Report on the 3rd Pilling Round Trial of IWTO Pilling Working Group ...
Report on the 3rd Pilling Round Trial of IWTO Pilling Working Group ...
Report on the 3rd Pilling Round Trial of IWTO Pilling Working Group ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<str<strong>on</strong>g>Report</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong> 3 rd <strong>Pilling</strong> <strong>Round</strong> <strong>Trial</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>IWTO</strong><br />
<strong>Pilling</strong> <strong>Working</strong> <strong>Group</strong> DTM<br />
<strong>Pilling</strong> Grade<br />
Ano<strong>the</strong>r example: <strong>on</strong>e laboratory gave significant lower test results to all<br />
samples in <strong>the</strong> 2 round trials than all o<strong>the</strong>r labs. A specific laboratory was<br />
selected to carry out ratings <strong>on</strong> specimens tested in o<strong>the</strong>r laboratories to<br />
investigate whe<strong>the</strong>r such differences are caused by pilling tester or by<br />
pilling grade evaluati<strong>on</strong>. It’s seen from Figure 5and 6 that Laboratory No.<br />
2 gave generally lower grades to all samples than o<strong>the</strong>r labs.<br />
5<br />
4<br />
3<br />
2<br />
1<br />
0<br />
c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 c6 w1 w2 w3 w4 w5 w6<br />
Samples<br />
Lab 1<br />
Lab 2<br />
Lab 3<br />
Lab 4<br />
Lab 5<br />
Lab 6<br />
Figure 5 Test Results <strong>of</strong> All Participating Labs<br />
in 2010/11 <strong>Round</strong> <strong>Trial</strong><br />
Mean <strong>Pilling</strong> Grade<br />
4.0<br />
3.5<br />
3.0<br />
2.5<br />
2.0<br />
1.5<br />
1.0<br />
0.5<br />
0.0<br />
2hr 3hr<br />
Testing time<br />
4hr<br />
Lab 1<br />
Lab 2<br />
Lab 3<br />
Lab 4<br />
Lab 5<br />
Lab 6<br />
Figure 6 Mean grade <strong>of</strong> all participating labs<br />
in 2010/11 <strong>Round</strong> <strong>Trial</strong>
Change language