Test methods, standards and how a cargo is actually measured

The proof the method measures what it claims, repeatably, in the matrix at hand, the validation being the method's licence. Labs audit themselves before you can.

Only as history, each consignment earning its own certificate, the tank's memory being unreliable testimony. Yesterday's truth is today's reference, not evidence.

The sample's other contents distorting the measurement, methods correcting for known chemistry, the lab's expertise living in the corrections. The cargo argues with the instrument.

The contract's named method prevails, the umpire lab applies it, the standard settles what the argument cannot. Method disputes are grammar wars with invoices.

Blind inter-lab comparison on identical samples, the ring test keeping laboratories honest, accreditation's continuing exam. Laboratories compete invisibly, constantly.

One assessed and certified against laboratory competence standards, whose results carry recognition across borders and buyers, the difference between a number and an argument. Accreditation is the stamp that stops discussions.

Buyers write the method next to the limit, because the same property measured two ways gives two truths, and only the pair, method plus number, is a specification. A limit without a method is a wish.

It is not a guarantee of future cargoes, not a quality system and not a safety document, it is the measured record of one consignment. Sellers who promise yesterday's CoA for tomorrow's cargo buy tomorrow's dispute.

Because the reference market and the measurement together define the price, cargo economics and cargo truth in one sentence. Trade speaks in incoterms and lab reports, and we translate for both sides.

A published, standardised test procedure from ASTM International, so that a property like chlorine or viscosity means the same thing in every laboratory. Standards settle arguments before they start, which is why specifications name the method next to the number.

Because chlorine, water, sulphur, ash and density decide where a cargo can go, whichever door it knocks on: they gate the cracker, the refinery and the fuel blend in different combinations. The five numbers are the market's common language, and the certificate that speaks it opens doors.

The specification table under Parameter by parameter, and why each one costs money puts chlorine, organic at astm d4929 for organic chloride in crude oil, by sodium biphenyl reduction, microcoulometry or xrf. astm d7359 determines total fluorine, chlorine and sulphur by combustion ion chromatography. field kits such as astm d5384 exist and are useful for screening, not for settlement. this is the number that decides whether pyrolysis oil reaches a cracker at all..

Several ways, and they do not agree. ASTM D4929 covers organic chloride determination by sodium biphenyl reduction, microcoulometry or X-ray fluorescence. ASTM D7359 determines total fluorine, chlorine and sulphur together by combustion ion chromatography. Field kits exist for screening. Because the results differ, the method has to be named in the contract, and total chlorine and organic chloride are different quantities: agreeing one number while each side means a different measurement is how disputes start.

Yes, and it is recent. ASTM D8577, Standard Guide for Waste Plastic Process Oil Analyses, was approved in 2025 and is the first dedicated framework for characterising plastic derived oil, covering composition, physical properties and contaminants. Before it, the market borrowed crude oil and biomass methods that were never written for this material. Do not use ASTM D7544 for plastic oil: that is a biomass pyrolysis liquid specification for industrial burners.

EN 15940, the European standard for paraffinic diesel from synthesis or hydrotreatment, which also covers XTL fuels. It permits up to 7.0 percent by volume FAME. HVO is not FAME and is not covered by EN 14214, and quoting the wrong standard in an offer signals inexperience faster than almost anything else.

ASTM D7566, for aviation turbine fuel containing synthesised hydrocarbons. It is organised as annexes by production pathway, including Fischer Tropsch SPK, HEFA SPK, synthesised iso paraffins, SPK with aromatics, alcohol to jet and catalytic hydrothermolysis, each with its own blend limit, reaching 50 percent for several. Once correctly blended, the resulting fuel is treated as meeting ASTM D1655, the conventional jet specification, which is why both numbers appear on one parcel.

Usually because they ran different methods, sampled from different points, or tested at different times while the material settled. None of that requires anyone to be dishonest. It is why sealed samples retained by both sides at load, an agreed test method, and a named umpire laboratory belong in the contract rather than in the argument afterwards.

It names the parcel and the date, lists the method beside every value, comes from a laboratory the buyer will accept, and covers the parameters that matter for the destination rather than only the flattering ones. For pyrolysis oil that means chlorine and silicon are present rather than absent. A COA without methods is a number you cannot defend.

No, and no broker should. Analysis has to come from an accredited laboratory that both sides accept, otherwise it settles nothing. What we do is arrange inspection and sampling through recognised inspection companies, make sure the right parameters are on the list before anyone loads, and tell you when a COA in front of you is not going to survive contact with a buyer.