Context:
Sample taking performed by the Customer in Country 1 (Norway), time and date registered (drinking water sample)
Sample transported to multinational laboratory site in Country 1, time and date of sample taking logged as well as arrival time of at the laboratory site.
- In addition to non time-sensitive analysis, the order from the Customer includes several time-sensitive analyses (e.g. pH/NS-EN ISO 10523, Turbidity/NS-EN ISO 7027-1, Conductivity/NS-EN 27888), max 24 hours from time of sample taking to time of analysis is allowed.
- The Sample was shipped to multinational laboratory site in Country 2, information about time and date of sample taking at Customer site was sent and available information for the laboratory in Country 2.
- Laboratory in Country 2 registers the Sample’s arrival time and date in Country 2 as the date and time for the sample taking.
- Laboratory in Country 2 performs the analysis within 24 hours after the Sample arrived at their site and reports the results as accredited results to their sister laboratory in country 1.
- The laboratory in Country 1 incorporates the accredited results from the laboratory in Country 2, in their report to the Customer, still as accredited results.
The Laboratory in Country 1 (Norway) claims that other national accreditation bodies accepts that the arrival time and date in Country 2 is used as the date of sampling.
Question:
Do we agree that the date of sampling always is the date and time of the sample taking at the site of the Customer? In situation where the testing includes time-sensitive analysis, this is the point in time where the clock starts to tic. I.e. the Samples arrival time at the laboratory in another country can never be used as the date and time of sampling?
The date of sampling must always correspond to the moment when the sample is actually taken at its point of origin, including the date and the time, if applicable.
This is particularly important when the time between sampling and the start of the analysis can influence the test results.
Reporting another date (for example, the date of receipt at a second laboratory) instead of the real date of sampling, may lead to misinterpretation, as it hides the real time that has passed from when the sample was taken, until it reaches the laboratory for analysis, and the conditions of transport and storage in which the sample was kept would also be unknown, which can also negatively affect the results.
The ISO/IEC 17025 standard requires test reports to be clear and contain all the information necessary for the correct interpretation of results. Recording any date other than the true date of sampling would not meet this requirement, as it could cause confusion and compromise the traceability of the data.
Therefore, in order to ensure both compliance with the standard and the technical validity of the results, the sampling date must always reflect the exact date (and time, where relevant) when the sample was collected at its origin.