Closed timbrisc closed 15 years ago
The definition is not sufficient to establish this notion as a unit.
This being an in-vitro measurement using a reference standard makes it eligible as any other arbitrary unit such as I.U.
Contrast this with #17, which is going to be very hard.
I meant "contrast this with #18" not 17.
Submitter states:
"AU and BAU are both based on FDA reference standards and, ultimately, on titration skin testing by the ID50EAL method. I have attached a reference on that method, on the BAU unitage, and on the older AU unitage."
Turk IDEAL Ehrlich 1987.pdf
(390.2 KiB)Biological Standardization based on Quantitative Skin Testing
[BAU] see comment under #18. Provisionally accepted.
While applying this, it is clear that this is still not defined as a unit.
But the Turkeltaub paper does provide a lot of detail for some metrologic formalization of what is going on.
This method needs to be further investigated to determine a quantitative model which relates that would relate 1 BAU with a standardized amount of substance of the standardized allergenic protein. The situation is not unlike the titer and is not worse than for many of the arbitrary units listed already. In a future revision a stronger formalized metrologic model will be added to this specification.
Issue migrated from trac ticket # 17
priority: critical | resolution: fixed
2008-12-20 03:24:50: gschadow@pragmaticdata.com created the issue