Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Metals and Trace Elements Analysis in Water and Waste s

EPA Method 200.7 ( 1994 )

( Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectrometry )

SECTION A

- 1. Sample Identifiers

Laboratory Name:

Sampling Episode: Sample Num bers 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 Asses sment” 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

I nitial Calibration Blank 3

Laboratory Reagent Blank (LRB) Results 2, 3

Laboratory Fortified Blank Results 2, 3

Instrument Performance Check (IPC)

Solution Results 3Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Metals and Trace Elemen t s Analysis in Wa ters 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

Sp ectral 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 a nd/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 pr imary instrument outputSteam Study Data Review Checklist

Metals and Trace Elemen t s Analysis in Wa ters 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 PRE PARATION/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 f ield duplicate collecte d

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 re ported by the lab?Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Metals and Trace Elemen t s Analysis in Wa ters 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 a nalytes less than the Reporting Limit

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

I ndicate 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 a nalyzed concentration s of

the calibration standards used by the lab?

Did the calibration standard solution results

confirm that the instrument was correctly

calibrated 1 ?



### 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: T here 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 Elemen t s Analysis in Wa ters 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? :

W as a seco ndary 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 )

I ndicate the true value of the QCS, the QCS value

reported by t he 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 Elemen t s Analysis in Wa ters 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 S ample 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 wi thin 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: W as at least one of the samples in

the batch diluted 5 fold and if the original

concentration wa s > 50 times t he Instrument

Detection Limit ( ID L), 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 Standa rd 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 Elemen t s Analysis in Wa ters 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



### SEC TION E . DETAILED SAMPLE RAW DATA REVIEW

1. Sample Results Reporting: Were results reported

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

Were an alyte concentrations below the I DL 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 )