Hydrogen limits tightening in PO specs

Anyone else seeing more POs specifying ≤1.5 ppm hydrogen on bar and plate, explicitly by ASTM E1019 rather than weld bake-out proxies? We validated CGHE at 900°C with tin flux and daily two-point calibration against certified steels (LOD about 0.05 ppm) and are debating moving it from qualification to routine receiving — how are your QA plans handling test frequency and lot traceability?

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​⁠‌⁠‌​‌‍‌‌‌‍‌‌‌‍⁠​​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠‌⁠‌‌⁠⁠‌⁠‌​‌‍⁠⁠‌⁠​​‌‍‍‌‌‍​⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‍⁠‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠‌⁠​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‌​⁠​‌​⁠​‌​⁠​​​⁠‌‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠‍​‌‌‍‌‌‌‍‍‌‍⁠⁠‌​‌​‌‌‌⁠‌‌‌​‌‍​‍‌‍⁠‍‌​⁠⁠‌‍‌​‌​‌‍‌‍​⁠‌‍⁠‌​⁠​⁠‌‌​⁠​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌

We moved E1019 into receiving with a simple rule: test first and last piece per heat/size, and trigger a mid‑lot check if either lands above 1.2 ppm so we stay under ≤1.5 ppm given your ‘LOD about 0.05 ppm’. Small caveat — lock prep to mid‑radius drillings and load within 2 minutes to avoid humidity bias; have you seen any recovery difference at 900°C versus 1100°C?

‌⁠‍⁠​‍​‍‌⁠‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​⁠‌⁠‌​‌‍‌‌‌‍‌‌‌‍⁠​​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍⁠​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌⁠​‍‌‍‌‌‌⁠​​‌‍⁠​‌⁠‍‌​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​⁠‍‌​⁠‌‌​⁠‍‌​⁠​​​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‌​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍​⁠​‍​⁠​​​⁠​‍​⁠‌‌​⁠​‌​⁠​‌​⁠​​​⁠‍​​‍​‍​‍⁠​​‍​‍‌‍‍​​‍​‍​⁠‍‍​‍​‍‌‌‍​‌‍‍‌‌‍​⁠‌‌‍‌​⁠‍‌​⁠‌⁠‌‍‌​​⁠‌⁠​⁠‌‌‌⁠‍‍‌‌‌‌‌‍‌​​⁠‌‌​⁠‌‌‌⁠‍‌‌‌​‍​‍​‍‌⁠⁠‌​​