Significance and Use
Testing is conducted to make technical decisions on materials, processes, and products. With the continued growth in the available test methods for evaluating scientific and technical properties, a quantitative approach is needed to select test methods that have high (or highest) quality or technical merit. The procedures as defined in this practice may be used for this purpose to make testing as cost effective as possible.
One index of test method technical merit and implied sensitivity frequently used in the past has been test method precision. The precision is usually expressed as some multiple of the test measurement standard deviation for a defined testing domain. Although precision is a required quantity for test sensitivity, it is an incomplete characteristic (only one half of the necessary information) since it does not consider the discrimination power for the FP (or constituent) being evaluated.
Any attempt to evaluate relative test sensitivity for two different test methods on the basis of test measurement standard deviation ratios or variance ratios, which lack any discrimination power information content, constitutes an invalid quantitative basis for sensitivity, or technical merit evaluation. Coefficient of variation ratios (which are normalized to the mean) may constitute a valid test sensitivity evaluation only under the special condition where the two test methods under comparison are directly proportional or reciprocally related to each other. If the relationship between two test methods is nonlinear or linear with a nonzero intercept, the coefficient of variation ratios are not equivalent to the true test sensitivity as defined in this practice. See discussion of example in X1.1.4. The figure of merit defined by test sensitivity and its various classifications, categories, and types as introduced by this practice permits an authentic quantitative test sensitivity evaluation.
1.1 This practice covers testing to evaluate chemical constituents, chemical and physical properties of compounding materials, and compounded and cured rubbers, which may frequently be conducted by one or more test methods. When more than one test method is available, two questions arise: Which test method has the better (or best) response to or discrimination for the underlying fundamental property being evaluated? and Which test method has the least error? These two characteristics collectively determine one type of technical merit of test methods that may be designated as test sensitivity.
1.2 Although a comprehensive and detailed treatment, as given by this practice, is required for a full appreciation of test sensitivity, a simplified conceptual definition may be given here. Test sensitivity is the ratio of discrimination power for the fundamental property evaluated to the measurement error or uncertainty, expressed as a standard deviation. The greater the discriminating power and the lower the test error, the better is the test sensitivity. Borrowing from the terminology in electronics, this ratio has frequently been called the signal-to-noise ratio; the signal corresponding to the discrimination power and the noise corresponding to the test measurement error. Therefore, this practice describes how test sensitivity, generically defined as the signal-to-noise ratio, may be evaluated for test methods used in the rubber manufacturing industry, which measure typical physical and chemical properties, with exceptions as noted in 1.3.
1.3 This practice does not address the topic of sensitivity for threshold limits or minimum detection limits (MDL) in such applications as (1) the effect of intentional variations of compounding materials on measured compound properties or (2) the evaluation of low or trace constituent levels. Minimum detection limits are the subject of separate standards.
1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.
1.5 The content of this practice is as follows:
|Summary of Practice||4|
|Significance and Use||5|
|Development of Test Sensitivity Concepts|
(Absolute and Relative Test Sensitivity, Limited and Extended Range Test Sensitivity, Uniform and Nonuniform Test Sensitivity)
|Steps in Conducting a Test Sensitivity Evaluation Program||8|
|Report for Test Sensitivity Evaluation||9|
|Annex A1—Background on: Use of Linear Regression Analysis and Precision of Test Sensitivity Evaluation|
|Appendix X1—Two Examples of Relative Test Sensitivity Evaluation:|
|Relative Test Sensitivity: Limited Range—Three Processability Tests|
|Relative Test Sensitivity: Extended Range—Compliance versus Modulus|| |
|Appendix X2—Background on: Transformation of Scale and Derivation of Absolute Sensitivity for a Simple Analytical Test|
2. Referenced Documents (purchase separately) The documents listed below are referenced within the subject standard but are not provided as part of the standard.
D4483 Practice for Evaluating Precision for Test Method Standards in the Rubber and Carbon Black Manufacturing Industries
absolute test sensitivity; calibration material; reference material; relative test sensitivity; signal-to-noise ratio; test sensitivity; Rubber property analysis; Sensitivity criterion/response; Testing methods;
ICS Number Code 83.040.01 (Raw materials for rubber and plastics in general)
ASTM International is a member of CrossRef.
Citing ASTM Standards
[Back to Top]