Interlaboratory and proficiency tests for buildings sound insulation field measurements in Brazil - 4th Edition 2020

Since 2013 ABNT NBR 15575:2013 entered into force in Brazil, a national technical standard that establishes acoustic requirements for dwellings, that can be verified by means of field measurements procedures performed according to specific ISO standards. Therefore, those requirements have fostered the acoustic field measurement market, and the number of laboratories has quickly increased across the county. ProAcústica - Brazilian Association for Acoustical Quality, a non-profit entity, aiming to improve the quality of the acoustics business in Brazil has organized in 2020 the fourth edition of the "Interlaboratory program of field measurements for building acoustics laboratories - INTERLAB Program". This consists of a fundamental tool for acoustic field laboratories to evaluate and verify the quality of their measurement results. This paper presents the methodologies and procedures used in the interlaboratory program, as well as the results of both the interlaboratory test and the proficiency carried out in São Paulo (Brazil) during 2017 by ProAcústica - Brazilian Association for Acoustical Quality. In this edition a total number of 25 laboratories have participated (32% more participants than the last edition in 2017) for different type of field tests: airborne sound insulation, airborne facade sound insulation, impact sound level, sound pressure level from service equipment in buildings, and reverberation time). The main objectives are the evaluation of the precision of the field test methods in the Brazilian market, and the analysis of the performance of the participating laboratories as a quality control tool.

Comparison of HbA1c Measurements using 3 Methods in 75 Patients Referred to One Outpatient Department

Objective HbA1c is the most important surrogate parameter to assess the quality of diabetes care and is also used for the diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (DM) since 2010. We investigated the comparability of 3 HbA1c methods in the city of Jena (Germany). Methods The HbA1c determination was carried out in 50 healthy subjects and 24 people with DM (age 51.2±16.3 years, HbA1c 6.8±2.2%) with 3 different hemoglobin A1c testing methods at 4 locations in one city. Our laboratory (HPLC method) served as a reference for comparing the results. All methods are IFCC standardized and all devices are certified by the interlaboratory test. Results The mean HbA1c of people without diabetes was: laboratory A (TOSOH G8, HPLC) 5.7±0.3%; laboratory B (TOSOH G8, HPLC) 5.5±0.3%, laboratory C (VARIANT II) 5.2±0.3%; laboratory D (COBAS INT.) 5.6±0.3%. All differences are significant (p=0.001).The mean HbA1c of patients with mild to moderate elevated HbA1c was: Laboratory A 7.5±0.9%; B 7.3±1.0%; C 7.0±0.9%; D 7.5±1.1%. Differences are significant (p=0.001) except between laboratory A and D (p=0.8).The mean HbA1c of patients with massively increased HbA1c was: laboratory A 11.5±1.8%; laboratory B 11.4±1.8%; laboratory C 10.8±1.6%; laboratory D 11.5±1.5%. Differences between laboratory A and C, as well as between C and D were significant (p=0.001). Conclusion The mean IFCC standardized HbA1c from 75 people differs by up to 0.5% absolute between 4 laboratories. This difference is clinically significant and may lead to misdiagnosis and wrong treatment decisions, while HbA1c value from one patient were analyzed in different laboratories within a short time.