Final Checklist July 9, 2010

Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Metals and Trace Elements Analysis in Water and Wastes 

EPA Method 200.7 (1994)

(Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectrometry)

SECTION A-1. Sample Identifiers

Laboratory Name:

Sampling Episode:

Sample Numbers or 

Range:

Data Reviewer 

signature:

Date:

Instructions: Complete this checklist electronically or using a ballpoint pen.

Record reviewer comments in the Reviewer Comment section.

Record detailed information in the Comments in the “Overall Assessment” section for 

each criterion not (“N”) met.

Note: Requirements with a * are project requirements not specific to EPA Method 

200.7.

SECTION A-2. OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE DATA

General Comment Checklist

Deliverable Requirement

Review 

Level 

Required Present Comments

Copies of Shipping Documents (Fed-Ex 

Airbills)

1, 2, 3

Case Narrative 1, 2, 3

Table of Contents 3

Cross reference of Field Sample No., Lab 

Sample No., and Analytical Batch

1, 2, 3

Traffic Report Form (including Sample 

Receipt Checklist)

1, 2, 3

Sample Calculation (usually just a page 

copied from SOW)

3

Results Summary for Each Sample and 

Blank 

1, 2, 3

Method Detection Limit Study 3

Initial Calibration Data 3

Initial Calibration Verification 3

Initial Calibration Blank 3

Laboratory Reagent Blank (LRB) Results 2, 3

Laboratory Fortified Blank Results 2, 3

Instrument Performance Check (IPC) 

Solution Results

3
Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Metals and Trace Elements Analysis in Waters and Wastes EPA Method 200.7 (1994) 

Page 2 of 7

Final Checklist July 9, 2010

SECTION A-2. OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE DATA

General Comment Checklist

Deliverable Requirement

Review 

Level 

Required Present Comments

Continuing Calibration Blank 3

Quality Control Sample Results 2, 3

Spectral Interference Check (SIC) Solution 

Results

3

Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix (LFM)/ 

Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix 

Duplicate (LFMD) Results

2, 3

Analyte Addition Test Results 3

Dilution Test Results 3

Method of standard additions and/or Internal 

Standards Technique Results (if necessary)

3

Field Duplicate Results 2, 3

Continuing Calibration Verification Results 3

Quantitation List 3

Copies of Sample Preparation Work Sheets 3

Copies of Run Logs 3

Level 1: Review of traffic reports, sample handling, and proper sample preparation

Level 2: Level 1 review plus review of QA/QC results

Level 3: Level 2 review plus review of instrument performance

Level 4: Level 3 review plus analysis of raw data such as chromatograms or primary instrument output
Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Metals and Trace Elements Analysis in Waters and Wastes EPA Method 200.7 (1994) 

Page 3 of 7

Final Checklist July 9, 2010

EPA METHOD 200.7 REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment

Criterion

met

Y N

SECTION B. SAMPLE RECEIPT

1. Reviewed Sample Collection Record: 

• Signatures?

• Completed?

• Sample ID numbers checked?

• Preservations? Volume?

• Any anomalies reported?

2. Reviewed Lab Sample Receipt Record:

• Date received?

• Lab ID number checked?

• Lab ID number referenced to Sample ID 

numbers?

• Preservation checked by lab? Volume?

• Sample conditions

• Sample hold time

• Any anomalies reported by lab?

SECTION C. SAMPLE PREPARATION/EXTRACT HANDLING 

INFORMATION

1. Reviewed Standard Pre logs: 

• Standard expiration date:

• Concentrations prepared?

2. Reviewed Sample Prep Logs:

• Sample extraction date:

• Sample process or run date:

3. *Field Duplicates: Was a field duplicate collected

and analyzed as part of the sampling episode? 

Indicate the relative percent difference.

SECTION D-1. QC INFORMATION 

1. Review Lab’s Instrument Run Log Report: 

Were calibrations, QC samples and samples 

included in a batch of 20 samples? 

2. Method Detection Limit Study (MDL): Were 

seven samples prepared and analyzed according to 

Section 9.2.4 of Method 200.7? Was the study 

conducted before samples were analyzed and 

annually? (200.7/9.2.4) 

What were the MDLs reported by the lab?
Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Metals and Trace Elements Analysis in Waters and Wastes EPA Method 200.7 (1994) 

Page 4 of 7

Final Checklist July 9, 2010

EPA METHOD 200.7 REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment

Criterion

met

Y N

SECTION D-2. QC INFORMATION – Instrument Calibration

1. Initial Calibration Blank: Was a calibration 

blank analyzed following the daily calibration? 

Were the analytes less than the Reporting Limit 

(RL)? (200.7/7.10.1/9.3.4/11.4.4)

Indicate the concentration of the analyte in the 

calibration blank and the RL.

2. Mixed Calibration Standard Solutions: Were 

mixed calibration standard solutions prepared and 

analyzed after the calibration blank? 

(200.7/7.9/11.4.4)

What were the true and analyzed concentrations of 

the calibration standards used by the lab? 

Did the calibration standard solution results 

confirm that the instrument was correctly 

calibrated1?

SECTION D-3. QC INFORMATION –Blanks

1. Laboratory Reagent Blank (LRB): Was a blank 

containing all reagents prepared with each batch of 

20 or fewer samples and used to evaluate 

contaminants in reagents?

Were analyte levels in the blank less than 10% of 

the analyte level in the sample or less than 2.2 

times the analyte MDL (whichever is greater)? 

(200.7/7.10.2/9.3.1)

Note any contamination reported.

2. Laboratory Fortified Blank (LFB): Was a blank 

containing all analytes of interest prepared and 

analyzed? 

Was the percent recovery for all analytes within 

the control limits of 85-115%? (200.7/7.10.3/9.3.2)

What were the true and analyzed concentrations of 

all analytes in the LFB reported by the lab? 

What were the % recoveries of all the analytes?

 

1 Note: There is no specific requirement to confirm calibration specified in the method. The labs can use what they consider 

appropriate.
Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Metals and Trace Elements Analysis in Waters and Wastes EPA Method 200.7 (1994) 

Page 5 of 7

Final Checklist July 9, 2010

EPA METHOD 200.7 REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment

Criterion

met

Y N

SECTION D-4. QC INFORMATION –Instrument Performance Checks

3. Instrument Performance Check (IPC) Solution: 

Was the IPC solution analyzed after calibration, 

every 10 samples, and at the end of the sample 

run?

Did the IPC solution confirm that the instrument 

was within ±5% of calibration directly after 

calibration and within ±10% of calibration for all 

other times? (200.7/7.11/9.3.4)

What were results reported for the IPC and the 

percent recovery?

4. Continuing Calibration Blank: Was a continuing 

calibration blank analyzed after every 10 samples 

and at the end of every run? Were the analytes less 

than the RL? (200.7/9.3.4)

Indicate the concentration of the analyte in the 

calibration blank and the RL.

5. Quality Control Sample (QCS) data enclosed?:

Was a secondary source QCS prepared and 

analyzed to confirm instrument performance? 

Was the average concentration from the analysis of 

three QCS samples within ±5% of the true value? 

(200.7/7.12/9.2.3)

Indicate the true value of the QCS, the QCS value 

reported by the labs, and the percent recovery.

6. Spectral Interference Check (SIC) Solutions: 

Were SIC solutions used to confirm any 

interelement corrections applied to the data? 

(200.7/7.13/9.3.5)
Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Metals and Trace Elements Analysis in Waters and Wastes EPA Method 200.7 (1994) 

Page 6 of 7

Final Checklist July 9, 2010

EPA METHOD 200.7 REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment

Criterion

met

Y N

7. *Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix 

(LFM)/Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix 

Duplicate (LFMD): Was an LFM and *LFMD

analyzed at a frequency of 10% of samples? 

Was a LFM and *LFMD sample analyzed for each 

midpoint and effluent point in a sampling episode?

Was the percent recovery of the LFM/*LFMD for 

all analytes within the control limits of 70-130%? 

The RPD between LFM and LFMD is suggested to 

be less than 20%. (200.7/9.4)

What were the % recoveries for all analytes? 

What were the RPDs reported by the lab?

Note: If recoveries do not meet criteria and the 

system is otherwise in control, the problem may be 

matrix related. If an analyte recovery in the 

LFM/LFMD failed, was the associated data for 

that analyte flagged as suspect due to matrix 

effect? (200.7/9.4)

8. Analyte Addition Test: Was a standard added to 

at least one of the samples in the batch to produce 

a concentration of 20-100 times the MDL and was 

the percent recovery within 85-115% of the true 

value (or the associated data flagged as suspect due

to matrix effect)? (200.7/9.5.1)

What were the % recoveries for all analytes? 

9. Dilution Test: Was at least one of the samples in 

the batch diluted 5 fold and if the original

concentration was > 50 times the Instrument 

Detection Limit (IDL), was the percent recovery 

within ±10% of the original concentration?

(200.7/9.5.2) 

What were the % recoveries for all analytes? 

What was the original concentration in the sample?

10. Method of Standard Additions/Internal 

Standards Technique: If either the analyte 

addition test or dilution test failed as stated above, 

was the method of standard additions and/or the

internal standards technique used to correct for 

interferences? (200.7/9.5/11.5)
Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Metals and Trace Elements Analysis in Waters and Wastes EPA Method 200.7 (1994) 

Page 7 of 7

Final Checklist July 9, 2010

EPA METHOD 200.7 REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment

Criterion

met

Y N

SECTION E. DETAILED SAMPLE RAW DATA REVIEW 

1. Sample Results Reporting: Were results reported 

in units of milligrams per liter (mg/L) for samples?

Were analyte concentrations below the IDL not 

reported? (200.7/12.1)

2. Dilution: If the analyte concentration was ≥ 90% 

of the upper limit of the LDR, was the sample 

diluted and reanalyzed? (200.7/11.4.7/12.3)