Laboratory evaluation methodology

Many coolant relevant solutions can be tested in the laboratory. Generally speaking, these solutions can be classified into three groups (1) ethylene glycol solutions (2) commercial coolants and (3) modified and newly developed coolants. 

Commercial coolants are those currently available in the market. Solutions are prepared by simply following the product instructions for use in a vehicle radiator. Commercial coolants can be modified by the addition of new inhibitors to make them suitable for magnesium alloys. New coolants 

2 Immersion, hydrogen collection and weight loss measurement 

The combination of immersion, hydrogen collection and weight loss measurement is an easy corrosion evaluation method, particularly for magnesium alloys. The method, first established and used by Song et al. [5] to estimate and monitor the corrosion rate of magnesium in a NaCl solution, has been widely adopted as a common corrosion rate measurement technique for magnesium alloys in various aqueous solutions. The reliability of the method has been theoretically and experimentally demonstrated [24,25] and the details will not be repeated here. 

7 Schematic illustration of a setup for galvanic current measurement (based on Song and StJohn (26)). 

---

AISI [I2-/4] luis taken a leadership role to develop and evaluate methodology based on laboratory experiments, field exposure history, and theoretical and empirical models through an open forum of all interested parties (mainly North American automotive and steel industries), organized as the Corrosion Task Force of the AISI. The task force developed an improved laboratory-accelerated test for ranking the cosmetic corrosion resistance of coated automotive steel sheet products. This approach serves as a model for methodology development in areas of nonmetaUic coatings corrosion testing. 

Some aspects of embedded engineering education have been the subject of the European research project FP7-1CT-2011-8/317882 Embedded Engineering Learning Platform. The five achieved outcomes—unified platform, basic set of exercises, augmented reality interface, ranote laboratory, and evaluation methodology with tools—can be a valuable contribution for the establishment of an embe ed engineering profile. 

Restrepo, L. F., et al., 1996, Accident Phenomenology and Consequence Methodology Evaluation Fire Working Group, Draft Report, Sandia National Laboratory, April. 

The patterned amine materials have been used to construct CGC-inspired sites that were evaluated in the catalytic polymerization of ethylene after activation with MAO. The complexes assembled on a porous silica surface using this methodology are more active than previously reported materials prepared on densely-loaded amine surfaces. This increased activity further suggests the isolated, unique nature of the metal centers. Work is continuing in our laboratory to further characterize the nature of the active sites, as well as to obtain more detailed kinetic data on the catalysts. The patterning methodology is also being applied to the creation of immobilized catalysts for small molecule reactions, such as Heck and Suzuki catalysis. 

The second issue involves the nature of published material itself. Due to journal space limitations and/or other factors, it is rare to find enough detail presented for a reader to make an independent evaluation of the value of the irritation data. Sometimes the test methodology is not defined, making direct comparisons to results obtained in other laboratory situations tenuous at best. Often raw data are lacking, and the results are reduced to either a plus-minus score or a broad categorization (mild, moderate, severe), so that a more specific appraisal cannot be made. These factors preclude the resolution and evaluation of seemingly conflicting data that one often finds in the literature. 

For TM to be accepted into mainstream medical treatment, a likely scenario is the application of scientific methodologies and controls for TM development, evaluation, and production. Many of the tools for high throughput screening (HTS) and assay systems can be used to test the efficacy of TM, similar to the irrational approach of screening natural products. Pharmacology studies have to be conducted in accordance with Good Laboratory Practice (GLP). 

Unfortunately, electrochemistry has not been fully embraced by organic chemists, despite the fact that it often provides methodology which may be better suited or superior to a non-electrochemical counterpart. Some of this reluctance is undoubtedly related to the fact that the techniques and equipment are not readily available in each laboratory setting. One hopes that eventually the community will consider electrochemistry simply as another tool, to be explored as routinely as any other. Like all others, it ought to be evaluated in a given context, and used in accordance with its merit. 

The second module. Method, involves determining the level of verification and validation to which the user s methodology has been subjected. Verification is the general process used to decide whether a method in question is capable of producing accurate and reliable data. Validation is an experimental process involving external corroboration by other laboratories (internal or external) of methods or the use of reference materials to evaluate the suitability of methodology (1). A menu of choices includes (1) the method has only been verified, (2) the method has been both verified and validated, or (3) the method has been neither verified or validated. 

When the laboratory uses different methodologies or instruments, or performs testing at multiple testing sites, a system is to be in place that evaluates and verifies the comparability between these test results. For example, correlation studies must ensure that manual and automated methods of immunostaining within a laboratory are in agreement. This must be documented biannually. In addition, any reference laboratories utilized must be CLIA-88-certified, and the lab director must monitor the quality of test results received from these outside sources. A mechanism must be in place to evaluate immunohistochemical results that are inconsistent with clinicopathologic studies. This evaluation should be performed and recorded by a laboratory physician. 

Once an application has been accepted for evaluation, the Pharmaceutical Chemistry Evaluation Section, Toxicology Section and Clinical Evaluation Units evaluate the Module 3, 4 and 5 data, respectively. For applications relating to products of biological origin, a second copy of the Module 3 data is also evaluated by the TGA Laboratories (TGAL) Branch, which evaluates aspects such as laboratory methodology, method validation and shelf-life. 

At the same time. Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) evaluated FETAX methodology based on the inter-laboratory studies and published a review document in 2000 (5). The expert panel concluded that FETAX was not sufficiently validated for regulatory use due to the intra- and inter-laboratory variability (6). Nonetheless, the assay was developed in our laboratory for use as a predictive screening assay. 

---