07803392 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

O2 02099663 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

Ar 00093140 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number PSM266468

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07799681 molmol 00000165 molmol 2

O2 02102293 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

Ar 00093215 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number PSM298347

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07795520 molmol 00000164 molmol 2

O2 02103522 molmol 00000164 molmol 2

Ar 00092945 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 PSM298266 ‐165 005 2 ‐ ‐ ‐

A4 Uncertainty Budget

P a g e | 153

The basis for the uncertainty budget is formed by the uncertainty evaluation from the gravimetric preparation and analytical measurements Gravimetric preparation contains uncertainty sources from weighing and those from purity of the parent gases Gravimetric preparation and uncertainty evaluation have performed according to ISO 6142 [1] The measurement uncertainty of each mixture was determined according to ISO 6143 [2] The combined standard uncertainty of each mixture was determined by the following equation

u u u

where

um standard uncertainty from measurements

ug standard uncertainty from gravimetric preparation

The expanded uncertainty was determined by multiplying the combined standard uncertainty by a coverage factor of 2 with a confidence interval of 95

A5 Additional information Mixtures were produced with synthetic air s) Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas

Main component carbon dioxide

Cylinder Code LG7524

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

carbon dioxide 99997750 924

water 250 144

nitrogen 1500 866

oxygen 500 289

t) Purity tables with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 and Ar parent gas

Main component nitrogen

Cylinder Code LG1220 and LG1221

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

carbon monoxide 005 003

carbon dioxide 005 003

methane 005 003

water 025 014

nitrogen 99999935 021

oxygen 025 014

Main component oxygen

P a g e | 154

Cylinder Code LG3367

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

argon 100 058

carbon dioxide 010 006

methane 010 006

water 150 087

nitrogen 250 144

oxygen 99999480 178

Main component argon

Cylinder Code LG1313

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

argon 99999300 122

water 150 087

nitrogen 400 231

oxygen 150 087

u) Mixtures were prepared according to the scheme displayed in Figure 1 Two different types of the pre‐mixtures were prepared These are 10 and 05 carbon dioxide in nitrogen and 15 argon in nitrogen 05 carbon dioxide in nitrogen and 15 argon in nitrogen pre‐mixtures were used together with pure nitrogen and pure oxygen for the final mixtures

P a g e | 155

Figure 1 Preparation scheme for the mixtures

v) Verification procedure applied to the final mixtures

The carbon dioxide (CO2) in air mixtures were analyzed on a cavity ring‐down spectroscopy (CRDS) instrument ie Picarro G2401 COCO2CH4H2O Analyzer equipped with 16‐Port Distribution Manifold Verification of the mixtures was carried out using own standards Cylinders were equipped with pressure reducers and connected to 16‐port distribution manifold They were flushed three times before the first measurement The analyzer operates vacuum pump to get the sample Therefore excess amount of gas than the amount of gas required by CRDS has been sent to the analyzer by adjusting the reducers The excess gas has been sent to the atmosphere through a bypass connected to sample line in between distribution manifold and the analyzer Each cylinder was measured for 15 minutes which is a sufficient time to obtain stable results The measurement data was collected using CRDS software Software takes about 2850 readings for 15 minutes During the data evaluation total number of 240 readings in between 10‐14 minutes has been used for determination of average values and uncertainties for each cylinder at each measurement

P a g e | 156

w) Stability testing of the mixtures

Pre‐mixtures and final mixtures were prepared in 01‐17 April 2016 First verification was performed in 21‐24 April 2016 Second verification was carried out in 22 September 2016 Final verification was performed 11‐19 October 2016 Measurement results are shown in Figure 2 As can be seen from the figure instrument response does not vary with time for each cylinder Stability testing did not show any instability within the accuracy of the measurement method

Figure 2 Stability measurements

x) Cylinder pressures before shipment to the BIPM are given below

Cylinder Code Pressure bar

PSM298266 86

PSM266468 86

PSM298347 90

References

[1] International Organization for Standardization ldquoISO 6142 Gas analysis ‐ Preparation of calibration gas mixtures ‐ Gravimetric methodsrdquo ISO Geneva 2001

[2] International Organization for Standardization ISO 6143 Gas analysis ‐ Comparison

methods for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures ISO Geneva 2001

300

500

700

900

CO2concentration (μmolmol)

Time

PSM298266 PSM266468 PSM298347

P a g e | 157

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM-K120-R

A1 General information

Institute UME

Address TUumlBİTAK UME ‐ Gas Metrology Laboratory Baris Mah Dr Zeki Acar Cad No1 41470 Gebze Kocaeli TURKEY

Contact person Dr Tanıl Tarhan

Telephone + 90 262 679 5000 6401 Fax + 90 262 679 5001

Email taniltarhantubitakgovtr

P a g e | 158

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2 μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 PSM298266 37992 019 2

2 PSM266468 48042 025 2

3 PSM298347 80076 036 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number PSM298266

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07803392 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

O2 02099663 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

Ar 00093140 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number PSM266468

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07799681 molmol 00000165 molmol 2

P a g e | 159

O2 02102293 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

Ar 00093215 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number PSM298347

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07795520 molmol 00000164 molmol 2

O2 02103522 molmol 00000164 molmol 2

Ar 00092945 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 PSM298266 ‐165 005 2 ‐ ‐ ‐

A4 Uncertainty Budget

The basis for the uncertainty budget is formed by the uncertainty evaluation from the gravimetric preparation and analytical measurements Gravimetric preparation contains uncertainty sources from weighing and those from purity of the parent gases Gravimetric preparation and uncertainty evaluation have performed according to ISO 6142 [1] The measurement uncertainty of each mixture was determined according to ISO 6143 [2] The mixtures were analyzed for stability after receiving them back from BIPM The combined standard uncertainty of each mixture was determined by the following equation

u u u u

where

um standard uncertainty from measurements

ug standard uncertainty from gravimetric preparation

us standard uncertainty for stability

The expanded uncertainty was determined by multiplying the combined standard uncertainty by a coverage factor of 2 with a confidence interval of 95

P a g e | 160

A5 Additional information Mixtures were produced from pure components of CO2 N2 O2 and Ar y) Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas

Main component carbon dioxide

Cylinder Code LG7524

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

carbon dioxide 99997750 924

water 250 144

nitrogen 1500 866

oxygen 500 289

z) Purity tables with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 and Ar parent gas

Main component nitrogen

Cylinder Code LG1220 and LG1221

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

carbon monoxide 005 003

carbon dioxide 005 003

methane 005 003

water 025 014

nitrogen 99999935 021

oxygen 025 014

Main component oxygen

Cylinder Code LG3367

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

argon 100 058

carbon dioxide 010 006

methane 010 006

water 150 087

nitrogen 250 144

oxygen 99999480 178

Main component argon

Cylinder Code LG1313

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

argon 99999300 122

water 150 087

nitrogen 400 231

oxygen 150 087

P a g e | 161

aa) Mixtures were prepared according to the scheme displayed in Figure 1 Two different types

of the pre‐mixtures were prepared These are 10 and 05 carbon dioxide in nitrogen and 15 argon in nitrogen 05 carbon dioxide in nitrogen and 15 argon in nitrogen pre‐mixtures were used together with pure nitrogen and pure oxygen for the final mixtures

Figure 1 Preparation scheme for the mixtures

bb) Verification procedure applied to the final mixtures

The carbon dioxide (CO2) in air mixtures were analyzed on a cavity ring‐down spectroscopy (CRDS) instrument ie Picarro G2401 COCO2CH4H2O Analyzer equipped with 16‐Port Distribution Manifold Verification of the mixtures was carried out using own standards Cylinders were equipped with pressure reducers and connected to 16‐port distribution manifold They were flushed three times before the first measurement The analyzer operates vacuum pump to get the sample Therefore excess amount of gas than the amount of gas required by CRDS has been sent to the analyzer by adjusting the reducers

P a g e | 162

The excess gas has been sent to the atmosphere through a bypass connected to sample line in between distribution manifold and the analyzer Each cylinder was measured for 15 minutes which is a sufficient time to obtain stable results The measurement data was collected using CRDS software Software takes about 2850 readings for 15 minutes During the data evaluation total number of 240 readings in between 10‐14 minutes has been used for determination of average values and uncertainties for each cylinder at each measurement

cc) Stability testing of the mixtures

Pre‐mixtures and final mixtures were prepared in 01‐17 April 2016 First verification was performed in 21‐24 April 2016 Second verification was carried out in 22 September 2016 Final verification was performed during 11‐19 October 2016 Measurement results are shown in Figure 2 As can be seen from the figure instrument response does not vary with time for each cylinder Stability testing did not show any instability within the accuracy of the measurement method before sending the cylinders to BIPM

Figure 2 Stability measurements before sending the cylinders

After receiving the cylinders they have been analyzed for stability Measurements were carried out during 23‐24 August 2017 and 06‐07 September 2017 Instrument responses were plotted against time as shown in Figure 3 The slope of the responses has been checked Uncertainty for stability has been determined and has been included in the combined uncertainty

300

500

700

900

CO2concentration (μmolmol)

Time

PSM298266 PSM266468 PSM298347

P a g e | 163

Figure 3 Stability measurements after receiving the cylinders

dd) Cylinder pressures before shipment to the BIPM are given below

Cylinder Code Pressure bar

PSM298266 86

PSM266468 86

PSM298347 90

References

[1] International Organization for Standardization ldquoISO 6142 Gas analysis ‐ Preparation of calibration gas mixtures ‐ Gravimetric methodsrdquo ISO Geneva 2001

[2] International Organization for Standardization ISO 6143 Gas analysis ‐ Comparison

methods for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures ISO Geneva 2001

300

500

700

900

CO2concentration (μmolmol)

Time

PSM298266 PSM266468 PSM298347

P a g e | 164

VNIIM

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQMK120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQMK120R

Project name CCQMK120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air Standards Proposed dates 092016 to 122017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 208998300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores

BIPM Chemistry Department Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg A1 General information Institute

DI Mendeleyev Institute for Metrology (VNIIM )

Address

19 Moskovsky pr St Petersburg 190005 Russia

Contact person Leonid Konopelko Telephone +7 812 315 11 45 Fax +7 812 315 15 17 Email

fhib10vniimru

P a g e | 165

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo CCQMK120a

Yes

CCQMK120b

Yes

A3 NMI submitted values Table 1 Cylinder Identification

number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction xCO2 cert μmolmol

Expanded uncertainty U(x CO2 cert) μmolmol

Coverage factor

1 M365601

38020 011 2

2 M365664

48018 013 2

3 M365707

80073 019 2

Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) Table 2 (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number M365601 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

781015 10-2 molmol 00013 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209188 10-2 molmol 00013 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09416 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000094 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Table 3 (Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number M365664 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

780928 10-2 molmol 00011 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209270 10-2 molmol 00012 10-2 molmol 2

Ar 09322 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

P a g e | 166

CH4 000000096 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Table 4 (Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number M365707 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

781000 10-2 molmol 00011 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209199 10-2 molmol 00012 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09000 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000097 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Uncertainty in the tables 2-4 includes only constituents related to gravimetry (weighing and purity) Table 5 CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional) Cylinder

Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C)

CoverageFactor

δ18O U(δ18O) CoverageFactor

1 M365601 - 480 09 2 - - - 2 M365664 - 480 09 2 - - - 3 M365707 - 480 09 2 - - - A4 Uncertainty Budget Table 6 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365601

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution

ui(y) μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200 μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999381 μmolmol B Rectangular 0015 μmolmol 006733 000101

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374 μmolmol 000016 000006

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030 μmolmol 000534 000016

Weighing premixture

CO2 2015723 g AB Normal 000223g ‐1854106 ‐004140

N2 115359704 g AB Normal 001962 g 032397 000636

Weighing pre‐ 2048733 g AB Normal 000203 g ‐1791563 ‐003630

P a g e | 167

final mixture

mixture

Ar 790915 g AB Normal 000200 g 045258 000091

O2 14075497 g AB Normal 000353 g 056493 000200

N2 43993136 g AB Normal 001021 g 064543 000659

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal 000035 gmol 86286 000302

Combined standard uncertainty 005596

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0112

Table 7 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365664

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution ui(y)

μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200

μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999390 μmolmol B Rectangular 0011

μmolmol 006909 000076

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374

μmolmol 000020 0000075

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030

μmolmol 000534 000016

Weighing premixture

CO2 1947854 g AB Normal 000224 g ‐2423572 ‐005424

N2 111850932 g AB Normal 001950 g 042206 000823

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

2586420 g AB Normal

000204 g ‐1775177 ‐003626

Ar 780100 g AB Normal 000200 g 057374 000115

O2 14028618 g AB Normal 000391 g 071611 000280

N2 43288272 g AB Normal 000915 g 081821 000749

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal

000035 gmol

109066 000382

Combined standard uncertainty 0066379

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0133

Table 8 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365707

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution

ui(y)

P a g e | 168

μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200 μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999390 μmolmol B Rectangular 0011μmolmol 006733 000076

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374 μmolmol 000035 000013

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030 μmolmol 000500 000015

Weighing premixture

CO2 2015723 g AB Normal 000223g ‐3905886 ‐008721

N2 115359704 g AB Normal 001962 g 068249 001339

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

4282195 g AB Normal

000220 g ‐1733744 ‐003823

Ar 750252 g AB Normal 000202 g 096046 000194

O2 13969676 g AB Normal 000403 g 119851 000483

N2 41448867 g AB Normal 000834 g 136969 001143

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal 000035 gmol 181777 0006362

Combined standard uncertainty

009719

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0194

Uncertainty due to weighing includes constituents related to accuracy of balance buoyancy effect resulting from change of cylinder volume during filling mass pierces used drift of balance residual gas in cylinder A5 Additional information Table 9 Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas Cylinder N 74318 Main component CO2 Mole fraction 99999345

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

N2 025 014

CO 0029 0001

CH4 0149 0002

He 05 029

H2 322 007

O2 025 014

H2O 215 011

Purity tables with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 and Ar parent gases Table 10 Purity table for N2

P a g e | 169

Monoblock Main component N2 Mole fraction 999998672

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

Ar 0916 0011

O2 00015 00009

CO2 00025 00014

H2 00025 00014

CH4 00025 00014

CO 00025 00014

H2O 040 020

Table 11 Purity table for O2 Cylinder N 910281 Main component O2 Mole fraction 999999381

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

H2 00025 00014

Ar 0181 0004

N2 0307 0012

Kr 00025 00014

CO 00075 00043

CH4 00347 00008

CO2 0081 0005

Xe 00025 00014

Table 12 Purity table for Ar Cylinder N 283162 Main component Ar Mole fraction 999998209

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

O2 00231 00013

N2 1188 0015

CH4 0015 0009

CO2 0030 0017

H2 0025 0014

CO 0010 0006

H2O 050 001

P a g e | 170

c) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures Preparation of final mixtures (СO2 in synthetic air) was carried out from pure substances in 2 stages 1-st stage ndash 3 mixtures СO2N2 ndashlevel 11 2-nd stage ndash 3x3 target mixtures СO2synthetic air All the mixtures were prepared in Luxfer cylinders (V=10 and 5 dm3) d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures CRDS analyzer was used for verification 4 measurement series were carried out within each verification procedure SD of a single measurement (reproducibility between series) was 0003 -0006 CRDS analyzer was used for verification Instrument Picarro G2401 Measurement cell temperature 45оС Measurement cell pressure 18665 kPa Data collection by ldquoPicarro Incrdquo software CRDS analyzer was used for δ13C measurements Instrument Picarro G2131i Reference materials used for calibration IAEA‐CO‐8 IAEA‐CH‐7 Measurement cell temperature 45оС Measurement cell pressure 18665 kPa Data collection by ldquoPicarro Incrdquo software e) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM The final mixtures were prepared 0310 -13102016 First verification measurement was carried out 1710 -2110 2016 Second verification measurement was carried out 2610 -28102016 Verification measurements were performed by checking consistency within the group of the 3x3 prepared mixtures uver =0003 Stability testing (short-term) did not show instability within the accuracy of the measurement method f) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

89 MPa for M365601 90 MPa for M365664 93 MPa for M365707

P a g e | 171

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQMK120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQMK120R

Project name CCQMK120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air Standards Proposed dates 092016 to 122017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 208998300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores

BIPM Chemistry Department Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg A1 General information Institute

DI Mendeleyev Institute for Metrology (VNIIM )

Address

19 Moskovsky pr St Petersburg 190005 Russia

Contact person Leonid Konopelko Telephone +7 812 315 11 45 Fax +7 812 315 15 17 Email

fhib10vniimru

P a g e | 172

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo CCQMK120a

Yes

CCQMK120b

Yes

A3 NMI submitted values Table 1 Cylinder Identification

number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction xCO2 cert μmolmol

Expanded uncertainty U(x CO2 cert) μmolmol

Coverage factor

1 M365601

38020 011 2

2 M365664

48018 013 2

3 M365707

80073 019 2

Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) Table 2 (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number M365601 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

781015 10-2 molmol 00013 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209188 10-2 molmol 00013 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09416 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000094 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Table 3 (Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number M365664 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

780928 10-2 molmol 00011 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209270 10-2 molmol 00012 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09322 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000096 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured

P a g e | 173

Table 4 (Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number M365707 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

781000 10-2 molmol 00011 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209199 10-2 molmol 00012 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09000 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000097 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Uncertainty in the tables 2-4 includes only constituents related to gravimetry (weighing and purity) Table 5 CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional) Cylinder

Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C)

CoverageFactor

δ18O U(δ18O) CoverageFactor

1 M365601 - 480 09 2 - - - 2 M365664 - 480 09 2 - - - 3 M365707 - 480 09 2 - - - A4 Uncertainty Budget Table 6 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365601

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution

ui(y) μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200 μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999381 μmolmol B Rectangular 0015 μmolmol 006733 000101

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374 μmolmol 000016 000006

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030 μmolmol 000534 000016

Weighing premixture

CO2 2015723 g AB Normal 000223g ‐1854106 ‐004140

N2 115359704 g AB Normal 001962 g 032397 000636

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

2048733 g AB Normal

000203 g ‐1791563 ‐003630

Ar 790915 g AB Normal 000200 g 045258 000091

O2 14075497 g AB Normal 000353 g 056493 000200

P a g e | 174

N2 43993136 g AB Normal 001021 g 064543 000659

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal 000035 gmol 86286 000302

Combined standard uncertainty 005596

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0112

Table 7 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365664

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution ui(y)

μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200

μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999390 μmolmol B Rectangular 0011

μmolmol 006909 000076

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374

μmolmol 000020 0000075

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030

μmolmol 000534 000016

Weighing premixture

CO2 1947854 g AB Normal 000224 g ‐2423572 ‐005424

N2 111850932 g AB Normal 001950 g 042206 000823

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

2586420 g AB Normal

000204 g ‐1775177 ‐003626

Ar 780100 g AB Normal 000200 g 057374 000115

O2 14028618 g AB Normal 000391 g 071611 000280

N2 43288272 g AB Normal 000915 g 081821 000749

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal

000035 gmol

109066 000382

Combined standard uncertainty 0066379

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0133

Table 8 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365707

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution

ui(y) μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200 μmolmol 000545 000109

P a g e | 175

Purity of O2 999999390 μmolmol B Rectangular 0011μmolmol 006733 000076

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374 μmolmol 000035 000013

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030 μmolmol 000500 000015

Weighing premixture

CO2 2015723 g AB Normal 000223g ‐3905886 ‐008721

N2 115359704 g AB Normal 001962 g 068249 001339

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

4282195 g AB Normal

000220 g ‐1733744 ‐003823

Ar 750252 g AB Normal 000202 g 096046 000194

O2 13969676 g AB Normal 000403 g 119851 000483

N2 41448867 g AB Normal 000834 g 136969 001143

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal 000035 gmol 181777 0006362

Combined standard uncertainty

009719

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0194

Uncertainty due to weighing includes constituents related to accuracy of balance buoyancy effect resulting from change of cylinder volume during filling mass pierces used drift of balance residual gas in cylinder A5 Additional information Table 9 Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas Cylinder N 74318 Main component CO2 Mole fraction 99999345

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

N2 025 014

CO 0029 0001

CH4 0149 0002

He 05 029

H2 322 007

O2 025 014

H2O 215 011

Purity tables with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 and Ar parent gases Table 10 Purity table for N2 Monoblock Main component N2 Mole fraction 999998672

P a g e | 176

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

Ar 0916 0011

O2 00015 00009

CO2 00025 00014

H2 00025 00014

CH4 00025 00014

CO 00025 00014

H2O 040 020

Table 11 Purity table for O2 Cylinder N 910281 Main component O2 Mole fraction 999999381

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

H2 00025 00014

Ar 0181 0004

N2 0307 0012

Kr 00025 00014

CO 00075 00043

CH4 00347 00008

CO2 0081 0005

Xe 00025 00014

Table 12 Purity table for Ar Cylinder N 283162 Main component Ar Mole fraction 999998209

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

O2 00231 00013

N2 1188 0015

CH4 0015 0009

CO2 0030 0017

H2 0025 0014

CO 0010 0006

H2O 050 001

c) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures

P a g e | 177

Preparation of final mixtures (СO2 in synthetic air) was carried out from pure substances in 2 stages 1-st stage ndash 3 mixtures СO2N2 ndashlevel 11 2-nd stage ndash 3x3 target mixtures СO2synthetic air All the mixtures were prepared in Luxfer cylinders (V=10 and 5 dm3) d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures CRDS analyzer was used for verification 4 measurement series were carried out within each verification procedure SD of a single measurement (reproducibility between series) was 0003 -0006 CRDS analyzer was used for verification Instrument Picarro G2401 Measurement cell temperature 45оС Measurement cell pressure 18665 kPa Data collection by ldquoPicarro Incrdquo software CRDS analyzer was used for δ13C measurements Instrument Picarro G2131i Reference materials used for calibration IAEA‐CO‐8 IAEA‐CH‐7 Measurement cell temperature 45оС Measurement cell pressure 18665 kPa Data collection by ldquoPicarro Incrdquo software e) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM The final mixtures were prepared 0310 -13102016 First verification measurement was carried out 1710 -2110 2016 Second verification measurement was carried out 2610 -28102016 Verification measurements were performed by checking consistency within the group of the 3x3 prepared mixtures uver =0003 Stability testing (short-term) did not show instability within the accuracy of the measurement method Long-term stability testing (measurements 2108-23082017 and 0910-11102017) did not show instability within the accuracy of the measurement method f) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

89 MPa for M365601 90 MPa for M365664 93 MPa for M365707

P a g e | 178

VSL

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 179

P a g e | 180

P a g e | 181

Page 2: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM

P a g e | 2

Contents

1 RATIONALE FOR COMPARISON 4

2 MEASURAND QUANTITIES AND UNITS 4

3 PARTICIPANTS 4

4 SCHEDULE 5

41 Measurement order 5

5 MEASUREMENT STANDARDS 7

6 PREPARATION VALUES SUBMITTED AND STABILITY MEASUREMENTS BY PARTICIPANTS 8

7 MEASUREMENTS AT THE BIPM 9

71 Measurements results 10

72 Graphical representation of measurement results 19

73 Isotope ratios of CCQM-K120 standards 26

8 KEY COMPARISON REFERENCE VALUE (KCRV) 28

81 Degrees of equivalence and graph of equivalence 29 KCRV calculations for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 30 KCRV calculations for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 30 KCRV calculations for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 30

9 CONCLUSIONS 36

10 lsquoHOW FAR THE LIGHT SHINESrsquo STATEMENT 36

BIBLIOGRAPHY 37

ANNEX I- DECISIONS OF THE 38TH MEETING OF THE CCQM GAWG (16-17 APRIL 2018) 38

ANNEX II- STABILITY STUDIES BY PARTICIPANTS 40

ANNEX III- GC-FID RESULTS 42 GC-FID based candidate reference values for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 42 GC-FID based candidate reference values for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 42 GC-FID based candidate reference values for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 43

ANNEX IV- BIPM VALUE ASSIGNMENT PROCEDURE 48 GC-FID 48

P a g e | 3

FTIR 51 Delta Ray 55

ANNEX V - MEASUREMENT REPORTS OF PARTICIPANTS 57

NMIJ Measurements before return of cylinders 57

GUM Measurements before return of cylinders 63

INRIM Measurements before return of cylinders 67

KRISS Measurements before return of cylinders 74

LNE Measurements before return of cylinders 82

BFKH Measurements before return of cylinders 91 Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders 98

NIM Measurements before return of cylinders 104

NIST Measurements before return of cylinders 111 Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders 117

NMISA Measurements before return of cylinders 125

NOAA Measurements before return of cylinders 133

NPL Measurements before return of cylinders 139

NPLI Measurements before return of cylinders 144 Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders 149

UME Measurements before return of cylinders 151 Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders 157

VNIIM Measurements before return of cylinders 164 Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders 171

VSL Measurements before return of cylinders 178

P a g e | 4

1 Rationale for comparison CCQM‐K120a comparison involves preparing standards of carbon dioxide in air which are fit for purpose for the atmospheric monitoring community with stringent requirements on matrix composition and measurement uncertainty of the CO2 mole fraction This represents an analytical challenge and is therefore considered as a Track C comparison The comparison will underpin CMC claims for CO2 in air for standards and calibrations services for the atmospheric monitoring community matrix matched to real air over the mole fraction range of 250 μmolmol to 520 μmolmol CCQM‐K120b comparison tests core skills and competencies required in gravimetric preparation analytical certification and purity analysis It is considered as a Track A comparison It will underpin CO2 in air and nitrogen claims in a mole fraction range starting at the smallest participantrsquos reported expanded uncertainty and ending at 500 mmolmol Participants successful in this comparison may use their result in the flexible scheme and underpin claims for all core mixtures This study has involved a comparison at the BIPM of a suite of 44 gas standards prepared by each of the participating laboratories Fourteen laboratories took part in both comparisons (CCQM-K120a CCQM-K120b) and just one solely in the CCQM-K120b comparison The standards were sent to the BIPM where the comparison measurements were performed Two measurement methods were used to compare the standards to ensure no measurement method dependant bias GC-FID and FTIR spectroscopic analysis corrected for isotopic variation in the CO2 gases measured at the BIPM using absorption laser spectroscopy Following the advice of the CCQM Gas Analysis Working Group results from the FTIR method were used to

calculate the key comparison reference values

2 Measurand quantities and Units The measurand is the mole fraction of carbon dioxide in air with measurement results being expressed in molmol (or one of its multiples mmolmol μmolmol or nmolmol)

3 Participants This study involved a simultaneous comparison of a suite of 44 gas standards prepared by each of the participating laboratories Fourteen laboratories took part in both comparisons (CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b BFKH GUM KRISS LNE NIM NIST NMIJ NMISA NOAA

P a g e | 5

NPL NPLI UME VNIIM and VSL) and only one solely in the CCQM-K120b comparison (INRIM)

4 Schedule The revised schedule for the project was as follows April 2016 ndash October 2016 Mixture preparation verification and stability tests by participants November 2016 ndash February 2017 Shipment of cylinders to the BIPM (to arrive by 1 of December) February 2017 ndash April 2017 Analysis of mixtures by the BIPM (details below) May 2017 ndash July 2017 Shipment of cylinders from the BIPM to participants August 2017 ndash November 2017 2nd set of analysis of mixtures by participants January 2018 Distribution of Draft A of this report May 2018 Distribution of Draft B of this report

41 Measurement order The forty four cylinders of the comparison were separated into batches and analyzed in the sequence described in Table 1 Each batch was made up of the participantsrsquo cylinders control cylinders for ratio calculations and additional cylinders for quality control The FTIR measurements were organized in fourteen batches comprised each of four participantrsquos cylinders including two control cylinders for ratio calculation and one for quality control For GC-FID measurements the cylinders were divided into nine batches Batches were composed of between four and six participantsrsquo cylinders three control cylinders (A B and C) for ratio quantification and additional cylinders if required to maintain the total batch size of nine standards Table 1 lists in detail the schedule of the GC-FID and FTIR measurements The Delta Ray measurements were organized in 12 batches containing four cylinders each and two calibration cylinders These measurements were performed during weeks 14 15 and 16

P a g e | 6

Week in 2017 Batch GC‐FID Batch FTIR measurements measurements

NIST FB04278 379045 NOAA CC310084 379500 6 GC1 VSL 5604614 378900

(6‐10 February) NPL 2179 380270 NMIJ CPC00486 386617

VNIIM M365601 380200 7 GC2 LNE 1029045 379480

(13‐17 February) KRISS D500642 378900 NIM FB03747 383430

GUM D298392 380100 BFKH OMH54 379840 8 GC3 UME PSM298266 379920

(20‐24 February) NPLI JJ108891 375720 NMISA M51 8232 380200

NIST FB04300 472662 NOAA CC305198 479260 9 GC4 VSL 5604880 480480

(27 February‐ 3 March) NPL 2170 480020 NMIJ CPC00494 471301

VNIIM M365664 480180 NIST FB04278 37904510 GC5 LNE 1029047 477600 FT‐1 NOAA CC310084 379500

(6‐10 March) KRISS D500647 480000 NPL 2179 380270

NIM FB03744 489150 NMIJ CPC00486 386617

GUM D298393 478100 FT‐2 NMIJ CPC00486 386617 BFKH OMH44 479890 VNIIM M365601 380200

11 GC6 UME PSM266468 480420 KRISS D500642 378900 (13‐17 March) NPLI JJ108862 480520 FT‐3 NIM FB03747 383430

NMISA M51 8167 479500 LNE 1029045 379480

INRIM D247440 479300

NIST FB04287 794533 FT‐4 GUM D298392 380100 NOAA CB11668 794080 NMISA M51 8232 380200

12 GC7 VSL 5604705 795700 BFKH OMH54 379840 (20‐24 March) NPL 2181 799700 FT‐5 UME PSM298266 379920

NMIJ CPC00558 803658 NPLI JJ108891 375720

VNIIM M365707 800730 NIST FB04300 472662 LNE 1029048 802200 FT‐6 NOAA CC305198 47926013 GC8 KRISS D500672 800800 VSL 5604880 480480

(27‐31 March) NIM FB03748 809820 NPL 2170 480020 GUM D298402 800500 FT‐7 NMIJ CPC00494 471301

BFKH OMH69 800300 VNIIM M365664 480180

UME PSM298347 800760 FT‐8 LNE 1029047 47760014 GC9 NPLI JJ108854 796380 KRISS D500647 480000

(3‐7 April) NMISA M51 8244 799100 NIM FB03744 489150 INRIM D247445 798900 FT‐9 GUM D298393 478100

BFKH OMH44 479890

UME PSM266468 480420 FT‐10 NPLI JJ108862 480520 NMISA M51 8167 479500 INRIM D247440 479300

NIST FB04287 79453315 FT‐11 NOAA CB11668 794080

(10‐14 April) VSL 5604705 795700

NPL 2181 799700 FT‐12 NMIJ CPC00558 803658 VNIIM M365707 800730 LNE 1029048 802200

KRISS D500672 800800 FT‐13 NIM FB03748 809820

P a g e | 7

GUM D298402 800500 BFKH OMH69 800300

UME PSM298347 80076016 FT‐14 NPLI JJ108854 796380

(17‐21 April) NMISA M51 8244 799100 INRIM D247445 798900

Table 1 Schedule of the CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b measurements

5 Measurement standards Each laboratory taking part in the CCQM-K120a comparison was requested to produce one standard at the nominal mole fraction of 380 micromolmol and another at the mole fraction 480 micromolmol For those taking part in the CCQM-K120b comparison the standards were requested at the nominal mole fractions of 480 micromolmol and 800 micromolmol The mole fraction of carbon dioxide was requested to be within plusmn 10 micromolmol of the nominal mole fractions of the cylinders The carbon dioxide was requested to be produced in a dry air matrix produced from scrubbed real air or synthetic air that has been blended from pure gases that are the main constituents of air (nitrogen oxygen argon) and two other constituents (nitrous oxide and methane)The table below describes the limits of the gas matrix composition of the scrubbed dry real air and synthetic air which were to be met by participants Species lsquoAmbientrsquo

level mole fraction

Unit Min mole fraction

Unit Max mole fraction

Unit

N2 0780876 molmol 07804 molmol 07814 molmol O2 02093335 molmol 02088 molmol 02098 molmol Ar 00093332 molmol 00089 molmol 00097 molmol CH4 1900 nmolmol 0 nmolmol 1900 nmolmol N2O 330 nmolmol 0 nmolmol 330 nmolmol Table 2 CCQM-K120a matrix composition limit values(380 micromol mol and 480 micromolmol CO2 in airdagger) daggerEach participating laboratory was required to submit two standards one with nominal CO2 mole fraction of (370 to 390) micromolmol and the second with (470 to 490) micromolmol Species lsquoAmbientrsquo

level mole fraction

Unit Min mole fraction

Unit Max mole fraction

Unit

N2 0780876 molmol 07789 molmol 07829 molmol O2 02093335 molmol 02073 molmol 02113 molmol Ar 00093332 molmol 00078 molmol 00108 molmol CH4 1900 nmolmol 0 nmolmol 1900 nmolmol N2O 330 nmolmol 0 nmolmol 330 nmolmol

Table 3 CCQM-K120b matrix composition limits values(480 micromol mol and 800 micromolmol CO2 in airDagger)DaggerEach participating laboratory was required to submit two standards one with nominal CO2 mole fraction of (470 to 490) micromolmol and the second with (790 to 810) micromolmol (A laboratory participating in both CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b need only submit 3 standards in total)

P a g e | 8

Aditionally the following information was requested from each participant

In the case of standards produced with synthetic air

- a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas - a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar N2O and CH4 parent

gas - a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures - a purity table for each of the final mixtures including gravimetric uncertainties - a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures - a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared

and the time they are shipped to the BIPM

In the case of standards produced with scrubbed lsquorealrsquo air

- a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas - results of the analysis and mole fractions and uncertainties of N2 O2 Ar N2O and CH4 in

the scrubbed real air - a brief outline of the preparation procedure of the final mixtures - a composition table for each of the final mixtures including gravimetric uncertainties

when relevant - a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures - a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared

and the time they are shipped to the BIPM

6 Preparation values submitted and stability measurements by participants

Information on mixtures submitted by participating laboratories via the comparison submission forms on initial submission and after stability testing of cylinders is included in ANNEX V The CO2 mole fractions submitted by participants are listed in Table 5 where

xNMI is the value assigned by the participating NMIs

U(xNMI) is the expanded uncertainty including contributions from verification associated with the assigned value xNMI The comparison protocol permitted stability testing to be performed by laboratories after standards had been returned to them by the BIPM and before the comparison results were known As a result three laboratories provided new values and uncertainties namely NIST NPLI and BFKH In addition UME modified the uncertainty budget only and resubmitted this to the comparison organizers This subject was discussed during the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018) and it was agreed that only the uncertainties resubmitted by UME (Table 15) will replace the original uncertainties NIST NPLI BFKH resubmitted values and

P a g e | 9

uncertainties will only be reported in an annex (see ANNEX II- ) (Table 15) with no influence on the KCRV and the degree of equivalence (DOE) of the comparison Figure 1 plots the CO2 mole fraction reported by the participants for each gas standard In this figure the error bars represent the standard uncertainty associated with the reported value It can be observed that participants prepared all mixtures with a CO2 mole fraction within 10 micromol mol-1 of the nominal values as requested At 380 micromolmol NPLI submitted the mixture with the smallest CO2 mole fraction 37572plusmn322 micromolmol and NIMJ with the highest 38662plusmn005 micromolmol At 480 micromolmol NIMJ produced the lowest mole fraction 47130plusmn005 micromolmol and NIM the highest 48915plusmn022 micromolmol At 800 micromolmol NOAA produced the lowest mole fraction 79408plusmn048 micromolmol and NIM the highest 80982plusmn026 micromolmol The expanded uncertainties reported by the participants are plotted in Figure 2 Regarding the gas matrix composition thirty-five standards were produced in synthetic air and nine in purified (scrubbed) real air (see Table 5) The compositions of the mixtures reported by participants are listed in Table 6 Seven standards out of forty-four mixtures were not within specifications (gas mixture composition) as requested in the comparison protocol1

7 Measurements at the BIPM

On receipt by the BIPM all cylinders were allowed to equilibrate at laboratory temperature for at least 24 hours All cylinders were rolled for at least 1 hour to ensure homogeneity of the mixture

Cylinders were analysed in batches of n cylinders first by GC-FID then by FTIR and finally by the Delta Ray

For FTIR measurements each batch contained 4 cylinders from participants and 2 controls (at nominal mole fractions of 480 and 800 micromolmol) Each cylinder was connected from the pressure reducer to one inlet of a 32-inlet automatic gas sampler The procedure before starting measurements was identical as described below for GC-FID The reported value is the drift corrected ratio between the FTIR response and one control cylinder (at ~ 800 micromol mol-1) with a further correction required to take into account the isotopic composition of each mixtures Due to depletion of the control cylinder at nominally 480 micromolmol before completion of all measurements only ratios against the 800 micromolmol cylinder could be calculated for all standards Further details regarding the FTIR measurements are described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure FTIR

1 This nominal fraction limits were given in order to avoid possible biases that could be introduced into the spectroscopic comparison method (FTIR) due to variation in the composition of the air matrix in different standards For those standards that did not meet the tolerances specified in the protocol the BIPM included an additional uncertainty component in its FTIR analytical uncertainty to account for the impact of this

P a g e | 10

When the cylinders were analysed by GC-FID batches were composed of between four and six participantsrsquo cylinders three control cylinders (A B and C at nominal mole fractions of 380 480 and 800 micromolmol respectively) for ratio quantification and additional cylinders if required to maintain the total batch size of nine standards Each cylinder was connected from the pressure reducer to one inlet of a 16-inlet automatic gas sampler The sampler was connected to a gas chromatograph (GC-FID) The pressure reducer of each cylinder was flushed nine times with the mixture The cylinder valve was then closed leaving the high pressure side of the pressure reducer at the cylinder pressure and the low pressure side of the pressure reducer at ~300 kPa (abs) The cylinders were left stand at least 24 hours to allow conditioning of the pressure reducers The reported value was the drift corrected ratio between the GC-FID response and one control cylinder (at ~ 480 micromol mol-1) These measurements were performed under intermediate precision conditions (over ten weeks) Ratios against the other control cylinders were calculated but no substantial difference was observed with the ratio against the control cylinder at 480 micromolmol Further details regarding GC-FID measurements are described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure GC-FID

When the cylinders were analyzed by the Delta Ray each batch contained 4 cylinders from participants and 2 calibration standards Each cylinder was connected from the pressure reducer to one inlet of a 16-inlet automatic gas sampler The same procedure was again applied for flushing the gas lines Further details are described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure Delta Ray

The measurements performed by the Delta Ray analyser were only used to measure the isotopic ratios in each cylinder and further correct the FTIR responses due isotopic differences between the control cylinders and the samples as described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure FTIR In this manner the FTIR reported values for each cylinder were corrected for the isotopic composition and further ratioed to the response to a control cylinder (also corrected for the isotopic composition)

71 Measurements results

Measurements were performed at the BIPM from February to April 2017 Table 7 lists the inlet pressure before and after the standards were analyzed by the BIPM

Each cylinder was value assigned using the methods described in section 7 (details in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure)

Results of these series of measurements are listed in Table 8 where

FTR is the (mean) ratio between the FTIR response to the mixture under analysis and the control cylinder both corrected for the isotopic composition

FTRu is the standard uncertainty of the reported ratio based on FTIR measurements

(described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure FTIR)

wGCR is the reported value based on GC-FID measurements

P a g e | 11

GCRu the standard uncertainty of the reported value based on GC-FID (described in

ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure GC-FID) The δ13C and δ18O measurements on the VPDB-CO2 scale performed by Delta Ray are listed in Table 11 The typical uncertainties for each of the methods used by the BIPM are listed in Table 4

Comparison method name

Measurement quantity Symbol unit Typical relative

standard uncertainty ()

FTIR Ratio to control cylinder under intermediate precision condition FTR 1 0009

GC-FID Ratio to control cylinder under intermediate precision conditions wGCR 1 0007

Table 4 Comparison methods used during the CCQM-K120 international comparison and typical uncertainties obtained by the BIPM

Participant Cylinder references Gas Matrix

NMIrsquos assigned CO2 mole fraction xNMI

(micromol mol-1)

NMIrsquos assigned CO2

expanded uncertainty U(xNMI)

k = 2 (micromol mol-1)

Before the return of cylinders

BFKH OMH54 Synthetic Air 379840 1710

BFKH OMH44 Synthetic Air 479890 2110

BFKH OMH69 Synthetic Air 800300 2920

GUM D298392 Synthetic Air 380100 4400

GUM D298393 Synthetic Air 478100 5200

GUM D298402 Synthetic Air 800500 8600

INRIM D247440 Synthetic Air 479300 1600

INRIM D247445 Synthetic Air 798900 2600

KRISS D500642 Synthetic Air 378900 0200

KRISS D500647 Synthetic Air 480000 0200

KRISS D500672 Synthetic Air 800800 0400

LNE 1029045 Synthetic Air 379480 0790

LNE 1029047 Synthetic Air 477600 1000

LNE 1029048 Synthetic Air 802200 1700

NIM FB03747 Synthetic Air 383430 0200

NIM FB03744 Synthetic Air 489150 0220

NIM FB03748 Synthetic Air 809820 0260

NIST FB04278 Real Air 379045 0391

NIST FB04300 Real Air 472662 0428

NIST FB04287 Real Air 794533 1029

NMIJ CPC00486 Real Air 386617 0050

P a g e | 12

NMIJ CPC00494 Real Air 471301 0051

NMIJ CPC00558 Real Air 803658 0078

NMISA M51 8232 Synthetic Air 380200 2000

NMISA M51 8167 Synthetic Air 479500 1600

NMISA M51 8244 Synthetic Air 799100 1000

NOAA CC310084 Real Air 379500 0210

NOAA CC305198 Real Air 479260 0260

NOAA CB11668 Real Air 794080 0480

NPL 2179 Synthetic Air 380270 0190

NPL 2170 Synthetic Air 480020 0240

NPL 2181 Synthetic Air 799700 0400

NPLI JJ108891 Synthetic Air 375720 3220

NPLI JJ108862 Synthetic Air 480520 3040

NPLI JJ108854 Synthetic Air 796380 5030

UME PSM298266 Synthetic Air 379920 0190

UME PSM266468 Synthetic Air 480420 0250

UME PSM298347 Synthetic Air 800760 0360

VNIIM M365601 Synthetic Air 380200 0110

VNIIM M365664 Synthetic Air 480180 0130

VNIIM M365707 Synthetic Air 800730 0190

VSL 5604614 Synthetic Air 378900 0280

VSL 5604880 Synthetic Air 480480 0360

VSL 5604705 Synthetic Air 795700 0600

Table 5 Standards and reported values provided by participants Re-submitted values following stability testing which were included following the decision of the CCQM GAWG see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of

the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

Figure 1 CO2 mole fractions xNMI reported by participants The error bars represents the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the submitted values

GUM KRISS LNE NIM NMIJ NMISA NOAA NPL VNIIM VSL BFKH NIST NPLI UME374

376

378

380

382

384

386

GUM INRIM KRISS LNE NIM NMIJ NMISA NOAA NPL VNIIM VSL BFKH NIST NPLI UME460

465

470

475

480

485

490GUM INRIM KRISS LNE NMIJ NOAA NPL VNIIM VSL NIM NMISA BFKH NIST NPLI UME

792

796

800

804

808

812

x NM

I (

mol

mol

-1)

P a g e | 14

Figure 2 Participantsrsquo assigned CO2 expanded uncertainties U(xNMI)

NM

IJ

NM

IJ

NM

IJ

VN

IIM

VN

IIM

UM

E

UM

E

NP

L

VN

IIM

KR

ISS

KR

ISS

NIM

NO

AA

NIM

NP

L

NIM

NO

AA

UM

E

VS

L

VS

L

NIS

T

KR

ISS

NP

L

NIS

T

NO

AA

VS

L

LNE

LNE

NM

ISA

NIS

T

INR

IM

NM

ISA

BF

KH

LNE

NM

ISA

BF

KH

INR

IM

BF

KH

NP

LI

NP

LI

GU

M

NP

LI

GU

M

GU

M

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9U

(xN

MI)

m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 15

Participant Number of Cylinder

NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos

assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned

N2 expanded

uncertainty O2

expanded uncertainty

Ar expanded

uncertainty CH4 mole fraction

expanded uncertainty

N2O mole fraction

expanded uncertainty

mole fraction

k =2 mole fraction k=2 mole fraction k =2 k=2 k=2

xN2 U(xN2) xO2 U(xO2) xAr U(xAr) xNMI U(xNMI) xNMI U(xNMI)

(molmol) (molmol) (molmol) (molmol) (molmol) (molmol) (nmolmol) (nmolmol) (nmolmol) (nmolmol)

BFKH OMH54 0780390 0000160 0209615 0000048 0009607 0000017 1030 1200

BFKH OMH44 0780640 0000160 0209514 0000048 0009360 0000017 1030 1200

BFKH OMH69 0780720 0000160 0209161 0000048 0009314 0000017 1030 1200

GUM D298392 0780800 0000200 0209500 0000100 0009250 0000010

GUM D298393 0780700 0000200 0209600 0000100 0009190 0000010

GUM D298402 0780200 0000200 0209700 0000100 0009380 0000010

INRIM D247440 0781132 0000006 0209063 0000006 0009326 0000004

INRIM D247445 0782389 0000006 0207553 0000005 0009259 0000004

KRISS D500642 0781139 0000005 0209256 0000004 0009226 0000001 9 2 0200 0000

KRISS D500647 0780915 0000004 0209152 0000004 0009452 0000001 10 3 0200 0000

KRISS D500672 0780407 0000004 0209452 0000004 0009339 0000001 15 3 0200 0000

LNE 1029045 0780686 0000025 0209528 0000019 0009407 0000022

LNE 1029047 0781355 0000025 0208794 0000018 0009374 0000022

LNE 1029048 0782710 0000027 0207187 0000021 0009301 0000021

NIM FB03747 0782000 0000029 0209000 0000028 0009220 0000010 1 0 0791 0607

NIM FB03744 0781000 0000028 0210000 0000026 0009040 0000010 1 0 0790 0601

NIM FB03748 0781000 0000027 0210000 0000026 0007940 0000010 1 0 0790 0586

NIST FB04278 0780812 0000118 0209470 0000710 0009339 0000370

NIST FB04300 0780771 0000128 0209422 0000081 0009334 0000034

P a g e | 16

NIST FB04287 0780499 0000114 0209370 0000067 0009336 0000040

NMIJ CPC00486 0780915 0000025 0209365 0000007 0009334 0000024 2 2 0900 0900

NMIJ CPC00494 0780937 0000024 0209259 0000007 0009333 0000024 3 2 0900 0900

NMIJ CPC00558 0780602 0000022 0209270 0000006 0009325 0000021 3 2 0900 0900

NMISA M51 8232 0780700 0000048 0209600 0000015 0009400 0000005 7 4 0000 0000

NMISA M51 8167 0780900 0000028 0209600 0000011 0008900 0000005 9 6 0000 0000

NMISA M51 8244 0779300 0000031 0210600 0000016 0009300 0000005 10 6 0000 0000

NOAA CC310084 0209500 0000200 1762 3 317200 0500

NOAA CC305198 0209500 0000200 1887 4 328600 0500

NOAA CB11668 0209500 0000200 1889 4 328800 0500

NPL 2179 0780790 0000470 0209600 0000130 0009232 0000018 lt10 - lt10 0000

NPL 2170 0780690 0780690 0209500 0209500 0009334 0009334 lt10 - lt10 0000

NPL 2181 0780550 0000470 0209280 0000130 0009367 0000019 lt10 - lt10 0000

NPLI JJ108891 0781273 0002210 0209688 0000590 0009040 0000030

NPLI JJ108862 0781989 0002210 0208853 0000590 0009158 0000030

NPLI JJ108854 0781363 0002210 0209789 0000594 0008847 0000030

UME PSM298266 0780339 0000017 0209966 0000017 0009314 0000002

UME PSM266468 0779968 0000017 0210229 0000017 0009322 0000002

UME PSM298347 0779552 0000016 0210352 0000016 0009295 0000002

VNIIM M365601 0781015 0000013 0209188 0000013 0009416 0000005 9 2

VNIIM M365664 0780928 0000011 0209270 0000012 0009322 0000005 10 2

VNIIM M365707 0781000 0000011 0209199 0000012 0009000 0000005 10 2

VSL 5604614 0781177 0000017 0209152 0000016 0009292 0000006 16 7 0021 0024

VSL 5604880 0781092 0000017 0209146 0000016 0009281 0000006 16 7 0021 0024

VSL 5604705 0780708 0000017 0209246 0000015 0009251 0000006 16 7 0021 0024

Table 6 Matrix composition of the submitted gas mixtures according to participantsrsquo reports in ANNEX V Synthetic Air is identified as S A and Purified real air as R A No data given

P a g e | 17

Number Date of pressure on pressure on Number Date of pressure on pressure on

Lab of Cylinder arrival arrival departure Lab of Cylinder arrival arrival departure

Mpa Mpa Mpa Mpa

BFKH OMH54 1292016 995 776 NMISA M51 8232 19122016 1297 952

BFKH OMH44 1292016 959 784 NMISA M51 8167 19122016 96 709

BFKH OMH69 1292016 984 755 NMISA M51 8244 19122016 1061 572

GUM D298392 28092016 1446 1103 NOAA CC310084 322017 1348 1282

GUM D298393 28092016 1523 116 NOAA CC305198 322017 1342 1284

GUM D298402 28092016 1505 108 NOAA CB11668 322017 1194 1138

INRIM D247440 13012017 897 534 NPL 2179 9122016 1046 855

INRIM D247445 13012017 922 544 NPL 2170 9122016 1119 94

KRISS D500642 20122016 927 739 NPL 2181 9122016 1112 935

KRISS D500647 20122016 884 711 NPLI JJ108891 922017 10 836

KRISS D500672 20122016 905 703 NPLI JJ108862 922017 105 897

LNE 1029045 28112016 1311 1113 NPLI JJ108854 922017 982 811

LNE 1029047 28112016 1287 1113 UME PSM298266 23112016 903 582

LNE 1029048 28112016 1322 1141 UME PSM266468 23112016 908 546

NIM FB03747 14122016 82 527 UME PSM298347 23112016 918 542

NIM FB03744 14122016 865 593 VNIIM M365601 512017 84 43

NIM FB03748 14122016 802 473 VNIIM M365664 512017 866 537

NIST FB04278 312017 1003 725 VNIIM M365707 512017 853 527

NIST FB04300 312017 1023 746 VSL 5604614 15112016 1049 634

NIST FB04287 312017 1005 721 VSL 5604880 15112016 1012 68

NMIJ CPC00486 922017 957 753 VSL 5604705 15112016 1045 707

NMIJ CPC00494 922017 928 752

NMIJ CPC00558 922017 84 677

Table 7 Pressure of the gas standards on arrival and departure from the BIPM

P a g e | 18

xNMI u(xNMI)

FTR

FTRu

wGCR

GCRu

Participant

Number of Cylinder

Assigned NMIrsquos CO2 mole

fraction in

(micromolmol)

Assigned NMIrsquos

Standard uncertainty

(k=1) (micromolmol)

FTIR (Under intermediate precision conditions)

Ratio to control

cylinder

Standard uncertainty in the Ratio to

control cylinder

GC-FID

(Under intermediate precision conditions)

Ratio to control

cylinder

Standard uncertainty in the Ratio to control

cylinder

BFKH OMH54 379800 0855 0435893607 0000026077 0787699648 0000056828 BFKH OMH44 479900 1055 0539981600 0000030887 0976036480 0000059163

BFKH OMH69 800300 1460 0930134790 0000079551 1681896740 0000095864

GUM D298392 380100 2200 0441372447 0000014142 0797442344 0000052495

GUM D298393 478100 2600 0555225000 0000027459 1003704868 0000094363

GUM D298402 800500 4300 0929933927 0000085245 1681786329 0000104750

INRIM D247440 479300 0800 0556774608 0000200000 1006168965 0000071077

INRIM D247445 798900 1300 0927989884 0000059393 1677871699 0000087418

KRISS D500642 378900 0100 0440414238 0000026926 0795445471 0000074696

KRISS D500647 480000 0100 0557780245 0000035341 1008228786 0000056189

KRISS D500672 800800 0200 0930402740 0000108930 1682410057 0000106300

LNE 1029045 379480 0395 0440901535 0000025239 0796419628 0000056088

LNE 1029047 477600 0500 0554855777 0000046174 1002959828 0000101902

LNE 1029048 802200 0850 0932191570 0000046232 1685756190 0000102865

NIM FB03747 383430 0100 0445715112 0000021260 0804945901 0000057626

NIM FB03744 489150 0110 0568919872 0000044283 1028323070 0000061887

NIM FB03748 809820 0130 0941620390 0000127224 1702705250 0000084949

NIST FB04278 379045 0195 0441858957 0000014036 0798159371 0000076697

NIST FB04300 472662 0214 0550247743 0000021932 0994649947 0000056864

NIST FB04287 794530 0514 0924730373 0000047693 1672406610 0000052361

NMIJ CPC00486 386617 0025 0449318716 0000022804 0811714164 0000057115

NMIJ CPC00494 471301 0026 0547653232 0000049336 0989730987 0000128859

NMIJ CPC00558 803658 0039 0933998556 0000062657 1689072068 0000061122

NMISA M51 8232 380200 1000 0441463446 0000030414 0797746449 0000071374

NMISA M51 8167 479500 0800 0556816358 0000063789 1006620384 0000139031

NMISA M51 8244 799100 0500 0927761085 0000058032 1678197948 0000120968

NOAA CC310084 379500 0105 0441196927 0000016125 0796836602 0000097427

NOAA CC305198 479260 0130 0557198873 0000046487 1007173065 0000061590

NOAA CB11668 794080 0240 0923707672 0000052071 1670538345 0000102943

NPL 2179 380270 0095 0442066316 0000015232 0798660385 0000055036

NPL 2170 480020 0120 0557939086 0000029155 1008480431 0000075981

NPL 2181 799700 0200 0929525453 0000066014 1680929399 0000081883

NPLI JJ108891 375720 1610 0435541280 0000044283 0786899117 0000051131

NPLI JJ108862 480520 1520 0558985244 0000078492 1010295612 0000070031

NPLI JJ108854 796380 2515 0923587308 0000048435 1670046415 0000092977

UME PSM298266 37992 0095 0441777548 0000066603 0798242598 0000076656

UME PSM266468 48042 0125 0558597569 0000077666 1009847197 0000062025

UME PSM298347 800760 0180 0930853610 0000059811 1683852629 0000186416

P a g e | 19

Table 8 Results of BIPM CO2 comparison measurements Re-submitted values following stability testing which were included following the decision of the CCQM GAWG (see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the

CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018))

72 Graphical representation of measurement results

Table 9 summarizes the figures showing the measurements results obtained by different methods at the BIPM

Table 9 List of figures corresponding to results obtained from FTIR and GC-FID at the BIPM

VNIIM M365601 380200 0055 0441966430 0000016643 0798479627 0000066343

VNIIM M365664 480180 0065 0558130273 0000048384 1008861333 0000059090

VNIIM M365707 800730 0095 0930604477 0000058131 1683192751 0000075295

VSL 5604614 378900 0140 0440539300 0000017205 0795901702 0000077266

VSL 5604880 480480 0180 0558580000 0000018028 1009802467 0000054009

VSL 5604705 795700 0300 0925375760 0000052705 1673272267 0000122172

Comparison method

CO2 mole fraction Plot

FTIR ( Ratio to control cylinder under intermediate precision conditions) 380 micromolmol Figure 3 480 micromolmol Figure 4 800 micromolmol Figure 5 GC-FID (Ratio to control cylinder under intermediate precision conditions)

380 micromolmol Figure 6 480 micromolmol Figure 7 800 micromolmol Figure 8

P a g e | 20

FTIR

Figure 3 FTIR ratios to control standard for the cylinders at nominally 380 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

374 376 378 380 382 384 386 3880434

0436

0438

0440

0442

0444

0446

0448

0450

GUM

KRISS

LNE

NIM

NMIJ

NMISANOAA

NPLVNIIM

VSL

BFKH

NIST

NPLI

UMERFT

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 21

Figure 4 FTIR ratios to control standard for the cylinders at nominally 480 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

460 465 470 475 480 485 490

0540

0545

0550

0555

0560

0565

0570

GUM

INRIM

KRISS

LNE

NIM

NMIJ

NMISANOAA

NPLVNIIMVSL

BFKH

NIST

NPLIUME

RFT

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 22

Figure 5 FTIR ratios to control standard for the cylinders at 800 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

792 794 796 798 800 802 804 806 808 810 8120922

0924

0926

0928

0930

0932

0934

0936

0938

0940

0942

0944

GUM

INRIM

KRISS

LNE

NMIJ

NOAA

NPL

VNIIM

VSL

NIM

NMISA

BFKH

NIST

NPLI

UME

RFT

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 23

GC-FID

Figure 6 GC-FID ratios to control standard for the cylinders at nominally 380 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

374 376 378 380 382 384 386 388

0785

0790

0795

0800

0805

0810

0815

KRISSVSL

LNENOAA

GUMNMISA

VNIIMNPL

NIM

NMIJ

BFKH

NIST

NPLI

UME

RG

C

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 24

Figure 7 GC-FID ratios to control standard for the cylinders at 480 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

460 465 470 475 480 485 490097

098

099

100

101

102

103

NMIJ

LNEGUM

NOAAINRIMNMISA

KRISSNPLVNIIMVSL

NIM

BFKH

NIST

NPLIUME

RG

C

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 25

Figure 8 GC-FID ratios to control standard for the cylinders at 800 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

792 794 796 798 800 802 804 806 808 810 8121665

1670

1675

1680

1685

1690

1695

1700

1705

NOAA

VSL

INRIMNMISA

NPLGUM

VNIIM

LNE

NMIJ

KRISS

NIM

BFKH

NIST

NPLI

UMERG

C

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 26

73 Isotope ratios of CCQM-K120 standards The δ13C and δ18O values reported by participants are listed in Table 10 The delta values of the complete set of cylinders on the VPDB-CO2 scale were also measured by the BIPM using the Delta Ray analyser to correct the FTIR response The measured isotope ratio values are listed Table 11 The method for measuring and calibrating the Delta Ray is fully described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure Delta Ray The method used by the BIPM for measuring isotope ratios is described in a recent publication5 and was validated with CO2 in air standards that had been value assigned for their isotopic composition by the WMO-CCL laboratory for isotope ratios MPI-BGC Jena with traceability of the standards used to the VPDB-CO2 scale realized with the JENA air standards reference set The measurements made by the BIPM have been used for all corrections made in the FTIR comparison method and were considered fit for purpose noting that a 1 permil difference in δ13C measurements can lead to a bias of 0004 micromolmol in CO2 mole fraction measurements in instruments based on a spectroscopic technique and similarly a 0002 micromolmol bias from a 1 permil difference in δ18O measurements Reported values for isotopic composition by participants were for information only The agreement between reported values and BIPM measured values is variable For δ13C values the difference between BIPM measured values and those reported by participants was smaller than 04 permil for NMIJ NPL and NOAA smaller than 2 permil for UME and VNIIM and almost 12 permil for NIST (noting that the NIST reported at the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG that this had been a typographical error on their part and the NIST and BIPM values were actually in full agreement) For δ18O values the difference between BIPM measured values and those reported by participants is smaller than 3 permil for NMIJ and NOAA and almost 10 permil for NPL The compatibility of CO2 isotope ratio measurements will be the focus of a future CCQM GAWG comparison enabling sources for differences to be studied in greater detail

Lab Number of Cylinder

δ13C on VPDB-CO2 scale

u(δ13C) Standard uncertainty (k=1)

δ18O on VPDB-CO2 scale

u(δ18O) Standard uncertainty (k=1) Comments

(permil) (permil) (permil) (permil)

NIST FB04278 -28 2 - -

NIST FB04300 -28 2 - -

NIST FB04287 -28 2 - -

NMIJ 3BIS85282 -892 - -991 - CO2 pure

NOAA CC310084 -87 02 -03 02

NOAA CC305198 -88 02 -64 02

NOAA CB11668 -85 04 -197 04

NPL 2179 -55 05 -225 05

NPL 2170 -55 05 -225 05

NPL 2181 -55 05 -225 05

UME PSM298266 -165 005 - - CO2 pure

VNIIM M365601 -48 045 - -

VNIIM M365664 -48 045 - -

VNIIM M365707 -48 045 - -

Table 10 δ13C and δ18

O values reported by participants value measured by the gas supplier according to the participant

P a g e | 27

Lab

Number of Cylinder

δ13C on VPDB-

CO2 scale

u(δ13C) Standard

uncertainty (k=1)

δ18O on VPDB-

CO2 scale

u(δ18O) Standard

uncertainty (k=1) Lab

Number of Cylinder

δ13C on VPDB-

CO2 scale

u(δ13C) Standard

uncertainty (k=1)

δ18O on VPDB-

CO2 scale

u(δ18O) Standard

uncertainty (k=1)

(permil) (permil) (permil) (permil) NMIJ CPC00558 -897 018 -1166 048

BFKH OMH54 -6676 018 -1723 048 NMISA M51 8232 -321 018 -2661 048

BFKH OMH44 -6653 018 -1734 048 NMISA M51 8167 -3209 018 -2655 048

BFKH OMH69 -6691 018 -2615 048 NMISA M51 8244 -3189 018 -2646 048

GUM D298392 -4431 018 -2877 048 NOAA CC310084 -886 018 -032 048

GUM D298393 -4432 018 -2865 048 NOAA CC305198 -891 018 -906 048

GUM D298402 -4418 018 -2847 048 NOAA CB11668 -888 018 -2128 048

INRIM D247440 -4927 018 -3436 048 NPL 2179 -522 018 -3231 048

INRIM D247445 -4952 018 -3449 048 NPL 2170 -521 018 -317 048

KRISS D500642 -2338 018 -1749 048 NPL 2181 -525 018 -3174 048

KRISS D500647 -2341 018 -1903 048 NPLI JJ108891 -887 018 -1087 048

KRISS D500672 -2334 018 -1884 048 NPLI JJ108862 -917 018 -1131 048

LNE 1029045 -3781 018 -2861 048 NPLI JJ108854 -915 018 -1149 048

LNE 1029047 -3786 018 -2775 048 UME PSM298266 -007 018 -2481 048

LNE 1029048 -3811 018 -2804 048 UME PSM266468 -005 018 -2453 048

NIM FB03747 -2055 018 -3007 048 UME PSM298347 016 018 -2446 048

NIM FB03744 -2052 018 -2978 048 VNIIM M365601 -4643 018 -2661 048

NIM FB03748 -2062 018 -2995 048 VNIIM M365664 -4635 018 -2584 048

NIST FB04278 -3983 018 -3092 048 VNIIM M365707 -4647 018 -2594 048

NIST FB04300 -3985 018 -3048 048 VSL 5604614 -3957 018 -3288 048

NIST FB04287 -3983 018 -3053 048 VSL 5604880 -3969 018 -3224 048

NMIJ CPC00486 -891 018 -987 048 VSL 5604705 -3574 018 -3064 048

NMIJ CPC00494 -903 018 -1184 048

Table 11 δ13C and δ18O value assignment vs VPDB-CO2 for each CO2 in air standard

P a g e | 28

In the case of the CCQM-K120a comparison it should be noted that the isotopic composition of CO2 at background levels in the atmosphere would be expected to have values close to the nominal values of -85 permil for δ13C and of 0 permil for δ18O when expressed on the VPDB-CO2 scale The standards submitted for the CCQM-K120a comparison had δ13C values that varied between -67 permil to 0 permil and δ18O values that varied between -35 permil to 0 permil This range of isotopic composition could result in measurement biases of up to 03 micromolmol in spectroscopic instruments for which isotopic composition had not been taken into account

8 Key Comparison Reference Value (KCRV)

During the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG it was agreed that the key comparison

reference values for CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b were to be calculated using

the measurement results of the FTIR spectrometer

Several statistical approaches all based on least-square regressions of measurement results obtained at the same nominal mole fraction were presented during 38th meeting of the

CCQM GAWG (GAWG18-32 ) From this analysis it was agreed to fit the FTIR results versus the participantrsquos submitted values with a line using the

Generalised Least Square approach defined in the standard ISO 614320019 (Gas analysis ndash Comparison methods for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures) It was also agreed to select the largest subset of cylinders

contributing to the regression line so as to obtain a consistent set with

regard to the regression ie a set that allows the goodness-of-fit parameter

to be less than 2 The measure of goodness-of-fit is defined as the

maximum value of the weighted differences between the coordinates of measured

and adjusted points (both on the x and the y axes) For all regressions the normalized sum of the squared weighted deviations where n is the number of points and p = 2 the number of parameters of the fit is also

provided for indication Both values are expected to be lower than 2 with the

condition on being stricter as it imposes all points to comply with the

fit

Notation The degree of equivalence is defined as

D = (1)

where

P a g e | 29

xKCRV is the amount of substance fraction in the cylinder predicted by the linear analysis function for the corresponding analyzer response (ratio to the control cylinder by FTIR)

u(xKCRV) is the standard uncertainty of the KCRV value

xNMI is the amount of substance fraction reported by the participating laboratory u(xNMI) is the standard uncertainty associated with the reported value xNMI

D is difference in amount of substance fraction as measured by the laboratory and

the reference value x and u(D) is the standard uncertainty of this difference expressed as

= (2)

and the expanded uncertainty at 95 confidence level )()( DukDU (3) where k denotes the coverage factor taken as k = 2 (normal distribution approximately 95 level of confidence)

81 Degrees of equivalence and graph of equivalence The analysis of the data from the comparison was performed following the process outlined in ISO 61432001 The regression analysis was performed with XLGenlinev11 a computer programme developed by NPL which implements this methodology by taking into consideration uncertainties in both axes During the 38th meeting of the GAWG it was decided that due the potential adsorption of a proportion of CO2 molecules onto the internal surface of a cylinder and valve (that can cause a deviation from the gravimetric amount fraction by as much as 100 nmol mol-1 demonstrated by Brewer et al2 ) a lower limit for uncertainties that could be used in the calculation of the KCRV was to be fixed It was decided that any standard uncertainty value lower than 0095 micromol mol-1 submitted by a participant was to be replaced by this value for the calculation of the KCRV The limit value was chosen based on the lowest uncertainty that had been reported by a participant for which adsorption effects had been considered (in this case NPL with cylinder 2179) In this manner the original uncertainties for the KCRV calculation of standards CPC00486 (NMIJ

P a g e | 30

original uncertainty 0025 micromol mol-1) CPC00494 (NMIJ original uncertainty 0025 micromol mol-

1) CPC00558 (NMIJ original uncertainty 0039 micromol mol-1) 00255 M365601 (VNIIM original uncertainty 0055 micromol mol-1) and M365664 (VNIIM original uncertainty 0065 micromol mol-1) were replaced by 0095 micromol mol-1 This cutoff was only applied to calculate the KCRVs The degree of equivalences were calculated using the uncertainties submitted by participants (equation 1)

KCRV calculations for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 With the FTIR measurement data set the set of self-consistent standards identified included eleven standards Three standards were excluded namely OMH54 (BFKH) FB04278 (NIST) and JJ108891 (NPLI) as these laboratories had reported changes in their reported values following stability testing The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 074 and the normalized sum of the squared weighted deviations 11 2 0227 Key comparison reference values and degrees of equivalence are listed in Table 12 Degrees of equivalence are plotted in Figure 9

KCRV calculations for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 With the FTIR measurement data set the set of self-consistent standards identified included twelve standards Three standards were excluded namely OMH44 (BFKH) FB03744 (NIST) and JJ108862 (NPLI) as these laboratories had reported changes in their reported values following stability testing The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 136 and the normalized sum of the squared weighted deviations 12 2 0463 The resulting key comparison reference values and degrees of equivalence are listed in Table 13 Degrees of equivalence are plotted in Figure 10

KCRV calculations for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1

Several statistical approaches were presented during the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (GAWG18-32 see ANNEX II- ) comprising different alternatives of sets of self-consistent standards From those the GAWG selected a solution where the two extreme mole fractions at this nominal mole fraction FB03748 (NIM 810424 micromol mol-1) and CB11668 (NOAA 794608 micromol mol-1) were removed from the set of self-consistent standards The solution involved then including ten cylinders for KCRV calculations Five were excluded namely FB03748 (NIM) CB11668 (NOAA) OMH69 (BFKH) FB04287 (NIST) and JJ108854 (NPLI) The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 180 and the normalized sum of the squared weighted deviations 10 2 0950 Key

P a g e | 31

comparison reference values and degrees of equivalence are listed in Table 14 Degrees of equivalence are plotted in Figure 11

Participant Cylinder

xKCRV u(xKCRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D1( xNMI- xKCRV ) u(D1) U( D1)

( XLGENLINE predictied

value from FTIR)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298392 379664 0044 380100 2200 0436 2200 4401

KRISS D500642 378828 0055 378900 0100 0072 0114 0228

LNE 1029045 379253 0051 379480 0395 0227 0398 0796

NIM FB03747 383453 0052 383430 0100 -0023 0113 0226

NMIJ CPC00486 386597 0088 386617 0025 0020 0091 0182

NMISA M51 8232 379743 0050 380200 1000 0457 1001 2002

NOAA CC310084 379511 0046 379500 0105 -0011 0115 0229

NPL 2179 380269 0041 380270 0095 0001 0103 0207

VNIIM M365601 380182 0042 380200 0055 0018 0069 0138

VSL 5604614 378937 0051 378900 0140 -0037 0149 0298

UME PSM298266 380017 0071 379920 0095 -0097 0118 0237

BFKH OMH54 374884 0099 379800 0850 4916 0856 1711

NIST FB04278 380088 0042 379045 0195 -1044 0200 0400

NPLI JJ108891 374576 0108 375720 1610 1144 1614 3227

Table 12 Degrees of Equivalence using FTIR measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision of the the CCQM

GAWG Uncertainties below the cutoff value of 0095 micromol molminus1

Participant Cylinder

xKCRV u(xKCRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D2( xNMI- xKCRV ) u(D2) U( D2)

( XLGENLINE predictied value

from FTIR)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298393 477706 0051 478100 2600 0394 2601 5201

INRIM D247440 479007 0173 479300 0800 0293 0819 1637

KRISS D500647 479851 0052 480000 0100 0149 0113 0225

LNE 1029047 477397 0061 477600 0500 0203 0504 1007

NIM FB03744 489202 0099 489150 0110 ‐0052 0148 0296

NMIJ CPC00494 471351 0094 471301 0026 ‐0050 0097 0195

NMISA M51 8167 479042 0068 479500 0800 0458 0803 1606

NOAA CC305198 479363 0058 479260 0130 ‐0103 0142 0284

P a g e | 32

NPL 2170 479985 0049 480020 0120 0035 0130 0259

VNIIM M365664 480145 0059 480180 0065 0035 0088 0175

VSL 5604880 480523 0045 480480 0180 ‐0043 0186 0371

UME PSM266468 480537 0078 480420 0125 ‐0117 0147 0295

BFKH OMH44 464911 0138 479900 1050 14989 1059 2118

NIST FB04300 473529 0071 472662 0214 ‐0867 0225 0451

NPLI JJ108862 480863 0079 480520 1520 ‐0343 1522 3044

Table 13 Degrees of Equivalence using FTIR measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision of the the CCQM

GAWG Uncertainties below the cutoff value of 0095 micromol molminus1

Participant Cylinder

xKCRV u(xKCRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D3( xNMI- xKCRV ) u(D3) U( D3)

( XLGENLINE predictied value

from FTIR)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298402 800105 0106 800500 4300 0395 4301 8603

INRIM D247445 798389 0128 798900 1300 0511 1306 2613

KRISS D500672 800519 0118 800800 0200 0281 0232 0464

LNE 1029048 802099 0078 802200 0850 0101 0854 1707

NMIJ CPC00558 803694 0114 803658 0039 -0036 0120 0240

NPL 2181 799744 0101 799700 0200 -0044 0224 0448

NMISA M518244 798187 0132 799100 0500 0913 0517 1034

VNIIM M365707 800697 0084 800730 0095 0033 0127 0253

VSL 5604705 796080 0191 795700 0300 -0380 0356 0712

UME PSM298347 800917 0083 800760 0180 -0157 0198 0396

NIM FB03748 810424 0327 809820 0130 -0604 0351 0703

NOAA CB11668 794608 0237 794080 0240 -0528 0337 0674

BFKH OMH69 800282 0100 800300 1450 0018 1453 2907

NIST FB04287 795511 0208 794530 0514 -0981 0555 1109

NPLI JJ108854 794501 0239 796380 2515 1879 2526 5053

Table 14 Degrees of Equivalence using FTIR measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision of the the CCQM

GAWG Uncertainties below the cutoff value of 0095 micromol molminus1

P a g e | 33

Figure 9 Degrees of Equivalence at a nominal value of 380 micromolmol for CO2 mole fractions The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

KR

ISS

LNE

NIM

NM

IJ

NM

ISA

NO

AA

NP

L

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI-4

-2

0

2

4

D m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 34

Figure 10 Degrees of Equivalence at a nominal value of 480 micromolmol for CO2 mole fractions The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

INR

IM

KR

ISS

LNE

NIM

NM

IJ

NM

ISA

NO

AA

NP

L

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI

-4

-2

0

2

4

D m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 35

Figure 11 Degrees of Equivalence at a nominal value of 800 micromolmol for CO2 mole fractions The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

INR

IM

KR

ISS

LNE

NM

IJ

NP

L

NM

ISA

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

NIM

NO

AA

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI-4

-2

0

2

4

D m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 36

9 Conclusions The comparison have been successful in demonstrating the degrees of equivalence of CO2 in air standards amongst participating NMIs at nominal mole fractions of 380 micromolmol 480 micromolmol and 800 micromolmol In addition the results can be compared to those of CCQM-K52 (organized in 2006) allowing the following conclusions to be drawn

a) the uncertainy of the key comparison reference value has been reduced by a factor of at least 4 with a standard uncertainty of 005 micromolmol for CCQM-K120a (compared to 02 micromolmol for CCQM-K52)

b) methods based on spectroscopy (FTIR with corrections for isotope ratios) and GC-FID for comparing CO2 in air standards have demonstrated excellent agreement with the standard deviation of the difference in reference values found by the two methods being 007 micromolmol at 380 micromolmol and 005 micromolmol at 480 micromolmol

c) the uncertainties are now at the level where adsorption effects within cylinders and on

surfaces needs to be considered and this has led to a mnimium value of 0095 micromolmol being used as the standard uncertainty for standards for key comparison reference value calculation

d) providing standards to communities measuring atmospheric CO2 with spectroscopic

methods produced with CO2 originating from combustion sources can lead to isotope ratios in the CO2 which will produce biases in mole fractions measurements of up to 03 micromolmol These biases can be corrected by either measuring isotope ratios of the gas standard and appropriate processing by the user or by using CO2 which has been closely matched to atmospheric isotope ratio values in the production of the standard

10 lsquoHow far the light shinesrsquo statement The following lsquoHow far the light shinesrsquo statement agreed during the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG was CCQM‐K120a comparison involves preparing standards of carbon dioxide in air which are fit for purpose for the atmospheric monitoring community with stringent requirements on matrix composition and measurement uncertainty of the CO2 mole fraction This represents an analytical challenge and is therefore considered as a Track C comparison The comparison will underpin CMC claims for CO2 in air for standards and calibrations services for the atmospheric

P a g e | 37

monitoring community matrix matched to real air over the mole fraction range of 250 μmolmol to 520 μmolmol CCQM‐K120b comparison tests core skills and competencies required in gravimetric preparation analytical certification and purity analysis It is considered as a Track A comparison It will underpin CO2 in air and nitrogen claims in a mole fraction range starting at the smallest participantrsquos reported expanded uncertainty and ending at 500 mmolmol Participants successful in this comparison may use their result in the flexible scheme and underpin claims for all core mixtures

Bibliography

1 W Bader B Bovy S Conway K Strong D Smale A J Turner T Blumenstock C Boone A Coulon O Garcia D W T Griffith F Hase P Hausmann N Jones P Krummel I Murata I Morino H Nakajima S ODoherty C Paton-Walsh J Robinson R Sandrin M Schneider C Servais R Sussmann and E MahieuTen years of atmospheric methane from ground-based NDACC FTIR observations Atmos Chem Phys Discuss2016 2016 1 2 P J Brewer R J C Brown K V Resner R E Hill-Pearce D R Worton N D C Allen K C Blakley D Benucci and M R EllisonInfluence of Pressure on the Composition of Gaseous Reference Materials Analytical Chemistry2018 90(5) 3490 3 M B Esler D W T Griffith S R Wilson and L P SteelePrecision Trace Gas Analysis by FT-IR Spectroscopy 1 Simultaneous Analysis of CO2 CH4 N2O and CO in Air Anal Chem1999 72(1) 206- 215 4 M B Esler D W T Griffith S R Wilson and L P SteelePrecision Trace Gas Analysis by FT-IR Spectroscopy 2 The 13C12C Isotope Ratio of CO2 Anal Chem 1999 72(1) 216 5 E Flores J Viallon P Moussay D W T Griffith and R WielgoszCalibration strategies for FTIR and other IRIS instruments for ac-curate δ13C and δ18O measurements of CO2 in air Anal Chem2017 Submitted 6 D W T GriffithSynthetic Calibration and Quantitative Analysis of Gas-Phase FT-IR Spectra Appl Spectrosc1996 50(1) 59 7 D W T Griffith N M Deutscher C Caldow G Kettlewell M Riggenbach and S HammerA Fourier transform infrared trace gas and isotope analyser for atmospheric applications Atmos Meas Tech2012 5(10) 2481 8 D W T Griffith N B Jones B McNamara C P Walsh W Bell and C BernardoIntercomparison of NDSC Ground-Based Solar FTIR Measurements of Atmospheric Gases at Lauder New Zealand J Atmos Oceanic Tech2003 20 (8) 1138- 1153 9 ISO Gas analysis- Comparison methods for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures in 61432001 (2001) 10 G Nelson Gas Mixtures Preparation and Control (Lewis Publishers Florida USA 1992) 11 L S Rothman A Barbe D Chris Benner L R Brown C Camy-Peyret M R Carleer K Chance C Clerbaux V Dana V M Devi A Fayt J M Flaud R R Gamache A Goldman D Jacquemart K W Jucks W J Lafferty J Y Mandin S T Massie V Nemtchinov D A Newnham A Perrin C P Rinsland J Schroeder K M Smith M A H Smith K Tang R A Toth J Vander Auwera P Varanasi and K YoshinoThe HITRAN molecular spectroscopic database edition of 2000 including updates through 2001 J Quant Spectrosc Radiat Transfer 82(1ndash4) 5 12 L S Rothman I E Gordon Y Babikov A Barbe D Chris Benner P F Bernath M Birk L Bizzocchi V Boudon L R Brown A Campargue K Chance E A Cohen L H Coudert V M Devi B J Drouin A Fayt J M Flaud R R Gamache J J Harrison J M Hartmann C Hill J T Hodges D Jacquemart A Jolly J Lamouroux R J Le Roy G Li D A Long O M Lyulin C J Mackie S T Massie S Mikhailenko H S P Muumlller O V Naumenko A V Nikitin J Orphal V Perevalov A Perrin E R Polovtseva C Richard M A H

P a g e | 38

Smith E Starikova K Sung S Tashkun J Tennyson G C Toon V G Tyuterev and G WagnerThe HITRAN2012 molecular spectroscopic database J Quant Spectrosc Radiat Transfer2013 130 4

ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

As results of the discussion of the key points of the Draft A report of the CCQM-K120 comparison during the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG the following decisions were taken

a) the key comparison reference value for CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b are to be based on the measurement results of the FTIR spectrometer

b) the re-submitted uncertainties by UME replace the original uncertainty values used in Draft A report (see Table 15) and are to be used for the calculation of the KCRV

c) NIST NPLI and BFKH submitted new measurement results as well as uncertainties after the measurements performed on return of the standards in their laboratoires This was not expected in the protocol of the comparison Therefore their values have not been used in the KCRV calucltaions The original values are used for DOE calculations the modified values have been included in AnnexII

d) considering that NPL was the only participant that considered a potential effect of adsorption of a proportion of the molecules onto the internal surface of a cylinder and valve (for more information see GAWG18-00) a limit on the uncertainties claimed by participants contributing to the KCRV is fixed to 0095 micromol mol-1 meaning that any uncertainty value smaller to this value will be replaced by 0095 micromol mol-1 to calculate KCRVs

e) The KCRV for the standatds at the nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 are to be calculated including standards with mole fractions within plusmn 5 micromol mol-1 of the nominal value (795 micromol mol-1 to 805 micromol mol-1)

P a g e | 39

P a g e | 40

ANNEX II- Stability studies by participants After the return of cylinder to the participants and before results of the comparison were known four participants reported modified uncertainties and also values and uncertainties compared to their originally reported values see Table 15 The participants that reported changes to their originally submitted values were

BFKH submitted the same values but with less decimals for cylinders OMH54 and OMH69 and proposed a new value for cylinder OMH44 The new value changed from 47989plusmn211 micromolmol to 4644plusmn211 micromolmol

NIST submitted new values and uncertainties for cylinders FB04278 FB04300 and FB04287

NPLI submitted new values for cylinders JJ108891 JJ108862 and JJ108854 The mole fractions for cylinders JJ108891 and JJ108854 were increased by 252 micromolmol and 242 micromolmol respectively and reduced for cylinder JJ108862 by 195 micromolmol The uncertainties for cylinders JJ108891 and JJ108862 were also increased by 22 and 72 but reduced for cylinder JJ108854 by 33

UME The uncertainties of cylinders PSM298266 PSM266468 and PSM298347 were increased by 19 47 and 33 respectively

Participant Cylinder references Gas Matrix

NMIrsquos assigned CO2 mole fraction xNMI

(micromol mol-1)

NMIrsquos assigned CO2

expanded uncertainty U(xNMI)

k = 2 (micromol mol-1)

Before the return of cylinders

BFKH OMH54 Synthetic Air 379840 1710

BFKH OMH44 Synthetic Air 479890 2110

BFKH OMH69 Synthetic Air 800300 2920

GUM D298392 Synthetic Air 380100 4400

GUM D298393 Synthetic Air 478100 5200

GUM D298402 Synthetic Air 800500 8600

INRIM D247440 Synthetic Air 479300 1600

INRIM D247445 Synthetic Air 798900 2600

KRISS D500642 Synthetic Air 378900 0200

KRISS D500647 Synthetic Air 480000 0200

KRISS D500672 Synthetic Air 800800 0400

LNE 1029045 Synthetic Air 379480 0790

LNE 1029047 Synthetic Air 477600 1000

LNE 1029048 Synthetic Air 802200 1700

NIM FB03747 Synthetic Air 383430 0200

NIM FB03744 Synthetic Air 489150 0220

P a g e | 41

NIM FB03748 Synthetic Air 809820 0260

NIST FB04278 Real Air 379045 0391

NIST FB04300 Real Air 472662 0428

NIST FB04287 Real Air 794533 1029

NMIJ CPC00486 Real Air 386617 0050

NMIJ CPC00494 Real Air 471301 0051

NMIJ CPC00558 Real Air 803658 0078

NMISA M51 8232 Synthetic Air 380200 2000

NMISA M51 8167 Synthetic Air 479500 1600

NMISA M51 8244 Synthetic Air 799100 1000

NOAA CC310084 Real Air 379500 0210

NOAA CC305198 Real Air 479260 0260

NOAA CB11668 Real Air 794080 0480

NPL 2179 Synthetic Air 380270 0190

NPL 2170 Synthetic Air 480020 0240

NPL 2181 Synthetic Air 799700 0400

NPLI JJ108891 Synthetic Air 375720 3220

NPLI JJ108862 Synthetic Air 480520 3040

NPLI JJ108854 Synthetic Air 796380 5030

UME PSM298266 Synthetic Air 379920 0160

UME PSM266468 Synthetic Air 480420 0170

UME PSM298347 Synthetic Air 800760 0270

VNIIM M365601 Synthetic Air 380200 0110

VNIIM M365664 Synthetic Air 480180 0130

VNIIM M365707 Synthetic Air 800730 0190

VSL 5604614 Synthetic Air 378900 0280

VSL 5604880 Synthetic Air 480480 0360

VSL 5604705 Synthetic Air 795700 0600

Additional data received following

stability testing

BFKH‐2nd value OMH54 Synthetic Air 3798 17

BFKH‐2nd value OMH44 Synthetic Air 4644 28

BFKH‐2nd value OMH69 Synthetic Air 8003 29

NIST‐2nd value FB04278 Real Air 38030 028

NIST‐2nd value FB04300 Real Air 47340 034

NIST‐2nd value FB04287 Real Air 79512 058

NIST‐3th value FB04278 Real Air 38007 030

NIST‐3th value FB04300 Real Air 47337 052

NIST‐3th value FB04287 Real Air 79477 038

NPLI‐2nd value JJ108891 Synthetic Air 37824 395

NPLI‐2nd value JJ108862 Synthetic Air 47857 523

NPLI‐2nd value JJ108854 Synthetic Air 79880 335

UME‐2nd value PSM298266 Synthetic Air 379920 019

P a g e | 42

UME‐2nd value PSM266468 Synthetic Air 480420 025

UME‐2nd value PSM298347 Synthetic Air 800760 036

Table 15 Standards and reported values provided by participants in Draft A report

ANNEX III- GC-FID results

GC-FID based candidate reference values for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 With the GC-FID measurement data set the set of self-consistent standards identified was the same as with FTIR including eleven standards with three excluded namely OMH54 (BFKH neither original nor newly submitted results included) FB04278 (NIST neither original nor newly submitted results included) and JJ108891 (NPLI neither original and newly submitted results included) The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 169 (lt 2 required to demonstrate consistency of the ensemble) Reference values and differences from these are listed in Table 16 The difference between the KCRV calculated with FTIR measurement data (xKCRV_FTIR) and GC-FID based candidate reference values (xRV_FTIR) measurements for this batch of cylinders is plotted in Figure 12 showing negligible difference between the methods

GC-FID based candidate reference values for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 With the GC-FID measurement data set the set of self-consistent standards identified was the same as with FTIR The data set of self-consistent standards identified included twelve standards with three excluded namely OMH44 (BFKH neither original nor newly submitted results included) FB03744 (NIST neither original nor newly submitted results included) and JJ108862 (NPLI neither original nor newly submitted results included) The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 141 (lt 2 required to demonstrate consistency of the ensemble) Reference values and differences from these are listed in Table 17

P a g e | 43

The difference between the KCRV calculated with FTIR measurement data (xKCRV_FTIR) and GC-FID based candidate reference values (xRV_FTIR) measurements for this batch of cylinders is plotted in Figure 13 showing negligible difference between the methods

GC-FID based candidate reference values for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 Including ten cylinders with five excluded namely FB03748 (NIM) CB11668 (NOAA) OMH69 (BFKH neither original and newly submitted results included) FB04287 (NIST neither original nor newly submitted results included) and JJ108854 (NPLI neither original nor newly submitted results included) the goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 191(lt 2 required to demonstrate consistency of the ensemble) Reference values and differences from these are listed in Table 18 The difference between the KCRV calculated with FTIR measurement data (xKCRV_FTIR) and GC-FID based candidate reference values (xRV_FTIR) measurements for this batch of cylinders is plotted in Figure 14 showing negligible difference between the methods

Participant Cylinder

xRV u(xRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D1( xNMI- xKCRV )

u(D1) U( D1)

( XLGENLINE predictied

value from GC-FID)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298392 379719 0050 380100 2200 0381 2201 4401

KRISS D500642 378753 0063 378900 0100 0147 0118 0236

LNE 1029045 379224 0054 379480 0395 0256 0399 0797

NIM FB03747 383350 0056 383430 0100 0080 0115 0229

NMIJ CPC00486 386624 0092 386617 0025 ‐0007 0095 0190

NMISA M51 8232 379866 0054 380200 1000 0334 1001 2003

NOAA CC310084 379426 0065 379500 0105 0074 0124 0247

NPL 2179 380308 0048 380270 0095 ‐0038 0106 0213

VNIIM M365601 380221 0051 380200 0055 ‐0021 0075 0150

VSL 5604614 378973 0062 378900 0140 ‐0073 0153 0306

UME PSM298266 380106 0055 379920 0095 ‐0186 0110 0220

BFKH OMH54 375005 0101 379800 0850 4795 0856 1712

NIST FB04278 380066 0055 379045 0195 ‐1021 0203 0406

NPLI JJ108891 374617 0105 375720 1610 1103 1613 3227

Table 16 Difference from candidate reference value using GC-FID measurements at the nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision

of the the CCQM GAWG First uncertainty submitted by the participant (lt 0095 micromol mol-1 see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

P a g e | 44

Participant Cylinder

xRV u(xRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D2( xNMI- xKCRV ) u(D2) U( D2)

( XLGENLINE predictied

value from GC-FID)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298393 477789 0065 478100 2600 0311 2601 5202

INRIM D247440 478928 0056 479300 0800 0372 0802 1604

KRISS D500647 479881 0051 480000 0100 0119 0112 0225

LNE 1029047 477444 0069 477600 0500 0156 0505 1009

NIM FB03744 489173 0097 489150 0110 ‐0023 0147 0294

NMIJ CPC00494 471327 0107 471301 0026 ‐0026 0110 0220

NMISA M51 8167 479137 0078 479500 0800 0363 0804 1608

NOAA CC305198 479392 0053 479260 0130 ‐0132 0140 0281

NPL 2170 479997 0056 480020 0120 0023 0133 0265

VNIIM M365664 480173 0052 480180 0065 0007 0083 0167

VSL 5604880 480608 0051 480480 0180 ‐0128 0187 0374

UME PSM266468 480629 0053 480420 0125 ‐0209 0136 0272

BFKH OMH44 464994 0144 479900 1050 14906 1060 2120

NIST FB04300 473601 0077 472662 0214 ‐0940 0227 0455

NPLI JJ108862 480836 0055 480520 1520 ‐0316 1521 3042

Table 17 Difference from candidate reference value using GC-FID measurements at the nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision of

the the CCQM GAWG First uncertainty submitted by the participant (lt 0095 micromol mol-1 see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

Participant Cylinder

xRV u(xRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D3( xNMI- xKCRV )

u(D3) U( D3)

( XLGENLINE predictied

value from GC-FID) (k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298402 800002 0083 800500 4300 0498 4301 8602

INRIM D247445 798031 0105 798900 1300 0869 1304 2608

KRISS D500672 800316 0080 800800 0200 0484 0215 0431

LNE 1029048 802001 0068 802200 0850 0199 0853 1705

NMIJ CPC00558 803670 0057 803658 0039 ‐0012 0069 0138

NPL 2181 799570 0081 799700 0200 0130 0216 0432

NMISA M51 8244 798195 0111 799100 0500 0905 0512 1024

VNIIM M365707 800710 0066 800730 0095 0020 0116 0232

VSL 5604705 795715 0150 795700 0300 ‐0015 0335 0670

UME PSM298347 801042 0180 800760 0135 ‐0282 0172 0344

NIM FB03748 810535 0165 809820 0130 ‐0715 0210 0420

NOAA CB11668 794338 0170 794080 0240 ‐0258 0294 0588

BFKH OMH69 800057 0079 800300 1450 0243 1452 2904

P a g e | 45

NIST FB04287 795279 0147 794530 0514 ‐0749 0535 1070

NPLI JJ108854 794091 0173 796380 2515 2289 2521 5042

Table 18 Difference from candidate reference value using GC-FID measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the

decision of the the CCQM GAWG First uncertainty submitted by the participant (lt 0095 micromol mol-1 see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

Figure 12 Difference between the KCRV values obtained using FTIR and GC-FID reference values at 380

micromolmol The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

KR

ISS

LNE

NIM

NM

IJ

NM

ISA

NO

AA

NP

L

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Diff

(x K

CR

V_F

TIR

-xR

V_G

C-F

ID)

m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 46

Figure 13 Difference between the KCRV values obtained using FTIR and GC-FID reference values at 480 micromolmol The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

INR

IM

KR

ISS

LNE

NIM

NM

IJ

NM

ISA

NO

AA

NP

L

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Diff

(x K

CR

V_

FT

IR-x

RV

_G

C-F

ID)

m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 47

Figure 14 Difference between the KCRV values obtained using FTIR and GC-FID reference values at 800 micromolmol The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

In summary the measurement performance obtained with GC-FID and FTIR at the BIPM were rather similar with standard measurement uncertainties of the reference values having a range of 004 micromolmol to 011 micromolmol at 380 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for FTIR 005 micromolmol to 011 micromolmol at 380 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for GC-FID 005 micromolmol to 017 micromolmol at 480 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for FTIR 005 micromolmol to 014 micromolmol at 480 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for GC-FID 008 micromolmol to 033 micromolmol at 800 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for FTIR 006 micromolmol to 018 micromolmol at 800 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for GC-FID

The reference values calculated from the two measurement techniques agree with each other within their stated uncertainties for all measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 380 micromolmol all measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 480 micromolmol all measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 800 micromolmol The magnitude of the proposed reference values can be compared to the laboratories reported standard measurement uncertainties for their standards which range from 0025 micromolmol to 43 micromolmol

GU

M

INR

IM

KR

ISS

LNE

NM

IJ

NP

L

NM

ISA

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

NIM

NO

AA

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Diff

(x K

CR

V_

FT

IR-x

RV

_GC

-FID

)

mo

l mo

l-1

P a g e | 48

ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure The cylinders were analysed in batches first by GC-FID then by FTIR and finally by the Delta Ray

GC-FID The GC-FID is a modified Agilent system series 7890A acquired from the SRA Instruments lsquoFrance It is equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID) a Haysep Q (12 feet) column a methanizer and the FID detector is supplied with pure oxygen and hydrogen (see Figure 15)

Figure 15 Internal schematics of the BIPM system for Gas Chromatography with Flame Ionization Detector (GC-FID) comprised by a Haysep (12 feet) column a Sample loop of 1 mL two Valco six port valves and a FID detector

The GC-FID is equipped with

- two 6 port valve V1 (Vici-valco) - one 1 mL stainless steel injection loop - one one-way valve - one Haysep Q (80-100 Mesh 12ftx18x20mm) - one flame ionization detector (FID) - one methanizer - one hydrogen generator - one helium purifier - one control computer for the GC-FID equipped with

o ChemStation version Rev B0402 (118) o ProChem Set-up version 257 o ProChem software version 201

- one barometer (Sensor Technique DC 2510)

Haysep

P a g e | 49

The gas mixtures used for operating the facility were

- one helium 60 gas cylinder quality 999999 - one oxygen 55 in gas cylinder quality 999995 - source of air with pressure of 7 bars - one 50 L CO2air commercial secondary gas standards (control standard A) produced by

Messer with an initial internal pressure of 150 bar with the composition specified to be within the following ranges

CH4 185 ppm CO2 386 ppm Ar 9410 ppm O2 207 N2 Matrix gas

- one 50 L CO2air commercial secondary gas standards (control standard B) produced by Messer with an initial internal pressure of 150 bar with the composition specified to be within the following ranges

CH4 184 ppm CO2 476 ppm Ar 9415 ppm O2 210 N2 Matrix gas

- one 40 L CO2air standard (control standard C) produced by Scott Marrin (cylinder CB 10422) with an initial internal pressure of 100 bar with the composition specified to be within the following ranges

CO2 79112 ppm CH4 184 ppm

GC-FID separation and quantification method The GC-FID was operated at 30 degC A Haysep Q (80-100 Mesh 12ftx18x20mm) column was used at a temperature of 30 degC for the analysis Helium column carrier2 gas passed through a heated gas purifier was used at a flow rate of 40 ml min-1 The FID was supplied with 320 ml min-1 of pure oxygen3 and 40 ml min-1 of hydrogen4 A 1 ml stainless steel sample loop was used to introduce the CO2air sample onto the column The pressure in the sample loop was measured by a calibrated pressure sensor having a resolution of 02 hPa and recorded at each injection Finally the peak areas were estimated with an on-line computing integrator

Sampling sequence

Table 19 displays a typical sampling sequence The sampling sequence was setup so as to analyse six unkown CO2Air gas mixtures together with three control standards (A B C) Three unknown were bracketed by control standards A and B followed by the other three bracketed by 2 The Carrier Gas is He grade 60 passing through a SAES gettersreg PS2-GC50-R-2 for extra purification 3 The Flame is produced from Oxygen grade 55 4 Hydrogen is produced on site by a commercial H2 generator CG2200 (Claind) It produces grade 60 H2 at a maximum flow rate of 200 mlmin with a purity higher than 9999999

P a g e | 50

control standards B and C Each individual cylinders analysis (unkowns and controls) consisted in three successive measurements of the GC-FID response (CO2 peak area)

Control Cylinder A A1 A2 A3

Control Cylinder B B1 B2 B3

Cylinder 1 Cyl11 Cyl12 Cyl13 Cylinder 2 Cyl21 Cyl22 Cyl23

Cylinder 3 Cyl31 Cyl32 Cyl33 Control Cylinder A A4 A5 A6

Control Cylinder B B4 B5 B6

Control Cylinder B B7 B8 B9

Control Cylinder C C1 C2 C3

Cylinder 4 Cyl41 Cyl42 Cyl43

Cylinder 5 Cyl51 Cyl52 Cyl53

Cylinder 6 Cyl61 Cyl62 Cyl63

Control Cylinder B B10 B11 B12

Control Cylinder C C4 C5 C6 Table 19 Typical GC-FID sampling sequence

Considering that the analysis of each CO2Air gas mixture took 10 minutes this measuring sequence took about 390 minutes to be completed This sequence was repeated four times with the first one not used in the calculation Adding flushing and conditioning about three days were necessary to complete the analysis of six unkown cylinders

Participantrsquos cylinders were divided in batches of four to six and additional cylinders of the BIPM were added if required to obtain batches of equal size

It was checked that the results obtained using controls A B and C were consistent but only the ratios to the control cylinder B were used as GC-FID results and listed in Table 8

Ratios to the control standard

The ratios to the control cylinder were calculated determining first the average responses of three successive measurements performed on the CO2Air standard gas mixtures as well as on the control cylinders (A B and C) The drift corrected response to the control cylinder as any time was calculated by interpolation in between two control measurements The average response to the CO2air standards mixtures was then divided by the drift corrected response of the control

cylinder to obtain GCR the ratio for one cylinder in one sequence

The last three sequences were then combined with the calculation of the weighted mean defined as

wGCR

P a g e | 51

3

1

_

l

lwGClwGC RwR (1)

Where the weigth wl for the series l is defined as

3

1

2_

2_

1

1

j

lGC

lGC

l

Ru

Ruw (2)

and lGCRu _ is the standard deviation of the mean of the three repeats

The uncertainty of the weighted mean is defined as

3

1

2_

2

1

1

llGC

wGC

RuRu

(3)

In addition to this component the intermediate precision or stability of the instrument response during the full measuring period was evaluated by the standard deviation of the mean of the drift corrected ratio to the control cylinder of one standard exclusively used for this purpose giving uIntpre = 0000046 This component was further combined with the weighted mean uncertainty to provide the combined standard uncertainty associated with measurements performed with GC-FID resulting in a typical relative standard uncertainty of 0007

FTIR A vacuum Bruker Vertex 70v FTIR Spectrometer equipped with a RockSolid interferometer (vacuum better than 02 hPa) with 1 cm-1 resolution (016 optional) a 40 mm beam diameter a globar source and CaF2 beam splitter was used for the study The spectrometer was configured with a liquid N2-cooled mid-infrared Indium Antimonide (InSb) detector and a 1001 m multi-pass White-type gas cell of volume 075 L (Gemini Scientific Instruments USA) The wetted surfaces of the gas cell were electro-polished stainless steel treated with silconert 2000 (Silcotek) and gold (mirror coatings) to minimize surface adsorption and desorption effects for CO2 The interferometer was scanned at 64 scans min-1 and spectra co-added for five minutes to obtain an acceptable signal-to-noise ratio The transmission spectra of gas reference standards obtained following this procedure had a very high signal to noise ratio of typically ~1 x 104 peak-peak from (2240ndash3380) cm-1 In order to prevent nonlinear responses produced by excess photon flux reaching the InSb detector special care was put into adjusting the instrument parameters of the software to ensure that the apparent intensity from the InSb detector was zero at 1850 cm-1 The spectrometer user interface was controlled using a BIPM developed software named B-FOS that allowed the automatic setting of all instrument parameters into Brukerrsquos proprietary OPUS software for control spectral acquisition and on-line analysis through the use of MALT (Multiple Atmospheric Layer Transmission)3 4 6 spectrum analysis software version 556

P a g e | 52

MALT retrieves concentrations of each trace gas in the sample from a least-squares fit to the measured spectrum based on a model calculation and Hitran line parameters12 This code is the basis for quantitative analysis of open and closed path FTIR trace gas measurements and has been compared with other codes such as SFIT1 for ground based solar FT-IR measurements with agreement of better than 07 (Griffith et al8)

The spectra were constructed by co-adding up to 320 scans recorded in about 5 minutes to provide a single spectrum of a sample This single spectrum was ratioed with a similar spectrum of ultra-pure N2 collected under similar conditions to provide an absorbance or transmission spectrum of the gas sample (relative to ultra-pure N2) in the gas cell The sample flow rates were kept at ~400 mL minminus1 Assuming perfect mixing in the cell it was estimated that 999 of the sample was replaced after 10 min of flow and 99998 replaced after 20 min10 In order to ensure the complete exchange of samples only the measured spectra obtained after flowing the sample through the White-type cell for 40 min (9999999 gas replacement) were used for mole fraction determinations The sample pressure was measured by means of the calibrated barometer Mensor Series 6000 The relative uncertainty of this pressure sensor was u(P) = 002 The sample temperature was measured with a calibrated 100 Ω RTD temperature probe introduced into the outlet gas of the White-type gas cell with a standard uncertainty u(T)=002 K

The recorded spectra were analysed online by non-linear least squares fitting in the spectra region 3500ndash3800 cm-1 (plotted in Figure 16) with modelled spectra calculated by MALT 55 using absorption line parameters from the HITRAN database version 2012 As previously described by Griffith et al7 this region shows peaks that are due to the major isotopologue 12C16O16O (written 626 using the HitranAir Force Geophysics Laboratory (AFGL) shorthand notation 11) Since all standards used during this work were ultra-dry CO2air gas mixtures the cross sensitivity with H2O was not considered

Figure 16 Typical measured and fitted spectra (upper part) and residual signal (lower part) in the region 3500ndash3800 cm-1 obtained on a standard of CO2 in air at 38433 μmol mol-1 The absorption feature is due to the major isotopologue 626

3500 3550 3600 3650 3700 3750 3800

070

075

080

085

090

095

100

3500 3550 3600 3650 3700 3750 3800

-0002

0000

0002

Measured

Tra

nsm

itan

ce

Fitted

Residual

Wavenumbercm-1

P a g e | 53

Ratios to the control standard

The ratios to the control cylinder were calculated between the FTIR responses measured at the 626 isotopologue band of the sample i (Cyli) and of the control cylinder

The measurements were performed following a sequence which included the analysis of four cylinders bracketed by the analysis of the two control cylinders (A B) repeated three times Control A was the Scott Marrin cylinder CB 10326 value assigned by NIST with a mole fraction of 37890plusmn009 micromol mol-1 and as control B was used the commercial mixture Messer 400309 with a mole fraction of 85000plusmn17 micromol mol-1

Since the analysis of each CO2Air gas mixture takes 40 minutes (35 minutes of flush and 5 minutes of acquisition) fifteen hours of continuous measurements were necessary to accomplish the measurement of four cylinders

The drift corrected response to the control cylinder B during the analysis of a sample Bcor was estimated by interpolation in between two measurements of B The ratio RFT between the response to a sample Cyl and the drift corrected control Bcor was then calculated Finally the measurement results for one cylinder was the average of the three ratios obtained during a full sequence named RFTi for cylinder Cyli

The control cylinder A suffered from a leak in the gas line to the autosampler and was emptied before the end of all measurements It was however checked that measurements performed with this control cylinder A with sufficient pressure were equivalent to those obtained with the control cylinder B

Uncertainty determination

The uncertainty assigned to each ratio to the control cylinder uFT_R was the combination of three components combined according to the Guide for Uncertainty in Measurements using the software GUM workbench (see Table 21)

uStab the short term stability of the 626 response to the sample This term was estimated from the typical Allan deviation at an averaging time of five minutes of the FTIR response measured on the 626 peak resulting in the value ustab = 6 nmol mol-1

independent of the mole fraction This same term applies to the control cylinder measurements

uIsoCorr the uncertainty contribution due to the correction of the 626 response arising from the sample isotopic composition (also valid for the control cylinder) as measured by the Delta Ray All responses of the FTIR calculated at the 626 peak had to be corrected to account for the fact that samples had a different isotopic composition than natural air The correction was calculated with the Delta Ray so that the uncertainty contribution due to the isotopic composition correction was estimated from the uncertainty of the Delta Ray measurements uδ13C=018 permil and uδ18O=048 permil (see further information in Flores et al5) It can be calculated that a 1 permil bias in δ13C results in a bias equal to 41 nmol mol-1 in the CO2 mole fraction Similarly a 1 permil bias in δ18O results in a bias equal to 17 nmol mol-1 Therefore assuming maximum biases in the delta values equal to the Delta Ray standard uncertainty the maximum biases in the CO2 mole fraction were estimated to be 072 nmol mol-1 (from δ13C ) and 082 nmol mol-1 (from δ18O) Being conservative the two terms were added in a maximum bias of 154 nmol mol-1 Considering a

P a g e | 54

rectangular distribution of the uncertainty the standard uncertainty takes the value 154radic3 089nmol mol-1 This is negligible compared to other

components

uPBEs the uncertainty contribution due Pressure Broadening Effects was calculated through a sensitivity study of MALT Using one primary version of MALT in 1982 D Griffith looked at the carrier gas effect in NDIR analyzers for CO2 MALT by default uses either the amount-weighted selfair broadened widths or the air only widths provided by HITRAN and allows some degree of fiddling for fitting spectra contained in different gas matrices since it allows to the users to scale the input parameter broad by any arbitrary factor Different line broadening factor can be calculated then for air using Griffth et al 1982 equation

(7)

Where xN2 xO2 and xAr are the mole fractions of nitrogen oxygen and argon in air FN2 =1 by definition FO2 = 081 and FAr = 078 are the line broadening factors for oxygen and argon (in average) Assuming xN2 = 0780876 mol mol-1 xO2 = 02093335 mol mol-1 and xAr = 00093332 mol mol-1 then the line broadening factor of air FAIR should be equal to 095771603 The broadening parameter in MALT for air is broad = 1 by convention It can be scaled by FAIR to obtain a broad value for any ldquoair likerdquo matrix using the equation

(8)

In order to estimate the amount of the change in the CO2 response one absorbance spectrum was fitted using standard input parameters varying the factor broad according to the two possible extremes composition of the matrix as stated in the protocol of the CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b comparisons In the case of the CCQM-K120a comparison two values of the factor broad were determined using equation 8 modelling cylinders containing the minimum and the maximum allowed mole fractions of oxygen and assuming nitrogen and argon were impacted to keep a sum of the three equals to 1 The mole fractions and the corresponding values of broad are summarized in the table below

K120a min K120a max

Compoundxi (mol mol-

1) xi (mol mol-

1) Nitrogen 078140 078042Oxygen 020880 020980Argon 000934 000933

broad 1000105801 0999907486

Table 20 Extermes of air matrix compositions in the comparison CCQM-K120a and the corresponding values of broad

P a g e | 55

As result a ΔCO2 equal to 0031 micromol mol-1 was observed between both fittings Considering this difference as a rectangular distribution then a uPBEs_ΔO2_ K120a= (00031)(2radic3) = 0009 micromol mol-1 is obtained The same procedure was used with the the limits stated for the CCQM‐K120b and a ΔCO2 of 0467 micromol mol-1 was obtained with factors FAIR_CCQM-K120b_min= 1000403273 and FAIR_CCQM-K120b_max= 0999610014 If this difference is considered again as a rectangular distribution then uPBEs_ΔO2_ K120b= (0125)(2radic3) = 0036 micromol mol-1

Table 21 Uncertainty budget for the calculation of the FTIR ratios to the control cylinder

The final uncertainty for the ratios of the cylinders that had a gas matrix within the limits of the CCQM-K120a were at 380 micromol mol-1 uFT_R_380A=14 times10-6 and at 480 micromol mol-1 uFT_R_480A =15 times10-6 The uncertainty for the ratios of the cylinders that had a gas matrix within the limits of the CCQM-K120b were at 480 micromol mol-1 uFT_R_480A =44 times10-6 at 800 micromol mol-1 uFT_R_480A =45 times10-6 Combined with the standard deviations on three ratios this resulted in standard relative uncertainties on the averaged ratio between 14times10-5 and 25times10-4 All the combined standard uncertainties are listed in Table 8

Delta Ray Since MALT measurements (FTIR) are done using linestrengths from the HITRAN database that are scaled by the natural abundance for each isotopologue the 12CO2 measurement of each cylinder needed to be corrected according their own isotopic composition The isotopic composition of each cylinder was measured using the Delta Ray Delta Ray is based on direct absorption laser spectroscopy It uses a tunable diode laser which scans over the spectral region that covers 18O and 13C isotopologues of CO2

For this comparison Delta Ray measurements were performed after calibrating the instrument following the manufacturerrsquos recommendations that consist in using two pure CO2 references gases with high and low isotope values two CO2 in air reference standards with high and low concentration and one dry CO2 scrubbed whole air (Scott Marrin Inc) The instrument was calibrated using cylinder 401557 (pure CO2 source gas well δ13C = - 138 permil and δ18O = - 714 permil VPDBj-RAS06 scale) cylinder C11375KO (pure CO2 source combustion δ13C = - 4213 permil and δ18O = -277 permil VPDBj-RAS06 scale) standard NPL 1788 (NPL CO2 in air mole fraction 3800plusmn019 micromol mol-1 δ13C = - 138 permil and δ18O = - 714 permil VPDBj-RAS06 scale)

Quantity Value

Standard Uncertainty Sensitivity Coefficient

Uncertainty contribution Index

48000middot10-6 mol mol-1

00108middot10-6 mol mol-

1 12middot10-3 13middot10-6 (Ratio) 747

84605middot10-6 mol mol-1

00150middot10-6 mol mol-1 -450middot10-6 -67middot10-6 (Ratio) 205

84695middot10-6 mol mol-1

00150middot10-6 mol mol-1 -220middot10-6 -34middot10-6 (Ratio) 51

Value Standard Uncertainty

0567141 (Ratio) 15middot10-6 (Ratio)

P a g e | 56

standard NPL 1907 (NPL CO2 in air mole fraction 7910plusmn04 micromol mol-1 δ13C = - 4213 permil and δ18O = -277 permil VPDBj-RAS06 scale) and dry CO2 scrubbed whole air (Scott Marrin)

As reported by Flores et al 20185 a residual bias in the δ13C and δ18O measurements which remained following the implementation of the manufacturerrsquos calibration procedure was removed by the application of an additional two point calibration (two CO2 in air standards with known but differing isotopic composition) Standards NPL 1788 (δ13C = - 138 permil and δ18O = - 714 permil) and NPL 1907 (δ13C = - 4213 permil and δ18O = -277 permil) were used as two point calibration mixtures

Samplingsequence

The measurement procedure for analyzing a set of CO2Air gas standards by Delta Ray is based on the analysis of four CO2Air gas mixtures between two CO2Air gas mixture used as the two-point calibration standards (A B) The measurement sequence starts by measuring the δ13C and δ18O response of calibration cylinder (A) and (B) then of four CO2Air standards for finalizing again with the calibration standars Since the analysis of each CO2Air gas mixture takes 40 minutes sixteen hours of continuous measurements were necessary to accomplish the measurement of four cylinders three times

The measured δ13C and δ18O responses of the control cylinders were drift corrected Then used together with the δ13C and δ18O measured by MPI-Jena in XLGenlinev11 for predicting the δ13C and δ18O of the unknown cylinders traceable to the VPDB-CO2 scale

Uncertainty determination

Times series analysis were performed with the Delta Ray during the validation work resulting in Allan deviations of 003 permil for δ13C and 005 permil for δ18O at the optimum averaging time of 300 s In addition it was further noted that the noise of the instrument was significantly higher when measuring during two hours which is the time period of a typical calibration Using a rectangular distribution the standard uncertainty of 031 permil for δ13C and 035 permil for δ18O was observed This component was further combined with the Allan deviations and taken as the stability uncertainty associated with the instrument response

The two-point calibration of the delta value requires the knowledge of the uncertainty associated with them which was in this case taken as the uncertainties deduced from MPI-Jena measurements equal to 0015permil for δ13C and 0328permil for δ18O

After calibration with the two additional CO2 in air standards the standard uncertainties associated with the instrument measurement were finally equal to 018 permil for δ13C and 048 permil for δ18O

P a g e | 57

ANNEX V - Measurement reports of participants

NMIJ

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 58

P a g e | 59

P a g e | 60

P a g e | 61

P a g e | 62

P a g e | 63

GUM

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM-K120-R Project name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department

Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form

Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute Central Office of Measures (Głoacutewny Urzad Miar)

Address Elektoralna 2 00-139 Warsaw Poland

Contact person Dariusz Cieciora

P a g e | 64

Telephone (48) 22 581 94 39 Fax (48) 22 581 93 95

Email dciecioragumgovpl gasgumgovpl

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a YES

CCQM‐K120b YES

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 D298392 3801 44 2

2 D298393 4781 52 2

3 D298402 8005 86 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number D298392

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07808 molmol 00002 molmol 2

O2 02095 molmol 00001 molmol 2

Ar 000925 molmol 000001 molmol 2

CH4 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

P a g e | 65

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number D298393

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07807 molmol 00002 molmol 2

O2 02096 molmol 00001 molmol 2

Ar 000919 molmol 000001 molmol 2

CH4 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number D298402

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07802 molmol 00002 molmol 2

O2 02097 molmol 00001 molmol 2

Ar 000938 molmol 000001 molmol 2

CH4 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 D298392 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

2 D298393 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

3 D298402 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

A4 Uncertainty Budget Please provide a complete uncertainty budgets for the CO2 mole fraction values reported

Uncertainty budget for the cylinder no D298392

Uncertainty source Estimate

(micromolmol)

Standard uncertainty (micromolmol)

Distribution Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution (micromolmol)

gravimetric 3801 042 normal 1 042

verification - 112 normal 1 112

systematic error - 187 rectangular 1 187 Uncertainty budget for the cylinder no D298393

Uncertainty source Estimate

(micromolmol)

Standard uncertainty (micromolmol)

Distribution Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution (micromolmol)

gravimetric 4781 048 normal 1 048

P a g e | 66

verification - 098 normal 1 098

systematic error - 235 rectangular 1 235 Uncertainty budget for the cylinder no D298402

Uncertainty source Estimate

(micromolmol)

Standard uncertainty (micromolmol)

Distribution Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution (micromolmol)

gravimetric 8005 068 normal 1 068

verification - 160 normal 1 160

systematic error - 393 rectangular 1 393

A5 Additional information

The final mixtures were prepared according ISO 6142 the cylinders evacuated on turbo molecular pump filled up an weighted on the verification balance The mixtures were prepared in aluminium (with coated layers) cylinders The mixtures were prepared with used pure nitrogen and oxygen and one step premixture of argon and two steps premixture of carbon dioxide

The verification according to ISO 6143 The measurements were repeated 10 times for the standards and the sample The curve was calculated from ratios by the software B_leastexe (linear case)

The standards were prepared by gravimetric method according to ISO 6142 The standards were prepared from separate premixtures and were diluted according ISO 6145-9

The purity of pure gases used for preparation was taken from the certificates of producer Cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM - cylinder D298392 139 bar - cylinder D298393 147 bar - cylinder D298402 147 bar

P a g e | 67

INRIM

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM‐K120‐R Project name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department

Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form

Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute INRiM‐Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica

Address Strada delle Cacce 91 I‐10135 Torino Italy

Contact person Michela Sega

Telephone +39 011 3919948 Fax +39 011 3919937

Email msegainrimit

P a g e | 68

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a No

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 D247440 4793 16 2

2 D247445 7989 26 2

3

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number D247440

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0781132 molmol 0000006 molmol 2

O2 02090627 molmol 00000055 molmol 2

Ar 00093259 molmol 00000037 molmol 2

CH4 ‐ nmolmol nmolmol

N2O ‐ nmolmol nmolmol

P a g e | 69

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number D247445

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0782389 molmol 0000006 molmol

O2 02075526 molmol 00000054 molmol

Ar 00092586 molmol 00000036 molmol

CH4 nmolmol nmolmol

N2O nmolmol nmolmol

A4 Uncertainty Budget The model equation used to calculate the mole fraction of CO2 in the final mixtures is taken from the International Standard ISO 6142‐12015

r

jq

iiji

j

r

jq

iiji

jj

Mx

m

Mx

mx

x

1

1

1

1

CO

prepCO

2

2

where the index i refers to the various components while j refers to the different parent mixtures The uncertainty budget was evaluated according to the guidelines prescribed in ISO 6142‐12015 The uncertainty budget for the gravimetric preparation of the mixture at 4793 micromolmol of CO2 which takes into account the weighted masses of the parent mixtures the molar masses of gases and their purity is reported in the following table

P a g e | 70

Uncertainty component

u(xi)

Uncertainty source

Standard uncertainty

u(xi) δxCO2prepδxi

Contribution tou(xCO2 prep)

|δxCO2prepδxi|u(xi)

u(mCO2) Weighed mass of the parent mixture of CO2

82∙10‐4 g 720∙10‐6

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 59∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(mN2) Weighed mass of the balance gas N2

82∙10‐4 g ‐764∙10‐7

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 63∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(mAr_O2) Weighed mass of the parent mixture of Ar in O2

82∙10‐4 g ‐662∙10‐7

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 54∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(MCO2) Molar mass of CO2 10∙10‐3 g∙mol‐1 ‐772∙10‐8

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 77∙10‐11 mol∙mol‐1

u(MN2) Molar mass of N2 20∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 ‐361∙10‐6

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 72∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(MAr) Molar mass of Ar 58∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 138∙10‐7

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 80∙10‐11 mol∙mol‐1

u(MO2) Molar mass of O2 28∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 310∙10‐6

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 87∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xN2inCO2) Mole fraction of N2 in the parent mixture of CO2

10∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 ‐432∙10‐4 43∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xN2inN2) Mole fraction of N2 in balance gas (purity)

87∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1 329∙10‐4 29∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xArinAr_O2) Mole fraction of Ar in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 129∙10‐4 11∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(xO2inN2) Mole fraction of O2 in balance gas (impurity)

14∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1 375∙10‐4 53∙10‐11 mol∙mol‐1

u(xO2inAr_O2) Mole fraction of O2

in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 104∙10‐4 90∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inCO2) Mole fraction of CO2 in the parent mixture of CO2

10∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 951∙10‐2 95∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inN2) Mole fraction of CO2 in balance gas (impurity)

29∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1 686∙10‐1 20∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inAr_O2) Mole fraction of CO2 in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1 219∙10‐1 19∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

Uncertainty budget for the gravimetric preparation of the mixture at 4793 micromolmol of CO2

P a g e | 71

The following table reports the uncertainty budget for the gravimetric preparation of the mixture at 7989 micromolmol of CO2

Uncertainty component

u(xi)

Uncertainty source

Standard uncertainty

u(xi) δxCO2prepδxi

Contribution tou(xCO2 prep)

|δxCO2prepδxi|u(xi)

u(mCO2) Weighed mass of the parent mixture of CO2

82∙10‐4 g 671∙10‐6

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 55∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(mN2) Weighed mass of the balance gas N2

82∙10‐4 g ‐128∙10‐6

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 10∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(mAr_O2) Weighed mass of the parent mixture of Ar in O2

82∙10‐4 g ‐111∙10‐6

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 91∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(MCO2) Molar mass of CO2 10∙10‐3 g∙mol‐1 365∙10‐7

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 36∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(MN2) Molar mass of N2 20∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 469∙10‐4

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 94∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(MAr) Molar mass of Ar 58∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 510∙10‐6

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 30∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(MO2) Molar mass of O2 28∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 114∙10‐4

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 32∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(xN2inCO2) Mole fraction of N2 in the parent mixture of CO2

10∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 ‐669∙10‐4 67∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xN2inN2) Mole fraction of N2 in balance gas (purity)

87∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1 498∙10‐4 43∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xArinAr_O2) Mole fraction of Ar in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 214∙10‐4 19∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(xO2inN2) Mole fraction of O2 in balance gas (impurity)

14∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1 569∙10‐4 80∙10‐11 mol∙mol‐1

u(xO2inAr_O2) Mole fraction of O2

in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 171∙10‐4 15∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inCO2) Mole fraction of CO2 in the parent mixture of CO2

10∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 159∙10‐1 16∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inN2) Mole fraction of CO2 in balance gas (impurity)

29∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1 624∙10‐1 18∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inAr_O2) Mole fraction of CO2 in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1 217∙10‐1 19∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

Uncertainty budget for the gravimetric preparation of the mixture at 7989 micromolmol of CO2 The additional contribution derived from the analytical verification was taken into account in accordance to the prescription of ISO 6142‐12015

P a g e | 72

2verCOprepCOverCO

2prepCO

2certCO )()()(

2

122222

xxxuxuxu

The following table reports the mole fractions with the associated uncertainties of the preparation and verification for the two prepared mixtures

Cylinder number xCO2 prep

micromolmol u(xCO2prep)micromolmol

xCO2 ver micromolmol

u(xCO2ver)micromolmol

D247440 4793 01 4783 12

D247445 7989 02 7965 12

A5 Additional information

a) Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas

Component Mole Fraction x u(x)

CO2 gt099998 molmol 58 micromolmol

CO le01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

H2 le01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

N2 le10 micromolmol 3 micromolmol

O2 le3 micromolmol 09 micromolmol

H2O le5 micromolmol 14 micromolmol

CnHm le3 micromolmol 09 micromolmol

Purity table for CO2

b) Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar parent gases

Component Mole Fraction x u(x)

N2 gt0999999 molmol 03 micromolmol

CO2 lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

H2 lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

O2 lt05 micromolmol 014 micromolmol

H2O lt05 micromolmol 014 micromolmol

CnHm lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

Purity table for N2

Component Mole Fraction x u(x)

O2 gt0999999 molmol 03 micromolmol

CO lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

CO2 lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

H2 lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

H2O lt05 micromolmol 014 micromolmol

CnHm lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

Purity table for O2

P a g e | 73

Component Mole Fraction x u(x)

Ar gt099999 molmol 29 micromolmol

O2 lt2 micromolmol 06 micromolmol

H2O lt3 micromolmol 09 micromolmol

CnHm lt05 micromolmol 014 micromolmol

Purity table for Ar

c) Brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures

In order to produce the final mixtures the following premixtures were prepared 1) Premixture of CO2 in N2 at 0080122 molmol (U=0000025 molmol) gravimetrically prepared (double

substitution scheme A‐B‐B‐A) from pure CO2 (48) and N2 (60) 2) Premixture of CO2 in N2 at 50054 micromolmol (U=21 micromolmol) gravimetrically prepared (double

substitution scheme A‐B‐B‐A) from the above mentioned mixture n 1 of CO2 in N2 (0080122 molmol) diluted with N2 (60)

3) Premixture of Ar in O2 (Ar 0042703 molmol O2 0957297 molmol) gravimetrically prepared (double substitution scheme A‐B‐B‐A) from pure Ar (50) and O2 (60)

The final mixtures were gravimetrically prepared (double substitution scheme A‐B‐B‐A) by using premixtures n 2 and n 3 as parent mixtures and using N2 60 as balance gas to obtain the target CO2 mole fractions Concerning premixture n 3 an additional determination of the mole fraction of CO2 in the mixture was carried out by NDIR spectroscopy The instrument was calibrated in the range (01‐1) micromolmol using dynamic dilution The obtained value is 03 micromolmol of CO2 (u=009 micromolmol calculated assuming a rectangular distribution) which was taken into account for assigning the mole fraction of the final mixtures (CO2 4793 and 7989 micromolmol respectively) and evaluating the associated uncertainty

d) Brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures

After preparation the mixtures were rolled for 24 h to be homogenized An analytical verification was carried out by NDIR spectroscopy using for each mixture a 3‐point calibration curve based on WTLS in the range (330‐520) micromolmol and (690‐900) micromolmol respectively The calibration standards were prepared starting from a mixture of CO2 in synthetic air at a nominal mole fraction of 4800 micromolmol diluted with synthetic air by means of Mass Flow Controllers calibrated at INRiM Each calibration point was repeated 5 times Each calibration curve was validated by using an independent mixture of CO2 in synthetic air having a the mole fraction within the calibration range

e) Brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM

The mixtures were tested for their stability on a weekly basis following the same procedure as described in d) No trends in the analytical response were observed within 3 weeks and the mixtures could be considered stable

f) Cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM 90 bar for each cylinder

P a g e | 74

KRISS

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 75

P a g e | 76

P a g e | 77

P a g e | 78

P a g e | 79

P a g e | 80

P a g e | 81

P a g e | 82

LNE

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

SubmissionformCCQM‐K120‐RProject name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department

Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form

Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute LNE

Address 1 rue Gaston Boissier

75724 Paris Cedex 15

Contact person Mace Tatiana

P a g e | 83

Telephone +33140433853 Fax +33140433737

Email tatianamacelnefr

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty

Coverage factor

certx CO2 μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 1029045‐CO2air 0028 37948 079 2

2 1029047‐CO2AIR 0029 4776 10 2

3 1029048‐CO2AIR 0030 8022 17 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number CO2AIR 0028

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0780686 molmol 0000025 molmol 2

O2 0209528 molmol 0000019 molmol 2

Ar 0009407 molmol 0000022 molmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number CO2AIR 0029

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Unit Coverage

P a g e | 84

Uncertainty Factor

N2 0781355 molmol 0000025 molmol 2

O2 0208794 molmol 0000018 molmol 2

Ar 0009374 molmol 0000022 molmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number CO2AIR 0030

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0782710 molmol 0000027 molmol 2

O2 0207187 molmol 0000021 molmol 2

Ar 0009301 molmol 0000021 molmol 2

A4 Uncertainty Budget

Please provide a complete uncertainty budgets for the CO2 mole fraction values reported

CO2Air 0028 37948 plusmn 079 micromolmol (k=2)

Xi Unit Value u(Xi) Sensib C(Xi) C(Xi)u(Xi) poids

Mass CO2 Premix g 6021896 0017 606175153 010304978 679

CO2 molar mass gmol 440095 000091 ‐012936318 ‐000011772 000

CO2 concentration (premix) molmol 000998425 000000097 377979757 003666404 086

N2 molar mass gmol 2801348 0000099 ‐276210444 ‐000027345 000

Mass ArgO2 Premix g 3981732 0017 ‐020862621 ‐000354665 001

Arg concentration (premix) molmol 004288429 00000048 204187142 9801E‐05 000

Arg molar mass gmol 39948 0001 011015474 000011015 000

O2 molar mass gmol 319988 000042 245849547 000103257 000

N2 purity molmol 099997493 00000144 ‐281970074 ‐000406037 001

Mass N2 g 1170753 002 ‐024083902 ‐000481678 001

Stability 0 038 1 038 9232

CO2Air 0029 4776 plusmn 10 micromolmol (k=2)

Xi Unit Value u(Xi) Sensib C(Xi) C(Xi)u(Xi) Weight

Mass CO2 Premix g 7635147 0017 595567319 010124644 391

CO2 molar mass gmol 440095 000091 ‐016114898 ‐000014665 000

CO2 concentration (premix) molmol 000998425 000000097 47573918 00461467 081

N2 molar mass gmol 2801348 0000099 ‐346583037 ‐000034312 000

P a g e | 85

Mass ArgO2 Premix g 3997202 0017 ‐026063746 ‐000443084 001

Arg concentration (premix) molmol 004288429 00000048 256082804 000012292 000

Arg molar mass gmol 39948 0001 013815138 000013815 000

O2 molar mass gmol 319988 000042 308334014 0001295 000

N2 purity molmol 099997494 00000144 ‐350551134 ‐000504794 001

Mass N2 g 1165053 002 ‐030088103 ‐000601762 001

Stability 0 05 1 05 9525

CO2Air 0030 8022 plusmn 17 micromolmol (k=2)

Uncertainty source Unit Value Xi u(Xi) Sensitivity coefficient

C(Xi) C(Xi)u(Xi)

Contribution to the

uncertainty

Mass CO2 Premix g 128097 0020 575918809 011518376 201

CO2 molar mass gmol 440095 000091 ‐02614445 ‐000023791

000

CO2 concentration (premix)

molmol 000998425 000000097 799263648 007752857 091

N2 molar mass gmol 2801348 0000099 ‐578813182 ‐000057303

000

Mass ArgO2 Premix g 3961709 0021 ‐043832537 ‐000920483

001

Arg concentration (premix)

molmol 004288429 00000048 426841537 000020488 000

Arg molar mass gmol 39948 0001 023027218 000023027 000

O2 molar mass gmol 319988 000042 513934409 000215852 000

N2 purity molmol 099997493 00000144 ‐564097099 ‐0008123 001

Mass N2 g 1114778 0023 ‐050600475 ‐001163811

002

Stability 0 08 1 08 9704

A5 Additional information

Please include in this section in the case of standards produced with synthetic air

a) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg PurCO2pur007txt degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg

P a g e | 86

Component molmol uncertainty ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ CO2 09999922500 00000026021 H2O 00000015000 00000008660 O2 00000010000 00000005774 Methane 00000010000 00000005774 H2 00000002500 00000001443 N2 00000040000 00000023094

b) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar parent gas

a Pure Argon degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg PurAr_A106273txt degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg Component molmol uncertainty ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Ar 09999998100 00000000880 O2 00000000050 00000000029 H2O 00000000100 00000000058 CO2 00000000005 00000000003 CnHm 00000000250 00000000144 N2 00000001500 00000000866

b Pure Oxygen

degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg PurO2_207494Htxt degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg Component molmol uncertainty ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ O2 09999974360 00000011650 CO2 00000001640 00000000082 CO 00000000500 00000000289 CnHm 00000000500 00000000289 N2 00000020000 00000011547 H2O 00000002500 00000001443 H2 00000000500 00000000289

c Pure Nitrogen

degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg Purazote_bip_GQ88DUItxt degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg

P a g e | 87

Component molmol uncertainty ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ N2 09999749345 00000144338 CO2 00000000005 00000000003 H2O 00000000100 00000000058 Ar 00000250000 00000144338 O2 00000000050 00000000029 H2 00000000250 00000000144 CnHm 00000000250 00000000144

c) Dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures

a Argonoxygen premix

b CO2N2 premix

c Final mixtures of CO2 in air

ArgonO2

428843 plusmn 000096

Pure Argon

94147 g (u=0011 g)

Pure Oxygen

1736737 g (u=0015 g)

CO2N2 0065

099842 plusmn 000020

CO2N2 0064

100131 plusmn 00013

181585 g (u=0016 g)

Pure N2

1422808 g (u=0019 g)

Pure CO2

248725 g (u=0017 g)

Pure N2

1550854 g (u=0019 g)

P a g e | 88

d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures The gravimetric concentrations of the CO2 gas mixtures in air have been verified with a micro gas chromatograph (chrompack CP2003) The components are separated by a HayeSep A

CO2Air 0028

37948 plusmn 079 micromolmol

CO2N2 0065

60219 g (u=0017 g)

ArgonO2

398173 g (u=0017 g)

Pure N2

1170753 g (u=0020 g)

CO2Air 0029

4776 plusmn 10 micromolmol

CO2N2 0065

76351 g (u=0017 g)

ArgonO2

399720 g (u=0017 g)

Pur N2

1165053 g (u=0020 g)

CO2Air 0030

8022 plusmn 17 micromolmol

CO2N2 0065

128097 g (u=0020 g)

ArgonO2

396171 g (u=0021 g)

Pur N2

1114778 g (u=0023 g)

P a g e | 89

column at 70degC with an hydrogen pressure at 200 kPa The injection is performed at a pressure of 15 bar during 100 ms Each CO2 gas mixture in air is compared by chromatography to a reference gas mixture of CO2 in air generated by dilution of a high concentration gravimetric gas mixture (CO2 in nitrogen) with a Molbloc flowmeter 30 runs are performed with the reference gas mixture 30 runs are performed with the gas mixture to be verified and 30 runs are performed again with the reference gas mixture The 10 previous runs are used to calculate the analytical concentration The gas mixture is validated if the difference between the analytical and gravimetric concentrations is lower than the quadratic sum of the variances

e) Stability of the gas mixtures between the time they were prepared and the time they were shipped to the BIPM The CO2 gases mixtures in air have been analysed 3 times during a period of 2 months before being sent to BIPM

P a g e | 90

P a g e | 91

BFKH

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for carbon dioxide in air standards in the

range (380‐480) micromolmol and (480‐800) micromolmol

A1 General information

Institute Hungarian Trade Licensing Office MKEH

Address Neacutemetvoumllgyi uacutet 37‐39 Budapest

1124 Hungary

Contact person Judit Fuumlkő Zsoacutefia Nagyneacute Szilaacutegyi Tamaacutes Buumlki

Telephone +36 1 4585988

+36 1 4585800

Fax + 36 1 4585 937

Email tothnefjmkehhu

P a g e | 92

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 OMH54 37984 171 2

2 OMH44 47989 211 2

3 OMH69 80030 292 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted)

(Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number OMH54

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit CoverageFactor

N2 078039 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209615 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009607 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5130 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number OMH44

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

P a g e | 93

N2 078064 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209514 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009360 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5130 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number OMH69

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078072 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209161 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009314 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5130 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

A4 Uncertainty Budget

Uncertainty budget of preparation of CO2 standard by gravimetry

OMH69 800ppm

Uncertainty

source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 138729 g Normal 000046 g 1 33158E‐04

martix mass 11397986 g Normal 0026 g 1 22811E‐05

P a g e | 94

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000333

ppm 027

OMH44 480ppm

Uncertainty

source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 081399 g Normal 000034 g 1 41770E‐04

martix mass 111578 g Normal 0026 g 1 23302E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000419

ppm 020

OMH54 380ppm

Uncertainty

source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 064422 g Normal 000032 g 1 49672E‐04

martix mass 11159357 g Normal 0026 g 1 23299E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000498

P a g e | 95

ppm 019

The standard uncertainty of xi can be expressed as xuxuxuxuxu sti

2veri

2veri

2prepi

2i

2 (1)

xprep amount-of-substance fraction from preparation (micromolmol) uprep uncertainty of xprep (micromolmol) uver uncertainty from verification (micromolmol) ust uncertainty of calibration standard (micromolmol)

verix diffenece between the gravimetric preparation value and the result of verification measurement (micromolmol)

Ux stated uncertainty of laboratory at 95 level of confidence (micromolmol) k assigned coverage factor for degree of equivalence Laboratory Code

Cylinder xprep uprep uver ust verix k U(xi)

U(xi)

ppm ppm rel

MKEH OMH54 37984 019 08 019 014 2 171 045

OMH44 47989 020 10 020 018 2 211 044

OMH69 80030 027 14 028 015 2 292 036

A5 Additional information

A51 SOURCE OF CO2 NITROGEN OXIGEN ARGON

CO2 48 from SIAD Italy

N2 45 from Messer Hungary

O2 50 from Messer Hungary

Ar 46 from Messer Hungary

A52 PURITY TABLE OF PURE CO2 (38458)

Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol)

Uncertainty

(molmol)

CO2 specifications 09999885 00000133

N2 specifications 00000050 00000058

H2O specifications 00000025 00000029

P a g e | 96

CH4 specifications 00000025 00000029

O2 specifications 00000015 00000017

A53 PURITY TABLE OF PURE NITROGEN

Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol)

Uncertainty

(molmol)

N2 specifications 09999870 00000150

O2 specifications 00000050 00000058

H2O specifications 00000050 00000058

CH4 specifications 00000025 00000029

CO specifications 00000005 00000006

A54 PURITY TABLE OF PURE OXIGEN

Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol)

Uncertainty

(molmol)

O2 specifications 09999866 00000155

N2 specifications 00000100 00000115

H2O specifications 00000025 00000029

CH4 specifications 000000003 00000004

CO specifications 000000003 00000004

CO2 specifications 000000003 00000004

A55 PURITY TABLE OF PURE ARGON

Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol)

Uncertainty

(molmol)

Ar specifications 09999822 00000206

P a g e | 97

O2 specifications 00000025 00000029

H2O specifications 00000050 00000058

N2 specifications 00000100 00000116

CO2 specifications 00000003 00000004

A56 PREPARATION OF THE MIXTURES

We used 94 L aluminum cylinder (Luxfer) with brass valves DIN10 All the three mixtures were prepared without dilution series First the pure CO2 was filled with using loop into the properly prepared cylinder the mass measurement of the loop was carried out by an analytical balance ndash Mettler Toledo AE240‐S After the pure gases were filled directly gravimetrically after each other and the measurement of the gas mass was carried out by a topload balance ndash Mettler Toledo XP26003L

A57 VERIFICATION OF THE MIXTURES

All the three mixtures measured using methaniser at Agilent GC‐FID and we used MKEH standard gases one by one for calibration this method to the purpose of confirm that the gravimetric value and uncertainty for the carbon dioxide mole fraction of its standards is valid and it is included in the calculation of the reference value

A58 STABILITY OF THE MIXTURES

All the three mixtures were measured using methaniser at Agilent GC‐FID three times independently between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM There wasnrsquot significant difference between the certified values and the measured values

A59 CYLINDER PRESSURE BEFORE SHIPMENT TO THE BIPM 100 bar

P a g e | 98

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for carbon dioxide in air standards in the range (380‐480) micromolmol and (480‐800) micromolmol A1 General information

Institute Government Office of the Capital City Budapest BFKH (former MKEH)

Address Neacutemetvoumllgyi uacutet 37‐39Budapest 1124 Hungary

Contact person Judit Fuumlkő Tamaacutes Buumlki Zsoacutefia Nagyneacute Szilaacutegyi

Telephone +36 1 4585988 +36 1 4585800

Fax + 36 1 4585 937

Email fukojuditbfkhgovhu

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 OMH54 3798 17 2

2 OMH44 4644 28 2

P a g e | 99

3 OMH69 8003 29 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted)

(Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number OMH54

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078039 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209615 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009607 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5100 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number OMH44

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078064 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209514 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009360 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5100 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number OMH69

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078072 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209161 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009314 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5100 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

P a g e | 100

A4 Uncertainty Budget Uncertainty budget of preparation of CO2 standard by gravimetry

OMH69 800ppm

Uncertainty source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 138729 g Normal 000046 g 1 33158E‐04

martix mass 11397986 g Normal 0026 g 1 22811E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000333

ppm 027

OMH44 480ppm

Uncertainty source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 081399 g Normal 000034 g 1 41770E‐04

martix mass 111578 g Normal 0026 g 1 23302E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000419

ppm 020

P a g e | 101

OMH54 380ppm

Uncertainty source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 064422 g Normal 000032 g 1 49672E‐04

martix mass 11159357 g Normal 0026 g 1 23299E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000498

ppm 019

The standard uncertainty of xi can be expressed as

xuxuxuxuxu sti2

veri2

veri2

prepi2

i2 (1)

xprep amount-of-substance fraction from preparation (micromolmol) uprep uncertainty of xprep (micromolmol) uver uncertainty from verification (micromolmol) ust uncertainty of calibration standard (micromolmol)

verix diffenece between the gravimetric preparation value and the result of verification measurement (micromolmol)

Ux stated uncertainty of laboratory at 95 level of confidence (micromolmol) k assigned coverage factor for degree of equivalence

Laboratory Code

Cylinder xprep

uprep xmeas um ust verix k U(xi) U(xi)

ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm rel

BFKH OMH54 37984 019 08 019 014 2 17 045

OMH44 47989 020 46444 14 020 2 28 058

OMH69 80030 027 14 028 015 2 29 036

The stability measurements indicated some preparation mistake in case of the OMH44 cylinder The certified value of this cylinder was calculated from the measurements and the uncertainty from the equation below

xuxuxuxu sti2

easmi2

prepi2

i2

P a g e | 102

A5 Additional information A51 SOURCE OF CO2 NITROGEN OXIGEN ARGON CO2 48 from SIAD Italy N2 45 from Messer Hungary O2 50 from Messer Hungary Ar 46 from Messer Hungary A52 PURITY TABLE OF PURE CO2 (38458) Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol) Uncertainty (molmol)

CO2 Specifications 09999885 00000133 N2 Specifications 00000050 00000058 H2O Specifications 00000025 00000029 CH4 Specifications 00000025 00000029 O2 Specifications 00000015 00000017 A53 PURITY TABLE OF PURE NITROGEN Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol) Uncertainty (molmol)

N2 Specifications 09999870 00000150 O2 Specifications 00000050 00000058 H2O Specifications 00000050 00000058 CH4 Specifications 00000025 00000029 CO Specifications 00000005 00000006 A54 PURITY TABLE OF PURE OXIGEN Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol) Uncertainty (molmol)

O2 Specifications 09999866 0000016 N2 Specifications 00000100 0000012 H2O Specifications 00000025 00000029 CH4 Specifications 000000003 00000004 CO Specifications 000000003 00000004 CO2 Specifications 000000003 00000004 A55 PURITY TABLE OF PURE ARGON Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol) Uncertainty (molmol)

Ar Specifications 09999822 00000200 O2 Specifications 00000025 00000029 H2O Specifications 00000050 00000058 N2 Specifications 00000100 0000012 CO2 Specifications 00000003 00000004 A56 PREPARATION OF THE MIXTURES We used 94 L aluminum cylinder (Luxfer) with brass valves DIN10

P a g e | 103

All the three mixtures were prepared without dilution series First the pure CO2 was filled with using loop into the properly prepared cylinder the mass measurement of the loop was carried out by an analytical balance ndash Mettler Toledo AE240‐S After the pure gases were filled directly gravimetrically after each other and the measurement of the gas mass was carried out by a topload balance ndash Mettler Toledo XP26003L A57 VERIFICATION OF THE MIXTURES All the three mixtures measured using methaniser at Agilent GC‐FID and we used MKEH standard gases one by one for calibration this method to the purpose of confirm that the gravimetric value and uncertainty for the carbon dioxide mole fraction of its standards is valid and it is included in the calculation of the reference value A58 STABILITY OF THE MIXTURES All the three mixtures were measured using methaniser at Agilent GC‐FID three times independently between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM A59 CYLINDER PRESSURE BEFORE SHIPMENT TO THE BIPM 100 bar

P a g e | 104

NIM

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM-K120 Carbon dioxide in Air Laboratory National Institute of Metrology

Cylinders number FB03748 FB03744 FB03747

Preparation report

A1 General information

Institute National Institute of Metrology China

Address 18 Bei San Huan Dong Lu Chaoyang District City Bei Jing

Building 17 Room 217

Contact person BI Zhe Zeyi Zhou

Telephone 86-10-84232306 Fax 86-10-84232306

Email zhouzynimaccn bizhnimaccn

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM-K120a Yes

CCQM-K120b Yes

A3 Submitted values for carbon dioxide preparation results in each standard

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2 μmolmol )( CO2 certxU

μmolmol

1 FB03748 80982 026 2

2 FB03744 48915 022 2

P a g e | 105

3 FB03747 38343 020 2

A4 Submitted values for each standardrsquos matrix Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted)

(Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number FB03748

Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage

Factor CH4(Methane) 101times10-9 molmol 203E-10 molmol 2 C2H4(Ethene) 146times10-10 molmol 113E-10 molmol 2 C3H8(Propane) 518times10-10 molmol 405E-10 molmol 2 N2(Nitrogen) 0781 molmol 271E-05 molmol 2 O2(Oxygen) 0210 molmol 260E-05 molmol 2 Ar(Argon) 794times10-3 molmol 969E-06 molmol 2 H2O(Water) 291times10-7 molmol 139E-07 molmol 2 N2O(Dinitrogen_oxide) 790times10-10 molmol 586E-10 molmol 2 CO2(Carbon_dioxide) 80982times10-4 molmol 248E-07 molmol 2 (Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number FB03744

Component Mole fraction Value

Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

CH4(Methane) 101E-09 molmol 308E-10 molmol 2 C2H4(Ethene) 880E-11 molmol 685E-11 molmol 2 C3H8(Propane) 313E-10 molmol 245E-10 molmol 2 N2(Nitrogen) 781E-01 molmol 275E-05 molmol 2 O2(Oxygen) 210E-01 molmol 264E-05 molmol 2 Ar(Argon) 904E-03 molmol 990E-06 molmol 2 H2O(Water) 290E-07 molmol 139E-07 molmol 2 N2O(Dinitrogen_oxide) 790E-10 molmol 601E-10 molmol 2 CO2(Carbon_dioxide) 48915E-04 molmol 191E-07 molmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number FB03747 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage

Factor CH4(Methane) 101E-09 molmol 408E-10 molmol 2 C2H4(Ethene) 690E-11 molmol 537E-11 molmol 2 C3H8(Propane) 245E-10 molmol 192E-10 molmol 2 N2(Nitrogen) 782E-01 molmol 288E-05 molmol 2 O2(Oxygen) 209E-01 molmol 276E-05 molmol 2 Ar(Argon) 922E-03 molmol 102E-05 molmol 2 H2O(Water) 289E-07 molmol 139E-07 molmol 2 N2O(Dinitrogen_oxide) 791E-10 molmol 607E-10 molmol 2 CO2(Carbon_dioxide) 38343E-04 molmol 183E-07 molmol 2 CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

P a g e | 106

Cylinder

Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 2 3

A5 Uncertainty Budget Please provide a complete uncertainty budgets for the CO2 mole fraction values reported

Uncertainty budget

Cylinder

Gravimetric

valueμmolmol

Component distribution Standard

uncertaintyμmolmol

FB03748 80982

Combined uncertainty of

Purity Molecular and

Weighing

Normal 0124

Repeatability of the

measurement Normal 0040

Combined standard uncertainty 013

FB03744 48915

Combined uncertainty of

Purity Molecular and

Weighing

Normal 0096

Repeatability of the

measurement Normal 0030

Combined standard uncertainty 011

FB03747 38343

Combined uncertainty of

Purity Molecular and

Weighing

Normal 0092

Repeatability of the

measurement Normal 0030

Combined standard uncertainty 010

A6 Additional information

P a g e | 107

Please include in this section in the case of standards produced with synthetic air

g) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas h) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar NO2 and CH4 parent gas i) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures j) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures k) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time

they are shipped to the BIPM and l) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

a) purity table for the nominally pure CO2 09999924 molmol

Component Amount fraction

(10-6molmol)

Standard uncertainty

(10-6molmol) Assumed distribution

CH4 113 045 Normal

C2H4 018 007 Normal

C3H8 064 025 Normal

O2 052 021 Normal

Ar 010 004 Normal

N2 251 100 Normal

H2O 250 100 Normal

N2O 0001 00006 Rectangular

CO2 9999924 15 Normal

b) purity table for the nominally pure N2 0 9999521 molmol

Component Amount fraction

(10-6molmol)

Standard uncertainty

(10-6molmol) Assumed distribution

CH4 0001 00005 Rectangular

Ar 483 48 Normal

O2 002 0006 Normal

CO2 0010 0003 Normal

H2O 010 004 Normal

N2O 0001 00004 Rectangular

P a g e | 108

N2 9999521 48 Normal

purity table for the nominally pure O2 0 9999959 molmol

Component Amount fraction

(10-6molmol)

Standard uncertainty

(10-6molmol) Assumed distribution

CH4 0001 00003 Normal

Ar 20 05 Normal

N2 11 03 Normal

CO2 00012 00004 Rectangular

H2O 12 04 Normal

N2O 0001 00004 Rectangular

O2 9999959 48 Normal

purity table for the nominally pure Ar 09999998 molmol

Component Amount fraction

(10-6molmol)

Standard uncertainty

(10-6molmol) Assumed distribution

CH4 0001 00003 Normal

O2 0020 0005 Normal

N2 0010 0001 Normal

CO2 0001 00004 Rectangular

H2O 01 04 Normal

N2O 0001 00004 Rectangular

Ar 9999998 48 Normal

P a g e | 109

c) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures

d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures Seven primary standard cylinders of CO2 in air mixture were measured by CRDs A linearity regression was established based on these seven cylinders For each point an average of date recorded in 2 minutes were used The verification wre done by the comparison of gravimetric values and the calculated values

Gravimetric value Fitted value Relative deviation

y = 1002382 x + 0187049 Rsup2 = 1000000

350

450

550

650

750

850

350 450 550 650 750 850

Measured value VS Gravimetric value

1047095 g

CO2

N2

26743 g

CO2N2 15998ppm

Ar O2 N2

FB03748

CO2N2 32592 g Ar 7193 g O2 153303 g N2 466458 g

FB03744

CO2N2 19417 g Ar 8082 g O2 150754 g N2 472375 g

FB03747

CO2N2 14474 g Ar 7835 g O2 142777 g N2 453560 g

P a g e | 110

μmolmol μmolmol 80982 80965 -0021 81307 81319 0015 49106 49113 0014 48915 48928 0025 37819 37818 -0003 39162 39161 -0004 38343 38332 -0030

e) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are

prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM

Three test gas mixtures were prepared 3 months before the comparison After gas mixtures for the comparison were prepared a liner regression was done by combining the test gas mixtures and the comparison cylinders No significant drift of the values was observed between the time they were prepared and the time they were shipped to the BIPM f) cylinders pressure before shipment to the BIPM

Cylinder No Pressure (bar) FB03748 90 FB03744 90 FB03747 90

P a g e | 111

NIST

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM‐K120‐R Project name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department

Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form

Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute NIST

Address 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8393

Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8393

Contact person George C Rhoderick

Telephone 301‐975‐3937 Fax 301‐977‐8392

P a g e | 112

Email GeorgeRhodericknistgov

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 FB04278 3790449 03908 2

2 FB04300 4726617 04280 2

3 FB04287 7945334 10287 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number FB04278

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0780812 molmol 0000118 molmol 2

O2 0209470 molmol 000071 molmol 2

Ar 0009339 molmol 000037 molmol 2

CH4 nmolmol nmolmol

N2O nmolmol nmolmol

P a g e | 113

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number FB04300

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0780771 molmol 0000128 molmol 2

O2 0209422 molmol 0000081 molmol 2

Ar 0009334 molmol 0000034 molmol 2

CH4 nmolmol nmolmol

N2O nmolmol nmolmol

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number FB04287

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0780499 molmol 0000114 molmol 2

O2 0209370 molmol 0000067 molmol 2

Ar 0009336 molmol 0000040 molmol 2

CH4 nmolmol nmolmol

N2O nmolmol nmolmol

CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 FB04278 ‐28 plusmn 2 1

2 FB04300 ‐28 plusmn 2 1

3 FB04287 ‐28 plusmn 2 1

A4 Uncertainty Budget Please provide a complete uncertainty budgets for the CO2 mole fraction values reported

P a g e | 114

A5 Additional information

FB04278

Standard Relative ContributionValue Uncertainty Uncertianty to Uncertainty

Major Component MW 2801340 000016 00000058 00020

Minor Component MW 4400950 000052 00000119 00041

Mass Parent Gas 1893585 000146 00000769 00264

Mass Balance Gas 7453878 00020 00000027 00009

Minor Component Wt Fraction 0023250750 0000006755 00002905 00997

Mass minor component - Parent 044027281 000013232 00003005 01031Mass minor component - Bal 000006695 000001936 02890953 991626

Total mass minor component 044017935 000022556 00005124 01758

Moles of minor component 001000192 000000513 00005126 01758

Balance gas wt fraction (purity) 0755569792 390976E-05 00000517 00177

Mass balance gas - parent 1397906371 000148549 00001063 00365Mass balance gas - balance 56319253120 002918142 00000518 00178

Total mass balance gas 57717159491 002921920 00000506 00174

Moles of balance gas 2060341104 000104994 00000510 00175

Moles impurities from parent 013966291020 000002524000 00001807 00620

Moles impurities from balance 56340784 00010163 00001804 00619

Total Moles of gas 263871542 00014615 00000554 00190

Conc minor component (ppm) 3790449 01954Relative uncert 0052 0292 100000

FB04300

Standard Relative Contribution

Value Uncertainty Uncertianty to Uncertainty

Major Component MW 2801340 000016 00000058 00025

Minor Component MW 4400950 000052 00000119 00050

Mass Parent Gas 2953886 000141 00000477 00201

Mass Balance Gas 74869117 000194 00000026 00011

CO2 Component Wt Fraction 0018926076 0000006339 00003350 01414

Mass CO2 component - Parent 055905476 000018915 00003383 01428Mass CO2 component - Balance Air 000003828 000000898 02345407 989951

Total mass CO2 component 055885777 000025068 00004486 01893

Moles of minor component 001269857 000000570 00004487 01894

Balance gas wt fraction (purity) 07556035 000004300 00000569 00240Mass balance gas - parent 2190310136 000191642 00000875 00369

Mass balance gas - balance 56571366688 003222901 00000570 00240

Total mass balance gas 58761676824 003228594 00000549 00232

Moles of balance gas 2097627451 000115899 00000553 00233

Moles impurities from parent 021883087438 000003747112 00001712 00723

Moles impurities from balance 56582830 00011276 00001993 00841

Total Moles of gas 268660869 00016174 00000602 00254

Conc minor component (ppm) 4726617 02140Relative uncert 0045 0237 100000

FB04287

Standard Relative ContributionValue Uncertainty Uncertianty to Uncertainty

Major Component MW 2801340 000016 00000058 00021

Minor Component MW 4400950 000052 00000119 00042

Mass Parent Gas 3957940 000137 00000346 00122

Mass Balance Gas 7227358 00020 00000028 00010

Minor Component Wt Fraction 0023250750 0000006716 00002889 01017

Mass minor component - Parent 092025076 000026773 00002909 01025Mass minor component - Bal 000005052 000001421 02813263 990842

Total mass minor component 092005795 000059343 00006450 02272

Moles of minor component 002090589 000001349 00006451 02272

Balance gas wt fraction (purity) 0755575527 389029E-05 00000515 00181

Mass balance gas - parent 2921880196 000218877 00000749 00264Mass balance gas - balance 54608149036 002815892 00000516 00182

Total mass balance gas 57530029233 002824386 00000491 00173

Moles of balance gas 2053661078 000101531 00000494 00174

Moles impurities from parent 029192104701 000004836046 00001657 00583

Moles impurities from balance 54627264 00009803 00001795 00632

Total Moles of gas 263121641 00014122 00000537 00189

Conc minor component (ppm) 7945334 05143Relative uncert 0065 0284 100000

P a g e | 115

Please include in this section in the case of standards produced with synthetic air

m) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas n) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar NO2 and CH4

parent gas o) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures p) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures q) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are

prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM and r) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

Or with real air

a) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas Compound molmol Uncertainty CO2 0999994000 0000002000 N2 0000002000 0000001155 O2 0000002000 0000001155 Ar 0000002000 0000001155

b) results of the analysis and mole fractions and uncertainties of CO2 N2 O2 Ar N2O and CH4 in the scrubbed real air (if performed)

Cylinder FB04300 Compound molmol Uncertainty N2 0781133467 0000043500 CO2 0000000151 0000000036 O2 0209528241 0000039865 Ar 0009338142 0000017407

Cylinder FB04278 Compound molmol Uncertainty N2 0781102830 0000039359 CO2 0000000059 0000000017 O2 0209554557 0000034507 Ar 0009342554 0000018932

Cylinder FB04287 Compound molmol Uncertainty N2 0781108354 0000039152 CO2 0000000046 0000000013 O2 0209548136 0000033045 Ar 0009343463 0000020998

P a g e | 116

c) a brief outline of the preparation procedure of the final mixtures

The three cylinders were evacuated to ~ 05 micro of Hg filled to ~ 07 Mpa with UHP Air and vented to atmosphere (four times) and evacuated to ~ 05 micro Hg A calculated aliquot of the parent cylinder was added to each cylinder and then weighed A calculated aliquot of the matrix gas was added to each cylinder and then weighed The cylinders were rolled for ~ three hours to mix the component gases

d) a composition table for each of the final mixtures including gravimetric Uncertainties when relevant Cylinder FB04300 Compound molmol Uncertainty CO2 0000472662 0000000214 N2 0780771482 0000063800 O2 0209421668 0000040372 Ar 0009334188 0000016775 Cylinder FB04278 Compound molmol Uncertainty CO2 0000379045 0000000195 N2 0780812166 0000058766 O2 0209469584 0000035657 Ar 0009339205 0000018480 Cylinder FB04287 Compound molmol Uncertainty CO2 0000794533 0000000514 N2 0780498735 0000056955 O2 0209370336 0000033285 Ar 0009336395 0000019945

e) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures The cylinders were verified against five existing PSMs a minimum of six times using an Isotopic CO2 Cavity Ringdown Spectrometer

f) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM and

g) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

P a g e | 117

Cylinder MPa FB04300 965 FB04278 1034 FB04278 999

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders 1st report

2nd report received on May 16 2018

Addendum to NIST Report for CCQM-K120a and b 1 Introduction NIST agreed to participate in the CCQM-K120a and b Key Comparison (KC) with the understanding that this KC involved gravimetrically value-assigned samples As stated in the protocol summary the comparison involved ldquohellip preparative capabilities for carbon dioxide in air primary reference mixturesrdquo Based on this description of the KC as involving primary reference mixtures NIST assumed that the participantsrsquo value assignments and reported data were restricted solely to those that derive from purity assessments and primary gravimetric measurements However prior to submission of the reported concentrations to GAWG NIST discovered a significant discrepancy in the gravimetric values which was caused by extenuating circumstances (discussed below) and which was quantified using supplementary measurements carried out at NIST Nevertheless to follow the KC protocol and to meet the imposed deadlines NIST submitted only the gravimetric-based concentration values for the three required CO2-in-air samples despite having assessed that the results were not expected to agree with the eventual calculated KCRV 2 Background Studies on CO2 adsorptiondesorption issues NIST performed and continues to investigate an adsorptiondesorption phenomenon with CO2 in air mixtures [1] NIST has observed in 5 and 6 L aluminum cylinders containing nominal 400 micromolmol CO2 in air mixtures initial CO2 adsorption to the cylinder walls of as little as 02 micromolmol to more than 1 micromolmol depending on the cylinder and internal treatment tested It has been observed that CO2 initially adsorbs on the cylinder walls when a mixture is

NIST CCQM K120 comparison samples dataPressure August 112017 Pressure

Original Reported Original Verified Veri‐Grav departure Re‐verified Value ReVerified value‐ back

Cylinder Gravimetirc Value ppm Value ppm Diff from NIST Stability check ppm Grav Value ppm to NIST

FB04278 37905 plusmn 039 38030 plusmn 028 033 1034 MPa 38007 plusmn 030 027 724 MPa

FB04300 47266 plusmn 043 47340 plusmn 034 016 965 MPa 47337 plusmn 052 015 724 MPa

FB04287 79453 plusmn 103 79512 plusmn 058 007 999 MPa 79477 plusmn 038 003 724 MPa

Re‐verified Value Re‐Verified‐ Pressure back

SRM Sample Original Certified Value Stability check ppm Orig Cert to NIST

1720‐A‐26 39397 plusmn 013 39403 plusmn 020 0015 414 MPa (600 psi)

P a g e | 118

prepared to high pressure (asymp12 MPa asymp1800 psi) NIST modeled some of that early data that shows an increase in CO2 mole fraction (∆x) with reduced cylinder pressure from measurements of a CO2 in air mixture contained in a 6 L aluminum cylinder using the Langmuir isotherm (Irving Langmuir 1916 1918) and is shown in Figure 1

Figure 1 Measured CO2 mole fraction increase versus pressure decrease in a 6 L aluminum cylinder Solid black points represent actual measured mole fraction Solid blue line represents applied Langmuir Isotherm model Using the actual measured CO2 change in 5 L and 6 L cylinders and the Langmuir isotherm NIST modeled for projected ∆x CO2 variation for 30 L and 47 L aluminum cylinders as shown in Figure 2 The models predict that the larger the cylinder volume the less change in the CO2 mole fraction with pressure loss NIST studies of CO2 in air mixtures contained in 30 L cylinders indeed show less increase in the mole fraction of CO2 as the pressure in the cylinder decreases Therefore the surface-to-volume ratio appears to play a major role the larger the cylinder volume the less CO2 increase It is most likely that this phenomenon takes place not only at ambient CO2 mole fractions but also at much higher levels including a few molmol and higher

Figure 2 Projected variation in ∆x for 6-L 30-L and 47-L cylinders applying Langmuir Isotherm This background information was presented at the GAWG meeting in April 2017 as analyses of K120 a and b were underway These results account for the discrepant NIST values in K120 a and b More generally this study informed participants of the serious potential pitfalls associated with desorption of CO2 from cylinder walls and the dependence of this process on total charge cylinder dimensions etc and revealed the possibility of unaccounted for Type B uncertainties caused by interactions of CO2 with cylinder walls Partly because of these findings and the

P a g e | 119

occurrence of extremely low uncertainties reported by some NMIs GAWG decided to put a lower limit on the expanded uncertainty equal to 019 mol mol-1 thus affecting the relative weighting of the results contributing to the KCRV 3 Preparation of K120 Samples In conjunction with submitting freshly prepared gravimetric standards for the CCQM-K120 CO2 in air key comparison NIST also wanted to prepare a complete new suite of ambient level CO2 in air primary standard mixtures (PSMs) starting with a pure natural isotopic CO2 source That new pure CO2 source arrived at NIST in November 2016 Because there was a limited amount of pure CO2 in the cylinder obtained NIST started development by gravimetrically preparing four PSMs in the range of 1-3 molmol in CO2 and moisture scrubbed real air Upon completion of those PSMs in early December 2016 they were analyzed by GC-TCD along with the NIST 2012 CO2 suite with ratios calculated from peak area responses to a control Generalized least squares regression was used to plot the ratios vs gravimetric values of the 2012 PSMs The new percent level PSMs were predicted from the regression line The results of that comparison are shown in Table 1 Inspection of the residuals from the difference of the predicted Ysolution- YGrav value for the 2012 PSMs reveals excellent agreement However the predicted Yeval values for the new PSMs disagree with their gravimetric values by more than -2 Table 1 New percent level PSMs predicted from linear regression of 2012 PSMs

Based on these results either the 2012 suite of PSMs had increased in mole fraction because of desorption of CO2 from the cylinder surface with pressure decrease or the new source of pure CO2 was contaminated Indeed the pure CO2 was eventually analyzed in January of 2017 and found to be contaminated with 31 molmol N2 Because NIST had no time to obtain another source of pure CO2 to make another set of PSMs (K120 samples needed to be shipped to BIPM by the end of December 2016) we had to assume that the 2012 percent level PSMs were stable We made this assumption knowing that it most likely was not the case because the CO2 mole fraction had increased as these standards were below asymp 45 MPa (asymp650 psi) Not having another source of CO2 (the original CO2 source used for the 2012 suite and the source for over three decades was spent) NIST could not prepare new percent-level standards to verify the 2012 percent level standards and determine if the CO2 had indeed increased

Res idua l

2012 PSM X (Ratio) Y (Grav molmol) X‐Solution Y‐Solution uTest (Y‐Sol ‐Grav)

FA02584 244265 49500 244266 49490 Pass ‐002

FA02588 22877 46190 22877 46205 Pass 003

APEX1099215 078272 15422 078272 15420 Pass ‐001

APEX1099172 063673 12535 063656 12538 Pass 002

CAL016532 050028 09869 05003 09869 Pass 000

difference

From New CO2 Xin (Ratio) uXin Yeval (molmol) uYeval Grav Value Yeval‐Grav

FB03808 139347 000103 27669 00033 28288 ‐219

APEX1099165 118456 000141 23442 00035 24043 ‐250

APEX1099188 11708 000130 23164 00033 23773 ‐256

APEX1099246 078483 000058 15462 00015 15822 ‐228

(plusmn 00007)

P a g e | 120

NIST moved forward and prepared the three K120 standards from the 2012 PSMs cylinder number APEX1099215 at (15422 plusmn 00010) molmol and APEX1099172 at (12535 plusmn 00009) molmol (highlighted in green in Table 1) Figure 3 shows the preparation scheme

Figure 3 Preparation scheme for NIST K120 samples It is very important to state here that both cylinders were low in pressure when the three K120 standards were prepared from them APEX1099215 at 520 psi and APEX1099172 at 390 psi While NIST did not have stability data for percent-level CO2 in air mixtures we still suspected that the CO2 also increases at this mole fraction level as the pressure decreases After preparation of the three K120 standards they were compared to the 2012 ambient level PSMs and three SRM samples were also included Figure 4 shows the generalized least squares regression plotted for the 2012 PSMs represented by the black circles The blue circles represent the predicted value for the SRM 1720 samples from that regression and the red triangles represent the original SRM 1720 certified value The green squares represent the predicted value for the K120 samples from that regression line while the yellow circle with red border represent the gravimetric values From this plot the blue dotted linear regression line appears to cover all the data points

Pure CO2

CC282116

999940 plusmn 00002

APEX1099172 APEX1099215

12535 plusmn 00009 15422 plusmn 00010

molmol molmol

FB04300 FB04300 FB04300

472662 plusmn 0214 379045 plusmn 0214 794533 plusmn 0514

micromolmol micromolmol micromolmol

combined uncerta inties k=1

350

450

550

650

750

850

950

070 090 110 130 150 170 190

CO2mole fraction micro

molmol

Response Ratio

2012 CO2 PSMs

K120 Standards Predicted

K120 Grav Value

Predicted SRM 1720

SRM1720 Certified Value

P a g e | 121

Figure 4 Generalized least squares regression through NIST 2012 ambient CO2 PSM suite predicting SRM 1720 and K120 samples However if we expand the lower portion of the regression from (350-400) micromolmol we see disagreement between the new standards and SRM 1720 certified values as shown in Figure 5 While the predicted and gravimetric value for the 380 micromolmol K120 standard are still on the regression line the SRM 1720 certified values are off the regression line by around +1 micromol mol (03 relative) However the predicted and gravimetric value for the 380 micromolmol K120 sample lie on the regression line NIST has complete confidence that the SRM 1720 samples contained in 30-L cylinders are stable since they were all at pressures of +11 MPa Therefore NIST suspected that the 2012 PSMs all had increased in concentration and hence would predict the SRM 1720 samples to have less CO2 The fact that the K120 samples also lie on the line with the 2012 PSM regression we can postulate that the 2012 percent level PSMs had also increased in CO2 mole fraction as they had pressures less than 45 MPa (650 psi) when used to prepare the K120 samples

Figure 5 Expansion of Figure 4 illustrating that the SRM 1720 certified values lie off the regression line while K120 gravimetric and predicted values are still on the regression line Expanded uncertainty error bars are present but too small to be observed except in the red triangle SRM 1720 Certified Value NIST took this data for the 2012 ambient level PSMs and determined values by comparison to SRM sample 1720-A-29 with a certified value of (39312 plusmn 013) micromolmol with and (k = 2) uncertainty value at a pressure of +12 MPa The values determined for the PSMs from the SRM 1720 sample are significantly different from their gravimetric values with reduced pressure as shown in Table 2 Table 2 Ambient level 2012 PSMs determined from SRM sample 1720-A-29

4 Validity of SRM 1720 samples The SRM 1720 sample used to verify these PSMs is contained in a 30-Liter aluminum cylinder Other SRM 1720 samples have shown to be stable within uncertainty limits down to around 600 psi as shown in Table 3

‐029

‐037‐031

378

383

388

393

398

074 075 075 076 076 077 077 078 078 079 079

CO2mole fraction micro

molmol

Response Ratio

2012 CO2 PSMs

K120 Standard Predicted

K120 Standard Grav Value

SRM 1720 Predicted Value

SRM 1720 Certified Value

Gravimetric Concentration vs SRM1720 Difference Pressure

2012 PSM Mole Fraction micromolmol micromolmol micromolmol Diff ps i (Mpa)

APEX1099211 96107 plusmn 003 96091 plusmn 020 0160 002 1200 (827)

APEX1099176 91907 plusmn 046 91922 plusmn 025 ‐0150 ‐002 650 (448)

APEX1099164 67362 plusmn 035 67405 plusmn 015 ‐0430 ‐006 800 (552)

APEX1099223 63330 plusmn 042 63367 plusmn 017 ‐0370 ‐006 700 (483)

APEX1005714 42108 plusmn 006 42246 plusmn 009 ‐1380 ‐033 300 (207)

APEX1005721 39885 plusmn 006 40003 plusmn 015 ‐1180 ‐030 400 (276)

APEX1005690 37944 plusmn 006 38048 plusmn 010 ‐1040 ‐027 400 (276)

uncerta inty k=1

P a g e | 122

Table 3 Mole fractions showing increase in 30 Liter SRM 1720 samples with pressure loss

SRM 1720 samples were originally certified by comparing to the 2012 suite of four PSMs when they were at full pressure (+11 MPa) three of which are given in Table 2 APEX1005714 (42108 plusmn 006) micromolmol APEX1005721 (39885 plusmn 006) micromolmol and APEX1005690 (37944 plusmn 006) micromolmol The SRM 1720 samples were also analyzed by NOAA with results showing agreement between NIST and NOAA [2] Figure 6 shows that agreement for the 30 real air cylinder samples that comprised SRM 1720

Figure 6 Comparison of NIST and NOAA CO2 values for 30 SRM 1720 samples Error bars are expanded uncertainties at approximate 95 confidence interval 5 Verifying the K120 Samples Because all the original NIST 2012 PSMs at the 380 to 420 micromolmol range were low in pressure they could not be trusted to verify the new K120 PSMs Therefore in late December 2016 NIST used SRM sample 1720-A-29 then at 1700 psi to verify the gravimetric mole fractions in the K120 standards using CRDS Table 4 shows the gravimetric and verified values for the NIST K120 samples The December 2016 verified value is significantly higher by as much as 1 micromolmol than the gravimetric value for each of the three K120 standards This provides strong evidence that even the molmol 2012 PSMs have increased in mole fraction with the decrease in pressure Table 4 Gravimetric and verified values for NIST K120 samples

30 ‐Liter August 2017 Stability

SRM Original Certified Stability check 2017 ‐

Sample Value ppm value ppm Cert ppm

1720‐A‐26a 39397 + 013 (SRM used by BIPM for K120) 39403 + 020 + 006 600 psi 414 Mpa

1720‐AL‐01 38833 plusmn 013 38867 plusmn 014 + 034 325 psi 224 Mpa

1720‐AL‐27 39339 plusmn 013 39364 plusmn 015 + 025 450 psi 31 Mpa

All verified and stability check values determined against SRM 1720‐A‐29 (still at a pressure of 1500+ psi)

All uncertainties reported as expanded k = 2

aSRM 1720‐A‐26 was sent to BIPM as part of their system validation for K120

388

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30mole fraction micro

mol mol ‐1

Sample

NIST

NOAA

Pressure

Original Reported December 2016 Verified Verified‐Grav Verified‐Grav departure

Cylinder Gravimetirc Value ppm Verified Value micromolmol Diff in micromolmol Diff from NIST

FB04278 37905 plusmn 039 38008 plusmn 028 103 027 1034 MPa

FB04300 47266 plusmn 043 47340 plusmn 034 068 016 965 MPa

FB04287 79453 plusmn 103 79512 plusmn 058 059 007 999 MPa

P a g e | 123

Uncertainties at 95 confidence interval NIST was aware when they shipped their K120 samples to BIPM for the K120 comparison that their gravimetric values were not good However we followed the K120 protocol laid down for ldquopreparative capabilities for carbon dioxide in air primary reference mixturesrdquo and submitted the gravimetric values knowing that the verified values were the correct molar fractions for these mixtures 6 Stability check of K120 samples NIST received the three K120 samples back from BIPM in August 2017 and proceeded to check them for stability The three samples were once again compared to SRM 1720-A-29 and those results are shown in Table 5 The August 2017 stability check values agree with the December 2016 verified values and therefore have remained stable as they should be since the pressures were well above those where increases in mole fraction have been observed Table 5 Stability check results for K120 samples

Uncertainties at 95 confidence interval

7 Isotopic Composition The original value submitted by NIST for δ13C of -28 + 2 permil was an error of data transcription NIST had determined this value in 2014 for the pure source of CO2 used to prepare the submitted standards to be δ13C = -38 + 2 permil as determined by FTIR After receiveing the three standards back from BIPM NIST measured the δ13C to be -401 + 01 permil as determined by GC-IRMS 8 NIST Best-Estimate Value If it had been explicitly stated that participants could report their ldquobest-estimate valuerdquo for samples submitted for this CCQM-K120 key comparison for ambient CO2 in air which would not necessarily be their true gravimetric value then NIST would have submitted the values obtained from verification against the SRM sample NIST ldquobest-estimate valuesrdquo are thus given in Table 6 Table 6 NIST Best-Estimate (Verified) Values

August 2017 August 2017 Pressure

December 2016 Verified August 2017 Stability check‐Dec 2016 Stabiity check‐ back

Cylinder Verified Value micromolmol Stability check micromolmol Verified Value micromolmol Verified Value Diff to NIST

FB04278 38008 plusmn 028 38007 plusmn 030 ‐001 ‐0003 724 MPa

FB04300 47340 plusmn 034 47337 plusmn 052 ‐003 ‐0006 724 MPa

FB04287 79512 plusmn 058 79477 plusmn 038 ‐035 ‐0044 724 MPa

P a g e | 124

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 FB04278 38008 028 2

2 FB04300 47340 034 2

3 FB04287 79512 058 2

9 Observations from this Comparison NIST has the opinion that this key comparison was unnecessarily rushed to completion by the pilot laboratory As co-pilot on this comparison NIST should not have agreed to the arbitrary and premature deadline imposed by the pilot laboratory knowing that an optimal level of sample control had not been demonstrated Given that future key comparisons will continue to be co-piloted both parties must agree that the preliminary studies and procedures are sufficiently well-established to set firm deadlines for sample submission by participating NMIrsquos Ideally the mutual decision to set the timeline for the KC and the readiness of other NMIrsquos to participate should be discussed formally by the GAWG at the Spring or Fall meeting NIST also recommends that the GAWG draft a formal policy document that unambiguously defines the terms such as ldquogravimetricrdquo ldquoprimaryrdquo ldquopreparativerdquo ldquoanalyticalrdquo ldquobest-estimaterdquo among others which are used to describe the scope of key comparisons For example in the context of gas standards we might propose that ldquoprimaryrdquo refers to mixtures prepared by gravimetry or manometry On the other hand ldquopreparativerdquo appears with ldquoprimaryrdquo in the K120 a and b protocol summary statement What is the exact meaning of ldquopreparativerdquo in this context Similarly the term ldquobest-estimaterdquo was mentioned in discussions on K120 a and b during the April 2018 GAWG meeting when referring to acceptable reported values by NMIs although the exact meaning of this term was not clarified NISTrsquos current position is that ldquobest-estimaterdquo falls outside the scope of K120a and b and is more consistent with an ldquoanalyticalrdquo comparison These examples illustrate the need for a precise terminology to specify acceptable methods used for value assignment in future KCs For transparency this terminology should be formally defined by the GAWG for unambiguous use in subsequent KC protocols References 1 Miller WR Rhoderick GC Guenther FR Anal Chem 2015 87(3) pp 1957-1962 2 Rhoderick GR Kitzis DR Kelley ME Miller WR Hall BD Dlugokencky EJ Tans PP Possolo A Carney J Anal Chem 2016 88(6) 3376-3385 doi

101021acsanalchem6b00123

P a g e | 125

NMISA

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 126

P a g e | 127

P a g e | 128

P a g e | 129

P a g e | 130

P a g e | 131

P a g e | 132

P a g e | 133

NOAA

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 134

P a g e | 135

P a g e | 136

P a g e | 137

P a g e | 138

P a g e | 139

NPL

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM‐K120‐R Project name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards

A1 General information

Institute National Physical Laboratory

Address Hampton Road

Teddington

TW11 0LW

Contact person Paul Brewer

Telephone +44 (0) 208 943 6007 Fax

Email paulbrewernplcouk

P a g e | 140

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a CCQM‐K120b

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide amount fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 2179 38027 019 2

2 2170 48002 024 2

3 2181 79970 040 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number 2179

Component Amount fraction Value

Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078079 molmol 000047 molmol 2

O2 020960 molmol 000013 molmol 2

Ar 0009232 molmol 0000018 molmol 2

CH4 lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

Table 1 Composition of standard 1

P a g e | 141

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number 2170

Component Amount fraction Value

Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078069 molmol 000047 molmol 2

O2 020950 molmol 000013 molmol 2

Ar 0009334 molmol 0000019 molmol 2

CH4 lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

Table 2 Composition of standard 2 (Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number 2181

Component Amount fraction Value

Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078055 molmol 000047 molmol 2

O2 020928 molmol 000013 molmol 2

Ar 0009367 molmol 0000019 molmol 2

CH4 lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

Table 3 Composition of standard 3 CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 2179 ‐55 permil 10 permil 2 ‐225 permil 10 permil 2

2 2170 ‐55 permil 10 permil 2 ‐225 permil 10 permil 2

3 2181 ‐55 permil 10 permil 2 ‐225 permil 10 permil 2

Table 4 Isotopic composition of each submitted standard vs VPDB

A4 Uncertainty Budget The estimated uncertainty for the measurement contains the following components

Purity analysis of CO2 and synthetic air

Gravimetric preparation (weighing and atomic weight uncertainties)

Analytical validation

Table 5 details the uncertainty analysis The preparation component includes estimated uncertainty from purity analysis weighing and atomic weights

Relative Uncertainty ()

Identifier Component Preparation

(k=1) Validation

(k=1) Total(k=2)

2179 CO2 0018 002 005

2170 CO2 0014 002 005

2181 CO2 0010 002 005

Table 5 Uncertainty contributors To calculate the combined uncertainty the uncertainties were combined as the square root of the sum of squares The reported uncertainty of the result is based on standard uncertainties multiplied by a coverage factor of k=2 providing a level of confidence of approximately 95

P a g e | 142

A5 Additional information Description of the procedure Three gas mixtures were prepared for this comparison (2170 2179 and 2181) at NPL in synthetic air from sources of CO2 (BOC speciality gases) O2 (BOC speciality gases N 60) N2 (Air Products BIP+) and Ar (Air Products BIP+) The pure industrial source of CO2 was spiked with pure 13CO2 to achieve an isotopic composition close to natural abundance The mixtures were prepared in BOC 10 litre cylinders with Spectraseal passivation Two further sets of three reference standards was prepared and these were used to validate the comparison mixtures The scheme below shows the gravimetric dilutions with nominal CO2 amount fractions

Figure 1 Dilution scheme for gravimetric preparation

A Picarro G2301 Cavity ring-down spectrometer was used to validate the amount fraction of CO2 in mixtures 2170 2179 and 2181 The analyser response to the matrix gas was recorded The analyser response to a reference mixture was then recorded for a five minute period followed by either 2170 2179 or 2181 for the same time This sequence was repeated four times At the end of the experiment the analyser response to the matrix gas was recorded a second time To minimise the effects from zero drift a mean of the analyser response to the matrix gas before and after the experiment was used The amount fractions of 2170 2179 and 2181 were then determined by multiplying the ratio of the analyser response to each mixture and the reference mixture (both were corrected for the analyser response to matrix gas) with the amount fraction of the reference mixture These measurements were used to validate the gravimetric amount fractions submitted Cylinders were maintained at a laboratory temperature of (20 plusmn 3) C throughout the period of analysis Samples were introduced into the analyser at atmospheric pressure (excess flow was passed to vent) using a low volume gas regulator Purity tables for the CO2 Ar N2 and O2 are provided below

P a g e | 143

Component Amount Fraction (micromolmol) Expanded Uncertainty (micromolmol)

CO2 99999980 006

N2 0050 0029

O2 0050 0029

CO 0050 0029

Ar 0050 0029

Table 6 CO2 purity table

Component Amount Fraction (micromolmol) Expanded Uncertainty (micromolmol)

Ar 99999993 002

N2 0039 0023

O2 00050 00029

CO2 0007 0004

CO 00018 00010

CH4 000029 000017

Table 7 Ar purity table

Component Amount Fraction (micromolmol) Expanded Uncertainty (micromolmol)

N2 9999843 16

O2 0015 0009

Ar 1567 157

CO2 000085 000049

CO 000058 000033

CH4 000080 000046

Table 8 N2 purity table

Component Amount Fraction (micromolmol) Expanded Uncertainty (micromolmol)

O2 9999991 03

N2 050 029

Ar 0050 0029

CO2 019 019

CH4 00282 00048

Table 9 O2 purity table The mixtures were prepared on during the period 24th October to 8th November 2016 Measurements to study the stability of the mixtures were carried out over a 6 week period The cylinder pressure of mixtures 2170 2179 and 2181 prior to shipping was gt 10 MPa

P a g e | 144

NPLI

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM-K120

Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM-K120-R

Project name CCQM-K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899-8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute CSIR-National Physical Laboratory INDIA

Address CSIR-National Physical Laboratory Dr KS Krishnan Marg New Delhi ndash 110012 INDIA

Contact Person Dr Prabha Johri

Telephone 91 11 4560 856385658331

Fax 91 11 4560 9310

P a g e | 145

email pjohrinplindiaorg

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM-K120a (only) yes

CCQM-K120b (only) Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification Number

Carbon Dioxide mole fraction XCO2cert molmol

Expanded Uncertainties molmol

Coverage factor

1 JJ108891 37572 322 2

2 JJ108862 48052 304 2

3 JJ108854 79638 503 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix composition Component mol fraction and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) Standard1 Cylinder Number JJ108891

component Mole fraction value

unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0781273 molmol 0002210 molmol 2

O2 0209688 molmol 0000590 molmol 2

Ar 0009040 molmol 0000030 molmol 2

Standard 2 Cylinder Number JJ108862

component Mole fraction value

unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0781989 molmol 0002210 molmol 2

O2 0208853 molmol 0000590 molmol 2

Ar 0009158 molmol 0000030 molmol 2

P a g e | 146

Standard 3 Cylinder Number JJ108854

Component Mole fraction value

unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0781363 molmol 0002210 molmol 2

O2 0209789 molmol 0000594 molmol 2

Ar 0008847 molmol 0000030 molmol 2

A4 Uncertainty Budget The final uncertainty budget was estimated by combining two uncertainty components (ie preparation of PSGM and its analysis both)

(i) The Expanded Uncertainty estimation of all the prepared gas mixtures (PSGMs) has been calculated according to ISO 6142 Preparation of Calibration gas mixtures ndash Gravimetric method taking account of following factors 1 Raymor Balance 1 Mass Pieces 2 Bouancy corrections for weights 3 Handling of cylinder 4 Residual gases in the cylinder 5 Expansion of the cylinder due to filling of gas at High pressure (ii) Uncertainties in the analysis These are calculated taking acount of

1 Standard deviation Repeatability 2 Reproducibility amp 3 Instrument response

A5 Additional Information b) A purity table with uncertainties for pure Ar N2 and O2 parent gas The purity of N2 O2 and Ar parent gases were determined using tiger optics CRDS analyzers model for the following H2O CH4 and CO gas components The moisture of the gases were determined using Tiger Optics moisture analyzer model LaserTrace CH4 was determined using Tiger Optics methan analyzer model MTO-1000-CH4 and CO gas was determined using Tiger Optics CO analyzer model HALO 3-CO Purity of Argon gas was found to be as given below

P a g e | 147

Name of gases Concentration ppm Expanded Uncertainties Coverage factor

H2O moisture 145 023 2

CO gas 027 008 2

CH4 gas Not Detected (ND) (lt0001 )

Purity of N2 gas was found to be as given below

Name of gases Concentration ppm Expanded Uncertainties Coverage factor

H2O moisture 083 005 2

CO gas 34 024 2

CH4 gas ND (lt0001 )

Purity of O2 gas was found to be as given below

Name of gases Concentration ppm Expanded Uncertainties Coverage factor

H2O moisture 095 005 2

CH4 gas ND (lt0001 )

c) A brief out line of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures The preparation procedure involves following steps

1) Preparation of gas mixtures of CO2 in nitrogen gas Al cylinders 10 litre were evacuated and purged with nitogen gas and again evacuated with heating of the cylinders at 60-70oC This process is repeated thrice before any preparation of gas mixture was carried out The theoritical calculations were carried out for the desired concentrations Gas mixtures of CO2 in nitrogen gas from pure gas were prepared in two series in the concentrations around 20544 and 20392 molmol These gas mixtures were diluted in the concentration ranges from ( 370~ 1000 molmol) Total of 9 cylindres were prepared All the preparation of Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) were done in acordance to ISO 6142 Gas Analysis -Preparation of calibration gas mixtures - Gravimetric Method These cylinders were validated in acordance to ISO 6143 Gas analysis - Comparision method for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures Thus the prepared CO2 gas mixtures were certified as CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM)

P a g e | 148

2) Preparation of CO2 in synthetic air These mixtures were prepared from the two series of CO2 premixtures prepared in nitrogen gas in the concentration around 20544 and 20392 molmol as mentioned above The empty cylinders were evacuated and purged with dry nitogen gas and again evacuated with heating This process is repeated thrice for the pre-preparation of the cylinders The thoeritical calculations were carried out similating the desired concentration range as given in CCQM K-120 The required amount of pre mixture of CO2 in Nitrogen is transferred in the pre prepared evacuated cylinder These mixtures were now added with desired amount of pure Argon gas pure oxygen gas and finally top up has been done by nitrogen gas to simulate the synthetic air concentration Total of 9 cylinders were prepared in the concentration ranges ( 370~800 molmol) These cylinders were validated using above prepared binary mixtures of CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures Validation of Synthetic Air Mixtures

The prepared synthetic air gas mixture cylinders were validated using above prepared binary mixtures of CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) as per ISO 6143

The standard and sample gases were injected into eight-port gas sampling valves of the Agilent Gas Chromatograph with flame ionization detector (FID) Model 6890N US 10723001 The GC column used was Haysep D length 12 ft dia 18rdquo and mesh 100120 Helium gas was used as a carrier gas The measurement conditions were the sample loop of 05 ml oven temperature of 80oC detector temperature of 250oC hydrogen and air flow rate of 20 mlmin and 300 mlmin respectively All the Synthetic air CO2 gas mixtures were evaluated using a higher concentration CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) The average response was calculated by using the six values rejecting first and last two values each time for each measurement series The analysis of the cylinders were carried out three times The collected data is analysed and the uncertainty budget was evaluated

f) Cylider pressure before shipment to BIPM

SlNo Cylinder No Conc (Approx) molmol Pressure

1 JJ108891 380 110Bar 1596 psi

2 JJ108862 480 110Bar 1596 psi

3 JJ108854 800 110Bar 1596 psi

The Team members Dr Daya Soni Dr Khem Singh Ms S Bhatt Ms Joty Pokheryal Dr SG Aggarwal Dr PJohri

P a g e | 149

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM-K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM-K120-R (Stability Studies) Project name CCQM-K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899-8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute CSIR-National Physical Laboratory INDIA

Address CSIR-National Physical Laboratory Dr KS Krishnan Marg New Delhi ndash 110012 INDIA

Contact Person Dr Prabha Johri

Telephone 91 11 4560 856385658331

Fax 91 11 4560 9310

email pjohrinplindiaorg

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM-K120a (only) yes

CCQM-K120b (only) Yes

P a g e | 150

Stability Studies Result A3 NMI stability analysis values with its analytical uncertainty budget only

Cylinder Identification Number

Carbon Dioxide mole fraction XCO2cert molmol

Expanded Uncertainties molmol

Coverage factor

1 JJ108891

37824 395 2

2 JJ108862

47857 523 2

3 JJ108854

79880 335 2

A4 Uncertainty Budget The stability uncertainty budget was estimated using analytical uncertainty components only These are calculated taking account of

1 Standard deviation Repeatability 2 Calibration standard uncertainty 3 Instrument response

A5 A brief outline of the Stability Analysis Procedure applied to the Cylinders returned from BIPM France

The cylinders of the synthetic air gas mixtures arrived from BIPM France cylinders were analyzed using the prepared binary mixtures of CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) as per ISO 6143 The cylinders returned from BIPM and the binary standards gas mixtures in nitrogen gas cylinders are put to rotation for over night before using for its stability studies

The standard and sample gases were injected into eight-port gas sampling valves of the Agilent Gas Chromatograph with flame ionization detector (FID) Model 6890N US 10723001 The GC column used was Haysep D length 12 ft dia 18rdquo and mesh 100120 Helium gas was used as a carrier gas The measurement conditions were the sample loop of 05 ml oven temperature of 80oC detector temperature of 250oC hydrogen and air flow rate of 20 mlmin and 300 mlmin respectively All the Synthetic air CO2 gas mixtures were evaluated using a higher concentration CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Reference Gas Mixtures (PRGM) The average response was calculated by using six values rejecting first and last two values each time for each measurement series The analysis of the cylinders was carried out three times The collected data is analyzed and the analytical uncertainty budget was evaluated and reported in the stability result

The Team members Dr Daya Soni Dr Khem Singh Ms S Bhatt Dr SG Aggarwal Dr PJohri

P a g e | 151

UME

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM‐K120‐R

A1 General information

Institute UME

Address TUumlBİTAK UME ‐ Gas Metrology Laboratory Baris Mah Dr Zeki Acar Cad No1 41470 Gebze Kocaeli TURKEY

Contact person Dr Tanıl Tarhan

Telephone + 90 262 679 5000 6401 Fax + 90 262 679 5001

Email taniltarhantubitakgovtr

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2 μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 PSM298266 37992 016 2

2 PSM266468 48042 017 2

3 PSM298347 80076 027 2

P a g e | 152

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number PSM298266

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07803392 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

O2 02099663 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

Ar 00093140 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number PSM266468

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07799681 molmol 00000165 molmol 2

O2 02102293 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

Ar 00093215 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number PSM298347

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07795520 molmol 00000164 molmol 2

O2 02103522 molmol 00000164 molmol 2

Ar 00092945 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 PSM298266 ‐165 005 2 ‐ ‐ ‐

A4 Uncertainty Budget

P a g e | 153

The basis for the uncertainty budget is formed by the uncertainty evaluation from the gravimetric preparation and analytical measurements Gravimetric preparation contains uncertainty sources from weighing and those from purity of the parent gases Gravimetric preparation and uncertainty evaluation have performed according to ISO 6142 [1] The measurement uncertainty of each mixture was determined according to ISO 6143 [2] The combined standard uncertainty of each mixture was determined by the following equation

u u u

where

um standard uncertainty from measurements

ug standard uncertainty from gravimetric preparation

The expanded uncertainty was determined by multiplying the combined standard uncertainty by a coverage factor of 2 with a confidence interval of 95

A5 Additional information Mixtures were produced with synthetic air s) Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas

Main component carbon dioxide

Cylinder Code LG7524

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

carbon dioxide 99997750 924

water 250 144

nitrogen 1500 866

oxygen 500 289

t) Purity tables with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 and Ar parent gas

Main component nitrogen

Cylinder Code LG1220 and LG1221

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

carbon monoxide 005 003

carbon dioxide 005 003

methane 005 003

water 025 014

nitrogen 99999935 021

oxygen 025 014

Main component oxygen

P a g e | 154

Cylinder Code LG3367

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

argon 100 058

carbon dioxide 010 006

methane 010 006

water 150 087

nitrogen 250 144

oxygen 99999480 178

Main component argon

Cylinder Code LG1313

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

argon 99999300 122

water 150 087

nitrogen 400 231

oxygen 150 087

u) Mixtures were prepared according to the scheme displayed in Figure 1 Two different types of the pre‐mixtures were prepared These are 10 and 05 carbon dioxide in nitrogen and 15 argon in nitrogen 05 carbon dioxide in nitrogen and 15 argon in nitrogen pre‐mixtures were used together with pure nitrogen and pure oxygen for the final mixtures

P a g e | 155

Figure 1 Preparation scheme for the mixtures

v) Verification procedure applied to the final mixtures

The carbon dioxide (CO2) in air mixtures were analyzed on a cavity ring‐down spectroscopy (CRDS) instrument ie Picarro G2401 COCO2CH4H2O Analyzer equipped with 16‐Port Distribution Manifold Verification of the mixtures was carried out using own standards Cylinders were equipped with pressure reducers and connected to 16‐port distribution manifold They were flushed three times before the first measurement The analyzer operates vacuum pump to get the sample Therefore excess amount of gas than the amount of gas required by CRDS has been sent to the analyzer by adjusting the reducers The excess gas has been sent to the atmosphere through a bypass connected to sample line in between distribution manifold and the analyzer Each cylinder was measured for 15 minutes which is a sufficient time to obtain stable results The measurement data was collected using CRDS software Software takes about 2850 readings for 15 minutes During the data evaluation total number of 240 readings in between 10‐14 minutes has been used for determination of average values and uncertainties for each cylinder at each measurement

P a g e | 156

w) Stability testing of the mixtures

Pre‐mixtures and final mixtures were prepared in 01‐17 April 2016 First verification was performed in 21‐24 April 2016 Second verification was carried out in 22 September 2016 Final verification was performed 11‐19 October 2016 Measurement results are shown in Figure 2 As can be seen from the figure instrument response does not vary with time for each cylinder Stability testing did not show any instability within the accuracy of the measurement method

Figure 2 Stability measurements

x) Cylinder pressures before shipment to the BIPM are given below

Cylinder Code Pressure bar

PSM298266 86

PSM266468 86

PSM298347 90

References

[1] International Organization for Standardization ldquoISO 6142 Gas analysis ‐ Preparation of calibration gas mixtures ‐ Gravimetric methodsrdquo ISO Geneva 2001

[2] International Organization for Standardization ISO 6143 Gas analysis ‐ Comparison

methods for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures ISO Geneva 2001

300

500

700

900

CO2concentration (μmolmol)

Time

PSM298266 PSM266468 PSM298347

P a g e | 157

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM-K120-R

A1 General information

Institute UME

Address TUumlBİTAK UME ‐ Gas Metrology Laboratory Baris Mah Dr Zeki Acar Cad No1 41470 Gebze Kocaeli TURKEY

Contact person Dr Tanıl Tarhan

Telephone + 90 262 679 5000 6401 Fax + 90 262 679 5001

Email taniltarhantubitakgovtr

P a g e | 158

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2 μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 PSM298266 37992 019 2

2 PSM266468 48042 025 2

3 PSM298347 80076 036 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number PSM298266

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07803392 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

O2 02099663 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

Ar 00093140 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number PSM266468

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07799681 molmol 00000165 molmol 2

P a g e | 159

O2 02102293 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

Ar 00093215 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number PSM298347

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07795520 molmol 00000164 molmol 2

O2 02103522 molmol 00000164 molmol 2

Ar 00092945 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 PSM298266 ‐165 005 2 ‐ ‐ ‐

A4 Uncertainty Budget

The basis for the uncertainty budget is formed by the uncertainty evaluation from the gravimetric preparation and analytical measurements Gravimetric preparation contains uncertainty sources from weighing and those from purity of the parent gases Gravimetric preparation and uncertainty evaluation have performed according to ISO 6142 [1] The measurement uncertainty of each mixture was determined according to ISO 6143 [2] The mixtures were analyzed for stability after receiving them back from BIPM The combined standard uncertainty of each mixture was determined by the following equation

u u u u

where

um standard uncertainty from measurements

ug standard uncertainty from gravimetric preparation

us standard uncertainty for stability

The expanded uncertainty was determined by multiplying the combined standard uncertainty by a coverage factor of 2 with a confidence interval of 95

P a g e | 160

A5 Additional information Mixtures were produced from pure components of CO2 N2 O2 and Ar y) Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas

Main component carbon dioxide

Cylinder Code LG7524

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

carbon dioxide 99997750 924

water 250 144

nitrogen 1500 866

oxygen 500 289

z) Purity tables with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 and Ar parent gas

Main component nitrogen

Cylinder Code LG1220 and LG1221

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

carbon monoxide 005 003

carbon dioxide 005 003

methane 005 003

water 025 014

nitrogen 99999935 021

oxygen 025 014

Main component oxygen

Cylinder Code LG3367

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

argon 100 058

carbon dioxide 010 006

methane 010 006

water 150 087

nitrogen 250 144

oxygen 99999480 178

Main component argon

Cylinder Code LG1313

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

argon 99999300 122

water 150 087

nitrogen 400 231

oxygen 150 087

P a g e | 161

aa) Mixtures were prepared according to the scheme displayed in Figure 1 Two different types

of the pre‐mixtures were prepared These are 10 and 05 carbon dioxide in nitrogen and 15 argon in nitrogen 05 carbon dioxide in nitrogen and 15 argon in nitrogen pre‐mixtures were used together with pure nitrogen and pure oxygen for the final mixtures

Figure 1 Preparation scheme for the mixtures

bb) Verification procedure applied to the final mixtures

The carbon dioxide (CO2) in air mixtures were analyzed on a cavity ring‐down spectroscopy (CRDS) instrument ie Picarro G2401 COCO2CH4H2O Analyzer equipped with 16‐Port Distribution Manifold Verification of the mixtures was carried out using own standards Cylinders were equipped with pressure reducers and connected to 16‐port distribution manifold They were flushed three times before the first measurement The analyzer operates vacuum pump to get the sample Therefore excess amount of gas than the amount of gas required by CRDS has been sent to the analyzer by adjusting the reducers

P a g e | 162

The excess gas has been sent to the atmosphere through a bypass connected to sample line in between distribution manifold and the analyzer Each cylinder was measured for 15 minutes which is a sufficient time to obtain stable results The measurement data was collected using CRDS software Software takes about 2850 readings for 15 minutes During the data evaluation total number of 240 readings in between 10‐14 minutes has been used for determination of average values and uncertainties for each cylinder at each measurement

cc) Stability testing of the mixtures

Pre‐mixtures and final mixtures were prepared in 01‐17 April 2016 First verification was performed in 21‐24 April 2016 Second verification was carried out in 22 September 2016 Final verification was performed during 11‐19 October 2016 Measurement results are shown in Figure 2 As can be seen from the figure instrument response does not vary with time for each cylinder Stability testing did not show any instability within the accuracy of the measurement method before sending the cylinders to BIPM

Figure 2 Stability measurements before sending the cylinders

After receiving the cylinders they have been analyzed for stability Measurements were carried out during 23‐24 August 2017 and 06‐07 September 2017 Instrument responses were plotted against time as shown in Figure 3 The slope of the responses has been checked Uncertainty for stability has been determined and has been included in the combined uncertainty

300

500

700

900

CO2concentration (μmolmol)

Time

PSM298266 PSM266468 PSM298347

P a g e | 163

Figure 3 Stability measurements after receiving the cylinders

dd) Cylinder pressures before shipment to the BIPM are given below

Cylinder Code Pressure bar

PSM298266 86

PSM266468 86

PSM298347 90

References

[1] International Organization for Standardization ldquoISO 6142 Gas analysis ‐ Preparation of calibration gas mixtures ‐ Gravimetric methodsrdquo ISO Geneva 2001

[2] International Organization for Standardization ISO 6143 Gas analysis ‐ Comparison

methods for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures ISO Geneva 2001

300

500

700

900

CO2concentration (μmolmol)

Time

PSM298266 PSM266468 PSM298347

P a g e | 164

VNIIM

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQMK120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQMK120R

Project name CCQMK120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air Standards Proposed dates 092016 to 122017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 208998300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores

BIPM Chemistry Department Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg A1 General information Institute

DI Mendeleyev Institute for Metrology (VNIIM )

Address

19 Moskovsky pr St Petersburg 190005 Russia

Contact person Leonid Konopelko Telephone +7 812 315 11 45 Fax +7 812 315 15 17 Email

fhib10vniimru

P a g e | 165

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo CCQMK120a

Yes

CCQMK120b

Yes

A3 NMI submitted values Table 1 Cylinder Identification

number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction xCO2 cert μmolmol

Expanded uncertainty U(x CO2 cert) μmolmol

Coverage factor

1 M365601

38020 011 2

2 M365664

48018 013 2

3 M365707

80073 019 2

Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) Table 2 (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number M365601 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

781015 10-2 molmol 00013 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209188 10-2 molmol 00013 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09416 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000094 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Table 3 (Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number M365664 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

780928 10-2 molmol 00011 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209270 10-2 molmol 00012 10-2 molmol 2

Ar 09322 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

P a g e | 166

CH4 000000096 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Table 4 (Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number M365707 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

781000 10-2 molmol 00011 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209199 10-2 molmol 00012 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09000 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000097 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Uncertainty in the tables 2-4 includes only constituents related to gravimetry (weighing and purity) Table 5 CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional) Cylinder

Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C)

CoverageFactor

δ18O U(δ18O) CoverageFactor

1 M365601 - 480 09 2 - - - 2 M365664 - 480 09 2 - - - 3 M365707 - 480 09 2 - - - A4 Uncertainty Budget Table 6 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365601

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution

ui(y) μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200 μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999381 μmolmol B Rectangular 0015 μmolmol 006733 000101

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374 μmolmol 000016 000006

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030 μmolmol 000534 000016

Weighing premixture

CO2 2015723 g AB Normal 000223g ‐1854106 ‐004140

N2 115359704 g AB Normal 001962 g 032397 000636

Weighing pre‐ 2048733 g AB Normal 000203 g ‐1791563 ‐003630

P a g e | 167

final mixture

mixture

Ar 790915 g AB Normal 000200 g 045258 000091

O2 14075497 g AB Normal 000353 g 056493 000200

N2 43993136 g AB Normal 001021 g 064543 000659

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal 000035 gmol 86286 000302

Combined standard uncertainty 005596

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0112

Table 7 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365664

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution ui(y)

μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200

μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999390 μmolmol B Rectangular 0011

μmolmol 006909 000076

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374

μmolmol 000020 0000075

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030

μmolmol 000534 000016

Weighing premixture

CO2 1947854 g AB Normal 000224 g ‐2423572 ‐005424

N2 111850932 g AB Normal 001950 g 042206 000823

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

2586420 g AB Normal

000204 g ‐1775177 ‐003626

Ar 780100 g AB Normal 000200 g 057374 000115

O2 14028618 g AB Normal 000391 g 071611 000280

N2 43288272 g AB Normal 000915 g 081821 000749

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal

000035 gmol

109066 000382

Combined standard uncertainty 0066379

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0133

Table 8 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365707

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution

ui(y)

P a g e | 168

μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200 μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999390 μmolmol B Rectangular 0011μmolmol 006733 000076

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374 μmolmol 000035 000013

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030 μmolmol 000500 000015

Weighing premixture

CO2 2015723 g AB Normal 000223g ‐3905886 ‐008721

N2 115359704 g AB Normal 001962 g 068249 001339

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

4282195 g AB Normal

000220 g ‐1733744 ‐003823

Ar 750252 g AB Normal 000202 g 096046 000194

O2 13969676 g AB Normal 000403 g 119851 000483

N2 41448867 g AB Normal 000834 g 136969 001143

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal 000035 gmol 181777 0006362

Combined standard uncertainty

009719

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0194

Uncertainty due to weighing includes constituents related to accuracy of balance buoyancy effect resulting from change of cylinder volume during filling mass pierces used drift of balance residual gas in cylinder A5 Additional information Table 9 Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas Cylinder N 74318 Main component CO2 Mole fraction 99999345

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

N2 025 014

CO 0029 0001

CH4 0149 0002

He 05 029

H2 322 007

O2 025 014

H2O 215 011

Purity tables with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 and Ar parent gases Table 10 Purity table for N2

P a g e | 169

Monoblock Main component N2 Mole fraction 999998672

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

Ar 0916 0011

O2 00015 00009

CO2 00025 00014

H2 00025 00014

CH4 00025 00014

CO 00025 00014

H2O 040 020

Table 11 Purity table for O2 Cylinder N 910281 Main component O2 Mole fraction 999999381

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

H2 00025 00014

Ar 0181 0004

N2 0307 0012

Kr 00025 00014

CO 00075 00043

CH4 00347 00008

CO2 0081 0005

Xe 00025 00014

Table 12 Purity table for Ar Cylinder N 283162 Main component Ar Mole fraction 999998209

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

O2 00231 00013

N2 1188 0015

CH4 0015 0009

CO2 0030 0017

H2 0025 0014

CO 0010 0006

H2O 050 001

P a g e | 170

c) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures Preparation of final mixtures (СO2 in synthetic air) was carried out from pure substances in 2 stages 1-st stage ndash 3 mixtures СO2N2 ndashlevel 11 2-nd stage ndash 3x3 target mixtures СO2synthetic air All the mixtures were prepared in Luxfer cylinders (V=10 and 5 dm3) d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures CRDS analyzer was used for verification 4 measurement series were carried out within each verification procedure SD of a single measurement (reproducibility between series) was 0003 -0006 CRDS analyzer was used for verification Instrument Picarro G2401 Measurement cell temperature 45оС Measurement cell pressure 18665 kPa Data collection by ldquoPicarro Incrdquo software CRDS analyzer was used for δ13C measurements Instrument Picarro G2131i Reference materials used for calibration IAEA‐CO‐8 IAEA‐CH‐7 Measurement cell temperature 45оС Measurement cell pressure 18665 kPa Data collection by ldquoPicarro Incrdquo software e) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM The final mixtures were prepared 0310 -13102016 First verification measurement was carried out 1710 -2110 2016 Second verification measurement was carried out 2610 -28102016 Verification measurements were performed by checking consistency within the group of the 3x3 prepared mixtures uver =0003 Stability testing (short-term) did not show instability within the accuracy of the measurement method f) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

89 MPa for M365601 90 MPa for M365664 93 MPa for M365707

P a g e | 171

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQMK120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQMK120R

Project name CCQMK120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air Standards Proposed dates 092016 to 122017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 208998300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores

BIPM Chemistry Department Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg A1 General information Institute

DI Mendeleyev Institute for Metrology (VNIIM )

Address

19 Moskovsky pr St Petersburg 190005 Russia

Contact person Leonid Konopelko Telephone +7 812 315 11 45 Fax +7 812 315 15 17 Email

fhib10vniimru

P a g e | 172

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo CCQMK120a

Yes

CCQMK120b

Yes

A3 NMI submitted values Table 1 Cylinder Identification

number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction xCO2 cert μmolmol

Expanded uncertainty U(x CO2 cert) μmolmol

Coverage factor

1 M365601

38020 011 2

2 M365664

48018 013 2

3 M365707

80073 019 2

Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) Table 2 (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number M365601 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

781015 10-2 molmol 00013 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209188 10-2 molmol 00013 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09416 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000094 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Table 3 (Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number M365664 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

780928 10-2 molmol 00011 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209270 10-2 molmol 00012 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09322 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000096 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured

P a g e | 173

Table 4 (Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number M365707 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

781000 10-2 molmol 00011 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209199 10-2 molmol 00012 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09000 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000097 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Uncertainty in the tables 2-4 includes only constituents related to gravimetry (weighing and purity) Table 5 CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional) Cylinder

Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C)

CoverageFactor

δ18O U(δ18O) CoverageFactor

1 M365601 - 480 09 2 - - - 2 M365664 - 480 09 2 - - - 3 M365707 - 480 09 2 - - - A4 Uncertainty Budget Table 6 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365601

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution

ui(y) μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200 μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999381 μmolmol B Rectangular 0015 μmolmol 006733 000101

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374 μmolmol 000016 000006

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030 μmolmol 000534 000016

Weighing premixture

CO2 2015723 g AB Normal 000223g ‐1854106 ‐004140

N2 115359704 g AB Normal 001962 g 032397 000636

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

2048733 g AB Normal

000203 g ‐1791563 ‐003630

Ar 790915 g AB Normal 000200 g 045258 000091

O2 14075497 g AB Normal 000353 g 056493 000200

P a g e | 174

N2 43993136 g AB Normal 001021 g 064543 000659

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal 000035 gmol 86286 000302

Combined standard uncertainty 005596

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0112

Table 7 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365664

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution ui(y)

μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200

μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999390 μmolmol B Rectangular 0011

μmolmol 006909 000076

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374

μmolmol 000020 0000075

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030

μmolmol 000534 000016

Weighing premixture

CO2 1947854 g AB Normal 000224 g ‐2423572 ‐005424

N2 111850932 g AB Normal 001950 g 042206 000823

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

2586420 g AB Normal

000204 g ‐1775177 ‐003626

Ar 780100 g AB Normal 000200 g 057374 000115

O2 14028618 g AB Normal 000391 g 071611 000280

N2 43288272 g AB Normal 000915 g 081821 000749

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal

000035 gmol

109066 000382

Combined standard uncertainty 0066379

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0133

Table 8 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365707

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution

ui(y) μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200 μmolmol 000545 000109

P a g e | 175

Purity of O2 999999390 μmolmol B Rectangular 0011μmolmol 006733 000076

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374 μmolmol 000035 000013

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030 μmolmol 000500 000015

Weighing premixture

CO2 2015723 g AB Normal 000223g ‐3905886 ‐008721

N2 115359704 g AB Normal 001962 g 068249 001339

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

4282195 g AB Normal

000220 g ‐1733744 ‐003823

Ar 750252 g AB Normal 000202 g 096046 000194

O2 13969676 g AB Normal 000403 g 119851 000483

N2 41448867 g AB Normal 000834 g 136969 001143

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal 000035 gmol 181777 0006362

Combined standard uncertainty

009719

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0194

Uncertainty due to weighing includes constituents related to accuracy of balance buoyancy effect resulting from change of cylinder volume during filling mass pierces used drift of balance residual gas in cylinder A5 Additional information Table 9 Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas Cylinder N 74318 Main component CO2 Mole fraction 99999345

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

N2 025 014

CO 0029 0001

CH4 0149 0002

He 05 029

H2 322 007

O2 025 014

H2O 215 011

Purity tables with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 and Ar parent gases Table 10 Purity table for N2 Monoblock Main component N2 Mole fraction 999998672

P a g e | 176

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

Ar 0916 0011

O2 00015 00009

CO2 00025 00014

H2 00025 00014

CH4 00025 00014

CO 00025 00014

H2O 040 020

Table 11 Purity table for O2 Cylinder N 910281 Main component O2 Mole fraction 999999381

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

H2 00025 00014

Ar 0181 0004

N2 0307 0012

Kr 00025 00014

CO 00075 00043

CH4 00347 00008

CO2 0081 0005

Xe 00025 00014

Table 12 Purity table for Ar Cylinder N 283162 Main component Ar Mole fraction 999998209

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

O2 00231 00013

N2 1188 0015

CH4 0015 0009

CO2 0030 0017

H2 0025 0014

CO 0010 0006

H2O 050 001

c) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures

P a g e | 177

Preparation of final mixtures (СO2 in synthetic air) was carried out from pure substances in 2 stages 1-st stage ndash 3 mixtures СO2N2 ndashlevel 11 2-nd stage ndash 3x3 target mixtures СO2synthetic air All the mixtures were prepared in Luxfer cylinders (V=10 and 5 dm3) d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures CRDS analyzer was used for verification 4 measurement series were carried out within each verification procedure SD of a single measurement (reproducibility between series) was 0003 -0006 CRDS analyzer was used for verification Instrument Picarro G2401 Measurement cell temperature 45оС Measurement cell pressure 18665 kPa Data collection by ldquoPicarro Incrdquo software CRDS analyzer was used for δ13C measurements Instrument Picarro G2131i Reference materials used for calibration IAEA‐CO‐8 IAEA‐CH‐7 Measurement cell temperature 45оС Measurement cell pressure 18665 kPa Data collection by ldquoPicarro Incrdquo software e) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM The final mixtures were prepared 0310 -13102016 First verification measurement was carried out 1710 -2110 2016 Second verification measurement was carried out 2610 -28102016 Verification measurements were performed by checking consistency within the group of the 3x3 prepared mixtures uver =0003 Stability testing (short-term) did not show instability within the accuracy of the measurement method Long-term stability testing (measurements 2108-23082017 and 0910-11102017) did not show instability within the accuracy of the measurement method f) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

89 MPa for M365601 90 MPa for M365664 93 MPa for M365707

P a g e | 178

VSL

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 179

P a g e | 180

P a g e | 181

Page 3: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM

P a g e | 3

FTIR 51 Delta Ray 55

ANNEX V - MEASUREMENT REPORTS OF PARTICIPANTS 57

NMIJ Measurements before return of cylinders 57

GUM Measurements before return of cylinders 63

INRIM Measurements before return of cylinders 67

KRISS Measurements before return of cylinders 74

LNE Measurements before return of cylinders 82

BFKH Measurements before return of cylinders 91 Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders 98

NIM Measurements before return of cylinders 104

NIST Measurements before return of cylinders 111 Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders 117

NMISA Measurements before return of cylinders 125

NOAA Measurements before return of cylinders 133

NPL Measurements before return of cylinders 139

NPLI Measurements before return of cylinders 144 Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders 149

UME Measurements before return of cylinders 151 Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders 157

VNIIM Measurements before return of cylinders 164 Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders 171

VSL Measurements before return of cylinders 178

P a g e | 4

1 Rationale for comparison CCQM‐K120a comparison involves preparing standards of carbon dioxide in air which are fit for purpose for the atmospheric monitoring community with stringent requirements on matrix composition and measurement uncertainty of the CO2 mole fraction This represents an analytical challenge and is therefore considered as a Track C comparison The comparison will underpin CMC claims for CO2 in air for standards and calibrations services for the atmospheric monitoring community matrix matched to real air over the mole fraction range of 250 μmolmol to 520 μmolmol CCQM‐K120b comparison tests core skills and competencies required in gravimetric preparation analytical certification and purity analysis It is considered as a Track A comparison It will underpin CO2 in air and nitrogen claims in a mole fraction range starting at the smallest participantrsquos reported expanded uncertainty and ending at 500 mmolmol Participants successful in this comparison may use their result in the flexible scheme and underpin claims for all core mixtures This study has involved a comparison at the BIPM of a suite of 44 gas standards prepared by each of the participating laboratories Fourteen laboratories took part in both comparisons (CCQM-K120a CCQM-K120b) and just one solely in the CCQM-K120b comparison The standards were sent to the BIPM where the comparison measurements were performed Two measurement methods were used to compare the standards to ensure no measurement method dependant bias GC-FID and FTIR spectroscopic analysis corrected for isotopic variation in the CO2 gases measured at the BIPM using absorption laser spectroscopy Following the advice of the CCQM Gas Analysis Working Group results from the FTIR method were used to

calculate the key comparison reference values

2 Measurand quantities and Units The measurand is the mole fraction of carbon dioxide in air with measurement results being expressed in molmol (or one of its multiples mmolmol μmolmol or nmolmol)

3 Participants This study involved a simultaneous comparison of a suite of 44 gas standards prepared by each of the participating laboratories Fourteen laboratories took part in both comparisons (CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b BFKH GUM KRISS LNE NIM NIST NMIJ NMISA NOAA

P a g e | 5

NPL NPLI UME VNIIM and VSL) and only one solely in the CCQM-K120b comparison (INRIM)

4 Schedule The revised schedule for the project was as follows April 2016 ndash October 2016 Mixture preparation verification and stability tests by participants November 2016 ndash February 2017 Shipment of cylinders to the BIPM (to arrive by 1 of December) February 2017 ndash April 2017 Analysis of mixtures by the BIPM (details below) May 2017 ndash July 2017 Shipment of cylinders from the BIPM to participants August 2017 ndash November 2017 2nd set of analysis of mixtures by participants January 2018 Distribution of Draft A of this report May 2018 Distribution of Draft B of this report

41 Measurement order The forty four cylinders of the comparison were separated into batches and analyzed in the sequence described in Table 1 Each batch was made up of the participantsrsquo cylinders control cylinders for ratio calculations and additional cylinders for quality control The FTIR measurements were organized in fourteen batches comprised each of four participantrsquos cylinders including two control cylinders for ratio calculation and one for quality control For GC-FID measurements the cylinders were divided into nine batches Batches were composed of between four and six participantsrsquo cylinders three control cylinders (A B and C) for ratio quantification and additional cylinders if required to maintain the total batch size of nine standards Table 1 lists in detail the schedule of the GC-FID and FTIR measurements The Delta Ray measurements were organized in 12 batches containing four cylinders each and two calibration cylinders These measurements were performed during weeks 14 15 and 16

P a g e | 6

Week in 2017 Batch GC‐FID Batch FTIR measurements measurements

NIST FB04278 379045 NOAA CC310084 379500 6 GC1 VSL 5604614 378900

(6‐10 February) NPL 2179 380270 NMIJ CPC00486 386617

VNIIM M365601 380200 7 GC2 LNE 1029045 379480

(13‐17 February) KRISS D500642 378900 NIM FB03747 383430

GUM D298392 380100 BFKH OMH54 379840 8 GC3 UME PSM298266 379920

(20‐24 February) NPLI JJ108891 375720 NMISA M51 8232 380200

NIST FB04300 472662 NOAA CC305198 479260 9 GC4 VSL 5604880 480480

(27 February‐ 3 March) NPL 2170 480020 NMIJ CPC00494 471301

VNIIM M365664 480180 NIST FB04278 37904510 GC5 LNE 1029047 477600 FT‐1 NOAA CC310084 379500

(6‐10 March) KRISS D500647 480000 NPL 2179 380270

NIM FB03744 489150 NMIJ CPC00486 386617

GUM D298393 478100 FT‐2 NMIJ CPC00486 386617 BFKH OMH44 479890 VNIIM M365601 380200

11 GC6 UME PSM266468 480420 KRISS D500642 378900 (13‐17 March) NPLI JJ108862 480520 FT‐3 NIM FB03747 383430

NMISA M51 8167 479500 LNE 1029045 379480

INRIM D247440 479300

NIST FB04287 794533 FT‐4 GUM D298392 380100 NOAA CB11668 794080 NMISA M51 8232 380200

12 GC7 VSL 5604705 795700 BFKH OMH54 379840 (20‐24 March) NPL 2181 799700 FT‐5 UME PSM298266 379920

NMIJ CPC00558 803658 NPLI JJ108891 375720

VNIIM M365707 800730 NIST FB04300 472662 LNE 1029048 802200 FT‐6 NOAA CC305198 47926013 GC8 KRISS D500672 800800 VSL 5604880 480480

(27‐31 March) NIM FB03748 809820 NPL 2170 480020 GUM D298402 800500 FT‐7 NMIJ CPC00494 471301

BFKH OMH69 800300 VNIIM M365664 480180

UME PSM298347 800760 FT‐8 LNE 1029047 47760014 GC9 NPLI JJ108854 796380 KRISS D500647 480000

(3‐7 April) NMISA M51 8244 799100 NIM FB03744 489150 INRIM D247445 798900 FT‐9 GUM D298393 478100

BFKH OMH44 479890

UME PSM266468 480420 FT‐10 NPLI JJ108862 480520 NMISA M51 8167 479500 INRIM D247440 479300

NIST FB04287 79453315 FT‐11 NOAA CB11668 794080

(10‐14 April) VSL 5604705 795700

NPL 2181 799700 FT‐12 NMIJ CPC00558 803658 VNIIM M365707 800730 LNE 1029048 802200

KRISS D500672 800800 FT‐13 NIM FB03748 809820

P a g e | 7

GUM D298402 800500 BFKH OMH69 800300

UME PSM298347 80076016 FT‐14 NPLI JJ108854 796380

(17‐21 April) NMISA M51 8244 799100 INRIM D247445 798900

Table 1 Schedule of the CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b measurements

5 Measurement standards Each laboratory taking part in the CCQM-K120a comparison was requested to produce one standard at the nominal mole fraction of 380 micromolmol and another at the mole fraction 480 micromolmol For those taking part in the CCQM-K120b comparison the standards were requested at the nominal mole fractions of 480 micromolmol and 800 micromolmol The mole fraction of carbon dioxide was requested to be within plusmn 10 micromolmol of the nominal mole fractions of the cylinders The carbon dioxide was requested to be produced in a dry air matrix produced from scrubbed real air or synthetic air that has been blended from pure gases that are the main constituents of air (nitrogen oxygen argon) and two other constituents (nitrous oxide and methane)The table below describes the limits of the gas matrix composition of the scrubbed dry real air and synthetic air which were to be met by participants Species lsquoAmbientrsquo

level mole fraction

Unit Min mole fraction

Unit Max mole fraction

Unit

N2 0780876 molmol 07804 molmol 07814 molmol O2 02093335 molmol 02088 molmol 02098 molmol Ar 00093332 molmol 00089 molmol 00097 molmol CH4 1900 nmolmol 0 nmolmol 1900 nmolmol N2O 330 nmolmol 0 nmolmol 330 nmolmol Table 2 CCQM-K120a matrix composition limit values(380 micromol mol and 480 micromolmol CO2 in airdagger) daggerEach participating laboratory was required to submit two standards one with nominal CO2 mole fraction of (370 to 390) micromolmol and the second with (470 to 490) micromolmol Species lsquoAmbientrsquo

level mole fraction

Unit Min mole fraction

Unit Max mole fraction

Unit

N2 0780876 molmol 07789 molmol 07829 molmol O2 02093335 molmol 02073 molmol 02113 molmol Ar 00093332 molmol 00078 molmol 00108 molmol CH4 1900 nmolmol 0 nmolmol 1900 nmolmol N2O 330 nmolmol 0 nmolmol 330 nmolmol

Table 3 CCQM-K120b matrix composition limits values(480 micromol mol and 800 micromolmol CO2 in airDagger)DaggerEach participating laboratory was required to submit two standards one with nominal CO2 mole fraction of (470 to 490) micromolmol and the second with (790 to 810) micromolmol (A laboratory participating in both CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b need only submit 3 standards in total)

P a g e | 8

Aditionally the following information was requested from each participant

In the case of standards produced with synthetic air

- a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas - a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar N2O and CH4 parent

gas - a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures - a purity table for each of the final mixtures including gravimetric uncertainties - a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures - a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared

and the time they are shipped to the BIPM

In the case of standards produced with scrubbed lsquorealrsquo air

- a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas - results of the analysis and mole fractions and uncertainties of N2 O2 Ar N2O and CH4 in

the scrubbed real air - a brief outline of the preparation procedure of the final mixtures - a composition table for each of the final mixtures including gravimetric uncertainties

when relevant - a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures - a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared

and the time they are shipped to the BIPM

6 Preparation values submitted and stability measurements by participants

Information on mixtures submitted by participating laboratories via the comparison submission forms on initial submission and after stability testing of cylinders is included in ANNEX V The CO2 mole fractions submitted by participants are listed in Table 5 where

xNMI is the value assigned by the participating NMIs

U(xNMI) is the expanded uncertainty including contributions from verification associated with the assigned value xNMI The comparison protocol permitted stability testing to be performed by laboratories after standards had been returned to them by the BIPM and before the comparison results were known As a result three laboratories provided new values and uncertainties namely NIST NPLI and BFKH In addition UME modified the uncertainty budget only and resubmitted this to the comparison organizers This subject was discussed during the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018) and it was agreed that only the uncertainties resubmitted by UME (Table 15) will replace the original uncertainties NIST NPLI BFKH resubmitted values and

P a g e | 9

uncertainties will only be reported in an annex (see ANNEX II- ) (Table 15) with no influence on the KCRV and the degree of equivalence (DOE) of the comparison Figure 1 plots the CO2 mole fraction reported by the participants for each gas standard In this figure the error bars represent the standard uncertainty associated with the reported value It can be observed that participants prepared all mixtures with a CO2 mole fraction within 10 micromol mol-1 of the nominal values as requested At 380 micromolmol NPLI submitted the mixture with the smallest CO2 mole fraction 37572plusmn322 micromolmol and NIMJ with the highest 38662plusmn005 micromolmol At 480 micromolmol NIMJ produced the lowest mole fraction 47130plusmn005 micromolmol and NIM the highest 48915plusmn022 micromolmol At 800 micromolmol NOAA produced the lowest mole fraction 79408plusmn048 micromolmol and NIM the highest 80982plusmn026 micromolmol The expanded uncertainties reported by the participants are plotted in Figure 2 Regarding the gas matrix composition thirty-five standards were produced in synthetic air and nine in purified (scrubbed) real air (see Table 5) The compositions of the mixtures reported by participants are listed in Table 6 Seven standards out of forty-four mixtures were not within specifications (gas mixture composition) as requested in the comparison protocol1

7 Measurements at the BIPM

On receipt by the BIPM all cylinders were allowed to equilibrate at laboratory temperature for at least 24 hours All cylinders were rolled for at least 1 hour to ensure homogeneity of the mixture

Cylinders were analysed in batches of n cylinders first by GC-FID then by FTIR and finally by the Delta Ray

For FTIR measurements each batch contained 4 cylinders from participants and 2 controls (at nominal mole fractions of 480 and 800 micromolmol) Each cylinder was connected from the pressure reducer to one inlet of a 32-inlet automatic gas sampler The procedure before starting measurements was identical as described below for GC-FID The reported value is the drift corrected ratio between the FTIR response and one control cylinder (at ~ 800 micromol mol-1) with a further correction required to take into account the isotopic composition of each mixtures Due to depletion of the control cylinder at nominally 480 micromolmol before completion of all measurements only ratios against the 800 micromolmol cylinder could be calculated for all standards Further details regarding the FTIR measurements are described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure FTIR

1 This nominal fraction limits were given in order to avoid possible biases that could be introduced into the spectroscopic comparison method (FTIR) due to variation in the composition of the air matrix in different standards For those standards that did not meet the tolerances specified in the protocol the BIPM included an additional uncertainty component in its FTIR analytical uncertainty to account for the impact of this

P a g e | 10

When the cylinders were analysed by GC-FID batches were composed of between four and six participantsrsquo cylinders three control cylinders (A B and C at nominal mole fractions of 380 480 and 800 micromolmol respectively) for ratio quantification and additional cylinders if required to maintain the total batch size of nine standards Each cylinder was connected from the pressure reducer to one inlet of a 16-inlet automatic gas sampler The sampler was connected to a gas chromatograph (GC-FID) The pressure reducer of each cylinder was flushed nine times with the mixture The cylinder valve was then closed leaving the high pressure side of the pressure reducer at the cylinder pressure and the low pressure side of the pressure reducer at ~300 kPa (abs) The cylinders were left stand at least 24 hours to allow conditioning of the pressure reducers The reported value was the drift corrected ratio between the GC-FID response and one control cylinder (at ~ 480 micromol mol-1) These measurements were performed under intermediate precision conditions (over ten weeks) Ratios against the other control cylinders were calculated but no substantial difference was observed with the ratio against the control cylinder at 480 micromolmol Further details regarding GC-FID measurements are described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure GC-FID

When the cylinders were analyzed by the Delta Ray each batch contained 4 cylinders from participants and 2 calibration standards Each cylinder was connected from the pressure reducer to one inlet of a 16-inlet automatic gas sampler The same procedure was again applied for flushing the gas lines Further details are described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure Delta Ray

The measurements performed by the Delta Ray analyser were only used to measure the isotopic ratios in each cylinder and further correct the FTIR responses due isotopic differences between the control cylinders and the samples as described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure FTIR In this manner the FTIR reported values for each cylinder were corrected for the isotopic composition and further ratioed to the response to a control cylinder (also corrected for the isotopic composition)

71 Measurements results

Measurements were performed at the BIPM from February to April 2017 Table 7 lists the inlet pressure before and after the standards were analyzed by the BIPM

Each cylinder was value assigned using the methods described in section 7 (details in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure)

Results of these series of measurements are listed in Table 8 where

FTR is the (mean) ratio between the FTIR response to the mixture under analysis and the control cylinder both corrected for the isotopic composition

FTRu is the standard uncertainty of the reported ratio based on FTIR measurements

(described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure FTIR)

wGCR is the reported value based on GC-FID measurements

P a g e | 11

GCRu the standard uncertainty of the reported value based on GC-FID (described in

ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure GC-FID) The δ13C and δ18O measurements on the VPDB-CO2 scale performed by Delta Ray are listed in Table 11 The typical uncertainties for each of the methods used by the BIPM are listed in Table 4

Comparison method name

Measurement quantity Symbol unit Typical relative

standard uncertainty ()

FTIR Ratio to control cylinder under intermediate precision condition FTR 1 0009

GC-FID Ratio to control cylinder under intermediate precision conditions wGCR 1 0007

Table 4 Comparison methods used during the CCQM-K120 international comparison and typical uncertainties obtained by the BIPM

Participant Cylinder references Gas Matrix

NMIrsquos assigned CO2 mole fraction xNMI

(micromol mol-1)

NMIrsquos assigned CO2

expanded uncertainty U(xNMI)

k = 2 (micromol mol-1)

Before the return of cylinders

BFKH OMH54 Synthetic Air 379840 1710

BFKH OMH44 Synthetic Air 479890 2110

BFKH OMH69 Synthetic Air 800300 2920

GUM D298392 Synthetic Air 380100 4400

GUM D298393 Synthetic Air 478100 5200

GUM D298402 Synthetic Air 800500 8600

INRIM D247440 Synthetic Air 479300 1600

INRIM D247445 Synthetic Air 798900 2600

KRISS D500642 Synthetic Air 378900 0200

KRISS D500647 Synthetic Air 480000 0200

KRISS D500672 Synthetic Air 800800 0400

LNE 1029045 Synthetic Air 379480 0790

LNE 1029047 Synthetic Air 477600 1000

LNE 1029048 Synthetic Air 802200 1700

NIM FB03747 Synthetic Air 383430 0200

NIM FB03744 Synthetic Air 489150 0220

NIM FB03748 Synthetic Air 809820 0260

NIST FB04278 Real Air 379045 0391

NIST FB04300 Real Air 472662 0428

NIST FB04287 Real Air 794533 1029

NMIJ CPC00486 Real Air 386617 0050

P a g e | 12

NMIJ CPC00494 Real Air 471301 0051

NMIJ CPC00558 Real Air 803658 0078

NMISA M51 8232 Synthetic Air 380200 2000

NMISA M51 8167 Synthetic Air 479500 1600

NMISA M51 8244 Synthetic Air 799100 1000

NOAA CC310084 Real Air 379500 0210

NOAA CC305198 Real Air 479260 0260

NOAA CB11668 Real Air 794080 0480

NPL 2179 Synthetic Air 380270 0190

NPL 2170 Synthetic Air 480020 0240

NPL 2181 Synthetic Air 799700 0400

NPLI JJ108891 Synthetic Air 375720 3220

NPLI JJ108862 Synthetic Air 480520 3040

NPLI JJ108854 Synthetic Air 796380 5030

UME PSM298266 Synthetic Air 379920 0190

UME PSM266468 Synthetic Air 480420 0250

UME PSM298347 Synthetic Air 800760 0360

VNIIM M365601 Synthetic Air 380200 0110

VNIIM M365664 Synthetic Air 480180 0130

VNIIM M365707 Synthetic Air 800730 0190

VSL 5604614 Synthetic Air 378900 0280

VSL 5604880 Synthetic Air 480480 0360

VSL 5604705 Synthetic Air 795700 0600

Table 5 Standards and reported values provided by participants Re-submitted values following stability testing which were included following the decision of the CCQM GAWG see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of

the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

Figure 1 CO2 mole fractions xNMI reported by participants The error bars represents the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the submitted values

GUM KRISS LNE NIM NMIJ NMISA NOAA NPL VNIIM VSL BFKH NIST NPLI UME374

376

378

380

382

384

386

GUM INRIM KRISS LNE NIM NMIJ NMISA NOAA NPL VNIIM VSL BFKH NIST NPLI UME460

465

470

475

480

485

490GUM INRIM KRISS LNE NMIJ NOAA NPL VNIIM VSL NIM NMISA BFKH NIST NPLI UME

792

796

800

804

808

812

x NM

I (

mol

mol

-1)

P a g e | 14

Figure 2 Participantsrsquo assigned CO2 expanded uncertainties U(xNMI)

NM

IJ

NM

IJ

NM

IJ

VN

IIM

VN

IIM

UM

E

UM

E

NP

L

VN

IIM

KR

ISS

KR

ISS

NIM

NO

AA

NIM

NP

L

NIM

NO

AA

UM

E

VS

L

VS

L

NIS

T

KR

ISS

NP

L

NIS

T

NO

AA

VS

L

LNE

LNE

NM

ISA

NIS

T

INR

IM

NM

ISA

BF

KH

LNE

NM

ISA

BF

KH

INR

IM

BF

KH

NP

LI

NP

LI

GU

M

NP

LI

GU

M

GU

M

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9U

(xN

MI)

m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 15

Participant Number of Cylinder

NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos

assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned

N2 expanded

uncertainty O2

expanded uncertainty

Ar expanded

uncertainty CH4 mole fraction

expanded uncertainty

N2O mole fraction

expanded uncertainty

mole fraction

k =2 mole fraction k=2 mole fraction k =2 k=2 k=2

xN2 U(xN2) xO2 U(xO2) xAr U(xAr) xNMI U(xNMI) xNMI U(xNMI)

(molmol) (molmol) (molmol) (molmol) (molmol) (molmol) (nmolmol) (nmolmol) (nmolmol) (nmolmol)

BFKH OMH54 0780390 0000160 0209615 0000048 0009607 0000017 1030 1200

BFKH OMH44 0780640 0000160 0209514 0000048 0009360 0000017 1030 1200

BFKH OMH69 0780720 0000160 0209161 0000048 0009314 0000017 1030 1200

GUM D298392 0780800 0000200 0209500 0000100 0009250 0000010

GUM D298393 0780700 0000200 0209600 0000100 0009190 0000010

GUM D298402 0780200 0000200 0209700 0000100 0009380 0000010

INRIM D247440 0781132 0000006 0209063 0000006 0009326 0000004

INRIM D247445 0782389 0000006 0207553 0000005 0009259 0000004

KRISS D500642 0781139 0000005 0209256 0000004 0009226 0000001 9 2 0200 0000

KRISS D500647 0780915 0000004 0209152 0000004 0009452 0000001 10 3 0200 0000

KRISS D500672 0780407 0000004 0209452 0000004 0009339 0000001 15 3 0200 0000

LNE 1029045 0780686 0000025 0209528 0000019 0009407 0000022

LNE 1029047 0781355 0000025 0208794 0000018 0009374 0000022

LNE 1029048 0782710 0000027 0207187 0000021 0009301 0000021

NIM FB03747 0782000 0000029 0209000 0000028 0009220 0000010 1 0 0791 0607

NIM FB03744 0781000 0000028 0210000 0000026 0009040 0000010 1 0 0790 0601

NIM FB03748 0781000 0000027 0210000 0000026 0007940 0000010 1 0 0790 0586

NIST FB04278 0780812 0000118 0209470 0000710 0009339 0000370

NIST FB04300 0780771 0000128 0209422 0000081 0009334 0000034

P a g e | 16

NIST FB04287 0780499 0000114 0209370 0000067 0009336 0000040

NMIJ CPC00486 0780915 0000025 0209365 0000007 0009334 0000024 2 2 0900 0900

NMIJ CPC00494 0780937 0000024 0209259 0000007 0009333 0000024 3 2 0900 0900

NMIJ CPC00558 0780602 0000022 0209270 0000006 0009325 0000021 3 2 0900 0900

NMISA M51 8232 0780700 0000048 0209600 0000015 0009400 0000005 7 4 0000 0000

NMISA M51 8167 0780900 0000028 0209600 0000011 0008900 0000005 9 6 0000 0000

NMISA M51 8244 0779300 0000031 0210600 0000016 0009300 0000005 10 6 0000 0000

NOAA CC310084 0209500 0000200 1762 3 317200 0500

NOAA CC305198 0209500 0000200 1887 4 328600 0500

NOAA CB11668 0209500 0000200 1889 4 328800 0500

NPL 2179 0780790 0000470 0209600 0000130 0009232 0000018 lt10 - lt10 0000

NPL 2170 0780690 0780690 0209500 0209500 0009334 0009334 lt10 - lt10 0000

NPL 2181 0780550 0000470 0209280 0000130 0009367 0000019 lt10 - lt10 0000

NPLI JJ108891 0781273 0002210 0209688 0000590 0009040 0000030

NPLI JJ108862 0781989 0002210 0208853 0000590 0009158 0000030

NPLI JJ108854 0781363 0002210 0209789 0000594 0008847 0000030

UME PSM298266 0780339 0000017 0209966 0000017 0009314 0000002

UME PSM266468 0779968 0000017 0210229 0000017 0009322 0000002

UME PSM298347 0779552 0000016 0210352 0000016 0009295 0000002

VNIIM M365601 0781015 0000013 0209188 0000013 0009416 0000005 9 2

VNIIM M365664 0780928 0000011 0209270 0000012 0009322 0000005 10 2

VNIIM M365707 0781000 0000011 0209199 0000012 0009000 0000005 10 2

VSL 5604614 0781177 0000017 0209152 0000016 0009292 0000006 16 7 0021 0024

VSL 5604880 0781092 0000017 0209146 0000016 0009281 0000006 16 7 0021 0024

VSL 5604705 0780708 0000017 0209246 0000015 0009251 0000006 16 7 0021 0024

Table 6 Matrix composition of the submitted gas mixtures according to participantsrsquo reports in ANNEX V Synthetic Air is identified as S A and Purified real air as R A No data given

P a g e | 17

Number Date of pressure on pressure on Number Date of pressure on pressure on

Lab of Cylinder arrival arrival departure Lab of Cylinder arrival arrival departure

Mpa Mpa Mpa Mpa

BFKH OMH54 1292016 995 776 NMISA M51 8232 19122016 1297 952

BFKH OMH44 1292016 959 784 NMISA M51 8167 19122016 96 709

BFKH OMH69 1292016 984 755 NMISA M51 8244 19122016 1061 572

GUM D298392 28092016 1446 1103 NOAA CC310084 322017 1348 1282

GUM D298393 28092016 1523 116 NOAA CC305198 322017 1342 1284

GUM D298402 28092016 1505 108 NOAA CB11668 322017 1194 1138

INRIM D247440 13012017 897 534 NPL 2179 9122016 1046 855

INRIM D247445 13012017 922 544 NPL 2170 9122016 1119 94

KRISS D500642 20122016 927 739 NPL 2181 9122016 1112 935

KRISS D500647 20122016 884 711 NPLI JJ108891 922017 10 836

KRISS D500672 20122016 905 703 NPLI JJ108862 922017 105 897

LNE 1029045 28112016 1311 1113 NPLI JJ108854 922017 982 811

LNE 1029047 28112016 1287 1113 UME PSM298266 23112016 903 582

LNE 1029048 28112016 1322 1141 UME PSM266468 23112016 908 546

NIM FB03747 14122016 82 527 UME PSM298347 23112016 918 542

NIM FB03744 14122016 865 593 VNIIM M365601 512017 84 43

NIM FB03748 14122016 802 473 VNIIM M365664 512017 866 537

NIST FB04278 312017 1003 725 VNIIM M365707 512017 853 527

NIST FB04300 312017 1023 746 VSL 5604614 15112016 1049 634

NIST FB04287 312017 1005 721 VSL 5604880 15112016 1012 68

NMIJ CPC00486 922017 957 753 VSL 5604705 15112016 1045 707

NMIJ CPC00494 922017 928 752

NMIJ CPC00558 922017 84 677

Table 7 Pressure of the gas standards on arrival and departure from the BIPM

P a g e | 18

xNMI u(xNMI)

FTR

FTRu

wGCR

GCRu

Participant

Number of Cylinder

Assigned NMIrsquos CO2 mole

fraction in

(micromolmol)

Assigned NMIrsquos

Standard uncertainty

(k=1) (micromolmol)

FTIR (Under intermediate precision conditions)

Ratio to control

cylinder

Standard uncertainty in the Ratio to

control cylinder

GC-FID

(Under intermediate precision conditions)

Ratio to control

cylinder

Standard uncertainty in the Ratio to control

cylinder

BFKH OMH54 379800 0855 0435893607 0000026077 0787699648 0000056828 BFKH OMH44 479900 1055 0539981600 0000030887 0976036480 0000059163

BFKH OMH69 800300 1460 0930134790 0000079551 1681896740 0000095864

GUM D298392 380100 2200 0441372447 0000014142 0797442344 0000052495

GUM D298393 478100 2600 0555225000 0000027459 1003704868 0000094363

GUM D298402 800500 4300 0929933927 0000085245 1681786329 0000104750

INRIM D247440 479300 0800 0556774608 0000200000 1006168965 0000071077

INRIM D247445 798900 1300 0927989884 0000059393 1677871699 0000087418

KRISS D500642 378900 0100 0440414238 0000026926 0795445471 0000074696

KRISS D500647 480000 0100 0557780245 0000035341 1008228786 0000056189

KRISS D500672 800800 0200 0930402740 0000108930 1682410057 0000106300

LNE 1029045 379480 0395 0440901535 0000025239 0796419628 0000056088

LNE 1029047 477600 0500 0554855777 0000046174 1002959828 0000101902

LNE 1029048 802200 0850 0932191570 0000046232 1685756190 0000102865

NIM FB03747 383430 0100 0445715112 0000021260 0804945901 0000057626

NIM FB03744 489150 0110 0568919872 0000044283 1028323070 0000061887

NIM FB03748 809820 0130 0941620390 0000127224 1702705250 0000084949

NIST FB04278 379045 0195 0441858957 0000014036 0798159371 0000076697

NIST FB04300 472662 0214 0550247743 0000021932 0994649947 0000056864

NIST FB04287 794530 0514 0924730373 0000047693 1672406610 0000052361

NMIJ CPC00486 386617 0025 0449318716 0000022804 0811714164 0000057115

NMIJ CPC00494 471301 0026 0547653232 0000049336 0989730987 0000128859

NMIJ CPC00558 803658 0039 0933998556 0000062657 1689072068 0000061122

NMISA M51 8232 380200 1000 0441463446 0000030414 0797746449 0000071374

NMISA M51 8167 479500 0800 0556816358 0000063789 1006620384 0000139031

NMISA M51 8244 799100 0500 0927761085 0000058032 1678197948 0000120968

NOAA CC310084 379500 0105 0441196927 0000016125 0796836602 0000097427

NOAA CC305198 479260 0130 0557198873 0000046487 1007173065 0000061590

NOAA CB11668 794080 0240 0923707672 0000052071 1670538345 0000102943

NPL 2179 380270 0095 0442066316 0000015232 0798660385 0000055036

NPL 2170 480020 0120 0557939086 0000029155 1008480431 0000075981

NPL 2181 799700 0200 0929525453 0000066014 1680929399 0000081883

NPLI JJ108891 375720 1610 0435541280 0000044283 0786899117 0000051131

NPLI JJ108862 480520 1520 0558985244 0000078492 1010295612 0000070031

NPLI JJ108854 796380 2515 0923587308 0000048435 1670046415 0000092977

UME PSM298266 37992 0095 0441777548 0000066603 0798242598 0000076656

UME PSM266468 48042 0125 0558597569 0000077666 1009847197 0000062025

UME PSM298347 800760 0180 0930853610 0000059811 1683852629 0000186416

P a g e | 19

Table 8 Results of BIPM CO2 comparison measurements Re-submitted values following stability testing which were included following the decision of the CCQM GAWG (see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the

CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018))

72 Graphical representation of measurement results

Table 9 summarizes the figures showing the measurements results obtained by different methods at the BIPM

Table 9 List of figures corresponding to results obtained from FTIR and GC-FID at the BIPM

VNIIM M365601 380200 0055 0441966430 0000016643 0798479627 0000066343

VNIIM M365664 480180 0065 0558130273 0000048384 1008861333 0000059090

VNIIM M365707 800730 0095 0930604477 0000058131 1683192751 0000075295

VSL 5604614 378900 0140 0440539300 0000017205 0795901702 0000077266

VSL 5604880 480480 0180 0558580000 0000018028 1009802467 0000054009

VSL 5604705 795700 0300 0925375760 0000052705 1673272267 0000122172

Comparison method

CO2 mole fraction Plot

FTIR ( Ratio to control cylinder under intermediate precision conditions) 380 micromolmol Figure 3 480 micromolmol Figure 4 800 micromolmol Figure 5 GC-FID (Ratio to control cylinder under intermediate precision conditions)

380 micromolmol Figure 6 480 micromolmol Figure 7 800 micromolmol Figure 8

P a g e | 20

FTIR

Figure 3 FTIR ratios to control standard for the cylinders at nominally 380 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

374 376 378 380 382 384 386 3880434

0436

0438

0440

0442

0444

0446

0448

0450

GUM

KRISS

LNE

NIM

NMIJ

NMISANOAA

NPLVNIIM

VSL

BFKH

NIST

NPLI

UMERFT

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 21

Figure 4 FTIR ratios to control standard for the cylinders at nominally 480 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

460 465 470 475 480 485 490

0540

0545

0550

0555

0560

0565

0570

GUM

INRIM

KRISS

LNE

NIM

NMIJ

NMISANOAA

NPLVNIIMVSL

BFKH

NIST

NPLIUME

RFT

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 22

Figure 5 FTIR ratios to control standard for the cylinders at 800 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

792 794 796 798 800 802 804 806 808 810 8120922

0924

0926

0928

0930

0932

0934

0936

0938

0940

0942

0944

GUM

INRIM

KRISS

LNE

NMIJ

NOAA

NPL

VNIIM

VSL

NIM

NMISA

BFKH

NIST

NPLI

UME

RFT

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 23

GC-FID

Figure 6 GC-FID ratios to control standard for the cylinders at nominally 380 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

374 376 378 380 382 384 386 388

0785

0790

0795

0800

0805

0810

0815

KRISSVSL

LNENOAA

GUMNMISA

VNIIMNPL

NIM

NMIJ

BFKH

NIST

NPLI

UME

RG

C

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 24

Figure 7 GC-FID ratios to control standard for the cylinders at 480 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

460 465 470 475 480 485 490097

098

099

100

101

102

103

NMIJ

LNEGUM

NOAAINRIMNMISA

KRISSNPLVNIIMVSL

NIM

BFKH

NIST

NPLIUME

RG

C

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 25

Figure 8 GC-FID ratios to control standard for the cylinders at 800 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

792 794 796 798 800 802 804 806 808 810 8121665

1670

1675

1680

1685

1690

1695

1700

1705

NOAA

VSL

INRIMNMISA

NPLGUM

VNIIM

LNE

NMIJ

KRISS

NIM

BFKH

NIST

NPLI

UMERG

C

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 26

73 Isotope ratios of CCQM-K120 standards The δ13C and δ18O values reported by participants are listed in Table 10 The delta values of the complete set of cylinders on the VPDB-CO2 scale were also measured by the BIPM using the Delta Ray analyser to correct the FTIR response The measured isotope ratio values are listed Table 11 The method for measuring and calibrating the Delta Ray is fully described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure Delta Ray The method used by the BIPM for measuring isotope ratios is described in a recent publication5 and was validated with CO2 in air standards that had been value assigned for their isotopic composition by the WMO-CCL laboratory for isotope ratios MPI-BGC Jena with traceability of the standards used to the VPDB-CO2 scale realized with the JENA air standards reference set The measurements made by the BIPM have been used for all corrections made in the FTIR comparison method and were considered fit for purpose noting that a 1 permil difference in δ13C measurements can lead to a bias of 0004 micromolmol in CO2 mole fraction measurements in instruments based on a spectroscopic technique and similarly a 0002 micromolmol bias from a 1 permil difference in δ18O measurements Reported values for isotopic composition by participants were for information only The agreement between reported values and BIPM measured values is variable For δ13C values the difference between BIPM measured values and those reported by participants was smaller than 04 permil for NMIJ NPL and NOAA smaller than 2 permil for UME and VNIIM and almost 12 permil for NIST (noting that the NIST reported at the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG that this had been a typographical error on their part and the NIST and BIPM values were actually in full agreement) For δ18O values the difference between BIPM measured values and those reported by participants is smaller than 3 permil for NMIJ and NOAA and almost 10 permil for NPL The compatibility of CO2 isotope ratio measurements will be the focus of a future CCQM GAWG comparison enabling sources for differences to be studied in greater detail

Lab Number of Cylinder

δ13C on VPDB-CO2 scale

u(δ13C) Standard uncertainty (k=1)

δ18O on VPDB-CO2 scale

u(δ18O) Standard uncertainty (k=1) Comments

(permil) (permil) (permil) (permil)

NIST FB04278 -28 2 - -

NIST FB04300 -28 2 - -

NIST FB04287 -28 2 - -

NMIJ 3BIS85282 -892 - -991 - CO2 pure

NOAA CC310084 -87 02 -03 02

NOAA CC305198 -88 02 -64 02

NOAA CB11668 -85 04 -197 04

NPL 2179 -55 05 -225 05

NPL 2170 -55 05 -225 05

NPL 2181 -55 05 -225 05

UME PSM298266 -165 005 - - CO2 pure

VNIIM M365601 -48 045 - -

VNIIM M365664 -48 045 - -

VNIIM M365707 -48 045 - -

Table 10 δ13C and δ18

O values reported by participants value measured by the gas supplier according to the participant

P a g e | 27

Lab

Number of Cylinder

δ13C on VPDB-

CO2 scale

u(δ13C) Standard

uncertainty (k=1)

δ18O on VPDB-

CO2 scale

u(δ18O) Standard

uncertainty (k=1) Lab

Number of Cylinder

δ13C on VPDB-

CO2 scale

u(δ13C) Standard

uncertainty (k=1)

δ18O on VPDB-

CO2 scale

u(δ18O) Standard

uncertainty (k=1)

(permil) (permil) (permil) (permil) NMIJ CPC00558 -897 018 -1166 048

BFKH OMH54 -6676 018 -1723 048 NMISA M51 8232 -321 018 -2661 048

BFKH OMH44 -6653 018 -1734 048 NMISA M51 8167 -3209 018 -2655 048

BFKH OMH69 -6691 018 -2615 048 NMISA M51 8244 -3189 018 -2646 048

GUM D298392 -4431 018 -2877 048 NOAA CC310084 -886 018 -032 048

GUM D298393 -4432 018 -2865 048 NOAA CC305198 -891 018 -906 048

GUM D298402 -4418 018 -2847 048 NOAA CB11668 -888 018 -2128 048

INRIM D247440 -4927 018 -3436 048 NPL 2179 -522 018 -3231 048

INRIM D247445 -4952 018 -3449 048 NPL 2170 -521 018 -317 048

KRISS D500642 -2338 018 -1749 048 NPL 2181 -525 018 -3174 048

KRISS D500647 -2341 018 -1903 048 NPLI JJ108891 -887 018 -1087 048

KRISS D500672 -2334 018 -1884 048 NPLI JJ108862 -917 018 -1131 048

LNE 1029045 -3781 018 -2861 048 NPLI JJ108854 -915 018 -1149 048

LNE 1029047 -3786 018 -2775 048 UME PSM298266 -007 018 -2481 048

LNE 1029048 -3811 018 -2804 048 UME PSM266468 -005 018 -2453 048

NIM FB03747 -2055 018 -3007 048 UME PSM298347 016 018 -2446 048

NIM FB03744 -2052 018 -2978 048 VNIIM M365601 -4643 018 -2661 048

NIM FB03748 -2062 018 -2995 048 VNIIM M365664 -4635 018 -2584 048

NIST FB04278 -3983 018 -3092 048 VNIIM M365707 -4647 018 -2594 048

NIST FB04300 -3985 018 -3048 048 VSL 5604614 -3957 018 -3288 048

NIST FB04287 -3983 018 -3053 048 VSL 5604880 -3969 018 -3224 048

NMIJ CPC00486 -891 018 -987 048 VSL 5604705 -3574 018 -3064 048

NMIJ CPC00494 -903 018 -1184 048

Table 11 δ13C and δ18O value assignment vs VPDB-CO2 for each CO2 in air standard

P a g e | 28

In the case of the CCQM-K120a comparison it should be noted that the isotopic composition of CO2 at background levels in the atmosphere would be expected to have values close to the nominal values of -85 permil for δ13C and of 0 permil for δ18O when expressed on the VPDB-CO2 scale The standards submitted for the CCQM-K120a comparison had δ13C values that varied between -67 permil to 0 permil and δ18O values that varied between -35 permil to 0 permil This range of isotopic composition could result in measurement biases of up to 03 micromolmol in spectroscopic instruments for which isotopic composition had not been taken into account

8 Key Comparison Reference Value (KCRV)

During the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG it was agreed that the key comparison

reference values for CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b were to be calculated using

the measurement results of the FTIR spectrometer

Several statistical approaches all based on least-square regressions of measurement results obtained at the same nominal mole fraction were presented during 38th meeting of the

CCQM GAWG (GAWG18-32 ) From this analysis it was agreed to fit the FTIR results versus the participantrsquos submitted values with a line using the

Generalised Least Square approach defined in the standard ISO 614320019 (Gas analysis ndash Comparison methods for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures) It was also agreed to select the largest subset of cylinders

contributing to the regression line so as to obtain a consistent set with

regard to the regression ie a set that allows the goodness-of-fit parameter

to be less than 2 The measure of goodness-of-fit is defined as the

maximum value of the weighted differences between the coordinates of measured

and adjusted points (both on the x and the y axes) For all regressions the normalized sum of the squared weighted deviations where n is the number of points and p = 2 the number of parameters of the fit is also

provided for indication Both values are expected to be lower than 2 with the

condition on being stricter as it imposes all points to comply with the

fit

Notation The degree of equivalence is defined as

D = (1)

where

P a g e | 29

xKCRV is the amount of substance fraction in the cylinder predicted by the linear analysis function for the corresponding analyzer response (ratio to the control cylinder by FTIR)

u(xKCRV) is the standard uncertainty of the KCRV value

xNMI is the amount of substance fraction reported by the participating laboratory u(xNMI) is the standard uncertainty associated with the reported value xNMI

D is difference in amount of substance fraction as measured by the laboratory and

the reference value x and u(D) is the standard uncertainty of this difference expressed as

= (2)

and the expanded uncertainty at 95 confidence level )()( DukDU (3) where k denotes the coverage factor taken as k = 2 (normal distribution approximately 95 level of confidence)

81 Degrees of equivalence and graph of equivalence The analysis of the data from the comparison was performed following the process outlined in ISO 61432001 The regression analysis was performed with XLGenlinev11 a computer programme developed by NPL which implements this methodology by taking into consideration uncertainties in both axes During the 38th meeting of the GAWG it was decided that due the potential adsorption of a proportion of CO2 molecules onto the internal surface of a cylinder and valve (that can cause a deviation from the gravimetric amount fraction by as much as 100 nmol mol-1 demonstrated by Brewer et al2 ) a lower limit for uncertainties that could be used in the calculation of the KCRV was to be fixed It was decided that any standard uncertainty value lower than 0095 micromol mol-1 submitted by a participant was to be replaced by this value for the calculation of the KCRV The limit value was chosen based on the lowest uncertainty that had been reported by a participant for which adsorption effects had been considered (in this case NPL with cylinder 2179) In this manner the original uncertainties for the KCRV calculation of standards CPC00486 (NMIJ

P a g e | 30

original uncertainty 0025 micromol mol-1) CPC00494 (NMIJ original uncertainty 0025 micromol mol-

1) CPC00558 (NMIJ original uncertainty 0039 micromol mol-1) 00255 M365601 (VNIIM original uncertainty 0055 micromol mol-1) and M365664 (VNIIM original uncertainty 0065 micromol mol-1) were replaced by 0095 micromol mol-1 This cutoff was only applied to calculate the KCRVs The degree of equivalences were calculated using the uncertainties submitted by participants (equation 1)

KCRV calculations for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 With the FTIR measurement data set the set of self-consistent standards identified included eleven standards Three standards were excluded namely OMH54 (BFKH) FB04278 (NIST) and JJ108891 (NPLI) as these laboratories had reported changes in their reported values following stability testing The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 074 and the normalized sum of the squared weighted deviations 11 2 0227 Key comparison reference values and degrees of equivalence are listed in Table 12 Degrees of equivalence are plotted in Figure 9

KCRV calculations for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 With the FTIR measurement data set the set of self-consistent standards identified included twelve standards Three standards were excluded namely OMH44 (BFKH) FB03744 (NIST) and JJ108862 (NPLI) as these laboratories had reported changes in their reported values following stability testing The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 136 and the normalized sum of the squared weighted deviations 12 2 0463 The resulting key comparison reference values and degrees of equivalence are listed in Table 13 Degrees of equivalence are plotted in Figure 10

KCRV calculations for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1

Several statistical approaches were presented during the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (GAWG18-32 see ANNEX II- ) comprising different alternatives of sets of self-consistent standards From those the GAWG selected a solution where the two extreme mole fractions at this nominal mole fraction FB03748 (NIM 810424 micromol mol-1) and CB11668 (NOAA 794608 micromol mol-1) were removed from the set of self-consistent standards The solution involved then including ten cylinders for KCRV calculations Five were excluded namely FB03748 (NIM) CB11668 (NOAA) OMH69 (BFKH) FB04287 (NIST) and JJ108854 (NPLI) The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 180 and the normalized sum of the squared weighted deviations 10 2 0950 Key

P a g e | 31

comparison reference values and degrees of equivalence are listed in Table 14 Degrees of equivalence are plotted in Figure 11

Participant Cylinder

xKCRV u(xKCRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D1( xNMI- xKCRV ) u(D1) U( D1)

( XLGENLINE predictied

value from FTIR)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298392 379664 0044 380100 2200 0436 2200 4401

KRISS D500642 378828 0055 378900 0100 0072 0114 0228

LNE 1029045 379253 0051 379480 0395 0227 0398 0796

NIM FB03747 383453 0052 383430 0100 -0023 0113 0226

NMIJ CPC00486 386597 0088 386617 0025 0020 0091 0182

NMISA M51 8232 379743 0050 380200 1000 0457 1001 2002

NOAA CC310084 379511 0046 379500 0105 -0011 0115 0229

NPL 2179 380269 0041 380270 0095 0001 0103 0207

VNIIM M365601 380182 0042 380200 0055 0018 0069 0138

VSL 5604614 378937 0051 378900 0140 -0037 0149 0298

UME PSM298266 380017 0071 379920 0095 -0097 0118 0237

BFKH OMH54 374884 0099 379800 0850 4916 0856 1711

NIST FB04278 380088 0042 379045 0195 -1044 0200 0400

NPLI JJ108891 374576 0108 375720 1610 1144 1614 3227

Table 12 Degrees of Equivalence using FTIR measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision of the the CCQM

GAWG Uncertainties below the cutoff value of 0095 micromol molminus1

Participant Cylinder

xKCRV u(xKCRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D2( xNMI- xKCRV ) u(D2) U( D2)

( XLGENLINE predictied value

from FTIR)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298393 477706 0051 478100 2600 0394 2601 5201

INRIM D247440 479007 0173 479300 0800 0293 0819 1637

KRISS D500647 479851 0052 480000 0100 0149 0113 0225

LNE 1029047 477397 0061 477600 0500 0203 0504 1007

NIM FB03744 489202 0099 489150 0110 ‐0052 0148 0296

NMIJ CPC00494 471351 0094 471301 0026 ‐0050 0097 0195

NMISA M51 8167 479042 0068 479500 0800 0458 0803 1606

NOAA CC305198 479363 0058 479260 0130 ‐0103 0142 0284

P a g e | 32

NPL 2170 479985 0049 480020 0120 0035 0130 0259

VNIIM M365664 480145 0059 480180 0065 0035 0088 0175

VSL 5604880 480523 0045 480480 0180 ‐0043 0186 0371

UME PSM266468 480537 0078 480420 0125 ‐0117 0147 0295

BFKH OMH44 464911 0138 479900 1050 14989 1059 2118

NIST FB04300 473529 0071 472662 0214 ‐0867 0225 0451

NPLI JJ108862 480863 0079 480520 1520 ‐0343 1522 3044

Table 13 Degrees of Equivalence using FTIR measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision of the the CCQM

GAWG Uncertainties below the cutoff value of 0095 micromol molminus1

Participant Cylinder

xKCRV u(xKCRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D3( xNMI- xKCRV ) u(D3) U( D3)

( XLGENLINE predictied value

from FTIR)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298402 800105 0106 800500 4300 0395 4301 8603

INRIM D247445 798389 0128 798900 1300 0511 1306 2613

KRISS D500672 800519 0118 800800 0200 0281 0232 0464

LNE 1029048 802099 0078 802200 0850 0101 0854 1707

NMIJ CPC00558 803694 0114 803658 0039 -0036 0120 0240

NPL 2181 799744 0101 799700 0200 -0044 0224 0448

NMISA M518244 798187 0132 799100 0500 0913 0517 1034

VNIIM M365707 800697 0084 800730 0095 0033 0127 0253

VSL 5604705 796080 0191 795700 0300 -0380 0356 0712

UME PSM298347 800917 0083 800760 0180 -0157 0198 0396

NIM FB03748 810424 0327 809820 0130 -0604 0351 0703

NOAA CB11668 794608 0237 794080 0240 -0528 0337 0674

BFKH OMH69 800282 0100 800300 1450 0018 1453 2907

NIST FB04287 795511 0208 794530 0514 -0981 0555 1109

NPLI JJ108854 794501 0239 796380 2515 1879 2526 5053

Table 14 Degrees of Equivalence using FTIR measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision of the the CCQM

GAWG Uncertainties below the cutoff value of 0095 micromol molminus1

P a g e | 33

Figure 9 Degrees of Equivalence at a nominal value of 380 micromolmol for CO2 mole fractions The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

KR

ISS

LNE

NIM

NM

IJ

NM

ISA

NO

AA

NP

L

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI-4

-2

0

2

4

D m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 34

Figure 10 Degrees of Equivalence at a nominal value of 480 micromolmol for CO2 mole fractions The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

INR

IM

KR

ISS

LNE

NIM

NM

IJ

NM

ISA

NO

AA

NP

L

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI

-4

-2

0

2

4

D m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 35

Figure 11 Degrees of Equivalence at a nominal value of 800 micromolmol for CO2 mole fractions The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

INR

IM

KR

ISS

LNE

NM

IJ

NP

L

NM

ISA

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

NIM

NO

AA

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI-4

-2

0

2

4

D m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 36

9 Conclusions The comparison have been successful in demonstrating the degrees of equivalence of CO2 in air standards amongst participating NMIs at nominal mole fractions of 380 micromolmol 480 micromolmol and 800 micromolmol In addition the results can be compared to those of CCQM-K52 (organized in 2006) allowing the following conclusions to be drawn

a) the uncertainy of the key comparison reference value has been reduced by a factor of at least 4 with a standard uncertainty of 005 micromolmol for CCQM-K120a (compared to 02 micromolmol for CCQM-K52)

b) methods based on spectroscopy (FTIR with corrections for isotope ratios) and GC-FID for comparing CO2 in air standards have demonstrated excellent agreement with the standard deviation of the difference in reference values found by the two methods being 007 micromolmol at 380 micromolmol and 005 micromolmol at 480 micromolmol

c) the uncertainties are now at the level where adsorption effects within cylinders and on

surfaces needs to be considered and this has led to a mnimium value of 0095 micromolmol being used as the standard uncertainty for standards for key comparison reference value calculation

d) providing standards to communities measuring atmospheric CO2 with spectroscopic

methods produced with CO2 originating from combustion sources can lead to isotope ratios in the CO2 which will produce biases in mole fractions measurements of up to 03 micromolmol These biases can be corrected by either measuring isotope ratios of the gas standard and appropriate processing by the user or by using CO2 which has been closely matched to atmospheric isotope ratio values in the production of the standard

10 lsquoHow far the light shinesrsquo statement The following lsquoHow far the light shinesrsquo statement agreed during the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG was CCQM‐K120a comparison involves preparing standards of carbon dioxide in air which are fit for purpose for the atmospheric monitoring community with stringent requirements on matrix composition and measurement uncertainty of the CO2 mole fraction This represents an analytical challenge and is therefore considered as a Track C comparison The comparison will underpin CMC claims for CO2 in air for standards and calibrations services for the atmospheric

P a g e | 37

monitoring community matrix matched to real air over the mole fraction range of 250 μmolmol to 520 μmolmol CCQM‐K120b comparison tests core skills and competencies required in gravimetric preparation analytical certification and purity analysis It is considered as a Track A comparison It will underpin CO2 in air and nitrogen claims in a mole fraction range starting at the smallest participantrsquos reported expanded uncertainty and ending at 500 mmolmol Participants successful in this comparison may use their result in the flexible scheme and underpin claims for all core mixtures

Bibliography

1 W Bader B Bovy S Conway K Strong D Smale A J Turner T Blumenstock C Boone A Coulon O Garcia D W T Griffith F Hase P Hausmann N Jones P Krummel I Murata I Morino H Nakajima S ODoherty C Paton-Walsh J Robinson R Sandrin M Schneider C Servais R Sussmann and E MahieuTen years of atmospheric methane from ground-based NDACC FTIR observations Atmos Chem Phys Discuss2016 2016 1 2 P J Brewer R J C Brown K V Resner R E Hill-Pearce D R Worton N D C Allen K C Blakley D Benucci and M R EllisonInfluence of Pressure on the Composition of Gaseous Reference Materials Analytical Chemistry2018 90(5) 3490 3 M B Esler D W T Griffith S R Wilson and L P SteelePrecision Trace Gas Analysis by FT-IR Spectroscopy 1 Simultaneous Analysis of CO2 CH4 N2O and CO in Air Anal Chem1999 72(1) 206- 215 4 M B Esler D W T Griffith S R Wilson and L P SteelePrecision Trace Gas Analysis by FT-IR Spectroscopy 2 The 13C12C Isotope Ratio of CO2 Anal Chem 1999 72(1) 216 5 E Flores J Viallon P Moussay D W T Griffith and R WielgoszCalibration strategies for FTIR and other IRIS instruments for ac-curate δ13C and δ18O measurements of CO2 in air Anal Chem2017 Submitted 6 D W T GriffithSynthetic Calibration and Quantitative Analysis of Gas-Phase FT-IR Spectra Appl Spectrosc1996 50(1) 59 7 D W T Griffith N M Deutscher C Caldow G Kettlewell M Riggenbach and S HammerA Fourier transform infrared trace gas and isotope analyser for atmospheric applications Atmos Meas Tech2012 5(10) 2481 8 D W T Griffith N B Jones B McNamara C P Walsh W Bell and C BernardoIntercomparison of NDSC Ground-Based Solar FTIR Measurements of Atmospheric Gases at Lauder New Zealand J Atmos Oceanic Tech2003 20 (8) 1138- 1153 9 ISO Gas analysis- Comparison methods for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures in 61432001 (2001) 10 G Nelson Gas Mixtures Preparation and Control (Lewis Publishers Florida USA 1992) 11 L S Rothman A Barbe D Chris Benner L R Brown C Camy-Peyret M R Carleer K Chance C Clerbaux V Dana V M Devi A Fayt J M Flaud R R Gamache A Goldman D Jacquemart K W Jucks W J Lafferty J Y Mandin S T Massie V Nemtchinov D A Newnham A Perrin C P Rinsland J Schroeder K M Smith M A H Smith K Tang R A Toth J Vander Auwera P Varanasi and K YoshinoThe HITRAN molecular spectroscopic database edition of 2000 including updates through 2001 J Quant Spectrosc Radiat Transfer 82(1ndash4) 5 12 L S Rothman I E Gordon Y Babikov A Barbe D Chris Benner P F Bernath M Birk L Bizzocchi V Boudon L R Brown A Campargue K Chance E A Cohen L H Coudert V M Devi B J Drouin A Fayt J M Flaud R R Gamache J J Harrison J M Hartmann C Hill J T Hodges D Jacquemart A Jolly J Lamouroux R J Le Roy G Li D A Long O M Lyulin C J Mackie S T Massie S Mikhailenko H S P Muumlller O V Naumenko A V Nikitin J Orphal V Perevalov A Perrin E R Polovtseva C Richard M A H

P a g e | 38

Smith E Starikova K Sung S Tashkun J Tennyson G C Toon V G Tyuterev and G WagnerThe HITRAN2012 molecular spectroscopic database J Quant Spectrosc Radiat Transfer2013 130 4

ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

As results of the discussion of the key points of the Draft A report of the CCQM-K120 comparison during the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG the following decisions were taken

a) the key comparison reference value for CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b are to be based on the measurement results of the FTIR spectrometer

b) the re-submitted uncertainties by UME replace the original uncertainty values used in Draft A report (see Table 15) and are to be used for the calculation of the KCRV

c) NIST NPLI and BFKH submitted new measurement results as well as uncertainties after the measurements performed on return of the standards in their laboratoires This was not expected in the protocol of the comparison Therefore their values have not been used in the KCRV calucltaions The original values are used for DOE calculations the modified values have been included in AnnexII

d) considering that NPL was the only participant that considered a potential effect of adsorption of a proportion of the molecules onto the internal surface of a cylinder and valve (for more information see GAWG18-00) a limit on the uncertainties claimed by participants contributing to the KCRV is fixed to 0095 micromol mol-1 meaning that any uncertainty value smaller to this value will be replaced by 0095 micromol mol-1 to calculate KCRVs

e) The KCRV for the standatds at the nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 are to be calculated including standards with mole fractions within plusmn 5 micromol mol-1 of the nominal value (795 micromol mol-1 to 805 micromol mol-1)

P a g e | 39

P a g e | 40

ANNEX II- Stability studies by participants After the return of cylinder to the participants and before results of the comparison were known four participants reported modified uncertainties and also values and uncertainties compared to their originally reported values see Table 15 The participants that reported changes to their originally submitted values were

BFKH submitted the same values but with less decimals for cylinders OMH54 and OMH69 and proposed a new value for cylinder OMH44 The new value changed from 47989plusmn211 micromolmol to 4644plusmn211 micromolmol

NIST submitted new values and uncertainties for cylinders FB04278 FB04300 and FB04287

NPLI submitted new values for cylinders JJ108891 JJ108862 and JJ108854 The mole fractions for cylinders JJ108891 and JJ108854 were increased by 252 micromolmol and 242 micromolmol respectively and reduced for cylinder JJ108862 by 195 micromolmol The uncertainties for cylinders JJ108891 and JJ108862 were also increased by 22 and 72 but reduced for cylinder JJ108854 by 33

UME The uncertainties of cylinders PSM298266 PSM266468 and PSM298347 were increased by 19 47 and 33 respectively

Participant Cylinder references Gas Matrix

NMIrsquos assigned CO2 mole fraction xNMI

(micromol mol-1)

NMIrsquos assigned CO2

expanded uncertainty U(xNMI)

k = 2 (micromol mol-1)

Before the return of cylinders

BFKH OMH54 Synthetic Air 379840 1710

BFKH OMH44 Synthetic Air 479890 2110

BFKH OMH69 Synthetic Air 800300 2920

GUM D298392 Synthetic Air 380100 4400

GUM D298393 Synthetic Air 478100 5200

GUM D298402 Synthetic Air 800500 8600

INRIM D247440 Synthetic Air 479300 1600

INRIM D247445 Synthetic Air 798900 2600

KRISS D500642 Synthetic Air 378900 0200

KRISS D500647 Synthetic Air 480000 0200

KRISS D500672 Synthetic Air 800800 0400

LNE 1029045 Synthetic Air 379480 0790

LNE 1029047 Synthetic Air 477600 1000

LNE 1029048 Synthetic Air 802200 1700

NIM FB03747 Synthetic Air 383430 0200

NIM FB03744 Synthetic Air 489150 0220

P a g e | 41

NIM FB03748 Synthetic Air 809820 0260

NIST FB04278 Real Air 379045 0391

NIST FB04300 Real Air 472662 0428

NIST FB04287 Real Air 794533 1029

NMIJ CPC00486 Real Air 386617 0050

NMIJ CPC00494 Real Air 471301 0051

NMIJ CPC00558 Real Air 803658 0078

NMISA M51 8232 Synthetic Air 380200 2000

NMISA M51 8167 Synthetic Air 479500 1600

NMISA M51 8244 Synthetic Air 799100 1000

NOAA CC310084 Real Air 379500 0210

NOAA CC305198 Real Air 479260 0260

NOAA CB11668 Real Air 794080 0480

NPL 2179 Synthetic Air 380270 0190

NPL 2170 Synthetic Air 480020 0240

NPL 2181 Synthetic Air 799700 0400

NPLI JJ108891 Synthetic Air 375720 3220

NPLI JJ108862 Synthetic Air 480520 3040

NPLI JJ108854 Synthetic Air 796380 5030

UME PSM298266 Synthetic Air 379920 0160

UME PSM266468 Synthetic Air 480420 0170

UME PSM298347 Synthetic Air 800760 0270

VNIIM M365601 Synthetic Air 380200 0110

VNIIM M365664 Synthetic Air 480180 0130

VNIIM M365707 Synthetic Air 800730 0190

VSL 5604614 Synthetic Air 378900 0280

VSL 5604880 Synthetic Air 480480 0360

VSL 5604705 Synthetic Air 795700 0600

Additional data received following

stability testing

BFKH‐2nd value OMH54 Synthetic Air 3798 17

BFKH‐2nd value OMH44 Synthetic Air 4644 28

BFKH‐2nd value OMH69 Synthetic Air 8003 29

NIST‐2nd value FB04278 Real Air 38030 028

NIST‐2nd value FB04300 Real Air 47340 034

NIST‐2nd value FB04287 Real Air 79512 058

NIST‐3th value FB04278 Real Air 38007 030

NIST‐3th value FB04300 Real Air 47337 052

NIST‐3th value FB04287 Real Air 79477 038

NPLI‐2nd value JJ108891 Synthetic Air 37824 395

NPLI‐2nd value JJ108862 Synthetic Air 47857 523

NPLI‐2nd value JJ108854 Synthetic Air 79880 335

UME‐2nd value PSM298266 Synthetic Air 379920 019

P a g e | 42

UME‐2nd value PSM266468 Synthetic Air 480420 025

UME‐2nd value PSM298347 Synthetic Air 800760 036

Table 15 Standards and reported values provided by participants in Draft A report

ANNEX III- GC-FID results

GC-FID based candidate reference values for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 With the GC-FID measurement data set the set of self-consistent standards identified was the same as with FTIR including eleven standards with three excluded namely OMH54 (BFKH neither original nor newly submitted results included) FB04278 (NIST neither original nor newly submitted results included) and JJ108891 (NPLI neither original and newly submitted results included) The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 169 (lt 2 required to demonstrate consistency of the ensemble) Reference values and differences from these are listed in Table 16 The difference between the KCRV calculated with FTIR measurement data (xKCRV_FTIR) and GC-FID based candidate reference values (xRV_FTIR) measurements for this batch of cylinders is plotted in Figure 12 showing negligible difference between the methods

GC-FID based candidate reference values for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 With the GC-FID measurement data set the set of self-consistent standards identified was the same as with FTIR The data set of self-consistent standards identified included twelve standards with three excluded namely OMH44 (BFKH neither original nor newly submitted results included) FB03744 (NIST neither original nor newly submitted results included) and JJ108862 (NPLI neither original nor newly submitted results included) The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 141 (lt 2 required to demonstrate consistency of the ensemble) Reference values and differences from these are listed in Table 17

P a g e | 43

The difference between the KCRV calculated with FTIR measurement data (xKCRV_FTIR) and GC-FID based candidate reference values (xRV_FTIR) measurements for this batch of cylinders is plotted in Figure 13 showing negligible difference between the methods

GC-FID based candidate reference values for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 Including ten cylinders with five excluded namely FB03748 (NIM) CB11668 (NOAA) OMH69 (BFKH neither original and newly submitted results included) FB04287 (NIST neither original nor newly submitted results included) and JJ108854 (NPLI neither original nor newly submitted results included) the goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 191(lt 2 required to demonstrate consistency of the ensemble) Reference values and differences from these are listed in Table 18 The difference between the KCRV calculated with FTIR measurement data (xKCRV_FTIR) and GC-FID based candidate reference values (xRV_FTIR) measurements for this batch of cylinders is plotted in Figure 14 showing negligible difference between the methods

Participant Cylinder

xRV u(xRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D1( xNMI- xKCRV )

u(D1) U( D1)

( XLGENLINE predictied

value from GC-FID)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298392 379719 0050 380100 2200 0381 2201 4401

KRISS D500642 378753 0063 378900 0100 0147 0118 0236

LNE 1029045 379224 0054 379480 0395 0256 0399 0797

NIM FB03747 383350 0056 383430 0100 0080 0115 0229

NMIJ CPC00486 386624 0092 386617 0025 ‐0007 0095 0190

NMISA M51 8232 379866 0054 380200 1000 0334 1001 2003

NOAA CC310084 379426 0065 379500 0105 0074 0124 0247

NPL 2179 380308 0048 380270 0095 ‐0038 0106 0213

VNIIM M365601 380221 0051 380200 0055 ‐0021 0075 0150

VSL 5604614 378973 0062 378900 0140 ‐0073 0153 0306

UME PSM298266 380106 0055 379920 0095 ‐0186 0110 0220

BFKH OMH54 375005 0101 379800 0850 4795 0856 1712

NIST FB04278 380066 0055 379045 0195 ‐1021 0203 0406

NPLI JJ108891 374617 0105 375720 1610 1103 1613 3227

Table 16 Difference from candidate reference value using GC-FID measurements at the nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision

of the the CCQM GAWG First uncertainty submitted by the participant (lt 0095 micromol mol-1 see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

P a g e | 44

Participant Cylinder

xRV u(xRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D2( xNMI- xKCRV ) u(D2) U( D2)

( XLGENLINE predictied

value from GC-FID)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298393 477789 0065 478100 2600 0311 2601 5202

INRIM D247440 478928 0056 479300 0800 0372 0802 1604

KRISS D500647 479881 0051 480000 0100 0119 0112 0225

LNE 1029047 477444 0069 477600 0500 0156 0505 1009

NIM FB03744 489173 0097 489150 0110 ‐0023 0147 0294

NMIJ CPC00494 471327 0107 471301 0026 ‐0026 0110 0220

NMISA M51 8167 479137 0078 479500 0800 0363 0804 1608

NOAA CC305198 479392 0053 479260 0130 ‐0132 0140 0281

NPL 2170 479997 0056 480020 0120 0023 0133 0265

VNIIM M365664 480173 0052 480180 0065 0007 0083 0167

VSL 5604880 480608 0051 480480 0180 ‐0128 0187 0374

UME PSM266468 480629 0053 480420 0125 ‐0209 0136 0272

BFKH OMH44 464994 0144 479900 1050 14906 1060 2120

NIST FB04300 473601 0077 472662 0214 ‐0940 0227 0455

NPLI JJ108862 480836 0055 480520 1520 ‐0316 1521 3042

Table 17 Difference from candidate reference value using GC-FID measurements at the nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision of

the the CCQM GAWG First uncertainty submitted by the participant (lt 0095 micromol mol-1 see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

Participant Cylinder

xRV u(xRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D3( xNMI- xKCRV )

u(D3) U( D3)

( XLGENLINE predictied

value from GC-FID) (k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298402 800002 0083 800500 4300 0498 4301 8602

INRIM D247445 798031 0105 798900 1300 0869 1304 2608

KRISS D500672 800316 0080 800800 0200 0484 0215 0431

LNE 1029048 802001 0068 802200 0850 0199 0853 1705

NMIJ CPC00558 803670 0057 803658 0039 ‐0012 0069 0138

NPL 2181 799570 0081 799700 0200 0130 0216 0432

NMISA M51 8244 798195 0111 799100 0500 0905 0512 1024

VNIIM M365707 800710 0066 800730 0095 0020 0116 0232

VSL 5604705 795715 0150 795700 0300 ‐0015 0335 0670

UME PSM298347 801042 0180 800760 0135 ‐0282 0172 0344

NIM FB03748 810535 0165 809820 0130 ‐0715 0210 0420

NOAA CB11668 794338 0170 794080 0240 ‐0258 0294 0588

BFKH OMH69 800057 0079 800300 1450 0243 1452 2904

P a g e | 45

NIST FB04287 795279 0147 794530 0514 ‐0749 0535 1070

NPLI JJ108854 794091 0173 796380 2515 2289 2521 5042

Table 18 Difference from candidate reference value using GC-FID measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the

decision of the the CCQM GAWG First uncertainty submitted by the participant (lt 0095 micromol mol-1 see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

Figure 12 Difference between the KCRV values obtained using FTIR and GC-FID reference values at 380

micromolmol The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

KR

ISS

LNE

NIM

NM

IJ

NM

ISA

NO

AA

NP

L

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Diff

(x K

CR

V_F

TIR

-xR

V_G

C-F

ID)

m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 46

Figure 13 Difference between the KCRV values obtained using FTIR and GC-FID reference values at 480 micromolmol The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

INR

IM

KR

ISS

LNE

NIM

NM

IJ

NM

ISA

NO

AA

NP

L

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Diff

(x K

CR

V_

FT

IR-x

RV

_G

C-F

ID)

m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 47

Figure 14 Difference between the KCRV values obtained using FTIR and GC-FID reference values at 800 micromolmol The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

In summary the measurement performance obtained with GC-FID and FTIR at the BIPM were rather similar with standard measurement uncertainties of the reference values having a range of 004 micromolmol to 011 micromolmol at 380 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for FTIR 005 micromolmol to 011 micromolmol at 380 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for GC-FID 005 micromolmol to 017 micromolmol at 480 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for FTIR 005 micromolmol to 014 micromolmol at 480 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for GC-FID 008 micromolmol to 033 micromolmol at 800 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for FTIR 006 micromolmol to 018 micromolmol at 800 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for GC-FID

The reference values calculated from the two measurement techniques agree with each other within their stated uncertainties for all measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 380 micromolmol all measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 480 micromolmol all measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 800 micromolmol The magnitude of the proposed reference values can be compared to the laboratories reported standard measurement uncertainties for their standards which range from 0025 micromolmol to 43 micromolmol

GU

M

INR

IM

KR

ISS

LNE

NM

IJ

NP

L

NM

ISA

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

NIM

NO

AA

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Diff

(x K

CR

V_

FT

IR-x

RV

_GC

-FID

)

mo

l mo

l-1

P a g e | 48

ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure The cylinders were analysed in batches first by GC-FID then by FTIR and finally by the Delta Ray

GC-FID The GC-FID is a modified Agilent system series 7890A acquired from the SRA Instruments lsquoFrance It is equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID) a Haysep Q (12 feet) column a methanizer and the FID detector is supplied with pure oxygen and hydrogen (see Figure 15)

Figure 15 Internal schematics of the BIPM system for Gas Chromatography with Flame Ionization Detector (GC-FID) comprised by a Haysep (12 feet) column a Sample loop of 1 mL two Valco six port valves and a FID detector

The GC-FID is equipped with

- two 6 port valve V1 (Vici-valco) - one 1 mL stainless steel injection loop - one one-way valve - one Haysep Q (80-100 Mesh 12ftx18x20mm) - one flame ionization detector (FID) - one methanizer - one hydrogen generator - one helium purifier - one control computer for the GC-FID equipped with

o ChemStation version Rev B0402 (118) o ProChem Set-up version 257 o ProChem software version 201

- one barometer (Sensor Technique DC 2510)

Haysep

P a g e | 49

The gas mixtures used for operating the facility were

- one helium 60 gas cylinder quality 999999 - one oxygen 55 in gas cylinder quality 999995 - source of air with pressure of 7 bars - one 50 L CO2air commercial secondary gas standards (control standard A) produced by

Messer with an initial internal pressure of 150 bar with the composition specified to be within the following ranges

CH4 185 ppm CO2 386 ppm Ar 9410 ppm O2 207 N2 Matrix gas

- one 50 L CO2air commercial secondary gas standards (control standard B) produced by Messer with an initial internal pressure of 150 bar with the composition specified to be within the following ranges

CH4 184 ppm CO2 476 ppm Ar 9415 ppm O2 210 N2 Matrix gas

- one 40 L CO2air standard (control standard C) produced by Scott Marrin (cylinder CB 10422) with an initial internal pressure of 100 bar with the composition specified to be within the following ranges

CO2 79112 ppm CH4 184 ppm

GC-FID separation and quantification method The GC-FID was operated at 30 degC A Haysep Q (80-100 Mesh 12ftx18x20mm) column was used at a temperature of 30 degC for the analysis Helium column carrier2 gas passed through a heated gas purifier was used at a flow rate of 40 ml min-1 The FID was supplied with 320 ml min-1 of pure oxygen3 and 40 ml min-1 of hydrogen4 A 1 ml stainless steel sample loop was used to introduce the CO2air sample onto the column The pressure in the sample loop was measured by a calibrated pressure sensor having a resolution of 02 hPa and recorded at each injection Finally the peak areas were estimated with an on-line computing integrator

Sampling sequence

Table 19 displays a typical sampling sequence The sampling sequence was setup so as to analyse six unkown CO2Air gas mixtures together with three control standards (A B C) Three unknown were bracketed by control standards A and B followed by the other three bracketed by 2 The Carrier Gas is He grade 60 passing through a SAES gettersreg PS2-GC50-R-2 for extra purification 3 The Flame is produced from Oxygen grade 55 4 Hydrogen is produced on site by a commercial H2 generator CG2200 (Claind) It produces grade 60 H2 at a maximum flow rate of 200 mlmin with a purity higher than 9999999

P a g e | 50

control standards B and C Each individual cylinders analysis (unkowns and controls) consisted in three successive measurements of the GC-FID response (CO2 peak area)

Control Cylinder A A1 A2 A3

Control Cylinder B B1 B2 B3

Cylinder 1 Cyl11 Cyl12 Cyl13 Cylinder 2 Cyl21 Cyl22 Cyl23

Cylinder 3 Cyl31 Cyl32 Cyl33 Control Cylinder A A4 A5 A6

Control Cylinder B B4 B5 B6

Control Cylinder B B7 B8 B9

Control Cylinder C C1 C2 C3

Cylinder 4 Cyl41 Cyl42 Cyl43

Cylinder 5 Cyl51 Cyl52 Cyl53

Cylinder 6 Cyl61 Cyl62 Cyl63

Control Cylinder B B10 B11 B12

Control Cylinder C C4 C5 C6 Table 19 Typical GC-FID sampling sequence

Considering that the analysis of each CO2Air gas mixture took 10 minutes this measuring sequence took about 390 minutes to be completed This sequence was repeated four times with the first one not used in the calculation Adding flushing and conditioning about three days were necessary to complete the analysis of six unkown cylinders

Participantrsquos cylinders were divided in batches of four to six and additional cylinders of the BIPM were added if required to obtain batches of equal size

It was checked that the results obtained using controls A B and C were consistent but only the ratios to the control cylinder B were used as GC-FID results and listed in Table 8

Ratios to the control standard

The ratios to the control cylinder were calculated determining first the average responses of three successive measurements performed on the CO2Air standard gas mixtures as well as on the control cylinders (A B and C) The drift corrected response to the control cylinder as any time was calculated by interpolation in between two control measurements The average response to the CO2air standards mixtures was then divided by the drift corrected response of the control

cylinder to obtain GCR the ratio for one cylinder in one sequence

The last three sequences were then combined with the calculation of the weighted mean defined as

wGCR

P a g e | 51

3

1

_

l

lwGClwGC RwR (1)

Where the weigth wl for the series l is defined as

3

1

2_

2_

1

1

j

lGC

lGC

l

Ru

Ruw (2)

and lGCRu _ is the standard deviation of the mean of the three repeats

The uncertainty of the weighted mean is defined as

3

1

2_

2

1

1

llGC

wGC

RuRu

(3)

In addition to this component the intermediate precision or stability of the instrument response during the full measuring period was evaluated by the standard deviation of the mean of the drift corrected ratio to the control cylinder of one standard exclusively used for this purpose giving uIntpre = 0000046 This component was further combined with the weighted mean uncertainty to provide the combined standard uncertainty associated with measurements performed with GC-FID resulting in a typical relative standard uncertainty of 0007

FTIR A vacuum Bruker Vertex 70v FTIR Spectrometer equipped with a RockSolid interferometer (vacuum better than 02 hPa) with 1 cm-1 resolution (016 optional) a 40 mm beam diameter a globar source and CaF2 beam splitter was used for the study The spectrometer was configured with a liquid N2-cooled mid-infrared Indium Antimonide (InSb) detector and a 1001 m multi-pass White-type gas cell of volume 075 L (Gemini Scientific Instruments USA) The wetted surfaces of the gas cell were electro-polished stainless steel treated with silconert 2000 (Silcotek) and gold (mirror coatings) to minimize surface adsorption and desorption effects for CO2 The interferometer was scanned at 64 scans min-1 and spectra co-added for five minutes to obtain an acceptable signal-to-noise ratio The transmission spectra of gas reference standards obtained following this procedure had a very high signal to noise ratio of typically ~1 x 104 peak-peak from (2240ndash3380) cm-1 In order to prevent nonlinear responses produced by excess photon flux reaching the InSb detector special care was put into adjusting the instrument parameters of the software to ensure that the apparent intensity from the InSb detector was zero at 1850 cm-1 The spectrometer user interface was controlled using a BIPM developed software named B-FOS that allowed the automatic setting of all instrument parameters into Brukerrsquos proprietary OPUS software for control spectral acquisition and on-line analysis through the use of MALT (Multiple Atmospheric Layer Transmission)3 4 6 spectrum analysis software version 556

P a g e | 52

MALT retrieves concentrations of each trace gas in the sample from a least-squares fit to the measured spectrum based on a model calculation and Hitran line parameters12 This code is the basis for quantitative analysis of open and closed path FTIR trace gas measurements and has been compared with other codes such as SFIT1 for ground based solar FT-IR measurements with agreement of better than 07 (Griffith et al8)

The spectra were constructed by co-adding up to 320 scans recorded in about 5 minutes to provide a single spectrum of a sample This single spectrum was ratioed with a similar spectrum of ultra-pure N2 collected under similar conditions to provide an absorbance or transmission spectrum of the gas sample (relative to ultra-pure N2) in the gas cell The sample flow rates were kept at ~400 mL minminus1 Assuming perfect mixing in the cell it was estimated that 999 of the sample was replaced after 10 min of flow and 99998 replaced after 20 min10 In order to ensure the complete exchange of samples only the measured spectra obtained after flowing the sample through the White-type cell for 40 min (9999999 gas replacement) were used for mole fraction determinations The sample pressure was measured by means of the calibrated barometer Mensor Series 6000 The relative uncertainty of this pressure sensor was u(P) = 002 The sample temperature was measured with a calibrated 100 Ω RTD temperature probe introduced into the outlet gas of the White-type gas cell with a standard uncertainty u(T)=002 K

The recorded spectra were analysed online by non-linear least squares fitting in the spectra region 3500ndash3800 cm-1 (plotted in Figure 16) with modelled spectra calculated by MALT 55 using absorption line parameters from the HITRAN database version 2012 As previously described by Griffith et al7 this region shows peaks that are due to the major isotopologue 12C16O16O (written 626 using the HitranAir Force Geophysics Laboratory (AFGL) shorthand notation 11) Since all standards used during this work were ultra-dry CO2air gas mixtures the cross sensitivity with H2O was not considered

Figure 16 Typical measured and fitted spectra (upper part) and residual signal (lower part) in the region 3500ndash3800 cm-1 obtained on a standard of CO2 in air at 38433 μmol mol-1 The absorption feature is due to the major isotopologue 626

3500 3550 3600 3650 3700 3750 3800

070

075

080

085

090

095

100

3500 3550 3600 3650 3700 3750 3800

-0002

0000

0002

Measured

Tra

nsm

itan

ce

Fitted

Residual

Wavenumbercm-1

P a g e | 53

Ratios to the control standard

The ratios to the control cylinder were calculated between the FTIR responses measured at the 626 isotopologue band of the sample i (Cyli) and of the control cylinder

The measurements were performed following a sequence which included the analysis of four cylinders bracketed by the analysis of the two control cylinders (A B) repeated three times Control A was the Scott Marrin cylinder CB 10326 value assigned by NIST with a mole fraction of 37890plusmn009 micromol mol-1 and as control B was used the commercial mixture Messer 400309 with a mole fraction of 85000plusmn17 micromol mol-1

Since the analysis of each CO2Air gas mixture takes 40 minutes (35 minutes of flush and 5 minutes of acquisition) fifteen hours of continuous measurements were necessary to accomplish the measurement of four cylinders

The drift corrected response to the control cylinder B during the analysis of a sample Bcor was estimated by interpolation in between two measurements of B The ratio RFT between the response to a sample Cyl and the drift corrected control Bcor was then calculated Finally the measurement results for one cylinder was the average of the three ratios obtained during a full sequence named RFTi for cylinder Cyli

The control cylinder A suffered from a leak in the gas line to the autosampler and was emptied before the end of all measurements It was however checked that measurements performed with this control cylinder A with sufficient pressure were equivalent to those obtained with the control cylinder B

Uncertainty determination

The uncertainty assigned to each ratio to the control cylinder uFT_R was the combination of three components combined according to the Guide for Uncertainty in Measurements using the software GUM workbench (see Table 21)

uStab the short term stability of the 626 response to the sample This term was estimated from the typical Allan deviation at an averaging time of five minutes of the FTIR response measured on the 626 peak resulting in the value ustab = 6 nmol mol-1

independent of the mole fraction This same term applies to the control cylinder measurements

uIsoCorr the uncertainty contribution due to the correction of the 626 response arising from the sample isotopic composition (also valid for the control cylinder) as measured by the Delta Ray All responses of the FTIR calculated at the 626 peak had to be corrected to account for the fact that samples had a different isotopic composition than natural air The correction was calculated with the Delta Ray so that the uncertainty contribution due to the isotopic composition correction was estimated from the uncertainty of the Delta Ray measurements uδ13C=018 permil and uδ18O=048 permil (see further information in Flores et al5) It can be calculated that a 1 permil bias in δ13C results in a bias equal to 41 nmol mol-1 in the CO2 mole fraction Similarly a 1 permil bias in δ18O results in a bias equal to 17 nmol mol-1 Therefore assuming maximum biases in the delta values equal to the Delta Ray standard uncertainty the maximum biases in the CO2 mole fraction were estimated to be 072 nmol mol-1 (from δ13C ) and 082 nmol mol-1 (from δ18O) Being conservative the two terms were added in a maximum bias of 154 nmol mol-1 Considering a

P a g e | 54

rectangular distribution of the uncertainty the standard uncertainty takes the value 154radic3 089nmol mol-1 This is negligible compared to other

components

uPBEs the uncertainty contribution due Pressure Broadening Effects was calculated through a sensitivity study of MALT Using one primary version of MALT in 1982 D Griffith looked at the carrier gas effect in NDIR analyzers for CO2 MALT by default uses either the amount-weighted selfair broadened widths or the air only widths provided by HITRAN and allows some degree of fiddling for fitting spectra contained in different gas matrices since it allows to the users to scale the input parameter broad by any arbitrary factor Different line broadening factor can be calculated then for air using Griffth et al 1982 equation

(7)

Where xN2 xO2 and xAr are the mole fractions of nitrogen oxygen and argon in air FN2 =1 by definition FO2 = 081 and FAr = 078 are the line broadening factors for oxygen and argon (in average) Assuming xN2 = 0780876 mol mol-1 xO2 = 02093335 mol mol-1 and xAr = 00093332 mol mol-1 then the line broadening factor of air FAIR should be equal to 095771603 The broadening parameter in MALT for air is broad = 1 by convention It can be scaled by FAIR to obtain a broad value for any ldquoair likerdquo matrix using the equation

(8)

In order to estimate the amount of the change in the CO2 response one absorbance spectrum was fitted using standard input parameters varying the factor broad according to the two possible extremes composition of the matrix as stated in the protocol of the CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b comparisons In the case of the CCQM-K120a comparison two values of the factor broad were determined using equation 8 modelling cylinders containing the minimum and the maximum allowed mole fractions of oxygen and assuming nitrogen and argon were impacted to keep a sum of the three equals to 1 The mole fractions and the corresponding values of broad are summarized in the table below

K120a min K120a max

Compoundxi (mol mol-

1) xi (mol mol-

1) Nitrogen 078140 078042Oxygen 020880 020980Argon 000934 000933

broad 1000105801 0999907486

Table 20 Extermes of air matrix compositions in the comparison CCQM-K120a and the corresponding values of broad

P a g e | 55

As result a ΔCO2 equal to 0031 micromol mol-1 was observed between both fittings Considering this difference as a rectangular distribution then a uPBEs_ΔO2_ K120a= (00031)(2radic3) = 0009 micromol mol-1 is obtained The same procedure was used with the the limits stated for the CCQM‐K120b and a ΔCO2 of 0467 micromol mol-1 was obtained with factors FAIR_CCQM-K120b_min= 1000403273 and FAIR_CCQM-K120b_max= 0999610014 If this difference is considered again as a rectangular distribution then uPBEs_ΔO2_ K120b= (0125)(2radic3) = 0036 micromol mol-1

Table 21 Uncertainty budget for the calculation of the FTIR ratios to the control cylinder

The final uncertainty for the ratios of the cylinders that had a gas matrix within the limits of the CCQM-K120a were at 380 micromol mol-1 uFT_R_380A=14 times10-6 and at 480 micromol mol-1 uFT_R_480A =15 times10-6 The uncertainty for the ratios of the cylinders that had a gas matrix within the limits of the CCQM-K120b were at 480 micromol mol-1 uFT_R_480A =44 times10-6 at 800 micromol mol-1 uFT_R_480A =45 times10-6 Combined with the standard deviations on three ratios this resulted in standard relative uncertainties on the averaged ratio between 14times10-5 and 25times10-4 All the combined standard uncertainties are listed in Table 8

Delta Ray Since MALT measurements (FTIR) are done using linestrengths from the HITRAN database that are scaled by the natural abundance for each isotopologue the 12CO2 measurement of each cylinder needed to be corrected according their own isotopic composition The isotopic composition of each cylinder was measured using the Delta Ray Delta Ray is based on direct absorption laser spectroscopy It uses a tunable diode laser which scans over the spectral region that covers 18O and 13C isotopologues of CO2

For this comparison Delta Ray measurements were performed after calibrating the instrument following the manufacturerrsquos recommendations that consist in using two pure CO2 references gases with high and low isotope values two CO2 in air reference standards with high and low concentration and one dry CO2 scrubbed whole air (Scott Marrin Inc) The instrument was calibrated using cylinder 401557 (pure CO2 source gas well δ13C = - 138 permil and δ18O = - 714 permil VPDBj-RAS06 scale) cylinder C11375KO (pure CO2 source combustion δ13C = - 4213 permil and δ18O = -277 permil VPDBj-RAS06 scale) standard NPL 1788 (NPL CO2 in air mole fraction 3800plusmn019 micromol mol-1 δ13C = - 138 permil and δ18O = - 714 permil VPDBj-RAS06 scale)

Quantity Value

Standard Uncertainty Sensitivity Coefficient

Uncertainty contribution Index

48000middot10-6 mol mol-1

00108middot10-6 mol mol-

1 12middot10-3 13middot10-6 (Ratio) 747

84605middot10-6 mol mol-1

00150middot10-6 mol mol-1 -450middot10-6 -67middot10-6 (Ratio) 205

84695middot10-6 mol mol-1

00150middot10-6 mol mol-1 -220middot10-6 -34middot10-6 (Ratio) 51

Value Standard Uncertainty

0567141 (Ratio) 15middot10-6 (Ratio)

P a g e | 56

standard NPL 1907 (NPL CO2 in air mole fraction 7910plusmn04 micromol mol-1 δ13C = - 4213 permil and δ18O = -277 permil VPDBj-RAS06 scale) and dry CO2 scrubbed whole air (Scott Marrin)

As reported by Flores et al 20185 a residual bias in the δ13C and δ18O measurements which remained following the implementation of the manufacturerrsquos calibration procedure was removed by the application of an additional two point calibration (two CO2 in air standards with known but differing isotopic composition) Standards NPL 1788 (δ13C = - 138 permil and δ18O = - 714 permil) and NPL 1907 (δ13C = - 4213 permil and δ18O = -277 permil) were used as two point calibration mixtures

Samplingsequence

The measurement procedure for analyzing a set of CO2Air gas standards by Delta Ray is based on the analysis of four CO2Air gas mixtures between two CO2Air gas mixture used as the two-point calibration standards (A B) The measurement sequence starts by measuring the δ13C and δ18O response of calibration cylinder (A) and (B) then of four CO2Air standards for finalizing again with the calibration standars Since the analysis of each CO2Air gas mixture takes 40 minutes sixteen hours of continuous measurements were necessary to accomplish the measurement of four cylinders three times

The measured δ13C and δ18O responses of the control cylinders were drift corrected Then used together with the δ13C and δ18O measured by MPI-Jena in XLGenlinev11 for predicting the δ13C and δ18O of the unknown cylinders traceable to the VPDB-CO2 scale

Uncertainty determination

Times series analysis were performed with the Delta Ray during the validation work resulting in Allan deviations of 003 permil for δ13C and 005 permil for δ18O at the optimum averaging time of 300 s In addition it was further noted that the noise of the instrument was significantly higher when measuring during two hours which is the time period of a typical calibration Using a rectangular distribution the standard uncertainty of 031 permil for δ13C and 035 permil for δ18O was observed This component was further combined with the Allan deviations and taken as the stability uncertainty associated with the instrument response

The two-point calibration of the delta value requires the knowledge of the uncertainty associated with them which was in this case taken as the uncertainties deduced from MPI-Jena measurements equal to 0015permil for δ13C and 0328permil for δ18O

After calibration with the two additional CO2 in air standards the standard uncertainties associated with the instrument measurement were finally equal to 018 permil for δ13C and 048 permil for δ18O

P a g e | 57

ANNEX V - Measurement reports of participants

NMIJ

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 58

P a g e | 59

P a g e | 60

P a g e | 61

P a g e | 62

P a g e | 63

GUM

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM-K120-R Project name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department

Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form

Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute Central Office of Measures (Głoacutewny Urzad Miar)

Address Elektoralna 2 00-139 Warsaw Poland

Contact person Dariusz Cieciora

P a g e | 64

Telephone (48) 22 581 94 39 Fax (48) 22 581 93 95

Email dciecioragumgovpl gasgumgovpl

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a YES

CCQM‐K120b YES

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 D298392 3801 44 2

2 D298393 4781 52 2

3 D298402 8005 86 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number D298392

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07808 molmol 00002 molmol 2

O2 02095 molmol 00001 molmol 2

Ar 000925 molmol 000001 molmol 2

CH4 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

P a g e | 65

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number D298393

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07807 molmol 00002 molmol 2

O2 02096 molmol 00001 molmol 2

Ar 000919 molmol 000001 molmol 2

CH4 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number D298402

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07802 molmol 00002 molmol 2

O2 02097 molmol 00001 molmol 2

Ar 000938 molmol 000001 molmol 2

CH4 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 D298392 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

2 D298393 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

3 D298402 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

A4 Uncertainty Budget Please provide a complete uncertainty budgets for the CO2 mole fraction values reported

Uncertainty budget for the cylinder no D298392

Uncertainty source Estimate

(micromolmol)

Standard uncertainty (micromolmol)

Distribution Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution (micromolmol)

gravimetric 3801 042 normal 1 042

verification - 112 normal 1 112

systematic error - 187 rectangular 1 187 Uncertainty budget for the cylinder no D298393

Uncertainty source Estimate

(micromolmol)

Standard uncertainty (micromolmol)

Distribution Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution (micromolmol)

gravimetric 4781 048 normal 1 048

P a g e | 66

verification - 098 normal 1 098

systematic error - 235 rectangular 1 235 Uncertainty budget for the cylinder no D298402

Uncertainty source Estimate

(micromolmol)

Standard uncertainty (micromolmol)

Distribution Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution (micromolmol)

gravimetric 8005 068 normal 1 068

verification - 160 normal 1 160

systematic error - 393 rectangular 1 393

A5 Additional information

The final mixtures were prepared according ISO 6142 the cylinders evacuated on turbo molecular pump filled up an weighted on the verification balance The mixtures were prepared in aluminium (with coated layers) cylinders The mixtures were prepared with used pure nitrogen and oxygen and one step premixture of argon and two steps premixture of carbon dioxide

The verification according to ISO 6143 The measurements were repeated 10 times for the standards and the sample The curve was calculated from ratios by the software B_leastexe (linear case)

The standards were prepared by gravimetric method according to ISO 6142 The standards were prepared from separate premixtures and were diluted according ISO 6145-9

The purity of pure gases used for preparation was taken from the certificates of producer Cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM - cylinder D298392 139 bar - cylinder D298393 147 bar - cylinder D298402 147 bar

P a g e | 67

INRIM

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM‐K120‐R Project name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department

Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form

Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute INRiM‐Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica

Address Strada delle Cacce 91 I‐10135 Torino Italy

Contact person Michela Sega

Telephone +39 011 3919948 Fax +39 011 3919937

Email msegainrimit

P a g e | 68

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a No

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 D247440 4793 16 2

2 D247445 7989 26 2

3

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number D247440

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0781132 molmol 0000006 molmol 2

O2 02090627 molmol 00000055 molmol 2

Ar 00093259 molmol 00000037 molmol 2

CH4 ‐ nmolmol nmolmol

N2O ‐ nmolmol nmolmol

P a g e | 69

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number D247445

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0782389 molmol 0000006 molmol

O2 02075526 molmol 00000054 molmol

Ar 00092586 molmol 00000036 molmol

CH4 nmolmol nmolmol

N2O nmolmol nmolmol

A4 Uncertainty Budget The model equation used to calculate the mole fraction of CO2 in the final mixtures is taken from the International Standard ISO 6142‐12015

r

jq

iiji

j

r

jq

iiji

jj

Mx

m

Mx

mx

x

1

1

1

1

CO

prepCO

2

2

where the index i refers to the various components while j refers to the different parent mixtures The uncertainty budget was evaluated according to the guidelines prescribed in ISO 6142‐12015 The uncertainty budget for the gravimetric preparation of the mixture at 4793 micromolmol of CO2 which takes into account the weighted masses of the parent mixtures the molar masses of gases and their purity is reported in the following table

P a g e | 70

Uncertainty component

u(xi)

Uncertainty source

Standard uncertainty

u(xi) δxCO2prepδxi

Contribution tou(xCO2 prep)

|δxCO2prepδxi|u(xi)

u(mCO2) Weighed mass of the parent mixture of CO2

82∙10‐4 g 720∙10‐6

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 59∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(mN2) Weighed mass of the balance gas N2

82∙10‐4 g ‐764∙10‐7

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 63∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(mAr_O2) Weighed mass of the parent mixture of Ar in O2

82∙10‐4 g ‐662∙10‐7

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 54∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(MCO2) Molar mass of CO2 10∙10‐3 g∙mol‐1 ‐772∙10‐8

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 77∙10‐11 mol∙mol‐1

u(MN2) Molar mass of N2 20∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 ‐361∙10‐6

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 72∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(MAr) Molar mass of Ar 58∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 138∙10‐7

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 80∙10‐11 mol∙mol‐1

u(MO2) Molar mass of O2 28∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 310∙10‐6

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 87∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xN2inCO2) Mole fraction of N2 in the parent mixture of CO2

10∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 ‐432∙10‐4 43∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xN2inN2) Mole fraction of N2 in balance gas (purity)

87∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1 329∙10‐4 29∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xArinAr_O2) Mole fraction of Ar in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 129∙10‐4 11∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(xO2inN2) Mole fraction of O2 in balance gas (impurity)

14∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1 375∙10‐4 53∙10‐11 mol∙mol‐1

u(xO2inAr_O2) Mole fraction of O2

in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 104∙10‐4 90∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inCO2) Mole fraction of CO2 in the parent mixture of CO2

10∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 951∙10‐2 95∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inN2) Mole fraction of CO2 in balance gas (impurity)

29∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1 686∙10‐1 20∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inAr_O2) Mole fraction of CO2 in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1 219∙10‐1 19∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

Uncertainty budget for the gravimetric preparation of the mixture at 4793 micromolmol of CO2

P a g e | 71

The following table reports the uncertainty budget for the gravimetric preparation of the mixture at 7989 micromolmol of CO2

Uncertainty component

u(xi)

Uncertainty source

Standard uncertainty

u(xi) δxCO2prepδxi

Contribution tou(xCO2 prep)

|δxCO2prepδxi|u(xi)

u(mCO2) Weighed mass of the parent mixture of CO2

82∙10‐4 g 671∙10‐6

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 55∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(mN2) Weighed mass of the balance gas N2

82∙10‐4 g ‐128∙10‐6

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 10∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(mAr_O2) Weighed mass of the parent mixture of Ar in O2

82∙10‐4 g ‐111∙10‐6

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 91∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(MCO2) Molar mass of CO2 10∙10‐3 g∙mol‐1 365∙10‐7

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 36∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(MN2) Molar mass of N2 20∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 469∙10‐4

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 94∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(MAr) Molar mass of Ar 58∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 510∙10‐6

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 30∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(MO2) Molar mass of O2 28∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 114∙10‐4

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 32∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(xN2inCO2) Mole fraction of N2 in the parent mixture of CO2

10∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 ‐669∙10‐4 67∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xN2inN2) Mole fraction of N2 in balance gas (purity)

87∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1 498∙10‐4 43∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xArinAr_O2) Mole fraction of Ar in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 214∙10‐4 19∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(xO2inN2) Mole fraction of O2 in balance gas (impurity)

14∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1 569∙10‐4 80∙10‐11 mol∙mol‐1

u(xO2inAr_O2) Mole fraction of O2

in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 171∙10‐4 15∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inCO2) Mole fraction of CO2 in the parent mixture of CO2

10∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 159∙10‐1 16∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inN2) Mole fraction of CO2 in balance gas (impurity)

29∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1 624∙10‐1 18∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inAr_O2) Mole fraction of CO2 in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1 217∙10‐1 19∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

Uncertainty budget for the gravimetric preparation of the mixture at 7989 micromolmol of CO2 The additional contribution derived from the analytical verification was taken into account in accordance to the prescription of ISO 6142‐12015

P a g e | 72

2verCOprepCOverCO

2prepCO

2certCO )()()(

2

122222

xxxuxuxu

The following table reports the mole fractions with the associated uncertainties of the preparation and verification for the two prepared mixtures

Cylinder number xCO2 prep

micromolmol u(xCO2prep)micromolmol

xCO2 ver micromolmol

u(xCO2ver)micromolmol

D247440 4793 01 4783 12

D247445 7989 02 7965 12

A5 Additional information

a) Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas

Component Mole Fraction x u(x)

CO2 gt099998 molmol 58 micromolmol

CO le01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

H2 le01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

N2 le10 micromolmol 3 micromolmol

O2 le3 micromolmol 09 micromolmol

H2O le5 micromolmol 14 micromolmol

CnHm le3 micromolmol 09 micromolmol

Purity table for CO2

b) Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar parent gases

Component Mole Fraction x u(x)

N2 gt0999999 molmol 03 micromolmol

CO2 lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

H2 lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

O2 lt05 micromolmol 014 micromolmol

H2O lt05 micromolmol 014 micromolmol

CnHm lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

Purity table for N2

Component Mole Fraction x u(x)

O2 gt0999999 molmol 03 micromolmol

CO lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

CO2 lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

H2 lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

H2O lt05 micromolmol 014 micromolmol

CnHm lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

Purity table for O2

P a g e | 73

Component Mole Fraction x u(x)

Ar gt099999 molmol 29 micromolmol

O2 lt2 micromolmol 06 micromolmol

H2O lt3 micromolmol 09 micromolmol

CnHm lt05 micromolmol 014 micromolmol

Purity table for Ar

c) Brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures

In order to produce the final mixtures the following premixtures were prepared 1) Premixture of CO2 in N2 at 0080122 molmol (U=0000025 molmol) gravimetrically prepared (double

substitution scheme A‐B‐B‐A) from pure CO2 (48) and N2 (60) 2) Premixture of CO2 in N2 at 50054 micromolmol (U=21 micromolmol) gravimetrically prepared (double

substitution scheme A‐B‐B‐A) from the above mentioned mixture n 1 of CO2 in N2 (0080122 molmol) diluted with N2 (60)

3) Premixture of Ar in O2 (Ar 0042703 molmol O2 0957297 molmol) gravimetrically prepared (double substitution scheme A‐B‐B‐A) from pure Ar (50) and O2 (60)

The final mixtures were gravimetrically prepared (double substitution scheme A‐B‐B‐A) by using premixtures n 2 and n 3 as parent mixtures and using N2 60 as balance gas to obtain the target CO2 mole fractions Concerning premixture n 3 an additional determination of the mole fraction of CO2 in the mixture was carried out by NDIR spectroscopy The instrument was calibrated in the range (01‐1) micromolmol using dynamic dilution The obtained value is 03 micromolmol of CO2 (u=009 micromolmol calculated assuming a rectangular distribution) which was taken into account for assigning the mole fraction of the final mixtures (CO2 4793 and 7989 micromolmol respectively) and evaluating the associated uncertainty

d) Brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures

After preparation the mixtures were rolled for 24 h to be homogenized An analytical verification was carried out by NDIR spectroscopy using for each mixture a 3‐point calibration curve based on WTLS in the range (330‐520) micromolmol and (690‐900) micromolmol respectively The calibration standards were prepared starting from a mixture of CO2 in synthetic air at a nominal mole fraction of 4800 micromolmol diluted with synthetic air by means of Mass Flow Controllers calibrated at INRiM Each calibration point was repeated 5 times Each calibration curve was validated by using an independent mixture of CO2 in synthetic air having a the mole fraction within the calibration range

e) Brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM

The mixtures were tested for their stability on a weekly basis following the same procedure as described in d) No trends in the analytical response were observed within 3 weeks and the mixtures could be considered stable

f) Cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM 90 bar for each cylinder

P a g e | 74

KRISS

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 75

P a g e | 76

P a g e | 77

P a g e | 78

P a g e | 79

P a g e | 80

P a g e | 81

P a g e | 82

LNE

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

SubmissionformCCQM‐K120‐RProject name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department

Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form

Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute LNE

Address 1 rue Gaston Boissier

75724 Paris Cedex 15

Contact person Mace Tatiana

P a g e | 83

Telephone +33140433853 Fax +33140433737

Email tatianamacelnefr

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty

Coverage factor

certx CO2 μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 1029045‐CO2air 0028 37948 079 2

2 1029047‐CO2AIR 0029 4776 10 2

3 1029048‐CO2AIR 0030 8022 17 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number CO2AIR 0028

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0780686 molmol 0000025 molmol 2

O2 0209528 molmol 0000019 molmol 2

Ar 0009407 molmol 0000022 molmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number CO2AIR 0029

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Unit Coverage

P a g e | 84

Uncertainty Factor

N2 0781355 molmol 0000025 molmol 2

O2 0208794 molmol 0000018 molmol 2

Ar 0009374 molmol 0000022 molmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number CO2AIR 0030

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0782710 molmol 0000027 molmol 2

O2 0207187 molmol 0000021 molmol 2

Ar 0009301 molmol 0000021 molmol 2

A4 Uncertainty Budget

Please provide a complete uncertainty budgets for the CO2 mole fraction values reported

CO2Air 0028 37948 plusmn 079 micromolmol (k=2)

Xi Unit Value u(Xi) Sensib C(Xi) C(Xi)u(Xi) poids

Mass CO2 Premix g 6021896 0017 606175153 010304978 679

CO2 molar mass gmol 440095 000091 ‐012936318 ‐000011772 000

CO2 concentration (premix) molmol 000998425 000000097 377979757 003666404 086

N2 molar mass gmol 2801348 0000099 ‐276210444 ‐000027345 000

Mass ArgO2 Premix g 3981732 0017 ‐020862621 ‐000354665 001

Arg concentration (premix) molmol 004288429 00000048 204187142 9801E‐05 000

Arg molar mass gmol 39948 0001 011015474 000011015 000

O2 molar mass gmol 319988 000042 245849547 000103257 000

N2 purity molmol 099997493 00000144 ‐281970074 ‐000406037 001

Mass N2 g 1170753 002 ‐024083902 ‐000481678 001

Stability 0 038 1 038 9232

CO2Air 0029 4776 plusmn 10 micromolmol (k=2)

Xi Unit Value u(Xi) Sensib C(Xi) C(Xi)u(Xi) Weight

Mass CO2 Premix g 7635147 0017 595567319 010124644 391

CO2 molar mass gmol 440095 000091 ‐016114898 ‐000014665 000

CO2 concentration (premix) molmol 000998425 000000097 47573918 00461467 081

N2 molar mass gmol 2801348 0000099 ‐346583037 ‐000034312 000

P a g e | 85

Mass ArgO2 Premix g 3997202 0017 ‐026063746 ‐000443084 001

Arg concentration (premix) molmol 004288429 00000048 256082804 000012292 000

Arg molar mass gmol 39948 0001 013815138 000013815 000

O2 molar mass gmol 319988 000042 308334014 0001295 000

N2 purity molmol 099997494 00000144 ‐350551134 ‐000504794 001

Mass N2 g 1165053 002 ‐030088103 ‐000601762 001

Stability 0 05 1 05 9525

CO2Air 0030 8022 plusmn 17 micromolmol (k=2)

Uncertainty source Unit Value Xi u(Xi) Sensitivity coefficient

C(Xi) C(Xi)u(Xi)

Contribution to the

uncertainty

Mass CO2 Premix g 128097 0020 575918809 011518376 201

CO2 molar mass gmol 440095 000091 ‐02614445 ‐000023791

000

CO2 concentration (premix)

molmol 000998425 000000097 799263648 007752857 091

N2 molar mass gmol 2801348 0000099 ‐578813182 ‐000057303

000

Mass ArgO2 Premix g 3961709 0021 ‐043832537 ‐000920483

001

Arg concentration (premix)

molmol 004288429 00000048 426841537 000020488 000

Arg molar mass gmol 39948 0001 023027218 000023027 000

O2 molar mass gmol 319988 000042 513934409 000215852 000

N2 purity molmol 099997493 00000144 ‐564097099 ‐0008123 001

Mass N2 g 1114778 0023 ‐050600475 ‐001163811

002

Stability 0 08 1 08 9704

A5 Additional information

Please include in this section in the case of standards produced with synthetic air

a) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg PurCO2pur007txt degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg

P a g e | 86

Component molmol uncertainty ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ CO2 09999922500 00000026021 H2O 00000015000 00000008660 O2 00000010000 00000005774 Methane 00000010000 00000005774 H2 00000002500 00000001443 N2 00000040000 00000023094

b) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar parent gas

a Pure Argon degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg PurAr_A106273txt degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg Component molmol uncertainty ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Ar 09999998100 00000000880 O2 00000000050 00000000029 H2O 00000000100 00000000058 CO2 00000000005 00000000003 CnHm 00000000250 00000000144 N2 00000001500 00000000866

b Pure Oxygen

degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg PurO2_207494Htxt degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg Component molmol uncertainty ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ O2 09999974360 00000011650 CO2 00000001640 00000000082 CO 00000000500 00000000289 CnHm 00000000500 00000000289 N2 00000020000 00000011547 H2O 00000002500 00000001443 H2 00000000500 00000000289

c Pure Nitrogen

degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg Purazote_bip_GQ88DUItxt degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg

P a g e | 87

Component molmol uncertainty ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ N2 09999749345 00000144338 CO2 00000000005 00000000003 H2O 00000000100 00000000058 Ar 00000250000 00000144338 O2 00000000050 00000000029 H2 00000000250 00000000144 CnHm 00000000250 00000000144

c) Dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures

a Argonoxygen premix

b CO2N2 premix

c Final mixtures of CO2 in air

ArgonO2

428843 plusmn 000096

Pure Argon

94147 g (u=0011 g)

Pure Oxygen

1736737 g (u=0015 g)

CO2N2 0065

099842 plusmn 000020

CO2N2 0064

100131 plusmn 00013

181585 g (u=0016 g)

Pure N2

1422808 g (u=0019 g)

Pure CO2

248725 g (u=0017 g)

Pure N2

1550854 g (u=0019 g)

P a g e | 88

d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures The gravimetric concentrations of the CO2 gas mixtures in air have been verified with a micro gas chromatograph (chrompack CP2003) The components are separated by a HayeSep A

CO2Air 0028

37948 plusmn 079 micromolmol

CO2N2 0065

60219 g (u=0017 g)

ArgonO2

398173 g (u=0017 g)

Pure N2

1170753 g (u=0020 g)

CO2Air 0029

4776 plusmn 10 micromolmol

CO2N2 0065

76351 g (u=0017 g)

ArgonO2

399720 g (u=0017 g)

Pur N2

1165053 g (u=0020 g)

CO2Air 0030

8022 plusmn 17 micromolmol

CO2N2 0065

128097 g (u=0020 g)

ArgonO2

396171 g (u=0021 g)

Pur N2

1114778 g (u=0023 g)

P a g e | 89

column at 70degC with an hydrogen pressure at 200 kPa The injection is performed at a pressure of 15 bar during 100 ms Each CO2 gas mixture in air is compared by chromatography to a reference gas mixture of CO2 in air generated by dilution of a high concentration gravimetric gas mixture (CO2 in nitrogen) with a Molbloc flowmeter 30 runs are performed with the reference gas mixture 30 runs are performed with the gas mixture to be verified and 30 runs are performed again with the reference gas mixture The 10 previous runs are used to calculate the analytical concentration The gas mixture is validated if the difference between the analytical and gravimetric concentrations is lower than the quadratic sum of the variances

e) Stability of the gas mixtures between the time they were prepared and the time they were shipped to the BIPM The CO2 gases mixtures in air have been analysed 3 times during a period of 2 months before being sent to BIPM

P a g e | 90

P a g e | 91

BFKH

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for carbon dioxide in air standards in the

range (380‐480) micromolmol and (480‐800) micromolmol

A1 General information

Institute Hungarian Trade Licensing Office MKEH

Address Neacutemetvoumllgyi uacutet 37‐39 Budapest

1124 Hungary

Contact person Judit Fuumlkő Zsoacutefia Nagyneacute Szilaacutegyi Tamaacutes Buumlki

Telephone +36 1 4585988

+36 1 4585800

Fax + 36 1 4585 937

Email tothnefjmkehhu

P a g e | 92

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 OMH54 37984 171 2

2 OMH44 47989 211 2

3 OMH69 80030 292 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted)

(Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number OMH54

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit CoverageFactor

N2 078039 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209615 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009607 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5130 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number OMH44

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

P a g e | 93

N2 078064 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209514 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009360 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5130 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number OMH69

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078072 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209161 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009314 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5130 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

A4 Uncertainty Budget

Uncertainty budget of preparation of CO2 standard by gravimetry

OMH69 800ppm

Uncertainty

source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 138729 g Normal 000046 g 1 33158E‐04

martix mass 11397986 g Normal 0026 g 1 22811E‐05

P a g e | 94

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000333

ppm 027

OMH44 480ppm

Uncertainty

source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 081399 g Normal 000034 g 1 41770E‐04

martix mass 111578 g Normal 0026 g 1 23302E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000419

ppm 020

OMH54 380ppm

Uncertainty

source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 064422 g Normal 000032 g 1 49672E‐04

martix mass 11159357 g Normal 0026 g 1 23299E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000498

P a g e | 95

ppm 019

The standard uncertainty of xi can be expressed as xuxuxuxuxu sti

2veri

2veri

2prepi

2i

2 (1)

xprep amount-of-substance fraction from preparation (micromolmol) uprep uncertainty of xprep (micromolmol) uver uncertainty from verification (micromolmol) ust uncertainty of calibration standard (micromolmol)

verix diffenece between the gravimetric preparation value and the result of verification measurement (micromolmol)

Ux stated uncertainty of laboratory at 95 level of confidence (micromolmol) k assigned coverage factor for degree of equivalence Laboratory Code

Cylinder xprep uprep uver ust verix k U(xi)

U(xi)

ppm ppm rel

MKEH OMH54 37984 019 08 019 014 2 171 045

OMH44 47989 020 10 020 018 2 211 044

OMH69 80030 027 14 028 015 2 292 036

A5 Additional information

A51 SOURCE OF CO2 NITROGEN OXIGEN ARGON

CO2 48 from SIAD Italy

N2 45 from Messer Hungary

O2 50 from Messer Hungary

Ar 46 from Messer Hungary

A52 PURITY TABLE OF PURE CO2 (38458)

Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol)

Uncertainty

(molmol)

CO2 specifications 09999885 00000133

N2 specifications 00000050 00000058

H2O specifications 00000025 00000029

P a g e | 96

CH4 specifications 00000025 00000029

O2 specifications 00000015 00000017

A53 PURITY TABLE OF PURE NITROGEN

Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol)

Uncertainty

(molmol)

N2 specifications 09999870 00000150

O2 specifications 00000050 00000058

H2O specifications 00000050 00000058

CH4 specifications 00000025 00000029

CO specifications 00000005 00000006

A54 PURITY TABLE OF PURE OXIGEN

Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol)

Uncertainty

(molmol)

O2 specifications 09999866 00000155

N2 specifications 00000100 00000115

H2O specifications 00000025 00000029

CH4 specifications 000000003 00000004

CO specifications 000000003 00000004

CO2 specifications 000000003 00000004

A55 PURITY TABLE OF PURE ARGON

Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol)

Uncertainty

(molmol)

Ar specifications 09999822 00000206

P a g e | 97

O2 specifications 00000025 00000029

H2O specifications 00000050 00000058

N2 specifications 00000100 00000116

CO2 specifications 00000003 00000004

A56 PREPARATION OF THE MIXTURES

We used 94 L aluminum cylinder (Luxfer) with brass valves DIN10 All the three mixtures were prepared without dilution series First the pure CO2 was filled with using loop into the properly prepared cylinder the mass measurement of the loop was carried out by an analytical balance ndash Mettler Toledo AE240‐S After the pure gases were filled directly gravimetrically after each other and the measurement of the gas mass was carried out by a topload balance ndash Mettler Toledo XP26003L

A57 VERIFICATION OF THE MIXTURES

All the three mixtures measured using methaniser at Agilent GC‐FID and we used MKEH standard gases one by one for calibration this method to the purpose of confirm that the gravimetric value and uncertainty for the carbon dioxide mole fraction of its standards is valid and it is included in the calculation of the reference value

A58 STABILITY OF THE MIXTURES

All the three mixtures were measured using methaniser at Agilent GC‐FID three times independently between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM There wasnrsquot significant difference between the certified values and the measured values

A59 CYLINDER PRESSURE BEFORE SHIPMENT TO THE BIPM 100 bar

P a g e | 98

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for carbon dioxide in air standards in the range (380‐480) micromolmol and (480‐800) micromolmol A1 General information

Institute Government Office of the Capital City Budapest BFKH (former MKEH)

Address Neacutemetvoumllgyi uacutet 37‐39Budapest 1124 Hungary

Contact person Judit Fuumlkő Tamaacutes Buumlki Zsoacutefia Nagyneacute Szilaacutegyi

Telephone +36 1 4585988 +36 1 4585800

Fax + 36 1 4585 937

Email fukojuditbfkhgovhu

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 OMH54 3798 17 2

2 OMH44 4644 28 2

P a g e | 99

3 OMH69 8003 29 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted)

(Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number OMH54

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078039 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209615 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009607 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5100 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number OMH44

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078064 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209514 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009360 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5100 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number OMH69

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078072 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209161 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009314 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5100 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

P a g e | 100

A4 Uncertainty Budget Uncertainty budget of preparation of CO2 standard by gravimetry

OMH69 800ppm

Uncertainty source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 138729 g Normal 000046 g 1 33158E‐04

martix mass 11397986 g Normal 0026 g 1 22811E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000333

ppm 027

OMH44 480ppm

Uncertainty source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 081399 g Normal 000034 g 1 41770E‐04

martix mass 111578 g Normal 0026 g 1 23302E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000419

ppm 020

P a g e | 101

OMH54 380ppm

Uncertainty source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 064422 g Normal 000032 g 1 49672E‐04

martix mass 11159357 g Normal 0026 g 1 23299E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000498

ppm 019

The standard uncertainty of xi can be expressed as

xuxuxuxuxu sti2

veri2

veri2

prepi2

i2 (1)

xprep amount-of-substance fraction from preparation (micromolmol) uprep uncertainty of xprep (micromolmol) uver uncertainty from verification (micromolmol) ust uncertainty of calibration standard (micromolmol)

verix diffenece between the gravimetric preparation value and the result of verification measurement (micromolmol)

Ux stated uncertainty of laboratory at 95 level of confidence (micromolmol) k assigned coverage factor for degree of equivalence

Laboratory Code

Cylinder xprep

uprep xmeas um ust verix k U(xi) U(xi)

ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm rel

BFKH OMH54 37984 019 08 019 014 2 17 045

OMH44 47989 020 46444 14 020 2 28 058

OMH69 80030 027 14 028 015 2 29 036

The stability measurements indicated some preparation mistake in case of the OMH44 cylinder The certified value of this cylinder was calculated from the measurements and the uncertainty from the equation below

xuxuxuxu sti2

easmi2

prepi2

i2

P a g e | 102

A5 Additional information A51 SOURCE OF CO2 NITROGEN OXIGEN ARGON CO2 48 from SIAD Italy N2 45 from Messer Hungary O2 50 from Messer Hungary Ar 46 from Messer Hungary A52 PURITY TABLE OF PURE CO2 (38458) Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol) Uncertainty (molmol)

CO2 Specifications 09999885 00000133 N2 Specifications 00000050 00000058 H2O Specifications 00000025 00000029 CH4 Specifications 00000025 00000029 O2 Specifications 00000015 00000017 A53 PURITY TABLE OF PURE NITROGEN Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol) Uncertainty (molmol)

N2 Specifications 09999870 00000150 O2 Specifications 00000050 00000058 H2O Specifications 00000050 00000058 CH4 Specifications 00000025 00000029 CO Specifications 00000005 00000006 A54 PURITY TABLE OF PURE OXIGEN Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol) Uncertainty (molmol)

O2 Specifications 09999866 0000016 N2 Specifications 00000100 0000012 H2O Specifications 00000025 00000029 CH4 Specifications 000000003 00000004 CO Specifications 000000003 00000004 CO2 Specifications 000000003 00000004 A55 PURITY TABLE OF PURE ARGON Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol) Uncertainty (molmol)

Ar Specifications 09999822 00000200 O2 Specifications 00000025 00000029 H2O Specifications 00000050 00000058 N2 Specifications 00000100 0000012 CO2 Specifications 00000003 00000004 A56 PREPARATION OF THE MIXTURES We used 94 L aluminum cylinder (Luxfer) with brass valves DIN10

P a g e | 103

All the three mixtures were prepared without dilution series First the pure CO2 was filled with using loop into the properly prepared cylinder the mass measurement of the loop was carried out by an analytical balance ndash Mettler Toledo AE240‐S After the pure gases were filled directly gravimetrically after each other and the measurement of the gas mass was carried out by a topload balance ndash Mettler Toledo XP26003L A57 VERIFICATION OF THE MIXTURES All the three mixtures measured using methaniser at Agilent GC‐FID and we used MKEH standard gases one by one for calibration this method to the purpose of confirm that the gravimetric value and uncertainty for the carbon dioxide mole fraction of its standards is valid and it is included in the calculation of the reference value A58 STABILITY OF THE MIXTURES All the three mixtures were measured using methaniser at Agilent GC‐FID three times independently between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM A59 CYLINDER PRESSURE BEFORE SHIPMENT TO THE BIPM 100 bar

P a g e | 104

NIM

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM-K120 Carbon dioxide in Air Laboratory National Institute of Metrology

Cylinders number FB03748 FB03744 FB03747

Preparation report

A1 General information

Institute National Institute of Metrology China

Address 18 Bei San Huan Dong Lu Chaoyang District City Bei Jing

Building 17 Room 217

Contact person BI Zhe Zeyi Zhou

Telephone 86-10-84232306 Fax 86-10-84232306

Email zhouzynimaccn bizhnimaccn

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM-K120a Yes

CCQM-K120b Yes

A3 Submitted values for carbon dioxide preparation results in each standard

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2 μmolmol )( CO2 certxU

μmolmol

1 FB03748 80982 026 2

2 FB03744 48915 022 2

P a g e | 105

3 FB03747 38343 020 2

A4 Submitted values for each standardrsquos matrix Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted)

(Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number FB03748

Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage

Factor CH4(Methane) 101times10-9 molmol 203E-10 molmol 2 C2H4(Ethene) 146times10-10 molmol 113E-10 molmol 2 C3H8(Propane) 518times10-10 molmol 405E-10 molmol 2 N2(Nitrogen) 0781 molmol 271E-05 molmol 2 O2(Oxygen) 0210 molmol 260E-05 molmol 2 Ar(Argon) 794times10-3 molmol 969E-06 molmol 2 H2O(Water) 291times10-7 molmol 139E-07 molmol 2 N2O(Dinitrogen_oxide) 790times10-10 molmol 586E-10 molmol 2 CO2(Carbon_dioxide) 80982times10-4 molmol 248E-07 molmol 2 (Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number FB03744

Component Mole fraction Value

Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

CH4(Methane) 101E-09 molmol 308E-10 molmol 2 C2H4(Ethene) 880E-11 molmol 685E-11 molmol 2 C3H8(Propane) 313E-10 molmol 245E-10 molmol 2 N2(Nitrogen) 781E-01 molmol 275E-05 molmol 2 O2(Oxygen) 210E-01 molmol 264E-05 molmol 2 Ar(Argon) 904E-03 molmol 990E-06 molmol 2 H2O(Water) 290E-07 molmol 139E-07 molmol 2 N2O(Dinitrogen_oxide) 790E-10 molmol 601E-10 molmol 2 CO2(Carbon_dioxide) 48915E-04 molmol 191E-07 molmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number FB03747 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage

Factor CH4(Methane) 101E-09 molmol 408E-10 molmol 2 C2H4(Ethene) 690E-11 molmol 537E-11 molmol 2 C3H8(Propane) 245E-10 molmol 192E-10 molmol 2 N2(Nitrogen) 782E-01 molmol 288E-05 molmol 2 O2(Oxygen) 209E-01 molmol 276E-05 molmol 2 Ar(Argon) 922E-03 molmol 102E-05 molmol 2 H2O(Water) 289E-07 molmol 139E-07 molmol 2 N2O(Dinitrogen_oxide) 791E-10 molmol 607E-10 molmol 2 CO2(Carbon_dioxide) 38343E-04 molmol 183E-07 molmol 2 CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

P a g e | 106

Cylinder

Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 2 3

A5 Uncertainty Budget Please provide a complete uncertainty budgets for the CO2 mole fraction values reported

Uncertainty budget

Cylinder

Gravimetric

valueμmolmol

Component distribution Standard

uncertaintyμmolmol

FB03748 80982

Combined uncertainty of

Purity Molecular and

Weighing

Normal 0124

Repeatability of the

measurement Normal 0040

Combined standard uncertainty 013

FB03744 48915

Combined uncertainty of

Purity Molecular and

Weighing

Normal 0096

Repeatability of the

measurement Normal 0030

Combined standard uncertainty 011

FB03747 38343

Combined uncertainty of

Purity Molecular and

Weighing

Normal 0092

Repeatability of the

measurement Normal 0030

Combined standard uncertainty 010

A6 Additional information

P a g e | 107

Please include in this section in the case of standards produced with synthetic air

g) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas h) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar NO2 and CH4 parent gas i) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures j) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures k) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time

they are shipped to the BIPM and l) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

a) purity table for the nominally pure CO2 09999924 molmol

Component Amount fraction

(10-6molmol)

Standard uncertainty

(10-6molmol) Assumed distribution

CH4 113 045 Normal

C2H4 018 007 Normal

C3H8 064 025 Normal

O2 052 021 Normal

Ar 010 004 Normal

N2 251 100 Normal

H2O 250 100 Normal

N2O 0001 00006 Rectangular

CO2 9999924 15 Normal

b) purity table for the nominally pure N2 0 9999521 molmol

Component Amount fraction

(10-6molmol)

Standard uncertainty

(10-6molmol) Assumed distribution

CH4 0001 00005 Rectangular

Ar 483 48 Normal

O2 002 0006 Normal

CO2 0010 0003 Normal

H2O 010 004 Normal

N2O 0001 00004 Rectangular

P a g e | 108

N2 9999521 48 Normal

purity table for the nominally pure O2 0 9999959 molmol

Component Amount fraction

(10-6molmol)

Standard uncertainty

(10-6molmol) Assumed distribution

CH4 0001 00003 Normal

Ar 20 05 Normal

N2 11 03 Normal

CO2 00012 00004 Rectangular

H2O 12 04 Normal

N2O 0001 00004 Rectangular

O2 9999959 48 Normal

purity table for the nominally pure Ar 09999998 molmol

Component Amount fraction

(10-6molmol)

Standard uncertainty

(10-6molmol) Assumed distribution

CH4 0001 00003 Normal

O2 0020 0005 Normal

N2 0010 0001 Normal

CO2 0001 00004 Rectangular

H2O 01 04 Normal

N2O 0001 00004 Rectangular

Ar 9999998 48 Normal

P a g e | 109

c) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures

d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures Seven primary standard cylinders of CO2 in air mixture were measured by CRDs A linearity regression was established based on these seven cylinders For each point an average of date recorded in 2 minutes were used The verification wre done by the comparison of gravimetric values and the calculated values

Gravimetric value Fitted value Relative deviation

y = 1002382 x + 0187049 Rsup2 = 1000000

350

450

550

650

750

850

350 450 550 650 750 850

Measured value VS Gravimetric value

1047095 g

CO2

N2

26743 g

CO2N2 15998ppm

Ar O2 N2

FB03748

CO2N2 32592 g Ar 7193 g O2 153303 g N2 466458 g

FB03744

CO2N2 19417 g Ar 8082 g O2 150754 g N2 472375 g

FB03747

CO2N2 14474 g Ar 7835 g O2 142777 g N2 453560 g

P a g e | 110

μmolmol μmolmol 80982 80965 -0021 81307 81319 0015 49106 49113 0014 48915 48928 0025 37819 37818 -0003 39162 39161 -0004 38343 38332 -0030

e) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are

prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM

Three test gas mixtures were prepared 3 months before the comparison After gas mixtures for the comparison were prepared a liner regression was done by combining the test gas mixtures and the comparison cylinders No significant drift of the values was observed between the time they were prepared and the time they were shipped to the BIPM f) cylinders pressure before shipment to the BIPM

Cylinder No Pressure (bar) FB03748 90 FB03744 90 FB03747 90

P a g e | 111

NIST

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM‐K120‐R Project name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department

Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form

Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute NIST

Address 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8393

Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8393

Contact person George C Rhoderick

Telephone 301‐975‐3937 Fax 301‐977‐8392

P a g e | 112

Email GeorgeRhodericknistgov

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 FB04278 3790449 03908 2

2 FB04300 4726617 04280 2

3 FB04287 7945334 10287 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number FB04278

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0780812 molmol 0000118 molmol 2

O2 0209470 molmol 000071 molmol 2

Ar 0009339 molmol 000037 molmol 2

CH4 nmolmol nmolmol

N2O nmolmol nmolmol

P a g e | 113

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number FB04300

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0780771 molmol 0000128 molmol 2

O2 0209422 molmol 0000081 molmol 2

Ar 0009334 molmol 0000034 molmol 2

CH4 nmolmol nmolmol

N2O nmolmol nmolmol

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number FB04287

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0780499 molmol 0000114 molmol 2

O2 0209370 molmol 0000067 molmol 2

Ar 0009336 molmol 0000040 molmol 2

CH4 nmolmol nmolmol

N2O nmolmol nmolmol

CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 FB04278 ‐28 plusmn 2 1

2 FB04300 ‐28 plusmn 2 1

3 FB04287 ‐28 plusmn 2 1

A4 Uncertainty Budget Please provide a complete uncertainty budgets for the CO2 mole fraction values reported

P a g e | 114

A5 Additional information

FB04278

Standard Relative ContributionValue Uncertainty Uncertianty to Uncertainty

Major Component MW 2801340 000016 00000058 00020

Minor Component MW 4400950 000052 00000119 00041

Mass Parent Gas 1893585 000146 00000769 00264

Mass Balance Gas 7453878 00020 00000027 00009

Minor Component Wt Fraction 0023250750 0000006755 00002905 00997

Mass minor component - Parent 044027281 000013232 00003005 01031Mass minor component - Bal 000006695 000001936 02890953 991626

Total mass minor component 044017935 000022556 00005124 01758

Moles of minor component 001000192 000000513 00005126 01758

Balance gas wt fraction (purity) 0755569792 390976E-05 00000517 00177

Mass balance gas - parent 1397906371 000148549 00001063 00365Mass balance gas - balance 56319253120 002918142 00000518 00178

Total mass balance gas 57717159491 002921920 00000506 00174

Moles of balance gas 2060341104 000104994 00000510 00175

Moles impurities from parent 013966291020 000002524000 00001807 00620

Moles impurities from balance 56340784 00010163 00001804 00619

Total Moles of gas 263871542 00014615 00000554 00190

Conc minor component (ppm) 3790449 01954Relative uncert 0052 0292 100000

FB04300

Standard Relative Contribution

Value Uncertainty Uncertianty to Uncertainty

Major Component MW 2801340 000016 00000058 00025

Minor Component MW 4400950 000052 00000119 00050

Mass Parent Gas 2953886 000141 00000477 00201

Mass Balance Gas 74869117 000194 00000026 00011

CO2 Component Wt Fraction 0018926076 0000006339 00003350 01414

Mass CO2 component - Parent 055905476 000018915 00003383 01428Mass CO2 component - Balance Air 000003828 000000898 02345407 989951

Total mass CO2 component 055885777 000025068 00004486 01893

Moles of minor component 001269857 000000570 00004487 01894

Balance gas wt fraction (purity) 07556035 000004300 00000569 00240Mass balance gas - parent 2190310136 000191642 00000875 00369

Mass balance gas - balance 56571366688 003222901 00000570 00240

Total mass balance gas 58761676824 003228594 00000549 00232

Moles of balance gas 2097627451 000115899 00000553 00233

Moles impurities from parent 021883087438 000003747112 00001712 00723

Moles impurities from balance 56582830 00011276 00001993 00841

Total Moles of gas 268660869 00016174 00000602 00254

Conc minor component (ppm) 4726617 02140Relative uncert 0045 0237 100000

FB04287

Standard Relative ContributionValue Uncertainty Uncertianty to Uncertainty

Major Component MW 2801340 000016 00000058 00021

Minor Component MW 4400950 000052 00000119 00042

Mass Parent Gas 3957940 000137 00000346 00122

Mass Balance Gas 7227358 00020 00000028 00010

Minor Component Wt Fraction 0023250750 0000006716 00002889 01017

Mass minor component - Parent 092025076 000026773 00002909 01025Mass minor component - Bal 000005052 000001421 02813263 990842

Total mass minor component 092005795 000059343 00006450 02272

Moles of minor component 002090589 000001349 00006451 02272

Balance gas wt fraction (purity) 0755575527 389029E-05 00000515 00181

Mass balance gas - parent 2921880196 000218877 00000749 00264Mass balance gas - balance 54608149036 002815892 00000516 00182

Total mass balance gas 57530029233 002824386 00000491 00173

Moles of balance gas 2053661078 000101531 00000494 00174

Moles impurities from parent 029192104701 000004836046 00001657 00583

Moles impurities from balance 54627264 00009803 00001795 00632

Total Moles of gas 263121641 00014122 00000537 00189

Conc minor component (ppm) 7945334 05143Relative uncert 0065 0284 100000

P a g e | 115

Please include in this section in the case of standards produced with synthetic air

m) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas n) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar NO2 and CH4

parent gas o) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures p) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures q) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are

prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM and r) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

Or with real air

a) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas Compound molmol Uncertainty CO2 0999994000 0000002000 N2 0000002000 0000001155 O2 0000002000 0000001155 Ar 0000002000 0000001155

b) results of the analysis and mole fractions and uncertainties of CO2 N2 O2 Ar N2O and CH4 in the scrubbed real air (if performed)

Cylinder FB04300 Compound molmol Uncertainty N2 0781133467 0000043500 CO2 0000000151 0000000036 O2 0209528241 0000039865 Ar 0009338142 0000017407

Cylinder FB04278 Compound molmol Uncertainty N2 0781102830 0000039359 CO2 0000000059 0000000017 O2 0209554557 0000034507 Ar 0009342554 0000018932

Cylinder FB04287 Compound molmol Uncertainty N2 0781108354 0000039152 CO2 0000000046 0000000013 O2 0209548136 0000033045 Ar 0009343463 0000020998

P a g e | 116

c) a brief outline of the preparation procedure of the final mixtures

The three cylinders were evacuated to ~ 05 micro of Hg filled to ~ 07 Mpa with UHP Air and vented to atmosphere (four times) and evacuated to ~ 05 micro Hg A calculated aliquot of the parent cylinder was added to each cylinder and then weighed A calculated aliquot of the matrix gas was added to each cylinder and then weighed The cylinders were rolled for ~ three hours to mix the component gases

d) a composition table for each of the final mixtures including gravimetric Uncertainties when relevant Cylinder FB04300 Compound molmol Uncertainty CO2 0000472662 0000000214 N2 0780771482 0000063800 O2 0209421668 0000040372 Ar 0009334188 0000016775 Cylinder FB04278 Compound molmol Uncertainty CO2 0000379045 0000000195 N2 0780812166 0000058766 O2 0209469584 0000035657 Ar 0009339205 0000018480 Cylinder FB04287 Compound molmol Uncertainty CO2 0000794533 0000000514 N2 0780498735 0000056955 O2 0209370336 0000033285 Ar 0009336395 0000019945

e) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures The cylinders were verified against five existing PSMs a minimum of six times using an Isotopic CO2 Cavity Ringdown Spectrometer

f) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM and

g) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

P a g e | 117

Cylinder MPa FB04300 965 FB04278 1034 FB04278 999

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders 1st report

2nd report received on May 16 2018

Addendum to NIST Report for CCQM-K120a and b 1 Introduction NIST agreed to participate in the CCQM-K120a and b Key Comparison (KC) with the understanding that this KC involved gravimetrically value-assigned samples As stated in the protocol summary the comparison involved ldquohellip preparative capabilities for carbon dioxide in air primary reference mixturesrdquo Based on this description of the KC as involving primary reference mixtures NIST assumed that the participantsrsquo value assignments and reported data were restricted solely to those that derive from purity assessments and primary gravimetric measurements However prior to submission of the reported concentrations to GAWG NIST discovered a significant discrepancy in the gravimetric values which was caused by extenuating circumstances (discussed below) and which was quantified using supplementary measurements carried out at NIST Nevertheless to follow the KC protocol and to meet the imposed deadlines NIST submitted only the gravimetric-based concentration values for the three required CO2-in-air samples despite having assessed that the results were not expected to agree with the eventual calculated KCRV 2 Background Studies on CO2 adsorptiondesorption issues NIST performed and continues to investigate an adsorptiondesorption phenomenon with CO2 in air mixtures [1] NIST has observed in 5 and 6 L aluminum cylinders containing nominal 400 micromolmol CO2 in air mixtures initial CO2 adsorption to the cylinder walls of as little as 02 micromolmol to more than 1 micromolmol depending on the cylinder and internal treatment tested It has been observed that CO2 initially adsorbs on the cylinder walls when a mixture is

NIST CCQM K120 comparison samples dataPressure August 112017 Pressure

Original Reported Original Verified Veri‐Grav departure Re‐verified Value ReVerified value‐ back

Cylinder Gravimetirc Value ppm Value ppm Diff from NIST Stability check ppm Grav Value ppm to NIST

FB04278 37905 plusmn 039 38030 plusmn 028 033 1034 MPa 38007 plusmn 030 027 724 MPa

FB04300 47266 plusmn 043 47340 plusmn 034 016 965 MPa 47337 plusmn 052 015 724 MPa

FB04287 79453 plusmn 103 79512 plusmn 058 007 999 MPa 79477 plusmn 038 003 724 MPa

Re‐verified Value Re‐Verified‐ Pressure back

SRM Sample Original Certified Value Stability check ppm Orig Cert to NIST

1720‐A‐26 39397 plusmn 013 39403 plusmn 020 0015 414 MPa (600 psi)

P a g e | 118

prepared to high pressure (asymp12 MPa asymp1800 psi) NIST modeled some of that early data that shows an increase in CO2 mole fraction (∆x) with reduced cylinder pressure from measurements of a CO2 in air mixture contained in a 6 L aluminum cylinder using the Langmuir isotherm (Irving Langmuir 1916 1918) and is shown in Figure 1

Figure 1 Measured CO2 mole fraction increase versus pressure decrease in a 6 L aluminum cylinder Solid black points represent actual measured mole fraction Solid blue line represents applied Langmuir Isotherm model Using the actual measured CO2 change in 5 L and 6 L cylinders and the Langmuir isotherm NIST modeled for projected ∆x CO2 variation for 30 L and 47 L aluminum cylinders as shown in Figure 2 The models predict that the larger the cylinder volume the less change in the CO2 mole fraction with pressure loss NIST studies of CO2 in air mixtures contained in 30 L cylinders indeed show less increase in the mole fraction of CO2 as the pressure in the cylinder decreases Therefore the surface-to-volume ratio appears to play a major role the larger the cylinder volume the less CO2 increase It is most likely that this phenomenon takes place not only at ambient CO2 mole fractions but also at much higher levels including a few molmol and higher

Figure 2 Projected variation in ∆x for 6-L 30-L and 47-L cylinders applying Langmuir Isotherm This background information was presented at the GAWG meeting in April 2017 as analyses of K120 a and b were underway These results account for the discrepant NIST values in K120 a and b More generally this study informed participants of the serious potential pitfalls associated with desorption of CO2 from cylinder walls and the dependence of this process on total charge cylinder dimensions etc and revealed the possibility of unaccounted for Type B uncertainties caused by interactions of CO2 with cylinder walls Partly because of these findings and the

P a g e | 119

occurrence of extremely low uncertainties reported by some NMIs GAWG decided to put a lower limit on the expanded uncertainty equal to 019 mol mol-1 thus affecting the relative weighting of the results contributing to the KCRV 3 Preparation of K120 Samples In conjunction with submitting freshly prepared gravimetric standards for the CCQM-K120 CO2 in air key comparison NIST also wanted to prepare a complete new suite of ambient level CO2 in air primary standard mixtures (PSMs) starting with a pure natural isotopic CO2 source That new pure CO2 source arrived at NIST in November 2016 Because there was a limited amount of pure CO2 in the cylinder obtained NIST started development by gravimetrically preparing four PSMs in the range of 1-3 molmol in CO2 and moisture scrubbed real air Upon completion of those PSMs in early December 2016 they were analyzed by GC-TCD along with the NIST 2012 CO2 suite with ratios calculated from peak area responses to a control Generalized least squares regression was used to plot the ratios vs gravimetric values of the 2012 PSMs The new percent level PSMs were predicted from the regression line The results of that comparison are shown in Table 1 Inspection of the residuals from the difference of the predicted Ysolution- YGrav value for the 2012 PSMs reveals excellent agreement However the predicted Yeval values for the new PSMs disagree with their gravimetric values by more than -2 Table 1 New percent level PSMs predicted from linear regression of 2012 PSMs

Based on these results either the 2012 suite of PSMs had increased in mole fraction because of desorption of CO2 from the cylinder surface with pressure decrease or the new source of pure CO2 was contaminated Indeed the pure CO2 was eventually analyzed in January of 2017 and found to be contaminated with 31 molmol N2 Because NIST had no time to obtain another source of pure CO2 to make another set of PSMs (K120 samples needed to be shipped to BIPM by the end of December 2016) we had to assume that the 2012 percent level PSMs were stable We made this assumption knowing that it most likely was not the case because the CO2 mole fraction had increased as these standards were below asymp 45 MPa (asymp650 psi) Not having another source of CO2 (the original CO2 source used for the 2012 suite and the source for over three decades was spent) NIST could not prepare new percent-level standards to verify the 2012 percent level standards and determine if the CO2 had indeed increased

Res idua l

2012 PSM X (Ratio) Y (Grav molmol) X‐Solution Y‐Solution uTest (Y‐Sol ‐Grav)

FA02584 244265 49500 244266 49490 Pass ‐002

FA02588 22877 46190 22877 46205 Pass 003

APEX1099215 078272 15422 078272 15420 Pass ‐001

APEX1099172 063673 12535 063656 12538 Pass 002

CAL016532 050028 09869 05003 09869 Pass 000

difference

From New CO2 Xin (Ratio) uXin Yeval (molmol) uYeval Grav Value Yeval‐Grav

FB03808 139347 000103 27669 00033 28288 ‐219

APEX1099165 118456 000141 23442 00035 24043 ‐250

APEX1099188 11708 000130 23164 00033 23773 ‐256

APEX1099246 078483 000058 15462 00015 15822 ‐228

(plusmn 00007)

P a g e | 120

NIST moved forward and prepared the three K120 standards from the 2012 PSMs cylinder number APEX1099215 at (15422 plusmn 00010) molmol and APEX1099172 at (12535 plusmn 00009) molmol (highlighted in green in Table 1) Figure 3 shows the preparation scheme

Figure 3 Preparation scheme for NIST K120 samples It is very important to state here that both cylinders were low in pressure when the three K120 standards were prepared from them APEX1099215 at 520 psi and APEX1099172 at 390 psi While NIST did not have stability data for percent-level CO2 in air mixtures we still suspected that the CO2 also increases at this mole fraction level as the pressure decreases After preparation of the three K120 standards they were compared to the 2012 ambient level PSMs and three SRM samples were also included Figure 4 shows the generalized least squares regression plotted for the 2012 PSMs represented by the black circles The blue circles represent the predicted value for the SRM 1720 samples from that regression and the red triangles represent the original SRM 1720 certified value The green squares represent the predicted value for the K120 samples from that regression line while the yellow circle with red border represent the gravimetric values From this plot the blue dotted linear regression line appears to cover all the data points

Pure CO2

CC282116

999940 plusmn 00002

APEX1099172 APEX1099215

12535 plusmn 00009 15422 plusmn 00010

molmol molmol

FB04300 FB04300 FB04300

472662 plusmn 0214 379045 plusmn 0214 794533 plusmn 0514

micromolmol micromolmol micromolmol

combined uncerta inties k=1

350

450

550

650

750

850

950

070 090 110 130 150 170 190

CO2mole fraction micro

molmol

Response Ratio

2012 CO2 PSMs

K120 Standards Predicted

K120 Grav Value

Predicted SRM 1720

SRM1720 Certified Value

P a g e | 121

Figure 4 Generalized least squares regression through NIST 2012 ambient CO2 PSM suite predicting SRM 1720 and K120 samples However if we expand the lower portion of the regression from (350-400) micromolmol we see disagreement between the new standards and SRM 1720 certified values as shown in Figure 5 While the predicted and gravimetric value for the 380 micromolmol K120 standard are still on the regression line the SRM 1720 certified values are off the regression line by around +1 micromol mol (03 relative) However the predicted and gravimetric value for the 380 micromolmol K120 sample lie on the regression line NIST has complete confidence that the SRM 1720 samples contained in 30-L cylinders are stable since they were all at pressures of +11 MPa Therefore NIST suspected that the 2012 PSMs all had increased in concentration and hence would predict the SRM 1720 samples to have less CO2 The fact that the K120 samples also lie on the line with the 2012 PSM regression we can postulate that the 2012 percent level PSMs had also increased in CO2 mole fraction as they had pressures less than 45 MPa (650 psi) when used to prepare the K120 samples

Figure 5 Expansion of Figure 4 illustrating that the SRM 1720 certified values lie off the regression line while K120 gravimetric and predicted values are still on the regression line Expanded uncertainty error bars are present but too small to be observed except in the red triangle SRM 1720 Certified Value NIST took this data for the 2012 ambient level PSMs and determined values by comparison to SRM sample 1720-A-29 with a certified value of (39312 plusmn 013) micromolmol with and (k = 2) uncertainty value at a pressure of +12 MPa The values determined for the PSMs from the SRM 1720 sample are significantly different from their gravimetric values with reduced pressure as shown in Table 2 Table 2 Ambient level 2012 PSMs determined from SRM sample 1720-A-29

4 Validity of SRM 1720 samples The SRM 1720 sample used to verify these PSMs is contained in a 30-Liter aluminum cylinder Other SRM 1720 samples have shown to be stable within uncertainty limits down to around 600 psi as shown in Table 3

‐029

‐037‐031

378

383

388

393

398

074 075 075 076 076 077 077 078 078 079 079

CO2mole fraction micro

molmol

Response Ratio

2012 CO2 PSMs

K120 Standard Predicted

K120 Standard Grav Value

SRM 1720 Predicted Value

SRM 1720 Certified Value

Gravimetric Concentration vs SRM1720 Difference Pressure

2012 PSM Mole Fraction micromolmol micromolmol micromolmol Diff ps i (Mpa)

APEX1099211 96107 plusmn 003 96091 plusmn 020 0160 002 1200 (827)

APEX1099176 91907 plusmn 046 91922 plusmn 025 ‐0150 ‐002 650 (448)

APEX1099164 67362 plusmn 035 67405 plusmn 015 ‐0430 ‐006 800 (552)

APEX1099223 63330 plusmn 042 63367 plusmn 017 ‐0370 ‐006 700 (483)

APEX1005714 42108 plusmn 006 42246 plusmn 009 ‐1380 ‐033 300 (207)

APEX1005721 39885 plusmn 006 40003 plusmn 015 ‐1180 ‐030 400 (276)

APEX1005690 37944 plusmn 006 38048 plusmn 010 ‐1040 ‐027 400 (276)

uncerta inty k=1

P a g e | 122

Table 3 Mole fractions showing increase in 30 Liter SRM 1720 samples with pressure loss

SRM 1720 samples were originally certified by comparing to the 2012 suite of four PSMs when they were at full pressure (+11 MPa) three of which are given in Table 2 APEX1005714 (42108 plusmn 006) micromolmol APEX1005721 (39885 plusmn 006) micromolmol and APEX1005690 (37944 plusmn 006) micromolmol The SRM 1720 samples were also analyzed by NOAA with results showing agreement between NIST and NOAA [2] Figure 6 shows that agreement for the 30 real air cylinder samples that comprised SRM 1720

Figure 6 Comparison of NIST and NOAA CO2 values for 30 SRM 1720 samples Error bars are expanded uncertainties at approximate 95 confidence interval 5 Verifying the K120 Samples Because all the original NIST 2012 PSMs at the 380 to 420 micromolmol range were low in pressure they could not be trusted to verify the new K120 PSMs Therefore in late December 2016 NIST used SRM sample 1720-A-29 then at 1700 psi to verify the gravimetric mole fractions in the K120 standards using CRDS Table 4 shows the gravimetric and verified values for the NIST K120 samples The December 2016 verified value is significantly higher by as much as 1 micromolmol than the gravimetric value for each of the three K120 standards This provides strong evidence that even the molmol 2012 PSMs have increased in mole fraction with the decrease in pressure Table 4 Gravimetric and verified values for NIST K120 samples

30 ‐Liter August 2017 Stability

SRM Original Certified Stability check 2017 ‐

Sample Value ppm value ppm Cert ppm

1720‐A‐26a 39397 + 013 (SRM used by BIPM for K120) 39403 + 020 + 006 600 psi 414 Mpa

1720‐AL‐01 38833 plusmn 013 38867 plusmn 014 + 034 325 psi 224 Mpa

1720‐AL‐27 39339 plusmn 013 39364 plusmn 015 + 025 450 psi 31 Mpa

All verified and stability check values determined against SRM 1720‐A‐29 (still at a pressure of 1500+ psi)

All uncertainties reported as expanded k = 2

aSRM 1720‐A‐26 was sent to BIPM as part of their system validation for K120

388

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30mole fraction micro

mol mol ‐1

Sample

NIST

NOAA

Pressure

Original Reported December 2016 Verified Verified‐Grav Verified‐Grav departure

Cylinder Gravimetirc Value ppm Verified Value micromolmol Diff in micromolmol Diff from NIST

FB04278 37905 plusmn 039 38008 plusmn 028 103 027 1034 MPa

FB04300 47266 plusmn 043 47340 plusmn 034 068 016 965 MPa

FB04287 79453 plusmn 103 79512 plusmn 058 059 007 999 MPa

P a g e | 123

Uncertainties at 95 confidence interval NIST was aware when they shipped their K120 samples to BIPM for the K120 comparison that their gravimetric values were not good However we followed the K120 protocol laid down for ldquopreparative capabilities for carbon dioxide in air primary reference mixturesrdquo and submitted the gravimetric values knowing that the verified values were the correct molar fractions for these mixtures 6 Stability check of K120 samples NIST received the three K120 samples back from BIPM in August 2017 and proceeded to check them for stability The three samples were once again compared to SRM 1720-A-29 and those results are shown in Table 5 The August 2017 stability check values agree with the December 2016 verified values and therefore have remained stable as they should be since the pressures were well above those where increases in mole fraction have been observed Table 5 Stability check results for K120 samples

Uncertainties at 95 confidence interval

7 Isotopic Composition The original value submitted by NIST for δ13C of -28 + 2 permil was an error of data transcription NIST had determined this value in 2014 for the pure source of CO2 used to prepare the submitted standards to be δ13C = -38 + 2 permil as determined by FTIR After receiveing the three standards back from BIPM NIST measured the δ13C to be -401 + 01 permil as determined by GC-IRMS 8 NIST Best-Estimate Value If it had been explicitly stated that participants could report their ldquobest-estimate valuerdquo for samples submitted for this CCQM-K120 key comparison for ambient CO2 in air which would not necessarily be their true gravimetric value then NIST would have submitted the values obtained from verification against the SRM sample NIST ldquobest-estimate valuesrdquo are thus given in Table 6 Table 6 NIST Best-Estimate (Verified) Values

August 2017 August 2017 Pressure

December 2016 Verified August 2017 Stability check‐Dec 2016 Stabiity check‐ back

Cylinder Verified Value micromolmol Stability check micromolmol Verified Value micromolmol Verified Value Diff to NIST

FB04278 38008 plusmn 028 38007 plusmn 030 ‐001 ‐0003 724 MPa

FB04300 47340 plusmn 034 47337 plusmn 052 ‐003 ‐0006 724 MPa

FB04287 79512 plusmn 058 79477 plusmn 038 ‐035 ‐0044 724 MPa

P a g e | 124

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 FB04278 38008 028 2

2 FB04300 47340 034 2

3 FB04287 79512 058 2

9 Observations from this Comparison NIST has the opinion that this key comparison was unnecessarily rushed to completion by the pilot laboratory As co-pilot on this comparison NIST should not have agreed to the arbitrary and premature deadline imposed by the pilot laboratory knowing that an optimal level of sample control had not been demonstrated Given that future key comparisons will continue to be co-piloted both parties must agree that the preliminary studies and procedures are sufficiently well-established to set firm deadlines for sample submission by participating NMIrsquos Ideally the mutual decision to set the timeline for the KC and the readiness of other NMIrsquos to participate should be discussed formally by the GAWG at the Spring or Fall meeting NIST also recommends that the GAWG draft a formal policy document that unambiguously defines the terms such as ldquogravimetricrdquo ldquoprimaryrdquo ldquopreparativerdquo ldquoanalyticalrdquo ldquobest-estimaterdquo among others which are used to describe the scope of key comparisons For example in the context of gas standards we might propose that ldquoprimaryrdquo refers to mixtures prepared by gravimetry or manometry On the other hand ldquopreparativerdquo appears with ldquoprimaryrdquo in the K120 a and b protocol summary statement What is the exact meaning of ldquopreparativerdquo in this context Similarly the term ldquobest-estimaterdquo was mentioned in discussions on K120 a and b during the April 2018 GAWG meeting when referring to acceptable reported values by NMIs although the exact meaning of this term was not clarified NISTrsquos current position is that ldquobest-estimaterdquo falls outside the scope of K120a and b and is more consistent with an ldquoanalyticalrdquo comparison These examples illustrate the need for a precise terminology to specify acceptable methods used for value assignment in future KCs For transparency this terminology should be formally defined by the GAWG for unambiguous use in subsequent KC protocols References 1 Miller WR Rhoderick GC Guenther FR Anal Chem 2015 87(3) pp 1957-1962 2 Rhoderick GR Kitzis DR Kelley ME Miller WR Hall BD Dlugokencky EJ Tans PP Possolo A Carney J Anal Chem 2016 88(6) 3376-3385 doi

101021acsanalchem6b00123

P a g e | 125

NMISA

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 126

P a g e | 127

P a g e | 128

P a g e | 129

P a g e | 130

P a g e | 131

P a g e | 132

P a g e | 133

NOAA

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 134

P a g e | 135

P a g e | 136

P a g e | 137

P a g e | 138

P a g e | 139

NPL

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM‐K120‐R Project name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards

A1 General information

Institute National Physical Laboratory

Address Hampton Road

Teddington

TW11 0LW

Contact person Paul Brewer

Telephone +44 (0) 208 943 6007 Fax

Email paulbrewernplcouk

P a g e | 140

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a CCQM‐K120b

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide amount fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 2179 38027 019 2

2 2170 48002 024 2

3 2181 79970 040 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number 2179

Component Amount fraction Value

Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078079 molmol 000047 molmol 2

O2 020960 molmol 000013 molmol 2

Ar 0009232 molmol 0000018 molmol 2

CH4 lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

Table 1 Composition of standard 1

P a g e | 141

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number 2170

Component Amount fraction Value

Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078069 molmol 000047 molmol 2

O2 020950 molmol 000013 molmol 2

Ar 0009334 molmol 0000019 molmol 2

CH4 lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

Table 2 Composition of standard 2 (Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number 2181

Component Amount fraction Value

Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078055 molmol 000047 molmol 2

O2 020928 molmol 000013 molmol 2

Ar 0009367 molmol 0000019 molmol 2

CH4 lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

Table 3 Composition of standard 3 CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 2179 ‐55 permil 10 permil 2 ‐225 permil 10 permil 2

2 2170 ‐55 permil 10 permil 2 ‐225 permil 10 permil 2

3 2181 ‐55 permil 10 permil 2 ‐225 permil 10 permil 2

Table 4 Isotopic composition of each submitted standard vs VPDB

A4 Uncertainty Budget The estimated uncertainty for the measurement contains the following components

Purity analysis of CO2 and synthetic air

Gravimetric preparation (weighing and atomic weight uncertainties)

Analytical validation

Table 5 details the uncertainty analysis The preparation component includes estimated uncertainty from purity analysis weighing and atomic weights

Relative Uncertainty ()

Identifier Component Preparation

(k=1) Validation

(k=1) Total(k=2)

2179 CO2 0018 002 005

2170 CO2 0014 002 005

2181 CO2 0010 002 005

Table 5 Uncertainty contributors To calculate the combined uncertainty the uncertainties were combined as the square root of the sum of squares The reported uncertainty of the result is based on standard uncertainties multiplied by a coverage factor of k=2 providing a level of confidence of approximately 95

P a g e | 142

A5 Additional information Description of the procedure Three gas mixtures were prepared for this comparison (2170 2179 and 2181) at NPL in synthetic air from sources of CO2 (BOC speciality gases) O2 (BOC speciality gases N 60) N2 (Air Products BIP+) and Ar (Air Products BIP+) The pure industrial source of CO2 was spiked with pure 13CO2 to achieve an isotopic composition close to natural abundance The mixtures were prepared in BOC 10 litre cylinders with Spectraseal passivation Two further sets of three reference standards was prepared and these were used to validate the comparison mixtures The scheme below shows the gravimetric dilutions with nominal CO2 amount fractions

Figure 1 Dilution scheme for gravimetric preparation

A Picarro G2301 Cavity ring-down spectrometer was used to validate the amount fraction of CO2 in mixtures 2170 2179 and 2181 The analyser response to the matrix gas was recorded The analyser response to a reference mixture was then recorded for a five minute period followed by either 2170 2179 or 2181 for the same time This sequence was repeated four times At the end of the experiment the analyser response to the matrix gas was recorded a second time To minimise the effects from zero drift a mean of the analyser response to the matrix gas before and after the experiment was used The amount fractions of 2170 2179 and 2181 were then determined by multiplying the ratio of the analyser response to each mixture and the reference mixture (both were corrected for the analyser response to matrix gas) with the amount fraction of the reference mixture These measurements were used to validate the gravimetric amount fractions submitted Cylinders were maintained at a laboratory temperature of (20 plusmn 3) C throughout the period of analysis Samples were introduced into the analyser at atmospheric pressure (excess flow was passed to vent) using a low volume gas regulator Purity tables for the CO2 Ar N2 and O2 are provided below

P a g e | 143

Component Amount Fraction (micromolmol) Expanded Uncertainty (micromolmol)

CO2 99999980 006

N2 0050 0029

O2 0050 0029

CO 0050 0029

Ar 0050 0029

Table 6 CO2 purity table

Component Amount Fraction (micromolmol) Expanded Uncertainty (micromolmol)

Ar 99999993 002

N2 0039 0023

O2 00050 00029

CO2 0007 0004

CO 00018 00010

CH4 000029 000017

Table 7 Ar purity table

Component Amount Fraction (micromolmol) Expanded Uncertainty (micromolmol)

N2 9999843 16

O2 0015 0009

Ar 1567 157

CO2 000085 000049

CO 000058 000033

CH4 000080 000046

Table 8 N2 purity table

Component Amount Fraction (micromolmol) Expanded Uncertainty (micromolmol)

O2 9999991 03

N2 050 029

Ar 0050 0029

CO2 019 019

CH4 00282 00048

Table 9 O2 purity table The mixtures were prepared on during the period 24th October to 8th November 2016 Measurements to study the stability of the mixtures were carried out over a 6 week period The cylinder pressure of mixtures 2170 2179 and 2181 prior to shipping was gt 10 MPa

P a g e | 144

NPLI

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM-K120

Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM-K120-R

Project name CCQM-K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899-8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute CSIR-National Physical Laboratory INDIA

Address CSIR-National Physical Laboratory Dr KS Krishnan Marg New Delhi ndash 110012 INDIA

Contact Person Dr Prabha Johri

Telephone 91 11 4560 856385658331

Fax 91 11 4560 9310

P a g e | 145

email pjohrinplindiaorg

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM-K120a (only) yes

CCQM-K120b (only) Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification Number

Carbon Dioxide mole fraction XCO2cert molmol

Expanded Uncertainties molmol

Coverage factor

1 JJ108891 37572 322 2

2 JJ108862 48052 304 2

3 JJ108854 79638 503 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix composition Component mol fraction and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) Standard1 Cylinder Number JJ108891

component Mole fraction value

unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0781273 molmol 0002210 molmol 2

O2 0209688 molmol 0000590 molmol 2

Ar 0009040 molmol 0000030 molmol 2

Standard 2 Cylinder Number JJ108862

component Mole fraction value

unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0781989 molmol 0002210 molmol 2

O2 0208853 molmol 0000590 molmol 2

Ar 0009158 molmol 0000030 molmol 2

P a g e | 146

Standard 3 Cylinder Number JJ108854

Component Mole fraction value

unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0781363 molmol 0002210 molmol 2

O2 0209789 molmol 0000594 molmol 2

Ar 0008847 molmol 0000030 molmol 2

A4 Uncertainty Budget The final uncertainty budget was estimated by combining two uncertainty components (ie preparation of PSGM and its analysis both)

(i) The Expanded Uncertainty estimation of all the prepared gas mixtures (PSGMs) has been calculated according to ISO 6142 Preparation of Calibration gas mixtures ndash Gravimetric method taking account of following factors 1 Raymor Balance 1 Mass Pieces 2 Bouancy corrections for weights 3 Handling of cylinder 4 Residual gases in the cylinder 5 Expansion of the cylinder due to filling of gas at High pressure (ii) Uncertainties in the analysis These are calculated taking acount of

1 Standard deviation Repeatability 2 Reproducibility amp 3 Instrument response

A5 Additional Information b) A purity table with uncertainties for pure Ar N2 and O2 parent gas The purity of N2 O2 and Ar parent gases were determined using tiger optics CRDS analyzers model for the following H2O CH4 and CO gas components The moisture of the gases were determined using Tiger Optics moisture analyzer model LaserTrace CH4 was determined using Tiger Optics methan analyzer model MTO-1000-CH4 and CO gas was determined using Tiger Optics CO analyzer model HALO 3-CO Purity of Argon gas was found to be as given below

P a g e | 147

Name of gases Concentration ppm Expanded Uncertainties Coverage factor

H2O moisture 145 023 2

CO gas 027 008 2

CH4 gas Not Detected (ND) (lt0001 )

Purity of N2 gas was found to be as given below

Name of gases Concentration ppm Expanded Uncertainties Coverage factor

H2O moisture 083 005 2

CO gas 34 024 2

CH4 gas ND (lt0001 )

Purity of O2 gas was found to be as given below

Name of gases Concentration ppm Expanded Uncertainties Coverage factor

H2O moisture 095 005 2

CH4 gas ND (lt0001 )

c) A brief out line of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures The preparation procedure involves following steps

1) Preparation of gas mixtures of CO2 in nitrogen gas Al cylinders 10 litre were evacuated and purged with nitogen gas and again evacuated with heating of the cylinders at 60-70oC This process is repeated thrice before any preparation of gas mixture was carried out The theoritical calculations were carried out for the desired concentrations Gas mixtures of CO2 in nitrogen gas from pure gas were prepared in two series in the concentrations around 20544 and 20392 molmol These gas mixtures were diluted in the concentration ranges from ( 370~ 1000 molmol) Total of 9 cylindres were prepared All the preparation of Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) were done in acordance to ISO 6142 Gas Analysis -Preparation of calibration gas mixtures - Gravimetric Method These cylinders were validated in acordance to ISO 6143 Gas analysis - Comparision method for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures Thus the prepared CO2 gas mixtures were certified as CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM)

P a g e | 148

2) Preparation of CO2 in synthetic air These mixtures were prepared from the two series of CO2 premixtures prepared in nitrogen gas in the concentration around 20544 and 20392 molmol as mentioned above The empty cylinders were evacuated and purged with dry nitogen gas and again evacuated with heating This process is repeated thrice for the pre-preparation of the cylinders The thoeritical calculations were carried out similating the desired concentration range as given in CCQM K-120 The required amount of pre mixture of CO2 in Nitrogen is transferred in the pre prepared evacuated cylinder These mixtures were now added with desired amount of pure Argon gas pure oxygen gas and finally top up has been done by nitrogen gas to simulate the synthetic air concentration Total of 9 cylinders were prepared in the concentration ranges ( 370~800 molmol) These cylinders were validated using above prepared binary mixtures of CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures Validation of Synthetic Air Mixtures

The prepared synthetic air gas mixture cylinders were validated using above prepared binary mixtures of CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) as per ISO 6143

The standard and sample gases were injected into eight-port gas sampling valves of the Agilent Gas Chromatograph with flame ionization detector (FID) Model 6890N US 10723001 The GC column used was Haysep D length 12 ft dia 18rdquo and mesh 100120 Helium gas was used as a carrier gas The measurement conditions were the sample loop of 05 ml oven temperature of 80oC detector temperature of 250oC hydrogen and air flow rate of 20 mlmin and 300 mlmin respectively All the Synthetic air CO2 gas mixtures were evaluated using a higher concentration CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) The average response was calculated by using the six values rejecting first and last two values each time for each measurement series The analysis of the cylinders were carried out three times The collected data is analysed and the uncertainty budget was evaluated

f) Cylider pressure before shipment to BIPM

SlNo Cylinder No Conc (Approx) molmol Pressure

1 JJ108891 380 110Bar 1596 psi

2 JJ108862 480 110Bar 1596 psi

3 JJ108854 800 110Bar 1596 psi

The Team members Dr Daya Soni Dr Khem Singh Ms S Bhatt Ms Joty Pokheryal Dr SG Aggarwal Dr PJohri

P a g e | 149

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM-K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM-K120-R (Stability Studies) Project name CCQM-K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899-8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute CSIR-National Physical Laboratory INDIA

Address CSIR-National Physical Laboratory Dr KS Krishnan Marg New Delhi ndash 110012 INDIA

Contact Person Dr Prabha Johri

Telephone 91 11 4560 856385658331

Fax 91 11 4560 9310

email pjohrinplindiaorg

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM-K120a (only) yes

CCQM-K120b (only) Yes

P a g e | 150

Stability Studies Result A3 NMI stability analysis values with its analytical uncertainty budget only

Cylinder Identification Number

Carbon Dioxide mole fraction XCO2cert molmol

Expanded Uncertainties molmol

Coverage factor

1 JJ108891

37824 395 2

2 JJ108862

47857 523 2

3 JJ108854

79880 335 2

A4 Uncertainty Budget The stability uncertainty budget was estimated using analytical uncertainty components only These are calculated taking account of

1 Standard deviation Repeatability 2 Calibration standard uncertainty 3 Instrument response

A5 A brief outline of the Stability Analysis Procedure applied to the Cylinders returned from BIPM France

The cylinders of the synthetic air gas mixtures arrived from BIPM France cylinders were analyzed using the prepared binary mixtures of CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) as per ISO 6143 The cylinders returned from BIPM and the binary standards gas mixtures in nitrogen gas cylinders are put to rotation for over night before using for its stability studies

The standard and sample gases were injected into eight-port gas sampling valves of the Agilent Gas Chromatograph with flame ionization detector (FID) Model 6890N US 10723001 The GC column used was Haysep D length 12 ft dia 18rdquo and mesh 100120 Helium gas was used as a carrier gas The measurement conditions were the sample loop of 05 ml oven temperature of 80oC detector temperature of 250oC hydrogen and air flow rate of 20 mlmin and 300 mlmin respectively All the Synthetic air CO2 gas mixtures were evaluated using a higher concentration CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Reference Gas Mixtures (PRGM) The average response was calculated by using six values rejecting first and last two values each time for each measurement series The analysis of the cylinders was carried out three times The collected data is analyzed and the analytical uncertainty budget was evaluated and reported in the stability result

The Team members Dr Daya Soni Dr Khem Singh Ms S Bhatt Dr SG Aggarwal Dr PJohri

P a g e | 151

UME

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM‐K120‐R

A1 General information

Institute UME

Address TUumlBİTAK UME ‐ Gas Metrology Laboratory Baris Mah Dr Zeki Acar Cad No1 41470 Gebze Kocaeli TURKEY

Contact person Dr Tanıl Tarhan

Telephone + 90 262 679 5000 6401 Fax + 90 262 679 5001

Email taniltarhantubitakgovtr

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2 μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 PSM298266 37992 016 2

2 PSM266468 48042 017 2

3 PSM298347 80076 027 2

P a g e | 152

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number PSM298266

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07803392 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

O2 02099663 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

Ar 00093140 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number PSM266468

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07799681 molmol 00000165 molmol 2

O2 02102293 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

Ar 00093215 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number PSM298347

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07795520 molmol 00000164 molmol 2

O2 02103522 molmol 00000164 molmol 2

Ar 00092945 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 PSM298266 ‐165 005 2 ‐ ‐ ‐

A4 Uncertainty Budget

P a g e | 153

The basis for the uncertainty budget is formed by the uncertainty evaluation from the gravimetric preparation and analytical measurements Gravimetric preparation contains uncertainty sources from weighing and those from purity of the parent gases Gravimetric preparation and uncertainty evaluation have performed according to ISO 6142 [1] The measurement uncertainty of each mixture was determined according to ISO 6143 [2] The combined standard uncertainty of each mixture was determined by the following equation

u u u

where

um standard uncertainty from measurements

ug standard uncertainty from gravimetric preparation

The expanded uncertainty was determined by multiplying the combined standard uncertainty by a coverage factor of 2 with a confidence interval of 95

A5 Additional information Mixtures were produced with synthetic air s) Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas

Main component carbon dioxide

Cylinder Code LG7524

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

carbon dioxide 99997750 924

water 250 144

nitrogen 1500 866

oxygen 500 289

t) Purity tables with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 and Ar parent gas

Main component nitrogen

Cylinder Code LG1220 and LG1221

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

carbon monoxide 005 003

carbon dioxide 005 003

methane 005 003

water 025 014

nitrogen 99999935 021

oxygen 025 014

Main component oxygen

P a g e | 154

Cylinder Code LG3367

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

argon 100 058

carbon dioxide 010 006

methane 010 006

water 150 087

nitrogen 250 144

oxygen 99999480 178

Main component argon

Cylinder Code LG1313

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

argon 99999300 122

water 150 087

nitrogen 400 231

oxygen 150 087

u) Mixtures were prepared according to the scheme displayed in Figure 1 Two different types of the pre‐mixtures were prepared These are 10 and 05 carbon dioxide in nitrogen and 15 argon in nitrogen 05 carbon dioxide in nitrogen and 15 argon in nitrogen pre‐mixtures were used together with pure nitrogen and pure oxygen for the final mixtures

P a g e | 155

Figure 1 Preparation scheme for the mixtures

v) Verification procedure applied to the final mixtures

The carbon dioxide (CO2) in air mixtures were analyzed on a cavity ring‐down spectroscopy (CRDS) instrument ie Picarro G2401 COCO2CH4H2O Analyzer equipped with 16‐Port Distribution Manifold Verification of the mixtures was carried out using own standards Cylinders were equipped with pressure reducers and connected to 16‐port distribution manifold They were flushed three times before the first measurement The analyzer operates vacuum pump to get the sample Therefore excess amount of gas than the amount of gas required by CRDS has been sent to the analyzer by adjusting the reducers The excess gas has been sent to the atmosphere through a bypass connected to sample line in between distribution manifold and the analyzer Each cylinder was measured for 15 minutes which is a sufficient time to obtain stable results The measurement data was collected using CRDS software Software takes about 2850 readings for 15 minutes During the data evaluation total number of 240 readings in between 10‐14 minutes has been used for determination of average values and uncertainties for each cylinder at each measurement

P a g e | 156

w) Stability testing of the mixtures

Pre‐mixtures and final mixtures were prepared in 01‐17 April 2016 First verification was performed in 21‐24 April 2016 Second verification was carried out in 22 September 2016 Final verification was performed 11‐19 October 2016 Measurement results are shown in Figure 2 As can be seen from the figure instrument response does not vary with time for each cylinder Stability testing did not show any instability within the accuracy of the measurement method

Figure 2 Stability measurements

x) Cylinder pressures before shipment to the BIPM are given below

Cylinder Code Pressure bar

PSM298266 86

PSM266468 86

PSM298347 90

References

[1] International Organization for Standardization ldquoISO 6142 Gas analysis ‐ Preparation of calibration gas mixtures ‐ Gravimetric methodsrdquo ISO Geneva 2001

[2] International Organization for Standardization ISO 6143 Gas analysis ‐ Comparison

methods for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures ISO Geneva 2001

300

500

700

900

CO2concentration (μmolmol)

Time

PSM298266 PSM266468 PSM298347

P a g e | 157

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM-K120-R

A1 General information

Institute UME

Address TUumlBİTAK UME ‐ Gas Metrology Laboratory Baris Mah Dr Zeki Acar Cad No1 41470 Gebze Kocaeli TURKEY

Contact person Dr Tanıl Tarhan

Telephone + 90 262 679 5000 6401 Fax + 90 262 679 5001

Email taniltarhantubitakgovtr

P a g e | 158

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2 μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 PSM298266 37992 019 2

2 PSM266468 48042 025 2

3 PSM298347 80076 036 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number PSM298266

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07803392 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

O2 02099663 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

Ar 00093140 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number PSM266468

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07799681 molmol 00000165 molmol 2

P a g e | 159

O2 02102293 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

Ar 00093215 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number PSM298347

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07795520 molmol 00000164 molmol 2

O2 02103522 molmol 00000164 molmol 2

Ar 00092945 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 PSM298266 ‐165 005 2 ‐ ‐ ‐

A4 Uncertainty Budget

The basis for the uncertainty budget is formed by the uncertainty evaluation from the gravimetric preparation and analytical measurements Gravimetric preparation contains uncertainty sources from weighing and those from purity of the parent gases Gravimetric preparation and uncertainty evaluation have performed according to ISO 6142 [1] The measurement uncertainty of each mixture was determined according to ISO 6143 [2] The mixtures were analyzed for stability after receiving them back from BIPM The combined standard uncertainty of each mixture was determined by the following equation

u u u u

where

um standard uncertainty from measurements

ug standard uncertainty from gravimetric preparation

us standard uncertainty for stability

The expanded uncertainty was determined by multiplying the combined standard uncertainty by a coverage factor of 2 with a confidence interval of 95

P a g e | 160

A5 Additional information Mixtures were produced from pure components of CO2 N2 O2 and Ar y) Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas

Main component carbon dioxide

Cylinder Code LG7524

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

carbon dioxide 99997750 924

water 250 144

nitrogen 1500 866

oxygen 500 289

z) Purity tables with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 and Ar parent gas

Main component nitrogen

Cylinder Code LG1220 and LG1221

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

carbon monoxide 005 003

carbon dioxide 005 003

methane 005 003

water 025 014

nitrogen 99999935 021

oxygen 025 014

Main component oxygen

Cylinder Code LG3367

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

argon 100 058

carbon dioxide 010 006

methane 010 006

water 150 087

nitrogen 250 144

oxygen 99999480 178

Main component argon

Cylinder Code LG1313

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

argon 99999300 122

water 150 087

nitrogen 400 231

oxygen 150 087

P a g e | 161

aa) Mixtures were prepared according to the scheme displayed in Figure 1 Two different types

of the pre‐mixtures were prepared These are 10 and 05 carbon dioxide in nitrogen and 15 argon in nitrogen 05 carbon dioxide in nitrogen and 15 argon in nitrogen pre‐mixtures were used together with pure nitrogen and pure oxygen for the final mixtures

Figure 1 Preparation scheme for the mixtures

bb) Verification procedure applied to the final mixtures

The carbon dioxide (CO2) in air mixtures were analyzed on a cavity ring‐down spectroscopy (CRDS) instrument ie Picarro G2401 COCO2CH4H2O Analyzer equipped with 16‐Port Distribution Manifold Verification of the mixtures was carried out using own standards Cylinders were equipped with pressure reducers and connected to 16‐port distribution manifold They were flushed three times before the first measurement The analyzer operates vacuum pump to get the sample Therefore excess amount of gas than the amount of gas required by CRDS has been sent to the analyzer by adjusting the reducers

P a g e | 162

The excess gas has been sent to the atmosphere through a bypass connected to sample line in between distribution manifold and the analyzer Each cylinder was measured for 15 minutes which is a sufficient time to obtain stable results The measurement data was collected using CRDS software Software takes about 2850 readings for 15 minutes During the data evaluation total number of 240 readings in between 10‐14 minutes has been used for determination of average values and uncertainties for each cylinder at each measurement

cc) Stability testing of the mixtures

Pre‐mixtures and final mixtures were prepared in 01‐17 April 2016 First verification was performed in 21‐24 April 2016 Second verification was carried out in 22 September 2016 Final verification was performed during 11‐19 October 2016 Measurement results are shown in Figure 2 As can be seen from the figure instrument response does not vary with time for each cylinder Stability testing did not show any instability within the accuracy of the measurement method before sending the cylinders to BIPM

Figure 2 Stability measurements before sending the cylinders

After receiving the cylinders they have been analyzed for stability Measurements were carried out during 23‐24 August 2017 and 06‐07 September 2017 Instrument responses were plotted against time as shown in Figure 3 The slope of the responses has been checked Uncertainty for stability has been determined and has been included in the combined uncertainty

300

500

700

900

CO2concentration (μmolmol)

Time

PSM298266 PSM266468 PSM298347

P a g e | 163

Figure 3 Stability measurements after receiving the cylinders

dd) Cylinder pressures before shipment to the BIPM are given below

Cylinder Code Pressure bar

PSM298266 86

PSM266468 86

PSM298347 90

References

[1] International Organization for Standardization ldquoISO 6142 Gas analysis ‐ Preparation of calibration gas mixtures ‐ Gravimetric methodsrdquo ISO Geneva 2001

[2] International Organization for Standardization ISO 6143 Gas analysis ‐ Comparison

methods for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures ISO Geneva 2001

300

500

700

900

CO2concentration (μmolmol)

Time

PSM298266 PSM266468 PSM298347

P a g e | 164

VNIIM

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQMK120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQMK120R

Project name CCQMK120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air Standards Proposed dates 092016 to 122017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 208998300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores

BIPM Chemistry Department Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg A1 General information Institute

DI Mendeleyev Institute for Metrology (VNIIM )

Address

19 Moskovsky pr St Petersburg 190005 Russia

Contact person Leonid Konopelko Telephone +7 812 315 11 45 Fax +7 812 315 15 17 Email

fhib10vniimru

P a g e | 165

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo CCQMK120a

Yes

CCQMK120b

Yes

A3 NMI submitted values Table 1 Cylinder Identification

number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction xCO2 cert μmolmol

Expanded uncertainty U(x CO2 cert) μmolmol

Coverage factor

1 M365601

38020 011 2

2 M365664

48018 013 2

3 M365707

80073 019 2

Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) Table 2 (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number M365601 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

781015 10-2 molmol 00013 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209188 10-2 molmol 00013 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09416 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000094 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Table 3 (Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number M365664 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

780928 10-2 molmol 00011 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209270 10-2 molmol 00012 10-2 molmol 2

Ar 09322 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

P a g e | 166

CH4 000000096 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Table 4 (Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number M365707 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

781000 10-2 molmol 00011 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209199 10-2 molmol 00012 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09000 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000097 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Uncertainty in the tables 2-4 includes only constituents related to gravimetry (weighing and purity) Table 5 CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional) Cylinder

Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C)

CoverageFactor

δ18O U(δ18O) CoverageFactor

1 M365601 - 480 09 2 - - - 2 M365664 - 480 09 2 - - - 3 M365707 - 480 09 2 - - - A4 Uncertainty Budget Table 6 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365601

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution

ui(y) μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200 μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999381 μmolmol B Rectangular 0015 μmolmol 006733 000101

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374 μmolmol 000016 000006

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030 μmolmol 000534 000016

Weighing premixture

CO2 2015723 g AB Normal 000223g ‐1854106 ‐004140

N2 115359704 g AB Normal 001962 g 032397 000636

Weighing pre‐ 2048733 g AB Normal 000203 g ‐1791563 ‐003630

P a g e | 167

final mixture

mixture

Ar 790915 g AB Normal 000200 g 045258 000091

O2 14075497 g AB Normal 000353 g 056493 000200

N2 43993136 g AB Normal 001021 g 064543 000659

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal 000035 gmol 86286 000302

Combined standard uncertainty 005596

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0112

Table 7 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365664

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution ui(y)

μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200

μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999390 μmolmol B Rectangular 0011

μmolmol 006909 000076

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374

μmolmol 000020 0000075

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030

μmolmol 000534 000016

Weighing premixture

CO2 1947854 g AB Normal 000224 g ‐2423572 ‐005424

N2 111850932 g AB Normal 001950 g 042206 000823

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

2586420 g AB Normal

000204 g ‐1775177 ‐003626

Ar 780100 g AB Normal 000200 g 057374 000115

O2 14028618 g AB Normal 000391 g 071611 000280

N2 43288272 g AB Normal 000915 g 081821 000749

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal

000035 gmol

109066 000382

Combined standard uncertainty 0066379

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0133

Table 8 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365707

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution

ui(y)

P a g e | 168

μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200 μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999390 μmolmol B Rectangular 0011μmolmol 006733 000076

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374 μmolmol 000035 000013

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030 μmolmol 000500 000015

Weighing premixture

CO2 2015723 g AB Normal 000223g ‐3905886 ‐008721

N2 115359704 g AB Normal 001962 g 068249 001339

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

4282195 g AB Normal

000220 g ‐1733744 ‐003823

Ar 750252 g AB Normal 000202 g 096046 000194

O2 13969676 g AB Normal 000403 g 119851 000483

N2 41448867 g AB Normal 000834 g 136969 001143

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal 000035 gmol 181777 0006362

Combined standard uncertainty

009719

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0194

Uncertainty due to weighing includes constituents related to accuracy of balance buoyancy effect resulting from change of cylinder volume during filling mass pierces used drift of balance residual gas in cylinder A5 Additional information Table 9 Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas Cylinder N 74318 Main component CO2 Mole fraction 99999345

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

N2 025 014

CO 0029 0001

CH4 0149 0002

He 05 029

H2 322 007

O2 025 014

H2O 215 011

Purity tables with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 and Ar parent gases Table 10 Purity table for N2

P a g e | 169

Monoblock Main component N2 Mole fraction 999998672

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

Ar 0916 0011

O2 00015 00009

CO2 00025 00014

H2 00025 00014

CH4 00025 00014

CO 00025 00014

H2O 040 020

Table 11 Purity table for O2 Cylinder N 910281 Main component O2 Mole fraction 999999381

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

H2 00025 00014

Ar 0181 0004

N2 0307 0012

Kr 00025 00014

CO 00075 00043

CH4 00347 00008

CO2 0081 0005

Xe 00025 00014

Table 12 Purity table for Ar Cylinder N 283162 Main component Ar Mole fraction 999998209

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

O2 00231 00013

N2 1188 0015

CH4 0015 0009

CO2 0030 0017

H2 0025 0014

CO 0010 0006

H2O 050 001

P a g e | 170

c) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures Preparation of final mixtures (СO2 in synthetic air) was carried out from pure substances in 2 stages 1-st stage ndash 3 mixtures СO2N2 ndashlevel 11 2-nd stage ndash 3x3 target mixtures СO2synthetic air All the mixtures were prepared in Luxfer cylinders (V=10 and 5 dm3) d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures CRDS analyzer was used for verification 4 measurement series were carried out within each verification procedure SD of a single measurement (reproducibility between series) was 0003 -0006 CRDS analyzer was used for verification Instrument Picarro G2401 Measurement cell temperature 45оС Measurement cell pressure 18665 kPa Data collection by ldquoPicarro Incrdquo software CRDS analyzer was used for δ13C measurements Instrument Picarro G2131i Reference materials used for calibration IAEA‐CO‐8 IAEA‐CH‐7 Measurement cell temperature 45оС Measurement cell pressure 18665 kPa Data collection by ldquoPicarro Incrdquo software e) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM The final mixtures were prepared 0310 -13102016 First verification measurement was carried out 1710 -2110 2016 Second verification measurement was carried out 2610 -28102016 Verification measurements were performed by checking consistency within the group of the 3x3 prepared mixtures uver =0003 Stability testing (short-term) did not show instability within the accuracy of the measurement method f) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

89 MPa for M365601 90 MPa for M365664 93 MPa for M365707

P a g e | 171

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQMK120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQMK120R

Project name CCQMK120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air Standards Proposed dates 092016 to 122017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 208998300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores

BIPM Chemistry Department Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg A1 General information Institute

DI Mendeleyev Institute for Metrology (VNIIM )

Address

19 Moskovsky pr St Petersburg 190005 Russia

Contact person Leonid Konopelko Telephone +7 812 315 11 45 Fax +7 812 315 15 17 Email

fhib10vniimru

P a g e | 172

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo CCQMK120a

Yes

CCQMK120b

Yes

A3 NMI submitted values Table 1 Cylinder Identification

number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction xCO2 cert μmolmol

Expanded uncertainty U(x CO2 cert) μmolmol

Coverage factor

1 M365601

38020 011 2

2 M365664

48018 013 2

3 M365707

80073 019 2

Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) Table 2 (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number M365601 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

781015 10-2 molmol 00013 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209188 10-2 molmol 00013 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09416 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000094 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Table 3 (Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number M365664 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

780928 10-2 molmol 00011 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209270 10-2 molmol 00012 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09322 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000096 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured

P a g e | 173

Table 4 (Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number M365707 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

781000 10-2 molmol 00011 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209199 10-2 molmol 00012 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09000 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000097 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Uncertainty in the tables 2-4 includes only constituents related to gravimetry (weighing and purity) Table 5 CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional) Cylinder

Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C)

CoverageFactor

δ18O U(δ18O) CoverageFactor

1 M365601 - 480 09 2 - - - 2 M365664 - 480 09 2 - - - 3 M365707 - 480 09 2 - - - A4 Uncertainty Budget Table 6 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365601

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution

ui(y) μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200 μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999381 μmolmol B Rectangular 0015 μmolmol 006733 000101

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374 μmolmol 000016 000006

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030 μmolmol 000534 000016

Weighing premixture

CO2 2015723 g AB Normal 000223g ‐1854106 ‐004140

N2 115359704 g AB Normal 001962 g 032397 000636

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

2048733 g AB Normal

000203 g ‐1791563 ‐003630

Ar 790915 g AB Normal 000200 g 045258 000091

O2 14075497 g AB Normal 000353 g 056493 000200

P a g e | 174

N2 43993136 g AB Normal 001021 g 064543 000659

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal 000035 gmol 86286 000302

Combined standard uncertainty 005596

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0112

Table 7 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365664

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution ui(y)

μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200

μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999390 μmolmol B Rectangular 0011

μmolmol 006909 000076

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374

μmolmol 000020 0000075

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030

μmolmol 000534 000016

Weighing premixture

CO2 1947854 g AB Normal 000224 g ‐2423572 ‐005424

N2 111850932 g AB Normal 001950 g 042206 000823

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

2586420 g AB Normal

000204 g ‐1775177 ‐003626

Ar 780100 g AB Normal 000200 g 057374 000115

O2 14028618 g AB Normal 000391 g 071611 000280

N2 43288272 g AB Normal 000915 g 081821 000749

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal

000035 gmol

109066 000382

Combined standard uncertainty 0066379

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0133

Table 8 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365707

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution

ui(y) μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200 μmolmol 000545 000109

P a g e | 175

Purity of O2 999999390 μmolmol B Rectangular 0011μmolmol 006733 000076

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374 μmolmol 000035 000013

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030 μmolmol 000500 000015

Weighing premixture

CO2 2015723 g AB Normal 000223g ‐3905886 ‐008721

N2 115359704 g AB Normal 001962 g 068249 001339

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

4282195 g AB Normal

000220 g ‐1733744 ‐003823

Ar 750252 g AB Normal 000202 g 096046 000194

O2 13969676 g AB Normal 000403 g 119851 000483

N2 41448867 g AB Normal 000834 g 136969 001143

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal 000035 gmol 181777 0006362

Combined standard uncertainty

009719

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0194

Uncertainty due to weighing includes constituents related to accuracy of balance buoyancy effect resulting from change of cylinder volume during filling mass pierces used drift of balance residual gas in cylinder A5 Additional information Table 9 Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas Cylinder N 74318 Main component CO2 Mole fraction 99999345

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

N2 025 014

CO 0029 0001

CH4 0149 0002

He 05 029

H2 322 007

O2 025 014

H2O 215 011

Purity tables with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 and Ar parent gases Table 10 Purity table for N2 Monoblock Main component N2 Mole fraction 999998672

P a g e | 176

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

Ar 0916 0011

O2 00015 00009

CO2 00025 00014

H2 00025 00014

CH4 00025 00014

CO 00025 00014

H2O 040 020

Table 11 Purity table for O2 Cylinder N 910281 Main component O2 Mole fraction 999999381

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

H2 00025 00014

Ar 0181 0004

N2 0307 0012

Kr 00025 00014

CO 00075 00043

CH4 00347 00008

CO2 0081 0005

Xe 00025 00014

Table 12 Purity table for Ar Cylinder N 283162 Main component Ar Mole fraction 999998209

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

O2 00231 00013

N2 1188 0015

CH4 0015 0009

CO2 0030 0017

H2 0025 0014

CO 0010 0006

H2O 050 001

c) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures

P a g e | 177

Preparation of final mixtures (СO2 in synthetic air) was carried out from pure substances in 2 stages 1-st stage ndash 3 mixtures СO2N2 ndashlevel 11 2-nd stage ndash 3x3 target mixtures СO2synthetic air All the mixtures were prepared in Luxfer cylinders (V=10 and 5 dm3) d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures CRDS analyzer was used for verification 4 measurement series were carried out within each verification procedure SD of a single measurement (reproducibility between series) was 0003 -0006 CRDS analyzer was used for verification Instrument Picarro G2401 Measurement cell temperature 45оС Measurement cell pressure 18665 kPa Data collection by ldquoPicarro Incrdquo software CRDS analyzer was used for δ13C measurements Instrument Picarro G2131i Reference materials used for calibration IAEA‐CO‐8 IAEA‐CH‐7 Measurement cell temperature 45оС Measurement cell pressure 18665 kPa Data collection by ldquoPicarro Incrdquo software e) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM The final mixtures were prepared 0310 -13102016 First verification measurement was carried out 1710 -2110 2016 Second verification measurement was carried out 2610 -28102016 Verification measurements were performed by checking consistency within the group of the 3x3 prepared mixtures uver =0003 Stability testing (short-term) did not show instability within the accuracy of the measurement method Long-term stability testing (measurements 2108-23082017 and 0910-11102017) did not show instability within the accuracy of the measurement method f) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

89 MPa for M365601 90 MPa for M365664 93 MPa for M365707

P a g e | 178

VSL

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 179

P a g e | 180

P a g e | 181

Page 4: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM

P a g e | 4

1 Rationale for comparison CCQM‐K120a comparison involves preparing standards of carbon dioxide in air which are fit for purpose for the atmospheric monitoring community with stringent requirements on matrix composition and measurement uncertainty of the CO2 mole fraction This represents an analytical challenge and is therefore considered as a Track C comparison The comparison will underpin CMC claims for CO2 in air for standards and calibrations services for the atmospheric monitoring community matrix matched to real air over the mole fraction range of 250 μmolmol to 520 μmolmol CCQM‐K120b comparison tests core skills and competencies required in gravimetric preparation analytical certification and purity analysis It is considered as a Track A comparison It will underpin CO2 in air and nitrogen claims in a mole fraction range starting at the smallest participantrsquos reported expanded uncertainty and ending at 500 mmolmol Participants successful in this comparison may use their result in the flexible scheme and underpin claims for all core mixtures This study has involved a comparison at the BIPM of a suite of 44 gas standards prepared by each of the participating laboratories Fourteen laboratories took part in both comparisons (CCQM-K120a CCQM-K120b) and just one solely in the CCQM-K120b comparison The standards were sent to the BIPM where the comparison measurements were performed Two measurement methods were used to compare the standards to ensure no measurement method dependant bias GC-FID and FTIR spectroscopic analysis corrected for isotopic variation in the CO2 gases measured at the BIPM using absorption laser spectroscopy Following the advice of the CCQM Gas Analysis Working Group results from the FTIR method were used to

calculate the key comparison reference values

2 Measurand quantities and Units The measurand is the mole fraction of carbon dioxide in air with measurement results being expressed in molmol (or one of its multiples mmolmol μmolmol or nmolmol)

3 Participants This study involved a simultaneous comparison of a suite of 44 gas standards prepared by each of the participating laboratories Fourteen laboratories took part in both comparisons (CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b BFKH GUM KRISS LNE NIM NIST NMIJ NMISA NOAA

P a g e | 5

NPL NPLI UME VNIIM and VSL) and only one solely in the CCQM-K120b comparison (INRIM)

4 Schedule The revised schedule for the project was as follows April 2016 ndash October 2016 Mixture preparation verification and stability tests by participants November 2016 ndash February 2017 Shipment of cylinders to the BIPM (to arrive by 1 of December) February 2017 ndash April 2017 Analysis of mixtures by the BIPM (details below) May 2017 ndash July 2017 Shipment of cylinders from the BIPM to participants August 2017 ndash November 2017 2nd set of analysis of mixtures by participants January 2018 Distribution of Draft A of this report May 2018 Distribution of Draft B of this report

41 Measurement order The forty four cylinders of the comparison were separated into batches and analyzed in the sequence described in Table 1 Each batch was made up of the participantsrsquo cylinders control cylinders for ratio calculations and additional cylinders for quality control The FTIR measurements were organized in fourteen batches comprised each of four participantrsquos cylinders including two control cylinders for ratio calculation and one for quality control For GC-FID measurements the cylinders were divided into nine batches Batches were composed of between four and six participantsrsquo cylinders three control cylinders (A B and C) for ratio quantification and additional cylinders if required to maintain the total batch size of nine standards Table 1 lists in detail the schedule of the GC-FID and FTIR measurements The Delta Ray measurements were organized in 12 batches containing four cylinders each and two calibration cylinders These measurements were performed during weeks 14 15 and 16

P a g e | 6

Week in 2017 Batch GC‐FID Batch FTIR measurements measurements

NIST FB04278 379045 NOAA CC310084 379500 6 GC1 VSL 5604614 378900

(6‐10 February) NPL 2179 380270 NMIJ CPC00486 386617

VNIIM M365601 380200 7 GC2 LNE 1029045 379480

(13‐17 February) KRISS D500642 378900 NIM FB03747 383430

GUM D298392 380100 BFKH OMH54 379840 8 GC3 UME PSM298266 379920

(20‐24 February) NPLI JJ108891 375720 NMISA M51 8232 380200

NIST FB04300 472662 NOAA CC305198 479260 9 GC4 VSL 5604880 480480

(27 February‐ 3 March) NPL 2170 480020 NMIJ CPC00494 471301

VNIIM M365664 480180 NIST FB04278 37904510 GC5 LNE 1029047 477600 FT‐1 NOAA CC310084 379500

(6‐10 March) KRISS D500647 480000 NPL 2179 380270

NIM FB03744 489150 NMIJ CPC00486 386617

GUM D298393 478100 FT‐2 NMIJ CPC00486 386617 BFKH OMH44 479890 VNIIM M365601 380200

11 GC6 UME PSM266468 480420 KRISS D500642 378900 (13‐17 March) NPLI JJ108862 480520 FT‐3 NIM FB03747 383430

NMISA M51 8167 479500 LNE 1029045 379480

INRIM D247440 479300

NIST FB04287 794533 FT‐4 GUM D298392 380100 NOAA CB11668 794080 NMISA M51 8232 380200

12 GC7 VSL 5604705 795700 BFKH OMH54 379840 (20‐24 March) NPL 2181 799700 FT‐5 UME PSM298266 379920

NMIJ CPC00558 803658 NPLI JJ108891 375720

VNIIM M365707 800730 NIST FB04300 472662 LNE 1029048 802200 FT‐6 NOAA CC305198 47926013 GC8 KRISS D500672 800800 VSL 5604880 480480

(27‐31 March) NIM FB03748 809820 NPL 2170 480020 GUM D298402 800500 FT‐7 NMIJ CPC00494 471301

BFKH OMH69 800300 VNIIM M365664 480180

UME PSM298347 800760 FT‐8 LNE 1029047 47760014 GC9 NPLI JJ108854 796380 KRISS D500647 480000

(3‐7 April) NMISA M51 8244 799100 NIM FB03744 489150 INRIM D247445 798900 FT‐9 GUM D298393 478100

BFKH OMH44 479890

UME PSM266468 480420 FT‐10 NPLI JJ108862 480520 NMISA M51 8167 479500 INRIM D247440 479300

NIST FB04287 79453315 FT‐11 NOAA CB11668 794080

(10‐14 April) VSL 5604705 795700

NPL 2181 799700 FT‐12 NMIJ CPC00558 803658 VNIIM M365707 800730 LNE 1029048 802200

KRISS D500672 800800 FT‐13 NIM FB03748 809820

P a g e | 7

GUM D298402 800500 BFKH OMH69 800300

UME PSM298347 80076016 FT‐14 NPLI JJ108854 796380

(17‐21 April) NMISA M51 8244 799100 INRIM D247445 798900

Table 1 Schedule of the CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b measurements

5 Measurement standards Each laboratory taking part in the CCQM-K120a comparison was requested to produce one standard at the nominal mole fraction of 380 micromolmol and another at the mole fraction 480 micromolmol For those taking part in the CCQM-K120b comparison the standards were requested at the nominal mole fractions of 480 micromolmol and 800 micromolmol The mole fraction of carbon dioxide was requested to be within plusmn 10 micromolmol of the nominal mole fractions of the cylinders The carbon dioxide was requested to be produced in a dry air matrix produced from scrubbed real air or synthetic air that has been blended from pure gases that are the main constituents of air (nitrogen oxygen argon) and two other constituents (nitrous oxide and methane)The table below describes the limits of the gas matrix composition of the scrubbed dry real air and synthetic air which were to be met by participants Species lsquoAmbientrsquo

level mole fraction

Unit Min mole fraction

Unit Max mole fraction

Unit

N2 0780876 molmol 07804 molmol 07814 molmol O2 02093335 molmol 02088 molmol 02098 molmol Ar 00093332 molmol 00089 molmol 00097 molmol CH4 1900 nmolmol 0 nmolmol 1900 nmolmol N2O 330 nmolmol 0 nmolmol 330 nmolmol Table 2 CCQM-K120a matrix composition limit values(380 micromol mol and 480 micromolmol CO2 in airdagger) daggerEach participating laboratory was required to submit two standards one with nominal CO2 mole fraction of (370 to 390) micromolmol and the second with (470 to 490) micromolmol Species lsquoAmbientrsquo

level mole fraction

Unit Min mole fraction

Unit Max mole fraction

Unit

N2 0780876 molmol 07789 molmol 07829 molmol O2 02093335 molmol 02073 molmol 02113 molmol Ar 00093332 molmol 00078 molmol 00108 molmol CH4 1900 nmolmol 0 nmolmol 1900 nmolmol N2O 330 nmolmol 0 nmolmol 330 nmolmol

Table 3 CCQM-K120b matrix composition limits values(480 micromol mol and 800 micromolmol CO2 in airDagger)DaggerEach participating laboratory was required to submit two standards one with nominal CO2 mole fraction of (470 to 490) micromolmol and the second with (790 to 810) micromolmol (A laboratory participating in both CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b need only submit 3 standards in total)

P a g e | 8

Aditionally the following information was requested from each participant

In the case of standards produced with synthetic air

- a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas - a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar N2O and CH4 parent

gas - a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures - a purity table for each of the final mixtures including gravimetric uncertainties - a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures - a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared

and the time they are shipped to the BIPM

In the case of standards produced with scrubbed lsquorealrsquo air

- a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas - results of the analysis and mole fractions and uncertainties of N2 O2 Ar N2O and CH4 in

the scrubbed real air - a brief outline of the preparation procedure of the final mixtures - a composition table for each of the final mixtures including gravimetric uncertainties

when relevant - a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures - a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared

and the time they are shipped to the BIPM

6 Preparation values submitted and stability measurements by participants

Information on mixtures submitted by participating laboratories via the comparison submission forms on initial submission and after stability testing of cylinders is included in ANNEX V The CO2 mole fractions submitted by participants are listed in Table 5 where

xNMI is the value assigned by the participating NMIs

U(xNMI) is the expanded uncertainty including contributions from verification associated with the assigned value xNMI The comparison protocol permitted stability testing to be performed by laboratories after standards had been returned to them by the BIPM and before the comparison results were known As a result three laboratories provided new values and uncertainties namely NIST NPLI and BFKH In addition UME modified the uncertainty budget only and resubmitted this to the comparison organizers This subject was discussed during the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018) and it was agreed that only the uncertainties resubmitted by UME (Table 15) will replace the original uncertainties NIST NPLI BFKH resubmitted values and

P a g e | 9

uncertainties will only be reported in an annex (see ANNEX II- ) (Table 15) with no influence on the KCRV and the degree of equivalence (DOE) of the comparison Figure 1 plots the CO2 mole fraction reported by the participants for each gas standard In this figure the error bars represent the standard uncertainty associated with the reported value It can be observed that participants prepared all mixtures with a CO2 mole fraction within 10 micromol mol-1 of the nominal values as requested At 380 micromolmol NPLI submitted the mixture with the smallest CO2 mole fraction 37572plusmn322 micromolmol and NIMJ with the highest 38662plusmn005 micromolmol At 480 micromolmol NIMJ produced the lowest mole fraction 47130plusmn005 micromolmol and NIM the highest 48915plusmn022 micromolmol At 800 micromolmol NOAA produced the lowest mole fraction 79408plusmn048 micromolmol and NIM the highest 80982plusmn026 micromolmol The expanded uncertainties reported by the participants are plotted in Figure 2 Regarding the gas matrix composition thirty-five standards were produced in synthetic air and nine in purified (scrubbed) real air (see Table 5) The compositions of the mixtures reported by participants are listed in Table 6 Seven standards out of forty-four mixtures were not within specifications (gas mixture composition) as requested in the comparison protocol1

7 Measurements at the BIPM

On receipt by the BIPM all cylinders were allowed to equilibrate at laboratory temperature for at least 24 hours All cylinders were rolled for at least 1 hour to ensure homogeneity of the mixture

Cylinders were analysed in batches of n cylinders first by GC-FID then by FTIR and finally by the Delta Ray

For FTIR measurements each batch contained 4 cylinders from participants and 2 controls (at nominal mole fractions of 480 and 800 micromolmol) Each cylinder was connected from the pressure reducer to one inlet of a 32-inlet automatic gas sampler The procedure before starting measurements was identical as described below for GC-FID The reported value is the drift corrected ratio between the FTIR response and one control cylinder (at ~ 800 micromol mol-1) with a further correction required to take into account the isotopic composition of each mixtures Due to depletion of the control cylinder at nominally 480 micromolmol before completion of all measurements only ratios against the 800 micromolmol cylinder could be calculated for all standards Further details regarding the FTIR measurements are described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure FTIR

1 This nominal fraction limits were given in order to avoid possible biases that could be introduced into the spectroscopic comparison method (FTIR) due to variation in the composition of the air matrix in different standards For those standards that did not meet the tolerances specified in the protocol the BIPM included an additional uncertainty component in its FTIR analytical uncertainty to account for the impact of this

P a g e | 10

When the cylinders were analysed by GC-FID batches were composed of between four and six participantsrsquo cylinders three control cylinders (A B and C at nominal mole fractions of 380 480 and 800 micromolmol respectively) for ratio quantification and additional cylinders if required to maintain the total batch size of nine standards Each cylinder was connected from the pressure reducer to one inlet of a 16-inlet automatic gas sampler The sampler was connected to a gas chromatograph (GC-FID) The pressure reducer of each cylinder was flushed nine times with the mixture The cylinder valve was then closed leaving the high pressure side of the pressure reducer at the cylinder pressure and the low pressure side of the pressure reducer at ~300 kPa (abs) The cylinders were left stand at least 24 hours to allow conditioning of the pressure reducers The reported value was the drift corrected ratio between the GC-FID response and one control cylinder (at ~ 480 micromol mol-1) These measurements were performed under intermediate precision conditions (over ten weeks) Ratios against the other control cylinders were calculated but no substantial difference was observed with the ratio against the control cylinder at 480 micromolmol Further details regarding GC-FID measurements are described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure GC-FID

When the cylinders were analyzed by the Delta Ray each batch contained 4 cylinders from participants and 2 calibration standards Each cylinder was connected from the pressure reducer to one inlet of a 16-inlet automatic gas sampler The same procedure was again applied for flushing the gas lines Further details are described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure Delta Ray

The measurements performed by the Delta Ray analyser were only used to measure the isotopic ratios in each cylinder and further correct the FTIR responses due isotopic differences between the control cylinders and the samples as described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure FTIR In this manner the FTIR reported values for each cylinder were corrected for the isotopic composition and further ratioed to the response to a control cylinder (also corrected for the isotopic composition)

71 Measurements results

Measurements were performed at the BIPM from February to April 2017 Table 7 lists the inlet pressure before and after the standards were analyzed by the BIPM

Each cylinder was value assigned using the methods described in section 7 (details in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure)

Results of these series of measurements are listed in Table 8 where

FTR is the (mean) ratio between the FTIR response to the mixture under analysis and the control cylinder both corrected for the isotopic composition

FTRu is the standard uncertainty of the reported ratio based on FTIR measurements

(described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure FTIR)

wGCR is the reported value based on GC-FID measurements

P a g e | 11

GCRu the standard uncertainty of the reported value based on GC-FID (described in

ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure GC-FID) The δ13C and δ18O measurements on the VPDB-CO2 scale performed by Delta Ray are listed in Table 11 The typical uncertainties for each of the methods used by the BIPM are listed in Table 4

Comparison method name

Measurement quantity Symbol unit Typical relative

standard uncertainty ()

FTIR Ratio to control cylinder under intermediate precision condition FTR 1 0009

GC-FID Ratio to control cylinder under intermediate precision conditions wGCR 1 0007

Table 4 Comparison methods used during the CCQM-K120 international comparison and typical uncertainties obtained by the BIPM

Participant Cylinder references Gas Matrix

NMIrsquos assigned CO2 mole fraction xNMI

(micromol mol-1)

NMIrsquos assigned CO2

expanded uncertainty U(xNMI)

k = 2 (micromol mol-1)

Before the return of cylinders

BFKH OMH54 Synthetic Air 379840 1710

BFKH OMH44 Synthetic Air 479890 2110

BFKH OMH69 Synthetic Air 800300 2920

GUM D298392 Synthetic Air 380100 4400

GUM D298393 Synthetic Air 478100 5200

GUM D298402 Synthetic Air 800500 8600

INRIM D247440 Synthetic Air 479300 1600

INRIM D247445 Synthetic Air 798900 2600

KRISS D500642 Synthetic Air 378900 0200

KRISS D500647 Synthetic Air 480000 0200

KRISS D500672 Synthetic Air 800800 0400

LNE 1029045 Synthetic Air 379480 0790

LNE 1029047 Synthetic Air 477600 1000

LNE 1029048 Synthetic Air 802200 1700

NIM FB03747 Synthetic Air 383430 0200

NIM FB03744 Synthetic Air 489150 0220

NIM FB03748 Synthetic Air 809820 0260

NIST FB04278 Real Air 379045 0391

NIST FB04300 Real Air 472662 0428

NIST FB04287 Real Air 794533 1029

NMIJ CPC00486 Real Air 386617 0050

P a g e | 12

NMIJ CPC00494 Real Air 471301 0051

NMIJ CPC00558 Real Air 803658 0078

NMISA M51 8232 Synthetic Air 380200 2000

NMISA M51 8167 Synthetic Air 479500 1600

NMISA M51 8244 Synthetic Air 799100 1000

NOAA CC310084 Real Air 379500 0210

NOAA CC305198 Real Air 479260 0260

NOAA CB11668 Real Air 794080 0480

NPL 2179 Synthetic Air 380270 0190

NPL 2170 Synthetic Air 480020 0240

NPL 2181 Synthetic Air 799700 0400

NPLI JJ108891 Synthetic Air 375720 3220

NPLI JJ108862 Synthetic Air 480520 3040

NPLI JJ108854 Synthetic Air 796380 5030

UME PSM298266 Synthetic Air 379920 0190

UME PSM266468 Synthetic Air 480420 0250

UME PSM298347 Synthetic Air 800760 0360

VNIIM M365601 Synthetic Air 380200 0110

VNIIM M365664 Synthetic Air 480180 0130

VNIIM M365707 Synthetic Air 800730 0190

VSL 5604614 Synthetic Air 378900 0280

VSL 5604880 Synthetic Air 480480 0360

VSL 5604705 Synthetic Air 795700 0600

Table 5 Standards and reported values provided by participants Re-submitted values following stability testing which were included following the decision of the CCQM GAWG see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of

the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

Figure 1 CO2 mole fractions xNMI reported by participants The error bars represents the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the submitted values

GUM KRISS LNE NIM NMIJ NMISA NOAA NPL VNIIM VSL BFKH NIST NPLI UME374

376

378

380

382

384

386

GUM INRIM KRISS LNE NIM NMIJ NMISA NOAA NPL VNIIM VSL BFKH NIST NPLI UME460

465

470

475

480

485

490GUM INRIM KRISS LNE NMIJ NOAA NPL VNIIM VSL NIM NMISA BFKH NIST NPLI UME

792

796

800

804

808

812

x NM

I (

mol

mol

-1)

P a g e | 14

Figure 2 Participantsrsquo assigned CO2 expanded uncertainties U(xNMI)

NM

IJ

NM

IJ

NM

IJ

VN

IIM

VN

IIM

UM

E

UM

E

NP

L

VN

IIM

KR

ISS

KR

ISS

NIM

NO

AA

NIM

NP

L

NIM

NO

AA

UM

E

VS

L

VS

L

NIS

T

KR

ISS

NP

L

NIS

T

NO

AA

VS

L

LNE

LNE

NM

ISA

NIS

T

INR

IM

NM

ISA

BF

KH

LNE

NM

ISA

BF

KH

INR

IM

BF

KH

NP

LI

NP

LI

GU

M

NP

LI

GU

M

GU

M

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9U

(xN

MI)

m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 15

Participant Number of Cylinder

NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos

assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned

N2 expanded

uncertainty O2

expanded uncertainty

Ar expanded

uncertainty CH4 mole fraction

expanded uncertainty

N2O mole fraction

expanded uncertainty

mole fraction

k =2 mole fraction k=2 mole fraction k =2 k=2 k=2

xN2 U(xN2) xO2 U(xO2) xAr U(xAr) xNMI U(xNMI) xNMI U(xNMI)

(molmol) (molmol) (molmol) (molmol) (molmol) (molmol) (nmolmol) (nmolmol) (nmolmol) (nmolmol)

BFKH OMH54 0780390 0000160 0209615 0000048 0009607 0000017 1030 1200

BFKH OMH44 0780640 0000160 0209514 0000048 0009360 0000017 1030 1200

BFKH OMH69 0780720 0000160 0209161 0000048 0009314 0000017 1030 1200

GUM D298392 0780800 0000200 0209500 0000100 0009250 0000010

GUM D298393 0780700 0000200 0209600 0000100 0009190 0000010

GUM D298402 0780200 0000200 0209700 0000100 0009380 0000010

INRIM D247440 0781132 0000006 0209063 0000006 0009326 0000004

INRIM D247445 0782389 0000006 0207553 0000005 0009259 0000004

KRISS D500642 0781139 0000005 0209256 0000004 0009226 0000001 9 2 0200 0000

KRISS D500647 0780915 0000004 0209152 0000004 0009452 0000001 10 3 0200 0000

KRISS D500672 0780407 0000004 0209452 0000004 0009339 0000001 15 3 0200 0000

LNE 1029045 0780686 0000025 0209528 0000019 0009407 0000022

LNE 1029047 0781355 0000025 0208794 0000018 0009374 0000022

LNE 1029048 0782710 0000027 0207187 0000021 0009301 0000021

NIM FB03747 0782000 0000029 0209000 0000028 0009220 0000010 1 0 0791 0607

NIM FB03744 0781000 0000028 0210000 0000026 0009040 0000010 1 0 0790 0601

NIM FB03748 0781000 0000027 0210000 0000026 0007940 0000010 1 0 0790 0586

NIST FB04278 0780812 0000118 0209470 0000710 0009339 0000370

NIST FB04300 0780771 0000128 0209422 0000081 0009334 0000034

P a g e | 16

NIST FB04287 0780499 0000114 0209370 0000067 0009336 0000040

NMIJ CPC00486 0780915 0000025 0209365 0000007 0009334 0000024 2 2 0900 0900

NMIJ CPC00494 0780937 0000024 0209259 0000007 0009333 0000024 3 2 0900 0900

NMIJ CPC00558 0780602 0000022 0209270 0000006 0009325 0000021 3 2 0900 0900

NMISA M51 8232 0780700 0000048 0209600 0000015 0009400 0000005 7 4 0000 0000

NMISA M51 8167 0780900 0000028 0209600 0000011 0008900 0000005 9 6 0000 0000

NMISA M51 8244 0779300 0000031 0210600 0000016 0009300 0000005 10 6 0000 0000

NOAA CC310084 0209500 0000200 1762 3 317200 0500

NOAA CC305198 0209500 0000200 1887 4 328600 0500

NOAA CB11668 0209500 0000200 1889 4 328800 0500

NPL 2179 0780790 0000470 0209600 0000130 0009232 0000018 lt10 - lt10 0000

NPL 2170 0780690 0780690 0209500 0209500 0009334 0009334 lt10 - lt10 0000

NPL 2181 0780550 0000470 0209280 0000130 0009367 0000019 lt10 - lt10 0000

NPLI JJ108891 0781273 0002210 0209688 0000590 0009040 0000030

NPLI JJ108862 0781989 0002210 0208853 0000590 0009158 0000030

NPLI JJ108854 0781363 0002210 0209789 0000594 0008847 0000030

UME PSM298266 0780339 0000017 0209966 0000017 0009314 0000002

UME PSM266468 0779968 0000017 0210229 0000017 0009322 0000002

UME PSM298347 0779552 0000016 0210352 0000016 0009295 0000002

VNIIM M365601 0781015 0000013 0209188 0000013 0009416 0000005 9 2

VNIIM M365664 0780928 0000011 0209270 0000012 0009322 0000005 10 2

VNIIM M365707 0781000 0000011 0209199 0000012 0009000 0000005 10 2

VSL 5604614 0781177 0000017 0209152 0000016 0009292 0000006 16 7 0021 0024

VSL 5604880 0781092 0000017 0209146 0000016 0009281 0000006 16 7 0021 0024

VSL 5604705 0780708 0000017 0209246 0000015 0009251 0000006 16 7 0021 0024

Table 6 Matrix composition of the submitted gas mixtures according to participantsrsquo reports in ANNEX V Synthetic Air is identified as S A and Purified real air as R A No data given

P a g e | 17

Number Date of pressure on pressure on Number Date of pressure on pressure on

Lab of Cylinder arrival arrival departure Lab of Cylinder arrival arrival departure

Mpa Mpa Mpa Mpa

BFKH OMH54 1292016 995 776 NMISA M51 8232 19122016 1297 952

BFKH OMH44 1292016 959 784 NMISA M51 8167 19122016 96 709

BFKH OMH69 1292016 984 755 NMISA M51 8244 19122016 1061 572

GUM D298392 28092016 1446 1103 NOAA CC310084 322017 1348 1282

GUM D298393 28092016 1523 116 NOAA CC305198 322017 1342 1284

GUM D298402 28092016 1505 108 NOAA CB11668 322017 1194 1138

INRIM D247440 13012017 897 534 NPL 2179 9122016 1046 855

INRIM D247445 13012017 922 544 NPL 2170 9122016 1119 94

KRISS D500642 20122016 927 739 NPL 2181 9122016 1112 935

KRISS D500647 20122016 884 711 NPLI JJ108891 922017 10 836

KRISS D500672 20122016 905 703 NPLI JJ108862 922017 105 897

LNE 1029045 28112016 1311 1113 NPLI JJ108854 922017 982 811

LNE 1029047 28112016 1287 1113 UME PSM298266 23112016 903 582

LNE 1029048 28112016 1322 1141 UME PSM266468 23112016 908 546

NIM FB03747 14122016 82 527 UME PSM298347 23112016 918 542

NIM FB03744 14122016 865 593 VNIIM M365601 512017 84 43

NIM FB03748 14122016 802 473 VNIIM M365664 512017 866 537

NIST FB04278 312017 1003 725 VNIIM M365707 512017 853 527

NIST FB04300 312017 1023 746 VSL 5604614 15112016 1049 634

NIST FB04287 312017 1005 721 VSL 5604880 15112016 1012 68

NMIJ CPC00486 922017 957 753 VSL 5604705 15112016 1045 707

NMIJ CPC00494 922017 928 752

NMIJ CPC00558 922017 84 677

Table 7 Pressure of the gas standards on arrival and departure from the BIPM

P a g e | 18

xNMI u(xNMI)

FTR

FTRu

wGCR

GCRu

Participant

Number of Cylinder

Assigned NMIrsquos CO2 mole

fraction in

(micromolmol)

Assigned NMIrsquos

Standard uncertainty

(k=1) (micromolmol)

FTIR (Under intermediate precision conditions)

Ratio to control

cylinder

Standard uncertainty in the Ratio to

control cylinder

GC-FID

(Under intermediate precision conditions)

Ratio to control

cylinder

Standard uncertainty in the Ratio to control

cylinder

BFKH OMH54 379800 0855 0435893607 0000026077 0787699648 0000056828 BFKH OMH44 479900 1055 0539981600 0000030887 0976036480 0000059163

BFKH OMH69 800300 1460 0930134790 0000079551 1681896740 0000095864

GUM D298392 380100 2200 0441372447 0000014142 0797442344 0000052495

GUM D298393 478100 2600 0555225000 0000027459 1003704868 0000094363

GUM D298402 800500 4300 0929933927 0000085245 1681786329 0000104750

INRIM D247440 479300 0800 0556774608 0000200000 1006168965 0000071077

INRIM D247445 798900 1300 0927989884 0000059393 1677871699 0000087418

KRISS D500642 378900 0100 0440414238 0000026926 0795445471 0000074696

KRISS D500647 480000 0100 0557780245 0000035341 1008228786 0000056189

KRISS D500672 800800 0200 0930402740 0000108930 1682410057 0000106300

LNE 1029045 379480 0395 0440901535 0000025239 0796419628 0000056088

LNE 1029047 477600 0500 0554855777 0000046174 1002959828 0000101902

LNE 1029048 802200 0850 0932191570 0000046232 1685756190 0000102865

NIM FB03747 383430 0100 0445715112 0000021260 0804945901 0000057626

NIM FB03744 489150 0110 0568919872 0000044283 1028323070 0000061887

NIM FB03748 809820 0130 0941620390 0000127224 1702705250 0000084949

NIST FB04278 379045 0195 0441858957 0000014036 0798159371 0000076697

NIST FB04300 472662 0214 0550247743 0000021932 0994649947 0000056864

NIST FB04287 794530 0514 0924730373 0000047693 1672406610 0000052361

NMIJ CPC00486 386617 0025 0449318716 0000022804 0811714164 0000057115

NMIJ CPC00494 471301 0026 0547653232 0000049336 0989730987 0000128859

NMIJ CPC00558 803658 0039 0933998556 0000062657 1689072068 0000061122

NMISA M51 8232 380200 1000 0441463446 0000030414 0797746449 0000071374

NMISA M51 8167 479500 0800 0556816358 0000063789 1006620384 0000139031

NMISA M51 8244 799100 0500 0927761085 0000058032 1678197948 0000120968

NOAA CC310084 379500 0105 0441196927 0000016125 0796836602 0000097427

NOAA CC305198 479260 0130 0557198873 0000046487 1007173065 0000061590

NOAA CB11668 794080 0240 0923707672 0000052071 1670538345 0000102943

NPL 2179 380270 0095 0442066316 0000015232 0798660385 0000055036

NPL 2170 480020 0120 0557939086 0000029155 1008480431 0000075981

NPL 2181 799700 0200 0929525453 0000066014 1680929399 0000081883

NPLI JJ108891 375720 1610 0435541280 0000044283 0786899117 0000051131

NPLI JJ108862 480520 1520 0558985244 0000078492 1010295612 0000070031

NPLI JJ108854 796380 2515 0923587308 0000048435 1670046415 0000092977

UME PSM298266 37992 0095 0441777548 0000066603 0798242598 0000076656

UME PSM266468 48042 0125 0558597569 0000077666 1009847197 0000062025

UME PSM298347 800760 0180 0930853610 0000059811 1683852629 0000186416

P a g e | 19

Table 8 Results of BIPM CO2 comparison measurements Re-submitted values following stability testing which were included following the decision of the CCQM GAWG (see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the

CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018))

72 Graphical representation of measurement results

Table 9 summarizes the figures showing the measurements results obtained by different methods at the BIPM

Table 9 List of figures corresponding to results obtained from FTIR and GC-FID at the BIPM

VNIIM M365601 380200 0055 0441966430 0000016643 0798479627 0000066343

VNIIM M365664 480180 0065 0558130273 0000048384 1008861333 0000059090

VNIIM M365707 800730 0095 0930604477 0000058131 1683192751 0000075295

VSL 5604614 378900 0140 0440539300 0000017205 0795901702 0000077266

VSL 5604880 480480 0180 0558580000 0000018028 1009802467 0000054009

VSL 5604705 795700 0300 0925375760 0000052705 1673272267 0000122172

Comparison method

CO2 mole fraction Plot

FTIR ( Ratio to control cylinder under intermediate precision conditions) 380 micromolmol Figure 3 480 micromolmol Figure 4 800 micromolmol Figure 5 GC-FID (Ratio to control cylinder under intermediate precision conditions)

380 micromolmol Figure 6 480 micromolmol Figure 7 800 micromolmol Figure 8

P a g e | 20

FTIR

Figure 3 FTIR ratios to control standard for the cylinders at nominally 380 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

374 376 378 380 382 384 386 3880434

0436

0438

0440

0442

0444

0446

0448

0450

GUM

KRISS

LNE

NIM

NMIJ

NMISANOAA

NPLVNIIM

VSL

BFKH

NIST

NPLI

UMERFT

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 21

Figure 4 FTIR ratios to control standard for the cylinders at nominally 480 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

460 465 470 475 480 485 490

0540

0545

0550

0555

0560

0565

0570

GUM

INRIM

KRISS

LNE

NIM

NMIJ

NMISANOAA

NPLVNIIMVSL

BFKH

NIST

NPLIUME

RFT

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 22

Figure 5 FTIR ratios to control standard for the cylinders at 800 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

792 794 796 798 800 802 804 806 808 810 8120922

0924

0926

0928

0930

0932

0934

0936

0938

0940

0942

0944

GUM

INRIM

KRISS

LNE

NMIJ

NOAA

NPL

VNIIM

VSL

NIM

NMISA

BFKH

NIST

NPLI

UME

RFT

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 23

GC-FID

Figure 6 GC-FID ratios to control standard for the cylinders at nominally 380 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

374 376 378 380 382 384 386 388

0785

0790

0795

0800

0805

0810

0815

KRISSVSL

LNENOAA

GUMNMISA

VNIIMNPL

NIM

NMIJ

BFKH

NIST

NPLI

UME

RG

C

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 24

Figure 7 GC-FID ratios to control standard for the cylinders at 480 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

460 465 470 475 480 485 490097

098

099

100

101

102

103

NMIJ

LNEGUM

NOAAINRIMNMISA

KRISSNPLVNIIMVSL

NIM

BFKH

NIST

NPLIUME

RG

C

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 25

Figure 8 GC-FID ratios to control standard for the cylinders at 800 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

792 794 796 798 800 802 804 806 808 810 8121665

1670

1675

1680

1685

1690

1695

1700

1705

NOAA

VSL

INRIMNMISA

NPLGUM

VNIIM

LNE

NMIJ

KRISS

NIM

BFKH

NIST

NPLI

UMERG

C

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 26

73 Isotope ratios of CCQM-K120 standards The δ13C and δ18O values reported by participants are listed in Table 10 The delta values of the complete set of cylinders on the VPDB-CO2 scale were also measured by the BIPM using the Delta Ray analyser to correct the FTIR response The measured isotope ratio values are listed Table 11 The method for measuring and calibrating the Delta Ray is fully described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure Delta Ray The method used by the BIPM for measuring isotope ratios is described in a recent publication5 and was validated with CO2 in air standards that had been value assigned for their isotopic composition by the WMO-CCL laboratory for isotope ratios MPI-BGC Jena with traceability of the standards used to the VPDB-CO2 scale realized with the JENA air standards reference set The measurements made by the BIPM have been used for all corrections made in the FTIR comparison method and were considered fit for purpose noting that a 1 permil difference in δ13C measurements can lead to a bias of 0004 micromolmol in CO2 mole fraction measurements in instruments based on a spectroscopic technique and similarly a 0002 micromolmol bias from a 1 permil difference in δ18O measurements Reported values for isotopic composition by participants were for information only The agreement between reported values and BIPM measured values is variable For δ13C values the difference between BIPM measured values and those reported by participants was smaller than 04 permil for NMIJ NPL and NOAA smaller than 2 permil for UME and VNIIM and almost 12 permil for NIST (noting that the NIST reported at the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG that this had been a typographical error on their part and the NIST and BIPM values were actually in full agreement) For δ18O values the difference between BIPM measured values and those reported by participants is smaller than 3 permil for NMIJ and NOAA and almost 10 permil for NPL The compatibility of CO2 isotope ratio measurements will be the focus of a future CCQM GAWG comparison enabling sources for differences to be studied in greater detail

Lab Number of Cylinder

δ13C on VPDB-CO2 scale

u(δ13C) Standard uncertainty (k=1)

δ18O on VPDB-CO2 scale

u(δ18O) Standard uncertainty (k=1) Comments

(permil) (permil) (permil) (permil)

NIST FB04278 -28 2 - -

NIST FB04300 -28 2 - -

NIST FB04287 -28 2 - -

NMIJ 3BIS85282 -892 - -991 - CO2 pure

NOAA CC310084 -87 02 -03 02

NOAA CC305198 -88 02 -64 02

NOAA CB11668 -85 04 -197 04

NPL 2179 -55 05 -225 05

NPL 2170 -55 05 -225 05

NPL 2181 -55 05 -225 05

UME PSM298266 -165 005 - - CO2 pure

VNIIM M365601 -48 045 - -

VNIIM M365664 -48 045 - -

VNIIM M365707 -48 045 - -

Table 10 δ13C and δ18

O values reported by participants value measured by the gas supplier according to the participant

P a g e | 27

Lab

Number of Cylinder

δ13C on VPDB-

CO2 scale

u(δ13C) Standard

uncertainty (k=1)

δ18O on VPDB-

CO2 scale

u(δ18O) Standard

uncertainty (k=1) Lab

Number of Cylinder

δ13C on VPDB-

CO2 scale

u(δ13C) Standard

uncertainty (k=1)

δ18O on VPDB-

CO2 scale

u(δ18O) Standard

uncertainty (k=1)

(permil) (permil) (permil) (permil) NMIJ CPC00558 -897 018 -1166 048

BFKH OMH54 -6676 018 -1723 048 NMISA M51 8232 -321 018 -2661 048

BFKH OMH44 -6653 018 -1734 048 NMISA M51 8167 -3209 018 -2655 048

BFKH OMH69 -6691 018 -2615 048 NMISA M51 8244 -3189 018 -2646 048

GUM D298392 -4431 018 -2877 048 NOAA CC310084 -886 018 -032 048

GUM D298393 -4432 018 -2865 048 NOAA CC305198 -891 018 -906 048

GUM D298402 -4418 018 -2847 048 NOAA CB11668 -888 018 -2128 048

INRIM D247440 -4927 018 -3436 048 NPL 2179 -522 018 -3231 048

INRIM D247445 -4952 018 -3449 048 NPL 2170 -521 018 -317 048

KRISS D500642 -2338 018 -1749 048 NPL 2181 -525 018 -3174 048

KRISS D500647 -2341 018 -1903 048 NPLI JJ108891 -887 018 -1087 048

KRISS D500672 -2334 018 -1884 048 NPLI JJ108862 -917 018 -1131 048

LNE 1029045 -3781 018 -2861 048 NPLI JJ108854 -915 018 -1149 048

LNE 1029047 -3786 018 -2775 048 UME PSM298266 -007 018 -2481 048

LNE 1029048 -3811 018 -2804 048 UME PSM266468 -005 018 -2453 048

NIM FB03747 -2055 018 -3007 048 UME PSM298347 016 018 -2446 048

NIM FB03744 -2052 018 -2978 048 VNIIM M365601 -4643 018 -2661 048

NIM FB03748 -2062 018 -2995 048 VNIIM M365664 -4635 018 -2584 048

NIST FB04278 -3983 018 -3092 048 VNIIM M365707 -4647 018 -2594 048

NIST FB04300 -3985 018 -3048 048 VSL 5604614 -3957 018 -3288 048

NIST FB04287 -3983 018 -3053 048 VSL 5604880 -3969 018 -3224 048

NMIJ CPC00486 -891 018 -987 048 VSL 5604705 -3574 018 -3064 048

NMIJ CPC00494 -903 018 -1184 048

Table 11 δ13C and δ18O value assignment vs VPDB-CO2 for each CO2 in air standard

P a g e | 28

In the case of the CCQM-K120a comparison it should be noted that the isotopic composition of CO2 at background levels in the atmosphere would be expected to have values close to the nominal values of -85 permil for δ13C and of 0 permil for δ18O when expressed on the VPDB-CO2 scale The standards submitted for the CCQM-K120a comparison had δ13C values that varied between -67 permil to 0 permil and δ18O values that varied between -35 permil to 0 permil This range of isotopic composition could result in measurement biases of up to 03 micromolmol in spectroscopic instruments for which isotopic composition had not been taken into account

8 Key Comparison Reference Value (KCRV)

During the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG it was agreed that the key comparison

reference values for CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b were to be calculated using

the measurement results of the FTIR spectrometer

Several statistical approaches all based on least-square regressions of measurement results obtained at the same nominal mole fraction were presented during 38th meeting of the

CCQM GAWG (GAWG18-32 ) From this analysis it was agreed to fit the FTIR results versus the participantrsquos submitted values with a line using the

Generalised Least Square approach defined in the standard ISO 614320019 (Gas analysis ndash Comparison methods for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures) It was also agreed to select the largest subset of cylinders

contributing to the regression line so as to obtain a consistent set with

regard to the regression ie a set that allows the goodness-of-fit parameter

to be less than 2 The measure of goodness-of-fit is defined as the

maximum value of the weighted differences between the coordinates of measured

and adjusted points (both on the x and the y axes) For all regressions the normalized sum of the squared weighted deviations where n is the number of points and p = 2 the number of parameters of the fit is also

provided for indication Both values are expected to be lower than 2 with the

condition on being stricter as it imposes all points to comply with the

fit

Notation The degree of equivalence is defined as

D = (1)

where

P a g e | 29

xKCRV is the amount of substance fraction in the cylinder predicted by the linear analysis function for the corresponding analyzer response (ratio to the control cylinder by FTIR)

u(xKCRV) is the standard uncertainty of the KCRV value

xNMI is the amount of substance fraction reported by the participating laboratory u(xNMI) is the standard uncertainty associated with the reported value xNMI

D is difference in amount of substance fraction as measured by the laboratory and

the reference value x and u(D) is the standard uncertainty of this difference expressed as

= (2)

and the expanded uncertainty at 95 confidence level )()( DukDU (3) where k denotes the coverage factor taken as k = 2 (normal distribution approximately 95 level of confidence)

81 Degrees of equivalence and graph of equivalence The analysis of the data from the comparison was performed following the process outlined in ISO 61432001 The regression analysis was performed with XLGenlinev11 a computer programme developed by NPL which implements this methodology by taking into consideration uncertainties in both axes During the 38th meeting of the GAWG it was decided that due the potential adsorption of a proportion of CO2 molecules onto the internal surface of a cylinder and valve (that can cause a deviation from the gravimetric amount fraction by as much as 100 nmol mol-1 demonstrated by Brewer et al2 ) a lower limit for uncertainties that could be used in the calculation of the KCRV was to be fixed It was decided that any standard uncertainty value lower than 0095 micromol mol-1 submitted by a participant was to be replaced by this value for the calculation of the KCRV The limit value was chosen based on the lowest uncertainty that had been reported by a participant for which adsorption effects had been considered (in this case NPL with cylinder 2179) In this manner the original uncertainties for the KCRV calculation of standards CPC00486 (NMIJ

P a g e | 30

original uncertainty 0025 micromol mol-1) CPC00494 (NMIJ original uncertainty 0025 micromol mol-

1) CPC00558 (NMIJ original uncertainty 0039 micromol mol-1) 00255 M365601 (VNIIM original uncertainty 0055 micromol mol-1) and M365664 (VNIIM original uncertainty 0065 micromol mol-1) were replaced by 0095 micromol mol-1 This cutoff was only applied to calculate the KCRVs The degree of equivalences were calculated using the uncertainties submitted by participants (equation 1)

KCRV calculations for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 With the FTIR measurement data set the set of self-consistent standards identified included eleven standards Three standards were excluded namely OMH54 (BFKH) FB04278 (NIST) and JJ108891 (NPLI) as these laboratories had reported changes in their reported values following stability testing The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 074 and the normalized sum of the squared weighted deviations 11 2 0227 Key comparison reference values and degrees of equivalence are listed in Table 12 Degrees of equivalence are plotted in Figure 9

KCRV calculations for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 With the FTIR measurement data set the set of self-consistent standards identified included twelve standards Three standards were excluded namely OMH44 (BFKH) FB03744 (NIST) and JJ108862 (NPLI) as these laboratories had reported changes in their reported values following stability testing The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 136 and the normalized sum of the squared weighted deviations 12 2 0463 The resulting key comparison reference values and degrees of equivalence are listed in Table 13 Degrees of equivalence are plotted in Figure 10

KCRV calculations for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1

Several statistical approaches were presented during the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (GAWG18-32 see ANNEX II- ) comprising different alternatives of sets of self-consistent standards From those the GAWG selected a solution where the two extreme mole fractions at this nominal mole fraction FB03748 (NIM 810424 micromol mol-1) and CB11668 (NOAA 794608 micromol mol-1) were removed from the set of self-consistent standards The solution involved then including ten cylinders for KCRV calculations Five were excluded namely FB03748 (NIM) CB11668 (NOAA) OMH69 (BFKH) FB04287 (NIST) and JJ108854 (NPLI) The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 180 and the normalized sum of the squared weighted deviations 10 2 0950 Key

P a g e | 31

comparison reference values and degrees of equivalence are listed in Table 14 Degrees of equivalence are plotted in Figure 11

Participant Cylinder

xKCRV u(xKCRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D1( xNMI- xKCRV ) u(D1) U( D1)

( XLGENLINE predictied

value from FTIR)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298392 379664 0044 380100 2200 0436 2200 4401

KRISS D500642 378828 0055 378900 0100 0072 0114 0228

LNE 1029045 379253 0051 379480 0395 0227 0398 0796

NIM FB03747 383453 0052 383430 0100 -0023 0113 0226

NMIJ CPC00486 386597 0088 386617 0025 0020 0091 0182

NMISA M51 8232 379743 0050 380200 1000 0457 1001 2002

NOAA CC310084 379511 0046 379500 0105 -0011 0115 0229

NPL 2179 380269 0041 380270 0095 0001 0103 0207

VNIIM M365601 380182 0042 380200 0055 0018 0069 0138

VSL 5604614 378937 0051 378900 0140 -0037 0149 0298

UME PSM298266 380017 0071 379920 0095 -0097 0118 0237

BFKH OMH54 374884 0099 379800 0850 4916 0856 1711

NIST FB04278 380088 0042 379045 0195 -1044 0200 0400

NPLI JJ108891 374576 0108 375720 1610 1144 1614 3227

Table 12 Degrees of Equivalence using FTIR measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision of the the CCQM

GAWG Uncertainties below the cutoff value of 0095 micromol molminus1

Participant Cylinder

xKCRV u(xKCRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D2( xNMI- xKCRV ) u(D2) U( D2)

( XLGENLINE predictied value

from FTIR)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298393 477706 0051 478100 2600 0394 2601 5201

INRIM D247440 479007 0173 479300 0800 0293 0819 1637

KRISS D500647 479851 0052 480000 0100 0149 0113 0225

LNE 1029047 477397 0061 477600 0500 0203 0504 1007

NIM FB03744 489202 0099 489150 0110 ‐0052 0148 0296

NMIJ CPC00494 471351 0094 471301 0026 ‐0050 0097 0195

NMISA M51 8167 479042 0068 479500 0800 0458 0803 1606

NOAA CC305198 479363 0058 479260 0130 ‐0103 0142 0284

P a g e | 32

NPL 2170 479985 0049 480020 0120 0035 0130 0259

VNIIM M365664 480145 0059 480180 0065 0035 0088 0175

VSL 5604880 480523 0045 480480 0180 ‐0043 0186 0371

UME PSM266468 480537 0078 480420 0125 ‐0117 0147 0295

BFKH OMH44 464911 0138 479900 1050 14989 1059 2118

NIST FB04300 473529 0071 472662 0214 ‐0867 0225 0451

NPLI JJ108862 480863 0079 480520 1520 ‐0343 1522 3044

Table 13 Degrees of Equivalence using FTIR measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision of the the CCQM

GAWG Uncertainties below the cutoff value of 0095 micromol molminus1

Participant Cylinder

xKCRV u(xKCRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D3( xNMI- xKCRV ) u(D3) U( D3)

( XLGENLINE predictied value

from FTIR)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298402 800105 0106 800500 4300 0395 4301 8603

INRIM D247445 798389 0128 798900 1300 0511 1306 2613

KRISS D500672 800519 0118 800800 0200 0281 0232 0464

LNE 1029048 802099 0078 802200 0850 0101 0854 1707

NMIJ CPC00558 803694 0114 803658 0039 -0036 0120 0240

NPL 2181 799744 0101 799700 0200 -0044 0224 0448

NMISA M518244 798187 0132 799100 0500 0913 0517 1034

VNIIM M365707 800697 0084 800730 0095 0033 0127 0253

VSL 5604705 796080 0191 795700 0300 -0380 0356 0712

UME PSM298347 800917 0083 800760 0180 -0157 0198 0396

NIM FB03748 810424 0327 809820 0130 -0604 0351 0703

NOAA CB11668 794608 0237 794080 0240 -0528 0337 0674

BFKH OMH69 800282 0100 800300 1450 0018 1453 2907

NIST FB04287 795511 0208 794530 0514 -0981 0555 1109

NPLI JJ108854 794501 0239 796380 2515 1879 2526 5053

Table 14 Degrees of Equivalence using FTIR measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision of the the CCQM

GAWG Uncertainties below the cutoff value of 0095 micromol molminus1

P a g e | 33

Figure 9 Degrees of Equivalence at a nominal value of 380 micromolmol for CO2 mole fractions The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

KR

ISS

LNE

NIM

NM

IJ

NM

ISA

NO

AA

NP

L

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI-4

-2

0

2

4

D m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 34

Figure 10 Degrees of Equivalence at a nominal value of 480 micromolmol for CO2 mole fractions The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

INR

IM

KR

ISS

LNE

NIM

NM

IJ

NM

ISA

NO

AA

NP

L

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI

-4

-2

0

2

4

D m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 35

Figure 11 Degrees of Equivalence at a nominal value of 800 micromolmol for CO2 mole fractions The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

INR

IM

KR

ISS

LNE

NM

IJ

NP

L

NM

ISA

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

NIM

NO

AA

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI-4

-2

0

2

4

D m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 36

9 Conclusions The comparison have been successful in demonstrating the degrees of equivalence of CO2 in air standards amongst participating NMIs at nominal mole fractions of 380 micromolmol 480 micromolmol and 800 micromolmol In addition the results can be compared to those of CCQM-K52 (organized in 2006) allowing the following conclusions to be drawn

a) the uncertainy of the key comparison reference value has been reduced by a factor of at least 4 with a standard uncertainty of 005 micromolmol for CCQM-K120a (compared to 02 micromolmol for CCQM-K52)

b) methods based on spectroscopy (FTIR with corrections for isotope ratios) and GC-FID for comparing CO2 in air standards have demonstrated excellent agreement with the standard deviation of the difference in reference values found by the two methods being 007 micromolmol at 380 micromolmol and 005 micromolmol at 480 micromolmol

c) the uncertainties are now at the level where adsorption effects within cylinders and on

surfaces needs to be considered and this has led to a mnimium value of 0095 micromolmol being used as the standard uncertainty for standards for key comparison reference value calculation

d) providing standards to communities measuring atmospheric CO2 with spectroscopic

methods produced with CO2 originating from combustion sources can lead to isotope ratios in the CO2 which will produce biases in mole fractions measurements of up to 03 micromolmol These biases can be corrected by either measuring isotope ratios of the gas standard and appropriate processing by the user or by using CO2 which has been closely matched to atmospheric isotope ratio values in the production of the standard

10 lsquoHow far the light shinesrsquo statement The following lsquoHow far the light shinesrsquo statement agreed during the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG was CCQM‐K120a comparison involves preparing standards of carbon dioxide in air which are fit for purpose for the atmospheric monitoring community with stringent requirements on matrix composition and measurement uncertainty of the CO2 mole fraction This represents an analytical challenge and is therefore considered as a Track C comparison The comparison will underpin CMC claims for CO2 in air for standards and calibrations services for the atmospheric

P a g e | 37

monitoring community matrix matched to real air over the mole fraction range of 250 μmolmol to 520 μmolmol CCQM‐K120b comparison tests core skills and competencies required in gravimetric preparation analytical certification and purity analysis It is considered as a Track A comparison It will underpin CO2 in air and nitrogen claims in a mole fraction range starting at the smallest participantrsquos reported expanded uncertainty and ending at 500 mmolmol Participants successful in this comparison may use their result in the flexible scheme and underpin claims for all core mixtures

Bibliography

1 W Bader B Bovy S Conway K Strong D Smale A J Turner T Blumenstock C Boone A Coulon O Garcia D W T Griffith F Hase P Hausmann N Jones P Krummel I Murata I Morino H Nakajima S ODoherty C Paton-Walsh J Robinson R Sandrin M Schneider C Servais R Sussmann and E MahieuTen years of atmospheric methane from ground-based NDACC FTIR observations Atmos Chem Phys Discuss2016 2016 1 2 P J Brewer R J C Brown K V Resner R E Hill-Pearce D R Worton N D C Allen K C Blakley D Benucci and M R EllisonInfluence of Pressure on the Composition of Gaseous Reference Materials Analytical Chemistry2018 90(5) 3490 3 M B Esler D W T Griffith S R Wilson and L P SteelePrecision Trace Gas Analysis by FT-IR Spectroscopy 1 Simultaneous Analysis of CO2 CH4 N2O and CO in Air Anal Chem1999 72(1) 206- 215 4 M B Esler D W T Griffith S R Wilson and L P SteelePrecision Trace Gas Analysis by FT-IR Spectroscopy 2 The 13C12C Isotope Ratio of CO2 Anal Chem 1999 72(1) 216 5 E Flores J Viallon P Moussay D W T Griffith and R WielgoszCalibration strategies for FTIR and other IRIS instruments for ac-curate δ13C and δ18O measurements of CO2 in air Anal Chem2017 Submitted 6 D W T GriffithSynthetic Calibration and Quantitative Analysis of Gas-Phase FT-IR Spectra Appl Spectrosc1996 50(1) 59 7 D W T Griffith N M Deutscher C Caldow G Kettlewell M Riggenbach and S HammerA Fourier transform infrared trace gas and isotope analyser for atmospheric applications Atmos Meas Tech2012 5(10) 2481 8 D W T Griffith N B Jones B McNamara C P Walsh W Bell and C BernardoIntercomparison of NDSC Ground-Based Solar FTIR Measurements of Atmospheric Gases at Lauder New Zealand J Atmos Oceanic Tech2003 20 (8) 1138- 1153 9 ISO Gas analysis- Comparison methods for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures in 61432001 (2001) 10 G Nelson Gas Mixtures Preparation and Control (Lewis Publishers Florida USA 1992) 11 L S Rothman A Barbe D Chris Benner L R Brown C Camy-Peyret M R Carleer K Chance C Clerbaux V Dana V M Devi A Fayt J M Flaud R R Gamache A Goldman D Jacquemart K W Jucks W J Lafferty J Y Mandin S T Massie V Nemtchinov D A Newnham A Perrin C P Rinsland J Schroeder K M Smith M A H Smith K Tang R A Toth J Vander Auwera P Varanasi and K YoshinoThe HITRAN molecular spectroscopic database edition of 2000 including updates through 2001 J Quant Spectrosc Radiat Transfer 82(1ndash4) 5 12 L S Rothman I E Gordon Y Babikov A Barbe D Chris Benner P F Bernath M Birk L Bizzocchi V Boudon L R Brown A Campargue K Chance E A Cohen L H Coudert V M Devi B J Drouin A Fayt J M Flaud R R Gamache J J Harrison J M Hartmann C Hill J T Hodges D Jacquemart A Jolly J Lamouroux R J Le Roy G Li D A Long O M Lyulin C J Mackie S T Massie S Mikhailenko H S P Muumlller O V Naumenko A V Nikitin J Orphal V Perevalov A Perrin E R Polovtseva C Richard M A H

P a g e | 38

Smith E Starikova K Sung S Tashkun J Tennyson G C Toon V G Tyuterev and G WagnerThe HITRAN2012 molecular spectroscopic database J Quant Spectrosc Radiat Transfer2013 130 4

ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

As results of the discussion of the key points of the Draft A report of the CCQM-K120 comparison during the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG the following decisions were taken

a) the key comparison reference value for CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b are to be based on the measurement results of the FTIR spectrometer

b) the re-submitted uncertainties by UME replace the original uncertainty values used in Draft A report (see Table 15) and are to be used for the calculation of the KCRV

c) NIST NPLI and BFKH submitted new measurement results as well as uncertainties after the measurements performed on return of the standards in their laboratoires This was not expected in the protocol of the comparison Therefore their values have not been used in the KCRV calucltaions The original values are used for DOE calculations the modified values have been included in AnnexII

d) considering that NPL was the only participant that considered a potential effect of adsorption of a proportion of the molecules onto the internal surface of a cylinder and valve (for more information see GAWG18-00) a limit on the uncertainties claimed by participants contributing to the KCRV is fixed to 0095 micromol mol-1 meaning that any uncertainty value smaller to this value will be replaced by 0095 micromol mol-1 to calculate KCRVs

e) The KCRV for the standatds at the nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 are to be calculated including standards with mole fractions within plusmn 5 micromol mol-1 of the nominal value (795 micromol mol-1 to 805 micromol mol-1)

P a g e | 39

P a g e | 40

ANNEX II- Stability studies by participants After the return of cylinder to the participants and before results of the comparison were known four participants reported modified uncertainties and also values and uncertainties compared to their originally reported values see Table 15 The participants that reported changes to their originally submitted values were

BFKH submitted the same values but with less decimals for cylinders OMH54 and OMH69 and proposed a new value for cylinder OMH44 The new value changed from 47989plusmn211 micromolmol to 4644plusmn211 micromolmol

NIST submitted new values and uncertainties for cylinders FB04278 FB04300 and FB04287

NPLI submitted new values for cylinders JJ108891 JJ108862 and JJ108854 The mole fractions for cylinders JJ108891 and JJ108854 were increased by 252 micromolmol and 242 micromolmol respectively and reduced for cylinder JJ108862 by 195 micromolmol The uncertainties for cylinders JJ108891 and JJ108862 were also increased by 22 and 72 but reduced for cylinder JJ108854 by 33

UME The uncertainties of cylinders PSM298266 PSM266468 and PSM298347 were increased by 19 47 and 33 respectively

Participant Cylinder references Gas Matrix

NMIrsquos assigned CO2 mole fraction xNMI

(micromol mol-1)

NMIrsquos assigned CO2

expanded uncertainty U(xNMI)

k = 2 (micromol mol-1)

Before the return of cylinders

BFKH OMH54 Synthetic Air 379840 1710

BFKH OMH44 Synthetic Air 479890 2110

BFKH OMH69 Synthetic Air 800300 2920

GUM D298392 Synthetic Air 380100 4400

GUM D298393 Synthetic Air 478100 5200

GUM D298402 Synthetic Air 800500 8600

INRIM D247440 Synthetic Air 479300 1600

INRIM D247445 Synthetic Air 798900 2600

KRISS D500642 Synthetic Air 378900 0200

KRISS D500647 Synthetic Air 480000 0200

KRISS D500672 Synthetic Air 800800 0400

LNE 1029045 Synthetic Air 379480 0790

LNE 1029047 Synthetic Air 477600 1000

LNE 1029048 Synthetic Air 802200 1700

NIM FB03747 Synthetic Air 383430 0200

NIM FB03744 Synthetic Air 489150 0220

P a g e | 41

NIM FB03748 Synthetic Air 809820 0260

NIST FB04278 Real Air 379045 0391

NIST FB04300 Real Air 472662 0428

NIST FB04287 Real Air 794533 1029

NMIJ CPC00486 Real Air 386617 0050

NMIJ CPC00494 Real Air 471301 0051

NMIJ CPC00558 Real Air 803658 0078

NMISA M51 8232 Synthetic Air 380200 2000

NMISA M51 8167 Synthetic Air 479500 1600

NMISA M51 8244 Synthetic Air 799100 1000

NOAA CC310084 Real Air 379500 0210

NOAA CC305198 Real Air 479260 0260

NOAA CB11668 Real Air 794080 0480

NPL 2179 Synthetic Air 380270 0190

NPL 2170 Synthetic Air 480020 0240

NPL 2181 Synthetic Air 799700 0400

NPLI JJ108891 Synthetic Air 375720 3220

NPLI JJ108862 Synthetic Air 480520 3040

NPLI JJ108854 Synthetic Air 796380 5030

UME PSM298266 Synthetic Air 379920 0160

UME PSM266468 Synthetic Air 480420 0170

UME PSM298347 Synthetic Air 800760 0270

VNIIM M365601 Synthetic Air 380200 0110

VNIIM M365664 Synthetic Air 480180 0130

VNIIM M365707 Synthetic Air 800730 0190

VSL 5604614 Synthetic Air 378900 0280

VSL 5604880 Synthetic Air 480480 0360

VSL 5604705 Synthetic Air 795700 0600

Additional data received following

stability testing

BFKH‐2nd value OMH54 Synthetic Air 3798 17

BFKH‐2nd value OMH44 Synthetic Air 4644 28

BFKH‐2nd value OMH69 Synthetic Air 8003 29

NIST‐2nd value FB04278 Real Air 38030 028

NIST‐2nd value FB04300 Real Air 47340 034

NIST‐2nd value FB04287 Real Air 79512 058

NIST‐3th value FB04278 Real Air 38007 030

NIST‐3th value FB04300 Real Air 47337 052

NIST‐3th value FB04287 Real Air 79477 038

NPLI‐2nd value JJ108891 Synthetic Air 37824 395

NPLI‐2nd value JJ108862 Synthetic Air 47857 523

NPLI‐2nd value JJ108854 Synthetic Air 79880 335

UME‐2nd value PSM298266 Synthetic Air 379920 019

P a g e | 42

UME‐2nd value PSM266468 Synthetic Air 480420 025

UME‐2nd value PSM298347 Synthetic Air 800760 036

Table 15 Standards and reported values provided by participants in Draft A report

ANNEX III- GC-FID results

GC-FID based candidate reference values for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 With the GC-FID measurement data set the set of self-consistent standards identified was the same as with FTIR including eleven standards with three excluded namely OMH54 (BFKH neither original nor newly submitted results included) FB04278 (NIST neither original nor newly submitted results included) and JJ108891 (NPLI neither original and newly submitted results included) The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 169 (lt 2 required to demonstrate consistency of the ensemble) Reference values and differences from these are listed in Table 16 The difference between the KCRV calculated with FTIR measurement data (xKCRV_FTIR) and GC-FID based candidate reference values (xRV_FTIR) measurements for this batch of cylinders is plotted in Figure 12 showing negligible difference between the methods

GC-FID based candidate reference values for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 With the GC-FID measurement data set the set of self-consistent standards identified was the same as with FTIR The data set of self-consistent standards identified included twelve standards with three excluded namely OMH44 (BFKH neither original nor newly submitted results included) FB03744 (NIST neither original nor newly submitted results included) and JJ108862 (NPLI neither original nor newly submitted results included) The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 141 (lt 2 required to demonstrate consistency of the ensemble) Reference values and differences from these are listed in Table 17

P a g e | 43

The difference between the KCRV calculated with FTIR measurement data (xKCRV_FTIR) and GC-FID based candidate reference values (xRV_FTIR) measurements for this batch of cylinders is plotted in Figure 13 showing negligible difference between the methods

GC-FID based candidate reference values for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 Including ten cylinders with five excluded namely FB03748 (NIM) CB11668 (NOAA) OMH69 (BFKH neither original and newly submitted results included) FB04287 (NIST neither original nor newly submitted results included) and JJ108854 (NPLI neither original nor newly submitted results included) the goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 191(lt 2 required to demonstrate consistency of the ensemble) Reference values and differences from these are listed in Table 18 The difference between the KCRV calculated with FTIR measurement data (xKCRV_FTIR) and GC-FID based candidate reference values (xRV_FTIR) measurements for this batch of cylinders is plotted in Figure 14 showing negligible difference between the methods

Participant Cylinder

xRV u(xRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D1( xNMI- xKCRV )

u(D1) U( D1)

( XLGENLINE predictied

value from GC-FID)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298392 379719 0050 380100 2200 0381 2201 4401

KRISS D500642 378753 0063 378900 0100 0147 0118 0236

LNE 1029045 379224 0054 379480 0395 0256 0399 0797

NIM FB03747 383350 0056 383430 0100 0080 0115 0229

NMIJ CPC00486 386624 0092 386617 0025 ‐0007 0095 0190

NMISA M51 8232 379866 0054 380200 1000 0334 1001 2003

NOAA CC310084 379426 0065 379500 0105 0074 0124 0247

NPL 2179 380308 0048 380270 0095 ‐0038 0106 0213

VNIIM M365601 380221 0051 380200 0055 ‐0021 0075 0150

VSL 5604614 378973 0062 378900 0140 ‐0073 0153 0306

UME PSM298266 380106 0055 379920 0095 ‐0186 0110 0220

BFKH OMH54 375005 0101 379800 0850 4795 0856 1712

NIST FB04278 380066 0055 379045 0195 ‐1021 0203 0406

NPLI JJ108891 374617 0105 375720 1610 1103 1613 3227

Table 16 Difference from candidate reference value using GC-FID measurements at the nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision

of the the CCQM GAWG First uncertainty submitted by the participant (lt 0095 micromol mol-1 see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

P a g e | 44

Participant Cylinder

xRV u(xRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D2( xNMI- xKCRV ) u(D2) U( D2)

( XLGENLINE predictied

value from GC-FID)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298393 477789 0065 478100 2600 0311 2601 5202

INRIM D247440 478928 0056 479300 0800 0372 0802 1604

KRISS D500647 479881 0051 480000 0100 0119 0112 0225

LNE 1029047 477444 0069 477600 0500 0156 0505 1009

NIM FB03744 489173 0097 489150 0110 ‐0023 0147 0294

NMIJ CPC00494 471327 0107 471301 0026 ‐0026 0110 0220

NMISA M51 8167 479137 0078 479500 0800 0363 0804 1608

NOAA CC305198 479392 0053 479260 0130 ‐0132 0140 0281

NPL 2170 479997 0056 480020 0120 0023 0133 0265

VNIIM M365664 480173 0052 480180 0065 0007 0083 0167

VSL 5604880 480608 0051 480480 0180 ‐0128 0187 0374

UME PSM266468 480629 0053 480420 0125 ‐0209 0136 0272

BFKH OMH44 464994 0144 479900 1050 14906 1060 2120

NIST FB04300 473601 0077 472662 0214 ‐0940 0227 0455

NPLI JJ108862 480836 0055 480520 1520 ‐0316 1521 3042

Table 17 Difference from candidate reference value using GC-FID measurements at the nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision of

the the CCQM GAWG First uncertainty submitted by the participant (lt 0095 micromol mol-1 see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

Participant Cylinder

xRV u(xRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D3( xNMI- xKCRV )

u(D3) U( D3)

( XLGENLINE predictied

value from GC-FID) (k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298402 800002 0083 800500 4300 0498 4301 8602

INRIM D247445 798031 0105 798900 1300 0869 1304 2608

KRISS D500672 800316 0080 800800 0200 0484 0215 0431

LNE 1029048 802001 0068 802200 0850 0199 0853 1705

NMIJ CPC00558 803670 0057 803658 0039 ‐0012 0069 0138

NPL 2181 799570 0081 799700 0200 0130 0216 0432

NMISA M51 8244 798195 0111 799100 0500 0905 0512 1024

VNIIM M365707 800710 0066 800730 0095 0020 0116 0232

VSL 5604705 795715 0150 795700 0300 ‐0015 0335 0670

UME PSM298347 801042 0180 800760 0135 ‐0282 0172 0344

NIM FB03748 810535 0165 809820 0130 ‐0715 0210 0420

NOAA CB11668 794338 0170 794080 0240 ‐0258 0294 0588

BFKH OMH69 800057 0079 800300 1450 0243 1452 2904

P a g e | 45

NIST FB04287 795279 0147 794530 0514 ‐0749 0535 1070

NPLI JJ108854 794091 0173 796380 2515 2289 2521 5042

Table 18 Difference from candidate reference value using GC-FID measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the

decision of the the CCQM GAWG First uncertainty submitted by the participant (lt 0095 micromol mol-1 see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

Figure 12 Difference between the KCRV values obtained using FTIR and GC-FID reference values at 380

micromolmol The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

KR

ISS

LNE

NIM

NM

IJ

NM

ISA

NO

AA

NP

L

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Diff

(x K

CR

V_F

TIR

-xR

V_G

C-F

ID)

m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 46

Figure 13 Difference between the KCRV values obtained using FTIR and GC-FID reference values at 480 micromolmol The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

INR

IM

KR

ISS

LNE

NIM

NM

IJ

NM

ISA

NO

AA

NP

L

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Diff

(x K

CR

V_

FT

IR-x

RV

_G

C-F

ID)

m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 47

Figure 14 Difference between the KCRV values obtained using FTIR and GC-FID reference values at 800 micromolmol The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

In summary the measurement performance obtained with GC-FID and FTIR at the BIPM were rather similar with standard measurement uncertainties of the reference values having a range of 004 micromolmol to 011 micromolmol at 380 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for FTIR 005 micromolmol to 011 micromolmol at 380 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for GC-FID 005 micromolmol to 017 micromolmol at 480 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for FTIR 005 micromolmol to 014 micromolmol at 480 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for GC-FID 008 micromolmol to 033 micromolmol at 800 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for FTIR 006 micromolmol to 018 micromolmol at 800 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for GC-FID

The reference values calculated from the two measurement techniques agree with each other within their stated uncertainties for all measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 380 micromolmol all measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 480 micromolmol all measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 800 micromolmol The magnitude of the proposed reference values can be compared to the laboratories reported standard measurement uncertainties for their standards which range from 0025 micromolmol to 43 micromolmol

GU

M

INR

IM

KR

ISS

LNE

NM

IJ

NP

L

NM

ISA

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

NIM

NO

AA

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Diff

(x K

CR

V_

FT

IR-x

RV

_GC

-FID

)

mo

l mo

l-1

P a g e | 48

ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure The cylinders were analysed in batches first by GC-FID then by FTIR and finally by the Delta Ray

GC-FID The GC-FID is a modified Agilent system series 7890A acquired from the SRA Instruments lsquoFrance It is equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID) a Haysep Q (12 feet) column a methanizer and the FID detector is supplied with pure oxygen and hydrogen (see Figure 15)

Figure 15 Internal schematics of the BIPM system for Gas Chromatography with Flame Ionization Detector (GC-FID) comprised by a Haysep (12 feet) column a Sample loop of 1 mL two Valco six port valves and a FID detector

The GC-FID is equipped with

- two 6 port valve V1 (Vici-valco) - one 1 mL stainless steel injection loop - one one-way valve - one Haysep Q (80-100 Mesh 12ftx18x20mm) - one flame ionization detector (FID) - one methanizer - one hydrogen generator - one helium purifier - one control computer for the GC-FID equipped with

o ChemStation version Rev B0402 (118) o ProChem Set-up version 257 o ProChem software version 201

- one barometer (Sensor Technique DC 2510)

Haysep

P a g e | 49

The gas mixtures used for operating the facility were

- one helium 60 gas cylinder quality 999999 - one oxygen 55 in gas cylinder quality 999995 - source of air with pressure of 7 bars - one 50 L CO2air commercial secondary gas standards (control standard A) produced by

Messer with an initial internal pressure of 150 bar with the composition specified to be within the following ranges

CH4 185 ppm CO2 386 ppm Ar 9410 ppm O2 207 N2 Matrix gas

- one 50 L CO2air commercial secondary gas standards (control standard B) produced by Messer with an initial internal pressure of 150 bar with the composition specified to be within the following ranges

CH4 184 ppm CO2 476 ppm Ar 9415 ppm O2 210 N2 Matrix gas

- one 40 L CO2air standard (control standard C) produced by Scott Marrin (cylinder CB 10422) with an initial internal pressure of 100 bar with the composition specified to be within the following ranges

CO2 79112 ppm CH4 184 ppm

GC-FID separation and quantification method The GC-FID was operated at 30 degC A Haysep Q (80-100 Mesh 12ftx18x20mm) column was used at a temperature of 30 degC for the analysis Helium column carrier2 gas passed through a heated gas purifier was used at a flow rate of 40 ml min-1 The FID was supplied with 320 ml min-1 of pure oxygen3 and 40 ml min-1 of hydrogen4 A 1 ml stainless steel sample loop was used to introduce the CO2air sample onto the column The pressure in the sample loop was measured by a calibrated pressure sensor having a resolution of 02 hPa and recorded at each injection Finally the peak areas were estimated with an on-line computing integrator

Sampling sequence

Table 19 displays a typical sampling sequence The sampling sequence was setup so as to analyse six unkown CO2Air gas mixtures together with three control standards (A B C) Three unknown were bracketed by control standards A and B followed by the other three bracketed by 2 The Carrier Gas is He grade 60 passing through a SAES gettersreg PS2-GC50-R-2 for extra purification 3 The Flame is produced from Oxygen grade 55 4 Hydrogen is produced on site by a commercial H2 generator CG2200 (Claind) It produces grade 60 H2 at a maximum flow rate of 200 mlmin with a purity higher than 9999999

P a g e | 50

control standards B and C Each individual cylinders analysis (unkowns and controls) consisted in three successive measurements of the GC-FID response (CO2 peak area)

Control Cylinder A A1 A2 A3

Control Cylinder B B1 B2 B3

Cylinder 1 Cyl11 Cyl12 Cyl13 Cylinder 2 Cyl21 Cyl22 Cyl23

Cylinder 3 Cyl31 Cyl32 Cyl33 Control Cylinder A A4 A5 A6

Control Cylinder B B4 B5 B6

Control Cylinder B B7 B8 B9

Control Cylinder C C1 C2 C3

Cylinder 4 Cyl41 Cyl42 Cyl43

Cylinder 5 Cyl51 Cyl52 Cyl53

Cylinder 6 Cyl61 Cyl62 Cyl63

Control Cylinder B B10 B11 B12

Control Cylinder C C4 C5 C6 Table 19 Typical GC-FID sampling sequence

Considering that the analysis of each CO2Air gas mixture took 10 minutes this measuring sequence took about 390 minutes to be completed This sequence was repeated four times with the first one not used in the calculation Adding flushing and conditioning about three days were necessary to complete the analysis of six unkown cylinders

Participantrsquos cylinders were divided in batches of four to six and additional cylinders of the BIPM were added if required to obtain batches of equal size

It was checked that the results obtained using controls A B and C were consistent but only the ratios to the control cylinder B were used as GC-FID results and listed in Table 8

Ratios to the control standard

The ratios to the control cylinder were calculated determining first the average responses of three successive measurements performed on the CO2Air standard gas mixtures as well as on the control cylinders (A B and C) The drift corrected response to the control cylinder as any time was calculated by interpolation in between two control measurements The average response to the CO2air standards mixtures was then divided by the drift corrected response of the control

cylinder to obtain GCR the ratio for one cylinder in one sequence

The last three sequences were then combined with the calculation of the weighted mean defined as

wGCR

P a g e | 51

3

1

_

l

lwGClwGC RwR (1)

Where the weigth wl for the series l is defined as

3

1

2_

2_

1

1

j

lGC

lGC

l

Ru

Ruw (2)

and lGCRu _ is the standard deviation of the mean of the three repeats

The uncertainty of the weighted mean is defined as

3

1

2_

2

1

1

llGC

wGC

RuRu

(3)

In addition to this component the intermediate precision or stability of the instrument response during the full measuring period was evaluated by the standard deviation of the mean of the drift corrected ratio to the control cylinder of one standard exclusively used for this purpose giving uIntpre = 0000046 This component was further combined with the weighted mean uncertainty to provide the combined standard uncertainty associated with measurements performed with GC-FID resulting in a typical relative standard uncertainty of 0007

FTIR A vacuum Bruker Vertex 70v FTIR Spectrometer equipped with a RockSolid interferometer (vacuum better than 02 hPa) with 1 cm-1 resolution (016 optional) a 40 mm beam diameter a globar source and CaF2 beam splitter was used for the study The spectrometer was configured with a liquid N2-cooled mid-infrared Indium Antimonide (InSb) detector and a 1001 m multi-pass White-type gas cell of volume 075 L (Gemini Scientific Instruments USA) The wetted surfaces of the gas cell were electro-polished stainless steel treated with silconert 2000 (Silcotek) and gold (mirror coatings) to minimize surface adsorption and desorption effects for CO2 The interferometer was scanned at 64 scans min-1 and spectra co-added for five minutes to obtain an acceptable signal-to-noise ratio The transmission spectra of gas reference standards obtained following this procedure had a very high signal to noise ratio of typically ~1 x 104 peak-peak from (2240ndash3380) cm-1 In order to prevent nonlinear responses produced by excess photon flux reaching the InSb detector special care was put into adjusting the instrument parameters of the software to ensure that the apparent intensity from the InSb detector was zero at 1850 cm-1 The spectrometer user interface was controlled using a BIPM developed software named B-FOS that allowed the automatic setting of all instrument parameters into Brukerrsquos proprietary OPUS software for control spectral acquisition and on-line analysis through the use of MALT (Multiple Atmospheric Layer Transmission)3 4 6 spectrum analysis software version 556

P a g e | 52

MALT retrieves concentrations of each trace gas in the sample from a least-squares fit to the measured spectrum based on a model calculation and Hitran line parameters12 This code is the basis for quantitative analysis of open and closed path FTIR trace gas measurements and has been compared with other codes such as SFIT1 for ground based solar FT-IR measurements with agreement of better than 07 (Griffith et al8)

The spectra were constructed by co-adding up to 320 scans recorded in about 5 minutes to provide a single spectrum of a sample This single spectrum was ratioed with a similar spectrum of ultra-pure N2 collected under similar conditions to provide an absorbance or transmission spectrum of the gas sample (relative to ultra-pure N2) in the gas cell The sample flow rates were kept at ~400 mL minminus1 Assuming perfect mixing in the cell it was estimated that 999 of the sample was replaced after 10 min of flow and 99998 replaced after 20 min10 In order to ensure the complete exchange of samples only the measured spectra obtained after flowing the sample through the White-type cell for 40 min (9999999 gas replacement) were used for mole fraction determinations The sample pressure was measured by means of the calibrated barometer Mensor Series 6000 The relative uncertainty of this pressure sensor was u(P) = 002 The sample temperature was measured with a calibrated 100 Ω RTD temperature probe introduced into the outlet gas of the White-type gas cell with a standard uncertainty u(T)=002 K

The recorded spectra were analysed online by non-linear least squares fitting in the spectra region 3500ndash3800 cm-1 (plotted in Figure 16) with modelled spectra calculated by MALT 55 using absorption line parameters from the HITRAN database version 2012 As previously described by Griffith et al7 this region shows peaks that are due to the major isotopologue 12C16O16O (written 626 using the HitranAir Force Geophysics Laboratory (AFGL) shorthand notation 11) Since all standards used during this work were ultra-dry CO2air gas mixtures the cross sensitivity with H2O was not considered

Figure 16 Typical measured and fitted spectra (upper part) and residual signal (lower part) in the region 3500ndash3800 cm-1 obtained on a standard of CO2 in air at 38433 μmol mol-1 The absorption feature is due to the major isotopologue 626

3500 3550 3600 3650 3700 3750 3800

070

075

080

085

090

095

100

3500 3550 3600 3650 3700 3750 3800

-0002

0000

0002

Measured

Tra

nsm

itan

ce

Fitted

Residual

Wavenumbercm-1

P a g e | 53

Ratios to the control standard

The ratios to the control cylinder were calculated between the FTIR responses measured at the 626 isotopologue band of the sample i (Cyli) and of the control cylinder

The measurements were performed following a sequence which included the analysis of four cylinders bracketed by the analysis of the two control cylinders (A B) repeated three times Control A was the Scott Marrin cylinder CB 10326 value assigned by NIST with a mole fraction of 37890plusmn009 micromol mol-1 and as control B was used the commercial mixture Messer 400309 with a mole fraction of 85000plusmn17 micromol mol-1

Since the analysis of each CO2Air gas mixture takes 40 minutes (35 minutes of flush and 5 minutes of acquisition) fifteen hours of continuous measurements were necessary to accomplish the measurement of four cylinders

The drift corrected response to the control cylinder B during the analysis of a sample Bcor was estimated by interpolation in between two measurements of B The ratio RFT between the response to a sample Cyl and the drift corrected control Bcor was then calculated Finally the measurement results for one cylinder was the average of the three ratios obtained during a full sequence named RFTi for cylinder Cyli

The control cylinder A suffered from a leak in the gas line to the autosampler and was emptied before the end of all measurements It was however checked that measurements performed with this control cylinder A with sufficient pressure were equivalent to those obtained with the control cylinder B

Uncertainty determination

The uncertainty assigned to each ratio to the control cylinder uFT_R was the combination of three components combined according to the Guide for Uncertainty in Measurements using the software GUM workbench (see Table 21)

uStab the short term stability of the 626 response to the sample This term was estimated from the typical Allan deviation at an averaging time of five minutes of the FTIR response measured on the 626 peak resulting in the value ustab = 6 nmol mol-1

independent of the mole fraction This same term applies to the control cylinder measurements

uIsoCorr the uncertainty contribution due to the correction of the 626 response arising from the sample isotopic composition (also valid for the control cylinder) as measured by the Delta Ray All responses of the FTIR calculated at the 626 peak had to be corrected to account for the fact that samples had a different isotopic composition than natural air The correction was calculated with the Delta Ray so that the uncertainty contribution due to the isotopic composition correction was estimated from the uncertainty of the Delta Ray measurements uδ13C=018 permil and uδ18O=048 permil (see further information in Flores et al5) It can be calculated that a 1 permil bias in δ13C results in a bias equal to 41 nmol mol-1 in the CO2 mole fraction Similarly a 1 permil bias in δ18O results in a bias equal to 17 nmol mol-1 Therefore assuming maximum biases in the delta values equal to the Delta Ray standard uncertainty the maximum biases in the CO2 mole fraction were estimated to be 072 nmol mol-1 (from δ13C ) and 082 nmol mol-1 (from δ18O) Being conservative the two terms were added in a maximum bias of 154 nmol mol-1 Considering a

P a g e | 54

rectangular distribution of the uncertainty the standard uncertainty takes the value 154radic3 089nmol mol-1 This is negligible compared to other

components

uPBEs the uncertainty contribution due Pressure Broadening Effects was calculated through a sensitivity study of MALT Using one primary version of MALT in 1982 D Griffith looked at the carrier gas effect in NDIR analyzers for CO2 MALT by default uses either the amount-weighted selfair broadened widths or the air only widths provided by HITRAN and allows some degree of fiddling for fitting spectra contained in different gas matrices since it allows to the users to scale the input parameter broad by any arbitrary factor Different line broadening factor can be calculated then for air using Griffth et al 1982 equation

(7)

Where xN2 xO2 and xAr are the mole fractions of nitrogen oxygen and argon in air FN2 =1 by definition FO2 = 081 and FAr = 078 are the line broadening factors for oxygen and argon (in average) Assuming xN2 = 0780876 mol mol-1 xO2 = 02093335 mol mol-1 and xAr = 00093332 mol mol-1 then the line broadening factor of air FAIR should be equal to 095771603 The broadening parameter in MALT for air is broad = 1 by convention It can be scaled by FAIR to obtain a broad value for any ldquoair likerdquo matrix using the equation

(8)

In order to estimate the amount of the change in the CO2 response one absorbance spectrum was fitted using standard input parameters varying the factor broad according to the two possible extremes composition of the matrix as stated in the protocol of the CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b comparisons In the case of the CCQM-K120a comparison two values of the factor broad were determined using equation 8 modelling cylinders containing the minimum and the maximum allowed mole fractions of oxygen and assuming nitrogen and argon were impacted to keep a sum of the three equals to 1 The mole fractions and the corresponding values of broad are summarized in the table below

K120a min K120a max

Compoundxi (mol mol-

1) xi (mol mol-

1) Nitrogen 078140 078042Oxygen 020880 020980Argon 000934 000933

broad 1000105801 0999907486

Table 20 Extermes of air matrix compositions in the comparison CCQM-K120a and the corresponding values of broad

P a g e | 55

As result a ΔCO2 equal to 0031 micromol mol-1 was observed between both fittings Considering this difference as a rectangular distribution then a uPBEs_ΔO2_ K120a= (00031)(2radic3) = 0009 micromol mol-1 is obtained The same procedure was used with the the limits stated for the CCQM‐K120b and a ΔCO2 of 0467 micromol mol-1 was obtained with factors FAIR_CCQM-K120b_min= 1000403273 and FAIR_CCQM-K120b_max= 0999610014 If this difference is considered again as a rectangular distribution then uPBEs_ΔO2_ K120b= (0125)(2radic3) = 0036 micromol mol-1

Table 21 Uncertainty budget for the calculation of the FTIR ratios to the control cylinder

The final uncertainty for the ratios of the cylinders that had a gas matrix within the limits of the CCQM-K120a were at 380 micromol mol-1 uFT_R_380A=14 times10-6 and at 480 micromol mol-1 uFT_R_480A =15 times10-6 The uncertainty for the ratios of the cylinders that had a gas matrix within the limits of the CCQM-K120b were at 480 micromol mol-1 uFT_R_480A =44 times10-6 at 800 micromol mol-1 uFT_R_480A =45 times10-6 Combined with the standard deviations on three ratios this resulted in standard relative uncertainties on the averaged ratio between 14times10-5 and 25times10-4 All the combined standard uncertainties are listed in Table 8

Delta Ray Since MALT measurements (FTIR) are done using linestrengths from the HITRAN database that are scaled by the natural abundance for each isotopologue the 12CO2 measurement of each cylinder needed to be corrected according their own isotopic composition The isotopic composition of each cylinder was measured using the Delta Ray Delta Ray is based on direct absorption laser spectroscopy It uses a tunable diode laser which scans over the spectral region that covers 18O and 13C isotopologues of CO2

For this comparison Delta Ray measurements were performed after calibrating the instrument following the manufacturerrsquos recommendations that consist in using two pure CO2 references gases with high and low isotope values two CO2 in air reference standards with high and low concentration and one dry CO2 scrubbed whole air (Scott Marrin Inc) The instrument was calibrated using cylinder 401557 (pure CO2 source gas well δ13C = - 138 permil and δ18O = - 714 permil VPDBj-RAS06 scale) cylinder C11375KO (pure CO2 source combustion δ13C = - 4213 permil and δ18O = -277 permil VPDBj-RAS06 scale) standard NPL 1788 (NPL CO2 in air mole fraction 3800plusmn019 micromol mol-1 δ13C = - 138 permil and δ18O = - 714 permil VPDBj-RAS06 scale)

Quantity Value

Standard Uncertainty Sensitivity Coefficient

Uncertainty contribution Index

48000middot10-6 mol mol-1

00108middot10-6 mol mol-

1 12middot10-3 13middot10-6 (Ratio) 747

84605middot10-6 mol mol-1

00150middot10-6 mol mol-1 -450middot10-6 -67middot10-6 (Ratio) 205

84695middot10-6 mol mol-1

00150middot10-6 mol mol-1 -220middot10-6 -34middot10-6 (Ratio) 51

Value Standard Uncertainty

0567141 (Ratio) 15middot10-6 (Ratio)

P a g e | 56

standard NPL 1907 (NPL CO2 in air mole fraction 7910plusmn04 micromol mol-1 δ13C = - 4213 permil and δ18O = -277 permil VPDBj-RAS06 scale) and dry CO2 scrubbed whole air (Scott Marrin)

As reported by Flores et al 20185 a residual bias in the δ13C and δ18O measurements which remained following the implementation of the manufacturerrsquos calibration procedure was removed by the application of an additional two point calibration (two CO2 in air standards with known but differing isotopic composition) Standards NPL 1788 (δ13C = - 138 permil and δ18O = - 714 permil) and NPL 1907 (δ13C = - 4213 permil and δ18O = -277 permil) were used as two point calibration mixtures

Samplingsequence

The measurement procedure for analyzing a set of CO2Air gas standards by Delta Ray is based on the analysis of four CO2Air gas mixtures between two CO2Air gas mixture used as the two-point calibration standards (A B) The measurement sequence starts by measuring the δ13C and δ18O response of calibration cylinder (A) and (B) then of four CO2Air standards for finalizing again with the calibration standars Since the analysis of each CO2Air gas mixture takes 40 minutes sixteen hours of continuous measurements were necessary to accomplish the measurement of four cylinders three times

The measured δ13C and δ18O responses of the control cylinders were drift corrected Then used together with the δ13C and δ18O measured by MPI-Jena in XLGenlinev11 for predicting the δ13C and δ18O of the unknown cylinders traceable to the VPDB-CO2 scale

Uncertainty determination

Times series analysis were performed with the Delta Ray during the validation work resulting in Allan deviations of 003 permil for δ13C and 005 permil for δ18O at the optimum averaging time of 300 s In addition it was further noted that the noise of the instrument was significantly higher when measuring during two hours which is the time period of a typical calibration Using a rectangular distribution the standard uncertainty of 031 permil for δ13C and 035 permil for δ18O was observed This component was further combined with the Allan deviations and taken as the stability uncertainty associated with the instrument response

The two-point calibration of the delta value requires the knowledge of the uncertainty associated with them which was in this case taken as the uncertainties deduced from MPI-Jena measurements equal to 0015permil for δ13C and 0328permil for δ18O

After calibration with the two additional CO2 in air standards the standard uncertainties associated with the instrument measurement were finally equal to 018 permil for δ13C and 048 permil for δ18O

P a g e | 57

ANNEX V - Measurement reports of participants

NMIJ

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 58

P a g e | 59

P a g e | 60

P a g e | 61

P a g e | 62

P a g e | 63

GUM

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM-K120-R Project name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department

Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form

Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute Central Office of Measures (Głoacutewny Urzad Miar)

Address Elektoralna 2 00-139 Warsaw Poland

Contact person Dariusz Cieciora

P a g e | 64

Telephone (48) 22 581 94 39 Fax (48) 22 581 93 95

Email dciecioragumgovpl gasgumgovpl

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a YES

CCQM‐K120b YES

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 D298392 3801 44 2

2 D298393 4781 52 2

3 D298402 8005 86 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number D298392

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07808 molmol 00002 molmol 2

O2 02095 molmol 00001 molmol 2

Ar 000925 molmol 000001 molmol 2

CH4 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

P a g e | 65

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number D298393

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07807 molmol 00002 molmol 2

O2 02096 molmol 00001 molmol 2

Ar 000919 molmol 000001 molmol 2

CH4 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number D298402

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07802 molmol 00002 molmol 2

O2 02097 molmol 00001 molmol 2

Ar 000938 molmol 000001 molmol 2

CH4 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 D298392 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

2 D298393 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

3 D298402 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

A4 Uncertainty Budget Please provide a complete uncertainty budgets for the CO2 mole fraction values reported

Uncertainty budget for the cylinder no D298392

Uncertainty source Estimate

(micromolmol)

Standard uncertainty (micromolmol)

Distribution Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution (micromolmol)

gravimetric 3801 042 normal 1 042

verification - 112 normal 1 112

systematic error - 187 rectangular 1 187 Uncertainty budget for the cylinder no D298393

Uncertainty source Estimate

(micromolmol)

Standard uncertainty (micromolmol)

Distribution Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution (micromolmol)

gravimetric 4781 048 normal 1 048

P a g e | 66

verification - 098 normal 1 098

systematic error - 235 rectangular 1 235 Uncertainty budget for the cylinder no D298402

Uncertainty source Estimate

(micromolmol)

Standard uncertainty (micromolmol)

Distribution Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution (micromolmol)

gravimetric 8005 068 normal 1 068

verification - 160 normal 1 160

systematic error - 393 rectangular 1 393

A5 Additional information

The final mixtures were prepared according ISO 6142 the cylinders evacuated on turbo molecular pump filled up an weighted on the verification balance The mixtures were prepared in aluminium (with coated layers) cylinders The mixtures were prepared with used pure nitrogen and oxygen and one step premixture of argon and two steps premixture of carbon dioxide

The verification according to ISO 6143 The measurements were repeated 10 times for the standards and the sample The curve was calculated from ratios by the software B_leastexe (linear case)

The standards were prepared by gravimetric method according to ISO 6142 The standards were prepared from separate premixtures and were diluted according ISO 6145-9

The purity of pure gases used for preparation was taken from the certificates of producer Cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM - cylinder D298392 139 bar - cylinder D298393 147 bar - cylinder D298402 147 bar

P a g e | 67

INRIM

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM‐K120‐R Project name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department

Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form

Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute INRiM‐Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica

Address Strada delle Cacce 91 I‐10135 Torino Italy

Contact person Michela Sega

Telephone +39 011 3919948 Fax +39 011 3919937

Email msegainrimit

P a g e | 68

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a No

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 D247440 4793 16 2

2 D247445 7989 26 2

3

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number D247440

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0781132 molmol 0000006 molmol 2

O2 02090627 molmol 00000055 molmol 2

Ar 00093259 molmol 00000037 molmol 2

CH4 ‐ nmolmol nmolmol

N2O ‐ nmolmol nmolmol

P a g e | 69

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number D247445

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0782389 molmol 0000006 molmol

O2 02075526 molmol 00000054 molmol

Ar 00092586 molmol 00000036 molmol

CH4 nmolmol nmolmol

N2O nmolmol nmolmol

A4 Uncertainty Budget The model equation used to calculate the mole fraction of CO2 in the final mixtures is taken from the International Standard ISO 6142‐12015

r

jq

iiji

j

r

jq

iiji

jj

Mx

m

Mx

mx

x

1

1

1

1

CO

prepCO

2

2

where the index i refers to the various components while j refers to the different parent mixtures The uncertainty budget was evaluated according to the guidelines prescribed in ISO 6142‐12015 The uncertainty budget for the gravimetric preparation of the mixture at 4793 micromolmol of CO2 which takes into account the weighted masses of the parent mixtures the molar masses of gases and their purity is reported in the following table

P a g e | 70

Uncertainty component

u(xi)

Uncertainty source

Standard uncertainty

u(xi) δxCO2prepδxi

Contribution tou(xCO2 prep)

|δxCO2prepδxi|u(xi)

u(mCO2) Weighed mass of the parent mixture of CO2

82∙10‐4 g 720∙10‐6

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 59∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(mN2) Weighed mass of the balance gas N2

82∙10‐4 g ‐764∙10‐7

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 63∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(mAr_O2) Weighed mass of the parent mixture of Ar in O2

82∙10‐4 g ‐662∙10‐7

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 54∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(MCO2) Molar mass of CO2 10∙10‐3 g∙mol‐1 ‐772∙10‐8

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 77∙10‐11 mol∙mol‐1

u(MN2) Molar mass of N2 20∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 ‐361∙10‐6

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 72∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(MAr) Molar mass of Ar 58∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 138∙10‐7

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 80∙10‐11 mol∙mol‐1

u(MO2) Molar mass of O2 28∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 310∙10‐6

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 87∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xN2inCO2) Mole fraction of N2 in the parent mixture of CO2

10∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 ‐432∙10‐4 43∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xN2inN2) Mole fraction of N2 in balance gas (purity)

87∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1 329∙10‐4 29∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xArinAr_O2) Mole fraction of Ar in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 129∙10‐4 11∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(xO2inN2) Mole fraction of O2 in balance gas (impurity)

14∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1 375∙10‐4 53∙10‐11 mol∙mol‐1

u(xO2inAr_O2) Mole fraction of O2

in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 104∙10‐4 90∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inCO2) Mole fraction of CO2 in the parent mixture of CO2

10∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 951∙10‐2 95∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inN2) Mole fraction of CO2 in balance gas (impurity)

29∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1 686∙10‐1 20∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inAr_O2) Mole fraction of CO2 in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1 219∙10‐1 19∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

Uncertainty budget for the gravimetric preparation of the mixture at 4793 micromolmol of CO2

P a g e | 71

The following table reports the uncertainty budget for the gravimetric preparation of the mixture at 7989 micromolmol of CO2

Uncertainty component

u(xi)

Uncertainty source

Standard uncertainty

u(xi) δxCO2prepδxi

Contribution tou(xCO2 prep)

|δxCO2prepδxi|u(xi)

u(mCO2) Weighed mass of the parent mixture of CO2

82∙10‐4 g 671∙10‐6

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 55∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(mN2) Weighed mass of the balance gas N2

82∙10‐4 g ‐128∙10‐6

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 10∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(mAr_O2) Weighed mass of the parent mixture of Ar in O2

82∙10‐4 g ‐111∙10‐6

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 91∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(MCO2) Molar mass of CO2 10∙10‐3 g∙mol‐1 365∙10‐7

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 36∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(MN2) Molar mass of N2 20∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 469∙10‐4

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 94∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(MAr) Molar mass of Ar 58∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 510∙10‐6

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 30∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(MO2) Molar mass of O2 28∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 114∙10‐4

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 32∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(xN2inCO2) Mole fraction of N2 in the parent mixture of CO2

10∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 ‐669∙10‐4 67∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xN2inN2) Mole fraction of N2 in balance gas (purity)

87∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1 498∙10‐4 43∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xArinAr_O2) Mole fraction of Ar in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 214∙10‐4 19∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(xO2inN2) Mole fraction of O2 in balance gas (impurity)

14∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1 569∙10‐4 80∙10‐11 mol∙mol‐1

u(xO2inAr_O2) Mole fraction of O2

in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 171∙10‐4 15∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inCO2) Mole fraction of CO2 in the parent mixture of CO2

10∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 159∙10‐1 16∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inN2) Mole fraction of CO2 in balance gas (impurity)

29∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1 624∙10‐1 18∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inAr_O2) Mole fraction of CO2 in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1 217∙10‐1 19∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

Uncertainty budget for the gravimetric preparation of the mixture at 7989 micromolmol of CO2 The additional contribution derived from the analytical verification was taken into account in accordance to the prescription of ISO 6142‐12015

P a g e | 72

2verCOprepCOverCO

2prepCO

2certCO )()()(

2

122222

xxxuxuxu

The following table reports the mole fractions with the associated uncertainties of the preparation and verification for the two prepared mixtures

Cylinder number xCO2 prep

micromolmol u(xCO2prep)micromolmol

xCO2 ver micromolmol

u(xCO2ver)micromolmol

D247440 4793 01 4783 12

D247445 7989 02 7965 12

A5 Additional information

a) Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas

Component Mole Fraction x u(x)

CO2 gt099998 molmol 58 micromolmol

CO le01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

H2 le01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

N2 le10 micromolmol 3 micromolmol

O2 le3 micromolmol 09 micromolmol

H2O le5 micromolmol 14 micromolmol

CnHm le3 micromolmol 09 micromolmol

Purity table for CO2

b) Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar parent gases

Component Mole Fraction x u(x)

N2 gt0999999 molmol 03 micromolmol

CO2 lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

H2 lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

O2 lt05 micromolmol 014 micromolmol

H2O lt05 micromolmol 014 micromolmol

CnHm lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

Purity table for N2

Component Mole Fraction x u(x)

O2 gt0999999 molmol 03 micromolmol

CO lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

CO2 lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

H2 lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

H2O lt05 micromolmol 014 micromolmol

CnHm lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

Purity table for O2

P a g e | 73

Component Mole Fraction x u(x)

Ar gt099999 molmol 29 micromolmol

O2 lt2 micromolmol 06 micromolmol

H2O lt3 micromolmol 09 micromolmol

CnHm lt05 micromolmol 014 micromolmol

Purity table for Ar

c) Brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures

In order to produce the final mixtures the following premixtures were prepared 1) Premixture of CO2 in N2 at 0080122 molmol (U=0000025 molmol) gravimetrically prepared (double

substitution scheme A‐B‐B‐A) from pure CO2 (48) and N2 (60) 2) Premixture of CO2 in N2 at 50054 micromolmol (U=21 micromolmol) gravimetrically prepared (double

substitution scheme A‐B‐B‐A) from the above mentioned mixture n 1 of CO2 in N2 (0080122 molmol) diluted with N2 (60)

3) Premixture of Ar in O2 (Ar 0042703 molmol O2 0957297 molmol) gravimetrically prepared (double substitution scheme A‐B‐B‐A) from pure Ar (50) and O2 (60)

The final mixtures were gravimetrically prepared (double substitution scheme A‐B‐B‐A) by using premixtures n 2 and n 3 as parent mixtures and using N2 60 as balance gas to obtain the target CO2 mole fractions Concerning premixture n 3 an additional determination of the mole fraction of CO2 in the mixture was carried out by NDIR spectroscopy The instrument was calibrated in the range (01‐1) micromolmol using dynamic dilution The obtained value is 03 micromolmol of CO2 (u=009 micromolmol calculated assuming a rectangular distribution) which was taken into account for assigning the mole fraction of the final mixtures (CO2 4793 and 7989 micromolmol respectively) and evaluating the associated uncertainty

d) Brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures

After preparation the mixtures were rolled for 24 h to be homogenized An analytical verification was carried out by NDIR spectroscopy using for each mixture a 3‐point calibration curve based on WTLS in the range (330‐520) micromolmol and (690‐900) micromolmol respectively The calibration standards were prepared starting from a mixture of CO2 in synthetic air at a nominal mole fraction of 4800 micromolmol diluted with synthetic air by means of Mass Flow Controllers calibrated at INRiM Each calibration point was repeated 5 times Each calibration curve was validated by using an independent mixture of CO2 in synthetic air having a the mole fraction within the calibration range

e) Brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM

The mixtures were tested for their stability on a weekly basis following the same procedure as described in d) No trends in the analytical response were observed within 3 weeks and the mixtures could be considered stable

f) Cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM 90 bar for each cylinder

P a g e | 74

KRISS

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 75

P a g e | 76

P a g e | 77

P a g e | 78

P a g e | 79

P a g e | 80

P a g e | 81

P a g e | 82

LNE

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

SubmissionformCCQM‐K120‐RProject name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department

Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form

Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute LNE

Address 1 rue Gaston Boissier

75724 Paris Cedex 15

Contact person Mace Tatiana

P a g e | 83

Telephone +33140433853 Fax +33140433737

Email tatianamacelnefr

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty

Coverage factor

certx CO2 μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 1029045‐CO2air 0028 37948 079 2

2 1029047‐CO2AIR 0029 4776 10 2

3 1029048‐CO2AIR 0030 8022 17 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number CO2AIR 0028

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0780686 molmol 0000025 molmol 2

O2 0209528 molmol 0000019 molmol 2

Ar 0009407 molmol 0000022 molmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number CO2AIR 0029

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Unit Coverage

P a g e | 84

Uncertainty Factor

N2 0781355 molmol 0000025 molmol 2

O2 0208794 molmol 0000018 molmol 2

Ar 0009374 molmol 0000022 molmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number CO2AIR 0030

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0782710 molmol 0000027 molmol 2

O2 0207187 molmol 0000021 molmol 2

Ar 0009301 molmol 0000021 molmol 2

A4 Uncertainty Budget

Please provide a complete uncertainty budgets for the CO2 mole fraction values reported

CO2Air 0028 37948 plusmn 079 micromolmol (k=2)

Xi Unit Value u(Xi) Sensib C(Xi) C(Xi)u(Xi) poids

Mass CO2 Premix g 6021896 0017 606175153 010304978 679

CO2 molar mass gmol 440095 000091 ‐012936318 ‐000011772 000

CO2 concentration (premix) molmol 000998425 000000097 377979757 003666404 086

N2 molar mass gmol 2801348 0000099 ‐276210444 ‐000027345 000

Mass ArgO2 Premix g 3981732 0017 ‐020862621 ‐000354665 001

Arg concentration (premix) molmol 004288429 00000048 204187142 9801E‐05 000

Arg molar mass gmol 39948 0001 011015474 000011015 000

O2 molar mass gmol 319988 000042 245849547 000103257 000

N2 purity molmol 099997493 00000144 ‐281970074 ‐000406037 001

Mass N2 g 1170753 002 ‐024083902 ‐000481678 001

Stability 0 038 1 038 9232

CO2Air 0029 4776 plusmn 10 micromolmol (k=2)

Xi Unit Value u(Xi) Sensib C(Xi) C(Xi)u(Xi) Weight

Mass CO2 Premix g 7635147 0017 595567319 010124644 391

CO2 molar mass gmol 440095 000091 ‐016114898 ‐000014665 000

CO2 concentration (premix) molmol 000998425 000000097 47573918 00461467 081

N2 molar mass gmol 2801348 0000099 ‐346583037 ‐000034312 000

P a g e | 85

Mass ArgO2 Premix g 3997202 0017 ‐026063746 ‐000443084 001

Arg concentration (premix) molmol 004288429 00000048 256082804 000012292 000

Arg molar mass gmol 39948 0001 013815138 000013815 000

O2 molar mass gmol 319988 000042 308334014 0001295 000

N2 purity molmol 099997494 00000144 ‐350551134 ‐000504794 001

Mass N2 g 1165053 002 ‐030088103 ‐000601762 001

Stability 0 05 1 05 9525

CO2Air 0030 8022 plusmn 17 micromolmol (k=2)

Uncertainty source Unit Value Xi u(Xi) Sensitivity coefficient

C(Xi) C(Xi)u(Xi)

Contribution to the

uncertainty

Mass CO2 Premix g 128097 0020 575918809 011518376 201

CO2 molar mass gmol 440095 000091 ‐02614445 ‐000023791

000

CO2 concentration (premix)

molmol 000998425 000000097 799263648 007752857 091

N2 molar mass gmol 2801348 0000099 ‐578813182 ‐000057303

000

Mass ArgO2 Premix g 3961709 0021 ‐043832537 ‐000920483

001

Arg concentration (premix)

molmol 004288429 00000048 426841537 000020488 000

Arg molar mass gmol 39948 0001 023027218 000023027 000

O2 molar mass gmol 319988 000042 513934409 000215852 000

N2 purity molmol 099997493 00000144 ‐564097099 ‐0008123 001

Mass N2 g 1114778 0023 ‐050600475 ‐001163811

002

Stability 0 08 1 08 9704

A5 Additional information

Please include in this section in the case of standards produced with synthetic air

a) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg PurCO2pur007txt degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg

P a g e | 86

Component molmol uncertainty ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ CO2 09999922500 00000026021 H2O 00000015000 00000008660 O2 00000010000 00000005774 Methane 00000010000 00000005774 H2 00000002500 00000001443 N2 00000040000 00000023094

b) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar parent gas

a Pure Argon degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg PurAr_A106273txt degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg Component molmol uncertainty ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Ar 09999998100 00000000880 O2 00000000050 00000000029 H2O 00000000100 00000000058 CO2 00000000005 00000000003 CnHm 00000000250 00000000144 N2 00000001500 00000000866

b Pure Oxygen

degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg PurO2_207494Htxt degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg Component molmol uncertainty ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ O2 09999974360 00000011650 CO2 00000001640 00000000082 CO 00000000500 00000000289 CnHm 00000000500 00000000289 N2 00000020000 00000011547 H2O 00000002500 00000001443 H2 00000000500 00000000289

c Pure Nitrogen

degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg Purazote_bip_GQ88DUItxt degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg

P a g e | 87

Component molmol uncertainty ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ N2 09999749345 00000144338 CO2 00000000005 00000000003 H2O 00000000100 00000000058 Ar 00000250000 00000144338 O2 00000000050 00000000029 H2 00000000250 00000000144 CnHm 00000000250 00000000144

c) Dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures

a Argonoxygen premix

b CO2N2 premix

c Final mixtures of CO2 in air

ArgonO2

428843 plusmn 000096

Pure Argon

94147 g (u=0011 g)

Pure Oxygen

1736737 g (u=0015 g)

CO2N2 0065

099842 plusmn 000020

CO2N2 0064

100131 plusmn 00013

181585 g (u=0016 g)

Pure N2

1422808 g (u=0019 g)

Pure CO2

248725 g (u=0017 g)

Pure N2

1550854 g (u=0019 g)

P a g e | 88

d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures The gravimetric concentrations of the CO2 gas mixtures in air have been verified with a micro gas chromatograph (chrompack CP2003) The components are separated by a HayeSep A

CO2Air 0028

37948 plusmn 079 micromolmol

CO2N2 0065

60219 g (u=0017 g)

ArgonO2

398173 g (u=0017 g)

Pure N2

1170753 g (u=0020 g)

CO2Air 0029

4776 plusmn 10 micromolmol

CO2N2 0065

76351 g (u=0017 g)

ArgonO2

399720 g (u=0017 g)

Pur N2

1165053 g (u=0020 g)

CO2Air 0030

8022 plusmn 17 micromolmol

CO2N2 0065

128097 g (u=0020 g)

ArgonO2

396171 g (u=0021 g)

Pur N2

1114778 g (u=0023 g)

P a g e | 89

column at 70degC with an hydrogen pressure at 200 kPa The injection is performed at a pressure of 15 bar during 100 ms Each CO2 gas mixture in air is compared by chromatography to a reference gas mixture of CO2 in air generated by dilution of a high concentration gravimetric gas mixture (CO2 in nitrogen) with a Molbloc flowmeter 30 runs are performed with the reference gas mixture 30 runs are performed with the gas mixture to be verified and 30 runs are performed again with the reference gas mixture The 10 previous runs are used to calculate the analytical concentration The gas mixture is validated if the difference between the analytical and gravimetric concentrations is lower than the quadratic sum of the variances

e) Stability of the gas mixtures between the time they were prepared and the time they were shipped to the BIPM The CO2 gases mixtures in air have been analysed 3 times during a period of 2 months before being sent to BIPM

P a g e | 90

P a g e | 91

BFKH

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for carbon dioxide in air standards in the

range (380‐480) micromolmol and (480‐800) micromolmol

A1 General information

Institute Hungarian Trade Licensing Office MKEH

Address Neacutemetvoumllgyi uacutet 37‐39 Budapest

1124 Hungary

Contact person Judit Fuumlkő Zsoacutefia Nagyneacute Szilaacutegyi Tamaacutes Buumlki

Telephone +36 1 4585988

+36 1 4585800

Fax + 36 1 4585 937

Email tothnefjmkehhu

P a g e | 92

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 OMH54 37984 171 2

2 OMH44 47989 211 2

3 OMH69 80030 292 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted)

(Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number OMH54

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit CoverageFactor

N2 078039 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209615 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009607 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5130 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number OMH44

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

P a g e | 93

N2 078064 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209514 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009360 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5130 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number OMH69

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078072 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209161 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009314 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5130 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

A4 Uncertainty Budget

Uncertainty budget of preparation of CO2 standard by gravimetry

OMH69 800ppm

Uncertainty

source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 138729 g Normal 000046 g 1 33158E‐04

martix mass 11397986 g Normal 0026 g 1 22811E‐05

P a g e | 94

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000333

ppm 027

OMH44 480ppm

Uncertainty

source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 081399 g Normal 000034 g 1 41770E‐04

martix mass 111578 g Normal 0026 g 1 23302E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000419

ppm 020

OMH54 380ppm

Uncertainty

source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 064422 g Normal 000032 g 1 49672E‐04

martix mass 11159357 g Normal 0026 g 1 23299E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000498

P a g e | 95

ppm 019

The standard uncertainty of xi can be expressed as xuxuxuxuxu sti

2veri

2veri

2prepi

2i

2 (1)

xprep amount-of-substance fraction from preparation (micromolmol) uprep uncertainty of xprep (micromolmol) uver uncertainty from verification (micromolmol) ust uncertainty of calibration standard (micromolmol)

verix diffenece between the gravimetric preparation value and the result of verification measurement (micromolmol)

Ux stated uncertainty of laboratory at 95 level of confidence (micromolmol) k assigned coverage factor for degree of equivalence Laboratory Code

Cylinder xprep uprep uver ust verix k U(xi)

U(xi)

ppm ppm rel

MKEH OMH54 37984 019 08 019 014 2 171 045

OMH44 47989 020 10 020 018 2 211 044

OMH69 80030 027 14 028 015 2 292 036

A5 Additional information

A51 SOURCE OF CO2 NITROGEN OXIGEN ARGON

CO2 48 from SIAD Italy

N2 45 from Messer Hungary

O2 50 from Messer Hungary

Ar 46 from Messer Hungary

A52 PURITY TABLE OF PURE CO2 (38458)

Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol)

Uncertainty

(molmol)

CO2 specifications 09999885 00000133

N2 specifications 00000050 00000058

H2O specifications 00000025 00000029

P a g e | 96

CH4 specifications 00000025 00000029

O2 specifications 00000015 00000017

A53 PURITY TABLE OF PURE NITROGEN

Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol)

Uncertainty

(molmol)

N2 specifications 09999870 00000150

O2 specifications 00000050 00000058

H2O specifications 00000050 00000058

CH4 specifications 00000025 00000029

CO specifications 00000005 00000006

A54 PURITY TABLE OF PURE OXIGEN

Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol)

Uncertainty

(molmol)

O2 specifications 09999866 00000155

N2 specifications 00000100 00000115

H2O specifications 00000025 00000029

CH4 specifications 000000003 00000004

CO specifications 000000003 00000004

CO2 specifications 000000003 00000004

A55 PURITY TABLE OF PURE ARGON

Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol)

Uncertainty

(molmol)

Ar specifications 09999822 00000206

P a g e | 97

O2 specifications 00000025 00000029

H2O specifications 00000050 00000058

N2 specifications 00000100 00000116

CO2 specifications 00000003 00000004

A56 PREPARATION OF THE MIXTURES

We used 94 L aluminum cylinder (Luxfer) with brass valves DIN10 All the three mixtures were prepared without dilution series First the pure CO2 was filled with using loop into the properly prepared cylinder the mass measurement of the loop was carried out by an analytical balance ndash Mettler Toledo AE240‐S After the pure gases were filled directly gravimetrically after each other and the measurement of the gas mass was carried out by a topload balance ndash Mettler Toledo XP26003L

A57 VERIFICATION OF THE MIXTURES

All the three mixtures measured using methaniser at Agilent GC‐FID and we used MKEH standard gases one by one for calibration this method to the purpose of confirm that the gravimetric value and uncertainty for the carbon dioxide mole fraction of its standards is valid and it is included in the calculation of the reference value

A58 STABILITY OF THE MIXTURES

All the three mixtures were measured using methaniser at Agilent GC‐FID three times independently between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM There wasnrsquot significant difference between the certified values and the measured values

A59 CYLINDER PRESSURE BEFORE SHIPMENT TO THE BIPM 100 bar

P a g e | 98

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for carbon dioxide in air standards in the range (380‐480) micromolmol and (480‐800) micromolmol A1 General information

Institute Government Office of the Capital City Budapest BFKH (former MKEH)

Address Neacutemetvoumllgyi uacutet 37‐39Budapest 1124 Hungary

Contact person Judit Fuumlkő Tamaacutes Buumlki Zsoacutefia Nagyneacute Szilaacutegyi

Telephone +36 1 4585988 +36 1 4585800

Fax + 36 1 4585 937

Email fukojuditbfkhgovhu

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 OMH54 3798 17 2

2 OMH44 4644 28 2

P a g e | 99

3 OMH69 8003 29 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted)

(Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number OMH54

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078039 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209615 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009607 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5100 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number OMH44

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078064 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209514 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009360 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5100 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number OMH69

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078072 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209161 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009314 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5100 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

P a g e | 100

A4 Uncertainty Budget Uncertainty budget of preparation of CO2 standard by gravimetry

OMH69 800ppm

Uncertainty source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 138729 g Normal 000046 g 1 33158E‐04

martix mass 11397986 g Normal 0026 g 1 22811E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000333

ppm 027

OMH44 480ppm

Uncertainty source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 081399 g Normal 000034 g 1 41770E‐04

martix mass 111578 g Normal 0026 g 1 23302E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000419

ppm 020

P a g e | 101

OMH54 380ppm

Uncertainty source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 064422 g Normal 000032 g 1 49672E‐04

martix mass 11159357 g Normal 0026 g 1 23299E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000498

ppm 019

The standard uncertainty of xi can be expressed as

xuxuxuxuxu sti2

veri2

veri2

prepi2

i2 (1)

xprep amount-of-substance fraction from preparation (micromolmol) uprep uncertainty of xprep (micromolmol) uver uncertainty from verification (micromolmol) ust uncertainty of calibration standard (micromolmol)

verix diffenece between the gravimetric preparation value and the result of verification measurement (micromolmol)

Ux stated uncertainty of laboratory at 95 level of confidence (micromolmol) k assigned coverage factor for degree of equivalence

Laboratory Code

Cylinder xprep

uprep xmeas um ust verix k U(xi) U(xi)

ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm rel

BFKH OMH54 37984 019 08 019 014 2 17 045

OMH44 47989 020 46444 14 020 2 28 058

OMH69 80030 027 14 028 015 2 29 036

The stability measurements indicated some preparation mistake in case of the OMH44 cylinder The certified value of this cylinder was calculated from the measurements and the uncertainty from the equation below

xuxuxuxu sti2

easmi2

prepi2

i2

P a g e | 102

A5 Additional information A51 SOURCE OF CO2 NITROGEN OXIGEN ARGON CO2 48 from SIAD Italy N2 45 from Messer Hungary O2 50 from Messer Hungary Ar 46 from Messer Hungary A52 PURITY TABLE OF PURE CO2 (38458) Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol) Uncertainty (molmol)

CO2 Specifications 09999885 00000133 N2 Specifications 00000050 00000058 H2O Specifications 00000025 00000029 CH4 Specifications 00000025 00000029 O2 Specifications 00000015 00000017 A53 PURITY TABLE OF PURE NITROGEN Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol) Uncertainty (molmol)

N2 Specifications 09999870 00000150 O2 Specifications 00000050 00000058 H2O Specifications 00000050 00000058 CH4 Specifications 00000025 00000029 CO Specifications 00000005 00000006 A54 PURITY TABLE OF PURE OXIGEN Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol) Uncertainty (molmol)

O2 Specifications 09999866 0000016 N2 Specifications 00000100 0000012 H2O Specifications 00000025 00000029 CH4 Specifications 000000003 00000004 CO Specifications 000000003 00000004 CO2 Specifications 000000003 00000004 A55 PURITY TABLE OF PURE ARGON Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol) Uncertainty (molmol)

Ar Specifications 09999822 00000200 O2 Specifications 00000025 00000029 H2O Specifications 00000050 00000058 N2 Specifications 00000100 0000012 CO2 Specifications 00000003 00000004 A56 PREPARATION OF THE MIXTURES We used 94 L aluminum cylinder (Luxfer) with brass valves DIN10

P a g e | 103

All the three mixtures were prepared without dilution series First the pure CO2 was filled with using loop into the properly prepared cylinder the mass measurement of the loop was carried out by an analytical balance ndash Mettler Toledo AE240‐S After the pure gases were filled directly gravimetrically after each other and the measurement of the gas mass was carried out by a topload balance ndash Mettler Toledo XP26003L A57 VERIFICATION OF THE MIXTURES All the three mixtures measured using methaniser at Agilent GC‐FID and we used MKEH standard gases one by one for calibration this method to the purpose of confirm that the gravimetric value and uncertainty for the carbon dioxide mole fraction of its standards is valid and it is included in the calculation of the reference value A58 STABILITY OF THE MIXTURES All the three mixtures were measured using methaniser at Agilent GC‐FID three times independently between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM A59 CYLINDER PRESSURE BEFORE SHIPMENT TO THE BIPM 100 bar

P a g e | 104

NIM

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM-K120 Carbon dioxide in Air Laboratory National Institute of Metrology

Cylinders number FB03748 FB03744 FB03747

Preparation report

A1 General information

Institute National Institute of Metrology China

Address 18 Bei San Huan Dong Lu Chaoyang District City Bei Jing

Building 17 Room 217

Contact person BI Zhe Zeyi Zhou

Telephone 86-10-84232306 Fax 86-10-84232306

Email zhouzynimaccn bizhnimaccn

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM-K120a Yes

CCQM-K120b Yes

A3 Submitted values for carbon dioxide preparation results in each standard

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2 μmolmol )( CO2 certxU

μmolmol

1 FB03748 80982 026 2

2 FB03744 48915 022 2

P a g e | 105

3 FB03747 38343 020 2

A4 Submitted values for each standardrsquos matrix Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted)

(Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number FB03748

Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage

Factor CH4(Methane) 101times10-9 molmol 203E-10 molmol 2 C2H4(Ethene) 146times10-10 molmol 113E-10 molmol 2 C3H8(Propane) 518times10-10 molmol 405E-10 molmol 2 N2(Nitrogen) 0781 molmol 271E-05 molmol 2 O2(Oxygen) 0210 molmol 260E-05 molmol 2 Ar(Argon) 794times10-3 molmol 969E-06 molmol 2 H2O(Water) 291times10-7 molmol 139E-07 molmol 2 N2O(Dinitrogen_oxide) 790times10-10 molmol 586E-10 molmol 2 CO2(Carbon_dioxide) 80982times10-4 molmol 248E-07 molmol 2 (Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number FB03744

Component Mole fraction Value

Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

CH4(Methane) 101E-09 molmol 308E-10 molmol 2 C2H4(Ethene) 880E-11 molmol 685E-11 molmol 2 C3H8(Propane) 313E-10 molmol 245E-10 molmol 2 N2(Nitrogen) 781E-01 molmol 275E-05 molmol 2 O2(Oxygen) 210E-01 molmol 264E-05 molmol 2 Ar(Argon) 904E-03 molmol 990E-06 molmol 2 H2O(Water) 290E-07 molmol 139E-07 molmol 2 N2O(Dinitrogen_oxide) 790E-10 molmol 601E-10 molmol 2 CO2(Carbon_dioxide) 48915E-04 molmol 191E-07 molmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number FB03747 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage

Factor CH4(Methane) 101E-09 molmol 408E-10 molmol 2 C2H4(Ethene) 690E-11 molmol 537E-11 molmol 2 C3H8(Propane) 245E-10 molmol 192E-10 molmol 2 N2(Nitrogen) 782E-01 molmol 288E-05 molmol 2 O2(Oxygen) 209E-01 molmol 276E-05 molmol 2 Ar(Argon) 922E-03 molmol 102E-05 molmol 2 H2O(Water) 289E-07 molmol 139E-07 molmol 2 N2O(Dinitrogen_oxide) 791E-10 molmol 607E-10 molmol 2 CO2(Carbon_dioxide) 38343E-04 molmol 183E-07 molmol 2 CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

P a g e | 106

Cylinder

Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 2 3

A5 Uncertainty Budget Please provide a complete uncertainty budgets for the CO2 mole fraction values reported

Uncertainty budget

Cylinder

Gravimetric

valueμmolmol

Component distribution Standard

uncertaintyμmolmol

FB03748 80982

Combined uncertainty of

Purity Molecular and

Weighing

Normal 0124

Repeatability of the

measurement Normal 0040

Combined standard uncertainty 013

FB03744 48915

Combined uncertainty of

Purity Molecular and

Weighing

Normal 0096

Repeatability of the

measurement Normal 0030

Combined standard uncertainty 011

FB03747 38343

Combined uncertainty of

Purity Molecular and

Weighing

Normal 0092

Repeatability of the

measurement Normal 0030

Combined standard uncertainty 010

A6 Additional information

P a g e | 107

Please include in this section in the case of standards produced with synthetic air

g) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas h) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar NO2 and CH4 parent gas i) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures j) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures k) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time

they are shipped to the BIPM and l) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

a) purity table for the nominally pure CO2 09999924 molmol

Component Amount fraction

(10-6molmol)

Standard uncertainty

(10-6molmol) Assumed distribution

CH4 113 045 Normal

C2H4 018 007 Normal

C3H8 064 025 Normal

O2 052 021 Normal

Ar 010 004 Normal

N2 251 100 Normal

H2O 250 100 Normal

N2O 0001 00006 Rectangular

CO2 9999924 15 Normal

b) purity table for the nominally pure N2 0 9999521 molmol

Component Amount fraction

(10-6molmol)

Standard uncertainty

(10-6molmol) Assumed distribution

CH4 0001 00005 Rectangular

Ar 483 48 Normal

O2 002 0006 Normal

CO2 0010 0003 Normal

H2O 010 004 Normal

N2O 0001 00004 Rectangular

P a g e | 108

N2 9999521 48 Normal

purity table for the nominally pure O2 0 9999959 molmol

Component Amount fraction

(10-6molmol)

Standard uncertainty

(10-6molmol) Assumed distribution

CH4 0001 00003 Normal

Ar 20 05 Normal

N2 11 03 Normal

CO2 00012 00004 Rectangular

H2O 12 04 Normal

N2O 0001 00004 Rectangular

O2 9999959 48 Normal

purity table for the nominally pure Ar 09999998 molmol

Component Amount fraction

(10-6molmol)

Standard uncertainty

(10-6molmol) Assumed distribution

CH4 0001 00003 Normal

O2 0020 0005 Normal

N2 0010 0001 Normal

CO2 0001 00004 Rectangular

H2O 01 04 Normal

N2O 0001 00004 Rectangular

Ar 9999998 48 Normal

P a g e | 109

c) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures

d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures Seven primary standard cylinders of CO2 in air mixture were measured by CRDs A linearity regression was established based on these seven cylinders For each point an average of date recorded in 2 minutes were used The verification wre done by the comparison of gravimetric values and the calculated values

Gravimetric value Fitted value Relative deviation

y = 1002382 x + 0187049 Rsup2 = 1000000

350

450

550

650

750

850

350 450 550 650 750 850

Measured value VS Gravimetric value

1047095 g

CO2

N2

26743 g

CO2N2 15998ppm

Ar O2 N2

FB03748

CO2N2 32592 g Ar 7193 g O2 153303 g N2 466458 g

FB03744

CO2N2 19417 g Ar 8082 g O2 150754 g N2 472375 g

FB03747

CO2N2 14474 g Ar 7835 g O2 142777 g N2 453560 g

P a g e | 110

μmolmol μmolmol 80982 80965 -0021 81307 81319 0015 49106 49113 0014 48915 48928 0025 37819 37818 -0003 39162 39161 -0004 38343 38332 -0030

e) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are

prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM

Three test gas mixtures were prepared 3 months before the comparison After gas mixtures for the comparison were prepared a liner regression was done by combining the test gas mixtures and the comparison cylinders No significant drift of the values was observed between the time they were prepared and the time they were shipped to the BIPM f) cylinders pressure before shipment to the BIPM

Cylinder No Pressure (bar) FB03748 90 FB03744 90 FB03747 90

P a g e | 111

NIST

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM‐K120‐R Project name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department

Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form

Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute NIST

Address 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8393

Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8393

Contact person George C Rhoderick

Telephone 301‐975‐3937 Fax 301‐977‐8392

P a g e | 112

Email GeorgeRhodericknistgov

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 FB04278 3790449 03908 2

2 FB04300 4726617 04280 2

3 FB04287 7945334 10287 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number FB04278

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0780812 molmol 0000118 molmol 2

O2 0209470 molmol 000071 molmol 2

Ar 0009339 molmol 000037 molmol 2

CH4 nmolmol nmolmol

N2O nmolmol nmolmol

P a g e | 113

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number FB04300

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0780771 molmol 0000128 molmol 2

O2 0209422 molmol 0000081 molmol 2

Ar 0009334 molmol 0000034 molmol 2

CH4 nmolmol nmolmol

N2O nmolmol nmolmol

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number FB04287

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0780499 molmol 0000114 molmol 2

O2 0209370 molmol 0000067 molmol 2

Ar 0009336 molmol 0000040 molmol 2

CH4 nmolmol nmolmol

N2O nmolmol nmolmol

CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 FB04278 ‐28 plusmn 2 1

2 FB04300 ‐28 plusmn 2 1

3 FB04287 ‐28 plusmn 2 1

A4 Uncertainty Budget Please provide a complete uncertainty budgets for the CO2 mole fraction values reported

P a g e | 114

A5 Additional information

FB04278

Standard Relative ContributionValue Uncertainty Uncertianty to Uncertainty

Major Component MW 2801340 000016 00000058 00020

Minor Component MW 4400950 000052 00000119 00041

Mass Parent Gas 1893585 000146 00000769 00264

Mass Balance Gas 7453878 00020 00000027 00009

Minor Component Wt Fraction 0023250750 0000006755 00002905 00997

Mass minor component - Parent 044027281 000013232 00003005 01031Mass minor component - Bal 000006695 000001936 02890953 991626

Total mass minor component 044017935 000022556 00005124 01758

Moles of minor component 001000192 000000513 00005126 01758

Balance gas wt fraction (purity) 0755569792 390976E-05 00000517 00177

Mass balance gas - parent 1397906371 000148549 00001063 00365Mass balance gas - balance 56319253120 002918142 00000518 00178

Total mass balance gas 57717159491 002921920 00000506 00174

Moles of balance gas 2060341104 000104994 00000510 00175

Moles impurities from parent 013966291020 000002524000 00001807 00620

Moles impurities from balance 56340784 00010163 00001804 00619

Total Moles of gas 263871542 00014615 00000554 00190

Conc minor component (ppm) 3790449 01954Relative uncert 0052 0292 100000

FB04300

Standard Relative Contribution

Value Uncertainty Uncertianty to Uncertainty

Major Component MW 2801340 000016 00000058 00025

Minor Component MW 4400950 000052 00000119 00050

Mass Parent Gas 2953886 000141 00000477 00201

Mass Balance Gas 74869117 000194 00000026 00011

CO2 Component Wt Fraction 0018926076 0000006339 00003350 01414

Mass CO2 component - Parent 055905476 000018915 00003383 01428Mass CO2 component - Balance Air 000003828 000000898 02345407 989951

Total mass CO2 component 055885777 000025068 00004486 01893

Moles of minor component 001269857 000000570 00004487 01894

Balance gas wt fraction (purity) 07556035 000004300 00000569 00240Mass balance gas - parent 2190310136 000191642 00000875 00369

Mass balance gas - balance 56571366688 003222901 00000570 00240

Total mass balance gas 58761676824 003228594 00000549 00232

Moles of balance gas 2097627451 000115899 00000553 00233

Moles impurities from parent 021883087438 000003747112 00001712 00723

Moles impurities from balance 56582830 00011276 00001993 00841

Total Moles of gas 268660869 00016174 00000602 00254

Conc minor component (ppm) 4726617 02140Relative uncert 0045 0237 100000

FB04287

Standard Relative ContributionValue Uncertainty Uncertianty to Uncertainty

Major Component MW 2801340 000016 00000058 00021

Minor Component MW 4400950 000052 00000119 00042

Mass Parent Gas 3957940 000137 00000346 00122

Mass Balance Gas 7227358 00020 00000028 00010

Minor Component Wt Fraction 0023250750 0000006716 00002889 01017

Mass minor component - Parent 092025076 000026773 00002909 01025Mass minor component - Bal 000005052 000001421 02813263 990842

Total mass minor component 092005795 000059343 00006450 02272

Moles of minor component 002090589 000001349 00006451 02272

Balance gas wt fraction (purity) 0755575527 389029E-05 00000515 00181

Mass balance gas - parent 2921880196 000218877 00000749 00264Mass balance gas - balance 54608149036 002815892 00000516 00182

Total mass balance gas 57530029233 002824386 00000491 00173

Moles of balance gas 2053661078 000101531 00000494 00174

Moles impurities from parent 029192104701 000004836046 00001657 00583

Moles impurities from balance 54627264 00009803 00001795 00632

Total Moles of gas 263121641 00014122 00000537 00189

Conc minor component (ppm) 7945334 05143Relative uncert 0065 0284 100000

P a g e | 115

Please include in this section in the case of standards produced with synthetic air

m) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas n) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar NO2 and CH4

parent gas o) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures p) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures q) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are

prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM and r) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

Or with real air

a) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas Compound molmol Uncertainty CO2 0999994000 0000002000 N2 0000002000 0000001155 O2 0000002000 0000001155 Ar 0000002000 0000001155

b) results of the analysis and mole fractions and uncertainties of CO2 N2 O2 Ar N2O and CH4 in the scrubbed real air (if performed)

Cylinder FB04300 Compound molmol Uncertainty N2 0781133467 0000043500 CO2 0000000151 0000000036 O2 0209528241 0000039865 Ar 0009338142 0000017407

Cylinder FB04278 Compound molmol Uncertainty N2 0781102830 0000039359 CO2 0000000059 0000000017 O2 0209554557 0000034507 Ar 0009342554 0000018932

Cylinder FB04287 Compound molmol Uncertainty N2 0781108354 0000039152 CO2 0000000046 0000000013 O2 0209548136 0000033045 Ar 0009343463 0000020998

P a g e | 116

c) a brief outline of the preparation procedure of the final mixtures

The three cylinders were evacuated to ~ 05 micro of Hg filled to ~ 07 Mpa with UHP Air and vented to atmosphere (four times) and evacuated to ~ 05 micro Hg A calculated aliquot of the parent cylinder was added to each cylinder and then weighed A calculated aliquot of the matrix gas was added to each cylinder and then weighed The cylinders were rolled for ~ three hours to mix the component gases

d) a composition table for each of the final mixtures including gravimetric Uncertainties when relevant Cylinder FB04300 Compound molmol Uncertainty CO2 0000472662 0000000214 N2 0780771482 0000063800 O2 0209421668 0000040372 Ar 0009334188 0000016775 Cylinder FB04278 Compound molmol Uncertainty CO2 0000379045 0000000195 N2 0780812166 0000058766 O2 0209469584 0000035657 Ar 0009339205 0000018480 Cylinder FB04287 Compound molmol Uncertainty CO2 0000794533 0000000514 N2 0780498735 0000056955 O2 0209370336 0000033285 Ar 0009336395 0000019945

e) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures The cylinders were verified against five existing PSMs a minimum of six times using an Isotopic CO2 Cavity Ringdown Spectrometer

f) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM and

g) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

P a g e | 117

Cylinder MPa FB04300 965 FB04278 1034 FB04278 999

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders 1st report

2nd report received on May 16 2018

Addendum to NIST Report for CCQM-K120a and b 1 Introduction NIST agreed to participate in the CCQM-K120a and b Key Comparison (KC) with the understanding that this KC involved gravimetrically value-assigned samples As stated in the protocol summary the comparison involved ldquohellip preparative capabilities for carbon dioxide in air primary reference mixturesrdquo Based on this description of the KC as involving primary reference mixtures NIST assumed that the participantsrsquo value assignments and reported data were restricted solely to those that derive from purity assessments and primary gravimetric measurements However prior to submission of the reported concentrations to GAWG NIST discovered a significant discrepancy in the gravimetric values which was caused by extenuating circumstances (discussed below) and which was quantified using supplementary measurements carried out at NIST Nevertheless to follow the KC protocol and to meet the imposed deadlines NIST submitted only the gravimetric-based concentration values for the three required CO2-in-air samples despite having assessed that the results were not expected to agree with the eventual calculated KCRV 2 Background Studies on CO2 adsorptiondesorption issues NIST performed and continues to investigate an adsorptiondesorption phenomenon with CO2 in air mixtures [1] NIST has observed in 5 and 6 L aluminum cylinders containing nominal 400 micromolmol CO2 in air mixtures initial CO2 adsorption to the cylinder walls of as little as 02 micromolmol to more than 1 micromolmol depending on the cylinder and internal treatment tested It has been observed that CO2 initially adsorbs on the cylinder walls when a mixture is

NIST CCQM K120 comparison samples dataPressure August 112017 Pressure

Original Reported Original Verified Veri‐Grav departure Re‐verified Value ReVerified value‐ back

Cylinder Gravimetirc Value ppm Value ppm Diff from NIST Stability check ppm Grav Value ppm to NIST

FB04278 37905 plusmn 039 38030 plusmn 028 033 1034 MPa 38007 plusmn 030 027 724 MPa

FB04300 47266 plusmn 043 47340 plusmn 034 016 965 MPa 47337 plusmn 052 015 724 MPa

FB04287 79453 plusmn 103 79512 plusmn 058 007 999 MPa 79477 plusmn 038 003 724 MPa

Re‐verified Value Re‐Verified‐ Pressure back

SRM Sample Original Certified Value Stability check ppm Orig Cert to NIST

1720‐A‐26 39397 plusmn 013 39403 plusmn 020 0015 414 MPa (600 psi)

P a g e | 118

prepared to high pressure (asymp12 MPa asymp1800 psi) NIST modeled some of that early data that shows an increase in CO2 mole fraction (∆x) with reduced cylinder pressure from measurements of a CO2 in air mixture contained in a 6 L aluminum cylinder using the Langmuir isotherm (Irving Langmuir 1916 1918) and is shown in Figure 1

Figure 1 Measured CO2 mole fraction increase versus pressure decrease in a 6 L aluminum cylinder Solid black points represent actual measured mole fraction Solid blue line represents applied Langmuir Isotherm model Using the actual measured CO2 change in 5 L and 6 L cylinders and the Langmuir isotherm NIST modeled for projected ∆x CO2 variation for 30 L and 47 L aluminum cylinders as shown in Figure 2 The models predict that the larger the cylinder volume the less change in the CO2 mole fraction with pressure loss NIST studies of CO2 in air mixtures contained in 30 L cylinders indeed show less increase in the mole fraction of CO2 as the pressure in the cylinder decreases Therefore the surface-to-volume ratio appears to play a major role the larger the cylinder volume the less CO2 increase It is most likely that this phenomenon takes place not only at ambient CO2 mole fractions but also at much higher levels including a few molmol and higher

Figure 2 Projected variation in ∆x for 6-L 30-L and 47-L cylinders applying Langmuir Isotherm This background information was presented at the GAWG meeting in April 2017 as analyses of K120 a and b were underway These results account for the discrepant NIST values in K120 a and b More generally this study informed participants of the serious potential pitfalls associated with desorption of CO2 from cylinder walls and the dependence of this process on total charge cylinder dimensions etc and revealed the possibility of unaccounted for Type B uncertainties caused by interactions of CO2 with cylinder walls Partly because of these findings and the

P a g e | 119

occurrence of extremely low uncertainties reported by some NMIs GAWG decided to put a lower limit on the expanded uncertainty equal to 019 mol mol-1 thus affecting the relative weighting of the results contributing to the KCRV 3 Preparation of K120 Samples In conjunction with submitting freshly prepared gravimetric standards for the CCQM-K120 CO2 in air key comparison NIST also wanted to prepare a complete new suite of ambient level CO2 in air primary standard mixtures (PSMs) starting with a pure natural isotopic CO2 source That new pure CO2 source arrived at NIST in November 2016 Because there was a limited amount of pure CO2 in the cylinder obtained NIST started development by gravimetrically preparing four PSMs in the range of 1-3 molmol in CO2 and moisture scrubbed real air Upon completion of those PSMs in early December 2016 they were analyzed by GC-TCD along with the NIST 2012 CO2 suite with ratios calculated from peak area responses to a control Generalized least squares regression was used to plot the ratios vs gravimetric values of the 2012 PSMs The new percent level PSMs were predicted from the regression line The results of that comparison are shown in Table 1 Inspection of the residuals from the difference of the predicted Ysolution- YGrav value for the 2012 PSMs reveals excellent agreement However the predicted Yeval values for the new PSMs disagree with their gravimetric values by more than -2 Table 1 New percent level PSMs predicted from linear regression of 2012 PSMs

Based on these results either the 2012 suite of PSMs had increased in mole fraction because of desorption of CO2 from the cylinder surface with pressure decrease or the new source of pure CO2 was contaminated Indeed the pure CO2 was eventually analyzed in January of 2017 and found to be contaminated with 31 molmol N2 Because NIST had no time to obtain another source of pure CO2 to make another set of PSMs (K120 samples needed to be shipped to BIPM by the end of December 2016) we had to assume that the 2012 percent level PSMs were stable We made this assumption knowing that it most likely was not the case because the CO2 mole fraction had increased as these standards were below asymp 45 MPa (asymp650 psi) Not having another source of CO2 (the original CO2 source used for the 2012 suite and the source for over three decades was spent) NIST could not prepare new percent-level standards to verify the 2012 percent level standards and determine if the CO2 had indeed increased

Res idua l

2012 PSM X (Ratio) Y (Grav molmol) X‐Solution Y‐Solution uTest (Y‐Sol ‐Grav)

FA02584 244265 49500 244266 49490 Pass ‐002

FA02588 22877 46190 22877 46205 Pass 003

APEX1099215 078272 15422 078272 15420 Pass ‐001

APEX1099172 063673 12535 063656 12538 Pass 002

CAL016532 050028 09869 05003 09869 Pass 000

difference

From New CO2 Xin (Ratio) uXin Yeval (molmol) uYeval Grav Value Yeval‐Grav

FB03808 139347 000103 27669 00033 28288 ‐219

APEX1099165 118456 000141 23442 00035 24043 ‐250

APEX1099188 11708 000130 23164 00033 23773 ‐256

APEX1099246 078483 000058 15462 00015 15822 ‐228

(plusmn 00007)

P a g e | 120

NIST moved forward and prepared the three K120 standards from the 2012 PSMs cylinder number APEX1099215 at (15422 plusmn 00010) molmol and APEX1099172 at (12535 plusmn 00009) molmol (highlighted in green in Table 1) Figure 3 shows the preparation scheme

Figure 3 Preparation scheme for NIST K120 samples It is very important to state here that both cylinders were low in pressure when the three K120 standards were prepared from them APEX1099215 at 520 psi and APEX1099172 at 390 psi While NIST did not have stability data for percent-level CO2 in air mixtures we still suspected that the CO2 also increases at this mole fraction level as the pressure decreases After preparation of the three K120 standards they were compared to the 2012 ambient level PSMs and three SRM samples were also included Figure 4 shows the generalized least squares regression plotted for the 2012 PSMs represented by the black circles The blue circles represent the predicted value for the SRM 1720 samples from that regression and the red triangles represent the original SRM 1720 certified value The green squares represent the predicted value for the K120 samples from that regression line while the yellow circle with red border represent the gravimetric values From this plot the blue dotted linear regression line appears to cover all the data points

Pure CO2

CC282116

999940 plusmn 00002

APEX1099172 APEX1099215

12535 plusmn 00009 15422 plusmn 00010

molmol molmol

FB04300 FB04300 FB04300

472662 plusmn 0214 379045 plusmn 0214 794533 plusmn 0514

micromolmol micromolmol micromolmol

combined uncerta inties k=1

350

450

550

650

750

850

950

070 090 110 130 150 170 190

CO2mole fraction micro

molmol

Response Ratio

2012 CO2 PSMs

K120 Standards Predicted

K120 Grav Value

Predicted SRM 1720

SRM1720 Certified Value

P a g e | 121

Figure 4 Generalized least squares regression through NIST 2012 ambient CO2 PSM suite predicting SRM 1720 and K120 samples However if we expand the lower portion of the regression from (350-400) micromolmol we see disagreement between the new standards and SRM 1720 certified values as shown in Figure 5 While the predicted and gravimetric value for the 380 micromolmol K120 standard are still on the regression line the SRM 1720 certified values are off the regression line by around +1 micromol mol (03 relative) However the predicted and gravimetric value for the 380 micromolmol K120 sample lie on the regression line NIST has complete confidence that the SRM 1720 samples contained in 30-L cylinders are stable since they were all at pressures of +11 MPa Therefore NIST suspected that the 2012 PSMs all had increased in concentration and hence would predict the SRM 1720 samples to have less CO2 The fact that the K120 samples also lie on the line with the 2012 PSM regression we can postulate that the 2012 percent level PSMs had also increased in CO2 mole fraction as they had pressures less than 45 MPa (650 psi) when used to prepare the K120 samples

Figure 5 Expansion of Figure 4 illustrating that the SRM 1720 certified values lie off the regression line while K120 gravimetric and predicted values are still on the regression line Expanded uncertainty error bars are present but too small to be observed except in the red triangle SRM 1720 Certified Value NIST took this data for the 2012 ambient level PSMs and determined values by comparison to SRM sample 1720-A-29 with a certified value of (39312 plusmn 013) micromolmol with and (k = 2) uncertainty value at a pressure of +12 MPa The values determined for the PSMs from the SRM 1720 sample are significantly different from their gravimetric values with reduced pressure as shown in Table 2 Table 2 Ambient level 2012 PSMs determined from SRM sample 1720-A-29

4 Validity of SRM 1720 samples The SRM 1720 sample used to verify these PSMs is contained in a 30-Liter aluminum cylinder Other SRM 1720 samples have shown to be stable within uncertainty limits down to around 600 psi as shown in Table 3

‐029

‐037‐031

378

383

388

393

398

074 075 075 076 076 077 077 078 078 079 079

CO2mole fraction micro

molmol

Response Ratio

2012 CO2 PSMs

K120 Standard Predicted

K120 Standard Grav Value

SRM 1720 Predicted Value

SRM 1720 Certified Value

Gravimetric Concentration vs SRM1720 Difference Pressure

2012 PSM Mole Fraction micromolmol micromolmol micromolmol Diff ps i (Mpa)

APEX1099211 96107 plusmn 003 96091 plusmn 020 0160 002 1200 (827)

APEX1099176 91907 plusmn 046 91922 plusmn 025 ‐0150 ‐002 650 (448)

APEX1099164 67362 plusmn 035 67405 plusmn 015 ‐0430 ‐006 800 (552)

APEX1099223 63330 plusmn 042 63367 plusmn 017 ‐0370 ‐006 700 (483)

APEX1005714 42108 plusmn 006 42246 plusmn 009 ‐1380 ‐033 300 (207)

APEX1005721 39885 plusmn 006 40003 plusmn 015 ‐1180 ‐030 400 (276)

APEX1005690 37944 plusmn 006 38048 plusmn 010 ‐1040 ‐027 400 (276)

uncerta inty k=1

P a g e | 122

Table 3 Mole fractions showing increase in 30 Liter SRM 1720 samples with pressure loss

SRM 1720 samples were originally certified by comparing to the 2012 suite of four PSMs when they were at full pressure (+11 MPa) three of which are given in Table 2 APEX1005714 (42108 plusmn 006) micromolmol APEX1005721 (39885 plusmn 006) micromolmol and APEX1005690 (37944 plusmn 006) micromolmol The SRM 1720 samples were also analyzed by NOAA with results showing agreement between NIST and NOAA [2] Figure 6 shows that agreement for the 30 real air cylinder samples that comprised SRM 1720

Figure 6 Comparison of NIST and NOAA CO2 values for 30 SRM 1720 samples Error bars are expanded uncertainties at approximate 95 confidence interval 5 Verifying the K120 Samples Because all the original NIST 2012 PSMs at the 380 to 420 micromolmol range were low in pressure they could not be trusted to verify the new K120 PSMs Therefore in late December 2016 NIST used SRM sample 1720-A-29 then at 1700 psi to verify the gravimetric mole fractions in the K120 standards using CRDS Table 4 shows the gravimetric and verified values for the NIST K120 samples The December 2016 verified value is significantly higher by as much as 1 micromolmol than the gravimetric value for each of the three K120 standards This provides strong evidence that even the molmol 2012 PSMs have increased in mole fraction with the decrease in pressure Table 4 Gravimetric and verified values for NIST K120 samples

30 ‐Liter August 2017 Stability

SRM Original Certified Stability check 2017 ‐

Sample Value ppm value ppm Cert ppm

1720‐A‐26a 39397 + 013 (SRM used by BIPM for K120) 39403 + 020 + 006 600 psi 414 Mpa

1720‐AL‐01 38833 plusmn 013 38867 plusmn 014 + 034 325 psi 224 Mpa

1720‐AL‐27 39339 plusmn 013 39364 plusmn 015 + 025 450 psi 31 Mpa

All verified and stability check values determined against SRM 1720‐A‐29 (still at a pressure of 1500+ psi)

All uncertainties reported as expanded k = 2

aSRM 1720‐A‐26 was sent to BIPM as part of their system validation for K120

388

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30mole fraction micro

mol mol ‐1

Sample

NIST

NOAA

Pressure

Original Reported December 2016 Verified Verified‐Grav Verified‐Grav departure

Cylinder Gravimetirc Value ppm Verified Value micromolmol Diff in micromolmol Diff from NIST

FB04278 37905 plusmn 039 38008 plusmn 028 103 027 1034 MPa

FB04300 47266 plusmn 043 47340 plusmn 034 068 016 965 MPa

FB04287 79453 plusmn 103 79512 plusmn 058 059 007 999 MPa

P a g e | 123

Uncertainties at 95 confidence interval NIST was aware when they shipped their K120 samples to BIPM for the K120 comparison that their gravimetric values were not good However we followed the K120 protocol laid down for ldquopreparative capabilities for carbon dioxide in air primary reference mixturesrdquo and submitted the gravimetric values knowing that the verified values were the correct molar fractions for these mixtures 6 Stability check of K120 samples NIST received the three K120 samples back from BIPM in August 2017 and proceeded to check them for stability The three samples were once again compared to SRM 1720-A-29 and those results are shown in Table 5 The August 2017 stability check values agree with the December 2016 verified values and therefore have remained stable as they should be since the pressures were well above those where increases in mole fraction have been observed Table 5 Stability check results for K120 samples

Uncertainties at 95 confidence interval

7 Isotopic Composition The original value submitted by NIST for δ13C of -28 + 2 permil was an error of data transcription NIST had determined this value in 2014 for the pure source of CO2 used to prepare the submitted standards to be δ13C = -38 + 2 permil as determined by FTIR After receiveing the three standards back from BIPM NIST measured the δ13C to be -401 + 01 permil as determined by GC-IRMS 8 NIST Best-Estimate Value If it had been explicitly stated that participants could report their ldquobest-estimate valuerdquo for samples submitted for this CCQM-K120 key comparison for ambient CO2 in air which would not necessarily be their true gravimetric value then NIST would have submitted the values obtained from verification against the SRM sample NIST ldquobest-estimate valuesrdquo are thus given in Table 6 Table 6 NIST Best-Estimate (Verified) Values

August 2017 August 2017 Pressure

December 2016 Verified August 2017 Stability check‐Dec 2016 Stabiity check‐ back

Cylinder Verified Value micromolmol Stability check micromolmol Verified Value micromolmol Verified Value Diff to NIST

FB04278 38008 plusmn 028 38007 plusmn 030 ‐001 ‐0003 724 MPa

FB04300 47340 plusmn 034 47337 plusmn 052 ‐003 ‐0006 724 MPa

FB04287 79512 plusmn 058 79477 plusmn 038 ‐035 ‐0044 724 MPa

P a g e | 124

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 FB04278 38008 028 2

2 FB04300 47340 034 2

3 FB04287 79512 058 2

9 Observations from this Comparison NIST has the opinion that this key comparison was unnecessarily rushed to completion by the pilot laboratory As co-pilot on this comparison NIST should not have agreed to the arbitrary and premature deadline imposed by the pilot laboratory knowing that an optimal level of sample control had not been demonstrated Given that future key comparisons will continue to be co-piloted both parties must agree that the preliminary studies and procedures are sufficiently well-established to set firm deadlines for sample submission by participating NMIrsquos Ideally the mutual decision to set the timeline for the KC and the readiness of other NMIrsquos to participate should be discussed formally by the GAWG at the Spring or Fall meeting NIST also recommends that the GAWG draft a formal policy document that unambiguously defines the terms such as ldquogravimetricrdquo ldquoprimaryrdquo ldquopreparativerdquo ldquoanalyticalrdquo ldquobest-estimaterdquo among others which are used to describe the scope of key comparisons For example in the context of gas standards we might propose that ldquoprimaryrdquo refers to mixtures prepared by gravimetry or manometry On the other hand ldquopreparativerdquo appears with ldquoprimaryrdquo in the K120 a and b protocol summary statement What is the exact meaning of ldquopreparativerdquo in this context Similarly the term ldquobest-estimaterdquo was mentioned in discussions on K120 a and b during the April 2018 GAWG meeting when referring to acceptable reported values by NMIs although the exact meaning of this term was not clarified NISTrsquos current position is that ldquobest-estimaterdquo falls outside the scope of K120a and b and is more consistent with an ldquoanalyticalrdquo comparison These examples illustrate the need for a precise terminology to specify acceptable methods used for value assignment in future KCs For transparency this terminology should be formally defined by the GAWG for unambiguous use in subsequent KC protocols References 1 Miller WR Rhoderick GC Guenther FR Anal Chem 2015 87(3) pp 1957-1962 2 Rhoderick GR Kitzis DR Kelley ME Miller WR Hall BD Dlugokencky EJ Tans PP Possolo A Carney J Anal Chem 2016 88(6) 3376-3385 doi

101021acsanalchem6b00123

P a g e | 125

NMISA

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 126

P a g e | 127

P a g e | 128

P a g e | 129

P a g e | 130

P a g e | 131

P a g e | 132

P a g e | 133

NOAA

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 134

P a g e | 135

P a g e | 136

P a g e | 137

P a g e | 138

P a g e | 139

NPL

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM‐K120‐R Project name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards

A1 General information

Institute National Physical Laboratory

Address Hampton Road

Teddington

TW11 0LW

Contact person Paul Brewer

Telephone +44 (0) 208 943 6007 Fax

Email paulbrewernplcouk

P a g e | 140

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a CCQM‐K120b

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide amount fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 2179 38027 019 2

2 2170 48002 024 2

3 2181 79970 040 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number 2179

Component Amount fraction Value

Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078079 molmol 000047 molmol 2

O2 020960 molmol 000013 molmol 2

Ar 0009232 molmol 0000018 molmol 2

CH4 lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

Table 1 Composition of standard 1

P a g e | 141

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number 2170

Component Amount fraction Value

Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078069 molmol 000047 molmol 2

O2 020950 molmol 000013 molmol 2

Ar 0009334 molmol 0000019 molmol 2

CH4 lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

Table 2 Composition of standard 2 (Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number 2181

Component Amount fraction Value

Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078055 molmol 000047 molmol 2

O2 020928 molmol 000013 molmol 2

Ar 0009367 molmol 0000019 molmol 2

CH4 lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

Table 3 Composition of standard 3 CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 2179 ‐55 permil 10 permil 2 ‐225 permil 10 permil 2

2 2170 ‐55 permil 10 permil 2 ‐225 permil 10 permil 2

3 2181 ‐55 permil 10 permil 2 ‐225 permil 10 permil 2

Table 4 Isotopic composition of each submitted standard vs VPDB

A4 Uncertainty Budget The estimated uncertainty for the measurement contains the following components

Purity analysis of CO2 and synthetic air

Gravimetric preparation (weighing and atomic weight uncertainties)

Analytical validation

Table 5 details the uncertainty analysis The preparation component includes estimated uncertainty from purity analysis weighing and atomic weights

Relative Uncertainty ()

Identifier Component Preparation

(k=1) Validation

(k=1) Total(k=2)

2179 CO2 0018 002 005

2170 CO2 0014 002 005

2181 CO2 0010 002 005

Table 5 Uncertainty contributors To calculate the combined uncertainty the uncertainties were combined as the square root of the sum of squares The reported uncertainty of the result is based on standard uncertainties multiplied by a coverage factor of k=2 providing a level of confidence of approximately 95

P a g e | 142

A5 Additional information Description of the procedure Three gas mixtures were prepared for this comparison (2170 2179 and 2181) at NPL in synthetic air from sources of CO2 (BOC speciality gases) O2 (BOC speciality gases N 60) N2 (Air Products BIP+) and Ar (Air Products BIP+) The pure industrial source of CO2 was spiked with pure 13CO2 to achieve an isotopic composition close to natural abundance The mixtures were prepared in BOC 10 litre cylinders with Spectraseal passivation Two further sets of three reference standards was prepared and these were used to validate the comparison mixtures The scheme below shows the gravimetric dilutions with nominal CO2 amount fractions

Figure 1 Dilution scheme for gravimetric preparation

A Picarro G2301 Cavity ring-down spectrometer was used to validate the amount fraction of CO2 in mixtures 2170 2179 and 2181 The analyser response to the matrix gas was recorded The analyser response to a reference mixture was then recorded for a five minute period followed by either 2170 2179 or 2181 for the same time This sequence was repeated four times At the end of the experiment the analyser response to the matrix gas was recorded a second time To minimise the effects from zero drift a mean of the analyser response to the matrix gas before and after the experiment was used The amount fractions of 2170 2179 and 2181 were then determined by multiplying the ratio of the analyser response to each mixture and the reference mixture (both were corrected for the analyser response to matrix gas) with the amount fraction of the reference mixture These measurements were used to validate the gravimetric amount fractions submitted Cylinders were maintained at a laboratory temperature of (20 plusmn 3) C throughout the period of analysis Samples were introduced into the analyser at atmospheric pressure (excess flow was passed to vent) using a low volume gas regulator Purity tables for the CO2 Ar N2 and O2 are provided below

P a g e | 143

Component Amount Fraction (micromolmol) Expanded Uncertainty (micromolmol)

CO2 99999980 006

N2 0050 0029

O2 0050 0029

CO 0050 0029

Ar 0050 0029

Table 6 CO2 purity table

Component Amount Fraction (micromolmol) Expanded Uncertainty (micromolmol)

Ar 99999993 002

N2 0039 0023

O2 00050 00029

CO2 0007 0004

CO 00018 00010

CH4 000029 000017

Table 7 Ar purity table

Component Amount Fraction (micromolmol) Expanded Uncertainty (micromolmol)

N2 9999843 16

O2 0015 0009

Ar 1567 157

CO2 000085 000049

CO 000058 000033

CH4 000080 000046

Table 8 N2 purity table

Component Amount Fraction (micromolmol) Expanded Uncertainty (micromolmol)

O2 9999991 03

N2 050 029

Ar 0050 0029

CO2 019 019

CH4 00282 00048

Table 9 O2 purity table The mixtures were prepared on during the period 24th October to 8th November 2016 Measurements to study the stability of the mixtures were carried out over a 6 week period The cylinder pressure of mixtures 2170 2179 and 2181 prior to shipping was gt 10 MPa

P a g e | 144

NPLI

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM-K120

Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM-K120-R

Project name CCQM-K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899-8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute CSIR-National Physical Laboratory INDIA

Address CSIR-National Physical Laboratory Dr KS Krishnan Marg New Delhi ndash 110012 INDIA

Contact Person Dr Prabha Johri

Telephone 91 11 4560 856385658331

Fax 91 11 4560 9310

P a g e | 145

email pjohrinplindiaorg

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM-K120a (only) yes

CCQM-K120b (only) Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification Number

Carbon Dioxide mole fraction XCO2cert molmol

Expanded Uncertainties molmol

Coverage factor

1 JJ108891 37572 322 2

2 JJ108862 48052 304 2

3 JJ108854 79638 503 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix composition Component mol fraction and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) Standard1 Cylinder Number JJ108891

component Mole fraction value

unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0781273 molmol 0002210 molmol 2

O2 0209688 molmol 0000590 molmol 2

Ar 0009040 molmol 0000030 molmol 2

Standard 2 Cylinder Number JJ108862

component Mole fraction value

unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0781989 molmol 0002210 molmol 2

O2 0208853 molmol 0000590 molmol 2

Ar 0009158 molmol 0000030 molmol 2

P a g e | 146

Standard 3 Cylinder Number JJ108854

Component Mole fraction value

unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0781363 molmol 0002210 molmol 2

O2 0209789 molmol 0000594 molmol 2

Ar 0008847 molmol 0000030 molmol 2

A4 Uncertainty Budget The final uncertainty budget was estimated by combining two uncertainty components (ie preparation of PSGM and its analysis both)

(i) The Expanded Uncertainty estimation of all the prepared gas mixtures (PSGMs) has been calculated according to ISO 6142 Preparation of Calibration gas mixtures ndash Gravimetric method taking account of following factors 1 Raymor Balance 1 Mass Pieces 2 Bouancy corrections for weights 3 Handling of cylinder 4 Residual gases in the cylinder 5 Expansion of the cylinder due to filling of gas at High pressure (ii) Uncertainties in the analysis These are calculated taking acount of

1 Standard deviation Repeatability 2 Reproducibility amp 3 Instrument response

A5 Additional Information b) A purity table with uncertainties for pure Ar N2 and O2 parent gas The purity of N2 O2 and Ar parent gases were determined using tiger optics CRDS analyzers model for the following H2O CH4 and CO gas components The moisture of the gases were determined using Tiger Optics moisture analyzer model LaserTrace CH4 was determined using Tiger Optics methan analyzer model MTO-1000-CH4 and CO gas was determined using Tiger Optics CO analyzer model HALO 3-CO Purity of Argon gas was found to be as given below

P a g e | 147

Name of gases Concentration ppm Expanded Uncertainties Coverage factor

H2O moisture 145 023 2

CO gas 027 008 2

CH4 gas Not Detected (ND) (lt0001 )

Purity of N2 gas was found to be as given below

Name of gases Concentration ppm Expanded Uncertainties Coverage factor

H2O moisture 083 005 2

CO gas 34 024 2

CH4 gas ND (lt0001 )

Purity of O2 gas was found to be as given below

Name of gases Concentration ppm Expanded Uncertainties Coverage factor

H2O moisture 095 005 2

CH4 gas ND (lt0001 )

c) A brief out line of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures The preparation procedure involves following steps

1) Preparation of gas mixtures of CO2 in nitrogen gas Al cylinders 10 litre were evacuated and purged with nitogen gas and again evacuated with heating of the cylinders at 60-70oC This process is repeated thrice before any preparation of gas mixture was carried out The theoritical calculations were carried out for the desired concentrations Gas mixtures of CO2 in nitrogen gas from pure gas were prepared in two series in the concentrations around 20544 and 20392 molmol These gas mixtures were diluted in the concentration ranges from ( 370~ 1000 molmol) Total of 9 cylindres were prepared All the preparation of Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) were done in acordance to ISO 6142 Gas Analysis -Preparation of calibration gas mixtures - Gravimetric Method These cylinders were validated in acordance to ISO 6143 Gas analysis - Comparision method for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures Thus the prepared CO2 gas mixtures were certified as CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM)

P a g e | 148

2) Preparation of CO2 in synthetic air These mixtures were prepared from the two series of CO2 premixtures prepared in nitrogen gas in the concentration around 20544 and 20392 molmol as mentioned above The empty cylinders were evacuated and purged with dry nitogen gas and again evacuated with heating This process is repeated thrice for the pre-preparation of the cylinders The thoeritical calculations were carried out similating the desired concentration range as given in CCQM K-120 The required amount of pre mixture of CO2 in Nitrogen is transferred in the pre prepared evacuated cylinder These mixtures were now added with desired amount of pure Argon gas pure oxygen gas and finally top up has been done by nitrogen gas to simulate the synthetic air concentration Total of 9 cylinders were prepared in the concentration ranges ( 370~800 molmol) These cylinders were validated using above prepared binary mixtures of CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures Validation of Synthetic Air Mixtures

The prepared synthetic air gas mixture cylinders were validated using above prepared binary mixtures of CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) as per ISO 6143

The standard and sample gases were injected into eight-port gas sampling valves of the Agilent Gas Chromatograph with flame ionization detector (FID) Model 6890N US 10723001 The GC column used was Haysep D length 12 ft dia 18rdquo and mesh 100120 Helium gas was used as a carrier gas The measurement conditions were the sample loop of 05 ml oven temperature of 80oC detector temperature of 250oC hydrogen and air flow rate of 20 mlmin and 300 mlmin respectively All the Synthetic air CO2 gas mixtures were evaluated using a higher concentration CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) The average response was calculated by using the six values rejecting first and last two values each time for each measurement series The analysis of the cylinders were carried out three times The collected data is analysed and the uncertainty budget was evaluated

f) Cylider pressure before shipment to BIPM

SlNo Cylinder No Conc (Approx) molmol Pressure

1 JJ108891 380 110Bar 1596 psi

2 JJ108862 480 110Bar 1596 psi

3 JJ108854 800 110Bar 1596 psi

The Team members Dr Daya Soni Dr Khem Singh Ms S Bhatt Ms Joty Pokheryal Dr SG Aggarwal Dr PJohri

P a g e | 149

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM-K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM-K120-R (Stability Studies) Project name CCQM-K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899-8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute CSIR-National Physical Laboratory INDIA

Address CSIR-National Physical Laboratory Dr KS Krishnan Marg New Delhi ndash 110012 INDIA

Contact Person Dr Prabha Johri

Telephone 91 11 4560 856385658331

Fax 91 11 4560 9310

email pjohrinplindiaorg

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM-K120a (only) yes

CCQM-K120b (only) Yes

P a g e | 150

Stability Studies Result A3 NMI stability analysis values with its analytical uncertainty budget only

Cylinder Identification Number

Carbon Dioxide mole fraction XCO2cert molmol

Expanded Uncertainties molmol

Coverage factor

1 JJ108891

37824 395 2

2 JJ108862

47857 523 2

3 JJ108854

79880 335 2

A4 Uncertainty Budget The stability uncertainty budget was estimated using analytical uncertainty components only These are calculated taking account of

1 Standard deviation Repeatability 2 Calibration standard uncertainty 3 Instrument response

A5 A brief outline of the Stability Analysis Procedure applied to the Cylinders returned from BIPM France

The cylinders of the synthetic air gas mixtures arrived from BIPM France cylinders were analyzed using the prepared binary mixtures of CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) as per ISO 6143 The cylinders returned from BIPM and the binary standards gas mixtures in nitrogen gas cylinders are put to rotation for over night before using for its stability studies

The standard and sample gases were injected into eight-port gas sampling valves of the Agilent Gas Chromatograph with flame ionization detector (FID) Model 6890N US 10723001 The GC column used was Haysep D length 12 ft dia 18rdquo and mesh 100120 Helium gas was used as a carrier gas The measurement conditions were the sample loop of 05 ml oven temperature of 80oC detector temperature of 250oC hydrogen and air flow rate of 20 mlmin and 300 mlmin respectively All the Synthetic air CO2 gas mixtures were evaluated using a higher concentration CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Reference Gas Mixtures (PRGM) The average response was calculated by using six values rejecting first and last two values each time for each measurement series The analysis of the cylinders was carried out three times The collected data is analyzed and the analytical uncertainty budget was evaluated and reported in the stability result

The Team members Dr Daya Soni Dr Khem Singh Ms S Bhatt Dr SG Aggarwal Dr PJohri

P a g e | 151

UME

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM‐K120‐R

A1 General information

Institute UME

Address TUumlBİTAK UME ‐ Gas Metrology Laboratory Baris Mah Dr Zeki Acar Cad No1 41470 Gebze Kocaeli TURKEY

Contact person Dr Tanıl Tarhan

Telephone + 90 262 679 5000 6401 Fax + 90 262 679 5001

Email taniltarhantubitakgovtr

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2 μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 PSM298266 37992 016 2

2 PSM266468 48042 017 2

3 PSM298347 80076 027 2

P a g e | 152

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number PSM298266

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07803392 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

O2 02099663 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

Ar 00093140 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number PSM266468

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07799681 molmol 00000165 molmol 2

O2 02102293 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

Ar 00093215 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number PSM298347

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07795520 molmol 00000164 molmol 2

O2 02103522 molmol 00000164 molmol 2

Ar 00092945 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 PSM298266 ‐165 005 2 ‐ ‐ ‐

A4 Uncertainty Budget

P a g e | 153

The basis for the uncertainty budget is formed by the uncertainty evaluation from the gravimetric preparation and analytical measurements Gravimetric preparation contains uncertainty sources from weighing and those from purity of the parent gases Gravimetric preparation and uncertainty evaluation have performed according to ISO 6142 [1] The measurement uncertainty of each mixture was determined according to ISO 6143 [2] The combined standard uncertainty of each mixture was determined by the following equation

u u u

where

um standard uncertainty from measurements

ug standard uncertainty from gravimetric preparation

The expanded uncertainty was determined by multiplying the combined standard uncertainty by a coverage factor of 2 with a confidence interval of 95

A5 Additional information Mixtures were produced with synthetic air s) Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas

Main component carbon dioxide

Cylinder Code LG7524

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

carbon dioxide 99997750 924

water 250 144

nitrogen 1500 866

oxygen 500 289

t) Purity tables with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 and Ar parent gas

Main component nitrogen

Cylinder Code LG1220 and LG1221

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

carbon monoxide 005 003

carbon dioxide 005 003

methane 005 003

water 025 014

nitrogen 99999935 021

oxygen 025 014

Main component oxygen

P a g e | 154

Cylinder Code LG3367

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

argon 100 058

carbon dioxide 010 006

methane 010 006

water 150 087

nitrogen 250 144

oxygen 99999480 178

Main component argon

Cylinder Code LG1313

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

argon 99999300 122

water 150 087

nitrogen 400 231

oxygen 150 087

u) Mixtures were prepared according to the scheme displayed in Figure 1 Two different types of the pre‐mixtures were prepared These are 10 and 05 carbon dioxide in nitrogen and 15 argon in nitrogen 05 carbon dioxide in nitrogen and 15 argon in nitrogen pre‐mixtures were used together with pure nitrogen and pure oxygen for the final mixtures

P a g e | 155

Figure 1 Preparation scheme for the mixtures

v) Verification procedure applied to the final mixtures

The carbon dioxide (CO2) in air mixtures were analyzed on a cavity ring‐down spectroscopy (CRDS) instrument ie Picarro G2401 COCO2CH4H2O Analyzer equipped with 16‐Port Distribution Manifold Verification of the mixtures was carried out using own standards Cylinders were equipped with pressure reducers and connected to 16‐port distribution manifold They were flushed three times before the first measurement The analyzer operates vacuum pump to get the sample Therefore excess amount of gas than the amount of gas required by CRDS has been sent to the analyzer by adjusting the reducers The excess gas has been sent to the atmosphere through a bypass connected to sample line in between distribution manifold and the analyzer Each cylinder was measured for 15 minutes which is a sufficient time to obtain stable results The measurement data was collected using CRDS software Software takes about 2850 readings for 15 minutes During the data evaluation total number of 240 readings in between 10‐14 minutes has been used for determination of average values and uncertainties for each cylinder at each measurement

P a g e | 156

w) Stability testing of the mixtures

Pre‐mixtures and final mixtures were prepared in 01‐17 April 2016 First verification was performed in 21‐24 April 2016 Second verification was carried out in 22 September 2016 Final verification was performed 11‐19 October 2016 Measurement results are shown in Figure 2 As can be seen from the figure instrument response does not vary with time for each cylinder Stability testing did not show any instability within the accuracy of the measurement method

Figure 2 Stability measurements

x) Cylinder pressures before shipment to the BIPM are given below

Cylinder Code Pressure bar

PSM298266 86

PSM266468 86

PSM298347 90

References

[1] International Organization for Standardization ldquoISO 6142 Gas analysis ‐ Preparation of calibration gas mixtures ‐ Gravimetric methodsrdquo ISO Geneva 2001

[2] International Organization for Standardization ISO 6143 Gas analysis ‐ Comparison

methods for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures ISO Geneva 2001

300

500

700

900

CO2concentration (μmolmol)

Time

PSM298266 PSM266468 PSM298347

P a g e | 157

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM-K120-R

A1 General information

Institute UME

Address TUumlBİTAK UME ‐ Gas Metrology Laboratory Baris Mah Dr Zeki Acar Cad No1 41470 Gebze Kocaeli TURKEY

Contact person Dr Tanıl Tarhan

Telephone + 90 262 679 5000 6401 Fax + 90 262 679 5001

Email taniltarhantubitakgovtr

P a g e | 158

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2 μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 PSM298266 37992 019 2

2 PSM266468 48042 025 2

3 PSM298347 80076 036 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number PSM298266

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07803392 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

O2 02099663 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

Ar 00093140 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number PSM266468

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07799681 molmol 00000165 molmol 2

P a g e | 159

O2 02102293 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

Ar 00093215 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number PSM298347

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07795520 molmol 00000164 molmol 2

O2 02103522 molmol 00000164 molmol 2

Ar 00092945 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 PSM298266 ‐165 005 2 ‐ ‐ ‐

A4 Uncertainty Budget

The basis for the uncertainty budget is formed by the uncertainty evaluation from the gravimetric preparation and analytical measurements Gravimetric preparation contains uncertainty sources from weighing and those from purity of the parent gases Gravimetric preparation and uncertainty evaluation have performed according to ISO 6142 [1] The measurement uncertainty of each mixture was determined according to ISO 6143 [2] The mixtures were analyzed for stability after receiving them back from BIPM The combined standard uncertainty of each mixture was determined by the following equation

u u u u

where

um standard uncertainty from measurements

ug standard uncertainty from gravimetric preparation

us standard uncertainty for stability

The expanded uncertainty was determined by multiplying the combined standard uncertainty by a coverage factor of 2 with a confidence interval of 95

P a g e | 160

A5 Additional information Mixtures were produced from pure components of CO2 N2 O2 and Ar y) Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas

Main component carbon dioxide

Cylinder Code LG7524

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

carbon dioxide 99997750 924

water 250 144

nitrogen 1500 866

oxygen 500 289

z) Purity tables with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 and Ar parent gas

Main component nitrogen

Cylinder Code LG1220 and LG1221

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

carbon monoxide 005 003

carbon dioxide 005 003

methane 005 003

water 025 014

nitrogen 99999935 021

oxygen 025 014

Main component oxygen

Cylinder Code LG3367

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

argon 100 058

carbon dioxide 010 006

methane 010 006

water 150 087

nitrogen 250 144

oxygen 99999480 178

Main component argon

Cylinder Code LG1313

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

argon 99999300 122

water 150 087

nitrogen 400 231

oxygen 150 087

P a g e | 161

aa) Mixtures were prepared according to the scheme displayed in Figure 1 Two different types

of the pre‐mixtures were prepared These are 10 and 05 carbon dioxide in nitrogen and 15 argon in nitrogen 05 carbon dioxide in nitrogen and 15 argon in nitrogen pre‐mixtures were used together with pure nitrogen and pure oxygen for the final mixtures

Figure 1 Preparation scheme for the mixtures

bb) Verification procedure applied to the final mixtures

The carbon dioxide (CO2) in air mixtures were analyzed on a cavity ring‐down spectroscopy (CRDS) instrument ie Picarro G2401 COCO2CH4H2O Analyzer equipped with 16‐Port Distribution Manifold Verification of the mixtures was carried out using own standards Cylinders were equipped with pressure reducers and connected to 16‐port distribution manifold They were flushed three times before the first measurement The analyzer operates vacuum pump to get the sample Therefore excess amount of gas than the amount of gas required by CRDS has been sent to the analyzer by adjusting the reducers

P a g e | 162

The excess gas has been sent to the atmosphere through a bypass connected to sample line in between distribution manifold and the analyzer Each cylinder was measured for 15 minutes which is a sufficient time to obtain stable results The measurement data was collected using CRDS software Software takes about 2850 readings for 15 minutes During the data evaluation total number of 240 readings in between 10‐14 minutes has been used for determination of average values and uncertainties for each cylinder at each measurement

cc) Stability testing of the mixtures

Pre‐mixtures and final mixtures were prepared in 01‐17 April 2016 First verification was performed in 21‐24 April 2016 Second verification was carried out in 22 September 2016 Final verification was performed during 11‐19 October 2016 Measurement results are shown in Figure 2 As can be seen from the figure instrument response does not vary with time for each cylinder Stability testing did not show any instability within the accuracy of the measurement method before sending the cylinders to BIPM

Figure 2 Stability measurements before sending the cylinders

After receiving the cylinders they have been analyzed for stability Measurements were carried out during 23‐24 August 2017 and 06‐07 September 2017 Instrument responses were plotted against time as shown in Figure 3 The slope of the responses has been checked Uncertainty for stability has been determined and has been included in the combined uncertainty

300

500

700

900

CO2concentration (μmolmol)

Time

PSM298266 PSM266468 PSM298347

P a g e | 163

Figure 3 Stability measurements after receiving the cylinders

dd) Cylinder pressures before shipment to the BIPM are given below

Cylinder Code Pressure bar

PSM298266 86

PSM266468 86

PSM298347 90

References

[1] International Organization for Standardization ldquoISO 6142 Gas analysis ‐ Preparation of calibration gas mixtures ‐ Gravimetric methodsrdquo ISO Geneva 2001

[2] International Organization for Standardization ISO 6143 Gas analysis ‐ Comparison

methods for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures ISO Geneva 2001

300

500

700

900

CO2concentration (μmolmol)

Time

PSM298266 PSM266468 PSM298347

P a g e | 164

VNIIM

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQMK120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQMK120R

Project name CCQMK120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air Standards Proposed dates 092016 to 122017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 208998300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores

BIPM Chemistry Department Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg A1 General information Institute

DI Mendeleyev Institute for Metrology (VNIIM )

Address

19 Moskovsky pr St Petersburg 190005 Russia

Contact person Leonid Konopelko Telephone +7 812 315 11 45 Fax +7 812 315 15 17 Email

fhib10vniimru

P a g e | 165

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo CCQMK120a

Yes

CCQMK120b

Yes

A3 NMI submitted values Table 1 Cylinder Identification

number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction xCO2 cert μmolmol

Expanded uncertainty U(x CO2 cert) μmolmol

Coverage factor

1 M365601

38020 011 2

2 M365664

48018 013 2

3 M365707

80073 019 2

Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) Table 2 (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number M365601 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

781015 10-2 molmol 00013 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209188 10-2 molmol 00013 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09416 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000094 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Table 3 (Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number M365664 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

780928 10-2 molmol 00011 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209270 10-2 molmol 00012 10-2 molmol 2

Ar 09322 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

P a g e | 166

CH4 000000096 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Table 4 (Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number M365707 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

781000 10-2 molmol 00011 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209199 10-2 molmol 00012 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09000 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000097 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Uncertainty in the tables 2-4 includes only constituents related to gravimetry (weighing and purity) Table 5 CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional) Cylinder

Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C)

CoverageFactor

δ18O U(δ18O) CoverageFactor

1 M365601 - 480 09 2 - - - 2 M365664 - 480 09 2 - - - 3 M365707 - 480 09 2 - - - A4 Uncertainty Budget Table 6 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365601

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution

ui(y) μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200 μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999381 μmolmol B Rectangular 0015 μmolmol 006733 000101

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374 μmolmol 000016 000006

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030 μmolmol 000534 000016

Weighing premixture

CO2 2015723 g AB Normal 000223g ‐1854106 ‐004140

N2 115359704 g AB Normal 001962 g 032397 000636

Weighing pre‐ 2048733 g AB Normal 000203 g ‐1791563 ‐003630

P a g e | 167

final mixture

mixture

Ar 790915 g AB Normal 000200 g 045258 000091

O2 14075497 g AB Normal 000353 g 056493 000200

N2 43993136 g AB Normal 001021 g 064543 000659

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal 000035 gmol 86286 000302

Combined standard uncertainty 005596

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0112

Table 7 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365664

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution ui(y)

μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200

μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999390 μmolmol B Rectangular 0011

μmolmol 006909 000076

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374

μmolmol 000020 0000075

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030

μmolmol 000534 000016

Weighing premixture

CO2 1947854 g AB Normal 000224 g ‐2423572 ‐005424

N2 111850932 g AB Normal 001950 g 042206 000823

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

2586420 g AB Normal

000204 g ‐1775177 ‐003626

Ar 780100 g AB Normal 000200 g 057374 000115

O2 14028618 g AB Normal 000391 g 071611 000280

N2 43288272 g AB Normal 000915 g 081821 000749

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal

000035 gmol

109066 000382

Combined standard uncertainty 0066379

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0133

Table 8 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365707

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution

ui(y)

P a g e | 168

μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200 μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999390 μmolmol B Rectangular 0011μmolmol 006733 000076

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374 μmolmol 000035 000013

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030 μmolmol 000500 000015

Weighing premixture

CO2 2015723 g AB Normal 000223g ‐3905886 ‐008721

N2 115359704 g AB Normal 001962 g 068249 001339

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

4282195 g AB Normal

000220 g ‐1733744 ‐003823

Ar 750252 g AB Normal 000202 g 096046 000194

O2 13969676 g AB Normal 000403 g 119851 000483

N2 41448867 g AB Normal 000834 g 136969 001143

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal 000035 gmol 181777 0006362

Combined standard uncertainty

009719

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0194

Uncertainty due to weighing includes constituents related to accuracy of balance buoyancy effect resulting from change of cylinder volume during filling mass pierces used drift of balance residual gas in cylinder A5 Additional information Table 9 Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas Cylinder N 74318 Main component CO2 Mole fraction 99999345

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

N2 025 014

CO 0029 0001

CH4 0149 0002

He 05 029

H2 322 007

O2 025 014

H2O 215 011

Purity tables with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 and Ar parent gases Table 10 Purity table for N2

P a g e | 169

Monoblock Main component N2 Mole fraction 999998672

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

Ar 0916 0011

O2 00015 00009

CO2 00025 00014

H2 00025 00014

CH4 00025 00014

CO 00025 00014

H2O 040 020

Table 11 Purity table for O2 Cylinder N 910281 Main component O2 Mole fraction 999999381

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

H2 00025 00014

Ar 0181 0004

N2 0307 0012

Kr 00025 00014

CO 00075 00043

CH4 00347 00008

CO2 0081 0005

Xe 00025 00014

Table 12 Purity table for Ar Cylinder N 283162 Main component Ar Mole fraction 999998209

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

O2 00231 00013

N2 1188 0015

CH4 0015 0009

CO2 0030 0017

H2 0025 0014

CO 0010 0006

H2O 050 001

P a g e | 170

c) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures Preparation of final mixtures (СO2 in synthetic air) was carried out from pure substances in 2 stages 1-st stage ndash 3 mixtures СO2N2 ndashlevel 11 2-nd stage ndash 3x3 target mixtures СO2synthetic air All the mixtures were prepared in Luxfer cylinders (V=10 and 5 dm3) d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures CRDS analyzer was used for verification 4 measurement series were carried out within each verification procedure SD of a single measurement (reproducibility between series) was 0003 -0006 CRDS analyzer was used for verification Instrument Picarro G2401 Measurement cell temperature 45оС Measurement cell pressure 18665 kPa Data collection by ldquoPicarro Incrdquo software CRDS analyzer was used for δ13C measurements Instrument Picarro G2131i Reference materials used for calibration IAEA‐CO‐8 IAEA‐CH‐7 Measurement cell temperature 45оС Measurement cell pressure 18665 kPa Data collection by ldquoPicarro Incrdquo software e) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM The final mixtures were prepared 0310 -13102016 First verification measurement was carried out 1710 -2110 2016 Second verification measurement was carried out 2610 -28102016 Verification measurements were performed by checking consistency within the group of the 3x3 prepared mixtures uver =0003 Stability testing (short-term) did not show instability within the accuracy of the measurement method f) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

89 MPa for M365601 90 MPa for M365664 93 MPa for M365707

P a g e | 171

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQMK120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQMK120R

Project name CCQMK120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air Standards Proposed dates 092016 to 122017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 208998300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores

BIPM Chemistry Department Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg A1 General information Institute

DI Mendeleyev Institute for Metrology (VNIIM )

Address

19 Moskovsky pr St Petersburg 190005 Russia

Contact person Leonid Konopelko Telephone +7 812 315 11 45 Fax +7 812 315 15 17 Email

fhib10vniimru

P a g e | 172

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo CCQMK120a

Yes

CCQMK120b

Yes

A3 NMI submitted values Table 1 Cylinder Identification

number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction xCO2 cert μmolmol

Expanded uncertainty U(x CO2 cert) μmolmol

Coverage factor

1 M365601

38020 011 2

2 M365664

48018 013 2

3 M365707

80073 019 2

Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) Table 2 (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number M365601 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

781015 10-2 molmol 00013 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209188 10-2 molmol 00013 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09416 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000094 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Table 3 (Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number M365664 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

780928 10-2 molmol 00011 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209270 10-2 molmol 00012 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09322 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000096 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured

P a g e | 173

Table 4 (Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number M365707 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

781000 10-2 molmol 00011 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209199 10-2 molmol 00012 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09000 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000097 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Uncertainty in the tables 2-4 includes only constituents related to gravimetry (weighing and purity) Table 5 CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional) Cylinder

Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C)

CoverageFactor

δ18O U(δ18O) CoverageFactor

1 M365601 - 480 09 2 - - - 2 M365664 - 480 09 2 - - - 3 M365707 - 480 09 2 - - - A4 Uncertainty Budget Table 6 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365601

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution

ui(y) μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200 μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999381 μmolmol B Rectangular 0015 μmolmol 006733 000101

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374 μmolmol 000016 000006

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030 μmolmol 000534 000016

Weighing premixture

CO2 2015723 g AB Normal 000223g ‐1854106 ‐004140

N2 115359704 g AB Normal 001962 g 032397 000636

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

2048733 g AB Normal

000203 g ‐1791563 ‐003630

Ar 790915 g AB Normal 000200 g 045258 000091

O2 14075497 g AB Normal 000353 g 056493 000200

P a g e | 174

N2 43993136 g AB Normal 001021 g 064543 000659

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal 000035 gmol 86286 000302

Combined standard uncertainty 005596

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0112

Table 7 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365664

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution ui(y)

μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200

μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999390 μmolmol B Rectangular 0011

μmolmol 006909 000076

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374

μmolmol 000020 0000075

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030

μmolmol 000534 000016

Weighing premixture

CO2 1947854 g AB Normal 000224 g ‐2423572 ‐005424

N2 111850932 g AB Normal 001950 g 042206 000823

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

2586420 g AB Normal

000204 g ‐1775177 ‐003626

Ar 780100 g AB Normal 000200 g 057374 000115

O2 14028618 g AB Normal 000391 g 071611 000280

N2 43288272 g AB Normal 000915 g 081821 000749

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal

000035 gmol

109066 000382

Combined standard uncertainty 0066379

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0133

Table 8 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365707

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution

ui(y) μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200 μmolmol 000545 000109

P a g e | 175

Purity of O2 999999390 μmolmol B Rectangular 0011μmolmol 006733 000076

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374 μmolmol 000035 000013

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030 μmolmol 000500 000015

Weighing premixture

CO2 2015723 g AB Normal 000223g ‐3905886 ‐008721

N2 115359704 g AB Normal 001962 g 068249 001339

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

4282195 g AB Normal

000220 g ‐1733744 ‐003823

Ar 750252 g AB Normal 000202 g 096046 000194

O2 13969676 g AB Normal 000403 g 119851 000483

N2 41448867 g AB Normal 000834 g 136969 001143

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal 000035 gmol 181777 0006362

Combined standard uncertainty

009719

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0194

Uncertainty due to weighing includes constituents related to accuracy of balance buoyancy effect resulting from change of cylinder volume during filling mass pierces used drift of balance residual gas in cylinder A5 Additional information Table 9 Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas Cylinder N 74318 Main component CO2 Mole fraction 99999345

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

N2 025 014

CO 0029 0001

CH4 0149 0002

He 05 029

H2 322 007

O2 025 014

H2O 215 011

Purity tables with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 and Ar parent gases Table 10 Purity table for N2 Monoblock Main component N2 Mole fraction 999998672

P a g e | 176

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

Ar 0916 0011

O2 00015 00009

CO2 00025 00014

H2 00025 00014

CH4 00025 00014

CO 00025 00014

H2O 040 020

Table 11 Purity table for O2 Cylinder N 910281 Main component O2 Mole fraction 999999381

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

H2 00025 00014

Ar 0181 0004

N2 0307 0012

Kr 00025 00014

CO 00075 00043

CH4 00347 00008

CO2 0081 0005

Xe 00025 00014

Table 12 Purity table for Ar Cylinder N 283162 Main component Ar Mole fraction 999998209

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

O2 00231 00013

N2 1188 0015

CH4 0015 0009

CO2 0030 0017

H2 0025 0014

CO 0010 0006

H2O 050 001

c) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures

P a g e | 177

Preparation of final mixtures (СO2 in synthetic air) was carried out from pure substances in 2 stages 1-st stage ndash 3 mixtures СO2N2 ndashlevel 11 2-nd stage ndash 3x3 target mixtures СO2synthetic air All the mixtures were prepared in Luxfer cylinders (V=10 and 5 dm3) d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures CRDS analyzer was used for verification 4 measurement series were carried out within each verification procedure SD of a single measurement (reproducibility between series) was 0003 -0006 CRDS analyzer was used for verification Instrument Picarro G2401 Measurement cell temperature 45оС Measurement cell pressure 18665 kPa Data collection by ldquoPicarro Incrdquo software CRDS analyzer was used for δ13C measurements Instrument Picarro G2131i Reference materials used for calibration IAEA‐CO‐8 IAEA‐CH‐7 Measurement cell temperature 45оС Measurement cell pressure 18665 kPa Data collection by ldquoPicarro Incrdquo software e) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM The final mixtures were prepared 0310 -13102016 First verification measurement was carried out 1710 -2110 2016 Second verification measurement was carried out 2610 -28102016 Verification measurements were performed by checking consistency within the group of the 3x3 prepared mixtures uver =0003 Stability testing (short-term) did not show instability within the accuracy of the measurement method Long-term stability testing (measurements 2108-23082017 and 0910-11102017) did not show instability within the accuracy of the measurement method f) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

89 MPa for M365601 90 MPa for M365664 93 MPa for M365707

P a g e | 178

VSL

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 179

P a g e | 180

P a g e | 181

Page 5: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM

P a g e | 5

NPL NPLI UME VNIIM and VSL) and only one solely in the CCQM-K120b comparison (INRIM)

4 Schedule The revised schedule for the project was as follows April 2016 ndash October 2016 Mixture preparation verification and stability tests by participants November 2016 ndash February 2017 Shipment of cylinders to the BIPM (to arrive by 1 of December) February 2017 ndash April 2017 Analysis of mixtures by the BIPM (details below) May 2017 ndash July 2017 Shipment of cylinders from the BIPM to participants August 2017 ndash November 2017 2nd set of analysis of mixtures by participants January 2018 Distribution of Draft A of this report May 2018 Distribution of Draft B of this report

41 Measurement order The forty four cylinders of the comparison were separated into batches and analyzed in the sequence described in Table 1 Each batch was made up of the participantsrsquo cylinders control cylinders for ratio calculations and additional cylinders for quality control The FTIR measurements were organized in fourteen batches comprised each of four participantrsquos cylinders including two control cylinders for ratio calculation and one for quality control For GC-FID measurements the cylinders were divided into nine batches Batches were composed of between four and six participantsrsquo cylinders three control cylinders (A B and C) for ratio quantification and additional cylinders if required to maintain the total batch size of nine standards Table 1 lists in detail the schedule of the GC-FID and FTIR measurements The Delta Ray measurements were organized in 12 batches containing four cylinders each and two calibration cylinders These measurements were performed during weeks 14 15 and 16

P a g e | 6

Week in 2017 Batch GC‐FID Batch FTIR measurements measurements

NIST FB04278 379045 NOAA CC310084 379500 6 GC1 VSL 5604614 378900

(6‐10 February) NPL 2179 380270 NMIJ CPC00486 386617

VNIIM M365601 380200 7 GC2 LNE 1029045 379480

(13‐17 February) KRISS D500642 378900 NIM FB03747 383430

GUM D298392 380100 BFKH OMH54 379840 8 GC3 UME PSM298266 379920

(20‐24 February) NPLI JJ108891 375720 NMISA M51 8232 380200

NIST FB04300 472662 NOAA CC305198 479260 9 GC4 VSL 5604880 480480

(27 February‐ 3 March) NPL 2170 480020 NMIJ CPC00494 471301

VNIIM M365664 480180 NIST FB04278 37904510 GC5 LNE 1029047 477600 FT‐1 NOAA CC310084 379500

(6‐10 March) KRISS D500647 480000 NPL 2179 380270

NIM FB03744 489150 NMIJ CPC00486 386617

GUM D298393 478100 FT‐2 NMIJ CPC00486 386617 BFKH OMH44 479890 VNIIM M365601 380200

11 GC6 UME PSM266468 480420 KRISS D500642 378900 (13‐17 March) NPLI JJ108862 480520 FT‐3 NIM FB03747 383430

NMISA M51 8167 479500 LNE 1029045 379480

INRIM D247440 479300

NIST FB04287 794533 FT‐4 GUM D298392 380100 NOAA CB11668 794080 NMISA M51 8232 380200

12 GC7 VSL 5604705 795700 BFKH OMH54 379840 (20‐24 March) NPL 2181 799700 FT‐5 UME PSM298266 379920

NMIJ CPC00558 803658 NPLI JJ108891 375720

VNIIM M365707 800730 NIST FB04300 472662 LNE 1029048 802200 FT‐6 NOAA CC305198 47926013 GC8 KRISS D500672 800800 VSL 5604880 480480

(27‐31 March) NIM FB03748 809820 NPL 2170 480020 GUM D298402 800500 FT‐7 NMIJ CPC00494 471301

BFKH OMH69 800300 VNIIM M365664 480180

UME PSM298347 800760 FT‐8 LNE 1029047 47760014 GC9 NPLI JJ108854 796380 KRISS D500647 480000

(3‐7 April) NMISA M51 8244 799100 NIM FB03744 489150 INRIM D247445 798900 FT‐9 GUM D298393 478100

BFKH OMH44 479890

UME PSM266468 480420 FT‐10 NPLI JJ108862 480520 NMISA M51 8167 479500 INRIM D247440 479300

NIST FB04287 79453315 FT‐11 NOAA CB11668 794080

(10‐14 April) VSL 5604705 795700

NPL 2181 799700 FT‐12 NMIJ CPC00558 803658 VNIIM M365707 800730 LNE 1029048 802200

KRISS D500672 800800 FT‐13 NIM FB03748 809820

P a g e | 7

GUM D298402 800500 BFKH OMH69 800300

UME PSM298347 80076016 FT‐14 NPLI JJ108854 796380

(17‐21 April) NMISA M51 8244 799100 INRIM D247445 798900

Table 1 Schedule of the CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b measurements

5 Measurement standards Each laboratory taking part in the CCQM-K120a comparison was requested to produce one standard at the nominal mole fraction of 380 micromolmol and another at the mole fraction 480 micromolmol For those taking part in the CCQM-K120b comparison the standards were requested at the nominal mole fractions of 480 micromolmol and 800 micromolmol The mole fraction of carbon dioxide was requested to be within plusmn 10 micromolmol of the nominal mole fractions of the cylinders The carbon dioxide was requested to be produced in a dry air matrix produced from scrubbed real air or synthetic air that has been blended from pure gases that are the main constituents of air (nitrogen oxygen argon) and two other constituents (nitrous oxide and methane)The table below describes the limits of the gas matrix composition of the scrubbed dry real air and synthetic air which were to be met by participants Species lsquoAmbientrsquo

level mole fraction

Unit Min mole fraction

Unit Max mole fraction

Unit

N2 0780876 molmol 07804 molmol 07814 molmol O2 02093335 molmol 02088 molmol 02098 molmol Ar 00093332 molmol 00089 molmol 00097 molmol CH4 1900 nmolmol 0 nmolmol 1900 nmolmol N2O 330 nmolmol 0 nmolmol 330 nmolmol Table 2 CCQM-K120a matrix composition limit values(380 micromol mol and 480 micromolmol CO2 in airdagger) daggerEach participating laboratory was required to submit two standards one with nominal CO2 mole fraction of (370 to 390) micromolmol and the second with (470 to 490) micromolmol Species lsquoAmbientrsquo

level mole fraction

Unit Min mole fraction

Unit Max mole fraction

Unit

N2 0780876 molmol 07789 molmol 07829 molmol O2 02093335 molmol 02073 molmol 02113 molmol Ar 00093332 molmol 00078 molmol 00108 molmol CH4 1900 nmolmol 0 nmolmol 1900 nmolmol N2O 330 nmolmol 0 nmolmol 330 nmolmol

Table 3 CCQM-K120b matrix composition limits values(480 micromol mol and 800 micromolmol CO2 in airDagger)DaggerEach participating laboratory was required to submit two standards one with nominal CO2 mole fraction of (470 to 490) micromolmol and the second with (790 to 810) micromolmol (A laboratory participating in both CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b need only submit 3 standards in total)

P a g e | 8

Aditionally the following information was requested from each participant

In the case of standards produced with synthetic air

- a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas - a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar N2O and CH4 parent

gas - a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures - a purity table for each of the final mixtures including gravimetric uncertainties - a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures - a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared

and the time they are shipped to the BIPM

In the case of standards produced with scrubbed lsquorealrsquo air

- a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas - results of the analysis and mole fractions and uncertainties of N2 O2 Ar N2O and CH4 in

the scrubbed real air - a brief outline of the preparation procedure of the final mixtures - a composition table for each of the final mixtures including gravimetric uncertainties

when relevant - a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures - a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared

and the time they are shipped to the BIPM

6 Preparation values submitted and stability measurements by participants

Information on mixtures submitted by participating laboratories via the comparison submission forms on initial submission and after stability testing of cylinders is included in ANNEX V The CO2 mole fractions submitted by participants are listed in Table 5 where

xNMI is the value assigned by the participating NMIs

U(xNMI) is the expanded uncertainty including contributions from verification associated with the assigned value xNMI The comparison protocol permitted stability testing to be performed by laboratories after standards had been returned to them by the BIPM and before the comparison results were known As a result three laboratories provided new values and uncertainties namely NIST NPLI and BFKH In addition UME modified the uncertainty budget only and resubmitted this to the comparison organizers This subject was discussed during the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018) and it was agreed that only the uncertainties resubmitted by UME (Table 15) will replace the original uncertainties NIST NPLI BFKH resubmitted values and

P a g e | 9

uncertainties will only be reported in an annex (see ANNEX II- ) (Table 15) with no influence on the KCRV and the degree of equivalence (DOE) of the comparison Figure 1 plots the CO2 mole fraction reported by the participants for each gas standard In this figure the error bars represent the standard uncertainty associated with the reported value It can be observed that participants prepared all mixtures with a CO2 mole fraction within 10 micromol mol-1 of the nominal values as requested At 380 micromolmol NPLI submitted the mixture with the smallest CO2 mole fraction 37572plusmn322 micromolmol and NIMJ with the highest 38662plusmn005 micromolmol At 480 micromolmol NIMJ produced the lowest mole fraction 47130plusmn005 micromolmol and NIM the highest 48915plusmn022 micromolmol At 800 micromolmol NOAA produced the lowest mole fraction 79408plusmn048 micromolmol and NIM the highest 80982plusmn026 micromolmol The expanded uncertainties reported by the participants are plotted in Figure 2 Regarding the gas matrix composition thirty-five standards were produced in synthetic air and nine in purified (scrubbed) real air (see Table 5) The compositions of the mixtures reported by participants are listed in Table 6 Seven standards out of forty-four mixtures were not within specifications (gas mixture composition) as requested in the comparison protocol1

7 Measurements at the BIPM

On receipt by the BIPM all cylinders were allowed to equilibrate at laboratory temperature for at least 24 hours All cylinders were rolled for at least 1 hour to ensure homogeneity of the mixture

Cylinders were analysed in batches of n cylinders first by GC-FID then by FTIR and finally by the Delta Ray

For FTIR measurements each batch contained 4 cylinders from participants and 2 controls (at nominal mole fractions of 480 and 800 micromolmol) Each cylinder was connected from the pressure reducer to one inlet of a 32-inlet automatic gas sampler The procedure before starting measurements was identical as described below for GC-FID The reported value is the drift corrected ratio between the FTIR response and one control cylinder (at ~ 800 micromol mol-1) with a further correction required to take into account the isotopic composition of each mixtures Due to depletion of the control cylinder at nominally 480 micromolmol before completion of all measurements only ratios against the 800 micromolmol cylinder could be calculated for all standards Further details regarding the FTIR measurements are described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure FTIR

1 This nominal fraction limits were given in order to avoid possible biases that could be introduced into the spectroscopic comparison method (FTIR) due to variation in the composition of the air matrix in different standards For those standards that did not meet the tolerances specified in the protocol the BIPM included an additional uncertainty component in its FTIR analytical uncertainty to account for the impact of this

P a g e | 10

When the cylinders were analysed by GC-FID batches were composed of between four and six participantsrsquo cylinders three control cylinders (A B and C at nominal mole fractions of 380 480 and 800 micromolmol respectively) for ratio quantification and additional cylinders if required to maintain the total batch size of nine standards Each cylinder was connected from the pressure reducer to one inlet of a 16-inlet automatic gas sampler The sampler was connected to a gas chromatograph (GC-FID) The pressure reducer of each cylinder was flushed nine times with the mixture The cylinder valve was then closed leaving the high pressure side of the pressure reducer at the cylinder pressure and the low pressure side of the pressure reducer at ~300 kPa (abs) The cylinders were left stand at least 24 hours to allow conditioning of the pressure reducers The reported value was the drift corrected ratio between the GC-FID response and one control cylinder (at ~ 480 micromol mol-1) These measurements were performed under intermediate precision conditions (over ten weeks) Ratios against the other control cylinders were calculated but no substantial difference was observed with the ratio against the control cylinder at 480 micromolmol Further details regarding GC-FID measurements are described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure GC-FID

When the cylinders were analyzed by the Delta Ray each batch contained 4 cylinders from participants and 2 calibration standards Each cylinder was connected from the pressure reducer to one inlet of a 16-inlet automatic gas sampler The same procedure was again applied for flushing the gas lines Further details are described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure Delta Ray

The measurements performed by the Delta Ray analyser were only used to measure the isotopic ratios in each cylinder and further correct the FTIR responses due isotopic differences between the control cylinders and the samples as described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure FTIR In this manner the FTIR reported values for each cylinder were corrected for the isotopic composition and further ratioed to the response to a control cylinder (also corrected for the isotopic composition)

71 Measurements results

Measurements were performed at the BIPM from February to April 2017 Table 7 lists the inlet pressure before and after the standards were analyzed by the BIPM

Each cylinder was value assigned using the methods described in section 7 (details in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure)

Results of these series of measurements are listed in Table 8 where

FTR is the (mean) ratio between the FTIR response to the mixture under analysis and the control cylinder both corrected for the isotopic composition

FTRu is the standard uncertainty of the reported ratio based on FTIR measurements

(described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure FTIR)

wGCR is the reported value based on GC-FID measurements

P a g e | 11

GCRu the standard uncertainty of the reported value based on GC-FID (described in

ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure GC-FID) The δ13C and δ18O measurements on the VPDB-CO2 scale performed by Delta Ray are listed in Table 11 The typical uncertainties for each of the methods used by the BIPM are listed in Table 4

Comparison method name

Measurement quantity Symbol unit Typical relative

standard uncertainty ()

FTIR Ratio to control cylinder under intermediate precision condition FTR 1 0009

GC-FID Ratio to control cylinder under intermediate precision conditions wGCR 1 0007

Table 4 Comparison methods used during the CCQM-K120 international comparison and typical uncertainties obtained by the BIPM

Participant Cylinder references Gas Matrix

NMIrsquos assigned CO2 mole fraction xNMI

(micromol mol-1)

NMIrsquos assigned CO2

expanded uncertainty U(xNMI)

k = 2 (micromol mol-1)

Before the return of cylinders

BFKH OMH54 Synthetic Air 379840 1710

BFKH OMH44 Synthetic Air 479890 2110

BFKH OMH69 Synthetic Air 800300 2920

GUM D298392 Synthetic Air 380100 4400

GUM D298393 Synthetic Air 478100 5200

GUM D298402 Synthetic Air 800500 8600

INRIM D247440 Synthetic Air 479300 1600

INRIM D247445 Synthetic Air 798900 2600

KRISS D500642 Synthetic Air 378900 0200

KRISS D500647 Synthetic Air 480000 0200

KRISS D500672 Synthetic Air 800800 0400

LNE 1029045 Synthetic Air 379480 0790

LNE 1029047 Synthetic Air 477600 1000

LNE 1029048 Synthetic Air 802200 1700

NIM FB03747 Synthetic Air 383430 0200

NIM FB03744 Synthetic Air 489150 0220

NIM FB03748 Synthetic Air 809820 0260

NIST FB04278 Real Air 379045 0391

NIST FB04300 Real Air 472662 0428

NIST FB04287 Real Air 794533 1029

NMIJ CPC00486 Real Air 386617 0050

P a g e | 12

NMIJ CPC00494 Real Air 471301 0051

NMIJ CPC00558 Real Air 803658 0078

NMISA M51 8232 Synthetic Air 380200 2000

NMISA M51 8167 Synthetic Air 479500 1600

NMISA M51 8244 Synthetic Air 799100 1000

NOAA CC310084 Real Air 379500 0210

NOAA CC305198 Real Air 479260 0260

NOAA CB11668 Real Air 794080 0480

NPL 2179 Synthetic Air 380270 0190

NPL 2170 Synthetic Air 480020 0240

NPL 2181 Synthetic Air 799700 0400

NPLI JJ108891 Synthetic Air 375720 3220

NPLI JJ108862 Synthetic Air 480520 3040

NPLI JJ108854 Synthetic Air 796380 5030

UME PSM298266 Synthetic Air 379920 0190

UME PSM266468 Synthetic Air 480420 0250

UME PSM298347 Synthetic Air 800760 0360

VNIIM M365601 Synthetic Air 380200 0110

VNIIM M365664 Synthetic Air 480180 0130

VNIIM M365707 Synthetic Air 800730 0190

VSL 5604614 Synthetic Air 378900 0280

VSL 5604880 Synthetic Air 480480 0360

VSL 5604705 Synthetic Air 795700 0600

Table 5 Standards and reported values provided by participants Re-submitted values following stability testing which were included following the decision of the CCQM GAWG see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of

the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

Figure 1 CO2 mole fractions xNMI reported by participants The error bars represents the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the submitted values

GUM KRISS LNE NIM NMIJ NMISA NOAA NPL VNIIM VSL BFKH NIST NPLI UME374

376

378

380

382

384

386

GUM INRIM KRISS LNE NIM NMIJ NMISA NOAA NPL VNIIM VSL BFKH NIST NPLI UME460

465

470

475

480

485

490GUM INRIM KRISS LNE NMIJ NOAA NPL VNIIM VSL NIM NMISA BFKH NIST NPLI UME

792

796

800

804

808

812

x NM

I (

mol

mol

-1)

P a g e | 14

Figure 2 Participantsrsquo assigned CO2 expanded uncertainties U(xNMI)

NM

IJ

NM

IJ

NM

IJ

VN

IIM

VN

IIM

UM

E

UM

E

NP

L

VN

IIM

KR

ISS

KR

ISS

NIM

NO

AA

NIM

NP

L

NIM

NO

AA

UM

E

VS

L

VS

L

NIS

T

KR

ISS

NP

L

NIS

T

NO

AA

VS

L

LNE

LNE

NM

ISA

NIS

T

INR

IM

NM

ISA

BF

KH

LNE

NM

ISA

BF

KH

INR

IM

BF

KH

NP

LI

NP

LI

GU

M

NP

LI

GU

M

GU

M

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9U

(xN

MI)

m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 15

Participant Number of Cylinder

NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos

assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned

N2 expanded

uncertainty O2

expanded uncertainty

Ar expanded

uncertainty CH4 mole fraction

expanded uncertainty

N2O mole fraction

expanded uncertainty

mole fraction

k =2 mole fraction k=2 mole fraction k =2 k=2 k=2

xN2 U(xN2) xO2 U(xO2) xAr U(xAr) xNMI U(xNMI) xNMI U(xNMI)

(molmol) (molmol) (molmol) (molmol) (molmol) (molmol) (nmolmol) (nmolmol) (nmolmol) (nmolmol)

BFKH OMH54 0780390 0000160 0209615 0000048 0009607 0000017 1030 1200

BFKH OMH44 0780640 0000160 0209514 0000048 0009360 0000017 1030 1200

BFKH OMH69 0780720 0000160 0209161 0000048 0009314 0000017 1030 1200

GUM D298392 0780800 0000200 0209500 0000100 0009250 0000010

GUM D298393 0780700 0000200 0209600 0000100 0009190 0000010

GUM D298402 0780200 0000200 0209700 0000100 0009380 0000010

INRIM D247440 0781132 0000006 0209063 0000006 0009326 0000004

INRIM D247445 0782389 0000006 0207553 0000005 0009259 0000004

KRISS D500642 0781139 0000005 0209256 0000004 0009226 0000001 9 2 0200 0000

KRISS D500647 0780915 0000004 0209152 0000004 0009452 0000001 10 3 0200 0000

KRISS D500672 0780407 0000004 0209452 0000004 0009339 0000001 15 3 0200 0000

LNE 1029045 0780686 0000025 0209528 0000019 0009407 0000022

LNE 1029047 0781355 0000025 0208794 0000018 0009374 0000022

LNE 1029048 0782710 0000027 0207187 0000021 0009301 0000021

NIM FB03747 0782000 0000029 0209000 0000028 0009220 0000010 1 0 0791 0607

NIM FB03744 0781000 0000028 0210000 0000026 0009040 0000010 1 0 0790 0601

NIM FB03748 0781000 0000027 0210000 0000026 0007940 0000010 1 0 0790 0586

NIST FB04278 0780812 0000118 0209470 0000710 0009339 0000370

NIST FB04300 0780771 0000128 0209422 0000081 0009334 0000034

P a g e | 16

NIST FB04287 0780499 0000114 0209370 0000067 0009336 0000040

NMIJ CPC00486 0780915 0000025 0209365 0000007 0009334 0000024 2 2 0900 0900

NMIJ CPC00494 0780937 0000024 0209259 0000007 0009333 0000024 3 2 0900 0900

NMIJ CPC00558 0780602 0000022 0209270 0000006 0009325 0000021 3 2 0900 0900

NMISA M51 8232 0780700 0000048 0209600 0000015 0009400 0000005 7 4 0000 0000

NMISA M51 8167 0780900 0000028 0209600 0000011 0008900 0000005 9 6 0000 0000

NMISA M51 8244 0779300 0000031 0210600 0000016 0009300 0000005 10 6 0000 0000

NOAA CC310084 0209500 0000200 1762 3 317200 0500

NOAA CC305198 0209500 0000200 1887 4 328600 0500

NOAA CB11668 0209500 0000200 1889 4 328800 0500

NPL 2179 0780790 0000470 0209600 0000130 0009232 0000018 lt10 - lt10 0000

NPL 2170 0780690 0780690 0209500 0209500 0009334 0009334 lt10 - lt10 0000

NPL 2181 0780550 0000470 0209280 0000130 0009367 0000019 lt10 - lt10 0000

NPLI JJ108891 0781273 0002210 0209688 0000590 0009040 0000030

NPLI JJ108862 0781989 0002210 0208853 0000590 0009158 0000030

NPLI JJ108854 0781363 0002210 0209789 0000594 0008847 0000030

UME PSM298266 0780339 0000017 0209966 0000017 0009314 0000002

UME PSM266468 0779968 0000017 0210229 0000017 0009322 0000002

UME PSM298347 0779552 0000016 0210352 0000016 0009295 0000002

VNIIM M365601 0781015 0000013 0209188 0000013 0009416 0000005 9 2

VNIIM M365664 0780928 0000011 0209270 0000012 0009322 0000005 10 2

VNIIM M365707 0781000 0000011 0209199 0000012 0009000 0000005 10 2

VSL 5604614 0781177 0000017 0209152 0000016 0009292 0000006 16 7 0021 0024

VSL 5604880 0781092 0000017 0209146 0000016 0009281 0000006 16 7 0021 0024

VSL 5604705 0780708 0000017 0209246 0000015 0009251 0000006 16 7 0021 0024

Table 6 Matrix composition of the submitted gas mixtures according to participantsrsquo reports in ANNEX V Synthetic Air is identified as S A and Purified real air as R A No data given

P a g e | 17

Number Date of pressure on pressure on Number Date of pressure on pressure on

Lab of Cylinder arrival arrival departure Lab of Cylinder arrival arrival departure

Mpa Mpa Mpa Mpa

BFKH OMH54 1292016 995 776 NMISA M51 8232 19122016 1297 952

BFKH OMH44 1292016 959 784 NMISA M51 8167 19122016 96 709

BFKH OMH69 1292016 984 755 NMISA M51 8244 19122016 1061 572

GUM D298392 28092016 1446 1103 NOAA CC310084 322017 1348 1282

GUM D298393 28092016 1523 116 NOAA CC305198 322017 1342 1284

GUM D298402 28092016 1505 108 NOAA CB11668 322017 1194 1138

INRIM D247440 13012017 897 534 NPL 2179 9122016 1046 855

INRIM D247445 13012017 922 544 NPL 2170 9122016 1119 94

KRISS D500642 20122016 927 739 NPL 2181 9122016 1112 935

KRISS D500647 20122016 884 711 NPLI JJ108891 922017 10 836

KRISS D500672 20122016 905 703 NPLI JJ108862 922017 105 897

LNE 1029045 28112016 1311 1113 NPLI JJ108854 922017 982 811

LNE 1029047 28112016 1287 1113 UME PSM298266 23112016 903 582

LNE 1029048 28112016 1322 1141 UME PSM266468 23112016 908 546

NIM FB03747 14122016 82 527 UME PSM298347 23112016 918 542

NIM FB03744 14122016 865 593 VNIIM M365601 512017 84 43

NIM FB03748 14122016 802 473 VNIIM M365664 512017 866 537

NIST FB04278 312017 1003 725 VNIIM M365707 512017 853 527

NIST FB04300 312017 1023 746 VSL 5604614 15112016 1049 634

NIST FB04287 312017 1005 721 VSL 5604880 15112016 1012 68

NMIJ CPC00486 922017 957 753 VSL 5604705 15112016 1045 707

NMIJ CPC00494 922017 928 752

NMIJ CPC00558 922017 84 677

Table 7 Pressure of the gas standards on arrival and departure from the BIPM

P a g e | 18

xNMI u(xNMI)

FTR

FTRu

wGCR

GCRu

Participant

Number of Cylinder

Assigned NMIrsquos CO2 mole

fraction in

(micromolmol)

Assigned NMIrsquos

Standard uncertainty

(k=1) (micromolmol)

FTIR (Under intermediate precision conditions)

Ratio to control

cylinder

Standard uncertainty in the Ratio to

control cylinder

GC-FID

(Under intermediate precision conditions)

Ratio to control

cylinder

Standard uncertainty in the Ratio to control

cylinder

BFKH OMH54 379800 0855 0435893607 0000026077 0787699648 0000056828 BFKH OMH44 479900 1055 0539981600 0000030887 0976036480 0000059163

BFKH OMH69 800300 1460 0930134790 0000079551 1681896740 0000095864

GUM D298392 380100 2200 0441372447 0000014142 0797442344 0000052495

GUM D298393 478100 2600 0555225000 0000027459 1003704868 0000094363

GUM D298402 800500 4300 0929933927 0000085245 1681786329 0000104750

INRIM D247440 479300 0800 0556774608 0000200000 1006168965 0000071077

INRIM D247445 798900 1300 0927989884 0000059393 1677871699 0000087418

KRISS D500642 378900 0100 0440414238 0000026926 0795445471 0000074696

KRISS D500647 480000 0100 0557780245 0000035341 1008228786 0000056189

KRISS D500672 800800 0200 0930402740 0000108930 1682410057 0000106300

LNE 1029045 379480 0395 0440901535 0000025239 0796419628 0000056088

LNE 1029047 477600 0500 0554855777 0000046174 1002959828 0000101902

LNE 1029048 802200 0850 0932191570 0000046232 1685756190 0000102865

NIM FB03747 383430 0100 0445715112 0000021260 0804945901 0000057626

NIM FB03744 489150 0110 0568919872 0000044283 1028323070 0000061887

NIM FB03748 809820 0130 0941620390 0000127224 1702705250 0000084949

NIST FB04278 379045 0195 0441858957 0000014036 0798159371 0000076697

NIST FB04300 472662 0214 0550247743 0000021932 0994649947 0000056864

NIST FB04287 794530 0514 0924730373 0000047693 1672406610 0000052361

NMIJ CPC00486 386617 0025 0449318716 0000022804 0811714164 0000057115

NMIJ CPC00494 471301 0026 0547653232 0000049336 0989730987 0000128859

NMIJ CPC00558 803658 0039 0933998556 0000062657 1689072068 0000061122

NMISA M51 8232 380200 1000 0441463446 0000030414 0797746449 0000071374

NMISA M51 8167 479500 0800 0556816358 0000063789 1006620384 0000139031

NMISA M51 8244 799100 0500 0927761085 0000058032 1678197948 0000120968

NOAA CC310084 379500 0105 0441196927 0000016125 0796836602 0000097427

NOAA CC305198 479260 0130 0557198873 0000046487 1007173065 0000061590

NOAA CB11668 794080 0240 0923707672 0000052071 1670538345 0000102943

NPL 2179 380270 0095 0442066316 0000015232 0798660385 0000055036

NPL 2170 480020 0120 0557939086 0000029155 1008480431 0000075981

NPL 2181 799700 0200 0929525453 0000066014 1680929399 0000081883

NPLI JJ108891 375720 1610 0435541280 0000044283 0786899117 0000051131

NPLI JJ108862 480520 1520 0558985244 0000078492 1010295612 0000070031

NPLI JJ108854 796380 2515 0923587308 0000048435 1670046415 0000092977

UME PSM298266 37992 0095 0441777548 0000066603 0798242598 0000076656

UME PSM266468 48042 0125 0558597569 0000077666 1009847197 0000062025

UME PSM298347 800760 0180 0930853610 0000059811 1683852629 0000186416

P a g e | 19

Table 8 Results of BIPM CO2 comparison measurements Re-submitted values following stability testing which were included following the decision of the CCQM GAWG (see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the

CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018))

72 Graphical representation of measurement results

Table 9 summarizes the figures showing the measurements results obtained by different methods at the BIPM

Table 9 List of figures corresponding to results obtained from FTIR and GC-FID at the BIPM

VNIIM M365601 380200 0055 0441966430 0000016643 0798479627 0000066343

VNIIM M365664 480180 0065 0558130273 0000048384 1008861333 0000059090

VNIIM M365707 800730 0095 0930604477 0000058131 1683192751 0000075295

VSL 5604614 378900 0140 0440539300 0000017205 0795901702 0000077266

VSL 5604880 480480 0180 0558580000 0000018028 1009802467 0000054009

VSL 5604705 795700 0300 0925375760 0000052705 1673272267 0000122172

Comparison method

CO2 mole fraction Plot

FTIR ( Ratio to control cylinder under intermediate precision conditions) 380 micromolmol Figure 3 480 micromolmol Figure 4 800 micromolmol Figure 5 GC-FID (Ratio to control cylinder under intermediate precision conditions)

380 micromolmol Figure 6 480 micromolmol Figure 7 800 micromolmol Figure 8

P a g e | 20

FTIR

Figure 3 FTIR ratios to control standard for the cylinders at nominally 380 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

374 376 378 380 382 384 386 3880434

0436

0438

0440

0442

0444

0446

0448

0450

GUM

KRISS

LNE

NIM

NMIJ

NMISANOAA

NPLVNIIM

VSL

BFKH

NIST

NPLI

UMERFT

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 21

Figure 4 FTIR ratios to control standard for the cylinders at nominally 480 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

460 465 470 475 480 485 490

0540

0545

0550

0555

0560

0565

0570

GUM

INRIM

KRISS

LNE

NIM

NMIJ

NMISANOAA

NPLVNIIMVSL

BFKH

NIST

NPLIUME

RFT

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 22

Figure 5 FTIR ratios to control standard for the cylinders at 800 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

792 794 796 798 800 802 804 806 808 810 8120922

0924

0926

0928

0930

0932

0934

0936

0938

0940

0942

0944

GUM

INRIM

KRISS

LNE

NMIJ

NOAA

NPL

VNIIM

VSL

NIM

NMISA

BFKH

NIST

NPLI

UME

RFT

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 23

GC-FID

Figure 6 GC-FID ratios to control standard for the cylinders at nominally 380 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

374 376 378 380 382 384 386 388

0785

0790

0795

0800

0805

0810

0815

KRISSVSL

LNENOAA

GUMNMISA

VNIIMNPL

NIM

NMIJ

BFKH

NIST

NPLI

UME

RG

C

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 24

Figure 7 GC-FID ratios to control standard for the cylinders at 480 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

460 465 470 475 480 485 490097

098

099

100

101

102

103

NMIJ

LNEGUM

NOAAINRIMNMISA

KRISSNPLVNIIMVSL

NIM

BFKH

NIST

NPLIUME

RG

C

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 25

Figure 8 GC-FID ratios to control standard for the cylinders at 800 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

792 794 796 798 800 802 804 806 808 810 8121665

1670

1675

1680

1685

1690

1695

1700

1705

NOAA

VSL

INRIMNMISA

NPLGUM

VNIIM

LNE

NMIJ

KRISS

NIM

BFKH

NIST

NPLI

UMERG

C

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 26

73 Isotope ratios of CCQM-K120 standards The δ13C and δ18O values reported by participants are listed in Table 10 The delta values of the complete set of cylinders on the VPDB-CO2 scale were also measured by the BIPM using the Delta Ray analyser to correct the FTIR response The measured isotope ratio values are listed Table 11 The method for measuring and calibrating the Delta Ray is fully described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure Delta Ray The method used by the BIPM for measuring isotope ratios is described in a recent publication5 and was validated with CO2 in air standards that had been value assigned for their isotopic composition by the WMO-CCL laboratory for isotope ratios MPI-BGC Jena with traceability of the standards used to the VPDB-CO2 scale realized with the JENA air standards reference set The measurements made by the BIPM have been used for all corrections made in the FTIR comparison method and were considered fit for purpose noting that a 1 permil difference in δ13C measurements can lead to a bias of 0004 micromolmol in CO2 mole fraction measurements in instruments based on a spectroscopic technique and similarly a 0002 micromolmol bias from a 1 permil difference in δ18O measurements Reported values for isotopic composition by participants were for information only The agreement between reported values and BIPM measured values is variable For δ13C values the difference between BIPM measured values and those reported by participants was smaller than 04 permil for NMIJ NPL and NOAA smaller than 2 permil for UME and VNIIM and almost 12 permil for NIST (noting that the NIST reported at the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG that this had been a typographical error on their part and the NIST and BIPM values were actually in full agreement) For δ18O values the difference between BIPM measured values and those reported by participants is smaller than 3 permil for NMIJ and NOAA and almost 10 permil for NPL The compatibility of CO2 isotope ratio measurements will be the focus of a future CCQM GAWG comparison enabling sources for differences to be studied in greater detail

Lab Number of Cylinder

δ13C on VPDB-CO2 scale

u(δ13C) Standard uncertainty (k=1)

δ18O on VPDB-CO2 scale

u(δ18O) Standard uncertainty (k=1) Comments

(permil) (permil) (permil) (permil)

NIST FB04278 -28 2 - -

NIST FB04300 -28 2 - -

NIST FB04287 -28 2 - -

NMIJ 3BIS85282 -892 - -991 - CO2 pure

NOAA CC310084 -87 02 -03 02

NOAA CC305198 -88 02 -64 02

NOAA CB11668 -85 04 -197 04

NPL 2179 -55 05 -225 05

NPL 2170 -55 05 -225 05

NPL 2181 -55 05 -225 05

UME PSM298266 -165 005 - - CO2 pure

VNIIM M365601 -48 045 - -

VNIIM M365664 -48 045 - -

VNIIM M365707 -48 045 - -

Table 10 δ13C and δ18

O values reported by participants value measured by the gas supplier according to the participant

P a g e | 27

Lab

Number of Cylinder

δ13C on VPDB-

CO2 scale

u(δ13C) Standard

uncertainty (k=1)

δ18O on VPDB-

CO2 scale

u(δ18O) Standard

uncertainty (k=1) Lab

Number of Cylinder

δ13C on VPDB-

CO2 scale

u(δ13C) Standard

uncertainty (k=1)

δ18O on VPDB-

CO2 scale

u(δ18O) Standard

uncertainty (k=1)

(permil) (permil) (permil) (permil) NMIJ CPC00558 -897 018 -1166 048

BFKH OMH54 -6676 018 -1723 048 NMISA M51 8232 -321 018 -2661 048

BFKH OMH44 -6653 018 -1734 048 NMISA M51 8167 -3209 018 -2655 048

BFKH OMH69 -6691 018 -2615 048 NMISA M51 8244 -3189 018 -2646 048

GUM D298392 -4431 018 -2877 048 NOAA CC310084 -886 018 -032 048

GUM D298393 -4432 018 -2865 048 NOAA CC305198 -891 018 -906 048

GUM D298402 -4418 018 -2847 048 NOAA CB11668 -888 018 -2128 048

INRIM D247440 -4927 018 -3436 048 NPL 2179 -522 018 -3231 048

INRIM D247445 -4952 018 -3449 048 NPL 2170 -521 018 -317 048

KRISS D500642 -2338 018 -1749 048 NPL 2181 -525 018 -3174 048

KRISS D500647 -2341 018 -1903 048 NPLI JJ108891 -887 018 -1087 048

KRISS D500672 -2334 018 -1884 048 NPLI JJ108862 -917 018 -1131 048

LNE 1029045 -3781 018 -2861 048 NPLI JJ108854 -915 018 -1149 048

LNE 1029047 -3786 018 -2775 048 UME PSM298266 -007 018 -2481 048

LNE 1029048 -3811 018 -2804 048 UME PSM266468 -005 018 -2453 048

NIM FB03747 -2055 018 -3007 048 UME PSM298347 016 018 -2446 048

NIM FB03744 -2052 018 -2978 048 VNIIM M365601 -4643 018 -2661 048

NIM FB03748 -2062 018 -2995 048 VNIIM M365664 -4635 018 -2584 048

NIST FB04278 -3983 018 -3092 048 VNIIM M365707 -4647 018 -2594 048

NIST FB04300 -3985 018 -3048 048 VSL 5604614 -3957 018 -3288 048

NIST FB04287 -3983 018 -3053 048 VSL 5604880 -3969 018 -3224 048

NMIJ CPC00486 -891 018 -987 048 VSL 5604705 -3574 018 -3064 048

NMIJ CPC00494 -903 018 -1184 048

Table 11 δ13C and δ18O value assignment vs VPDB-CO2 for each CO2 in air standard

P a g e | 28

In the case of the CCQM-K120a comparison it should be noted that the isotopic composition of CO2 at background levels in the atmosphere would be expected to have values close to the nominal values of -85 permil for δ13C and of 0 permil for δ18O when expressed on the VPDB-CO2 scale The standards submitted for the CCQM-K120a comparison had δ13C values that varied between -67 permil to 0 permil and δ18O values that varied between -35 permil to 0 permil This range of isotopic composition could result in measurement biases of up to 03 micromolmol in spectroscopic instruments for which isotopic composition had not been taken into account

8 Key Comparison Reference Value (KCRV)

During the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG it was agreed that the key comparison

reference values for CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b were to be calculated using

the measurement results of the FTIR spectrometer

Several statistical approaches all based on least-square regressions of measurement results obtained at the same nominal mole fraction were presented during 38th meeting of the

CCQM GAWG (GAWG18-32 ) From this analysis it was agreed to fit the FTIR results versus the participantrsquos submitted values with a line using the

Generalised Least Square approach defined in the standard ISO 614320019 (Gas analysis ndash Comparison methods for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures) It was also agreed to select the largest subset of cylinders

contributing to the regression line so as to obtain a consistent set with

regard to the regression ie a set that allows the goodness-of-fit parameter

to be less than 2 The measure of goodness-of-fit is defined as the

maximum value of the weighted differences between the coordinates of measured

and adjusted points (both on the x and the y axes) For all regressions the normalized sum of the squared weighted deviations where n is the number of points and p = 2 the number of parameters of the fit is also

provided for indication Both values are expected to be lower than 2 with the

condition on being stricter as it imposes all points to comply with the

fit

Notation The degree of equivalence is defined as

D = (1)

where

P a g e | 29

xKCRV is the amount of substance fraction in the cylinder predicted by the linear analysis function for the corresponding analyzer response (ratio to the control cylinder by FTIR)

u(xKCRV) is the standard uncertainty of the KCRV value

xNMI is the amount of substance fraction reported by the participating laboratory u(xNMI) is the standard uncertainty associated with the reported value xNMI

D is difference in amount of substance fraction as measured by the laboratory and

the reference value x and u(D) is the standard uncertainty of this difference expressed as

= (2)

and the expanded uncertainty at 95 confidence level )()( DukDU (3) where k denotes the coverage factor taken as k = 2 (normal distribution approximately 95 level of confidence)

81 Degrees of equivalence and graph of equivalence The analysis of the data from the comparison was performed following the process outlined in ISO 61432001 The regression analysis was performed with XLGenlinev11 a computer programme developed by NPL which implements this methodology by taking into consideration uncertainties in both axes During the 38th meeting of the GAWG it was decided that due the potential adsorption of a proportion of CO2 molecules onto the internal surface of a cylinder and valve (that can cause a deviation from the gravimetric amount fraction by as much as 100 nmol mol-1 demonstrated by Brewer et al2 ) a lower limit for uncertainties that could be used in the calculation of the KCRV was to be fixed It was decided that any standard uncertainty value lower than 0095 micromol mol-1 submitted by a participant was to be replaced by this value for the calculation of the KCRV The limit value was chosen based on the lowest uncertainty that had been reported by a participant for which adsorption effects had been considered (in this case NPL with cylinder 2179) In this manner the original uncertainties for the KCRV calculation of standards CPC00486 (NMIJ

P a g e | 30

original uncertainty 0025 micromol mol-1) CPC00494 (NMIJ original uncertainty 0025 micromol mol-

1) CPC00558 (NMIJ original uncertainty 0039 micromol mol-1) 00255 M365601 (VNIIM original uncertainty 0055 micromol mol-1) and M365664 (VNIIM original uncertainty 0065 micromol mol-1) were replaced by 0095 micromol mol-1 This cutoff was only applied to calculate the KCRVs The degree of equivalences were calculated using the uncertainties submitted by participants (equation 1)

KCRV calculations for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 With the FTIR measurement data set the set of self-consistent standards identified included eleven standards Three standards were excluded namely OMH54 (BFKH) FB04278 (NIST) and JJ108891 (NPLI) as these laboratories had reported changes in their reported values following stability testing The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 074 and the normalized sum of the squared weighted deviations 11 2 0227 Key comparison reference values and degrees of equivalence are listed in Table 12 Degrees of equivalence are plotted in Figure 9

KCRV calculations for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 With the FTIR measurement data set the set of self-consistent standards identified included twelve standards Three standards were excluded namely OMH44 (BFKH) FB03744 (NIST) and JJ108862 (NPLI) as these laboratories had reported changes in their reported values following stability testing The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 136 and the normalized sum of the squared weighted deviations 12 2 0463 The resulting key comparison reference values and degrees of equivalence are listed in Table 13 Degrees of equivalence are plotted in Figure 10

KCRV calculations for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1

Several statistical approaches were presented during the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (GAWG18-32 see ANNEX II- ) comprising different alternatives of sets of self-consistent standards From those the GAWG selected a solution where the two extreme mole fractions at this nominal mole fraction FB03748 (NIM 810424 micromol mol-1) and CB11668 (NOAA 794608 micromol mol-1) were removed from the set of self-consistent standards The solution involved then including ten cylinders for KCRV calculations Five were excluded namely FB03748 (NIM) CB11668 (NOAA) OMH69 (BFKH) FB04287 (NIST) and JJ108854 (NPLI) The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 180 and the normalized sum of the squared weighted deviations 10 2 0950 Key

P a g e | 31

comparison reference values and degrees of equivalence are listed in Table 14 Degrees of equivalence are plotted in Figure 11

Participant Cylinder

xKCRV u(xKCRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D1( xNMI- xKCRV ) u(D1) U( D1)

( XLGENLINE predictied

value from FTIR)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298392 379664 0044 380100 2200 0436 2200 4401

KRISS D500642 378828 0055 378900 0100 0072 0114 0228

LNE 1029045 379253 0051 379480 0395 0227 0398 0796

NIM FB03747 383453 0052 383430 0100 -0023 0113 0226

NMIJ CPC00486 386597 0088 386617 0025 0020 0091 0182

NMISA M51 8232 379743 0050 380200 1000 0457 1001 2002

NOAA CC310084 379511 0046 379500 0105 -0011 0115 0229

NPL 2179 380269 0041 380270 0095 0001 0103 0207

VNIIM M365601 380182 0042 380200 0055 0018 0069 0138

VSL 5604614 378937 0051 378900 0140 -0037 0149 0298

UME PSM298266 380017 0071 379920 0095 -0097 0118 0237

BFKH OMH54 374884 0099 379800 0850 4916 0856 1711

NIST FB04278 380088 0042 379045 0195 -1044 0200 0400

NPLI JJ108891 374576 0108 375720 1610 1144 1614 3227

Table 12 Degrees of Equivalence using FTIR measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision of the the CCQM

GAWG Uncertainties below the cutoff value of 0095 micromol molminus1

Participant Cylinder

xKCRV u(xKCRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D2( xNMI- xKCRV ) u(D2) U( D2)

( XLGENLINE predictied value

from FTIR)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298393 477706 0051 478100 2600 0394 2601 5201

INRIM D247440 479007 0173 479300 0800 0293 0819 1637

KRISS D500647 479851 0052 480000 0100 0149 0113 0225

LNE 1029047 477397 0061 477600 0500 0203 0504 1007

NIM FB03744 489202 0099 489150 0110 ‐0052 0148 0296

NMIJ CPC00494 471351 0094 471301 0026 ‐0050 0097 0195

NMISA M51 8167 479042 0068 479500 0800 0458 0803 1606

NOAA CC305198 479363 0058 479260 0130 ‐0103 0142 0284

P a g e | 32

NPL 2170 479985 0049 480020 0120 0035 0130 0259

VNIIM M365664 480145 0059 480180 0065 0035 0088 0175

VSL 5604880 480523 0045 480480 0180 ‐0043 0186 0371

UME PSM266468 480537 0078 480420 0125 ‐0117 0147 0295

BFKH OMH44 464911 0138 479900 1050 14989 1059 2118

NIST FB04300 473529 0071 472662 0214 ‐0867 0225 0451

NPLI JJ108862 480863 0079 480520 1520 ‐0343 1522 3044

Table 13 Degrees of Equivalence using FTIR measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision of the the CCQM

GAWG Uncertainties below the cutoff value of 0095 micromol molminus1

Participant Cylinder

xKCRV u(xKCRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D3( xNMI- xKCRV ) u(D3) U( D3)

( XLGENLINE predictied value

from FTIR)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298402 800105 0106 800500 4300 0395 4301 8603

INRIM D247445 798389 0128 798900 1300 0511 1306 2613

KRISS D500672 800519 0118 800800 0200 0281 0232 0464

LNE 1029048 802099 0078 802200 0850 0101 0854 1707

NMIJ CPC00558 803694 0114 803658 0039 -0036 0120 0240

NPL 2181 799744 0101 799700 0200 -0044 0224 0448

NMISA M518244 798187 0132 799100 0500 0913 0517 1034

VNIIM M365707 800697 0084 800730 0095 0033 0127 0253

VSL 5604705 796080 0191 795700 0300 -0380 0356 0712

UME PSM298347 800917 0083 800760 0180 -0157 0198 0396

NIM FB03748 810424 0327 809820 0130 -0604 0351 0703

NOAA CB11668 794608 0237 794080 0240 -0528 0337 0674

BFKH OMH69 800282 0100 800300 1450 0018 1453 2907

NIST FB04287 795511 0208 794530 0514 -0981 0555 1109

NPLI JJ108854 794501 0239 796380 2515 1879 2526 5053

Table 14 Degrees of Equivalence using FTIR measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision of the the CCQM

GAWG Uncertainties below the cutoff value of 0095 micromol molminus1

P a g e | 33

Figure 9 Degrees of Equivalence at a nominal value of 380 micromolmol for CO2 mole fractions The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

KR

ISS

LNE

NIM

NM

IJ

NM

ISA

NO

AA

NP

L

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI-4

-2

0

2

4

D m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 34

Figure 10 Degrees of Equivalence at a nominal value of 480 micromolmol for CO2 mole fractions The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

INR

IM

KR

ISS

LNE

NIM

NM

IJ

NM

ISA

NO

AA

NP

L

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI

-4

-2

0

2

4

D m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 35

Figure 11 Degrees of Equivalence at a nominal value of 800 micromolmol for CO2 mole fractions The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

INR

IM

KR

ISS

LNE

NM

IJ

NP

L

NM

ISA

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

NIM

NO

AA

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI-4

-2

0

2

4

D m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 36

9 Conclusions The comparison have been successful in demonstrating the degrees of equivalence of CO2 in air standards amongst participating NMIs at nominal mole fractions of 380 micromolmol 480 micromolmol and 800 micromolmol In addition the results can be compared to those of CCQM-K52 (organized in 2006) allowing the following conclusions to be drawn

a) the uncertainy of the key comparison reference value has been reduced by a factor of at least 4 with a standard uncertainty of 005 micromolmol for CCQM-K120a (compared to 02 micromolmol for CCQM-K52)

b) methods based on spectroscopy (FTIR with corrections for isotope ratios) and GC-FID for comparing CO2 in air standards have demonstrated excellent agreement with the standard deviation of the difference in reference values found by the two methods being 007 micromolmol at 380 micromolmol and 005 micromolmol at 480 micromolmol

c) the uncertainties are now at the level where adsorption effects within cylinders and on

surfaces needs to be considered and this has led to a mnimium value of 0095 micromolmol being used as the standard uncertainty for standards for key comparison reference value calculation

d) providing standards to communities measuring atmospheric CO2 with spectroscopic

methods produced with CO2 originating from combustion sources can lead to isotope ratios in the CO2 which will produce biases in mole fractions measurements of up to 03 micromolmol These biases can be corrected by either measuring isotope ratios of the gas standard and appropriate processing by the user or by using CO2 which has been closely matched to atmospheric isotope ratio values in the production of the standard

10 lsquoHow far the light shinesrsquo statement The following lsquoHow far the light shinesrsquo statement agreed during the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG was CCQM‐K120a comparison involves preparing standards of carbon dioxide in air which are fit for purpose for the atmospheric monitoring community with stringent requirements on matrix composition and measurement uncertainty of the CO2 mole fraction This represents an analytical challenge and is therefore considered as a Track C comparison The comparison will underpin CMC claims for CO2 in air for standards and calibrations services for the atmospheric

P a g e | 37

monitoring community matrix matched to real air over the mole fraction range of 250 μmolmol to 520 μmolmol CCQM‐K120b comparison tests core skills and competencies required in gravimetric preparation analytical certification and purity analysis It is considered as a Track A comparison It will underpin CO2 in air and nitrogen claims in a mole fraction range starting at the smallest participantrsquos reported expanded uncertainty and ending at 500 mmolmol Participants successful in this comparison may use their result in the flexible scheme and underpin claims for all core mixtures

Bibliography

1 W Bader B Bovy S Conway K Strong D Smale A J Turner T Blumenstock C Boone A Coulon O Garcia D W T Griffith F Hase P Hausmann N Jones P Krummel I Murata I Morino H Nakajima S ODoherty C Paton-Walsh J Robinson R Sandrin M Schneider C Servais R Sussmann and E MahieuTen years of atmospheric methane from ground-based NDACC FTIR observations Atmos Chem Phys Discuss2016 2016 1 2 P J Brewer R J C Brown K V Resner R E Hill-Pearce D R Worton N D C Allen K C Blakley D Benucci and M R EllisonInfluence of Pressure on the Composition of Gaseous Reference Materials Analytical Chemistry2018 90(5) 3490 3 M B Esler D W T Griffith S R Wilson and L P SteelePrecision Trace Gas Analysis by FT-IR Spectroscopy 1 Simultaneous Analysis of CO2 CH4 N2O and CO in Air Anal Chem1999 72(1) 206- 215 4 M B Esler D W T Griffith S R Wilson and L P SteelePrecision Trace Gas Analysis by FT-IR Spectroscopy 2 The 13C12C Isotope Ratio of CO2 Anal Chem 1999 72(1) 216 5 E Flores J Viallon P Moussay D W T Griffith and R WielgoszCalibration strategies for FTIR and other IRIS instruments for ac-curate δ13C and δ18O measurements of CO2 in air Anal Chem2017 Submitted 6 D W T GriffithSynthetic Calibration and Quantitative Analysis of Gas-Phase FT-IR Spectra Appl Spectrosc1996 50(1) 59 7 D W T Griffith N M Deutscher C Caldow G Kettlewell M Riggenbach and S HammerA Fourier transform infrared trace gas and isotope analyser for atmospheric applications Atmos Meas Tech2012 5(10) 2481 8 D W T Griffith N B Jones B McNamara C P Walsh W Bell and C BernardoIntercomparison of NDSC Ground-Based Solar FTIR Measurements of Atmospheric Gases at Lauder New Zealand J Atmos Oceanic Tech2003 20 (8) 1138- 1153 9 ISO Gas analysis- Comparison methods for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures in 61432001 (2001) 10 G Nelson Gas Mixtures Preparation and Control (Lewis Publishers Florida USA 1992) 11 L S Rothman A Barbe D Chris Benner L R Brown C Camy-Peyret M R Carleer K Chance C Clerbaux V Dana V M Devi A Fayt J M Flaud R R Gamache A Goldman D Jacquemart K W Jucks W J Lafferty J Y Mandin S T Massie V Nemtchinov D A Newnham A Perrin C P Rinsland J Schroeder K M Smith M A H Smith K Tang R A Toth J Vander Auwera P Varanasi and K YoshinoThe HITRAN molecular spectroscopic database edition of 2000 including updates through 2001 J Quant Spectrosc Radiat Transfer 82(1ndash4) 5 12 L S Rothman I E Gordon Y Babikov A Barbe D Chris Benner P F Bernath M Birk L Bizzocchi V Boudon L R Brown A Campargue K Chance E A Cohen L H Coudert V M Devi B J Drouin A Fayt J M Flaud R R Gamache J J Harrison J M Hartmann C Hill J T Hodges D Jacquemart A Jolly J Lamouroux R J Le Roy G Li D A Long O M Lyulin C J Mackie S T Massie S Mikhailenko H S P Muumlller O V Naumenko A V Nikitin J Orphal V Perevalov A Perrin E R Polovtseva C Richard M A H

P a g e | 38

Smith E Starikova K Sung S Tashkun J Tennyson G C Toon V G Tyuterev and G WagnerThe HITRAN2012 molecular spectroscopic database J Quant Spectrosc Radiat Transfer2013 130 4

ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

As results of the discussion of the key points of the Draft A report of the CCQM-K120 comparison during the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG the following decisions were taken

a) the key comparison reference value for CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b are to be based on the measurement results of the FTIR spectrometer

b) the re-submitted uncertainties by UME replace the original uncertainty values used in Draft A report (see Table 15) and are to be used for the calculation of the KCRV

c) NIST NPLI and BFKH submitted new measurement results as well as uncertainties after the measurements performed on return of the standards in their laboratoires This was not expected in the protocol of the comparison Therefore their values have not been used in the KCRV calucltaions The original values are used for DOE calculations the modified values have been included in AnnexII

d) considering that NPL was the only participant that considered a potential effect of adsorption of a proportion of the molecules onto the internal surface of a cylinder and valve (for more information see GAWG18-00) a limit on the uncertainties claimed by participants contributing to the KCRV is fixed to 0095 micromol mol-1 meaning that any uncertainty value smaller to this value will be replaced by 0095 micromol mol-1 to calculate KCRVs

e) The KCRV for the standatds at the nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 are to be calculated including standards with mole fractions within plusmn 5 micromol mol-1 of the nominal value (795 micromol mol-1 to 805 micromol mol-1)

P a g e | 39

P a g e | 40

ANNEX II- Stability studies by participants After the return of cylinder to the participants and before results of the comparison were known four participants reported modified uncertainties and also values and uncertainties compared to their originally reported values see Table 15 The participants that reported changes to their originally submitted values were

BFKH submitted the same values but with less decimals for cylinders OMH54 and OMH69 and proposed a new value for cylinder OMH44 The new value changed from 47989plusmn211 micromolmol to 4644plusmn211 micromolmol

NIST submitted new values and uncertainties for cylinders FB04278 FB04300 and FB04287

NPLI submitted new values for cylinders JJ108891 JJ108862 and JJ108854 The mole fractions for cylinders JJ108891 and JJ108854 were increased by 252 micromolmol and 242 micromolmol respectively and reduced for cylinder JJ108862 by 195 micromolmol The uncertainties for cylinders JJ108891 and JJ108862 were also increased by 22 and 72 but reduced for cylinder JJ108854 by 33

UME The uncertainties of cylinders PSM298266 PSM266468 and PSM298347 were increased by 19 47 and 33 respectively

Participant Cylinder references Gas Matrix

NMIrsquos assigned CO2 mole fraction xNMI

(micromol mol-1)

NMIrsquos assigned CO2

expanded uncertainty U(xNMI)

k = 2 (micromol mol-1)

Before the return of cylinders

BFKH OMH54 Synthetic Air 379840 1710

BFKH OMH44 Synthetic Air 479890 2110

BFKH OMH69 Synthetic Air 800300 2920

GUM D298392 Synthetic Air 380100 4400

GUM D298393 Synthetic Air 478100 5200

GUM D298402 Synthetic Air 800500 8600

INRIM D247440 Synthetic Air 479300 1600

INRIM D247445 Synthetic Air 798900 2600

KRISS D500642 Synthetic Air 378900 0200

KRISS D500647 Synthetic Air 480000 0200

KRISS D500672 Synthetic Air 800800 0400

LNE 1029045 Synthetic Air 379480 0790

LNE 1029047 Synthetic Air 477600 1000

LNE 1029048 Synthetic Air 802200 1700

NIM FB03747 Synthetic Air 383430 0200

NIM FB03744 Synthetic Air 489150 0220

P a g e | 41

NIM FB03748 Synthetic Air 809820 0260

NIST FB04278 Real Air 379045 0391

NIST FB04300 Real Air 472662 0428

NIST FB04287 Real Air 794533 1029

NMIJ CPC00486 Real Air 386617 0050

NMIJ CPC00494 Real Air 471301 0051

NMIJ CPC00558 Real Air 803658 0078

NMISA M51 8232 Synthetic Air 380200 2000

NMISA M51 8167 Synthetic Air 479500 1600

NMISA M51 8244 Synthetic Air 799100 1000

NOAA CC310084 Real Air 379500 0210

NOAA CC305198 Real Air 479260 0260

NOAA CB11668 Real Air 794080 0480

NPL 2179 Synthetic Air 380270 0190

NPL 2170 Synthetic Air 480020 0240

NPL 2181 Synthetic Air 799700 0400

NPLI JJ108891 Synthetic Air 375720 3220

NPLI JJ108862 Synthetic Air 480520 3040

NPLI JJ108854 Synthetic Air 796380 5030

UME PSM298266 Synthetic Air 379920 0160

UME PSM266468 Synthetic Air 480420 0170

UME PSM298347 Synthetic Air 800760 0270

VNIIM M365601 Synthetic Air 380200 0110

VNIIM M365664 Synthetic Air 480180 0130

VNIIM M365707 Synthetic Air 800730 0190

VSL 5604614 Synthetic Air 378900 0280

VSL 5604880 Synthetic Air 480480 0360

VSL 5604705 Synthetic Air 795700 0600

Additional data received following

stability testing

BFKH‐2nd value OMH54 Synthetic Air 3798 17

BFKH‐2nd value OMH44 Synthetic Air 4644 28

BFKH‐2nd value OMH69 Synthetic Air 8003 29

NIST‐2nd value FB04278 Real Air 38030 028

NIST‐2nd value FB04300 Real Air 47340 034

NIST‐2nd value FB04287 Real Air 79512 058

NIST‐3th value FB04278 Real Air 38007 030

NIST‐3th value FB04300 Real Air 47337 052

NIST‐3th value FB04287 Real Air 79477 038

NPLI‐2nd value JJ108891 Synthetic Air 37824 395

NPLI‐2nd value JJ108862 Synthetic Air 47857 523

NPLI‐2nd value JJ108854 Synthetic Air 79880 335

UME‐2nd value PSM298266 Synthetic Air 379920 019

P a g e | 42

UME‐2nd value PSM266468 Synthetic Air 480420 025

UME‐2nd value PSM298347 Synthetic Air 800760 036

Table 15 Standards and reported values provided by participants in Draft A report

ANNEX III- GC-FID results

GC-FID based candidate reference values for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 With the GC-FID measurement data set the set of self-consistent standards identified was the same as with FTIR including eleven standards with three excluded namely OMH54 (BFKH neither original nor newly submitted results included) FB04278 (NIST neither original nor newly submitted results included) and JJ108891 (NPLI neither original and newly submitted results included) The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 169 (lt 2 required to demonstrate consistency of the ensemble) Reference values and differences from these are listed in Table 16 The difference between the KCRV calculated with FTIR measurement data (xKCRV_FTIR) and GC-FID based candidate reference values (xRV_FTIR) measurements for this batch of cylinders is plotted in Figure 12 showing negligible difference between the methods

GC-FID based candidate reference values for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 With the GC-FID measurement data set the set of self-consistent standards identified was the same as with FTIR The data set of self-consistent standards identified included twelve standards with three excluded namely OMH44 (BFKH neither original nor newly submitted results included) FB03744 (NIST neither original nor newly submitted results included) and JJ108862 (NPLI neither original nor newly submitted results included) The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 141 (lt 2 required to demonstrate consistency of the ensemble) Reference values and differences from these are listed in Table 17

P a g e | 43

The difference between the KCRV calculated with FTIR measurement data (xKCRV_FTIR) and GC-FID based candidate reference values (xRV_FTIR) measurements for this batch of cylinders is plotted in Figure 13 showing negligible difference between the methods

GC-FID based candidate reference values for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 Including ten cylinders with five excluded namely FB03748 (NIM) CB11668 (NOAA) OMH69 (BFKH neither original and newly submitted results included) FB04287 (NIST neither original nor newly submitted results included) and JJ108854 (NPLI neither original nor newly submitted results included) the goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 191(lt 2 required to demonstrate consistency of the ensemble) Reference values and differences from these are listed in Table 18 The difference between the KCRV calculated with FTIR measurement data (xKCRV_FTIR) and GC-FID based candidate reference values (xRV_FTIR) measurements for this batch of cylinders is plotted in Figure 14 showing negligible difference between the methods

Participant Cylinder

xRV u(xRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D1( xNMI- xKCRV )

u(D1) U( D1)

( XLGENLINE predictied

value from GC-FID)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298392 379719 0050 380100 2200 0381 2201 4401

KRISS D500642 378753 0063 378900 0100 0147 0118 0236

LNE 1029045 379224 0054 379480 0395 0256 0399 0797

NIM FB03747 383350 0056 383430 0100 0080 0115 0229

NMIJ CPC00486 386624 0092 386617 0025 ‐0007 0095 0190

NMISA M51 8232 379866 0054 380200 1000 0334 1001 2003

NOAA CC310084 379426 0065 379500 0105 0074 0124 0247

NPL 2179 380308 0048 380270 0095 ‐0038 0106 0213

VNIIM M365601 380221 0051 380200 0055 ‐0021 0075 0150

VSL 5604614 378973 0062 378900 0140 ‐0073 0153 0306

UME PSM298266 380106 0055 379920 0095 ‐0186 0110 0220

BFKH OMH54 375005 0101 379800 0850 4795 0856 1712

NIST FB04278 380066 0055 379045 0195 ‐1021 0203 0406

NPLI JJ108891 374617 0105 375720 1610 1103 1613 3227

Table 16 Difference from candidate reference value using GC-FID measurements at the nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision

of the the CCQM GAWG First uncertainty submitted by the participant (lt 0095 micromol mol-1 see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

P a g e | 44

Participant Cylinder

xRV u(xRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D2( xNMI- xKCRV ) u(D2) U( D2)

( XLGENLINE predictied

value from GC-FID)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298393 477789 0065 478100 2600 0311 2601 5202

INRIM D247440 478928 0056 479300 0800 0372 0802 1604

KRISS D500647 479881 0051 480000 0100 0119 0112 0225

LNE 1029047 477444 0069 477600 0500 0156 0505 1009

NIM FB03744 489173 0097 489150 0110 ‐0023 0147 0294

NMIJ CPC00494 471327 0107 471301 0026 ‐0026 0110 0220

NMISA M51 8167 479137 0078 479500 0800 0363 0804 1608

NOAA CC305198 479392 0053 479260 0130 ‐0132 0140 0281

NPL 2170 479997 0056 480020 0120 0023 0133 0265

VNIIM M365664 480173 0052 480180 0065 0007 0083 0167

VSL 5604880 480608 0051 480480 0180 ‐0128 0187 0374

UME PSM266468 480629 0053 480420 0125 ‐0209 0136 0272

BFKH OMH44 464994 0144 479900 1050 14906 1060 2120

NIST FB04300 473601 0077 472662 0214 ‐0940 0227 0455

NPLI JJ108862 480836 0055 480520 1520 ‐0316 1521 3042

Table 17 Difference from candidate reference value using GC-FID measurements at the nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision of

the the CCQM GAWG First uncertainty submitted by the participant (lt 0095 micromol mol-1 see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

Participant Cylinder

xRV u(xRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D3( xNMI- xKCRV )

u(D3) U( D3)

( XLGENLINE predictied

value from GC-FID) (k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298402 800002 0083 800500 4300 0498 4301 8602

INRIM D247445 798031 0105 798900 1300 0869 1304 2608

KRISS D500672 800316 0080 800800 0200 0484 0215 0431

LNE 1029048 802001 0068 802200 0850 0199 0853 1705

NMIJ CPC00558 803670 0057 803658 0039 ‐0012 0069 0138

NPL 2181 799570 0081 799700 0200 0130 0216 0432

NMISA M51 8244 798195 0111 799100 0500 0905 0512 1024

VNIIM M365707 800710 0066 800730 0095 0020 0116 0232

VSL 5604705 795715 0150 795700 0300 ‐0015 0335 0670

UME PSM298347 801042 0180 800760 0135 ‐0282 0172 0344

NIM FB03748 810535 0165 809820 0130 ‐0715 0210 0420

NOAA CB11668 794338 0170 794080 0240 ‐0258 0294 0588

BFKH OMH69 800057 0079 800300 1450 0243 1452 2904

P a g e | 45

NIST FB04287 795279 0147 794530 0514 ‐0749 0535 1070

NPLI JJ108854 794091 0173 796380 2515 2289 2521 5042

Table 18 Difference from candidate reference value using GC-FID measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the

decision of the the CCQM GAWG First uncertainty submitted by the participant (lt 0095 micromol mol-1 see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

Figure 12 Difference between the KCRV values obtained using FTIR and GC-FID reference values at 380

micromolmol The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

KR

ISS

LNE

NIM

NM

IJ

NM

ISA

NO

AA

NP

L

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Diff

(x K

CR

V_F

TIR

-xR

V_G

C-F

ID)

m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 46

Figure 13 Difference between the KCRV values obtained using FTIR and GC-FID reference values at 480 micromolmol The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

INR

IM

KR

ISS

LNE

NIM

NM

IJ

NM

ISA

NO

AA

NP

L

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Diff

(x K

CR

V_

FT

IR-x

RV

_G

C-F

ID)

m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 47

Figure 14 Difference between the KCRV values obtained using FTIR and GC-FID reference values at 800 micromolmol The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

In summary the measurement performance obtained with GC-FID and FTIR at the BIPM were rather similar with standard measurement uncertainties of the reference values having a range of 004 micromolmol to 011 micromolmol at 380 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for FTIR 005 micromolmol to 011 micromolmol at 380 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for GC-FID 005 micromolmol to 017 micromolmol at 480 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for FTIR 005 micromolmol to 014 micromolmol at 480 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for GC-FID 008 micromolmol to 033 micromolmol at 800 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for FTIR 006 micromolmol to 018 micromolmol at 800 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for GC-FID

The reference values calculated from the two measurement techniques agree with each other within their stated uncertainties for all measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 380 micromolmol all measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 480 micromolmol all measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 800 micromolmol The magnitude of the proposed reference values can be compared to the laboratories reported standard measurement uncertainties for their standards which range from 0025 micromolmol to 43 micromolmol

GU

M

INR

IM

KR

ISS

LNE

NM

IJ

NP

L

NM

ISA

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

NIM

NO

AA

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Diff

(x K

CR

V_

FT

IR-x

RV

_GC

-FID

)

mo

l mo

l-1

P a g e | 48

ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure The cylinders were analysed in batches first by GC-FID then by FTIR and finally by the Delta Ray

GC-FID The GC-FID is a modified Agilent system series 7890A acquired from the SRA Instruments lsquoFrance It is equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID) a Haysep Q (12 feet) column a methanizer and the FID detector is supplied with pure oxygen and hydrogen (see Figure 15)

Figure 15 Internal schematics of the BIPM system for Gas Chromatography with Flame Ionization Detector (GC-FID) comprised by a Haysep (12 feet) column a Sample loop of 1 mL two Valco six port valves and a FID detector

The GC-FID is equipped with

- two 6 port valve V1 (Vici-valco) - one 1 mL stainless steel injection loop - one one-way valve - one Haysep Q (80-100 Mesh 12ftx18x20mm) - one flame ionization detector (FID) - one methanizer - one hydrogen generator - one helium purifier - one control computer for the GC-FID equipped with

o ChemStation version Rev B0402 (118) o ProChem Set-up version 257 o ProChem software version 201

- one barometer (Sensor Technique DC 2510)

Haysep

P a g e | 49

The gas mixtures used for operating the facility were

- one helium 60 gas cylinder quality 999999 - one oxygen 55 in gas cylinder quality 999995 - source of air with pressure of 7 bars - one 50 L CO2air commercial secondary gas standards (control standard A) produced by

Messer with an initial internal pressure of 150 bar with the composition specified to be within the following ranges

CH4 185 ppm CO2 386 ppm Ar 9410 ppm O2 207 N2 Matrix gas

- one 50 L CO2air commercial secondary gas standards (control standard B) produced by Messer with an initial internal pressure of 150 bar with the composition specified to be within the following ranges

CH4 184 ppm CO2 476 ppm Ar 9415 ppm O2 210 N2 Matrix gas

- one 40 L CO2air standard (control standard C) produced by Scott Marrin (cylinder CB 10422) with an initial internal pressure of 100 bar with the composition specified to be within the following ranges

CO2 79112 ppm CH4 184 ppm

GC-FID separation and quantification method The GC-FID was operated at 30 degC A Haysep Q (80-100 Mesh 12ftx18x20mm) column was used at a temperature of 30 degC for the analysis Helium column carrier2 gas passed through a heated gas purifier was used at a flow rate of 40 ml min-1 The FID was supplied with 320 ml min-1 of pure oxygen3 and 40 ml min-1 of hydrogen4 A 1 ml stainless steel sample loop was used to introduce the CO2air sample onto the column The pressure in the sample loop was measured by a calibrated pressure sensor having a resolution of 02 hPa and recorded at each injection Finally the peak areas were estimated with an on-line computing integrator

Sampling sequence

Table 19 displays a typical sampling sequence The sampling sequence was setup so as to analyse six unkown CO2Air gas mixtures together with three control standards (A B C) Three unknown were bracketed by control standards A and B followed by the other three bracketed by 2 The Carrier Gas is He grade 60 passing through a SAES gettersreg PS2-GC50-R-2 for extra purification 3 The Flame is produced from Oxygen grade 55 4 Hydrogen is produced on site by a commercial H2 generator CG2200 (Claind) It produces grade 60 H2 at a maximum flow rate of 200 mlmin with a purity higher than 9999999

P a g e | 50

control standards B and C Each individual cylinders analysis (unkowns and controls) consisted in three successive measurements of the GC-FID response (CO2 peak area)

Control Cylinder A A1 A2 A3

Control Cylinder B B1 B2 B3

Cylinder 1 Cyl11 Cyl12 Cyl13 Cylinder 2 Cyl21 Cyl22 Cyl23

Cylinder 3 Cyl31 Cyl32 Cyl33 Control Cylinder A A4 A5 A6

Control Cylinder B B4 B5 B6

Control Cylinder B B7 B8 B9

Control Cylinder C C1 C2 C3

Cylinder 4 Cyl41 Cyl42 Cyl43

Cylinder 5 Cyl51 Cyl52 Cyl53

Cylinder 6 Cyl61 Cyl62 Cyl63

Control Cylinder B B10 B11 B12

Control Cylinder C C4 C5 C6 Table 19 Typical GC-FID sampling sequence

Considering that the analysis of each CO2Air gas mixture took 10 minutes this measuring sequence took about 390 minutes to be completed This sequence was repeated four times with the first one not used in the calculation Adding flushing and conditioning about three days were necessary to complete the analysis of six unkown cylinders

Participantrsquos cylinders were divided in batches of four to six and additional cylinders of the BIPM were added if required to obtain batches of equal size

It was checked that the results obtained using controls A B and C were consistent but only the ratios to the control cylinder B were used as GC-FID results and listed in Table 8

Ratios to the control standard

The ratios to the control cylinder were calculated determining first the average responses of three successive measurements performed on the CO2Air standard gas mixtures as well as on the control cylinders (A B and C) The drift corrected response to the control cylinder as any time was calculated by interpolation in between two control measurements The average response to the CO2air standards mixtures was then divided by the drift corrected response of the control

cylinder to obtain GCR the ratio for one cylinder in one sequence

The last three sequences were then combined with the calculation of the weighted mean defined as

wGCR

P a g e | 51

3

1

_

l

lwGClwGC RwR (1)

Where the weigth wl for the series l is defined as

3

1

2_

2_

1

1

j

lGC

lGC

l

Ru

Ruw (2)

and lGCRu _ is the standard deviation of the mean of the three repeats

The uncertainty of the weighted mean is defined as

3

1

2_

2

1

1

llGC

wGC

RuRu

(3)

In addition to this component the intermediate precision or stability of the instrument response during the full measuring period was evaluated by the standard deviation of the mean of the drift corrected ratio to the control cylinder of one standard exclusively used for this purpose giving uIntpre = 0000046 This component was further combined with the weighted mean uncertainty to provide the combined standard uncertainty associated with measurements performed with GC-FID resulting in a typical relative standard uncertainty of 0007

FTIR A vacuum Bruker Vertex 70v FTIR Spectrometer equipped with a RockSolid interferometer (vacuum better than 02 hPa) with 1 cm-1 resolution (016 optional) a 40 mm beam diameter a globar source and CaF2 beam splitter was used for the study The spectrometer was configured with a liquid N2-cooled mid-infrared Indium Antimonide (InSb) detector and a 1001 m multi-pass White-type gas cell of volume 075 L (Gemini Scientific Instruments USA) The wetted surfaces of the gas cell were electro-polished stainless steel treated with silconert 2000 (Silcotek) and gold (mirror coatings) to minimize surface adsorption and desorption effects for CO2 The interferometer was scanned at 64 scans min-1 and spectra co-added for five minutes to obtain an acceptable signal-to-noise ratio The transmission spectra of gas reference standards obtained following this procedure had a very high signal to noise ratio of typically ~1 x 104 peak-peak from (2240ndash3380) cm-1 In order to prevent nonlinear responses produced by excess photon flux reaching the InSb detector special care was put into adjusting the instrument parameters of the software to ensure that the apparent intensity from the InSb detector was zero at 1850 cm-1 The spectrometer user interface was controlled using a BIPM developed software named B-FOS that allowed the automatic setting of all instrument parameters into Brukerrsquos proprietary OPUS software for control spectral acquisition and on-line analysis through the use of MALT (Multiple Atmospheric Layer Transmission)3 4 6 spectrum analysis software version 556

P a g e | 52

MALT retrieves concentrations of each trace gas in the sample from a least-squares fit to the measured spectrum based on a model calculation and Hitran line parameters12 This code is the basis for quantitative analysis of open and closed path FTIR trace gas measurements and has been compared with other codes such as SFIT1 for ground based solar FT-IR measurements with agreement of better than 07 (Griffith et al8)

The spectra were constructed by co-adding up to 320 scans recorded in about 5 minutes to provide a single spectrum of a sample This single spectrum was ratioed with a similar spectrum of ultra-pure N2 collected under similar conditions to provide an absorbance or transmission spectrum of the gas sample (relative to ultra-pure N2) in the gas cell The sample flow rates were kept at ~400 mL minminus1 Assuming perfect mixing in the cell it was estimated that 999 of the sample was replaced after 10 min of flow and 99998 replaced after 20 min10 In order to ensure the complete exchange of samples only the measured spectra obtained after flowing the sample through the White-type cell for 40 min (9999999 gas replacement) were used for mole fraction determinations The sample pressure was measured by means of the calibrated barometer Mensor Series 6000 The relative uncertainty of this pressure sensor was u(P) = 002 The sample temperature was measured with a calibrated 100 Ω RTD temperature probe introduced into the outlet gas of the White-type gas cell with a standard uncertainty u(T)=002 K

The recorded spectra were analysed online by non-linear least squares fitting in the spectra region 3500ndash3800 cm-1 (plotted in Figure 16) with modelled spectra calculated by MALT 55 using absorption line parameters from the HITRAN database version 2012 As previously described by Griffith et al7 this region shows peaks that are due to the major isotopologue 12C16O16O (written 626 using the HitranAir Force Geophysics Laboratory (AFGL) shorthand notation 11) Since all standards used during this work were ultra-dry CO2air gas mixtures the cross sensitivity with H2O was not considered

Figure 16 Typical measured and fitted spectra (upper part) and residual signal (lower part) in the region 3500ndash3800 cm-1 obtained on a standard of CO2 in air at 38433 μmol mol-1 The absorption feature is due to the major isotopologue 626

3500 3550 3600 3650 3700 3750 3800

070

075

080

085

090

095

100

3500 3550 3600 3650 3700 3750 3800

-0002

0000

0002

Measured

Tra

nsm

itan

ce

Fitted

Residual

Wavenumbercm-1

P a g e | 53

Ratios to the control standard

The ratios to the control cylinder were calculated between the FTIR responses measured at the 626 isotopologue band of the sample i (Cyli) and of the control cylinder

The measurements were performed following a sequence which included the analysis of four cylinders bracketed by the analysis of the two control cylinders (A B) repeated three times Control A was the Scott Marrin cylinder CB 10326 value assigned by NIST with a mole fraction of 37890plusmn009 micromol mol-1 and as control B was used the commercial mixture Messer 400309 with a mole fraction of 85000plusmn17 micromol mol-1

Since the analysis of each CO2Air gas mixture takes 40 minutes (35 minutes of flush and 5 minutes of acquisition) fifteen hours of continuous measurements were necessary to accomplish the measurement of four cylinders

The drift corrected response to the control cylinder B during the analysis of a sample Bcor was estimated by interpolation in between two measurements of B The ratio RFT between the response to a sample Cyl and the drift corrected control Bcor was then calculated Finally the measurement results for one cylinder was the average of the three ratios obtained during a full sequence named RFTi for cylinder Cyli

The control cylinder A suffered from a leak in the gas line to the autosampler and was emptied before the end of all measurements It was however checked that measurements performed with this control cylinder A with sufficient pressure were equivalent to those obtained with the control cylinder B

Uncertainty determination

The uncertainty assigned to each ratio to the control cylinder uFT_R was the combination of three components combined according to the Guide for Uncertainty in Measurements using the software GUM workbench (see Table 21)

uStab the short term stability of the 626 response to the sample This term was estimated from the typical Allan deviation at an averaging time of five minutes of the FTIR response measured on the 626 peak resulting in the value ustab = 6 nmol mol-1

independent of the mole fraction This same term applies to the control cylinder measurements

uIsoCorr the uncertainty contribution due to the correction of the 626 response arising from the sample isotopic composition (also valid for the control cylinder) as measured by the Delta Ray All responses of the FTIR calculated at the 626 peak had to be corrected to account for the fact that samples had a different isotopic composition than natural air The correction was calculated with the Delta Ray so that the uncertainty contribution due to the isotopic composition correction was estimated from the uncertainty of the Delta Ray measurements uδ13C=018 permil and uδ18O=048 permil (see further information in Flores et al5) It can be calculated that a 1 permil bias in δ13C results in a bias equal to 41 nmol mol-1 in the CO2 mole fraction Similarly a 1 permil bias in δ18O results in a bias equal to 17 nmol mol-1 Therefore assuming maximum biases in the delta values equal to the Delta Ray standard uncertainty the maximum biases in the CO2 mole fraction were estimated to be 072 nmol mol-1 (from δ13C ) and 082 nmol mol-1 (from δ18O) Being conservative the two terms were added in a maximum bias of 154 nmol mol-1 Considering a

P a g e | 54

rectangular distribution of the uncertainty the standard uncertainty takes the value 154radic3 089nmol mol-1 This is negligible compared to other

components

uPBEs the uncertainty contribution due Pressure Broadening Effects was calculated through a sensitivity study of MALT Using one primary version of MALT in 1982 D Griffith looked at the carrier gas effect in NDIR analyzers for CO2 MALT by default uses either the amount-weighted selfair broadened widths or the air only widths provided by HITRAN and allows some degree of fiddling for fitting spectra contained in different gas matrices since it allows to the users to scale the input parameter broad by any arbitrary factor Different line broadening factor can be calculated then for air using Griffth et al 1982 equation

(7)

Where xN2 xO2 and xAr are the mole fractions of nitrogen oxygen and argon in air FN2 =1 by definition FO2 = 081 and FAr = 078 are the line broadening factors for oxygen and argon (in average) Assuming xN2 = 0780876 mol mol-1 xO2 = 02093335 mol mol-1 and xAr = 00093332 mol mol-1 then the line broadening factor of air FAIR should be equal to 095771603 The broadening parameter in MALT for air is broad = 1 by convention It can be scaled by FAIR to obtain a broad value for any ldquoair likerdquo matrix using the equation

(8)

In order to estimate the amount of the change in the CO2 response one absorbance spectrum was fitted using standard input parameters varying the factor broad according to the two possible extremes composition of the matrix as stated in the protocol of the CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b comparisons In the case of the CCQM-K120a comparison two values of the factor broad were determined using equation 8 modelling cylinders containing the minimum and the maximum allowed mole fractions of oxygen and assuming nitrogen and argon were impacted to keep a sum of the three equals to 1 The mole fractions and the corresponding values of broad are summarized in the table below

K120a min K120a max

Compoundxi (mol mol-

1) xi (mol mol-

1) Nitrogen 078140 078042Oxygen 020880 020980Argon 000934 000933

broad 1000105801 0999907486

Table 20 Extermes of air matrix compositions in the comparison CCQM-K120a and the corresponding values of broad

P a g e | 55

As result a ΔCO2 equal to 0031 micromol mol-1 was observed between both fittings Considering this difference as a rectangular distribution then a uPBEs_ΔO2_ K120a= (00031)(2radic3) = 0009 micromol mol-1 is obtained The same procedure was used with the the limits stated for the CCQM‐K120b and a ΔCO2 of 0467 micromol mol-1 was obtained with factors FAIR_CCQM-K120b_min= 1000403273 and FAIR_CCQM-K120b_max= 0999610014 If this difference is considered again as a rectangular distribution then uPBEs_ΔO2_ K120b= (0125)(2radic3) = 0036 micromol mol-1

Table 21 Uncertainty budget for the calculation of the FTIR ratios to the control cylinder

The final uncertainty for the ratios of the cylinders that had a gas matrix within the limits of the CCQM-K120a were at 380 micromol mol-1 uFT_R_380A=14 times10-6 and at 480 micromol mol-1 uFT_R_480A =15 times10-6 The uncertainty for the ratios of the cylinders that had a gas matrix within the limits of the CCQM-K120b were at 480 micromol mol-1 uFT_R_480A =44 times10-6 at 800 micromol mol-1 uFT_R_480A =45 times10-6 Combined with the standard deviations on three ratios this resulted in standard relative uncertainties on the averaged ratio between 14times10-5 and 25times10-4 All the combined standard uncertainties are listed in Table 8

Delta Ray Since MALT measurements (FTIR) are done using linestrengths from the HITRAN database that are scaled by the natural abundance for each isotopologue the 12CO2 measurement of each cylinder needed to be corrected according their own isotopic composition The isotopic composition of each cylinder was measured using the Delta Ray Delta Ray is based on direct absorption laser spectroscopy It uses a tunable diode laser which scans over the spectral region that covers 18O and 13C isotopologues of CO2

For this comparison Delta Ray measurements were performed after calibrating the instrument following the manufacturerrsquos recommendations that consist in using two pure CO2 references gases with high and low isotope values two CO2 in air reference standards with high and low concentration and one dry CO2 scrubbed whole air (Scott Marrin Inc) The instrument was calibrated using cylinder 401557 (pure CO2 source gas well δ13C = - 138 permil and δ18O = - 714 permil VPDBj-RAS06 scale) cylinder C11375KO (pure CO2 source combustion δ13C = - 4213 permil and δ18O = -277 permil VPDBj-RAS06 scale) standard NPL 1788 (NPL CO2 in air mole fraction 3800plusmn019 micromol mol-1 δ13C = - 138 permil and δ18O = - 714 permil VPDBj-RAS06 scale)

Quantity Value

Standard Uncertainty Sensitivity Coefficient

Uncertainty contribution Index

48000middot10-6 mol mol-1

00108middot10-6 mol mol-

1 12middot10-3 13middot10-6 (Ratio) 747

84605middot10-6 mol mol-1

00150middot10-6 mol mol-1 -450middot10-6 -67middot10-6 (Ratio) 205

84695middot10-6 mol mol-1

00150middot10-6 mol mol-1 -220middot10-6 -34middot10-6 (Ratio) 51

Value Standard Uncertainty

0567141 (Ratio) 15middot10-6 (Ratio)

P a g e | 56

standard NPL 1907 (NPL CO2 in air mole fraction 7910plusmn04 micromol mol-1 δ13C = - 4213 permil and δ18O = -277 permil VPDBj-RAS06 scale) and dry CO2 scrubbed whole air (Scott Marrin)

As reported by Flores et al 20185 a residual bias in the δ13C and δ18O measurements which remained following the implementation of the manufacturerrsquos calibration procedure was removed by the application of an additional two point calibration (two CO2 in air standards with known but differing isotopic composition) Standards NPL 1788 (δ13C = - 138 permil and δ18O = - 714 permil) and NPL 1907 (δ13C = - 4213 permil and δ18O = -277 permil) were used as two point calibration mixtures

Samplingsequence

The measurement procedure for analyzing a set of CO2Air gas standards by Delta Ray is based on the analysis of four CO2Air gas mixtures between two CO2Air gas mixture used as the two-point calibration standards (A B) The measurement sequence starts by measuring the δ13C and δ18O response of calibration cylinder (A) and (B) then of four CO2Air standards for finalizing again with the calibration standars Since the analysis of each CO2Air gas mixture takes 40 minutes sixteen hours of continuous measurements were necessary to accomplish the measurement of four cylinders three times

The measured δ13C and δ18O responses of the control cylinders were drift corrected Then used together with the δ13C and δ18O measured by MPI-Jena in XLGenlinev11 for predicting the δ13C and δ18O of the unknown cylinders traceable to the VPDB-CO2 scale

Uncertainty determination

Times series analysis were performed with the Delta Ray during the validation work resulting in Allan deviations of 003 permil for δ13C and 005 permil for δ18O at the optimum averaging time of 300 s In addition it was further noted that the noise of the instrument was significantly higher when measuring during two hours which is the time period of a typical calibration Using a rectangular distribution the standard uncertainty of 031 permil for δ13C and 035 permil for δ18O was observed This component was further combined with the Allan deviations and taken as the stability uncertainty associated with the instrument response

The two-point calibration of the delta value requires the knowledge of the uncertainty associated with them which was in this case taken as the uncertainties deduced from MPI-Jena measurements equal to 0015permil for δ13C and 0328permil for δ18O

After calibration with the two additional CO2 in air standards the standard uncertainties associated with the instrument measurement were finally equal to 018 permil for δ13C and 048 permil for δ18O

P a g e | 57

ANNEX V - Measurement reports of participants

NMIJ

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 58

P a g e | 59

P a g e | 60

P a g e | 61

P a g e | 62

P a g e | 63

GUM

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM-K120-R Project name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department

Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form

Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute Central Office of Measures (Głoacutewny Urzad Miar)

Address Elektoralna 2 00-139 Warsaw Poland

Contact person Dariusz Cieciora

P a g e | 64

Telephone (48) 22 581 94 39 Fax (48) 22 581 93 95

Email dciecioragumgovpl gasgumgovpl

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a YES

CCQM‐K120b YES

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 D298392 3801 44 2

2 D298393 4781 52 2

3 D298402 8005 86 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number D298392

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07808 molmol 00002 molmol 2

O2 02095 molmol 00001 molmol 2

Ar 000925 molmol 000001 molmol 2

CH4 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

P a g e | 65

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number D298393

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07807 molmol 00002 molmol 2

O2 02096 molmol 00001 molmol 2

Ar 000919 molmol 000001 molmol 2

CH4 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number D298402

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07802 molmol 00002 molmol 2

O2 02097 molmol 00001 molmol 2

Ar 000938 molmol 000001 molmol 2

CH4 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 D298392 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

2 D298393 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

3 D298402 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

A4 Uncertainty Budget Please provide a complete uncertainty budgets for the CO2 mole fraction values reported

Uncertainty budget for the cylinder no D298392

Uncertainty source Estimate

(micromolmol)

Standard uncertainty (micromolmol)

Distribution Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution (micromolmol)

gravimetric 3801 042 normal 1 042

verification - 112 normal 1 112

systematic error - 187 rectangular 1 187 Uncertainty budget for the cylinder no D298393

Uncertainty source Estimate

(micromolmol)

Standard uncertainty (micromolmol)

Distribution Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution (micromolmol)

gravimetric 4781 048 normal 1 048

P a g e | 66

verification - 098 normal 1 098

systematic error - 235 rectangular 1 235 Uncertainty budget for the cylinder no D298402

Uncertainty source Estimate

(micromolmol)

Standard uncertainty (micromolmol)

Distribution Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution (micromolmol)

gravimetric 8005 068 normal 1 068

verification - 160 normal 1 160

systematic error - 393 rectangular 1 393

A5 Additional information

The final mixtures were prepared according ISO 6142 the cylinders evacuated on turbo molecular pump filled up an weighted on the verification balance The mixtures were prepared in aluminium (with coated layers) cylinders The mixtures were prepared with used pure nitrogen and oxygen and one step premixture of argon and two steps premixture of carbon dioxide

The verification according to ISO 6143 The measurements were repeated 10 times for the standards and the sample The curve was calculated from ratios by the software B_leastexe (linear case)

The standards were prepared by gravimetric method according to ISO 6142 The standards were prepared from separate premixtures and were diluted according ISO 6145-9

The purity of pure gases used for preparation was taken from the certificates of producer Cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM - cylinder D298392 139 bar - cylinder D298393 147 bar - cylinder D298402 147 bar

P a g e | 67

INRIM

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM‐K120‐R Project name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department

Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form

Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute INRiM‐Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica

Address Strada delle Cacce 91 I‐10135 Torino Italy

Contact person Michela Sega

Telephone +39 011 3919948 Fax +39 011 3919937

Email msegainrimit

P a g e | 68

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a No

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 D247440 4793 16 2

2 D247445 7989 26 2

3

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number D247440

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0781132 molmol 0000006 molmol 2

O2 02090627 molmol 00000055 molmol 2

Ar 00093259 molmol 00000037 molmol 2

CH4 ‐ nmolmol nmolmol

N2O ‐ nmolmol nmolmol

P a g e | 69

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number D247445

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0782389 molmol 0000006 molmol

O2 02075526 molmol 00000054 molmol

Ar 00092586 molmol 00000036 molmol

CH4 nmolmol nmolmol

N2O nmolmol nmolmol

A4 Uncertainty Budget The model equation used to calculate the mole fraction of CO2 in the final mixtures is taken from the International Standard ISO 6142‐12015

r

jq

iiji

j

r

jq

iiji

jj

Mx

m

Mx

mx

x

1

1

1

1

CO

prepCO

2

2

where the index i refers to the various components while j refers to the different parent mixtures The uncertainty budget was evaluated according to the guidelines prescribed in ISO 6142‐12015 The uncertainty budget for the gravimetric preparation of the mixture at 4793 micromolmol of CO2 which takes into account the weighted masses of the parent mixtures the molar masses of gases and their purity is reported in the following table

P a g e | 70

Uncertainty component

u(xi)

Uncertainty source

Standard uncertainty

u(xi) δxCO2prepδxi

Contribution tou(xCO2 prep)

|δxCO2prepδxi|u(xi)

u(mCO2) Weighed mass of the parent mixture of CO2

82∙10‐4 g 720∙10‐6

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 59∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(mN2) Weighed mass of the balance gas N2

82∙10‐4 g ‐764∙10‐7

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 63∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(mAr_O2) Weighed mass of the parent mixture of Ar in O2

82∙10‐4 g ‐662∙10‐7

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 54∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(MCO2) Molar mass of CO2 10∙10‐3 g∙mol‐1 ‐772∙10‐8

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 77∙10‐11 mol∙mol‐1

u(MN2) Molar mass of N2 20∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 ‐361∙10‐6

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 72∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(MAr) Molar mass of Ar 58∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 138∙10‐7

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 80∙10‐11 mol∙mol‐1

u(MO2) Molar mass of O2 28∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 310∙10‐6

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 87∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xN2inCO2) Mole fraction of N2 in the parent mixture of CO2

10∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 ‐432∙10‐4 43∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xN2inN2) Mole fraction of N2 in balance gas (purity)

87∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1 329∙10‐4 29∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xArinAr_O2) Mole fraction of Ar in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 129∙10‐4 11∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(xO2inN2) Mole fraction of O2 in balance gas (impurity)

14∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1 375∙10‐4 53∙10‐11 mol∙mol‐1

u(xO2inAr_O2) Mole fraction of O2

in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 104∙10‐4 90∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inCO2) Mole fraction of CO2 in the parent mixture of CO2

10∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 951∙10‐2 95∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inN2) Mole fraction of CO2 in balance gas (impurity)

29∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1 686∙10‐1 20∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inAr_O2) Mole fraction of CO2 in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1 219∙10‐1 19∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

Uncertainty budget for the gravimetric preparation of the mixture at 4793 micromolmol of CO2

P a g e | 71

The following table reports the uncertainty budget for the gravimetric preparation of the mixture at 7989 micromolmol of CO2

Uncertainty component

u(xi)

Uncertainty source

Standard uncertainty

u(xi) δxCO2prepδxi

Contribution tou(xCO2 prep)

|δxCO2prepδxi|u(xi)

u(mCO2) Weighed mass of the parent mixture of CO2

82∙10‐4 g 671∙10‐6

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 55∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(mN2) Weighed mass of the balance gas N2

82∙10‐4 g ‐128∙10‐6

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 10∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(mAr_O2) Weighed mass of the parent mixture of Ar in O2

82∙10‐4 g ‐111∙10‐6

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 91∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(MCO2) Molar mass of CO2 10∙10‐3 g∙mol‐1 365∙10‐7

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 36∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(MN2) Molar mass of N2 20∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 469∙10‐4

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 94∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(MAr) Molar mass of Ar 58∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 510∙10‐6

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 30∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(MO2) Molar mass of O2 28∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 114∙10‐4

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 32∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(xN2inCO2) Mole fraction of N2 in the parent mixture of CO2

10∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 ‐669∙10‐4 67∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xN2inN2) Mole fraction of N2 in balance gas (purity)

87∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1 498∙10‐4 43∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xArinAr_O2) Mole fraction of Ar in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 214∙10‐4 19∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(xO2inN2) Mole fraction of O2 in balance gas (impurity)

14∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1 569∙10‐4 80∙10‐11 mol∙mol‐1

u(xO2inAr_O2) Mole fraction of O2

in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 171∙10‐4 15∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inCO2) Mole fraction of CO2 in the parent mixture of CO2

10∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 159∙10‐1 16∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inN2) Mole fraction of CO2 in balance gas (impurity)

29∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1 624∙10‐1 18∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inAr_O2) Mole fraction of CO2 in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1 217∙10‐1 19∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

Uncertainty budget for the gravimetric preparation of the mixture at 7989 micromolmol of CO2 The additional contribution derived from the analytical verification was taken into account in accordance to the prescription of ISO 6142‐12015

P a g e | 72

2verCOprepCOverCO

2prepCO

2certCO )()()(

2

122222

xxxuxuxu

The following table reports the mole fractions with the associated uncertainties of the preparation and verification for the two prepared mixtures

Cylinder number xCO2 prep

micromolmol u(xCO2prep)micromolmol

xCO2 ver micromolmol

u(xCO2ver)micromolmol

D247440 4793 01 4783 12

D247445 7989 02 7965 12

A5 Additional information

a) Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas

Component Mole Fraction x u(x)

CO2 gt099998 molmol 58 micromolmol

CO le01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

H2 le01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

N2 le10 micromolmol 3 micromolmol

O2 le3 micromolmol 09 micromolmol

H2O le5 micromolmol 14 micromolmol

CnHm le3 micromolmol 09 micromolmol

Purity table for CO2

b) Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar parent gases

Component Mole Fraction x u(x)

N2 gt0999999 molmol 03 micromolmol

CO2 lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

H2 lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

O2 lt05 micromolmol 014 micromolmol

H2O lt05 micromolmol 014 micromolmol

CnHm lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

Purity table for N2

Component Mole Fraction x u(x)

O2 gt0999999 molmol 03 micromolmol

CO lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

CO2 lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

H2 lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

H2O lt05 micromolmol 014 micromolmol

CnHm lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

Purity table for O2

P a g e | 73

Component Mole Fraction x u(x)

Ar gt099999 molmol 29 micromolmol

O2 lt2 micromolmol 06 micromolmol

H2O lt3 micromolmol 09 micromolmol

CnHm lt05 micromolmol 014 micromolmol

Purity table for Ar

c) Brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures

In order to produce the final mixtures the following premixtures were prepared 1) Premixture of CO2 in N2 at 0080122 molmol (U=0000025 molmol) gravimetrically prepared (double

substitution scheme A‐B‐B‐A) from pure CO2 (48) and N2 (60) 2) Premixture of CO2 in N2 at 50054 micromolmol (U=21 micromolmol) gravimetrically prepared (double

substitution scheme A‐B‐B‐A) from the above mentioned mixture n 1 of CO2 in N2 (0080122 molmol) diluted with N2 (60)

3) Premixture of Ar in O2 (Ar 0042703 molmol O2 0957297 molmol) gravimetrically prepared (double substitution scheme A‐B‐B‐A) from pure Ar (50) and O2 (60)

The final mixtures were gravimetrically prepared (double substitution scheme A‐B‐B‐A) by using premixtures n 2 and n 3 as parent mixtures and using N2 60 as balance gas to obtain the target CO2 mole fractions Concerning premixture n 3 an additional determination of the mole fraction of CO2 in the mixture was carried out by NDIR spectroscopy The instrument was calibrated in the range (01‐1) micromolmol using dynamic dilution The obtained value is 03 micromolmol of CO2 (u=009 micromolmol calculated assuming a rectangular distribution) which was taken into account for assigning the mole fraction of the final mixtures (CO2 4793 and 7989 micromolmol respectively) and evaluating the associated uncertainty

d) Brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures

After preparation the mixtures were rolled for 24 h to be homogenized An analytical verification was carried out by NDIR spectroscopy using for each mixture a 3‐point calibration curve based on WTLS in the range (330‐520) micromolmol and (690‐900) micromolmol respectively The calibration standards were prepared starting from a mixture of CO2 in synthetic air at a nominal mole fraction of 4800 micromolmol diluted with synthetic air by means of Mass Flow Controllers calibrated at INRiM Each calibration point was repeated 5 times Each calibration curve was validated by using an independent mixture of CO2 in synthetic air having a the mole fraction within the calibration range

e) Brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM

The mixtures were tested for their stability on a weekly basis following the same procedure as described in d) No trends in the analytical response were observed within 3 weeks and the mixtures could be considered stable

f) Cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM 90 bar for each cylinder

P a g e | 74

KRISS

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 75

P a g e | 76

P a g e | 77

P a g e | 78

P a g e | 79

P a g e | 80

P a g e | 81

P a g e | 82

LNE

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

SubmissionformCCQM‐K120‐RProject name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department

Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form

Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute LNE

Address 1 rue Gaston Boissier

75724 Paris Cedex 15

Contact person Mace Tatiana

P a g e | 83

Telephone +33140433853 Fax +33140433737

Email tatianamacelnefr

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty

Coverage factor

certx CO2 μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 1029045‐CO2air 0028 37948 079 2

2 1029047‐CO2AIR 0029 4776 10 2

3 1029048‐CO2AIR 0030 8022 17 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number CO2AIR 0028

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0780686 molmol 0000025 molmol 2

O2 0209528 molmol 0000019 molmol 2

Ar 0009407 molmol 0000022 molmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number CO2AIR 0029

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Unit Coverage

P a g e | 84

Uncertainty Factor

N2 0781355 molmol 0000025 molmol 2

O2 0208794 molmol 0000018 molmol 2

Ar 0009374 molmol 0000022 molmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number CO2AIR 0030

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0782710 molmol 0000027 molmol 2

O2 0207187 molmol 0000021 molmol 2

Ar 0009301 molmol 0000021 molmol 2

A4 Uncertainty Budget

Please provide a complete uncertainty budgets for the CO2 mole fraction values reported

CO2Air 0028 37948 plusmn 079 micromolmol (k=2)

Xi Unit Value u(Xi) Sensib C(Xi) C(Xi)u(Xi) poids

Mass CO2 Premix g 6021896 0017 606175153 010304978 679

CO2 molar mass gmol 440095 000091 ‐012936318 ‐000011772 000

CO2 concentration (premix) molmol 000998425 000000097 377979757 003666404 086

N2 molar mass gmol 2801348 0000099 ‐276210444 ‐000027345 000

Mass ArgO2 Premix g 3981732 0017 ‐020862621 ‐000354665 001

Arg concentration (premix) molmol 004288429 00000048 204187142 9801E‐05 000

Arg molar mass gmol 39948 0001 011015474 000011015 000

O2 molar mass gmol 319988 000042 245849547 000103257 000

N2 purity molmol 099997493 00000144 ‐281970074 ‐000406037 001

Mass N2 g 1170753 002 ‐024083902 ‐000481678 001

Stability 0 038 1 038 9232

CO2Air 0029 4776 plusmn 10 micromolmol (k=2)

Xi Unit Value u(Xi) Sensib C(Xi) C(Xi)u(Xi) Weight

Mass CO2 Premix g 7635147 0017 595567319 010124644 391

CO2 molar mass gmol 440095 000091 ‐016114898 ‐000014665 000

CO2 concentration (premix) molmol 000998425 000000097 47573918 00461467 081

N2 molar mass gmol 2801348 0000099 ‐346583037 ‐000034312 000

P a g e | 85

Mass ArgO2 Premix g 3997202 0017 ‐026063746 ‐000443084 001

Arg concentration (premix) molmol 004288429 00000048 256082804 000012292 000

Arg molar mass gmol 39948 0001 013815138 000013815 000

O2 molar mass gmol 319988 000042 308334014 0001295 000

N2 purity molmol 099997494 00000144 ‐350551134 ‐000504794 001

Mass N2 g 1165053 002 ‐030088103 ‐000601762 001

Stability 0 05 1 05 9525

CO2Air 0030 8022 plusmn 17 micromolmol (k=2)

Uncertainty source Unit Value Xi u(Xi) Sensitivity coefficient

C(Xi) C(Xi)u(Xi)

Contribution to the

uncertainty

Mass CO2 Premix g 128097 0020 575918809 011518376 201

CO2 molar mass gmol 440095 000091 ‐02614445 ‐000023791

000

CO2 concentration (premix)

molmol 000998425 000000097 799263648 007752857 091

N2 molar mass gmol 2801348 0000099 ‐578813182 ‐000057303

000

Mass ArgO2 Premix g 3961709 0021 ‐043832537 ‐000920483

001

Arg concentration (premix)

molmol 004288429 00000048 426841537 000020488 000

Arg molar mass gmol 39948 0001 023027218 000023027 000

O2 molar mass gmol 319988 000042 513934409 000215852 000

N2 purity molmol 099997493 00000144 ‐564097099 ‐0008123 001

Mass N2 g 1114778 0023 ‐050600475 ‐001163811

002

Stability 0 08 1 08 9704

A5 Additional information

Please include in this section in the case of standards produced with synthetic air

a) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg PurCO2pur007txt degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg

P a g e | 86

Component molmol uncertainty ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ CO2 09999922500 00000026021 H2O 00000015000 00000008660 O2 00000010000 00000005774 Methane 00000010000 00000005774 H2 00000002500 00000001443 N2 00000040000 00000023094

b) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar parent gas

a Pure Argon degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg PurAr_A106273txt degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg Component molmol uncertainty ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Ar 09999998100 00000000880 O2 00000000050 00000000029 H2O 00000000100 00000000058 CO2 00000000005 00000000003 CnHm 00000000250 00000000144 N2 00000001500 00000000866

b Pure Oxygen

degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg PurO2_207494Htxt degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg Component molmol uncertainty ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ O2 09999974360 00000011650 CO2 00000001640 00000000082 CO 00000000500 00000000289 CnHm 00000000500 00000000289 N2 00000020000 00000011547 H2O 00000002500 00000001443 H2 00000000500 00000000289

c Pure Nitrogen

degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg Purazote_bip_GQ88DUItxt degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg

P a g e | 87

Component molmol uncertainty ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ N2 09999749345 00000144338 CO2 00000000005 00000000003 H2O 00000000100 00000000058 Ar 00000250000 00000144338 O2 00000000050 00000000029 H2 00000000250 00000000144 CnHm 00000000250 00000000144

c) Dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures

a Argonoxygen premix

b CO2N2 premix

c Final mixtures of CO2 in air

ArgonO2

428843 plusmn 000096

Pure Argon

94147 g (u=0011 g)

Pure Oxygen

1736737 g (u=0015 g)

CO2N2 0065

099842 plusmn 000020

CO2N2 0064

100131 plusmn 00013

181585 g (u=0016 g)

Pure N2

1422808 g (u=0019 g)

Pure CO2

248725 g (u=0017 g)

Pure N2

1550854 g (u=0019 g)

P a g e | 88

d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures The gravimetric concentrations of the CO2 gas mixtures in air have been verified with a micro gas chromatograph (chrompack CP2003) The components are separated by a HayeSep A

CO2Air 0028

37948 plusmn 079 micromolmol

CO2N2 0065

60219 g (u=0017 g)

ArgonO2

398173 g (u=0017 g)

Pure N2

1170753 g (u=0020 g)

CO2Air 0029

4776 plusmn 10 micromolmol

CO2N2 0065

76351 g (u=0017 g)

ArgonO2

399720 g (u=0017 g)

Pur N2

1165053 g (u=0020 g)

CO2Air 0030

8022 plusmn 17 micromolmol

CO2N2 0065

128097 g (u=0020 g)

ArgonO2

396171 g (u=0021 g)

Pur N2

1114778 g (u=0023 g)

P a g e | 89

column at 70degC with an hydrogen pressure at 200 kPa The injection is performed at a pressure of 15 bar during 100 ms Each CO2 gas mixture in air is compared by chromatography to a reference gas mixture of CO2 in air generated by dilution of a high concentration gravimetric gas mixture (CO2 in nitrogen) with a Molbloc flowmeter 30 runs are performed with the reference gas mixture 30 runs are performed with the gas mixture to be verified and 30 runs are performed again with the reference gas mixture The 10 previous runs are used to calculate the analytical concentration The gas mixture is validated if the difference between the analytical and gravimetric concentrations is lower than the quadratic sum of the variances

e) Stability of the gas mixtures between the time they were prepared and the time they were shipped to the BIPM The CO2 gases mixtures in air have been analysed 3 times during a period of 2 months before being sent to BIPM

P a g e | 90

P a g e | 91

BFKH

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for carbon dioxide in air standards in the

range (380‐480) micromolmol and (480‐800) micromolmol

A1 General information

Institute Hungarian Trade Licensing Office MKEH

Address Neacutemetvoumllgyi uacutet 37‐39 Budapest

1124 Hungary

Contact person Judit Fuumlkő Zsoacutefia Nagyneacute Szilaacutegyi Tamaacutes Buumlki

Telephone +36 1 4585988

+36 1 4585800

Fax + 36 1 4585 937

Email tothnefjmkehhu

P a g e | 92

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 OMH54 37984 171 2

2 OMH44 47989 211 2

3 OMH69 80030 292 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted)

(Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number OMH54

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit CoverageFactor

N2 078039 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209615 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009607 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5130 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number OMH44

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

P a g e | 93

N2 078064 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209514 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009360 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5130 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number OMH69

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078072 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209161 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009314 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5130 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

A4 Uncertainty Budget

Uncertainty budget of preparation of CO2 standard by gravimetry

OMH69 800ppm

Uncertainty

source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 138729 g Normal 000046 g 1 33158E‐04

martix mass 11397986 g Normal 0026 g 1 22811E‐05

P a g e | 94

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000333

ppm 027

OMH44 480ppm

Uncertainty

source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 081399 g Normal 000034 g 1 41770E‐04

martix mass 111578 g Normal 0026 g 1 23302E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000419

ppm 020

OMH54 380ppm

Uncertainty

source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 064422 g Normal 000032 g 1 49672E‐04

martix mass 11159357 g Normal 0026 g 1 23299E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000498

P a g e | 95

ppm 019

The standard uncertainty of xi can be expressed as xuxuxuxuxu sti

2veri

2veri

2prepi

2i

2 (1)

xprep amount-of-substance fraction from preparation (micromolmol) uprep uncertainty of xprep (micromolmol) uver uncertainty from verification (micromolmol) ust uncertainty of calibration standard (micromolmol)

verix diffenece between the gravimetric preparation value and the result of verification measurement (micromolmol)

Ux stated uncertainty of laboratory at 95 level of confidence (micromolmol) k assigned coverage factor for degree of equivalence Laboratory Code

Cylinder xprep uprep uver ust verix k U(xi)

U(xi)

ppm ppm rel

MKEH OMH54 37984 019 08 019 014 2 171 045

OMH44 47989 020 10 020 018 2 211 044

OMH69 80030 027 14 028 015 2 292 036

A5 Additional information

A51 SOURCE OF CO2 NITROGEN OXIGEN ARGON

CO2 48 from SIAD Italy

N2 45 from Messer Hungary

O2 50 from Messer Hungary

Ar 46 from Messer Hungary

A52 PURITY TABLE OF PURE CO2 (38458)

Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol)

Uncertainty

(molmol)

CO2 specifications 09999885 00000133

N2 specifications 00000050 00000058

H2O specifications 00000025 00000029

P a g e | 96

CH4 specifications 00000025 00000029

O2 specifications 00000015 00000017

A53 PURITY TABLE OF PURE NITROGEN

Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol)

Uncertainty

(molmol)

N2 specifications 09999870 00000150

O2 specifications 00000050 00000058

H2O specifications 00000050 00000058

CH4 specifications 00000025 00000029

CO specifications 00000005 00000006

A54 PURITY TABLE OF PURE OXIGEN

Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol)

Uncertainty

(molmol)

O2 specifications 09999866 00000155

N2 specifications 00000100 00000115

H2O specifications 00000025 00000029

CH4 specifications 000000003 00000004

CO specifications 000000003 00000004

CO2 specifications 000000003 00000004

A55 PURITY TABLE OF PURE ARGON

Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol)

Uncertainty

(molmol)

Ar specifications 09999822 00000206

P a g e | 97

O2 specifications 00000025 00000029

H2O specifications 00000050 00000058

N2 specifications 00000100 00000116

CO2 specifications 00000003 00000004

A56 PREPARATION OF THE MIXTURES

We used 94 L aluminum cylinder (Luxfer) with brass valves DIN10 All the three mixtures were prepared without dilution series First the pure CO2 was filled with using loop into the properly prepared cylinder the mass measurement of the loop was carried out by an analytical balance ndash Mettler Toledo AE240‐S After the pure gases were filled directly gravimetrically after each other and the measurement of the gas mass was carried out by a topload balance ndash Mettler Toledo XP26003L

A57 VERIFICATION OF THE MIXTURES

All the three mixtures measured using methaniser at Agilent GC‐FID and we used MKEH standard gases one by one for calibration this method to the purpose of confirm that the gravimetric value and uncertainty for the carbon dioxide mole fraction of its standards is valid and it is included in the calculation of the reference value

A58 STABILITY OF THE MIXTURES

All the three mixtures were measured using methaniser at Agilent GC‐FID three times independently between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM There wasnrsquot significant difference between the certified values and the measured values

A59 CYLINDER PRESSURE BEFORE SHIPMENT TO THE BIPM 100 bar

P a g e | 98

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for carbon dioxide in air standards in the range (380‐480) micromolmol and (480‐800) micromolmol A1 General information

Institute Government Office of the Capital City Budapest BFKH (former MKEH)

Address Neacutemetvoumllgyi uacutet 37‐39Budapest 1124 Hungary

Contact person Judit Fuumlkő Tamaacutes Buumlki Zsoacutefia Nagyneacute Szilaacutegyi

Telephone +36 1 4585988 +36 1 4585800

Fax + 36 1 4585 937

Email fukojuditbfkhgovhu

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 OMH54 3798 17 2

2 OMH44 4644 28 2

P a g e | 99

3 OMH69 8003 29 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted)

(Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number OMH54

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078039 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209615 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009607 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5100 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number OMH44

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078064 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209514 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009360 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5100 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number OMH69

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078072 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209161 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009314 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5100 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

P a g e | 100

A4 Uncertainty Budget Uncertainty budget of preparation of CO2 standard by gravimetry

OMH69 800ppm

Uncertainty source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 138729 g Normal 000046 g 1 33158E‐04

martix mass 11397986 g Normal 0026 g 1 22811E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000333

ppm 027

OMH44 480ppm

Uncertainty source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 081399 g Normal 000034 g 1 41770E‐04

martix mass 111578 g Normal 0026 g 1 23302E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000419

ppm 020

P a g e | 101

OMH54 380ppm

Uncertainty source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 064422 g Normal 000032 g 1 49672E‐04

martix mass 11159357 g Normal 0026 g 1 23299E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000498

ppm 019

The standard uncertainty of xi can be expressed as

xuxuxuxuxu sti2

veri2

veri2

prepi2

i2 (1)

xprep amount-of-substance fraction from preparation (micromolmol) uprep uncertainty of xprep (micromolmol) uver uncertainty from verification (micromolmol) ust uncertainty of calibration standard (micromolmol)

verix diffenece between the gravimetric preparation value and the result of verification measurement (micromolmol)

Ux stated uncertainty of laboratory at 95 level of confidence (micromolmol) k assigned coverage factor for degree of equivalence

Laboratory Code

Cylinder xprep

uprep xmeas um ust verix k U(xi) U(xi)

ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm rel

BFKH OMH54 37984 019 08 019 014 2 17 045

OMH44 47989 020 46444 14 020 2 28 058

OMH69 80030 027 14 028 015 2 29 036

The stability measurements indicated some preparation mistake in case of the OMH44 cylinder The certified value of this cylinder was calculated from the measurements and the uncertainty from the equation below

xuxuxuxu sti2

easmi2

prepi2

i2

P a g e | 102

A5 Additional information A51 SOURCE OF CO2 NITROGEN OXIGEN ARGON CO2 48 from SIAD Italy N2 45 from Messer Hungary O2 50 from Messer Hungary Ar 46 from Messer Hungary A52 PURITY TABLE OF PURE CO2 (38458) Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol) Uncertainty (molmol)

CO2 Specifications 09999885 00000133 N2 Specifications 00000050 00000058 H2O Specifications 00000025 00000029 CH4 Specifications 00000025 00000029 O2 Specifications 00000015 00000017 A53 PURITY TABLE OF PURE NITROGEN Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol) Uncertainty (molmol)

N2 Specifications 09999870 00000150 O2 Specifications 00000050 00000058 H2O Specifications 00000050 00000058 CH4 Specifications 00000025 00000029 CO Specifications 00000005 00000006 A54 PURITY TABLE OF PURE OXIGEN Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol) Uncertainty (molmol)

O2 Specifications 09999866 0000016 N2 Specifications 00000100 0000012 H2O Specifications 00000025 00000029 CH4 Specifications 000000003 00000004 CO Specifications 000000003 00000004 CO2 Specifications 000000003 00000004 A55 PURITY TABLE OF PURE ARGON Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol) Uncertainty (molmol)

Ar Specifications 09999822 00000200 O2 Specifications 00000025 00000029 H2O Specifications 00000050 00000058 N2 Specifications 00000100 0000012 CO2 Specifications 00000003 00000004 A56 PREPARATION OF THE MIXTURES We used 94 L aluminum cylinder (Luxfer) with brass valves DIN10

P a g e | 103

All the three mixtures were prepared without dilution series First the pure CO2 was filled with using loop into the properly prepared cylinder the mass measurement of the loop was carried out by an analytical balance ndash Mettler Toledo AE240‐S After the pure gases were filled directly gravimetrically after each other and the measurement of the gas mass was carried out by a topload balance ndash Mettler Toledo XP26003L A57 VERIFICATION OF THE MIXTURES All the three mixtures measured using methaniser at Agilent GC‐FID and we used MKEH standard gases one by one for calibration this method to the purpose of confirm that the gravimetric value and uncertainty for the carbon dioxide mole fraction of its standards is valid and it is included in the calculation of the reference value A58 STABILITY OF THE MIXTURES All the three mixtures were measured using methaniser at Agilent GC‐FID three times independently between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM A59 CYLINDER PRESSURE BEFORE SHIPMENT TO THE BIPM 100 bar

P a g e | 104

NIM

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM-K120 Carbon dioxide in Air Laboratory National Institute of Metrology

Cylinders number FB03748 FB03744 FB03747

Preparation report

A1 General information

Institute National Institute of Metrology China

Address 18 Bei San Huan Dong Lu Chaoyang District City Bei Jing

Building 17 Room 217

Contact person BI Zhe Zeyi Zhou

Telephone 86-10-84232306 Fax 86-10-84232306

Email zhouzynimaccn bizhnimaccn

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM-K120a Yes

CCQM-K120b Yes

A3 Submitted values for carbon dioxide preparation results in each standard

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2 μmolmol )( CO2 certxU

μmolmol

1 FB03748 80982 026 2

2 FB03744 48915 022 2

P a g e | 105

3 FB03747 38343 020 2

A4 Submitted values for each standardrsquos matrix Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted)

(Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number FB03748

Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage

Factor CH4(Methane) 101times10-9 molmol 203E-10 molmol 2 C2H4(Ethene) 146times10-10 molmol 113E-10 molmol 2 C3H8(Propane) 518times10-10 molmol 405E-10 molmol 2 N2(Nitrogen) 0781 molmol 271E-05 molmol 2 O2(Oxygen) 0210 molmol 260E-05 molmol 2 Ar(Argon) 794times10-3 molmol 969E-06 molmol 2 H2O(Water) 291times10-7 molmol 139E-07 molmol 2 N2O(Dinitrogen_oxide) 790times10-10 molmol 586E-10 molmol 2 CO2(Carbon_dioxide) 80982times10-4 molmol 248E-07 molmol 2 (Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number FB03744

Component Mole fraction Value

Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

CH4(Methane) 101E-09 molmol 308E-10 molmol 2 C2H4(Ethene) 880E-11 molmol 685E-11 molmol 2 C3H8(Propane) 313E-10 molmol 245E-10 molmol 2 N2(Nitrogen) 781E-01 molmol 275E-05 molmol 2 O2(Oxygen) 210E-01 molmol 264E-05 molmol 2 Ar(Argon) 904E-03 molmol 990E-06 molmol 2 H2O(Water) 290E-07 molmol 139E-07 molmol 2 N2O(Dinitrogen_oxide) 790E-10 molmol 601E-10 molmol 2 CO2(Carbon_dioxide) 48915E-04 molmol 191E-07 molmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number FB03747 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage

Factor CH4(Methane) 101E-09 molmol 408E-10 molmol 2 C2H4(Ethene) 690E-11 molmol 537E-11 molmol 2 C3H8(Propane) 245E-10 molmol 192E-10 molmol 2 N2(Nitrogen) 782E-01 molmol 288E-05 molmol 2 O2(Oxygen) 209E-01 molmol 276E-05 molmol 2 Ar(Argon) 922E-03 molmol 102E-05 molmol 2 H2O(Water) 289E-07 molmol 139E-07 molmol 2 N2O(Dinitrogen_oxide) 791E-10 molmol 607E-10 molmol 2 CO2(Carbon_dioxide) 38343E-04 molmol 183E-07 molmol 2 CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

P a g e | 106

Cylinder

Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 2 3

A5 Uncertainty Budget Please provide a complete uncertainty budgets for the CO2 mole fraction values reported

Uncertainty budget

Cylinder

Gravimetric

valueμmolmol

Component distribution Standard

uncertaintyμmolmol

FB03748 80982

Combined uncertainty of

Purity Molecular and

Weighing

Normal 0124

Repeatability of the

measurement Normal 0040

Combined standard uncertainty 013

FB03744 48915

Combined uncertainty of

Purity Molecular and

Weighing

Normal 0096

Repeatability of the

measurement Normal 0030

Combined standard uncertainty 011

FB03747 38343

Combined uncertainty of

Purity Molecular and

Weighing

Normal 0092

Repeatability of the

measurement Normal 0030

Combined standard uncertainty 010

A6 Additional information

P a g e | 107

Please include in this section in the case of standards produced with synthetic air

g) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas h) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar NO2 and CH4 parent gas i) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures j) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures k) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time

they are shipped to the BIPM and l) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

a) purity table for the nominally pure CO2 09999924 molmol

Component Amount fraction

(10-6molmol)

Standard uncertainty

(10-6molmol) Assumed distribution

CH4 113 045 Normal

C2H4 018 007 Normal

C3H8 064 025 Normal

O2 052 021 Normal

Ar 010 004 Normal

N2 251 100 Normal

H2O 250 100 Normal

N2O 0001 00006 Rectangular

CO2 9999924 15 Normal

b) purity table for the nominally pure N2 0 9999521 molmol

Component Amount fraction

(10-6molmol)

Standard uncertainty

(10-6molmol) Assumed distribution

CH4 0001 00005 Rectangular

Ar 483 48 Normal

O2 002 0006 Normal

CO2 0010 0003 Normal

H2O 010 004 Normal

N2O 0001 00004 Rectangular

P a g e | 108

N2 9999521 48 Normal

purity table for the nominally pure O2 0 9999959 molmol

Component Amount fraction

(10-6molmol)

Standard uncertainty

(10-6molmol) Assumed distribution

CH4 0001 00003 Normal

Ar 20 05 Normal

N2 11 03 Normal

CO2 00012 00004 Rectangular

H2O 12 04 Normal

N2O 0001 00004 Rectangular

O2 9999959 48 Normal

purity table for the nominally pure Ar 09999998 molmol

Component Amount fraction

(10-6molmol)

Standard uncertainty

(10-6molmol) Assumed distribution

CH4 0001 00003 Normal

O2 0020 0005 Normal

N2 0010 0001 Normal

CO2 0001 00004 Rectangular

H2O 01 04 Normal

N2O 0001 00004 Rectangular

Ar 9999998 48 Normal

P a g e | 109

c) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures

d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures Seven primary standard cylinders of CO2 in air mixture were measured by CRDs A linearity regression was established based on these seven cylinders For each point an average of date recorded in 2 minutes were used The verification wre done by the comparison of gravimetric values and the calculated values

Gravimetric value Fitted value Relative deviation

y = 1002382 x + 0187049 Rsup2 = 1000000

350

450

550

650

750

850

350 450 550 650 750 850

Measured value VS Gravimetric value

1047095 g

CO2

N2

26743 g

CO2N2 15998ppm

Ar O2 N2

FB03748

CO2N2 32592 g Ar 7193 g O2 153303 g N2 466458 g

FB03744

CO2N2 19417 g Ar 8082 g O2 150754 g N2 472375 g

FB03747

CO2N2 14474 g Ar 7835 g O2 142777 g N2 453560 g

P a g e | 110

μmolmol μmolmol 80982 80965 -0021 81307 81319 0015 49106 49113 0014 48915 48928 0025 37819 37818 -0003 39162 39161 -0004 38343 38332 -0030

e) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are

prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM

Three test gas mixtures were prepared 3 months before the comparison After gas mixtures for the comparison were prepared a liner regression was done by combining the test gas mixtures and the comparison cylinders No significant drift of the values was observed between the time they were prepared and the time they were shipped to the BIPM f) cylinders pressure before shipment to the BIPM

Cylinder No Pressure (bar) FB03748 90 FB03744 90 FB03747 90

P a g e | 111

NIST

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM‐K120‐R Project name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department

Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form

Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute NIST

Address 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8393

Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8393

Contact person George C Rhoderick

Telephone 301‐975‐3937 Fax 301‐977‐8392

P a g e | 112

Email GeorgeRhodericknistgov

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 FB04278 3790449 03908 2

2 FB04300 4726617 04280 2

3 FB04287 7945334 10287 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number FB04278

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0780812 molmol 0000118 molmol 2

O2 0209470 molmol 000071 molmol 2

Ar 0009339 molmol 000037 molmol 2

CH4 nmolmol nmolmol

N2O nmolmol nmolmol

P a g e | 113

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number FB04300

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0780771 molmol 0000128 molmol 2

O2 0209422 molmol 0000081 molmol 2

Ar 0009334 molmol 0000034 molmol 2

CH4 nmolmol nmolmol

N2O nmolmol nmolmol

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number FB04287

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0780499 molmol 0000114 molmol 2

O2 0209370 molmol 0000067 molmol 2

Ar 0009336 molmol 0000040 molmol 2

CH4 nmolmol nmolmol

N2O nmolmol nmolmol

CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 FB04278 ‐28 plusmn 2 1

2 FB04300 ‐28 plusmn 2 1

3 FB04287 ‐28 plusmn 2 1

A4 Uncertainty Budget Please provide a complete uncertainty budgets for the CO2 mole fraction values reported

P a g e | 114

A5 Additional information

FB04278

Standard Relative ContributionValue Uncertainty Uncertianty to Uncertainty

Major Component MW 2801340 000016 00000058 00020

Minor Component MW 4400950 000052 00000119 00041

Mass Parent Gas 1893585 000146 00000769 00264

Mass Balance Gas 7453878 00020 00000027 00009

Minor Component Wt Fraction 0023250750 0000006755 00002905 00997

Mass minor component - Parent 044027281 000013232 00003005 01031Mass minor component - Bal 000006695 000001936 02890953 991626

Total mass minor component 044017935 000022556 00005124 01758

Moles of minor component 001000192 000000513 00005126 01758

Balance gas wt fraction (purity) 0755569792 390976E-05 00000517 00177

Mass balance gas - parent 1397906371 000148549 00001063 00365Mass balance gas - balance 56319253120 002918142 00000518 00178

Total mass balance gas 57717159491 002921920 00000506 00174

Moles of balance gas 2060341104 000104994 00000510 00175

Moles impurities from parent 013966291020 000002524000 00001807 00620

Moles impurities from balance 56340784 00010163 00001804 00619

Total Moles of gas 263871542 00014615 00000554 00190

Conc minor component (ppm) 3790449 01954Relative uncert 0052 0292 100000

FB04300

Standard Relative Contribution

Value Uncertainty Uncertianty to Uncertainty

Major Component MW 2801340 000016 00000058 00025

Minor Component MW 4400950 000052 00000119 00050

Mass Parent Gas 2953886 000141 00000477 00201

Mass Balance Gas 74869117 000194 00000026 00011

CO2 Component Wt Fraction 0018926076 0000006339 00003350 01414

Mass CO2 component - Parent 055905476 000018915 00003383 01428Mass CO2 component - Balance Air 000003828 000000898 02345407 989951

Total mass CO2 component 055885777 000025068 00004486 01893

Moles of minor component 001269857 000000570 00004487 01894

Balance gas wt fraction (purity) 07556035 000004300 00000569 00240Mass balance gas - parent 2190310136 000191642 00000875 00369

Mass balance gas - balance 56571366688 003222901 00000570 00240

Total mass balance gas 58761676824 003228594 00000549 00232

Moles of balance gas 2097627451 000115899 00000553 00233

Moles impurities from parent 021883087438 000003747112 00001712 00723

Moles impurities from balance 56582830 00011276 00001993 00841

Total Moles of gas 268660869 00016174 00000602 00254

Conc minor component (ppm) 4726617 02140Relative uncert 0045 0237 100000

FB04287

Standard Relative ContributionValue Uncertainty Uncertianty to Uncertainty

Major Component MW 2801340 000016 00000058 00021

Minor Component MW 4400950 000052 00000119 00042

Mass Parent Gas 3957940 000137 00000346 00122

Mass Balance Gas 7227358 00020 00000028 00010

Minor Component Wt Fraction 0023250750 0000006716 00002889 01017

Mass minor component - Parent 092025076 000026773 00002909 01025Mass minor component - Bal 000005052 000001421 02813263 990842

Total mass minor component 092005795 000059343 00006450 02272

Moles of minor component 002090589 000001349 00006451 02272

Balance gas wt fraction (purity) 0755575527 389029E-05 00000515 00181

Mass balance gas - parent 2921880196 000218877 00000749 00264Mass balance gas - balance 54608149036 002815892 00000516 00182

Total mass balance gas 57530029233 002824386 00000491 00173

Moles of balance gas 2053661078 000101531 00000494 00174

Moles impurities from parent 029192104701 000004836046 00001657 00583

Moles impurities from balance 54627264 00009803 00001795 00632

Total Moles of gas 263121641 00014122 00000537 00189

Conc minor component (ppm) 7945334 05143Relative uncert 0065 0284 100000

P a g e | 115

Please include in this section in the case of standards produced with synthetic air

m) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas n) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar NO2 and CH4

parent gas o) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures p) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures q) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are

prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM and r) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

Or with real air

a) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas Compound molmol Uncertainty CO2 0999994000 0000002000 N2 0000002000 0000001155 O2 0000002000 0000001155 Ar 0000002000 0000001155

b) results of the analysis and mole fractions and uncertainties of CO2 N2 O2 Ar N2O and CH4 in the scrubbed real air (if performed)

Cylinder FB04300 Compound molmol Uncertainty N2 0781133467 0000043500 CO2 0000000151 0000000036 O2 0209528241 0000039865 Ar 0009338142 0000017407

Cylinder FB04278 Compound molmol Uncertainty N2 0781102830 0000039359 CO2 0000000059 0000000017 O2 0209554557 0000034507 Ar 0009342554 0000018932

Cylinder FB04287 Compound molmol Uncertainty N2 0781108354 0000039152 CO2 0000000046 0000000013 O2 0209548136 0000033045 Ar 0009343463 0000020998

P a g e | 116

c) a brief outline of the preparation procedure of the final mixtures

The three cylinders were evacuated to ~ 05 micro of Hg filled to ~ 07 Mpa with UHP Air and vented to atmosphere (four times) and evacuated to ~ 05 micro Hg A calculated aliquot of the parent cylinder was added to each cylinder and then weighed A calculated aliquot of the matrix gas was added to each cylinder and then weighed The cylinders were rolled for ~ three hours to mix the component gases

d) a composition table for each of the final mixtures including gravimetric Uncertainties when relevant Cylinder FB04300 Compound molmol Uncertainty CO2 0000472662 0000000214 N2 0780771482 0000063800 O2 0209421668 0000040372 Ar 0009334188 0000016775 Cylinder FB04278 Compound molmol Uncertainty CO2 0000379045 0000000195 N2 0780812166 0000058766 O2 0209469584 0000035657 Ar 0009339205 0000018480 Cylinder FB04287 Compound molmol Uncertainty CO2 0000794533 0000000514 N2 0780498735 0000056955 O2 0209370336 0000033285 Ar 0009336395 0000019945

e) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures The cylinders were verified against five existing PSMs a minimum of six times using an Isotopic CO2 Cavity Ringdown Spectrometer

f) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM and

g) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

P a g e | 117

Cylinder MPa FB04300 965 FB04278 1034 FB04278 999

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders 1st report

2nd report received on May 16 2018

Addendum to NIST Report for CCQM-K120a and b 1 Introduction NIST agreed to participate in the CCQM-K120a and b Key Comparison (KC) with the understanding that this KC involved gravimetrically value-assigned samples As stated in the protocol summary the comparison involved ldquohellip preparative capabilities for carbon dioxide in air primary reference mixturesrdquo Based on this description of the KC as involving primary reference mixtures NIST assumed that the participantsrsquo value assignments and reported data were restricted solely to those that derive from purity assessments and primary gravimetric measurements However prior to submission of the reported concentrations to GAWG NIST discovered a significant discrepancy in the gravimetric values which was caused by extenuating circumstances (discussed below) and which was quantified using supplementary measurements carried out at NIST Nevertheless to follow the KC protocol and to meet the imposed deadlines NIST submitted only the gravimetric-based concentration values for the three required CO2-in-air samples despite having assessed that the results were not expected to agree with the eventual calculated KCRV 2 Background Studies on CO2 adsorptiondesorption issues NIST performed and continues to investigate an adsorptiondesorption phenomenon with CO2 in air mixtures [1] NIST has observed in 5 and 6 L aluminum cylinders containing nominal 400 micromolmol CO2 in air mixtures initial CO2 adsorption to the cylinder walls of as little as 02 micromolmol to more than 1 micromolmol depending on the cylinder and internal treatment tested It has been observed that CO2 initially adsorbs on the cylinder walls when a mixture is

NIST CCQM K120 comparison samples dataPressure August 112017 Pressure

Original Reported Original Verified Veri‐Grav departure Re‐verified Value ReVerified value‐ back

Cylinder Gravimetirc Value ppm Value ppm Diff from NIST Stability check ppm Grav Value ppm to NIST

FB04278 37905 plusmn 039 38030 plusmn 028 033 1034 MPa 38007 plusmn 030 027 724 MPa

FB04300 47266 plusmn 043 47340 plusmn 034 016 965 MPa 47337 plusmn 052 015 724 MPa

FB04287 79453 plusmn 103 79512 plusmn 058 007 999 MPa 79477 plusmn 038 003 724 MPa

Re‐verified Value Re‐Verified‐ Pressure back

SRM Sample Original Certified Value Stability check ppm Orig Cert to NIST

1720‐A‐26 39397 plusmn 013 39403 plusmn 020 0015 414 MPa (600 psi)

P a g e | 118

prepared to high pressure (asymp12 MPa asymp1800 psi) NIST modeled some of that early data that shows an increase in CO2 mole fraction (∆x) with reduced cylinder pressure from measurements of a CO2 in air mixture contained in a 6 L aluminum cylinder using the Langmuir isotherm (Irving Langmuir 1916 1918) and is shown in Figure 1

Figure 1 Measured CO2 mole fraction increase versus pressure decrease in a 6 L aluminum cylinder Solid black points represent actual measured mole fraction Solid blue line represents applied Langmuir Isotherm model Using the actual measured CO2 change in 5 L and 6 L cylinders and the Langmuir isotherm NIST modeled for projected ∆x CO2 variation for 30 L and 47 L aluminum cylinders as shown in Figure 2 The models predict that the larger the cylinder volume the less change in the CO2 mole fraction with pressure loss NIST studies of CO2 in air mixtures contained in 30 L cylinders indeed show less increase in the mole fraction of CO2 as the pressure in the cylinder decreases Therefore the surface-to-volume ratio appears to play a major role the larger the cylinder volume the less CO2 increase It is most likely that this phenomenon takes place not only at ambient CO2 mole fractions but also at much higher levels including a few molmol and higher

Figure 2 Projected variation in ∆x for 6-L 30-L and 47-L cylinders applying Langmuir Isotherm This background information was presented at the GAWG meeting in April 2017 as analyses of K120 a and b were underway These results account for the discrepant NIST values in K120 a and b More generally this study informed participants of the serious potential pitfalls associated with desorption of CO2 from cylinder walls and the dependence of this process on total charge cylinder dimensions etc and revealed the possibility of unaccounted for Type B uncertainties caused by interactions of CO2 with cylinder walls Partly because of these findings and the

P a g e | 119

occurrence of extremely low uncertainties reported by some NMIs GAWG decided to put a lower limit on the expanded uncertainty equal to 019 mol mol-1 thus affecting the relative weighting of the results contributing to the KCRV 3 Preparation of K120 Samples In conjunction with submitting freshly prepared gravimetric standards for the CCQM-K120 CO2 in air key comparison NIST also wanted to prepare a complete new suite of ambient level CO2 in air primary standard mixtures (PSMs) starting with a pure natural isotopic CO2 source That new pure CO2 source arrived at NIST in November 2016 Because there was a limited amount of pure CO2 in the cylinder obtained NIST started development by gravimetrically preparing four PSMs in the range of 1-3 molmol in CO2 and moisture scrubbed real air Upon completion of those PSMs in early December 2016 they were analyzed by GC-TCD along with the NIST 2012 CO2 suite with ratios calculated from peak area responses to a control Generalized least squares regression was used to plot the ratios vs gravimetric values of the 2012 PSMs The new percent level PSMs were predicted from the regression line The results of that comparison are shown in Table 1 Inspection of the residuals from the difference of the predicted Ysolution- YGrav value for the 2012 PSMs reveals excellent agreement However the predicted Yeval values for the new PSMs disagree with their gravimetric values by more than -2 Table 1 New percent level PSMs predicted from linear regression of 2012 PSMs

Based on these results either the 2012 suite of PSMs had increased in mole fraction because of desorption of CO2 from the cylinder surface with pressure decrease or the new source of pure CO2 was contaminated Indeed the pure CO2 was eventually analyzed in January of 2017 and found to be contaminated with 31 molmol N2 Because NIST had no time to obtain another source of pure CO2 to make another set of PSMs (K120 samples needed to be shipped to BIPM by the end of December 2016) we had to assume that the 2012 percent level PSMs were stable We made this assumption knowing that it most likely was not the case because the CO2 mole fraction had increased as these standards were below asymp 45 MPa (asymp650 psi) Not having another source of CO2 (the original CO2 source used for the 2012 suite and the source for over three decades was spent) NIST could not prepare new percent-level standards to verify the 2012 percent level standards and determine if the CO2 had indeed increased

Res idua l

2012 PSM X (Ratio) Y (Grav molmol) X‐Solution Y‐Solution uTest (Y‐Sol ‐Grav)

FA02584 244265 49500 244266 49490 Pass ‐002

FA02588 22877 46190 22877 46205 Pass 003

APEX1099215 078272 15422 078272 15420 Pass ‐001

APEX1099172 063673 12535 063656 12538 Pass 002

CAL016532 050028 09869 05003 09869 Pass 000

difference

From New CO2 Xin (Ratio) uXin Yeval (molmol) uYeval Grav Value Yeval‐Grav

FB03808 139347 000103 27669 00033 28288 ‐219

APEX1099165 118456 000141 23442 00035 24043 ‐250

APEX1099188 11708 000130 23164 00033 23773 ‐256

APEX1099246 078483 000058 15462 00015 15822 ‐228

(plusmn 00007)

P a g e | 120

NIST moved forward and prepared the three K120 standards from the 2012 PSMs cylinder number APEX1099215 at (15422 plusmn 00010) molmol and APEX1099172 at (12535 plusmn 00009) molmol (highlighted in green in Table 1) Figure 3 shows the preparation scheme

Figure 3 Preparation scheme for NIST K120 samples It is very important to state here that both cylinders were low in pressure when the three K120 standards were prepared from them APEX1099215 at 520 psi and APEX1099172 at 390 psi While NIST did not have stability data for percent-level CO2 in air mixtures we still suspected that the CO2 also increases at this mole fraction level as the pressure decreases After preparation of the three K120 standards they were compared to the 2012 ambient level PSMs and three SRM samples were also included Figure 4 shows the generalized least squares regression plotted for the 2012 PSMs represented by the black circles The blue circles represent the predicted value for the SRM 1720 samples from that regression and the red triangles represent the original SRM 1720 certified value The green squares represent the predicted value for the K120 samples from that regression line while the yellow circle with red border represent the gravimetric values From this plot the blue dotted linear regression line appears to cover all the data points

Pure CO2

CC282116

999940 plusmn 00002

APEX1099172 APEX1099215

12535 plusmn 00009 15422 plusmn 00010

molmol molmol

FB04300 FB04300 FB04300

472662 plusmn 0214 379045 plusmn 0214 794533 plusmn 0514

micromolmol micromolmol micromolmol

combined uncerta inties k=1

350

450

550

650

750

850

950

070 090 110 130 150 170 190

CO2mole fraction micro

molmol

Response Ratio

2012 CO2 PSMs

K120 Standards Predicted

K120 Grav Value

Predicted SRM 1720

SRM1720 Certified Value

P a g e | 121

Figure 4 Generalized least squares regression through NIST 2012 ambient CO2 PSM suite predicting SRM 1720 and K120 samples However if we expand the lower portion of the regression from (350-400) micromolmol we see disagreement between the new standards and SRM 1720 certified values as shown in Figure 5 While the predicted and gravimetric value for the 380 micromolmol K120 standard are still on the regression line the SRM 1720 certified values are off the regression line by around +1 micromol mol (03 relative) However the predicted and gravimetric value for the 380 micromolmol K120 sample lie on the regression line NIST has complete confidence that the SRM 1720 samples contained in 30-L cylinders are stable since they were all at pressures of +11 MPa Therefore NIST suspected that the 2012 PSMs all had increased in concentration and hence would predict the SRM 1720 samples to have less CO2 The fact that the K120 samples also lie on the line with the 2012 PSM regression we can postulate that the 2012 percent level PSMs had also increased in CO2 mole fraction as they had pressures less than 45 MPa (650 psi) when used to prepare the K120 samples

Figure 5 Expansion of Figure 4 illustrating that the SRM 1720 certified values lie off the regression line while K120 gravimetric and predicted values are still on the regression line Expanded uncertainty error bars are present but too small to be observed except in the red triangle SRM 1720 Certified Value NIST took this data for the 2012 ambient level PSMs and determined values by comparison to SRM sample 1720-A-29 with a certified value of (39312 plusmn 013) micromolmol with and (k = 2) uncertainty value at a pressure of +12 MPa The values determined for the PSMs from the SRM 1720 sample are significantly different from their gravimetric values with reduced pressure as shown in Table 2 Table 2 Ambient level 2012 PSMs determined from SRM sample 1720-A-29

4 Validity of SRM 1720 samples The SRM 1720 sample used to verify these PSMs is contained in a 30-Liter aluminum cylinder Other SRM 1720 samples have shown to be stable within uncertainty limits down to around 600 psi as shown in Table 3

‐029

‐037‐031

378

383

388

393

398

074 075 075 076 076 077 077 078 078 079 079

CO2mole fraction micro

molmol

Response Ratio

2012 CO2 PSMs

K120 Standard Predicted

K120 Standard Grav Value

SRM 1720 Predicted Value

SRM 1720 Certified Value

Gravimetric Concentration vs SRM1720 Difference Pressure

2012 PSM Mole Fraction micromolmol micromolmol micromolmol Diff ps i (Mpa)

APEX1099211 96107 plusmn 003 96091 plusmn 020 0160 002 1200 (827)

APEX1099176 91907 plusmn 046 91922 plusmn 025 ‐0150 ‐002 650 (448)

APEX1099164 67362 plusmn 035 67405 plusmn 015 ‐0430 ‐006 800 (552)

APEX1099223 63330 plusmn 042 63367 plusmn 017 ‐0370 ‐006 700 (483)

APEX1005714 42108 plusmn 006 42246 plusmn 009 ‐1380 ‐033 300 (207)

APEX1005721 39885 plusmn 006 40003 plusmn 015 ‐1180 ‐030 400 (276)

APEX1005690 37944 plusmn 006 38048 plusmn 010 ‐1040 ‐027 400 (276)

uncerta inty k=1

P a g e | 122

Table 3 Mole fractions showing increase in 30 Liter SRM 1720 samples with pressure loss

SRM 1720 samples were originally certified by comparing to the 2012 suite of four PSMs when they were at full pressure (+11 MPa) three of which are given in Table 2 APEX1005714 (42108 plusmn 006) micromolmol APEX1005721 (39885 plusmn 006) micromolmol and APEX1005690 (37944 plusmn 006) micromolmol The SRM 1720 samples were also analyzed by NOAA with results showing agreement between NIST and NOAA [2] Figure 6 shows that agreement for the 30 real air cylinder samples that comprised SRM 1720

Figure 6 Comparison of NIST and NOAA CO2 values for 30 SRM 1720 samples Error bars are expanded uncertainties at approximate 95 confidence interval 5 Verifying the K120 Samples Because all the original NIST 2012 PSMs at the 380 to 420 micromolmol range were low in pressure they could not be trusted to verify the new K120 PSMs Therefore in late December 2016 NIST used SRM sample 1720-A-29 then at 1700 psi to verify the gravimetric mole fractions in the K120 standards using CRDS Table 4 shows the gravimetric and verified values for the NIST K120 samples The December 2016 verified value is significantly higher by as much as 1 micromolmol than the gravimetric value for each of the three K120 standards This provides strong evidence that even the molmol 2012 PSMs have increased in mole fraction with the decrease in pressure Table 4 Gravimetric and verified values for NIST K120 samples

30 ‐Liter August 2017 Stability

SRM Original Certified Stability check 2017 ‐

Sample Value ppm value ppm Cert ppm

1720‐A‐26a 39397 + 013 (SRM used by BIPM for K120) 39403 + 020 + 006 600 psi 414 Mpa

1720‐AL‐01 38833 plusmn 013 38867 plusmn 014 + 034 325 psi 224 Mpa

1720‐AL‐27 39339 plusmn 013 39364 plusmn 015 + 025 450 psi 31 Mpa

All verified and stability check values determined against SRM 1720‐A‐29 (still at a pressure of 1500+ psi)

All uncertainties reported as expanded k = 2

aSRM 1720‐A‐26 was sent to BIPM as part of their system validation for K120

388

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30mole fraction micro

mol mol ‐1

Sample

NIST

NOAA

Pressure

Original Reported December 2016 Verified Verified‐Grav Verified‐Grav departure

Cylinder Gravimetirc Value ppm Verified Value micromolmol Diff in micromolmol Diff from NIST

FB04278 37905 plusmn 039 38008 plusmn 028 103 027 1034 MPa

FB04300 47266 plusmn 043 47340 plusmn 034 068 016 965 MPa

FB04287 79453 plusmn 103 79512 plusmn 058 059 007 999 MPa

P a g e | 123

Uncertainties at 95 confidence interval NIST was aware when they shipped their K120 samples to BIPM for the K120 comparison that their gravimetric values were not good However we followed the K120 protocol laid down for ldquopreparative capabilities for carbon dioxide in air primary reference mixturesrdquo and submitted the gravimetric values knowing that the verified values were the correct molar fractions for these mixtures 6 Stability check of K120 samples NIST received the three K120 samples back from BIPM in August 2017 and proceeded to check them for stability The three samples were once again compared to SRM 1720-A-29 and those results are shown in Table 5 The August 2017 stability check values agree with the December 2016 verified values and therefore have remained stable as they should be since the pressures were well above those where increases in mole fraction have been observed Table 5 Stability check results for K120 samples

Uncertainties at 95 confidence interval

7 Isotopic Composition The original value submitted by NIST for δ13C of -28 + 2 permil was an error of data transcription NIST had determined this value in 2014 for the pure source of CO2 used to prepare the submitted standards to be δ13C = -38 + 2 permil as determined by FTIR After receiveing the three standards back from BIPM NIST measured the δ13C to be -401 + 01 permil as determined by GC-IRMS 8 NIST Best-Estimate Value If it had been explicitly stated that participants could report their ldquobest-estimate valuerdquo for samples submitted for this CCQM-K120 key comparison for ambient CO2 in air which would not necessarily be their true gravimetric value then NIST would have submitted the values obtained from verification against the SRM sample NIST ldquobest-estimate valuesrdquo are thus given in Table 6 Table 6 NIST Best-Estimate (Verified) Values

August 2017 August 2017 Pressure

December 2016 Verified August 2017 Stability check‐Dec 2016 Stabiity check‐ back

Cylinder Verified Value micromolmol Stability check micromolmol Verified Value micromolmol Verified Value Diff to NIST

FB04278 38008 plusmn 028 38007 plusmn 030 ‐001 ‐0003 724 MPa

FB04300 47340 plusmn 034 47337 plusmn 052 ‐003 ‐0006 724 MPa

FB04287 79512 plusmn 058 79477 plusmn 038 ‐035 ‐0044 724 MPa

P a g e | 124

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 FB04278 38008 028 2

2 FB04300 47340 034 2

3 FB04287 79512 058 2

9 Observations from this Comparison NIST has the opinion that this key comparison was unnecessarily rushed to completion by the pilot laboratory As co-pilot on this comparison NIST should not have agreed to the arbitrary and premature deadline imposed by the pilot laboratory knowing that an optimal level of sample control had not been demonstrated Given that future key comparisons will continue to be co-piloted both parties must agree that the preliminary studies and procedures are sufficiently well-established to set firm deadlines for sample submission by participating NMIrsquos Ideally the mutual decision to set the timeline for the KC and the readiness of other NMIrsquos to participate should be discussed formally by the GAWG at the Spring or Fall meeting NIST also recommends that the GAWG draft a formal policy document that unambiguously defines the terms such as ldquogravimetricrdquo ldquoprimaryrdquo ldquopreparativerdquo ldquoanalyticalrdquo ldquobest-estimaterdquo among others which are used to describe the scope of key comparisons For example in the context of gas standards we might propose that ldquoprimaryrdquo refers to mixtures prepared by gravimetry or manometry On the other hand ldquopreparativerdquo appears with ldquoprimaryrdquo in the K120 a and b protocol summary statement What is the exact meaning of ldquopreparativerdquo in this context Similarly the term ldquobest-estimaterdquo was mentioned in discussions on K120 a and b during the April 2018 GAWG meeting when referring to acceptable reported values by NMIs although the exact meaning of this term was not clarified NISTrsquos current position is that ldquobest-estimaterdquo falls outside the scope of K120a and b and is more consistent with an ldquoanalyticalrdquo comparison These examples illustrate the need for a precise terminology to specify acceptable methods used for value assignment in future KCs For transparency this terminology should be formally defined by the GAWG for unambiguous use in subsequent KC protocols References 1 Miller WR Rhoderick GC Guenther FR Anal Chem 2015 87(3) pp 1957-1962 2 Rhoderick GR Kitzis DR Kelley ME Miller WR Hall BD Dlugokencky EJ Tans PP Possolo A Carney J Anal Chem 2016 88(6) 3376-3385 doi

101021acsanalchem6b00123

P a g e | 125

NMISA

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 126

P a g e | 127

P a g e | 128

P a g e | 129

P a g e | 130

P a g e | 131

P a g e | 132

P a g e | 133

NOAA

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 134

P a g e | 135

P a g e | 136

P a g e | 137

P a g e | 138

P a g e | 139

NPL

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM‐K120‐R Project name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards

A1 General information

Institute National Physical Laboratory

Address Hampton Road

Teddington

TW11 0LW

Contact person Paul Brewer

Telephone +44 (0) 208 943 6007 Fax

Email paulbrewernplcouk

P a g e | 140

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a CCQM‐K120b

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide amount fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 2179 38027 019 2

2 2170 48002 024 2

3 2181 79970 040 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number 2179

Component Amount fraction Value

Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078079 molmol 000047 molmol 2

O2 020960 molmol 000013 molmol 2

Ar 0009232 molmol 0000018 molmol 2

CH4 lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

Table 1 Composition of standard 1

P a g e | 141

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number 2170

Component Amount fraction Value

Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078069 molmol 000047 molmol 2

O2 020950 molmol 000013 molmol 2

Ar 0009334 molmol 0000019 molmol 2

CH4 lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

Table 2 Composition of standard 2 (Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number 2181

Component Amount fraction Value

Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078055 molmol 000047 molmol 2

O2 020928 molmol 000013 molmol 2

Ar 0009367 molmol 0000019 molmol 2

CH4 lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

Table 3 Composition of standard 3 CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 2179 ‐55 permil 10 permil 2 ‐225 permil 10 permil 2

2 2170 ‐55 permil 10 permil 2 ‐225 permil 10 permil 2

3 2181 ‐55 permil 10 permil 2 ‐225 permil 10 permil 2

Table 4 Isotopic composition of each submitted standard vs VPDB

A4 Uncertainty Budget The estimated uncertainty for the measurement contains the following components

Purity analysis of CO2 and synthetic air

Gravimetric preparation (weighing and atomic weight uncertainties)

Analytical validation

Table 5 details the uncertainty analysis The preparation component includes estimated uncertainty from purity analysis weighing and atomic weights

Relative Uncertainty ()

Identifier Component Preparation

(k=1) Validation

(k=1) Total(k=2)

2179 CO2 0018 002 005

2170 CO2 0014 002 005

2181 CO2 0010 002 005

Table 5 Uncertainty contributors To calculate the combined uncertainty the uncertainties were combined as the square root of the sum of squares The reported uncertainty of the result is based on standard uncertainties multiplied by a coverage factor of k=2 providing a level of confidence of approximately 95

P a g e | 142

A5 Additional information Description of the procedure Three gas mixtures were prepared for this comparison (2170 2179 and 2181) at NPL in synthetic air from sources of CO2 (BOC speciality gases) O2 (BOC speciality gases N 60) N2 (Air Products BIP+) and Ar (Air Products BIP+) The pure industrial source of CO2 was spiked with pure 13CO2 to achieve an isotopic composition close to natural abundance The mixtures were prepared in BOC 10 litre cylinders with Spectraseal passivation Two further sets of three reference standards was prepared and these were used to validate the comparison mixtures The scheme below shows the gravimetric dilutions with nominal CO2 amount fractions

Figure 1 Dilution scheme for gravimetric preparation

A Picarro G2301 Cavity ring-down spectrometer was used to validate the amount fraction of CO2 in mixtures 2170 2179 and 2181 The analyser response to the matrix gas was recorded The analyser response to a reference mixture was then recorded for a five minute period followed by either 2170 2179 or 2181 for the same time This sequence was repeated four times At the end of the experiment the analyser response to the matrix gas was recorded a second time To minimise the effects from zero drift a mean of the analyser response to the matrix gas before and after the experiment was used The amount fractions of 2170 2179 and 2181 were then determined by multiplying the ratio of the analyser response to each mixture and the reference mixture (both were corrected for the analyser response to matrix gas) with the amount fraction of the reference mixture These measurements were used to validate the gravimetric amount fractions submitted Cylinders were maintained at a laboratory temperature of (20 plusmn 3) C throughout the period of analysis Samples were introduced into the analyser at atmospheric pressure (excess flow was passed to vent) using a low volume gas regulator Purity tables for the CO2 Ar N2 and O2 are provided below

P a g e | 143

Component Amount Fraction (micromolmol) Expanded Uncertainty (micromolmol)

CO2 99999980 006

N2 0050 0029

O2 0050 0029

CO 0050 0029

Ar 0050 0029

Table 6 CO2 purity table

Component Amount Fraction (micromolmol) Expanded Uncertainty (micromolmol)

Ar 99999993 002

N2 0039 0023

O2 00050 00029

CO2 0007 0004

CO 00018 00010

CH4 000029 000017

Table 7 Ar purity table

Component Amount Fraction (micromolmol) Expanded Uncertainty (micromolmol)

N2 9999843 16

O2 0015 0009

Ar 1567 157

CO2 000085 000049

CO 000058 000033

CH4 000080 000046

Table 8 N2 purity table

Component Amount Fraction (micromolmol) Expanded Uncertainty (micromolmol)

O2 9999991 03

N2 050 029

Ar 0050 0029

CO2 019 019

CH4 00282 00048

Table 9 O2 purity table The mixtures were prepared on during the period 24th October to 8th November 2016 Measurements to study the stability of the mixtures were carried out over a 6 week period The cylinder pressure of mixtures 2170 2179 and 2181 prior to shipping was gt 10 MPa

P a g e | 144

NPLI

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM-K120

Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM-K120-R

Project name CCQM-K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899-8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute CSIR-National Physical Laboratory INDIA

Address CSIR-National Physical Laboratory Dr KS Krishnan Marg New Delhi ndash 110012 INDIA

Contact Person Dr Prabha Johri

Telephone 91 11 4560 856385658331

Fax 91 11 4560 9310

P a g e | 145

email pjohrinplindiaorg

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM-K120a (only) yes

CCQM-K120b (only) Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification Number

Carbon Dioxide mole fraction XCO2cert molmol

Expanded Uncertainties molmol

Coverage factor

1 JJ108891 37572 322 2

2 JJ108862 48052 304 2

3 JJ108854 79638 503 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix composition Component mol fraction and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) Standard1 Cylinder Number JJ108891

component Mole fraction value

unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0781273 molmol 0002210 molmol 2

O2 0209688 molmol 0000590 molmol 2

Ar 0009040 molmol 0000030 molmol 2

Standard 2 Cylinder Number JJ108862

component Mole fraction value

unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0781989 molmol 0002210 molmol 2

O2 0208853 molmol 0000590 molmol 2

Ar 0009158 molmol 0000030 molmol 2

P a g e | 146

Standard 3 Cylinder Number JJ108854

Component Mole fraction value

unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0781363 molmol 0002210 molmol 2

O2 0209789 molmol 0000594 molmol 2

Ar 0008847 molmol 0000030 molmol 2

A4 Uncertainty Budget The final uncertainty budget was estimated by combining two uncertainty components (ie preparation of PSGM and its analysis both)

(i) The Expanded Uncertainty estimation of all the prepared gas mixtures (PSGMs) has been calculated according to ISO 6142 Preparation of Calibration gas mixtures ndash Gravimetric method taking account of following factors 1 Raymor Balance 1 Mass Pieces 2 Bouancy corrections for weights 3 Handling of cylinder 4 Residual gases in the cylinder 5 Expansion of the cylinder due to filling of gas at High pressure (ii) Uncertainties in the analysis These are calculated taking acount of

1 Standard deviation Repeatability 2 Reproducibility amp 3 Instrument response

A5 Additional Information b) A purity table with uncertainties for pure Ar N2 and O2 parent gas The purity of N2 O2 and Ar parent gases were determined using tiger optics CRDS analyzers model for the following H2O CH4 and CO gas components The moisture of the gases were determined using Tiger Optics moisture analyzer model LaserTrace CH4 was determined using Tiger Optics methan analyzer model MTO-1000-CH4 and CO gas was determined using Tiger Optics CO analyzer model HALO 3-CO Purity of Argon gas was found to be as given below

P a g e | 147

Name of gases Concentration ppm Expanded Uncertainties Coverage factor

H2O moisture 145 023 2

CO gas 027 008 2

CH4 gas Not Detected (ND) (lt0001 )

Purity of N2 gas was found to be as given below

Name of gases Concentration ppm Expanded Uncertainties Coverage factor

H2O moisture 083 005 2

CO gas 34 024 2

CH4 gas ND (lt0001 )

Purity of O2 gas was found to be as given below

Name of gases Concentration ppm Expanded Uncertainties Coverage factor

H2O moisture 095 005 2

CH4 gas ND (lt0001 )

c) A brief out line of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures The preparation procedure involves following steps

1) Preparation of gas mixtures of CO2 in nitrogen gas Al cylinders 10 litre were evacuated and purged with nitogen gas and again evacuated with heating of the cylinders at 60-70oC This process is repeated thrice before any preparation of gas mixture was carried out The theoritical calculations were carried out for the desired concentrations Gas mixtures of CO2 in nitrogen gas from pure gas were prepared in two series in the concentrations around 20544 and 20392 molmol These gas mixtures were diluted in the concentration ranges from ( 370~ 1000 molmol) Total of 9 cylindres were prepared All the preparation of Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) were done in acordance to ISO 6142 Gas Analysis -Preparation of calibration gas mixtures - Gravimetric Method These cylinders were validated in acordance to ISO 6143 Gas analysis - Comparision method for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures Thus the prepared CO2 gas mixtures were certified as CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM)

P a g e | 148

2) Preparation of CO2 in synthetic air These mixtures were prepared from the two series of CO2 premixtures prepared in nitrogen gas in the concentration around 20544 and 20392 molmol as mentioned above The empty cylinders were evacuated and purged with dry nitogen gas and again evacuated with heating This process is repeated thrice for the pre-preparation of the cylinders The thoeritical calculations were carried out similating the desired concentration range as given in CCQM K-120 The required amount of pre mixture of CO2 in Nitrogen is transferred in the pre prepared evacuated cylinder These mixtures were now added with desired amount of pure Argon gas pure oxygen gas and finally top up has been done by nitrogen gas to simulate the synthetic air concentration Total of 9 cylinders were prepared in the concentration ranges ( 370~800 molmol) These cylinders were validated using above prepared binary mixtures of CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures Validation of Synthetic Air Mixtures

The prepared synthetic air gas mixture cylinders were validated using above prepared binary mixtures of CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) as per ISO 6143

The standard and sample gases were injected into eight-port gas sampling valves of the Agilent Gas Chromatograph with flame ionization detector (FID) Model 6890N US 10723001 The GC column used was Haysep D length 12 ft dia 18rdquo and mesh 100120 Helium gas was used as a carrier gas The measurement conditions were the sample loop of 05 ml oven temperature of 80oC detector temperature of 250oC hydrogen and air flow rate of 20 mlmin and 300 mlmin respectively All the Synthetic air CO2 gas mixtures were evaluated using a higher concentration CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) The average response was calculated by using the six values rejecting first and last two values each time for each measurement series The analysis of the cylinders were carried out three times The collected data is analysed and the uncertainty budget was evaluated

f) Cylider pressure before shipment to BIPM

SlNo Cylinder No Conc (Approx) molmol Pressure

1 JJ108891 380 110Bar 1596 psi

2 JJ108862 480 110Bar 1596 psi

3 JJ108854 800 110Bar 1596 psi

The Team members Dr Daya Soni Dr Khem Singh Ms S Bhatt Ms Joty Pokheryal Dr SG Aggarwal Dr PJohri

P a g e | 149

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM-K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM-K120-R (Stability Studies) Project name CCQM-K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899-8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute CSIR-National Physical Laboratory INDIA

Address CSIR-National Physical Laboratory Dr KS Krishnan Marg New Delhi ndash 110012 INDIA

Contact Person Dr Prabha Johri

Telephone 91 11 4560 856385658331

Fax 91 11 4560 9310

email pjohrinplindiaorg

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM-K120a (only) yes

CCQM-K120b (only) Yes

P a g e | 150

Stability Studies Result A3 NMI stability analysis values with its analytical uncertainty budget only

Cylinder Identification Number

Carbon Dioxide mole fraction XCO2cert molmol

Expanded Uncertainties molmol

Coverage factor

1 JJ108891

37824 395 2

2 JJ108862

47857 523 2

3 JJ108854

79880 335 2

A4 Uncertainty Budget The stability uncertainty budget was estimated using analytical uncertainty components only These are calculated taking account of

1 Standard deviation Repeatability 2 Calibration standard uncertainty 3 Instrument response

A5 A brief outline of the Stability Analysis Procedure applied to the Cylinders returned from BIPM France

The cylinders of the synthetic air gas mixtures arrived from BIPM France cylinders were analyzed using the prepared binary mixtures of CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) as per ISO 6143 The cylinders returned from BIPM and the binary standards gas mixtures in nitrogen gas cylinders are put to rotation for over night before using for its stability studies

The standard and sample gases were injected into eight-port gas sampling valves of the Agilent Gas Chromatograph with flame ionization detector (FID) Model 6890N US 10723001 The GC column used was Haysep D length 12 ft dia 18rdquo and mesh 100120 Helium gas was used as a carrier gas The measurement conditions were the sample loop of 05 ml oven temperature of 80oC detector temperature of 250oC hydrogen and air flow rate of 20 mlmin and 300 mlmin respectively All the Synthetic air CO2 gas mixtures were evaluated using a higher concentration CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Reference Gas Mixtures (PRGM) The average response was calculated by using six values rejecting first and last two values each time for each measurement series The analysis of the cylinders was carried out three times The collected data is analyzed and the analytical uncertainty budget was evaluated and reported in the stability result

The Team members Dr Daya Soni Dr Khem Singh Ms S Bhatt Dr SG Aggarwal Dr PJohri

P a g e | 151

UME

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM‐K120‐R

A1 General information

Institute UME

Address TUumlBİTAK UME ‐ Gas Metrology Laboratory Baris Mah Dr Zeki Acar Cad No1 41470 Gebze Kocaeli TURKEY

Contact person Dr Tanıl Tarhan

Telephone + 90 262 679 5000 6401 Fax + 90 262 679 5001

Email taniltarhantubitakgovtr

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2 μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 PSM298266 37992 016 2

2 PSM266468 48042 017 2

3 PSM298347 80076 027 2

P a g e | 152

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number PSM298266

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07803392 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

O2 02099663 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

Ar 00093140 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number PSM266468

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07799681 molmol 00000165 molmol 2

O2 02102293 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

Ar 00093215 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number PSM298347

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07795520 molmol 00000164 molmol 2

O2 02103522 molmol 00000164 molmol 2

Ar 00092945 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 PSM298266 ‐165 005 2 ‐ ‐ ‐

A4 Uncertainty Budget

P a g e | 153

The basis for the uncertainty budget is formed by the uncertainty evaluation from the gravimetric preparation and analytical measurements Gravimetric preparation contains uncertainty sources from weighing and those from purity of the parent gases Gravimetric preparation and uncertainty evaluation have performed according to ISO 6142 [1] The measurement uncertainty of each mixture was determined according to ISO 6143 [2] The combined standard uncertainty of each mixture was determined by the following equation

u u u

where

um standard uncertainty from measurements

ug standard uncertainty from gravimetric preparation

The expanded uncertainty was determined by multiplying the combined standard uncertainty by a coverage factor of 2 with a confidence interval of 95

A5 Additional information Mixtures were produced with synthetic air s) Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas

Main component carbon dioxide

Cylinder Code LG7524

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

carbon dioxide 99997750 924

water 250 144

nitrogen 1500 866

oxygen 500 289

t) Purity tables with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 and Ar parent gas

Main component nitrogen

Cylinder Code LG1220 and LG1221

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

carbon monoxide 005 003

carbon dioxide 005 003

methane 005 003

water 025 014

nitrogen 99999935 021

oxygen 025 014

Main component oxygen

P a g e | 154

Cylinder Code LG3367

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

argon 100 058

carbon dioxide 010 006

methane 010 006

water 150 087

nitrogen 250 144

oxygen 99999480 178

Main component argon

Cylinder Code LG1313

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

argon 99999300 122

water 150 087

nitrogen 400 231

oxygen 150 087

u) Mixtures were prepared according to the scheme displayed in Figure 1 Two different types of the pre‐mixtures were prepared These are 10 and 05 carbon dioxide in nitrogen and 15 argon in nitrogen 05 carbon dioxide in nitrogen and 15 argon in nitrogen pre‐mixtures were used together with pure nitrogen and pure oxygen for the final mixtures

P a g e | 155

Figure 1 Preparation scheme for the mixtures

v) Verification procedure applied to the final mixtures

The carbon dioxide (CO2) in air mixtures were analyzed on a cavity ring‐down spectroscopy (CRDS) instrument ie Picarro G2401 COCO2CH4H2O Analyzer equipped with 16‐Port Distribution Manifold Verification of the mixtures was carried out using own standards Cylinders were equipped with pressure reducers and connected to 16‐port distribution manifold They were flushed three times before the first measurement The analyzer operates vacuum pump to get the sample Therefore excess amount of gas than the amount of gas required by CRDS has been sent to the analyzer by adjusting the reducers The excess gas has been sent to the atmosphere through a bypass connected to sample line in between distribution manifold and the analyzer Each cylinder was measured for 15 minutes which is a sufficient time to obtain stable results The measurement data was collected using CRDS software Software takes about 2850 readings for 15 minutes During the data evaluation total number of 240 readings in between 10‐14 minutes has been used for determination of average values and uncertainties for each cylinder at each measurement

P a g e | 156

w) Stability testing of the mixtures

Pre‐mixtures and final mixtures were prepared in 01‐17 April 2016 First verification was performed in 21‐24 April 2016 Second verification was carried out in 22 September 2016 Final verification was performed 11‐19 October 2016 Measurement results are shown in Figure 2 As can be seen from the figure instrument response does not vary with time for each cylinder Stability testing did not show any instability within the accuracy of the measurement method

Figure 2 Stability measurements

x) Cylinder pressures before shipment to the BIPM are given below

Cylinder Code Pressure bar

PSM298266 86

PSM266468 86

PSM298347 90

References

[1] International Organization for Standardization ldquoISO 6142 Gas analysis ‐ Preparation of calibration gas mixtures ‐ Gravimetric methodsrdquo ISO Geneva 2001

[2] International Organization for Standardization ISO 6143 Gas analysis ‐ Comparison

methods for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures ISO Geneva 2001

300

500

700

900

CO2concentration (μmolmol)

Time

PSM298266 PSM266468 PSM298347

P a g e | 157

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM-K120-R

A1 General information

Institute UME

Address TUumlBİTAK UME ‐ Gas Metrology Laboratory Baris Mah Dr Zeki Acar Cad No1 41470 Gebze Kocaeli TURKEY

Contact person Dr Tanıl Tarhan

Telephone + 90 262 679 5000 6401 Fax + 90 262 679 5001

Email taniltarhantubitakgovtr

P a g e | 158

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2 μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 PSM298266 37992 019 2

2 PSM266468 48042 025 2

3 PSM298347 80076 036 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number PSM298266

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07803392 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

O2 02099663 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

Ar 00093140 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number PSM266468

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07799681 molmol 00000165 molmol 2

P a g e | 159

O2 02102293 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

Ar 00093215 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number PSM298347

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07795520 molmol 00000164 molmol 2

O2 02103522 molmol 00000164 molmol 2

Ar 00092945 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 PSM298266 ‐165 005 2 ‐ ‐ ‐

A4 Uncertainty Budget

The basis for the uncertainty budget is formed by the uncertainty evaluation from the gravimetric preparation and analytical measurements Gravimetric preparation contains uncertainty sources from weighing and those from purity of the parent gases Gravimetric preparation and uncertainty evaluation have performed according to ISO 6142 [1] The measurement uncertainty of each mixture was determined according to ISO 6143 [2] The mixtures were analyzed for stability after receiving them back from BIPM The combined standard uncertainty of each mixture was determined by the following equation

u u u u

where

um standard uncertainty from measurements

ug standard uncertainty from gravimetric preparation

us standard uncertainty for stability

The expanded uncertainty was determined by multiplying the combined standard uncertainty by a coverage factor of 2 with a confidence interval of 95

P a g e | 160

A5 Additional information Mixtures were produced from pure components of CO2 N2 O2 and Ar y) Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas

Main component carbon dioxide

Cylinder Code LG7524

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

carbon dioxide 99997750 924

water 250 144

nitrogen 1500 866

oxygen 500 289

z) Purity tables with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 and Ar parent gas

Main component nitrogen

Cylinder Code LG1220 and LG1221

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

carbon monoxide 005 003

carbon dioxide 005 003

methane 005 003

water 025 014

nitrogen 99999935 021

oxygen 025 014

Main component oxygen

Cylinder Code LG3367

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

argon 100 058

carbon dioxide 010 006

methane 010 006

water 150 087

nitrogen 250 144

oxygen 99999480 178

Main component argon

Cylinder Code LG1313

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

argon 99999300 122

water 150 087

nitrogen 400 231

oxygen 150 087

P a g e | 161

aa) Mixtures were prepared according to the scheme displayed in Figure 1 Two different types

of the pre‐mixtures were prepared These are 10 and 05 carbon dioxide in nitrogen and 15 argon in nitrogen 05 carbon dioxide in nitrogen and 15 argon in nitrogen pre‐mixtures were used together with pure nitrogen and pure oxygen for the final mixtures

Figure 1 Preparation scheme for the mixtures

bb) Verification procedure applied to the final mixtures

The carbon dioxide (CO2) in air mixtures were analyzed on a cavity ring‐down spectroscopy (CRDS) instrument ie Picarro G2401 COCO2CH4H2O Analyzer equipped with 16‐Port Distribution Manifold Verification of the mixtures was carried out using own standards Cylinders were equipped with pressure reducers and connected to 16‐port distribution manifold They were flushed three times before the first measurement The analyzer operates vacuum pump to get the sample Therefore excess amount of gas than the amount of gas required by CRDS has been sent to the analyzer by adjusting the reducers

P a g e | 162

The excess gas has been sent to the atmosphere through a bypass connected to sample line in between distribution manifold and the analyzer Each cylinder was measured for 15 minutes which is a sufficient time to obtain stable results The measurement data was collected using CRDS software Software takes about 2850 readings for 15 minutes During the data evaluation total number of 240 readings in between 10‐14 minutes has been used for determination of average values and uncertainties for each cylinder at each measurement

cc) Stability testing of the mixtures

Pre‐mixtures and final mixtures were prepared in 01‐17 April 2016 First verification was performed in 21‐24 April 2016 Second verification was carried out in 22 September 2016 Final verification was performed during 11‐19 October 2016 Measurement results are shown in Figure 2 As can be seen from the figure instrument response does not vary with time for each cylinder Stability testing did not show any instability within the accuracy of the measurement method before sending the cylinders to BIPM

Figure 2 Stability measurements before sending the cylinders

After receiving the cylinders they have been analyzed for stability Measurements were carried out during 23‐24 August 2017 and 06‐07 September 2017 Instrument responses were plotted against time as shown in Figure 3 The slope of the responses has been checked Uncertainty for stability has been determined and has been included in the combined uncertainty

300

500

700

900

CO2concentration (μmolmol)

Time

PSM298266 PSM266468 PSM298347

P a g e | 163

Figure 3 Stability measurements after receiving the cylinders

dd) Cylinder pressures before shipment to the BIPM are given below

Cylinder Code Pressure bar

PSM298266 86

PSM266468 86

PSM298347 90

References

[1] International Organization for Standardization ldquoISO 6142 Gas analysis ‐ Preparation of calibration gas mixtures ‐ Gravimetric methodsrdquo ISO Geneva 2001

[2] International Organization for Standardization ISO 6143 Gas analysis ‐ Comparison

methods for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures ISO Geneva 2001

300

500

700

900

CO2concentration (μmolmol)

Time

PSM298266 PSM266468 PSM298347

P a g e | 164

VNIIM

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQMK120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQMK120R

Project name CCQMK120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air Standards Proposed dates 092016 to 122017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 208998300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores

BIPM Chemistry Department Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg A1 General information Institute

DI Mendeleyev Institute for Metrology (VNIIM )

Address

19 Moskovsky pr St Petersburg 190005 Russia

Contact person Leonid Konopelko Telephone +7 812 315 11 45 Fax +7 812 315 15 17 Email

fhib10vniimru

P a g e | 165

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo CCQMK120a

Yes

CCQMK120b

Yes

A3 NMI submitted values Table 1 Cylinder Identification

number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction xCO2 cert μmolmol

Expanded uncertainty U(x CO2 cert) μmolmol

Coverage factor

1 M365601

38020 011 2

2 M365664

48018 013 2

3 M365707

80073 019 2

Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) Table 2 (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number M365601 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

781015 10-2 molmol 00013 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209188 10-2 molmol 00013 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09416 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000094 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Table 3 (Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number M365664 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

780928 10-2 molmol 00011 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209270 10-2 molmol 00012 10-2 molmol 2

Ar 09322 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

P a g e | 166

CH4 000000096 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Table 4 (Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number M365707 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

781000 10-2 molmol 00011 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209199 10-2 molmol 00012 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09000 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000097 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Uncertainty in the tables 2-4 includes only constituents related to gravimetry (weighing and purity) Table 5 CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional) Cylinder

Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C)

CoverageFactor

δ18O U(δ18O) CoverageFactor

1 M365601 - 480 09 2 - - - 2 M365664 - 480 09 2 - - - 3 M365707 - 480 09 2 - - - A4 Uncertainty Budget Table 6 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365601

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution

ui(y) μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200 μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999381 μmolmol B Rectangular 0015 μmolmol 006733 000101

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374 μmolmol 000016 000006

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030 μmolmol 000534 000016

Weighing premixture

CO2 2015723 g AB Normal 000223g ‐1854106 ‐004140

N2 115359704 g AB Normal 001962 g 032397 000636

Weighing pre‐ 2048733 g AB Normal 000203 g ‐1791563 ‐003630

P a g e | 167

final mixture

mixture

Ar 790915 g AB Normal 000200 g 045258 000091

O2 14075497 g AB Normal 000353 g 056493 000200

N2 43993136 g AB Normal 001021 g 064543 000659

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal 000035 gmol 86286 000302

Combined standard uncertainty 005596

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0112

Table 7 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365664

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution ui(y)

μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200

μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999390 μmolmol B Rectangular 0011

μmolmol 006909 000076

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374

μmolmol 000020 0000075

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030

μmolmol 000534 000016

Weighing premixture

CO2 1947854 g AB Normal 000224 g ‐2423572 ‐005424

N2 111850932 g AB Normal 001950 g 042206 000823

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

2586420 g AB Normal

000204 g ‐1775177 ‐003626

Ar 780100 g AB Normal 000200 g 057374 000115

O2 14028618 g AB Normal 000391 g 071611 000280

N2 43288272 g AB Normal 000915 g 081821 000749

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal

000035 gmol

109066 000382

Combined standard uncertainty 0066379

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0133

Table 8 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365707

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution

ui(y)

P a g e | 168

μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200 μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999390 μmolmol B Rectangular 0011μmolmol 006733 000076

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374 μmolmol 000035 000013

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030 μmolmol 000500 000015

Weighing premixture

CO2 2015723 g AB Normal 000223g ‐3905886 ‐008721

N2 115359704 g AB Normal 001962 g 068249 001339

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

4282195 g AB Normal

000220 g ‐1733744 ‐003823

Ar 750252 g AB Normal 000202 g 096046 000194

O2 13969676 g AB Normal 000403 g 119851 000483

N2 41448867 g AB Normal 000834 g 136969 001143

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal 000035 gmol 181777 0006362

Combined standard uncertainty

009719

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0194

Uncertainty due to weighing includes constituents related to accuracy of balance buoyancy effect resulting from change of cylinder volume during filling mass pierces used drift of balance residual gas in cylinder A5 Additional information Table 9 Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas Cylinder N 74318 Main component CO2 Mole fraction 99999345

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

N2 025 014

CO 0029 0001

CH4 0149 0002

He 05 029

H2 322 007

O2 025 014

H2O 215 011

Purity tables with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 and Ar parent gases Table 10 Purity table for N2

P a g e | 169

Monoblock Main component N2 Mole fraction 999998672

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

Ar 0916 0011

O2 00015 00009

CO2 00025 00014

H2 00025 00014

CH4 00025 00014

CO 00025 00014

H2O 040 020

Table 11 Purity table for O2 Cylinder N 910281 Main component O2 Mole fraction 999999381

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

H2 00025 00014

Ar 0181 0004

N2 0307 0012

Kr 00025 00014

CO 00075 00043

CH4 00347 00008

CO2 0081 0005

Xe 00025 00014

Table 12 Purity table for Ar Cylinder N 283162 Main component Ar Mole fraction 999998209

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

O2 00231 00013

N2 1188 0015

CH4 0015 0009

CO2 0030 0017

H2 0025 0014

CO 0010 0006

H2O 050 001

P a g e | 170

c) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures Preparation of final mixtures (СO2 in synthetic air) was carried out from pure substances in 2 stages 1-st stage ndash 3 mixtures СO2N2 ndashlevel 11 2-nd stage ndash 3x3 target mixtures СO2synthetic air All the mixtures were prepared in Luxfer cylinders (V=10 and 5 dm3) d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures CRDS analyzer was used for verification 4 measurement series were carried out within each verification procedure SD of a single measurement (reproducibility between series) was 0003 -0006 CRDS analyzer was used for verification Instrument Picarro G2401 Measurement cell temperature 45оС Measurement cell pressure 18665 kPa Data collection by ldquoPicarro Incrdquo software CRDS analyzer was used for δ13C measurements Instrument Picarro G2131i Reference materials used for calibration IAEA‐CO‐8 IAEA‐CH‐7 Measurement cell temperature 45оС Measurement cell pressure 18665 kPa Data collection by ldquoPicarro Incrdquo software e) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM The final mixtures were prepared 0310 -13102016 First verification measurement was carried out 1710 -2110 2016 Second verification measurement was carried out 2610 -28102016 Verification measurements were performed by checking consistency within the group of the 3x3 prepared mixtures uver =0003 Stability testing (short-term) did not show instability within the accuracy of the measurement method f) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

89 MPa for M365601 90 MPa for M365664 93 MPa for M365707

P a g e | 171

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQMK120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQMK120R

Project name CCQMK120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air Standards Proposed dates 092016 to 122017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 208998300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores

BIPM Chemistry Department Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg A1 General information Institute

DI Mendeleyev Institute for Metrology (VNIIM )

Address

19 Moskovsky pr St Petersburg 190005 Russia

Contact person Leonid Konopelko Telephone +7 812 315 11 45 Fax +7 812 315 15 17 Email

fhib10vniimru

P a g e | 172

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo CCQMK120a

Yes

CCQMK120b

Yes

A3 NMI submitted values Table 1 Cylinder Identification

number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction xCO2 cert μmolmol

Expanded uncertainty U(x CO2 cert) μmolmol

Coverage factor

1 M365601

38020 011 2

2 M365664

48018 013 2

3 M365707

80073 019 2

Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) Table 2 (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number M365601 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

781015 10-2 molmol 00013 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209188 10-2 molmol 00013 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09416 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000094 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Table 3 (Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number M365664 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

780928 10-2 molmol 00011 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209270 10-2 molmol 00012 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09322 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000096 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured

P a g e | 173

Table 4 (Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number M365707 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

781000 10-2 molmol 00011 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209199 10-2 molmol 00012 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09000 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000097 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Uncertainty in the tables 2-4 includes only constituents related to gravimetry (weighing and purity) Table 5 CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional) Cylinder

Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C)

CoverageFactor

δ18O U(δ18O) CoverageFactor

1 M365601 - 480 09 2 - - - 2 M365664 - 480 09 2 - - - 3 M365707 - 480 09 2 - - - A4 Uncertainty Budget Table 6 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365601

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution

ui(y) μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200 μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999381 μmolmol B Rectangular 0015 μmolmol 006733 000101

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374 μmolmol 000016 000006

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030 μmolmol 000534 000016

Weighing premixture

CO2 2015723 g AB Normal 000223g ‐1854106 ‐004140

N2 115359704 g AB Normal 001962 g 032397 000636

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

2048733 g AB Normal

000203 g ‐1791563 ‐003630

Ar 790915 g AB Normal 000200 g 045258 000091

O2 14075497 g AB Normal 000353 g 056493 000200

P a g e | 174

N2 43993136 g AB Normal 001021 g 064543 000659

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal 000035 gmol 86286 000302

Combined standard uncertainty 005596

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0112

Table 7 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365664

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution ui(y)

μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200

μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999390 μmolmol B Rectangular 0011

μmolmol 006909 000076

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374

μmolmol 000020 0000075

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030

μmolmol 000534 000016

Weighing premixture

CO2 1947854 g AB Normal 000224 g ‐2423572 ‐005424

N2 111850932 g AB Normal 001950 g 042206 000823

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

2586420 g AB Normal

000204 g ‐1775177 ‐003626

Ar 780100 g AB Normal 000200 g 057374 000115

O2 14028618 g AB Normal 000391 g 071611 000280

N2 43288272 g AB Normal 000915 g 081821 000749

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal

000035 gmol

109066 000382

Combined standard uncertainty 0066379

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0133

Table 8 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365707

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution

ui(y) μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200 μmolmol 000545 000109

P a g e | 175

Purity of O2 999999390 μmolmol B Rectangular 0011μmolmol 006733 000076

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374 μmolmol 000035 000013

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030 μmolmol 000500 000015

Weighing premixture

CO2 2015723 g AB Normal 000223g ‐3905886 ‐008721

N2 115359704 g AB Normal 001962 g 068249 001339

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

4282195 g AB Normal

000220 g ‐1733744 ‐003823

Ar 750252 g AB Normal 000202 g 096046 000194

O2 13969676 g AB Normal 000403 g 119851 000483

N2 41448867 g AB Normal 000834 g 136969 001143

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal 000035 gmol 181777 0006362

Combined standard uncertainty

009719

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0194

Uncertainty due to weighing includes constituents related to accuracy of balance buoyancy effect resulting from change of cylinder volume during filling mass pierces used drift of balance residual gas in cylinder A5 Additional information Table 9 Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas Cylinder N 74318 Main component CO2 Mole fraction 99999345

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

N2 025 014

CO 0029 0001

CH4 0149 0002

He 05 029

H2 322 007

O2 025 014

H2O 215 011

Purity tables with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 and Ar parent gases Table 10 Purity table for N2 Monoblock Main component N2 Mole fraction 999998672

P a g e | 176

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

Ar 0916 0011

O2 00015 00009

CO2 00025 00014

H2 00025 00014

CH4 00025 00014

CO 00025 00014

H2O 040 020

Table 11 Purity table for O2 Cylinder N 910281 Main component O2 Mole fraction 999999381

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

H2 00025 00014

Ar 0181 0004

N2 0307 0012

Kr 00025 00014

CO 00075 00043

CH4 00347 00008

CO2 0081 0005

Xe 00025 00014

Table 12 Purity table for Ar Cylinder N 283162 Main component Ar Mole fraction 999998209

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

O2 00231 00013

N2 1188 0015

CH4 0015 0009

CO2 0030 0017

H2 0025 0014

CO 0010 0006

H2O 050 001

c) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures

P a g e | 177

Preparation of final mixtures (СO2 in synthetic air) was carried out from pure substances in 2 stages 1-st stage ndash 3 mixtures СO2N2 ndashlevel 11 2-nd stage ndash 3x3 target mixtures СO2synthetic air All the mixtures were prepared in Luxfer cylinders (V=10 and 5 dm3) d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures CRDS analyzer was used for verification 4 measurement series were carried out within each verification procedure SD of a single measurement (reproducibility between series) was 0003 -0006 CRDS analyzer was used for verification Instrument Picarro G2401 Measurement cell temperature 45оС Measurement cell pressure 18665 kPa Data collection by ldquoPicarro Incrdquo software CRDS analyzer was used for δ13C measurements Instrument Picarro G2131i Reference materials used for calibration IAEA‐CO‐8 IAEA‐CH‐7 Measurement cell temperature 45оС Measurement cell pressure 18665 kPa Data collection by ldquoPicarro Incrdquo software e) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM The final mixtures were prepared 0310 -13102016 First verification measurement was carried out 1710 -2110 2016 Second verification measurement was carried out 2610 -28102016 Verification measurements were performed by checking consistency within the group of the 3x3 prepared mixtures uver =0003 Stability testing (short-term) did not show instability within the accuracy of the measurement method Long-term stability testing (measurements 2108-23082017 and 0910-11102017) did not show instability within the accuracy of the measurement method f) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

89 MPa for M365601 90 MPa for M365664 93 MPa for M365707

P a g e | 178

VSL

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 179

P a g e | 180

P a g e | 181

Page 6: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM

P a g e | 6

Week in 2017 Batch GC‐FID Batch FTIR measurements measurements

NIST FB04278 379045 NOAA CC310084 379500 6 GC1 VSL 5604614 378900

(6‐10 February) NPL 2179 380270 NMIJ CPC00486 386617

VNIIM M365601 380200 7 GC2 LNE 1029045 379480

(13‐17 February) KRISS D500642 378900 NIM FB03747 383430

GUM D298392 380100 BFKH OMH54 379840 8 GC3 UME PSM298266 379920

(20‐24 February) NPLI JJ108891 375720 NMISA M51 8232 380200

NIST FB04300 472662 NOAA CC305198 479260 9 GC4 VSL 5604880 480480

(27 February‐ 3 March) NPL 2170 480020 NMIJ CPC00494 471301

VNIIM M365664 480180 NIST FB04278 37904510 GC5 LNE 1029047 477600 FT‐1 NOAA CC310084 379500

(6‐10 March) KRISS D500647 480000 NPL 2179 380270

NIM FB03744 489150 NMIJ CPC00486 386617

GUM D298393 478100 FT‐2 NMIJ CPC00486 386617 BFKH OMH44 479890 VNIIM M365601 380200

11 GC6 UME PSM266468 480420 KRISS D500642 378900 (13‐17 March) NPLI JJ108862 480520 FT‐3 NIM FB03747 383430

NMISA M51 8167 479500 LNE 1029045 379480

INRIM D247440 479300

NIST FB04287 794533 FT‐4 GUM D298392 380100 NOAA CB11668 794080 NMISA M51 8232 380200

12 GC7 VSL 5604705 795700 BFKH OMH54 379840 (20‐24 March) NPL 2181 799700 FT‐5 UME PSM298266 379920

NMIJ CPC00558 803658 NPLI JJ108891 375720

VNIIM M365707 800730 NIST FB04300 472662 LNE 1029048 802200 FT‐6 NOAA CC305198 47926013 GC8 KRISS D500672 800800 VSL 5604880 480480

(27‐31 March) NIM FB03748 809820 NPL 2170 480020 GUM D298402 800500 FT‐7 NMIJ CPC00494 471301

BFKH OMH69 800300 VNIIM M365664 480180

UME PSM298347 800760 FT‐8 LNE 1029047 47760014 GC9 NPLI JJ108854 796380 KRISS D500647 480000

(3‐7 April) NMISA M51 8244 799100 NIM FB03744 489150 INRIM D247445 798900 FT‐9 GUM D298393 478100

BFKH OMH44 479890

UME PSM266468 480420 FT‐10 NPLI JJ108862 480520 NMISA M51 8167 479500 INRIM D247440 479300

NIST FB04287 79453315 FT‐11 NOAA CB11668 794080

(10‐14 April) VSL 5604705 795700

NPL 2181 799700 FT‐12 NMIJ CPC00558 803658 VNIIM M365707 800730 LNE 1029048 802200

KRISS D500672 800800 FT‐13 NIM FB03748 809820

P a g e | 7

GUM D298402 800500 BFKH OMH69 800300

UME PSM298347 80076016 FT‐14 NPLI JJ108854 796380

(17‐21 April) NMISA M51 8244 799100 INRIM D247445 798900

Table 1 Schedule of the CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b measurements

5 Measurement standards Each laboratory taking part in the CCQM-K120a comparison was requested to produce one standard at the nominal mole fraction of 380 micromolmol and another at the mole fraction 480 micromolmol For those taking part in the CCQM-K120b comparison the standards were requested at the nominal mole fractions of 480 micromolmol and 800 micromolmol The mole fraction of carbon dioxide was requested to be within plusmn 10 micromolmol of the nominal mole fractions of the cylinders The carbon dioxide was requested to be produced in a dry air matrix produced from scrubbed real air or synthetic air that has been blended from pure gases that are the main constituents of air (nitrogen oxygen argon) and two other constituents (nitrous oxide and methane)The table below describes the limits of the gas matrix composition of the scrubbed dry real air and synthetic air which were to be met by participants Species lsquoAmbientrsquo

level mole fraction

Unit Min mole fraction

Unit Max mole fraction

Unit

N2 0780876 molmol 07804 molmol 07814 molmol O2 02093335 molmol 02088 molmol 02098 molmol Ar 00093332 molmol 00089 molmol 00097 molmol CH4 1900 nmolmol 0 nmolmol 1900 nmolmol N2O 330 nmolmol 0 nmolmol 330 nmolmol Table 2 CCQM-K120a matrix composition limit values(380 micromol mol and 480 micromolmol CO2 in airdagger) daggerEach participating laboratory was required to submit two standards one with nominal CO2 mole fraction of (370 to 390) micromolmol and the second with (470 to 490) micromolmol Species lsquoAmbientrsquo

level mole fraction

Unit Min mole fraction

Unit Max mole fraction

Unit

N2 0780876 molmol 07789 molmol 07829 molmol O2 02093335 molmol 02073 molmol 02113 molmol Ar 00093332 molmol 00078 molmol 00108 molmol CH4 1900 nmolmol 0 nmolmol 1900 nmolmol N2O 330 nmolmol 0 nmolmol 330 nmolmol

Table 3 CCQM-K120b matrix composition limits values(480 micromol mol and 800 micromolmol CO2 in airDagger)DaggerEach participating laboratory was required to submit two standards one with nominal CO2 mole fraction of (470 to 490) micromolmol and the second with (790 to 810) micromolmol (A laboratory participating in both CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b need only submit 3 standards in total)

P a g e | 8

Aditionally the following information was requested from each participant

In the case of standards produced with synthetic air

- a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas - a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar N2O and CH4 parent

gas - a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures - a purity table for each of the final mixtures including gravimetric uncertainties - a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures - a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared

and the time they are shipped to the BIPM

In the case of standards produced with scrubbed lsquorealrsquo air

- a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas - results of the analysis and mole fractions and uncertainties of N2 O2 Ar N2O and CH4 in

the scrubbed real air - a brief outline of the preparation procedure of the final mixtures - a composition table for each of the final mixtures including gravimetric uncertainties

when relevant - a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures - a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared

and the time they are shipped to the BIPM

6 Preparation values submitted and stability measurements by participants

Information on mixtures submitted by participating laboratories via the comparison submission forms on initial submission and after stability testing of cylinders is included in ANNEX V The CO2 mole fractions submitted by participants are listed in Table 5 where

xNMI is the value assigned by the participating NMIs

U(xNMI) is the expanded uncertainty including contributions from verification associated with the assigned value xNMI The comparison protocol permitted stability testing to be performed by laboratories after standards had been returned to them by the BIPM and before the comparison results were known As a result three laboratories provided new values and uncertainties namely NIST NPLI and BFKH In addition UME modified the uncertainty budget only and resubmitted this to the comparison organizers This subject was discussed during the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018) and it was agreed that only the uncertainties resubmitted by UME (Table 15) will replace the original uncertainties NIST NPLI BFKH resubmitted values and

P a g e | 9

uncertainties will only be reported in an annex (see ANNEX II- ) (Table 15) with no influence on the KCRV and the degree of equivalence (DOE) of the comparison Figure 1 plots the CO2 mole fraction reported by the participants for each gas standard In this figure the error bars represent the standard uncertainty associated with the reported value It can be observed that participants prepared all mixtures with a CO2 mole fraction within 10 micromol mol-1 of the nominal values as requested At 380 micromolmol NPLI submitted the mixture with the smallest CO2 mole fraction 37572plusmn322 micromolmol and NIMJ with the highest 38662plusmn005 micromolmol At 480 micromolmol NIMJ produced the lowest mole fraction 47130plusmn005 micromolmol and NIM the highest 48915plusmn022 micromolmol At 800 micromolmol NOAA produced the lowest mole fraction 79408plusmn048 micromolmol and NIM the highest 80982plusmn026 micromolmol The expanded uncertainties reported by the participants are plotted in Figure 2 Regarding the gas matrix composition thirty-five standards were produced in synthetic air and nine in purified (scrubbed) real air (see Table 5) The compositions of the mixtures reported by participants are listed in Table 6 Seven standards out of forty-four mixtures were not within specifications (gas mixture composition) as requested in the comparison protocol1

7 Measurements at the BIPM

On receipt by the BIPM all cylinders were allowed to equilibrate at laboratory temperature for at least 24 hours All cylinders were rolled for at least 1 hour to ensure homogeneity of the mixture

Cylinders were analysed in batches of n cylinders first by GC-FID then by FTIR and finally by the Delta Ray

For FTIR measurements each batch contained 4 cylinders from participants and 2 controls (at nominal mole fractions of 480 and 800 micromolmol) Each cylinder was connected from the pressure reducer to one inlet of a 32-inlet automatic gas sampler The procedure before starting measurements was identical as described below for GC-FID The reported value is the drift corrected ratio between the FTIR response and one control cylinder (at ~ 800 micromol mol-1) with a further correction required to take into account the isotopic composition of each mixtures Due to depletion of the control cylinder at nominally 480 micromolmol before completion of all measurements only ratios against the 800 micromolmol cylinder could be calculated for all standards Further details regarding the FTIR measurements are described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure FTIR

1 This nominal fraction limits were given in order to avoid possible biases that could be introduced into the spectroscopic comparison method (FTIR) due to variation in the composition of the air matrix in different standards For those standards that did not meet the tolerances specified in the protocol the BIPM included an additional uncertainty component in its FTIR analytical uncertainty to account for the impact of this

P a g e | 10

When the cylinders were analysed by GC-FID batches were composed of between four and six participantsrsquo cylinders three control cylinders (A B and C at nominal mole fractions of 380 480 and 800 micromolmol respectively) for ratio quantification and additional cylinders if required to maintain the total batch size of nine standards Each cylinder was connected from the pressure reducer to one inlet of a 16-inlet automatic gas sampler The sampler was connected to a gas chromatograph (GC-FID) The pressure reducer of each cylinder was flushed nine times with the mixture The cylinder valve was then closed leaving the high pressure side of the pressure reducer at the cylinder pressure and the low pressure side of the pressure reducer at ~300 kPa (abs) The cylinders were left stand at least 24 hours to allow conditioning of the pressure reducers The reported value was the drift corrected ratio between the GC-FID response and one control cylinder (at ~ 480 micromol mol-1) These measurements were performed under intermediate precision conditions (over ten weeks) Ratios against the other control cylinders were calculated but no substantial difference was observed with the ratio against the control cylinder at 480 micromolmol Further details regarding GC-FID measurements are described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure GC-FID

When the cylinders were analyzed by the Delta Ray each batch contained 4 cylinders from participants and 2 calibration standards Each cylinder was connected from the pressure reducer to one inlet of a 16-inlet automatic gas sampler The same procedure was again applied for flushing the gas lines Further details are described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure Delta Ray

The measurements performed by the Delta Ray analyser were only used to measure the isotopic ratios in each cylinder and further correct the FTIR responses due isotopic differences between the control cylinders and the samples as described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure FTIR In this manner the FTIR reported values for each cylinder were corrected for the isotopic composition and further ratioed to the response to a control cylinder (also corrected for the isotopic composition)

71 Measurements results

Measurements were performed at the BIPM from February to April 2017 Table 7 lists the inlet pressure before and after the standards were analyzed by the BIPM

Each cylinder was value assigned using the methods described in section 7 (details in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure)

Results of these series of measurements are listed in Table 8 where

FTR is the (mean) ratio between the FTIR response to the mixture under analysis and the control cylinder both corrected for the isotopic composition

FTRu is the standard uncertainty of the reported ratio based on FTIR measurements

(described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure FTIR)

wGCR is the reported value based on GC-FID measurements

P a g e | 11

GCRu the standard uncertainty of the reported value based on GC-FID (described in

ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure GC-FID) The δ13C and δ18O measurements on the VPDB-CO2 scale performed by Delta Ray are listed in Table 11 The typical uncertainties for each of the methods used by the BIPM are listed in Table 4

Comparison method name

Measurement quantity Symbol unit Typical relative

standard uncertainty ()

FTIR Ratio to control cylinder under intermediate precision condition FTR 1 0009

GC-FID Ratio to control cylinder under intermediate precision conditions wGCR 1 0007

Table 4 Comparison methods used during the CCQM-K120 international comparison and typical uncertainties obtained by the BIPM

Participant Cylinder references Gas Matrix

NMIrsquos assigned CO2 mole fraction xNMI

(micromol mol-1)

NMIrsquos assigned CO2

expanded uncertainty U(xNMI)

k = 2 (micromol mol-1)

Before the return of cylinders

BFKH OMH54 Synthetic Air 379840 1710

BFKH OMH44 Synthetic Air 479890 2110

BFKH OMH69 Synthetic Air 800300 2920

GUM D298392 Synthetic Air 380100 4400

GUM D298393 Synthetic Air 478100 5200

GUM D298402 Synthetic Air 800500 8600

INRIM D247440 Synthetic Air 479300 1600

INRIM D247445 Synthetic Air 798900 2600

KRISS D500642 Synthetic Air 378900 0200

KRISS D500647 Synthetic Air 480000 0200

KRISS D500672 Synthetic Air 800800 0400

LNE 1029045 Synthetic Air 379480 0790

LNE 1029047 Synthetic Air 477600 1000

LNE 1029048 Synthetic Air 802200 1700

NIM FB03747 Synthetic Air 383430 0200

NIM FB03744 Synthetic Air 489150 0220

NIM FB03748 Synthetic Air 809820 0260

NIST FB04278 Real Air 379045 0391

NIST FB04300 Real Air 472662 0428

NIST FB04287 Real Air 794533 1029

NMIJ CPC00486 Real Air 386617 0050

P a g e | 12

NMIJ CPC00494 Real Air 471301 0051

NMIJ CPC00558 Real Air 803658 0078

NMISA M51 8232 Synthetic Air 380200 2000

NMISA M51 8167 Synthetic Air 479500 1600

NMISA M51 8244 Synthetic Air 799100 1000

NOAA CC310084 Real Air 379500 0210

NOAA CC305198 Real Air 479260 0260

NOAA CB11668 Real Air 794080 0480

NPL 2179 Synthetic Air 380270 0190

NPL 2170 Synthetic Air 480020 0240

NPL 2181 Synthetic Air 799700 0400

NPLI JJ108891 Synthetic Air 375720 3220

NPLI JJ108862 Synthetic Air 480520 3040

NPLI JJ108854 Synthetic Air 796380 5030

UME PSM298266 Synthetic Air 379920 0190

UME PSM266468 Synthetic Air 480420 0250

UME PSM298347 Synthetic Air 800760 0360

VNIIM M365601 Synthetic Air 380200 0110

VNIIM M365664 Synthetic Air 480180 0130

VNIIM M365707 Synthetic Air 800730 0190

VSL 5604614 Synthetic Air 378900 0280

VSL 5604880 Synthetic Air 480480 0360

VSL 5604705 Synthetic Air 795700 0600

Table 5 Standards and reported values provided by participants Re-submitted values following stability testing which were included following the decision of the CCQM GAWG see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of

the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

Figure 1 CO2 mole fractions xNMI reported by participants The error bars represents the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the submitted values

GUM KRISS LNE NIM NMIJ NMISA NOAA NPL VNIIM VSL BFKH NIST NPLI UME374

376

378

380

382

384

386

GUM INRIM KRISS LNE NIM NMIJ NMISA NOAA NPL VNIIM VSL BFKH NIST NPLI UME460

465

470

475

480

485

490GUM INRIM KRISS LNE NMIJ NOAA NPL VNIIM VSL NIM NMISA BFKH NIST NPLI UME

792

796

800

804

808

812

x NM

I (

mol

mol

-1)

P a g e | 14

Figure 2 Participantsrsquo assigned CO2 expanded uncertainties U(xNMI)

NM

IJ

NM

IJ

NM

IJ

VN

IIM

VN

IIM

UM

E

UM

E

NP

L

VN

IIM

KR

ISS

KR

ISS

NIM

NO

AA

NIM

NP

L

NIM

NO

AA

UM

E

VS

L

VS

L

NIS

T

KR

ISS

NP

L

NIS

T

NO

AA

VS

L

LNE

LNE

NM

ISA

NIS

T

INR

IM

NM

ISA

BF

KH

LNE

NM

ISA

BF

KH

INR

IM

BF

KH

NP

LI

NP

LI

GU

M

NP

LI

GU

M

GU

M

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9U

(xN

MI)

m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 15

Participant Number of Cylinder

NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos

assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned

N2 expanded

uncertainty O2

expanded uncertainty

Ar expanded

uncertainty CH4 mole fraction

expanded uncertainty

N2O mole fraction

expanded uncertainty

mole fraction

k =2 mole fraction k=2 mole fraction k =2 k=2 k=2

xN2 U(xN2) xO2 U(xO2) xAr U(xAr) xNMI U(xNMI) xNMI U(xNMI)

(molmol) (molmol) (molmol) (molmol) (molmol) (molmol) (nmolmol) (nmolmol) (nmolmol) (nmolmol)

BFKH OMH54 0780390 0000160 0209615 0000048 0009607 0000017 1030 1200

BFKH OMH44 0780640 0000160 0209514 0000048 0009360 0000017 1030 1200

BFKH OMH69 0780720 0000160 0209161 0000048 0009314 0000017 1030 1200

GUM D298392 0780800 0000200 0209500 0000100 0009250 0000010

GUM D298393 0780700 0000200 0209600 0000100 0009190 0000010

GUM D298402 0780200 0000200 0209700 0000100 0009380 0000010

INRIM D247440 0781132 0000006 0209063 0000006 0009326 0000004

INRIM D247445 0782389 0000006 0207553 0000005 0009259 0000004

KRISS D500642 0781139 0000005 0209256 0000004 0009226 0000001 9 2 0200 0000

KRISS D500647 0780915 0000004 0209152 0000004 0009452 0000001 10 3 0200 0000

KRISS D500672 0780407 0000004 0209452 0000004 0009339 0000001 15 3 0200 0000

LNE 1029045 0780686 0000025 0209528 0000019 0009407 0000022

LNE 1029047 0781355 0000025 0208794 0000018 0009374 0000022

LNE 1029048 0782710 0000027 0207187 0000021 0009301 0000021

NIM FB03747 0782000 0000029 0209000 0000028 0009220 0000010 1 0 0791 0607

NIM FB03744 0781000 0000028 0210000 0000026 0009040 0000010 1 0 0790 0601

NIM FB03748 0781000 0000027 0210000 0000026 0007940 0000010 1 0 0790 0586

NIST FB04278 0780812 0000118 0209470 0000710 0009339 0000370

NIST FB04300 0780771 0000128 0209422 0000081 0009334 0000034

P a g e | 16

NIST FB04287 0780499 0000114 0209370 0000067 0009336 0000040

NMIJ CPC00486 0780915 0000025 0209365 0000007 0009334 0000024 2 2 0900 0900

NMIJ CPC00494 0780937 0000024 0209259 0000007 0009333 0000024 3 2 0900 0900

NMIJ CPC00558 0780602 0000022 0209270 0000006 0009325 0000021 3 2 0900 0900

NMISA M51 8232 0780700 0000048 0209600 0000015 0009400 0000005 7 4 0000 0000

NMISA M51 8167 0780900 0000028 0209600 0000011 0008900 0000005 9 6 0000 0000

NMISA M51 8244 0779300 0000031 0210600 0000016 0009300 0000005 10 6 0000 0000

NOAA CC310084 0209500 0000200 1762 3 317200 0500

NOAA CC305198 0209500 0000200 1887 4 328600 0500

NOAA CB11668 0209500 0000200 1889 4 328800 0500

NPL 2179 0780790 0000470 0209600 0000130 0009232 0000018 lt10 - lt10 0000

NPL 2170 0780690 0780690 0209500 0209500 0009334 0009334 lt10 - lt10 0000

NPL 2181 0780550 0000470 0209280 0000130 0009367 0000019 lt10 - lt10 0000

NPLI JJ108891 0781273 0002210 0209688 0000590 0009040 0000030

NPLI JJ108862 0781989 0002210 0208853 0000590 0009158 0000030

NPLI JJ108854 0781363 0002210 0209789 0000594 0008847 0000030

UME PSM298266 0780339 0000017 0209966 0000017 0009314 0000002

UME PSM266468 0779968 0000017 0210229 0000017 0009322 0000002

UME PSM298347 0779552 0000016 0210352 0000016 0009295 0000002

VNIIM M365601 0781015 0000013 0209188 0000013 0009416 0000005 9 2

VNIIM M365664 0780928 0000011 0209270 0000012 0009322 0000005 10 2

VNIIM M365707 0781000 0000011 0209199 0000012 0009000 0000005 10 2

VSL 5604614 0781177 0000017 0209152 0000016 0009292 0000006 16 7 0021 0024

VSL 5604880 0781092 0000017 0209146 0000016 0009281 0000006 16 7 0021 0024

VSL 5604705 0780708 0000017 0209246 0000015 0009251 0000006 16 7 0021 0024

Table 6 Matrix composition of the submitted gas mixtures according to participantsrsquo reports in ANNEX V Synthetic Air is identified as S A and Purified real air as R A No data given

P a g e | 17

Number Date of pressure on pressure on Number Date of pressure on pressure on

Lab of Cylinder arrival arrival departure Lab of Cylinder arrival arrival departure

Mpa Mpa Mpa Mpa

BFKH OMH54 1292016 995 776 NMISA M51 8232 19122016 1297 952

BFKH OMH44 1292016 959 784 NMISA M51 8167 19122016 96 709

BFKH OMH69 1292016 984 755 NMISA M51 8244 19122016 1061 572

GUM D298392 28092016 1446 1103 NOAA CC310084 322017 1348 1282

GUM D298393 28092016 1523 116 NOAA CC305198 322017 1342 1284

GUM D298402 28092016 1505 108 NOAA CB11668 322017 1194 1138

INRIM D247440 13012017 897 534 NPL 2179 9122016 1046 855

INRIM D247445 13012017 922 544 NPL 2170 9122016 1119 94

KRISS D500642 20122016 927 739 NPL 2181 9122016 1112 935

KRISS D500647 20122016 884 711 NPLI JJ108891 922017 10 836

KRISS D500672 20122016 905 703 NPLI JJ108862 922017 105 897

LNE 1029045 28112016 1311 1113 NPLI JJ108854 922017 982 811

LNE 1029047 28112016 1287 1113 UME PSM298266 23112016 903 582

LNE 1029048 28112016 1322 1141 UME PSM266468 23112016 908 546

NIM FB03747 14122016 82 527 UME PSM298347 23112016 918 542

NIM FB03744 14122016 865 593 VNIIM M365601 512017 84 43

NIM FB03748 14122016 802 473 VNIIM M365664 512017 866 537

NIST FB04278 312017 1003 725 VNIIM M365707 512017 853 527

NIST FB04300 312017 1023 746 VSL 5604614 15112016 1049 634

NIST FB04287 312017 1005 721 VSL 5604880 15112016 1012 68

NMIJ CPC00486 922017 957 753 VSL 5604705 15112016 1045 707

NMIJ CPC00494 922017 928 752

NMIJ CPC00558 922017 84 677

Table 7 Pressure of the gas standards on arrival and departure from the BIPM

P a g e | 18

xNMI u(xNMI)

FTR

FTRu

wGCR

GCRu

Participant

Number of Cylinder

Assigned NMIrsquos CO2 mole

fraction in

(micromolmol)

Assigned NMIrsquos

Standard uncertainty

(k=1) (micromolmol)

FTIR (Under intermediate precision conditions)

Ratio to control

cylinder

Standard uncertainty in the Ratio to

control cylinder

GC-FID

(Under intermediate precision conditions)

Ratio to control

cylinder

Standard uncertainty in the Ratio to control

cylinder

BFKH OMH54 379800 0855 0435893607 0000026077 0787699648 0000056828 BFKH OMH44 479900 1055 0539981600 0000030887 0976036480 0000059163

BFKH OMH69 800300 1460 0930134790 0000079551 1681896740 0000095864

GUM D298392 380100 2200 0441372447 0000014142 0797442344 0000052495

GUM D298393 478100 2600 0555225000 0000027459 1003704868 0000094363

GUM D298402 800500 4300 0929933927 0000085245 1681786329 0000104750

INRIM D247440 479300 0800 0556774608 0000200000 1006168965 0000071077

INRIM D247445 798900 1300 0927989884 0000059393 1677871699 0000087418

KRISS D500642 378900 0100 0440414238 0000026926 0795445471 0000074696

KRISS D500647 480000 0100 0557780245 0000035341 1008228786 0000056189

KRISS D500672 800800 0200 0930402740 0000108930 1682410057 0000106300

LNE 1029045 379480 0395 0440901535 0000025239 0796419628 0000056088

LNE 1029047 477600 0500 0554855777 0000046174 1002959828 0000101902

LNE 1029048 802200 0850 0932191570 0000046232 1685756190 0000102865

NIM FB03747 383430 0100 0445715112 0000021260 0804945901 0000057626

NIM FB03744 489150 0110 0568919872 0000044283 1028323070 0000061887

NIM FB03748 809820 0130 0941620390 0000127224 1702705250 0000084949

NIST FB04278 379045 0195 0441858957 0000014036 0798159371 0000076697

NIST FB04300 472662 0214 0550247743 0000021932 0994649947 0000056864

NIST FB04287 794530 0514 0924730373 0000047693 1672406610 0000052361

NMIJ CPC00486 386617 0025 0449318716 0000022804 0811714164 0000057115

NMIJ CPC00494 471301 0026 0547653232 0000049336 0989730987 0000128859

NMIJ CPC00558 803658 0039 0933998556 0000062657 1689072068 0000061122

NMISA M51 8232 380200 1000 0441463446 0000030414 0797746449 0000071374

NMISA M51 8167 479500 0800 0556816358 0000063789 1006620384 0000139031

NMISA M51 8244 799100 0500 0927761085 0000058032 1678197948 0000120968

NOAA CC310084 379500 0105 0441196927 0000016125 0796836602 0000097427

NOAA CC305198 479260 0130 0557198873 0000046487 1007173065 0000061590

NOAA CB11668 794080 0240 0923707672 0000052071 1670538345 0000102943

NPL 2179 380270 0095 0442066316 0000015232 0798660385 0000055036

NPL 2170 480020 0120 0557939086 0000029155 1008480431 0000075981

NPL 2181 799700 0200 0929525453 0000066014 1680929399 0000081883

NPLI JJ108891 375720 1610 0435541280 0000044283 0786899117 0000051131

NPLI JJ108862 480520 1520 0558985244 0000078492 1010295612 0000070031

NPLI JJ108854 796380 2515 0923587308 0000048435 1670046415 0000092977

UME PSM298266 37992 0095 0441777548 0000066603 0798242598 0000076656

UME PSM266468 48042 0125 0558597569 0000077666 1009847197 0000062025

UME PSM298347 800760 0180 0930853610 0000059811 1683852629 0000186416

P a g e | 19

Table 8 Results of BIPM CO2 comparison measurements Re-submitted values following stability testing which were included following the decision of the CCQM GAWG (see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the

CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018))

72 Graphical representation of measurement results

Table 9 summarizes the figures showing the measurements results obtained by different methods at the BIPM

Table 9 List of figures corresponding to results obtained from FTIR and GC-FID at the BIPM

VNIIM M365601 380200 0055 0441966430 0000016643 0798479627 0000066343

VNIIM M365664 480180 0065 0558130273 0000048384 1008861333 0000059090

VNIIM M365707 800730 0095 0930604477 0000058131 1683192751 0000075295

VSL 5604614 378900 0140 0440539300 0000017205 0795901702 0000077266

VSL 5604880 480480 0180 0558580000 0000018028 1009802467 0000054009

VSL 5604705 795700 0300 0925375760 0000052705 1673272267 0000122172

Comparison method

CO2 mole fraction Plot

FTIR ( Ratio to control cylinder under intermediate precision conditions) 380 micromolmol Figure 3 480 micromolmol Figure 4 800 micromolmol Figure 5 GC-FID (Ratio to control cylinder under intermediate precision conditions)

380 micromolmol Figure 6 480 micromolmol Figure 7 800 micromolmol Figure 8

P a g e | 20

FTIR

Figure 3 FTIR ratios to control standard for the cylinders at nominally 380 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

374 376 378 380 382 384 386 3880434

0436

0438

0440

0442

0444

0446

0448

0450

GUM

KRISS

LNE

NIM

NMIJ

NMISANOAA

NPLVNIIM

VSL

BFKH

NIST

NPLI

UMERFT

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 21

Figure 4 FTIR ratios to control standard for the cylinders at nominally 480 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

460 465 470 475 480 485 490

0540

0545

0550

0555

0560

0565

0570

GUM

INRIM

KRISS

LNE

NIM

NMIJ

NMISANOAA

NPLVNIIMVSL

BFKH

NIST

NPLIUME

RFT

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 22

Figure 5 FTIR ratios to control standard for the cylinders at 800 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

792 794 796 798 800 802 804 806 808 810 8120922

0924

0926

0928

0930

0932

0934

0936

0938

0940

0942

0944

GUM

INRIM

KRISS

LNE

NMIJ

NOAA

NPL

VNIIM

VSL

NIM

NMISA

BFKH

NIST

NPLI

UME

RFT

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 23

GC-FID

Figure 6 GC-FID ratios to control standard for the cylinders at nominally 380 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

374 376 378 380 382 384 386 388

0785

0790

0795

0800

0805

0810

0815

KRISSVSL

LNENOAA

GUMNMISA

VNIIMNPL

NIM

NMIJ

BFKH

NIST

NPLI

UME

RG

C

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 24

Figure 7 GC-FID ratios to control standard for the cylinders at 480 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

460 465 470 475 480 485 490097

098

099

100

101

102

103

NMIJ

LNEGUM

NOAAINRIMNMISA

KRISSNPLVNIIMVSL

NIM

BFKH

NIST

NPLIUME

RG

C

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 25

Figure 8 GC-FID ratios to control standard for the cylinders at 800 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

792 794 796 798 800 802 804 806 808 810 8121665

1670

1675

1680

1685

1690

1695

1700

1705

NOAA

VSL

INRIMNMISA

NPLGUM

VNIIM

LNE

NMIJ

KRISS

NIM

BFKH

NIST

NPLI

UMERG

C

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 26

73 Isotope ratios of CCQM-K120 standards The δ13C and δ18O values reported by participants are listed in Table 10 The delta values of the complete set of cylinders on the VPDB-CO2 scale were also measured by the BIPM using the Delta Ray analyser to correct the FTIR response The measured isotope ratio values are listed Table 11 The method for measuring and calibrating the Delta Ray is fully described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure Delta Ray The method used by the BIPM for measuring isotope ratios is described in a recent publication5 and was validated with CO2 in air standards that had been value assigned for their isotopic composition by the WMO-CCL laboratory for isotope ratios MPI-BGC Jena with traceability of the standards used to the VPDB-CO2 scale realized with the JENA air standards reference set The measurements made by the BIPM have been used for all corrections made in the FTIR comparison method and were considered fit for purpose noting that a 1 permil difference in δ13C measurements can lead to a bias of 0004 micromolmol in CO2 mole fraction measurements in instruments based on a spectroscopic technique and similarly a 0002 micromolmol bias from a 1 permil difference in δ18O measurements Reported values for isotopic composition by participants were for information only The agreement between reported values and BIPM measured values is variable For δ13C values the difference between BIPM measured values and those reported by participants was smaller than 04 permil for NMIJ NPL and NOAA smaller than 2 permil for UME and VNIIM and almost 12 permil for NIST (noting that the NIST reported at the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG that this had been a typographical error on their part and the NIST and BIPM values were actually in full agreement) For δ18O values the difference between BIPM measured values and those reported by participants is smaller than 3 permil for NMIJ and NOAA and almost 10 permil for NPL The compatibility of CO2 isotope ratio measurements will be the focus of a future CCQM GAWG comparison enabling sources for differences to be studied in greater detail

Lab Number of Cylinder

δ13C on VPDB-CO2 scale

u(δ13C) Standard uncertainty (k=1)

δ18O on VPDB-CO2 scale

u(δ18O) Standard uncertainty (k=1) Comments

(permil) (permil) (permil) (permil)

NIST FB04278 -28 2 - -

NIST FB04300 -28 2 - -

NIST FB04287 -28 2 - -

NMIJ 3BIS85282 -892 - -991 - CO2 pure

NOAA CC310084 -87 02 -03 02

NOAA CC305198 -88 02 -64 02

NOAA CB11668 -85 04 -197 04

NPL 2179 -55 05 -225 05

NPL 2170 -55 05 -225 05

NPL 2181 -55 05 -225 05

UME PSM298266 -165 005 - - CO2 pure

VNIIM M365601 -48 045 - -

VNIIM M365664 -48 045 - -

VNIIM M365707 -48 045 - -

Table 10 δ13C and δ18

O values reported by participants value measured by the gas supplier according to the participant

P a g e | 27

Lab

Number of Cylinder

δ13C on VPDB-

CO2 scale

u(δ13C) Standard

uncertainty (k=1)

δ18O on VPDB-

CO2 scale

u(δ18O) Standard

uncertainty (k=1) Lab

Number of Cylinder

δ13C on VPDB-

CO2 scale

u(δ13C) Standard

uncertainty (k=1)

δ18O on VPDB-

CO2 scale

u(δ18O) Standard

uncertainty (k=1)

(permil) (permil) (permil) (permil) NMIJ CPC00558 -897 018 -1166 048

BFKH OMH54 -6676 018 -1723 048 NMISA M51 8232 -321 018 -2661 048

BFKH OMH44 -6653 018 -1734 048 NMISA M51 8167 -3209 018 -2655 048

BFKH OMH69 -6691 018 -2615 048 NMISA M51 8244 -3189 018 -2646 048

GUM D298392 -4431 018 -2877 048 NOAA CC310084 -886 018 -032 048

GUM D298393 -4432 018 -2865 048 NOAA CC305198 -891 018 -906 048

GUM D298402 -4418 018 -2847 048 NOAA CB11668 -888 018 -2128 048

INRIM D247440 -4927 018 -3436 048 NPL 2179 -522 018 -3231 048

INRIM D247445 -4952 018 -3449 048 NPL 2170 -521 018 -317 048

KRISS D500642 -2338 018 -1749 048 NPL 2181 -525 018 -3174 048

KRISS D500647 -2341 018 -1903 048 NPLI JJ108891 -887 018 -1087 048

KRISS D500672 -2334 018 -1884 048 NPLI JJ108862 -917 018 -1131 048

LNE 1029045 -3781 018 -2861 048 NPLI JJ108854 -915 018 -1149 048

LNE 1029047 -3786 018 -2775 048 UME PSM298266 -007 018 -2481 048

LNE 1029048 -3811 018 -2804 048 UME PSM266468 -005 018 -2453 048

NIM FB03747 -2055 018 -3007 048 UME PSM298347 016 018 -2446 048

NIM FB03744 -2052 018 -2978 048 VNIIM M365601 -4643 018 -2661 048

NIM FB03748 -2062 018 -2995 048 VNIIM M365664 -4635 018 -2584 048

NIST FB04278 -3983 018 -3092 048 VNIIM M365707 -4647 018 -2594 048

NIST FB04300 -3985 018 -3048 048 VSL 5604614 -3957 018 -3288 048

NIST FB04287 -3983 018 -3053 048 VSL 5604880 -3969 018 -3224 048

NMIJ CPC00486 -891 018 -987 048 VSL 5604705 -3574 018 -3064 048

NMIJ CPC00494 -903 018 -1184 048

Table 11 δ13C and δ18O value assignment vs VPDB-CO2 for each CO2 in air standard

P a g e | 28

In the case of the CCQM-K120a comparison it should be noted that the isotopic composition of CO2 at background levels in the atmosphere would be expected to have values close to the nominal values of -85 permil for δ13C and of 0 permil for δ18O when expressed on the VPDB-CO2 scale The standards submitted for the CCQM-K120a comparison had δ13C values that varied between -67 permil to 0 permil and δ18O values that varied between -35 permil to 0 permil This range of isotopic composition could result in measurement biases of up to 03 micromolmol in spectroscopic instruments for which isotopic composition had not been taken into account

8 Key Comparison Reference Value (KCRV)

During the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG it was agreed that the key comparison

reference values for CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b were to be calculated using

the measurement results of the FTIR spectrometer

Several statistical approaches all based on least-square regressions of measurement results obtained at the same nominal mole fraction were presented during 38th meeting of the

CCQM GAWG (GAWG18-32 ) From this analysis it was agreed to fit the FTIR results versus the participantrsquos submitted values with a line using the

Generalised Least Square approach defined in the standard ISO 614320019 (Gas analysis ndash Comparison methods for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures) It was also agreed to select the largest subset of cylinders

contributing to the regression line so as to obtain a consistent set with

regard to the regression ie a set that allows the goodness-of-fit parameter

to be less than 2 The measure of goodness-of-fit is defined as the

maximum value of the weighted differences between the coordinates of measured

and adjusted points (both on the x and the y axes) For all regressions the normalized sum of the squared weighted deviations where n is the number of points and p = 2 the number of parameters of the fit is also

provided for indication Both values are expected to be lower than 2 with the

condition on being stricter as it imposes all points to comply with the

fit

Notation The degree of equivalence is defined as

D = (1)

where

P a g e | 29

xKCRV is the amount of substance fraction in the cylinder predicted by the linear analysis function for the corresponding analyzer response (ratio to the control cylinder by FTIR)

u(xKCRV) is the standard uncertainty of the KCRV value

xNMI is the amount of substance fraction reported by the participating laboratory u(xNMI) is the standard uncertainty associated with the reported value xNMI

D is difference in amount of substance fraction as measured by the laboratory and

the reference value x and u(D) is the standard uncertainty of this difference expressed as

= (2)

and the expanded uncertainty at 95 confidence level )()( DukDU (3) where k denotes the coverage factor taken as k = 2 (normal distribution approximately 95 level of confidence)

81 Degrees of equivalence and graph of equivalence The analysis of the data from the comparison was performed following the process outlined in ISO 61432001 The regression analysis was performed with XLGenlinev11 a computer programme developed by NPL which implements this methodology by taking into consideration uncertainties in both axes During the 38th meeting of the GAWG it was decided that due the potential adsorption of a proportion of CO2 molecules onto the internal surface of a cylinder and valve (that can cause a deviation from the gravimetric amount fraction by as much as 100 nmol mol-1 demonstrated by Brewer et al2 ) a lower limit for uncertainties that could be used in the calculation of the KCRV was to be fixed It was decided that any standard uncertainty value lower than 0095 micromol mol-1 submitted by a participant was to be replaced by this value for the calculation of the KCRV The limit value was chosen based on the lowest uncertainty that had been reported by a participant for which adsorption effects had been considered (in this case NPL with cylinder 2179) In this manner the original uncertainties for the KCRV calculation of standards CPC00486 (NMIJ

P a g e | 30

original uncertainty 0025 micromol mol-1) CPC00494 (NMIJ original uncertainty 0025 micromol mol-

1) CPC00558 (NMIJ original uncertainty 0039 micromol mol-1) 00255 M365601 (VNIIM original uncertainty 0055 micromol mol-1) and M365664 (VNIIM original uncertainty 0065 micromol mol-1) were replaced by 0095 micromol mol-1 This cutoff was only applied to calculate the KCRVs The degree of equivalences were calculated using the uncertainties submitted by participants (equation 1)

KCRV calculations for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 With the FTIR measurement data set the set of self-consistent standards identified included eleven standards Three standards were excluded namely OMH54 (BFKH) FB04278 (NIST) and JJ108891 (NPLI) as these laboratories had reported changes in their reported values following stability testing The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 074 and the normalized sum of the squared weighted deviations 11 2 0227 Key comparison reference values and degrees of equivalence are listed in Table 12 Degrees of equivalence are plotted in Figure 9

KCRV calculations for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 With the FTIR measurement data set the set of self-consistent standards identified included twelve standards Three standards were excluded namely OMH44 (BFKH) FB03744 (NIST) and JJ108862 (NPLI) as these laboratories had reported changes in their reported values following stability testing The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 136 and the normalized sum of the squared weighted deviations 12 2 0463 The resulting key comparison reference values and degrees of equivalence are listed in Table 13 Degrees of equivalence are plotted in Figure 10

KCRV calculations for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1

Several statistical approaches were presented during the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (GAWG18-32 see ANNEX II- ) comprising different alternatives of sets of self-consistent standards From those the GAWG selected a solution where the two extreme mole fractions at this nominal mole fraction FB03748 (NIM 810424 micromol mol-1) and CB11668 (NOAA 794608 micromol mol-1) were removed from the set of self-consistent standards The solution involved then including ten cylinders for KCRV calculations Five were excluded namely FB03748 (NIM) CB11668 (NOAA) OMH69 (BFKH) FB04287 (NIST) and JJ108854 (NPLI) The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 180 and the normalized sum of the squared weighted deviations 10 2 0950 Key

P a g e | 31

comparison reference values and degrees of equivalence are listed in Table 14 Degrees of equivalence are plotted in Figure 11

Participant Cylinder

xKCRV u(xKCRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D1( xNMI- xKCRV ) u(D1) U( D1)

( XLGENLINE predictied

value from FTIR)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298392 379664 0044 380100 2200 0436 2200 4401

KRISS D500642 378828 0055 378900 0100 0072 0114 0228

LNE 1029045 379253 0051 379480 0395 0227 0398 0796

NIM FB03747 383453 0052 383430 0100 -0023 0113 0226

NMIJ CPC00486 386597 0088 386617 0025 0020 0091 0182

NMISA M51 8232 379743 0050 380200 1000 0457 1001 2002

NOAA CC310084 379511 0046 379500 0105 -0011 0115 0229

NPL 2179 380269 0041 380270 0095 0001 0103 0207

VNIIM M365601 380182 0042 380200 0055 0018 0069 0138

VSL 5604614 378937 0051 378900 0140 -0037 0149 0298

UME PSM298266 380017 0071 379920 0095 -0097 0118 0237

BFKH OMH54 374884 0099 379800 0850 4916 0856 1711

NIST FB04278 380088 0042 379045 0195 -1044 0200 0400

NPLI JJ108891 374576 0108 375720 1610 1144 1614 3227

Table 12 Degrees of Equivalence using FTIR measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision of the the CCQM

GAWG Uncertainties below the cutoff value of 0095 micromol molminus1

Participant Cylinder

xKCRV u(xKCRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D2( xNMI- xKCRV ) u(D2) U( D2)

( XLGENLINE predictied value

from FTIR)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298393 477706 0051 478100 2600 0394 2601 5201

INRIM D247440 479007 0173 479300 0800 0293 0819 1637

KRISS D500647 479851 0052 480000 0100 0149 0113 0225

LNE 1029047 477397 0061 477600 0500 0203 0504 1007

NIM FB03744 489202 0099 489150 0110 ‐0052 0148 0296

NMIJ CPC00494 471351 0094 471301 0026 ‐0050 0097 0195

NMISA M51 8167 479042 0068 479500 0800 0458 0803 1606

NOAA CC305198 479363 0058 479260 0130 ‐0103 0142 0284

P a g e | 32

NPL 2170 479985 0049 480020 0120 0035 0130 0259

VNIIM M365664 480145 0059 480180 0065 0035 0088 0175

VSL 5604880 480523 0045 480480 0180 ‐0043 0186 0371

UME PSM266468 480537 0078 480420 0125 ‐0117 0147 0295

BFKH OMH44 464911 0138 479900 1050 14989 1059 2118

NIST FB04300 473529 0071 472662 0214 ‐0867 0225 0451

NPLI JJ108862 480863 0079 480520 1520 ‐0343 1522 3044

Table 13 Degrees of Equivalence using FTIR measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision of the the CCQM

GAWG Uncertainties below the cutoff value of 0095 micromol molminus1

Participant Cylinder

xKCRV u(xKCRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D3( xNMI- xKCRV ) u(D3) U( D3)

( XLGENLINE predictied value

from FTIR)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298402 800105 0106 800500 4300 0395 4301 8603

INRIM D247445 798389 0128 798900 1300 0511 1306 2613

KRISS D500672 800519 0118 800800 0200 0281 0232 0464

LNE 1029048 802099 0078 802200 0850 0101 0854 1707

NMIJ CPC00558 803694 0114 803658 0039 -0036 0120 0240

NPL 2181 799744 0101 799700 0200 -0044 0224 0448

NMISA M518244 798187 0132 799100 0500 0913 0517 1034

VNIIM M365707 800697 0084 800730 0095 0033 0127 0253

VSL 5604705 796080 0191 795700 0300 -0380 0356 0712

UME PSM298347 800917 0083 800760 0180 -0157 0198 0396

NIM FB03748 810424 0327 809820 0130 -0604 0351 0703

NOAA CB11668 794608 0237 794080 0240 -0528 0337 0674

BFKH OMH69 800282 0100 800300 1450 0018 1453 2907

NIST FB04287 795511 0208 794530 0514 -0981 0555 1109

NPLI JJ108854 794501 0239 796380 2515 1879 2526 5053

Table 14 Degrees of Equivalence using FTIR measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision of the the CCQM

GAWG Uncertainties below the cutoff value of 0095 micromol molminus1

P a g e | 33

Figure 9 Degrees of Equivalence at a nominal value of 380 micromolmol for CO2 mole fractions The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

KR

ISS

LNE

NIM

NM

IJ

NM

ISA

NO

AA

NP

L

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI-4

-2

0

2

4

D m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 34

Figure 10 Degrees of Equivalence at a nominal value of 480 micromolmol for CO2 mole fractions The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

INR

IM

KR

ISS

LNE

NIM

NM

IJ

NM

ISA

NO

AA

NP

L

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI

-4

-2

0

2

4

D m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 35

Figure 11 Degrees of Equivalence at a nominal value of 800 micromolmol for CO2 mole fractions The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

INR

IM

KR

ISS

LNE

NM

IJ

NP

L

NM

ISA

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

NIM

NO

AA

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI-4

-2

0

2

4

D m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 36

9 Conclusions The comparison have been successful in demonstrating the degrees of equivalence of CO2 in air standards amongst participating NMIs at nominal mole fractions of 380 micromolmol 480 micromolmol and 800 micromolmol In addition the results can be compared to those of CCQM-K52 (organized in 2006) allowing the following conclusions to be drawn

a) the uncertainy of the key comparison reference value has been reduced by a factor of at least 4 with a standard uncertainty of 005 micromolmol for CCQM-K120a (compared to 02 micromolmol for CCQM-K52)

b) methods based on spectroscopy (FTIR with corrections for isotope ratios) and GC-FID for comparing CO2 in air standards have demonstrated excellent agreement with the standard deviation of the difference in reference values found by the two methods being 007 micromolmol at 380 micromolmol and 005 micromolmol at 480 micromolmol

c) the uncertainties are now at the level where adsorption effects within cylinders and on

surfaces needs to be considered and this has led to a mnimium value of 0095 micromolmol being used as the standard uncertainty for standards for key comparison reference value calculation

d) providing standards to communities measuring atmospheric CO2 with spectroscopic

methods produced with CO2 originating from combustion sources can lead to isotope ratios in the CO2 which will produce biases in mole fractions measurements of up to 03 micromolmol These biases can be corrected by either measuring isotope ratios of the gas standard and appropriate processing by the user or by using CO2 which has been closely matched to atmospheric isotope ratio values in the production of the standard

10 lsquoHow far the light shinesrsquo statement The following lsquoHow far the light shinesrsquo statement agreed during the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG was CCQM‐K120a comparison involves preparing standards of carbon dioxide in air which are fit for purpose for the atmospheric monitoring community with stringent requirements on matrix composition and measurement uncertainty of the CO2 mole fraction This represents an analytical challenge and is therefore considered as a Track C comparison The comparison will underpin CMC claims for CO2 in air for standards and calibrations services for the atmospheric

P a g e | 37

monitoring community matrix matched to real air over the mole fraction range of 250 μmolmol to 520 μmolmol CCQM‐K120b comparison tests core skills and competencies required in gravimetric preparation analytical certification and purity analysis It is considered as a Track A comparison It will underpin CO2 in air and nitrogen claims in a mole fraction range starting at the smallest participantrsquos reported expanded uncertainty and ending at 500 mmolmol Participants successful in this comparison may use their result in the flexible scheme and underpin claims for all core mixtures

Bibliography

1 W Bader B Bovy S Conway K Strong D Smale A J Turner T Blumenstock C Boone A Coulon O Garcia D W T Griffith F Hase P Hausmann N Jones P Krummel I Murata I Morino H Nakajima S ODoherty C Paton-Walsh J Robinson R Sandrin M Schneider C Servais R Sussmann and E MahieuTen years of atmospheric methane from ground-based NDACC FTIR observations Atmos Chem Phys Discuss2016 2016 1 2 P J Brewer R J C Brown K V Resner R E Hill-Pearce D R Worton N D C Allen K C Blakley D Benucci and M R EllisonInfluence of Pressure on the Composition of Gaseous Reference Materials Analytical Chemistry2018 90(5) 3490 3 M B Esler D W T Griffith S R Wilson and L P SteelePrecision Trace Gas Analysis by FT-IR Spectroscopy 1 Simultaneous Analysis of CO2 CH4 N2O and CO in Air Anal Chem1999 72(1) 206- 215 4 M B Esler D W T Griffith S R Wilson and L P SteelePrecision Trace Gas Analysis by FT-IR Spectroscopy 2 The 13C12C Isotope Ratio of CO2 Anal Chem 1999 72(1) 216 5 E Flores J Viallon P Moussay D W T Griffith and R WielgoszCalibration strategies for FTIR and other IRIS instruments for ac-curate δ13C and δ18O measurements of CO2 in air Anal Chem2017 Submitted 6 D W T GriffithSynthetic Calibration and Quantitative Analysis of Gas-Phase FT-IR Spectra Appl Spectrosc1996 50(1) 59 7 D W T Griffith N M Deutscher C Caldow G Kettlewell M Riggenbach and S HammerA Fourier transform infrared trace gas and isotope analyser for atmospheric applications Atmos Meas Tech2012 5(10) 2481 8 D W T Griffith N B Jones B McNamara C P Walsh W Bell and C BernardoIntercomparison of NDSC Ground-Based Solar FTIR Measurements of Atmospheric Gases at Lauder New Zealand J Atmos Oceanic Tech2003 20 (8) 1138- 1153 9 ISO Gas analysis- Comparison methods for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures in 61432001 (2001) 10 G Nelson Gas Mixtures Preparation and Control (Lewis Publishers Florida USA 1992) 11 L S Rothman A Barbe D Chris Benner L R Brown C Camy-Peyret M R Carleer K Chance C Clerbaux V Dana V M Devi A Fayt J M Flaud R R Gamache A Goldman D Jacquemart K W Jucks W J Lafferty J Y Mandin S T Massie V Nemtchinov D A Newnham A Perrin C P Rinsland J Schroeder K M Smith M A H Smith K Tang R A Toth J Vander Auwera P Varanasi and K YoshinoThe HITRAN molecular spectroscopic database edition of 2000 including updates through 2001 J Quant Spectrosc Radiat Transfer 82(1ndash4) 5 12 L S Rothman I E Gordon Y Babikov A Barbe D Chris Benner P F Bernath M Birk L Bizzocchi V Boudon L R Brown A Campargue K Chance E A Cohen L H Coudert V M Devi B J Drouin A Fayt J M Flaud R R Gamache J J Harrison J M Hartmann C Hill J T Hodges D Jacquemart A Jolly J Lamouroux R J Le Roy G Li D A Long O M Lyulin C J Mackie S T Massie S Mikhailenko H S P Muumlller O V Naumenko A V Nikitin J Orphal V Perevalov A Perrin E R Polovtseva C Richard M A H

P a g e | 38

Smith E Starikova K Sung S Tashkun J Tennyson G C Toon V G Tyuterev and G WagnerThe HITRAN2012 molecular spectroscopic database J Quant Spectrosc Radiat Transfer2013 130 4

ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

As results of the discussion of the key points of the Draft A report of the CCQM-K120 comparison during the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG the following decisions were taken

a) the key comparison reference value for CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b are to be based on the measurement results of the FTIR spectrometer

b) the re-submitted uncertainties by UME replace the original uncertainty values used in Draft A report (see Table 15) and are to be used for the calculation of the KCRV

c) NIST NPLI and BFKH submitted new measurement results as well as uncertainties after the measurements performed on return of the standards in their laboratoires This was not expected in the protocol of the comparison Therefore their values have not been used in the KCRV calucltaions The original values are used for DOE calculations the modified values have been included in AnnexII

d) considering that NPL was the only participant that considered a potential effect of adsorption of a proportion of the molecules onto the internal surface of a cylinder and valve (for more information see GAWG18-00) a limit on the uncertainties claimed by participants contributing to the KCRV is fixed to 0095 micromol mol-1 meaning that any uncertainty value smaller to this value will be replaced by 0095 micromol mol-1 to calculate KCRVs

e) The KCRV for the standatds at the nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 are to be calculated including standards with mole fractions within plusmn 5 micromol mol-1 of the nominal value (795 micromol mol-1 to 805 micromol mol-1)

P a g e | 39

P a g e | 40

ANNEX II- Stability studies by participants After the return of cylinder to the participants and before results of the comparison were known four participants reported modified uncertainties and also values and uncertainties compared to their originally reported values see Table 15 The participants that reported changes to their originally submitted values were

BFKH submitted the same values but with less decimals for cylinders OMH54 and OMH69 and proposed a new value for cylinder OMH44 The new value changed from 47989plusmn211 micromolmol to 4644plusmn211 micromolmol

NIST submitted new values and uncertainties for cylinders FB04278 FB04300 and FB04287

NPLI submitted new values for cylinders JJ108891 JJ108862 and JJ108854 The mole fractions for cylinders JJ108891 and JJ108854 were increased by 252 micromolmol and 242 micromolmol respectively and reduced for cylinder JJ108862 by 195 micromolmol The uncertainties for cylinders JJ108891 and JJ108862 were also increased by 22 and 72 but reduced for cylinder JJ108854 by 33

UME The uncertainties of cylinders PSM298266 PSM266468 and PSM298347 were increased by 19 47 and 33 respectively

Participant Cylinder references Gas Matrix

NMIrsquos assigned CO2 mole fraction xNMI

(micromol mol-1)

NMIrsquos assigned CO2

expanded uncertainty U(xNMI)

k = 2 (micromol mol-1)

Before the return of cylinders

BFKH OMH54 Synthetic Air 379840 1710

BFKH OMH44 Synthetic Air 479890 2110

BFKH OMH69 Synthetic Air 800300 2920

GUM D298392 Synthetic Air 380100 4400

GUM D298393 Synthetic Air 478100 5200

GUM D298402 Synthetic Air 800500 8600

INRIM D247440 Synthetic Air 479300 1600

INRIM D247445 Synthetic Air 798900 2600

KRISS D500642 Synthetic Air 378900 0200

KRISS D500647 Synthetic Air 480000 0200

KRISS D500672 Synthetic Air 800800 0400

LNE 1029045 Synthetic Air 379480 0790

LNE 1029047 Synthetic Air 477600 1000

LNE 1029048 Synthetic Air 802200 1700

NIM FB03747 Synthetic Air 383430 0200

NIM FB03744 Synthetic Air 489150 0220

P a g e | 41

NIM FB03748 Synthetic Air 809820 0260

NIST FB04278 Real Air 379045 0391

NIST FB04300 Real Air 472662 0428

NIST FB04287 Real Air 794533 1029

NMIJ CPC00486 Real Air 386617 0050

NMIJ CPC00494 Real Air 471301 0051

NMIJ CPC00558 Real Air 803658 0078

NMISA M51 8232 Synthetic Air 380200 2000

NMISA M51 8167 Synthetic Air 479500 1600

NMISA M51 8244 Synthetic Air 799100 1000

NOAA CC310084 Real Air 379500 0210

NOAA CC305198 Real Air 479260 0260

NOAA CB11668 Real Air 794080 0480

NPL 2179 Synthetic Air 380270 0190

NPL 2170 Synthetic Air 480020 0240

NPL 2181 Synthetic Air 799700 0400

NPLI JJ108891 Synthetic Air 375720 3220

NPLI JJ108862 Synthetic Air 480520 3040

NPLI JJ108854 Synthetic Air 796380 5030

UME PSM298266 Synthetic Air 379920 0160

UME PSM266468 Synthetic Air 480420 0170

UME PSM298347 Synthetic Air 800760 0270

VNIIM M365601 Synthetic Air 380200 0110

VNIIM M365664 Synthetic Air 480180 0130

VNIIM M365707 Synthetic Air 800730 0190

VSL 5604614 Synthetic Air 378900 0280

VSL 5604880 Synthetic Air 480480 0360

VSL 5604705 Synthetic Air 795700 0600

Additional data received following

stability testing

BFKH‐2nd value OMH54 Synthetic Air 3798 17

BFKH‐2nd value OMH44 Synthetic Air 4644 28

BFKH‐2nd value OMH69 Synthetic Air 8003 29

NIST‐2nd value FB04278 Real Air 38030 028

NIST‐2nd value FB04300 Real Air 47340 034

NIST‐2nd value FB04287 Real Air 79512 058

NIST‐3th value FB04278 Real Air 38007 030

NIST‐3th value FB04300 Real Air 47337 052

NIST‐3th value FB04287 Real Air 79477 038

NPLI‐2nd value JJ108891 Synthetic Air 37824 395

NPLI‐2nd value JJ108862 Synthetic Air 47857 523

NPLI‐2nd value JJ108854 Synthetic Air 79880 335

UME‐2nd value PSM298266 Synthetic Air 379920 019

P a g e | 42

UME‐2nd value PSM266468 Synthetic Air 480420 025

UME‐2nd value PSM298347 Synthetic Air 800760 036

Table 15 Standards and reported values provided by participants in Draft A report

ANNEX III- GC-FID results

GC-FID based candidate reference values for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 With the GC-FID measurement data set the set of self-consistent standards identified was the same as with FTIR including eleven standards with three excluded namely OMH54 (BFKH neither original nor newly submitted results included) FB04278 (NIST neither original nor newly submitted results included) and JJ108891 (NPLI neither original and newly submitted results included) The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 169 (lt 2 required to demonstrate consistency of the ensemble) Reference values and differences from these are listed in Table 16 The difference between the KCRV calculated with FTIR measurement data (xKCRV_FTIR) and GC-FID based candidate reference values (xRV_FTIR) measurements for this batch of cylinders is plotted in Figure 12 showing negligible difference between the methods

GC-FID based candidate reference values for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 With the GC-FID measurement data set the set of self-consistent standards identified was the same as with FTIR The data set of self-consistent standards identified included twelve standards with three excluded namely OMH44 (BFKH neither original nor newly submitted results included) FB03744 (NIST neither original nor newly submitted results included) and JJ108862 (NPLI neither original nor newly submitted results included) The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 141 (lt 2 required to demonstrate consistency of the ensemble) Reference values and differences from these are listed in Table 17

P a g e | 43

The difference between the KCRV calculated with FTIR measurement data (xKCRV_FTIR) and GC-FID based candidate reference values (xRV_FTIR) measurements for this batch of cylinders is plotted in Figure 13 showing negligible difference between the methods

GC-FID based candidate reference values for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 Including ten cylinders with five excluded namely FB03748 (NIM) CB11668 (NOAA) OMH69 (BFKH neither original and newly submitted results included) FB04287 (NIST neither original nor newly submitted results included) and JJ108854 (NPLI neither original nor newly submitted results included) the goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 191(lt 2 required to demonstrate consistency of the ensemble) Reference values and differences from these are listed in Table 18 The difference between the KCRV calculated with FTIR measurement data (xKCRV_FTIR) and GC-FID based candidate reference values (xRV_FTIR) measurements for this batch of cylinders is plotted in Figure 14 showing negligible difference between the methods

Participant Cylinder

xRV u(xRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D1( xNMI- xKCRV )

u(D1) U( D1)

( XLGENLINE predictied

value from GC-FID)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298392 379719 0050 380100 2200 0381 2201 4401

KRISS D500642 378753 0063 378900 0100 0147 0118 0236

LNE 1029045 379224 0054 379480 0395 0256 0399 0797

NIM FB03747 383350 0056 383430 0100 0080 0115 0229

NMIJ CPC00486 386624 0092 386617 0025 ‐0007 0095 0190

NMISA M51 8232 379866 0054 380200 1000 0334 1001 2003

NOAA CC310084 379426 0065 379500 0105 0074 0124 0247

NPL 2179 380308 0048 380270 0095 ‐0038 0106 0213

VNIIM M365601 380221 0051 380200 0055 ‐0021 0075 0150

VSL 5604614 378973 0062 378900 0140 ‐0073 0153 0306

UME PSM298266 380106 0055 379920 0095 ‐0186 0110 0220

BFKH OMH54 375005 0101 379800 0850 4795 0856 1712

NIST FB04278 380066 0055 379045 0195 ‐1021 0203 0406

NPLI JJ108891 374617 0105 375720 1610 1103 1613 3227

Table 16 Difference from candidate reference value using GC-FID measurements at the nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision

of the the CCQM GAWG First uncertainty submitted by the participant (lt 0095 micromol mol-1 see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

P a g e | 44

Participant Cylinder

xRV u(xRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D2( xNMI- xKCRV ) u(D2) U( D2)

( XLGENLINE predictied

value from GC-FID)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298393 477789 0065 478100 2600 0311 2601 5202

INRIM D247440 478928 0056 479300 0800 0372 0802 1604

KRISS D500647 479881 0051 480000 0100 0119 0112 0225

LNE 1029047 477444 0069 477600 0500 0156 0505 1009

NIM FB03744 489173 0097 489150 0110 ‐0023 0147 0294

NMIJ CPC00494 471327 0107 471301 0026 ‐0026 0110 0220

NMISA M51 8167 479137 0078 479500 0800 0363 0804 1608

NOAA CC305198 479392 0053 479260 0130 ‐0132 0140 0281

NPL 2170 479997 0056 480020 0120 0023 0133 0265

VNIIM M365664 480173 0052 480180 0065 0007 0083 0167

VSL 5604880 480608 0051 480480 0180 ‐0128 0187 0374

UME PSM266468 480629 0053 480420 0125 ‐0209 0136 0272

BFKH OMH44 464994 0144 479900 1050 14906 1060 2120

NIST FB04300 473601 0077 472662 0214 ‐0940 0227 0455

NPLI JJ108862 480836 0055 480520 1520 ‐0316 1521 3042

Table 17 Difference from candidate reference value using GC-FID measurements at the nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision of

the the CCQM GAWG First uncertainty submitted by the participant (lt 0095 micromol mol-1 see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

Participant Cylinder

xRV u(xRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D3( xNMI- xKCRV )

u(D3) U( D3)

( XLGENLINE predictied

value from GC-FID) (k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298402 800002 0083 800500 4300 0498 4301 8602

INRIM D247445 798031 0105 798900 1300 0869 1304 2608

KRISS D500672 800316 0080 800800 0200 0484 0215 0431

LNE 1029048 802001 0068 802200 0850 0199 0853 1705

NMIJ CPC00558 803670 0057 803658 0039 ‐0012 0069 0138

NPL 2181 799570 0081 799700 0200 0130 0216 0432

NMISA M51 8244 798195 0111 799100 0500 0905 0512 1024

VNIIM M365707 800710 0066 800730 0095 0020 0116 0232

VSL 5604705 795715 0150 795700 0300 ‐0015 0335 0670

UME PSM298347 801042 0180 800760 0135 ‐0282 0172 0344

NIM FB03748 810535 0165 809820 0130 ‐0715 0210 0420

NOAA CB11668 794338 0170 794080 0240 ‐0258 0294 0588

BFKH OMH69 800057 0079 800300 1450 0243 1452 2904

P a g e | 45

NIST FB04287 795279 0147 794530 0514 ‐0749 0535 1070

NPLI JJ108854 794091 0173 796380 2515 2289 2521 5042

Table 18 Difference from candidate reference value using GC-FID measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the

decision of the the CCQM GAWG First uncertainty submitted by the participant (lt 0095 micromol mol-1 see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

Figure 12 Difference between the KCRV values obtained using FTIR and GC-FID reference values at 380

micromolmol The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

KR

ISS

LNE

NIM

NM

IJ

NM

ISA

NO

AA

NP

L

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Diff

(x K

CR

V_F

TIR

-xR

V_G

C-F

ID)

m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 46

Figure 13 Difference between the KCRV values obtained using FTIR and GC-FID reference values at 480 micromolmol The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

INR

IM

KR

ISS

LNE

NIM

NM

IJ

NM

ISA

NO

AA

NP

L

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Diff

(x K

CR

V_

FT

IR-x

RV

_G

C-F

ID)

m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 47

Figure 14 Difference between the KCRV values obtained using FTIR and GC-FID reference values at 800 micromolmol The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

In summary the measurement performance obtained with GC-FID and FTIR at the BIPM were rather similar with standard measurement uncertainties of the reference values having a range of 004 micromolmol to 011 micromolmol at 380 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for FTIR 005 micromolmol to 011 micromolmol at 380 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for GC-FID 005 micromolmol to 017 micromolmol at 480 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for FTIR 005 micromolmol to 014 micromolmol at 480 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for GC-FID 008 micromolmol to 033 micromolmol at 800 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for FTIR 006 micromolmol to 018 micromolmol at 800 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for GC-FID

The reference values calculated from the two measurement techniques agree with each other within their stated uncertainties for all measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 380 micromolmol all measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 480 micromolmol all measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 800 micromolmol The magnitude of the proposed reference values can be compared to the laboratories reported standard measurement uncertainties for their standards which range from 0025 micromolmol to 43 micromolmol

GU

M

INR

IM

KR

ISS

LNE

NM

IJ

NP

L

NM

ISA

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

NIM

NO

AA

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Diff

(x K

CR

V_

FT

IR-x

RV

_GC

-FID

)

mo

l mo

l-1

P a g e | 48

ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure The cylinders were analysed in batches first by GC-FID then by FTIR and finally by the Delta Ray

GC-FID The GC-FID is a modified Agilent system series 7890A acquired from the SRA Instruments lsquoFrance It is equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID) a Haysep Q (12 feet) column a methanizer and the FID detector is supplied with pure oxygen and hydrogen (see Figure 15)

Figure 15 Internal schematics of the BIPM system for Gas Chromatography with Flame Ionization Detector (GC-FID) comprised by a Haysep (12 feet) column a Sample loop of 1 mL two Valco six port valves and a FID detector

The GC-FID is equipped with

- two 6 port valve V1 (Vici-valco) - one 1 mL stainless steel injection loop - one one-way valve - one Haysep Q (80-100 Mesh 12ftx18x20mm) - one flame ionization detector (FID) - one methanizer - one hydrogen generator - one helium purifier - one control computer for the GC-FID equipped with

o ChemStation version Rev B0402 (118) o ProChem Set-up version 257 o ProChem software version 201

- one barometer (Sensor Technique DC 2510)

Haysep

P a g e | 49

The gas mixtures used for operating the facility were

- one helium 60 gas cylinder quality 999999 - one oxygen 55 in gas cylinder quality 999995 - source of air with pressure of 7 bars - one 50 L CO2air commercial secondary gas standards (control standard A) produced by

Messer with an initial internal pressure of 150 bar with the composition specified to be within the following ranges

CH4 185 ppm CO2 386 ppm Ar 9410 ppm O2 207 N2 Matrix gas

- one 50 L CO2air commercial secondary gas standards (control standard B) produced by Messer with an initial internal pressure of 150 bar with the composition specified to be within the following ranges

CH4 184 ppm CO2 476 ppm Ar 9415 ppm O2 210 N2 Matrix gas

- one 40 L CO2air standard (control standard C) produced by Scott Marrin (cylinder CB 10422) with an initial internal pressure of 100 bar with the composition specified to be within the following ranges

CO2 79112 ppm CH4 184 ppm

GC-FID separation and quantification method The GC-FID was operated at 30 degC A Haysep Q (80-100 Mesh 12ftx18x20mm) column was used at a temperature of 30 degC for the analysis Helium column carrier2 gas passed through a heated gas purifier was used at a flow rate of 40 ml min-1 The FID was supplied with 320 ml min-1 of pure oxygen3 and 40 ml min-1 of hydrogen4 A 1 ml stainless steel sample loop was used to introduce the CO2air sample onto the column The pressure in the sample loop was measured by a calibrated pressure sensor having a resolution of 02 hPa and recorded at each injection Finally the peak areas were estimated with an on-line computing integrator

Sampling sequence

Table 19 displays a typical sampling sequence The sampling sequence was setup so as to analyse six unkown CO2Air gas mixtures together with three control standards (A B C) Three unknown were bracketed by control standards A and B followed by the other three bracketed by 2 The Carrier Gas is He grade 60 passing through a SAES gettersreg PS2-GC50-R-2 for extra purification 3 The Flame is produced from Oxygen grade 55 4 Hydrogen is produced on site by a commercial H2 generator CG2200 (Claind) It produces grade 60 H2 at a maximum flow rate of 200 mlmin with a purity higher than 9999999

P a g e | 50

control standards B and C Each individual cylinders analysis (unkowns and controls) consisted in three successive measurements of the GC-FID response (CO2 peak area)

Control Cylinder A A1 A2 A3

Control Cylinder B B1 B2 B3

Cylinder 1 Cyl11 Cyl12 Cyl13 Cylinder 2 Cyl21 Cyl22 Cyl23

Cylinder 3 Cyl31 Cyl32 Cyl33 Control Cylinder A A4 A5 A6

Control Cylinder B B4 B5 B6

Control Cylinder B B7 B8 B9

Control Cylinder C C1 C2 C3

Cylinder 4 Cyl41 Cyl42 Cyl43

Cylinder 5 Cyl51 Cyl52 Cyl53

Cylinder 6 Cyl61 Cyl62 Cyl63

Control Cylinder B B10 B11 B12

Control Cylinder C C4 C5 C6 Table 19 Typical GC-FID sampling sequence

Considering that the analysis of each CO2Air gas mixture took 10 minutes this measuring sequence took about 390 minutes to be completed This sequence was repeated four times with the first one not used in the calculation Adding flushing and conditioning about three days were necessary to complete the analysis of six unkown cylinders

Participantrsquos cylinders were divided in batches of four to six and additional cylinders of the BIPM were added if required to obtain batches of equal size

It was checked that the results obtained using controls A B and C were consistent but only the ratios to the control cylinder B were used as GC-FID results and listed in Table 8

Ratios to the control standard

The ratios to the control cylinder were calculated determining first the average responses of three successive measurements performed on the CO2Air standard gas mixtures as well as on the control cylinders (A B and C) The drift corrected response to the control cylinder as any time was calculated by interpolation in between two control measurements The average response to the CO2air standards mixtures was then divided by the drift corrected response of the control

cylinder to obtain GCR the ratio for one cylinder in one sequence

The last three sequences were then combined with the calculation of the weighted mean defined as

wGCR

P a g e | 51

3

1

_

l

lwGClwGC RwR (1)

Where the weigth wl for the series l is defined as

3

1

2_

2_

1

1

j

lGC

lGC

l

Ru

Ruw (2)

and lGCRu _ is the standard deviation of the mean of the three repeats

The uncertainty of the weighted mean is defined as

3

1

2_

2

1

1

llGC

wGC

RuRu

(3)

In addition to this component the intermediate precision or stability of the instrument response during the full measuring period was evaluated by the standard deviation of the mean of the drift corrected ratio to the control cylinder of one standard exclusively used for this purpose giving uIntpre = 0000046 This component was further combined with the weighted mean uncertainty to provide the combined standard uncertainty associated with measurements performed with GC-FID resulting in a typical relative standard uncertainty of 0007

FTIR A vacuum Bruker Vertex 70v FTIR Spectrometer equipped with a RockSolid interferometer (vacuum better than 02 hPa) with 1 cm-1 resolution (016 optional) a 40 mm beam diameter a globar source and CaF2 beam splitter was used for the study The spectrometer was configured with a liquid N2-cooled mid-infrared Indium Antimonide (InSb) detector and a 1001 m multi-pass White-type gas cell of volume 075 L (Gemini Scientific Instruments USA) The wetted surfaces of the gas cell were electro-polished stainless steel treated with silconert 2000 (Silcotek) and gold (mirror coatings) to minimize surface adsorption and desorption effects for CO2 The interferometer was scanned at 64 scans min-1 and spectra co-added for five minutes to obtain an acceptable signal-to-noise ratio The transmission spectra of gas reference standards obtained following this procedure had a very high signal to noise ratio of typically ~1 x 104 peak-peak from (2240ndash3380) cm-1 In order to prevent nonlinear responses produced by excess photon flux reaching the InSb detector special care was put into adjusting the instrument parameters of the software to ensure that the apparent intensity from the InSb detector was zero at 1850 cm-1 The spectrometer user interface was controlled using a BIPM developed software named B-FOS that allowed the automatic setting of all instrument parameters into Brukerrsquos proprietary OPUS software for control spectral acquisition and on-line analysis through the use of MALT (Multiple Atmospheric Layer Transmission)3 4 6 spectrum analysis software version 556

P a g e | 52

MALT retrieves concentrations of each trace gas in the sample from a least-squares fit to the measured spectrum based on a model calculation and Hitran line parameters12 This code is the basis for quantitative analysis of open and closed path FTIR trace gas measurements and has been compared with other codes such as SFIT1 for ground based solar FT-IR measurements with agreement of better than 07 (Griffith et al8)

The spectra were constructed by co-adding up to 320 scans recorded in about 5 minutes to provide a single spectrum of a sample This single spectrum was ratioed with a similar spectrum of ultra-pure N2 collected under similar conditions to provide an absorbance or transmission spectrum of the gas sample (relative to ultra-pure N2) in the gas cell The sample flow rates were kept at ~400 mL minminus1 Assuming perfect mixing in the cell it was estimated that 999 of the sample was replaced after 10 min of flow and 99998 replaced after 20 min10 In order to ensure the complete exchange of samples only the measured spectra obtained after flowing the sample through the White-type cell for 40 min (9999999 gas replacement) were used for mole fraction determinations The sample pressure was measured by means of the calibrated barometer Mensor Series 6000 The relative uncertainty of this pressure sensor was u(P) = 002 The sample temperature was measured with a calibrated 100 Ω RTD temperature probe introduced into the outlet gas of the White-type gas cell with a standard uncertainty u(T)=002 K

The recorded spectra were analysed online by non-linear least squares fitting in the spectra region 3500ndash3800 cm-1 (plotted in Figure 16) with modelled spectra calculated by MALT 55 using absorption line parameters from the HITRAN database version 2012 As previously described by Griffith et al7 this region shows peaks that are due to the major isotopologue 12C16O16O (written 626 using the HitranAir Force Geophysics Laboratory (AFGL) shorthand notation 11) Since all standards used during this work were ultra-dry CO2air gas mixtures the cross sensitivity with H2O was not considered

Figure 16 Typical measured and fitted spectra (upper part) and residual signal (lower part) in the region 3500ndash3800 cm-1 obtained on a standard of CO2 in air at 38433 μmol mol-1 The absorption feature is due to the major isotopologue 626

3500 3550 3600 3650 3700 3750 3800

070

075

080

085

090

095

100

3500 3550 3600 3650 3700 3750 3800

-0002

0000

0002

Measured

Tra

nsm

itan

ce

Fitted

Residual

Wavenumbercm-1

P a g e | 53

Ratios to the control standard

The ratios to the control cylinder were calculated between the FTIR responses measured at the 626 isotopologue band of the sample i (Cyli) and of the control cylinder

The measurements were performed following a sequence which included the analysis of four cylinders bracketed by the analysis of the two control cylinders (A B) repeated three times Control A was the Scott Marrin cylinder CB 10326 value assigned by NIST with a mole fraction of 37890plusmn009 micromol mol-1 and as control B was used the commercial mixture Messer 400309 with a mole fraction of 85000plusmn17 micromol mol-1

Since the analysis of each CO2Air gas mixture takes 40 minutes (35 minutes of flush and 5 minutes of acquisition) fifteen hours of continuous measurements were necessary to accomplish the measurement of four cylinders

The drift corrected response to the control cylinder B during the analysis of a sample Bcor was estimated by interpolation in between two measurements of B The ratio RFT between the response to a sample Cyl and the drift corrected control Bcor was then calculated Finally the measurement results for one cylinder was the average of the three ratios obtained during a full sequence named RFTi for cylinder Cyli

The control cylinder A suffered from a leak in the gas line to the autosampler and was emptied before the end of all measurements It was however checked that measurements performed with this control cylinder A with sufficient pressure were equivalent to those obtained with the control cylinder B

Uncertainty determination

The uncertainty assigned to each ratio to the control cylinder uFT_R was the combination of three components combined according to the Guide for Uncertainty in Measurements using the software GUM workbench (see Table 21)

uStab the short term stability of the 626 response to the sample This term was estimated from the typical Allan deviation at an averaging time of five minutes of the FTIR response measured on the 626 peak resulting in the value ustab = 6 nmol mol-1

independent of the mole fraction This same term applies to the control cylinder measurements

uIsoCorr the uncertainty contribution due to the correction of the 626 response arising from the sample isotopic composition (also valid for the control cylinder) as measured by the Delta Ray All responses of the FTIR calculated at the 626 peak had to be corrected to account for the fact that samples had a different isotopic composition than natural air The correction was calculated with the Delta Ray so that the uncertainty contribution due to the isotopic composition correction was estimated from the uncertainty of the Delta Ray measurements uδ13C=018 permil and uδ18O=048 permil (see further information in Flores et al5) It can be calculated that a 1 permil bias in δ13C results in a bias equal to 41 nmol mol-1 in the CO2 mole fraction Similarly a 1 permil bias in δ18O results in a bias equal to 17 nmol mol-1 Therefore assuming maximum biases in the delta values equal to the Delta Ray standard uncertainty the maximum biases in the CO2 mole fraction were estimated to be 072 nmol mol-1 (from δ13C ) and 082 nmol mol-1 (from δ18O) Being conservative the two terms were added in a maximum bias of 154 nmol mol-1 Considering a

P a g e | 54

rectangular distribution of the uncertainty the standard uncertainty takes the value 154radic3 089nmol mol-1 This is negligible compared to other

components

uPBEs the uncertainty contribution due Pressure Broadening Effects was calculated through a sensitivity study of MALT Using one primary version of MALT in 1982 D Griffith looked at the carrier gas effect in NDIR analyzers for CO2 MALT by default uses either the amount-weighted selfair broadened widths or the air only widths provided by HITRAN and allows some degree of fiddling for fitting spectra contained in different gas matrices since it allows to the users to scale the input parameter broad by any arbitrary factor Different line broadening factor can be calculated then for air using Griffth et al 1982 equation

(7)

Where xN2 xO2 and xAr are the mole fractions of nitrogen oxygen and argon in air FN2 =1 by definition FO2 = 081 and FAr = 078 are the line broadening factors for oxygen and argon (in average) Assuming xN2 = 0780876 mol mol-1 xO2 = 02093335 mol mol-1 and xAr = 00093332 mol mol-1 then the line broadening factor of air FAIR should be equal to 095771603 The broadening parameter in MALT for air is broad = 1 by convention It can be scaled by FAIR to obtain a broad value for any ldquoair likerdquo matrix using the equation

(8)

In order to estimate the amount of the change in the CO2 response one absorbance spectrum was fitted using standard input parameters varying the factor broad according to the two possible extremes composition of the matrix as stated in the protocol of the CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b comparisons In the case of the CCQM-K120a comparison two values of the factor broad were determined using equation 8 modelling cylinders containing the minimum and the maximum allowed mole fractions of oxygen and assuming nitrogen and argon were impacted to keep a sum of the three equals to 1 The mole fractions and the corresponding values of broad are summarized in the table below

K120a min K120a max

Compoundxi (mol mol-

1) xi (mol mol-

1) Nitrogen 078140 078042Oxygen 020880 020980Argon 000934 000933

broad 1000105801 0999907486

Table 20 Extermes of air matrix compositions in the comparison CCQM-K120a and the corresponding values of broad

P a g e | 55

As result a ΔCO2 equal to 0031 micromol mol-1 was observed between both fittings Considering this difference as a rectangular distribution then a uPBEs_ΔO2_ K120a= (00031)(2radic3) = 0009 micromol mol-1 is obtained The same procedure was used with the the limits stated for the CCQM‐K120b and a ΔCO2 of 0467 micromol mol-1 was obtained with factors FAIR_CCQM-K120b_min= 1000403273 and FAIR_CCQM-K120b_max= 0999610014 If this difference is considered again as a rectangular distribution then uPBEs_ΔO2_ K120b= (0125)(2radic3) = 0036 micromol mol-1

Table 21 Uncertainty budget for the calculation of the FTIR ratios to the control cylinder

The final uncertainty for the ratios of the cylinders that had a gas matrix within the limits of the CCQM-K120a were at 380 micromol mol-1 uFT_R_380A=14 times10-6 and at 480 micromol mol-1 uFT_R_480A =15 times10-6 The uncertainty for the ratios of the cylinders that had a gas matrix within the limits of the CCQM-K120b were at 480 micromol mol-1 uFT_R_480A =44 times10-6 at 800 micromol mol-1 uFT_R_480A =45 times10-6 Combined with the standard deviations on three ratios this resulted in standard relative uncertainties on the averaged ratio between 14times10-5 and 25times10-4 All the combined standard uncertainties are listed in Table 8

Delta Ray Since MALT measurements (FTIR) are done using linestrengths from the HITRAN database that are scaled by the natural abundance for each isotopologue the 12CO2 measurement of each cylinder needed to be corrected according their own isotopic composition The isotopic composition of each cylinder was measured using the Delta Ray Delta Ray is based on direct absorption laser spectroscopy It uses a tunable diode laser which scans over the spectral region that covers 18O and 13C isotopologues of CO2

For this comparison Delta Ray measurements were performed after calibrating the instrument following the manufacturerrsquos recommendations that consist in using two pure CO2 references gases with high and low isotope values two CO2 in air reference standards with high and low concentration and one dry CO2 scrubbed whole air (Scott Marrin Inc) The instrument was calibrated using cylinder 401557 (pure CO2 source gas well δ13C = - 138 permil and δ18O = - 714 permil VPDBj-RAS06 scale) cylinder C11375KO (pure CO2 source combustion δ13C = - 4213 permil and δ18O = -277 permil VPDBj-RAS06 scale) standard NPL 1788 (NPL CO2 in air mole fraction 3800plusmn019 micromol mol-1 δ13C = - 138 permil and δ18O = - 714 permil VPDBj-RAS06 scale)

Quantity Value

Standard Uncertainty Sensitivity Coefficient

Uncertainty contribution Index

48000middot10-6 mol mol-1

00108middot10-6 mol mol-

1 12middot10-3 13middot10-6 (Ratio) 747

84605middot10-6 mol mol-1

00150middot10-6 mol mol-1 -450middot10-6 -67middot10-6 (Ratio) 205

84695middot10-6 mol mol-1

00150middot10-6 mol mol-1 -220middot10-6 -34middot10-6 (Ratio) 51

Value Standard Uncertainty

0567141 (Ratio) 15middot10-6 (Ratio)

P a g e | 56

standard NPL 1907 (NPL CO2 in air mole fraction 7910plusmn04 micromol mol-1 δ13C = - 4213 permil and δ18O = -277 permil VPDBj-RAS06 scale) and dry CO2 scrubbed whole air (Scott Marrin)

As reported by Flores et al 20185 a residual bias in the δ13C and δ18O measurements which remained following the implementation of the manufacturerrsquos calibration procedure was removed by the application of an additional two point calibration (two CO2 in air standards with known but differing isotopic composition) Standards NPL 1788 (δ13C = - 138 permil and δ18O = - 714 permil) and NPL 1907 (δ13C = - 4213 permil and δ18O = -277 permil) were used as two point calibration mixtures

Samplingsequence

The measurement procedure for analyzing a set of CO2Air gas standards by Delta Ray is based on the analysis of four CO2Air gas mixtures between two CO2Air gas mixture used as the two-point calibration standards (A B) The measurement sequence starts by measuring the δ13C and δ18O response of calibration cylinder (A) and (B) then of four CO2Air standards for finalizing again with the calibration standars Since the analysis of each CO2Air gas mixture takes 40 minutes sixteen hours of continuous measurements were necessary to accomplish the measurement of four cylinders three times

The measured δ13C and δ18O responses of the control cylinders were drift corrected Then used together with the δ13C and δ18O measured by MPI-Jena in XLGenlinev11 for predicting the δ13C and δ18O of the unknown cylinders traceable to the VPDB-CO2 scale

Uncertainty determination

Times series analysis were performed with the Delta Ray during the validation work resulting in Allan deviations of 003 permil for δ13C and 005 permil for δ18O at the optimum averaging time of 300 s In addition it was further noted that the noise of the instrument was significantly higher when measuring during two hours which is the time period of a typical calibration Using a rectangular distribution the standard uncertainty of 031 permil for δ13C and 035 permil for δ18O was observed This component was further combined with the Allan deviations and taken as the stability uncertainty associated with the instrument response

The two-point calibration of the delta value requires the knowledge of the uncertainty associated with them which was in this case taken as the uncertainties deduced from MPI-Jena measurements equal to 0015permil for δ13C and 0328permil for δ18O

After calibration with the two additional CO2 in air standards the standard uncertainties associated with the instrument measurement were finally equal to 018 permil for δ13C and 048 permil for δ18O

P a g e | 57

ANNEX V - Measurement reports of participants

NMIJ

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 58

P a g e | 59

P a g e | 60

P a g e | 61

P a g e | 62

P a g e | 63

GUM

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM-K120-R Project name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department

Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form

Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute Central Office of Measures (Głoacutewny Urzad Miar)

Address Elektoralna 2 00-139 Warsaw Poland

Contact person Dariusz Cieciora

P a g e | 64

Telephone (48) 22 581 94 39 Fax (48) 22 581 93 95

Email dciecioragumgovpl gasgumgovpl

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a YES

CCQM‐K120b YES

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 D298392 3801 44 2

2 D298393 4781 52 2

3 D298402 8005 86 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number D298392

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07808 molmol 00002 molmol 2

O2 02095 molmol 00001 molmol 2

Ar 000925 molmol 000001 molmol 2

CH4 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

P a g e | 65

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number D298393

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07807 molmol 00002 molmol 2

O2 02096 molmol 00001 molmol 2

Ar 000919 molmol 000001 molmol 2

CH4 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number D298402

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07802 molmol 00002 molmol 2

O2 02097 molmol 00001 molmol 2

Ar 000938 molmol 000001 molmol 2

CH4 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 D298392 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

2 D298393 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

3 D298402 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

A4 Uncertainty Budget Please provide a complete uncertainty budgets for the CO2 mole fraction values reported

Uncertainty budget for the cylinder no D298392

Uncertainty source Estimate

(micromolmol)

Standard uncertainty (micromolmol)

Distribution Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution (micromolmol)

gravimetric 3801 042 normal 1 042

verification - 112 normal 1 112

systematic error - 187 rectangular 1 187 Uncertainty budget for the cylinder no D298393

Uncertainty source Estimate

(micromolmol)

Standard uncertainty (micromolmol)

Distribution Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution (micromolmol)

gravimetric 4781 048 normal 1 048

P a g e | 66

verification - 098 normal 1 098

systematic error - 235 rectangular 1 235 Uncertainty budget for the cylinder no D298402

Uncertainty source Estimate

(micromolmol)

Standard uncertainty (micromolmol)

Distribution Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution (micromolmol)

gravimetric 8005 068 normal 1 068

verification - 160 normal 1 160

systematic error - 393 rectangular 1 393

A5 Additional information

The final mixtures were prepared according ISO 6142 the cylinders evacuated on turbo molecular pump filled up an weighted on the verification balance The mixtures were prepared in aluminium (with coated layers) cylinders The mixtures were prepared with used pure nitrogen and oxygen and one step premixture of argon and two steps premixture of carbon dioxide

The verification according to ISO 6143 The measurements were repeated 10 times for the standards and the sample The curve was calculated from ratios by the software B_leastexe (linear case)

The standards were prepared by gravimetric method according to ISO 6142 The standards were prepared from separate premixtures and were diluted according ISO 6145-9

The purity of pure gases used for preparation was taken from the certificates of producer Cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM - cylinder D298392 139 bar - cylinder D298393 147 bar - cylinder D298402 147 bar

P a g e | 67

INRIM

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM‐K120‐R Project name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department

Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form

Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute INRiM‐Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica

Address Strada delle Cacce 91 I‐10135 Torino Italy

Contact person Michela Sega

Telephone +39 011 3919948 Fax +39 011 3919937

Email msegainrimit

P a g e | 68

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a No

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 D247440 4793 16 2

2 D247445 7989 26 2

3

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number D247440

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0781132 molmol 0000006 molmol 2

O2 02090627 molmol 00000055 molmol 2

Ar 00093259 molmol 00000037 molmol 2

CH4 ‐ nmolmol nmolmol

N2O ‐ nmolmol nmolmol

P a g e | 69

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number D247445

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0782389 molmol 0000006 molmol

O2 02075526 molmol 00000054 molmol

Ar 00092586 molmol 00000036 molmol

CH4 nmolmol nmolmol

N2O nmolmol nmolmol

A4 Uncertainty Budget The model equation used to calculate the mole fraction of CO2 in the final mixtures is taken from the International Standard ISO 6142‐12015

r

jq

iiji

j

r

jq

iiji

jj

Mx

m

Mx

mx

x

1

1

1

1

CO

prepCO

2

2

where the index i refers to the various components while j refers to the different parent mixtures The uncertainty budget was evaluated according to the guidelines prescribed in ISO 6142‐12015 The uncertainty budget for the gravimetric preparation of the mixture at 4793 micromolmol of CO2 which takes into account the weighted masses of the parent mixtures the molar masses of gases and their purity is reported in the following table

P a g e | 70

Uncertainty component

u(xi)

Uncertainty source

Standard uncertainty

u(xi) δxCO2prepδxi

Contribution tou(xCO2 prep)

|δxCO2prepδxi|u(xi)

u(mCO2) Weighed mass of the parent mixture of CO2

82∙10‐4 g 720∙10‐6

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 59∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(mN2) Weighed mass of the balance gas N2

82∙10‐4 g ‐764∙10‐7

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 63∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(mAr_O2) Weighed mass of the parent mixture of Ar in O2

82∙10‐4 g ‐662∙10‐7

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 54∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(MCO2) Molar mass of CO2 10∙10‐3 g∙mol‐1 ‐772∙10‐8

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 77∙10‐11 mol∙mol‐1

u(MN2) Molar mass of N2 20∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 ‐361∙10‐6

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 72∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(MAr) Molar mass of Ar 58∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 138∙10‐7

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 80∙10‐11 mol∙mol‐1

u(MO2) Molar mass of O2 28∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 310∙10‐6

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 87∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xN2inCO2) Mole fraction of N2 in the parent mixture of CO2

10∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 ‐432∙10‐4 43∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xN2inN2) Mole fraction of N2 in balance gas (purity)

87∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1 329∙10‐4 29∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xArinAr_O2) Mole fraction of Ar in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 129∙10‐4 11∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(xO2inN2) Mole fraction of O2 in balance gas (impurity)

14∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1 375∙10‐4 53∙10‐11 mol∙mol‐1

u(xO2inAr_O2) Mole fraction of O2

in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 104∙10‐4 90∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inCO2) Mole fraction of CO2 in the parent mixture of CO2

10∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 951∙10‐2 95∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inN2) Mole fraction of CO2 in balance gas (impurity)

29∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1 686∙10‐1 20∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inAr_O2) Mole fraction of CO2 in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1 219∙10‐1 19∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

Uncertainty budget for the gravimetric preparation of the mixture at 4793 micromolmol of CO2

P a g e | 71

The following table reports the uncertainty budget for the gravimetric preparation of the mixture at 7989 micromolmol of CO2

Uncertainty component

u(xi)

Uncertainty source

Standard uncertainty

u(xi) δxCO2prepδxi

Contribution tou(xCO2 prep)

|δxCO2prepδxi|u(xi)

u(mCO2) Weighed mass of the parent mixture of CO2

82∙10‐4 g 671∙10‐6

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 55∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(mN2) Weighed mass of the balance gas N2

82∙10‐4 g ‐128∙10‐6

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 10∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(mAr_O2) Weighed mass of the parent mixture of Ar in O2

82∙10‐4 g ‐111∙10‐6

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 91∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(MCO2) Molar mass of CO2 10∙10‐3 g∙mol‐1 365∙10‐7

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 36∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(MN2) Molar mass of N2 20∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 469∙10‐4

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 94∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(MAr) Molar mass of Ar 58∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 510∙10‐6

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 30∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(MO2) Molar mass of O2 28∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 114∙10‐4

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 32∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(xN2inCO2) Mole fraction of N2 in the parent mixture of CO2

10∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 ‐669∙10‐4 67∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xN2inN2) Mole fraction of N2 in balance gas (purity)

87∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1 498∙10‐4 43∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xArinAr_O2) Mole fraction of Ar in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 214∙10‐4 19∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(xO2inN2) Mole fraction of O2 in balance gas (impurity)

14∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1 569∙10‐4 80∙10‐11 mol∙mol‐1

u(xO2inAr_O2) Mole fraction of O2

in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 171∙10‐4 15∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inCO2) Mole fraction of CO2 in the parent mixture of CO2

10∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 159∙10‐1 16∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inN2) Mole fraction of CO2 in balance gas (impurity)

29∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1 624∙10‐1 18∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inAr_O2) Mole fraction of CO2 in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1 217∙10‐1 19∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

Uncertainty budget for the gravimetric preparation of the mixture at 7989 micromolmol of CO2 The additional contribution derived from the analytical verification was taken into account in accordance to the prescription of ISO 6142‐12015

P a g e | 72

2verCOprepCOverCO

2prepCO

2certCO )()()(

2

122222

xxxuxuxu

The following table reports the mole fractions with the associated uncertainties of the preparation and verification for the two prepared mixtures

Cylinder number xCO2 prep

micromolmol u(xCO2prep)micromolmol

xCO2 ver micromolmol

u(xCO2ver)micromolmol

D247440 4793 01 4783 12

D247445 7989 02 7965 12

A5 Additional information

a) Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas

Component Mole Fraction x u(x)

CO2 gt099998 molmol 58 micromolmol

CO le01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

H2 le01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

N2 le10 micromolmol 3 micromolmol

O2 le3 micromolmol 09 micromolmol

H2O le5 micromolmol 14 micromolmol

CnHm le3 micromolmol 09 micromolmol

Purity table for CO2

b) Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar parent gases

Component Mole Fraction x u(x)

N2 gt0999999 molmol 03 micromolmol

CO2 lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

H2 lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

O2 lt05 micromolmol 014 micromolmol

H2O lt05 micromolmol 014 micromolmol

CnHm lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

Purity table for N2

Component Mole Fraction x u(x)

O2 gt0999999 molmol 03 micromolmol

CO lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

CO2 lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

H2 lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

H2O lt05 micromolmol 014 micromolmol

CnHm lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

Purity table for O2

P a g e | 73

Component Mole Fraction x u(x)

Ar gt099999 molmol 29 micromolmol

O2 lt2 micromolmol 06 micromolmol

H2O lt3 micromolmol 09 micromolmol

CnHm lt05 micromolmol 014 micromolmol

Purity table for Ar

c) Brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures

In order to produce the final mixtures the following premixtures were prepared 1) Premixture of CO2 in N2 at 0080122 molmol (U=0000025 molmol) gravimetrically prepared (double

substitution scheme A‐B‐B‐A) from pure CO2 (48) and N2 (60) 2) Premixture of CO2 in N2 at 50054 micromolmol (U=21 micromolmol) gravimetrically prepared (double

substitution scheme A‐B‐B‐A) from the above mentioned mixture n 1 of CO2 in N2 (0080122 molmol) diluted with N2 (60)

3) Premixture of Ar in O2 (Ar 0042703 molmol O2 0957297 molmol) gravimetrically prepared (double substitution scheme A‐B‐B‐A) from pure Ar (50) and O2 (60)

The final mixtures were gravimetrically prepared (double substitution scheme A‐B‐B‐A) by using premixtures n 2 and n 3 as parent mixtures and using N2 60 as balance gas to obtain the target CO2 mole fractions Concerning premixture n 3 an additional determination of the mole fraction of CO2 in the mixture was carried out by NDIR spectroscopy The instrument was calibrated in the range (01‐1) micromolmol using dynamic dilution The obtained value is 03 micromolmol of CO2 (u=009 micromolmol calculated assuming a rectangular distribution) which was taken into account for assigning the mole fraction of the final mixtures (CO2 4793 and 7989 micromolmol respectively) and evaluating the associated uncertainty

d) Brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures

After preparation the mixtures were rolled for 24 h to be homogenized An analytical verification was carried out by NDIR spectroscopy using for each mixture a 3‐point calibration curve based on WTLS in the range (330‐520) micromolmol and (690‐900) micromolmol respectively The calibration standards were prepared starting from a mixture of CO2 in synthetic air at a nominal mole fraction of 4800 micromolmol diluted with synthetic air by means of Mass Flow Controllers calibrated at INRiM Each calibration point was repeated 5 times Each calibration curve was validated by using an independent mixture of CO2 in synthetic air having a the mole fraction within the calibration range

e) Brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM

The mixtures were tested for their stability on a weekly basis following the same procedure as described in d) No trends in the analytical response were observed within 3 weeks and the mixtures could be considered stable

f) Cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM 90 bar for each cylinder

P a g e | 74

KRISS

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 75

P a g e | 76

P a g e | 77

P a g e | 78

P a g e | 79

P a g e | 80

P a g e | 81

P a g e | 82

LNE

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

SubmissionformCCQM‐K120‐RProject name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department

Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form

Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute LNE

Address 1 rue Gaston Boissier

75724 Paris Cedex 15

Contact person Mace Tatiana

P a g e | 83

Telephone +33140433853 Fax +33140433737

Email tatianamacelnefr

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty

Coverage factor

certx CO2 μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 1029045‐CO2air 0028 37948 079 2

2 1029047‐CO2AIR 0029 4776 10 2

3 1029048‐CO2AIR 0030 8022 17 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number CO2AIR 0028

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0780686 molmol 0000025 molmol 2

O2 0209528 molmol 0000019 molmol 2

Ar 0009407 molmol 0000022 molmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number CO2AIR 0029

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Unit Coverage

P a g e | 84

Uncertainty Factor

N2 0781355 molmol 0000025 molmol 2

O2 0208794 molmol 0000018 molmol 2

Ar 0009374 molmol 0000022 molmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number CO2AIR 0030

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0782710 molmol 0000027 molmol 2

O2 0207187 molmol 0000021 molmol 2

Ar 0009301 molmol 0000021 molmol 2

A4 Uncertainty Budget

Please provide a complete uncertainty budgets for the CO2 mole fraction values reported

CO2Air 0028 37948 plusmn 079 micromolmol (k=2)

Xi Unit Value u(Xi) Sensib C(Xi) C(Xi)u(Xi) poids

Mass CO2 Premix g 6021896 0017 606175153 010304978 679

CO2 molar mass gmol 440095 000091 ‐012936318 ‐000011772 000

CO2 concentration (premix) molmol 000998425 000000097 377979757 003666404 086

N2 molar mass gmol 2801348 0000099 ‐276210444 ‐000027345 000

Mass ArgO2 Premix g 3981732 0017 ‐020862621 ‐000354665 001

Arg concentration (premix) molmol 004288429 00000048 204187142 9801E‐05 000

Arg molar mass gmol 39948 0001 011015474 000011015 000

O2 molar mass gmol 319988 000042 245849547 000103257 000

N2 purity molmol 099997493 00000144 ‐281970074 ‐000406037 001

Mass N2 g 1170753 002 ‐024083902 ‐000481678 001

Stability 0 038 1 038 9232

CO2Air 0029 4776 plusmn 10 micromolmol (k=2)

Xi Unit Value u(Xi) Sensib C(Xi) C(Xi)u(Xi) Weight

Mass CO2 Premix g 7635147 0017 595567319 010124644 391

CO2 molar mass gmol 440095 000091 ‐016114898 ‐000014665 000

CO2 concentration (premix) molmol 000998425 000000097 47573918 00461467 081

N2 molar mass gmol 2801348 0000099 ‐346583037 ‐000034312 000

P a g e | 85

Mass ArgO2 Premix g 3997202 0017 ‐026063746 ‐000443084 001

Arg concentration (premix) molmol 004288429 00000048 256082804 000012292 000

Arg molar mass gmol 39948 0001 013815138 000013815 000

O2 molar mass gmol 319988 000042 308334014 0001295 000

N2 purity molmol 099997494 00000144 ‐350551134 ‐000504794 001

Mass N2 g 1165053 002 ‐030088103 ‐000601762 001

Stability 0 05 1 05 9525

CO2Air 0030 8022 plusmn 17 micromolmol (k=2)

Uncertainty source Unit Value Xi u(Xi) Sensitivity coefficient

C(Xi) C(Xi)u(Xi)

Contribution to the

uncertainty

Mass CO2 Premix g 128097 0020 575918809 011518376 201

CO2 molar mass gmol 440095 000091 ‐02614445 ‐000023791

000

CO2 concentration (premix)

molmol 000998425 000000097 799263648 007752857 091

N2 molar mass gmol 2801348 0000099 ‐578813182 ‐000057303

000

Mass ArgO2 Premix g 3961709 0021 ‐043832537 ‐000920483

001

Arg concentration (premix)

molmol 004288429 00000048 426841537 000020488 000

Arg molar mass gmol 39948 0001 023027218 000023027 000

O2 molar mass gmol 319988 000042 513934409 000215852 000

N2 purity molmol 099997493 00000144 ‐564097099 ‐0008123 001

Mass N2 g 1114778 0023 ‐050600475 ‐001163811

002

Stability 0 08 1 08 9704

A5 Additional information

Please include in this section in the case of standards produced with synthetic air

a) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg PurCO2pur007txt degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg

P a g e | 86

Component molmol uncertainty ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ CO2 09999922500 00000026021 H2O 00000015000 00000008660 O2 00000010000 00000005774 Methane 00000010000 00000005774 H2 00000002500 00000001443 N2 00000040000 00000023094

b) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar parent gas

a Pure Argon degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg PurAr_A106273txt degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg Component molmol uncertainty ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Ar 09999998100 00000000880 O2 00000000050 00000000029 H2O 00000000100 00000000058 CO2 00000000005 00000000003 CnHm 00000000250 00000000144 N2 00000001500 00000000866

b Pure Oxygen

degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg PurO2_207494Htxt degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg Component molmol uncertainty ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ O2 09999974360 00000011650 CO2 00000001640 00000000082 CO 00000000500 00000000289 CnHm 00000000500 00000000289 N2 00000020000 00000011547 H2O 00000002500 00000001443 H2 00000000500 00000000289

c Pure Nitrogen

degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg Purazote_bip_GQ88DUItxt degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg

P a g e | 87

Component molmol uncertainty ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ N2 09999749345 00000144338 CO2 00000000005 00000000003 H2O 00000000100 00000000058 Ar 00000250000 00000144338 O2 00000000050 00000000029 H2 00000000250 00000000144 CnHm 00000000250 00000000144

c) Dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures

a Argonoxygen premix

b CO2N2 premix

c Final mixtures of CO2 in air

ArgonO2

428843 plusmn 000096

Pure Argon

94147 g (u=0011 g)

Pure Oxygen

1736737 g (u=0015 g)

CO2N2 0065

099842 plusmn 000020

CO2N2 0064

100131 plusmn 00013

181585 g (u=0016 g)

Pure N2

1422808 g (u=0019 g)

Pure CO2

248725 g (u=0017 g)

Pure N2

1550854 g (u=0019 g)

P a g e | 88

d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures The gravimetric concentrations of the CO2 gas mixtures in air have been verified with a micro gas chromatograph (chrompack CP2003) The components are separated by a HayeSep A

CO2Air 0028

37948 plusmn 079 micromolmol

CO2N2 0065

60219 g (u=0017 g)

ArgonO2

398173 g (u=0017 g)

Pure N2

1170753 g (u=0020 g)

CO2Air 0029

4776 plusmn 10 micromolmol

CO2N2 0065

76351 g (u=0017 g)

ArgonO2

399720 g (u=0017 g)

Pur N2

1165053 g (u=0020 g)

CO2Air 0030

8022 plusmn 17 micromolmol

CO2N2 0065

128097 g (u=0020 g)

ArgonO2

396171 g (u=0021 g)

Pur N2

1114778 g (u=0023 g)

P a g e | 89

column at 70degC with an hydrogen pressure at 200 kPa The injection is performed at a pressure of 15 bar during 100 ms Each CO2 gas mixture in air is compared by chromatography to a reference gas mixture of CO2 in air generated by dilution of a high concentration gravimetric gas mixture (CO2 in nitrogen) with a Molbloc flowmeter 30 runs are performed with the reference gas mixture 30 runs are performed with the gas mixture to be verified and 30 runs are performed again with the reference gas mixture The 10 previous runs are used to calculate the analytical concentration The gas mixture is validated if the difference between the analytical and gravimetric concentrations is lower than the quadratic sum of the variances

e) Stability of the gas mixtures between the time they were prepared and the time they were shipped to the BIPM The CO2 gases mixtures in air have been analysed 3 times during a period of 2 months before being sent to BIPM

P a g e | 90

P a g e | 91

BFKH

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for carbon dioxide in air standards in the

range (380‐480) micromolmol and (480‐800) micromolmol

A1 General information

Institute Hungarian Trade Licensing Office MKEH

Address Neacutemetvoumllgyi uacutet 37‐39 Budapest

1124 Hungary

Contact person Judit Fuumlkő Zsoacutefia Nagyneacute Szilaacutegyi Tamaacutes Buumlki

Telephone +36 1 4585988

+36 1 4585800

Fax + 36 1 4585 937

Email tothnefjmkehhu

P a g e | 92

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 OMH54 37984 171 2

2 OMH44 47989 211 2

3 OMH69 80030 292 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted)

(Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number OMH54

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit CoverageFactor

N2 078039 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209615 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009607 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5130 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number OMH44

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

P a g e | 93

N2 078064 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209514 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009360 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5130 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number OMH69

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078072 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209161 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009314 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5130 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

A4 Uncertainty Budget

Uncertainty budget of preparation of CO2 standard by gravimetry

OMH69 800ppm

Uncertainty

source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 138729 g Normal 000046 g 1 33158E‐04

martix mass 11397986 g Normal 0026 g 1 22811E‐05

P a g e | 94

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000333

ppm 027

OMH44 480ppm

Uncertainty

source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 081399 g Normal 000034 g 1 41770E‐04

martix mass 111578 g Normal 0026 g 1 23302E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000419

ppm 020

OMH54 380ppm

Uncertainty

source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 064422 g Normal 000032 g 1 49672E‐04

martix mass 11159357 g Normal 0026 g 1 23299E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000498

P a g e | 95

ppm 019

The standard uncertainty of xi can be expressed as xuxuxuxuxu sti

2veri

2veri

2prepi

2i

2 (1)

xprep amount-of-substance fraction from preparation (micromolmol) uprep uncertainty of xprep (micromolmol) uver uncertainty from verification (micromolmol) ust uncertainty of calibration standard (micromolmol)

verix diffenece between the gravimetric preparation value and the result of verification measurement (micromolmol)

Ux stated uncertainty of laboratory at 95 level of confidence (micromolmol) k assigned coverage factor for degree of equivalence Laboratory Code

Cylinder xprep uprep uver ust verix k U(xi)

U(xi)

ppm ppm rel

MKEH OMH54 37984 019 08 019 014 2 171 045

OMH44 47989 020 10 020 018 2 211 044

OMH69 80030 027 14 028 015 2 292 036

A5 Additional information

A51 SOURCE OF CO2 NITROGEN OXIGEN ARGON

CO2 48 from SIAD Italy

N2 45 from Messer Hungary

O2 50 from Messer Hungary

Ar 46 from Messer Hungary

A52 PURITY TABLE OF PURE CO2 (38458)

Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol)

Uncertainty

(molmol)

CO2 specifications 09999885 00000133

N2 specifications 00000050 00000058

H2O specifications 00000025 00000029

P a g e | 96

CH4 specifications 00000025 00000029

O2 specifications 00000015 00000017

A53 PURITY TABLE OF PURE NITROGEN

Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol)

Uncertainty

(molmol)

N2 specifications 09999870 00000150

O2 specifications 00000050 00000058

H2O specifications 00000050 00000058

CH4 specifications 00000025 00000029

CO specifications 00000005 00000006

A54 PURITY TABLE OF PURE OXIGEN

Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol)

Uncertainty

(molmol)

O2 specifications 09999866 00000155

N2 specifications 00000100 00000115

H2O specifications 00000025 00000029

CH4 specifications 000000003 00000004

CO specifications 000000003 00000004

CO2 specifications 000000003 00000004

A55 PURITY TABLE OF PURE ARGON

Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol)

Uncertainty

(molmol)

Ar specifications 09999822 00000206

P a g e | 97

O2 specifications 00000025 00000029

H2O specifications 00000050 00000058

N2 specifications 00000100 00000116

CO2 specifications 00000003 00000004

A56 PREPARATION OF THE MIXTURES

We used 94 L aluminum cylinder (Luxfer) with brass valves DIN10 All the three mixtures were prepared without dilution series First the pure CO2 was filled with using loop into the properly prepared cylinder the mass measurement of the loop was carried out by an analytical balance ndash Mettler Toledo AE240‐S After the pure gases were filled directly gravimetrically after each other and the measurement of the gas mass was carried out by a topload balance ndash Mettler Toledo XP26003L

A57 VERIFICATION OF THE MIXTURES

All the three mixtures measured using methaniser at Agilent GC‐FID and we used MKEH standard gases one by one for calibration this method to the purpose of confirm that the gravimetric value and uncertainty for the carbon dioxide mole fraction of its standards is valid and it is included in the calculation of the reference value

A58 STABILITY OF THE MIXTURES

All the three mixtures were measured using methaniser at Agilent GC‐FID three times independently between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM There wasnrsquot significant difference between the certified values and the measured values

A59 CYLINDER PRESSURE BEFORE SHIPMENT TO THE BIPM 100 bar

P a g e | 98

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for carbon dioxide in air standards in the range (380‐480) micromolmol and (480‐800) micromolmol A1 General information

Institute Government Office of the Capital City Budapest BFKH (former MKEH)

Address Neacutemetvoumllgyi uacutet 37‐39Budapest 1124 Hungary

Contact person Judit Fuumlkő Tamaacutes Buumlki Zsoacutefia Nagyneacute Szilaacutegyi

Telephone +36 1 4585988 +36 1 4585800

Fax + 36 1 4585 937

Email fukojuditbfkhgovhu

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 OMH54 3798 17 2

2 OMH44 4644 28 2

P a g e | 99

3 OMH69 8003 29 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted)

(Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number OMH54

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078039 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209615 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009607 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5100 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number OMH44

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078064 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209514 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009360 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5100 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number OMH69

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078072 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209161 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009314 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5100 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

P a g e | 100

A4 Uncertainty Budget Uncertainty budget of preparation of CO2 standard by gravimetry

OMH69 800ppm

Uncertainty source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 138729 g Normal 000046 g 1 33158E‐04

martix mass 11397986 g Normal 0026 g 1 22811E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000333

ppm 027

OMH44 480ppm

Uncertainty source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 081399 g Normal 000034 g 1 41770E‐04

martix mass 111578 g Normal 0026 g 1 23302E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000419

ppm 020

P a g e | 101

OMH54 380ppm

Uncertainty source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 064422 g Normal 000032 g 1 49672E‐04

martix mass 11159357 g Normal 0026 g 1 23299E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000498

ppm 019

The standard uncertainty of xi can be expressed as

xuxuxuxuxu sti2

veri2

veri2

prepi2

i2 (1)

xprep amount-of-substance fraction from preparation (micromolmol) uprep uncertainty of xprep (micromolmol) uver uncertainty from verification (micromolmol) ust uncertainty of calibration standard (micromolmol)

verix diffenece between the gravimetric preparation value and the result of verification measurement (micromolmol)

Ux stated uncertainty of laboratory at 95 level of confidence (micromolmol) k assigned coverage factor for degree of equivalence

Laboratory Code

Cylinder xprep

uprep xmeas um ust verix k U(xi) U(xi)

ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm rel

BFKH OMH54 37984 019 08 019 014 2 17 045

OMH44 47989 020 46444 14 020 2 28 058

OMH69 80030 027 14 028 015 2 29 036

The stability measurements indicated some preparation mistake in case of the OMH44 cylinder The certified value of this cylinder was calculated from the measurements and the uncertainty from the equation below

xuxuxuxu sti2

easmi2

prepi2

i2

P a g e | 102

A5 Additional information A51 SOURCE OF CO2 NITROGEN OXIGEN ARGON CO2 48 from SIAD Italy N2 45 from Messer Hungary O2 50 from Messer Hungary Ar 46 from Messer Hungary A52 PURITY TABLE OF PURE CO2 (38458) Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol) Uncertainty (molmol)

CO2 Specifications 09999885 00000133 N2 Specifications 00000050 00000058 H2O Specifications 00000025 00000029 CH4 Specifications 00000025 00000029 O2 Specifications 00000015 00000017 A53 PURITY TABLE OF PURE NITROGEN Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol) Uncertainty (molmol)

N2 Specifications 09999870 00000150 O2 Specifications 00000050 00000058 H2O Specifications 00000050 00000058 CH4 Specifications 00000025 00000029 CO Specifications 00000005 00000006 A54 PURITY TABLE OF PURE OXIGEN Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol) Uncertainty (molmol)

O2 Specifications 09999866 0000016 N2 Specifications 00000100 0000012 H2O Specifications 00000025 00000029 CH4 Specifications 000000003 00000004 CO Specifications 000000003 00000004 CO2 Specifications 000000003 00000004 A55 PURITY TABLE OF PURE ARGON Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol) Uncertainty (molmol)

Ar Specifications 09999822 00000200 O2 Specifications 00000025 00000029 H2O Specifications 00000050 00000058 N2 Specifications 00000100 0000012 CO2 Specifications 00000003 00000004 A56 PREPARATION OF THE MIXTURES We used 94 L aluminum cylinder (Luxfer) with brass valves DIN10

P a g e | 103

All the three mixtures were prepared without dilution series First the pure CO2 was filled with using loop into the properly prepared cylinder the mass measurement of the loop was carried out by an analytical balance ndash Mettler Toledo AE240‐S After the pure gases were filled directly gravimetrically after each other and the measurement of the gas mass was carried out by a topload balance ndash Mettler Toledo XP26003L A57 VERIFICATION OF THE MIXTURES All the three mixtures measured using methaniser at Agilent GC‐FID and we used MKEH standard gases one by one for calibration this method to the purpose of confirm that the gravimetric value and uncertainty for the carbon dioxide mole fraction of its standards is valid and it is included in the calculation of the reference value A58 STABILITY OF THE MIXTURES All the three mixtures were measured using methaniser at Agilent GC‐FID three times independently between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM A59 CYLINDER PRESSURE BEFORE SHIPMENT TO THE BIPM 100 bar

P a g e | 104

NIM

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM-K120 Carbon dioxide in Air Laboratory National Institute of Metrology

Cylinders number FB03748 FB03744 FB03747

Preparation report

A1 General information

Institute National Institute of Metrology China

Address 18 Bei San Huan Dong Lu Chaoyang District City Bei Jing

Building 17 Room 217

Contact person BI Zhe Zeyi Zhou

Telephone 86-10-84232306 Fax 86-10-84232306

Email zhouzynimaccn bizhnimaccn

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM-K120a Yes

CCQM-K120b Yes

A3 Submitted values for carbon dioxide preparation results in each standard

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2 μmolmol )( CO2 certxU

μmolmol

1 FB03748 80982 026 2

2 FB03744 48915 022 2

P a g e | 105

3 FB03747 38343 020 2

A4 Submitted values for each standardrsquos matrix Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted)

(Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number FB03748

Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage

Factor CH4(Methane) 101times10-9 molmol 203E-10 molmol 2 C2H4(Ethene) 146times10-10 molmol 113E-10 molmol 2 C3H8(Propane) 518times10-10 molmol 405E-10 molmol 2 N2(Nitrogen) 0781 molmol 271E-05 molmol 2 O2(Oxygen) 0210 molmol 260E-05 molmol 2 Ar(Argon) 794times10-3 molmol 969E-06 molmol 2 H2O(Water) 291times10-7 molmol 139E-07 molmol 2 N2O(Dinitrogen_oxide) 790times10-10 molmol 586E-10 molmol 2 CO2(Carbon_dioxide) 80982times10-4 molmol 248E-07 molmol 2 (Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number FB03744

Component Mole fraction Value

Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

CH4(Methane) 101E-09 molmol 308E-10 molmol 2 C2H4(Ethene) 880E-11 molmol 685E-11 molmol 2 C3H8(Propane) 313E-10 molmol 245E-10 molmol 2 N2(Nitrogen) 781E-01 molmol 275E-05 molmol 2 O2(Oxygen) 210E-01 molmol 264E-05 molmol 2 Ar(Argon) 904E-03 molmol 990E-06 molmol 2 H2O(Water) 290E-07 molmol 139E-07 molmol 2 N2O(Dinitrogen_oxide) 790E-10 molmol 601E-10 molmol 2 CO2(Carbon_dioxide) 48915E-04 molmol 191E-07 molmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number FB03747 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage

Factor CH4(Methane) 101E-09 molmol 408E-10 molmol 2 C2H4(Ethene) 690E-11 molmol 537E-11 molmol 2 C3H8(Propane) 245E-10 molmol 192E-10 molmol 2 N2(Nitrogen) 782E-01 molmol 288E-05 molmol 2 O2(Oxygen) 209E-01 molmol 276E-05 molmol 2 Ar(Argon) 922E-03 molmol 102E-05 molmol 2 H2O(Water) 289E-07 molmol 139E-07 molmol 2 N2O(Dinitrogen_oxide) 791E-10 molmol 607E-10 molmol 2 CO2(Carbon_dioxide) 38343E-04 molmol 183E-07 molmol 2 CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

P a g e | 106

Cylinder

Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 2 3

A5 Uncertainty Budget Please provide a complete uncertainty budgets for the CO2 mole fraction values reported

Uncertainty budget

Cylinder

Gravimetric

valueμmolmol

Component distribution Standard

uncertaintyμmolmol

FB03748 80982

Combined uncertainty of

Purity Molecular and

Weighing

Normal 0124

Repeatability of the

measurement Normal 0040

Combined standard uncertainty 013

FB03744 48915

Combined uncertainty of

Purity Molecular and

Weighing

Normal 0096

Repeatability of the

measurement Normal 0030

Combined standard uncertainty 011

FB03747 38343

Combined uncertainty of

Purity Molecular and

Weighing

Normal 0092

Repeatability of the

measurement Normal 0030

Combined standard uncertainty 010

A6 Additional information

P a g e | 107

Please include in this section in the case of standards produced with synthetic air

g) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas h) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar NO2 and CH4 parent gas i) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures j) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures k) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time

they are shipped to the BIPM and l) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

a) purity table for the nominally pure CO2 09999924 molmol

Component Amount fraction

(10-6molmol)

Standard uncertainty

(10-6molmol) Assumed distribution

CH4 113 045 Normal

C2H4 018 007 Normal

C3H8 064 025 Normal

O2 052 021 Normal

Ar 010 004 Normal

N2 251 100 Normal

H2O 250 100 Normal

N2O 0001 00006 Rectangular

CO2 9999924 15 Normal

b) purity table for the nominally pure N2 0 9999521 molmol

Component Amount fraction

(10-6molmol)

Standard uncertainty

(10-6molmol) Assumed distribution

CH4 0001 00005 Rectangular

Ar 483 48 Normal

O2 002 0006 Normal

CO2 0010 0003 Normal

H2O 010 004 Normal

N2O 0001 00004 Rectangular

P a g e | 108

N2 9999521 48 Normal

purity table for the nominally pure O2 0 9999959 molmol

Component Amount fraction

(10-6molmol)

Standard uncertainty

(10-6molmol) Assumed distribution

CH4 0001 00003 Normal

Ar 20 05 Normal

N2 11 03 Normal

CO2 00012 00004 Rectangular

H2O 12 04 Normal

N2O 0001 00004 Rectangular

O2 9999959 48 Normal

purity table for the nominally pure Ar 09999998 molmol

Component Amount fraction

(10-6molmol)

Standard uncertainty

(10-6molmol) Assumed distribution

CH4 0001 00003 Normal

O2 0020 0005 Normal

N2 0010 0001 Normal

CO2 0001 00004 Rectangular

H2O 01 04 Normal

N2O 0001 00004 Rectangular

Ar 9999998 48 Normal

P a g e | 109

c) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures

d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures Seven primary standard cylinders of CO2 in air mixture were measured by CRDs A linearity regression was established based on these seven cylinders For each point an average of date recorded in 2 minutes were used The verification wre done by the comparison of gravimetric values and the calculated values

Gravimetric value Fitted value Relative deviation

y = 1002382 x + 0187049 Rsup2 = 1000000

350

450

550

650

750

850

350 450 550 650 750 850

Measured value VS Gravimetric value

1047095 g

CO2

N2

26743 g

CO2N2 15998ppm

Ar O2 N2

FB03748

CO2N2 32592 g Ar 7193 g O2 153303 g N2 466458 g

FB03744

CO2N2 19417 g Ar 8082 g O2 150754 g N2 472375 g

FB03747

CO2N2 14474 g Ar 7835 g O2 142777 g N2 453560 g

P a g e | 110

μmolmol μmolmol 80982 80965 -0021 81307 81319 0015 49106 49113 0014 48915 48928 0025 37819 37818 -0003 39162 39161 -0004 38343 38332 -0030

e) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are

prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM

Three test gas mixtures were prepared 3 months before the comparison After gas mixtures for the comparison were prepared a liner regression was done by combining the test gas mixtures and the comparison cylinders No significant drift of the values was observed between the time they were prepared and the time they were shipped to the BIPM f) cylinders pressure before shipment to the BIPM

Cylinder No Pressure (bar) FB03748 90 FB03744 90 FB03747 90

P a g e | 111

NIST

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM‐K120‐R Project name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department

Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form

Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute NIST

Address 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8393

Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8393

Contact person George C Rhoderick

Telephone 301‐975‐3937 Fax 301‐977‐8392

P a g e | 112

Email GeorgeRhodericknistgov

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 FB04278 3790449 03908 2

2 FB04300 4726617 04280 2

3 FB04287 7945334 10287 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number FB04278

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0780812 molmol 0000118 molmol 2

O2 0209470 molmol 000071 molmol 2

Ar 0009339 molmol 000037 molmol 2

CH4 nmolmol nmolmol

N2O nmolmol nmolmol

P a g e | 113

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number FB04300

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0780771 molmol 0000128 molmol 2

O2 0209422 molmol 0000081 molmol 2

Ar 0009334 molmol 0000034 molmol 2

CH4 nmolmol nmolmol

N2O nmolmol nmolmol

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number FB04287

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0780499 molmol 0000114 molmol 2

O2 0209370 molmol 0000067 molmol 2

Ar 0009336 molmol 0000040 molmol 2

CH4 nmolmol nmolmol

N2O nmolmol nmolmol

CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 FB04278 ‐28 plusmn 2 1

2 FB04300 ‐28 plusmn 2 1

3 FB04287 ‐28 plusmn 2 1

A4 Uncertainty Budget Please provide a complete uncertainty budgets for the CO2 mole fraction values reported

P a g e | 114

A5 Additional information

FB04278

Standard Relative ContributionValue Uncertainty Uncertianty to Uncertainty

Major Component MW 2801340 000016 00000058 00020

Minor Component MW 4400950 000052 00000119 00041

Mass Parent Gas 1893585 000146 00000769 00264

Mass Balance Gas 7453878 00020 00000027 00009

Minor Component Wt Fraction 0023250750 0000006755 00002905 00997

Mass minor component - Parent 044027281 000013232 00003005 01031Mass minor component - Bal 000006695 000001936 02890953 991626

Total mass minor component 044017935 000022556 00005124 01758

Moles of minor component 001000192 000000513 00005126 01758

Balance gas wt fraction (purity) 0755569792 390976E-05 00000517 00177

Mass balance gas - parent 1397906371 000148549 00001063 00365Mass balance gas - balance 56319253120 002918142 00000518 00178

Total mass balance gas 57717159491 002921920 00000506 00174

Moles of balance gas 2060341104 000104994 00000510 00175

Moles impurities from parent 013966291020 000002524000 00001807 00620

Moles impurities from balance 56340784 00010163 00001804 00619

Total Moles of gas 263871542 00014615 00000554 00190

Conc minor component (ppm) 3790449 01954Relative uncert 0052 0292 100000

FB04300

Standard Relative Contribution

Value Uncertainty Uncertianty to Uncertainty

Major Component MW 2801340 000016 00000058 00025

Minor Component MW 4400950 000052 00000119 00050

Mass Parent Gas 2953886 000141 00000477 00201

Mass Balance Gas 74869117 000194 00000026 00011

CO2 Component Wt Fraction 0018926076 0000006339 00003350 01414

Mass CO2 component - Parent 055905476 000018915 00003383 01428Mass CO2 component - Balance Air 000003828 000000898 02345407 989951

Total mass CO2 component 055885777 000025068 00004486 01893

Moles of minor component 001269857 000000570 00004487 01894

Balance gas wt fraction (purity) 07556035 000004300 00000569 00240Mass balance gas - parent 2190310136 000191642 00000875 00369

Mass balance gas - balance 56571366688 003222901 00000570 00240

Total mass balance gas 58761676824 003228594 00000549 00232

Moles of balance gas 2097627451 000115899 00000553 00233

Moles impurities from parent 021883087438 000003747112 00001712 00723

Moles impurities from balance 56582830 00011276 00001993 00841

Total Moles of gas 268660869 00016174 00000602 00254

Conc minor component (ppm) 4726617 02140Relative uncert 0045 0237 100000

FB04287

Standard Relative ContributionValue Uncertainty Uncertianty to Uncertainty

Major Component MW 2801340 000016 00000058 00021

Minor Component MW 4400950 000052 00000119 00042

Mass Parent Gas 3957940 000137 00000346 00122

Mass Balance Gas 7227358 00020 00000028 00010

Minor Component Wt Fraction 0023250750 0000006716 00002889 01017

Mass minor component - Parent 092025076 000026773 00002909 01025Mass minor component - Bal 000005052 000001421 02813263 990842

Total mass minor component 092005795 000059343 00006450 02272

Moles of minor component 002090589 000001349 00006451 02272

Balance gas wt fraction (purity) 0755575527 389029E-05 00000515 00181

Mass balance gas - parent 2921880196 000218877 00000749 00264Mass balance gas - balance 54608149036 002815892 00000516 00182

Total mass balance gas 57530029233 002824386 00000491 00173

Moles of balance gas 2053661078 000101531 00000494 00174

Moles impurities from parent 029192104701 000004836046 00001657 00583

Moles impurities from balance 54627264 00009803 00001795 00632

Total Moles of gas 263121641 00014122 00000537 00189

Conc minor component (ppm) 7945334 05143Relative uncert 0065 0284 100000

P a g e | 115

Please include in this section in the case of standards produced with synthetic air

m) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas n) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar NO2 and CH4

parent gas o) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures p) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures q) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are

prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM and r) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

Or with real air

a) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas Compound molmol Uncertainty CO2 0999994000 0000002000 N2 0000002000 0000001155 O2 0000002000 0000001155 Ar 0000002000 0000001155

b) results of the analysis and mole fractions and uncertainties of CO2 N2 O2 Ar N2O and CH4 in the scrubbed real air (if performed)

Cylinder FB04300 Compound molmol Uncertainty N2 0781133467 0000043500 CO2 0000000151 0000000036 O2 0209528241 0000039865 Ar 0009338142 0000017407

Cylinder FB04278 Compound molmol Uncertainty N2 0781102830 0000039359 CO2 0000000059 0000000017 O2 0209554557 0000034507 Ar 0009342554 0000018932

Cylinder FB04287 Compound molmol Uncertainty N2 0781108354 0000039152 CO2 0000000046 0000000013 O2 0209548136 0000033045 Ar 0009343463 0000020998

P a g e | 116

c) a brief outline of the preparation procedure of the final mixtures

The three cylinders were evacuated to ~ 05 micro of Hg filled to ~ 07 Mpa with UHP Air and vented to atmosphere (four times) and evacuated to ~ 05 micro Hg A calculated aliquot of the parent cylinder was added to each cylinder and then weighed A calculated aliquot of the matrix gas was added to each cylinder and then weighed The cylinders were rolled for ~ three hours to mix the component gases

d) a composition table for each of the final mixtures including gravimetric Uncertainties when relevant Cylinder FB04300 Compound molmol Uncertainty CO2 0000472662 0000000214 N2 0780771482 0000063800 O2 0209421668 0000040372 Ar 0009334188 0000016775 Cylinder FB04278 Compound molmol Uncertainty CO2 0000379045 0000000195 N2 0780812166 0000058766 O2 0209469584 0000035657 Ar 0009339205 0000018480 Cylinder FB04287 Compound molmol Uncertainty CO2 0000794533 0000000514 N2 0780498735 0000056955 O2 0209370336 0000033285 Ar 0009336395 0000019945

e) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures The cylinders were verified against five existing PSMs a minimum of six times using an Isotopic CO2 Cavity Ringdown Spectrometer

f) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM and

g) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

P a g e | 117

Cylinder MPa FB04300 965 FB04278 1034 FB04278 999

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders 1st report

2nd report received on May 16 2018

Addendum to NIST Report for CCQM-K120a and b 1 Introduction NIST agreed to participate in the CCQM-K120a and b Key Comparison (KC) with the understanding that this KC involved gravimetrically value-assigned samples As stated in the protocol summary the comparison involved ldquohellip preparative capabilities for carbon dioxide in air primary reference mixturesrdquo Based on this description of the KC as involving primary reference mixtures NIST assumed that the participantsrsquo value assignments and reported data were restricted solely to those that derive from purity assessments and primary gravimetric measurements However prior to submission of the reported concentrations to GAWG NIST discovered a significant discrepancy in the gravimetric values which was caused by extenuating circumstances (discussed below) and which was quantified using supplementary measurements carried out at NIST Nevertheless to follow the KC protocol and to meet the imposed deadlines NIST submitted only the gravimetric-based concentration values for the three required CO2-in-air samples despite having assessed that the results were not expected to agree with the eventual calculated KCRV 2 Background Studies on CO2 adsorptiondesorption issues NIST performed and continues to investigate an adsorptiondesorption phenomenon with CO2 in air mixtures [1] NIST has observed in 5 and 6 L aluminum cylinders containing nominal 400 micromolmol CO2 in air mixtures initial CO2 adsorption to the cylinder walls of as little as 02 micromolmol to more than 1 micromolmol depending on the cylinder and internal treatment tested It has been observed that CO2 initially adsorbs on the cylinder walls when a mixture is

NIST CCQM K120 comparison samples dataPressure August 112017 Pressure

Original Reported Original Verified Veri‐Grav departure Re‐verified Value ReVerified value‐ back

Cylinder Gravimetirc Value ppm Value ppm Diff from NIST Stability check ppm Grav Value ppm to NIST

FB04278 37905 plusmn 039 38030 plusmn 028 033 1034 MPa 38007 plusmn 030 027 724 MPa

FB04300 47266 plusmn 043 47340 plusmn 034 016 965 MPa 47337 plusmn 052 015 724 MPa

FB04287 79453 plusmn 103 79512 plusmn 058 007 999 MPa 79477 plusmn 038 003 724 MPa

Re‐verified Value Re‐Verified‐ Pressure back

SRM Sample Original Certified Value Stability check ppm Orig Cert to NIST

1720‐A‐26 39397 plusmn 013 39403 plusmn 020 0015 414 MPa (600 psi)

P a g e | 118

prepared to high pressure (asymp12 MPa asymp1800 psi) NIST modeled some of that early data that shows an increase in CO2 mole fraction (∆x) with reduced cylinder pressure from measurements of a CO2 in air mixture contained in a 6 L aluminum cylinder using the Langmuir isotherm (Irving Langmuir 1916 1918) and is shown in Figure 1

Figure 1 Measured CO2 mole fraction increase versus pressure decrease in a 6 L aluminum cylinder Solid black points represent actual measured mole fraction Solid blue line represents applied Langmuir Isotherm model Using the actual measured CO2 change in 5 L and 6 L cylinders and the Langmuir isotherm NIST modeled for projected ∆x CO2 variation for 30 L and 47 L aluminum cylinders as shown in Figure 2 The models predict that the larger the cylinder volume the less change in the CO2 mole fraction with pressure loss NIST studies of CO2 in air mixtures contained in 30 L cylinders indeed show less increase in the mole fraction of CO2 as the pressure in the cylinder decreases Therefore the surface-to-volume ratio appears to play a major role the larger the cylinder volume the less CO2 increase It is most likely that this phenomenon takes place not only at ambient CO2 mole fractions but also at much higher levels including a few molmol and higher

Figure 2 Projected variation in ∆x for 6-L 30-L and 47-L cylinders applying Langmuir Isotherm This background information was presented at the GAWG meeting in April 2017 as analyses of K120 a and b were underway These results account for the discrepant NIST values in K120 a and b More generally this study informed participants of the serious potential pitfalls associated with desorption of CO2 from cylinder walls and the dependence of this process on total charge cylinder dimensions etc and revealed the possibility of unaccounted for Type B uncertainties caused by interactions of CO2 with cylinder walls Partly because of these findings and the

P a g e | 119

occurrence of extremely low uncertainties reported by some NMIs GAWG decided to put a lower limit on the expanded uncertainty equal to 019 mol mol-1 thus affecting the relative weighting of the results contributing to the KCRV 3 Preparation of K120 Samples In conjunction with submitting freshly prepared gravimetric standards for the CCQM-K120 CO2 in air key comparison NIST also wanted to prepare a complete new suite of ambient level CO2 in air primary standard mixtures (PSMs) starting with a pure natural isotopic CO2 source That new pure CO2 source arrived at NIST in November 2016 Because there was a limited amount of pure CO2 in the cylinder obtained NIST started development by gravimetrically preparing four PSMs in the range of 1-3 molmol in CO2 and moisture scrubbed real air Upon completion of those PSMs in early December 2016 they were analyzed by GC-TCD along with the NIST 2012 CO2 suite with ratios calculated from peak area responses to a control Generalized least squares regression was used to plot the ratios vs gravimetric values of the 2012 PSMs The new percent level PSMs were predicted from the regression line The results of that comparison are shown in Table 1 Inspection of the residuals from the difference of the predicted Ysolution- YGrav value for the 2012 PSMs reveals excellent agreement However the predicted Yeval values for the new PSMs disagree with their gravimetric values by more than -2 Table 1 New percent level PSMs predicted from linear regression of 2012 PSMs

Based on these results either the 2012 suite of PSMs had increased in mole fraction because of desorption of CO2 from the cylinder surface with pressure decrease or the new source of pure CO2 was contaminated Indeed the pure CO2 was eventually analyzed in January of 2017 and found to be contaminated with 31 molmol N2 Because NIST had no time to obtain another source of pure CO2 to make another set of PSMs (K120 samples needed to be shipped to BIPM by the end of December 2016) we had to assume that the 2012 percent level PSMs were stable We made this assumption knowing that it most likely was not the case because the CO2 mole fraction had increased as these standards were below asymp 45 MPa (asymp650 psi) Not having another source of CO2 (the original CO2 source used for the 2012 suite and the source for over three decades was spent) NIST could not prepare new percent-level standards to verify the 2012 percent level standards and determine if the CO2 had indeed increased

Res idua l

2012 PSM X (Ratio) Y (Grav molmol) X‐Solution Y‐Solution uTest (Y‐Sol ‐Grav)

FA02584 244265 49500 244266 49490 Pass ‐002

FA02588 22877 46190 22877 46205 Pass 003

APEX1099215 078272 15422 078272 15420 Pass ‐001

APEX1099172 063673 12535 063656 12538 Pass 002

CAL016532 050028 09869 05003 09869 Pass 000

difference

From New CO2 Xin (Ratio) uXin Yeval (molmol) uYeval Grav Value Yeval‐Grav

FB03808 139347 000103 27669 00033 28288 ‐219

APEX1099165 118456 000141 23442 00035 24043 ‐250

APEX1099188 11708 000130 23164 00033 23773 ‐256

APEX1099246 078483 000058 15462 00015 15822 ‐228

(plusmn 00007)

P a g e | 120

NIST moved forward and prepared the three K120 standards from the 2012 PSMs cylinder number APEX1099215 at (15422 plusmn 00010) molmol and APEX1099172 at (12535 plusmn 00009) molmol (highlighted in green in Table 1) Figure 3 shows the preparation scheme

Figure 3 Preparation scheme for NIST K120 samples It is very important to state here that both cylinders were low in pressure when the three K120 standards were prepared from them APEX1099215 at 520 psi and APEX1099172 at 390 psi While NIST did not have stability data for percent-level CO2 in air mixtures we still suspected that the CO2 also increases at this mole fraction level as the pressure decreases After preparation of the three K120 standards they were compared to the 2012 ambient level PSMs and three SRM samples were also included Figure 4 shows the generalized least squares regression plotted for the 2012 PSMs represented by the black circles The blue circles represent the predicted value for the SRM 1720 samples from that regression and the red triangles represent the original SRM 1720 certified value The green squares represent the predicted value for the K120 samples from that regression line while the yellow circle with red border represent the gravimetric values From this plot the blue dotted linear regression line appears to cover all the data points

Pure CO2

CC282116

999940 plusmn 00002

APEX1099172 APEX1099215

12535 plusmn 00009 15422 plusmn 00010

molmol molmol

FB04300 FB04300 FB04300

472662 plusmn 0214 379045 plusmn 0214 794533 plusmn 0514

micromolmol micromolmol micromolmol

combined uncerta inties k=1

350

450

550

650

750

850

950

070 090 110 130 150 170 190

CO2mole fraction micro

molmol

Response Ratio

2012 CO2 PSMs

K120 Standards Predicted

K120 Grav Value

Predicted SRM 1720

SRM1720 Certified Value

P a g e | 121

Figure 4 Generalized least squares regression through NIST 2012 ambient CO2 PSM suite predicting SRM 1720 and K120 samples However if we expand the lower portion of the regression from (350-400) micromolmol we see disagreement between the new standards and SRM 1720 certified values as shown in Figure 5 While the predicted and gravimetric value for the 380 micromolmol K120 standard are still on the regression line the SRM 1720 certified values are off the regression line by around +1 micromol mol (03 relative) However the predicted and gravimetric value for the 380 micromolmol K120 sample lie on the regression line NIST has complete confidence that the SRM 1720 samples contained in 30-L cylinders are stable since they were all at pressures of +11 MPa Therefore NIST suspected that the 2012 PSMs all had increased in concentration and hence would predict the SRM 1720 samples to have less CO2 The fact that the K120 samples also lie on the line with the 2012 PSM regression we can postulate that the 2012 percent level PSMs had also increased in CO2 mole fraction as they had pressures less than 45 MPa (650 psi) when used to prepare the K120 samples

Figure 5 Expansion of Figure 4 illustrating that the SRM 1720 certified values lie off the regression line while K120 gravimetric and predicted values are still on the regression line Expanded uncertainty error bars are present but too small to be observed except in the red triangle SRM 1720 Certified Value NIST took this data for the 2012 ambient level PSMs and determined values by comparison to SRM sample 1720-A-29 with a certified value of (39312 plusmn 013) micromolmol with and (k = 2) uncertainty value at a pressure of +12 MPa The values determined for the PSMs from the SRM 1720 sample are significantly different from their gravimetric values with reduced pressure as shown in Table 2 Table 2 Ambient level 2012 PSMs determined from SRM sample 1720-A-29

4 Validity of SRM 1720 samples The SRM 1720 sample used to verify these PSMs is contained in a 30-Liter aluminum cylinder Other SRM 1720 samples have shown to be stable within uncertainty limits down to around 600 psi as shown in Table 3

‐029

‐037‐031

378

383

388

393

398

074 075 075 076 076 077 077 078 078 079 079

CO2mole fraction micro

molmol

Response Ratio

2012 CO2 PSMs

K120 Standard Predicted

K120 Standard Grav Value

SRM 1720 Predicted Value

SRM 1720 Certified Value

Gravimetric Concentration vs SRM1720 Difference Pressure

2012 PSM Mole Fraction micromolmol micromolmol micromolmol Diff ps i (Mpa)

APEX1099211 96107 plusmn 003 96091 plusmn 020 0160 002 1200 (827)

APEX1099176 91907 plusmn 046 91922 plusmn 025 ‐0150 ‐002 650 (448)

APEX1099164 67362 plusmn 035 67405 plusmn 015 ‐0430 ‐006 800 (552)

APEX1099223 63330 plusmn 042 63367 plusmn 017 ‐0370 ‐006 700 (483)

APEX1005714 42108 plusmn 006 42246 plusmn 009 ‐1380 ‐033 300 (207)

APEX1005721 39885 plusmn 006 40003 plusmn 015 ‐1180 ‐030 400 (276)

APEX1005690 37944 plusmn 006 38048 plusmn 010 ‐1040 ‐027 400 (276)

uncerta inty k=1

P a g e | 122

Table 3 Mole fractions showing increase in 30 Liter SRM 1720 samples with pressure loss

SRM 1720 samples were originally certified by comparing to the 2012 suite of four PSMs when they were at full pressure (+11 MPa) three of which are given in Table 2 APEX1005714 (42108 plusmn 006) micromolmol APEX1005721 (39885 plusmn 006) micromolmol and APEX1005690 (37944 plusmn 006) micromolmol The SRM 1720 samples were also analyzed by NOAA with results showing agreement between NIST and NOAA [2] Figure 6 shows that agreement for the 30 real air cylinder samples that comprised SRM 1720

Figure 6 Comparison of NIST and NOAA CO2 values for 30 SRM 1720 samples Error bars are expanded uncertainties at approximate 95 confidence interval 5 Verifying the K120 Samples Because all the original NIST 2012 PSMs at the 380 to 420 micromolmol range were low in pressure they could not be trusted to verify the new K120 PSMs Therefore in late December 2016 NIST used SRM sample 1720-A-29 then at 1700 psi to verify the gravimetric mole fractions in the K120 standards using CRDS Table 4 shows the gravimetric and verified values for the NIST K120 samples The December 2016 verified value is significantly higher by as much as 1 micromolmol than the gravimetric value for each of the three K120 standards This provides strong evidence that even the molmol 2012 PSMs have increased in mole fraction with the decrease in pressure Table 4 Gravimetric and verified values for NIST K120 samples

30 ‐Liter August 2017 Stability

SRM Original Certified Stability check 2017 ‐

Sample Value ppm value ppm Cert ppm

1720‐A‐26a 39397 + 013 (SRM used by BIPM for K120) 39403 + 020 + 006 600 psi 414 Mpa

1720‐AL‐01 38833 plusmn 013 38867 plusmn 014 + 034 325 psi 224 Mpa

1720‐AL‐27 39339 plusmn 013 39364 plusmn 015 + 025 450 psi 31 Mpa

All verified and stability check values determined against SRM 1720‐A‐29 (still at a pressure of 1500+ psi)

All uncertainties reported as expanded k = 2

aSRM 1720‐A‐26 was sent to BIPM as part of their system validation for K120

388

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30mole fraction micro

mol mol ‐1

Sample

NIST

NOAA

Pressure

Original Reported December 2016 Verified Verified‐Grav Verified‐Grav departure

Cylinder Gravimetirc Value ppm Verified Value micromolmol Diff in micromolmol Diff from NIST

FB04278 37905 plusmn 039 38008 plusmn 028 103 027 1034 MPa

FB04300 47266 plusmn 043 47340 plusmn 034 068 016 965 MPa

FB04287 79453 plusmn 103 79512 plusmn 058 059 007 999 MPa

P a g e | 123

Uncertainties at 95 confidence interval NIST was aware when they shipped their K120 samples to BIPM for the K120 comparison that their gravimetric values were not good However we followed the K120 protocol laid down for ldquopreparative capabilities for carbon dioxide in air primary reference mixturesrdquo and submitted the gravimetric values knowing that the verified values were the correct molar fractions for these mixtures 6 Stability check of K120 samples NIST received the three K120 samples back from BIPM in August 2017 and proceeded to check them for stability The three samples were once again compared to SRM 1720-A-29 and those results are shown in Table 5 The August 2017 stability check values agree with the December 2016 verified values and therefore have remained stable as they should be since the pressures were well above those where increases in mole fraction have been observed Table 5 Stability check results for K120 samples

Uncertainties at 95 confidence interval

7 Isotopic Composition The original value submitted by NIST for δ13C of -28 + 2 permil was an error of data transcription NIST had determined this value in 2014 for the pure source of CO2 used to prepare the submitted standards to be δ13C = -38 + 2 permil as determined by FTIR After receiveing the three standards back from BIPM NIST measured the δ13C to be -401 + 01 permil as determined by GC-IRMS 8 NIST Best-Estimate Value If it had been explicitly stated that participants could report their ldquobest-estimate valuerdquo for samples submitted for this CCQM-K120 key comparison for ambient CO2 in air which would not necessarily be their true gravimetric value then NIST would have submitted the values obtained from verification against the SRM sample NIST ldquobest-estimate valuesrdquo are thus given in Table 6 Table 6 NIST Best-Estimate (Verified) Values

August 2017 August 2017 Pressure

December 2016 Verified August 2017 Stability check‐Dec 2016 Stabiity check‐ back

Cylinder Verified Value micromolmol Stability check micromolmol Verified Value micromolmol Verified Value Diff to NIST

FB04278 38008 plusmn 028 38007 plusmn 030 ‐001 ‐0003 724 MPa

FB04300 47340 plusmn 034 47337 plusmn 052 ‐003 ‐0006 724 MPa

FB04287 79512 plusmn 058 79477 plusmn 038 ‐035 ‐0044 724 MPa

P a g e | 124

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 FB04278 38008 028 2

2 FB04300 47340 034 2

3 FB04287 79512 058 2

9 Observations from this Comparison NIST has the opinion that this key comparison was unnecessarily rushed to completion by the pilot laboratory As co-pilot on this comparison NIST should not have agreed to the arbitrary and premature deadline imposed by the pilot laboratory knowing that an optimal level of sample control had not been demonstrated Given that future key comparisons will continue to be co-piloted both parties must agree that the preliminary studies and procedures are sufficiently well-established to set firm deadlines for sample submission by participating NMIrsquos Ideally the mutual decision to set the timeline for the KC and the readiness of other NMIrsquos to participate should be discussed formally by the GAWG at the Spring or Fall meeting NIST also recommends that the GAWG draft a formal policy document that unambiguously defines the terms such as ldquogravimetricrdquo ldquoprimaryrdquo ldquopreparativerdquo ldquoanalyticalrdquo ldquobest-estimaterdquo among others which are used to describe the scope of key comparisons For example in the context of gas standards we might propose that ldquoprimaryrdquo refers to mixtures prepared by gravimetry or manometry On the other hand ldquopreparativerdquo appears with ldquoprimaryrdquo in the K120 a and b protocol summary statement What is the exact meaning of ldquopreparativerdquo in this context Similarly the term ldquobest-estimaterdquo was mentioned in discussions on K120 a and b during the April 2018 GAWG meeting when referring to acceptable reported values by NMIs although the exact meaning of this term was not clarified NISTrsquos current position is that ldquobest-estimaterdquo falls outside the scope of K120a and b and is more consistent with an ldquoanalyticalrdquo comparison These examples illustrate the need for a precise terminology to specify acceptable methods used for value assignment in future KCs For transparency this terminology should be formally defined by the GAWG for unambiguous use in subsequent KC protocols References 1 Miller WR Rhoderick GC Guenther FR Anal Chem 2015 87(3) pp 1957-1962 2 Rhoderick GR Kitzis DR Kelley ME Miller WR Hall BD Dlugokencky EJ Tans PP Possolo A Carney J Anal Chem 2016 88(6) 3376-3385 doi

101021acsanalchem6b00123

P a g e | 125

NMISA

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 126

P a g e | 127

P a g e | 128

P a g e | 129

P a g e | 130

P a g e | 131

P a g e | 132

P a g e | 133

NOAA

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 134

P a g e | 135

P a g e | 136

P a g e | 137

P a g e | 138

P a g e | 139

NPL

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM‐K120‐R Project name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards

A1 General information

Institute National Physical Laboratory

Address Hampton Road

Teddington

TW11 0LW

Contact person Paul Brewer

Telephone +44 (0) 208 943 6007 Fax

Email paulbrewernplcouk

P a g e | 140

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a CCQM‐K120b

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide amount fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 2179 38027 019 2

2 2170 48002 024 2

3 2181 79970 040 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number 2179

Component Amount fraction Value

Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078079 molmol 000047 molmol 2

O2 020960 molmol 000013 molmol 2

Ar 0009232 molmol 0000018 molmol 2

CH4 lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

Table 1 Composition of standard 1

P a g e | 141

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number 2170

Component Amount fraction Value

Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078069 molmol 000047 molmol 2

O2 020950 molmol 000013 molmol 2

Ar 0009334 molmol 0000019 molmol 2

CH4 lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

Table 2 Composition of standard 2 (Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number 2181

Component Amount fraction Value

Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078055 molmol 000047 molmol 2

O2 020928 molmol 000013 molmol 2

Ar 0009367 molmol 0000019 molmol 2

CH4 lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

Table 3 Composition of standard 3 CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 2179 ‐55 permil 10 permil 2 ‐225 permil 10 permil 2

2 2170 ‐55 permil 10 permil 2 ‐225 permil 10 permil 2

3 2181 ‐55 permil 10 permil 2 ‐225 permil 10 permil 2

Table 4 Isotopic composition of each submitted standard vs VPDB

A4 Uncertainty Budget The estimated uncertainty for the measurement contains the following components

Purity analysis of CO2 and synthetic air

Gravimetric preparation (weighing and atomic weight uncertainties)

Analytical validation

Table 5 details the uncertainty analysis The preparation component includes estimated uncertainty from purity analysis weighing and atomic weights

Relative Uncertainty ()

Identifier Component Preparation

(k=1) Validation

(k=1) Total(k=2)

2179 CO2 0018 002 005

2170 CO2 0014 002 005

2181 CO2 0010 002 005

Table 5 Uncertainty contributors To calculate the combined uncertainty the uncertainties were combined as the square root of the sum of squares The reported uncertainty of the result is based on standard uncertainties multiplied by a coverage factor of k=2 providing a level of confidence of approximately 95

P a g e | 142

A5 Additional information Description of the procedure Three gas mixtures were prepared for this comparison (2170 2179 and 2181) at NPL in synthetic air from sources of CO2 (BOC speciality gases) O2 (BOC speciality gases N 60) N2 (Air Products BIP+) and Ar (Air Products BIP+) The pure industrial source of CO2 was spiked with pure 13CO2 to achieve an isotopic composition close to natural abundance The mixtures were prepared in BOC 10 litre cylinders with Spectraseal passivation Two further sets of three reference standards was prepared and these were used to validate the comparison mixtures The scheme below shows the gravimetric dilutions with nominal CO2 amount fractions

Figure 1 Dilution scheme for gravimetric preparation

A Picarro G2301 Cavity ring-down spectrometer was used to validate the amount fraction of CO2 in mixtures 2170 2179 and 2181 The analyser response to the matrix gas was recorded The analyser response to a reference mixture was then recorded for a five minute period followed by either 2170 2179 or 2181 for the same time This sequence was repeated four times At the end of the experiment the analyser response to the matrix gas was recorded a second time To minimise the effects from zero drift a mean of the analyser response to the matrix gas before and after the experiment was used The amount fractions of 2170 2179 and 2181 were then determined by multiplying the ratio of the analyser response to each mixture and the reference mixture (both were corrected for the analyser response to matrix gas) with the amount fraction of the reference mixture These measurements were used to validate the gravimetric amount fractions submitted Cylinders were maintained at a laboratory temperature of (20 plusmn 3) C throughout the period of analysis Samples were introduced into the analyser at atmospheric pressure (excess flow was passed to vent) using a low volume gas regulator Purity tables for the CO2 Ar N2 and O2 are provided below

P a g e | 143

Component Amount Fraction (micromolmol) Expanded Uncertainty (micromolmol)

CO2 99999980 006

N2 0050 0029

O2 0050 0029

CO 0050 0029

Ar 0050 0029

Table 6 CO2 purity table

Component Amount Fraction (micromolmol) Expanded Uncertainty (micromolmol)

Ar 99999993 002

N2 0039 0023

O2 00050 00029

CO2 0007 0004

CO 00018 00010

CH4 000029 000017

Table 7 Ar purity table

Component Amount Fraction (micromolmol) Expanded Uncertainty (micromolmol)

N2 9999843 16

O2 0015 0009

Ar 1567 157

CO2 000085 000049

CO 000058 000033

CH4 000080 000046

Table 8 N2 purity table

Component Amount Fraction (micromolmol) Expanded Uncertainty (micromolmol)

O2 9999991 03

N2 050 029

Ar 0050 0029

CO2 019 019

CH4 00282 00048

Table 9 O2 purity table The mixtures were prepared on during the period 24th October to 8th November 2016 Measurements to study the stability of the mixtures were carried out over a 6 week period The cylinder pressure of mixtures 2170 2179 and 2181 prior to shipping was gt 10 MPa

P a g e | 144

NPLI

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM-K120

Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM-K120-R

Project name CCQM-K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899-8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute CSIR-National Physical Laboratory INDIA

Address CSIR-National Physical Laboratory Dr KS Krishnan Marg New Delhi ndash 110012 INDIA

Contact Person Dr Prabha Johri

Telephone 91 11 4560 856385658331

Fax 91 11 4560 9310

P a g e | 145

email pjohrinplindiaorg

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM-K120a (only) yes

CCQM-K120b (only) Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification Number

Carbon Dioxide mole fraction XCO2cert molmol

Expanded Uncertainties molmol

Coverage factor

1 JJ108891 37572 322 2

2 JJ108862 48052 304 2

3 JJ108854 79638 503 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix composition Component mol fraction and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) Standard1 Cylinder Number JJ108891

component Mole fraction value

unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0781273 molmol 0002210 molmol 2

O2 0209688 molmol 0000590 molmol 2

Ar 0009040 molmol 0000030 molmol 2

Standard 2 Cylinder Number JJ108862

component Mole fraction value

unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0781989 molmol 0002210 molmol 2

O2 0208853 molmol 0000590 molmol 2

Ar 0009158 molmol 0000030 molmol 2

P a g e | 146

Standard 3 Cylinder Number JJ108854

Component Mole fraction value

unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0781363 molmol 0002210 molmol 2

O2 0209789 molmol 0000594 molmol 2

Ar 0008847 molmol 0000030 molmol 2

A4 Uncertainty Budget The final uncertainty budget was estimated by combining two uncertainty components (ie preparation of PSGM and its analysis both)

(i) The Expanded Uncertainty estimation of all the prepared gas mixtures (PSGMs) has been calculated according to ISO 6142 Preparation of Calibration gas mixtures ndash Gravimetric method taking account of following factors 1 Raymor Balance 1 Mass Pieces 2 Bouancy corrections for weights 3 Handling of cylinder 4 Residual gases in the cylinder 5 Expansion of the cylinder due to filling of gas at High pressure (ii) Uncertainties in the analysis These are calculated taking acount of

1 Standard deviation Repeatability 2 Reproducibility amp 3 Instrument response

A5 Additional Information b) A purity table with uncertainties for pure Ar N2 and O2 parent gas The purity of N2 O2 and Ar parent gases were determined using tiger optics CRDS analyzers model for the following H2O CH4 and CO gas components The moisture of the gases were determined using Tiger Optics moisture analyzer model LaserTrace CH4 was determined using Tiger Optics methan analyzer model MTO-1000-CH4 and CO gas was determined using Tiger Optics CO analyzer model HALO 3-CO Purity of Argon gas was found to be as given below

P a g e | 147

Name of gases Concentration ppm Expanded Uncertainties Coverage factor

H2O moisture 145 023 2

CO gas 027 008 2

CH4 gas Not Detected (ND) (lt0001 )

Purity of N2 gas was found to be as given below

Name of gases Concentration ppm Expanded Uncertainties Coverage factor

H2O moisture 083 005 2

CO gas 34 024 2

CH4 gas ND (lt0001 )

Purity of O2 gas was found to be as given below

Name of gases Concentration ppm Expanded Uncertainties Coverage factor

H2O moisture 095 005 2

CH4 gas ND (lt0001 )

c) A brief out line of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures The preparation procedure involves following steps

1) Preparation of gas mixtures of CO2 in nitrogen gas Al cylinders 10 litre were evacuated and purged with nitogen gas and again evacuated with heating of the cylinders at 60-70oC This process is repeated thrice before any preparation of gas mixture was carried out The theoritical calculations were carried out for the desired concentrations Gas mixtures of CO2 in nitrogen gas from pure gas were prepared in two series in the concentrations around 20544 and 20392 molmol These gas mixtures were diluted in the concentration ranges from ( 370~ 1000 molmol) Total of 9 cylindres were prepared All the preparation of Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) were done in acordance to ISO 6142 Gas Analysis -Preparation of calibration gas mixtures - Gravimetric Method These cylinders were validated in acordance to ISO 6143 Gas analysis - Comparision method for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures Thus the prepared CO2 gas mixtures were certified as CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM)

P a g e | 148

2) Preparation of CO2 in synthetic air These mixtures were prepared from the two series of CO2 premixtures prepared in nitrogen gas in the concentration around 20544 and 20392 molmol as mentioned above The empty cylinders were evacuated and purged with dry nitogen gas and again evacuated with heating This process is repeated thrice for the pre-preparation of the cylinders The thoeritical calculations were carried out similating the desired concentration range as given in CCQM K-120 The required amount of pre mixture of CO2 in Nitrogen is transferred in the pre prepared evacuated cylinder These mixtures were now added with desired amount of pure Argon gas pure oxygen gas and finally top up has been done by nitrogen gas to simulate the synthetic air concentration Total of 9 cylinders were prepared in the concentration ranges ( 370~800 molmol) These cylinders were validated using above prepared binary mixtures of CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures Validation of Synthetic Air Mixtures

The prepared synthetic air gas mixture cylinders were validated using above prepared binary mixtures of CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) as per ISO 6143

The standard and sample gases were injected into eight-port gas sampling valves of the Agilent Gas Chromatograph with flame ionization detector (FID) Model 6890N US 10723001 The GC column used was Haysep D length 12 ft dia 18rdquo and mesh 100120 Helium gas was used as a carrier gas The measurement conditions were the sample loop of 05 ml oven temperature of 80oC detector temperature of 250oC hydrogen and air flow rate of 20 mlmin and 300 mlmin respectively All the Synthetic air CO2 gas mixtures were evaluated using a higher concentration CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) The average response was calculated by using the six values rejecting first and last two values each time for each measurement series The analysis of the cylinders were carried out three times The collected data is analysed and the uncertainty budget was evaluated

f) Cylider pressure before shipment to BIPM

SlNo Cylinder No Conc (Approx) molmol Pressure

1 JJ108891 380 110Bar 1596 psi

2 JJ108862 480 110Bar 1596 psi

3 JJ108854 800 110Bar 1596 psi

The Team members Dr Daya Soni Dr Khem Singh Ms S Bhatt Ms Joty Pokheryal Dr SG Aggarwal Dr PJohri

P a g e | 149

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM-K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM-K120-R (Stability Studies) Project name CCQM-K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899-8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute CSIR-National Physical Laboratory INDIA

Address CSIR-National Physical Laboratory Dr KS Krishnan Marg New Delhi ndash 110012 INDIA

Contact Person Dr Prabha Johri

Telephone 91 11 4560 856385658331

Fax 91 11 4560 9310

email pjohrinplindiaorg

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM-K120a (only) yes

CCQM-K120b (only) Yes

P a g e | 150

Stability Studies Result A3 NMI stability analysis values with its analytical uncertainty budget only

Cylinder Identification Number

Carbon Dioxide mole fraction XCO2cert molmol

Expanded Uncertainties molmol

Coverage factor

1 JJ108891

37824 395 2

2 JJ108862

47857 523 2

3 JJ108854

79880 335 2

A4 Uncertainty Budget The stability uncertainty budget was estimated using analytical uncertainty components only These are calculated taking account of

1 Standard deviation Repeatability 2 Calibration standard uncertainty 3 Instrument response

A5 A brief outline of the Stability Analysis Procedure applied to the Cylinders returned from BIPM France

The cylinders of the synthetic air gas mixtures arrived from BIPM France cylinders were analyzed using the prepared binary mixtures of CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) as per ISO 6143 The cylinders returned from BIPM and the binary standards gas mixtures in nitrogen gas cylinders are put to rotation for over night before using for its stability studies

The standard and sample gases were injected into eight-port gas sampling valves of the Agilent Gas Chromatograph with flame ionization detector (FID) Model 6890N US 10723001 The GC column used was Haysep D length 12 ft dia 18rdquo and mesh 100120 Helium gas was used as a carrier gas The measurement conditions were the sample loop of 05 ml oven temperature of 80oC detector temperature of 250oC hydrogen and air flow rate of 20 mlmin and 300 mlmin respectively All the Synthetic air CO2 gas mixtures were evaluated using a higher concentration CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Reference Gas Mixtures (PRGM) The average response was calculated by using six values rejecting first and last two values each time for each measurement series The analysis of the cylinders was carried out three times The collected data is analyzed and the analytical uncertainty budget was evaluated and reported in the stability result

The Team members Dr Daya Soni Dr Khem Singh Ms S Bhatt Dr SG Aggarwal Dr PJohri

P a g e | 151

UME

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM‐K120‐R

A1 General information

Institute UME

Address TUumlBİTAK UME ‐ Gas Metrology Laboratory Baris Mah Dr Zeki Acar Cad No1 41470 Gebze Kocaeli TURKEY

Contact person Dr Tanıl Tarhan

Telephone + 90 262 679 5000 6401 Fax + 90 262 679 5001

Email taniltarhantubitakgovtr

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2 μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 PSM298266 37992 016 2

2 PSM266468 48042 017 2

3 PSM298347 80076 027 2

P a g e | 152

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number PSM298266

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07803392 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

O2 02099663 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

Ar 00093140 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number PSM266468

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07799681 molmol 00000165 molmol 2

O2 02102293 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

Ar 00093215 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number PSM298347

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07795520 molmol 00000164 molmol 2

O2 02103522 molmol 00000164 molmol 2

Ar 00092945 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 PSM298266 ‐165 005 2 ‐ ‐ ‐

A4 Uncertainty Budget

P a g e | 153

The basis for the uncertainty budget is formed by the uncertainty evaluation from the gravimetric preparation and analytical measurements Gravimetric preparation contains uncertainty sources from weighing and those from purity of the parent gases Gravimetric preparation and uncertainty evaluation have performed according to ISO 6142 [1] The measurement uncertainty of each mixture was determined according to ISO 6143 [2] The combined standard uncertainty of each mixture was determined by the following equation

u u u

where

um standard uncertainty from measurements

ug standard uncertainty from gravimetric preparation

The expanded uncertainty was determined by multiplying the combined standard uncertainty by a coverage factor of 2 with a confidence interval of 95

A5 Additional information Mixtures were produced with synthetic air s) Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas

Main component carbon dioxide

Cylinder Code LG7524

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

carbon dioxide 99997750 924

water 250 144

nitrogen 1500 866

oxygen 500 289

t) Purity tables with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 and Ar parent gas

Main component nitrogen

Cylinder Code LG1220 and LG1221

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

carbon monoxide 005 003

carbon dioxide 005 003

methane 005 003

water 025 014

nitrogen 99999935 021

oxygen 025 014

Main component oxygen

P a g e | 154

Cylinder Code LG3367

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

argon 100 058

carbon dioxide 010 006

methane 010 006

water 150 087

nitrogen 250 144

oxygen 99999480 178

Main component argon

Cylinder Code LG1313

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

argon 99999300 122

water 150 087

nitrogen 400 231

oxygen 150 087

u) Mixtures were prepared according to the scheme displayed in Figure 1 Two different types of the pre‐mixtures were prepared These are 10 and 05 carbon dioxide in nitrogen and 15 argon in nitrogen 05 carbon dioxide in nitrogen and 15 argon in nitrogen pre‐mixtures were used together with pure nitrogen and pure oxygen for the final mixtures

P a g e | 155

Figure 1 Preparation scheme for the mixtures

v) Verification procedure applied to the final mixtures

The carbon dioxide (CO2) in air mixtures were analyzed on a cavity ring‐down spectroscopy (CRDS) instrument ie Picarro G2401 COCO2CH4H2O Analyzer equipped with 16‐Port Distribution Manifold Verification of the mixtures was carried out using own standards Cylinders were equipped with pressure reducers and connected to 16‐port distribution manifold They were flushed three times before the first measurement The analyzer operates vacuum pump to get the sample Therefore excess amount of gas than the amount of gas required by CRDS has been sent to the analyzer by adjusting the reducers The excess gas has been sent to the atmosphere through a bypass connected to sample line in between distribution manifold and the analyzer Each cylinder was measured for 15 minutes which is a sufficient time to obtain stable results The measurement data was collected using CRDS software Software takes about 2850 readings for 15 minutes During the data evaluation total number of 240 readings in between 10‐14 minutes has been used for determination of average values and uncertainties for each cylinder at each measurement

P a g e | 156

w) Stability testing of the mixtures

Pre‐mixtures and final mixtures were prepared in 01‐17 April 2016 First verification was performed in 21‐24 April 2016 Second verification was carried out in 22 September 2016 Final verification was performed 11‐19 October 2016 Measurement results are shown in Figure 2 As can be seen from the figure instrument response does not vary with time for each cylinder Stability testing did not show any instability within the accuracy of the measurement method

Figure 2 Stability measurements

x) Cylinder pressures before shipment to the BIPM are given below

Cylinder Code Pressure bar

PSM298266 86

PSM266468 86

PSM298347 90

References

[1] International Organization for Standardization ldquoISO 6142 Gas analysis ‐ Preparation of calibration gas mixtures ‐ Gravimetric methodsrdquo ISO Geneva 2001

[2] International Organization for Standardization ISO 6143 Gas analysis ‐ Comparison

methods for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures ISO Geneva 2001

300

500

700

900

CO2concentration (μmolmol)

Time

PSM298266 PSM266468 PSM298347

P a g e | 157

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM-K120-R

A1 General information

Institute UME

Address TUumlBİTAK UME ‐ Gas Metrology Laboratory Baris Mah Dr Zeki Acar Cad No1 41470 Gebze Kocaeli TURKEY

Contact person Dr Tanıl Tarhan

Telephone + 90 262 679 5000 6401 Fax + 90 262 679 5001

Email taniltarhantubitakgovtr

P a g e | 158

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2 μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 PSM298266 37992 019 2

2 PSM266468 48042 025 2

3 PSM298347 80076 036 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number PSM298266

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07803392 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

O2 02099663 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

Ar 00093140 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number PSM266468

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07799681 molmol 00000165 molmol 2

P a g e | 159

O2 02102293 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

Ar 00093215 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number PSM298347

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07795520 molmol 00000164 molmol 2

O2 02103522 molmol 00000164 molmol 2

Ar 00092945 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 PSM298266 ‐165 005 2 ‐ ‐ ‐

A4 Uncertainty Budget

The basis for the uncertainty budget is formed by the uncertainty evaluation from the gravimetric preparation and analytical measurements Gravimetric preparation contains uncertainty sources from weighing and those from purity of the parent gases Gravimetric preparation and uncertainty evaluation have performed according to ISO 6142 [1] The measurement uncertainty of each mixture was determined according to ISO 6143 [2] The mixtures were analyzed for stability after receiving them back from BIPM The combined standard uncertainty of each mixture was determined by the following equation

u u u u

where

um standard uncertainty from measurements

ug standard uncertainty from gravimetric preparation

us standard uncertainty for stability

The expanded uncertainty was determined by multiplying the combined standard uncertainty by a coverage factor of 2 with a confidence interval of 95

P a g e | 160

A5 Additional information Mixtures were produced from pure components of CO2 N2 O2 and Ar y) Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas

Main component carbon dioxide

Cylinder Code LG7524

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

carbon dioxide 99997750 924

water 250 144

nitrogen 1500 866

oxygen 500 289

z) Purity tables with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 and Ar parent gas

Main component nitrogen

Cylinder Code LG1220 and LG1221

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

carbon monoxide 005 003

carbon dioxide 005 003

methane 005 003

water 025 014

nitrogen 99999935 021

oxygen 025 014

Main component oxygen

Cylinder Code LG3367

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

argon 100 058

carbon dioxide 010 006

methane 010 006

water 150 087

nitrogen 250 144

oxygen 99999480 178

Main component argon

Cylinder Code LG1313

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

argon 99999300 122

water 150 087

nitrogen 400 231

oxygen 150 087

P a g e | 161

aa) Mixtures were prepared according to the scheme displayed in Figure 1 Two different types

of the pre‐mixtures were prepared These are 10 and 05 carbon dioxide in nitrogen and 15 argon in nitrogen 05 carbon dioxide in nitrogen and 15 argon in nitrogen pre‐mixtures were used together with pure nitrogen and pure oxygen for the final mixtures

Figure 1 Preparation scheme for the mixtures

bb) Verification procedure applied to the final mixtures

The carbon dioxide (CO2) in air mixtures were analyzed on a cavity ring‐down spectroscopy (CRDS) instrument ie Picarro G2401 COCO2CH4H2O Analyzer equipped with 16‐Port Distribution Manifold Verification of the mixtures was carried out using own standards Cylinders were equipped with pressure reducers and connected to 16‐port distribution manifold They were flushed three times before the first measurement The analyzer operates vacuum pump to get the sample Therefore excess amount of gas than the amount of gas required by CRDS has been sent to the analyzer by adjusting the reducers

P a g e | 162

The excess gas has been sent to the atmosphere through a bypass connected to sample line in between distribution manifold and the analyzer Each cylinder was measured for 15 minutes which is a sufficient time to obtain stable results The measurement data was collected using CRDS software Software takes about 2850 readings for 15 minutes During the data evaluation total number of 240 readings in between 10‐14 minutes has been used for determination of average values and uncertainties for each cylinder at each measurement

cc) Stability testing of the mixtures

Pre‐mixtures and final mixtures were prepared in 01‐17 April 2016 First verification was performed in 21‐24 April 2016 Second verification was carried out in 22 September 2016 Final verification was performed during 11‐19 October 2016 Measurement results are shown in Figure 2 As can be seen from the figure instrument response does not vary with time for each cylinder Stability testing did not show any instability within the accuracy of the measurement method before sending the cylinders to BIPM

Figure 2 Stability measurements before sending the cylinders

After receiving the cylinders they have been analyzed for stability Measurements were carried out during 23‐24 August 2017 and 06‐07 September 2017 Instrument responses were plotted against time as shown in Figure 3 The slope of the responses has been checked Uncertainty for stability has been determined and has been included in the combined uncertainty

300

500

700

900

CO2concentration (μmolmol)

Time

PSM298266 PSM266468 PSM298347

P a g e | 163

Figure 3 Stability measurements after receiving the cylinders

dd) Cylinder pressures before shipment to the BIPM are given below

Cylinder Code Pressure bar

PSM298266 86

PSM266468 86

PSM298347 90

References

[1] International Organization for Standardization ldquoISO 6142 Gas analysis ‐ Preparation of calibration gas mixtures ‐ Gravimetric methodsrdquo ISO Geneva 2001

[2] International Organization for Standardization ISO 6143 Gas analysis ‐ Comparison

methods for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures ISO Geneva 2001

300

500

700

900

CO2concentration (μmolmol)

Time

PSM298266 PSM266468 PSM298347

P a g e | 164

VNIIM

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQMK120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQMK120R

Project name CCQMK120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air Standards Proposed dates 092016 to 122017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 208998300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores

BIPM Chemistry Department Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg A1 General information Institute

DI Mendeleyev Institute for Metrology (VNIIM )

Address

19 Moskovsky pr St Petersburg 190005 Russia

Contact person Leonid Konopelko Telephone +7 812 315 11 45 Fax +7 812 315 15 17 Email

fhib10vniimru

P a g e | 165

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo CCQMK120a

Yes

CCQMK120b

Yes

A3 NMI submitted values Table 1 Cylinder Identification

number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction xCO2 cert μmolmol

Expanded uncertainty U(x CO2 cert) μmolmol

Coverage factor

1 M365601

38020 011 2

2 M365664

48018 013 2

3 M365707

80073 019 2

Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) Table 2 (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number M365601 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

781015 10-2 molmol 00013 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209188 10-2 molmol 00013 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09416 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000094 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Table 3 (Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number M365664 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

780928 10-2 molmol 00011 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209270 10-2 molmol 00012 10-2 molmol 2

Ar 09322 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

P a g e | 166

CH4 000000096 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Table 4 (Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number M365707 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

781000 10-2 molmol 00011 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209199 10-2 molmol 00012 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09000 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000097 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Uncertainty in the tables 2-4 includes only constituents related to gravimetry (weighing and purity) Table 5 CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional) Cylinder

Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C)

CoverageFactor

δ18O U(δ18O) CoverageFactor

1 M365601 - 480 09 2 - - - 2 M365664 - 480 09 2 - - - 3 M365707 - 480 09 2 - - - A4 Uncertainty Budget Table 6 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365601

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution

ui(y) μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200 μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999381 μmolmol B Rectangular 0015 μmolmol 006733 000101

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374 μmolmol 000016 000006

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030 μmolmol 000534 000016

Weighing premixture

CO2 2015723 g AB Normal 000223g ‐1854106 ‐004140

N2 115359704 g AB Normal 001962 g 032397 000636

Weighing pre‐ 2048733 g AB Normal 000203 g ‐1791563 ‐003630

P a g e | 167

final mixture

mixture

Ar 790915 g AB Normal 000200 g 045258 000091

O2 14075497 g AB Normal 000353 g 056493 000200

N2 43993136 g AB Normal 001021 g 064543 000659

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal 000035 gmol 86286 000302

Combined standard uncertainty 005596

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0112

Table 7 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365664

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution ui(y)

μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200

μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999390 μmolmol B Rectangular 0011

μmolmol 006909 000076

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374

μmolmol 000020 0000075

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030

μmolmol 000534 000016

Weighing premixture

CO2 1947854 g AB Normal 000224 g ‐2423572 ‐005424

N2 111850932 g AB Normal 001950 g 042206 000823

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

2586420 g AB Normal

000204 g ‐1775177 ‐003626

Ar 780100 g AB Normal 000200 g 057374 000115

O2 14028618 g AB Normal 000391 g 071611 000280

N2 43288272 g AB Normal 000915 g 081821 000749

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal

000035 gmol

109066 000382

Combined standard uncertainty 0066379

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0133

Table 8 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365707

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution

ui(y)

P a g e | 168

μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200 μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999390 μmolmol B Rectangular 0011μmolmol 006733 000076

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374 μmolmol 000035 000013

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030 μmolmol 000500 000015

Weighing premixture

CO2 2015723 g AB Normal 000223g ‐3905886 ‐008721

N2 115359704 g AB Normal 001962 g 068249 001339

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

4282195 g AB Normal

000220 g ‐1733744 ‐003823

Ar 750252 g AB Normal 000202 g 096046 000194

O2 13969676 g AB Normal 000403 g 119851 000483

N2 41448867 g AB Normal 000834 g 136969 001143

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal 000035 gmol 181777 0006362

Combined standard uncertainty

009719

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0194

Uncertainty due to weighing includes constituents related to accuracy of balance buoyancy effect resulting from change of cylinder volume during filling mass pierces used drift of balance residual gas in cylinder A5 Additional information Table 9 Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas Cylinder N 74318 Main component CO2 Mole fraction 99999345

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

N2 025 014

CO 0029 0001

CH4 0149 0002

He 05 029

H2 322 007

O2 025 014

H2O 215 011

Purity tables with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 and Ar parent gases Table 10 Purity table for N2

P a g e | 169

Monoblock Main component N2 Mole fraction 999998672

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

Ar 0916 0011

O2 00015 00009

CO2 00025 00014

H2 00025 00014

CH4 00025 00014

CO 00025 00014

H2O 040 020

Table 11 Purity table for O2 Cylinder N 910281 Main component O2 Mole fraction 999999381

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

H2 00025 00014

Ar 0181 0004

N2 0307 0012

Kr 00025 00014

CO 00075 00043

CH4 00347 00008

CO2 0081 0005

Xe 00025 00014

Table 12 Purity table for Ar Cylinder N 283162 Main component Ar Mole fraction 999998209

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

O2 00231 00013

N2 1188 0015

CH4 0015 0009

CO2 0030 0017

H2 0025 0014

CO 0010 0006

H2O 050 001

P a g e | 170

c) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures Preparation of final mixtures (СO2 in synthetic air) was carried out from pure substances in 2 stages 1-st stage ndash 3 mixtures СO2N2 ndashlevel 11 2-nd stage ndash 3x3 target mixtures СO2synthetic air All the mixtures were prepared in Luxfer cylinders (V=10 and 5 dm3) d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures CRDS analyzer was used for verification 4 measurement series were carried out within each verification procedure SD of a single measurement (reproducibility between series) was 0003 -0006 CRDS analyzer was used for verification Instrument Picarro G2401 Measurement cell temperature 45оС Measurement cell pressure 18665 kPa Data collection by ldquoPicarro Incrdquo software CRDS analyzer was used for δ13C measurements Instrument Picarro G2131i Reference materials used for calibration IAEA‐CO‐8 IAEA‐CH‐7 Measurement cell temperature 45оС Measurement cell pressure 18665 kPa Data collection by ldquoPicarro Incrdquo software e) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM The final mixtures were prepared 0310 -13102016 First verification measurement was carried out 1710 -2110 2016 Second verification measurement was carried out 2610 -28102016 Verification measurements were performed by checking consistency within the group of the 3x3 prepared mixtures uver =0003 Stability testing (short-term) did not show instability within the accuracy of the measurement method f) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

89 MPa for M365601 90 MPa for M365664 93 MPa for M365707

P a g e | 171

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQMK120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQMK120R

Project name CCQMK120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air Standards Proposed dates 092016 to 122017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 208998300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores

BIPM Chemistry Department Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg A1 General information Institute

DI Mendeleyev Institute for Metrology (VNIIM )

Address

19 Moskovsky pr St Petersburg 190005 Russia

Contact person Leonid Konopelko Telephone +7 812 315 11 45 Fax +7 812 315 15 17 Email

fhib10vniimru

P a g e | 172

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo CCQMK120a

Yes

CCQMK120b

Yes

A3 NMI submitted values Table 1 Cylinder Identification

number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction xCO2 cert μmolmol

Expanded uncertainty U(x CO2 cert) μmolmol

Coverage factor

1 M365601

38020 011 2

2 M365664

48018 013 2

3 M365707

80073 019 2

Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) Table 2 (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number M365601 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

781015 10-2 molmol 00013 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209188 10-2 molmol 00013 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09416 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000094 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Table 3 (Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number M365664 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

780928 10-2 molmol 00011 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209270 10-2 molmol 00012 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09322 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000096 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured

P a g e | 173

Table 4 (Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number M365707 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

781000 10-2 molmol 00011 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209199 10-2 molmol 00012 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09000 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000097 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Uncertainty in the tables 2-4 includes only constituents related to gravimetry (weighing and purity) Table 5 CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional) Cylinder

Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C)

CoverageFactor

δ18O U(δ18O) CoverageFactor

1 M365601 - 480 09 2 - - - 2 M365664 - 480 09 2 - - - 3 M365707 - 480 09 2 - - - A4 Uncertainty Budget Table 6 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365601

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution

ui(y) μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200 μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999381 μmolmol B Rectangular 0015 μmolmol 006733 000101

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374 μmolmol 000016 000006

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030 μmolmol 000534 000016

Weighing premixture

CO2 2015723 g AB Normal 000223g ‐1854106 ‐004140

N2 115359704 g AB Normal 001962 g 032397 000636

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

2048733 g AB Normal

000203 g ‐1791563 ‐003630

Ar 790915 g AB Normal 000200 g 045258 000091

O2 14075497 g AB Normal 000353 g 056493 000200

P a g e | 174

N2 43993136 g AB Normal 001021 g 064543 000659

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal 000035 gmol 86286 000302

Combined standard uncertainty 005596

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0112

Table 7 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365664

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution ui(y)

μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200

μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999390 μmolmol B Rectangular 0011

μmolmol 006909 000076

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374

μmolmol 000020 0000075

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030

μmolmol 000534 000016

Weighing premixture

CO2 1947854 g AB Normal 000224 g ‐2423572 ‐005424

N2 111850932 g AB Normal 001950 g 042206 000823

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

2586420 g AB Normal

000204 g ‐1775177 ‐003626

Ar 780100 g AB Normal 000200 g 057374 000115

O2 14028618 g AB Normal 000391 g 071611 000280

N2 43288272 g AB Normal 000915 g 081821 000749

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal

000035 gmol

109066 000382

Combined standard uncertainty 0066379

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0133

Table 8 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365707

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution

ui(y) μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200 μmolmol 000545 000109

P a g e | 175

Purity of O2 999999390 μmolmol B Rectangular 0011μmolmol 006733 000076

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374 μmolmol 000035 000013

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030 μmolmol 000500 000015

Weighing premixture

CO2 2015723 g AB Normal 000223g ‐3905886 ‐008721

N2 115359704 g AB Normal 001962 g 068249 001339

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

4282195 g AB Normal

000220 g ‐1733744 ‐003823

Ar 750252 g AB Normal 000202 g 096046 000194

O2 13969676 g AB Normal 000403 g 119851 000483

N2 41448867 g AB Normal 000834 g 136969 001143

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal 000035 gmol 181777 0006362

Combined standard uncertainty

009719

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0194

Uncertainty due to weighing includes constituents related to accuracy of balance buoyancy effect resulting from change of cylinder volume during filling mass pierces used drift of balance residual gas in cylinder A5 Additional information Table 9 Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas Cylinder N 74318 Main component CO2 Mole fraction 99999345

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

N2 025 014

CO 0029 0001

CH4 0149 0002

He 05 029

H2 322 007

O2 025 014

H2O 215 011

Purity tables with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 and Ar parent gases Table 10 Purity table for N2 Monoblock Main component N2 Mole fraction 999998672

P a g e | 176

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

Ar 0916 0011

O2 00015 00009

CO2 00025 00014

H2 00025 00014

CH4 00025 00014

CO 00025 00014

H2O 040 020

Table 11 Purity table for O2 Cylinder N 910281 Main component O2 Mole fraction 999999381

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

H2 00025 00014

Ar 0181 0004

N2 0307 0012

Kr 00025 00014

CO 00075 00043

CH4 00347 00008

CO2 0081 0005

Xe 00025 00014

Table 12 Purity table for Ar Cylinder N 283162 Main component Ar Mole fraction 999998209

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

O2 00231 00013

N2 1188 0015

CH4 0015 0009

CO2 0030 0017

H2 0025 0014

CO 0010 0006

H2O 050 001

c) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures

P a g e | 177

Preparation of final mixtures (СO2 in synthetic air) was carried out from pure substances in 2 stages 1-st stage ndash 3 mixtures СO2N2 ndashlevel 11 2-nd stage ndash 3x3 target mixtures СO2synthetic air All the mixtures were prepared in Luxfer cylinders (V=10 and 5 dm3) d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures CRDS analyzer was used for verification 4 measurement series were carried out within each verification procedure SD of a single measurement (reproducibility between series) was 0003 -0006 CRDS analyzer was used for verification Instrument Picarro G2401 Measurement cell temperature 45оС Measurement cell pressure 18665 kPa Data collection by ldquoPicarro Incrdquo software CRDS analyzer was used for δ13C measurements Instrument Picarro G2131i Reference materials used for calibration IAEA‐CO‐8 IAEA‐CH‐7 Measurement cell temperature 45оС Measurement cell pressure 18665 kPa Data collection by ldquoPicarro Incrdquo software e) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM The final mixtures were prepared 0310 -13102016 First verification measurement was carried out 1710 -2110 2016 Second verification measurement was carried out 2610 -28102016 Verification measurements were performed by checking consistency within the group of the 3x3 prepared mixtures uver =0003 Stability testing (short-term) did not show instability within the accuracy of the measurement method Long-term stability testing (measurements 2108-23082017 and 0910-11102017) did not show instability within the accuracy of the measurement method f) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

89 MPa for M365601 90 MPa for M365664 93 MPa for M365707

P a g e | 178

VSL

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 179

P a g e | 180

P a g e | 181

Page 7: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM

P a g e | 7

GUM D298402 800500 BFKH OMH69 800300

UME PSM298347 80076016 FT‐14 NPLI JJ108854 796380

(17‐21 April) NMISA M51 8244 799100 INRIM D247445 798900

Table 1 Schedule of the CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b measurements

5 Measurement standards Each laboratory taking part in the CCQM-K120a comparison was requested to produce one standard at the nominal mole fraction of 380 micromolmol and another at the mole fraction 480 micromolmol For those taking part in the CCQM-K120b comparison the standards were requested at the nominal mole fractions of 480 micromolmol and 800 micromolmol The mole fraction of carbon dioxide was requested to be within plusmn 10 micromolmol of the nominal mole fractions of the cylinders The carbon dioxide was requested to be produced in a dry air matrix produced from scrubbed real air or synthetic air that has been blended from pure gases that are the main constituents of air (nitrogen oxygen argon) and two other constituents (nitrous oxide and methane)The table below describes the limits of the gas matrix composition of the scrubbed dry real air and synthetic air which were to be met by participants Species lsquoAmbientrsquo

level mole fraction

Unit Min mole fraction

Unit Max mole fraction

Unit

N2 0780876 molmol 07804 molmol 07814 molmol O2 02093335 molmol 02088 molmol 02098 molmol Ar 00093332 molmol 00089 molmol 00097 molmol CH4 1900 nmolmol 0 nmolmol 1900 nmolmol N2O 330 nmolmol 0 nmolmol 330 nmolmol Table 2 CCQM-K120a matrix composition limit values(380 micromol mol and 480 micromolmol CO2 in airdagger) daggerEach participating laboratory was required to submit two standards one with nominal CO2 mole fraction of (370 to 390) micromolmol and the second with (470 to 490) micromolmol Species lsquoAmbientrsquo

level mole fraction

Unit Min mole fraction

Unit Max mole fraction

Unit

N2 0780876 molmol 07789 molmol 07829 molmol O2 02093335 molmol 02073 molmol 02113 molmol Ar 00093332 molmol 00078 molmol 00108 molmol CH4 1900 nmolmol 0 nmolmol 1900 nmolmol N2O 330 nmolmol 0 nmolmol 330 nmolmol

Table 3 CCQM-K120b matrix composition limits values(480 micromol mol and 800 micromolmol CO2 in airDagger)DaggerEach participating laboratory was required to submit two standards one with nominal CO2 mole fraction of (470 to 490) micromolmol and the second with (790 to 810) micromolmol (A laboratory participating in both CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b need only submit 3 standards in total)

P a g e | 8

Aditionally the following information was requested from each participant

In the case of standards produced with synthetic air

- a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas - a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar N2O and CH4 parent

gas - a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures - a purity table for each of the final mixtures including gravimetric uncertainties - a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures - a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared

and the time they are shipped to the BIPM

In the case of standards produced with scrubbed lsquorealrsquo air

- a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas - results of the analysis and mole fractions and uncertainties of N2 O2 Ar N2O and CH4 in

the scrubbed real air - a brief outline of the preparation procedure of the final mixtures - a composition table for each of the final mixtures including gravimetric uncertainties

when relevant - a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures - a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared

and the time they are shipped to the BIPM

6 Preparation values submitted and stability measurements by participants

Information on mixtures submitted by participating laboratories via the comparison submission forms on initial submission and after stability testing of cylinders is included in ANNEX V The CO2 mole fractions submitted by participants are listed in Table 5 where

xNMI is the value assigned by the participating NMIs

U(xNMI) is the expanded uncertainty including contributions from verification associated with the assigned value xNMI The comparison protocol permitted stability testing to be performed by laboratories after standards had been returned to them by the BIPM and before the comparison results were known As a result three laboratories provided new values and uncertainties namely NIST NPLI and BFKH In addition UME modified the uncertainty budget only and resubmitted this to the comparison organizers This subject was discussed during the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018) and it was agreed that only the uncertainties resubmitted by UME (Table 15) will replace the original uncertainties NIST NPLI BFKH resubmitted values and

P a g e | 9

uncertainties will only be reported in an annex (see ANNEX II- ) (Table 15) with no influence on the KCRV and the degree of equivalence (DOE) of the comparison Figure 1 plots the CO2 mole fraction reported by the participants for each gas standard In this figure the error bars represent the standard uncertainty associated with the reported value It can be observed that participants prepared all mixtures with a CO2 mole fraction within 10 micromol mol-1 of the nominal values as requested At 380 micromolmol NPLI submitted the mixture with the smallest CO2 mole fraction 37572plusmn322 micromolmol and NIMJ with the highest 38662plusmn005 micromolmol At 480 micromolmol NIMJ produced the lowest mole fraction 47130plusmn005 micromolmol and NIM the highest 48915plusmn022 micromolmol At 800 micromolmol NOAA produced the lowest mole fraction 79408plusmn048 micromolmol and NIM the highest 80982plusmn026 micromolmol The expanded uncertainties reported by the participants are plotted in Figure 2 Regarding the gas matrix composition thirty-five standards were produced in synthetic air and nine in purified (scrubbed) real air (see Table 5) The compositions of the mixtures reported by participants are listed in Table 6 Seven standards out of forty-four mixtures were not within specifications (gas mixture composition) as requested in the comparison protocol1

7 Measurements at the BIPM

On receipt by the BIPM all cylinders were allowed to equilibrate at laboratory temperature for at least 24 hours All cylinders were rolled for at least 1 hour to ensure homogeneity of the mixture

Cylinders were analysed in batches of n cylinders first by GC-FID then by FTIR and finally by the Delta Ray

For FTIR measurements each batch contained 4 cylinders from participants and 2 controls (at nominal mole fractions of 480 and 800 micromolmol) Each cylinder was connected from the pressure reducer to one inlet of a 32-inlet automatic gas sampler The procedure before starting measurements was identical as described below for GC-FID The reported value is the drift corrected ratio between the FTIR response and one control cylinder (at ~ 800 micromol mol-1) with a further correction required to take into account the isotopic composition of each mixtures Due to depletion of the control cylinder at nominally 480 micromolmol before completion of all measurements only ratios against the 800 micromolmol cylinder could be calculated for all standards Further details regarding the FTIR measurements are described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure FTIR

1 This nominal fraction limits were given in order to avoid possible biases that could be introduced into the spectroscopic comparison method (FTIR) due to variation in the composition of the air matrix in different standards For those standards that did not meet the tolerances specified in the protocol the BIPM included an additional uncertainty component in its FTIR analytical uncertainty to account for the impact of this

P a g e | 10

When the cylinders were analysed by GC-FID batches were composed of between four and six participantsrsquo cylinders three control cylinders (A B and C at nominal mole fractions of 380 480 and 800 micromolmol respectively) for ratio quantification and additional cylinders if required to maintain the total batch size of nine standards Each cylinder was connected from the pressure reducer to one inlet of a 16-inlet automatic gas sampler The sampler was connected to a gas chromatograph (GC-FID) The pressure reducer of each cylinder was flushed nine times with the mixture The cylinder valve was then closed leaving the high pressure side of the pressure reducer at the cylinder pressure and the low pressure side of the pressure reducer at ~300 kPa (abs) The cylinders were left stand at least 24 hours to allow conditioning of the pressure reducers The reported value was the drift corrected ratio between the GC-FID response and one control cylinder (at ~ 480 micromol mol-1) These measurements were performed under intermediate precision conditions (over ten weeks) Ratios against the other control cylinders were calculated but no substantial difference was observed with the ratio against the control cylinder at 480 micromolmol Further details regarding GC-FID measurements are described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure GC-FID

When the cylinders were analyzed by the Delta Ray each batch contained 4 cylinders from participants and 2 calibration standards Each cylinder was connected from the pressure reducer to one inlet of a 16-inlet automatic gas sampler The same procedure was again applied for flushing the gas lines Further details are described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure Delta Ray

The measurements performed by the Delta Ray analyser were only used to measure the isotopic ratios in each cylinder and further correct the FTIR responses due isotopic differences between the control cylinders and the samples as described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure FTIR In this manner the FTIR reported values for each cylinder were corrected for the isotopic composition and further ratioed to the response to a control cylinder (also corrected for the isotopic composition)

71 Measurements results

Measurements were performed at the BIPM from February to April 2017 Table 7 lists the inlet pressure before and after the standards were analyzed by the BIPM

Each cylinder was value assigned using the methods described in section 7 (details in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure)

Results of these series of measurements are listed in Table 8 where

FTR is the (mean) ratio between the FTIR response to the mixture under analysis and the control cylinder both corrected for the isotopic composition

FTRu is the standard uncertainty of the reported ratio based on FTIR measurements

(described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure FTIR)

wGCR is the reported value based on GC-FID measurements

P a g e | 11

GCRu the standard uncertainty of the reported value based on GC-FID (described in

ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure GC-FID) The δ13C and δ18O measurements on the VPDB-CO2 scale performed by Delta Ray are listed in Table 11 The typical uncertainties for each of the methods used by the BIPM are listed in Table 4

Comparison method name

Measurement quantity Symbol unit Typical relative

standard uncertainty ()

FTIR Ratio to control cylinder under intermediate precision condition FTR 1 0009

GC-FID Ratio to control cylinder under intermediate precision conditions wGCR 1 0007

Table 4 Comparison methods used during the CCQM-K120 international comparison and typical uncertainties obtained by the BIPM

Participant Cylinder references Gas Matrix

NMIrsquos assigned CO2 mole fraction xNMI

(micromol mol-1)

NMIrsquos assigned CO2

expanded uncertainty U(xNMI)

k = 2 (micromol mol-1)

Before the return of cylinders

BFKH OMH54 Synthetic Air 379840 1710

BFKH OMH44 Synthetic Air 479890 2110

BFKH OMH69 Synthetic Air 800300 2920

GUM D298392 Synthetic Air 380100 4400

GUM D298393 Synthetic Air 478100 5200

GUM D298402 Synthetic Air 800500 8600

INRIM D247440 Synthetic Air 479300 1600

INRIM D247445 Synthetic Air 798900 2600

KRISS D500642 Synthetic Air 378900 0200

KRISS D500647 Synthetic Air 480000 0200

KRISS D500672 Synthetic Air 800800 0400

LNE 1029045 Synthetic Air 379480 0790

LNE 1029047 Synthetic Air 477600 1000

LNE 1029048 Synthetic Air 802200 1700

NIM FB03747 Synthetic Air 383430 0200

NIM FB03744 Synthetic Air 489150 0220

NIM FB03748 Synthetic Air 809820 0260

NIST FB04278 Real Air 379045 0391

NIST FB04300 Real Air 472662 0428

NIST FB04287 Real Air 794533 1029

NMIJ CPC00486 Real Air 386617 0050

P a g e | 12

NMIJ CPC00494 Real Air 471301 0051

NMIJ CPC00558 Real Air 803658 0078

NMISA M51 8232 Synthetic Air 380200 2000

NMISA M51 8167 Synthetic Air 479500 1600

NMISA M51 8244 Synthetic Air 799100 1000

NOAA CC310084 Real Air 379500 0210

NOAA CC305198 Real Air 479260 0260

NOAA CB11668 Real Air 794080 0480

NPL 2179 Synthetic Air 380270 0190

NPL 2170 Synthetic Air 480020 0240

NPL 2181 Synthetic Air 799700 0400

NPLI JJ108891 Synthetic Air 375720 3220

NPLI JJ108862 Synthetic Air 480520 3040

NPLI JJ108854 Synthetic Air 796380 5030

UME PSM298266 Synthetic Air 379920 0190

UME PSM266468 Synthetic Air 480420 0250

UME PSM298347 Synthetic Air 800760 0360

VNIIM M365601 Synthetic Air 380200 0110

VNIIM M365664 Synthetic Air 480180 0130

VNIIM M365707 Synthetic Air 800730 0190

VSL 5604614 Synthetic Air 378900 0280

VSL 5604880 Synthetic Air 480480 0360

VSL 5604705 Synthetic Air 795700 0600

Table 5 Standards and reported values provided by participants Re-submitted values following stability testing which were included following the decision of the CCQM GAWG see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of

the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

Figure 1 CO2 mole fractions xNMI reported by participants The error bars represents the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the submitted values

GUM KRISS LNE NIM NMIJ NMISA NOAA NPL VNIIM VSL BFKH NIST NPLI UME374

376

378

380

382

384

386

GUM INRIM KRISS LNE NIM NMIJ NMISA NOAA NPL VNIIM VSL BFKH NIST NPLI UME460

465

470

475

480

485

490GUM INRIM KRISS LNE NMIJ NOAA NPL VNIIM VSL NIM NMISA BFKH NIST NPLI UME

792

796

800

804

808

812

x NM

I (

mol

mol

-1)

P a g e | 14

Figure 2 Participantsrsquo assigned CO2 expanded uncertainties U(xNMI)

NM

IJ

NM

IJ

NM

IJ

VN

IIM

VN

IIM

UM

E

UM

E

NP

L

VN

IIM

KR

ISS

KR

ISS

NIM

NO

AA

NIM

NP

L

NIM

NO

AA

UM

E

VS

L

VS

L

NIS

T

KR

ISS

NP

L

NIS

T

NO

AA

VS

L

LNE

LNE

NM

ISA

NIS

T

INR

IM

NM

ISA

BF

KH

LNE

NM

ISA

BF

KH

INR

IM

BF

KH

NP

LI

NP

LI

GU

M

NP

LI

GU

M

GU

M

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9U

(xN

MI)

m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 15

Participant Number of Cylinder

NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos

assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned

N2 expanded

uncertainty O2

expanded uncertainty

Ar expanded

uncertainty CH4 mole fraction

expanded uncertainty

N2O mole fraction

expanded uncertainty

mole fraction

k =2 mole fraction k=2 mole fraction k =2 k=2 k=2

xN2 U(xN2) xO2 U(xO2) xAr U(xAr) xNMI U(xNMI) xNMI U(xNMI)

(molmol) (molmol) (molmol) (molmol) (molmol) (molmol) (nmolmol) (nmolmol) (nmolmol) (nmolmol)

BFKH OMH54 0780390 0000160 0209615 0000048 0009607 0000017 1030 1200

BFKH OMH44 0780640 0000160 0209514 0000048 0009360 0000017 1030 1200

BFKH OMH69 0780720 0000160 0209161 0000048 0009314 0000017 1030 1200

GUM D298392 0780800 0000200 0209500 0000100 0009250 0000010

GUM D298393 0780700 0000200 0209600 0000100 0009190 0000010

GUM D298402 0780200 0000200 0209700 0000100 0009380 0000010

INRIM D247440 0781132 0000006 0209063 0000006 0009326 0000004

INRIM D247445 0782389 0000006 0207553 0000005 0009259 0000004

KRISS D500642 0781139 0000005 0209256 0000004 0009226 0000001 9 2 0200 0000

KRISS D500647 0780915 0000004 0209152 0000004 0009452 0000001 10 3 0200 0000

KRISS D500672 0780407 0000004 0209452 0000004 0009339 0000001 15 3 0200 0000

LNE 1029045 0780686 0000025 0209528 0000019 0009407 0000022

LNE 1029047 0781355 0000025 0208794 0000018 0009374 0000022

LNE 1029048 0782710 0000027 0207187 0000021 0009301 0000021

NIM FB03747 0782000 0000029 0209000 0000028 0009220 0000010 1 0 0791 0607

NIM FB03744 0781000 0000028 0210000 0000026 0009040 0000010 1 0 0790 0601

NIM FB03748 0781000 0000027 0210000 0000026 0007940 0000010 1 0 0790 0586

NIST FB04278 0780812 0000118 0209470 0000710 0009339 0000370

NIST FB04300 0780771 0000128 0209422 0000081 0009334 0000034

P a g e | 16

NIST FB04287 0780499 0000114 0209370 0000067 0009336 0000040

NMIJ CPC00486 0780915 0000025 0209365 0000007 0009334 0000024 2 2 0900 0900

NMIJ CPC00494 0780937 0000024 0209259 0000007 0009333 0000024 3 2 0900 0900

NMIJ CPC00558 0780602 0000022 0209270 0000006 0009325 0000021 3 2 0900 0900

NMISA M51 8232 0780700 0000048 0209600 0000015 0009400 0000005 7 4 0000 0000

NMISA M51 8167 0780900 0000028 0209600 0000011 0008900 0000005 9 6 0000 0000

NMISA M51 8244 0779300 0000031 0210600 0000016 0009300 0000005 10 6 0000 0000

NOAA CC310084 0209500 0000200 1762 3 317200 0500

NOAA CC305198 0209500 0000200 1887 4 328600 0500

NOAA CB11668 0209500 0000200 1889 4 328800 0500

NPL 2179 0780790 0000470 0209600 0000130 0009232 0000018 lt10 - lt10 0000

NPL 2170 0780690 0780690 0209500 0209500 0009334 0009334 lt10 - lt10 0000

NPL 2181 0780550 0000470 0209280 0000130 0009367 0000019 lt10 - lt10 0000

NPLI JJ108891 0781273 0002210 0209688 0000590 0009040 0000030

NPLI JJ108862 0781989 0002210 0208853 0000590 0009158 0000030

NPLI JJ108854 0781363 0002210 0209789 0000594 0008847 0000030

UME PSM298266 0780339 0000017 0209966 0000017 0009314 0000002

UME PSM266468 0779968 0000017 0210229 0000017 0009322 0000002

UME PSM298347 0779552 0000016 0210352 0000016 0009295 0000002

VNIIM M365601 0781015 0000013 0209188 0000013 0009416 0000005 9 2

VNIIM M365664 0780928 0000011 0209270 0000012 0009322 0000005 10 2

VNIIM M365707 0781000 0000011 0209199 0000012 0009000 0000005 10 2

VSL 5604614 0781177 0000017 0209152 0000016 0009292 0000006 16 7 0021 0024

VSL 5604880 0781092 0000017 0209146 0000016 0009281 0000006 16 7 0021 0024

VSL 5604705 0780708 0000017 0209246 0000015 0009251 0000006 16 7 0021 0024

Table 6 Matrix composition of the submitted gas mixtures according to participantsrsquo reports in ANNEX V Synthetic Air is identified as S A and Purified real air as R A No data given

P a g e | 17

Number Date of pressure on pressure on Number Date of pressure on pressure on

Lab of Cylinder arrival arrival departure Lab of Cylinder arrival arrival departure

Mpa Mpa Mpa Mpa

BFKH OMH54 1292016 995 776 NMISA M51 8232 19122016 1297 952

BFKH OMH44 1292016 959 784 NMISA M51 8167 19122016 96 709

BFKH OMH69 1292016 984 755 NMISA M51 8244 19122016 1061 572

GUM D298392 28092016 1446 1103 NOAA CC310084 322017 1348 1282

GUM D298393 28092016 1523 116 NOAA CC305198 322017 1342 1284

GUM D298402 28092016 1505 108 NOAA CB11668 322017 1194 1138

INRIM D247440 13012017 897 534 NPL 2179 9122016 1046 855

INRIM D247445 13012017 922 544 NPL 2170 9122016 1119 94

KRISS D500642 20122016 927 739 NPL 2181 9122016 1112 935

KRISS D500647 20122016 884 711 NPLI JJ108891 922017 10 836

KRISS D500672 20122016 905 703 NPLI JJ108862 922017 105 897

LNE 1029045 28112016 1311 1113 NPLI JJ108854 922017 982 811

LNE 1029047 28112016 1287 1113 UME PSM298266 23112016 903 582

LNE 1029048 28112016 1322 1141 UME PSM266468 23112016 908 546

NIM FB03747 14122016 82 527 UME PSM298347 23112016 918 542

NIM FB03744 14122016 865 593 VNIIM M365601 512017 84 43

NIM FB03748 14122016 802 473 VNIIM M365664 512017 866 537

NIST FB04278 312017 1003 725 VNIIM M365707 512017 853 527

NIST FB04300 312017 1023 746 VSL 5604614 15112016 1049 634

NIST FB04287 312017 1005 721 VSL 5604880 15112016 1012 68

NMIJ CPC00486 922017 957 753 VSL 5604705 15112016 1045 707

NMIJ CPC00494 922017 928 752

NMIJ CPC00558 922017 84 677

Table 7 Pressure of the gas standards on arrival and departure from the BIPM

P a g e | 18

xNMI u(xNMI)

FTR

FTRu

wGCR

GCRu

Participant

Number of Cylinder

Assigned NMIrsquos CO2 mole

fraction in

(micromolmol)

Assigned NMIrsquos

Standard uncertainty

(k=1) (micromolmol)

FTIR (Under intermediate precision conditions)

Ratio to control

cylinder

Standard uncertainty in the Ratio to

control cylinder

GC-FID

(Under intermediate precision conditions)

Ratio to control

cylinder

Standard uncertainty in the Ratio to control

cylinder

BFKH OMH54 379800 0855 0435893607 0000026077 0787699648 0000056828 BFKH OMH44 479900 1055 0539981600 0000030887 0976036480 0000059163

BFKH OMH69 800300 1460 0930134790 0000079551 1681896740 0000095864

GUM D298392 380100 2200 0441372447 0000014142 0797442344 0000052495

GUM D298393 478100 2600 0555225000 0000027459 1003704868 0000094363

GUM D298402 800500 4300 0929933927 0000085245 1681786329 0000104750

INRIM D247440 479300 0800 0556774608 0000200000 1006168965 0000071077

INRIM D247445 798900 1300 0927989884 0000059393 1677871699 0000087418

KRISS D500642 378900 0100 0440414238 0000026926 0795445471 0000074696

KRISS D500647 480000 0100 0557780245 0000035341 1008228786 0000056189

KRISS D500672 800800 0200 0930402740 0000108930 1682410057 0000106300

LNE 1029045 379480 0395 0440901535 0000025239 0796419628 0000056088

LNE 1029047 477600 0500 0554855777 0000046174 1002959828 0000101902

LNE 1029048 802200 0850 0932191570 0000046232 1685756190 0000102865

NIM FB03747 383430 0100 0445715112 0000021260 0804945901 0000057626

NIM FB03744 489150 0110 0568919872 0000044283 1028323070 0000061887

NIM FB03748 809820 0130 0941620390 0000127224 1702705250 0000084949

NIST FB04278 379045 0195 0441858957 0000014036 0798159371 0000076697

NIST FB04300 472662 0214 0550247743 0000021932 0994649947 0000056864

NIST FB04287 794530 0514 0924730373 0000047693 1672406610 0000052361

NMIJ CPC00486 386617 0025 0449318716 0000022804 0811714164 0000057115

NMIJ CPC00494 471301 0026 0547653232 0000049336 0989730987 0000128859

NMIJ CPC00558 803658 0039 0933998556 0000062657 1689072068 0000061122

NMISA M51 8232 380200 1000 0441463446 0000030414 0797746449 0000071374

NMISA M51 8167 479500 0800 0556816358 0000063789 1006620384 0000139031

NMISA M51 8244 799100 0500 0927761085 0000058032 1678197948 0000120968

NOAA CC310084 379500 0105 0441196927 0000016125 0796836602 0000097427

NOAA CC305198 479260 0130 0557198873 0000046487 1007173065 0000061590

NOAA CB11668 794080 0240 0923707672 0000052071 1670538345 0000102943

NPL 2179 380270 0095 0442066316 0000015232 0798660385 0000055036

NPL 2170 480020 0120 0557939086 0000029155 1008480431 0000075981

NPL 2181 799700 0200 0929525453 0000066014 1680929399 0000081883

NPLI JJ108891 375720 1610 0435541280 0000044283 0786899117 0000051131

NPLI JJ108862 480520 1520 0558985244 0000078492 1010295612 0000070031

NPLI JJ108854 796380 2515 0923587308 0000048435 1670046415 0000092977

UME PSM298266 37992 0095 0441777548 0000066603 0798242598 0000076656

UME PSM266468 48042 0125 0558597569 0000077666 1009847197 0000062025

UME PSM298347 800760 0180 0930853610 0000059811 1683852629 0000186416

P a g e | 19

Table 8 Results of BIPM CO2 comparison measurements Re-submitted values following stability testing which were included following the decision of the CCQM GAWG (see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the

CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018))

72 Graphical representation of measurement results

Table 9 summarizes the figures showing the measurements results obtained by different methods at the BIPM

Table 9 List of figures corresponding to results obtained from FTIR and GC-FID at the BIPM

VNIIM M365601 380200 0055 0441966430 0000016643 0798479627 0000066343

VNIIM M365664 480180 0065 0558130273 0000048384 1008861333 0000059090

VNIIM M365707 800730 0095 0930604477 0000058131 1683192751 0000075295

VSL 5604614 378900 0140 0440539300 0000017205 0795901702 0000077266

VSL 5604880 480480 0180 0558580000 0000018028 1009802467 0000054009

VSL 5604705 795700 0300 0925375760 0000052705 1673272267 0000122172

Comparison method

CO2 mole fraction Plot

FTIR ( Ratio to control cylinder under intermediate precision conditions) 380 micromolmol Figure 3 480 micromolmol Figure 4 800 micromolmol Figure 5 GC-FID (Ratio to control cylinder under intermediate precision conditions)

380 micromolmol Figure 6 480 micromolmol Figure 7 800 micromolmol Figure 8

P a g e | 20

FTIR

Figure 3 FTIR ratios to control standard for the cylinders at nominally 380 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

374 376 378 380 382 384 386 3880434

0436

0438

0440

0442

0444

0446

0448

0450

GUM

KRISS

LNE

NIM

NMIJ

NMISANOAA

NPLVNIIM

VSL

BFKH

NIST

NPLI

UMERFT

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 21

Figure 4 FTIR ratios to control standard for the cylinders at nominally 480 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

460 465 470 475 480 485 490

0540

0545

0550

0555

0560

0565

0570

GUM

INRIM

KRISS

LNE

NIM

NMIJ

NMISANOAA

NPLVNIIMVSL

BFKH

NIST

NPLIUME

RFT

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 22

Figure 5 FTIR ratios to control standard for the cylinders at 800 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

792 794 796 798 800 802 804 806 808 810 8120922

0924

0926

0928

0930

0932

0934

0936

0938

0940

0942

0944

GUM

INRIM

KRISS

LNE

NMIJ

NOAA

NPL

VNIIM

VSL

NIM

NMISA

BFKH

NIST

NPLI

UME

RFT

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 23

GC-FID

Figure 6 GC-FID ratios to control standard for the cylinders at nominally 380 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

374 376 378 380 382 384 386 388

0785

0790

0795

0800

0805

0810

0815

KRISSVSL

LNENOAA

GUMNMISA

VNIIMNPL

NIM

NMIJ

BFKH

NIST

NPLI

UME

RG

C

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 24

Figure 7 GC-FID ratios to control standard for the cylinders at 480 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

460 465 470 475 480 485 490097

098

099

100

101

102

103

NMIJ

LNEGUM

NOAAINRIMNMISA

KRISSNPLVNIIMVSL

NIM

BFKH

NIST

NPLIUME

RG

C

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 25

Figure 8 GC-FID ratios to control standard for the cylinders at 800 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

792 794 796 798 800 802 804 806 808 810 8121665

1670

1675

1680

1685

1690

1695

1700

1705

NOAA

VSL

INRIMNMISA

NPLGUM

VNIIM

LNE

NMIJ

KRISS

NIM

BFKH

NIST

NPLI

UMERG

C

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 26

73 Isotope ratios of CCQM-K120 standards The δ13C and δ18O values reported by participants are listed in Table 10 The delta values of the complete set of cylinders on the VPDB-CO2 scale were also measured by the BIPM using the Delta Ray analyser to correct the FTIR response The measured isotope ratio values are listed Table 11 The method for measuring and calibrating the Delta Ray is fully described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure Delta Ray The method used by the BIPM for measuring isotope ratios is described in a recent publication5 and was validated with CO2 in air standards that had been value assigned for their isotopic composition by the WMO-CCL laboratory for isotope ratios MPI-BGC Jena with traceability of the standards used to the VPDB-CO2 scale realized with the JENA air standards reference set The measurements made by the BIPM have been used for all corrections made in the FTIR comparison method and were considered fit for purpose noting that a 1 permil difference in δ13C measurements can lead to a bias of 0004 micromolmol in CO2 mole fraction measurements in instruments based on a spectroscopic technique and similarly a 0002 micromolmol bias from a 1 permil difference in δ18O measurements Reported values for isotopic composition by participants were for information only The agreement between reported values and BIPM measured values is variable For δ13C values the difference between BIPM measured values and those reported by participants was smaller than 04 permil for NMIJ NPL and NOAA smaller than 2 permil for UME and VNIIM and almost 12 permil for NIST (noting that the NIST reported at the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG that this had been a typographical error on their part and the NIST and BIPM values were actually in full agreement) For δ18O values the difference between BIPM measured values and those reported by participants is smaller than 3 permil for NMIJ and NOAA and almost 10 permil for NPL The compatibility of CO2 isotope ratio measurements will be the focus of a future CCQM GAWG comparison enabling sources for differences to be studied in greater detail

Lab Number of Cylinder

δ13C on VPDB-CO2 scale

u(δ13C) Standard uncertainty (k=1)

δ18O on VPDB-CO2 scale

u(δ18O) Standard uncertainty (k=1) Comments

(permil) (permil) (permil) (permil)

NIST FB04278 -28 2 - -

NIST FB04300 -28 2 - -

NIST FB04287 -28 2 - -

NMIJ 3BIS85282 -892 - -991 - CO2 pure

NOAA CC310084 -87 02 -03 02

NOAA CC305198 -88 02 -64 02

NOAA CB11668 -85 04 -197 04

NPL 2179 -55 05 -225 05

NPL 2170 -55 05 -225 05

NPL 2181 -55 05 -225 05

UME PSM298266 -165 005 - - CO2 pure

VNIIM M365601 -48 045 - -

VNIIM M365664 -48 045 - -

VNIIM M365707 -48 045 - -

Table 10 δ13C and δ18

O values reported by participants value measured by the gas supplier according to the participant

P a g e | 27

Lab

Number of Cylinder

δ13C on VPDB-

CO2 scale

u(δ13C) Standard

uncertainty (k=1)

δ18O on VPDB-

CO2 scale

u(δ18O) Standard

uncertainty (k=1) Lab

Number of Cylinder

δ13C on VPDB-

CO2 scale

u(δ13C) Standard

uncertainty (k=1)

δ18O on VPDB-

CO2 scale

u(δ18O) Standard

uncertainty (k=1)

(permil) (permil) (permil) (permil) NMIJ CPC00558 -897 018 -1166 048

BFKH OMH54 -6676 018 -1723 048 NMISA M51 8232 -321 018 -2661 048

BFKH OMH44 -6653 018 -1734 048 NMISA M51 8167 -3209 018 -2655 048

BFKH OMH69 -6691 018 -2615 048 NMISA M51 8244 -3189 018 -2646 048

GUM D298392 -4431 018 -2877 048 NOAA CC310084 -886 018 -032 048

GUM D298393 -4432 018 -2865 048 NOAA CC305198 -891 018 -906 048

GUM D298402 -4418 018 -2847 048 NOAA CB11668 -888 018 -2128 048

INRIM D247440 -4927 018 -3436 048 NPL 2179 -522 018 -3231 048

INRIM D247445 -4952 018 -3449 048 NPL 2170 -521 018 -317 048

KRISS D500642 -2338 018 -1749 048 NPL 2181 -525 018 -3174 048

KRISS D500647 -2341 018 -1903 048 NPLI JJ108891 -887 018 -1087 048

KRISS D500672 -2334 018 -1884 048 NPLI JJ108862 -917 018 -1131 048

LNE 1029045 -3781 018 -2861 048 NPLI JJ108854 -915 018 -1149 048

LNE 1029047 -3786 018 -2775 048 UME PSM298266 -007 018 -2481 048

LNE 1029048 -3811 018 -2804 048 UME PSM266468 -005 018 -2453 048

NIM FB03747 -2055 018 -3007 048 UME PSM298347 016 018 -2446 048

NIM FB03744 -2052 018 -2978 048 VNIIM M365601 -4643 018 -2661 048

NIM FB03748 -2062 018 -2995 048 VNIIM M365664 -4635 018 -2584 048

NIST FB04278 -3983 018 -3092 048 VNIIM M365707 -4647 018 -2594 048

NIST FB04300 -3985 018 -3048 048 VSL 5604614 -3957 018 -3288 048

NIST FB04287 -3983 018 -3053 048 VSL 5604880 -3969 018 -3224 048

NMIJ CPC00486 -891 018 -987 048 VSL 5604705 -3574 018 -3064 048

NMIJ CPC00494 -903 018 -1184 048

Table 11 δ13C and δ18O value assignment vs VPDB-CO2 for each CO2 in air standard

P a g e | 28

In the case of the CCQM-K120a comparison it should be noted that the isotopic composition of CO2 at background levels in the atmosphere would be expected to have values close to the nominal values of -85 permil for δ13C and of 0 permil for δ18O when expressed on the VPDB-CO2 scale The standards submitted for the CCQM-K120a comparison had δ13C values that varied between -67 permil to 0 permil and δ18O values that varied between -35 permil to 0 permil This range of isotopic composition could result in measurement biases of up to 03 micromolmol in spectroscopic instruments for which isotopic composition had not been taken into account

8 Key Comparison Reference Value (KCRV)

During the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG it was agreed that the key comparison

reference values for CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b were to be calculated using

the measurement results of the FTIR spectrometer

Several statistical approaches all based on least-square regressions of measurement results obtained at the same nominal mole fraction were presented during 38th meeting of the

CCQM GAWG (GAWG18-32 ) From this analysis it was agreed to fit the FTIR results versus the participantrsquos submitted values with a line using the

Generalised Least Square approach defined in the standard ISO 614320019 (Gas analysis ndash Comparison methods for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures) It was also agreed to select the largest subset of cylinders

contributing to the regression line so as to obtain a consistent set with

regard to the regression ie a set that allows the goodness-of-fit parameter

to be less than 2 The measure of goodness-of-fit is defined as the

maximum value of the weighted differences between the coordinates of measured

and adjusted points (both on the x and the y axes) For all regressions the normalized sum of the squared weighted deviations where n is the number of points and p = 2 the number of parameters of the fit is also

provided for indication Both values are expected to be lower than 2 with the

condition on being stricter as it imposes all points to comply with the

fit

Notation The degree of equivalence is defined as

D = (1)

where

P a g e | 29

xKCRV is the amount of substance fraction in the cylinder predicted by the linear analysis function for the corresponding analyzer response (ratio to the control cylinder by FTIR)

u(xKCRV) is the standard uncertainty of the KCRV value

xNMI is the amount of substance fraction reported by the participating laboratory u(xNMI) is the standard uncertainty associated with the reported value xNMI

D is difference in amount of substance fraction as measured by the laboratory and

the reference value x and u(D) is the standard uncertainty of this difference expressed as

= (2)

and the expanded uncertainty at 95 confidence level )()( DukDU (3) where k denotes the coverage factor taken as k = 2 (normal distribution approximately 95 level of confidence)

81 Degrees of equivalence and graph of equivalence The analysis of the data from the comparison was performed following the process outlined in ISO 61432001 The regression analysis was performed with XLGenlinev11 a computer programme developed by NPL which implements this methodology by taking into consideration uncertainties in both axes During the 38th meeting of the GAWG it was decided that due the potential adsorption of a proportion of CO2 molecules onto the internal surface of a cylinder and valve (that can cause a deviation from the gravimetric amount fraction by as much as 100 nmol mol-1 demonstrated by Brewer et al2 ) a lower limit for uncertainties that could be used in the calculation of the KCRV was to be fixed It was decided that any standard uncertainty value lower than 0095 micromol mol-1 submitted by a participant was to be replaced by this value for the calculation of the KCRV The limit value was chosen based on the lowest uncertainty that had been reported by a participant for which adsorption effects had been considered (in this case NPL with cylinder 2179) In this manner the original uncertainties for the KCRV calculation of standards CPC00486 (NMIJ

P a g e | 30

original uncertainty 0025 micromol mol-1) CPC00494 (NMIJ original uncertainty 0025 micromol mol-

1) CPC00558 (NMIJ original uncertainty 0039 micromol mol-1) 00255 M365601 (VNIIM original uncertainty 0055 micromol mol-1) and M365664 (VNIIM original uncertainty 0065 micromol mol-1) were replaced by 0095 micromol mol-1 This cutoff was only applied to calculate the KCRVs The degree of equivalences were calculated using the uncertainties submitted by participants (equation 1)

KCRV calculations for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 With the FTIR measurement data set the set of self-consistent standards identified included eleven standards Three standards were excluded namely OMH54 (BFKH) FB04278 (NIST) and JJ108891 (NPLI) as these laboratories had reported changes in their reported values following stability testing The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 074 and the normalized sum of the squared weighted deviations 11 2 0227 Key comparison reference values and degrees of equivalence are listed in Table 12 Degrees of equivalence are plotted in Figure 9

KCRV calculations for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 With the FTIR measurement data set the set of self-consistent standards identified included twelve standards Three standards were excluded namely OMH44 (BFKH) FB03744 (NIST) and JJ108862 (NPLI) as these laboratories had reported changes in their reported values following stability testing The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 136 and the normalized sum of the squared weighted deviations 12 2 0463 The resulting key comparison reference values and degrees of equivalence are listed in Table 13 Degrees of equivalence are plotted in Figure 10

KCRV calculations for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1

Several statistical approaches were presented during the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (GAWG18-32 see ANNEX II- ) comprising different alternatives of sets of self-consistent standards From those the GAWG selected a solution where the two extreme mole fractions at this nominal mole fraction FB03748 (NIM 810424 micromol mol-1) and CB11668 (NOAA 794608 micromol mol-1) were removed from the set of self-consistent standards The solution involved then including ten cylinders for KCRV calculations Five were excluded namely FB03748 (NIM) CB11668 (NOAA) OMH69 (BFKH) FB04287 (NIST) and JJ108854 (NPLI) The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 180 and the normalized sum of the squared weighted deviations 10 2 0950 Key

P a g e | 31

comparison reference values and degrees of equivalence are listed in Table 14 Degrees of equivalence are plotted in Figure 11

Participant Cylinder

xKCRV u(xKCRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D1( xNMI- xKCRV ) u(D1) U( D1)

( XLGENLINE predictied

value from FTIR)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298392 379664 0044 380100 2200 0436 2200 4401

KRISS D500642 378828 0055 378900 0100 0072 0114 0228

LNE 1029045 379253 0051 379480 0395 0227 0398 0796

NIM FB03747 383453 0052 383430 0100 -0023 0113 0226

NMIJ CPC00486 386597 0088 386617 0025 0020 0091 0182

NMISA M51 8232 379743 0050 380200 1000 0457 1001 2002

NOAA CC310084 379511 0046 379500 0105 -0011 0115 0229

NPL 2179 380269 0041 380270 0095 0001 0103 0207

VNIIM M365601 380182 0042 380200 0055 0018 0069 0138

VSL 5604614 378937 0051 378900 0140 -0037 0149 0298

UME PSM298266 380017 0071 379920 0095 -0097 0118 0237

BFKH OMH54 374884 0099 379800 0850 4916 0856 1711

NIST FB04278 380088 0042 379045 0195 -1044 0200 0400

NPLI JJ108891 374576 0108 375720 1610 1144 1614 3227

Table 12 Degrees of Equivalence using FTIR measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision of the the CCQM

GAWG Uncertainties below the cutoff value of 0095 micromol molminus1

Participant Cylinder

xKCRV u(xKCRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D2( xNMI- xKCRV ) u(D2) U( D2)

( XLGENLINE predictied value

from FTIR)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298393 477706 0051 478100 2600 0394 2601 5201

INRIM D247440 479007 0173 479300 0800 0293 0819 1637

KRISS D500647 479851 0052 480000 0100 0149 0113 0225

LNE 1029047 477397 0061 477600 0500 0203 0504 1007

NIM FB03744 489202 0099 489150 0110 ‐0052 0148 0296

NMIJ CPC00494 471351 0094 471301 0026 ‐0050 0097 0195

NMISA M51 8167 479042 0068 479500 0800 0458 0803 1606

NOAA CC305198 479363 0058 479260 0130 ‐0103 0142 0284

P a g e | 32

NPL 2170 479985 0049 480020 0120 0035 0130 0259

VNIIM M365664 480145 0059 480180 0065 0035 0088 0175

VSL 5604880 480523 0045 480480 0180 ‐0043 0186 0371

UME PSM266468 480537 0078 480420 0125 ‐0117 0147 0295

BFKH OMH44 464911 0138 479900 1050 14989 1059 2118

NIST FB04300 473529 0071 472662 0214 ‐0867 0225 0451

NPLI JJ108862 480863 0079 480520 1520 ‐0343 1522 3044

Table 13 Degrees of Equivalence using FTIR measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision of the the CCQM

GAWG Uncertainties below the cutoff value of 0095 micromol molminus1

Participant Cylinder

xKCRV u(xKCRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D3( xNMI- xKCRV ) u(D3) U( D3)

( XLGENLINE predictied value

from FTIR)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298402 800105 0106 800500 4300 0395 4301 8603

INRIM D247445 798389 0128 798900 1300 0511 1306 2613

KRISS D500672 800519 0118 800800 0200 0281 0232 0464

LNE 1029048 802099 0078 802200 0850 0101 0854 1707

NMIJ CPC00558 803694 0114 803658 0039 -0036 0120 0240

NPL 2181 799744 0101 799700 0200 -0044 0224 0448

NMISA M518244 798187 0132 799100 0500 0913 0517 1034

VNIIM M365707 800697 0084 800730 0095 0033 0127 0253

VSL 5604705 796080 0191 795700 0300 -0380 0356 0712

UME PSM298347 800917 0083 800760 0180 -0157 0198 0396

NIM FB03748 810424 0327 809820 0130 -0604 0351 0703

NOAA CB11668 794608 0237 794080 0240 -0528 0337 0674

BFKH OMH69 800282 0100 800300 1450 0018 1453 2907

NIST FB04287 795511 0208 794530 0514 -0981 0555 1109

NPLI JJ108854 794501 0239 796380 2515 1879 2526 5053

Table 14 Degrees of Equivalence using FTIR measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision of the the CCQM

GAWG Uncertainties below the cutoff value of 0095 micromol molminus1

P a g e | 33

Figure 9 Degrees of Equivalence at a nominal value of 380 micromolmol for CO2 mole fractions The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

KR

ISS

LNE

NIM

NM

IJ

NM

ISA

NO

AA

NP

L

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI-4

-2

0

2

4

D m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 34

Figure 10 Degrees of Equivalence at a nominal value of 480 micromolmol for CO2 mole fractions The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

INR

IM

KR

ISS

LNE

NIM

NM

IJ

NM

ISA

NO

AA

NP

L

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI

-4

-2

0

2

4

D m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 35

Figure 11 Degrees of Equivalence at a nominal value of 800 micromolmol for CO2 mole fractions The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

INR

IM

KR

ISS

LNE

NM

IJ

NP

L

NM

ISA

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

NIM

NO

AA

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI-4

-2

0

2

4

D m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 36

9 Conclusions The comparison have been successful in demonstrating the degrees of equivalence of CO2 in air standards amongst participating NMIs at nominal mole fractions of 380 micromolmol 480 micromolmol and 800 micromolmol In addition the results can be compared to those of CCQM-K52 (organized in 2006) allowing the following conclusions to be drawn

a) the uncertainy of the key comparison reference value has been reduced by a factor of at least 4 with a standard uncertainty of 005 micromolmol for CCQM-K120a (compared to 02 micromolmol for CCQM-K52)

b) methods based on spectroscopy (FTIR with corrections for isotope ratios) and GC-FID for comparing CO2 in air standards have demonstrated excellent agreement with the standard deviation of the difference in reference values found by the two methods being 007 micromolmol at 380 micromolmol and 005 micromolmol at 480 micromolmol

c) the uncertainties are now at the level where adsorption effects within cylinders and on

surfaces needs to be considered and this has led to a mnimium value of 0095 micromolmol being used as the standard uncertainty for standards for key comparison reference value calculation

d) providing standards to communities measuring atmospheric CO2 with spectroscopic

methods produced with CO2 originating from combustion sources can lead to isotope ratios in the CO2 which will produce biases in mole fractions measurements of up to 03 micromolmol These biases can be corrected by either measuring isotope ratios of the gas standard and appropriate processing by the user or by using CO2 which has been closely matched to atmospheric isotope ratio values in the production of the standard

10 lsquoHow far the light shinesrsquo statement The following lsquoHow far the light shinesrsquo statement agreed during the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG was CCQM‐K120a comparison involves preparing standards of carbon dioxide in air which are fit for purpose for the atmospheric monitoring community with stringent requirements on matrix composition and measurement uncertainty of the CO2 mole fraction This represents an analytical challenge and is therefore considered as a Track C comparison The comparison will underpin CMC claims for CO2 in air for standards and calibrations services for the atmospheric

P a g e | 37

monitoring community matrix matched to real air over the mole fraction range of 250 μmolmol to 520 μmolmol CCQM‐K120b comparison tests core skills and competencies required in gravimetric preparation analytical certification and purity analysis It is considered as a Track A comparison It will underpin CO2 in air and nitrogen claims in a mole fraction range starting at the smallest participantrsquos reported expanded uncertainty and ending at 500 mmolmol Participants successful in this comparison may use their result in the flexible scheme and underpin claims for all core mixtures

Bibliography

1 W Bader B Bovy S Conway K Strong D Smale A J Turner T Blumenstock C Boone A Coulon O Garcia D W T Griffith F Hase P Hausmann N Jones P Krummel I Murata I Morino H Nakajima S ODoherty C Paton-Walsh J Robinson R Sandrin M Schneider C Servais R Sussmann and E MahieuTen years of atmospheric methane from ground-based NDACC FTIR observations Atmos Chem Phys Discuss2016 2016 1 2 P J Brewer R J C Brown K V Resner R E Hill-Pearce D R Worton N D C Allen K C Blakley D Benucci and M R EllisonInfluence of Pressure on the Composition of Gaseous Reference Materials Analytical Chemistry2018 90(5) 3490 3 M B Esler D W T Griffith S R Wilson and L P SteelePrecision Trace Gas Analysis by FT-IR Spectroscopy 1 Simultaneous Analysis of CO2 CH4 N2O and CO in Air Anal Chem1999 72(1) 206- 215 4 M B Esler D W T Griffith S R Wilson and L P SteelePrecision Trace Gas Analysis by FT-IR Spectroscopy 2 The 13C12C Isotope Ratio of CO2 Anal Chem 1999 72(1) 216 5 E Flores J Viallon P Moussay D W T Griffith and R WielgoszCalibration strategies for FTIR and other IRIS instruments for ac-curate δ13C and δ18O measurements of CO2 in air Anal Chem2017 Submitted 6 D W T GriffithSynthetic Calibration and Quantitative Analysis of Gas-Phase FT-IR Spectra Appl Spectrosc1996 50(1) 59 7 D W T Griffith N M Deutscher C Caldow G Kettlewell M Riggenbach and S HammerA Fourier transform infrared trace gas and isotope analyser for atmospheric applications Atmos Meas Tech2012 5(10) 2481 8 D W T Griffith N B Jones B McNamara C P Walsh W Bell and C BernardoIntercomparison of NDSC Ground-Based Solar FTIR Measurements of Atmospheric Gases at Lauder New Zealand J Atmos Oceanic Tech2003 20 (8) 1138- 1153 9 ISO Gas analysis- Comparison methods for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures in 61432001 (2001) 10 G Nelson Gas Mixtures Preparation and Control (Lewis Publishers Florida USA 1992) 11 L S Rothman A Barbe D Chris Benner L R Brown C Camy-Peyret M R Carleer K Chance C Clerbaux V Dana V M Devi A Fayt J M Flaud R R Gamache A Goldman D Jacquemart K W Jucks W J Lafferty J Y Mandin S T Massie V Nemtchinov D A Newnham A Perrin C P Rinsland J Schroeder K M Smith M A H Smith K Tang R A Toth J Vander Auwera P Varanasi and K YoshinoThe HITRAN molecular spectroscopic database edition of 2000 including updates through 2001 J Quant Spectrosc Radiat Transfer 82(1ndash4) 5 12 L S Rothman I E Gordon Y Babikov A Barbe D Chris Benner P F Bernath M Birk L Bizzocchi V Boudon L R Brown A Campargue K Chance E A Cohen L H Coudert V M Devi B J Drouin A Fayt J M Flaud R R Gamache J J Harrison J M Hartmann C Hill J T Hodges D Jacquemart A Jolly J Lamouroux R J Le Roy G Li D A Long O M Lyulin C J Mackie S T Massie S Mikhailenko H S P Muumlller O V Naumenko A V Nikitin J Orphal V Perevalov A Perrin E R Polovtseva C Richard M A H

P a g e | 38

Smith E Starikova K Sung S Tashkun J Tennyson G C Toon V G Tyuterev and G WagnerThe HITRAN2012 molecular spectroscopic database J Quant Spectrosc Radiat Transfer2013 130 4

ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

As results of the discussion of the key points of the Draft A report of the CCQM-K120 comparison during the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG the following decisions were taken

a) the key comparison reference value for CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b are to be based on the measurement results of the FTIR spectrometer

b) the re-submitted uncertainties by UME replace the original uncertainty values used in Draft A report (see Table 15) and are to be used for the calculation of the KCRV

c) NIST NPLI and BFKH submitted new measurement results as well as uncertainties after the measurements performed on return of the standards in their laboratoires This was not expected in the protocol of the comparison Therefore their values have not been used in the KCRV calucltaions The original values are used for DOE calculations the modified values have been included in AnnexII

d) considering that NPL was the only participant that considered a potential effect of adsorption of a proportion of the molecules onto the internal surface of a cylinder and valve (for more information see GAWG18-00) a limit on the uncertainties claimed by participants contributing to the KCRV is fixed to 0095 micromol mol-1 meaning that any uncertainty value smaller to this value will be replaced by 0095 micromol mol-1 to calculate KCRVs

e) The KCRV for the standatds at the nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 are to be calculated including standards with mole fractions within plusmn 5 micromol mol-1 of the nominal value (795 micromol mol-1 to 805 micromol mol-1)

P a g e | 39

P a g e | 40

ANNEX II- Stability studies by participants After the return of cylinder to the participants and before results of the comparison were known four participants reported modified uncertainties and also values and uncertainties compared to their originally reported values see Table 15 The participants that reported changes to their originally submitted values were

BFKH submitted the same values but with less decimals for cylinders OMH54 and OMH69 and proposed a new value for cylinder OMH44 The new value changed from 47989plusmn211 micromolmol to 4644plusmn211 micromolmol

NIST submitted new values and uncertainties for cylinders FB04278 FB04300 and FB04287

NPLI submitted new values for cylinders JJ108891 JJ108862 and JJ108854 The mole fractions for cylinders JJ108891 and JJ108854 were increased by 252 micromolmol and 242 micromolmol respectively and reduced for cylinder JJ108862 by 195 micromolmol The uncertainties for cylinders JJ108891 and JJ108862 were also increased by 22 and 72 but reduced for cylinder JJ108854 by 33

UME The uncertainties of cylinders PSM298266 PSM266468 and PSM298347 were increased by 19 47 and 33 respectively

Participant Cylinder references Gas Matrix

NMIrsquos assigned CO2 mole fraction xNMI

(micromol mol-1)

NMIrsquos assigned CO2

expanded uncertainty U(xNMI)

k = 2 (micromol mol-1)

Before the return of cylinders

BFKH OMH54 Synthetic Air 379840 1710

BFKH OMH44 Synthetic Air 479890 2110

BFKH OMH69 Synthetic Air 800300 2920

GUM D298392 Synthetic Air 380100 4400

GUM D298393 Synthetic Air 478100 5200

GUM D298402 Synthetic Air 800500 8600

INRIM D247440 Synthetic Air 479300 1600

INRIM D247445 Synthetic Air 798900 2600

KRISS D500642 Synthetic Air 378900 0200

KRISS D500647 Synthetic Air 480000 0200

KRISS D500672 Synthetic Air 800800 0400

LNE 1029045 Synthetic Air 379480 0790

LNE 1029047 Synthetic Air 477600 1000

LNE 1029048 Synthetic Air 802200 1700

NIM FB03747 Synthetic Air 383430 0200

NIM FB03744 Synthetic Air 489150 0220

P a g e | 41

NIM FB03748 Synthetic Air 809820 0260

NIST FB04278 Real Air 379045 0391

NIST FB04300 Real Air 472662 0428

NIST FB04287 Real Air 794533 1029

NMIJ CPC00486 Real Air 386617 0050

NMIJ CPC00494 Real Air 471301 0051

NMIJ CPC00558 Real Air 803658 0078

NMISA M51 8232 Synthetic Air 380200 2000

NMISA M51 8167 Synthetic Air 479500 1600

NMISA M51 8244 Synthetic Air 799100 1000

NOAA CC310084 Real Air 379500 0210

NOAA CC305198 Real Air 479260 0260

NOAA CB11668 Real Air 794080 0480

NPL 2179 Synthetic Air 380270 0190

NPL 2170 Synthetic Air 480020 0240

NPL 2181 Synthetic Air 799700 0400

NPLI JJ108891 Synthetic Air 375720 3220

NPLI JJ108862 Synthetic Air 480520 3040

NPLI JJ108854 Synthetic Air 796380 5030

UME PSM298266 Synthetic Air 379920 0160

UME PSM266468 Synthetic Air 480420 0170

UME PSM298347 Synthetic Air 800760 0270

VNIIM M365601 Synthetic Air 380200 0110

VNIIM M365664 Synthetic Air 480180 0130

VNIIM M365707 Synthetic Air 800730 0190

VSL 5604614 Synthetic Air 378900 0280

VSL 5604880 Synthetic Air 480480 0360

VSL 5604705 Synthetic Air 795700 0600

Additional data received following

stability testing

BFKH‐2nd value OMH54 Synthetic Air 3798 17

BFKH‐2nd value OMH44 Synthetic Air 4644 28

BFKH‐2nd value OMH69 Synthetic Air 8003 29

NIST‐2nd value FB04278 Real Air 38030 028

NIST‐2nd value FB04300 Real Air 47340 034

NIST‐2nd value FB04287 Real Air 79512 058

NIST‐3th value FB04278 Real Air 38007 030

NIST‐3th value FB04300 Real Air 47337 052

NIST‐3th value FB04287 Real Air 79477 038

NPLI‐2nd value JJ108891 Synthetic Air 37824 395

NPLI‐2nd value JJ108862 Synthetic Air 47857 523

NPLI‐2nd value JJ108854 Synthetic Air 79880 335

UME‐2nd value PSM298266 Synthetic Air 379920 019

P a g e | 42

UME‐2nd value PSM266468 Synthetic Air 480420 025

UME‐2nd value PSM298347 Synthetic Air 800760 036

Table 15 Standards and reported values provided by participants in Draft A report

ANNEX III- GC-FID results

GC-FID based candidate reference values for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 With the GC-FID measurement data set the set of self-consistent standards identified was the same as with FTIR including eleven standards with three excluded namely OMH54 (BFKH neither original nor newly submitted results included) FB04278 (NIST neither original nor newly submitted results included) and JJ108891 (NPLI neither original and newly submitted results included) The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 169 (lt 2 required to demonstrate consistency of the ensemble) Reference values and differences from these are listed in Table 16 The difference between the KCRV calculated with FTIR measurement data (xKCRV_FTIR) and GC-FID based candidate reference values (xRV_FTIR) measurements for this batch of cylinders is plotted in Figure 12 showing negligible difference between the methods

GC-FID based candidate reference values for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 With the GC-FID measurement data set the set of self-consistent standards identified was the same as with FTIR The data set of self-consistent standards identified included twelve standards with three excluded namely OMH44 (BFKH neither original nor newly submitted results included) FB03744 (NIST neither original nor newly submitted results included) and JJ108862 (NPLI neither original nor newly submitted results included) The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 141 (lt 2 required to demonstrate consistency of the ensemble) Reference values and differences from these are listed in Table 17

P a g e | 43

The difference between the KCRV calculated with FTIR measurement data (xKCRV_FTIR) and GC-FID based candidate reference values (xRV_FTIR) measurements for this batch of cylinders is plotted in Figure 13 showing negligible difference between the methods

GC-FID based candidate reference values for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 Including ten cylinders with five excluded namely FB03748 (NIM) CB11668 (NOAA) OMH69 (BFKH neither original and newly submitted results included) FB04287 (NIST neither original nor newly submitted results included) and JJ108854 (NPLI neither original nor newly submitted results included) the goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 191(lt 2 required to demonstrate consistency of the ensemble) Reference values and differences from these are listed in Table 18 The difference between the KCRV calculated with FTIR measurement data (xKCRV_FTIR) and GC-FID based candidate reference values (xRV_FTIR) measurements for this batch of cylinders is plotted in Figure 14 showing negligible difference between the methods

Participant Cylinder

xRV u(xRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D1( xNMI- xKCRV )

u(D1) U( D1)

( XLGENLINE predictied

value from GC-FID)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298392 379719 0050 380100 2200 0381 2201 4401

KRISS D500642 378753 0063 378900 0100 0147 0118 0236

LNE 1029045 379224 0054 379480 0395 0256 0399 0797

NIM FB03747 383350 0056 383430 0100 0080 0115 0229

NMIJ CPC00486 386624 0092 386617 0025 ‐0007 0095 0190

NMISA M51 8232 379866 0054 380200 1000 0334 1001 2003

NOAA CC310084 379426 0065 379500 0105 0074 0124 0247

NPL 2179 380308 0048 380270 0095 ‐0038 0106 0213

VNIIM M365601 380221 0051 380200 0055 ‐0021 0075 0150

VSL 5604614 378973 0062 378900 0140 ‐0073 0153 0306

UME PSM298266 380106 0055 379920 0095 ‐0186 0110 0220

BFKH OMH54 375005 0101 379800 0850 4795 0856 1712

NIST FB04278 380066 0055 379045 0195 ‐1021 0203 0406

NPLI JJ108891 374617 0105 375720 1610 1103 1613 3227

Table 16 Difference from candidate reference value using GC-FID measurements at the nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision

of the the CCQM GAWG First uncertainty submitted by the participant (lt 0095 micromol mol-1 see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

P a g e | 44

Participant Cylinder

xRV u(xRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D2( xNMI- xKCRV ) u(D2) U( D2)

( XLGENLINE predictied

value from GC-FID)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298393 477789 0065 478100 2600 0311 2601 5202

INRIM D247440 478928 0056 479300 0800 0372 0802 1604

KRISS D500647 479881 0051 480000 0100 0119 0112 0225

LNE 1029047 477444 0069 477600 0500 0156 0505 1009

NIM FB03744 489173 0097 489150 0110 ‐0023 0147 0294

NMIJ CPC00494 471327 0107 471301 0026 ‐0026 0110 0220

NMISA M51 8167 479137 0078 479500 0800 0363 0804 1608

NOAA CC305198 479392 0053 479260 0130 ‐0132 0140 0281

NPL 2170 479997 0056 480020 0120 0023 0133 0265

VNIIM M365664 480173 0052 480180 0065 0007 0083 0167

VSL 5604880 480608 0051 480480 0180 ‐0128 0187 0374

UME PSM266468 480629 0053 480420 0125 ‐0209 0136 0272

BFKH OMH44 464994 0144 479900 1050 14906 1060 2120

NIST FB04300 473601 0077 472662 0214 ‐0940 0227 0455

NPLI JJ108862 480836 0055 480520 1520 ‐0316 1521 3042

Table 17 Difference from candidate reference value using GC-FID measurements at the nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision of

the the CCQM GAWG First uncertainty submitted by the participant (lt 0095 micromol mol-1 see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

Participant Cylinder

xRV u(xRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D3( xNMI- xKCRV )

u(D3) U( D3)

( XLGENLINE predictied

value from GC-FID) (k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298402 800002 0083 800500 4300 0498 4301 8602

INRIM D247445 798031 0105 798900 1300 0869 1304 2608

KRISS D500672 800316 0080 800800 0200 0484 0215 0431

LNE 1029048 802001 0068 802200 0850 0199 0853 1705

NMIJ CPC00558 803670 0057 803658 0039 ‐0012 0069 0138

NPL 2181 799570 0081 799700 0200 0130 0216 0432

NMISA M51 8244 798195 0111 799100 0500 0905 0512 1024

VNIIM M365707 800710 0066 800730 0095 0020 0116 0232

VSL 5604705 795715 0150 795700 0300 ‐0015 0335 0670

UME PSM298347 801042 0180 800760 0135 ‐0282 0172 0344

NIM FB03748 810535 0165 809820 0130 ‐0715 0210 0420

NOAA CB11668 794338 0170 794080 0240 ‐0258 0294 0588

BFKH OMH69 800057 0079 800300 1450 0243 1452 2904

P a g e | 45

NIST FB04287 795279 0147 794530 0514 ‐0749 0535 1070

NPLI JJ108854 794091 0173 796380 2515 2289 2521 5042

Table 18 Difference from candidate reference value using GC-FID measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the

decision of the the CCQM GAWG First uncertainty submitted by the participant (lt 0095 micromol mol-1 see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

Figure 12 Difference between the KCRV values obtained using FTIR and GC-FID reference values at 380

micromolmol The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

KR

ISS

LNE

NIM

NM

IJ

NM

ISA

NO

AA

NP

L

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Diff

(x K

CR

V_F

TIR

-xR

V_G

C-F

ID)

m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 46

Figure 13 Difference between the KCRV values obtained using FTIR and GC-FID reference values at 480 micromolmol The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

INR

IM

KR

ISS

LNE

NIM

NM

IJ

NM

ISA

NO

AA

NP

L

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Diff

(x K

CR

V_

FT

IR-x

RV

_G

C-F

ID)

m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 47

Figure 14 Difference between the KCRV values obtained using FTIR and GC-FID reference values at 800 micromolmol The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

In summary the measurement performance obtained with GC-FID and FTIR at the BIPM were rather similar with standard measurement uncertainties of the reference values having a range of 004 micromolmol to 011 micromolmol at 380 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for FTIR 005 micromolmol to 011 micromolmol at 380 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for GC-FID 005 micromolmol to 017 micromolmol at 480 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for FTIR 005 micromolmol to 014 micromolmol at 480 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for GC-FID 008 micromolmol to 033 micromolmol at 800 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for FTIR 006 micromolmol to 018 micromolmol at 800 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for GC-FID

The reference values calculated from the two measurement techniques agree with each other within their stated uncertainties for all measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 380 micromolmol all measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 480 micromolmol all measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 800 micromolmol The magnitude of the proposed reference values can be compared to the laboratories reported standard measurement uncertainties for their standards which range from 0025 micromolmol to 43 micromolmol

GU

M

INR

IM

KR

ISS

LNE

NM

IJ

NP

L

NM

ISA

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

NIM

NO

AA

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Diff

(x K

CR

V_

FT

IR-x

RV

_GC

-FID

)

mo

l mo

l-1

P a g e | 48

ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure The cylinders were analysed in batches first by GC-FID then by FTIR and finally by the Delta Ray

GC-FID The GC-FID is a modified Agilent system series 7890A acquired from the SRA Instruments lsquoFrance It is equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID) a Haysep Q (12 feet) column a methanizer and the FID detector is supplied with pure oxygen and hydrogen (see Figure 15)

Figure 15 Internal schematics of the BIPM system for Gas Chromatography with Flame Ionization Detector (GC-FID) comprised by a Haysep (12 feet) column a Sample loop of 1 mL two Valco six port valves and a FID detector

The GC-FID is equipped with

- two 6 port valve V1 (Vici-valco) - one 1 mL stainless steel injection loop - one one-way valve - one Haysep Q (80-100 Mesh 12ftx18x20mm) - one flame ionization detector (FID) - one methanizer - one hydrogen generator - one helium purifier - one control computer for the GC-FID equipped with

o ChemStation version Rev B0402 (118) o ProChem Set-up version 257 o ProChem software version 201

- one barometer (Sensor Technique DC 2510)

Haysep

P a g e | 49

The gas mixtures used for operating the facility were

- one helium 60 gas cylinder quality 999999 - one oxygen 55 in gas cylinder quality 999995 - source of air with pressure of 7 bars - one 50 L CO2air commercial secondary gas standards (control standard A) produced by

Messer with an initial internal pressure of 150 bar with the composition specified to be within the following ranges

CH4 185 ppm CO2 386 ppm Ar 9410 ppm O2 207 N2 Matrix gas

- one 50 L CO2air commercial secondary gas standards (control standard B) produced by Messer with an initial internal pressure of 150 bar with the composition specified to be within the following ranges

CH4 184 ppm CO2 476 ppm Ar 9415 ppm O2 210 N2 Matrix gas

- one 40 L CO2air standard (control standard C) produced by Scott Marrin (cylinder CB 10422) with an initial internal pressure of 100 bar with the composition specified to be within the following ranges

CO2 79112 ppm CH4 184 ppm

GC-FID separation and quantification method The GC-FID was operated at 30 degC A Haysep Q (80-100 Mesh 12ftx18x20mm) column was used at a temperature of 30 degC for the analysis Helium column carrier2 gas passed through a heated gas purifier was used at a flow rate of 40 ml min-1 The FID was supplied with 320 ml min-1 of pure oxygen3 and 40 ml min-1 of hydrogen4 A 1 ml stainless steel sample loop was used to introduce the CO2air sample onto the column The pressure in the sample loop was measured by a calibrated pressure sensor having a resolution of 02 hPa and recorded at each injection Finally the peak areas were estimated with an on-line computing integrator

Sampling sequence

Table 19 displays a typical sampling sequence The sampling sequence was setup so as to analyse six unkown CO2Air gas mixtures together with three control standards (A B C) Three unknown were bracketed by control standards A and B followed by the other three bracketed by 2 The Carrier Gas is He grade 60 passing through a SAES gettersreg PS2-GC50-R-2 for extra purification 3 The Flame is produced from Oxygen grade 55 4 Hydrogen is produced on site by a commercial H2 generator CG2200 (Claind) It produces grade 60 H2 at a maximum flow rate of 200 mlmin with a purity higher than 9999999

P a g e | 50

control standards B and C Each individual cylinders analysis (unkowns and controls) consisted in three successive measurements of the GC-FID response (CO2 peak area)

Control Cylinder A A1 A2 A3

Control Cylinder B B1 B2 B3

Cylinder 1 Cyl11 Cyl12 Cyl13 Cylinder 2 Cyl21 Cyl22 Cyl23

Cylinder 3 Cyl31 Cyl32 Cyl33 Control Cylinder A A4 A5 A6

Control Cylinder B B4 B5 B6

Control Cylinder B B7 B8 B9

Control Cylinder C C1 C2 C3

Cylinder 4 Cyl41 Cyl42 Cyl43

Cylinder 5 Cyl51 Cyl52 Cyl53

Cylinder 6 Cyl61 Cyl62 Cyl63

Control Cylinder B B10 B11 B12

Control Cylinder C C4 C5 C6 Table 19 Typical GC-FID sampling sequence

Considering that the analysis of each CO2Air gas mixture took 10 minutes this measuring sequence took about 390 minutes to be completed This sequence was repeated four times with the first one not used in the calculation Adding flushing and conditioning about three days were necessary to complete the analysis of six unkown cylinders

Participantrsquos cylinders were divided in batches of four to six and additional cylinders of the BIPM were added if required to obtain batches of equal size

It was checked that the results obtained using controls A B and C were consistent but only the ratios to the control cylinder B were used as GC-FID results and listed in Table 8

Ratios to the control standard

The ratios to the control cylinder were calculated determining first the average responses of three successive measurements performed on the CO2Air standard gas mixtures as well as on the control cylinders (A B and C) The drift corrected response to the control cylinder as any time was calculated by interpolation in between two control measurements The average response to the CO2air standards mixtures was then divided by the drift corrected response of the control

cylinder to obtain GCR the ratio for one cylinder in one sequence

The last three sequences were then combined with the calculation of the weighted mean defined as

wGCR

P a g e | 51

3

1

_

l

lwGClwGC RwR (1)

Where the weigth wl for the series l is defined as

3

1

2_

2_

1

1

j

lGC

lGC

l

Ru

Ruw (2)

and lGCRu _ is the standard deviation of the mean of the three repeats

The uncertainty of the weighted mean is defined as

3

1

2_

2

1

1

llGC

wGC

RuRu

(3)

In addition to this component the intermediate precision or stability of the instrument response during the full measuring period was evaluated by the standard deviation of the mean of the drift corrected ratio to the control cylinder of one standard exclusively used for this purpose giving uIntpre = 0000046 This component was further combined with the weighted mean uncertainty to provide the combined standard uncertainty associated with measurements performed with GC-FID resulting in a typical relative standard uncertainty of 0007

FTIR A vacuum Bruker Vertex 70v FTIR Spectrometer equipped with a RockSolid interferometer (vacuum better than 02 hPa) with 1 cm-1 resolution (016 optional) a 40 mm beam diameter a globar source and CaF2 beam splitter was used for the study The spectrometer was configured with a liquid N2-cooled mid-infrared Indium Antimonide (InSb) detector and a 1001 m multi-pass White-type gas cell of volume 075 L (Gemini Scientific Instruments USA) The wetted surfaces of the gas cell were electro-polished stainless steel treated with silconert 2000 (Silcotek) and gold (mirror coatings) to minimize surface adsorption and desorption effects for CO2 The interferometer was scanned at 64 scans min-1 and spectra co-added for five minutes to obtain an acceptable signal-to-noise ratio The transmission spectra of gas reference standards obtained following this procedure had a very high signal to noise ratio of typically ~1 x 104 peak-peak from (2240ndash3380) cm-1 In order to prevent nonlinear responses produced by excess photon flux reaching the InSb detector special care was put into adjusting the instrument parameters of the software to ensure that the apparent intensity from the InSb detector was zero at 1850 cm-1 The spectrometer user interface was controlled using a BIPM developed software named B-FOS that allowed the automatic setting of all instrument parameters into Brukerrsquos proprietary OPUS software for control spectral acquisition and on-line analysis through the use of MALT (Multiple Atmospheric Layer Transmission)3 4 6 spectrum analysis software version 556

P a g e | 52

MALT retrieves concentrations of each trace gas in the sample from a least-squares fit to the measured spectrum based on a model calculation and Hitran line parameters12 This code is the basis for quantitative analysis of open and closed path FTIR trace gas measurements and has been compared with other codes such as SFIT1 for ground based solar FT-IR measurements with agreement of better than 07 (Griffith et al8)

The spectra were constructed by co-adding up to 320 scans recorded in about 5 minutes to provide a single spectrum of a sample This single spectrum was ratioed with a similar spectrum of ultra-pure N2 collected under similar conditions to provide an absorbance or transmission spectrum of the gas sample (relative to ultra-pure N2) in the gas cell The sample flow rates were kept at ~400 mL minminus1 Assuming perfect mixing in the cell it was estimated that 999 of the sample was replaced after 10 min of flow and 99998 replaced after 20 min10 In order to ensure the complete exchange of samples only the measured spectra obtained after flowing the sample through the White-type cell for 40 min (9999999 gas replacement) were used for mole fraction determinations The sample pressure was measured by means of the calibrated barometer Mensor Series 6000 The relative uncertainty of this pressure sensor was u(P) = 002 The sample temperature was measured with a calibrated 100 Ω RTD temperature probe introduced into the outlet gas of the White-type gas cell with a standard uncertainty u(T)=002 K

The recorded spectra were analysed online by non-linear least squares fitting in the spectra region 3500ndash3800 cm-1 (plotted in Figure 16) with modelled spectra calculated by MALT 55 using absorption line parameters from the HITRAN database version 2012 As previously described by Griffith et al7 this region shows peaks that are due to the major isotopologue 12C16O16O (written 626 using the HitranAir Force Geophysics Laboratory (AFGL) shorthand notation 11) Since all standards used during this work were ultra-dry CO2air gas mixtures the cross sensitivity with H2O was not considered

Figure 16 Typical measured and fitted spectra (upper part) and residual signal (lower part) in the region 3500ndash3800 cm-1 obtained on a standard of CO2 in air at 38433 μmol mol-1 The absorption feature is due to the major isotopologue 626

3500 3550 3600 3650 3700 3750 3800

070

075

080

085

090

095

100

3500 3550 3600 3650 3700 3750 3800

-0002

0000

0002

Measured

Tra

nsm

itan

ce

Fitted

Residual

Wavenumbercm-1

P a g e | 53

Ratios to the control standard

The ratios to the control cylinder were calculated between the FTIR responses measured at the 626 isotopologue band of the sample i (Cyli) and of the control cylinder

The measurements were performed following a sequence which included the analysis of four cylinders bracketed by the analysis of the two control cylinders (A B) repeated three times Control A was the Scott Marrin cylinder CB 10326 value assigned by NIST with a mole fraction of 37890plusmn009 micromol mol-1 and as control B was used the commercial mixture Messer 400309 with a mole fraction of 85000plusmn17 micromol mol-1

Since the analysis of each CO2Air gas mixture takes 40 minutes (35 minutes of flush and 5 minutes of acquisition) fifteen hours of continuous measurements were necessary to accomplish the measurement of four cylinders

The drift corrected response to the control cylinder B during the analysis of a sample Bcor was estimated by interpolation in between two measurements of B The ratio RFT between the response to a sample Cyl and the drift corrected control Bcor was then calculated Finally the measurement results for one cylinder was the average of the three ratios obtained during a full sequence named RFTi for cylinder Cyli

The control cylinder A suffered from a leak in the gas line to the autosampler and was emptied before the end of all measurements It was however checked that measurements performed with this control cylinder A with sufficient pressure were equivalent to those obtained with the control cylinder B

Uncertainty determination

The uncertainty assigned to each ratio to the control cylinder uFT_R was the combination of three components combined according to the Guide for Uncertainty in Measurements using the software GUM workbench (see Table 21)

uStab the short term stability of the 626 response to the sample This term was estimated from the typical Allan deviation at an averaging time of five minutes of the FTIR response measured on the 626 peak resulting in the value ustab = 6 nmol mol-1

independent of the mole fraction This same term applies to the control cylinder measurements

uIsoCorr the uncertainty contribution due to the correction of the 626 response arising from the sample isotopic composition (also valid for the control cylinder) as measured by the Delta Ray All responses of the FTIR calculated at the 626 peak had to be corrected to account for the fact that samples had a different isotopic composition than natural air The correction was calculated with the Delta Ray so that the uncertainty contribution due to the isotopic composition correction was estimated from the uncertainty of the Delta Ray measurements uδ13C=018 permil and uδ18O=048 permil (see further information in Flores et al5) It can be calculated that a 1 permil bias in δ13C results in a bias equal to 41 nmol mol-1 in the CO2 mole fraction Similarly a 1 permil bias in δ18O results in a bias equal to 17 nmol mol-1 Therefore assuming maximum biases in the delta values equal to the Delta Ray standard uncertainty the maximum biases in the CO2 mole fraction were estimated to be 072 nmol mol-1 (from δ13C ) and 082 nmol mol-1 (from δ18O) Being conservative the two terms were added in a maximum bias of 154 nmol mol-1 Considering a

P a g e | 54

rectangular distribution of the uncertainty the standard uncertainty takes the value 154radic3 089nmol mol-1 This is negligible compared to other

components

uPBEs the uncertainty contribution due Pressure Broadening Effects was calculated through a sensitivity study of MALT Using one primary version of MALT in 1982 D Griffith looked at the carrier gas effect in NDIR analyzers for CO2 MALT by default uses either the amount-weighted selfair broadened widths or the air only widths provided by HITRAN and allows some degree of fiddling for fitting spectra contained in different gas matrices since it allows to the users to scale the input parameter broad by any arbitrary factor Different line broadening factor can be calculated then for air using Griffth et al 1982 equation

(7)

Where xN2 xO2 and xAr are the mole fractions of nitrogen oxygen and argon in air FN2 =1 by definition FO2 = 081 and FAr = 078 are the line broadening factors for oxygen and argon (in average) Assuming xN2 = 0780876 mol mol-1 xO2 = 02093335 mol mol-1 and xAr = 00093332 mol mol-1 then the line broadening factor of air FAIR should be equal to 095771603 The broadening parameter in MALT for air is broad = 1 by convention It can be scaled by FAIR to obtain a broad value for any ldquoair likerdquo matrix using the equation

(8)

In order to estimate the amount of the change in the CO2 response one absorbance spectrum was fitted using standard input parameters varying the factor broad according to the two possible extremes composition of the matrix as stated in the protocol of the CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b comparisons In the case of the CCQM-K120a comparison two values of the factor broad were determined using equation 8 modelling cylinders containing the minimum and the maximum allowed mole fractions of oxygen and assuming nitrogen and argon were impacted to keep a sum of the three equals to 1 The mole fractions and the corresponding values of broad are summarized in the table below

K120a min K120a max

Compoundxi (mol mol-

1) xi (mol mol-

1) Nitrogen 078140 078042Oxygen 020880 020980Argon 000934 000933

broad 1000105801 0999907486

Table 20 Extermes of air matrix compositions in the comparison CCQM-K120a and the corresponding values of broad

P a g e | 55

As result a ΔCO2 equal to 0031 micromol mol-1 was observed between both fittings Considering this difference as a rectangular distribution then a uPBEs_ΔO2_ K120a= (00031)(2radic3) = 0009 micromol mol-1 is obtained The same procedure was used with the the limits stated for the CCQM‐K120b and a ΔCO2 of 0467 micromol mol-1 was obtained with factors FAIR_CCQM-K120b_min= 1000403273 and FAIR_CCQM-K120b_max= 0999610014 If this difference is considered again as a rectangular distribution then uPBEs_ΔO2_ K120b= (0125)(2radic3) = 0036 micromol mol-1

Table 21 Uncertainty budget for the calculation of the FTIR ratios to the control cylinder

The final uncertainty for the ratios of the cylinders that had a gas matrix within the limits of the CCQM-K120a were at 380 micromol mol-1 uFT_R_380A=14 times10-6 and at 480 micromol mol-1 uFT_R_480A =15 times10-6 The uncertainty for the ratios of the cylinders that had a gas matrix within the limits of the CCQM-K120b were at 480 micromol mol-1 uFT_R_480A =44 times10-6 at 800 micromol mol-1 uFT_R_480A =45 times10-6 Combined with the standard deviations on three ratios this resulted in standard relative uncertainties on the averaged ratio between 14times10-5 and 25times10-4 All the combined standard uncertainties are listed in Table 8

Delta Ray Since MALT measurements (FTIR) are done using linestrengths from the HITRAN database that are scaled by the natural abundance for each isotopologue the 12CO2 measurement of each cylinder needed to be corrected according their own isotopic composition The isotopic composition of each cylinder was measured using the Delta Ray Delta Ray is based on direct absorption laser spectroscopy It uses a tunable diode laser which scans over the spectral region that covers 18O and 13C isotopologues of CO2

For this comparison Delta Ray measurements were performed after calibrating the instrument following the manufacturerrsquos recommendations that consist in using two pure CO2 references gases with high and low isotope values two CO2 in air reference standards with high and low concentration and one dry CO2 scrubbed whole air (Scott Marrin Inc) The instrument was calibrated using cylinder 401557 (pure CO2 source gas well δ13C = - 138 permil and δ18O = - 714 permil VPDBj-RAS06 scale) cylinder C11375KO (pure CO2 source combustion δ13C = - 4213 permil and δ18O = -277 permil VPDBj-RAS06 scale) standard NPL 1788 (NPL CO2 in air mole fraction 3800plusmn019 micromol mol-1 δ13C = - 138 permil and δ18O = - 714 permil VPDBj-RAS06 scale)

Quantity Value

Standard Uncertainty Sensitivity Coefficient

Uncertainty contribution Index

48000middot10-6 mol mol-1

00108middot10-6 mol mol-

1 12middot10-3 13middot10-6 (Ratio) 747

84605middot10-6 mol mol-1

00150middot10-6 mol mol-1 -450middot10-6 -67middot10-6 (Ratio) 205

84695middot10-6 mol mol-1

00150middot10-6 mol mol-1 -220middot10-6 -34middot10-6 (Ratio) 51

Value Standard Uncertainty

0567141 (Ratio) 15middot10-6 (Ratio)

P a g e | 56

standard NPL 1907 (NPL CO2 in air mole fraction 7910plusmn04 micromol mol-1 δ13C = - 4213 permil and δ18O = -277 permil VPDBj-RAS06 scale) and dry CO2 scrubbed whole air (Scott Marrin)

As reported by Flores et al 20185 a residual bias in the δ13C and δ18O measurements which remained following the implementation of the manufacturerrsquos calibration procedure was removed by the application of an additional two point calibration (two CO2 in air standards with known but differing isotopic composition) Standards NPL 1788 (δ13C = - 138 permil and δ18O = - 714 permil) and NPL 1907 (δ13C = - 4213 permil and δ18O = -277 permil) were used as two point calibration mixtures

Samplingsequence

The measurement procedure for analyzing a set of CO2Air gas standards by Delta Ray is based on the analysis of four CO2Air gas mixtures between two CO2Air gas mixture used as the two-point calibration standards (A B) The measurement sequence starts by measuring the δ13C and δ18O response of calibration cylinder (A) and (B) then of four CO2Air standards for finalizing again with the calibration standars Since the analysis of each CO2Air gas mixture takes 40 minutes sixteen hours of continuous measurements were necessary to accomplish the measurement of four cylinders three times

The measured δ13C and δ18O responses of the control cylinders were drift corrected Then used together with the δ13C and δ18O measured by MPI-Jena in XLGenlinev11 for predicting the δ13C and δ18O of the unknown cylinders traceable to the VPDB-CO2 scale

Uncertainty determination

Times series analysis were performed with the Delta Ray during the validation work resulting in Allan deviations of 003 permil for δ13C and 005 permil for δ18O at the optimum averaging time of 300 s In addition it was further noted that the noise of the instrument was significantly higher when measuring during two hours which is the time period of a typical calibration Using a rectangular distribution the standard uncertainty of 031 permil for δ13C and 035 permil for δ18O was observed This component was further combined with the Allan deviations and taken as the stability uncertainty associated with the instrument response

The two-point calibration of the delta value requires the knowledge of the uncertainty associated with them which was in this case taken as the uncertainties deduced from MPI-Jena measurements equal to 0015permil for δ13C and 0328permil for δ18O

After calibration with the two additional CO2 in air standards the standard uncertainties associated with the instrument measurement were finally equal to 018 permil for δ13C and 048 permil for δ18O

P a g e | 57

ANNEX V - Measurement reports of participants

NMIJ

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 58

P a g e | 59

P a g e | 60

P a g e | 61

P a g e | 62

P a g e | 63

GUM

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM-K120-R Project name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department

Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form

Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute Central Office of Measures (Głoacutewny Urzad Miar)

Address Elektoralna 2 00-139 Warsaw Poland

Contact person Dariusz Cieciora

P a g e | 64

Telephone (48) 22 581 94 39 Fax (48) 22 581 93 95

Email dciecioragumgovpl gasgumgovpl

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a YES

CCQM‐K120b YES

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 D298392 3801 44 2

2 D298393 4781 52 2

3 D298402 8005 86 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number D298392

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07808 molmol 00002 molmol 2

O2 02095 molmol 00001 molmol 2

Ar 000925 molmol 000001 molmol 2

CH4 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

P a g e | 65

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number D298393

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07807 molmol 00002 molmol 2

O2 02096 molmol 00001 molmol 2

Ar 000919 molmol 000001 molmol 2

CH4 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number D298402

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07802 molmol 00002 molmol 2

O2 02097 molmol 00001 molmol 2

Ar 000938 molmol 000001 molmol 2

CH4 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 D298392 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

2 D298393 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

3 D298402 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

A4 Uncertainty Budget Please provide a complete uncertainty budgets for the CO2 mole fraction values reported

Uncertainty budget for the cylinder no D298392

Uncertainty source Estimate

(micromolmol)

Standard uncertainty (micromolmol)

Distribution Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution (micromolmol)

gravimetric 3801 042 normal 1 042

verification - 112 normal 1 112

systematic error - 187 rectangular 1 187 Uncertainty budget for the cylinder no D298393

Uncertainty source Estimate

(micromolmol)

Standard uncertainty (micromolmol)

Distribution Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution (micromolmol)

gravimetric 4781 048 normal 1 048

P a g e | 66

verification - 098 normal 1 098

systematic error - 235 rectangular 1 235 Uncertainty budget for the cylinder no D298402

Uncertainty source Estimate

(micromolmol)

Standard uncertainty (micromolmol)

Distribution Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution (micromolmol)

gravimetric 8005 068 normal 1 068

verification - 160 normal 1 160

systematic error - 393 rectangular 1 393

A5 Additional information

The final mixtures were prepared according ISO 6142 the cylinders evacuated on turbo molecular pump filled up an weighted on the verification balance The mixtures were prepared in aluminium (with coated layers) cylinders The mixtures were prepared with used pure nitrogen and oxygen and one step premixture of argon and two steps premixture of carbon dioxide

The verification according to ISO 6143 The measurements were repeated 10 times for the standards and the sample The curve was calculated from ratios by the software B_leastexe (linear case)

The standards were prepared by gravimetric method according to ISO 6142 The standards were prepared from separate premixtures and were diluted according ISO 6145-9

The purity of pure gases used for preparation was taken from the certificates of producer Cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM - cylinder D298392 139 bar - cylinder D298393 147 bar - cylinder D298402 147 bar

P a g e | 67

INRIM

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM‐K120‐R Project name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department

Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form

Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute INRiM‐Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica

Address Strada delle Cacce 91 I‐10135 Torino Italy

Contact person Michela Sega

Telephone +39 011 3919948 Fax +39 011 3919937

Email msegainrimit

P a g e | 68

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a No

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 D247440 4793 16 2

2 D247445 7989 26 2

3

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number D247440

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0781132 molmol 0000006 molmol 2

O2 02090627 molmol 00000055 molmol 2

Ar 00093259 molmol 00000037 molmol 2

CH4 ‐ nmolmol nmolmol

N2O ‐ nmolmol nmolmol

P a g e | 69

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number D247445

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0782389 molmol 0000006 molmol

O2 02075526 molmol 00000054 molmol

Ar 00092586 molmol 00000036 molmol

CH4 nmolmol nmolmol

N2O nmolmol nmolmol

A4 Uncertainty Budget The model equation used to calculate the mole fraction of CO2 in the final mixtures is taken from the International Standard ISO 6142‐12015

r

jq

iiji

j

r

jq

iiji

jj

Mx

m

Mx

mx

x

1

1

1

1

CO

prepCO

2

2

where the index i refers to the various components while j refers to the different parent mixtures The uncertainty budget was evaluated according to the guidelines prescribed in ISO 6142‐12015 The uncertainty budget for the gravimetric preparation of the mixture at 4793 micromolmol of CO2 which takes into account the weighted masses of the parent mixtures the molar masses of gases and their purity is reported in the following table

P a g e | 70

Uncertainty component

u(xi)

Uncertainty source

Standard uncertainty

u(xi) δxCO2prepδxi

Contribution tou(xCO2 prep)

|δxCO2prepδxi|u(xi)

u(mCO2) Weighed mass of the parent mixture of CO2

82∙10‐4 g 720∙10‐6

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 59∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(mN2) Weighed mass of the balance gas N2

82∙10‐4 g ‐764∙10‐7

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 63∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(mAr_O2) Weighed mass of the parent mixture of Ar in O2

82∙10‐4 g ‐662∙10‐7

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 54∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(MCO2) Molar mass of CO2 10∙10‐3 g∙mol‐1 ‐772∙10‐8

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 77∙10‐11 mol∙mol‐1

u(MN2) Molar mass of N2 20∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 ‐361∙10‐6

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 72∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(MAr) Molar mass of Ar 58∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 138∙10‐7

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 80∙10‐11 mol∙mol‐1

u(MO2) Molar mass of O2 28∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 310∙10‐6

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 87∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xN2inCO2) Mole fraction of N2 in the parent mixture of CO2

10∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 ‐432∙10‐4 43∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xN2inN2) Mole fraction of N2 in balance gas (purity)

87∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1 329∙10‐4 29∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xArinAr_O2) Mole fraction of Ar in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 129∙10‐4 11∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(xO2inN2) Mole fraction of O2 in balance gas (impurity)

14∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1 375∙10‐4 53∙10‐11 mol∙mol‐1

u(xO2inAr_O2) Mole fraction of O2

in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 104∙10‐4 90∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inCO2) Mole fraction of CO2 in the parent mixture of CO2

10∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 951∙10‐2 95∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inN2) Mole fraction of CO2 in balance gas (impurity)

29∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1 686∙10‐1 20∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inAr_O2) Mole fraction of CO2 in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1 219∙10‐1 19∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

Uncertainty budget for the gravimetric preparation of the mixture at 4793 micromolmol of CO2

P a g e | 71

The following table reports the uncertainty budget for the gravimetric preparation of the mixture at 7989 micromolmol of CO2

Uncertainty component

u(xi)

Uncertainty source

Standard uncertainty

u(xi) δxCO2prepδxi

Contribution tou(xCO2 prep)

|δxCO2prepδxi|u(xi)

u(mCO2) Weighed mass of the parent mixture of CO2

82∙10‐4 g 671∙10‐6

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 55∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(mN2) Weighed mass of the balance gas N2

82∙10‐4 g ‐128∙10‐6

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 10∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(mAr_O2) Weighed mass of the parent mixture of Ar in O2

82∙10‐4 g ‐111∙10‐6

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 91∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(MCO2) Molar mass of CO2 10∙10‐3 g∙mol‐1 365∙10‐7

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 36∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(MN2) Molar mass of N2 20∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 469∙10‐4

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 94∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(MAr) Molar mass of Ar 58∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 510∙10‐6

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 30∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(MO2) Molar mass of O2 28∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 114∙10‐4

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 32∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(xN2inCO2) Mole fraction of N2 in the parent mixture of CO2

10∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 ‐669∙10‐4 67∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xN2inN2) Mole fraction of N2 in balance gas (purity)

87∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1 498∙10‐4 43∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xArinAr_O2) Mole fraction of Ar in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 214∙10‐4 19∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(xO2inN2) Mole fraction of O2 in balance gas (impurity)

14∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1 569∙10‐4 80∙10‐11 mol∙mol‐1

u(xO2inAr_O2) Mole fraction of O2

in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 171∙10‐4 15∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inCO2) Mole fraction of CO2 in the parent mixture of CO2

10∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 159∙10‐1 16∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inN2) Mole fraction of CO2 in balance gas (impurity)

29∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1 624∙10‐1 18∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inAr_O2) Mole fraction of CO2 in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1 217∙10‐1 19∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

Uncertainty budget for the gravimetric preparation of the mixture at 7989 micromolmol of CO2 The additional contribution derived from the analytical verification was taken into account in accordance to the prescription of ISO 6142‐12015

P a g e | 72

2verCOprepCOverCO

2prepCO

2certCO )()()(

2

122222

xxxuxuxu

The following table reports the mole fractions with the associated uncertainties of the preparation and verification for the two prepared mixtures

Cylinder number xCO2 prep

micromolmol u(xCO2prep)micromolmol

xCO2 ver micromolmol

u(xCO2ver)micromolmol

D247440 4793 01 4783 12

D247445 7989 02 7965 12

A5 Additional information

a) Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas

Component Mole Fraction x u(x)

CO2 gt099998 molmol 58 micromolmol

CO le01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

H2 le01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

N2 le10 micromolmol 3 micromolmol

O2 le3 micromolmol 09 micromolmol

H2O le5 micromolmol 14 micromolmol

CnHm le3 micromolmol 09 micromolmol

Purity table for CO2

b) Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar parent gases

Component Mole Fraction x u(x)

N2 gt0999999 molmol 03 micromolmol

CO2 lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

H2 lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

O2 lt05 micromolmol 014 micromolmol

H2O lt05 micromolmol 014 micromolmol

CnHm lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

Purity table for N2

Component Mole Fraction x u(x)

O2 gt0999999 molmol 03 micromolmol

CO lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

CO2 lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

H2 lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

H2O lt05 micromolmol 014 micromolmol

CnHm lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

Purity table for O2

P a g e | 73

Component Mole Fraction x u(x)

Ar gt099999 molmol 29 micromolmol

O2 lt2 micromolmol 06 micromolmol

H2O lt3 micromolmol 09 micromolmol

CnHm lt05 micromolmol 014 micromolmol

Purity table for Ar

c) Brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures

In order to produce the final mixtures the following premixtures were prepared 1) Premixture of CO2 in N2 at 0080122 molmol (U=0000025 molmol) gravimetrically prepared (double

substitution scheme A‐B‐B‐A) from pure CO2 (48) and N2 (60) 2) Premixture of CO2 in N2 at 50054 micromolmol (U=21 micromolmol) gravimetrically prepared (double

substitution scheme A‐B‐B‐A) from the above mentioned mixture n 1 of CO2 in N2 (0080122 molmol) diluted with N2 (60)

3) Premixture of Ar in O2 (Ar 0042703 molmol O2 0957297 molmol) gravimetrically prepared (double substitution scheme A‐B‐B‐A) from pure Ar (50) and O2 (60)

The final mixtures were gravimetrically prepared (double substitution scheme A‐B‐B‐A) by using premixtures n 2 and n 3 as parent mixtures and using N2 60 as balance gas to obtain the target CO2 mole fractions Concerning premixture n 3 an additional determination of the mole fraction of CO2 in the mixture was carried out by NDIR spectroscopy The instrument was calibrated in the range (01‐1) micromolmol using dynamic dilution The obtained value is 03 micromolmol of CO2 (u=009 micromolmol calculated assuming a rectangular distribution) which was taken into account for assigning the mole fraction of the final mixtures (CO2 4793 and 7989 micromolmol respectively) and evaluating the associated uncertainty

d) Brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures

After preparation the mixtures were rolled for 24 h to be homogenized An analytical verification was carried out by NDIR spectroscopy using for each mixture a 3‐point calibration curve based on WTLS in the range (330‐520) micromolmol and (690‐900) micromolmol respectively The calibration standards were prepared starting from a mixture of CO2 in synthetic air at a nominal mole fraction of 4800 micromolmol diluted with synthetic air by means of Mass Flow Controllers calibrated at INRiM Each calibration point was repeated 5 times Each calibration curve was validated by using an independent mixture of CO2 in synthetic air having a the mole fraction within the calibration range

e) Brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM

The mixtures were tested for their stability on a weekly basis following the same procedure as described in d) No trends in the analytical response were observed within 3 weeks and the mixtures could be considered stable

f) Cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM 90 bar for each cylinder

P a g e | 74

KRISS

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 75

P a g e | 76

P a g e | 77

P a g e | 78

P a g e | 79

P a g e | 80

P a g e | 81

P a g e | 82

LNE

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

SubmissionformCCQM‐K120‐RProject name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department

Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form

Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute LNE

Address 1 rue Gaston Boissier

75724 Paris Cedex 15

Contact person Mace Tatiana

P a g e | 83

Telephone +33140433853 Fax +33140433737

Email tatianamacelnefr

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty

Coverage factor

certx CO2 μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 1029045‐CO2air 0028 37948 079 2

2 1029047‐CO2AIR 0029 4776 10 2

3 1029048‐CO2AIR 0030 8022 17 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number CO2AIR 0028

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0780686 molmol 0000025 molmol 2

O2 0209528 molmol 0000019 molmol 2

Ar 0009407 molmol 0000022 molmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number CO2AIR 0029

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Unit Coverage

P a g e | 84

Uncertainty Factor

N2 0781355 molmol 0000025 molmol 2

O2 0208794 molmol 0000018 molmol 2

Ar 0009374 molmol 0000022 molmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number CO2AIR 0030

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0782710 molmol 0000027 molmol 2

O2 0207187 molmol 0000021 molmol 2

Ar 0009301 molmol 0000021 molmol 2

A4 Uncertainty Budget

Please provide a complete uncertainty budgets for the CO2 mole fraction values reported

CO2Air 0028 37948 plusmn 079 micromolmol (k=2)

Xi Unit Value u(Xi) Sensib C(Xi) C(Xi)u(Xi) poids

Mass CO2 Premix g 6021896 0017 606175153 010304978 679

CO2 molar mass gmol 440095 000091 ‐012936318 ‐000011772 000

CO2 concentration (premix) molmol 000998425 000000097 377979757 003666404 086

N2 molar mass gmol 2801348 0000099 ‐276210444 ‐000027345 000

Mass ArgO2 Premix g 3981732 0017 ‐020862621 ‐000354665 001

Arg concentration (premix) molmol 004288429 00000048 204187142 9801E‐05 000

Arg molar mass gmol 39948 0001 011015474 000011015 000

O2 molar mass gmol 319988 000042 245849547 000103257 000

N2 purity molmol 099997493 00000144 ‐281970074 ‐000406037 001

Mass N2 g 1170753 002 ‐024083902 ‐000481678 001

Stability 0 038 1 038 9232

CO2Air 0029 4776 plusmn 10 micromolmol (k=2)

Xi Unit Value u(Xi) Sensib C(Xi) C(Xi)u(Xi) Weight

Mass CO2 Premix g 7635147 0017 595567319 010124644 391

CO2 molar mass gmol 440095 000091 ‐016114898 ‐000014665 000

CO2 concentration (premix) molmol 000998425 000000097 47573918 00461467 081

N2 molar mass gmol 2801348 0000099 ‐346583037 ‐000034312 000

P a g e | 85

Mass ArgO2 Premix g 3997202 0017 ‐026063746 ‐000443084 001

Arg concentration (premix) molmol 004288429 00000048 256082804 000012292 000

Arg molar mass gmol 39948 0001 013815138 000013815 000

O2 molar mass gmol 319988 000042 308334014 0001295 000

N2 purity molmol 099997494 00000144 ‐350551134 ‐000504794 001

Mass N2 g 1165053 002 ‐030088103 ‐000601762 001

Stability 0 05 1 05 9525

CO2Air 0030 8022 plusmn 17 micromolmol (k=2)

Uncertainty source Unit Value Xi u(Xi) Sensitivity coefficient

C(Xi) C(Xi)u(Xi)

Contribution to the

uncertainty

Mass CO2 Premix g 128097 0020 575918809 011518376 201

CO2 molar mass gmol 440095 000091 ‐02614445 ‐000023791

000

CO2 concentration (premix)

molmol 000998425 000000097 799263648 007752857 091

N2 molar mass gmol 2801348 0000099 ‐578813182 ‐000057303

000

Mass ArgO2 Premix g 3961709 0021 ‐043832537 ‐000920483

001

Arg concentration (premix)

molmol 004288429 00000048 426841537 000020488 000

Arg molar mass gmol 39948 0001 023027218 000023027 000

O2 molar mass gmol 319988 000042 513934409 000215852 000

N2 purity molmol 099997493 00000144 ‐564097099 ‐0008123 001

Mass N2 g 1114778 0023 ‐050600475 ‐001163811

002

Stability 0 08 1 08 9704

A5 Additional information

Please include in this section in the case of standards produced with synthetic air

a) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg PurCO2pur007txt degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg

P a g e | 86

Component molmol uncertainty ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ CO2 09999922500 00000026021 H2O 00000015000 00000008660 O2 00000010000 00000005774 Methane 00000010000 00000005774 H2 00000002500 00000001443 N2 00000040000 00000023094

b) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar parent gas

a Pure Argon degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg PurAr_A106273txt degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg Component molmol uncertainty ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Ar 09999998100 00000000880 O2 00000000050 00000000029 H2O 00000000100 00000000058 CO2 00000000005 00000000003 CnHm 00000000250 00000000144 N2 00000001500 00000000866

b Pure Oxygen

degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg PurO2_207494Htxt degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg Component molmol uncertainty ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ O2 09999974360 00000011650 CO2 00000001640 00000000082 CO 00000000500 00000000289 CnHm 00000000500 00000000289 N2 00000020000 00000011547 H2O 00000002500 00000001443 H2 00000000500 00000000289

c Pure Nitrogen

degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg Purazote_bip_GQ88DUItxt degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg

P a g e | 87

Component molmol uncertainty ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ N2 09999749345 00000144338 CO2 00000000005 00000000003 H2O 00000000100 00000000058 Ar 00000250000 00000144338 O2 00000000050 00000000029 H2 00000000250 00000000144 CnHm 00000000250 00000000144

c) Dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures

a Argonoxygen premix

b CO2N2 premix

c Final mixtures of CO2 in air

ArgonO2

428843 plusmn 000096

Pure Argon

94147 g (u=0011 g)

Pure Oxygen

1736737 g (u=0015 g)

CO2N2 0065

099842 plusmn 000020

CO2N2 0064

100131 plusmn 00013

181585 g (u=0016 g)

Pure N2

1422808 g (u=0019 g)

Pure CO2

248725 g (u=0017 g)

Pure N2

1550854 g (u=0019 g)

P a g e | 88

d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures The gravimetric concentrations of the CO2 gas mixtures in air have been verified with a micro gas chromatograph (chrompack CP2003) The components are separated by a HayeSep A

CO2Air 0028

37948 plusmn 079 micromolmol

CO2N2 0065

60219 g (u=0017 g)

ArgonO2

398173 g (u=0017 g)

Pure N2

1170753 g (u=0020 g)

CO2Air 0029

4776 plusmn 10 micromolmol

CO2N2 0065

76351 g (u=0017 g)

ArgonO2

399720 g (u=0017 g)

Pur N2

1165053 g (u=0020 g)

CO2Air 0030

8022 plusmn 17 micromolmol

CO2N2 0065

128097 g (u=0020 g)

ArgonO2

396171 g (u=0021 g)

Pur N2

1114778 g (u=0023 g)

P a g e | 89

column at 70degC with an hydrogen pressure at 200 kPa The injection is performed at a pressure of 15 bar during 100 ms Each CO2 gas mixture in air is compared by chromatography to a reference gas mixture of CO2 in air generated by dilution of a high concentration gravimetric gas mixture (CO2 in nitrogen) with a Molbloc flowmeter 30 runs are performed with the reference gas mixture 30 runs are performed with the gas mixture to be verified and 30 runs are performed again with the reference gas mixture The 10 previous runs are used to calculate the analytical concentration The gas mixture is validated if the difference between the analytical and gravimetric concentrations is lower than the quadratic sum of the variances

e) Stability of the gas mixtures between the time they were prepared and the time they were shipped to the BIPM The CO2 gases mixtures in air have been analysed 3 times during a period of 2 months before being sent to BIPM

P a g e | 90

P a g e | 91

BFKH

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for carbon dioxide in air standards in the

range (380‐480) micromolmol and (480‐800) micromolmol

A1 General information

Institute Hungarian Trade Licensing Office MKEH

Address Neacutemetvoumllgyi uacutet 37‐39 Budapest

1124 Hungary

Contact person Judit Fuumlkő Zsoacutefia Nagyneacute Szilaacutegyi Tamaacutes Buumlki

Telephone +36 1 4585988

+36 1 4585800

Fax + 36 1 4585 937

Email tothnefjmkehhu

P a g e | 92

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 OMH54 37984 171 2

2 OMH44 47989 211 2

3 OMH69 80030 292 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted)

(Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number OMH54

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit CoverageFactor

N2 078039 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209615 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009607 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5130 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number OMH44

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

P a g e | 93

N2 078064 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209514 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009360 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5130 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number OMH69

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078072 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209161 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009314 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5130 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

A4 Uncertainty Budget

Uncertainty budget of preparation of CO2 standard by gravimetry

OMH69 800ppm

Uncertainty

source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 138729 g Normal 000046 g 1 33158E‐04

martix mass 11397986 g Normal 0026 g 1 22811E‐05

P a g e | 94

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000333

ppm 027

OMH44 480ppm

Uncertainty

source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 081399 g Normal 000034 g 1 41770E‐04

martix mass 111578 g Normal 0026 g 1 23302E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000419

ppm 020

OMH54 380ppm

Uncertainty

source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 064422 g Normal 000032 g 1 49672E‐04

martix mass 11159357 g Normal 0026 g 1 23299E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000498

P a g e | 95

ppm 019

The standard uncertainty of xi can be expressed as xuxuxuxuxu sti

2veri

2veri

2prepi

2i

2 (1)

xprep amount-of-substance fraction from preparation (micromolmol) uprep uncertainty of xprep (micromolmol) uver uncertainty from verification (micromolmol) ust uncertainty of calibration standard (micromolmol)

verix diffenece between the gravimetric preparation value and the result of verification measurement (micromolmol)

Ux stated uncertainty of laboratory at 95 level of confidence (micromolmol) k assigned coverage factor for degree of equivalence Laboratory Code

Cylinder xprep uprep uver ust verix k U(xi)

U(xi)

ppm ppm rel

MKEH OMH54 37984 019 08 019 014 2 171 045

OMH44 47989 020 10 020 018 2 211 044

OMH69 80030 027 14 028 015 2 292 036

A5 Additional information

A51 SOURCE OF CO2 NITROGEN OXIGEN ARGON

CO2 48 from SIAD Italy

N2 45 from Messer Hungary

O2 50 from Messer Hungary

Ar 46 from Messer Hungary

A52 PURITY TABLE OF PURE CO2 (38458)

Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol)

Uncertainty

(molmol)

CO2 specifications 09999885 00000133

N2 specifications 00000050 00000058

H2O specifications 00000025 00000029

P a g e | 96

CH4 specifications 00000025 00000029

O2 specifications 00000015 00000017

A53 PURITY TABLE OF PURE NITROGEN

Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol)

Uncertainty

(molmol)

N2 specifications 09999870 00000150

O2 specifications 00000050 00000058

H2O specifications 00000050 00000058

CH4 specifications 00000025 00000029

CO specifications 00000005 00000006

A54 PURITY TABLE OF PURE OXIGEN

Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol)

Uncertainty

(molmol)

O2 specifications 09999866 00000155

N2 specifications 00000100 00000115

H2O specifications 00000025 00000029

CH4 specifications 000000003 00000004

CO specifications 000000003 00000004

CO2 specifications 000000003 00000004

A55 PURITY TABLE OF PURE ARGON

Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol)

Uncertainty

(molmol)

Ar specifications 09999822 00000206

P a g e | 97

O2 specifications 00000025 00000029

H2O specifications 00000050 00000058

N2 specifications 00000100 00000116

CO2 specifications 00000003 00000004

A56 PREPARATION OF THE MIXTURES

We used 94 L aluminum cylinder (Luxfer) with brass valves DIN10 All the three mixtures were prepared without dilution series First the pure CO2 was filled with using loop into the properly prepared cylinder the mass measurement of the loop was carried out by an analytical balance ndash Mettler Toledo AE240‐S After the pure gases were filled directly gravimetrically after each other and the measurement of the gas mass was carried out by a topload balance ndash Mettler Toledo XP26003L

A57 VERIFICATION OF THE MIXTURES

All the three mixtures measured using methaniser at Agilent GC‐FID and we used MKEH standard gases one by one for calibration this method to the purpose of confirm that the gravimetric value and uncertainty for the carbon dioxide mole fraction of its standards is valid and it is included in the calculation of the reference value

A58 STABILITY OF THE MIXTURES

All the three mixtures were measured using methaniser at Agilent GC‐FID three times independently between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM There wasnrsquot significant difference between the certified values and the measured values

A59 CYLINDER PRESSURE BEFORE SHIPMENT TO THE BIPM 100 bar

P a g e | 98

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for carbon dioxide in air standards in the range (380‐480) micromolmol and (480‐800) micromolmol A1 General information

Institute Government Office of the Capital City Budapest BFKH (former MKEH)

Address Neacutemetvoumllgyi uacutet 37‐39Budapest 1124 Hungary

Contact person Judit Fuumlkő Tamaacutes Buumlki Zsoacutefia Nagyneacute Szilaacutegyi

Telephone +36 1 4585988 +36 1 4585800

Fax + 36 1 4585 937

Email fukojuditbfkhgovhu

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 OMH54 3798 17 2

2 OMH44 4644 28 2

P a g e | 99

3 OMH69 8003 29 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted)

(Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number OMH54

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078039 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209615 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009607 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5100 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number OMH44

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078064 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209514 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009360 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5100 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number OMH69

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078072 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209161 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009314 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5100 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

P a g e | 100

A4 Uncertainty Budget Uncertainty budget of preparation of CO2 standard by gravimetry

OMH69 800ppm

Uncertainty source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 138729 g Normal 000046 g 1 33158E‐04

martix mass 11397986 g Normal 0026 g 1 22811E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000333

ppm 027

OMH44 480ppm

Uncertainty source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 081399 g Normal 000034 g 1 41770E‐04

martix mass 111578 g Normal 0026 g 1 23302E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000419

ppm 020

P a g e | 101

OMH54 380ppm

Uncertainty source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 064422 g Normal 000032 g 1 49672E‐04

martix mass 11159357 g Normal 0026 g 1 23299E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000498

ppm 019

The standard uncertainty of xi can be expressed as

xuxuxuxuxu sti2

veri2

veri2

prepi2

i2 (1)

xprep amount-of-substance fraction from preparation (micromolmol) uprep uncertainty of xprep (micromolmol) uver uncertainty from verification (micromolmol) ust uncertainty of calibration standard (micromolmol)

verix diffenece between the gravimetric preparation value and the result of verification measurement (micromolmol)

Ux stated uncertainty of laboratory at 95 level of confidence (micromolmol) k assigned coverage factor for degree of equivalence

Laboratory Code

Cylinder xprep

uprep xmeas um ust verix k U(xi) U(xi)

ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm rel

BFKH OMH54 37984 019 08 019 014 2 17 045

OMH44 47989 020 46444 14 020 2 28 058

OMH69 80030 027 14 028 015 2 29 036

The stability measurements indicated some preparation mistake in case of the OMH44 cylinder The certified value of this cylinder was calculated from the measurements and the uncertainty from the equation below

xuxuxuxu sti2

easmi2

prepi2

i2

P a g e | 102

A5 Additional information A51 SOURCE OF CO2 NITROGEN OXIGEN ARGON CO2 48 from SIAD Italy N2 45 from Messer Hungary O2 50 from Messer Hungary Ar 46 from Messer Hungary A52 PURITY TABLE OF PURE CO2 (38458) Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol) Uncertainty (molmol)

CO2 Specifications 09999885 00000133 N2 Specifications 00000050 00000058 H2O Specifications 00000025 00000029 CH4 Specifications 00000025 00000029 O2 Specifications 00000015 00000017 A53 PURITY TABLE OF PURE NITROGEN Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol) Uncertainty (molmol)

N2 Specifications 09999870 00000150 O2 Specifications 00000050 00000058 H2O Specifications 00000050 00000058 CH4 Specifications 00000025 00000029 CO Specifications 00000005 00000006 A54 PURITY TABLE OF PURE OXIGEN Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol) Uncertainty (molmol)

O2 Specifications 09999866 0000016 N2 Specifications 00000100 0000012 H2O Specifications 00000025 00000029 CH4 Specifications 000000003 00000004 CO Specifications 000000003 00000004 CO2 Specifications 000000003 00000004 A55 PURITY TABLE OF PURE ARGON Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol) Uncertainty (molmol)

Ar Specifications 09999822 00000200 O2 Specifications 00000025 00000029 H2O Specifications 00000050 00000058 N2 Specifications 00000100 0000012 CO2 Specifications 00000003 00000004 A56 PREPARATION OF THE MIXTURES We used 94 L aluminum cylinder (Luxfer) with brass valves DIN10

P a g e | 103

All the three mixtures were prepared without dilution series First the pure CO2 was filled with using loop into the properly prepared cylinder the mass measurement of the loop was carried out by an analytical balance ndash Mettler Toledo AE240‐S After the pure gases were filled directly gravimetrically after each other and the measurement of the gas mass was carried out by a topload balance ndash Mettler Toledo XP26003L A57 VERIFICATION OF THE MIXTURES All the three mixtures measured using methaniser at Agilent GC‐FID and we used MKEH standard gases one by one for calibration this method to the purpose of confirm that the gravimetric value and uncertainty for the carbon dioxide mole fraction of its standards is valid and it is included in the calculation of the reference value A58 STABILITY OF THE MIXTURES All the three mixtures were measured using methaniser at Agilent GC‐FID three times independently between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM A59 CYLINDER PRESSURE BEFORE SHIPMENT TO THE BIPM 100 bar

P a g e | 104

NIM

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM-K120 Carbon dioxide in Air Laboratory National Institute of Metrology

Cylinders number FB03748 FB03744 FB03747

Preparation report

A1 General information

Institute National Institute of Metrology China

Address 18 Bei San Huan Dong Lu Chaoyang District City Bei Jing

Building 17 Room 217

Contact person BI Zhe Zeyi Zhou

Telephone 86-10-84232306 Fax 86-10-84232306

Email zhouzynimaccn bizhnimaccn

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM-K120a Yes

CCQM-K120b Yes

A3 Submitted values for carbon dioxide preparation results in each standard

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2 μmolmol )( CO2 certxU

μmolmol

1 FB03748 80982 026 2

2 FB03744 48915 022 2

P a g e | 105

3 FB03747 38343 020 2

A4 Submitted values for each standardrsquos matrix Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted)

(Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number FB03748

Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage

Factor CH4(Methane) 101times10-9 molmol 203E-10 molmol 2 C2H4(Ethene) 146times10-10 molmol 113E-10 molmol 2 C3H8(Propane) 518times10-10 molmol 405E-10 molmol 2 N2(Nitrogen) 0781 molmol 271E-05 molmol 2 O2(Oxygen) 0210 molmol 260E-05 molmol 2 Ar(Argon) 794times10-3 molmol 969E-06 molmol 2 H2O(Water) 291times10-7 molmol 139E-07 molmol 2 N2O(Dinitrogen_oxide) 790times10-10 molmol 586E-10 molmol 2 CO2(Carbon_dioxide) 80982times10-4 molmol 248E-07 molmol 2 (Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number FB03744

Component Mole fraction Value

Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

CH4(Methane) 101E-09 molmol 308E-10 molmol 2 C2H4(Ethene) 880E-11 molmol 685E-11 molmol 2 C3H8(Propane) 313E-10 molmol 245E-10 molmol 2 N2(Nitrogen) 781E-01 molmol 275E-05 molmol 2 O2(Oxygen) 210E-01 molmol 264E-05 molmol 2 Ar(Argon) 904E-03 molmol 990E-06 molmol 2 H2O(Water) 290E-07 molmol 139E-07 molmol 2 N2O(Dinitrogen_oxide) 790E-10 molmol 601E-10 molmol 2 CO2(Carbon_dioxide) 48915E-04 molmol 191E-07 molmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number FB03747 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage

Factor CH4(Methane) 101E-09 molmol 408E-10 molmol 2 C2H4(Ethene) 690E-11 molmol 537E-11 molmol 2 C3H8(Propane) 245E-10 molmol 192E-10 molmol 2 N2(Nitrogen) 782E-01 molmol 288E-05 molmol 2 O2(Oxygen) 209E-01 molmol 276E-05 molmol 2 Ar(Argon) 922E-03 molmol 102E-05 molmol 2 H2O(Water) 289E-07 molmol 139E-07 molmol 2 N2O(Dinitrogen_oxide) 791E-10 molmol 607E-10 molmol 2 CO2(Carbon_dioxide) 38343E-04 molmol 183E-07 molmol 2 CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

P a g e | 106

Cylinder

Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 2 3

A5 Uncertainty Budget Please provide a complete uncertainty budgets for the CO2 mole fraction values reported

Uncertainty budget

Cylinder

Gravimetric

valueμmolmol

Component distribution Standard

uncertaintyμmolmol

FB03748 80982

Combined uncertainty of

Purity Molecular and

Weighing

Normal 0124

Repeatability of the

measurement Normal 0040

Combined standard uncertainty 013

FB03744 48915

Combined uncertainty of

Purity Molecular and

Weighing

Normal 0096

Repeatability of the

measurement Normal 0030

Combined standard uncertainty 011

FB03747 38343

Combined uncertainty of

Purity Molecular and

Weighing

Normal 0092

Repeatability of the

measurement Normal 0030

Combined standard uncertainty 010

A6 Additional information

P a g e | 107

Please include in this section in the case of standards produced with synthetic air

g) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas h) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar NO2 and CH4 parent gas i) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures j) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures k) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time

they are shipped to the BIPM and l) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

a) purity table for the nominally pure CO2 09999924 molmol

Component Amount fraction

(10-6molmol)

Standard uncertainty

(10-6molmol) Assumed distribution

CH4 113 045 Normal

C2H4 018 007 Normal

C3H8 064 025 Normal

O2 052 021 Normal

Ar 010 004 Normal

N2 251 100 Normal

H2O 250 100 Normal

N2O 0001 00006 Rectangular

CO2 9999924 15 Normal

b) purity table for the nominally pure N2 0 9999521 molmol

Component Amount fraction

(10-6molmol)

Standard uncertainty

(10-6molmol) Assumed distribution

CH4 0001 00005 Rectangular

Ar 483 48 Normal

O2 002 0006 Normal

CO2 0010 0003 Normal

H2O 010 004 Normal

N2O 0001 00004 Rectangular

P a g e | 108

N2 9999521 48 Normal

purity table for the nominally pure O2 0 9999959 molmol

Component Amount fraction

(10-6molmol)

Standard uncertainty

(10-6molmol) Assumed distribution

CH4 0001 00003 Normal

Ar 20 05 Normal

N2 11 03 Normal

CO2 00012 00004 Rectangular

H2O 12 04 Normal

N2O 0001 00004 Rectangular

O2 9999959 48 Normal

purity table for the nominally pure Ar 09999998 molmol

Component Amount fraction

(10-6molmol)

Standard uncertainty

(10-6molmol) Assumed distribution

CH4 0001 00003 Normal

O2 0020 0005 Normal

N2 0010 0001 Normal

CO2 0001 00004 Rectangular

H2O 01 04 Normal

N2O 0001 00004 Rectangular

Ar 9999998 48 Normal

P a g e | 109

c) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures

d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures Seven primary standard cylinders of CO2 in air mixture were measured by CRDs A linearity regression was established based on these seven cylinders For each point an average of date recorded in 2 minutes were used The verification wre done by the comparison of gravimetric values and the calculated values

Gravimetric value Fitted value Relative deviation

y = 1002382 x + 0187049 Rsup2 = 1000000

350

450

550

650

750

850

350 450 550 650 750 850

Measured value VS Gravimetric value

1047095 g

CO2

N2

26743 g

CO2N2 15998ppm

Ar O2 N2

FB03748

CO2N2 32592 g Ar 7193 g O2 153303 g N2 466458 g

FB03744

CO2N2 19417 g Ar 8082 g O2 150754 g N2 472375 g

FB03747

CO2N2 14474 g Ar 7835 g O2 142777 g N2 453560 g

P a g e | 110

μmolmol μmolmol 80982 80965 -0021 81307 81319 0015 49106 49113 0014 48915 48928 0025 37819 37818 -0003 39162 39161 -0004 38343 38332 -0030

e) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are

prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM

Three test gas mixtures were prepared 3 months before the comparison After gas mixtures for the comparison were prepared a liner regression was done by combining the test gas mixtures and the comparison cylinders No significant drift of the values was observed between the time they were prepared and the time they were shipped to the BIPM f) cylinders pressure before shipment to the BIPM

Cylinder No Pressure (bar) FB03748 90 FB03744 90 FB03747 90

P a g e | 111

NIST

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM‐K120‐R Project name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department

Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form

Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute NIST

Address 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8393

Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8393

Contact person George C Rhoderick

Telephone 301‐975‐3937 Fax 301‐977‐8392

P a g e | 112

Email GeorgeRhodericknistgov

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 FB04278 3790449 03908 2

2 FB04300 4726617 04280 2

3 FB04287 7945334 10287 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number FB04278

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0780812 molmol 0000118 molmol 2

O2 0209470 molmol 000071 molmol 2

Ar 0009339 molmol 000037 molmol 2

CH4 nmolmol nmolmol

N2O nmolmol nmolmol

P a g e | 113

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number FB04300

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0780771 molmol 0000128 molmol 2

O2 0209422 molmol 0000081 molmol 2

Ar 0009334 molmol 0000034 molmol 2

CH4 nmolmol nmolmol

N2O nmolmol nmolmol

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number FB04287

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0780499 molmol 0000114 molmol 2

O2 0209370 molmol 0000067 molmol 2

Ar 0009336 molmol 0000040 molmol 2

CH4 nmolmol nmolmol

N2O nmolmol nmolmol

CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 FB04278 ‐28 plusmn 2 1

2 FB04300 ‐28 plusmn 2 1

3 FB04287 ‐28 plusmn 2 1

A4 Uncertainty Budget Please provide a complete uncertainty budgets for the CO2 mole fraction values reported

P a g e | 114

A5 Additional information

FB04278

Standard Relative ContributionValue Uncertainty Uncertianty to Uncertainty

Major Component MW 2801340 000016 00000058 00020

Minor Component MW 4400950 000052 00000119 00041

Mass Parent Gas 1893585 000146 00000769 00264

Mass Balance Gas 7453878 00020 00000027 00009

Minor Component Wt Fraction 0023250750 0000006755 00002905 00997

Mass minor component - Parent 044027281 000013232 00003005 01031Mass minor component - Bal 000006695 000001936 02890953 991626

Total mass minor component 044017935 000022556 00005124 01758

Moles of minor component 001000192 000000513 00005126 01758

Balance gas wt fraction (purity) 0755569792 390976E-05 00000517 00177

Mass balance gas - parent 1397906371 000148549 00001063 00365Mass balance gas - balance 56319253120 002918142 00000518 00178

Total mass balance gas 57717159491 002921920 00000506 00174

Moles of balance gas 2060341104 000104994 00000510 00175

Moles impurities from parent 013966291020 000002524000 00001807 00620

Moles impurities from balance 56340784 00010163 00001804 00619

Total Moles of gas 263871542 00014615 00000554 00190

Conc minor component (ppm) 3790449 01954Relative uncert 0052 0292 100000

FB04300

Standard Relative Contribution

Value Uncertainty Uncertianty to Uncertainty

Major Component MW 2801340 000016 00000058 00025

Minor Component MW 4400950 000052 00000119 00050

Mass Parent Gas 2953886 000141 00000477 00201

Mass Balance Gas 74869117 000194 00000026 00011

CO2 Component Wt Fraction 0018926076 0000006339 00003350 01414

Mass CO2 component - Parent 055905476 000018915 00003383 01428Mass CO2 component - Balance Air 000003828 000000898 02345407 989951

Total mass CO2 component 055885777 000025068 00004486 01893

Moles of minor component 001269857 000000570 00004487 01894

Balance gas wt fraction (purity) 07556035 000004300 00000569 00240Mass balance gas - parent 2190310136 000191642 00000875 00369

Mass balance gas - balance 56571366688 003222901 00000570 00240

Total mass balance gas 58761676824 003228594 00000549 00232

Moles of balance gas 2097627451 000115899 00000553 00233

Moles impurities from parent 021883087438 000003747112 00001712 00723

Moles impurities from balance 56582830 00011276 00001993 00841

Total Moles of gas 268660869 00016174 00000602 00254

Conc minor component (ppm) 4726617 02140Relative uncert 0045 0237 100000

FB04287

Standard Relative ContributionValue Uncertainty Uncertianty to Uncertainty

Major Component MW 2801340 000016 00000058 00021

Minor Component MW 4400950 000052 00000119 00042

Mass Parent Gas 3957940 000137 00000346 00122

Mass Balance Gas 7227358 00020 00000028 00010

Minor Component Wt Fraction 0023250750 0000006716 00002889 01017

Mass minor component - Parent 092025076 000026773 00002909 01025Mass minor component - Bal 000005052 000001421 02813263 990842

Total mass minor component 092005795 000059343 00006450 02272

Moles of minor component 002090589 000001349 00006451 02272

Balance gas wt fraction (purity) 0755575527 389029E-05 00000515 00181

Mass balance gas - parent 2921880196 000218877 00000749 00264Mass balance gas - balance 54608149036 002815892 00000516 00182

Total mass balance gas 57530029233 002824386 00000491 00173

Moles of balance gas 2053661078 000101531 00000494 00174

Moles impurities from parent 029192104701 000004836046 00001657 00583

Moles impurities from balance 54627264 00009803 00001795 00632

Total Moles of gas 263121641 00014122 00000537 00189

Conc minor component (ppm) 7945334 05143Relative uncert 0065 0284 100000

P a g e | 115

Please include in this section in the case of standards produced with synthetic air

m) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas n) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar NO2 and CH4

parent gas o) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures p) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures q) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are

prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM and r) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

Or with real air

a) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas Compound molmol Uncertainty CO2 0999994000 0000002000 N2 0000002000 0000001155 O2 0000002000 0000001155 Ar 0000002000 0000001155

b) results of the analysis and mole fractions and uncertainties of CO2 N2 O2 Ar N2O and CH4 in the scrubbed real air (if performed)

Cylinder FB04300 Compound molmol Uncertainty N2 0781133467 0000043500 CO2 0000000151 0000000036 O2 0209528241 0000039865 Ar 0009338142 0000017407

Cylinder FB04278 Compound molmol Uncertainty N2 0781102830 0000039359 CO2 0000000059 0000000017 O2 0209554557 0000034507 Ar 0009342554 0000018932

Cylinder FB04287 Compound molmol Uncertainty N2 0781108354 0000039152 CO2 0000000046 0000000013 O2 0209548136 0000033045 Ar 0009343463 0000020998

P a g e | 116

c) a brief outline of the preparation procedure of the final mixtures

The three cylinders were evacuated to ~ 05 micro of Hg filled to ~ 07 Mpa with UHP Air and vented to atmosphere (four times) and evacuated to ~ 05 micro Hg A calculated aliquot of the parent cylinder was added to each cylinder and then weighed A calculated aliquot of the matrix gas was added to each cylinder and then weighed The cylinders were rolled for ~ three hours to mix the component gases

d) a composition table for each of the final mixtures including gravimetric Uncertainties when relevant Cylinder FB04300 Compound molmol Uncertainty CO2 0000472662 0000000214 N2 0780771482 0000063800 O2 0209421668 0000040372 Ar 0009334188 0000016775 Cylinder FB04278 Compound molmol Uncertainty CO2 0000379045 0000000195 N2 0780812166 0000058766 O2 0209469584 0000035657 Ar 0009339205 0000018480 Cylinder FB04287 Compound molmol Uncertainty CO2 0000794533 0000000514 N2 0780498735 0000056955 O2 0209370336 0000033285 Ar 0009336395 0000019945

e) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures The cylinders were verified against five existing PSMs a minimum of six times using an Isotopic CO2 Cavity Ringdown Spectrometer

f) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM and

g) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

P a g e | 117

Cylinder MPa FB04300 965 FB04278 1034 FB04278 999

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders 1st report

2nd report received on May 16 2018

Addendum to NIST Report for CCQM-K120a and b 1 Introduction NIST agreed to participate in the CCQM-K120a and b Key Comparison (KC) with the understanding that this KC involved gravimetrically value-assigned samples As stated in the protocol summary the comparison involved ldquohellip preparative capabilities for carbon dioxide in air primary reference mixturesrdquo Based on this description of the KC as involving primary reference mixtures NIST assumed that the participantsrsquo value assignments and reported data were restricted solely to those that derive from purity assessments and primary gravimetric measurements However prior to submission of the reported concentrations to GAWG NIST discovered a significant discrepancy in the gravimetric values which was caused by extenuating circumstances (discussed below) and which was quantified using supplementary measurements carried out at NIST Nevertheless to follow the KC protocol and to meet the imposed deadlines NIST submitted only the gravimetric-based concentration values for the three required CO2-in-air samples despite having assessed that the results were not expected to agree with the eventual calculated KCRV 2 Background Studies on CO2 adsorptiondesorption issues NIST performed and continues to investigate an adsorptiondesorption phenomenon with CO2 in air mixtures [1] NIST has observed in 5 and 6 L aluminum cylinders containing nominal 400 micromolmol CO2 in air mixtures initial CO2 adsorption to the cylinder walls of as little as 02 micromolmol to more than 1 micromolmol depending on the cylinder and internal treatment tested It has been observed that CO2 initially adsorbs on the cylinder walls when a mixture is

NIST CCQM K120 comparison samples dataPressure August 112017 Pressure

Original Reported Original Verified Veri‐Grav departure Re‐verified Value ReVerified value‐ back

Cylinder Gravimetirc Value ppm Value ppm Diff from NIST Stability check ppm Grav Value ppm to NIST

FB04278 37905 plusmn 039 38030 plusmn 028 033 1034 MPa 38007 plusmn 030 027 724 MPa

FB04300 47266 plusmn 043 47340 plusmn 034 016 965 MPa 47337 plusmn 052 015 724 MPa

FB04287 79453 plusmn 103 79512 plusmn 058 007 999 MPa 79477 plusmn 038 003 724 MPa

Re‐verified Value Re‐Verified‐ Pressure back

SRM Sample Original Certified Value Stability check ppm Orig Cert to NIST

1720‐A‐26 39397 plusmn 013 39403 plusmn 020 0015 414 MPa (600 psi)

P a g e | 118

prepared to high pressure (asymp12 MPa asymp1800 psi) NIST modeled some of that early data that shows an increase in CO2 mole fraction (∆x) with reduced cylinder pressure from measurements of a CO2 in air mixture contained in a 6 L aluminum cylinder using the Langmuir isotherm (Irving Langmuir 1916 1918) and is shown in Figure 1

Figure 1 Measured CO2 mole fraction increase versus pressure decrease in a 6 L aluminum cylinder Solid black points represent actual measured mole fraction Solid blue line represents applied Langmuir Isotherm model Using the actual measured CO2 change in 5 L and 6 L cylinders and the Langmuir isotherm NIST modeled for projected ∆x CO2 variation for 30 L and 47 L aluminum cylinders as shown in Figure 2 The models predict that the larger the cylinder volume the less change in the CO2 mole fraction with pressure loss NIST studies of CO2 in air mixtures contained in 30 L cylinders indeed show less increase in the mole fraction of CO2 as the pressure in the cylinder decreases Therefore the surface-to-volume ratio appears to play a major role the larger the cylinder volume the less CO2 increase It is most likely that this phenomenon takes place not only at ambient CO2 mole fractions but also at much higher levels including a few molmol and higher

Figure 2 Projected variation in ∆x for 6-L 30-L and 47-L cylinders applying Langmuir Isotherm This background information was presented at the GAWG meeting in April 2017 as analyses of K120 a and b were underway These results account for the discrepant NIST values in K120 a and b More generally this study informed participants of the serious potential pitfalls associated with desorption of CO2 from cylinder walls and the dependence of this process on total charge cylinder dimensions etc and revealed the possibility of unaccounted for Type B uncertainties caused by interactions of CO2 with cylinder walls Partly because of these findings and the

P a g e | 119

occurrence of extremely low uncertainties reported by some NMIs GAWG decided to put a lower limit on the expanded uncertainty equal to 019 mol mol-1 thus affecting the relative weighting of the results contributing to the KCRV 3 Preparation of K120 Samples In conjunction with submitting freshly prepared gravimetric standards for the CCQM-K120 CO2 in air key comparison NIST also wanted to prepare a complete new suite of ambient level CO2 in air primary standard mixtures (PSMs) starting with a pure natural isotopic CO2 source That new pure CO2 source arrived at NIST in November 2016 Because there was a limited amount of pure CO2 in the cylinder obtained NIST started development by gravimetrically preparing four PSMs in the range of 1-3 molmol in CO2 and moisture scrubbed real air Upon completion of those PSMs in early December 2016 they were analyzed by GC-TCD along with the NIST 2012 CO2 suite with ratios calculated from peak area responses to a control Generalized least squares regression was used to plot the ratios vs gravimetric values of the 2012 PSMs The new percent level PSMs were predicted from the regression line The results of that comparison are shown in Table 1 Inspection of the residuals from the difference of the predicted Ysolution- YGrav value for the 2012 PSMs reveals excellent agreement However the predicted Yeval values for the new PSMs disagree with their gravimetric values by more than -2 Table 1 New percent level PSMs predicted from linear regression of 2012 PSMs

Based on these results either the 2012 suite of PSMs had increased in mole fraction because of desorption of CO2 from the cylinder surface with pressure decrease or the new source of pure CO2 was contaminated Indeed the pure CO2 was eventually analyzed in January of 2017 and found to be contaminated with 31 molmol N2 Because NIST had no time to obtain another source of pure CO2 to make another set of PSMs (K120 samples needed to be shipped to BIPM by the end of December 2016) we had to assume that the 2012 percent level PSMs were stable We made this assumption knowing that it most likely was not the case because the CO2 mole fraction had increased as these standards were below asymp 45 MPa (asymp650 psi) Not having another source of CO2 (the original CO2 source used for the 2012 suite and the source for over three decades was spent) NIST could not prepare new percent-level standards to verify the 2012 percent level standards and determine if the CO2 had indeed increased

Res idua l

2012 PSM X (Ratio) Y (Grav molmol) X‐Solution Y‐Solution uTest (Y‐Sol ‐Grav)

FA02584 244265 49500 244266 49490 Pass ‐002

FA02588 22877 46190 22877 46205 Pass 003

APEX1099215 078272 15422 078272 15420 Pass ‐001

APEX1099172 063673 12535 063656 12538 Pass 002

CAL016532 050028 09869 05003 09869 Pass 000

difference

From New CO2 Xin (Ratio) uXin Yeval (molmol) uYeval Grav Value Yeval‐Grav

FB03808 139347 000103 27669 00033 28288 ‐219

APEX1099165 118456 000141 23442 00035 24043 ‐250

APEX1099188 11708 000130 23164 00033 23773 ‐256

APEX1099246 078483 000058 15462 00015 15822 ‐228

(plusmn 00007)

P a g e | 120

NIST moved forward and prepared the three K120 standards from the 2012 PSMs cylinder number APEX1099215 at (15422 plusmn 00010) molmol and APEX1099172 at (12535 plusmn 00009) molmol (highlighted in green in Table 1) Figure 3 shows the preparation scheme

Figure 3 Preparation scheme for NIST K120 samples It is very important to state here that both cylinders were low in pressure when the three K120 standards were prepared from them APEX1099215 at 520 psi and APEX1099172 at 390 psi While NIST did not have stability data for percent-level CO2 in air mixtures we still suspected that the CO2 also increases at this mole fraction level as the pressure decreases After preparation of the three K120 standards they were compared to the 2012 ambient level PSMs and three SRM samples were also included Figure 4 shows the generalized least squares regression plotted for the 2012 PSMs represented by the black circles The blue circles represent the predicted value for the SRM 1720 samples from that regression and the red triangles represent the original SRM 1720 certified value The green squares represent the predicted value for the K120 samples from that regression line while the yellow circle with red border represent the gravimetric values From this plot the blue dotted linear regression line appears to cover all the data points

Pure CO2

CC282116

999940 plusmn 00002

APEX1099172 APEX1099215

12535 plusmn 00009 15422 plusmn 00010

molmol molmol

FB04300 FB04300 FB04300

472662 plusmn 0214 379045 plusmn 0214 794533 plusmn 0514

micromolmol micromolmol micromolmol

combined uncerta inties k=1

350

450

550

650

750

850

950

070 090 110 130 150 170 190

CO2mole fraction micro

molmol

Response Ratio

2012 CO2 PSMs

K120 Standards Predicted

K120 Grav Value

Predicted SRM 1720

SRM1720 Certified Value

P a g e | 121

Figure 4 Generalized least squares regression through NIST 2012 ambient CO2 PSM suite predicting SRM 1720 and K120 samples However if we expand the lower portion of the regression from (350-400) micromolmol we see disagreement between the new standards and SRM 1720 certified values as shown in Figure 5 While the predicted and gravimetric value for the 380 micromolmol K120 standard are still on the regression line the SRM 1720 certified values are off the regression line by around +1 micromol mol (03 relative) However the predicted and gravimetric value for the 380 micromolmol K120 sample lie on the regression line NIST has complete confidence that the SRM 1720 samples contained in 30-L cylinders are stable since they were all at pressures of +11 MPa Therefore NIST suspected that the 2012 PSMs all had increased in concentration and hence would predict the SRM 1720 samples to have less CO2 The fact that the K120 samples also lie on the line with the 2012 PSM regression we can postulate that the 2012 percent level PSMs had also increased in CO2 mole fraction as they had pressures less than 45 MPa (650 psi) when used to prepare the K120 samples

Figure 5 Expansion of Figure 4 illustrating that the SRM 1720 certified values lie off the regression line while K120 gravimetric and predicted values are still on the regression line Expanded uncertainty error bars are present but too small to be observed except in the red triangle SRM 1720 Certified Value NIST took this data for the 2012 ambient level PSMs and determined values by comparison to SRM sample 1720-A-29 with a certified value of (39312 plusmn 013) micromolmol with and (k = 2) uncertainty value at a pressure of +12 MPa The values determined for the PSMs from the SRM 1720 sample are significantly different from their gravimetric values with reduced pressure as shown in Table 2 Table 2 Ambient level 2012 PSMs determined from SRM sample 1720-A-29

4 Validity of SRM 1720 samples The SRM 1720 sample used to verify these PSMs is contained in a 30-Liter aluminum cylinder Other SRM 1720 samples have shown to be stable within uncertainty limits down to around 600 psi as shown in Table 3

‐029

‐037‐031

378

383

388

393

398

074 075 075 076 076 077 077 078 078 079 079

CO2mole fraction micro

molmol

Response Ratio

2012 CO2 PSMs

K120 Standard Predicted

K120 Standard Grav Value

SRM 1720 Predicted Value

SRM 1720 Certified Value

Gravimetric Concentration vs SRM1720 Difference Pressure

2012 PSM Mole Fraction micromolmol micromolmol micromolmol Diff ps i (Mpa)

APEX1099211 96107 plusmn 003 96091 plusmn 020 0160 002 1200 (827)

APEX1099176 91907 plusmn 046 91922 plusmn 025 ‐0150 ‐002 650 (448)

APEX1099164 67362 plusmn 035 67405 plusmn 015 ‐0430 ‐006 800 (552)

APEX1099223 63330 plusmn 042 63367 plusmn 017 ‐0370 ‐006 700 (483)

APEX1005714 42108 plusmn 006 42246 plusmn 009 ‐1380 ‐033 300 (207)

APEX1005721 39885 plusmn 006 40003 plusmn 015 ‐1180 ‐030 400 (276)

APEX1005690 37944 plusmn 006 38048 plusmn 010 ‐1040 ‐027 400 (276)

uncerta inty k=1

P a g e | 122

Table 3 Mole fractions showing increase in 30 Liter SRM 1720 samples with pressure loss

SRM 1720 samples were originally certified by comparing to the 2012 suite of four PSMs when they were at full pressure (+11 MPa) three of which are given in Table 2 APEX1005714 (42108 plusmn 006) micromolmol APEX1005721 (39885 plusmn 006) micromolmol and APEX1005690 (37944 plusmn 006) micromolmol The SRM 1720 samples were also analyzed by NOAA with results showing agreement between NIST and NOAA [2] Figure 6 shows that agreement for the 30 real air cylinder samples that comprised SRM 1720

Figure 6 Comparison of NIST and NOAA CO2 values for 30 SRM 1720 samples Error bars are expanded uncertainties at approximate 95 confidence interval 5 Verifying the K120 Samples Because all the original NIST 2012 PSMs at the 380 to 420 micromolmol range were low in pressure they could not be trusted to verify the new K120 PSMs Therefore in late December 2016 NIST used SRM sample 1720-A-29 then at 1700 psi to verify the gravimetric mole fractions in the K120 standards using CRDS Table 4 shows the gravimetric and verified values for the NIST K120 samples The December 2016 verified value is significantly higher by as much as 1 micromolmol than the gravimetric value for each of the three K120 standards This provides strong evidence that even the molmol 2012 PSMs have increased in mole fraction with the decrease in pressure Table 4 Gravimetric and verified values for NIST K120 samples

30 ‐Liter August 2017 Stability

SRM Original Certified Stability check 2017 ‐

Sample Value ppm value ppm Cert ppm

1720‐A‐26a 39397 + 013 (SRM used by BIPM for K120) 39403 + 020 + 006 600 psi 414 Mpa

1720‐AL‐01 38833 plusmn 013 38867 plusmn 014 + 034 325 psi 224 Mpa

1720‐AL‐27 39339 plusmn 013 39364 plusmn 015 + 025 450 psi 31 Mpa

All verified and stability check values determined against SRM 1720‐A‐29 (still at a pressure of 1500+ psi)

All uncertainties reported as expanded k = 2

aSRM 1720‐A‐26 was sent to BIPM as part of their system validation for K120

388

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30mole fraction micro

mol mol ‐1

Sample

NIST

NOAA

Pressure

Original Reported December 2016 Verified Verified‐Grav Verified‐Grav departure

Cylinder Gravimetirc Value ppm Verified Value micromolmol Diff in micromolmol Diff from NIST

FB04278 37905 plusmn 039 38008 plusmn 028 103 027 1034 MPa

FB04300 47266 plusmn 043 47340 plusmn 034 068 016 965 MPa

FB04287 79453 plusmn 103 79512 plusmn 058 059 007 999 MPa

P a g e | 123

Uncertainties at 95 confidence interval NIST was aware when they shipped their K120 samples to BIPM for the K120 comparison that their gravimetric values were not good However we followed the K120 protocol laid down for ldquopreparative capabilities for carbon dioxide in air primary reference mixturesrdquo and submitted the gravimetric values knowing that the verified values were the correct molar fractions for these mixtures 6 Stability check of K120 samples NIST received the three K120 samples back from BIPM in August 2017 and proceeded to check them for stability The three samples were once again compared to SRM 1720-A-29 and those results are shown in Table 5 The August 2017 stability check values agree with the December 2016 verified values and therefore have remained stable as they should be since the pressures were well above those where increases in mole fraction have been observed Table 5 Stability check results for K120 samples

Uncertainties at 95 confidence interval

7 Isotopic Composition The original value submitted by NIST for δ13C of -28 + 2 permil was an error of data transcription NIST had determined this value in 2014 for the pure source of CO2 used to prepare the submitted standards to be δ13C = -38 + 2 permil as determined by FTIR After receiveing the three standards back from BIPM NIST measured the δ13C to be -401 + 01 permil as determined by GC-IRMS 8 NIST Best-Estimate Value If it had been explicitly stated that participants could report their ldquobest-estimate valuerdquo for samples submitted for this CCQM-K120 key comparison for ambient CO2 in air which would not necessarily be their true gravimetric value then NIST would have submitted the values obtained from verification against the SRM sample NIST ldquobest-estimate valuesrdquo are thus given in Table 6 Table 6 NIST Best-Estimate (Verified) Values

August 2017 August 2017 Pressure

December 2016 Verified August 2017 Stability check‐Dec 2016 Stabiity check‐ back

Cylinder Verified Value micromolmol Stability check micromolmol Verified Value micromolmol Verified Value Diff to NIST

FB04278 38008 plusmn 028 38007 plusmn 030 ‐001 ‐0003 724 MPa

FB04300 47340 plusmn 034 47337 plusmn 052 ‐003 ‐0006 724 MPa

FB04287 79512 plusmn 058 79477 plusmn 038 ‐035 ‐0044 724 MPa

P a g e | 124

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 FB04278 38008 028 2

2 FB04300 47340 034 2

3 FB04287 79512 058 2

9 Observations from this Comparison NIST has the opinion that this key comparison was unnecessarily rushed to completion by the pilot laboratory As co-pilot on this comparison NIST should not have agreed to the arbitrary and premature deadline imposed by the pilot laboratory knowing that an optimal level of sample control had not been demonstrated Given that future key comparisons will continue to be co-piloted both parties must agree that the preliminary studies and procedures are sufficiently well-established to set firm deadlines for sample submission by participating NMIrsquos Ideally the mutual decision to set the timeline for the KC and the readiness of other NMIrsquos to participate should be discussed formally by the GAWG at the Spring or Fall meeting NIST also recommends that the GAWG draft a formal policy document that unambiguously defines the terms such as ldquogravimetricrdquo ldquoprimaryrdquo ldquopreparativerdquo ldquoanalyticalrdquo ldquobest-estimaterdquo among others which are used to describe the scope of key comparisons For example in the context of gas standards we might propose that ldquoprimaryrdquo refers to mixtures prepared by gravimetry or manometry On the other hand ldquopreparativerdquo appears with ldquoprimaryrdquo in the K120 a and b protocol summary statement What is the exact meaning of ldquopreparativerdquo in this context Similarly the term ldquobest-estimaterdquo was mentioned in discussions on K120 a and b during the April 2018 GAWG meeting when referring to acceptable reported values by NMIs although the exact meaning of this term was not clarified NISTrsquos current position is that ldquobest-estimaterdquo falls outside the scope of K120a and b and is more consistent with an ldquoanalyticalrdquo comparison These examples illustrate the need for a precise terminology to specify acceptable methods used for value assignment in future KCs For transparency this terminology should be formally defined by the GAWG for unambiguous use in subsequent KC protocols References 1 Miller WR Rhoderick GC Guenther FR Anal Chem 2015 87(3) pp 1957-1962 2 Rhoderick GR Kitzis DR Kelley ME Miller WR Hall BD Dlugokencky EJ Tans PP Possolo A Carney J Anal Chem 2016 88(6) 3376-3385 doi

101021acsanalchem6b00123

P a g e | 125

NMISA

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 126

P a g e | 127

P a g e | 128

P a g e | 129

P a g e | 130

P a g e | 131

P a g e | 132

P a g e | 133

NOAA

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 134

P a g e | 135

P a g e | 136

P a g e | 137

P a g e | 138

P a g e | 139

NPL

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM‐K120‐R Project name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards

A1 General information

Institute National Physical Laboratory

Address Hampton Road

Teddington

TW11 0LW

Contact person Paul Brewer

Telephone +44 (0) 208 943 6007 Fax

Email paulbrewernplcouk

P a g e | 140

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a CCQM‐K120b

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide amount fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 2179 38027 019 2

2 2170 48002 024 2

3 2181 79970 040 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number 2179

Component Amount fraction Value

Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078079 molmol 000047 molmol 2

O2 020960 molmol 000013 molmol 2

Ar 0009232 molmol 0000018 molmol 2

CH4 lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

Table 1 Composition of standard 1

P a g e | 141

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number 2170

Component Amount fraction Value

Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078069 molmol 000047 molmol 2

O2 020950 molmol 000013 molmol 2

Ar 0009334 molmol 0000019 molmol 2

CH4 lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

Table 2 Composition of standard 2 (Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number 2181

Component Amount fraction Value

Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078055 molmol 000047 molmol 2

O2 020928 molmol 000013 molmol 2

Ar 0009367 molmol 0000019 molmol 2

CH4 lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

Table 3 Composition of standard 3 CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 2179 ‐55 permil 10 permil 2 ‐225 permil 10 permil 2

2 2170 ‐55 permil 10 permil 2 ‐225 permil 10 permil 2

3 2181 ‐55 permil 10 permil 2 ‐225 permil 10 permil 2

Table 4 Isotopic composition of each submitted standard vs VPDB

A4 Uncertainty Budget The estimated uncertainty for the measurement contains the following components

Purity analysis of CO2 and synthetic air

Gravimetric preparation (weighing and atomic weight uncertainties)

Analytical validation

Table 5 details the uncertainty analysis The preparation component includes estimated uncertainty from purity analysis weighing and atomic weights

Relative Uncertainty ()

Identifier Component Preparation

(k=1) Validation

(k=1) Total(k=2)

2179 CO2 0018 002 005

2170 CO2 0014 002 005

2181 CO2 0010 002 005

Table 5 Uncertainty contributors To calculate the combined uncertainty the uncertainties were combined as the square root of the sum of squares The reported uncertainty of the result is based on standard uncertainties multiplied by a coverage factor of k=2 providing a level of confidence of approximately 95

P a g e | 142

A5 Additional information Description of the procedure Three gas mixtures were prepared for this comparison (2170 2179 and 2181) at NPL in synthetic air from sources of CO2 (BOC speciality gases) O2 (BOC speciality gases N 60) N2 (Air Products BIP+) and Ar (Air Products BIP+) The pure industrial source of CO2 was spiked with pure 13CO2 to achieve an isotopic composition close to natural abundance The mixtures were prepared in BOC 10 litre cylinders with Spectraseal passivation Two further sets of three reference standards was prepared and these were used to validate the comparison mixtures The scheme below shows the gravimetric dilutions with nominal CO2 amount fractions

Figure 1 Dilution scheme for gravimetric preparation

A Picarro G2301 Cavity ring-down spectrometer was used to validate the amount fraction of CO2 in mixtures 2170 2179 and 2181 The analyser response to the matrix gas was recorded The analyser response to a reference mixture was then recorded for a five minute period followed by either 2170 2179 or 2181 for the same time This sequence was repeated four times At the end of the experiment the analyser response to the matrix gas was recorded a second time To minimise the effects from zero drift a mean of the analyser response to the matrix gas before and after the experiment was used The amount fractions of 2170 2179 and 2181 were then determined by multiplying the ratio of the analyser response to each mixture and the reference mixture (both were corrected for the analyser response to matrix gas) with the amount fraction of the reference mixture These measurements were used to validate the gravimetric amount fractions submitted Cylinders were maintained at a laboratory temperature of (20 plusmn 3) C throughout the period of analysis Samples were introduced into the analyser at atmospheric pressure (excess flow was passed to vent) using a low volume gas regulator Purity tables for the CO2 Ar N2 and O2 are provided below

P a g e | 143

Component Amount Fraction (micromolmol) Expanded Uncertainty (micromolmol)

CO2 99999980 006

N2 0050 0029

O2 0050 0029

CO 0050 0029

Ar 0050 0029

Table 6 CO2 purity table

Component Amount Fraction (micromolmol) Expanded Uncertainty (micromolmol)

Ar 99999993 002

N2 0039 0023

O2 00050 00029

CO2 0007 0004

CO 00018 00010

CH4 000029 000017

Table 7 Ar purity table

Component Amount Fraction (micromolmol) Expanded Uncertainty (micromolmol)

N2 9999843 16

O2 0015 0009

Ar 1567 157

CO2 000085 000049

CO 000058 000033

CH4 000080 000046

Table 8 N2 purity table

Component Amount Fraction (micromolmol) Expanded Uncertainty (micromolmol)

O2 9999991 03

N2 050 029

Ar 0050 0029

CO2 019 019

CH4 00282 00048

Table 9 O2 purity table The mixtures were prepared on during the period 24th October to 8th November 2016 Measurements to study the stability of the mixtures were carried out over a 6 week period The cylinder pressure of mixtures 2170 2179 and 2181 prior to shipping was gt 10 MPa

P a g e | 144

NPLI

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM-K120

Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM-K120-R

Project name CCQM-K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899-8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute CSIR-National Physical Laboratory INDIA

Address CSIR-National Physical Laboratory Dr KS Krishnan Marg New Delhi ndash 110012 INDIA

Contact Person Dr Prabha Johri

Telephone 91 11 4560 856385658331

Fax 91 11 4560 9310

P a g e | 145

email pjohrinplindiaorg

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM-K120a (only) yes

CCQM-K120b (only) Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification Number

Carbon Dioxide mole fraction XCO2cert molmol

Expanded Uncertainties molmol

Coverage factor

1 JJ108891 37572 322 2

2 JJ108862 48052 304 2

3 JJ108854 79638 503 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix composition Component mol fraction and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) Standard1 Cylinder Number JJ108891

component Mole fraction value

unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0781273 molmol 0002210 molmol 2

O2 0209688 molmol 0000590 molmol 2

Ar 0009040 molmol 0000030 molmol 2

Standard 2 Cylinder Number JJ108862

component Mole fraction value

unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0781989 molmol 0002210 molmol 2

O2 0208853 molmol 0000590 molmol 2

Ar 0009158 molmol 0000030 molmol 2

P a g e | 146

Standard 3 Cylinder Number JJ108854

Component Mole fraction value

unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0781363 molmol 0002210 molmol 2

O2 0209789 molmol 0000594 molmol 2

Ar 0008847 molmol 0000030 molmol 2

A4 Uncertainty Budget The final uncertainty budget was estimated by combining two uncertainty components (ie preparation of PSGM and its analysis both)

(i) The Expanded Uncertainty estimation of all the prepared gas mixtures (PSGMs) has been calculated according to ISO 6142 Preparation of Calibration gas mixtures ndash Gravimetric method taking account of following factors 1 Raymor Balance 1 Mass Pieces 2 Bouancy corrections for weights 3 Handling of cylinder 4 Residual gases in the cylinder 5 Expansion of the cylinder due to filling of gas at High pressure (ii) Uncertainties in the analysis These are calculated taking acount of

1 Standard deviation Repeatability 2 Reproducibility amp 3 Instrument response

A5 Additional Information b) A purity table with uncertainties for pure Ar N2 and O2 parent gas The purity of N2 O2 and Ar parent gases were determined using tiger optics CRDS analyzers model for the following H2O CH4 and CO gas components The moisture of the gases were determined using Tiger Optics moisture analyzer model LaserTrace CH4 was determined using Tiger Optics methan analyzer model MTO-1000-CH4 and CO gas was determined using Tiger Optics CO analyzer model HALO 3-CO Purity of Argon gas was found to be as given below

P a g e | 147

Name of gases Concentration ppm Expanded Uncertainties Coverage factor

H2O moisture 145 023 2

CO gas 027 008 2

CH4 gas Not Detected (ND) (lt0001 )

Purity of N2 gas was found to be as given below

Name of gases Concentration ppm Expanded Uncertainties Coverage factor

H2O moisture 083 005 2

CO gas 34 024 2

CH4 gas ND (lt0001 )

Purity of O2 gas was found to be as given below

Name of gases Concentration ppm Expanded Uncertainties Coverage factor

H2O moisture 095 005 2

CH4 gas ND (lt0001 )

c) A brief out line of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures The preparation procedure involves following steps

1) Preparation of gas mixtures of CO2 in nitrogen gas Al cylinders 10 litre were evacuated and purged with nitogen gas and again evacuated with heating of the cylinders at 60-70oC This process is repeated thrice before any preparation of gas mixture was carried out The theoritical calculations were carried out for the desired concentrations Gas mixtures of CO2 in nitrogen gas from pure gas were prepared in two series in the concentrations around 20544 and 20392 molmol These gas mixtures were diluted in the concentration ranges from ( 370~ 1000 molmol) Total of 9 cylindres were prepared All the preparation of Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) were done in acordance to ISO 6142 Gas Analysis -Preparation of calibration gas mixtures - Gravimetric Method These cylinders were validated in acordance to ISO 6143 Gas analysis - Comparision method for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures Thus the prepared CO2 gas mixtures were certified as CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM)

P a g e | 148

2) Preparation of CO2 in synthetic air These mixtures were prepared from the two series of CO2 premixtures prepared in nitrogen gas in the concentration around 20544 and 20392 molmol as mentioned above The empty cylinders were evacuated and purged with dry nitogen gas and again evacuated with heating This process is repeated thrice for the pre-preparation of the cylinders The thoeritical calculations were carried out similating the desired concentration range as given in CCQM K-120 The required amount of pre mixture of CO2 in Nitrogen is transferred in the pre prepared evacuated cylinder These mixtures were now added with desired amount of pure Argon gas pure oxygen gas and finally top up has been done by nitrogen gas to simulate the synthetic air concentration Total of 9 cylinders were prepared in the concentration ranges ( 370~800 molmol) These cylinders were validated using above prepared binary mixtures of CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures Validation of Synthetic Air Mixtures

The prepared synthetic air gas mixture cylinders were validated using above prepared binary mixtures of CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) as per ISO 6143

The standard and sample gases were injected into eight-port gas sampling valves of the Agilent Gas Chromatograph with flame ionization detector (FID) Model 6890N US 10723001 The GC column used was Haysep D length 12 ft dia 18rdquo and mesh 100120 Helium gas was used as a carrier gas The measurement conditions were the sample loop of 05 ml oven temperature of 80oC detector temperature of 250oC hydrogen and air flow rate of 20 mlmin and 300 mlmin respectively All the Synthetic air CO2 gas mixtures were evaluated using a higher concentration CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) The average response was calculated by using the six values rejecting first and last two values each time for each measurement series The analysis of the cylinders were carried out three times The collected data is analysed and the uncertainty budget was evaluated

f) Cylider pressure before shipment to BIPM

SlNo Cylinder No Conc (Approx) molmol Pressure

1 JJ108891 380 110Bar 1596 psi

2 JJ108862 480 110Bar 1596 psi

3 JJ108854 800 110Bar 1596 psi

The Team members Dr Daya Soni Dr Khem Singh Ms S Bhatt Ms Joty Pokheryal Dr SG Aggarwal Dr PJohri

P a g e | 149

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM-K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM-K120-R (Stability Studies) Project name CCQM-K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899-8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute CSIR-National Physical Laboratory INDIA

Address CSIR-National Physical Laboratory Dr KS Krishnan Marg New Delhi ndash 110012 INDIA

Contact Person Dr Prabha Johri

Telephone 91 11 4560 856385658331

Fax 91 11 4560 9310

email pjohrinplindiaorg

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM-K120a (only) yes

CCQM-K120b (only) Yes

P a g e | 150

Stability Studies Result A3 NMI stability analysis values with its analytical uncertainty budget only

Cylinder Identification Number

Carbon Dioxide mole fraction XCO2cert molmol

Expanded Uncertainties molmol

Coverage factor

1 JJ108891

37824 395 2

2 JJ108862

47857 523 2

3 JJ108854

79880 335 2

A4 Uncertainty Budget The stability uncertainty budget was estimated using analytical uncertainty components only These are calculated taking account of

1 Standard deviation Repeatability 2 Calibration standard uncertainty 3 Instrument response

A5 A brief outline of the Stability Analysis Procedure applied to the Cylinders returned from BIPM France

The cylinders of the synthetic air gas mixtures arrived from BIPM France cylinders were analyzed using the prepared binary mixtures of CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) as per ISO 6143 The cylinders returned from BIPM and the binary standards gas mixtures in nitrogen gas cylinders are put to rotation for over night before using for its stability studies

The standard and sample gases were injected into eight-port gas sampling valves of the Agilent Gas Chromatograph with flame ionization detector (FID) Model 6890N US 10723001 The GC column used was Haysep D length 12 ft dia 18rdquo and mesh 100120 Helium gas was used as a carrier gas The measurement conditions were the sample loop of 05 ml oven temperature of 80oC detector temperature of 250oC hydrogen and air flow rate of 20 mlmin and 300 mlmin respectively All the Synthetic air CO2 gas mixtures were evaluated using a higher concentration CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Reference Gas Mixtures (PRGM) The average response was calculated by using six values rejecting first and last two values each time for each measurement series The analysis of the cylinders was carried out three times The collected data is analyzed and the analytical uncertainty budget was evaluated and reported in the stability result

The Team members Dr Daya Soni Dr Khem Singh Ms S Bhatt Dr SG Aggarwal Dr PJohri

P a g e | 151

UME

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM‐K120‐R

A1 General information

Institute UME

Address TUumlBİTAK UME ‐ Gas Metrology Laboratory Baris Mah Dr Zeki Acar Cad No1 41470 Gebze Kocaeli TURKEY

Contact person Dr Tanıl Tarhan

Telephone + 90 262 679 5000 6401 Fax + 90 262 679 5001

Email taniltarhantubitakgovtr

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2 μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 PSM298266 37992 016 2

2 PSM266468 48042 017 2

3 PSM298347 80076 027 2

P a g e | 152

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number PSM298266

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07803392 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

O2 02099663 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

Ar 00093140 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number PSM266468

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07799681 molmol 00000165 molmol 2

O2 02102293 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

Ar 00093215 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number PSM298347

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07795520 molmol 00000164 molmol 2

O2 02103522 molmol 00000164 molmol 2

Ar 00092945 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 PSM298266 ‐165 005 2 ‐ ‐ ‐

A4 Uncertainty Budget

P a g e | 153

The basis for the uncertainty budget is formed by the uncertainty evaluation from the gravimetric preparation and analytical measurements Gravimetric preparation contains uncertainty sources from weighing and those from purity of the parent gases Gravimetric preparation and uncertainty evaluation have performed according to ISO 6142 [1] The measurement uncertainty of each mixture was determined according to ISO 6143 [2] The combined standard uncertainty of each mixture was determined by the following equation

u u u

where

um standard uncertainty from measurements

ug standard uncertainty from gravimetric preparation

The expanded uncertainty was determined by multiplying the combined standard uncertainty by a coverage factor of 2 with a confidence interval of 95

A5 Additional information Mixtures were produced with synthetic air s) Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas

Main component carbon dioxide

Cylinder Code LG7524

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

carbon dioxide 99997750 924

water 250 144

nitrogen 1500 866

oxygen 500 289

t) Purity tables with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 and Ar parent gas

Main component nitrogen

Cylinder Code LG1220 and LG1221

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

carbon monoxide 005 003

carbon dioxide 005 003

methane 005 003

water 025 014

nitrogen 99999935 021

oxygen 025 014

Main component oxygen

P a g e | 154

Cylinder Code LG3367

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

argon 100 058

carbon dioxide 010 006

methane 010 006

water 150 087

nitrogen 250 144

oxygen 99999480 178

Main component argon

Cylinder Code LG1313

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

argon 99999300 122

water 150 087

nitrogen 400 231

oxygen 150 087

u) Mixtures were prepared according to the scheme displayed in Figure 1 Two different types of the pre‐mixtures were prepared These are 10 and 05 carbon dioxide in nitrogen and 15 argon in nitrogen 05 carbon dioxide in nitrogen and 15 argon in nitrogen pre‐mixtures were used together with pure nitrogen and pure oxygen for the final mixtures

P a g e | 155

Figure 1 Preparation scheme for the mixtures

v) Verification procedure applied to the final mixtures

The carbon dioxide (CO2) in air mixtures were analyzed on a cavity ring‐down spectroscopy (CRDS) instrument ie Picarro G2401 COCO2CH4H2O Analyzer equipped with 16‐Port Distribution Manifold Verification of the mixtures was carried out using own standards Cylinders were equipped with pressure reducers and connected to 16‐port distribution manifold They were flushed three times before the first measurement The analyzer operates vacuum pump to get the sample Therefore excess amount of gas than the amount of gas required by CRDS has been sent to the analyzer by adjusting the reducers The excess gas has been sent to the atmosphere through a bypass connected to sample line in between distribution manifold and the analyzer Each cylinder was measured for 15 minutes which is a sufficient time to obtain stable results The measurement data was collected using CRDS software Software takes about 2850 readings for 15 minutes During the data evaluation total number of 240 readings in between 10‐14 minutes has been used for determination of average values and uncertainties for each cylinder at each measurement

P a g e | 156

w) Stability testing of the mixtures

Pre‐mixtures and final mixtures were prepared in 01‐17 April 2016 First verification was performed in 21‐24 April 2016 Second verification was carried out in 22 September 2016 Final verification was performed 11‐19 October 2016 Measurement results are shown in Figure 2 As can be seen from the figure instrument response does not vary with time for each cylinder Stability testing did not show any instability within the accuracy of the measurement method

Figure 2 Stability measurements

x) Cylinder pressures before shipment to the BIPM are given below

Cylinder Code Pressure bar

PSM298266 86

PSM266468 86

PSM298347 90

References

[1] International Organization for Standardization ldquoISO 6142 Gas analysis ‐ Preparation of calibration gas mixtures ‐ Gravimetric methodsrdquo ISO Geneva 2001

[2] International Organization for Standardization ISO 6143 Gas analysis ‐ Comparison

methods for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures ISO Geneva 2001

300

500

700

900

CO2concentration (μmolmol)

Time

PSM298266 PSM266468 PSM298347

P a g e | 157

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM-K120-R

A1 General information

Institute UME

Address TUumlBİTAK UME ‐ Gas Metrology Laboratory Baris Mah Dr Zeki Acar Cad No1 41470 Gebze Kocaeli TURKEY

Contact person Dr Tanıl Tarhan

Telephone + 90 262 679 5000 6401 Fax + 90 262 679 5001

Email taniltarhantubitakgovtr

P a g e | 158

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2 μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 PSM298266 37992 019 2

2 PSM266468 48042 025 2

3 PSM298347 80076 036 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number PSM298266

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07803392 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

O2 02099663 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

Ar 00093140 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number PSM266468

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07799681 molmol 00000165 molmol 2

P a g e | 159

O2 02102293 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

Ar 00093215 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number PSM298347

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07795520 molmol 00000164 molmol 2

O2 02103522 molmol 00000164 molmol 2

Ar 00092945 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 PSM298266 ‐165 005 2 ‐ ‐ ‐

A4 Uncertainty Budget

The basis for the uncertainty budget is formed by the uncertainty evaluation from the gravimetric preparation and analytical measurements Gravimetric preparation contains uncertainty sources from weighing and those from purity of the parent gases Gravimetric preparation and uncertainty evaluation have performed according to ISO 6142 [1] The measurement uncertainty of each mixture was determined according to ISO 6143 [2] The mixtures were analyzed for stability after receiving them back from BIPM The combined standard uncertainty of each mixture was determined by the following equation

u u u u

where

um standard uncertainty from measurements

ug standard uncertainty from gravimetric preparation

us standard uncertainty for stability

The expanded uncertainty was determined by multiplying the combined standard uncertainty by a coverage factor of 2 with a confidence interval of 95

P a g e | 160

A5 Additional information Mixtures were produced from pure components of CO2 N2 O2 and Ar y) Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas

Main component carbon dioxide

Cylinder Code LG7524

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

carbon dioxide 99997750 924

water 250 144

nitrogen 1500 866

oxygen 500 289

z) Purity tables with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 and Ar parent gas

Main component nitrogen

Cylinder Code LG1220 and LG1221

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

carbon monoxide 005 003

carbon dioxide 005 003

methane 005 003

water 025 014

nitrogen 99999935 021

oxygen 025 014

Main component oxygen

Cylinder Code LG3367

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

argon 100 058

carbon dioxide 010 006

methane 010 006

water 150 087

nitrogen 250 144

oxygen 99999480 178

Main component argon

Cylinder Code LG1313

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

argon 99999300 122

water 150 087

nitrogen 400 231

oxygen 150 087

P a g e | 161

aa) Mixtures were prepared according to the scheme displayed in Figure 1 Two different types

of the pre‐mixtures were prepared These are 10 and 05 carbon dioxide in nitrogen and 15 argon in nitrogen 05 carbon dioxide in nitrogen and 15 argon in nitrogen pre‐mixtures were used together with pure nitrogen and pure oxygen for the final mixtures

Figure 1 Preparation scheme for the mixtures

bb) Verification procedure applied to the final mixtures

The carbon dioxide (CO2) in air mixtures were analyzed on a cavity ring‐down spectroscopy (CRDS) instrument ie Picarro G2401 COCO2CH4H2O Analyzer equipped with 16‐Port Distribution Manifold Verification of the mixtures was carried out using own standards Cylinders were equipped with pressure reducers and connected to 16‐port distribution manifold They were flushed three times before the first measurement The analyzer operates vacuum pump to get the sample Therefore excess amount of gas than the amount of gas required by CRDS has been sent to the analyzer by adjusting the reducers

P a g e | 162

The excess gas has been sent to the atmosphere through a bypass connected to sample line in between distribution manifold and the analyzer Each cylinder was measured for 15 minutes which is a sufficient time to obtain stable results The measurement data was collected using CRDS software Software takes about 2850 readings for 15 minutes During the data evaluation total number of 240 readings in between 10‐14 minutes has been used for determination of average values and uncertainties for each cylinder at each measurement

cc) Stability testing of the mixtures

Pre‐mixtures and final mixtures were prepared in 01‐17 April 2016 First verification was performed in 21‐24 April 2016 Second verification was carried out in 22 September 2016 Final verification was performed during 11‐19 October 2016 Measurement results are shown in Figure 2 As can be seen from the figure instrument response does not vary with time for each cylinder Stability testing did not show any instability within the accuracy of the measurement method before sending the cylinders to BIPM

Figure 2 Stability measurements before sending the cylinders

After receiving the cylinders they have been analyzed for stability Measurements were carried out during 23‐24 August 2017 and 06‐07 September 2017 Instrument responses were plotted against time as shown in Figure 3 The slope of the responses has been checked Uncertainty for stability has been determined and has been included in the combined uncertainty

300

500

700

900

CO2concentration (μmolmol)

Time

PSM298266 PSM266468 PSM298347

P a g e | 163

Figure 3 Stability measurements after receiving the cylinders

dd) Cylinder pressures before shipment to the BIPM are given below

Cylinder Code Pressure bar

PSM298266 86

PSM266468 86

PSM298347 90

References

[1] International Organization for Standardization ldquoISO 6142 Gas analysis ‐ Preparation of calibration gas mixtures ‐ Gravimetric methodsrdquo ISO Geneva 2001

[2] International Organization for Standardization ISO 6143 Gas analysis ‐ Comparison

methods for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures ISO Geneva 2001

300

500

700

900

CO2concentration (μmolmol)

Time

PSM298266 PSM266468 PSM298347

P a g e | 164

VNIIM

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQMK120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQMK120R

Project name CCQMK120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air Standards Proposed dates 092016 to 122017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 208998300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores

BIPM Chemistry Department Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg A1 General information Institute

DI Mendeleyev Institute for Metrology (VNIIM )

Address

19 Moskovsky pr St Petersburg 190005 Russia

Contact person Leonid Konopelko Telephone +7 812 315 11 45 Fax +7 812 315 15 17 Email

fhib10vniimru

P a g e | 165

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo CCQMK120a

Yes

CCQMK120b

Yes

A3 NMI submitted values Table 1 Cylinder Identification

number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction xCO2 cert μmolmol

Expanded uncertainty U(x CO2 cert) μmolmol

Coverage factor

1 M365601

38020 011 2

2 M365664

48018 013 2

3 M365707

80073 019 2

Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) Table 2 (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number M365601 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

781015 10-2 molmol 00013 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209188 10-2 molmol 00013 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09416 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000094 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Table 3 (Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number M365664 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

780928 10-2 molmol 00011 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209270 10-2 molmol 00012 10-2 molmol 2

Ar 09322 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

P a g e | 166

CH4 000000096 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Table 4 (Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number M365707 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

781000 10-2 molmol 00011 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209199 10-2 molmol 00012 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09000 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000097 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Uncertainty in the tables 2-4 includes only constituents related to gravimetry (weighing and purity) Table 5 CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional) Cylinder

Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C)

CoverageFactor

δ18O U(δ18O) CoverageFactor

1 M365601 - 480 09 2 - - - 2 M365664 - 480 09 2 - - - 3 M365707 - 480 09 2 - - - A4 Uncertainty Budget Table 6 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365601

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution

ui(y) μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200 μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999381 μmolmol B Rectangular 0015 μmolmol 006733 000101

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374 μmolmol 000016 000006

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030 μmolmol 000534 000016

Weighing premixture

CO2 2015723 g AB Normal 000223g ‐1854106 ‐004140

N2 115359704 g AB Normal 001962 g 032397 000636

Weighing pre‐ 2048733 g AB Normal 000203 g ‐1791563 ‐003630

P a g e | 167

final mixture

mixture

Ar 790915 g AB Normal 000200 g 045258 000091

O2 14075497 g AB Normal 000353 g 056493 000200

N2 43993136 g AB Normal 001021 g 064543 000659

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal 000035 gmol 86286 000302

Combined standard uncertainty 005596

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0112

Table 7 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365664

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution ui(y)

μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200

μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999390 μmolmol B Rectangular 0011

μmolmol 006909 000076

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374

μmolmol 000020 0000075

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030

μmolmol 000534 000016

Weighing premixture

CO2 1947854 g AB Normal 000224 g ‐2423572 ‐005424

N2 111850932 g AB Normal 001950 g 042206 000823

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

2586420 g AB Normal

000204 g ‐1775177 ‐003626

Ar 780100 g AB Normal 000200 g 057374 000115

O2 14028618 g AB Normal 000391 g 071611 000280

N2 43288272 g AB Normal 000915 g 081821 000749

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal

000035 gmol

109066 000382

Combined standard uncertainty 0066379

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0133

Table 8 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365707

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution

ui(y)

P a g e | 168

μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200 μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999390 μmolmol B Rectangular 0011μmolmol 006733 000076

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374 μmolmol 000035 000013

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030 μmolmol 000500 000015

Weighing premixture

CO2 2015723 g AB Normal 000223g ‐3905886 ‐008721

N2 115359704 g AB Normal 001962 g 068249 001339

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

4282195 g AB Normal

000220 g ‐1733744 ‐003823

Ar 750252 g AB Normal 000202 g 096046 000194

O2 13969676 g AB Normal 000403 g 119851 000483

N2 41448867 g AB Normal 000834 g 136969 001143

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal 000035 gmol 181777 0006362

Combined standard uncertainty

009719

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0194

Uncertainty due to weighing includes constituents related to accuracy of balance buoyancy effect resulting from change of cylinder volume during filling mass pierces used drift of balance residual gas in cylinder A5 Additional information Table 9 Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas Cylinder N 74318 Main component CO2 Mole fraction 99999345

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

N2 025 014

CO 0029 0001

CH4 0149 0002

He 05 029

H2 322 007

O2 025 014

H2O 215 011

Purity tables with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 and Ar parent gases Table 10 Purity table for N2

P a g e | 169

Monoblock Main component N2 Mole fraction 999998672

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

Ar 0916 0011

O2 00015 00009

CO2 00025 00014

H2 00025 00014

CH4 00025 00014

CO 00025 00014

H2O 040 020

Table 11 Purity table for O2 Cylinder N 910281 Main component O2 Mole fraction 999999381

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

H2 00025 00014

Ar 0181 0004

N2 0307 0012

Kr 00025 00014

CO 00075 00043

CH4 00347 00008

CO2 0081 0005

Xe 00025 00014

Table 12 Purity table for Ar Cylinder N 283162 Main component Ar Mole fraction 999998209

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

O2 00231 00013

N2 1188 0015

CH4 0015 0009

CO2 0030 0017

H2 0025 0014

CO 0010 0006

H2O 050 001

P a g e | 170

c) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures Preparation of final mixtures (СO2 in synthetic air) was carried out from pure substances in 2 stages 1-st stage ndash 3 mixtures СO2N2 ndashlevel 11 2-nd stage ndash 3x3 target mixtures СO2synthetic air All the mixtures were prepared in Luxfer cylinders (V=10 and 5 dm3) d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures CRDS analyzer was used for verification 4 measurement series were carried out within each verification procedure SD of a single measurement (reproducibility between series) was 0003 -0006 CRDS analyzer was used for verification Instrument Picarro G2401 Measurement cell temperature 45оС Measurement cell pressure 18665 kPa Data collection by ldquoPicarro Incrdquo software CRDS analyzer was used for δ13C measurements Instrument Picarro G2131i Reference materials used for calibration IAEA‐CO‐8 IAEA‐CH‐7 Measurement cell temperature 45оС Measurement cell pressure 18665 kPa Data collection by ldquoPicarro Incrdquo software e) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM The final mixtures were prepared 0310 -13102016 First verification measurement was carried out 1710 -2110 2016 Second verification measurement was carried out 2610 -28102016 Verification measurements were performed by checking consistency within the group of the 3x3 prepared mixtures uver =0003 Stability testing (short-term) did not show instability within the accuracy of the measurement method f) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

89 MPa for M365601 90 MPa for M365664 93 MPa for M365707

P a g e | 171

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQMK120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQMK120R

Project name CCQMK120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air Standards Proposed dates 092016 to 122017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 208998300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores

BIPM Chemistry Department Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg A1 General information Institute

DI Mendeleyev Institute for Metrology (VNIIM )

Address

19 Moskovsky pr St Petersburg 190005 Russia

Contact person Leonid Konopelko Telephone +7 812 315 11 45 Fax +7 812 315 15 17 Email

fhib10vniimru

P a g e | 172

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo CCQMK120a

Yes

CCQMK120b

Yes

A3 NMI submitted values Table 1 Cylinder Identification

number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction xCO2 cert μmolmol

Expanded uncertainty U(x CO2 cert) μmolmol

Coverage factor

1 M365601

38020 011 2

2 M365664

48018 013 2

3 M365707

80073 019 2

Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) Table 2 (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number M365601 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

781015 10-2 molmol 00013 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209188 10-2 molmol 00013 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09416 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000094 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Table 3 (Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number M365664 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

780928 10-2 molmol 00011 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209270 10-2 molmol 00012 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09322 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000096 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured

P a g e | 173

Table 4 (Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number M365707 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

781000 10-2 molmol 00011 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209199 10-2 molmol 00012 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09000 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000097 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Uncertainty in the tables 2-4 includes only constituents related to gravimetry (weighing and purity) Table 5 CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional) Cylinder

Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C)

CoverageFactor

δ18O U(δ18O) CoverageFactor

1 M365601 - 480 09 2 - - - 2 M365664 - 480 09 2 - - - 3 M365707 - 480 09 2 - - - A4 Uncertainty Budget Table 6 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365601

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution

ui(y) μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200 μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999381 μmolmol B Rectangular 0015 μmolmol 006733 000101

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374 μmolmol 000016 000006

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030 μmolmol 000534 000016

Weighing premixture

CO2 2015723 g AB Normal 000223g ‐1854106 ‐004140

N2 115359704 g AB Normal 001962 g 032397 000636

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

2048733 g AB Normal

000203 g ‐1791563 ‐003630

Ar 790915 g AB Normal 000200 g 045258 000091

O2 14075497 g AB Normal 000353 g 056493 000200

P a g e | 174

N2 43993136 g AB Normal 001021 g 064543 000659

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal 000035 gmol 86286 000302

Combined standard uncertainty 005596

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0112

Table 7 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365664

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution ui(y)

μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200

μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999390 μmolmol B Rectangular 0011

μmolmol 006909 000076

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374

μmolmol 000020 0000075

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030

μmolmol 000534 000016

Weighing premixture

CO2 1947854 g AB Normal 000224 g ‐2423572 ‐005424

N2 111850932 g AB Normal 001950 g 042206 000823

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

2586420 g AB Normal

000204 g ‐1775177 ‐003626

Ar 780100 g AB Normal 000200 g 057374 000115

O2 14028618 g AB Normal 000391 g 071611 000280

N2 43288272 g AB Normal 000915 g 081821 000749

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal

000035 gmol

109066 000382

Combined standard uncertainty 0066379

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0133

Table 8 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365707

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution

ui(y) μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200 μmolmol 000545 000109

P a g e | 175

Purity of O2 999999390 μmolmol B Rectangular 0011μmolmol 006733 000076

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374 μmolmol 000035 000013

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030 μmolmol 000500 000015

Weighing premixture

CO2 2015723 g AB Normal 000223g ‐3905886 ‐008721

N2 115359704 g AB Normal 001962 g 068249 001339

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

4282195 g AB Normal

000220 g ‐1733744 ‐003823

Ar 750252 g AB Normal 000202 g 096046 000194

O2 13969676 g AB Normal 000403 g 119851 000483

N2 41448867 g AB Normal 000834 g 136969 001143

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal 000035 gmol 181777 0006362

Combined standard uncertainty

009719

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0194

Uncertainty due to weighing includes constituents related to accuracy of balance buoyancy effect resulting from change of cylinder volume during filling mass pierces used drift of balance residual gas in cylinder A5 Additional information Table 9 Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas Cylinder N 74318 Main component CO2 Mole fraction 99999345

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

N2 025 014

CO 0029 0001

CH4 0149 0002

He 05 029

H2 322 007

O2 025 014

H2O 215 011

Purity tables with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 and Ar parent gases Table 10 Purity table for N2 Monoblock Main component N2 Mole fraction 999998672

P a g e | 176

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

Ar 0916 0011

O2 00015 00009

CO2 00025 00014

H2 00025 00014

CH4 00025 00014

CO 00025 00014

H2O 040 020

Table 11 Purity table for O2 Cylinder N 910281 Main component O2 Mole fraction 999999381

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

H2 00025 00014

Ar 0181 0004

N2 0307 0012

Kr 00025 00014

CO 00075 00043

CH4 00347 00008

CO2 0081 0005

Xe 00025 00014

Table 12 Purity table for Ar Cylinder N 283162 Main component Ar Mole fraction 999998209

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

O2 00231 00013

N2 1188 0015

CH4 0015 0009

CO2 0030 0017

H2 0025 0014

CO 0010 0006

H2O 050 001

c) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures

P a g e | 177

Preparation of final mixtures (СO2 in synthetic air) was carried out from pure substances in 2 stages 1-st stage ndash 3 mixtures СO2N2 ndashlevel 11 2-nd stage ndash 3x3 target mixtures СO2synthetic air All the mixtures were prepared in Luxfer cylinders (V=10 and 5 dm3) d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures CRDS analyzer was used for verification 4 measurement series were carried out within each verification procedure SD of a single measurement (reproducibility between series) was 0003 -0006 CRDS analyzer was used for verification Instrument Picarro G2401 Measurement cell temperature 45оС Measurement cell pressure 18665 kPa Data collection by ldquoPicarro Incrdquo software CRDS analyzer was used for δ13C measurements Instrument Picarro G2131i Reference materials used for calibration IAEA‐CO‐8 IAEA‐CH‐7 Measurement cell temperature 45оС Measurement cell pressure 18665 kPa Data collection by ldquoPicarro Incrdquo software e) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM The final mixtures were prepared 0310 -13102016 First verification measurement was carried out 1710 -2110 2016 Second verification measurement was carried out 2610 -28102016 Verification measurements were performed by checking consistency within the group of the 3x3 prepared mixtures uver =0003 Stability testing (short-term) did not show instability within the accuracy of the measurement method Long-term stability testing (measurements 2108-23082017 and 0910-11102017) did not show instability within the accuracy of the measurement method f) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

89 MPa for M365601 90 MPa for M365664 93 MPa for M365707

P a g e | 178

VSL

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 179

P a g e | 180

P a g e | 181

Page 8: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM

P a g e | 8

Aditionally the following information was requested from each participant

In the case of standards produced with synthetic air

- a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas - a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar N2O and CH4 parent

gas - a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures - a purity table for each of the final mixtures including gravimetric uncertainties - a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures - a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared

and the time they are shipped to the BIPM

In the case of standards produced with scrubbed lsquorealrsquo air

- a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas - results of the analysis and mole fractions and uncertainties of N2 O2 Ar N2O and CH4 in

the scrubbed real air - a brief outline of the preparation procedure of the final mixtures - a composition table for each of the final mixtures including gravimetric uncertainties

when relevant - a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures - a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared

and the time they are shipped to the BIPM

6 Preparation values submitted and stability measurements by participants

Information on mixtures submitted by participating laboratories via the comparison submission forms on initial submission and after stability testing of cylinders is included in ANNEX V The CO2 mole fractions submitted by participants are listed in Table 5 where

xNMI is the value assigned by the participating NMIs

U(xNMI) is the expanded uncertainty including contributions from verification associated with the assigned value xNMI The comparison protocol permitted stability testing to be performed by laboratories after standards had been returned to them by the BIPM and before the comparison results were known As a result three laboratories provided new values and uncertainties namely NIST NPLI and BFKH In addition UME modified the uncertainty budget only and resubmitted this to the comparison organizers This subject was discussed during the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018) and it was agreed that only the uncertainties resubmitted by UME (Table 15) will replace the original uncertainties NIST NPLI BFKH resubmitted values and

P a g e | 9

uncertainties will only be reported in an annex (see ANNEX II- ) (Table 15) with no influence on the KCRV and the degree of equivalence (DOE) of the comparison Figure 1 plots the CO2 mole fraction reported by the participants for each gas standard In this figure the error bars represent the standard uncertainty associated with the reported value It can be observed that participants prepared all mixtures with a CO2 mole fraction within 10 micromol mol-1 of the nominal values as requested At 380 micromolmol NPLI submitted the mixture with the smallest CO2 mole fraction 37572plusmn322 micromolmol and NIMJ with the highest 38662plusmn005 micromolmol At 480 micromolmol NIMJ produced the lowest mole fraction 47130plusmn005 micromolmol and NIM the highest 48915plusmn022 micromolmol At 800 micromolmol NOAA produced the lowest mole fraction 79408plusmn048 micromolmol and NIM the highest 80982plusmn026 micromolmol The expanded uncertainties reported by the participants are plotted in Figure 2 Regarding the gas matrix composition thirty-five standards were produced in synthetic air and nine in purified (scrubbed) real air (see Table 5) The compositions of the mixtures reported by participants are listed in Table 6 Seven standards out of forty-four mixtures were not within specifications (gas mixture composition) as requested in the comparison protocol1

7 Measurements at the BIPM

On receipt by the BIPM all cylinders were allowed to equilibrate at laboratory temperature for at least 24 hours All cylinders were rolled for at least 1 hour to ensure homogeneity of the mixture

Cylinders were analysed in batches of n cylinders first by GC-FID then by FTIR and finally by the Delta Ray

For FTIR measurements each batch contained 4 cylinders from participants and 2 controls (at nominal mole fractions of 480 and 800 micromolmol) Each cylinder was connected from the pressure reducer to one inlet of a 32-inlet automatic gas sampler The procedure before starting measurements was identical as described below for GC-FID The reported value is the drift corrected ratio between the FTIR response and one control cylinder (at ~ 800 micromol mol-1) with a further correction required to take into account the isotopic composition of each mixtures Due to depletion of the control cylinder at nominally 480 micromolmol before completion of all measurements only ratios against the 800 micromolmol cylinder could be calculated for all standards Further details regarding the FTIR measurements are described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure FTIR

1 This nominal fraction limits were given in order to avoid possible biases that could be introduced into the spectroscopic comparison method (FTIR) due to variation in the composition of the air matrix in different standards For those standards that did not meet the tolerances specified in the protocol the BIPM included an additional uncertainty component in its FTIR analytical uncertainty to account for the impact of this

P a g e | 10

When the cylinders were analysed by GC-FID batches were composed of between four and six participantsrsquo cylinders three control cylinders (A B and C at nominal mole fractions of 380 480 and 800 micromolmol respectively) for ratio quantification and additional cylinders if required to maintain the total batch size of nine standards Each cylinder was connected from the pressure reducer to one inlet of a 16-inlet automatic gas sampler The sampler was connected to a gas chromatograph (GC-FID) The pressure reducer of each cylinder was flushed nine times with the mixture The cylinder valve was then closed leaving the high pressure side of the pressure reducer at the cylinder pressure and the low pressure side of the pressure reducer at ~300 kPa (abs) The cylinders were left stand at least 24 hours to allow conditioning of the pressure reducers The reported value was the drift corrected ratio between the GC-FID response and one control cylinder (at ~ 480 micromol mol-1) These measurements were performed under intermediate precision conditions (over ten weeks) Ratios against the other control cylinders were calculated but no substantial difference was observed with the ratio against the control cylinder at 480 micromolmol Further details regarding GC-FID measurements are described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure GC-FID

When the cylinders were analyzed by the Delta Ray each batch contained 4 cylinders from participants and 2 calibration standards Each cylinder was connected from the pressure reducer to one inlet of a 16-inlet automatic gas sampler The same procedure was again applied for flushing the gas lines Further details are described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure Delta Ray

The measurements performed by the Delta Ray analyser were only used to measure the isotopic ratios in each cylinder and further correct the FTIR responses due isotopic differences between the control cylinders and the samples as described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure FTIR In this manner the FTIR reported values for each cylinder were corrected for the isotopic composition and further ratioed to the response to a control cylinder (also corrected for the isotopic composition)

71 Measurements results

Measurements were performed at the BIPM from February to April 2017 Table 7 lists the inlet pressure before and after the standards were analyzed by the BIPM

Each cylinder was value assigned using the methods described in section 7 (details in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure)

Results of these series of measurements are listed in Table 8 where

FTR is the (mean) ratio between the FTIR response to the mixture under analysis and the control cylinder both corrected for the isotopic composition

FTRu is the standard uncertainty of the reported ratio based on FTIR measurements

(described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure FTIR)

wGCR is the reported value based on GC-FID measurements

P a g e | 11

GCRu the standard uncertainty of the reported value based on GC-FID (described in

ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure GC-FID) The δ13C and δ18O measurements on the VPDB-CO2 scale performed by Delta Ray are listed in Table 11 The typical uncertainties for each of the methods used by the BIPM are listed in Table 4

Comparison method name

Measurement quantity Symbol unit Typical relative

standard uncertainty ()

FTIR Ratio to control cylinder under intermediate precision condition FTR 1 0009

GC-FID Ratio to control cylinder under intermediate precision conditions wGCR 1 0007

Table 4 Comparison methods used during the CCQM-K120 international comparison and typical uncertainties obtained by the BIPM

Participant Cylinder references Gas Matrix

NMIrsquos assigned CO2 mole fraction xNMI

(micromol mol-1)

NMIrsquos assigned CO2

expanded uncertainty U(xNMI)

k = 2 (micromol mol-1)

Before the return of cylinders

BFKH OMH54 Synthetic Air 379840 1710

BFKH OMH44 Synthetic Air 479890 2110

BFKH OMH69 Synthetic Air 800300 2920

GUM D298392 Synthetic Air 380100 4400

GUM D298393 Synthetic Air 478100 5200

GUM D298402 Synthetic Air 800500 8600

INRIM D247440 Synthetic Air 479300 1600

INRIM D247445 Synthetic Air 798900 2600

KRISS D500642 Synthetic Air 378900 0200

KRISS D500647 Synthetic Air 480000 0200

KRISS D500672 Synthetic Air 800800 0400

LNE 1029045 Synthetic Air 379480 0790

LNE 1029047 Synthetic Air 477600 1000

LNE 1029048 Synthetic Air 802200 1700

NIM FB03747 Synthetic Air 383430 0200

NIM FB03744 Synthetic Air 489150 0220

NIM FB03748 Synthetic Air 809820 0260

NIST FB04278 Real Air 379045 0391

NIST FB04300 Real Air 472662 0428

NIST FB04287 Real Air 794533 1029

NMIJ CPC00486 Real Air 386617 0050

P a g e | 12

NMIJ CPC00494 Real Air 471301 0051

NMIJ CPC00558 Real Air 803658 0078

NMISA M51 8232 Synthetic Air 380200 2000

NMISA M51 8167 Synthetic Air 479500 1600

NMISA M51 8244 Synthetic Air 799100 1000

NOAA CC310084 Real Air 379500 0210

NOAA CC305198 Real Air 479260 0260

NOAA CB11668 Real Air 794080 0480

NPL 2179 Synthetic Air 380270 0190

NPL 2170 Synthetic Air 480020 0240

NPL 2181 Synthetic Air 799700 0400

NPLI JJ108891 Synthetic Air 375720 3220

NPLI JJ108862 Synthetic Air 480520 3040

NPLI JJ108854 Synthetic Air 796380 5030

UME PSM298266 Synthetic Air 379920 0190

UME PSM266468 Synthetic Air 480420 0250

UME PSM298347 Synthetic Air 800760 0360

VNIIM M365601 Synthetic Air 380200 0110

VNIIM M365664 Synthetic Air 480180 0130

VNIIM M365707 Synthetic Air 800730 0190

VSL 5604614 Synthetic Air 378900 0280

VSL 5604880 Synthetic Air 480480 0360

VSL 5604705 Synthetic Air 795700 0600

Table 5 Standards and reported values provided by participants Re-submitted values following stability testing which were included following the decision of the CCQM GAWG see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of

the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

Figure 1 CO2 mole fractions xNMI reported by participants The error bars represents the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the submitted values

GUM KRISS LNE NIM NMIJ NMISA NOAA NPL VNIIM VSL BFKH NIST NPLI UME374

376

378

380

382

384

386

GUM INRIM KRISS LNE NIM NMIJ NMISA NOAA NPL VNIIM VSL BFKH NIST NPLI UME460

465

470

475

480

485

490GUM INRIM KRISS LNE NMIJ NOAA NPL VNIIM VSL NIM NMISA BFKH NIST NPLI UME

792

796

800

804

808

812

x NM

I (

mol

mol

-1)

P a g e | 14

Figure 2 Participantsrsquo assigned CO2 expanded uncertainties U(xNMI)

NM

IJ

NM

IJ

NM

IJ

VN

IIM

VN

IIM

UM

E

UM

E

NP

L

VN

IIM

KR

ISS

KR

ISS

NIM

NO

AA

NIM

NP

L

NIM

NO

AA

UM

E

VS

L

VS

L

NIS

T

KR

ISS

NP

L

NIS

T

NO

AA

VS

L

LNE

LNE

NM

ISA

NIS

T

INR

IM

NM

ISA

BF

KH

LNE

NM

ISA

BF

KH

INR

IM

BF

KH

NP

LI

NP

LI

GU

M

NP

LI

GU

M

GU

M

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9U

(xN

MI)

m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 15

Participant Number of Cylinder

NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos

assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned

N2 expanded

uncertainty O2

expanded uncertainty

Ar expanded

uncertainty CH4 mole fraction

expanded uncertainty

N2O mole fraction

expanded uncertainty

mole fraction

k =2 mole fraction k=2 mole fraction k =2 k=2 k=2

xN2 U(xN2) xO2 U(xO2) xAr U(xAr) xNMI U(xNMI) xNMI U(xNMI)

(molmol) (molmol) (molmol) (molmol) (molmol) (molmol) (nmolmol) (nmolmol) (nmolmol) (nmolmol)

BFKH OMH54 0780390 0000160 0209615 0000048 0009607 0000017 1030 1200

BFKH OMH44 0780640 0000160 0209514 0000048 0009360 0000017 1030 1200

BFKH OMH69 0780720 0000160 0209161 0000048 0009314 0000017 1030 1200

GUM D298392 0780800 0000200 0209500 0000100 0009250 0000010

GUM D298393 0780700 0000200 0209600 0000100 0009190 0000010

GUM D298402 0780200 0000200 0209700 0000100 0009380 0000010

INRIM D247440 0781132 0000006 0209063 0000006 0009326 0000004

INRIM D247445 0782389 0000006 0207553 0000005 0009259 0000004

KRISS D500642 0781139 0000005 0209256 0000004 0009226 0000001 9 2 0200 0000

KRISS D500647 0780915 0000004 0209152 0000004 0009452 0000001 10 3 0200 0000

KRISS D500672 0780407 0000004 0209452 0000004 0009339 0000001 15 3 0200 0000

LNE 1029045 0780686 0000025 0209528 0000019 0009407 0000022

LNE 1029047 0781355 0000025 0208794 0000018 0009374 0000022

LNE 1029048 0782710 0000027 0207187 0000021 0009301 0000021

NIM FB03747 0782000 0000029 0209000 0000028 0009220 0000010 1 0 0791 0607

NIM FB03744 0781000 0000028 0210000 0000026 0009040 0000010 1 0 0790 0601

NIM FB03748 0781000 0000027 0210000 0000026 0007940 0000010 1 0 0790 0586

NIST FB04278 0780812 0000118 0209470 0000710 0009339 0000370

NIST FB04300 0780771 0000128 0209422 0000081 0009334 0000034

P a g e | 16

NIST FB04287 0780499 0000114 0209370 0000067 0009336 0000040

NMIJ CPC00486 0780915 0000025 0209365 0000007 0009334 0000024 2 2 0900 0900

NMIJ CPC00494 0780937 0000024 0209259 0000007 0009333 0000024 3 2 0900 0900

NMIJ CPC00558 0780602 0000022 0209270 0000006 0009325 0000021 3 2 0900 0900

NMISA M51 8232 0780700 0000048 0209600 0000015 0009400 0000005 7 4 0000 0000

NMISA M51 8167 0780900 0000028 0209600 0000011 0008900 0000005 9 6 0000 0000

NMISA M51 8244 0779300 0000031 0210600 0000016 0009300 0000005 10 6 0000 0000

NOAA CC310084 0209500 0000200 1762 3 317200 0500

NOAA CC305198 0209500 0000200 1887 4 328600 0500

NOAA CB11668 0209500 0000200 1889 4 328800 0500

NPL 2179 0780790 0000470 0209600 0000130 0009232 0000018 lt10 - lt10 0000

NPL 2170 0780690 0780690 0209500 0209500 0009334 0009334 lt10 - lt10 0000

NPL 2181 0780550 0000470 0209280 0000130 0009367 0000019 lt10 - lt10 0000

NPLI JJ108891 0781273 0002210 0209688 0000590 0009040 0000030

NPLI JJ108862 0781989 0002210 0208853 0000590 0009158 0000030

NPLI JJ108854 0781363 0002210 0209789 0000594 0008847 0000030

UME PSM298266 0780339 0000017 0209966 0000017 0009314 0000002

UME PSM266468 0779968 0000017 0210229 0000017 0009322 0000002

UME PSM298347 0779552 0000016 0210352 0000016 0009295 0000002

VNIIM M365601 0781015 0000013 0209188 0000013 0009416 0000005 9 2

VNIIM M365664 0780928 0000011 0209270 0000012 0009322 0000005 10 2

VNIIM M365707 0781000 0000011 0209199 0000012 0009000 0000005 10 2

VSL 5604614 0781177 0000017 0209152 0000016 0009292 0000006 16 7 0021 0024

VSL 5604880 0781092 0000017 0209146 0000016 0009281 0000006 16 7 0021 0024

VSL 5604705 0780708 0000017 0209246 0000015 0009251 0000006 16 7 0021 0024

Table 6 Matrix composition of the submitted gas mixtures according to participantsrsquo reports in ANNEX V Synthetic Air is identified as S A and Purified real air as R A No data given

P a g e | 17

Number Date of pressure on pressure on Number Date of pressure on pressure on

Lab of Cylinder arrival arrival departure Lab of Cylinder arrival arrival departure

Mpa Mpa Mpa Mpa

BFKH OMH54 1292016 995 776 NMISA M51 8232 19122016 1297 952

BFKH OMH44 1292016 959 784 NMISA M51 8167 19122016 96 709

BFKH OMH69 1292016 984 755 NMISA M51 8244 19122016 1061 572

GUM D298392 28092016 1446 1103 NOAA CC310084 322017 1348 1282

GUM D298393 28092016 1523 116 NOAA CC305198 322017 1342 1284

GUM D298402 28092016 1505 108 NOAA CB11668 322017 1194 1138

INRIM D247440 13012017 897 534 NPL 2179 9122016 1046 855

INRIM D247445 13012017 922 544 NPL 2170 9122016 1119 94

KRISS D500642 20122016 927 739 NPL 2181 9122016 1112 935

KRISS D500647 20122016 884 711 NPLI JJ108891 922017 10 836

KRISS D500672 20122016 905 703 NPLI JJ108862 922017 105 897

LNE 1029045 28112016 1311 1113 NPLI JJ108854 922017 982 811

LNE 1029047 28112016 1287 1113 UME PSM298266 23112016 903 582

LNE 1029048 28112016 1322 1141 UME PSM266468 23112016 908 546

NIM FB03747 14122016 82 527 UME PSM298347 23112016 918 542

NIM FB03744 14122016 865 593 VNIIM M365601 512017 84 43

NIM FB03748 14122016 802 473 VNIIM M365664 512017 866 537

NIST FB04278 312017 1003 725 VNIIM M365707 512017 853 527

NIST FB04300 312017 1023 746 VSL 5604614 15112016 1049 634

NIST FB04287 312017 1005 721 VSL 5604880 15112016 1012 68

NMIJ CPC00486 922017 957 753 VSL 5604705 15112016 1045 707

NMIJ CPC00494 922017 928 752

NMIJ CPC00558 922017 84 677

Table 7 Pressure of the gas standards on arrival and departure from the BIPM

P a g e | 18

xNMI u(xNMI)

FTR

FTRu

wGCR

GCRu

Participant

Number of Cylinder

Assigned NMIrsquos CO2 mole

fraction in

(micromolmol)

Assigned NMIrsquos

Standard uncertainty

(k=1) (micromolmol)

FTIR (Under intermediate precision conditions)

Ratio to control

cylinder

Standard uncertainty in the Ratio to

control cylinder

GC-FID

(Under intermediate precision conditions)

Ratio to control

cylinder

Standard uncertainty in the Ratio to control

cylinder

BFKH OMH54 379800 0855 0435893607 0000026077 0787699648 0000056828 BFKH OMH44 479900 1055 0539981600 0000030887 0976036480 0000059163

BFKH OMH69 800300 1460 0930134790 0000079551 1681896740 0000095864

GUM D298392 380100 2200 0441372447 0000014142 0797442344 0000052495

GUM D298393 478100 2600 0555225000 0000027459 1003704868 0000094363

GUM D298402 800500 4300 0929933927 0000085245 1681786329 0000104750

INRIM D247440 479300 0800 0556774608 0000200000 1006168965 0000071077

INRIM D247445 798900 1300 0927989884 0000059393 1677871699 0000087418

KRISS D500642 378900 0100 0440414238 0000026926 0795445471 0000074696

KRISS D500647 480000 0100 0557780245 0000035341 1008228786 0000056189

KRISS D500672 800800 0200 0930402740 0000108930 1682410057 0000106300

LNE 1029045 379480 0395 0440901535 0000025239 0796419628 0000056088

LNE 1029047 477600 0500 0554855777 0000046174 1002959828 0000101902

LNE 1029048 802200 0850 0932191570 0000046232 1685756190 0000102865

NIM FB03747 383430 0100 0445715112 0000021260 0804945901 0000057626

NIM FB03744 489150 0110 0568919872 0000044283 1028323070 0000061887

NIM FB03748 809820 0130 0941620390 0000127224 1702705250 0000084949

NIST FB04278 379045 0195 0441858957 0000014036 0798159371 0000076697

NIST FB04300 472662 0214 0550247743 0000021932 0994649947 0000056864

NIST FB04287 794530 0514 0924730373 0000047693 1672406610 0000052361

NMIJ CPC00486 386617 0025 0449318716 0000022804 0811714164 0000057115

NMIJ CPC00494 471301 0026 0547653232 0000049336 0989730987 0000128859

NMIJ CPC00558 803658 0039 0933998556 0000062657 1689072068 0000061122

NMISA M51 8232 380200 1000 0441463446 0000030414 0797746449 0000071374

NMISA M51 8167 479500 0800 0556816358 0000063789 1006620384 0000139031

NMISA M51 8244 799100 0500 0927761085 0000058032 1678197948 0000120968

NOAA CC310084 379500 0105 0441196927 0000016125 0796836602 0000097427

NOAA CC305198 479260 0130 0557198873 0000046487 1007173065 0000061590

NOAA CB11668 794080 0240 0923707672 0000052071 1670538345 0000102943

NPL 2179 380270 0095 0442066316 0000015232 0798660385 0000055036

NPL 2170 480020 0120 0557939086 0000029155 1008480431 0000075981

NPL 2181 799700 0200 0929525453 0000066014 1680929399 0000081883

NPLI JJ108891 375720 1610 0435541280 0000044283 0786899117 0000051131

NPLI JJ108862 480520 1520 0558985244 0000078492 1010295612 0000070031

NPLI JJ108854 796380 2515 0923587308 0000048435 1670046415 0000092977

UME PSM298266 37992 0095 0441777548 0000066603 0798242598 0000076656

UME PSM266468 48042 0125 0558597569 0000077666 1009847197 0000062025

UME PSM298347 800760 0180 0930853610 0000059811 1683852629 0000186416

P a g e | 19

Table 8 Results of BIPM CO2 comparison measurements Re-submitted values following stability testing which were included following the decision of the CCQM GAWG (see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the

CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018))

72 Graphical representation of measurement results

Table 9 summarizes the figures showing the measurements results obtained by different methods at the BIPM

Table 9 List of figures corresponding to results obtained from FTIR and GC-FID at the BIPM

VNIIM M365601 380200 0055 0441966430 0000016643 0798479627 0000066343

VNIIM M365664 480180 0065 0558130273 0000048384 1008861333 0000059090

VNIIM M365707 800730 0095 0930604477 0000058131 1683192751 0000075295

VSL 5604614 378900 0140 0440539300 0000017205 0795901702 0000077266

VSL 5604880 480480 0180 0558580000 0000018028 1009802467 0000054009

VSL 5604705 795700 0300 0925375760 0000052705 1673272267 0000122172

Comparison method

CO2 mole fraction Plot

FTIR ( Ratio to control cylinder under intermediate precision conditions) 380 micromolmol Figure 3 480 micromolmol Figure 4 800 micromolmol Figure 5 GC-FID (Ratio to control cylinder under intermediate precision conditions)

380 micromolmol Figure 6 480 micromolmol Figure 7 800 micromolmol Figure 8

P a g e | 20

FTIR

Figure 3 FTIR ratios to control standard for the cylinders at nominally 380 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

374 376 378 380 382 384 386 3880434

0436

0438

0440

0442

0444

0446

0448

0450

GUM

KRISS

LNE

NIM

NMIJ

NMISANOAA

NPLVNIIM

VSL

BFKH

NIST

NPLI

UMERFT

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 21

Figure 4 FTIR ratios to control standard for the cylinders at nominally 480 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

460 465 470 475 480 485 490

0540

0545

0550

0555

0560

0565

0570

GUM

INRIM

KRISS

LNE

NIM

NMIJ

NMISANOAA

NPLVNIIMVSL

BFKH

NIST

NPLIUME

RFT

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 22

Figure 5 FTIR ratios to control standard for the cylinders at 800 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

792 794 796 798 800 802 804 806 808 810 8120922

0924

0926

0928

0930

0932

0934

0936

0938

0940

0942

0944

GUM

INRIM

KRISS

LNE

NMIJ

NOAA

NPL

VNIIM

VSL

NIM

NMISA

BFKH

NIST

NPLI

UME

RFT

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 23

GC-FID

Figure 6 GC-FID ratios to control standard for the cylinders at nominally 380 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

374 376 378 380 382 384 386 388

0785

0790

0795

0800

0805

0810

0815

KRISSVSL

LNENOAA

GUMNMISA

VNIIMNPL

NIM

NMIJ

BFKH

NIST

NPLI

UME

RG

C

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 24

Figure 7 GC-FID ratios to control standard for the cylinders at 480 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

460 465 470 475 480 485 490097

098

099

100

101

102

103

NMIJ

LNEGUM

NOAAINRIMNMISA

KRISSNPLVNIIMVSL

NIM

BFKH

NIST

NPLIUME

RG

C

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 25

Figure 8 GC-FID ratios to control standard for the cylinders at 800 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

792 794 796 798 800 802 804 806 808 810 8121665

1670

1675

1680

1685

1690

1695

1700

1705

NOAA

VSL

INRIMNMISA

NPLGUM

VNIIM

LNE

NMIJ

KRISS

NIM

BFKH

NIST

NPLI

UMERG

C

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 26

73 Isotope ratios of CCQM-K120 standards The δ13C and δ18O values reported by participants are listed in Table 10 The delta values of the complete set of cylinders on the VPDB-CO2 scale were also measured by the BIPM using the Delta Ray analyser to correct the FTIR response The measured isotope ratio values are listed Table 11 The method for measuring and calibrating the Delta Ray is fully described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure Delta Ray The method used by the BIPM for measuring isotope ratios is described in a recent publication5 and was validated with CO2 in air standards that had been value assigned for their isotopic composition by the WMO-CCL laboratory for isotope ratios MPI-BGC Jena with traceability of the standards used to the VPDB-CO2 scale realized with the JENA air standards reference set The measurements made by the BIPM have been used for all corrections made in the FTIR comparison method and were considered fit for purpose noting that a 1 permil difference in δ13C measurements can lead to a bias of 0004 micromolmol in CO2 mole fraction measurements in instruments based on a spectroscopic technique and similarly a 0002 micromolmol bias from a 1 permil difference in δ18O measurements Reported values for isotopic composition by participants were for information only The agreement between reported values and BIPM measured values is variable For δ13C values the difference between BIPM measured values and those reported by participants was smaller than 04 permil for NMIJ NPL and NOAA smaller than 2 permil for UME and VNIIM and almost 12 permil for NIST (noting that the NIST reported at the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG that this had been a typographical error on their part and the NIST and BIPM values were actually in full agreement) For δ18O values the difference between BIPM measured values and those reported by participants is smaller than 3 permil for NMIJ and NOAA and almost 10 permil for NPL The compatibility of CO2 isotope ratio measurements will be the focus of a future CCQM GAWG comparison enabling sources for differences to be studied in greater detail

Lab Number of Cylinder

δ13C on VPDB-CO2 scale

u(δ13C) Standard uncertainty (k=1)

δ18O on VPDB-CO2 scale

u(δ18O) Standard uncertainty (k=1) Comments

(permil) (permil) (permil) (permil)

NIST FB04278 -28 2 - -

NIST FB04300 -28 2 - -

NIST FB04287 -28 2 - -

NMIJ 3BIS85282 -892 - -991 - CO2 pure

NOAA CC310084 -87 02 -03 02

NOAA CC305198 -88 02 -64 02

NOAA CB11668 -85 04 -197 04

NPL 2179 -55 05 -225 05

NPL 2170 -55 05 -225 05

NPL 2181 -55 05 -225 05

UME PSM298266 -165 005 - - CO2 pure

VNIIM M365601 -48 045 - -

VNIIM M365664 -48 045 - -

VNIIM M365707 -48 045 - -

Table 10 δ13C and δ18

O values reported by participants value measured by the gas supplier according to the participant

P a g e | 27

Lab

Number of Cylinder

δ13C on VPDB-

CO2 scale

u(δ13C) Standard

uncertainty (k=1)

δ18O on VPDB-

CO2 scale

u(δ18O) Standard

uncertainty (k=1) Lab

Number of Cylinder

δ13C on VPDB-

CO2 scale

u(δ13C) Standard

uncertainty (k=1)

δ18O on VPDB-

CO2 scale

u(δ18O) Standard

uncertainty (k=1)

(permil) (permil) (permil) (permil) NMIJ CPC00558 -897 018 -1166 048

BFKH OMH54 -6676 018 -1723 048 NMISA M51 8232 -321 018 -2661 048

BFKH OMH44 -6653 018 -1734 048 NMISA M51 8167 -3209 018 -2655 048

BFKH OMH69 -6691 018 -2615 048 NMISA M51 8244 -3189 018 -2646 048

GUM D298392 -4431 018 -2877 048 NOAA CC310084 -886 018 -032 048

GUM D298393 -4432 018 -2865 048 NOAA CC305198 -891 018 -906 048

GUM D298402 -4418 018 -2847 048 NOAA CB11668 -888 018 -2128 048

INRIM D247440 -4927 018 -3436 048 NPL 2179 -522 018 -3231 048

INRIM D247445 -4952 018 -3449 048 NPL 2170 -521 018 -317 048

KRISS D500642 -2338 018 -1749 048 NPL 2181 -525 018 -3174 048

KRISS D500647 -2341 018 -1903 048 NPLI JJ108891 -887 018 -1087 048

KRISS D500672 -2334 018 -1884 048 NPLI JJ108862 -917 018 -1131 048

LNE 1029045 -3781 018 -2861 048 NPLI JJ108854 -915 018 -1149 048

LNE 1029047 -3786 018 -2775 048 UME PSM298266 -007 018 -2481 048

LNE 1029048 -3811 018 -2804 048 UME PSM266468 -005 018 -2453 048

NIM FB03747 -2055 018 -3007 048 UME PSM298347 016 018 -2446 048

NIM FB03744 -2052 018 -2978 048 VNIIM M365601 -4643 018 -2661 048

NIM FB03748 -2062 018 -2995 048 VNIIM M365664 -4635 018 -2584 048

NIST FB04278 -3983 018 -3092 048 VNIIM M365707 -4647 018 -2594 048

NIST FB04300 -3985 018 -3048 048 VSL 5604614 -3957 018 -3288 048

NIST FB04287 -3983 018 -3053 048 VSL 5604880 -3969 018 -3224 048

NMIJ CPC00486 -891 018 -987 048 VSL 5604705 -3574 018 -3064 048

NMIJ CPC00494 -903 018 -1184 048

Table 11 δ13C and δ18O value assignment vs VPDB-CO2 for each CO2 in air standard

P a g e | 28

In the case of the CCQM-K120a comparison it should be noted that the isotopic composition of CO2 at background levels in the atmosphere would be expected to have values close to the nominal values of -85 permil for δ13C and of 0 permil for δ18O when expressed on the VPDB-CO2 scale The standards submitted for the CCQM-K120a comparison had δ13C values that varied between -67 permil to 0 permil and δ18O values that varied between -35 permil to 0 permil This range of isotopic composition could result in measurement biases of up to 03 micromolmol in spectroscopic instruments for which isotopic composition had not been taken into account

8 Key Comparison Reference Value (KCRV)

During the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG it was agreed that the key comparison

reference values for CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b were to be calculated using

the measurement results of the FTIR spectrometer

Several statistical approaches all based on least-square regressions of measurement results obtained at the same nominal mole fraction were presented during 38th meeting of the

CCQM GAWG (GAWG18-32 ) From this analysis it was agreed to fit the FTIR results versus the participantrsquos submitted values with a line using the

Generalised Least Square approach defined in the standard ISO 614320019 (Gas analysis ndash Comparison methods for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures) It was also agreed to select the largest subset of cylinders

contributing to the regression line so as to obtain a consistent set with

regard to the regression ie a set that allows the goodness-of-fit parameter

to be less than 2 The measure of goodness-of-fit is defined as the

maximum value of the weighted differences between the coordinates of measured

and adjusted points (both on the x and the y axes) For all regressions the normalized sum of the squared weighted deviations where n is the number of points and p = 2 the number of parameters of the fit is also

provided for indication Both values are expected to be lower than 2 with the

condition on being stricter as it imposes all points to comply with the

fit

Notation The degree of equivalence is defined as

D = (1)

where

P a g e | 29

xKCRV is the amount of substance fraction in the cylinder predicted by the linear analysis function for the corresponding analyzer response (ratio to the control cylinder by FTIR)

u(xKCRV) is the standard uncertainty of the KCRV value

xNMI is the amount of substance fraction reported by the participating laboratory u(xNMI) is the standard uncertainty associated with the reported value xNMI

D is difference in amount of substance fraction as measured by the laboratory and

the reference value x and u(D) is the standard uncertainty of this difference expressed as

= (2)

and the expanded uncertainty at 95 confidence level )()( DukDU (3) where k denotes the coverage factor taken as k = 2 (normal distribution approximately 95 level of confidence)

81 Degrees of equivalence and graph of equivalence The analysis of the data from the comparison was performed following the process outlined in ISO 61432001 The regression analysis was performed with XLGenlinev11 a computer programme developed by NPL which implements this methodology by taking into consideration uncertainties in both axes During the 38th meeting of the GAWG it was decided that due the potential adsorption of a proportion of CO2 molecules onto the internal surface of a cylinder and valve (that can cause a deviation from the gravimetric amount fraction by as much as 100 nmol mol-1 demonstrated by Brewer et al2 ) a lower limit for uncertainties that could be used in the calculation of the KCRV was to be fixed It was decided that any standard uncertainty value lower than 0095 micromol mol-1 submitted by a participant was to be replaced by this value for the calculation of the KCRV The limit value was chosen based on the lowest uncertainty that had been reported by a participant for which adsorption effects had been considered (in this case NPL with cylinder 2179) In this manner the original uncertainties for the KCRV calculation of standards CPC00486 (NMIJ

P a g e | 30

original uncertainty 0025 micromol mol-1) CPC00494 (NMIJ original uncertainty 0025 micromol mol-

1) CPC00558 (NMIJ original uncertainty 0039 micromol mol-1) 00255 M365601 (VNIIM original uncertainty 0055 micromol mol-1) and M365664 (VNIIM original uncertainty 0065 micromol mol-1) were replaced by 0095 micromol mol-1 This cutoff was only applied to calculate the KCRVs The degree of equivalences were calculated using the uncertainties submitted by participants (equation 1)

KCRV calculations for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 With the FTIR measurement data set the set of self-consistent standards identified included eleven standards Three standards were excluded namely OMH54 (BFKH) FB04278 (NIST) and JJ108891 (NPLI) as these laboratories had reported changes in their reported values following stability testing The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 074 and the normalized sum of the squared weighted deviations 11 2 0227 Key comparison reference values and degrees of equivalence are listed in Table 12 Degrees of equivalence are plotted in Figure 9

KCRV calculations for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 With the FTIR measurement data set the set of self-consistent standards identified included twelve standards Three standards were excluded namely OMH44 (BFKH) FB03744 (NIST) and JJ108862 (NPLI) as these laboratories had reported changes in their reported values following stability testing The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 136 and the normalized sum of the squared weighted deviations 12 2 0463 The resulting key comparison reference values and degrees of equivalence are listed in Table 13 Degrees of equivalence are plotted in Figure 10

KCRV calculations for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1

Several statistical approaches were presented during the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (GAWG18-32 see ANNEX II- ) comprising different alternatives of sets of self-consistent standards From those the GAWG selected a solution where the two extreme mole fractions at this nominal mole fraction FB03748 (NIM 810424 micromol mol-1) and CB11668 (NOAA 794608 micromol mol-1) were removed from the set of self-consistent standards The solution involved then including ten cylinders for KCRV calculations Five were excluded namely FB03748 (NIM) CB11668 (NOAA) OMH69 (BFKH) FB04287 (NIST) and JJ108854 (NPLI) The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 180 and the normalized sum of the squared weighted deviations 10 2 0950 Key

P a g e | 31

comparison reference values and degrees of equivalence are listed in Table 14 Degrees of equivalence are plotted in Figure 11

Participant Cylinder

xKCRV u(xKCRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D1( xNMI- xKCRV ) u(D1) U( D1)

( XLGENLINE predictied

value from FTIR)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298392 379664 0044 380100 2200 0436 2200 4401

KRISS D500642 378828 0055 378900 0100 0072 0114 0228

LNE 1029045 379253 0051 379480 0395 0227 0398 0796

NIM FB03747 383453 0052 383430 0100 -0023 0113 0226

NMIJ CPC00486 386597 0088 386617 0025 0020 0091 0182

NMISA M51 8232 379743 0050 380200 1000 0457 1001 2002

NOAA CC310084 379511 0046 379500 0105 -0011 0115 0229

NPL 2179 380269 0041 380270 0095 0001 0103 0207

VNIIM M365601 380182 0042 380200 0055 0018 0069 0138

VSL 5604614 378937 0051 378900 0140 -0037 0149 0298

UME PSM298266 380017 0071 379920 0095 -0097 0118 0237

BFKH OMH54 374884 0099 379800 0850 4916 0856 1711

NIST FB04278 380088 0042 379045 0195 -1044 0200 0400

NPLI JJ108891 374576 0108 375720 1610 1144 1614 3227

Table 12 Degrees of Equivalence using FTIR measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision of the the CCQM

GAWG Uncertainties below the cutoff value of 0095 micromol molminus1

Participant Cylinder

xKCRV u(xKCRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D2( xNMI- xKCRV ) u(D2) U( D2)

( XLGENLINE predictied value

from FTIR)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298393 477706 0051 478100 2600 0394 2601 5201

INRIM D247440 479007 0173 479300 0800 0293 0819 1637

KRISS D500647 479851 0052 480000 0100 0149 0113 0225

LNE 1029047 477397 0061 477600 0500 0203 0504 1007

NIM FB03744 489202 0099 489150 0110 ‐0052 0148 0296

NMIJ CPC00494 471351 0094 471301 0026 ‐0050 0097 0195

NMISA M51 8167 479042 0068 479500 0800 0458 0803 1606

NOAA CC305198 479363 0058 479260 0130 ‐0103 0142 0284

P a g e | 32

NPL 2170 479985 0049 480020 0120 0035 0130 0259

VNIIM M365664 480145 0059 480180 0065 0035 0088 0175

VSL 5604880 480523 0045 480480 0180 ‐0043 0186 0371

UME PSM266468 480537 0078 480420 0125 ‐0117 0147 0295

BFKH OMH44 464911 0138 479900 1050 14989 1059 2118

NIST FB04300 473529 0071 472662 0214 ‐0867 0225 0451

NPLI JJ108862 480863 0079 480520 1520 ‐0343 1522 3044

Table 13 Degrees of Equivalence using FTIR measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision of the the CCQM

GAWG Uncertainties below the cutoff value of 0095 micromol molminus1

Participant Cylinder

xKCRV u(xKCRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D3( xNMI- xKCRV ) u(D3) U( D3)

( XLGENLINE predictied value

from FTIR)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298402 800105 0106 800500 4300 0395 4301 8603

INRIM D247445 798389 0128 798900 1300 0511 1306 2613

KRISS D500672 800519 0118 800800 0200 0281 0232 0464

LNE 1029048 802099 0078 802200 0850 0101 0854 1707

NMIJ CPC00558 803694 0114 803658 0039 -0036 0120 0240

NPL 2181 799744 0101 799700 0200 -0044 0224 0448

NMISA M518244 798187 0132 799100 0500 0913 0517 1034

VNIIM M365707 800697 0084 800730 0095 0033 0127 0253

VSL 5604705 796080 0191 795700 0300 -0380 0356 0712

UME PSM298347 800917 0083 800760 0180 -0157 0198 0396

NIM FB03748 810424 0327 809820 0130 -0604 0351 0703

NOAA CB11668 794608 0237 794080 0240 -0528 0337 0674

BFKH OMH69 800282 0100 800300 1450 0018 1453 2907

NIST FB04287 795511 0208 794530 0514 -0981 0555 1109

NPLI JJ108854 794501 0239 796380 2515 1879 2526 5053

Table 14 Degrees of Equivalence using FTIR measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision of the the CCQM

GAWG Uncertainties below the cutoff value of 0095 micromol molminus1

P a g e | 33

Figure 9 Degrees of Equivalence at a nominal value of 380 micromolmol for CO2 mole fractions The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

KR

ISS

LNE

NIM

NM

IJ

NM

ISA

NO

AA

NP

L

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI-4

-2

0

2

4

D m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 34

Figure 10 Degrees of Equivalence at a nominal value of 480 micromolmol for CO2 mole fractions The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

INR

IM

KR

ISS

LNE

NIM

NM

IJ

NM

ISA

NO

AA

NP

L

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI

-4

-2

0

2

4

D m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 35

Figure 11 Degrees of Equivalence at a nominal value of 800 micromolmol for CO2 mole fractions The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

INR

IM

KR

ISS

LNE

NM

IJ

NP

L

NM

ISA

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

NIM

NO

AA

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI-4

-2

0

2

4

D m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 36

9 Conclusions The comparison have been successful in demonstrating the degrees of equivalence of CO2 in air standards amongst participating NMIs at nominal mole fractions of 380 micromolmol 480 micromolmol and 800 micromolmol In addition the results can be compared to those of CCQM-K52 (organized in 2006) allowing the following conclusions to be drawn

a) the uncertainy of the key comparison reference value has been reduced by a factor of at least 4 with a standard uncertainty of 005 micromolmol for CCQM-K120a (compared to 02 micromolmol for CCQM-K52)

b) methods based on spectroscopy (FTIR with corrections for isotope ratios) and GC-FID for comparing CO2 in air standards have demonstrated excellent agreement with the standard deviation of the difference in reference values found by the two methods being 007 micromolmol at 380 micromolmol and 005 micromolmol at 480 micromolmol

c) the uncertainties are now at the level where adsorption effects within cylinders and on

surfaces needs to be considered and this has led to a mnimium value of 0095 micromolmol being used as the standard uncertainty for standards for key comparison reference value calculation

d) providing standards to communities measuring atmospheric CO2 with spectroscopic

methods produced with CO2 originating from combustion sources can lead to isotope ratios in the CO2 which will produce biases in mole fractions measurements of up to 03 micromolmol These biases can be corrected by either measuring isotope ratios of the gas standard and appropriate processing by the user or by using CO2 which has been closely matched to atmospheric isotope ratio values in the production of the standard

10 lsquoHow far the light shinesrsquo statement The following lsquoHow far the light shinesrsquo statement agreed during the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG was CCQM‐K120a comparison involves preparing standards of carbon dioxide in air which are fit for purpose for the atmospheric monitoring community with stringent requirements on matrix composition and measurement uncertainty of the CO2 mole fraction This represents an analytical challenge and is therefore considered as a Track C comparison The comparison will underpin CMC claims for CO2 in air for standards and calibrations services for the atmospheric

P a g e | 37

monitoring community matrix matched to real air over the mole fraction range of 250 μmolmol to 520 μmolmol CCQM‐K120b comparison tests core skills and competencies required in gravimetric preparation analytical certification and purity analysis It is considered as a Track A comparison It will underpin CO2 in air and nitrogen claims in a mole fraction range starting at the smallest participantrsquos reported expanded uncertainty and ending at 500 mmolmol Participants successful in this comparison may use their result in the flexible scheme and underpin claims for all core mixtures

Bibliography

1 W Bader B Bovy S Conway K Strong D Smale A J Turner T Blumenstock C Boone A Coulon O Garcia D W T Griffith F Hase P Hausmann N Jones P Krummel I Murata I Morino H Nakajima S ODoherty C Paton-Walsh J Robinson R Sandrin M Schneider C Servais R Sussmann and E MahieuTen years of atmospheric methane from ground-based NDACC FTIR observations Atmos Chem Phys Discuss2016 2016 1 2 P J Brewer R J C Brown K V Resner R E Hill-Pearce D R Worton N D C Allen K C Blakley D Benucci and M R EllisonInfluence of Pressure on the Composition of Gaseous Reference Materials Analytical Chemistry2018 90(5) 3490 3 M B Esler D W T Griffith S R Wilson and L P SteelePrecision Trace Gas Analysis by FT-IR Spectroscopy 1 Simultaneous Analysis of CO2 CH4 N2O and CO in Air Anal Chem1999 72(1) 206- 215 4 M B Esler D W T Griffith S R Wilson and L P SteelePrecision Trace Gas Analysis by FT-IR Spectroscopy 2 The 13C12C Isotope Ratio of CO2 Anal Chem 1999 72(1) 216 5 E Flores J Viallon P Moussay D W T Griffith and R WielgoszCalibration strategies for FTIR and other IRIS instruments for ac-curate δ13C and δ18O measurements of CO2 in air Anal Chem2017 Submitted 6 D W T GriffithSynthetic Calibration and Quantitative Analysis of Gas-Phase FT-IR Spectra Appl Spectrosc1996 50(1) 59 7 D W T Griffith N M Deutscher C Caldow G Kettlewell M Riggenbach and S HammerA Fourier transform infrared trace gas and isotope analyser for atmospheric applications Atmos Meas Tech2012 5(10) 2481 8 D W T Griffith N B Jones B McNamara C P Walsh W Bell and C BernardoIntercomparison of NDSC Ground-Based Solar FTIR Measurements of Atmospheric Gases at Lauder New Zealand J Atmos Oceanic Tech2003 20 (8) 1138- 1153 9 ISO Gas analysis- Comparison methods for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures in 61432001 (2001) 10 G Nelson Gas Mixtures Preparation and Control (Lewis Publishers Florida USA 1992) 11 L S Rothman A Barbe D Chris Benner L R Brown C Camy-Peyret M R Carleer K Chance C Clerbaux V Dana V M Devi A Fayt J M Flaud R R Gamache A Goldman D Jacquemart K W Jucks W J Lafferty J Y Mandin S T Massie V Nemtchinov D A Newnham A Perrin C P Rinsland J Schroeder K M Smith M A H Smith K Tang R A Toth J Vander Auwera P Varanasi and K YoshinoThe HITRAN molecular spectroscopic database edition of 2000 including updates through 2001 J Quant Spectrosc Radiat Transfer 82(1ndash4) 5 12 L S Rothman I E Gordon Y Babikov A Barbe D Chris Benner P F Bernath M Birk L Bizzocchi V Boudon L R Brown A Campargue K Chance E A Cohen L H Coudert V M Devi B J Drouin A Fayt J M Flaud R R Gamache J J Harrison J M Hartmann C Hill J T Hodges D Jacquemart A Jolly J Lamouroux R J Le Roy G Li D A Long O M Lyulin C J Mackie S T Massie S Mikhailenko H S P Muumlller O V Naumenko A V Nikitin J Orphal V Perevalov A Perrin E R Polovtseva C Richard M A H

P a g e | 38

Smith E Starikova K Sung S Tashkun J Tennyson G C Toon V G Tyuterev and G WagnerThe HITRAN2012 molecular spectroscopic database J Quant Spectrosc Radiat Transfer2013 130 4

ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

As results of the discussion of the key points of the Draft A report of the CCQM-K120 comparison during the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG the following decisions were taken

a) the key comparison reference value for CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b are to be based on the measurement results of the FTIR spectrometer

b) the re-submitted uncertainties by UME replace the original uncertainty values used in Draft A report (see Table 15) and are to be used for the calculation of the KCRV

c) NIST NPLI and BFKH submitted new measurement results as well as uncertainties after the measurements performed on return of the standards in their laboratoires This was not expected in the protocol of the comparison Therefore their values have not been used in the KCRV calucltaions The original values are used for DOE calculations the modified values have been included in AnnexII

d) considering that NPL was the only participant that considered a potential effect of adsorption of a proportion of the molecules onto the internal surface of a cylinder and valve (for more information see GAWG18-00) a limit on the uncertainties claimed by participants contributing to the KCRV is fixed to 0095 micromol mol-1 meaning that any uncertainty value smaller to this value will be replaced by 0095 micromol mol-1 to calculate KCRVs

e) The KCRV for the standatds at the nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 are to be calculated including standards with mole fractions within plusmn 5 micromol mol-1 of the nominal value (795 micromol mol-1 to 805 micromol mol-1)

P a g e | 39

P a g e | 40

ANNEX II- Stability studies by participants After the return of cylinder to the participants and before results of the comparison were known four participants reported modified uncertainties and also values and uncertainties compared to their originally reported values see Table 15 The participants that reported changes to their originally submitted values were

BFKH submitted the same values but with less decimals for cylinders OMH54 and OMH69 and proposed a new value for cylinder OMH44 The new value changed from 47989plusmn211 micromolmol to 4644plusmn211 micromolmol

NIST submitted new values and uncertainties for cylinders FB04278 FB04300 and FB04287

NPLI submitted new values for cylinders JJ108891 JJ108862 and JJ108854 The mole fractions for cylinders JJ108891 and JJ108854 were increased by 252 micromolmol and 242 micromolmol respectively and reduced for cylinder JJ108862 by 195 micromolmol The uncertainties for cylinders JJ108891 and JJ108862 were also increased by 22 and 72 but reduced for cylinder JJ108854 by 33

UME The uncertainties of cylinders PSM298266 PSM266468 and PSM298347 were increased by 19 47 and 33 respectively

Participant Cylinder references Gas Matrix

NMIrsquos assigned CO2 mole fraction xNMI

(micromol mol-1)

NMIrsquos assigned CO2

expanded uncertainty U(xNMI)

k = 2 (micromol mol-1)

Before the return of cylinders

BFKH OMH54 Synthetic Air 379840 1710

BFKH OMH44 Synthetic Air 479890 2110

BFKH OMH69 Synthetic Air 800300 2920

GUM D298392 Synthetic Air 380100 4400

GUM D298393 Synthetic Air 478100 5200

GUM D298402 Synthetic Air 800500 8600

INRIM D247440 Synthetic Air 479300 1600

INRIM D247445 Synthetic Air 798900 2600

KRISS D500642 Synthetic Air 378900 0200

KRISS D500647 Synthetic Air 480000 0200

KRISS D500672 Synthetic Air 800800 0400

LNE 1029045 Synthetic Air 379480 0790

LNE 1029047 Synthetic Air 477600 1000

LNE 1029048 Synthetic Air 802200 1700

NIM FB03747 Synthetic Air 383430 0200

NIM FB03744 Synthetic Air 489150 0220

P a g e | 41

NIM FB03748 Synthetic Air 809820 0260

NIST FB04278 Real Air 379045 0391

NIST FB04300 Real Air 472662 0428

NIST FB04287 Real Air 794533 1029

NMIJ CPC00486 Real Air 386617 0050

NMIJ CPC00494 Real Air 471301 0051

NMIJ CPC00558 Real Air 803658 0078

NMISA M51 8232 Synthetic Air 380200 2000

NMISA M51 8167 Synthetic Air 479500 1600

NMISA M51 8244 Synthetic Air 799100 1000

NOAA CC310084 Real Air 379500 0210

NOAA CC305198 Real Air 479260 0260

NOAA CB11668 Real Air 794080 0480

NPL 2179 Synthetic Air 380270 0190

NPL 2170 Synthetic Air 480020 0240

NPL 2181 Synthetic Air 799700 0400

NPLI JJ108891 Synthetic Air 375720 3220

NPLI JJ108862 Synthetic Air 480520 3040

NPLI JJ108854 Synthetic Air 796380 5030

UME PSM298266 Synthetic Air 379920 0160

UME PSM266468 Synthetic Air 480420 0170

UME PSM298347 Synthetic Air 800760 0270

VNIIM M365601 Synthetic Air 380200 0110

VNIIM M365664 Synthetic Air 480180 0130

VNIIM M365707 Synthetic Air 800730 0190

VSL 5604614 Synthetic Air 378900 0280

VSL 5604880 Synthetic Air 480480 0360

VSL 5604705 Synthetic Air 795700 0600

Additional data received following

stability testing

BFKH‐2nd value OMH54 Synthetic Air 3798 17

BFKH‐2nd value OMH44 Synthetic Air 4644 28

BFKH‐2nd value OMH69 Synthetic Air 8003 29

NIST‐2nd value FB04278 Real Air 38030 028

NIST‐2nd value FB04300 Real Air 47340 034

NIST‐2nd value FB04287 Real Air 79512 058

NIST‐3th value FB04278 Real Air 38007 030

NIST‐3th value FB04300 Real Air 47337 052

NIST‐3th value FB04287 Real Air 79477 038

NPLI‐2nd value JJ108891 Synthetic Air 37824 395

NPLI‐2nd value JJ108862 Synthetic Air 47857 523

NPLI‐2nd value JJ108854 Synthetic Air 79880 335

UME‐2nd value PSM298266 Synthetic Air 379920 019

P a g e | 42

UME‐2nd value PSM266468 Synthetic Air 480420 025

UME‐2nd value PSM298347 Synthetic Air 800760 036

Table 15 Standards and reported values provided by participants in Draft A report

ANNEX III- GC-FID results

GC-FID based candidate reference values for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 With the GC-FID measurement data set the set of self-consistent standards identified was the same as with FTIR including eleven standards with three excluded namely OMH54 (BFKH neither original nor newly submitted results included) FB04278 (NIST neither original nor newly submitted results included) and JJ108891 (NPLI neither original and newly submitted results included) The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 169 (lt 2 required to demonstrate consistency of the ensemble) Reference values and differences from these are listed in Table 16 The difference between the KCRV calculated with FTIR measurement data (xKCRV_FTIR) and GC-FID based candidate reference values (xRV_FTIR) measurements for this batch of cylinders is plotted in Figure 12 showing negligible difference between the methods

GC-FID based candidate reference values for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 With the GC-FID measurement data set the set of self-consistent standards identified was the same as with FTIR The data set of self-consistent standards identified included twelve standards with three excluded namely OMH44 (BFKH neither original nor newly submitted results included) FB03744 (NIST neither original nor newly submitted results included) and JJ108862 (NPLI neither original nor newly submitted results included) The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 141 (lt 2 required to demonstrate consistency of the ensemble) Reference values and differences from these are listed in Table 17

P a g e | 43

The difference between the KCRV calculated with FTIR measurement data (xKCRV_FTIR) and GC-FID based candidate reference values (xRV_FTIR) measurements for this batch of cylinders is plotted in Figure 13 showing negligible difference between the methods

GC-FID based candidate reference values for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 Including ten cylinders with five excluded namely FB03748 (NIM) CB11668 (NOAA) OMH69 (BFKH neither original and newly submitted results included) FB04287 (NIST neither original nor newly submitted results included) and JJ108854 (NPLI neither original nor newly submitted results included) the goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 191(lt 2 required to demonstrate consistency of the ensemble) Reference values and differences from these are listed in Table 18 The difference between the KCRV calculated with FTIR measurement data (xKCRV_FTIR) and GC-FID based candidate reference values (xRV_FTIR) measurements for this batch of cylinders is plotted in Figure 14 showing negligible difference between the methods

Participant Cylinder

xRV u(xRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D1( xNMI- xKCRV )

u(D1) U( D1)

( XLGENLINE predictied

value from GC-FID)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298392 379719 0050 380100 2200 0381 2201 4401

KRISS D500642 378753 0063 378900 0100 0147 0118 0236

LNE 1029045 379224 0054 379480 0395 0256 0399 0797

NIM FB03747 383350 0056 383430 0100 0080 0115 0229

NMIJ CPC00486 386624 0092 386617 0025 ‐0007 0095 0190

NMISA M51 8232 379866 0054 380200 1000 0334 1001 2003

NOAA CC310084 379426 0065 379500 0105 0074 0124 0247

NPL 2179 380308 0048 380270 0095 ‐0038 0106 0213

VNIIM M365601 380221 0051 380200 0055 ‐0021 0075 0150

VSL 5604614 378973 0062 378900 0140 ‐0073 0153 0306

UME PSM298266 380106 0055 379920 0095 ‐0186 0110 0220

BFKH OMH54 375005 0101 379800 0850 4795 0856 1712

NIST FB04278 380066 0055 379045 0195 ‐1021 0203 0406

NPLI JJ108891 374617 0105 375720 1610 1103 1613 3227

Table 16 Difference from candidate reference value using GC-FID measurements at the nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision

of the the CCQM GAWG First uncertainty submitted by the participant (lt 0095 micromol mol-1 see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

P a g e | 44

Participant Cylinder

xRV u(xRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D2( xNMI- xKCRV ) u(D2) U( D2)

( XLGENLINE predictied

value from GC-FID)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298393 477789 0065 478100 2600 0311 2601 5202

INRIM D247440 478928 0056 479300 0800 0372 0802 1604

KRISS D500647 479881 0051 480000 0100 0119 0112 0225

LNE 1029047 477444 0069 477600 0500 0156 0505 1009

NIM FB03744 489173 0097 489150 0110 ‐0023 0147 0294

NMIJ CPC00494 471327 0107 471301 0026 ‐0026 0110 0220

NMISA M51 8167 479137 0078 479500 0800 0363 0804 1608

NOAA CC305198 479392 0053 479260 0130 ‐0132 0140 0281

NPL 2170 479997 0056 480020 0120 0023 0133 0265

VNIIM M365664 480173 0052 480180 0065 0007 0083 0167

VSL 5604880 480608 0051 480480 0180 ‐0128 0187 0374

UME PSM266468 480629 0053 480420 0125 ‐0209 0136 0272

BFKH OMH44 464994 0144 479900 1050 14906 1060 2120

NIST FB04300 473601 0077 472662 0214 ‐0940 0227 0455

NPLI JJ108862 480836 0055 480520 1520 ‐0316 1521 3042

Table 17 Difference from candidate reference value using GC-FID measurements at the nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision of

the the CCQM GAWG First uncertainty submitted by the participant (lt 0095 micromol mol-1 see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

Participant Cylinder

xRV u(xRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D3( xNMI- xKCRV )

u(D3) U( D3)

( XLGENLINE predictied

value from GC-FID) (k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298402 800002 0083 800500 4300 0498 4301 8602

INRIM D247445 798031 0105 798900 1300 0869 1304 2608

KRISS D500672 800316 0080 800800 0200 0484 0215 0431

LNE 1029048 802001 0068 802200 0850 0199 0853 1705

NMIJ CPC00558 803670 0057 803658 0039 ‐0012 0069 0138

NPL 2181 799570 0081 799700 0200 0130 0216 0432

NMISA M51 8244 798195 0111 799100 0500 0905 0512 1024

VNIIM M365707 800710 0066 800730 0095 0020 0116 0232

VSL 5604705 795715 0150 795700 0300 ‐0015 0335 0670

UME PSM298347 801042 0180 800760 0135 ‐0282 0172 0344

NIM FB03748 810535 0165 809820 0130 ‐0715 0210 0420

NOAA CB11668 794338 0170 794080 0240 ‐0258 0294 0588

BFKH OMH69 800057 0079 800300 1450 0243 1452 2904

P a g e | 45

NIST FB04287 795279 0147 794530 0514 ‐0749 0535 1070

NPLI JJ108854 794091 0173 796380 2515 2289 2521 5042

Table 18 Difference from candidate reference value using GC-FID measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the

decision of the the CCQM GAWG First uncertainty submitted by the participant (lt 0095 micromol mol-1 see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

Figure 12 Difference between the KCRV values obtained using FTIR and GC-FID reference values at 380

micromolmol The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

KR

ISS

LNE

NIM

NM

IJ

NM

ISA

NO

AA

NP

L

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Diff

(x K

CR

V_F

TIR

-xR

V_G

C-F

ID)

m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 46

Figure 13 Difference between the KCRV values obtained using FTIR and GC-FID reference values at 480 micromolmol The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

INR

IM

KR

ISS

LNE

NIM

NM

IJ

NM

ISA

NO

AA

NP

L

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Diff

(x K

CR

V_

FT

IR-x

RV

_G

C-F

ID)

m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 47

Figure 14 Difference between the KCRV values obtained using FTIR and GC-FID reference values at 800 micromolmol The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

In summary the measurement performance obtained with GC-FID and FTIR at the BIPM were rather similar with standard measurement uncertainties of the reference values having a range of 004 micromolmol to 011 micromolmol at 380 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for FTIR 005 micromolmol to 011 micromolmol at 380 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for GC-FID 005 micromolmol to 017 micromolmol at 480 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for FTIR 005 micromolmol to 014 micromolmol at 480 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for GC-FID 008 micromolmol to 033 micromolmol at 800 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for FTIR 006 micromolmol to 018 micromolmol at 800 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for GC-FID

The reference values calculated from the two measurement techniques agree with each other within their stated uncertainties for all measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 380 micromolmol all measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 480 micromolmol all measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 800 micromolmol The magnitude of the proposed reference values can be compared to the laboratories reported standard measurement uncertainties for their standards which range from 0025 micromolmol to 43 micromolmol

GU

M

INR

IM

KR

ISS

LNE

NM

IJ

NP

L

NM

ISA

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

NIM

NO

AA

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Diff

(x K

CR

V_

FT

IR-x

RV

_GC

-FID

)

mo

l mo

l-1

P a g e | 48

ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure The cylinders were analysed in batches first by GC-FID then by FTIR and finally by the Delta Ray

GC-FID The GC-FID is a modified Agilent system series 7890A acquired from the SRA Instruments lsquoFrance It is equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID) a Haysep Q (12 feet) column a methanizer and the FID detector is supplied with pure oxygen and hydrogen (see Figure 15)

Figure 15 Internal schematics of the BIPM system for Gas Chromatography with Flame Ionization Detector (GC-FID) comprised by a Haysep (12 feet) column a Sample loop of 1 mL two Valco six port valves and a FID detector

The GC-FID is equipped with

- two 6 port valve V1 (Vici-valco) - one 1 mL stainless steel injection loop - one one-way valve - one Haysep Q (80-100 Mesh 12ftx18x20mm) - one flame ionization detector (FID) - one methanizer - one hydrogen generator - one helium purifier - one control computer for the GC-FID equipped with

o ChemStation version Rev B0402 (118) o ProChem Set-up version 257 o ProChem software version 201

- one barometer (Sensor Technique DC 2510)

Haysep

P a g e | 49

The gas mixtures used for operating the facility were

- one helium 60 gas cylinder quality 999999 - one oxygen 55 in gas cylinder quality 999995 - source of air with pressure of 7 bars - one 50 L CO2air commercial secondary gas standards (control standard A) produced by

Messer with an initial internal pressure of 150 bar with the composition specified to be within the following ranges

CH4 185 ppm CO2 386 ppm Ar 9410 ppm O2 207 N2 Matrix gas

- one 50 L CO2air commercial secondary gas standards (control standard B) produced by Messer with an initial internal pressure of 150 bar with the composition specified to be within the following ranges

CH4 184 ppm CO2 476 ppm Ar 9415 ppm O2 210 N2 Matrix gas

- one 40 L CO2air standard (control standard C) produced by Scott Marrin (cylinder CB 10422) with an initial internal pressure of 100 bar with the composition specified to be within the following ranges

CO2 79112 ppm CH4 184 ppm

GC-FID separation and quantification method The GC-FID was operated at 30 degC A Haysep Q (80-100 Mesh 12ftx18x20mm) column was used at a temperature of 30 degC for the analysis Helium column carrier2 gas passed through a heated gas purifier was used at a flow rate of 40 ml min-1 The FID was supplied with 320 ml min-1 of pure oxygen3 and 40 ml min-1 of hydrogen4 A 1 ml stainless steel sample loop was used to introduce the CO2air sample onto the column The pressure in the sample loop was measured by a calibrated pressure sensor having a resolution of 02 hPa and recorded at each injection Finally the peak areas were estimated with an on-line computing integrator

Sampling sequence

Table 19 displays a typical sampling sequence The sampling sequence was setup so as to analyse six unkown CO2Air gas mixtures together with three control standards (A B C) Three unknown were bracketed by control standards A and B followed by the other three bracketed by 2 The Carrier Gas is He grade 60 passing through a SAES gettersreg PS2-GC50-R-2 for extra purification 3 The Flame is produced from Oxygen grade 55 4 Hydrogen is produced on site by a commercial H2 generator CG2200 (Claind) It produces grade 60 H2 at a maximum flow rate of 200 mlmin with a purity higher than 9999999

P a g e | 50

control standards B and C Each individual cylinders analysis (unkowns and controls) consisted in three successive measurements of the GC-FID response (CO2 peak area)

Control Cylinder A A1 A2 A3

Control Cylinder B B1 B2 B3

Cylinder 1 Cyl11 Cyl12 Cyl13 Cylinder 2 Cyl21 Cyl22 Cyl23

Cylinder 3 Cyl31 Cyl32 Cyl33 Control Cylinder A A4 A5 A6

Control Cylinder B B4 B5 B6

Control Cylinder B B7 B8 B9

Control Cylinder C C1 C2 C3

Cylinder 4 Cyl41 Cyl42 Cyl43

Cylinder 5 Cyl51 Cyl52 Cyl53

Cylinder 6 Cyl61 Cyl62 Cyl63

Control Cylinder B B10 B11 B12

Control Cylinder C C4 C5 C6 Table 19 Typical GC-FID sampling sequence

Considering that the analysis of each CO2Air gas mixture took 10 minutes this measuring sequence took about 390 minutes to be completed This sequence was repeated four times with the first one not used in the calculation Adding flushing and conditioning about three days were necessary to complete the analysis of six unkown cylinders

Participantrsquos cylinders were divided in batches of four to six and additional cylinders of the BIPM were added if required to obtain batches of equal size

It was checked that the results obtained using controls A B and C were consistent but only the ratios to the control cylinder B were used as GC-FID results and listed in Table 8

Ratios to the control standard

The ratios to the control cylinder were calculated determining first the average responses of three successive measurements performed on the CO2Air standard gas mixtures as well as on the control cylinders (A B and C) The drift corrected response to the control cylinder as any time was calculated by interpolation in between two control measurements The average response to the CO2air standards mixtures was then divided by the drift corrected response of the control

cylinder to obtain GCR the ratio for one cylinder in one sequence

The last three sequences were then combined with the calculation of the weighted mean defined as

wGCR

P a g e | 51

3

1

_

l

lwGClwGC RwR (1)

Where the weigth wl for the series l is defined as

3

1

2_

2_

1

1

j

lGC

lGC

l

Ru

Ruw (2)

and lGCRu _ is the standard deviation of the mean of the three repeats

The uncertainty of the weighted mean is defined as

3

1

2_

2

1

1

llGC

wGC

RuRu

(3)

In addition to this component the intermediate precision or stability of the instrument response during the full measuring period was evaluated by the standard deviation of the mean of the drift corrected ratio to the control cylinder of one standard exclusively used for this purpose giving uIntpre = 0000046 This component was further combined with the weighted mean uncertainty to provide the combined standard uncertainty associated with measurements performed with GC-FID resulting in a typical relative standard uncertainty of 0007

FTIR A vacuum Bruker Vertex 70v FTIR Spectrometer equipped with a RockSolid interferometer (vacuum better than 02 hPa) with 1 cm-1 resolution (016 optional) a 40 mm beam diameter a globar source and CaF2 beam splitter was used for the study The spectrometer was configured with a liquid N2-cooled mid-infrared Indium Antimonide (InSb) detector and a 1001 m multi-pass White-type gas cell of volume 075 L (Gemini Scientific Instruments USA) The wetted surfaces of the gas cell were electro-polished stainless steel treated with silconert 2000 (Silcotek) and gold (mirror coatings) to minimize surface adsorption and desorption effects for CO2 The interferometer was scanned at 64 scans min-1 and spectra co-added for five minutes to obtain an acceptable signal-to-noise ratio The transmission spectra of gas reference standards obtained following this procedure had a very high signal to noise ratio of typically ~1 x 104 peak-peak from (2240ndash3380) cm-1 In order to prevent nonlinear responses produced by excess photon flux reaching the InSb detector special care was put into adjusting the instrument parameters of the software to ensure that the apparent intensity from the InSb detector was zero at 1850 cm-1 The spectrometer user interface was controlled using a BIPM developed software named B-FOS that allowed the automatic setting of all instrument parameters into Brukerrsquos proprietary OPUS software for control spectral acquisition and on-line analysis through the use of MALT (Multiple Atmospheric Layer Transmission)3 4 6 spectrum analysis software version 556

P a g e | 52

MALT retrieves concentrations of each trace gas in the sample from a least-squares fit to the measured spectrum based on a model calculation and Hitran line parameters12 This code is the basis for quantitative analysis of open and closed path FTIR trace gas measurements and has been compared with other codes such as SFIT1 for ground based solar FT-IR measurements with agreement of better than 07 (Griffith et al8)

The spectra were constructed by co-adding up to 320 scans recorded in about 5 minutes to provide a single spectrum of a sample This single spectrum was ratioed with a similar spectrum of ultra-pure N2 collected under similar conditions to provide an absorbance or transmission spectrum of the gas sample (relative to ultra-pure N2) in the gas cell The sample flow rates were kept at ~400 mL minminus1 Assuming perfect mixing in the cell it was estimated that 999 of the sample was replaced after 10 min of flow and 99998 replaced after 20 min10 In order to ensure the complete exchange of samples only the measured spectra obtained after flowing the sample through the White-type cell for 40 min (9999999 gas replacement) were used for mole fraction determinations The sample pressure was measured by means of the calibrated barometer Mensor Series 6000 The relative uncertainty of this pressure sensor was u(P) = 002 The sample temperature was measured with a calibrated 100 Ω RTD temperature probe introduced into the outlet gas of the White-type gas cell with a standard uncertainty u(T)=002 K

The recorded spectra were analysed online by non-linear least squares fitting in the spectra region 3500ndash3800 cm-1 (plotted in Figure 16) with modelled spectra calculated by MALT 55 using absorption line parameters from the HITRAN database version 2012 As previously described by Griffith et al7 this region shows peaks that are due to the major isotopologue 12C16O16O (written 626 using the HitranAir Force Geophysics Laboratory (AFGL) shorthand notation 11) Since all standards used during this work were ultra-dry CO2air gas mixtures the cross sensitivity with H2O was not considered

Figure 16 Typical measured and fitted spectra (upper part) and residual signal (lower part) in the region 3500ndash3800 cm-1 obtained on a standard of CO2 in air at 38433 μmol mol-1 The absorption feature is due to the major isotopologue 626

3500 3550 3600 3650 3700 3750 3800

070

075

080

085

090

095

100

3500 3550 3600 3650 3700 3750 3800

-0002

0000

0002

Measured

Tra

nsm

itan

ce

Fitted

Residual

Wavenumbercm-1

P a g e | 53

Ratios to the control standard

The ratios to the control cylinder were calculated between the FTIR responses measured at the 626 isotopologue band of the sample i (Cyli) and of the control cylinder

The measurements were performed following a sequence which included the analysis of four cylinders bracketed by the analysis of the two control cylinders (A B) repeated three times Control A was the Scott Marrin cylinder CB 10326 value assigned by NIST with a mole fraction of 37890plusmn009 micromol mol-1 and as control B was used the commercial mixture Messer 400309 with a mole fraction of 85000plusmn17 micromol mol-1

Since the analysis of each CO2Air gas mixture takes 40 minutes (35 minutes of flush and 5 minutes of acquisition) fifteen hours of continuous measurements were necessary to accomplish the measurement of four cylinders

The drift corrected response to the control cylinder B during the analysis of a sample Bcor was estimated by interpolation in between two measurements of B The ratio RFT between the response to a sample Cyl and the drift corrected control Bcor was then calculated Finally the measurement results for one cylinder was the average of the three ratios obtained during a full sequence named RFTi for cylinder Cyli

The control cylinder A suffered from a leak in the gas line to the autosampler and was emptied before the end of all measurements It was however checked that measurements performed with this control cylinder A with sufficient pressure were equivalent to those obtained with the control cylinder B

Uncertainty determination

The uncertainty assigned to each ratio to the control cylinder uFT_R was the combination of three components combined according to the Guide for Uncertainty in Measurements using the software GUM workbench (see Table 21)

uStab the short term stability of the 626 response to the sample This term was estimated from the typical Allan deviation at an averaging time of five minutes of the FTIR response measured on the 626 peak resulting in the value ustab = 6 nmol mol-1

independent of the mole fraction This same term applies to the control cylinder measurements

uIsoCorr the uncertainty contribution due to the correction of the 626 response arising from the sample isotopic composition (also valid for the control cylinder) as measured by the Delta Ray All responses of the FTIR calculated at the 626 peak had to be corrected to account for the fact that samples had a different isotopic composition than natural air The correction was calculated with the Delta Ray so that the uncertainty contribution due to the isotopic composition correction was estimated from the uncertainty of the Delta Ray measurements uδ13C=018 permil and uδ18O=048 permil (see further information in Flores et al5) It can be calculated that a 1 permil bias in δ13C results in a bias equal to 41 nmol mol-1 in the CO2 mole fraction Similarly a 1 permil bias in δ18O results in a bias equal to 17 nmol mol-1 Therefore assuming maximum biases in the delta values equal to the Delta Ray standard uncertainty the maximum biases in the CO2 mole fraction were estimated to be 072 nmol mol-1 (from δ13C ) and 082 nmol mol-1 (from δ18O) Being conservative the two terms were added in a maximum bias of 154 nmol mol-1 Considering a

P a g e | 54

rectangular distribution of the uncertainty the standard uncertainty takes the value 154radic3 089nmol mol-1 This is negligible compared to other

components

uPBEs the uncertainty contribution due Pressure Broadening Effects was calculated through a sensitivity study of MALT Using one primary version of MALT in 1982 D Griffith looked at the carrier gas effect in NDIR analyzers for CO2 MALT by default uses either the amount-weighted selfair broadened widths or the air only widths provided by HITRAN and allows some degree of fiddling for fitting spectra contained in different gas matrices since it allows to the users to scale the input parameter broad by any arbitrary factor Different line broadening factor can be calculated then for air using Griffth et al 1982 equation

(7)

Where xN2 xO2 and xAr are the mole fractions of nitrogen oxygen and argon in air FN2 =1 by definition FO2 = 081 and FAr = 078 are the line broadening factors for oxygen and argon (in average) Assuming xN2 = 0780876 mol mol-1 xO2 = 02093335 mol mol-1 and xAr = 00093332 mol mol-1 then the line broadening factor of air FAIR should be equal to 095771603 The broadening parameter in MALT for air is broad = 1 by convention It can be scaled by FAIR to obtain a broad value for any ldquoair likerdquo matrix using the equation

(8)

In order to estimate the amount of the change in the CO2 response one absorbance spectrum was fitted using standard input parameters varying the factor broad according to the two possible extremes composition of the matrix as stated in the protocol of the CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b comparisons In the case of the CCQM-K120a comparison two values of the factor broad were determined using equation 8 modelling cylinders containing the minimum and the maximum allowed mole fractions of oxygen and assuming nitrogen and argon were impacted to keep a sum of the three equals to 1 The mole fractions and the corresponding values of broad are summarized in the table below

K120a min K120a max

Compoundxi (mol mol-

1) xi (mol mol-

1) Nitrogen 078140 078042Oxygen 020880 020980Argon 000934 000933

broad 1000105801 0999907486

Table 20 Extermes of air matrix compositions in the comparison CCQM-K120a and the corresponding values of broad

P a g e | 55

As result a ΔCO2 equal to 0031 micromol mol-1 was observed between both fittings Considering this difference as a rectangular distribution then a uPBEs_ΔO2_ K120a= (00031)(2radic3) = 0009 micromol mol-1 is obtained The same procedure was used with the the limits stated for the CCQM‐K120b and a ΔCO2 of 0467 micromol mol-1 was obtained with factors FAIR_CCQM-K120b_min= 1000403273 and FAIR_CCQM-K120b_max= 0999610014 If this difference is considered again as a rectangular distribution then uPBEs_ΔO2_ K120b= (0125)(2radic3) = 0036 micromol mol-1

Table 21 Uncertainty budget for the calculation of the FTIR ratios to the control cylinder

The final uncertainty for the ratios of the cylinders that had a gas matrix within the limits of the CCQM-K120a were at 380 micromol mol-1 uFT_R_380A=14 times10-6 and at 480 micromol mol-1 uFT_R_480A =15 times10-6 The uncertainty for the ratios of the cylinders that had a gas matrix within the limits of the CCQM-K120b were at 480 micromol mol-1 uFT_R_480A =44 times10-6 at 800 micromol mol-1 uFT_R_480A =45 times10-6 Combined with the standard deviations on three ratios this resulted in standard relative uncertainties on the averaged ratio between 14times10-5 and 25times10-4 All the combined standard uncertainties are listed in Table 8

Delta Ray Since MALT measurements (FTIR) are done using linestrengths from the HITRAN database that are scaled by the natural abundance for each isotopologue the 12CO2 measurement of each cylinder needed to be corrected according their own isotopic composition The isotopic composition of each cylinder was measured using the Delta Ray Delta Ray is based on direct absorption laser spectroscopy It uses a tunable diode laser which scans over the spectral region that covers 18O and 13C isotopologues of CO2

For this comparison Delta Ray measurements were performed after calibrating the instrument following the manufacturerrsquos recommendations that consist in using two pure CO2 references gases with high and low isotope values two CO2 in air reference standards with high and low concentration and one dry CO2 scrubbed whole air (Scott Marrin Inc) The instrument was calibrated using cylinder 401557 (pure CO2 source gas well δ13C = - 138 permil and δ18O = - 714 permil VPDBj-RAS06 scale) cylinder C11375KO (pure CO2 source combustion δ13C = - 4213 permil and δ18O = -277 permil VPDBj-RAS06 scale) standard NPL 1788 (NPL CO2 in air mole fraction 3800plusmn019 micromol mol-1 δ13C = - 138 permil and δ18O = - 714 permil VPDBj-RAS06 scale)

Quantity Value

Standard Uncertainty Sensitivity Coefficient

Uncertainty contribution Index

48000middot10-6 mol mol-1

00108middot10-6 mol mol-

1 12middot10-3 13middot10-6 (Ratio) 747

84605middot10-6 mol mol-1

00150middot10-6 mol mol-1 -450middot10-6 -67middot10-6 (Ratio) 205

84695middot10-6 mol mol-1

00150middot10-6 mol mol-1 -220middot10-6 -34middot10-6 (Ratio) 51

Value Standard Uncertainty

0567141 (Ratio) 15middot10-6 (Ratio)

P a g e | 56

standard NPL 1907 (NPL CO2 in air mole fraction 7910plusmn04 micromol mol-1 δ13C = - 4213 permil and δ18O = -277 permil VPDBj-RAS06 scale) and dry CO2 scrubbed whole air (Scott Marrin)

As reported by Flores et al 20185 a residual bias in the δ13C and δ18O measurements which remained following the implementation of the manufacturerrsquos calibration procedure was removed by the application of an additional two point calibration (two CO2 in air standards with known but differing isotopic composition) Standards NPL 1788 (δ13C = - 138 permil and δ18O = - 714 permil) and NPL 1907 (δ13C = - 4213 permil and δ18O = -277 permil) were used as two point calibration mixtures

Samplingsequence

The measurement procedure for analyzing a set of CO2Air gas standards by Delta Ray is based on the analysis of four CO2Air gas mixtures between two CO2Air gas mixture used as the two-point calibration standards (A B) The measurement sequence starts by measuring the δ13C and δ18O response of calibration cylinder (A) and (B) then of four CO2Air standards for finalizing again with the calibration standars Since the analysis of each CO2Air gas mixture takes 40 minutes sixteen hours of continuous measurements were necessary to accomplish the measurement of four cylinders three times

The measured δ13C and δ18O responses of the control cylinders were drift corrected Then used together with the δ13C and δ18O measured by MPI-Jena in XLGenlinev11 for predicting the δ13C and δ18O of the unknown cylinders traceable to the VPDB-CO2 scale

Uncertainty determination

Times series analysis were performed with the Delta Ray during the validation work resulting in Allan deviations of 003 permil for δ13C and 005 permil for δ18O at the optimum averaging time of 300 s In addition it was further noted that the noise of the instrument was significantly higher when measuring during two hours which is the time period of a typical calibration Using a rectangular distribution the standard uncertainty of 031 permil for δ13C and 035 permil for δ18O was observed This component was further combined with the Allan deviations and taken as the stability uncertainty associated with the instrument response

The two-point calibration of the delta value requires the knowledge of the uncertainty associated with them which was in this case taken as the uncertainties deduced from MPI-Jena measurements equal to 0015permil for δ13C and 0328permil for δ18O

After calibration with the two additional CO2 in air standards the standard uncertainties associated with the instrument measurement were finally equal to 018 permil for δ13C and 048 permil for δ18O

P a g e | 57

ANNEX V - Measurement reports of participants

NMIJ

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 58

P a g e | 59

P a g e | 60

P a g e | 61

P a g e | 62

P a g e | 63

GUM

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM-K120-R Project name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department

Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form

Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute Central Office of Measures (Głoacutewny Urzad Miar)

Address Elektoralna 2 00-139 Warsaw Poland

Contact person Dariusz Cieciora

P a g e | 64

Telephone (48) 22 581 94 39 Fax (48) 22 581 93 95

Email dciecioragumgovpl gasgumgovpl

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a YES

CCQM‐K120b YES

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 D298392 3801 44 2

2 D298393 4781 52 2

3 D298402 8005 86 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number D298392

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07808 molmol 00002 molmol 2

O2 02095 molmol 00001 molmol 2

Ar 000925 molmol 000001 molmol 2

CH4 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

P a g e | 65

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number D298393

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07807 molmol 00002 molmol 2

O2 02096 molmol 00001 molmol 2

Ar 000919 molmol 000001 molmol 2

CH4 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number D298402

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07802 molmol 00002 molmol 2

O2 02097 molmol 00001 molmol 2

Ar 000938 molmol 000001 molmol 2

CH4 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 D298392 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

2 D298393 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

3 D298402 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

A4 Uncertainty Budget Please provide a complete uncertainty budgets for the CO2 mole fraction values reported

Uncertainty budget for the cylinder no D298392

Uncertainty source Estimate

(micromolmol)

Standard uncertainty (micromolmol)

Distribution Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution (micromolmol)

gravimetric 3801 042 normal 1 042

verification - 112 normal 1 112

systematic error - 187 rectangular 1 187 Uncertainty budget for the cylinder no D298393

Uncertainty source Estimate

(micromolmol)

Standard uncertainty (micromolmol)

Distribution Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution (micromolmol)

gravimetric 4781 048 normal 1 048

P a g e | 66

verification - 098 normal 1 098

systematic error - 235 rectangular 1 235 Uncertainty budget for the cylinder no D298402

Uncertainty source Estimate

(micromolmol)

Standard uncertainty (micromolmol)

Distribution Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution (micromolmol)

gravimetric 8005 068 normal 1 068

verification - 160 normal 1 160

systematic error - 393 rectangular 1 393

A5 Additional information

The final mixtures were prepared according ISO 6142 the cylinders evacuated on turbo molecular pump filled up an weighted on the verification balance The mixtures were prepared in aluminium (with coated layers) cylinders The mixtures were prepared with used pure nitrogen and oxygen and one step premixture of argon and two steps premixture of carbon dioxide

The verification according to ISO 6143 The measurements were repeated 10 times for the standards and the sample The curve was calculated from ratios by the software B_leastexe (linear case)

The standards were prepared by gravimetric method according to ISO 6142 The standards were prepared from separate premixtures and were diluted according ISO 6145-9

The purity of pure gases used for preparation was taken from the certificates of producer Cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM - cylinder D298392 139 bar - cylinder D298393 147 bar - cylinder D298402 147 bar

P a g e | 67

INRIM

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM‐K120‐R Project name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department

Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form

Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute INRiM‐Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica

Address Strada delle Cacce 91 I‐10135 Torino Italy

Contact person Michela Sega

Telephone +39 011 3919948 Fax +39 011 3919937

Email msegainrimit

P a g e | 68

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a No

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 D247440 4793 16 2

2 D247445 7989 26 2

3

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number D247440

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0781132 molmol 0000006 molmol 2

O2 02090627 molmol 00000055 molmol 2

Ar 00093259 molmol 00000037 molmol 2

CH4 ‐ nmolmol nmolmol

N2O ‐ nmolmol nmolmol

P a g e | 69

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number D247445

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0782389 molmol 0000006 molmol

O2 02075526 molmol 00000054 molmol

Ar 00092586 molmol 00000036 molmol

CH4 nmolmol nmolmol

N2O nmolmol nmolmol

A4 Uncertainty Budget The model equation used to calculate the mole fraction of CO2 in the final mixtures is taken from the International Standard ISO 6142‐12015

r

jq

iiji

j

r

jq

iiji

jj

Mx

m

Mx

mx

x

1

1

1

1

CO

prepCO

2

2

where the index i refers to the various components while j refers to the different parent mixtures The uncertainty budget was evaluated according to the guidelines prescribed in ISO 6142‐12015 The uncertainty budget for the gravimetric preparation of the mixture at 4793 micromolmol of CO2 which takes into account the weighted masses of the parent mixtures the molar masses of gases and their purity is reported in the following table

P a g e | 70

Uncertainty component

u(xi)

Uncertainty source

Standard uncertainty

u(xi) δxCO2prepδxi

Contribution tou(xCO2 prep)

|δxCO2prepδxi|u(xi)

u(mCO2) Weighed mass of the parent mixture of CO2

82∙10‐4 g 720∙10‐6

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 59∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(mN2) Weighed mass of the balance gas N2

82∙10‐4 g ‐764∙10‐7

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 63∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(mAr_O2) Weighed mass of the parent mixture of Ar in O2

82∙10‐4 g ‐662∙10‐7

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 54∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(MCO2) Molar mass of CO2 10∙10‐3 g∙mol‐1 ‐772∙10‐8

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 77∙10‐11 mol∙mol‐1

u(MN2) Molar mass of N2 20∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 ‐361∙10‐6

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 72∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(MAr) Molar mass of Ar 58∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 138∙10‐7

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 80∙10‐11 mol∙mol‐1

u(MO2) Molar mass of O2 28∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 310∙10‐6

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 87∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xN2inCO2) Mole fraction of N2 in the parent mixture of CO2

10∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 ‐432∙10‐4 43∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xN2inN2) Mole fraction of N2 in balance gas (purity)

87∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1 329∙10‐4 29∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xArinAr_O2) Mole fraction of Ar in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 129∙10‐4 11∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(xO2inN2) Mole fraction of O2 in balance gas (impurity)

14∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1 375∙10‐4 53∙10‐11 mol∙mol‐1

u(xO2inAr_O2) Mole fraction of O2

in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 104∙10‐4 90∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inCO2) Mole fraction of CO2 in the parent mixture of CO2

10∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 951∙10‐2 95∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inN2) Mole fraction of CO2 in balance gas (impurity)

29∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1 686∙10‐1 20∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inAr_O2) Mole fraction of CO2 in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1 219∙10‐1 19∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

Uncertainty budget for the gravimetric preparation of the mixture at 4793 micromolmol of CO2

P a g e | 71

The following table reports the uncertainty budget for the gravimetric preparation of the mixture at 7989 micromolmol of CO2

Uncertainty component

u(xi)

Uncertainty source

Standard uncertainty

u(xi) δxCO2prepδxi

Contribution tou(xCO2 prep)

|δxCO2prepδxi|u(xi)

u(mCO2) Weighed mass of the parent mixture of CO2

82∙10‐4 g 671∙10‐6

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 55∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(mN2) Weighed mass of the balance gas N2

82∙10‐4 g ‐128∙10‐6

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 10∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(mAr_O2) Weighed mass of the parent mixture of Ar in O2

82∙10‐4 g ‐111∙10‐6

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 91∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(MCO2) Molar mass of CO2 10∙10‐3 g∙mol‐1 365∙10‐7

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 36∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(MN2) Molar mass of N2 20∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 469∙10‐4

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 94∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(MAr) Molar mass of Ar 58∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 510∙10‐6

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 30∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(MO2) Molar mass of O2 28∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 114∙10‐4

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 32∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(xN2inCO2) Mole fraction of N2 in the parent mixture of CO2

10∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 ‐669∙10‐4 67∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xN2inN2) Mole fraction of N2 in balance gas (purity)

87∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1 498∙10‐4 43∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xArinAr_O2) Mole fraction of Ar in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 214∙10‐4 19∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(xO2inN2) Mole fraction of O2 in balance gas (impurity)

14∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1 569∙10‐4 80∙10‐11 mol∙mol‐1

u(xO2inAr_O2) Mole fraction of O2

in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 171∙10‐4 15∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inCO2) Mole fraction of CO2 in the parent mixture of CO2

10∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 159∙10‐1 16∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inN2) Mole fraction of CO2 in balance gas (impurity)

29∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1 624∙10‐1 18∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inAr_O2) Mole fraction of CO2 in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1 217∙10‐1 19∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

Uncertainty budget for the gravimetric preparation of the mixture at 7989 micromolmol of CO2 The additional contribution derived from the analytical verification was taken into account in accordance to the prescription of ISO 6142‐12015

P a g e | 72

2verCOprepCOverCO

2prepCO

2certCO )()()(

2

122222

xxxuxuxu

The following table reports the mole fractions with the associated uncertainties of the preparation and verification for the two prepared mixtures

Cylinder number xCO2 prep

micromolmol u(xCO2prep)micromolmol

xCO2 ver micromolmol

u(xCO2ver)micromolmol

D247440 4793 01 4783 12

D247445 7989 02 7965 12

A5 Additional information

a) Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas

Component Mole Fraction x u(x)

CO2 gt099998 molmol 58 micromolmol

CO le01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

H2 le01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

N2 le10 micromolmol 3 micromolmol

O2 le3 micromolmol 09 micromolmol

H2O le5 micromolmol 14 micromolmol

CnHm le3 micromolmol 09 micromolmol

Purity table for CO2

b) Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar parent gases

Component Mole Fraction x u(x)

N2 gt0999999 molmol 03 micromolmol

CO2 lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

H2 lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

O2 lt05 micromolmol 014 micromolmol

H2O lt05 micromolmol 014 micromolmol

CnHm lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

Purity table for N2

Component Mole Fraction x u(x)

O2 gt0999999 molmol 03 micromolmol

CO lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

CO2 lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

H2 lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

H2O lt05 micromolmol 014 micromolmol

CnHm lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

Purity table for O2

P a g e | 73

Component Mole Fraction x u(x)

Ar gt099999 molmol 29 micromolmol

O2 lt2 micromolmol 06 micromolmol

H2O lt3 micromolmol 09 micromolmol

CnHm lt05 micromolmol 014 micromolmol

Purity table for Ar

c) Brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures

In order to produce the final mixtures the following premixtures were prepared 1) Premixture of CO2 in N2 at 0080122 molmol (U=0000025 molmol) gravimetrically prepared (double

substitution scheme A‐B‐B‐A) from pure CO2 (48) and N2 (60) 2) Premixture of CO2 in N2 at 50054 micromolmol (U=21 micromolmol) gravimetrically prepared (double

substitution scheme A‐B‐B‐A) from the above mentioned mixture n 1 of CO2 in N2 (0080122 molmol) diluted with N2 (60)

3) Premixture of Ar in O2 (Ar 0042703 molmol O2 0957297 molmol) gravimetrically prepared (double substitution scheme A‐B‐B‐A) from pure Ar (50) and O2 (60)

The final mixtures were gravimetrically prepared (double substitution scheme A‐B‐B‐A) by using premixtures n 2 and n 3 as parent mixtures and using N2 60 as balance gas to obtain the target CO2 mole fractions Concerning premixture n 3 an additional determination of the mole fraction of CO2 in the mixture was carried out by NDIR spectroscopy The instrument was calibrated in the range (01‐1) micromolmol using dynamic dilution The obtained value is 03 micromolmol of CO2 (u=009 micromolmol calculated assuming a rectangular distribution) which was taken into account for assigning the mole fraction of the final mixtures (CO2 4793 and 7989 micromolmol respectively) and evaluating the associated uncertainty

d) Brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures

After preparation the mixtures were rolled for 24 h to be homogenized An analytical verification was carried out by NDIR spectroscopy using for each mixture a 3‐point calibration curve based on WTLS in the range (330‐520) micromolmol and (690‐900) micromolmol respectively The calibration standards were prepared starting from a mixture of CO2 in synthetic air at a nominal mole fraction of 4800 micromolmol diluted with synthetic air by means of Mass Flow Controllers calibrated at INRiM Each calibration point was repeated 5 times Each calibration curve was validated by using an independent mixture of CO2 in synthetic air having a the mole fraction within the calibration range

e) Brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM

The mixtures were tested for their stability on a weekly basis following the same procedure as described in d) No trends in the analytical response were observed within 3 weeks and the mixtures could be considered stable

f) Cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM 90 bar for each cylinder

P a g e | 74

KRISS

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 75

P a g e | 76

P a g e | 77

P a g e | 78

P a g e | 79

P a g e | 80

P a g e | 81

P a g e | 82

LNE

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

SubmissionformCCQM‐K120‐RProject name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department

Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form

Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute LNE

Address 1 rue Gaston Boissier

75724 Paris Cedex 15

Contact person Mace Tatiana

P a g e | 83

Telephone +33140433853 Fax +33140433737

Email tatianamacelnefr

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty

Coverage factor

certx CO2 μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 1029045‐CO2air 0028 37948 079 2

2 1029047‐CO2AIR 0029 4776 10 2

3 1029048‐CO2AIR 0030 8022 17 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number CO2AIR 0028

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0780686 molmol 0000025 molmol 2

O2 0209528 molmol 0000019 molmol 2

Ar 0009407 molmol 0000022 molmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number CO2AIR 0029

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Unit Coverage

P a g e | 84

Uncertainty Factor

N2 0781355 molmol 0000025 molmol 2

O2 0208794 molmol 0000018 molmol 2

Ar 0009374 molmol 0000022 molmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number CO2AIR 0030

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0782710 molmol 0000027 molmol 2

O2 0207187 molmol 0000021 molmol 2

Ar 0009301 molmol 0000021 molmol 2

A4 Uncertainty Budget

Please provide a complete uncertainty budgets for the CO2 mole fraction values reported

CO2Air 0028 37948 plusmn 079 micromolmol (k=2)

Xi Unit Value u(Xi) Sensib C(Xi) C(Xi)u(Xi) poids

Mass CO2 Premix g 6021896 0017 606175153 010304978 679

CO2 molar mass gmol 440095 000091 ‐012936318 ‐000011772 000

CO2 concentration (premix) molmol 000998425 000000097 377979757 003666404 086

N2 molar mass gmol 2801348 0000099 ‐276210444 ‐000027345 000

Mass ArgO2 Premix g 3981732 0017 ‐020862621 ‐000354665 001

Arg concentration (premix) molmol 004288429 00000048 204187142 9801E‐05 000

Arg molar mass gmol 39948 0001 011015474 000011015 000

O2 molar mass gmol 319988 000042 245849547 000103257 000

N2 purity molmol 099997493 00000144 ‐281970074 ‐000406037 001

Mass N2 g 1170753 002 ‐024083902 ‐000481678 001

Stability 0 038 1 038 9232

CO2Air 0029 4776 plusmn 10 micromolmol (k=2)

Xi Unit Value u(Xi) Sensib C(Xi) C(Xi)u(Xi) Weight

Mass CO2 Premix g 7635147 0017 595567319 010124644 391

CO2 molar mass gmol 440095 000091 ‐016114898 ‐000014665 000

CO2 concentration (premix) molmol 000998425 000000097 47573918 00461467 081

N2 molar mass gmol 2801348 0000099 ‐346583037 ‐000034312 000

P a g e | 85

Mass ArgO2 Premix g 3997202 0017 ‐026063746 ‐000443084 001

Arg concentration (premix) molmol 004288429 00000048 256082804 000012292 000

Arg molar mass gmol 39948 0001 013815138 000013815 000

O2 molar mass gmol 319988 000042 308334014 0001295 000

N2 purity molmol 099997494 00000144 ‐350551134 ‐000504794 001

Mass N2 g 1165053 002 ‐030088103 ‐000601762 001

Stability 0 05 1 05 9525

CO2Air 0030 8022 plusmn 17 micromolmol (k=2)

Uncertainty source Unit Value Xi u(Xi) Sensitivity coefficient

C(Xi) C(Xi)u(Xi)

Contribution to the

uncertainty

Mass CO2 Premix g 128097 0020 575918809 011518376 201

CO2 molar mass gmol 440095 000091 ‐02614445 ‐000023791

000

CO2 concentration (premix)

molmol 000998425 000000097 799263648 007752857 091

N2 molar mass gmol 2801348 0000099 ‐578813182 ‐000057303

000

Mass ArgO2 Premix g 3961709 0021 ‐043832537 ‐000920483

001

Arg concentration (premix)

molmol 004288429 00000048 426841537 000020488 000

Arg molar mass gmol 39948 0001 023027218 000023027 000

O2 molar mass gmol 319988 000042 513934409 000215852 000

N2 purity molmol 099997493 00000144 ‐564097099 ‐0008123 001

Mass N2 g 1114778 0023 ‐050600475 ‐001163811

002

Stability 0 08 1 08 9704

A5 Additional information

Please include in this section in the case of standards produced with synthetic air

a) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg PurCO2pur007txt degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg

P a g e | 86

Component molmol uncertainty ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ CO2 09999922500 00000026021 H2O 00000015000 00000008660 O2 00000010000 00000005774 Methane 00000010000 00000005774 H2 00000002500 00000001443 N2 00000040000 00000023094

b) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar parent gas

a Pure Argon degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg PurAr_A106273txt degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg Component molmol uncertainty ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Ar 09999998100 00000000880 O2 00000000050 00000000029 H2O 00000000100 00000000058 CO2 00000000005 00000000003 CnHm 00000000250 00000000144 N2 00000001500 00000000866

b Pure Oxygen

degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg PurO2_207494Htxt degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg Component molmol uncertainty ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ O2 09999974360 00000011650 CO2 00000001640 00000000082 CO 00000000500 00000000289 CnHm 00000000500 00000000289 N2 00000020000 00000011547 H2O 00000002500 00000001443 H2 00000000500 00000000289

c Pure Nitrogen

degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg Purazote_bip_GQ88DUItxt degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg

P a g e | 87

Component molmol uncertainty ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ N2 09999749345 00000144338 CO2 00000000005 00000000003 H2O 00000000100 00000000058 Ar 00000250000 00000144338 O2 00000000050 00000000029 H2 00000000250 00000000144 CnHm 00000000250 00000000144

c) Dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures

a Argonoxygen premix

b CO2N2 premix

c Final mixtures of CO2 in air

ArgonO2

428843 plusmn 000096

Pure Argon

94147 g (u=0011 g)

Pure Oxygen

1736737 g (u=0015 g)

CO2N2 0065

099842 plusmn 000020

CO2N2 0064

100131 plusmn 00013

181585 g (u=0016 g)

Pure N2

1422808 g (u=0019 g)

Pure CO2

248725 g (u=0017 g)

Pure N2

1550854 g (u=0019 g)

P a g e | 88

d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures The gravimetric concentrations of the CO2 gas mixtures in air have been verified with a micro gas chromatograph (chrompack CP2003) The components are separated by a HayeSep A

CO2Air 0028

37948 plusmn 079 micromolmol

CO2N2 0065

60219 g (u=0017 g)

ArgonO2

398173 g (u=0017 g)

Pure N2

1170753 g (u=0020 g)

CO2Air 0029

4776 plusmn 10 micromolmol

CO2N2 0065

76351 g (u=0017 g)

ArgonO2

399720 g (u=0017 g)

Pur N2

1165053 g (u=0020 g)

CO2Air 0030

8022 plusmn 17 micromolmol

CO2N2 0065

128097 g (u=0020 g)

ArgonO2

396171 g (u=0021 g)

Pur N2

1114778 g (u=0023 g)

P a g e | 89

column at 70degC with an hydrogen pressure at 200 kPa The injection is performed at a pressure of 15 bar during 100 ms Each CO2 gas mixture in air is compared by chromatography to a reference gas mixture of CO2 in air generated by dilution of a high concentration gravimetric gas mixture (CO2 in nitrogen) with a Molbloc flowmeter 30 runs are performed with the reference gas mixture 30 runs are performed with the gas mixture to be verified and 30 runs are performed again with the reference gas mixture The 10 previous runs are used to calculate the analytical concentration The gas mixture is validated if the difference between the analytical and gravimetric concentrations is lower than the quadratic sum of the variances

e) Stability of the gas mixtures between the time they were prepared and the time they were shipped to the BIPM The CO2 gases mixtures in air have been analysed 3 times during a period of 2 months before being sent to BIPM

P a g e | 90

P a g e | 91

BFKH

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for carbon dioxide in air standards in the

range (380‐480) micromolmol and (480‐800) micromolmol

A1 General information

Institute Hungarian Trade Licensing Office MKEH

Address Neacutemetvoumllgyi uacutet 37‐39 Budapest

1124 Hungary

Contact person Judit Fuumlkő Zsoacutefia Nagyneacute Szilaacutegyi Tamaacutes Buumlki

Telephone +36 1 4585988

+36 1 4585800

Fax + 36 1 4585 937

Email tothnefjmkehhu

P a g e | 92

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 OMH54 37984 171 2

2 OMH44 47989 211 2

3 OMH69 80030 292 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted)

(Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number OMH54

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit CoverageFactor

N2 078039 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209615 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009607 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5130 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number OMH44

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

P a g e | 93

N2 078064 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209514 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009360 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5130 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number OMH69

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078072 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209161 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009314 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5130 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

A4 Uncertainty Budget

Uncertainty budget of preparation of CO2 standard by gravimetry

OMH69 800ppm

Uncertainty

source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 138729 g Normal 000046 g 1 33158E‐04

martix mass 11397986 g Normal 0026 g 1 22811E‐05

P a g e | 94

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000333

ppm 027

OMH44 480ppm

Uncertainty

source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 081399 g Normal 000034 g 1 41770E‐04

martix mass 111578 g Normal 0026 g 1 23302E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000419

ppm 020

OMH54 380ppm

Uncertainty

source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 064422 g Normal 000032 g 1 49672E‐04

martix mass 11159357 g Normal 0026 g 1 23299E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000498

P a g e | 95

ppm 019

The standard uncertainty of xi can be expressed as xuxuxuxuxu sti

2veri

2veri

2prepi

2i

2 (1)

xprep amount-of-substance fraction from preparation (micromolmol) uprep uncertainty of xprep (micromolmol) uver uncertainty from verification (micromolmol) ust uncertainty of calibration standard (micromolmol)

verix diffenece between the gravimetric preparation value and the result of verification measurement (micromolmol)

Ux stated uncertainty of laboratory at 95 level of confidence (micromolmol) k assigned coverage factor for degree of equivalence Laboratory Code

Cylinder xprep uprep uver ust verix k U(xi)

U(xi)

ppm ppm rel

MKEH OMH54 37984 019 08 019 014 2 171 045

OMH44 47989 020 10 020 018 2 211 044

OMH69 80030 027 14 028 015 2 292 036

A5 Additional information

A51 SOURCE OF CO2 NITROGEN OXIGEN ARGON

CO2 48 from SIAD Italy

N2 45 from Messer Hungary

O2 50 from Messer Hungary

Ar 46 from Messer Hungary

A52 PURITY TABLE OF PURE CO2 (38458)

Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol)

Uncertainty

(molmol)

CO2 specifications 09999885 00000133

N2 specifications 00000050 00000058

H2O specifications 00000025 00000029

P a g e | 96

CH4 specifications 00000025 00000029

O2 specifications 00000015 00000017

A53 PURITY TABLE OF PURE NITROGEN

Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol)

Uncertainty

(molmol)

N2 specifications 09999870 00000150

O2 specifications 00000050 00000058

H2O specifications 00000050 00000058

CH4 specifications 00000025 00000029

CO specifications 00000005 00000006

A54 PURITY TABLE OF PURE OXIGEN

Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol)

Uncertainty

(molmol)

O2 specifications 09999866 00000155

N2 specifications 00000100 00000115

H2O specifications 00000025 00000029

CH4 specifications 000000003 00000004

CO specifications 000000003 00000004

CO2 specifications 000000003 00000004

A55 PURITY TABLE OF PURE ARGON

Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol)

Uncertainty

(molmol)

Ar specifications 09999822 00000206

P a g e | 97

O2 specifications 00000025 00000029

H2O specifications 00000050 00000058

N2 specifications 00000100 00000116

CO2 specifications 00000003 00000004

A56 PREPARATION OF THE MIXTURES

We used 94 L aluminum cylinder (Luxfer) with brass valves DIN10 All the three mixtures were prepared without dilution series First the pure CO2 was filled with using loop into the properly prepared cylinder the mass measurement of the loop was carried out by an analytical balance ndash Mettler Toledo AE240‐S After the pure gases were filled directly gravimetrically after each other and the measurement of the gas mass was carried out by a topload balance ndash Mettler Toledo XP26003L

A57 VERIFICATION OF THE MIXTURES

All the three mixtures measured using methaniser at Agilent GC‐FID and we used MKEH standard gases one by one for calibration this method to the purpose of confirm that the gravimetric value and uncertainty for the carbon dioxide mole fraction of its standards is valid and it is included in the calculation of the reference value

A58 STABILITY OF THE MIXTURES

All the three mixtures were measured using methaniser at Agilent GC‐FID three times independently between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM There wasnrsquot significant difference between the certified values and the measured values

A59 CYLINDER PRESSURE BEFORE SHIPMENT TO THE BIPM 100 bar

P a g e | 98

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for carbon dioxide in air standards in the range (380‐480) micromolmol and (480‐800) micromolmol A1 General information

Institute Government Office of the Capital City Budapest BFKH (former MKEH)

Address Neacutemetvoumllgyi uacutet 37‐39Budapest 1124 Hungary

Contact person Judit Fuumlkő Tamaacutes Buumlki Zsoacutefia Nagyneacute Szilaacutegyi

Telephone +36 1 4585988 +36 1 4585800

Fax + 36 1 4585 937

Email fukojuditbfkhgovhu

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 OMH54 3798 17 2

2 OMH44 4644 28 2

P a g e | 99

3 OMH69 8003 29 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted)

(Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number OMH54

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078039 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209615 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009607 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5100 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number OMH44

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078064 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209514 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009360 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5100 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number OMH69

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078072 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209161 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009314 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5100 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

P a g e | 100

A4 Uncertainty Budget Uncertainty budget of preparation of CO2 standard by gravimetry

OMH69 800ppm

Uncertainty source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 138729 g Normal 000046 g 1 33158E‐04

martix mass 11397986 g Normal 0026 g 1 22811E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000333

ppm 027

OMH44 480ppm

Uncertainty source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 081399 g Normal 000034 g 1 41770E‐04

martix mass 111578 g Normal 0026 g 1 23302E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000419

ppm 020

P a g e | 101

OMH54 380ppm

Uncertainty source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 064422 g Normal 000032 g 1 49672E‐04

martix mass 11159357 g Normal 0026 g 1 23299E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000498

ppm 019

The standard uncertainty of xi can be expressed as

xuxuxuxuxu sti2

veri2

veri2

prepi2

i2 (1)

xprep amount-of-substance fraction from preparation (micromolmol) uprep uncertainty of xprep (micromolmol) uver uncertainty from verification (micromolmol) ust uncertainty of calibration standard (micromolmol)

verix diffenece between the gravimetric preparation value and the result of verification measurement (micromolmol)

Ux stated uncertainty of laboratory at 95 level of confidence (micromolmol) k assigned coverage factor for degree of equivalence

Laboratory Code

Cylinder xprep

uprep xmeas um ust verix k U(xi) U(xi)

ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm rel

BFKH OMH54 37984 019 08 019 014 2 17 045

OMH44 47989 020 46444 14 020 2 28 058

OMH69 80030 027 14 028 015 2 29 036

The stability measurements indicated some preparation mistake in case of the OMH44 cylinder The certified value of this cylinder was calculated from the measurements and the uncertainty from the equation below

xuxuxuxu sti2

easmi2

prepi2

i2

P a g e | 102

A5 Additional information A51 SOURCE OF CO2 NITROGEN OXIGEN ARGON CO2 48 from SIAD Italy N2 45 from Messer Hungary O2 50 from Messer Hungary Ar 46 from Messer Hungary A52 PURITY TABLE OF PURE CO2 (38458) Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol) Uncertainty (molmol)

CO2 Specifications 09999885 00000133 N2 Specifications 00000050 00000058 H2O Specifications 00000025 00000029 CH4 Specifications 00000025 00000029 O2 Specifications 00000015 00000017 A53 PURITY TABLE OF PURE NITROGEN Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol) Uncertainty (molmol)

N2 Specifications 09999870 00000150 O2 Specifications 00000050 00000058 H2O Specifications 00000050 00000058 CH4 Specifications 00000025 00000029 CO Specifications 00000005 00000006 A54 PURITY TABLE OF PURE OXIGEN Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol) Uncertainty (molmol)

O2 Specifications 09999866 0000016 N2 Specifications 00000100 0000012 H2O Specifications 00000025 00000029 CH4 Specifications 000000003 00000004 CO Specifications 000000003 00000004 CO2 Specifications 000000003 00000004 A55 PURITY TABLE OF PURE ARGON Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol) Uncertainty (molmol)

Ar Specifications 09999822 00000200 O2 Specifications 00000025 00000029 H2O Specifications 00000050 00000058 N2 Specifications 00000100 0000012 CO2 Specifications 00000003 00000004 A56 PREPARATION OF THE MIXTURES We used 94 L aluminum cylinder (Luxfer) with brass valves DIN10

P a g e | 103

All the three mixtures were prepared without dilution series First the pure CO2 was filled with using loop into the properly prepared cylinder the mass measurement of the loop was carried out by an analytical balance ndash Mettler Toledo AE240‐S After the pure gases were filled directly gravimetrically after each other and the measurement of the gas mass was carried out by a topload balance ndash Mettler Toledo XP26003L A57 VERIFICATION OF THE MIXTURES All the three mixtures measured using methaniser at Agilent GC‐FID and we used MKEH standard gases one by one for calibration this method to the purpose of confirm that the gravimetric value and uncertainty for the carbon dioxide mole fraction of its standards is valid and it is included in the calculation of the reference value A58 STABILITY OF THE MIXTURES All the three mixtures were measured using methaniser at Agilent GC‐FID three times independently between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM A59 CYLINDER PRESSURE BEFORE SHIPMENT TO THE BIPM 100 bar

P a g e | 104

NIM

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM-K120 Carbon dioxide in Air Laboratory National Institute of Metrology

Cylinders number FB03748 FB03744 FB03747

Preparation report

A1 General information

Institute National Institute of Metrology China

Address 18 Bei San Huan Dong Lu Chaoyang District City Bei Jing

Building 17 Room 217

Contact person BI Zhe Zeyi Zhou

Telephone 86-10-84232306 Fax 86-10-84232306

Email zhouzynimaccn bizhnimaccn

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM-K120a Yes

CCQM-K120b Yes

A3 Submitted values for carbon dioxide preparation results in each standard

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2 μmolmol )( CO2 certxU

μmolmol

1 FB03748 80982 026 2

2 FB03744 48915 022 2

P a g e | 105

3 FB03747 38343 020 2

A4 Submitted values for each standardrsquos matrix Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted)

(Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number FB03748

Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage

Factor CH4(Methane) 101times10-9 molmol 203E-10 molmol 2 C2H4(Ethene) 146times10-10 molmol 113E-10 molmol 2 C3H8(Propane) 518times10-10 molmol 405E-10 molmol 2 N2(Nitrogen) 0781 molmol 271E-05 molmol 2 O2(Oxygen) 0210 molmol 260E-05 molmol 2 Ar(Argon) 794times10-3 molmol 969E-06 molmol 2 H2O(Water) 291times10-7 molmol 139E-07 molmol 2 N2O(Dinitrogen_oxide) 790times10-10 molmol 586E-10 molmol 2 CO2(Carbon_dioxide) 80982times10-4 molmol 248E-07 molmol 2 (Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number FB03744

Component Mole fraction Value

Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

CH4(Methane) 101E-09 molmol 308E-10 molmol 2 C2H4(Ethene) 880E-11 molmol 685E-11 molmol 2 C3H8(Propane) 313E-10 molmol 245E-10 molmol 2 N2(Nitrogen) 781E-01 molmol 275E-05 molmol 2 O2(Oxygen) 210E-01 molmol 264E-05 molmol 2 Ar(Argon) 904E-03 molmol 990E-06 molmol 2 H2O(Water) 290E-07 molmol 139E-07 molmol 2 N2O(Dinitrogen_oxide) 790E-10 molmol 601E-10 molmol 2 CO2(Carbon_dioxide) 48915E-04 molmol 191E-07 molmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number FB03747 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage

Factor CH4(Methane) 101E-09 molmol 408E-10 molmol 2 C2H4(Ethene) 690E-11 molmol 537E-11 molmol 2 C3H8(Propane) 245E-10 molmol 192E-10 molmol 2 N2(Nitrogen) 782E-01 molmol 288E-05 molmol 2 O2(Oxygen) 209E-01 molmol 276E-05 molmol 2 Ar(Argon) 922E-03 molmol 102E-05 molmol 2 H2O(Water) 289E-07 molmol 139E-07 molmol 2 N2O(Dinitrogen_oxide) 791E-10 molmol 607E-10 molmol 2 CO2(Carbon_dioxide) 38343E-04 molmol 183E-07 molmol 2 CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

P a g e | 106

Cylinder

Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 2 3

A5 Uncertainty Budget Please provide a complete uncertainty budgets for the CO2 mole fraction values reported

Uncertainty budget

Cylinder

Gravimetric

valueμmolmol

Component distribution Standard

uncertaintyμmolmol

FB03748 80982

Combined uncertainty of

Purity Molecular and

Weighing

Normal 0124

Repeatability of the

measurement Normal 0040

Combined standard uncertainty 013

FB03744 48915

Combined uncertainty of

Purity Molecular and

Weighing

Normal 0096

Repeatability of the

measurement Normal 0030

Combined standard uncertainty 011

FB03747 38343

Combined uncertainty of

Purity Molecular and

Weighing

Normal 0092

Repeatability of the

measurement Normal 0030

Combined standard uncertainty 010

A6 Additional information

P a g e | 107

Please include in this section in the case of standards produced with synthetic air

g) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas h) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar NO2 and CH4 parent gas i) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures j) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures k) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time

they are shipped to the BIPM and l) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

a) purity table for the nominally pure CO2 09999924 molmol

Component Amount fraction

(10-6molmol)

Standard uncertainty

(10-6molmol) Assumed distribution

CH4 113 045 Normal

C2H4 018 007 Normal

C3H8 064 025 Normal

O2 052 021 Normal

Ar 010 004 Normal

N2 251 100 Normal

H2O 250 100 Normal

N2O 0001 00006 Rectangular

CO2 9999924 15 Normal

b) purity table for the nominally pure N2 0 9999521 molmol

Component Amount fraction

(10-6molmol)

Standard uncertainty

(10-6molmol) Assumed distribution

CH4 0001 00005 Rectangular

Ar 483 48 Normal

O2 002 0006 Normal

CO2 0010 0003 Normal

H2O 010 004 Normal

N2O 0001 00004 Rectangular

P a g e | 108

N2 9999521 48 Normal

purity table for the nominally pure O2 0 9999959 molmol

Component Amount fraction

(10-6molmol)

Standard uncertainty

(10-6molmol) Assumed distribution

CH4 0001 00003 Normal

Ar 20 05 Normal

N2 11 03 Normal

CO2 00012 00004 Rectangular

H2O 12 04 Normal

N2O 0001 00004 Rectangular

O2 9999959 48 Normal

purity table for the nominally pure Ar 09999998 molmol

Component Amount fraction

(10-6molmol)

Standard uncertainty

(10-6molmol) Assumed distribution

CH4 0001 00003 Normal

O2 0020 0005 Normal

N2 0010 0001 Normal

CO2 0001 00004 Rectangular

H2O 01 04 Normal

N2O 0001 00004 Rectangular

Ar 9999998 48 Normal

P a g e | 109

c) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures

d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures Seven primary standard cylinders of CO2 in air mixture were measured by CRDs A linearity regression was established based on these seven cylinders For each point an average of date recorded in 2 minutes were used The verification wre done by the comparison of gravimetric values and the calculated values

Gravimetric value Fitted value Relative deviation

y = 1002382 x + 0187049 Rsup2 = 1000000

350

450

550

650

750

850

350 450 550 650 750 850

Measured value VS Gravimetric value

1047095 g

CO2

N2

26743 g

CO2N2 15998ppm

Ar O2 N2

FB03748

CO2N2 32592 g Ar 7193 g O2 153303 g N2 466458 g

FB03744

CO2N2 19417 g Ar 8082 g O2 150754 g N2 472375 g

FB03747

CO2N2 14474 g Ar 7835 g O2 142777 g N2 453560 g

P a g e | 110

μmolmol μmolmol 80982 80965 -0021 81307 81319 0015 49106 49113 0014 48915 48928 0025 37819 37818 -0003 39162 39161 -0004 38343 38332 -0030

e) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are

prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM

Three test gas mixtures were prepared 3 months before the comparison After gas mixtures for the comparison were prepared a liner regression was done by combining the test gas mixtures and the comparison cylinders No significant drift of the values was observed between the time they were prepared and the time they were shipped to the BIPM f) cylinders pressure before shipment to the BIPM

Cylinder No Pressure (bar) FB03748 90 FB03744 90 FB03747 90

P a g e | 111

NIST

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM‐K120‐R Project name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department

Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form

Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute NIST

Address 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8393

Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8393

Contact person George C Rhoderick

Telephone 301‐975‐3937 Fax 301‐977‐8392

P a g e | 112

Email GeorgeRhodericknistgov

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 FB04278 3790449 03908 2

2 FB04300 4726617 04280 2

3 FB04287 7945334 10287 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number FB04278

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0780812 molmol 0000118 molmol 2

O2 0209470 molmol 000071 molmol 2

Ar 0009339 molmol 000037 molmol 2

CH4 nmolmol nmolmol

N2O nmolmol nmolmol

P a g e | 113

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number FB04300

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0780771 molmol 0000128 molmol 2

O2 0209422 molmol 0000081 molmol 2

Ar 0009334 molmol 0000034 molmol 2

CH4 nmolmol nmolmol

N2O nmolmol nmolmol

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number FB04287

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0780499 molmol 0000114 molmol 2

O2 0209370 molmol 0000067 molmol 2

Ar 0009336 molmol 0000040 molmol 2

CH4 nmolmol nmolmol

N2O nmolmol nmolmol

CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 FB04278 ‐28 plusmn 2 1

2 FB04300 ‐28 plusmn 2 1

3 FB04287 ‐28 plusmn 2 1

A4 Uncertainty Budget Please provide a complete uncertainty budgets for the CO2 mole fraction values reported

P a g e | 114

A5 Additional information

FB04278

Standard Relative ContributionValue Uncertainty Uncertianty to Uncertainty

Major Component MW 2801340 000016 00000058 00020

Minor Component MW 4400950 000052 00000119 00041

Mass Parent Gas 1893585 000146 00000769 00264

Mass Balance Gas 7453878 00020 00000027 00009

Minor Component Wt Fraction 0023250750 0000006755 00002905 00997

Mass minor component - Parent 044027281 000013232 00003005 01031Mass minor component - Bal 000006695 000001936 02890953 991626

Total mass minor component 044017935 000022556 00005124 01758

Moles of minor component 001000192 000000513 00005126 01758

Balance gas wt fraction (purity) 0755569792 390976E-05 00000517 00177

Mass balance gas - parent 1397906371 000148549 00001063 00365Mass balance gas - balance 56319253120 002918142 00000518 00178

Total mass balance gas 57717159491 002921920 00000506 00174

Moles of balance gas 2060341104 000104994 00000510 00175

Moles impurities from parent 013966291020 000002524000 00001807 00620

Moles impurities from balance 56340784 00010163 00001804 00619

Total Moles of gas 263871542 00014615 00000554 00190

Conc minor component (ppm) 3790449 01954Relative uncert 0052 0292 100000

FB04300

Standard Relative Contribution

Value Uncertainty Uncertianty to Uncertainty

Major Component MW 2801340 000016 00000058 00025

Minor Component MW 4400950 000052 00000119 00050

Mass Parent Gas 2953886 000141 00000477 00201

Mass Balance Gas 74869117 000194 00000026 00011

CO2 Component Wt Fraction 0018926076 0000006339 00003350 01414

Mass CO2 component - Parent 055905476 000018915 00003383 01428Mass CO2 component - Balance Air 000003828 000000898 02345407 989951

Total mass CO2 component 055885777 000025068 00004486 01893

Moles of minor component 001269857 000000570 00004487 01894

Balance gas wt fraction (purity) 07556035 000004300 00000569 00240Mass balance gas - parent 2190310136 000191642 00000875 00369

Mass balance gas - balance 56571366688 003222901 00000570 00240

Total mass balance gas 58761676824 003228594 00000549 00232

Moles of balance gas 2097627451 000115899 00000553 00233

Moles impurities from parent 021883087438 000003747112 00001712 00723

Moles impurities from balance 56582830 00011276 00001993 00841

Total Moles of gas 268660869 00016174 00000602 00254

Conc minor component (ppm) 4726617 02140Relative uncert 0045 0237 100000

FB04287

Standard Relative ContributionValue Uncertainty Uncertianty to Uncertainty

Major Component MW 2801340 000016 00000058 00021

Minor Component MW 4400950 000052 00000119 00042

Mass Parent Gas 3957940 000137 00000346 00122

Mass Balance Gas 7227358 00020 00000028 00010

Minor Component Wt Fraction 0023250750 0000006716 00002889 01017

Mass minor component - Parent 092025076 000026773 00002909 01025Mass minor component - Bal 000005052 000001421 02813263 990842

Total mass minor component 092005795 000059343 00006450 02272

Moles of minor component 002090589 000001349 00006451 02272

Balance gas wt fraction (purity) 0755575527 389029E-05 00000515 00181

Mass balance gas - parent 2921880196 000218877 00000749 00264Mass balance gas - balance 54608149036 002815892 00000516 00182

Total mass balance gas 57530029233 002824386 00000491 00173

Moles of balance gas 2053661078 000101531 00000494 00174

Moles impurities from parent 029192104701 000004836046 00001657 00583

Moles impurities from balance 54627264 00009803 00001795 00632

Total Moles of gas 263121641 00014122 00000537 00189

Conc minor component (ppm) 7945334 05143Relative uncert 0065 0284 100000

P a g e | 115

Please include in this section in the case of standards produced with synthetic air

m) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas n) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar NO2 and CH4

parent gas o) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures p) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures q) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are

prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM and r) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

Or with real air

a) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas Compound molmol Uncertainty CO2 0999994000 0000002000 N2 0000002000 0000001155 O2 0000002000 0000001155 Ar 0000002000 0000001155

b) results of the analysis and mole fractions and uncertainties of CO2 N2 O2 Ar N2O and CH4 in the scrubbed real air (if performed)

Cylinder FB04300 Compound molmol Uncertainty N2 0781133467 0000043500 CO2 0000000151 0000000036 O2 0209528241 0000039865 Ar 0009338142 0000017407

Cylinder FB04278 Compound molmol Uncertainty N2 0781102830 0000039359 CO2 0000000059 0000000017 O2 0209554557 0000034507 Ar 0009342554 0000018932

Cylinder FB04287 Compound molmol Uncertainty N2 0781108354 0000039152 CO2 0000000046 0000000013 O2 0209548136 0000033045 Ar 0009343463 0000020998

P a g e | 116

c) a brief outline of the preparation procedure of the final mixtures

The three cylinders were evacuated to ~ 05 micro of Hg filled to ~ 07 Mpa with UHP Air and vented to atmosphere (four times) and evacuated to ~ 05 micro Hg A calculated aliquot of the parent cylinder was added to each cylinder and then weighed A calculated aliquot of the matrix gas was added to each cylinder and then weighed The cylinders were rolled for ~ three hours to mix the component gases

d) a composition table for each of the final mixtures including gravimetric Uncertainties when relevant Cylinder FB04300 Compound molmol Uncertainty CO2 0000472662 0000000214 N2 0780771482 0000063800 O2 0209421668 0000040372 Ar 0009334188 0000016775 Cylinder FB04278 Compound molmol Uncertainty CO2 0000379045 0000000195 N2 0780812166 0000058766 O2 0209469584 0000035657 Ar 0009339205 0000018480 Cylinder FB04287 Compound molmol Uncertainty CO2 0000794533 0000000514 N2 0780498735 0000056955 O2 0209370336 0000033285 Ar 0009336395 0000019945

e) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures The cylinders were verified against five existing PSMs a minimum of six times using an Isotopic CO2 Cavity Ringdown Spectrometer

f) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM and

g) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

P a g e | 117

Cylinder MPa FB04300 965 FB04278 1034 FB04278 999

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders 1st report

2nd report received on May 16 2018

Addendum to NIST Report for CCQM-K120a and b 1 Introduction NIST agreed to participate in the CCQM-K120a and b Key Comparison (KC) with the understanding that this KC involved gravimetrically value-assigned samples As stated in the protocol summary the comparison involved ldquohellip preparative capabilities for carbon dioxide in air primary reference mixturesrdquo Based on this description of the KC as involving primary reference mixtures NIST assumed that the participantsrsquo value assignments and reported data were restricted solely to those that derive from purity assessments and primary gravimetric measurements However prior to submission of the reported concentrations to GAWG NIST discovered a significant discrepancy in the gravimetric values which was caused by extenuating circumstances (discussed below) and which was quantified using supplementary measurements carried out at NIST Nevertheless to follow the KC protocol and to meet the imposed deadlines NIST submitted only the gravimetric-based concentration values for the three required CO2-in-air samples despite having assessed that the results were not expected to agree with the eventual calculated KCRV 2 Background Studies on CO2 adsorptiondesorption issues NIST performed and continues to investigate an adsorptiondesorption phenomenon with CO2 in air mixtures [1] NIST has observed in 5 and 6 L aluminum cylinders containing nominal 400 micromolmol CO2 in air mixtures initial CO2 adsorption to the cylinder walls of as little as 02 micromolmol to more than 1 micromolmol depending on the cylinder and internal treatment tested It has been observed that CO2 initially adsorbs on the cylinder walls when a mixture is

NIST CCQM K120 comparison samples dataPressure August 112017 Pressure

Original Reported Original Verified Veri‐Grav departure Re‐verified Value ReVerified value‐ back

Cylinder Gravimetirc Value ppm Value ppm Diff from NIST Stability check ppm Grav Value ppm to NIST

FB04278 37905 plusmn 039 38030 plusmn 028 033 1034 MPa 38007 plusmn 030 027 724 MPa

FB04300 47266 plusmn 043 47340 plusmn 034 016 965 MPa 47337 plusmn 052 015 724 MPa

FB04287 79453 plusmn 103 79512 plusmn 058 007 999 MPa 79477 plusmn 038 003 724 MPa

Re‐verified Value Re‐Verified‐ Pressure back

SRM Sample Original Certified Value Stability check ppm Orig Cert to NIST

1720‐A‐26 39397 plusmn 013 39403 plusmn 020 0015 414 MPa (600 psi)

P a g e | 118

prepared to high pressure (asymp12 MPa asymp1800 psi) NIST modeled some of that early data that shows an increase in CO2 mole fraction (∆x) with reduced cylinder pressure from measurements of a CO2 in air mixture contained in a 6 L aluminum cylinder using the Langmuir isotherm (Irving Langmuir 1916 1918) and is shown in Figure 1

Figure 1 Measured CO2 mole fraction increase versus pressure decrease in a 6 L aluminum cylinder Solid black points represent actual measured mole fraction Solid blue line represents applied Langmuir Isotherm model Using the actual measured CO2 change in 5 L and 6 L cylinders and the Langmuir isotherm NIST modeled for projected ∆x CO2 variation for 30 L and 47 L aluminum cylinders as shown in Figure 2 The models predict that the larger the cylinder volume the less change in the CO2 mole fraction with pressure loss NIST studies of CO2 in air mixtures contained in 30 L cylinders indeed show less increase in the mole fraction of CO2 as the pressure in the cylinder decreases Therefore the surface-to-volume ratio appears to play a major role the larger the cylinder volume the less CO2 increase It is most likely that this phenomenon takes place not only at ambient CO2 mole fractions but also at much higher levels including a few molmol and higher

Figure 2 Projected variation in ∆x for 6-L 30-L and 47-L cylinders applying Langmuir Isotherm This background information was presented at the GAWG meeting in April 2017 as analyses of K120 a and b were underway These results account for the discrepant NIST values in K120 a and b More generally this study informed participants of the serious potential pitfalls associated with desorption of CO2 from cylinder walls and the dependence of this process on total charge cylinder dimensions etc and revealed the possibility of unaccounted for Type B uncertainties caused by interactions of CO2 with cylinder walls Partly because of these findings and the

P a g e | 119

occurrence of extremely low uncertainties reported by some NMIs GAWG decided to put a lower limit on the expanded uncertainty equal to 019 mol mol-1 thus affecting the relative weighting of the results contributing to the KCRV 3 Preparation of K120 Samples In conjunction with submitting freshly prepared gravimetric standards for the CCQM-K120 CO2 in air key comparison NIST also wanted to prepare a complete new suite of ambient level CO2 in air primary standard mixtures (PSMs) starting with a pure natural isotopic CO2 source That new pure CO2 source arrived at NIST in November 2016 Because there was a limited amount of pure CO2 in the cylinder obtained NIST started development by gravimetrically preparing four PSMs in the range of 1-3 molmol in CO2 and moisture scrubbed real air Upon completion of those PSMs in early December 2016 they were analyzed by GC-TCD along with the NIST 2012 CO2 suite with ratios calculated from peak area responses to a control Generalized least squares regression was used to plot the ratios vs gravimetric values of the 2012 PSMs The new percent level PSMs were predicted from the regression line The results of that comparison are shown in Table 1 Inspection of the residuals from the difference of the predicted Ysolution- YGrav value for the 2012 PSMs reveals excellent agreement However the predicted Yeval values for the new PSMs disagree with their gravimetric values by more than -2 Table 1 New percent level PSMs predicted from linear regression of 2012 PSMs

Based on these results either the 2012 suite of PSMs had increased in mole fraction because of desorption of CO2 from the cylinder surface with pressure decrease or the new source of pure CO2 was contaminated Indeed the pure CO2 was eventually analyzed in January of 2017 and found to be contaminated with 31 molmol N2 Because NIST had no time to obtain another source of pure CO2 to make another set of PSMs (K120 samples needed to be shipped to BIPM by the end of December 2016) we had to assume that the 2012 percent level PSMs were stable We made this assumption knowing that it most likely was not the case because the CO2 mole fraction had increased as these standards were below asymp 45 MPa (asymp650 psi) Not having another source of CO2 (the original CO2 source used for the 2012 suite and the source for over three decades was spent) NIST could not prepare new percent-level standards to verify the 2012 percent level standards and determine if the CO2 had indeed increased

Res idua l

2012 PSM X (Ratio) Y (Grav molmol) X‐Solution Y‐Solution uTest (Y‐Sol ‐Grav)

FA02584 244265 49500 244266 49490 Pass ‐002

FA02588 22877 46190 22877 46205 Pass 003

APEX1099215 078272 15422 078272 15420 Pass ‐001

APEX1099172 063673 12535 063656 12538 Pass 002

CAL016532 050028 09869 05003 09869 Pass 000

difference

From New CO2 Xin (Ratio) uXin Yeval (molmol) uYeval Grav Value Yeval‐Grav

FB03808 139347 000103 27669 00033 28288 ‐219

APEX1099165 118456 000141 23442 00035 24043 ‐250

APEX1099188 11708 000130 23164 00033 23773 ‐256

APEX1099246 078483 000058 15462 00015 15822 ‐228

(plusmn 00007)

P a g e | 120

NIST moved forward and prepared the three K120 standards from the 2012 PSMs cylinder number APEX1099215 at (15422 plusmn 00010) molmol and APEX1099172 at (12535 plusmn 00009) molmol (highlighted in green in Table 1) Figure 3 shows the preparation scheme

Figure 3 Preparation scheme for NIST K120 samples It is very important to state here that both cylinders were low in pressure when the three K120 standards were prepared from them APEX1099215 at 520 psi and APEX1099172 at 390 psi While NIST did not have stability data for percent-level CO2 in air mixtures we still suspected that the CO2 also increases at this mole fraction level as the pressure decreases After preparation of the three K120 standards they were compared to the 2012 ambient level PSMs and three SRM samples were also included Figure 4 shows the generalized least squares regression plotted for the 2012 PSMs represented by the black circles The blue circles represent the predicted value for the SRM 1720 samples from that regression and the red triangles represent the original SRM 1720 certified value The green squares represent the predicted value for the K120 samples from that regression line while the yellow circle with red border represent the gravimetric values From this plot the blue dotted linear regression line appears to cover all the data points

Pure CO2

CC282116

999940 plusmn 00002

APEX1099172 APEX1099215

12535 plusmn 00009 15422 plusmn 00010

molmol molmol

FB04300 FB04300 FB04300

472662 plusmn 0214 379045 plusmn 0214 794533 plusmn 0514

micromolmol micromolmol micromolmol

combined uncerta inties k=1

350

450

550

650

750

850

950

070 090 110 130 150 170 190

CO2mole fraction micro

molmol

Response Ratio

2012 CO2 PSMs

K120 Standards Predicted

K120 Grav Value

Predicted SRM 1720

SRM1720 Certified Value

P a g e | 121

Figure 4 Generalized least squares regression through NIST 2012 ambient CO2 PSM suite predicting SRM 1720 and K120 samples However if we expand the lower portion of the regression from (350-400) micromolmol we see disagreement between the new standards and SRM 1720 certified values as shown in Figure 5 While the predicted and gravimetric value for the 380 micromolmol K120 standard are still on the regression line the SRM 1720 certified values are off the regression line by around +1 micromol mol (03 relative) However the predicted and gravimetric value for the 380 micromolmol K120 sample lie on the regression line NIST has complete confidence that the SRM 1720 samples contained in 30-L cylinders are stable since they were all at pressures of +11 MPa Therefore NIST suspected that the 2012 PSMs all had increased in concentration and hence would predict the SRM 1720 samples to have less CO2 The fact that the K120 samples also lie on the line with the 2012 PSM regression we can postulate that the 2012 percent level PSMs had also increased in CO2 mole fraction as they had pressures less than 45 MPa (650 psi) when used to prepare the K120 samples

Figure 5 Expansion of Figure 4 illustrating that the SRM 1720 certified values lie off the regression line while K120 gravimetric and predicted values are still on the regression line Expanded uncertainty error bars are present but too small to be observed except in the red triangle SRM 1720 Certified Value NIST took this data for the 2012 ambient level PSMs and determined values by comparison to SRM sample 1720-A-29 with a certified value of (39312 plusmn 013) micromolmol with and (k = 2) uncertainty value at a pressure of +12 MPa The values determined for the PSMs from the SRM 1720 sample are significantly different from their gravimetric values with reduced pressure as shown in Table 2 Table 2 Ambient level 2012 PSMs determined from SRM sample 1720-A-29

4 Validity of SRM 1720 samples The SRM 1720 sample used to verify these PSMs is contained in a 30-Liter aluminum cylinder Other SRM 1720 samples have shown to be stable within uncertainty limits down to around 600 psi as shown in Table 3

‐029

‐037‐031

378

383

388

393

398

074 075 075 076 076 077 077 078 078 079 079

CO2mole fraction micro

molmol

Response Ratio

2012 CO2 PSMs

K120 Standard Predicted

K120 Standard Grav Value

SRM 1720 Predicted Value

SRM 1720 Certified Value

Gravimetric Concentration vs SRM1720 Difference Pressure

2012 PSM Mole Fraction micromolmol micromolmol micromolmol Diff ps i (Mpa)

APEX1099211 96107 plusmn 003 96091 plusmn 020 0160 002 1200 (827)

APEX1099176 91907 plusmn 046 91922 plusmn 025 ‐0150 ‐002 650 (448)

APEX1099164 67362 plusmn 035 67405 plusmn 015 ‐0430 ‐006 800 (552)

APEX1099223 63330 plusmn 042 63367 plusmn 017 ‐0370 ‐006 700 (483)

APEX1005714 42108 plusmn 006 42246 plusmn 009 ‐1380 ‐033 300 (207)

APEX1005721 39885 plusmn 006 40003 plusmn 015 ‐1180 ‐030 400 (276)

APEX1005690 37944 plusmn 006 38048 plusmn 010 ‐1040 ‐027 400 (276)

uncerta inty k=1

P a g e | 122

Table 3 Mole fractions showing increase in 30 Liter SRM 1720 samples with pressure loss

SRM 1720 samples were originally certified by comparing to the 2012 suite of four PSMs when they were at full pressure (+11 MPa) three of which are given in Table 2 APEX1005714 (42108 plusmn 006) micromolmol APEX1005721 (39885 plusmn 006) micromolmol and APEX1005690 (37944 plusmn 006) micromolmol The SRM 1720 samples were also analyzed by NOAA with results showing agreement between NIST and NOAA [2] Figure 6 shows that agreement for the 30 real air cylinder samples that comprised SRM 1720

Figure 6 Comparison of NIST and NOAA CO2 values for 30 SRM 1720 samples Error bars are expanded uncertainties at approximate 95 confidence interval 5 Verifying the K120 Samples Because all the original NIST 2012 PSMs at the 380 to 420 micromolmol range were low in pressure they could not be trusted to verify the new K120 PSMs Therefore in late December 2016 NIST used SRM sample 1720-A-29 then at 1700 psi to verify the gravimetric mole fractions in the K120 standards using CRDS Table 4 shows the gravimetric and verified values for the NIST K120 samples The December 2016 verified value is significantly higher by as much as 1 micromolmol than the gravimetric value for each of the three K120 standards This provides strong evidence that even the molmol 2012 PSMs have increased in mole fraction with the decrease in pressure Table 4 Gravimetric and verified values for NIST K120 samples

30 ‐Liter August 2017 Stability

SRM Original Certified Stability check 2017 ‐

Sample Value ppm value ppm Cert ppm

1720‐A‐26a 39397 + 013 (SRM used by BIPM for K120) 39403 + 020 + 006 600 psi 414 Mpa

1720‐AL‐01 38833 plusmn 013 38867 plusmn 014 + 034 325 psi 224 Mpa

1720‐AL‐27 39339 plusmn 013 39364 plusmn 015 + 025 450 psi 31 Mpa

All verified and stability check values determined against SRM 1720‐A‐29 (still at a pressure of 1500+ psi)

All uncertainties reported as expanded k = 2

aSRM 1720‐A‐26 was sent to BIPM as part of their system validation for K120

388

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30mole fraction micro

mol mol ‐1

Sample

NIST

NOAA

Pressure

Original Reported December 2016 Verified Verified‐Grav Verified‐Grav departure

Cylinder Gravimetirc Value ppm Verified Value micromolmol Diff in micromolmol Diff from NIST

FB04278 37905 plusmn 039 38008 plusmn 028 103 027 1034 MPa

FB04300 47266 plusmn 043 47340 plusmn 034 068 016 965 MPa

FB04287 79453 plusmn 103 79512 plusmn 058 059 007 999 MPa

P a g e | 123

Uncertainties at 95 confidence interval NIST was aware when they shipped their K120 samples to BIPM for the K120 comparison that their gravimetric values were not good However we followed the K120 protocol laid down for ldquopreparative capabilities for carbon dioxide in air primary reference mixturesrdquo and submitted the gravimetric values knowing that the verified values were the correct molar fractions for these mixtures 6 Stability check of K120 samples NIST received the three K120 samples back from BIPM in August 2017 and proceeded to check them for stability The three samples were once again compared to SRM 1720-A-29 and those results are shown in Table 5 The August 2017 stability check values agree with the December 2016 verified values and therefore have remained stable as they should be since the pressures were well above those where increases in mole fraction have been observed Table 5 Stability check results for K120 samples

Uncertainties at 95 confidence interval

7 Isotopic Composition The original value submitted by NIST for δ13C of -28 + 2 permil was an error of data transcription NIST had determined this value in 2014 for the pure source of CO2 used to prepare the submitted standards to be δ13C = -38 + 2 permil as determined by FTIR After receiveing the three standards back from BIPM NIST measured the δ13C to be -401 + 01 permil as determined by GC-IRMS 8 NIST Best-Estimate Value If it had been explicitly stated that participants could report their ldquobest-estimate valuerdquo for samples submitted for this CCQM-K120 key comparison for ambient CO2 in air which would not necessarily be their true gravimetric value then NIST would have submitted the values obtained from verification against the SRM sample NIST ldquobest-estimate valuesrdquo are thus given in Table 6 Table 6 NIST Best-Estimate (Verified) Values

August 2017 August 2017 Pressure

December 2016 Verified August 2017 Stability check‐Dec 2016 Stabiity check‐ back

Cylinder Verified Value micromolmol Stability check micromolmol Verified Value micromolmol Verified Value Diff to NIST

FB04278 38008 plusmn 028 38007 plusmn 030 ‐001 ‐0003 724 MPa

FB04300 47340 plusmn 034 47337 plusmn 052 ‐003 ‐0006 724 MPa

FB04287 79512 plusmn 058 79477 plusmn 038 ‐035 ‐0044 724 MPa

P a g e | 124

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 FB04278 38008 028 2

2 FB04300 47340 034 2

3 FB04287 79512 058 2

9 Observations from this Comparison NIST has the opinion that this key comparison was unnecessarily rushed to completion by the pilot laboratory As co-pilot on this comparison NIST should not have agreed to the arbitrary and premature deadline imposed by the pilot laboratory knowing that an optimal level of sample control had not been demonstrated Given that future key comparisons will continue to be co-piloted both parties must agree that the preliminary studies and procedures are sufficiently well-established to set firm deadlines for sample submission by participating NMIrsquos Ideally the mutual decision to set the timeline for the KC and the readiness of other NMIrsquos to participate should be discussed formally by the GAWG at the Spring or Fall meeting NIST also recommends that the GAWG draft a formal policy document that unambiguously defines the terms such as ldquogravimetricrdquo ldquoprimaryrdquo ldquopreparativerdquo ldquoanalyticalrdquo ldquobest-estimaterdquo among others which are used to describe the scope of key comparisons For example in the context of gas standards we might propose that ldquoprimaryrdquo refers to mixtures prepared by gravimetry or manometry On the other hand ldquopreparativerdquo appears with ldquoprimaryrdquo in the K120 a and b protocol summary statement What is the exact meaning of ldquopreparativerdquo in this context Similarly the term ldquobest-estimaterdquo was mentioned in discussions on K120 a and b during the April 2018 GAWG meeting when referring to acceptable reported values by NMIs although the exact meaning of this term was not clarified NISTrsquos current position is that ldquobest-estimaterdquo falls outside the scope of K120a and b and is more consistent with an ldquoanalyticalrdquo comparison These examples illustrate the need for a precise terminology to specify acceptable methods used for value assignment in future KCs For transparency this terminology should be formally defined by the GAWG for unambiguous use in subsequent KC protocols References 1 Miller WR Rhoderick GC Guenther FR Anal Chem 2015 87(3) pp 1957-1962 2 Rhoderick GR Kitzis DR Kelley ME Miller WR Hall BD Dlugokencky EJ Tans PP Possolo A Carney J Anal Chem 2016 88(6) 3376-3385 doi

101021acsanalchem6b00123

P a g e | 125

NMISA

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 126

P a g e | 127

P a g e | 128

P a g e | 129

P a g e | 130

P a g e | 131

P a g e | 132

P a g e | 133

NOAA

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 134

P a g e | 135

P a g e | 136

P a g e | 137

P a g e | 138

P a g e | 139

NPL

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM‐K120‐R Project name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards

A1 General information

Institute National Physical Laboratory

Address Hampton Road

Teddington

TW11 0LW

Contact person Paul Brewer

Telephone +44 (0) 208 943 6007 Fax

Email paulbrewernplcouk

P a g e | 140

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a CCQM‐K120b

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide amount fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 2179 38027 019 2

2 2170 48002 024 2

3 2181 79970 040 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number 2179

Component Amount fraction Value

Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078079 molmol 000047 molmol 2

O2 020960 molmol 000013 molmol 2

Ar 0009232 molmol 0000018 molmol 2

CH4 lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

Table 1 Composition of standard 1

P a g e | 141

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number 2170

Component Amount fraction Value

Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078069 molmol 000047 molmol 2

O2 020950 molmol 000013 molmol 2

Ar 0009334 molmol 0000019 molmol 2

CH4 lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

Table 2 Composition of standard 2 (Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number 2181

Component Amount fraction Value

Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078055 molmol 000047 molmol 2

O2 020928 molmol 000013 molmol 2

Ar 0009367 molmol 0000019 molmol 2

CH4 lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

Table 3 Composition of standard 3 CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 2179 ‐55 permil 10 permil 2 ‐225 permil 10 permil 2

2 2170 ‐55 permil 10 permil 2 ‐225 permil 10 permil 2

3 2181 ‐55 permil 10 permil 2 ‐225 permil 10 permil 2

Table 4 Isotopic composition of each submitted standard vs VPDB

A4 Uncertainty Budget The estimated uncertainty for the measurement contains the following components

Purity analysis of CO2 and synthetic air

Gravimetric preparation (weighing and atomic weight uncertainties)

Analytical validation

Table 5 details the uncertainty analysis The preparation component includes estimated uncertainty from purity analysis weighing and atomic weights

Relative Uncertainty ()

Identifier Component Preparation

(k=1) Validation

(k=1) Total(k=2)

2179 CO2 0018 002 005

2170 CO2 0014 002 005

2181 CO2 0010 002 005

Table 5 Uncertainty contributors To calculate the combined uncertainty the uncertainties were combined as the square root of the sum of squares The reported uncertainty of the result is based on standard uncertainties multiplied by a coverage factor of k=2 providing a level of confidence of approximately 95

P a g e | 142

A5 Additional information Description of the procedure Three gas mixtures were prepared for this comparison (2170 2179 and 2181) at NPL in synthetic air from sources of CO2 (BOC speciality gases) O2 (BOC speciality gases N 60) N2 (Air Products BIP+) and Ar (Air Products BIP+) The pure industrial source of CO2 was spiked with pure 13CO2 to achieve an isotopic composition close to natural abundance The mixtures were prepared in BOC 10 litre cylinders with Spectraseal passivation Two further sets of three reference standards was prepared and these were used to validate the comparison mixtures The scheme below shows the gravimetric dilutions with nominal CO2 amount fractions

Figure 1 Dilution scheme for gravimetric preparation

A Picarro G2301 Cavity ring-down spectrometer was used to validate the amount fraction of CO2 in mixtures 2170 2179 and 2181 The analyser response to the matrix gas was recorded The analyser response to a reference mixture was then recorded for a five minute period followed by either 2170 2179 or 2181 for the same time This sequence was repeated four times At the end of the experiment the analyser response to the matrix gas was recorded a second time To minimise the effects from zero drift a mean of the analyser response to the matrix gas before and after the experiment was used The amount fractions of 2170 2179 and 2181 were then determined by multiplying the ratio of the analyser response to each mixture and the reference mixture (both were corrected for the analyser response to matrix gas) with the amount fraction of the reference mixture These measurements were used to validate the gravimetric amount fractions submitted Cylinders were maintained at a laboratory temperature of (20 plusmn 3) C throughout the period of analysis Samples were introduced into the analyser at atmospheric pressure (excess flow was passed to vent) using a low volume gas regulator Purity tables for the CO2 Ar N2 and O2 are provided below

P a g e | 143

Component Amount Fraction (micromolmol) Expanded Uncertainty (micromolmol)

CO2 99999980 006

N2 0050 0029

O2 0050 0029

CO 0050 0029

Ar 0050 0029

Table 6 CO2 purity table

Component Amount Fraction (micromolmol) Expanded Uncertainty (micromolmol)

Ar 99999993 002

N2 0039 0023

O2 00050 00029

CO2 0007 0004

CO 00018 00010

CH4 000029 000017

Table 7 Ar purity table

Component Amount Fraction (micromolmol) Expanded Uncertainty (micromolmol)

N2 9999843 16

O2 0015 0009

Ar 1567 157

CO2 000085 000049

CO 000058 000033

CH4 000080 000046

Table 8 N2 purity table

Component Amount Fraction (micromolmol) Expanded Uncertainty (micromolmol)

O2 9999991 03

N2 050 029

Ar 0050 0029

CO2 019 019

CH4 00282 00048

Table 9 O2 purity table The mixtures were prepared on during the period 24th October to 8th November 2016 Measurements to study the stability of the mixtures were carried out over a 6 week period The cylinder pressure of mixtures 2170 2179 and 2181 prior to shipping was gt 10 MPa

P a g e | 144

NPLI

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM-K120

Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM-K120-R

Project name CCQM-K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899-8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute CSIR-National Physical Laboratory INDIA

Address CSIR-National Physical Laboratory Dr KS Krishnan Marg New Delhi ndash 110012 INDIA

Contact Person Dr Prabha Johri

Telephone 91 11 4560 856385658331

Fax 91 11 4560 9310

P a g e | 145

email pjohrinplindiaorg

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM-K120a (only) yes

CCQM-K120b (only) Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification Number

Carbon Dioxide mole fraction XCO2cert molmol

Expanded Uncertainties molmol

Coverage factor

1 JJ108891 37572 322 2

2 JJ108862 48052 304 2

3 JJ108854 79638 503 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix composition Component mol fraction and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) Standard1 Cylinder Number JJ108891

component Mole fraction value

unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0781273 molmol 0002210 molmol 2

O2 0209688 molmol 0000590 molmol 2

Ar 0009040 molmol 0000030 molmol 2

Standard 2 Cylinder Number JJ108862

component Mole fraction value

unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0781989 molmol 0002210 molmol 2

O2 0208853 molmol 0000590 molmol 2

Ar 0009158 molmol 0000030 molmol 2

P a g e | 146

Standard 3 Cylinder Number JJ108854

Component Mole fraction value

unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0781363 molmol 0002210 molmol 2

O2 0209789 molmol 0000594 molmol 2

Ar 0008847 molmol 0000030 molmol 2

A4 Uncertainty Budget The final uncertainty budget was estimated by combining two uncertainty components (ie preparation of PSGM and its analysis both)

(i) The Expanded Uncertainty estimation of all the prepared gas mixtures (PSGMs) has been calculated according to ISO 6142 Preparation of Calibration gas mixtures ndash Gravimetric method taking account of following factors 1 Raymor Balance 1 Mass Pieces 2 Bouancy corrections for weights 3 Handling of cylinder 4 Residual gases in the cylinder 5 Expansion of the cylinder due to filling of gas at High pressure (ii) Uncertainties in the analysis These are calculated taking acount of

1 Standard deviation Repeatability 2 Reproducibility amp 3 Instrument response

A5 Additional Information b) A purity table with uncertainties for pure Ar N2 and O2 parent gas The purity of N2 O2 and Ar parent gases were determined using tiger optics CRDS analyzers model for the following H2O CH4 and CO gas components The moisture of the gases were determined using Tiger Optics moisture analyzer model LaserTrace CH4 was determined using Tiger Optics methan analyzer model MTO-1000-CH4 and CO gas was determined using Tiger Optics CO analyzer model HALO 3-CO Purity of Argon gas was found to be as given below

P a g e | 147

Name of gases Concentration ppm Expanded Uncertainties Coverage factor

H2O moisture 145 023 2

CO gas 027 008 2

CH4 gas Not Detected (ND) (lt0001 )

Purity of N2 gas was found to be as given below

Name of gases Concentration ppm Expanded Uncertainties Coverage factor

H2O moisture 083 005 2

CO gas 34 024 2

CH4 gas ND (lt0001 )

Purity of O2 gas was found to be as given below

Name of gases Concentration ppm Expanded Uncertainties Coverage factor

H2O moisture 095 005 2

CH4 gas ND (lt0001 )

c) A brief out line of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures The preparation procedure involves following steps

1) Preparation of gas mixtures of CO2 in nitrogen gas Al cylinders 10 litre were evacuated and purged with nitogen gas and again evacuated with heating of the cylinders at 60-70oC This process is repeated thrice before any preparation of gas mixture was carried out The theoritical calculations were carried out for the desired concentrations Gas mixtures of CO2 in nitrogen gas from pure gas were prepared in two series in the concentrations around 20544 and 20392 molmol These gas mixtures were diluted in the concentration ranges from ( 370~ 1000 molmol) Total of 9 cylindres were prepared All the preparation of Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) were done in acordance to ISO 6142 Gas Analysis -Preparation of calibration gas mixtures - Gravimetric Method These cylinders were validated in acordance to ISO 6143 Gas analysis - Comparision method for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures Thus the prepared CO2 gas mixtures were certified as CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM)

P a g e | 148

2) Preparation of CO2 in synthetic air These mixtures were prepared from the two series of CO2 premixtures prepared in nitrogen gas in the concentration around 20544 and 20392 molmol as mentioned above The empty cylinders were evacuated and purged with dry nitogen gas and again evacuated with heating This process is repeated thrice for the pre-preparation of the cylinders The thoeritical calculations were carried out similating the desired concentration range as given in CCQM K-120 The required amount of pre mixture of CO2 in Nitrogen is transferred in the pre prepared evacuated cylinder These mixtures were now added with desired amount of pure Argon gas pure oxygen gas and finally top up has been done by nitrogen gas to simulate the synthetic air concentration Total of 9 cylinders were prepared in the concentration ranges ( 370~800 molmol) These cylinders were validated using above prepared binary mixtures of CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures Validation of Synthetic Air Mixtures

The prepared synthetic air gas mixture cylinders were validated using above prepared binary mixtures of CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) as per ISO 6143

The standard and sample gases were injected into eight-port gas sampling valves of the Agilent Gas Chromatograph with flame ionization detector (FID) Model 6890N US 10723001 The GC column used was Haysep D length 12 ft dia 18rdquo and mesh 100120 Helium gas was used as a carrier gas The measurement conditions were the sample loop of 05 ml oven temperature of 80oC detector temperature of 250oC hydrogen and air flow rate of 20 mlmin and 300 mlmin respectively All the Synthetic air CO2 gas mixtures were evaluated using a higher concentration CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) The average response was calculated by using the six values rejecting first and last two values each time for each measurement series The analysis of the cylinders were carried out three times The collected data is analysed and the uncertainty budget was evaluated

f) Cylider pressure before shipment to BIPM

SlNo Cylinder No Conc (Approx) molmol Pressure

1 JJ108891 380 110Bar 1596 psi

2 JJ108862 480 110Bar 1596 psi

3 JJ108854 800 110Bar 1596 psi

The Team members Dr Daya Soni Dr Khem Singh Ms S Bhatt Ms Joty Pokheryal Dr SG Aggarwal Dr PJohri

P a g e | 149

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM-K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM-K120-R (Stability Studies) Project name CCQM-K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899-8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute CSIR-National Physical Laboratory INDIA

Address CSIR-National Physical Laboratory Dr KS Krishnan Marg New Delhi ndash 110012 INDIA

Contact Person Dr Prabha Johri

Telephone 91 11 4560 856385658331

Fax 91 11 4560 9310

email pjohrinplindiaorg

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM-K120a (only) yes

CCQM-K120b (only) Yes

P a g e | 150

Stability Studies Result A3 NMI stability analysis values with its analytical uncertainty budget only

Cylinder Identification Number

Carbon Dioxide mole fraction XCO2cert molmol

Expanded Uncertainties molmol

Coverage factor

1 JJ108891

37824 395 2

2 JJ108862

47857 523 2

3 JJ108854

79880 335 2

A4 Uncertainty Budget The stability uncertainty budget was estimated using analytical uncertainty components only These are calculated taking account of

1 Standard deviation Repeatability 2 Calibration standard uncertainty 3 Instrument response

A5 A brief outline of the Stability Analysis Procedure applied to the Cylinders returned from BIPM France

The cylinders of the synthetic air gas mixtures arrived from BIPM France cylinders were analyzed using the prepared binary mixtures of CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) as per ISO 6143 The cylinders returned from BIPM and the binary standards gas mixtures in nitrogen gas cylinders are put to rotation for over night before using for its stability studies

The standard and sample gases were injected into eight-port gas sampling valves of the Agilent Gas Chromatograph with flame ionization detector (FID) Model 6890N US 10723001 The GC column used was Haysep D length 12 ft dia 18rdquo and mesh 100120 Helium gas was used as a carrier gas The measurement conditions were the sample loop of 05 ml oven temperature of 80oC detector temperature of 250oC hydrogen and air flow rate of 20 mlmin and 300 mlmin respectively All the Synthetic air CO2 gas mixtures were evaluated using a higher concentration CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Reference Gas Mixtures (PRGM) The average response was calculated by using six values rejecting first and last two values each time for each measurement series The analysis of the cylinders was carried out three times The collected data is analyzed and the analytical uncertainty budget was evaluated and reported in the stability result

The Team members Dr Daya Soni Dr Khem Singh Ms S Bhatt Dr SG Aggarwal Dr PJohri

P a g e | 151

UME

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM‐K120‐R

A1 General information

Institute UME

Address TUumlBİTAK UME ‐ Gas Metrology Laboratory Baris Mah Dr Zeki Acar Cad No1 41470 Gebze Kocaeli TURKEY

Contact person Dr Tanıl Tarhan

Telephone + 90 262 679 5000 6401 Fax + 90 262 679 5001

Email taniltarhantubitakgovtr

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2 μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 PSM298266 37992 016 2

2 PSM266468 48042 017 2

3 PSM298347 80076 027 2

P a g e | 152

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number PSM298266

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07803392 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

O2 02099663 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

Ar 00093140 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number PSM266468

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07799681 molmol 00000165 molmol 2

O2 02102293 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

Ar 00093215 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number PSM298347

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07795520 molmol 00000164 molmol 2

O2 02103522 molmol 00000164 molmol 2

Ar 00092945 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 PSM298266 ‐165 005 2 ‐ ‐ ‐

A4 Uncertainty Budget

P a g e | 153

The basis for the uncertainty budget is formed by the uncertainty evaluation from the gravimetric preparation and analytical measurements Gravimetric preparation contains uncertainty sources from weighing and those from purity of the parent gases Gravimetric preparation and uncertainty evaluation have performed according to ISO 6142 [1] The measurement uncertainty of each mixture was determined according to ISO 6143 [2] The combined standard uncertainty of each mixture was determined by the following equation

u u u

where

um standard uncertainty from measurements

ug standard uncertainty from gravimetric preparation

The expanded uncertainty was determined by multiplying the combined standard uncertainty by a coverage factor of 2 with a confidence interval of 95

A5 Additional information Mixtures were produced with synthetic air s) Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas

Main component carbon dioxide

Cylinder Code LG7524

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

carbon dioxide 99997750 924

water 250 144

nitrogen 1500 866

oxygen 500 289

t) Purity tables with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 and Ar parent gas

Main component nitrogen

Cylinder Code LG1220 and LG1221

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

carbon monoxide 005 003

carbon dioxide 005 003

methane 005 003

water 025 014

nitrogen 99999935 021

oxygen 025 014

Main component oxygen

P a g e | 154

Cylinder Code LG3367

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

argon 100 058

carbon dioxide 010 006

methane 010 006

water 150 087

nitrogen 250 144

oxygen 99999480 178

Main component argon

Cylinder Code LG1313

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

argon 99999300 122

water 150 087

nitrogen 400 231

oxygen 150 087

u) Mixtures were prepared according to the scheme displayed in Figure 1 Two different types of the pre‐mixtures were prepared These are 10 and 05 carbon dioxide in nitrogen and 15 argon in nitrogen 05 carbon dioxide in nitrogen and 15 argon in nitrogen pre‐mixtures were used together with pure nitrogen and pure oxygen for the final mixtures

P a g e | 155

Figure 1 Preparation scheme for the mixtures

v) Verification procedure applied to the final mixtures

The carbon dioxide (CO2) in air mixtures were analyzed on a cavity ring‐down spectroscopy (CRDS) instrument ie Picarro G2401 COCO2CH4H2O Analyzer equipped with 16‐Port Distribution Manifold Verification of the mixtures was carried out using own standards Cylinders were equipped with pressure reducers and connected to 16‐port distribution manifold They were flushed three times before the first measurement The analyzer operates vacuum pump to get the sample Therefore excess amount of gas than the amount of gas required by CRDS has been sent to the analyzer by adjusting the reducers The excess gas has been sent to the atmosphere through a bypass connected to sample line in between distribution manifold and the analyzer Each cylinder was measured for 15 minutes which is a sufficient time to obtain stable results The measurement data was collected using CRDS software Software takes about 2850 readings for 15 minutes During the data evaluation total number of 240 readings in between 10‐14 minutes has been used for determination of average values and uncertainties for each cylinder at each measurement

P a g e | 156

w) Stability testing of the mixtures

Pre‐mixtures and final mixtures were prepared in 01‐17 April 2016 First verification was performed in 21‐24 April 2016 Second verification was carried out in 22 September 2016 Final verification was performed 11‐19 October 2016 Measurement results are shown in Figure 2 As can be seen from the figure instrument response does not vary with time for each cylinder Stability testing did not show any instability within the accuracy of the measurement method

Figure 2 Stability measurements

x) Cylinder pressures before shipment to the BIPM are given below

Cylinder Code Pressure bar

PSM298266 86

PSM266468 86

PSM298347 90

References

[1] International Organization for Standardization ldquoISO 6142 Gas analysis ‐ Preparation of calibration gas mixtures ‐ Gravimetric methodsrdquo ISO Geneva 2001

[2] International Organization for Standardization ISO 6143 Gas analysis ‐ Comparison

methods for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures ISO Geneva 2001

300

500

700

900

CO2concentration (μmolmol)

Time

PSM298266 PSM266468 PSM298347

P a g e | 157

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM-K120-R

A1 General information

Institute UME

Address TUumlBİTAK UME ‐ Gas Metrology Laboratory Baris Mah Dr Zeki Acar Cad No1 41470 Gebze Kocaeli TURKEY

Contact person Dr Tanıl Tarhan

Telephone + 90 262 679 5000 6401 Fax + 90 262 679 5001

Email taniltarhantubitakgovtr

P a g e | 158

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2 μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 PSM298266 37992 019 2

2 PSM266468 48042 025 2

3 PSM298347 80076 036 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number PSM298266

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07803392 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

O2 02099663 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

Ar 00093140 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number PSM266468

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07799681 molmol 00000165 molmol 2

P a g e | 159

O2 02102293 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

Ar 00093215 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number PSM298347

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07795520 molmol 00000164 molmol 2

O2 02103522 molmol 00000164 molmol 2

Ar 00092945 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 PSM298266 ‐165 005 2 ‐ ‐ ‐

A4 Uncertainty Budget

The basis for the uncertainty budget is formed by the uncertainty evaluation from the gravimetric preparation and analytical measurements Gravimetric preparation contains uncertainty sources from weighing and those from purity of the parent gases Gravimetric preparation and uncertainty evaluation have performed according to ISO 6142 [1] The measurement uncertainty of each mixture was determined according to ISO 6143 [2] The mixtures were analyzed for stability after receiving them back from BIPM The combined standard uncertainty of each mixture was determined by the following equation

u u u u

where

um standard uncertainty from measurements

ug standard uncertainty from gravimetric preparation

us standard uncertainty for stability

The expanded uncertainty was determined by multiplying the combined standard uncertainty by a coverage factor of 2 with a confidence interval of 95

P a g e | 160

A5 Additional information Mixtures were produced from pure components of CO2 N2 O2 and Ar y) Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas

Main component carbon dioxide

Cylinder Code LG7524

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

carbon dioxide 99997750 924

water 250 144

nitrogen 1500 866

oxygen 500 289

z) Purity tables with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 and Ar parent gas

Main component nitrogen

Cylinder Code LG1220 and LG1221

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

carbon monoxide 005 003

carbon dioxide 005 003

methane 005 003

water 025 014

nitrogen 99999935 021

oxygen 025 014

Main component oxygen

Cylinder Code LG3367

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

argon 100 058

carbon dioxide 010 006

methane 010 006

water 150 087

nitrogen 250 144

oxygen 99999480 178

Main component argon

Cylinder Code LG1313

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

argon 99999300 122

water 150 087

nitrogen 400 231

oxygen 150 087

P a g e | 161

aa) Mixtures were prepared according to the scheme displayed in Figure 1 Two different types

of the pre‐mixtures were prepared These are 10 and 05 carbon dioxide in nitrogen and 15 argon in nitrogen 05 carbon dioxide in nitrogen and 15 argon in nitrogen pre‐mixtures were used together with pure nitrogen and pure oxygen for the final mixtures

Figure 1 Preparation scheme for the mixtures

bb) Verification procedure applied to the final mixtures

The carbon dioxide (CO2) in air mixtures were analyzed on a cavity ring‐down spectroscopy (CRDS) instrument ie Picarro G2401 COCO2CH4H2O Analyzer equipped with 16‐Port Distribution Manifold Verification of the mixtures was carried out using own standards Cylinders were equipped with pressure reducers and connected to 16‐port distribution manifold They were flushed three times before the first measurement The analyzer operates vacuum pump to get the sample Therefore excess amount of gas than the amount of gas required by CRDS has been sent to the analyzer by adjusting the reducers

P a g e | 162

The excess gas has been sent to the atmosphere through a bypass connected to sample line in between distribution manifold and the analyzer Each cylinder was measured for 15 minutes which is a sufficient time to obtain stable results The measurement data was collected using CRDS software Software takes about 2850 readings for 15 minutes During the data evaluation total number of 240 readings in between 10‐14 minutes has been used for determination of average values and uncertainties for each cylinder at each measurement

cc) Stability testing of the mixtures

Pre‐mixtures and final mixtures were prepared in 01‐17 April 2016 First verification was performed in 21‐24 April 2016 Second verification was carried out in 22 September 2016 Final verification was performed during 11‐19 October 2016 Measurement results are shown in Figure 2 As can be seen from the figure instrument response does not vary with time for each cylinder Stability testing did not show any instability within the accuracy of the measurement method before sending the cylinders to BIPM

Figure 2 Stability measurements before sending the cylinders

After receiving the cylinders they have been analyzed for stability Measurements were carried out during 23‐24 August 2017 and 06‐07 September 2017 Instrument responses were plotted against time as shown in Figure 3 The slope of the responses has been checked Uncertainty for stability has been determined and has been included in the combined uncertainty

300

500

700

900

CO2concentration (μmolmol)

Time

PSM298266 PSM266468 PSM298347

P a g e | 163

Figure 3 Stability measurements after receiving the cylinders

dd) Cylinder pressures before shipment to the BIPM are given below

Cylinder Code Pressure bar

PSM298266 86

PSM266468 86

PSM298347 90

References

[1] International Organization for Standardization ldquoISO 6142 Gas analysis ‐ Preparation of calibration gas mixtures ‐ Gravimetric methodsrdquo ISO Geneva 2001

[2] International Organization for Standardization ISO 6143 Gas analysis ‐ Comparison

methods for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures ISO Geneva 2001

300

500

700

900

CO2concentration (μmolmol)

Time

PSM298266 PSM266468 PSM298347

P a g e | 164

VNIIM

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQMK120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQMK120R

Project name CCQMK120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air Standards Proposed dates 092016 to 122017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 208998300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores

BIPM Chemistry Department Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg A1 General information Institute

DI Mendeleyev Institute for Metrology (VNIIM )

Address

19 Moskovsky pr St Petersburg 190005 Russia

Contact person Leonid Konopelko Telephone +7 812 315 11 45 Fax +7 812 315 15 17 Email

fhib10vniimru

P a g e | 165

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo CCQMK120a

Yes

CCQMK120b

Yes

A3 NMI submitted values Table 1 Cylinder Identification

number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction xCO2 cert μmolmol

Expanded uncertainty U(x CO2 cert) μmolmol

Coverage factor

1 M365601

38020 011 2

2 M365664

48018 013 2

3 M365707

80073 019 2

Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) Table 2 (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number M365601 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

781015 10-2 molmol 00013 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209188 10-2 molmol 00013 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09416 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000094 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Table 3 (Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number M365664 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

780928 10-2 molmol 00011 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209270 10-2 molmol 00012 10-2 molmol 2

Ar 09322 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

P a g e | 166

CH4 000000096 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Table 4 (Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number M365707 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

781000 10-2 molmol 00011 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209199 10-2 molmol 00012 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09000 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000097 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Uncertainty in the tables 2-4 includes only constituents related to gravimetry (weighing and purity) Table 5 CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional) Cylinder

Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C)

CoverageFactor

δ18O U(δ18O) CoverageFactor

1 M365601 - 480 09 2 - - - 2 M365664 - 480 09 2 - - - 3 M365707 - 480 09 2 - - - A4 Uncertainty Budget Table 6 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365601

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution

ui(y) μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200 μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999381 μmolmol B Rectangular 0015 μmolmol 006733 000101

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374 μmolmol 000016 000006

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030 μmolmol 000534 000016

Weighing premixture

CO2 2015723 g AB Normal 000223g ‐1854106 ‐004140

N2 115359704 g AB Normal 001962 g 032397 000636

Weighing pre‐ 2048733 g AB Normal 000203 g ‐1791563 ‐003630

P a g e | 167

final mixture

mixture

Ar 790915 g AB Normal 000200 g 045258 000091

O2 14075497 g AB Normal 000353 g 056493 000200

N2 43993136 g AB Normal 001021 g 064543 000659

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal 000035 gmol 86286 000302

Combined standard uncertainty 005596

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0112

Table 7 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365664

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution ui(y)

μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200

μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999390 μmolmol B Rectangular 0011

μmolmol 006909 000076

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374

μmolmol 000020 0000075

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030

μmolmol 000534 000016

Weighing premixture

CO2 1947854 g AB Normal 000224 g ‐2423572 ‐005424

N2 111850932 g AB Normal 001950 g 042206 000823

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

2586420 g AB Normal

000204 g ‐1775177 ‐003626

Ar 780100 g AB Normal 000200 g 057374 000115

O2 14028618 g AB Normal 000391 g 071611 000280

N2 43288272 g AB Normal 000915 g 081821 000749

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal

000035 gmol

109066 000382

Combined standard uncertainty 0066379

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0133

Table 8 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365707

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution

ui(y)

P a g e | 168

μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200 μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999390 μmolmol B Rectangular 0011μmolmol 006733 000076

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374 μmolmol 000035 000013

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030 μmolmol 000500 000015

Weighing premixture

CO2 2015723 g AB Normal 000223g ‐3905886 ‐008721

N2 115359704 g AB Normal 001962 g 068249 001339

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

4282195 g AB Normal

000220 g ‐1733744 ‐003823

Ar 750252 g AB Normal 000202 g 096046 000194

O2 13969676 g AB Normal 000403 g 119851 000483

N2 41448867 g AB Normal 000834 g 136969 001143

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal 000035 gmol 181777 0006362

Combined standard uncertainty

009719

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0194

Uncertainty due to weighing includes constituents related to accuracy of balance buoyancy effect resulting from change of cylinder volume during filling mass pierces used drift of balance residual gas in cylinder A5 Additional information Table 9 Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas Cylinder N 74318 Main component CO2 Mole fraction 99999345

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

N2 025 014

CO 0029 0001

CH4 0149 0002

He 05 029

H2 322 007

O2 025 014

H2O 215 011

Purity tables with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 and Ar parent gases Table 10 Purity table for N2

P a g e | 169

Monoblock Main component N2 Mole fraction 999998672

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

Ar 0916 0011

O2 00015 00009

CO2 00025 00014

H2 00025 00014

CH4 00025 00014

CO 00025 00014

H2O 040 020

Table 11 Purity table for O2 Cylinder N 910281 Main component O2 Mole fraction 999999381

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

H2 00025 00014

Ar 0181 0004

N2 0307 0012

Kr 00025 00014

CO 00075 00043

CH4 00347 00008

CO2 0081 0005

Xe 00025 00014

Table 12 Purity table for Ar Cylinder N 283162 Main component Ar Mole fraction 999998209

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

O2 00231 00013

N2 1188 0015

CH4 0015 0009

CO2 0030 0017

H2 0025 0014

CO 0010 0006

H2O 050 001

P a g e | 170

c) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures Preparation of final mixtures (СO2 in synthetic air) was carried out from pure substances in 2 stages 1-st stage ndash 3 mixtures СO2N2 ndashlevel 11 2-nd stage ndash 3x3 target mixtures СO2synthetic air All the mixtures were prepared in Luxfer cylinders (V=10 and 5 dm3) d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures CRDS analyzer was used for verification 4 measurement series were carried out within each verification procedure SD of a single measurement (reproducibility between series) was 0003 -0006 CRDS analyzer was used for verification Instrument Picarro G2401 Measurement cell temperature 45оС Measurement cell pressure 18665 kPa Data collection by ldquoPicarro Incrdquo software CRDS analyzer was used for δ13C measurements Instrument Picarro G2131i Reference materials used for calibration IAEA‐CO‐8 IAEA‐CH‐7 Measurement cell temperature 45оС Measurement cell pressure 18665 kPa Data collection by ldquoPicarro Incrdquo software e) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM The final mixtures were prepared 0310 -13102016 First verification measurement was carried out 1710 -2110 2016 Second verification measurement was carried out 2610 -28102016 Verification measurements were performed by checking consistency within the group of the 3x3 prepared mixtures uver =0003 Stability testing (short-term) did not show instability within the accuracy of the measurement method f) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

89 MPa for M365601 90 MPa for M365664 93 MPa for M365707

P a g e | 171

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQMK120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQMK120R

Project name CCQMK120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air Standards Proposed dates 092016 to 122017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 208998300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores

BIPM Chemistry Department Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg A1 General information Institute

DI Mendeleyev Institute for Metrology (VNIIM )

Address

19 Moskovsky pr St Petersburg 190005 Russia

Contact person Leonid Konopelko Telephone +7 812 315 11 45 Fax +7 812 315 15 17 Email

fhib10vniimru

P a g e | 172

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo CCQMK120a

Yes

CCQMK120b

Yes

A3 NMI submitted values Table 1 Cylinder Identification

number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction xCO2 cert μmolmol

Expanded uncertainty U(x CO2 cert) μmolmol

Coverage factor

1 M365601

38020 011 2

2 M365664

48018 013 2

3 M365707

80073 019 2

Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) Table 2 (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number M365601 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

781015 10-2 molmol 00013 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209188 10-2 molmol 00013 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09416 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000094 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Table 3 (Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number M365664 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

780928 10-2 molmol 00011 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209270 10-2 molmol 00012 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09322 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000096 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured

P a g e | 173

Table 4 (Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number M365707 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

781000 10-2 molmol 00011 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209199 10-2 molmol 00012 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09000 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000097 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Uncertainty in the tables 2-4 includes only constituents related to gravimetry (weighing and purity) Table 5 CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional) Cylinder

Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C)

CoverageFactor

δ18O U(δ18O) CoverageFactor

1 M365601 - 480 09 2 - - - 2 M365664 - 480 09 2 - - - 3 M365707 - 480 09 2 - - - A4 Uncertainty Budget Table 6 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365601

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution

ui(y) μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200 μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999381 μmolmol B Rectangular 0015 μmolmol 006733 000101

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374 μmolmol 000016 000006

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030 μmolmol 000534 000016

Weighing premixture

CO2 2015723 g AB Normal 000223g ‐1854106 ‐004140

N2 115359704 g AB Normal 001962 g 032397 000636

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

2048733 g AB Normal

000203 g ‐1791563 ‐003630

Ar 790915 g AB Normal 000200 g 045258 000091

O2 14075497 g AB Normal 000353 g 056493 000200

P a g e | 174

N2 43993136 g AB Normal 001021 g 064543 000659

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal 000035 gmol 86286 000302

Combined standard uncertainty 005596

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0112

Table 7 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365664

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution ui(y)

μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200

μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999390 μmolmol B Rectangular 0011

μmolmol 006909 000076

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374

μmolmol 000020 0000075

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030

μmolmol 000534 000016

Weighing premixture

CO2 1947854 g AB Normal 000224 g ‐2423572 ‐005424

N2 111850932 g AB Normal 001950 g 042206 000823

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

2586420 g AB Normal

000204 g ‐1775177 ‐003626

Ar 780100 g AB Normal 000200 g 057374 000115

O2 14028618 g AB Normal 000391 g 071611 000280

N2 43288272 g AB Normal 000915 g 081821 000749

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal

000035 gmol

109066 000382

Combined standard uncertainty 0066379

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0133

Table 8 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365707

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution

ui(y) μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200 μmolmol 000545 000109

P a g e | 175

Purity of O2 999999390 μmolmol B Rectangular 0011μmolmol 006733 000076

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374 μmolmol 000035 000013

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030 μmolmol 000500 000015

Weighing premixture

CO2 2015723 g AB Normal 000223g ‐3905886 ‐008721

N2 115359704 g AB Normal 001962 g 068249 001339

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

4282195 g AB Normal

000220 g ‐1733744 ‐003823

Ar 750252 g AB Normal 000202 g 096046 000194

O2 13969676 g AB Normal 000403 g 119851 000483

N2 41448867 g AB Normal 000834 g 136969 001143

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal 000035 gmol 181777 0006362

Combined standard uncertainty

009719

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0194

Uncertainty due to weighing includes constituents related to accuracy of balance buoyancy effect resulting from change of cylinder volume during filling mass pierces used drift of balance residual gas in cylinder A5 Additional information Table 9 Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas Cylinder N 74318 Main component CO2 Mole fraction 99999345

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

N2 025 014

CO 0029 0001

CH4 0149 0002

He 05 029

H2 322 007

O2 025 014

H2O 215 011

Purity tables with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 and Ar parent gases Table 10 Purity table for N2 Monoblock Main component N2 Mole fraction 999998672

P a g e | 176

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

Ar 0916 0011

O2 00015 00009

CO2 00025 00014

H2 00025 00014

CH4 00025 00014

CO 00025 00014

H2O 040 020

Table 11 Purity table for O2 Cylinder N 910281 Main component O2 Mole fraction 999999381

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

H2 00025 00014

Ar 0181 0004

N2 0307 0012

Kr 00025 00014

CO 00075 00043

CH4 00347 00008

CO2 0081 0005

Xe 00025 00014

Table 12 Purity table for Ar Cylinder N 283162 Main component Ar Mole fraction 999998209

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

O2 00231 00013

N2 1188 0015

CH4 0015 0009

CO2 0030 0017

H2 0025 0014

CO 0010 0006

H2O 050 001

c) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures

P a g e | 177

Preparation of final mixtures (СO2 in synthetic air) was carried out from pure substances in 2 stages 1-st stage ndash 3 mixtures СO2N2 ndashlevel 11 2-nd stage ndash 3x3 target mixtures СO2synthetic air All the mixtures were prepared in Luxfer cylinders (V=10 and 5 dm3) d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures CRDS analyzer was used for verification 4 measurement series were carried out within each verification procedure SD of a single measurement (reproducibility between series) was 0003 -0006 CRDS analyzer was used for verification Instrument Picarro G2401 Measurement cell temperature 45оС Measurement cell pressure 18665 kPa Data collection by ldquoPicarro Incrdquo software CRDS analyzer was used for δ13C measurements Instrument Picarro G2131i Reference materials used for calibration IAEA‐CO‐8 IAEA‐CH‐7 Measurement cell temperature 45оС Measurement cell pressure 18665 kPa Data collection by ldquoPicarro Incrdquo software e) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM The final mixtures were prepared 0310 -13102016 First verification measurement was carried out 1710 -2110 2016 Second verification measurement was carried out 2610 -28102016 Verification measurements were performed by checking consistency within the group of the 3x3 prepared mixtures uver =0003 Stability testing (short-term) did not show instability within the accuracy of the measurement method Long-term stability testing (measurements 2108-23082017 and 0910-11102017) did not show instability within the accuracy of the measurement method f) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

89 MPa for M365601 90 MPa for M365664 93 MPa for M365707

P a g e | 178

VSL

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 179

P a g e | 180

P a g e | 181

Page 9: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM

P a g e | 9

uncertainties will only be reported in an annex (see ANNEX II- ) (Table 15) with no influence on the KCRV and the degree of equivalence (DOE) of the comparison Figure 1 plots the CO2 mole fraction reported by the participants for each gas standard In this figure the error bars represent the standard uncertainty associated with the reported value It can be observed that participants prepared all mixtures with a CO2 mole fraction within 10 micromol mol-1 of the nominal values as requested At 380 micromolmol NPLI submitted the mixture with the smallest CO2 mole fraction 37572plusmn322 micromolmol and NIMJ with the highest 38662plusmn005 micromolmol At 480 micromolmol NIMJ produced the lowest mole fraction 47130plusmn005 micromolmol and NIM the highest 48915plusmn022 micromolmol At 800 micromolmol NOAA produced the lowest mole fraction 79408plusmn048 micromolmol and NIM the highest 80982plusmn026 micromolmol The expanded uncertainties reported by the participants are plotted in Figure 2 Regarding the gas matrix composition thirty-five standards were produced in synthetic air and nine in purified (scrubbed) real air (see Table 5) The compositions of the mixtures reported by participants are listed in Table 6 Seven standards out of forty-four mixtures were not within specifications (gas mixture composition) as requested in the comparison protocol1

7 Measurements at the BIPM

On receipt by the BIPM all cylinders were allowed to equilibrate at laboratory temperature for at least 24 hours All cylinders were rolled for at least 1 hour to ensure homogeneity of the mixture

Cylinders were analysed in batches of n cylinders first by GC-FID then by FTIR and finally by the Delta Ray

For FTIR measurements each batch contained 4 cylinders from participants and 2 controls (at nominal mole fractions of 480 and 800 micromolmol) Each cylinder was connected from the pressure reducer to one inlet of a 32-inlet automatic gas sampler The procedure before starting measurements was identical as described below for GC-FID The reported value is the drift corrected ratio between the FTIR response and one control cylinder (at ~ 800 micromol mol-1) with a further correction required to take into account the isotopic composition of each mixtures Due to depletion of the control cylinder at nominally 480 micromolmol before completion of all measurements only ratios against the 800 micromolmol cylinder could be calculated for all standards Further details regarding the FTIR measurements are described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure FTIR

1 This nominal fraction limits were given in order to avoid possible biases that could be introduced into the spectroscopic comparison method (FTIR) due to variation in the composition of the air matrix in different standards For those standards that did not meet the tolerances specified in the protocol the BIPM included an additional uncertainty component in its FTIR analytical uncertainty to account for the impact of this

P a g e | 10

When the cylinders were analysed by GC-FID batches were composed of between four and six participantsrsquo cylinders three control cylinders (A B and C at nominal mole fractions of 380 480 and 800 micromolmol respectively) for ratio quantification and additional cylinders if required to maintain the total batch size of nine standards Each cylinder was connected from the pressure reducer to one inlet of a 16-inlet automatic gas sampler The sampler was connected to a gas chromatograph (GC-FID) The pressure reducer of each cylinder was flushed nine times with the mixture The cylinder valve was then closed leaving the high pressure side of the pressure reducer at the cylinder pressure and the low pressure side of the pressure reducer at ~300 kPa (abs) The cylinders were left stand at least 24 hours to allow conditioning of the pressure reducers The reported value was the drift corrected ratio between the GC-FID response and one control cylinder (at ~ 480 micromol mol-1) These measurements were performed under intermediate precision conditions (over ten weeks) Ratios against the other control cylinders were calculated but no substantial difference was observed with the ratio against the control cylinder at 480 micromolmol Further details regarding GC-FID measurements are described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure GC-FID

When the cylinders were analyzed by the Delta Ray each batch contained 4 cylinders from participants and 2 calibration standards Each cylinder was connected from the pressure reducer to one inlet of a 16-inlet automatic gas sampler The same procedure was again applied for flushing the gas lines Further details are described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure Delta Ray

The measurements performed by the Delta Ray analyser were only used to measure the isotopic ratios in each cylinder and further correct the FTIR responses due isotopic differences between the control cylinders and the samples as described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure FTIR In this manner the FTIR reported values for each cylinder were corrected for the isotopic composition and further ratioed to the response to a control cylinder (also corrected for the isotopic composition)

71 Measurements results

Measurements were performed at the BIPM from February to April 2017 Table 7 lists the inlet pressure before and after the standards were analyzed by the BIPM

Each cylinder was value assigned using the methods described in section 7 (details in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure)

Results of these series of measurements are listed in Table 8 where

FTR is the (mean) ratio between the FTIR response to the mixture under analysis and the control cylinder both corrected for the isotopic composition

FTRu is the standard uncertainty of the reported ratio based on FTIR measurements

(described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure FTIR)

wGCR is the reported value based on GC-FID measurements

P a g e | 11

GCRu the standard uncertainty of the reported value based on GC-FID (described in

ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure GC-FID) The δ13C and δ18O measurements on the VPDB-CO2 scale performed by Delta Ray are listed in Table 11 The typical uncertainties for each of the methods used by the BIPM are listed in Table 4

Comparison method name

Measurement quantity Symbol unit Typical relative

standard uncertainty ()

FTIR Ratio to control cylinder under intermediate precision condition FTR 1 0009

GC-FID Ratio to control cylinder under intermediate precision conditions wGCR 1 0007

Table 4 Comparison methods used during the CCQM-K120 international comparison and typical uncertainties obtained by the BIPM

Participant Cylinder references Gas Matrix

NMIrsquos assigned CO2 mole fraction xNMI

(micromol mol-1)

NMIrsquos assigned CO2

expanded uncertainty U(xNMI)

k = 2 (micromol mol-1)

Before the return of cylinders

BFKH OMH54 Synthetic Air 379840 1710

BFKH OMH44 Synthetic Air 479890 2110

BFKH OMH69 Synthetic Air 800300 2920

GUM D298392 Synthetic Air 380100 4400

GUM D298393 Synthetic Air 478100 5200

GUM D298402 Synthetic Air 800500 8600

INRIM D247440 Synthetic Air 479300 1600

INRIM D247445 Synthetic Air 798900 2600

KRISS D500642 Synthetic Air 378900 0200

KRISS D500647 Synthetic Air 480000 0200

KRISS D500672 Synthetic Air 800800 0400

LNE 1029045 Synthetic Air 379480 0790

LNE 1029047 Synthetic Air 477600 1000

LNE 1029048 Synthetic Air 802200 1700

NIM FB03747 Synthetic Air 383430 0200

NIM FB03744 Synthetic Air 489150 0220

NIM FB03748 Synthetic Air 809820 0260

NIST FB04278 Real Air 379045 0391

NIST FB04300 Real Air 472662 0428

NIST FB04287 Real Air 794533 1029

NMIJ CPC00486 Real Air 386617 0050

P a g e | 12

NMIJ CPC00494 Real Air 471301 0051

NMIJ CPC00558 Real Air 803658 0078

NMISA M51 8232 Synthetic Air 380200 2000

NMISA M51 8167 Synthetic Air 479500 1600

NMISA M51 8244 Synthetic Air 799100 1000

NOAA CC310084 Real Air 379500 0210

NOAA CC305198 Real Air 479260 0260

NOAA CB11668 Real Air 794080 0480

NPL 2179 Synthetic Air 380270 0190

NPL 2170 Synthetic Air 480020 0240

NPL 2181 Synthetic Air 799700 0400

NPLI JJ108891 Synthetic Air 375720 3220

NPLI JJ108862 Synthetic Air 480520 3040

NPLI JJ108854 Synthetic Air 796380 5030

UME PSM298266 Synthetic Air 379920 0190

UME PSM266468 Synthetic Air 480420 0250

UME PSM298347 Synthetic Air 800760 0360

VNIIM M365601 Synthetic Air 380200 0110

VNIIM M365664 Synthetic Air 480180 0130

VNIIM M365707 Synthetic Air 800730 0190

VSL 5604614 Synthetic Air 378900 0280

VSL 5604880 Synthetic Air 480480 0360

VSL 5604705 Synthetic Air 795700 0600

Table 5 Standards and reported values provided by participants Re-submitted values following stability testing which were included following the decision of the CCQM GAWG see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of

the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

Figure 1 CO2 mole fractions xNMI reported by participants The error bars represents the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the submitted values

GUM KRISS LNE NIM NMIJ NMISA NOAA NPL VNIIM VSL BFKH NIST NPLI UME374

376

378

380

382

384

386

GUM INRIM KRISS LNE NIM NMIJ NMISA NOAA NPL VNIIM VSL BFKH NIST NPLI UME460

465

470

475

480

485

490GUM INRIM KRISS LNE NMIJ NOAA NPL VNIIM VSL NIM NMISA BFKH NIST NPLI UME

792

796

800

804

808

812

x NM

I (

mol

mol

-1)

P a g e | 14

Figure 2 Participantsrsquo assigned CO2 expanded uncertainties U(xNMI)

NM

IJ

NM

IJ

NM

IJ

VN

IIM

VN

IIM

UM

E

UM

E

NP

L

VN

IIM

KR

ISS

KR

ISS

NIM

NO

AA

NIM

NP

L

NIM

NO

AA

UM

E

VS

L

VS

L

NIS

T

KR

ISS

NP

L

NIS

T

NO

AA

VS

L

LNE

LNE

NM

ISA

NIS

T

INR

IM

NM

ISA

BF

KH

LNE

NM

ISA

BF

KH

INR

IM

BF

KH

NP

LI

NP

LI

GU

M

NP

LI

GU

M

GU

M

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9U

(xN

MI)

m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 15

Participant Number of Cylinder

NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos NMIrsquos

assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned assigned

N2 expanded

uncertainty O2

expanded uncertainty

Ar expanded

uncertainty CH4 mole fraction

expanded uncertainty

N2O mole fraction

expanded uncertainty

mole fraction

k =2 mole fraction k=2 mole fraction k =2 k=2 k=2

xN2 U(xN2) xO2 U(xO2) xAr U(xAr) xNMI U(xNMI) xNMI U(xNMI)

(molmol) (molmol) (molmol) (molmol) (molmol) (molmol) (nmolmol) (nmolmol) (nmolmol) (nmolmol)

BFKH OMH54 0780390 0000160 0209615 0000048 0009607 0000017 1030 1200

BFKH OMH44 0780640 0000160 0209514 0000048 0009360 0000017 1030 1200

BFKH OMH69 0780720 0000160 0209161 0000048 0009314 0000017 1030 1200

GUM D298392 0780800 0000200 0209500 0000100 0009250 0000010

GUM D298393 0780700 0000200 0209600 0000100 0009190 0000010

GUM D298402 0780200 0000200 0209700 0000100 0009380 0000010

INRIM D247440 0781132 0000006 0209063 0000006 0009326 0000004

INRIM D247445 0782389 0000006 0207553 0000005 0009259 0000004

KRISS D500642 0781139 0000005 0209256 0000004 0009226 0000001 9 2 0200 0000

KRISS D500647 0780915 0000004 0209152 0000004 0009452 0000001 10 3 0200 0000

KRISS D500672 0780407 0000004 0209452 0000004 0009339 0000001 15 3 0200 0000

LNE 1029045 0780686 0000025 0209528 0000019 0009407 0000022

LNE 1029047 0781355 0000025 0208794 0000018 0009374 0000022

LNE 1029048 0782710 0000027 0207187 0000021 0009301 0000021

NIM FB03747 0782000 0000029 0209000 0000028 0009220 0000010 1 0 0791 0607

NIM FB03744 0781000 0000028 0210000 0000026 0009040 0000010 1 0 0790 0601

NIM FB03748 0781000 0000027 0210000 0000026 0007940 0000010 1 0 0790 0586

NIST FB04278 0780812 0000118 0209470 0000710 0009339 0000370

NIST FB04300 0780771 0000128 0209422 0000081 0009334 0000034

P a g e | 16

NIST FB04287 0780499 0000114 0209370 0000067 0009336 0000040

NMIJ CPC00486 0780915 0000025 0209365 0000007 0009334 0000024 2 2 0900 0900

NMIJ CPC00494 0780937 0000024 0209259 0000007 0009333 0000024 3 2 0900 0900

NMIJ CPC00558 0780602 0000022 0209270 0000006 0009325 0000021 3 2 0900 0900

NMISA M51 8232 0780700 0000048 0209600 0000015 0009400 0000005 7 4 0000 0000

NMISA M51 8167 0780900 0000028 0209600 0000011 0008900 0000005 9 6 0000 0000

NMISA M51 8244 0779300 0000031 0210600 0000016 0009300 0000005 10 6 0000 0000

NOAA CC310084 0209500 0000200 1762 3 317200 0500

NOAA CC305198 0209500 0000200 1887 4 328600 0500

NOAA CB11668 0209500 0000200 1889 4 328800 0500

NPL 2179 0780790 0000470 0209600 0000130 0009232 0000018 lt10 - lt10 0000

NPL 2170 0780690 0780690 0209500 0209500 0009334 0009334 lt10 - lt10 0000

NPL 2181 0780550 0000470 0209280 0000130 0009367 0000019 lt10 - lt10 0000

NPLI JJ108891 0781273 0002210 0209688 0000590 0009040 0000030

NPLI JJ108862 0781989 0002210 0208853 0000590 0009158 0000030

NPLI JJ108854 0781363 0002210 0209789 0000594 0008847 0000030

UME PSM298266 0780339 0000017 0209966 0000017 0009314 0000002

UME PSM266468 0779968 0000017 0210229 0000017 0009322 0000002

UME PSM298347 0779552 0000016 0210352 0000016 0009295 0000002

VNIIM M365601 0781015 0000013 0209188 0000013 0009416 0000005 9 2

VNIIM M365664 0780928 0000011 0209270 0000012 0009322 0000005 10 2

VNIIM M365707 0781000 0000011 0209199 0000012 0009000 0000005 10 2

VSL 5604614 0781177 0000017 0209152 0000016 0009292 0000006 16 7 0021 0024

VSL 5604880 0781092 0000017 0209146 0000016 0009281 0000006 16 7 0021 0024

VSL 5604705 0780708 0000017 0209246 0000015 0009251 0000006 16 7 0021 0024

Table 6 Matrix composition of the submitted gas mixtures according to participantsrsquo reports in ANNEX V Synthetic Air is identified as S A and Purified real air as R A No data given

P a g e | 17

Number Date of pressure on pressure on Number Date of pressure on pressure on

Lab of Cylinder arrival arrival departure Lab of Cylinder arrival arrival departure

Mpa Mpa Mpa Mpa

BFKH OMH54 1292016 995 776 NMISA M51 8232 19122016 1297 952

BFKH OMH44 1292016 959 784 NMISA M51 8167 19122016 96 709

BFKH OMH69 1292016 984 755 NMISA M51 8244 19122016 1061 572

GUM D298392 28092016 1446 1103 NOAA CC310084 322017 1348 1282

GUM D298393 28092016 1523 116 NOAA CC305198 322017 1342 1284

GUM D298402 28092016 1505 108 NOAA CB11668 322017 1194 1138

INRIM D247440 13012017 897 534 NPL 2179 9122016 1046 855

INRIM D247445 13012017 922 544 NPL 2170 9122016 1119 94

KRISS D500642 20122016 927 739 NPL 2181 9122016 1112 935

KRISS D500647 20122016 884 711 NPLI JJ108891 922017 10 836

KRISS D500672 20122016 905 703 NPLI JJ108862 922017 105 897

LNE 1029045 28112016 1311 1113 NPLI JJ108854 922017 982 811

LNE 1029047 28112016 1287 1113 UME PSM298266 23112016 903 582

LNE 1029048 28112016 1322 1141 UME PSM266468 23112016 908 546

NIM FB03747 14122016 82 527 UME PSM298347 23112016 918 542

NIM FB03744 14122016 865 593 VNIIM M365601 512017 84 43

NIM FB03748 14122016 802 473 VNIIM M365664 512017 866 537

NIST FB04278 312017 1003 725 VNIIM M365707 512017 853 527

NIST FB04300 312017 1023 746 VSL 5604614 15112016 1049 634

NIST FB04287 312017 1005 721 VSL 5604880 15112016 1012 68

NMIJ CPC00486 922017 957 753 VSL 5604705 15112016 1045 707

NMIJ CPC00494 922017 928 752

NMIJ CPC00558 922017 84 677

Table 7 Pressure of the gas standards on arrival and departure from the BIPM

P a g e | 18

xNMI u(xNMI)

FTR

FTRu

wGCR

GCRu

Participant

Number of Cylinder

Assigned NMIrsquos CO2 mole

fraction in

(micromolmol)

Assigned NMIrsquos

Standard uncertainty

(k=1) (micromolmol)

FTIR (Under intermediate precision conditions)

Ratio to control

cylinder

Standard uncertainty in the Ratio to

control cylinder

GC-FID

(Under intermediate precision conditions)

Ratio to control

cylinder

Standard uncertainty in the Ratio to control

cylinder

BFKH OMH54 379800 0855 0435893607 0000026077 0787699648 0000056828 BFKH OMH44 479900 1055 0539981600 0000030887 0976036480 0000059163

BFKH OMH69 800300 1460 0930134790 0000079551 1681896740 0000095864

GUM D298392 380100 2200 0441372447 0000014142 0797442344 0000052495

GUM D298393 478100 2600 0555225000 0000027459 1003704868 0000094363

GUM D298402 800500 4300 0929933927 0000085245 1681786329 0000104750

INRIM D247440 479300 0800 0556774608 0000200000 1006168965 0000071077

INRIM D247445 798900 1300 0927989884 0000059393 1677871699 0000087418

KRISS D500642 378900 0100 0440414238 0000026926 0795445471 0000074696

KRISS D500647 480000 0100 0557780245 0000035341 1008228786 0000056189

KRISS D500672 800800 0200 0930402740 0000108930 1682410057 0000106300

LNE 1029045 379480 0395 0440901535 0000025239 0796419628 0000056088

LNE 1029047 477600 0500 0554855777 0000046174 1002959828 0000101902

LNE 1029048 802200 0850 0932191570 0000046232 1685756190 0000102865

NIM FB03747 383430 0100 0445715112 0000021260 0804945901 0000057626

NIM FB03744 489150 0110 0568919872 0000044283 1028323070 0000061887

NIM FB03748 809820 0130 0941620390 0000127224 1702705250 0000084949

NIST FB04278 379045 0195 0441858957 0000014036 0798159371 0000076697

NIST FB04300 472662 0214 0550247743 0000021932 0994649947 0000056864

NIST FB04287 794530 0514 0924730373 0000047693 1672406610 0000052361

NMIJ CPC00486 386617 0025 0449318716 0000022804 0811714164 0000057115

NMIJ CPC00494 471301 0026 0547653232 0000049336 0989730987 0000128859

NMIJ CPC00558 803658 0039 0933998556 0000062657 1689072068 0000061122

NMISA M51 8232 380200 1000 0441463446 0000030414 0797746449 0000071374

NMISA M51 8167 479500 0800 0556816358 0000063789 1006620384 0000139031

NMISA M51 8244 799100 0500 0927761085 0000058032 1678197948 0000120968

NOAA CC310084 379500 0105 0441196927 0000016125 0796836602 0000097427

NOAA CC305198 479260 0130 0557198873 0000046487 1007173065 0000061590

NOAA CB11668 794080 0240 0923707672 0000052071 1670538345 0000102943

NPL 2179 380270 0095 0442066316 0000015232 0798660385 0000055036

NPL 2170 480020 0120 0557939086 0000029155 1008480431 0000075981

NPL 2181 799700 0200 0929525453 0000066014 1680929399 0000081883

NPLI JJ108891 375720 1610 0435541280 0000044283 0786899117 0000051131

NPLI JJ108862 480520 1520 0558985244 0000078492 1010295612 0000070031

NPLI JJ108854 796380 2515 0923587308 0000048435 1670046415 0000092977

UME PSM298266 37992 0095 0441777548 0000066603 0798242598 0000076656

UME PSM266468 48042 0125 0558597569 0000077666 1009847197 0000062025

UME PSM298347 800760 0180 0930853610 0000059811 1683852629 0000186416

P a g e | 19

Table 8 Results of BIPM CO2 comparison measurements Re-submitted values following stability testing which were included following the decision of the CCQM GAWG (see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the

CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018))

72 Graphical representation of measurement results

Table 9 summarizes the figures showing the measurements results obtained by different methods at the BIPM

Table 9 List of figures corresponding to results obtained from FTIR and GC-FID at the BIPM

VNIIM M365601 380200 0055 0441966430 0000016643 0798479627 0000066343

VNIIM M365664 480180 0065 0558130273 0000048384 1008861333 0000059090

VNIIM M365707 800730 0095 0930604477 0000058131 1683192751 0000075295

VSL 5604614 378900 0140 0440539300 0000017205 0795901702 0000077266

VSL 5604880 480480 0180 0558580000 0000018028 1009802467 0000054009

VSL 5604705 795700 0300 0925375760 0000052705 1673272267 0000122172

Comparison method

CO2 mole fraction Plot

FTIR ( Ratio to control cylinder under intermediate precision conditions) 380 micromolmol Figure 3 480 micromolmol Figure 4 800 micromolmol Figure 5 GC-FID (Ratio to control cylinder under intermediate precision conditions)

380 micromolmol Figure 6 480 micromolmol Figure 7 800 micromolmol Figure 8

P a g e | 20

FTIR

Figure 3 FTIR ratios to control standard for the cylinders at nominally 380 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

374 376 378 380 382 384 386 3880434

0436

0438

0440

0442

0444

0446

0448

0450

GUM

KRISS

LNE

NIM

NMIJ

NMISANOAA

NPLVNIIM

VSL

BFKH

NIST

NPLI

UMERFT

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 21

Figure 4 FTIR ratios to control standard for the cylinders at nominally 480 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

460 465 470 475 480 485 490

0540

0545

0550

0555

0560

0565

0570

GUM

INRIM

KRISS

LNE

NIM

NMIJ

NMISANOAA

NPLVNIIMVSL

BFKH

NIST

NPLIUME

RFT

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 22

Figure 5 FTIR ratios to control standard for the cylinders at 800 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

792 794 796 798 800 802 804 806 808 810 8120922

0924

0926

0928

0930

0932

0934

0936

0938

0940

0942

0944

GUM

INRIM

KRISS

LNE

NMIJ

NOAA

NPL

VNIIM

VSL

NIM

NMISA

BFKH

NIST

NPLI

UME

RFT

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 23

GC-FID

Figure 6 GC-FID ratios to control standard for the cylinders at nominally 380 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

374 376 378 380 382 384 386 388

0785

0790

0795

0800

0805

0810

0815

KRISSVSL

LNENOAA

GUMNMISA

VNIIMNPL

NIM

NMIJ

BFKH

NIST

NPLI

UME

RG

C

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 24

Figure 7 GC-FID ratios to control standard for the cylinders at 480 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

460 465 470 475 480 485 490097

098

099

100

101

102

103

NMIJ

LNEGUM

NOAAINRIMNMISA

KRISSNPLVNIIMVSL

NIM

BFKH

NIST

NPLIUME

RG

C

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 25

Figure 8 GC-FID ratios to control standard for the cylinders at 800 micromol mol-1 The error bars represent the standard uncertainty (k=1) associated with the BIPM measurement results (y- axis) and the NMI reported values (x-axis)

792 794 796 798 800 802 804 806 808 810 8121665

1670

1675

1680

1685

1690

1695

1700

1705

NOAA

VSL

INRIMNMISA

NPLGUM

VNIIM

LNE

NMIJ

KRISS

NIM

BFKH

NIST

NPLI

UMERG

C

xNMI

mol mol-1

P a g e | 26

73 Isotope ratios of CCQM-K120 standards The δ13C and δ18O values reported by participants are listed in Table 10 The delta values of the complete set of cylinders on the VPDB-CO2 scale were also measured by the BIPM using the Delta Ray analyser to correct the FTIR response The measured isotope ratio values are listed Table 11 The method for measuring and calibrating the Delta Ray is fully described in ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure Delta Ray The method used by the BIPM for measuring isotope ratios is described in a recent publication5 and was validated with CO2 in air standards that had been value assigned for their isotopic composition by the WMO-CCL laboratory for isotope ratios MPI-BGC Jena with traceability of the standards used to the VPDB-CO2 scale realized with the JENA air standards reference set The measurements made by the BIPM have been used for all corrections made in the FTIR comparison method and were considered fit for purpose noting that a 1 permil difference in δ13C measurements can lead to a bias of 0004 micromolmol in CO2 mole fraction measurements in instruments based on a spectroscopic technique and similarly a 0002 micromolmol bias from a 1 permil difference in δ18O measurements Reported values for isotopic composition by participants were for information only The agreement between reported values and BIPM measured values is variable For δ13C values the difference between BIPM measured values and those reported by participants was smaller than 04 permil for NMIJ NPL and NOAA smaller than 2 permil for UME and VNIIM and almost 12 permil for NIST (noting that the NIST reported at the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG that this had been a typographical error on their part and the NIST and BIPM values were actually in full agreement) For δ18O values the difference between BIPM measured values and those reported by participants is smaller than 3 permil for NMIJ and NOAA and almost 10 permil for NPL The compatibility of CO2 isotope ratio measurements will be the focus of a future CCQM GAWG comparison enabling sources for differences to be studied in greater detail

Lab Number of Cylinder

δ13C on VPDB-CO2 scale

u(δ13C) Standard uncertainty (k=1)

δ18O on VPDB-CO2 scale

u(δ18O) Standard uncertainty (k=1) Comments

(permil) (permil) (permil) (permil)

NIST FB04278 -28 2 - -

NIST FB04300 -28 2 - -

NIST FB04287 -28 2 - -

NMIJ 3BIS85282 -892 - -991 - CO2 pure

NOAA CC310084 -87 02 -03 02

NOAA CC305198 -88 02 -64 02

NOAA CB11668 -85 04 -197 04

NPL 2179 -55 05 -225 05

NPL 2170 -55 05 -225 05

NPL 2181 -55 05 -225 05

UME PSM298266 -165 005 - - CO2 pure

VNIIM M365601 -48 045 - -

VNIIM M365664 -48 045 - -

VNIIM M365707 -48 045 - -

Table 10 δ13C and δ18

O values reported by participants value measured by the gas supplier according to the participant

P a g e | 27

Lab

Number of Cylinder

δ13C on VPDB-

CO2 scale

u(δ13C) Standard

uncertainty (k=1)

δ18O on VPDB-

CO2 scale

u(δ18O) Standard

uncertainty (k=1) Lab

Number of Cylinder

δ13C on VPDB-

CO2 scale

u(δ13C) Standard

uncertainty (k=1)

δ18O on VPDB-

CO2 scale

u(δ18O) Standard

uncertainty (k=1)

(permil) (permil) (permil) (permil) NMIJ CPC00558 -897 018 -1166 048

BFKH OMH54 -6676 018 -1723 048 NMISA M51 8232 -321 018 -2661 048

BFKH OMH44 -6653 018 -1734 048 NMISA M51 8167 -3209 018 -2655 048

BFKH OMH69 -6691 018 -2615 048 NMISA M51 8244 -3189 018 -2646 048

GUM D298392 -4431 018 -2877 048 NOAA CC310084 -886 018 -032 048

GUM D298393 -4432 018 -2865 048 NOAA CC305198 -891 018 -906 048

GUM D298402 -4418 018 -2847 048 NOAA CB11668 -888 018 -2128 048

INRIM D247440 -4927 018 -3436 048 NPL 2179 -522 018 -3231 048

INRIM D247445 -4952 018 -3449 048 NPL 2170 -521 018 -317 048

KRISS D500642 -2338 018 -1749 048 NPL 2181 -525 018 -3174 048

KRISS D500647 -2341 018 -1903 048 NPLI JJ108891 -887 018 -1087 048

KRISS D500672 -2334 018 -1884 048 NPLI JJ108862 -917 018 -1131 048

LNE 1029045 -3781 018 -2861 048 NPLI JJ108854 -915 018 -1149 048

LNE 1029047 -3786 018 -2775 048 UME PSM298266 -007 018 -2481 048

LNE 1029048 -3811 018 -2804 048 UME PSM266468 -005 018 -2453 048

NIM FB03747 -2055 018 -3007 048 UME PSM298347 016 018 -2446 048

NIM FB03744 -2052 018 -2978 048 VNIIM M365601 -4643 018 -2661 048

NIM FB03748 -2062 018 -2995 048 VNIIM M365664 -4635 018 -2584 048

NIST FB04278 -3983 018 -3092 048 VNIIM M365707 -4647 018 -2594 048

NIST FB04300 -3985 018 -3048 048 VSL 5604614 -3957 018 -3288 048

NIST FB04287 -3983 018 -3053 048 VSL 5604880 -3969 018 -3224 048

NMIJ CPC00486 -891 018 -987 048 VSL 5604705 -3574 018 -3064 048

NMIJ CPC00494 -903 018 -1184 048

Table 11 δ13C and δ18O value assignment vs VPDB-CO2 for each CO2 in air standard

P a g e | 28

In the case of the CCQM-K120a comparison it should be noted that the isotopic composition of CO2 at background levels in the atmosphere would be expected to have values close to the nominal values of -85 permil for δ13C and of 0 permil for δ18O when expressed on the VPDB-CO2 scale The standards submitted for the CCQM-K120a comparison had δ13C values that varied between -67 permil to 0 permil and δ18O values that varied between -35 permil to 0 permil This range of isotopic composition could result in measurement biases of up to 03 micromolmol in spectroscopic instruments for which isotopic composition had not been taken into account

8 Key Comparison Reference Value (KCRV)

During the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG it was agreed that the key comparison

reference values for CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b were to be calculated using

the measurement results of the FTIR spectrometer

Several statistical approaches all based on least-square regressions of measurement results obtained at the same nominal mole fraction were presented during 38th meeting of the

CCQM GAWG (GAWG18-32 ) From this analysis it was agreed to fit the FTIR results versus the participantrsquos submitted values with a line using the

Generalised Least Square approach defined in the standard ISO 614320019 (Gas analysis ndash Comparison methods for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures) It was also agreed to select the largest subset of cylinders

contributing to the regression line so as to obtain a consistent set with

regard to the regression ie a set that allows the goodness-of-fit parameter

to be less than 2 The measure of goodness-of-fit is defined as the

maximum value of the weighted differences between the coordinates of measured

and adjusted points (both on the x and the y axes) For all regressions the normalized sum of the squared weighted deviations where n is the number of points and p = 2 the number of parameters of the fit is also

provided for indication Both values are expected to be lower than 2 with the

condition on being stricter as it imposes all points to comply with the

fit

Notation The degree of equivalence is defined as

D = (1)

where

P a g e | 29

xKCRV is the amount of substance fraction in the cylinder predicted by the linear analysis function for the corresponding analyzer response (ratio to the control cylinder by FTIR)

u(xKCRV) is the standard uncertainty of the KCRV value

xNMI is the amount of substance fraction reported by the participating laboratory u(xNMI) is the standard uncertainty associated with the reported value xNMI

D is difference in amount of substance fraction as measured by the laboratory and

the reference value x and u(D) is the standard uncertainty of this difference expressed as

= (2)

and the expanded uncertainty at 95 confidence level )()( DukDU (3) where k denotes the coverage factor taken as k = 2 (normal distribution approximately 95 level of confidence)

81 Degrees of equivalence and graph of equivalence The analysis of the data from the comparison was performed following the process outlined in ISO 61432001 The regression analysis was performed with XLGenlinev11 a computer programme developed by NPL which implements this methodology by taking into consideration uncertainties in both axes During the 38th meeting of the GAWG it was decided that due the potential adsorption of a proportion of CO2 molecules onto the internal surface of a cylinder and valve (that can cause a deviation from the gravimetric amount fraction by as much as 100 nmol mol-1 demonstrated by Brewer et al2 ) a lower limit for uncertainties that could be used in the calculation of the KCRV was to be fixed It was decided that any standard uncertainty value lower than 0095 micromol mol-1 submitted by a participant was to be replaced by this value for the calculation of the KCRV The limit value was chosen based on the lowest uncertainty that had been reported by a participant for which adsorption effects had been considered (in this case NPL with cylinder 2179) In this manner the original uncertainties for the KCRV calculation of standards CPC00486 (NMIJ

P a g e | 30

original uncertainty 0025 micromol mol-1) CPC00494 (NMIJ original uncertainty 0025 micromol mol-

1) CPC00558 (NMIJ original uncertainty 0039 micromol mol-1) 00255 M365601 (VNIIM original uncertainty 0055 micromol mol-1) and M365664 (VNIIM original uncertainty 0065 micromol mol-1) were replaced by 0095 micromol mol-1 This cutoff was only applied to calculate the KCRVs The degree of equivalences were calculated using the uncertainties submitted by participants (equation 1)

KCRV calculations for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 With the FTIR measurement data set the set of self-consistent standards identified included eleven standards Three standards were excluded namely OMH54 (BFKH) FB04278 (NIST) and JJ108891 (NPLI) as these laboratories had reported changes in their reported values following stability testing The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 074 and the normalized sum of the squared weighted deviations 11 2 0227 Key comparison reference values and degrees of equivalence are listed in Table 12 Degrees of equivalence are plotted in Figure 9

KCRV calculations for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 With the FTIR measurement data set the set of self-consistent standards identified included twelve standards Three standards were excluded namely OMH44 (BFKH) FB03744 (NIST) and JJ108862 (NPLI) as these laboratories had reported changes in their reported values following stability testing The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 136 and the normalized sum of the squared weighted deviations 12 2 0463 The resulting key comparison reference values and degrees of equivalence are listed in Table 13 Degrees of equivalence are plotted in Figure 10

KCRV calculations for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1

Several statistical approaches were presented during the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (GAWG18-32 see ANNEX II- ) comprising different alternatives of sets of self-consistent standards From those the GAWG selected a solution where the two extreme mole fractions at this nominal mole fraction FB03748 (NIM 810424 micromol mol-1) and CB11668 (NOAA 794608 micromol mol-1) were removed from the set of self-consistent standards The solution involved then including ten cylinders for KCRV calculations Five were excluded namely FB03748 (NIM) CB11668 (NOAA) OMH69 (BFKH) FB04287 (NIST) and JJ108854 (NPLI) The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 180 and the normalized sum of the squared weighted deviations 10 2 0950 Key

P a g e | 31

comparison reference values and degrees of equivalence are listed in Table 14 Degrees of equivalence are plotted in Figure 11

Participant Cylinder

xKCRV u(xKCRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D1( xNMI- xKCRV ) u(D1) U( D1)

( XLGENLINE predictied

value from FTIR)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298392 379664 0044 380100 2200 0436 2200 4401

KRISS D500642 378828 0055 378900 0100 0072 0114 0228

LNE 1029045 379253 0051 379480 0395 0227 0398 0796

NIM FB03747 383453 0052 383430 0100 -0023 0113 0226

NMIJ CPC00486 386597 0088 386617 0025 0020 0091 0182

NMISA M51 8232 379743 0050 380200 1000 0457 1001 2002

NOAA CC310084 379511 0046 379500 0105 -0011 0115 0229

NPL 2179 380269 0041 380270 0095 0001 0103 0207

VNIIM M365601 380182 0042 380200 0055 0018 0069 0138

VSL 5604614 378937 0051 378900 0140 -0037 0149 0298

UME PSM298266 380017 0071 379920 0095 -0097 0118 0237

BFKH OMH54 374884 0099 379800 0850 4916 0856 1711

NIST FB04278 380088 0042 379045 0195 -1044 0200 0400

NPLI JJ108891 374576 0108 375720 1610 1144 1614 3227

Table 12 Degrees of Equivalence using FTIR measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision of the the CCQM

GAWG Uncertainties below the cutoff value of 0095 micromol molminus1

Participant Cylinder

xKCRV u(xKCRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D2( xNMI- xKCRV ) u(D2) U( D2)

( XLGENLINE predictied value

from FTIR)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298393 477706 0051 478100 2600 0394 2601 5201

INRIM D247440 479007 0173 479300 0800 0293 0819 1637

KRISS D500647 479851 0052 480000 0100 0149 0113 0225

LNE 1029047 477397 0061 477600 0500 0203 0504 1007

NIM FB03744 489202 0099 489150 0110 ‐0052 0148 0296

NMIJ CPC00494 471351 0094 471301 0026 ‐0050 0097 0195

NMISA M51 8167 479042 0068 479500 0800 0458 0803 1606

NOAA CC305198 479363 0058 479260 0130 ‐0103 0142 0284

P a g e | 32

NPL 2170 479985 0049 480020 0120 0035 0130 0259

VNIIM M365664 480145 0059 480180 0065 0035 0088 0175

VSL 5604880 480523 0045 480480 0180 ‐0043 0186 0371

UME PSM266468 480537 0078 480420 0125 ‐0117 0147 0295

BFKH OMH44 464911 0138 479900 1050 14989 1059 2118

NIST FB04300 473529 0071 472662 0214 ‐0867 0225 0451

NPLI JJ108862 480863 0079 480520 1520 ‐0343 1522 3044

Table 13 Degrees of Equivalence using FTIR measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision of the the CCQM

GAWG Uncertainties below the cutoff value of 0095 micromol molminus1

Participant Cylinder

xKCRV u(xKCRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D3( xNMI- xKCRV ) u(D3) U( D3)

( XLGENLINE predictied value

from FTIR)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298402 800105 0106 800500 4300 0395 4301 8603

INRIM D247445 798389 0128 798900 1300 0511 1306 2613

KRISS D500672 800519 0118 800800 0200 0281 0232 0464

LNE 1029048 802099 0078 802200 0850 0101 0854 1707

NMIJ CPC00558 803694 0114 803658 0039 -0036 0120 0240

NPL 2181 799744 0101 799700 0200 -0044 0224 0448

NMISA M518244 798187 0132 799100 0500 0913 0517 1034

VNIIM M365707 800697 0084 800730 0095 0033 0127 0253

VSL 5604705 796080 0191 795700 0300 -0380 0356 0712

UME PSM298347 800917 0083 800760 0180 -0157 0198 0396

NIM FB03748 810424 0327 809820 0130 -0604 0351 0703

NOAA CB11668 794608 0237 794080 0240 -0528 0337 0674

BFKH OMH69 800282 0100 800300 1450 0018 1453 2907

NIST FB04287 795511 0208 794530 0514 -0981 0555 1109

NPLI JJ108854 794501 0239 796380 2515 1879 2526 5053

Table 14 Degrees of Equivalence using FTIR measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision of the the CCQM

GAWG Uncertainties below the cutoff value of 0095 micromol molminus1

P a g e | 33

Figure 9 Degrees of Equivalence at a nominal value of 380 micromolmol for CO2 mole fractions The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

KR

ISS

LNE

NIM

NM

IJ

NM

ISA

NO

AA

NP

L

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI-4

-2

0

2

4

D m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 34

Figure 10 Degrees of Equivalence at a nominal value of 480 micromolmol for CO2 mole fractions The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

INR

IM

KR

ISS

LNE

NIM

NM

IJ

NM

ISA

NO

AA

NP

L

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI

-4

-2

0

2

4

D m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 35

Figure 11 Degrees of Equivalence at a nominal value of 800 micromolmol for CO2 mole fractions The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

INR

IM

KR

ISS

LNE

NM

IJ

NP

L

NM

ISA

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

NIM

NO

AA

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI-4

-2

0

2

4

D m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 36

9 Conclusions The comparison have been successful in demonstrating the degrees of equivalence of CO2 in air standards amongst participating NMIs at nominal mole fractions of 380 micromolmol 480 micromolmol and 800 micromolmol In addition the results can be compared to those of CCQM-K52 (organized in 2006) allowing the following conclusions to be drawn

a) the uncertainy of the key comparison reference value has been reduced by a factor of at least 4 with a standard uncertainty of 005 micromolmol for CCQM-K120a (compared to 02 micromolmol for CCQM-K52)

b) methods based on spectroscopy (FTIR with corrections for isotope ratios) and GC-FID for comparing CO2 in air standards have demonstrated excellent agreement with the standard deviation of the difference in reference values found by the two methods being 007 micromolmol at 380 micromolmol and 005 micromolmol at 480 micromolmol

c) the uncertainties are now at the level where adsorption effects within cylinders and on

surfaces needs to be considered and this has led to a mnimium value of 0095 micromolmol being used as the standard uncertainty for standards for key comparison reference value calculation

d) providing standards to communities measuring atmospheric CO2 with spectroscopic

methods produced with CO2 originating from combustion sources can lead to isotope ratios in the CO2 which will produce biases in mole fractions measurements of up to 03 micromolmol These biases can be corrected by either measuring isotope ratios of the gas standard and appropriate processing by the user or by using CO2 which has been closely matched to atmospheric isotope ratio values in the production of the standard

10 lsquoHow far the light shinesrsquo statement The following lsquoHow far the light shinesrsquo statement agreed during the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG was CCQM‐K120a comparison involves preparing standards of carbon dioxide in air which are fit for purpose for the atmospheric monitoring community with stringent requirements on matrix composition and measurement uncertainty of the CO2 mole fraction This represents an analytical challenge and is therefore considered as a Track C comparison The comparison will underpin CMC claims for CO2 in air for standards and calibrations services for the atmospheric

P a g e | 37

monitoring community matrix matched to real air over the mole fraction range of 250 μmolmol to 520 μmolmol CCQM‐K120b comparison tests core skills and competencies required in gravimetric preparation analytical certification and purity analysis It is considered as a Track A comparison It will underpin CO2 in air and nitrogen claims in a mole fraction range starting at the smallest participantrsquos reported expanded uncertainty and ending at 500 mmolmol Participants successful in this comparison may use their result in the flexible scheme and underpin claims for all core mixtures

Bibliography

1 W Bader B Bovy S Conway K Strong D Smale A J Turner T Blumenstock C Boone A Coulon O Garcia D W T Griffith F Hase P Hausmann N Jones P Krummel I Murata I Morino H Nakajima S ODoherty C Paton-Walsh J Robinson R Sandrin M Schneider C Servais R Sussmann and E MahieuTen years of atmospheric methane from ground-based NDACC FTIR observations Atmos Chem Phys Discuss2016 2016 1 2 P J Brewer R J C Brown K V Resner R E Hill-Pearce D R Worton N D C Allen K C Blakley D Benucci and M R EllisonInfluence of Pressure on the Composition of Gaseous Reference Materials Analytical Chemistry2018 90(5) 3490 3 M B Esler D W T Griffith S R Wilson and L P SteelePrecision Trace Gas Analysis by FT-IR Spectroscopy 1 Simultaneous Analysis of CO2 CH4 N2O and CO in Air Anal Chem1999 72(1) 206- 215 4 M B Esler D W T Griffith S R Wilson and L P SteelePrecision Trace Gas Analysis by FT-IR Spectroscopy 2 The 13C12C Isotope Ratio of CO2 Anal Chem 1999 72(1) 216 5 E Flores J Viallon P Moussay D W T Griffith and R WielgoszCalibration strategies for FTIR and other IRIS instruments for ac-curate δ13C and δ18O measurements of CO2 in air Anal Chem2017 Submitted 6 D W T GriffithSynthetic Calibration and Quantitative Analysis of Gas-Phase FT-IR Spectra Appl Spectrosc1996 50(1) 59 7 D W T Griffith N M Deutscher C Caldow G Kettlewell M Riggenbach and S HammerA Fourier transform infrared trace gas and isotope analyser for atmospheric applications Atmos Meas Tech2012 5(10) 2481 8 D W T Griffith N B Jones B McNamara C P Walsh W Bell and C BernardoIntercomparison of NDSC Ground-Based Solar FTIR Measurements of Atmospheric Gases at Lauder New Zealand J Atmos Oceanic Tech2003 20 (8) 1138- 1153 9 ISO Gas analysis- Comparison methods for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures in 61432001 (2001) 10 G Nelson Gas Mixtures Preparation and Control (Lewis Publishers Florida USA 1992) 11 L S Rothman A Barbe D Chris Benner L R Brown C Camy-Peyret M R Carleer K Chance C Clerbaux V Dana V M Devi A Fayt J M Flaud R R Gamache A Goldman D Jacquemart K W Jucks W J Lafferty J Y Mandin S T Massie V Nemtchinov D A Newnham A Perrin C P Rinsland J Schroeder K M Smith M A H Smith K Tang R A Toth J Vander Auwera P Varanasi and K YoshinoThe HITRAN molecular spectroscopic database edition of 2000 including updates through 2001 J Quant Spectrosc Radiat Transfer 82(1ndash4) 5 12 L S Rothman I E Gordon Y Babikov A Barbe D Chris Benner P F Bernath M Birk L Bizzocchi V Boudon L R Brown A Campargue K Chance E A Cohen L H Coudert V M Devi B J Drouin A Fayt J M Flaud R R Gamache J J Harrison J M Hartmann C Hill J T Hodges D Jacquemart A Jolly J Lamouroux R J Le Roy G Li D A Long O M Lyulin C J Mackie S T Massie S Mikhailenko H S P Muumlller O V Naumenko A V Nikitin J Orphal V Perevalov A Perrin E R Polovtseva C Richard M A H

P a g e | 38

Smith E Starikova K Sung S Tashkun J Tennyson G C Toon V G Tyuterev and G WagnerThe HITRAN2012 molecular spectroscopic database J Quant Spectrosc Radiat Transfer2013 130 4

ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

As results of the discussion of the key points of the Draft A report of the CCQM-K120 comparison during the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG the following decisions were taken

a) the key comparison reference value for CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b are to be based on the measurement results of the FTIR spectrometer

b) the re-submitted uncertainties by UME replace the original uncertainty values used in Draft A report (see Table 15) and are to be used for the calculation of the KCRV

c) NIST NPLI and BFKH submitted new measurement results as well as uncertainties after the measurements performed on return of the standards in their laboratoires This was not expected in the protocol of the comparison Therefore their values have not been used in the KCRV calucltaions The original values are used for DOE calculations the modified values have been included in AnnexII

d) considering that NPL was the only participant that considered a potential effect of adsorption of a proportion of the molecules onto the internal surface of a cylinder and valve (for more information see GAWG18-00) a limit on the uncertainties claimed by participants contributing to the KCRV is fixed to 0095 micromol mol-1 meaning that any uncertainty value smaller to this value will be replaced by 0095 micromol mol-1 to calculate KCRVs

e) The KCRV for the standatds at the nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 are to be calculated including standards with mole fractions within plusmn 5 micromol mol-1 of the nominal value (795 micromol mol-1 to 805 micromol mol-1)

P a g e | 39

P a g e | 40

ANNEX II- Stability studies by participants After the return of cylinder to the participants and before results of the comparison were known four participants reported modified uncertainties and also values and uncertainties compared to their originally reported values see Table 15 The participants that reported changes to their originally submitted values were

BFKH submitted the same values but with less decimals for cylinders OMH54 and OMH69 and proposed a new value for cylinder OMH44 The new value changed from 47989plusmn211 micromolmol to 4644plusmn211 micromolmol

NIST submitted new values and uncertainties for cylinders FB04278 FB04300 and FB04287

NPLI submitted new values for cylinders JJ108891 JJ108862 and JJ108854 The mole fractions for cylinders JJ108891 and JJ108854 were increased by 252 micromolmol and 242 micromolmol respectively and reduced for cylinder JJ108862 by 195 micromolmol The uncertainties for cylinders JJ108891 and JJ108862 were also increased by 22 and 72 but reduced for cylinder JJ108854 by 33

UME The uncertainties of cylinders PSM298266 PSM266468 and PSM298347 were increased by 19 47 and 33 respectively

Participant Cylinder references Gas Matrix

NMIrsquos assigned CO2 mole fraction xNMI

(micromol mol-1)

NMIrsquos assigned CO2

expanded uncertainty U(xNMI)

k = 2 (micromol mol-1)

Before the return of cylinders

BFKH OMH54 Synthetic Air 379840 1710

BFKH OMH44 Synthetic Air 479890 2110

BFKH OMH69 Synthetic Air 800300 2920

GUM D298392 Synthetic Air 380100 4400

GUM D298393 Synthetic Air 478100 5200

GUM D298402 Synthetic Air 800500 8600

INRIM D247440 Synthetic Air 479300 1600

INRIM D247445 Synthetic Air 798900 2600

KRISS D500642 Synthetic Air 378900 0200

KRISS D500647 Synthetic Air 480000 0200

KRISS D500672 Synthetic Air 800800 0400

LNE 1029045 Synthetic Air 379480 0790

LNE 1029047 Synthetic Air 477600 1000

LNE 1029048 Synthetic Air 802200 1700

NIM FB03747 Synthetic Air 383430 0200

NIM FB03744 Synthetic Air 489150 0220

P a g e | 41

NIM FB03748 Synthetic Air 809820 0260

NIST FB04278 Real Air 379045 0391

NIST FB04300 Real Air 472662 0428

NIST FB04287 Real Air 794533 1029

NMIJ CPC00486 Real Air 386617 0050

NMIJ CPC00494 Real Air 471301 0051

NMIJ CPC00558 Real Air 803658 0078

NMISA M51 8232 Synthetic Air 380200 2000

NMISA M51 8167 Synthetic Air 479500 1600

NMISA M51 8244 Synthetic Air 799100 1000

NOAA CC310084 Real Air 379500 0210

NOAA CC305198 Real Air 479260 0260

NOAA CB11668 Real Air 794080 0480

NPL 2179 Synthetic Air 380270 0190

NPL 2170 Synthetic Air 480020 0240

NPL 2181 Synthetic Air 799700 0400

NPLI JJ108891 Synthetic Air 375720 3220

NPLI JJ108862 Synthetic Air 480520 3040

NPLI JJ108854 Synthetic Air 796380 5030

UME PSM298266 Synthetic Air 379920 0160

UME PSM266468 Synthetic Air 480420 0170

UME PSM298347 Synthetic Air 800760 0270

VNIIM M365601 Synthetic Air 380200 0110

VNIIM M365664 Synthetic Air 480180 0130

VNIIM M365707 Synthetic Air 800730 0190

VSL 5604614 Synthetic Air 378900 0280

VSL 5604880 Synthetic Air 480480 0360

VSL 5604705 Synthetic Air 795700 0600

Additional data received following

stability testing

BFKH‐2nd value OMH54 Synthetic Air 3798 17

BFKH‐2nd value OMH44 Synthetic Air 4644 28

BFKH‐2nd value OMH69 Synthetic Air 8003 29

NIST‐2nd value FB04278 Real Air 38030 028

NIST‐2nd value FB04300 Real Air 47340 034

NIST‐2nd value FB04287 Real Air 79512 058

NIST‐3th value FB04278 Real Air 38007 030

NIST‐3th value FB04300 Real Air 47337 052

NIST‐3th value FB04287 Real Air 79477 038

NPLI‐2nd value JJ108891 Synthetic Air 37824 395

NPLI‐2nd value JJ108862 Synthetic Air 47857 523

NPLI‐2nd value JJ108854 Synthetic Air 79880 335

UME‐2nd value PSM298266 Synthetic Air 379920 019

P a g e | 42

UME‐2nd value PSM266468 Synthetic Air 480420 025

UME‐2nd value PSM298347 Synthetic Air 800760 036

Table 15 Standards and reported values provided by participants in Draft A report

ANNEX III- GC-FID results

GC-FID based candidate reference values for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 With the GC-FID measurement data set the set of self-consistent standards identified was the same as with FTIR including eleven standards with three excluded namely OMH54 (BFKH neither original nor newly submitted results included) FB04278 (NIST neither original nor newly submitted results included) and JJ108891 (NPLI neither original and newly submitted results included) The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 169 (lt 2 required to demonstrate consistency of the ensemble) Reference values and differences from these are listed in Table 16 The difference between the KCRV calculated with FTIR measurement data (xKCRV_FTIR) and GC-FID based candidate reference values (xRV_FTIR) measurements for this batch of cylinders is plotted in Figure 12 showing negligible difference between the methods

GC-FID based candidate reference values for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 With the GC-FID measurement data set the set of self-consistent standards identified was the same as with FTIR The data set of self-consistent standards identified included twelve standards with three excluded namely OMH44 (BFKH neither original nor newly submitted results included) FB03744 (NIST neither original nor newly submitted results included) and JJ108862 (NPLI neither original nor newly submitted results included) The goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 141 (lt 2 required to demonstrate consistency of the ensemble) Reference values and differences from these are listed in Table 17

P a g e | 43

The difference between the KCRV calculated with FTIR measurement data (xKCRV_FTIR) and GC-FID based candidate reference values (xRV_FTIR) measurements for this batch of cylinders is plotted in Figure 13 showing negligible difference between the methods

GC-FID based candidate reference values for standards at a nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 Including ten cylinders with five excluded namely FB03748 (NIM) CB11668 (NOAA) OMH69 (BFKH neither original and newly submitted results included) FB04287 (NIST neither original nor newly submitted results included) and JJ108854 (NPLI neither original nor newly submitted results included) the goodness-of-fit parameter obtained from the regression performed with this data set was 191(lt 2 required to demonstrate consistency of the ensemble) Reference values and differences from these are listed in Table 18 The difference between the KCRV calculated with FTIR measurement data (xKCRV_FTIR) and GC-FID based candidate reference values (xRV_FTIR) measurements for this batch of cylinders is plotted in Figure 14 showing negligible difference between the methods

Participant Cylinder

xRV u(xRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D1( xNMI- xKCRV )

u(D1) U( D1)

( XLGENLINE predictied

value from GC-FID)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298392 379719 0050 380100 2200 0381 2201 4401

KRISS D500642 378753 0063 378900 0100 0147 0118 0236

LNE 1029045 379224 0054 379480 0395 0256 0399 0797

NIM FB03747 383350 0056 383430 0100 0080 0115 0229

NMIJ CPC00486 386624 0092 386617 0025 ‐0007 0095 0190

NMISA M51 8232 379866 0054 380200 1000 0334 1001 2003

NOAA CC310084 379426 0065 379500 0105 0074 0124 0247

NPL 2179 380308 0048 380270 0095 ‐0038 0106 0213

VNIIM M365601 380221 0051 380200 0055 ‐0021 0075 0150

VSL 5604614 378973 0062 378900 0140 ‐0073 0153 0306

UME PSM298266 380106 0055 379920 0095 ‐0186 0110 0220

BFKH OMH54 375005 0101 379800 0850 4795 0856 1712

NIST FB04278 380066 0055 379045 0195 ‐1021 0203 0406

NPLI JJ108891 374617 0105 375720 1610 1103 1613 3227

Table 16 Difference from candidate reference value using GC-FID measurements at the nominal mole fraction of 380 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision

of the the CCQM GAWG First uncertainty submitted by the participant (lt 0095 micromol mol-1 see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

P a g e | 44

Participant Cylinder

xRV u(xRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D2( xNMI- xKCRV ) u(D2) U( D2)

( XLGENLINE predictied

value from GC-FID)

(k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298393 477789 0065 478100 2600 0311 2601 5202

INRIM D247440 478928 0056 479300 0800 0372 0802 1604

KRISS D500647 479881 0051 480000 0100 0119 0112 0225

LNE 1029047 477444 0069 477600 0500 0156 0505 1009

NIM FB03744 489173 0097 489150 0110 ‐0023 0147 0294

NMIJ CPC00494 471327 0107 471301 0026 ‐0026 0110 0220

NMISA M51 8167 479137 0078 479500 0800 0363 0804 1608

NOAA CC305198 479392 0053 479260 0130 ‐0132 0140 0281

NPL 2170 479997 0056 480020 0120 0023 0133 0265

VNIIM M365664 480173 0052 480180 0065 0007 0083 0167

VSL 5604880 480608 0051 480480 0180 ‐0128 0187 0374

UME PSM266468 480629 0053 480420 0125 ‐0209 0136 0272

BFKH OMH44 464994 0144 479900 1050 14906 1060 2120

NIST FB04300 473601 0077 472662 0214 ‐0940 0227 0455

NPLI JJ108862 480836 0055 480520 1520 ‐0316 1521 3042

Table 17 Difference from candidate reference value using GC-FID measurements at the nominal mole fraction of 480 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the decision of

the the CCQM GAWG First uncertainty submitted by the participant (lt 0095 micromol mol-1 see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

Participant Cylinder

xRV u(xRV) xNMI u(xNMI) D3( xNMI- xKCRV )

u(D3) U( D3)

( XLGENLINE predictied

value from GC-FID) (k=2)

(micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol) (micromolmol)

GUM D298402 800002 0083 800500 4300 0498 4301 8602

INRIM D247445 798031 0105 798900 1300 0869 1304 2608

KRISS D500672 800316 0080 800800 0200 0484 0215 0431

LNE 1029048 802001 0068 802200 0850 0199 0853 1705

NMIJ CPC00558 803670 0057 803658 0039 ‐0012 0069 0138

NPL 2181 799570 0081 799700 0200 0130 0216 0432

NMISA M51 8244 798195 0111 799100 0500 0905 0512 1024

VNIIM M365707 800710 0066 800730 0095 0020 0116 0232

VSL 5604705 795715 0150 795700 0300 ‐0015 0335 0670

UME PSM298347 801042 0180 800760 0135 ‐0282 0172 0344

NIM FB03748 810535 0165 809820 0130 ‐0715 0210 0420

NOAA CB11668 794338 0170 794080 0240 ‐0258 0294 0588

BFKH OMH69 800057 0079 800300 1450 0243 1452 2904

P a g e | 45

NIST FB04287 795279 0147 794530 0514 ‐0749 0535 1070

NPLI JJ108854 794091 0173 796380 2515 2289 2521 5042

Table 18 Difference from candidate reference value using GC-FID measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 800 micromol mol-1 Bold Data points included in the self-consistent set Re-submitted value following the

decision of the the CCQM GAWG First uncertainty submitted by the participant (lt 0095 micromol mol-1 see ANNEX I- Decisions of the 38th meeting of the CCQM GAWG (16-17 April 2018)

Figure 12 Difference between the KCRV values obtained using FTIR and GC-FID reference values at 380

micromolmol The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

KR

ISS

LNE

NIM

NM

IJ

NM

ISA

NO

AA

NP

L

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Diff

(x K

CR

V_F

TIR

-xR

V_G

C-F

ID)

m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 46

Figure 13 Difference between the KCRV values obtained using FTIR and GC-FID reference values at 480 micromolmol The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

GU

M

INR

IM

KR

ISS

LNE

NIM

NM

IJ

NM

ISA

NO

AA

NP

L

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Diff

(x K

CR

V_

FT

IR-x

RV

_G

C-F

ID)

m

ol m

ol-1

P a g e | 47

Figure 14 Difference between the KCRV values obtained using FTIR and GC-FID reference values at 800 micromolmol The error bar represents the expanded uncertainty at a 95 level of confidence

In summary the measurement performance obtained with GC-FID and FTIR at the BIPM were rather similar with standard measurement uncertainties of the reference values having a range of 004 micromolmol to 011 micromolmol at 380 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for FTIR 005 micromolmol to 011 micromolmol at 380 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for GC-FID 005 micromolmol to 017 micromolmol at 480 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for FTIR 005 micromolmol to 014 micromolmol at 480 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for GC-FID 008 micromolmol to 033 micromolmol at 800 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for FTIR 006 micromolmol to 018 micromolmol at 800 micromolmol nominal mole fraction CO2 for GC-FID

The reference values calculated from the two measurement techniques agree with each other within their stated uncertainties for all measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 380 micromolmol all measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 480 micromolmol all measurement results at the nominal mole fraction of 800 micromolmol The magnitude of the proposed reference values can be compared to the laboratories reported standard measurement uncertainties for their standards which range from 0025 micromolmol to 43 micromolmol

GU

M

INR

IM

KR

ISS

LNE

NM

IJ

NP

L

NM

ISA

VN

IIM VS

L

UM

E

NIM

NO

AA

BF

KH

NIS

T

NP

LI

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Diff

(x K

CR

V_

FT

IR-x

RV

_GC

-FID

)

mo

l mo

l-1

P a g e | 48

ANNEX IV- BIPM Value assignment procedure The cylinders were analysed in batches first by GC-FID then by FTIR and finally by the Delta Ray

GC-FID The GC-FID is a modified Agilent system series 7890A acquired from the SRA Instruments lsquoFrance It is equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID) a Haysep Q (12 feet) column a methanizer and the FID detector is supplied with pure oxygen and hydrogen (see Figure 15)

Figure 15 Internal schematics of the BIPM system for Gas Chromatography with Flame Ionization Detector (GC-FID) comprised by a Haysep (12 feet) column a Sample loop of 1 mL two Valco six port valves and a FID detector

The GC-FID is equipped with

- two 6 port valve V1 (Vici-valco) - one 1 mL stainless steel injection loop - one one-way valve - one Haysep Q (80-100 Mesh 12ftx18x20mm) - one flame ionization detector (FID) - one methanizer - one hydrogen generator - one helium purifier - one control computer for the GC-FID equipped with

o ChemStation version Rev B0402 (118) o ProChem Set-up version 257 o ProChem software version 201

- one barometer (Sensor Technique DC 2510)

Haysep

P a g e | 49

The gas mixtures used for operating the facility were

- one helium 60 gas cylinder quality 999999 - one oxygen 55 in gas cylinder quality 999995 - source of air with pressure of 7 bars - one 50 L CO2air commercial secondary gas standards (control standard A) produced by

Messer with an initial internal pressure of 150 bar with the composition specified to be within the following ranges

CH4 185 ppm CO2 386 ppm Ar 9410 ppm O2 207 N2 Matrix gas

- one 50 L CO2air commercial secondary gas standards (control standard B) produced by Messer with an initial internal pressure of 150 bar with the composition specified to be within the following ranges

CH4 184 ppm CO2 476 ppm Ar 9415 ppm O2 210 N2 Matrix gas

- one 40 L CO2air standard (control standard C) produced by Scott Marrin (cylinder CB 10422) with an initial internal pressure of 100 bar with the composition specified to be within the following ranges

CO2 79112 ppm CH4 184 ppm

GC-FID separation and quantification method The GC-FID was operated at 30 degC A Haysep Q (80-100 Mesh 12ftx18x20mm) column was used at a temperature of 30 degC for the analysis Helium column carrier2 gas passed through a heated gas purifier was used at a flow rate of 40 ml min-1 The FID was supplied with 320 ml min-1 of pure oxygen3 and 40 ml min-1 of hydrogen4 A 1 ml stainless steel sample loop was used to introduce the CO2air sample onto the column The pressure in the sample loop was measured by a calibrated pressure sensor having a resolution of 02 hPa and recorded at each injection Finally the peak areas were estimated with an on-line computing integrator

Sampling sequence

Table 19 displays a typical sampling sequence The sampling sequence was setup so as to analyse six unkown CO2Air gas mixtures together with three control standards (A B C) Three unknown were bracketed by control standards A and B followed by the other three bracketed by 2 The Carrier Gas is He grade 60 passing through a SAES gettersreg PS2-GC50-R-2 for extra purification 3 The Flame is produced from Oxygen grade 55 4 Hydrogen is produced on site by a commercial H2 generator CG2200 (Claind) It produces grade 60 H2 at a maximum flow rate of 200 mlmin with a purity higher than 9999999

P a g e | 50

control standards B and C Each individual cylinders analysis (unkowns and controls) consisted in three successive measurements of the GC-FID response (CO2 peak area)

Control Cylinder A A1 A2 A3

Control Cylinder B B1 B2 B3

Cylinder 1 Cyl11 Cyl12 Cyl13 Cylinder 2 Cyl21 Cyl22 Cyl23

Cylinder 3 Cyl31 Cyl32 Cyl33 Control Cylinder A A4 A5 A6

Control Cylinder B B4 B5 B6

Control Cylinder B B7 B8 B9

Control Cylinder C C1 C2 C3

Cylinder 4 Cyl41 Cyl42 Cyl43

Cylinder 5 Cyl51 Cyl52 Cyl53

Cylinder 6 Cyl61 Cyl62 Cyl63

Control Cylinder B B10 B11 B12

Control Cylinder C C4 C5 C6 Table 19 Typical GC-FID sampling sequence

Considering that the analysis of each CO2Air gas mixture took 10 minutes this measuring sequence took about 390 minutes to be completed This sequence was repeated four times with the first one not used in the calculation Adding flushing and conditioning about three days were necessary to complete the analysis of six unkown cylinders

Participantrsquos cylinders were divided in batches of four to six and additional cylinders of the BIPM were added if required to obtain batches of equal size

It was checked that the results obtained using controls A B and C were consistent but only the ratios to the control cylinder B were used as GC-FID results and listed in Table 8

Ratios to the control standard

The ratios to the control cylinder were calculated determining first the average responses of three successive measurements performed on the CO2Air standard gas mixtures as well as on the control cylinders (A B and C) The drift corrected response to the control cylinder as any time was calculated by interpolation in between two control measurements The average response to the CO2air standards mixtures was then divided by the drift corrected response of the control

cylinder to obtain GCR the ratio for one cylinder in one sequence

The last three sequences were then combined with the calculation of the weighted mean defined as

wGCR

P a g e | 51

3

1

_

l

lwGClwGC RwR (1)

Where the weigth wl for the series l is defined as

3

1

2_

2_

1

1

j

lGC

lGC

l

Ru

Ruw (2)

and lGCRu _ is the standard deviation of the mean of the three repeats

The uncertainty of the weighted mean is defined as

3

1

2_

2

1

1

llGC

wGC

RuRu

(3)

In addition to this component the intermediate precision or stability of the instrument response during the full measuring period was evaluated by the standard deviation of the mean of the drift corrected ratio to the control cylinder of one standard exclusively used for this purpose giving uIntpre = 0000046 This component was further combined with the weighted mean uncertainty to provide the combined standard uncertainty associated with measurements performed with GC-FID resulting in a typical relative standard uncertainty of 0007

FTIR A vacuum Bruker Vertex 70v FTIR Spectrometer equipped with a RockSolid interferometer (vacuum better than 02 hPa) with 1 cm-1 resolution (016 optional) a 40 mm beam diameter a globar source and CaF2 beam splitter was used for the study The spectrometer was configured with a liquid N2-cooled mid-infrared Indium Antimonide (InSb) detector and a 1001 m multi-pass White-type gas cell of volume 075 L (Gemini Scientific Instruments USA) The wetted surfaces of the gas cell were electro-polished stainless steel treated with silconert 2000 (Silcotek) and gold (mirror coatings) to minimize surface adsorption and desorption effects for CO2 The interferometer was scanned at 64 scans min-1 and spectra co-added for five minutes to obtain an acceptable signal-to-noise ratio The transmission spectra of gas reference standards obtained following this procedure had a very high signal to noise ratio of typically ~1 x 104 peak-peak from (2240ndash3380) cm-1 In order to prevent nonlinear responses produced by excess photon flux reaching the InSb detector special care was put into adjusting the instrument parameters of the software to ensure that the apparent intensity from the InSb detector was zero at 1850 cm-1 The spectrometer user interface was controlled using a BIPM developed software named B-FOS that allowed the automatic setting of all instrument parameters into Brukerrsquos proprietary OPUS software for control spectral acquisition and on-line analysis through the use of MALT (Multiple Atmospheric Layer Transmission)3 4 6 spectrum analysis software version 556

P a g e | 52

MALT retrieves concentrations of each trace gas in the sample from a least-squares fit to the measured spectrum based on a model calculation and Hitran line parameters12 This code is the basis for quantitative analysis of open and closed path FTIR trace gas measurements and has been compared with other codes such as SFIT1 for ground based solar FT-IR measurements with agreement of better than 07 (Griffith et al8)

The spectra were constructed by co-adding up to 320 scans recorded in about 5 minutes to provide a single spectrum of a sample This single spectrum was ratioed with a similar spectrum of ultra-pure N2 collected under similar conditions to provide an absorbance or transmission spectrum of the gas sample (relative to ultra-pure N2) in the gas cell The sample flow rates were kept at ~400 mL minminus1 Assuming perfect mixing in the cell it was estimated that 999 of the sample was replaced after 10 min of flow and 99998 replaced after 20 min10 In order to ensure the complete exchange of samples only the measured spectra obtained after flowing the sample through the White-type cell for 40 min (9999999 gas replacement) were used for mole fraction determinations The sample pressure was measured by means of the calibrated barometer Mensor Series 6000 The relative uncertainty of this pressure sensor was u(P) = 002 The sample temperature was measured with a calibrated 100 Ω RTD temperature probe introduced into the outlet gas of the White-type gas cell with a standard uncertainty u(T)=002 K

The recorded spectra were analysed online by non-linear least squares fitting in the spectra region 3500ndash3800 cm-1 (plotted in Figure 16) with modelled spectra calculated by MALT 55 using absorption line parameters from the HITRAN database version 2012 As previously described by Griffith et al7 this region shows peaks that are due to the major isotopologue 12C16O16O (written 626 using the HitranAir Force Geophysics Laboratory (AFGL) shorthand notation 11) Since all standards used during this work were ultra-dry CO2air gas mixtures the cross sensitivity with H2O was not considered

Figure 16 Typical measured and fitted spectra (upper part) and residual signal (lower part) in the region 3500ndash3800 cm-1 obtained on a standard of CO2 in air at 38433 μmol mol-1 The absorption feature is due to the major isotopologue 626

3500 3550 3600 3650 3700 3750 3800

070

075

080

085

090

095

100

3500 3550 3600 3650 3700 3750 3800

-0002

0000

0002

Measured

Tra

nsm

itan

ce

Fitted

Residual

Wavenumbercm-1

P a g e | 53

Ratios to the control standard

The ratios to the control cylinder were calculated between the FTIR responses measured at the 626 isotopologue band of the sample i (Cyli) and of the control cylinder

The measurements were performed following a sequence which included the analysis of four cylinders bracketed by the analysis of the two control cylinders (A B) repeated three times Control A was the Scott Marrin cylinder CB 10326 value assigned by NIST with a mole fraction of 37890plusmn009 micromol mol-1 and as control B was used the commercial mixture Messer 400309 with a mole fraction of 85000plusmn17 micromol mol-1

Since the analysis of each CO2Air gas mixture takes 40 minutes (35 minutes of flush and 5 minutes of acquisition) fifteen hours of continuous measurements were necessary to accomplish the measurement of four cylinders

The drift corrected response to the control cylinder B during the analysis of a sample Bcor was estimated by interpolation in between two measurements of B The ratio RFT between the response to a sample Cyl and the drift corrected control Bcor was then calculated Finally the measurement results for one cylinder was the average of the three ratios obtained during a full sequence named RFTi for cylinder Cyli

The control cylinder A suffered from a leak in the gas line to the autosampler and was emptied before the end of all measurements It was however checked that measurements performed with this control cylinder A with sufficient pressure were equivalent to those obtained with the control cylinder B

Uncertainty determination

The uncertainty assigned to each ratio to the control cylinder uFT_R was the combination of three components combined according to the Guide for Uncertainty in Measurements using the software GUM workbench (see Table 21)

uStab the short term stability of the 626 response to the sample This term was estimated from the typical Allan deviation at an averaging time of five minutes of the FTIR response measured on the 626 peak resulting in the value ustab = 6 nmol mol-1

independent of the mole fraction This same term applies to the control cylinder measurements

uIsoCorr the uncertainty contribution due to the correction of the 626 response arising from the sample isotopic composition (also valid for the control cylinder) as measured by the Delta Ray All responses of the FTIR calculated at the 626 peak had to be corrected to account for the fact that samples had a different isotopic composition than natural air The correction was calculated with the Delta Ray so that the uncertainty contribution due to the isotopic composition correction was estimated from the uncertainty of the Delta Ray measurements uδ13C=018 permil and uδ18O=048 permil (see further information in Flores et al5) It can be calculated that a 1 permil bias in δ13C results in a bias equal to 41 nmol mol-1 in the CO2 mole fraction Similarly a 1 permil bias in δ18O results in a bias equal to 17 nmol mol-1 Therefore assuming maximum biases in the delta values equal to the Delta Ray standard uncertainty the maximum biases in the CO2 mole fraction were estimated to be 072 nmol mol-1 (from δ13C ) and 082 nmol mol-1 (from δ18O) Being conservative the two terms were added in a maximum bias of 154 nmol mol-1 Considering a

P a g e | 54

rectangular distribution of the uncertainty the standard uncertainty takes the value 154radic3 089nmol mol-1 This is negligible compared to other

components

uPBEs the uncertainty contribution due Pressure Broadening Effects was calculated through a sensitivity study of MALT Using one primary version of MALT in 1982 D Griffith looked at the carrier gas effect in NDIR analyzers for CO2 MALT by default uses either the amount-weighted selfair broadened widths or the air only widths provided by HITRAN and allows some degree of fiddling for fitting spectra contained in different gas matrices since it allows to the users to scale the input parameter broad by any arbitrary factor Different line broadening factor can be calculated then for air using Griffth et al 1982 equation

(7)

Where xN2 xO2 and xAr are the mole fractions of nitrogen oxygen and argon in air FN2 =1 by definition FO2 = 081 and FAr = 078 are the line broadening factors for oxygen and argon (in average) Assuming xN2 = 0780876 mol mol-1 xO2 = 02093335 mol mol-1 and xAr = 00093332 mol mol-1 then the line broadening factor of air FAIR should be equal to 095771603 The broadening parameter in MALT for air is broad = 1 by convention It can be scaled by FAIR to obtain a broad value for any ldquoair likerdquo matrix using the equation

(8)

In order to estimate the amount of the change in the CO2 response one absorbance spectrum was fitted using standard input parameters varying the factor broad according to the two possible extremes composition of the matrix as stated in the protocol of the CCQM-K120a and CCQM-K120b comparisons In the case of the CCQM-K120a comparison two values of the factor broad were determined using equation 8 modelling cylinders containing the minimum and the maximum allowed mole fractions of oxygen and assuming nitrogen and argon were impacted to keep a sum of the three equals to 1 The mole fractions and the corresponding values of broad are summarized in the table below

K120a min K120a max

Compoundxi (mol mol-

1) xi (mol mol-

1) Nitrogen 078140 078042Oxygen 020880 020980Argon 000934 000933

broad 1000105801 0999907486

Table 20 Extermes of air matrix compositions in the comparison CCQM-K120a and the corresponding values of broad

P a g e | 55

As result a ΔCO2 equal to 0031 micromol mol-1 was observed between both fittings Considering this difference as a rectangular distribution then a uPBEs_ΔO2_ K120a= (00031)(2radic3) = 0009 micromol mol-1 is obtained The same procedure was used with the the limits stated for the CCQM‐K120b and a ΔCO2 of 0467 micromol mol-1 was obtained with factors FAIR_CCQM-K120b_min= 1000403273 and FAIR_CCQM-K120b_max= 0999610014 If this difference is considered again as a rectangular distribution then uPBEs_ΔO2_ K120b= (0125)(2radic3) = 0036 micromol mol-1

Table 21 Uncertainty budget for the calculation of the FTIR ratios to the control cylinder

The final uncertainty for the ratios of the cylinders that had a gas matrix within the limits of the CCQM-K120a were at 380 micromol mol-1 uFT_R_380A=14 times10-6 and at 480 micromol mol-1 uFT_R_480A =15 times10-6 The uncertainty for the ratios of the cylinders that had a gas matrix within the limits of the CCQM-K120b were at 480 micromol mol-1 uFT_R_480A =44 times10-6 at 800 micromol mol-1 uFT_R_480A =45 times10-6 Combined with the standard deviations on three ratios this resulted in standard relative uncertainties on the averaged ratio between 14times10-5 and 25times10-4 All the combined standard uncertainties are listed in Table 8

Delta Ray Since MALT measurements (FTIR) are done using linestrengths from the HITRAN database that are scaled by the natural abundance for each isotopologue the 12CO2 measurement of each cylinder needed to be corrected according their own isotopic composition The isotopic composition of each cylinder was measured using the Delta Ray Delta Ray is based on direct absorption laser spectroscopy It uses a tunable diode laser which scans over the spectral region that covers 18O and 13C isotopologues of CO2

For this comparison Delta Ray measurements were performed after calibrating the instrument following the manufacturerrsquos recommendations that consist in using two pure CO2 references gases with high and low isotope values two CO2 in air reference standards with high and low concentration and one dry CO2 scrubbed whole air (Scott Marrin Inc) The instrument was calibrated using cylinder 401557 (pure CO2 source gas well δ13C = - 138 permil and δ18O = - 714 permil VPDBj-RAS06 scale) cylinder C11375KO (pure CO2 source combustion δ13C = - 4213 permil and δ18O = -277 permil VPDBj-RAS06 scale) standard NPL 1788 (NPL CO2 in air mole fraction 3800plusmn019 micromol mol-1 δ13C = - 138 permil and δ18O = - 714 permil VPDBj-RAS06 scale)

Quantity Value

Standard Uncertainty Sensitivity Coefficient

Uncertainty contribution Index

48000middot10-6 mol mol-1

00108middot10-6 mol mol-

1 12middot10-3 13middot10-6 (Ratio) 747

84605middot10-6 mol mol-1

00150middot10-6 mol mol-1 -450middot10-6 -67middot10-6 (Ratio) 205

84695middot10-6 mol mol-1

00150middot10-6 mol mol-1 -220middot10-6 -34middot10-6 (Ratio) 51

Value Standard Uncertainty

0567141 (Ratio) 15middot10-6 (Ratio)

P a g e | 56

standard NPL 1907 (NPL CO2 in air mole fraction 7910plusmn04 micromol mol-1 δ13C = - 4213 permil and δ18O = -277 permil VPDBj-RAS06 scale) and dry CO2 scrubbed whole air (Scott Marrin)

As reported by Flores et al 20185 a residual bias in the δ13C and δ18O measurements which remained following the implementation of the manufacturerrsquos calibration procedure was removed by the application of an additional two point calibration (two CO2 in air standards with known but differing isotopic composition) Standards NPL 1788 (δ13C = - 138 permil and δ18O = - 714 permil) and NPL 1907 (δ13C = - 4213 permil and δ18O = -277 permil) were used as two point calibration mixtures

Samplingsequence

The measurement procedure for analyzing a set of CO2Air gas standards by Delta Ray is based on the analysis of four CO2Air gas mixtures between two CO2Air gas mixture used as the two-point calibration standards (A B) The measurement sequence starts by measuring the δ13C and δ18O response of calibration cylinder (A) and (B) then of four CO2Air standards for finalizing again with the calibration standars Since the analysis of each CO2Air gas mixture takes 40 minutes sixteen hours of continuous measurements were necessary to accomplish the measurement of four cylinders three times

The measured δ13C and δ18O responses of the control cylinders were drift corrected Then used together with the δ13C and δ18O measured by MPI-Jena in XLGenlinev11 for predicting the δ13C and δ18O of the unknown cylinders traceable to the VPDB-CO2 scale

Uncertainty determination

Times series analysis were performed with the Delta Ray during the validation work resulting in Allan deviations of 003 permil for δ13C and 005 permil for δ18O at the optimum averaging time of 300 s In addition it was further noted that the noise of the instrument was significantly higher when measuring during two hours which is the time period of a typical calibration Using a rectangular distribution the standard uncertainty of 031 permil for δ13C and 035 permil for δ18O was observed This component was further combined with the Allan deviations and taken as the stability uncertainty associated with the instrument response

The two-point calibration of the delta value requires the knowledge of the uncertainty associated with them which was in this case taken as the uncertainties deduced from MPI-Jena measurements equal to 0015permil for δ13C and 0328permil for δ18O

After calibration with the two additional CO2 in air standards the standard uncertainties associated with the instrument measurement were finally equal to 018 permil for δ13C and 048 permil for δ18O

P a g e | 57

ANNEX V - Measurement reports of participants

NMIJ

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 58

P a g e | 59

P a g e | 60

P a g e | 61

P a g e | 62

P a g e | 63

GUM

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM-K120-R Project name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department

Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form

Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute Central Office of Measures (Głoacutewny Urzad Miar)

Address Elektoralna 2 00-139 Warsaw Poland

Contact person Dariusz Cieciora

P a g e | 64

Telephone (48) 22 581 94 39 Fax (48) 22 581 93 95

Email dciecioragumgovpl gasgumgovpl

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a YES

CCQM‐K120b YES

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 D298392 3801 44 2

2 D298393 4781 52 2

3 D298402 8005 86 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number D298392

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07808 molmol 00002 molmol 2

O2 02095 molmol 00001 molmol 2

Ar 000925 molmol 000001 molmol 2

CH4 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

P a g e | 65

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number D298393

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07807 molmol 00002 molmol 2

O2 02096 molmol 00001 molmol 2

Ar 000919 molmol 000001 molmol 2

CH4 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number D298402

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07802 molmol 00002 molmol 2

O2 02097 molmol 00001 molmol 2

Ar 000938 molmol 000001 molmol 2

CH4 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O 0 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 D298392 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

2 D298393 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

3 D298402 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

A4 Uncertainty Budget Please provide a complete uncertainty budgets for the CO2 mole fraction values reported

Uncertainty budget for the cylinder no D298392

Uncertainty source Estimate

(micromolmol)

Standard uncertainty (micromolmol)

Distribution Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution (micromolmol)

gravimetric 3801 042 normal 1 042

verification - 112 normal 1 112

systematic error - 187 rectangular 1 187 Uncertainty budget for the cylinder no D298393

Uncertainty source Estimate

(micromolmol)

Standard uncertainty (micromolmol)

Distribution Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution (micromolmol)

gravimetric 4781 048 normal 1 048

P a g e | 66

verification - 098 normal 1 098

systematic error - 235 rectangular 1 235 Uncertainty budget for the cylinder no D298402

Uncertainty source Estimate

(micromolmol)

Standard uncertainty (micromolmol)

Distribution Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution (micromolmol)

gravimetric 8005 068 normal 1 068

verification - 160 normal 1 160

systematic error - 393 rectangular 1 393

A5 Additional information

The final mixtures were prepared according ISO 6142 the cylinders evacuated on turbo molecular pump filled up an weighted on the verification balance The mixtures were prepared in aluminium (with coated layers) cylinders The mixtures were prepared with used pure nitrogen and oxygen and one step premixture of argon and two steps premixture of carbon dioxide

The verification according to ISO 6143 The measurements were repeated 10 times for the standards and the sample The curve was calculated from ratios by the software B_leastexe (linear case)

The standards were prepared by gravimetric method according to ISO 6142 The standards were prepared from separate premixtures and were diluted according ISO 6145-9

The purity of pure gases used for preparation was taken from the certificates of producer Cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM - cylinder D298392 139 bar - cylinder D298393 147 bar - cylinder D298402 147 bar

P a g e | 67

INRIM

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM‐K120‐R Project name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department

Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form

Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute INRiM‐Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica

Address Strada delle Cacce 91 I‐10135 Torino Italy

Contact person Michela Sega

Telephone +39 011 3919948 Fax +39 011 3919937

Email msegainrimit

P a g e | 68

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a No

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 D247440 4793 16 2

2 D247445 7989 26 2

3

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number D247440

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0781132 molmol 0000006 molmol 2

O2 02090627 molmol 00000055 molmol 2

Ar 00093259 molmol 00000037 molmol 2

CH4 ‐ nmolmol nmolmol

N2O ‐ nmolmol nmolmol

P a g e | 69

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number D247445

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0782389 molmol 0000006 molmol

O2 02075526 molmol 00000054 molmol

Ar 00092586 molmol 00000036 molmol

CH4 nmolmol nmolmol

N2O nmolmol nmolmol

A4 Uncertainty Budget The model equation used to calculate the mole fraction of CO2 in the final mixtures is taken from the International Standard ISO 6142‐12015

r

jq

iiji

j

r

jq

iiji

jj

Mx

m

Mx

mx

x

1

1

1

1

CO

prepCO

2

2

where the index i refers to the various components while j refers to the different parent mixtures The uncertainty budget was evaluated according to the guidelines prescribed in ISO 6142‐12015 The uncertainty budget for the gravimetric preparation of the mixture at 4793 micromolmol of CO2 which takes into account the weighted masses of the parent mixtures the molar masses of gases and their purity is reported in the following table

P a g e | 70

Uncertainty component

u(xi)

Uncertainty source

Standard uncertainty

u(xi) δxCO2prepδxi

Contribution tou(xCO2 prep)

|δxCO2prepδxi|u(xi)

u(mCO2) Weighed mass of the parent mixture of CO2

82∙10‐4 g 720∙10‐6

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 59∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(mN2) Weighed mass of the balance gas N2

82∙10‐4 g ‐764∙10‐7

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 63∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(mAr_O2) Weighed mass of the parent mixture of Ar in O2

82∙10‐4 g ‐662∙10‐7

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 54∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(MCO2) Molar mass of CO2 10∙10‐3 g∙mol‐1 ‐772∙10‐8

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 77∙10‐11 mol∙mol‐1

u(MN2) Molar mass of N2 20∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 ‐361∙10‐6

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 72∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(MAr) Molar mass of Ar 58∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 138∙10‐7

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 80∙10‐11 mol∙mol‐1

u(MO2) Molar mass of O2 28∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 310∙10‐6

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 87∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xN2inCO2) Mole fraction of N2 in the parent mixture of CO2

10∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 ‐432∙10‐4 43∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xN2inN2) Mole fraction of N2 in balance gas (purity)

87∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1 329∙10‐4 29∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xArinAr_O2) Mole fraction of Ar in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 129∙10‐4 11∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(xO2inN2) Mole fraction of O2 in balance gas (impurity)

14∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1 375∙10‐4 53∙10‐11 mol∙mol‐1

u(xO2inAr_O2) Mole fraction of O2

in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 104∙10‐4 90∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inCO2) Mole fraction of CO2 in the parent mixture of CO2

10∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 951∙10‐2 95∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inN2) Mole fraction of CO2 in balance gas (impurity)

29∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1 686∙10‐1 20∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inAr_O2) Mole fraction of CO2 in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1 219∙10‐1 19∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

Uncertainty budget for the gravimetric preparation of the mixture at 4793 micromolmol of CO2

P a g e | 71

The following table reports the uncertainty budget for the gravimetric preparation of the mixture at 7989 micromolmol of CO2

Uncertainty component

u(xi)

Uncertainty source

Standard uncertainty

u(xi) δxCO2prepδxi

Contribution tou(xCO2 prep)

|δxCO2prepδxi|u(xi)

u(mCO2) Weighed mass of the parent mixture of CO2

82∙10‐4 g 671∙10‐6

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 55∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(mN2) Weighed mass of the balance gas N2

82∙10‐4 g ‐128∙10‐6

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 10∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(mAr_O2) Weighed mass of the parent mixture of Ar in O2

82∙10‐4 g ‐111∙10‐6

mol∙mol‐1∙g‐1 91∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(MCO2) Molar mass of CO2 10∙10‐3 g∙mol‐1 365∙10‐7

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 36∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(MN2) Molar mass of N2 20∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 469∙10‐4

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 94∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(MAr) Molar mass of Ar 58∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 510∙10‐6

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 30∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(MO2) Molar mass of O2 28∙10‐4 g∙mol‐1 114∙10‐4

mol2∙mol‐1∙g‐1 32∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(xN2inCO2) Mole fraction of N2 in the parent mixture of CO2

10∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 ‐669∙10‐4 67∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xN2inN2) Mole fraction of N2 in balance gas (purity)

87∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1 498∙10‐4 43∙10‐10 mol∙mol‐1

u(xArinAr_O2) Mole fraction of Ar in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 214∙10‐4 19∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(xO2inN2) Mole fraction of O2 in balance gas (impurity)

14∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1 569∙10‐4 80∙10‐11 mol∙mol‐1

u(xO2inAr_O2) Mole fraction of O2

in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 171∙10‐4 15∙10‐9 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inCO2) Mole fraction of CO2 in the parent mixture of CO2

10∙10‐6 mol∙mol‐1 159∙10‐1 16∙10‐7 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inN2) Mole fraction of CO2 in balance gas (impurity)

29∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1 624∙10‐1 18∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

u(xCO2inAr_O2) Mole fraction of CO2 in the parent mixture of Ar in O2

87∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1 217∙10‐1 19∙10‐8 mol∙mol‐1

Uncertainty budget for the gravimetric preparation of the mixture at 7989 micromolmol of CO2 The additional contribution derived from the analytical verification was taken into account in accordance to the prescription of ISO 6142‐12015

P a g e | 72

2verCOprepCOverCO

2prepCO

2certCO )()()(

2

122222

xxxuxuxu

The following table reports the mole fractions with the associated uncertainties of the preparation and verification for the two prepared mixtures

Cylinder number xCO2 prep

micromolmol u(xCO2prep)micromolmol

xCO2 ver micromolmol

u(xCO2ver)micromolmol

D247440 4793 01 4783 12

D247445 7989 02 7965 12

A5 Additional information

a) Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas

Component Mole Fraction x u(x)

CO2 gt099998 molmol 58 micromolmol

CO le01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

H2 le01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

N2 le10 micromolmol 3 micromolmol

O2 le3 micromolmol 09 micromolmol

H2O le5 micromolmol 14 micromolmol

CnHm le3 micromolmol 09 micromolmol

Purity table for CO2

b) Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar parent gases

Component Mole Fraction x u(x)

N2 gt0999999 molmol 03 micromolmol

CO2 lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

H2 lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

O2 lt05 micromolmol 014 micromolmol

H2O lt05 micromolmol 014 micromolmol

CnHm lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

Purity table for N2

Component Mole Fraction x u(x)

O2 gt0999999 molmol 03 micromolmol

CO lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

CO2 lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

H2 lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

H2O lt05 micromolmol 014 micromolmol

CnHm lt01 micromolmol 003 micromolmol

Purity table for O2

P a g e | 73

Component Mole Fraction x u(x)

Ar gt099999 molmol 29 micromolmol

O2 lt2 micromolmol 06 micromolmol

H2O lt3 micromolmol 09 micromolmol

CnHm lt05 micromolmol 014 micromolmol

Purity table for Ar

c) Brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures

In order to produce the final mixtures the following premixtures were prepared 1) Premixture of CO2 in N2 at 0080122 molmol (U=0000025 molmol) gravimetrically prepared (double

substitution scheme A‐B‐B‐A) from pure CO2 (48) and N2 (60) 2) Premixture of CO2 in N2 at 50054 micromolmol (U=21 micromolmol) gravimetrically prepared (double

substitution scheme A‐B‐B‐A) from the above mentioned mixture n 1 of CO2 in N2 (0080122 molmol) diluted with N2 (60)

3) Premixture of Ar in O2 (Ar 0042703 molmol O2 0957297 molmol) gravimetrically prepared (double substitution scheme A‐B‐B‐A) from pure Ar (50) and O2 (60)

The final mixtures were gravimetrically prepared (double substitution scheme A‐B‐B‐A) by using premixtures n 2 and n 3 as parent mixtures and using N2 60 as balance gas to obtain the target CO2 mole fractions Concerning premixture n 3 an additional determination of the mole fraction of CO2 in the mixture was carried out by NDIR spectroscopy The instrument was calibrated in the range (01‐1) micromolmol using dynamic dilution The obtained value is 03 micromolmol of CO2 (u=009 micromolmol calculated assuming a rectangular distribution) which was taken into account for assigning the mole fraction of the final mixtures (CO2 4793 and 7989 micromolmol respectively) and evaluating the associated uncertainty

d) Brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures

After preparation the mixtures were rolled for 24 h to be homogenized An analytical verification was carried out by NDIR spectroscopy using for each mixture a 3‐point calibration curve based on WTLS in the range (330‐520) micromolmol and (690‐900) micromolmol respectively The calibration standards were prepared starting from a mixture of CO2 in synthetic air at a nominal mole fraction of 4800 micromolmol diluted with synthetic air by means of Mass Flow Controllers calibrated at INRiM Each calibration point was repeated 5 times Each calibration curve was validated by using an independent mixture of CO2 in synthetic air having a the mole fraction within the calibration range

e) Brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM

The mixtures were tested for their stability on a weekly basis following the same procedure as described in d) No trends in the analytical response were observed within 3 weeks and the mixtures could be considered stable

f) Cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM 90 bar for each cylinder

P a g e | 74

KRISS

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 75

P a g e | 76

P a g e | 77

P a g e | 78

P a g e | 79

P a g e | 80

P a g e | 81

P a g e | 82

LNE

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

SubmissionformCCQM‐K120‐RProject name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department

Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form

Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute LNE

Address 1 rue Gaston Boissier

75724 Paris Cedex 15

Contact person Mace Tatiana

P a g e | 83

Telephone +33140433853 Fax +33140433737

Email tatianamacelnefr

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty

Coverage factor

certx CO2 μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 1029045‐CO2air 0028 37948 079 2

2 1029047‐CO2AIR 0029 4776 10 2

3 1029048‐CO2AIR 0030 8022 17 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number CO2AIR 0028

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0780686 molmol 0000025 molmol 2

O2 0209528 molmol 0000019 molmol 2

Ar 0009407 molmol 0000022 molmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number CO2AIR 0029

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Unit Coverage

P a g e | 84

Uncertainty Factor

N2 0781355 molmol 0000025 molmol 2

O2 0208794 molmol 0000018 molmol 2

Ar 0009374 molmol 0000022 molmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number CO2AIR 0030

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0782710 molmol 0000027 molmol 2

O2 0207187 molmol 0000021 molmol 2

Ar 0009301 molmol 0000021 molmol 2

A4 Uncertainty Budget

Please provide a complete uncertainty budgets for the CO2 mole fraction values reported

CO2Air 0028 37948 plusmn 079 micromolmol (k=2)

Xi Unit Value u(Xi) Sensib C(Xi) C(Xi)u(Xi) poids

Mass CO2 Premix g 6021896 0017 606175153 010304978 679

CO2 molar mass gmol 440095 000091 ‐012936318 ‐000011772 000

CO2 concentration (premix) molmol 000998425 000000097 377979757 003666404 086

N2 molar mass gmol 2801348 0000099 ‐276210444 ‐000027345 000

Mass ArgO2 Premix g 3981732 0017 ‐020862621 ‐000354665 001

Arg concentration (premix) molmol 004288429 00000048 204187142 9801E‐05 000

Arg molar mass gmol 39948 0001 011015474 000011015 000

O2 molar mass gmol 319988 000042 245849547 000103257 000

N2 purity molmol 099997493 00000144 ‐281970074 ‐000406037 001

Mass N2 g 1170753 002 ‐024083902 ‐000481678 001

Stability 0 038 1 038 9232

CO2Air 0029 4776 plusmn 10 micromolmol (k=2)

Xi Unit Value u(Xi) Sensib C(Xi) C(Xi)u(Xi) Weight

Mass CO2 Premix g 7635147 0017 595567319 010124644 391

CO2 molar mass gmol 440095 000091 ‐016114898 ‐000014665 000

CO2 concentration (premix) molmol 000998425 000000097 47573918 00461467 081

N2 molar mass gmol 2801348 0000099 ‐346583037 ‐000034312 000

P a g e | 85

Mass ArgO2 Premix g 3997202 0017 ‐026063746 ‐000443084 001

Arg concentration (premix) molmol 004288429 00000048 256082804 000012292 000

Arg molar mass gmol 39948 0001 013815138 000013815 000

O2 molar mass gmol 319988 000042 308334014 0001295 000

N2 purity molmol 099997494 00000144 ‐350551134 ‐000504794 001

Mass N2 g 1165053 002 ‐030088103 ‐000601762 001

Stability 0 05 1 05 9525

CO2Air 0030 8022 plusmn 17 micromolmol (k=2)

Uncertainty source Unit Value Xi u(Xi) Sensitivity coefficient

C(Xi) C(Xi)u(Xi)

Contribution to the

uncertainty

Mass CO2 Premix g 128097 0020 575918809 011518376 201

CO2 molar mass gmol 440095 000091 ‐02614445 ‐000023791

000

CO2 concentration (premix)

molmol 000998425 000000097 799263648 007752857 091

N2 molar mass gmol 2801348 0000099 ‐578813182 ‐000057303

000

Mass ArgO2 Premix g 3961709 0021 ‐043832537 ‐000920483

001

Arg concentration (premix)

molmol 004288429 00000048 426841537 000020488 000

Arg molar mass gmol 39948 0001 023027218 000023027 000

O2 molar mass gmol 319988 000042 513934409 000215852 000

N2 purity molmol 099997493 00000144 ‐564097099 ‐0008123 001

Mass N2 g 1114778 0023 ‐050600475 ‐001163811

002

Stability 0 08 1 08 9704

A5 Additional information

Please include in this section in the case of standards produced with synthetic air

a) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg PurCO2pur007txt degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg

P a g e | 86

Component molmol uncertainty ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ CO2 09999922500 00000026021 H2O 00000015000 00000008660 O2 00000010000 00000005774 Methane 00000010000 00000005774 H2 00000002500 00000001443 N2 00000040000 00000023094

b) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar parent gas

a Pure Argon degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg PurAr_A106273txt degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg Component molmol uncertainty ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Ar 09999998100 00000000880 O2 00000000050 00000000029 H2O 00000000100 00000000058 CO2 00000000005 00000000003 CnHm 00000000250 00000000144 N2 00000001500 00000000866

b Pure Oxygen

degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg PurO2_207494Htxt degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg Component molmol uncertainty ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ O2 09999974360 00000011650 CO2 00000001640 00000000082 CO 00000000500 00000000289 CnHm 00000000500 00000000289 N2 00000020000 00000011547 H2O 00000002500 00000001443 H2 00000000500 00000000289

c Pure Nitrogen

degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg Purazote_bip_GQ88DUItxt degdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdegdeg

P a g e | 87

Component molmol uncertainty ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ N2 09999749345 00000144338 CO2 00000000005 00000000003 H2O 00000000100 00000000058 Ar 00000250000 00000144338 O2 00000000050 00000000029 H2 00000000250 00000000144 CnHm 00000000250 00000000144

c) Dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures

a Argonoxygen premix

b CO2N2 premix

c Final mixtures of CO2 in air

ArgonO2

428843 plusmn 000096

Pure Argon

94147 g (u=0011 g)

Pure Oxygen

1736737 g (u=0015 g)

CO2N2 0065

099842 plusmn 000020

CO2N2 0064

100131 plusmn 00013

181585 g (u=0016 g)

Pure N2

1422808 g (u=0019 g)

Pure CO2

248725 g (u=0017 g)

Pure N2

1550854 g (u=0019 g)

P a g e | 88

d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures The gravimetric concentrations of the CO2 gas mixtures in air have been verified with a micro gas chromatograph (chrompack CP2003) The components are separated by a HayeSep A

CO2Air 0028

37948 plusmn 079 micromolmol

CO2N2 0065

60219 g (u=0017 g)

ArgonO2

398173 g (u=0017 g)

Pure N2

1170753 g (u=0020 g)

CO2Air 0029

4776 plusmn 10 micromolmol

CO2N2 0065

76351 g (u=0017 g)

ArgonO2

399720 g (u=0017 g)

Pur N2

1165053 g (u=0020 g)

CO2Air 0030

8022 plusmn 17 micromolmol

CO2N2 0065

128097 g (u=0020 g)

ArgonO2

396171 g (u=0021 g)

Pur N2

1114778 g (u=0023 g)

P a g e | 89

column at 70degC with an hydrogen pressure at 200 kPa The injection is performed at a pressure of 15 bar during 100 ms Each CO2 gas mixture in air is compared by chromatography to a reference gas mixture of CO2 in air generated by dilution of a high concentration gravimetric gas mixture (CO2 in nitrogen) with a Molbloc flowmeter 30 runs are performed with the reference gas mixture 30 runs are performed with the gas mixture to be verified and 30 runs are performed again with the reference gas mixture The 10 previous runs are used to calculate the analytical concentration The gas mixture is validated if the difference between the analytical and gravimetric concentrations is lower than the quadratic sum of the variances

e) Stability of the gas mixtures between the time they were prepared and the time they were shipped to the BIPM The CO2 gases mixtures in air have been analysed 3 times during a period of 2 months before being sent to BIPM

P a g e | 90

P a g e | 91

BFKH

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for carbon dioxide in air standards in the

range (380‐480) micromolmol and (480‐800) micromolmol

A1 General information

Institute Hungarian Trade Licensing Office MKEH

Address Neacutemetvoumllgyi uacutet 37‐39 Budapest

1124 Hungary

Contact person Judit Fuumlkő Zsoacutefia Nagyneacute Szilaacutegyi Tamaacutes Buumlki

Telephone +36 1 4585988

+36 1 4585800

Fax + 36 1 4585 937

Email tothnefjmkehhu

P a g e | 92

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 OMH54 37984 171 2

2 OMH44 47989 211 2

3 OMH69 80030 292 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted)

(Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number OMH54

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit CoverageFactor

N2 078039 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209615 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009607 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5130 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number OMH44

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

P a g e | 93

N2 078064 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209514 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009360 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5130 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number OMH69

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078072 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209161 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009314 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5130 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

A4 Uncertainty Budget

Uncertainty budget of preparation of CO2 standard by gravimetry

OMH69 800ppm

Uncertainty

source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 138729 g Normal 000046 g 1 33158E‐04

martix mass 11397986 g Normal 0026 g 1 22811E‐05

P a g e | 94

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000333

ppm 027

OMH44 480ppm

Uncertainty

source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 081399 g Normal 000034 g 1 41770E‐04

martix mass 111578 g Normal 0026 g 1 23302E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000419

ppm 020

OMH54 380ppm

Uncertainty

source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 064422 g Normal 000032 g 1 49672E‐04

martix mass 11159357 g Normal 0026 g 1 23299E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000498

P a g e | 95

ppm 019

The standard uncertainty of xi can be expressed as xuxuxuxuxu sti

2veri

2veri

2prepi

2i

2 (1)

xprep amount-of-substance fraction from preparation (micromolmol) uprep uncertainty of xprep (micromolmol) uver uncertainty from verification (micromolmol) ust uncertainty of calibration standard (micromolmol)

verix diffenece between the gravimetric preparation value and the result of verification measurement (micromolmol)

Ux stated uncertainty of laboratory at 95 level of confidence (micromolmol) k assigned coverage factor for degree of equivalence Laboratory Code

Cylinder xprep uprep uver ust verix k U(xi)

U(xi)

ppm ppm rel

MKEH OMH54 37984 019 08 019 014 2 171 045

OMH44 47989 020 10 020 018 2 211 044

OMH69 80030 027 14 028 015 2 292 036

A5 Additional information

A51 SOURCE OF CO2 NITROGEN OXIGEN ARGON

CO2 48 from SIAD Italy

N2 45 from Messer Hungary

O2 50 from Messer Hungary

Ar 46 from Messer Hungary

A52 PURITY TABLE OF PURE CO2 (38458)

Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol)

Uncertainty

(molmol)

CO2 specifications 09999885 00000133

N2 specifications 00000050 00000058

H2O specifications 00000025 00000029

P a g e | 96

CH4 specifications 00000025 00000029

O2 specifications 00000015 00000017

A53 PURITY TABLE OF PURE NITROGEN

Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol)

Uncertainty

(molmol)

N2 specifications 09999870 00000150

O2 specifications 00000050 00000058

H2O specifications 00000050 00000058

CH4 specifications 00000025 00000029

CO specifications 00000005 00000006

A54 PURITY TABLE OF PURE OXIGEN

Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol)

Uncertainty

(molmol)

O2 specifications 09999866 00000155

N2 specifications 00000100 00000115

H2O specifications 00000025 00000029

CH4 specifications 000000003 00000004

CO specifications 000000003 00000004

CO2 specifications 000000003 00000004

A55 PURITY TABLE OF PURE ARGON

Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol)

Uncertainty

(molmol)

Ar specifications 09999822 00000206

P a g e | 97

O2 specifications 00000025 00000029

H2O specifications 00000050 00000058

N2 specifications 00000100 00000116

CO2 specifications 00000003 00000004

A56 PREPARATION OF THE MIXTURES

We used 94 L aluminum cylinder (Luxfer) with brass valves DIN10 All the three mixtures were prepared without dilution series First the pure CO2 was filled with using loop into the properly prepared cylinder the mass measurement of the loop was carried out by an analytical balance ndash Mettler Toledo AE240‐S After the pure gases were filled directly gravimetrically after each other and the measurement of the gas mass was carried out by a topload balance ndash Mettler Toledo XP26003L

A57 VERIFICATION OF THE MIXTURES

All the three mixtures measured using methaniser at Agilent GC‐FID and we used MKEH standard gases one by one for calibration this method to the purpose of confirm that the gravimetric value and uncertainty for the carbon dioxide mole fraction of its standards is valid and it is included in the calculation of the reference value

A58 STABILITY OF THE MIXTURES

All the three mixtures were measured using methaniser at Agilent GC‐FID three times independently between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM There wasnrsquot significant difference between the certified values and the measured values

A59 CYLINDER PRESSURE BEFORE SHIPMENT TO THE BIPM 100 bar

P a g e | 98

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for carbon dioxide in air standards in the range (380‐480) micromolmol and (480‐800) micromolmol A1 General information

Institute Government Office of the Capital City Budapest BFKH (former MKEH)

Address Neacutemetvoumllgyi uacutet 37‐39Budapest 1124 Hungary

Contact person Judit Fuumlkő Tamaacutes Buumlki Zsoacutefia Nagyneacute Szilaacutegyi

Telephone +36 1 4585988 +36 1 4585800

Fax + 36 1 4585 937

Email fukojuditbfkhgovhu

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 OMH54 3798 17 2

2 OMH44 4644 28 2

P a g e | 99

3 OMH69 8003 29 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted)

(Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number OMH54

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078039 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209615 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009607 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5100 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number OMH44

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078064 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209514 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009360 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5100 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number OMH69

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078072 molmol 000016 molmol 2

O2 0209161 molmol 0000048 molmol 2

Ar 0009314 molmol 0000017 molmol 2

CH4 1030 nmolmol 1200 nmolmol 2

N2O ‐ nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

H2O 4480 nmolmol 5100 nmolmol 2

CO 440 nmolmol 520 nmolmol 2

P a g e | 100

A4 Uncertainty Budget Uncertainty budget of preparation of CO2 standard by gravimetry

OMH69 800ppm

Uncertainty source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 138729 g Normal 000046 g 1 33158E‐04

martix mass 11397986 g Normal 0026 g 1 22811E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000333

ppm 027

OMH44 480ppm

Uncertainty source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 081399 g Normal 000034 g 1 41770E‐04

martix mass 111578 g Normal 0026 g 1 23302E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000419

ppm 020

P a g e | 101

OMH54 380ppm

Uncertainty source

Estimate Assumed distribution

Standard uncertainty

Sensitivity coefficient

Contribution to standard uncertainty

XI xI u(xi) cI uI(y)

CO2 purity 9999885 Rectangular 133 ppm 1 13300E‐07

CO2 mass 064422 g Normal 000032 g 1 49672E‐04

martix mass 11159357 g Normal 0026 g 1 23299E‐05

Stability 100 0002 1 20000E‐05

Variancia 0000498

ppm 019

The standard uncertainty of xi can be expressed as

xuxuxuxuxu sti2

veri2

veri2

prepi2

i2 (1)

xprep amount-of-substance fraction from preparation (micromolmol) uprep uncertainty of xprep (micromolmol) uver uncertainty from verification (micromolmol) ust uncertainty of calibration standard (micromolmol)

verix diffenece between the gravimetric preparation value and the result of verification measurement (micromolmol)

Ux stated uncertainty of laboratory at 95 level of confidence (micromolmol) k assigned coverage factor for degree of equivalence

Laboratory Code

Cylinder xprep

uprep xmeas um ust verix k U(xi) U(xi)

ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm rel

BFKH OMH54 37984 019 08 019 014 2 17 045

OMH44 47989 020 46444 14 020 2 28 058

OMH69 80030 027 14 028 015 2 29 036

The stability measurements indicated some preparation mistake in case of the OMH44 cylinder The certified value of this cylinder was calculated from the measurements and the uncertainty from the equation below

xuxuxuxu sti2

easmi2

prepi2

i2

P a g e | 102

A5 Additional information A51 SOURCE OF CO2 NITROGEN OXIGEN ARGON CO2 48 from SIAD Italy N2 45 from Messer Hungary O2 50 from Messer Hungary Ar 46 from Messer Hungary A52 PURITY TABLE OF PURE CO2 (38458) Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol) Uncertainty (molmol)

CO2 Specifications 09999885 00000133 N2 Specifications 00000050 00000058 H2O Specifications 00000025 00000029 CH4 Specifications 00000025 00000029 O2 Specifications 00000015 00000017 A53 PURITY TABLE OF PURE NITROGEN Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol) Uncertainty (molmol)

N2 Specifications 09999870 00000150 O2 Specifications 00000050 00000058 H2O Specifications 00000050 00000058 CH4 Specifications 00000025 00000029 CO Specifications 00000005 00000006 A54 PURITY TABLE OF PURE OXIGEN Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol) Uncertainty (molmol)

O2 Specifications 09999866 0000016 N2 Specifications 00000100 0000012 H2O Specifications 00000025 00000029 CH4 Specifications 000000003 00000004 CO Specifications 000000003 00000004 CO2 Specifications 000000003 00000004 A55 PURITY TABLE OF PURE ARGON Component Method Mole fraction

(molmol) Uncertainty (molmol)

Ar Specifications 09999822 00000200 O2 Specifications 00000025 00000029 H2O Specifications 00000050 00000058 N2 Specifications 00000100 0000012 CO2 Specifications 00000003 00000004 A56 PREPARATION OF THE MIXTURES We used 94 L aluminum cylinder (Luxfer) with brass valves DIN10

P a g e | 103

All the three mixtures were prepared without dilution series First the pure CO2 was filled with using loop into the properly prepared cylinder the mass measurement of the loop was carried out by an analytical balance ndash Mettler Toledo AE240‐S After the pure gases were filled directly gravimetrically after each other and the measurement of the gas mass was carried out by a topload balance ndash Mettler Toledo XP26003L A57 VERIFICATION OF THE MIXTURES All the three mixtures measured using methaniser at Agilent GC‐FID and we used MKEH standard gases one by one for calibration this method to the purpose of confirm that the gravimetric value and uncertainty for the carbon dioxide mole fraction of its standards is valid and it is included in the calculation of the reference value A58 STABILITY OF THE MIXTURES All the three mixtures were measured using methaniser at Agilent GC‐FID three times independently between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM A59 CYLINDER PRESSURE BEFORE SHIPMENT TO THE BIPM 100 bar

P a g e | 104

NIM

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM-K120 Carbon dioxide in Air Laboratory National Institute of Metrology

Cylinders number FB03748 FB03744 FB03747

Preparation report

A1 General information

Institute National Institute of Metrology China

Address 18 Bei San Huan Dong Lu Chaoyang District City Bei Jing

Building 17 Room 217

Contact person BI Zhe Zeyi Zhou

Telephone 86-10-84232306 Fax 86-10-84232306

Email zhouzynimaccn bizhnimaccn

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM-K120a Yes

CCQM-K120b Yes

A3 Submitted values for carbon dioxide preparation results in each standard

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2 μmolmol )( CO2 certxU

μmolmol

1 FB03748 80982 026 2

2 FB03744 48915 022 2

P a g e | 105

3 FB03747 38343 020 2

A4 Submitted values for each standardrsquos matrix Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted)

(Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number FB03748

Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage

Factor CH4(Methane) 101times10-9 molmol 203E-10 molmol 2 C2H4(Ethene) 146times10-10 molmol 113E-10 molmol 2 C3H8(Propane) 518times10-10 molmol 405E-10 molmol 2 N2(Nitrogen) 0781 molmol 271E-05 molmol 2 O2(Oxygen) 0210 molmol 260E-05 molmol 2 Ar(Argon) 794times10-3 molmol 969E-06 molmol 2 H2O(Water) 291times10-7 molmol 139E-07 molmol 2 N2O(Dinitrogen_oxide) 790times10-10 molmol 586E-10 molmol 2 CO2(Carbon_dioxide) 80982times10-4 molmol 248E-07 molmol 2 (Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number FB03744

Component Mole fraction Value

Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

CH4(Methane) 101E-09 molmol 308E-10 molmol 2 C2H4(Ethene) 880E-11 molmol 685E-11 molmol 2 C3H8(Propane) 313E-10 molmol 245E-10 molmol 2 N2(Nitrogen) 781E-01 molmol 275E-05 molmol 2 O2(Oxygen) 210E-01 molmol 264E-05 molmol 2 Ar(Argon) 904E-03 molmol 990E-06 molmol 2 H2O(Water) 290E-07 molmol 139E-07 molmol 2 N2O(Dinitrogen_oxide) 790E-10 molmol 601E-10 molmol 2 CO2(Carbon_dioxide) 48915E-04 molmol 191E-07 molmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number FB03747 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage

Factor CH4(Methane) 101E-09 molmol 408E-10 molmol 2 C2H4(Ethene) 690E-11 molmol 537E-11 molmol 2 C3H8(Propane) 245E-10 molmol 192E-10 molmol 2 N2(Nitrogen) 782E-01 molmol 288E-05 molmol 2 O2(Oxygen) 209E-01 molmol 276E-05 molmol 2 Ar(Argon) 922E-03 molmol 102E-05 molmol 2 H2O(Water) 289E-07 molmol 139E-07 molmol 2 N2O(Dinitrogen_oxide) 791E-10 molmol 607E-10 molmol 2 CO2(Carbon_dioxide) 38343E-04 molmol 183E-07 molmol 2 CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

P a g e | 106

Cylinder

Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 2 3

A5 Uncertainty Budget Please provide a complete uncertainty budgets for the CO2 mole fraction values reported

Uncertainty budget

Cylinder

Gravimetric

valueμmolmol

Component distribution Standard

uncertaintyμmolmol

FB03748 80982

Combined uncertainty of

Purity Molecular and

Weighing

Normal 0124

Repeatability of the

measurement Normal 0040

Combined standard uncertainty 013

FB03744 48915

Combined uncertainty of

Purity Molecular and

Weighing

Normal 0096

Repeatability of the

measurement Normal 0030

Combined standard uncertainty 011

FB03747 38343

Combined uncertainty of

Purity Molecular and

Weighing

Normal 0092

Repeatability of the

measurement Normal 0030

Combined standard uncertainty 010

A6 Additional information

P a g e | 107

Please include in this section in the case of standards produced with synthetic air

g) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas h) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar NO2 and CH4 parent gas i) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures j) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures k) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time

they are shipped to the BIPM and l) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

a) purity table for the nominally pure CO2 09999924 molmol

Component Amount fraction

(10-6molmol)

Standard uncertainty

(10-6molmol) Assumed distribution

CH4 113 045 Normal

C2H4 018 007 Normal

C3H8 064 025 Normal

O2 052 021 Normal

Ar 010 004 Normal

N2 251 100 Normal

H2O 250 100 Normal

N2O 0001 00006 Rectangular

CO2 9999924 15 Normal

b) purity table for the nominally pure N2 0 9999521 molmol

Component Amount fraction

(10-6molmol)

Standard uncertainty

(10-6molmol) Assumed distribution

CH4 0001 00005 Rectangular

Ar 483 48 Normal

O2 002 0006 Normal

CO2 0010 0003 Normal

H2O 010 004 Normal

N2O 0001 00004 Rectangular

P a g e | 108

N2 9999521 48 Normal

purity table for the nominally pure O2 0 9999959 molmol

Component Amount fraction

(10-6molmol)

Standard uncertainty

(10-6molmol) Assumed distribution

CH4 0001 00003 Normal

Ar 20 05 Normal

N2 11 03 Normal

CO2 00012 00004 Rectangular

H2O 12 04 Normal

N2O 0001 00004 Rectangular

O2 9999959 48 Normal

purity table for the nominally pure Ar 09999998 molmol

Component Amount fraction

(10-6molmol)

Standard uncertainty

(10-6molmol) Assumed distribution

CH4 0001 00003 Normal

O2 0020 0005 Normal

N2 0010 0001 Normal

CO2 0001 00004 Rectangular

H2O 01 04 Normal

N2O 0001 00004 Rectangular

Ar 9999998 48 Normal

P a g e | 109

c) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures

d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures Seven primary standard cylinders of CO2 in air mixture were measured by CRDs A linearity regression was established based on these seven cylinders For each point an average of date recorded in 2 minutes were used The verification wre done by the comparison of gravimetric values and the calculated values

Gravimetric value Fitted value Relative deviation

y = 1002382 x + 0187049 Rsup2 = 1000000

350

450

550

650

750

850

350 450 550 650 750 850

Measured value VS Gravimetric value

1047095 g

CO2

N2

26743 g

CO2N2 15998ppm

Ar O2 N2

FB03748

CO2N2 32592 g Ar 7193 g O2 153303 g N2 466458 g

FB03744

CO2N2 19417 g Ar 8082 g O2 150754 g N2 472375 g

FB03747

CO2N2 14474 g Ar 7835 g O2 142777 g N2 453560 g

P a g e | 110

μmolmol μmolmol 80982 80965 -0021 81307 81319 0015 49106 49113 0014 48915 48928 0025 37819 37818 -0003 39162 39161 -0004 38343 38332 -0030

e) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are

prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM

Three test gas mixtures were prepared 3 months before the comparison After gas mixtures for the comparison were prepared a liner regression was done by combining the test gas mixtures and the comparison cylinders No significant drift of the values was observed between the time they were prepared and the time they were shipped to the BIPM f) cylinders pressure before shipment to the BIPM

Cylinder No Pressure (bar) FB03748 90 FB03744 90 FB03747 90

P a g e | 111

NIST

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM‐K120‐R Project name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department

Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form

Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute NIST

Address 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8393

Gaithersburg MD 20899‐8393

Contact person George C Rhoderick

Telephone 301‐975‐3937 Fax 301‐977‐8392

P a g e | 112

Email GeorgeRhodericknistgov

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 FB04278 3790449 03908 2

2 FB04300 4726617 04280 2

3 FB04287 7945334 10287 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number FB04278

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0780812 molmol 0000118 molmol 2

O2 0209470 molmol 000071 molmol 2

Ar 0009339 molmol 000037 molmol 2

CH4 nmolmol nmolmol

N2O nmolmol nmolmol

P a g e | 113

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number FB04300

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0780771 molmol 0000128 molmol 2

O2 0209422 molmol 0000081 molmol 2

Ar 0009334 molmol 0000034 molmol 2

CH4 nmolmol nmolmol

N2O nmolmol nmolmol

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number FB04287

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0780499 molmol 0000114 molmol 2

O2 0209370 molmol 0000067 molmol 2

Ar 0009336 molmol 0000040 molmol 2

CH4 nmolmol nmolmol

N2O nmolmol nmolmol

CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 FB04278 ‐28 plusmn 2 1

2 FB04300 ‐28 plusmn 2 1

3 FB04287 ‐28 plusmn 2 1

A4 Uncertainty Budget Please provide a complete uncertainty budgets for the CO2 mole fraction values reported

P a g e | 114

A5 Additional information

FB04278

Standard Relative ContributionValue Uncertainty Uncertianty to Uncertainty

Major Component MW 2801340 000016 00000058 00020

Minor Component MW 4400950 000052 00000119 00041

Mass Parent Gas 1893585 000146 00000769 00264

Mass Balance Gas 7453878 00020 00000027 00009

Minor Component Wt Fraction 0023250750 0000006755 00002905 00997

Mass minor component - Parent 044027281 000013232 00003005 01031Mass minor component - Bal 000006695 000001936 02890953 991626

Total mass minor component 044017935 000022556 00005124 01758

Moles of minor component 001000192 000000513 00005126 01758

Balance gas wt fraction (purity) 0755569792 390976E-05 00000517 00177

Mass balance gas - parent 1397906371 000148549 00001063 00365Mass balance gas - balance 56319253120 002918142 00000518 00178

Total mass balance gas 57717159491 002921920 00000506 00174

Moles of balance gas 2060341104 000104994 00000510 00175

Moles impurities from parent 013966291020 000002524000 00001807 00620

Moles impurities from balance 56340784 00010163 00001804 00619

Total Moles of gas 263871542 00014615 00000554 00190

Conc minor component (ppm) 3790449 01954Relative uncert 0052 0292 100000

FB04300

Standard Relative Contribution

Value Uncertainty Uncertianty to Uncertainty

Major Component MW 2801340 000016 00000058 00025

Minor Component MW 4400950 000052 00000119 00050

Mass Parent Gas 2953886 000141 00000477 00201

Mass Balance Gas 74869117 000194 00000026 00011

CO2 Component Wt Fraction 0018926076 0000006339 00003350 01414

Mass CO2 component - Parent 055905476 000018915 00003383 01428Mass CO2 component - Balance Air 000003828 000000898 02345407 989951

Total mass CO2 component 055885777 000025068 00004486 01893

Moles of minor component 001269857 000000570 00004487 01894

Balance gas wt fraction (purity) 07556035 000004300 00000569 00240Mass balance gas - parent 2190310136 000191642 00000875 00369

Mass balance gas - balance 56571366688 003222901 00000570 00240

Total mass balance gas 58761676824 003228594 00000549 00232

Moles of balance gas 2097627451 000115899 00000553 00233

Moles impurities from parent 021883087438 000003747112 00001712 00723

Moles impurities from balance 56582830 00011276 00001993 00841

Total Moles of gas 268660869 00016174 00000602 00254

Conc minor component (ppm) 4726617 02140Relative uncert 0045 0237 100000

FB04287

Standard Relative ContributionValue Uncertainty Uncertianty to Uncertainty

Major Component MW 2801340 000016 00000058 00021

Minor Component MW 4400950 000052 00000119 00042

Mass Parent Gas 3957940 000137 00000346 00122

Mass Balance Gas 7227358 00020 00000028 00010

Minor Component Wt Fraction 0023250750 0000006716 00002889 01017

Mass minor component - Parent 092025076 000026773 00002909 01025Mass minor component - Bal 000005052 000001421 02813263 990842

Total mass minor component 092005795 000059343 00006450 02272

Moles of minor component 002090589 000001349 00006451 02272

Balance gas wt fraction (purity) 0755575527 389029E-05 00000515 00181

Mass balance gas - parent 2921880196 000218877 00000749 00264Mass balance gas - balance 54608149036 002815892 00000516 00182

Total mass balance gas 57530029233 002824386 00000491 00173

Moles of balance gas 2053661078 000101531 00000494 00174

Moles impurities from parent 029192104701 000004836046 00001657 00583

Moles impurities from balance 54627264 00009803 00001795 00632

Total Moles of gas 263121641 00014122 00000537 00189

Conc minor component (ppm) 7945334 05143Relative uncert 0065 0284 100000

P a g e | 115

Please include in this section in the case of standards produced with synthetic air

m) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas n) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 Ar NO2 and CH4

parent gas o) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures p) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures q) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are

prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM and r) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

Or with real air

a) a purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas Compound molmol Uncertainty CO2 0999994000 0000002000 N2 0000002000 0000001155 O2 0000002000 0000001155 Ar 0000002000 0000001155

b) results of the analysis and mole fractions and uncertainties of CO2 N2 O2 Ar N2O and CH4 in the scrubbed real air (if performed)

Cylinder FB04300 Compound molmol Uncertainty N2 0781133467 0000043500 CO2 0000000151 0000000036 O2 0209528241 0000039865 Ar 0009338142 0000017407

Cylinder FB04278 Compound molmol Uncertainty N2 0781102830 0000039359 CO2 0000000059 0000000017 O2 0209554557 0000034507 Ar 0009342554 0000018932

Cylinder FB04287 Compound molmol Uncertainty N2 0781108354 0000039152 CO2 0000000046 0000000013 O2 0209548136 0000033045 Ar 0009343463 0000020998

P a g e | 116

c) a brief outline of the preparation procedure of the final mixtures

The three cylinders were evacuated to ~ 05 micro of Hg filled to ~ 07 Mpa with UHP Air and vented to atmosphere (four times) and evacuated to ~ 05 micro Hg A calculated aliquot of the parent cylinder was added to each cylinder and then weighed A calculated aliquot of the matrix gas was added to each cylinder and then weighed The cylinders were rolled for ~ three hours to mix the component gases

d) a composition table for each of the final mixtures including gravimetric Uncertainties when relevant Cylinder FB04300 Compound molmol Uncertainty CO2 0000472662 0000000214 N2 0780771482 0000063800 O2 0209421668 0000040372 Ar 0009334188 0000016775 Cylinder FB04278 Compound molmol Uncertainty CO2 0000379045 0000000195 N2 0780812166 0000058766 O2 0209469584 0000035657 Ar 0009339205 0000018480 Cylinder FB04287 Compound molmol Uncertainty CO2 0000794533 0000000514 N2 0780498735 0000056955 O2 0209370336 0000033285 Ar 0009336395 0000019945

e) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures The cylinders were verified against five existing PSMs a minimum of six times using an Isotopic CO2 Cavity Ringdown Spectrometer

f) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM and

g) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

P a g e | 117

Cylinder MPa FB04300 965 FB04278 1034 FB04278 999

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders 1st report

2nd report received on May 16 2018

Addendum to NIST Report for CCQM-K120a and b 1 Introduction NIST agreed to participate in the CCQM-K120a and b Key Comparison (KC) with the understanding that this KC involved gravimetrically value-assigned samples As stated in the protocol summary the comparison involved ldquohellip preparative capabilities for carbon dioxide in air primary reference mixturesrdquo Based on this description of the KC as involving primary reference mixtures NIST assumed that the participantsrsquo value assignments and reported data were restricted solely to those that derive from purity assessments and primary gravimetric measurements However prior to submission of the reported concentrations to GAWG NIST discovered a significant discrepancy in the gravimetric values which was caused by extenuating circumstances (discussed below) and which was quantified using supplementary measurements carried out at NIST Nevertheless to follow the KC protocol and to meet the imposed deadlines NIST submitted only the gravimetric-based concentration values for the three required CO2-in-air samples despite having assessed that the results were not expected to agree with the eventual calculated KCRV 2 Background Studies on CO2 adsorptiondesorption issues NIST performed and continues to investigate an adsorptiondesorption phenomenon with CO2 in air mixtures [1] NIST has observed in 5 and 6 L aluminum cylinders containing nominal 400 micromolmol CO2 in air mixtures initial CO2 adsorption to the cylinder walls of as little as 02 micromolmol to more than 1 micromolmol depending on the cylinder and internal treatment tested It has been observed that CO2 initially adsorbs on the cylinder walls when a mixture is

NIST CCQM K120 comparison samples dataPressure August 112017 Pressure

Original Reported Original Verified Veri‐Grav departure Re‐verified Value ReVerified value‐ back

Cylinder Gravimetirc Value ppm Value ppm Diff from NIST Stability check ppm Grav Value ppm to NIST

FB04278 37905 plusmn 039 38030 plusmn 028 033 1034 MPa 38007 plusmn 030 027 724 MPa

FB04300 47266 plusmn 043 47340 plusmn 034 016 965 MPa 47337 plusmn 052 015 724 MPa

FB04287 79453 plusmn 103 79512 plusmn 058 007 999 MPa 79477 plusmn 038 003 724 MPa

Re‐verified Value Re‐Verified‐ Pressure back

SRM Sample Original Certified Value Stability check ppm Orig Cert to NIST

1720‐A‐26 39397 plusmn 013 39403 plusmn 020 0015 414 MPa (600 psi)

P a g e | 118

prepared to high pressure (asymp12 MPa asymp1800 psi) NIST modeled some of that early data that shows an increase in CO2 mole fraction (∆x) with reduced cylinder pressure from measurements of a CO2 in air mixture contained in a 6 L aluminum cylinder using the Langmuir isotherm (Irving Langmuir 1916 1918) and is shown in Figure 1

Figure 1 Measured CO2 mole fraction increase versus pressure decrease in a 6 L aluminum cylinder Solid black points represent actual measured mole fraction Solid blue line represents applied Langmuir Isotherm model Using the actual measured CO2 change in 5 L and 6 L cylinders and the Langmuir isotherm NIST modeled for projected ∆x CO2 variation for 30 L and 47 L aluminum cylinders as shown in Figure 2 The models predict that the larger the cylinder volume the less change in the CO2 mole fraction with pressure loss NIST studies of CO2 in air mixtures contained in 30 L cylinders indeed show less increase in the mole fraction of CO2 as the pressure in the cylinder decreases Therefore the surface-to-volume ratio appears to play a major role the larger the cylinder volume the less CO2 increase It is most likely that this phenomenon takes place not only at ambient CO2 mole fractions but also at much higher levels including a few molmol and higher

Figure 2 Projected variation in ∆x for 6-L 30-L and 47-L cylinders applying Langmuir Isotherm This background information was presented at the GAWG meeting in April 2017 as analyses of K120 a and b were underway These results account for the discrepant NIST values in K120 a and b More generally this study informed participants of the serious potential pitfalls associated with desorption of CO2 from cylinder walls and the dependence of this process on total charge cylinder dimensions etc and revealed the possibility of unaccounted for Type B uncertainties caused by interactions of CO2 with cylinder walls Partly because of these findings and the

P a g e | 119

occurrence of extremely low uncertainties reported by some NMIs GAWG decided to put a lower limit on the expanded uncertainty equal to 019 mol mol-1 thus affecting the relative weighting of the results contributing to the KCRV 3 Preparation of K120 Samples In conjunction with submitting freshly prepared gravimetric standards for the CCQM-K120 CO2 in air key comparison NIST also wanted to prepare a complete new suite of ambient level CO2 in air primary standard mixtures (PSMs) starting with a pure natural isotopic CO2 source That new pure CO2 source arrived at NIST in November 2016 Because there was a limited amount of pure CO2 in the cylinder obtained NIST started development by gravimetrically preparing four PSMs in the range of 1-3 molmol in CO2 and moisture scrubbed real air Upon completion of those PSMs in early December 2016 they were analyzed by GC-TCD along with the NIST 2012 CO2 suite with ratios calculated from peak area responses to a control Generalized least squares regression was used to plot the ratios vs gravimetric values of the 2012 PSMs The new percent level PSMs were predicted from the regression line The results of that comparison are shown in Table 1 Inspection of the residuals from the difference of the predicted Ysolution- YGrav value for the 2012 PSMs reveals excellent agreement However the predicted Yeval values for the new PSMs disagree with their gravimetric values by more than -2 Table 1 New percent level PSMs predicted from linear regression of 2012 PSMs

Based on these results either the 2012 suite of PSMs had increased in mole fraction because of desorption of CO2 from the cylinder surface with pressure decrease or the new source of pure CO2 was contaminated Indeed the pure CO2 was eventually analyzed in January of 2017 and found to be contaminated with 31 molmol N2 Because NIST had no time to obtain another source of pure CO2 to make another set of PSMs (K120 samples needed to be shipped to BIPM by the end of December 2016) we had to assume that the 2012 percent level PSMs were stable We made this assumption knowing that it most likely was not the case because the CO2 mole fraction had increased as these standards were below asymp 45 MPa (asymp650 psi) Not having another source of CO2 (the original CO2 source used for the 2012 suite and the source for over three decades was spent) NIST could not prepare new percent-level standards to verify the 2012 percent level standards and determine if the CO2 had indeed increased

Res idua l

2012 PSM X (Ratio) Y (Grav molmol) X‐Solution Y‐Solution uTest (Y‐Sol ‐Grav)

FA02584 244265 49500 244266 49490 Pass ‐002

FA02588 22877 46190 22877 46205 Pass 003

APEX1099215 078272 15422 078272 15420 Pass ‐001

APEX1099172 063673 12535 063656 12538 Pass 002

CAL016532 050028 09869 05003 09869 Pass 000

difference

From New CO2 Xin (Ratio) uXin Yeval (molmol) uYeval Grav Value Yeval‐Grav

FB03808 139347 000103 27669 00033 28288 ‐219

APEX1099165 118456 000141 23442 00035 24043 ‐250

APEX1099188 11708 000130 23164 00033 23773 ‐256

APEX1099246 078483 000058 15462 00015 15822 ‐228

(plusmn 00007)

P a g e | 120

NIST moved forward and prepared the three K120 standards from the 2012 PSMs cylinder number APEX1099215 at (15422 plusmn 00010) molmol and APEX1099172 at (12535 plusmn 00009) molmol (highlighted in green in Table 1) Figure 3 shows the preparation scheme

Figure 3 Preparation scheme for NIST K120 samples It is very important to state here that both cylinders were low in pressure when the three K120 standards were prepared from them APEX1099215 at 520 psi and APEX1099172 at 390 psi While NIST did not have stability data for percent-level CO2 in air mixtures we still suspected that the CO2 also increases at this mole fraction level as the pressure decreases After preparation of the three K120 standards they were compared to the 2012 ambient level PSMs and three SRM samples were also included Figure 4 shows the generalized least squares regression plotted for the 2012 PSMs represented by the black circles The blue circles represent the predicted value for the SRM 1720 samples from that regression and the red triangles represent the original SRM 1720 certified value The green squares represent the predicted value for the K120 samples from that regression line while the yellow circle with red border represent the gravimetric values From this plot the blue dotted linear regression line appears to cover all the data points

Pure CO2

CC282116

999940 plusmn 00002

APEX1099172 APEX1099215

12535 plusmn 00009 15422 plusmn 00010

molmol molmol

FB04300 FB04300 FB04300

472662 plusmn 0214 379045 plusmn 0214 794533 plusmn 0514

micromolmol micromolmol micromolmol

combined uncerta inties k=1

350

450

550

650

750

850

950

070 090 110 130 150 170 190

CO2mole fraction micro

molmol

Response Ratio

2012 CO2 PSMs

K120 Standards Predicted

K120 Grav Value

Predicted SRM 1720

SRM1720 Certified Value

P a g e | 121

Figure 4 Generalized least squares regression through NIST 2012 ambient CO2 PSM suite predicting SRM 1720 and K120 samples However if we expand the lower portion of the regression from (350-400) micromolmol we see disagreement between the new standards and SRM 1720 certified values as shown in Figure 5 While the predicted and gravimetric value for the 380 micromolmol K120 standard are still on the regression line the SRM 1720 certified values are off the regression line by around +1 micromol mol (03 relative) However the predicted and gravimetric value for the 380 micromolmol K120 sample lie on the regression line NIST has complete confidence that the SRM 1720 samples contained in 30-L cylinders are stable since they were all at pressures of +11 MPa Therefore NIST suspected that the 2012 PSMs all had increased in concentration and hence would predict the SRM 1720 samples to have less CO2 The fact that the K120 samples also lie on the line with the 2012 PSM regression we can postulate that the 2012 percent level PSMs had also increased in CO2 mole fraction as they had pressures less than 45 MPa (650 psi) when used to prepare the K120 samples

Figure 5 Expansion of Figure 4 illustrating that the SRM 1720 certified values lie off the regression line while K120 gravimetric and predicted values are still on the regression line Expanded uncertainty error bars are present but too small to be observed except in the red triangle SRM 1720 Certified Value NIST took this data for the 2012 ambient level PSMs and determined values by comparison to SRM sample 1720-A-29 with a certified value of (39312 plusmn 013) micromolmol with and (k = 2) uncertainty value at a pressure of +12 MPa The values determined for the PSMs from the SRM 1720 sample are significantly different from their gravimetric values with reduced pressure as shown in Table 2 Table 2 Ambient level 2012 PSMs determined from SRM sample 1720-A-29

4 Validity of SRM 1720 samples The SRM 1720 sample used to verify these PSMs is contained in a 30-Liter aluminum cylinder Other SRM 1720 samples have shown to be stable within uncertainty limits down to around 600 psi as shown in Table 3

‐029

‐037‐031

378

383

388

393

398

074 075 075 076 076 077 077 078 078 079 079

CO2mole fraction micro

molmol

Response Ratio

2012 CO2 PSMs

K120 Standard Predicted

K120 Standard Grav Value

SRM 1720 Predicted Value

SRM 1720 Certified Value

Gravimetric Concentration vs SRM1720 Difference Pressure

2012 PSM Mole Fraction micromolmol micromolmol micromolmol Diff ps i (Mpa)

APEX1099211 96107 plusmn 003 96091 plusmn 020 0160 002 1200 (827)

APEX1099176 91907 plusmn 046 91922 plusmn 025 ‐0150 ‐002 650 (448)

APEX1099164 67362 plusmn 035 67405 plusmn 015 ‐0430 ‐006 800 (552)

APEX1099223 63330 plusmn 042 63367 plusmn 017 ‐0370 ‐006 700 (483)

APEX1005714 42108 plusmn 006 42246 plusmn 009 ‐1380 ‐033 300 (207)

APEX1005721 39885 plusmn 006 40003 plusmn 015 ‐1180 ‐030 400 (276)

APEX1005690 37944 plusmn 006 38048 plusmn 010 ‐1040 ‐027 400 (276)

uncerta inty k=1

P a g e | 122

Table 3 Mole fractions showing increase in 30 Liter SRM 1720 samples with pressure loss

SRM 1720 samples were originally certified by comparing to the 2012 suite of four PSMs when they were at full pressure (+11 MPa) three of which are given in Table 2 APEX1005714 (42108 plusmn 006) micromolmol APEX1005721 (39885 plusmn 006) micromolmol and APEX1005690 (37944 plusmn 006) micromolmol The SRM 1720 samples were also analyzed by NOAA with results showing agreement between NIST and NOAA [2] Figure 6 shows that agreement for the 30 real air cylinder samples that comprised SRM 1720

Figure 6 Comparison of NIST and NOAA CO2 values for 30 SRM 1720 samples Error bars are expanded uncertainties at approximate 95 confidence interval 5 Verifying the K120 Samples Because all the original NIST 2012 PSMs at the 380 to 420 micromolmol range were low in pressure they could not be trusted to verify the new K120 PSMs Therefore in late December 2016 NIST used SRM sample 1720-A-29 then at 1700 psi to verify the gravimetric mole fractions in the K120 standards using CRDS Table 4 shows the gravimetric and verified values for the NIST K120 samples The December 2016 verified value is significantly higher by as much as 1 micromolmol than the gravimetric value for each of the three K120 standards This provides strong evidence that even the molmol 2012 PSMs have increased in mole fraction with the decrease in pressure Table 4 Gravimetric and verified values for NIST K120 samples

30 ‐Liter August 2017 Stability

SRM Original Certified Stability check 2017 ‐

Sample Value ppm value ppm Cert ppm

1720‐A‐26a 39397 + 013 (SRM used by BIPM for K120) 39403 + 020 + 006 600 psi 414 Mpa

1720‐AL‐01 38833 plusmn 013 38867 plusmn 014 + 034 325 psi 224 Mpa

1720‐AL‐27 39339 plusmn 013 39364 plusmn 015 + 025 450 psi 31 Mpa

All verified and stability check values determined against SRM 1720‐A‐29 (still at a pressure of 1500+ psi)

All uncertainties reported as expanded k = 2

aSRM 1720‐A‐26 was sent to BIPM as part of their system validation for K120

388

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30mole fraction micro

mol mol ‐1

Sample

NIST

NOAA

Pressure

Original Reported December 2016 Verified Verified‐Grav Verified‐Grav departure

Cylinder Gravimetirc Value ppm Verified Value micromolmol Diff in micromolmol Diff from NIST

FB04278 37905 plusmn 039 38008 plusmn 028 103 027 1034 MPa

FB04300 47266 plusmn 043 47340 plusmn 034 068 016 965 MPa

FB04287 79453 plusmn 103 79512 plusmn 058 059 007 999 MPa

P a g e | 123

Uncertainties at 95 confidence interval NIST was aware when they shipped their K120 samples to BIPM for the K120 comparison that their gravimetric values were not good However we followed the K120 protocol laid down for ldquopreparative capabilities for carbon dioxide in air primary reference mixturesrdquo and submitted the gravimetric values knowing that the verified values were the correct molar fractions for these mixtures 6 Stability check of K120 samples NIST received the three K120 samples back from BIPM in August 2017 and proceeded to check them for stability The three samples were once again compared to SRM 1720-A-29 and those results are shown in Table 5 The August 2017 stability check values agree with the December 2016 verified values and therefore have remained stable as they should be since the pressures were well above those where increases in mole fraction have been observed Table 5 Stability check results for K120 samples

Uncertainties at 95 confidence interval

7 Isotopic Composition The original value submitted by NIST for δ13C of -28 + 2 permil was an error of data transcription NIST had determined this value in 2014 for the pure source of CO2 used to prepare the submitted standards to be δ13C = -38 + 2 permil as determined by FTIR After receiveing the three standards back from BIPM NIST measured the δ13C to be -401 + 01 permil as determined by GC-IRMS 8 NIST Best-Estimate Value If it had been explicitly stated that participants could report their ldquobest-estimate valuerdquo for samples submitted for this CCQM-K120 key comparison for ambient CO2 in air which would not necessarily be their true gravimetric value then NIST would have submitted the values obtained from verification against the SRM sample NIST ldquobest-estimate valuesrdquo are thus given in Table 6 Table 6 NIST Best-Estimate (Verified) Values

August 2017 August 2017 Pressure

December 2016 Verified August 2017 Stability check‐Dec 2016 Stabiity check‐ back

Cylinder Verified Value micromolmol Stability check micromolmol Verified Value micromolmol Verified Value Diff to NIST

FB04278 38008 plusmn 028 38007 plusmn 030 ‐001 ‐0003 724 MPa

FB04300 47340 plusmn 034 47337 plusmn 052 ‐003 ‐0006 724 MPa

FB04287 79512 plusmn 058 79477 plusmn 038 ‐035 ‐0044 724 MPa

P a g e | 124

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 FB04278 38008 028 2

2 FB04300 47340 034 2

3 FB04287 79512 058 2

9 Observations from this Comparison NIST has the opinion that this key comparison was unnecessarily rushed to completion by the pilot laboratory As co-pilot on this comparison NIST should not have agreed to the arbitrary and premature deadline imposed by the pilot laboratory knowing that an optimal level of sample control had not been demonstrated Given that future key comparisons will continue to be co-piloted both parties must agree that the preliminary studies and procedures are sufficiently well-established to set firm deadlines for sample submission by participating NMIrsquos Ideally the mutual decision to set the timeline for the KC and the readiness of other NMIrsquos to participate should be discussed formally by the GAWG at the Spring or Fall meeting NIST also recommends that the GAWG draft a formal policy document that unambiguously defines the terms such as ldquogravimetricrdquo ldquoprimaryrdquo ldquopreparativerdquo ldquoanalyticalrdquo ldquobest-estimaterdquo among others which are used to describe the scope of key comparisons For example in the context of gas standards we might propose that ldquoprimaryrdquo refers to mixtures prepared by gravimetry or manometry On the other hand ldquopreparativerdquo appears with ldquoprimaryrdquo in the K120 a and b protocol summary statement What is the exact meaning of ldquopreparativerdquo in this context Similarly the term ldquobest-estimaterdquo was mentioned in discussions on K120 a and b during the April 2018 GAWG meeting when referring to acceptable reported values by NMIs although the exact meaning of this term was not clarified NISTrsquos current position is that ldquobest-estimaterdquo falls outside the scope of K120a and b and is more consistent with an ldquoanalyticalrdquo comparison These examples illustrate the need for a precise terminology to specify acceptable methods used for value assignment in future KCs For transparency this terminology should be formally defined by the GAWG for unambiguous use in subsequent KC protocols References 1 Miller WR Rhoderick GC Guenther FR Anal Chem 2015 87(3) pp 1957-1962 2 Rhoderick GR Kitzis DR Kelley ME Miller WR Hall BD Dlugokencky EJ Tans PP Possolo A Carney J Anal Chem 2016 88(6) 3376-3385 doi

101021acsanalchem6b00123

P a g e | 125

NMISA

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 126

P a g e | 127

P a g e | 128

P a g e | 129

P a g e | 130

P a g e | 131

P a g e | 132

P a g e | 133

NOAA

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 134

P a g e | 135

P a g e | 136

P a g e | 137

P a g e | 138

P a g e | 139

NPL

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM‐K120‐R Project name CCQM‐K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air

Standards

A1 General information

Institute National Physical Laboratory

Address Hampton Road

Teddington

TW11 0LW

Contact person Paul Brewer

Telephone +44 (0) 208 943 6007 Fax

Email paulbrewernplcouk

P a g e | 140

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a CCQM‐K120b

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide amount fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2

μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 2179 38027 019 2

2 2170 48002 024 2

3 2181 79970 040 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number 2179

Component Amount fraction Value

Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078079 molmol 000047 molmol 2

O2 020960 molmol 000013 molmol 2

Ar 0009232 molmol 0000018 molmol 2

CH4 lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

Table 1 Composition of standard 1

P a g e | 141

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number 2170

Component Amount fraction Value

Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078069 molmol 000047 molmol 2

O2 020950 molmol 000013 molmol 2

Ar 0009334 molmol 0000019 molmol 2

CH4 lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

Table 2 Composition of standard 2 (Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number 2181

Component Amount fraction Value

Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 078055 molmol 000047 molmol 2

O2 020928 molmol 000013 molmol 2

Ar 0009367 molmol 0000019 molmol 2

CH4 lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

N2O lt10 nmolmol ‐ nmolmol ‐

Table 3 Composition of standard 3 CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 2179 ‐55 permil 10 permil 2 ‐225 permil 10 permil 2

2 2170 ‐55 permil 10 permil 2 ‐225 permil 10 permil 2

3 2181 ‐55 permil 10 permil 2 ‐225 permil 10 permil 2

Table 4 Isotopic composition of each submitted standard vs VPDB

A4 Uncertainty Budget The estimated uncertainty for the measurement contains the following components

Purity analysis of CO2 and synthetic air

Gravimetric preparation (weighing and atomic weight uncertainties)

Analytical validation

Table 5 details the uncertainty analysis The preparation component includes estimated uncertainty from purity analysis weighing and atomic weights

Relative Uncertainty ()

Identifier Component Preparation

(k=1) Validation

(k=1) Total(k=2)

2179 CO2 0018 002 005

2170 CO2 0014 002 005

2181 CO2 0010 002 005

Table 5 Uncertainty contributors To calculate the combined uncertainty the uncertainties were combined as the square root of the sum of squares The reported uncertainty of the result is based on standard uncertainties multiplied by a coverage factor of k=2 providing a level of confidence of approximately 95

P a g e | 142

A5 Additional information Description of the procedure Three gas mixtures were prepared for this comparison (2170 2179 and 2181) at NPL in synthetic air from sources of CO2 (BOC speciality gases) O2 (BOC speciality gases N 60) N2 (Air Products BIP+) and Ar (Air Products BIP+) The pure industrial source of CO2 was spiked with pure 13CO2 to achieve an isotopic composition close to natural abundance The mixtures were prepared in BOC 10 litre cylinders with Spectraseal passivation Two further sets of three reference standards was prepared and these were used to validate the comparison mixtures The scheme below shows the gravimetric dilutions with nominal CO2 amount fractions

Figure 1 Dilution scheme for gravimetric preparation

A Picarro G2301 Cavity ring-down spectrometer was used to validate the amount fraction of CO2 in mixtures 2170 2179 and 2181 The analyser response to the matrix gas was recorded The analyser response to a reference mixture was then recorded for a five minute period followed by either 2170 2179 or 2181 for the same time This sequence was repeated four times At the end of the experiment the analyser response to the matrix gas was recorded a second time To minimise the effects from zero drift a mean of the analyser response to the matrix gas before and after the experiment was used The amount fractions of 2170 2179 and 2181 were then determined by multiplying the ratio of the analyser response to each mixture and the reference mixture (both were corrected for the analyser response to matrix gas) with the amount fraction of the reference mixture These measurements were used to validate the gravimetric amount fractions submitted Cylinders were maintained at a laboratory temperature of (20 plusmn 3) C throughout the period of analysis Samples were introduced into the analyser at atmospheric pressure (excess flow was passed to vent) using a low volume gas regulator Purity tables for the CO2 Ar N2 and O2 are provided below

P a g e | 143

Component Amount Fraction (micromolmol) Expanded Uncertainty (micromolmol)

CO2 99999980 006

N2 0050 0029

O2 0050 0029

CO 0050 0029

Ar 0050 0029

Table 6 CO2 purity table

Component Amount Fraction (micromolmol) Expanded Uncertainty (micromolmol)

Ar 99999993 002

N2 0039 0023

O2 00050 00029

CO2 0007 0004

CO 00018 00010

CH4 000029 000017

Table 7 Ar purity table

Component Amount Fraction (micromolmol) Expanded Uncertainty (micromolmol)

N2 9999843 16

O2 0015 0009

Ar 1567 157

CO2 000085 000049

CO 000058 000033

CH4 000080 000046

Table 8 N2 purity table

Component Amount Fraction (micromolmol) Expanded Uncertainty (micromolmol)

O2 9999991 03

N2 050 029

Ar 0050 0029

CO2 019 019

CH4 00282 00048

Table 9 O2 purity table The mixtures were prepared on during the period 24th October to 8th November 2016 Measurements to study the stability of the mixtures were carried out over a 6 week period The cylinder pressure of mixtures 2170 2179 and 2181 prior to shipping was gt 10 MPa

P a g e | 144

NPLI

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM-K120

Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM-K120-R

Project name CCQM-K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899-8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute CSIR-National Physical Laboratory INDIA

Address CSIR-National Physical Laboratory Dr KS Krishnan Marg New Delhi ndash 110012 INDIA

Contact Person Dr Prabha Johri

Telephone 91 11 4560 856385658331

Fax 91 11 4560 9310

P a g e | 145

email pjohrinplindiaorg

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM-K120a (only) yes

CCQM-K120b (only) Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification Number

Carbon Dioxide mole fraction XCO2cert molmol

Expanded Uncertainties molmol

Coverage factor

1 JJ108891 37572 322 2

2 JJ108862 48052 304 2

3 JJ108854 79638 503 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix composition Component mol fraction and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) Standard1 Cylinder Number JJ108891

component Mole fraction value

unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0781273 molmol 0002210 molmol 2

O2 0209688 molmol 0000590 molmol 2

Ar 0009040 molmol 0000030 molmol 2

Standard 2 Cylinder Number JJ108862

component Mole fraction value

unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0781989 molmol 0002210 molmol 2

O2 0208853 molmol 0000590 molmol 2

Ar 0009158 molmol 0000030 molmol 2

P a g e | 146

Standard 3 Cylinder Number JJ108854

Component Mole fraction value

unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 0781363 molmol 0002210 molmol 2

O2 0209789 molmol 0000594 molmol 2

Ar 0008847 molmol 0000030 molmol 2

A4 Uncertainty Budget The final uncertainty budget was estimated by combining two uncertainty components (ie preparation of PSGM and its analysis both)

(i) The Expanded Uncertainty estimation of all the prepared gas mixtures (PSGMs) has been calculated according to ISO 6142 Preparation of Calibration gas mixtures ndash Gravimetric method taking account of following factors 1 Raymor Balance 1 Mass Pieces 2 Bouancy corrections for weights 3 Handling of cylinder 4 Residual gases in the cylinder 5 Expansion of the cylinder due to filling of gas at High pressure (ii) Uncertainties in the analysis These are calculated taking acount of

1 Standard deviation Repeatability 2 Reproducibility amp 3 Instrument response

A5 Additional Information b) A purity table with uncertainties for pure Ar N2 and O2 parent gas The purity of N2 O2 and Ar parent gases were determined using tiger optics CRDS analyzers model for the following H2O CH4 and CO gas components The moisture of the gases were determined using Tiger Optics moisture analyzer model LaserTrace CH4 was determined using Tiger Optics methan analyzer model MTO-1000-CH4 and CO gas was determined using Tiger Optics CO analyzer model HALO 3-CO Purity of Argon gas was found to be as given below

P a g e | 147

Name of gases Concentration ppm Expanded Uncertainties Coverage factor

H2O moisture 145 023 2

CO gas 027 008 2

CH4 gas Not Detected (ND) (lt0001 )

Purity of N2 gas was found to be as given below

Name of gases Concentration ppm Expanded Uncertainties Coverage factor

H2O moisture 083 005 2

CO gas 34 024 2

CH4 gas ND (lt0001 )

Purity of O2 gas was found to be as given below

Name of gases Concentration ppm Expanded Uncertainties Coverage factor

H2O moisture 095 005 2

CH4 gas ND (lt0001 )

c) A brief out line of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures The preparation procedure involves following steps

1) Preparation of gas mixtures of CO2 in nitrogen gas Al cylinders 10 litre were evacuated and purged with nitogen gas and again evacuated with heating of the cylinders at 60-70oC This process is repeated thrice before any preparation of gas mixture was carried out The theoritical calculations were carried out for the desired concentrations Gas mixtures of CO2 in nitrogen gas from pure gas were prepared in two series in the concentrations around 20544 and 20392 molmol These gas mixtures were diluted in the concentration ranges from ( 370~ 1000 molmol) Total of 9 cylindres were prepared All the preparation of Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) were done in acordance to ISO 6142 Gas Analysis -Preparation of calibration gas mixtures - Gravimetric Method These cylinders were validated in acordance to ISO 6143 Gas analysis - Comparision method for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures Thus the prepared CO2 gas mixtures were certified as CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM)

P a g e | 148

2) Preparation of CO2 in synthetic air These mixtures were prepared from the two series of CO2 premixtures prepared in nitrogen gas in the concentration around 20544 and 20392 molmol as mentioned above The empty cylinders were evacuated and purged with dry nitogen gas and again evacuated with heating This process is repeated thrice for the pre-preparation of the cylinders The thoeritical calculations were carried out similating the desired concentration range as given in CCQM K-120 The required amount of pre mixture of CO2 in Nitrogen is transferred in the pre prepared evacuated cylinder These mixtures were now added with desired amount of pure Argon gas pure oxygen gas and finally top up has been done by nitrogen gas to simulate the synthetic air concentration Total of 9 cylinders were prepared in the concentration ranges ( 370~800 molmol) These cylinders were validated using above prepared binary mixtures of CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures Validation of Synthetic Air Mixtures

The prepared synthetic air gas mixture cylinders were validated using above prepared binary mixtures of CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) as per ISO 6143

The standard and sample gases were injected into eight-port gas sampling valves of the Agilent Gas Chromatograph with flame ionization detector (FID) Model 6890N US 10723001 The GC column used was Haysep D length 12 ft dia 18rdquo and mesh 100120 Helium gas was used as a carrier gas The measurement conditions were the sample loop of 05 ml oven temperature of 80oC detector temperature of 250oC hydrogen and air flow rate of 20 mlmin and 300 mlmin respectively All the Synthetic air CO2 gas mixtures were evaluated using a higher concentration CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) The average response was calculated by using the six values rejecting first and last two values each time for each measurement series The analysis of the cylinders were carried out three times The collected data is analysed and the uncertainty budget was evaluated

f) Cylider pressure before shipment to BIPM

SlNo Cylinder No Conc (Approx) molmol Pressure

1 JJ108891 380 110Bar 1596 psi

2 JJ108862 480 110Bar 1596 psi

3 JJ108854 800 110Bar 1596 psi

The Team members Dr Daya Soni Dr Khem Singh Ms S Bhatt Ms Joty Pokheryal Dr SG Aggarwal Dr PJohri

P a g e | 149

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM-K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM-K120-R (Stability Studies) Project name CCQM-K120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air Standards Proposed dates 042016 to 092017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 20899-8300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores BIPM Chemistry Department Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg

A1 General information

Institute CSIR-National Physical Laboratory INDIA

Address CSIR-National Physical Laboratory Dr KS Krishnan Marg New Delhi ndash 110012 INDIA

Contact Person Dr Prabha Johri

Telephone 91 11 4560 856385658331

Fax 91 11 4560 9310

email pjohrinplindiaorg

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM-K120a (only) yes

CCQM-K120b (only) Yes

P a g e | 150

Stability Studies Result A3 NMI stability analysis values with its analytical uncertainty budget only

Cylinder Identification Number

Carbon Dioxide mole fraction XCO2cert molmol

Expanded Uncertainties molmol

Coverage factor

1 JJ108891

37824 395 2

2 JJ108862

47857 523 2

3 JJ108854

79880 335 2

A4 Uncertainty Budget The stability uncertainty budget was estimated using analytical uncertainty components only These are calculated taking account of

1 Standard deviation Repeatability 2 Calibration standard uncertainty 3 Instrument response

A5 A brief outline of the Stability Analysis Procedure applied to the Cylinders returned from BIPM France

The cylinders of the synthetic air gas mixtures arrived from BIPM France cylinders were analyzed using the prepared binary mixtures of CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Standard Gas Mixtures (PSGM) as per ISO 6143 The cylinders returned from BIPM and the binary standards gas mixtures in nitrogen gas cylinders are put to rotation for over night before using for its stability studies

The standard and sample gases were injected into eight-port gas sampling valves of the Agilent Gas Chromatograph with flame ionization detector (FID) Model 6890N US 10723001 The GC column used was Haysep D length 12 ft dia 18rdquo and mesh 100120 Helium gas was used as a carrier gas The measurement conditions were the sample loop of 05 ml oven temperature of 80oC detector temperature of 250oC hydrogen and air flow rate of 20 mlmin and 300 mlmin respectively All the Synthetic air CO2 gas mixtures were evaluated using a higher concentration CO2 in Nitrogen gas Primary Reference Gas Mixtures (PRGM) The average response was calculated by using six values rejecting first and last two values each time for each measurement series The analysis of the cylinders was carried out three times The collected data is analyzed and the analytical uncertainty budget was evaluated and reported in the stability result

The Team members Dr Daya Soni Dr Khem Singh Ms S Bhatt Dr SG Aggarwal Dr PJohri

P a g e | 151

UME

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM‐K120‐R

A1 General information

Institute UME

Address TUumlBİTAK UME ‐ Gas Metrology Laboratory Baris Mah Dr Zeki Acar Cad No1 41470 Gebze Kocaeli TURKEY

Contact person Dr Tanıl Tarhan

Telephone + 90 262 679 5000 6401 Fax + 90 262 679 5001

Email taniltarhantubitakgovtr

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2 μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 PSM298266 37992 016 2

2 PSM266468 48042 017 2

3 PSM298347 80076 027 2

P a g e | 152

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number PSM298266

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07803392 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

O2 02099663 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

Ar 00093140 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number PSM266468

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07799681 molmol 00000165 molmol 2

O2 02102293 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

Ar 00093215 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number PSM298347

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07795520 molmol 00000164 molmol 2

O2 02103522 molmol 00000164 molmol 2

Ar 00092945 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 PSM298266 ‐165 005 2 ‐ ‐ ‐

A4 Uncertainty Budget

P a g e | 153

The basis for the uncertainty budget is formed by the uncertainty evaluation from the gravimetric preparation and analytical measurements Gravimetric preparation contains uncertainty sources from weighing and those from purity of the parent gases Gravimetric preparation and uncertainty evaluation have performed according to ISO 6142 [1] The measurement uncertainty of each mixture was determined according to ISO 6143 [2] The combined standard uncertainty of each mixture was determined by the following equation

u u u

where

um standard uncertainty from measurements

ug standard uncertainty from gravimetric preparation

The expanded uncertainty was determined by multiplying the combined standard uncertainty by a coverage factor of 2 with a confidence interval of 95

A5 Additional information Mixtures were produced with synthetic air s) Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas

Main component carbon dioxide

Cylinder Code LG7524

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

carbon dioxide 99997750 924

water 250 144

nitrogen 1500 866

oxygen 500 289

t) Purity tables with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 and Ar parent gas

Main component nitrogen

Cylinder Code LG1220 and LG1221

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

carbon monoxide 005 003

carbon dioxide 005 003

methane 005 003

water 025 014

nitrogen 99999935 021

oxygen 025 014

Main component oxygen

P a g e | 154

Cylinder Code LG3367

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

argon 100 058

carbon dioxide 010 006

methane 010 006

water 150 087

nitrogen 250 144

oxygen 99999480 178

Main component argon

Cylinder Code LG1313

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

argon 99999300 122

water 150 087

nitrogen 400 231

oxygen 150 087

u) Mixtures were prepared according to the scheme displayed in Figure 1 Two different types of the pre‐mixtures were prepared These are 10 and 05 carbon dioxide in nitrogen and 15 argon in nitrogen 05 carbon dioxide in nitrogen and 15 argon in nitrogen pre‐mixtures were used together with pure nitrogen and pure oxygen for the final mixtures

P a g e | 155

Figure 1 Preparation scheme for the mixtures

v) Verification procedure applied to the final mixtures

The carbon dioxide (CO2) in air mixtures were analyzed on a cavity ring‐down spectroscopy (CRDS) instrument ie Picarro G2401 COCO2CH4H2O Analyzer equipped with 16‐Port Distribution Manifold Verification of the mixtures was carried out using own standards Cylinders were equipped with pressure reducers and connected to 16‐port distribution manifold They were flushed three times before the first measurement The analyzer operates vacuum pump to get the sample Therefore excess amount of gas than the amount of gas required by CRDS has been sent to the analyzer by adjusting the reducers The excess gas has been sent to the atmosphere through a bypass connected to sample line in between distribution manifold and the analyzer Each cylinder was measured for 15 minutes which is a sufficient time to obtain stable results The measurement data was collected using CRDS software Software takes about 2850 readings for 15 minutes During the data evaluation total number of 240 readings in between 10‐14 minutes has been used for determination of average values and uncertainties for each cylinder at each measurement

P a g e | 156

w) Stability testing of the mixtures

Pre‐mixtures and final mixtures were prepared in 01‐17 April 2016 First verification was performed in 21‐24 April 2016 Second verification was carried out in 22 September 2016 Final verification was performed 11‐19 October 2016 Measurement results are shown in Figure 2 As can be seen from the figure instrument response does not vary with time for each cylinder Stability testing did not show any instability within the accuracy of the measurement method

Figure 2 Stability measurements

x) Cylinder pressures before shipment to the BIPM are given below

Cylinder Code Pressure bar

PSM298266 86

PSM266468 86

PSM298347 90

References

[1] International Organization for Standardization ldquoISO 6142 Gas analysis ‐ Preparation of calibration gas mixtures ‐ Gravimetric methodsrdquo ISO Geneva 2001

[2] International Organization for Standardization ISO 6143 Gas analysis ‐ Comparison

methods for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures ISO Geneva 2001

300

500

700

900

CO2concentration (μmolmol)

Time

PSM298266 PSM266468 PSM298347

P a g e | 157

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQM‐K120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQM-K120-R

A1 General information

Institute UME

Address TUumlBİTAK UME ‐ Gas Metrology Laboratory Baris Mah Dr Zeki Acar Cad No1 41470 Gebze Kocaeli TURKEY

Contact person Dr Tanıl Tarhan

Telephone + 90 262 679 5000 6401 Fax + 90 262 679 5001

Email taniltarhantubitakgovtr

P a g e | 158

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo

CCQM‐K120a Yes

CCQM‐K120b Yes

A3 NMI submitted values

Cylinder Identification number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction

Expanded uncertainty Coverage factor

certx CO2 μmolmol )( CO2 certxU μmolmol

1 PSM298266 37992 019 2

2 PSM266468 48042 025 2

3 PSM298347 80076 036 2

A4 NMI submitted values Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number PSM298266

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07803392 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

O2 02099663 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

Ar 00093140 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

(Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number PSM266468

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07799681 molmol 00000165 molmol 2

P a g e | 159

O2 02102293 molmol 00000166 molmol 2

Ar 00093215 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

(Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number PSM298347

Component Mole fraction Value Unit Expanded Uncertainty

Unit Coverage Factor

N2 07795520 molmol 00000164 molmol 2

O2 02103522 molmol 00000164 molmol 2

Ar 00092945 molmol 00000023 molmol 2

CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional)

Cylinder Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C) Coverage Factor

δ18O U(δ18O) Coverage Factor

1 PSM298266 ‐165 005 2 ‐ ‐ ‐

A4 Uncertainty Budget

The basis for the uncertainty budget is formed by the uncertainty evaluation from the gravimetric preparation and analytical measurements Gravimetric preparation contains uncertainty sources from weighing and those from purity of the parent gases Gravimetric preparation and uncertainty evaluation have performed according to ISO 6142 [1] The measurement uncertainty of each mixture was determined according to ISO 6143 [2] The mixtures were analyzed for stability after receiving them back from BIPM The combined standard uncertainty of each mixture was determined by the following equation

u u u u

where

um standard uncertainty from measurements

ug standard uncertainty from gravimetric preparation

us standard uncertainty for stability

The expanded uncertainty was determined by multiplying the combined standard uncertainty by a coverage factor of 2 with a confidence interval of 95

P a g e | 160

A5 Additional information Mixtures were produced from pure components of CO2 N2 O2 and Ar y) Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas

Main component carbon dioxide

Cylinder Code LG7524

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

carbon dioxide 99997750 924

water 250 144

nitrogen 1500 866

oxygen 500 289

z) Purity tables with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 and Ar parent gas

Main component nitrogen

Cylinder Code LG1220 and LG1221

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

carbon monoxide 005 003

carbon dioxide 005 003

methane 005 003

water 025 014

nitrogen 99999935 021

oxygen 025 014

Main component oxygen

Cylinder Code LG3367

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

argon 100 058

carbon dioxide 010 006

methane 010 006

water 150 087

nitrogen 250 144

oxygen 99999480 178

Main component argon

Cylinder Code LG1313

Component Mole fraction [μmolmol]

Standard uncertainty [μmolmol]

argon 99999300 122

water 150 087

nitrogen 400 231

oxygen 150 087

P a g e | 161

aa) Mixtures were prepared according to the scheme displayed in Figure 1 Two different types

of the pre‐mixtures were prepared These are 10 and 05 carbon dioxide in nitrogen and 15 argon in nitrogen 05 carbon dioxide in nitrogen and 15 argon in nitrogen pre‐mixtures were used together with pure nitrogen and pure oxygen for the final mixtures

Figure 1 Preparation scheme for the mixtures

bb) Verification procedure applied to the final mixtures

The carbon dioxide (CO2) in air mixtures were analyzed on a cavity ring‐down spectroscopy (CRDS) instrument ie Picarro G2401 COCO2CH4H2O Analyzer equipped with 16‐Port Distribution Manifold Verification of the mixtures was carried out using own standards Cylinders were equipped with pressure reducers and connected to 16‐port distribution manifold They were flushed three times before the first measurement The analyzer operates vacuum pump to get the sample Therefore excess amount of gas than the amount of gas required by CRDS has been sent to the analyzer by adjusting the reducers

P a g e | 162

The excess gas has been sent to the atmosphere through a bypass connected to sample line in between distribution manifold and the analyzer Each cylinder was measured for 15 minutes which is a sufficient time to obtain stable results The measurement data was collected using CRDS software Software takes about 2850 readings for 15 minutes During the data evaluation total number of 240 readings in between 10‐14 minutes has been used for determination of average values and uncertainties for each cylinder at each measurement

cc) Stability testing of the mixtures

Pre‐mixtures and final mixtures were prepared in 01‐17 April 2016 First verification was performed in 21‐24 April 2016 Second verification was carried out in 22 September 2016 Final verification was performed during 11‐19 October 2016 Measurement results are shown in Figure 2 As can be seen from the figure instrument response does not vary with time for each cylinder Stability testing did not show any instability within the accuracy of the measurement method before sending the cylinders to BIPM

Figure 2 Stability measurements before sending the cylinders

After receiving the cylinders they have been analyzed for stability Measurements were carried out during 23‐24 August 2017 and 06‐07 September 2017 Instrument responses were plotted against time as shown in Figure 3 The slope of the responses has been checked Uncertainty for stability has been determined and has been included in the combined uncertainty

300

500

700

900

CO2concentration (μmolmol)

Time

PSM298266 PSM266468 PSM298347

P a g e | 163

Figure 3 Stability measurements after receiving the cylinders

dd) Cylinder pressures before shipment to the BIPM are given below

Cylinder Code Pressure bar

PSM298266 86

PSM266468 86

PSM298347 90

References

[1] International Organization for Standardization ldquoISO 6142 Gas analysis ‐ Preparation of calibration gas mixtures ‐ Gravimetric methodsrdquo ISO Geneva 2001

[2] International Organization for Standardization ISO 6143 Gas analysis ‐ Comparison

methods for determining and checking the composition of calibration gas mixtures ISO Geneva 2001

300

500

700

900

CO2concentration (μmolmol)

Time

PSM298266 PSM266468 PSM298347

P a g e | 164

VNIIM

Measurements before return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQMK120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQMK120R

Project name CCQMK120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air Standards Proposed dates 092016 to 122017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 208998300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores

BIPM Chemistry Department Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg A1 General information Institute

DI Mendeleyev Institute for Metrology (VNIIM )

Address

19 Moskovsky pr St Petersburg 190005 Russia

Contact person Leonid Konopelko Telephone +7 812 315 11 45 Fax +7 812 315 15 17 Email

fhib10vniimru

P a g e | 165

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo CCQMK120a

Yes

CCQMK120b

Yes

A3 NMI submitted values Table 1 Cylinder Identification

number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction xCO2 cert μmolmol

Expanded uncertainty U(x CO2 cert) μmolmol

Coverage factor

1 M365601

38020 011 2

2 M365664

48018 013 2

3 M365707

80073 019 2

Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) Table 2 (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number M365601 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

781015 10-2 molmol 00013 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209188 10-2 molmol 00013 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09416 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000094 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Table 3 (Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number M365664 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

780928 10-2 molmol 00011 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209270 10-2 molmol 00012 10-2 molmol 2

Ar 09322 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

P a g e | 166

CH4 000000096 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Table 4 (Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number M365707 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

781000 10-2 molmol 00011 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209199 10-2 molmol 00012 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09000 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000097 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Uncertainty in the tables 2-4 includes only constituents related to gravimetry (weighing and purity) Table 5 CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional) Cylinder

Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C)

CoverageFactor

δ18O U(δ18O) CoverageFactor

1 M365601 - 480 09 2 - - - 2 M365664 - 480 09 2 - - - 3 M365707 - 480 09 2 - - - A4 Uncertainty Budget Table 6 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365601

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution

ui(y) μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200 μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999381 μmolmol B Rectangular 0015 μmolmol 006733 000101

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374 μmolmol 000016 000006

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030 μmolmol 000534 000016

Weighing premixture

CO2 2015723 g AB Normal 000223g ‐1854106 ‐004140

N2 115359704 g AB Normal 001962 g 032397 000636

Weighing pre‐ 2048733 g AB Normal 000203 g ‐1791563 ‐003630

P a g e | 167

final mixture

mixture

Ar 790915 g AB Normal 000200 g 045258 000091

O2 14075497 g AB Normal 000353 g 056493 000200

N2 43993136 g AB Normal 001021 g 064543 000659

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal 000035 gmol 86286 000302

Combined standard uncertainty 005596

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0112

Table 7 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365664

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution ui(y)

μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200

μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999390 μmolmol B Rectangular 0011

μmolmol 006909 000076

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374

μmolmol 000020 0000075

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030

μmolmol 000534 000016

Weighing premixture

CO2 1947854 g AB Normal 000224 g ‐2423572 ‐005424

N2 111850932 g AB Normal 001950 g 042206 000823

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

2586420 g AB Normal

000204 g ‐1775177 ‐003626

Ar 780100 g AB Normal 000200 g 057374 000115

O2 14028618 g AB Normal 000391 g 071611 000280

N2 43288272 g AB Normal 000915 g 081821 000749

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal

000035 gmol

109066 000382

Combined standard uncertainty 0066379

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0133

Table 8 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365707

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution

ui(y)

P a g e | 168

μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200 μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999390 μmolmol B Rectangular 0011μmolmol 006733 000076

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374 μmolmol 000035 000013

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030 μmolmol 000500 000015

Weighing premixture

CO2 2015723 g AB Normal 000223g ‐3905886 ‐008721

N2 115359704 g AB Normal 001962 g 068249 001339

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

4282195 g AB Normal

000220 g ‐1733744 ‐003823

Ar 750252 g AB Normal 000202 g 096046 000194

O2 13969676 g AB Normal 000403 g 119851 000483

N2 41448867 g AB Normal 000834 g 136969 001143

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal 000035 gmol 181777 0006362

Combined standard uncertainty

009719

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0194

Uncertainty due to weighing includes constituents related to accuracy of balance buoyancy effect resulting from change of cylinder volume during filling mass pierces used drift of balance residual gas in cylinder A5 Additional information Table 9 Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas Cylinder N 74318 Main component CO2 Mole fraction 99999345

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

N2 025 014

CO 0029 0001

CH4 0149 0002

He 05 029

H2 322 007

O2 025 014

H2O 215 011

Purity tables with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 and Ar parent gases Table 10 Purity table for N2

P a g e | 169

Monoblock Main component N2 Mole fraction 999998672

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

Ar 0916 0011

O2 00015 00009

CO2 00025 00014

H2 00025 00014

CH4 00025 00014

CO 00025 00014

H2O 040 020

Table 11 Purity table for O2 Cylinder N 910281 Main component O2 Mole fraction 999999381

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

H2 00025 00014

Ar 0181 0004

N2 0307 0012

Kr 00025 00014

CO 00075 00043

CH4 00347 00008

CO2 0081 0005

Xe 00025 00014

Table 12 Purity table for Ar Cylinder N 283162 Main component Ar Mole fraction 999998209

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

O2 00231 00013

N2 1188 0015

CH4 0015 0009

CO2 0030 0017

H2 0025 0014

CO 0010 0006

H2O 050 001

P a g e | 170

c) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures Preparation of final mixtures (СO2 in synthetic air) was carried out from pure substances in 2 stages 1-st stage ndash 3 mixtures СO2N2 ndashlevel 11 2-nd stage ndash 3x3 target mixtures СO2synthetic air All the mixtures were prepared in Luxfer cylinders (V=10 and 5 dm3) d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures CRDS analyzer was used for verification 4 measurement series were carried out within each verification procedure SD of a single measurement (reproducibility between series) was 0003 -0006 CRDS analyzer was used for verification Instrument Picarro G2401 Measurement cell temperature 45оС Measurement cell pressure 18665 kPa Data collection by ldquoPicarro Incrdquo software CRDS analyzer was used for δ13C measurements Instrument Picarro G2131i Reference materials used for calibration IAEA‐CO‐8 IAEA‐CH‐7 Measurement cell temperature 45оС Measurement cell pressure 18665 kPa Data collection by ldquoPicarro Incrdquo software e) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM The final mixtures were prepared 0310 -13102016 First verification measurement was carried out 1710 -2110 2016 Second verification measurement was carried out 2610 -28102016 Verification measurements were performed by checking consistency within the group of the 3x3 prepared mixtures uver =0003 Stability testing (short-term) did not show instability within the accuracy of the measurement method f) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

89 MPa for M365601 90 MPa for M365664 93 MPa for M365707

P a g e | 171

Report of stability measurements after return of cylinders

Key Comparison CCQMK120 Carbon dioxide in Air

Submission form CCQMK120R

Project name CCQMK120 (Carbon dioxide in air) Comparison Comparison of laboratoriesrsquo preparation capabilities for Carbon dioxide in Air Standards Proposed dates 092016 to 122017 Coordinating laboratories

Bureau International des Poids et Mesures Chemistry Department Pavillon de Breteuil 92312 Sevres Cedex France NIST 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8300 Gaithersburg MD 208998300 US

Study Coordinator Edgar Flores

BIPM Chemistry Department Phone +33 (0)1 45 07 70 92 Fax +33 (0)1 45 34 20 21 email edgarfloresbipmorg

Return of the form Please complete and return the form preferably by email to edgarfloresbipmorg A1 General information Institute

DI Mendeleyev Institute for Metrology (VNIIM )

Address

19 Moskovsky pr St Petersburg 190005 Russia

Contact person Leonid Konopelko Telephone +7 812 315 11 45 Fax +7 812 315 15 17 Email

fhib10vniimru

P a g e | 172

A2 Participation

I am participating in YesNo CCQMK120a

Yes

CCQMK120b

Yes

A3 NMI submitted values Table 1 Cylinder Identification

number

Carbon dioxide mole fraction xCO2 cert μmolmol

Expanded uncertainty U(x CO2 cert) μmolmol

Coverage factor

1 M365601

38020 011 2

2 M365664

48018 013 2

3 M365707

80073 019 2

Matrix compositions Component mole fractions and uncertainties (for each standard submitted) Table 2 (Standard 1) Cylinder Identification Number M365601 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

781015 10-2 molmol 00013 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209188 10-2 molmol 00013 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09416 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000094 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Table 3 (Standard 2) Cylinder Identification Number M365664 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

780928 10-2 molmol 00011 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209270 10-2 molmol 00012 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09322 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000096 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured

P a g e | 173

Table 4 (Standard 3) Cylinder Identification Number M365707 Component Mole fraction

Value Unit Expanded

Uncertainty Unit Coverage Factor

N2

781000 10-2 molmol 00011 10-2 molmol 2

O2

209199 10-2 molmol 00012 10-2 molmol 2

Ar

09000 10-2 molmol 00005 10-2 molmol 2

CH4 000000097 10-2 molmol 000000022 10-2 molmol 2 N2O not measured Uncertainty in the tables 2-4 includes only constituents related to gravimetry (weighing and purity) Table 5 CO2 isotope ratio (vs VPDB) for each standard submitted (Optional) Cylinder

Identification Number

δ13C U(δ13C)

CoverageFactor

δ18O U(δ18O) CoverageFactor

1 M365601 - 480 09 2 - - - 2 M365664 - 480 09 2 - - - 3 M365707 - 480 09 2 - - - A4 Uncertainty Budget Table 6 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365601

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution

ui(y) μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200 μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999381 μmolmol B Rectangular 0015 μmolmol 006733 000101

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374 μmolmol 000016 000006

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030 μmolmol 000534 000016

Weighing premixture

CO2 2015723 g AB Normal 000223g ‐1854106 ‐004140

N2 115359704 g AB Normal 001962 g 032397 000636

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

2048733 g AB Normal

000203 g ‐1791563 ‐003630

Ar 790915 g AB Normal 000200 g 045258 000091

O2 14075497 g AB Normal 000353 g 056493 000200

P a g e | 174

N2 43993136 g AB Normal 001021 g 064543 000659

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal 000035 gmol 86286 000302

Combined standard uncertainty 005596

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0112

Table 7 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365664

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution ui(y)

μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200

μmolmol 000545 000109

Purity of O2 999999390 μmolmol B Rectangular 0011

μmolmol 006909 000076

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374

μmolmol 000020 0000075

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030

μmolmol 000534 000016

Weighing premixture

CO2 1947854 g AB Normal 000224 g ‐2423572 ‐005424

N2 111850932 g AB Normal 001950 g 042206 000823

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

2586420 g AB Normal

000204 g ‐1775177 ‐003626

Ar 780100 g AB Normal 000200 g 057374 000115

O2 14028618 g AB Normal 000391 g 071611 000280

N2 43288272 g AB Normal 000915 g 081821 000749

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal

000035 gmol

109066 000382

Combined standard uncertainty 0066379

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0133

Table 8 Uncertainty budget (only gravimetry) for CO2 mole fraction for the cylinder M365707

Uncertainty source Xi

Estimate xi

Evaluation type(A or B)

Distribution

Standard uncertainty

u(xi)

Sensitivity coefficient

ci

Contribution

ui(y) μmolmol

Purity of N2 999998672 μmolmol B Rectangular 0200 μmolmol 000545 000109

P a g e | 175

Purity of O2 999999390 μmolmol B Rectangular 0011μmolmol 006733 000076

Purity of СO2 999993450 μmolmol B Rectangular 0374 μmolmol 000035 000013

Purity of Ar 999998209 μmolmol B Rectangular 0030 μmolmol 000500 000015

Weighing premixture

CO2 2015723 g AB Normal 000223g ‐3905886 ‐008721

N2 115359704 g AB Normal 001962 g 068249 001339

Weighing final mixture

pre‐mixture

4282195 g AB Normal

000220 g ‐1733744 ‐003823

Ar 750252 g AB Normal 000202 g 096046 000194

O2 13969676 g AB Normal 000403 g 119851 000483

N2 41448867 g AB Normal 000834 g 136969 001143

Molar mass of CO2 (component due to isotopic composition)

440100 gmol A Normal 000035 gmol 181777 0006362

Combined standard uncertainty

009719

Expanded uncertainty k=2 0194

Uncertainty due to weighing includes constituents related to accuracy of balance buoyancy effect resulting from change of cylinder volume during filling mass pierces used drift of balance residual gas in cylinder A5 Additional information Table 9 Purity table with uncertainties for the nominally pure CO2 parent gas Cylinder N 74318 Main component CO2 Mole fraction 99999345

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

N2 025 014

CO 0029 0001

CH4 0149 0002

He 05 029

H2 322 007

O2 025 014

H2O 215 011

Purity tables with uncertainties for the nominally pure N2 O2 and Ar parent gases Table 10 Purity table for N2 Monoblock Main component N2 Mole fraction 999998672

P a g e | 176

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

Ar 0916 0011

O2 00015 00009

CO2 00025 00014

H2 00025 00014

CH4 00025 00014

CO 00025 00014

H2O 040 020

Table 11 Purity table for O2 Cylinder N 910281 Main component O2 Mole fraction 999999381

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

H2 00025 00014

Ar 0181 0004

N2 0307 0012

Kr 00025 00014

CO 00075 00043

CH4 00347 00008

CO2 0081 0005

Xe 00025 00014

Table 12 Purity table for Ar Cylinder N 283162 Main component Ar Mole fraction 999998209

Component Mole fraction μmolmol

Standard uncertainty μmolmol

O2 00231 00013

N2 1188 0015

CH4 0015 0009

CO2 0030 0017

H2 0025 0014

CO 0010 0006

H2O 050 001

c) a brief outline of the dilution series undertaken to produce the final mixtures

P a g e | 177

Preparation of final mixtures (СO2 in synthetic air) was carried out from pure substances in 2 stages 1-st stage ndash 3 mixtures СO2N2 ndashlevel 11 2-nd stage ndash 3x3 target mixtures СO2synthetic air All the mixtures were prepared in Luxfer cylinders (V=10 and 5 dm3) d) a brief outline of the verification procedure applied to the final mixtures CRDS analyzer was used for verification 4 measurement series were carried out within each verification procedure SD of a single measurement (reproducibility between series) was 0003 -0006 CRDS analyzer was used for verification Instrument Picarro G2401 Measurement cell temperature 45оС Measurement cell pressure 18665 kPa Data collection by ldquoPicarro Incrdquo software CRDS analyzer was used for δ13C measurements Instrument Picarro G2131i Reference materials used for calibration IAEA‐CO‐8 IAEA‐CH‐7 Measurement cell temperature 45оС Measurement cell pressure 18665 kPa Data collection by ldquoPicarro Incrdquo software e) a brief outline of any stability testing of the mixtures between the time they are prepared and the time they are shipped to the BIPM The final mixtures were prepared 0310 -13102016 First verification measurement was carried out 1710 -2110 2016 Second verification measurement was carried out 2610 -28102016 Verification measurements were performed by checking consistency within the group of the 3x3 prepared mixtures uver =0003 Stability testing (short-term) did not show instability within the accuracy of the measurement method Long-term stability testing (measurements 2108-23082017 and 0910-11102017) did not show instability within the accuracy of the measurement method f) cylinder pressure before shipment to the BIPM

89 MPa for M365601 90 MPa for M365664 93 MPa for M365707

P a g e | 178

VSL

Measurements before return of cylinders

P a g e | 179

P a g e | 180

P a g e | 181

Page 10: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 11: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 12: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 13: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 14: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 15: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 16: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 17: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 18: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 19: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 20: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 21: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 22: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 23: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 24: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 25: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 26: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 27: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 28: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 29: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 30: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 31: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 32: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 33: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 34: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 35: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 36: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 37: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 38: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 39: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 40: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 41: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 42: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 43: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 44: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 45: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 46: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 47: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 48: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 49: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 50: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 51: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 52: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 53: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 54: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 55: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 56: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 57: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 58: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 59: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 60: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 61: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 62: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 63: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 64: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 65: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 66: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 67: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 68: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 69: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 70: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 71: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 72: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 73: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 74: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 75: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 76: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 77: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 78: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 79: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 80: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 81: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 82: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 83: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 84: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 85: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 86: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 87: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 88: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 89: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 90: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 91: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 92: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 93: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 94: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 95: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 96: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 97: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 98: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 99: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 100: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 101: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 102: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 103: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 104: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 105: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 106: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 107: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 108: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 109: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 110: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 111: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 112: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 113: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 114: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 115: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 116: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 117: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 118: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 119: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 120: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 121: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 122: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 123: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 124: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 125: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 126: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 127: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 128: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 129: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 130: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 131: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 132: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 133: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 134: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 135: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 136: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 137: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 138: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 139: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 140: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 141: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 142: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 143: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 144: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 145: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 146: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 147: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 148: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 149: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 150: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 151: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 152: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 153: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 154: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 155: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 156: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 157: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 158: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 159: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 160: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 161: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 162: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 163: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 164: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 165: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 166: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 167: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 168: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 169: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 170: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 171: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 172: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 173: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 174: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 175: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 176: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 177: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 178: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 179: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 180: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM
Page 181: Final Report CCQM-120 - BIPM