evaluated using the expression of Welch-
Satterthwaite (ABNT and INMETRO, 2003).
For the confidence interval of 95.45%, the obtained
value for the effective number of degrees is ν
eff
→∞,
which indicates a coverage factor of k=2. Therefore,
the estimated value for the standard expanded
uncertainty is equal to U
p
=1.4 kPa.
5 DISCUSSIONS
The repeatability of measurement of calibration
curves, as discussed in other works of NEPEB, was
confirmed here. The maximum value obtained for
the type A uncertainty associated to the values of V
m
is equal to 0.0066 V.
Calculations of hysteresis were performed
considering the fitting curves. The maximum
absolute value obtained for hysteresis was equal to
0.1467 kPa for sensor 1 and 0.2957 kPa for sensor 2.
These values are much lower than the value
established by INMETRO for sphygmomanometers
with aneroid manometer. In the same way, when is
considered the linear region, it is noticed that the
results obtained in maximum indication error test are
also inside the tolerance range determined by
INMETRO for this equipment (0.4 kPa).
The standard combined and expanded
uncertainties estimated for the prototype (for
reference pressure of 26.7 kPa) were 0.7 kPa and
1.4 kPa, respectively. The last value is lower than
that suggested in INMETRO (2006) for analogical
pressures measuring systems, that is, 12 kPa.
6 CONCLUSIONS
The proposed model to calibrate the digital
manovacuometer developed at NEPEB uses the
weighted least squares. This model indicates that the
hysteresis, maximum indication error and
uncertainty of the prototype were inside the
tolerance range established by INMETRO.
In future works it must be investigated and
inserted to the proposed metrological model other
possible factors that can be influencing the result
prototype uncertainty, as those associated to A/D
converter, temperature variation and correlation
between the curves parameters and input pressure.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To FAPEMIG and CNPq for financial support. To
CETEL/SENAI/FIEMG represented for Luiz
Henrique, Marcus Vinicius and Reiner that lent the
laboratory and reference manovacuometer for the
measurements. To Rômulo Martini of FHEMIG.
REFERENCES
ABNT; INMETRO, 2003. Measurement uncertainty guide
(free translation). ABNT, INMETRO, Rio de Janeiro.
Brazilian Ministry of Development, Industry and Foreign
Commerce (MIDIC); INMETRO, 2006. Establishes
the evaluation of conformity for MHE. Portaria N
o
86
de 3 de abril de 2006.
Brazilian Ministry of Health (MS); Brazilian National
Health Vigilance Agency (ANVISA), 1999.
Establishes the certification for MHE. Resolução N
o
444 de 31 de agosto de 1999.
INMETRO, 2007. Homepage: http://www.inmetro.gov.br
INMETRO, 1997. Procedure for verification of the
sphygmomanometers with aneroid manometer (free
translation). INMETRO, Rio de Janeiro.
INMETRO, 2006. Guidelines to carry out the calibration
of analogical system measuring pressure (free
translation). INMETRO, Rio de Janeiro.
Lira, I., 2002. Evaluating the measurement uncertainty:
fundamentals and practical guidance. Bristol and
Philadelphia: IoP.
Mathioulakis, E.; Belessiotis, V. 2000. Uncertainty and
traceability in calibration by comparision. Meas. Sci.
Technol., 11: 771-775
Press, W.; Teukolsky, S.; Vetterling, W; Flannery, B.
1992. Numerical recipes in C: the art of scientific
computing. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 2
nd
edition.
Silva, J, 2006. Development of a digital system for
measuring maximum respiratory pressures (free
translation). Monografia (Bacharelado em Engenharia
de Controle e Automação) – Escola de Engenharia,
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo
Horizonte.
APPLICATION OF WEIGHTED LEAST SQUARES TO CALIBRATE A DIGITAL SYSTEM FOR MEASURING THE
RESPIRATORY PRESSURES
223