Special materials

Material was tested at various leading laboratories (in Russia, the USA, China) by methods of LMS, AES, SSMS and GDMS.

Not all methods, the equipment and qualification allow to measure  chemical purity of copper equally. Especially it concerns purity of 5N+ and above. Some methods and laboratories cannot measure certain elements or test exactly, like they are real.

Analysis of our Copper requires very good preparation of equipment appropriate to this level of purity, in super-quality and super-pure materials and instruments (chemical substances, cutters and other work tools) for preparation of the copper sample for analysis and  the highest qualification level of the laboratory personnel.
Predictability of results

Our Technology let us control chemical composition of our product and predict the analyses results with high precision. Moreover, being based on result LMS of our product (the given base method has good, but insufficient limits of detection for our quality), we can tell results which should be been by other more good method and the equipment at the qualified measurement. If limits of detection of a method allow to measure a necessary level and result is an unacceptable difference with expected values, we can assert and are assured that measurement is incorrect. That was confirmed and it is not automatically true for other product. Even Even serious laboratories insufficiently precisely can measure our quality. Some quality of our product is outside of standard opportunities even of leading laboratories: special opportunities and preparation are required.

Confirmation of quality of our product is the electrical conductivity which is independent of methods of the chemical analysis. Look at section of "Characteristic
EXAMPLE  of  TESTING : the sample of quality Extra

We tested the sample which close to ~med/avg of the current lot Extra and have received the result in the form of Certificate T10-28. The result is very good, but some elements have been tested not so well as they are real: the laboratory two times corrected mistakes which we have noted, also we have paid their attention to only the greatest deviations from expected values and their possible reasons. The laboratory does not know why they were so mistaken ... It is complex to measure some elements precisely by method GDMS, at least in its standard execution. Some elements are more correctly tested by method SSMS, but the method has the specificity too.
Cu > :
Cu+O > :
Cu+O+S > :
GOST 859-2001   (Rissia)
99.99976% *
ASTM B170  (USA)
99.99975% *
Metals (All)
Metals+metalloids (All)
According to Umicore Ltd :
P, Mn, Fe, Ni, Zn, As, Ag, Cd, Sn, Sb, Bi +  O, S

99.99997% *
According to Acrotec Ltd :
Al, Si, S, Fe, Ni, As, Se,Ag, Sb, Pb

99.99992% *
According to :
Mg, Al, Ti, Fe, Ni, Zn, Mo, Cd, Sb

99.99999% *
Limits of detection are subtracted from 100 %  as quantity of impurities. O is as  <  2 ppm: LMS.
Oxygen can be less. * Purity is according to  these (Umicore, Acrotec etc) specifications.
SOME  EXAMPLES  of  TESTING   from analysis methods

Certificate # 3: Laser Mass Spectrometry (LMS).
This basic method has good, but insufficient detection limits for our quality, but allows measuring oxygen at least at the level of “no more than 2 ppm”. All elements with some exceptions in Fe and Ag are always below the limits of testing.

Certificate # T6-7, #T7-17:  Laser Mass Spectrometry (LMS), Atomic Emission Spectrometry (AES).
The elements P and Zn are measured by the atomic emission spectral method with better limits <0.1 ppm.

Certificate # T10-28:  Glow Discharge Mass Spectrometry (GDMS).
Better measurement limits. Oxygen is not measured. The indicators are good, but not well enough measured by Al, Si, As, Se, Sn, Sb, Te, which is typical of the standard method. The description of the proposed quality is taken into account. LMS for Si is always <0.1 ppm. The SSMS method for these elements is generally <0.02 ppm.

Certificate  # 3
Certificate # Т6-7, # Т7-17

Certificate # Т10-28
Site is under