Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) EPA Method 410.4 ( 1993 )

( Semi

- Automated Colorimetry )

SECTION A

- 1. Sample Identifiers

Laboratory Name:

Sampling Episode: Sample Number s or

Range: Data Reviewer

signature: Date:

Ins tructions: 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: Re quirements with a * are project requirements not specific to

EPA Method 410.4

.



### SECTION A

- 2. OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE QUALITY OF THE DATA

General Comment Checklist

Deliverable Requirement Review

Level

Required Present Comments

Copies of Shipping Docum ents (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 Su mmary for Each Sample and

Blank 1, 2, 3

Results for Laboratory Reagent Blank 2, 3

Results for Laboratory Fortified Blank 2, 3

Standard Curve and Quality Control

Sample Results 3Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Ch emical Oxyg en Demand (COD) EPA Method 410.4 (1993 )

Page 2 of 5

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

Instrument Per formance Check Solution

Results 3

Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix

Results 3

Field Duplicate Results 2, 3

Quantitation List 3

Copies of Sample Preparation Work

Sheets 3

Copies of Run Logs 3

Level 1: Review of traffic reports, sample han dling, 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

outputSteam Study Data Review Checklist

Ch emical Oxyg en Demand (COD) EPA Method 410.4 (1993 )

Page 3 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### E PA METH OD 410.4 REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N



### SECTION B. SAMPLE RECEIPT

1. Reviewed Sample Collection Record:

**•** Signatures?

**•** Completed?

**•** Sample ID numbers checked?

**•** Preservations? pH? Temp? Volume ?

**•** Any anomalies reported?

2. Reviewed Lab Sample Receipt Record :

**•** Date received?

**•** Lab ID number checked?

**•** Lab ID number referenced to Sample ID

n umbers ?

**•** Preservation checked by lab? pH? Temp?

Volume?

**•** Sample c onditions ?

**•** Sample hold time ?

**•** Any anomalies reported by lab ?



### SECTION C . SAMPLE PREPARATIO N

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 sampli ng episode?

Indicate the relative percent difference.



### SECTION D

- 1 . QC INFORMATION

– Calibration

1. Review Lab’s Instrument Run Log Report: Were

calibrations, QC samples and samples included in a

batch of 20 samples?

2. Standard Curve : Were at least three standards and

one blank used to create a calibration curve?

(410.4/10. 0 )

What were the concentrations of the three calibration

standards used by lab?Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Ch emical Oxyg en Demand (COD) EPA Method 410.4 (1993 )

Page 4 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### E PA METH OD 410.4 REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N

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

Was QCS used to verify the calibration (i.e., were

results within ±10% of QCS true value) ?

(410.4/ 9.2.3/ 10.7)

What was the true value of the QCS?

What was t he QCS value reported by the labs ?

What was the percent recovery?



### SECTION D

- 2 . QC INFORMATION

– Blanks /Duplicates

1. Laboratory Reagent Blank: Was a laboratory

reagent blank analyzed with each batch of samples

and were the resul ts always less than the Me thod

D etection Limit (MDL)? (410.4/9.3.1 )

Note any contamination reported by the laboratory.

2. Laboratory Fortified Blank (LFB) : Was a

laboratory fortified blank analyzed with each batch

of samples and was the percent recovery of all

analytes within 90

- 1 10%? (410.4/9.3.2)

What were the concentrations of all analytes in the

LFB reported by the lab?

What were the % recoveries of all the analytes?



### SECTION D

- 3 . QC INFORMATION

– Instrument Performance Checks

1. Instrument Performance Check Solution: Was an

instrument performance check solution (IPC) and

calibration blank analyzed immediately after daily

calibration, following every ten samples, and at the

conclusion of the sample run?

Did all results for the IPC solution and calibration

blank verify that the instrument was within ±10% of

calibration? (410.4/9.3.4)

What were results reported for the IPC and

calibration blank and what were the percent

recoveries ?

2. Laboratory Fortified Sample Matrix (LFM) : Was

a known amount of analyte ( ≥4 times MDL) added

to at least 10% of samples and was the percent

recovery within 90

- 110%? (410.4/9.4)

What were the % recoveries for all analytes?



### SECTION E

. DATA REVIEW

– Sample Results

1. Calculation : Was the standard curve used to

calculate the concentration of COD in the sample?

(410.4/12.1)Steam Study Data Review Checklist

Ch emical Oxyg en Demand (COD) EPA Method 410.4 (1993 )

Page 5 of 5

Final Checklist July 9, 2010 

### E PA METH OD 410.4 REQUIREMENT Reviewer Comment Criterion

met

Y N

2. Dilution: If a result was greater than the highest

standard used to calculate the calibration curve, was

the sampl e diluted and reanalyzed? (410.4/12.2)

3. Sample Results Reporting :

Were only results between the lowest and highest

standards reported? (410.4/12.2)

Were results reported in mg/L? (410.4/12.3)