Safety managers and equipment staff who operate breathalyzers start looking for a calibration provider when they receive a request to confirm accuracy or submit a certificate. An accredited calibration laboratory is a laboratory whose competence to perform calibration has been recognized against set criteria, and KOLAS is the Korea Laboratory Accreditation Scheme, which provides information on accredited laboratories in Korea. However, you cannot conclude from the name or logo in a laboratory's profile that the breathalyzer you own and the certificate you need are both covered by accredited calibration.
Accredited calibration is carried out within defined measurement objects, measuring ranges, and conditions. So when you choose a laboratory, the question "Is it accredited?" must be followed by "Do our device and requested conditions fall within this laboratory's scope of accreditation?" The scope of accreditation is the document showing what objects the laboratory has been recognized as competent to calibrate, over what ranges, and under what conditions. If you organize your device information and submission purpose first and then compare them with the scope of accreditation, you reduce the chance that the nature of the document turns out to differ from what you expected after submission.
Separate the laboratory's accreditation status from this request
The label "KOLAS-accredited calibration laboratory" does not mean the entire laboratory calibrates any device in the same way. It means the laboratory has a recognized scope of work, and whether an actual request falls within that scope has to be checked separately. Work that can be done together under one submission, such as repair, functional checks, and calibration, can also produce results of different natures.
The device name "breathalyzer" alone does not settle the question either. The device model, its measurement functions, the range actually used, the display unit and conditions of the results, and the document content required by the recipient of the certificate all have to match. That is why finding a familiar word in the accreditation documents does not mean all of the requested conditions are covered.
Compare device, range, and conditions together against the scope
The scope of accreditation is not a simple equipment list but a document showing the calibration objects, the applicable ranges, and the conditions. When you read it, rather than searching only for one device name, it is better to prepare the device you want calibrated and the document requirements as a single bundle. KOLAS search results for accredited laboratories and the latest accreditation documents the laboratory provides can be the starting point for this comparison.
| What to compare | Information to prepare before the request | What to confirm with the laboratory |
|---|---|---|
| Measurement object | Breathalyzer model name and device identification | Which accreditation item the request for this device links to |
| Measuring range | The range actually used and the recipient's requirements | Whether the requested range is within the scope of accreditation |
| Display unit and conditions | The wording in the manual or the submission form | Whether results can be provided in the same unit and under the same conditions |
| Method and documents | Whether the device is sent in or calibrated on site, and the name of the document needed | How the work is done and what kind of document will be issued |
The items in the table are not a list for demanding formal answers from the laboratory. They are a preparation list for passing on the request conditions without omissions. When the technical terms in the accreditation documents differ from the wording in the submission form, do not assume on your own that they mean the same thing; present the device information and the required documents together and ask the laboratory to explain which accreditation item applies. That is clearer.
When the device name looks different, pass on the conditions
Consider a hypothetical example. An equipment manager at a worksite needs to submit a certificate for a breathalyzer in use to an outside party. The manager could not find wording identical to the device's model name in the laboratory's accreditation documents but confirmed that the laboratory's profile says it is an accredited calibration laboratory.
The facts you can observe here go only as far as "the laboratory is accredited, and the wording in the accreditation documents is not exactly the same as the device name." You cannot immediately interpret this as meaning accredited calibration is possible or impossible. A possible action is to pass on the model name and device identification, along with the result items and document name the recipient requires, and confirm which accreditation item the request will be handled under and whether the requested range is covered.
In this case, the completion criterion is not that the submission was accepted. It is that, before submission, it is clear which accreditation item the requested device and conditions fall under and what document you will receive, and that this is recorded. Going through this process reduces the chance of interpreting the laboratory's scope of work too broadly or describing what the certificate proves as more than it actually does.
Separate repair, functional check, and calibration documents
A functional check that confirms the device works properly, a repair that fixes a faulty part, and a calibration that checks measurement results can all proceed under one submission. That does not mean every work result has the same meaning as an accredited calibration certificate. It is good to separate, at the quote or submission stage, the work requested from the documents provided after the work.
For example, when a repair is needed first because of a fault, you must not bundle the fact that the repair is complete with an accredited calibration result as if they meant the same thing. If you need a certificate for external submission, confirm separately which of repair, functional check, and calibration will be performed and over what scope the certificate will be issued. Writing an unconfirmed accreditation number or device spec on the request form on your own initiative is not appropriate either.
Keep a record of what you confirmed for the next request
Having received a certificate from the same laboratory in the past can be a useful reference, but it is not evidence that the same conditions still apply. Before requesting again, you can consider comparing the current accredited laboratory search results and the latest accreditation documents again and recording the date you checked. That makes it easier to compare the basis for the earlier judgment with the current documents when the person in charge changes or the recipient is different.
If there is a model-specific manual, you can use it as material that conveys the device model and conditions of use accurately. However, the fact that the manufacturer provides calibration application guidance or forms does not by itself confirm the current accredited calibration scope for a particular model. Recording the laboratory name, the accreditation item you confirmed, the requested range and conditions, the name of the document you will receive, and the date you checked helps you find missing conditions at the next submission.
If a separate party requested the certificate, you must also compare the form and conditions of the document that party requires. The name of an accredited calibration laboratory is the starting point of the judgment; matching the device, range, conditions, and documents is how you read the scope of accreditation that fits the actual request.
