本研究探討以氣相層析分析驗證方法，在標準氣體鋼瓶與待驗氣體鋼瓶均不進行任 何稀釋之情況下，直接進行氣體鋼瓶中一氧化碳（CO)、二氧化碳（CO2)與丙烷（C3H8) 成分之氣體濃度比對，並藉由USEPA與CMS兩大系統共八種不同的評估方式，比較 待驗氣體鋼瓶濃度驗證值與擴充不確定度之差異，找出能同時兼具氣體品質與經濟效益 之驗證程序，提供給政府權責單位作為法規修訂之依據，更進一步協助國内氣體製造商 提升其技術能量與品管能力。研究結果發現，CMS二比例比對法之驗證值偏差（±0.2%) 與相對擴充不確定度提升（0.05%)，均比USEPA二次分析比對法之驗證值偏差（±0.3%) 與相對擴充不確定度提升（0.11%)還小，且CMS二比例比對法一次分析僅需4個量 測步驟即可完成，比USEPA二次分析比對法一次分析要6個量測步驟更加簡便，因此 整體而言，使用CMS比例比對法之成效應優於USEPA分析比對法。

In this research, the concentration of CO+CO2+C3H8/N2 mixture gas cylinder is compared directly without dilution between standard and certified gas cylinder by gas chromatography (GC). The difference in concentration and expanded uncertainty of certified gas cylinder is compared between eight certification processes including two systems, United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and Center for Measurement Standards (CMS). The certification process which meets the requirement of gas quality and economic benefit could be used for the legislation by authorities. The results could also upgrade the technology capacity and quality control ability of the domestic gas manufacturers further. The results show that the deviation of certified value (±0.20/〇) and the increase of relative expanded uncertainty (0.05%) by CMS two-ratio comparison method are lower than the deviation of certified value (±0.3%)) and the increase of relative expanded uncertainty (0.11%) by USEPA two-assay comparison method. One assay procedure by CMS two-ratio comparison method (4 steps) is simpler than that by USEPA two-assay comparison method (6 steps). On the whole, the benefit by using CMS ratio comparison methods should be better than that by using USEPA comparison methods.