Designated laboratories certification

Accreditation at the European level is a relatively new concept and dates back to the early 1980s. Accreditation means the recognition of the competence of a laboratory, certification, or inspection body by independent accreditors. The accreditation bodies are typically sanctioned by a member state government to perform audits of testing and certification institutions. The audited body must be able to demonstrate that it meets the criteria described in the annexes to the directives to become recognized at the state level and notified to the European Commission and the member states. The bodies that are notified are designated to carry out conformity assessment as set out in the directives. As an assessment technique, accreditation is an... 

Oversee the standardization of equipment and procedures at these designated laboratories, mobile analytical equipment and procedures, and monitor quality control and overall standards in relation to the certification of these laboratories, mobile equipment and procedures and... 

IL3 Proficiency testing leading to certification of designated laboratories... 

Recalling that the Commission, in its PC-IX/11, paragraph 7.3, adopted the document Proficiency Testing Leading to Certification of Designated Laboratories ,... 

Adopts the Proficiency Testing Leading to Certification of Designated Laboratories , annexed hereto. 

NASA has designed and contracted a water testing, purification, and retest (certification) system that is a self-contained unit about the size of a small automobile. Human involvement is restricted to putting hose A into a puddle, polluted stream, saltwater bay, or almost any other liquid source, and to drinking pure water from liose B. The fully automated laboratory (and processing) system is intended for an eventual Mars base. It is currently used on navy ships and some desert warfare army units. 

The result can be methods which do not adequately fulfill their objectives in properly simulating service or are unnecessarily complex and unworkable within reasonable cost. Reproducability of rigs can be very bad. There is a world of difference between a rig for development purposes in one laboratory and multi laboratory product certification. If new methods are introduced which are ambiguously written or without full interlaboratory comparisons then problems and disputes are likely to follow. It can be concluded that it would be better to rely on material properties than on inadequate or ill-defined product tests but a well designed product test provides the best proof of fitness for purpose. 

The Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) set standards designed to improve the quality of all laboratory testing. In the first portion of this chapter, we discuss the CLIA requirements that apply to most Immunohistochemistry laboratories, and explain topics such as certification, test complexity, patient test management, proficiency testing, personnel, quality control, quality assurance, and compliance. 

The project was started in 1987 by a consultation of Emopean experts examining the possibility of harmonizing single and/or sequential extraction schemes for soil and sediment analysis [60]. This inquiry was followed by the design of single extraction schemes (EDTA, acetic acid and ammonium acetate) and a sequential extraction protocol which were proposed to a group of ca. 30 laboratories for possible harmonization in 1989 [193]. Interlaboratory studies (two on soils and two on sediment) were carried out between 1989 and 1993 [194-196] and were followed by certification campaigns conducted between 1994 and 1996 [197-199]. 

In general the installation designer and the nser reqnire confidence that mannfactnred eqnipment for use in a hazardous area carries an internationally recognised certificate. In addition the certificate should be the result of laboratory testing of a sample of the same eqnipment. The laboratory shonld be specialised in the type of testing reqnired. 

---