Some statistics on the participation in key and supplementary comparisons have been drawn up from the information recorded in Appendix B of the KCDB on 10 November 2005. This study is therefore based on all comparisons carried out in the framework of the CIPM MRA (finished, in progress, or planned) and officially declared to the KCDB Office. It does not include pilot studies as these are not managed by the KCDB Office.

The results presented here should be interpreted with care. They are not a snapshot of the work done today in the laboratories participant in the CIPM MRA, but constitute a summary of what has happened since the beginning of the CIPM MRA. Some started before the CIPM MRA was agreed, and some are planned activities. It does not give any indication on the large number of pilot studies (for example, in Chemistry) and other exercises of the same type (for example, calibration of GPS receivers in Time).

Click on the images to view the results:

One conclusion is that nearly all countries (Member States of the Metre Convention and Associates of the CGPM) and international organizations listed in Appendix A of the CIPM MRA have key comparison activities in many areas. A large effort is also devoted to participation in supplementary comparisons.

This study may usefully be completed by examination of the participation of the BIPM in key comparisons. As of 24 November 2005, the BIPM has been or still is the pilot laboratory of 113 key comparisons, and participated in another 19 key comparisons (seven are RMO key comparisons in which the BIPM is a linking laboratory).

This table gives the number of key comparisons piloted by the BIPM in the different metrology areas. These may be ongoing BIPM key comparisons, designed as series of bilateral comparisons between the BIPM and the NMIs, or full-scale CC international comparisons. The four pilot studies currently being coordinated by the BIPM in Chemistry are not counted in the table. The 64 BIPM key comparisons in Ionizing Radiation include both the SIR comparisons for many important radionuclides and the various ongoing dosimetry comparisons.

Note that some of the CC comparisons counted in this table already have their results published, and thus correspond to comparisons that are finished (for example, in Ionizing Radiation, the entry in the table includes twenty neutron comparisons that pre-date the CIPM MRA).

The 2005 Meeting of Directors of National Metrology Institutes (NMIs) and other Designated Institutes from Member States of the Metre Convention and Associates of the General Conference (CGPM) was held at the BIPM on 29 and 30 September 2005. The meeting was attended by 78 Directors or their representatives from 51 States.

The first day of the meeting focused on the processes that NMIs use to set priorities among their programmes. The audience viewed presentations from four laboratories of different sizes and from various regions of the world. This was followed by a presentation on the European project iMERA (implementing Metrology in the European Research Area), which illustrated a model for inter-laboratory co-operation within a region.

The morning of the second day of the meeting focused on the future of chemical and engineering materials metrology, with six speakers addressing the metrological challenges in: laboratory medicine; food; health care; genetically modified organisms; and properties of materials. These talks were followed by a discussion on how the BIPM should address these emerging areas. During the afternoon, the audience heard a presentation on the relationship between the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) and the BIPM.

The 15th meeting of the JCRB was held at the BIPM in Sèvres, France, on 28 September 2005. During that meeting the delegates from the five RMOs and the BIPM reconsidered the matter of the re-definition of the term CMC. The discussion clarified that the current definition is not being changed, but rather it is being expanded to provide further clarification in benefit of assessors and regulators. A final agreement on the expanded definition was postponed until the next meeting to allow time for the language to be confirmed. Likewise, a set of recommendations for on-site visit by peers and the selection criteria for on-site peer reviewers were proposed. Those guidelines are expected to be finalized in time for the next JCRB.

Guidelines for the use of the CIPM MRA logo were proposed. However, the utilization of the logo remains on-hold until copyright issues are resolved in countries where the term MRA is copyrighted. It is hope that by the next meeting the guidelines will be approved and the use of the logo will be authorized. It was also agreed that the Consultative Committees should be advised to consider any gaps in the support of existing CMCs when proposing future key comparisons. It is expected that in the future a majority of CMCs will be supported, even if indirectly, by the results of a key comparison.

The criteria for review of CMC, which was approved during the JCRB 14, was re-endorsed during the JCRB 15. However, the JCRB noted that participation in key comparisons (when available) is mandatory for those NMIs who have relevant CMCs in the KCDB. The JCRB further asserted that the results of key comparisons are the best way to gain confidence on the CMCs of an NMI.

  Report of the 14th JCRB meeting