Quality Matters Columns
Peter Jenks and John Hammond describe how the important ISO 17025 standard has developed, and point out that a review for the third edition of the standard will start soon. All those with an interest in quality standads—an increasing number of us—should make sure their voice is heard at their local standards body.
Peter Jenks argues that the two quality approaches, ISO 17025 and cGMP, are both lacking, but both could be made much better and virtually identical with single but different improvements!
Peter Jenks has discovered quantitative NMR. in his article titled “NMR: is it the future for the analysis of organic molecules?”. If only it wasn’t so expensive, it might be the perfect method to certify pure organic compounds.
Peter Jenks and John Hammond continue their series on “CRMs and PT in an ISO 17025 accredited laboratory” with instructions on how you can prepare your own in-house certified reference materials.
Peter Jenks looks at some current trends in the supply of CRMs and proficiency testing and highlights difficulties labs may have been when no commercial CRM is available. This will be followed with a second part looking at the production of in-house reference materials.
Peter Jenks gains new respect for microbiologists and learns that the way they approach analytical quality control is different from chemists.
Chris Burgess and John Hammond respond to Peter Jenks' thoughts in the last issue's Quality Matters Column. Please join in the debate and add your comments at the end of the article.
The reasoning behind strict compliance to an ISO Standard is logical, but the consequences can be commercially questionable, if not unsound. Peter Jenks, and many other scientists, are starting to question the commercial viability of all this regulation. What is your opinion?
Peter Jenks is concerned at the lack of mutual help available on the Internet within the field of analytical chemistry. Other fields, outside science, have strong communities where enthusiasts give freely of their advice and time; why not in analytical chemistry? Please tell us your views by adding a comment to this column article.
In recent editions of SE I have asked searching questions about the evolution of ISO 17025 and the role of accreditation bodies. By chance, I received a copy of an article by Gary Price which suggested that here was someone else who wasn’t convinced by the status quo. I contacted him and found that he is a metrology specialist who has advised Australian governments on the measurement infrastructure requirements of modern chemical measurement. I felt that the readers of this column would enjoy and may like to comment on his views. I asked him to produce the following short review of the arguments presented in the main articles.—Peter Jenks