Thread Content
Attention must be paid to five key issues in laboratories. First, issuing certificates outside the authorized scope: According to the Metrology Law, laboratories that provide data with certifying value to the public must undergo laboratory accreditation (metrological certification) and/or CNAS recognition. Such accreditation and/or CNAS recognition define the scope of a laboratory’s capabilities; laboratories are only allowed to issue inspection reports bearing the corresponding markings for products (parameters) within the limits of their capabilities. When testing is carried out using standards that fall outside this scope, it is referred to as testing outside the authorized scope. **The \"Measures for the Administration of Random Inspections on Product Quality\", the \"Measures for the Classified Supervision of the Work Quality of Product Quality Inspection Institutions\" and other regulations issued and implemented by the State Administration for Market Regulation also clearly stipulate that laboratories shall not carry out testing beyond their capabilities. However, in practice, it still happens from time to time that individual inspection institutions conduct tests beyond their limits. There are mainly three forms of out-of-scope testing: 1. Intentional testing beyond capacity – Laboratories or individual staff within them, in order to meet customer requirements or gain financial benefits for the laboratory, conduct testing on products that fall outside their capabilities and issue test reports with corresponding markings ； Or laboratory personnel may assume that using certain individual standards specified in the standards falls within their capabilities, and mistakenly test the product and issue a test report with relevant markings. In recent years, the General Administration for Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, the Certification and Accreditation Administration, as well as provincial and municipal quality supervision bureaus have imposed very strict penalties on testing beyond authorized scope, even shutting down the testing activities of certain laboratories. Therefore, the laboratory should inform all employees about the consequences of conducting tests beyond the specified limits; it is not acceptable to deliberately carry out such tests for financial gain or under the pretense of acting in the best interests of the company ； At the same time, the laboratory should also carefully assess its scope of capabilities; for standards that indeed require specific equipment and testing capabilities but are not currently within that scope, efforts should be made as soon as possible to expand such capabilities in order to improve its ability to serve enterprises. 2. Failure to conduct capability verification promptly after standard changes. In recent years, standard changes have been very frequent, whether it comes to product standards or method standards. In accordance with the criteria for laboratory accreditation assessment, the documents used by a laboratory must be current and valid; therefore, the laboratory cannot use obsolete standards for conducting tests. If a laboratory proceeds with its work using new standards, it must promptly go to the authority responsible for accreditation of laboratories and/or CNAS recognition to apply for a standard change. Currently, some laboratories, out of a desire to avoid hassle, often wait until re-evaluation or surveillance evaluation to make standard changes. If testing is carried out in accordance with the new standards between the start of implementation of those standards and the completion of a laboratory re-assessment or surveillance audit, it constitutes testing outside the scope. There is also a case involving a hidden range of superpowers. When the laboratory’s testing capability is approved, it actually implies that the standards referenced in the product standards have also passed the laboratory’s evaluation. When there are changes in the referenced standards, especially when there are actual changes in testing methods or environmental facilities, the actual testing capability for product inspection may change as well. Such a change may prevent the laboratory from carrying out testing activities in accordance with the currently valid standards. We call this type of change an “implicit” out-of-scope test. Due to the need to conduct capability verification again after standard changes, some laboratories, avoiding the hassle, tend to wait until a surveillance audit or re-audit to carry out this verification, which results in testing beyond the specified capability limits. Therefore, laboratories should pay attention to and avoid such situations; new standards must not be used for testing until their competence has been confirmed. Laboratories should pay even more attention to changes in the standards referenced in product standards, to avoid using obsolete standards for testing, which could lead to incorrect test results and associated testing risks. 3. Misuse of CNAS, CMA, and related certifications: Many laboratories have obtained CNAS accreditation as well as laboratory qualification certification, but these two types of accreditation are not granted at the same time. When applying for expansions or changes to standards, it is common for one type of accreditation to be granted while the other takes some time to be approved. In some laboratories, especially smaller and medium-sized ones, their certification scope is mainly CMA; the CNAS certification scope is quite limited. Generally, all these certifications are printed directly on the cover of the test report, which leads to laboratories misusing these identifiers. Therefore, the laboratory should print inspection covers separately according to the applicable capability ranges and use them as specified. II) Equipment and environmental facilities fail to meet standard requirements. Equipment and environmental facilities are essential tools for conducting tests in a laboratory; whether they meet the relevant standards has a direct impact on the accuracy of the data, and it significantly affects the test results and conclusions. The main reasons why the equipment and environmental facilities do not meet the requirements are as follows: 1. Traceability of measurement values is not carried out in accordance with regulations. The traceability of the measurement values of instruments and equipment is one of the key methods to ensure their measurement accuracy. In accordance with the criteria for evaluating laboratory accreditation, instruments and equipment must be calibrated or verified before use, and periodic checks should be conducted when necessary between such calibrations or verifications to ensure the accuracy of the data. However, some laboratories fail to send their instruments to the metrology authorities for verification or calibration as required, resulting in inaccurate instruments; there are also individual verification/calibration laboratories that issue certificates without conducting such verification/calibration. In laboratories, it is common for there to be instruments and equipment for which no calibration procedures or methods exist. To save time, the metrology departments usually only calibrate or verify the measuring devices that are used with these instruments, without making a comprehensive assessment of whether the entire equipment is up to standard; as a result, it is unclear whether the data displayed by the equipment is accurate. Failing to validate the instrument using methods such as capability testing or laboratory intercomparison at this stage poses significant risks. 2. Decline in equipment precision: Some testing institutions, especially small and medium-sized ones, lack the funds necessary to replace their equipment on a timely basis, resulting in those devices continuing to be used for extended periods. Due to the excessive service life of the equipment or harsh operating conditions, its accuracy declines, which reduces the reliability of the inspection data. Therefore, the laboratory should update its equipment in a timely manner. When updating the equipment is not possible immediately, it should increase the frequency of calibration, conduct periodic checks, and use methods such as inter-laboratory comparisons or intra-equipment comparisons to verify the reliability of the equipment, thereby ensuring that the test data are accurate and reliable. 3. Environmental facilities do not meet standard requirements. Many tests have high demands on environmental facilities, which have a significant impact on the test results; however, some testing institutions do not pay enough attention to these environmental facilities and are unable to meet the requirements for conducting tests properly. For example, in the water curing process for cement testing, the specified temperature of the water is (20±1)°C. If this temperature exceeds the prescribed range, especially by a significant amount, it will have a substantial impact on the test results. During our review, we found that in some cement laboratories, water curing is carried out in tanks; when the water temperature drops, hot water is added, and when it rises, cold water is added. Such a method of temperature control cannot ensure precision in maintaining the water temperature, and as a result, the test data obtained after curing are inaccurate. Therefore, for tests with high requirements for environmental facilities, the laboratory must ensure that the tested environmental facilities meet the standard requirements. III) Lack of effective control over the quality of the testing process: Incorrect test results or inaccurate data often arise due to non-standard testing procedures. This is manifested in the following ways: 1. Carelessness in testing and calculations – Testing is a process that requires concentration; even the slightest carelessness can lead to errors. With the widespread use of mobile phones, it is very common for inspectors to answer their phones during the inspection process or while calculating data after the inspection. Cases of inspection errors resulting from such behavior and other acts of carelessness occur from time to time. Testing errors caused by carelessness during the inspection and calculation processes are not common, but once they occur, they will directly lead to incorrect test results. 2. Insensitivity to suspicious data. Generally speaking, each substance has its own characteristics, and its detection values should fall within certain ranges; for example, the thermal conductivity of polystyrene boards cannot be 0, and building exterior windows made from different aluminum alloy profiles and ordinary single-layer glass cannot meet the requirements of insulating windows, etc. When inspectors or those who approve inspection reports encounter suspicious data that does not conform to the normal patterns, they should recheck such data to determine whether there is a problem with the instruments and equipment or an error in the inspector’s operations. Being able to correctly determine whether data is suspicious relies on extensive knowledge of the theory behind the products being tested as well as practical testing experience. This is also a fundamental skill that a competent inspector or person responsible for reviewing and approving inspection reports should possess; without long-term training, it is impossible to detect suspicious test data sensitively. 3. Deviations in handling of critical values: During the testing process, due to the presence of measurement uncertainty, there may be deviations in determining whether test items fall within the critical values. For example, in terms of coating thickness, for ordinary aluminum-plastic panels used for decoration, since the coating thickness is relatively small, accurate calibration of the “0” point during measurement is particularly important for products that are at the critical threshold specified by standards. If zero adjustment is performed using a standard substrate, a deviation of (1–2) um may occur, which could cause the product to slide from the \"qualified\" category toward the \"unqualified\" category. For ordinary decorative aluminum-plastic panels, the coating can be removed from the product, and adjustments can be made on the exposed substrate to ensure the accuracy and objectivity of the results. Therefore, for test results with critical values, multiple comparison tests should be conducted using different testers or instrumentation to ensure that the test results are scientific and fair. 4. Misunderstanding of standards: Inspection is a highly precise task, and incorrect understanding and application of standards by some inspectors directly affects the accuracy of the inspection results. For example, in the testing of ordinary decorative panels with fluorocarbon coatings, GB/T22412-2008 stipulates that the testing of the coating properties of such aluminum-plastic panels should be carried out in accordance with GB/T17748-2008. In tests, it is easy to have a preconceived notion of it as a \"regular decorative material,\" ignoring the fact that it is a fluorocarbon coating; this leads to the use of incorrect testing standards, ultimately rendering the test results invalid. 5. Lack of effective supervision for newly hired inspectors: In recent years, many testing agencies have expanded on a large scale, resulting in a severe shortage of experienced inspectors. In some laboratories, new employees start working on inspection tasks after only a few months of training. Such inspectors are not very skilled at their work, lack sensitivity to abnormal data, and there is no effective supervision over them, which increases the likelihood of errors on their part compared to more experienced staff. Therefore, new inspectors with limited experience and without supervision pose a higher potential risk. Therefore, in accordance with the requirements of the laboratory accreditation evaluation criteria, sufficient supervision should be provided for personnel who are in training. When the laboratory employs new staff or those changing roles, in addition to assessing their competence for the position, laboratory supervisors should exercise enhanced oversight during testing to prevent testing errors. IV) The inspection raw records are not standardized, lacking traceability. Although irregular raw records do not affect the test results, they serve as evidence of the laboratory’s testing process. In the event of a dispute between the laboratory and the party that commissioned the tests or any related third parties, such records cannot be used as evidence, putting the laboratory at risk. Each laboratory formulates its own record-keeping regulations in accordance with the criteria for evaluating laboratory accreditation, but some laboratories fail to implement these regulations properly. This is manifested in the following ways: 1. Incomplete records regarding the preparation, handling, and processing of test samples. The most basic requirement for original test records is to document the observations and data collected; here, the observations refer to everything that takes place from the preparation, handling, and processing of the samples until the completion of the testing. Laboratories tend to keep detailed records of what is observed during the testing process, but they provide incomplete records, or even no records at all, of the sample preparation, handling, and preparation steps – such as the equilibration of samples in a constant temperature and humidity environment or the water curing process for cement. In accordance with the requirement that \"laboratory records must be timely, accurate, and complete,\" the preparation, handling, and preparation of test samples are also part of the testing process, and they must be recorded in a timely, accurate, and complete manner. Meanwhile, testers should be given proper training to develop an awareness of the importance of keeping original records complete and accurate. 2. Lack of traceability in cited data: The calculation processes after verification often require the use of certain constants or coefficients. All cited data should have their sources indicated. Constants are generally provided in standards, while coefficients are determined after creating a standard curve prior to testing. The standard curve is not used indefinitely after it has been created once; rather, it needs to be prepared regularly. Therefore, when using a standard curve, the standard curve used in that particular test should be included in the original records, or its reference number should be specified. In some laboratories, when recording the original data, the standard curve is not attached to those records or the source of the curve is not indicated, resulting in the lack of traceability for the cited data. Therefore, when recording the original inspection records, inspectors should attach the standard curve referenced to those records, or indicate the number of the standard curve referenced, so as to ensure traceability of the referenced data in the original records. 3. Transcribing inspection records from a notebook: The original inspection records are the firsthand notes of observations, which should be recorded in real time during the observation process. Some inspectors do this to keep the data on hand, while others do it to maintain the original records in a neat and organized state; as a result, they first record the information in a notebook before transferring it to the formatted original records later. Therefore, it is necessary for laboratories to require inspectors to promptly record data in a controlled and formatted original record form; they must not first write it down in a notebook and then transcribe it onto the formatted original record. 5) Errors in test reports. A test report is the final product delivered by a testing laboratory to its client; therefore, the quality of test reports should also be one of the key concerns for laboratories. Errors in inspection reports usually manifest in the following two ways: 1. Errors in report preparation. When preparing inspection reports, the personnel responsible for this task often make input errors due to carelessness, such as mistakes in entering text or numbers related to technical requirements, actual measurement data, and individual assessments, which can lead to incorrect judgments ； Errors were made in entering dates such as the date of commissioned testing, the production date of the sample, and the testing date, resulting in logical issues related to timing. Currently, the vast majority of laboratories use business management network systems to generate test reports. Regarding issues related to time logic, time-related alerts can be set up within the system to notify when times are illogical, which helps to effectively prevent errors in time logic ； As for other input errors, they need to be addressed by enhancing the sense of responsibility among those responsible for preparing reports and those who review and approve them. 2. Signature by unauthorized persons: In accordance with the requirements for laboratory accreditation, inspection reports must be signed by authorized signatories. The authorized signatory must be thoroughly familiar with testing techniques, result evaluation, equipment maintenance and calibration, as well as procedures for verifying records and reports. Therefore, the scope of the authorized signatory’s authority to sign, as well as the permissible locations for testing, are limited. During laboratory operations, some unauthorized signatories issue inspection reports, or authorized signatories are unaware of the limits of their authority to sign such reports or of the scope of the testing locations, and thus issue inspection reports beyond their authorized scope, resulting in errors in those reports. Approving inspection reports beyond the scope of one’s authority violates the regulations regarding the use of laboratory identifiers, and this renders the inspection reports legally invalid.