Have you ever questioned the **analysis criteria – those marked with “GB”?

You have doubts about many aspects of the national standards mentioned by the original poster; could you please specify them? Do you understand the process of establishing, revising, and improving national standards? Are you aware that when developing a standard test method to be applied in a certain context, it is necessary to take into account the different users involved, as well as ensuring that such a test method has general representativeness? Since you say you have doubts about several aspects, please list 10 specific points in the national standards that you are skeptical about. You have a very positive attitude, but I believe that most of your doubts stem from your own opinions and experimental conditions, which prevent you from understanding the content of the national standards in a completely accurate, objective, and comprehensive manner. You may be highly skilled in certain experiments and tests, but I also believe that those who establish, revise, and improve national standards are all experts in practical analysis and testing. Some provisions or sections may seem outdated or even backward, but since they are presented in the form of **standards, there are important reasons behind them. If possible, please share your various doubts; we can discuss them together, which will also help to revise and improve future national standards.

http://emuch.net/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=9193530&target=self&page=1

I have been involved in **standard development; the creation of a standard requires preliminary reviews, pre-examinations, and discussions. There are many steps such as comparing data from various units; unless you are dealing with a special case, it’s reasonable to be skeptical, but don’t generalize everything. Science and technology keep advancing with the times; they are in a state of constant development, and this is why national standards need to be updated every few years. You can look at the compilation instructions for national standards to understand the background behind their creation as well as the comparisons involved; it’s always good to learn more.

To be honest, there are indeed issues with the formulation of some national standards. Let me give an example: in some standards, the concepts of method detection limit and minimum detectable mass are confused with each other. Based on my understanding, as well as the information I have found and the questions I asked various experts, the answer I’ve gotten is that the method detection limit and the minimum detectable mass are two different concepts. The method detection limit is the lowest mass at which qualitative detection is possible, while the minimum detectable mass is the quantity for quantitative detection; it can also be understood as the lower limit of detection, and is generally expressed as 3 to 4 times the method detection limit. I believe that national standards still possess considerable authority. As for any problems that arise in practical applications, they are due to the applicators’ own mistakes or the influence of the environment or conditions; after all, national standards are generally representative, but they are not applicable in every situation. Regarding the adoption of national standards, my principle is to apply them flexibly, as long as it does not violate the principles of those standards and the requirements set by relevant parties. This is just my personal opinion; I hope experts and scholars can offer their guidance!

National standards – well, we have always followed them. However, in practice, many national standards can be simplified. National standards are established for the most common operations, and they may not be suitable for you; you can make adjustments according to your own needs. For example, in a certain test, national standards require that the sample be adjusted to a neutral state by adding a buffer solution. Since your sample is already neutral, there is no need for a buffer solution to adjust it, so you can skip this step. On this point, what was said upstairs is correct; you need to treat things differently and apply flexibility.

Doubts about national standards usually arise from certain unscrupulous businesses taking advantage of loopholes in testing methods to produce fake and substandard products. Melamine-infused milk powder is a typical example: isn’t protein determined by measuring the nitrogen content? Well, the nitrogen content of melamine is quite high, right? At that time, many private enterprises did not know what melamine was, so they repackaged it under a different name: Protein Essence. In my opinion, national standards are only suitable for legitimate methods; there are always gaps in testing for those conducted through illegitimate means. Therefore, as a chemical analyst, relying too much on national standards can still lead to being deceived. Morals are declining and people’s hearts have changed; no wonder some say that the Chinese nation is in its most dangerous situation, with some even claiming it is at its most shameless. In an era marked by a lack of faith and an excessive focus on money, being more cautious, gathering relevant information, and conducting experiments for comparison are the best ways to distinguish truth from falsehood.